Yetzer. Part 2. The Age Of Accountability

This is a really important follow-up, because once you move from the yetzer framework (inclination plus growing responsibility) into later Christian theology—especially post-Augustine of Hippo—the question of an “age of accountability” becomes much more complicated.

ChatGPT will lay out how Calvinists and evangelicals (non-Calvinists) typically handle it, and how they attempt to ground their views in Scripture.

1. First: Is “Age of Accountability” in the Bible?

The exact phrase isn’t in Scripture, but several passages are often used to support the idea:

Key texts:

• Deuteronomy 1:39

“Your little ones… which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil…”

• Isaiah 7:15-16

“Before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good…”

• 2 Samuel 12:23 (David’s child)

“I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”

• Epistle to the Romans 5:13

“Sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

These suggest a stage in which moral awareness and accountability are not yet fully present, making violations of the law sinful and us blameworthy when we disobey. But until then, we are not culpable.

2. Calvinist View

Core Tension. Calvinism holds two strong ideas:

1. Original sin / total depravity and total inability
2. God’s sovereign election

So, the question becomes: What happens to infants or those who die before moral awareness?

A. Classic Calvinist Position

From John Calvin (Institutes): “Even infants… bring their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb.”

That sounds very stark, according to ChatGPT. And let me add that it sounds wicked, excessive, extreme, and awful. Are children born wicked and sinful, worthy of eternal death? I do not believe it. How about you?

• Infants are not morally neutral, according to Calvin
• They share in Adam’s fallen condition, according to Calvin, a student of Augustine

B. But Also: Election Applies to Infants

Calvin also says: “Those infants who are to be saved… are regenerated by the Lord.”

So, the system becomes:

• Infants are guilty in Adam
• But some are elect and saved by grace

Later Reformed confessions (like the Westminster Confession) state: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ.” But non-elect infants are damned and sent to hell. Is the God of the Bible really like this? I do not believe it.

C. Do Calvinists Believe in an “Age of Accountability”?

Strictly speaking: no, they do not.

• There is no age at which a person becomes guilty
• All humanity is born fallen, guilty, and damned from conception if they are not one of the elect

However, many modern Calvinists soften this pastorally:

• They often hope or believe that all who die in infancy are elect, in direct contradiction to their other false beliefs
• But this is not logically required by the system.

Summary of Calvinist View

• No formal “age of accountability.”
• Guilt is inherited, not acquired

How pathetic to believe such an awful doctrine. I struggle to believe anyone can honestly accept this proposition.

• Salvation of children depends on election, not innocence.

I must say it again: how pathetic to believe such an unjust doctrine. A little leaven leavens the entire system.

3. Evangelical (Non-Calvinist) View

This includes many:

• Baptists
• Methodists
• Arminians
• Free Will traditions

These tend to move closer to a model resembling the yetzer plus development, writes ChatGPT.

However, these groups generally do believe that we are born with a sinful nature that will always be with us until we die. Moreover, they believe that when a person is born again, they get a new nature, but the new nature is no match for our sinful nature, even with the grace of God. That means all Christians live as a Romans 7 wretch and not a saint of God. All Christians continue to sin all the time until they die.

I do not believe any of this. How about you?

A. Core Idea

A person is not held accountable until they are capable of moral understanding and conscious rebellion. But that core idea is rejected by most Western Christians thanks mainly to Augustine’s false interpretation of the Word of God.

B. Scriptural Reasoning

They heavily rely on:

1. Moral Awareness Develops

• Deuteronomy 1:39
• Isaiah 7:16

Children lack knowledge of good and evil

2. Sin Requires Knowledge

• Epistle to the Romans 5:13

“Sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

• Epistle of James 4:17

“To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”

3. David’s Confidence About His Child

• 2 Samuel 12:23

Often interpreted as: The child is safe with God

C. Theological Conclusion

Most evangelicals conclude:

• Children are not morally accountable before a certain stage
• If they die before that, they are saved by God’s grace
• This is sometimes called:
  • “Age of accountability.”
  • Or “age of innocence” (less precise)

D. Differences Within Evangelicalism

Not all agree on how this works.

Arminian-leaning:

• Emphasize free will plus prevenient grace
• Children are covered until they can respond

Baptist / general evangelical:

• Emphasize God’s mercy and justice
• Avoid defining an exact age

4. Comparison to Jewish Yetzer Model

Theme	Jewish	Evangelical	Calvinist
Moral awareness	Develops	Develops	Not निर्णative
Accountability	With maturity	With maturity	From conception
Inclination	Yetzer ha-ra present early	Sin tendency present	Total depravity
Guilt	Not imputed early	Not imputed early	Imputed in Adam
Outcome for children	Not guilty yet	Saved by grace	Depends on election

5. Big Picture Insight

• The Jewish view:

Responsibility grows with moral awareness

• The Evangelical view (generally):

Very similar, but framed in terms of grace and salvation

• The Calvinist view:

Responsibility is not the issue—nature and election are

6. One Clear Way to See the Difference

Ask this question: “Is a child guilty before they knowingly choose evil?”

• Jewish answer is No
• Evangelical answer is No (in most cases)
• Calvinist answer is Yes (in Adam, as they are guilty of his sin)

Remarks

It seems that all humanity, from Adam onward, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, understood that when God issued a command, they could obey it. They were not unable, and that made them responsible and blameworthy for disobeying. God divorced unfaithful Israel because of its continued whoredom, for which they alone were responsible. If God decreed their unfaithfulness, then He is the problem and is blameworthy.

At the same time, it was known that from Adam down through the ages, mankind was easily tempted to sin and was bent on self-gratification. We are talking about the first few thousand years of human history, 4000 years plus or minus, if one accepts the dating the Bible gives. This closely resembles the Jewish concepts of Yetzer Ha-ra and Yetzer Ha-Tov, as well as the teaching of the earliest Christians up to Augustine.

This is true from Adam until Augustine reinterpreted Scripture in the 5^th century, setting aside around 4500 years of nearly universal belief that we could obey God but did not. Inability was never the issue. Our rebellion and sin have always been the issue. Humanity, through experience and scripture itself, also recognized that humans were easily tempted and inclined toward sin. But sinning was never thought to be irresistible, nor was righteousness. According to Calvinism, God made our choice to obey or disobey Him. We did not make the choice. If God made the decision, then He alone is responsible, not us.

God worked with his creation not because we were unable to do as required, which would have made it impossible for us to sin, but because we are voluntarily stubborn and selfish by our own choice. In his grace, God intervened because we needed help, even if we refused to recognize how desperate our situation was. And the truth that humanity in general turned away from God to serve their own lusts repeatedly revealed the depth of sin we were capable of. This tension makes it easy to slip into the false doctrine of total depravity and total inability.

But we must hold these truths in Biblical balance and understand what our beliefs entail. If we are born sinners who can do nothing but sin, how can a just God hold us accountable for sinning? How can a just God condemn us when it is impossible for us not to sin? A just God won’t do the morally unthinkable. Total depravity and total inability can’t be true, for it makes God unjust. We must consider all the entailments, or we will surely err in our judgments.

God’s plan of redemption is a plan based on His love to rescue His enemies. And we are not His enemies by His choice/decree but by our free and voluntary choice to love ourselves supremely. Our selfish choices make us God’s enemies. That makes us real enemies and blameworthy. But if we are actually born the enemies of God, then there is no grace in redemption. In justice, a moral God must redeem all who are incapable of obedience. This was the basic belief from creation until the 5^th century, when Augustine thought it wise to reinterpret Scripture. Humanity recognized that we are all born with an inclination toward both good and evil, which most Christians today deny. And I am not one of them.

Yetzer Ha-Ra = inclination toward evil

Yetzer Ha-Tov = inclination toward good

It was understood from creation until Augustine in the 5^th century, or for about the first four millennia, that the gift of free will made us moral beings capable of real virtue and vice. It makes us capable of giving true love. Since Augustine, most Western Christians have denied that truth. They have been taught to believe that we sin because we are born sinners with a sinful nature, which is only capable of sinning; Yetzer Ha-Ra, inclined toward evil. And many Christians believe the inclination toward evil is irresistible, meaning there is no free will or Yetzer Ha-Tov, no real inclination toward good.

The Hebrew Scriptures consistently treat people as genuinely responsible and capable of obeying God’s commands. Disobedience is portrayed as willful and sinful. But according to ChatGPT, they do not present a simple picture of full, unproblematic ability—there’s also a persistent theme of an inner bent toward sin and a need for God’s help.

Let’s hold both sides together from the text itself.

1. Strong Evidence for Real Ability and Responsibility

The Torah repeatedly speaks as if obedience is within reach, not impossible.

From Deuteronomy, “This commandment… is not hidden from thee… neither is it far off…The word is very nigh unto thee… that thou mayest do it.” (Deut. 30:11-14, KJV)

That’s about as explicit as it gets: God presents obedience as doable and disobedience as sinful because it is willful. Therefore, Scripture plainly states that there is no such thing as total depravity and total inability, which many Christians, especially Calvinists, claim.

Choice is set before them

“I have set before you life and death… therefore choose life.” (Deut. 30:19)

This only makes sense if:

• The choice is meaningful
• The people are capable of responding

Narrative examples

Figures like Abraham and Moses. They are praised for obedience, not for receiving an irresistible transformation first.

2. At the Same Time: A Real Inner Problem

At the same time, Scripture acknowledges something deeper than neutral choice, writes ChatGPT. But what is that?

From Genesis

“The imagination (yetzer) of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” (Gen. 8:21)

This is the root of the later yetzer ha-ra idea. But note well what this verse doesn’t state. It doesn’t claim that this bent is inherited from Adam, as many Christians want to believe. This verse simply acknowledges that humanity follows the example of Adam and Eve, who were not born with a depraved nature or a bent toward sin but were overcome by their own lust and temptation. (See James). That is how we all sin: we recapitulate Adam’s sin.

The basic idea of Yetzer Ha-ra and Yetzer Ha-Tov is that all humanity is born a moral agent, subject to moral law. To be a moral agent is to be born with free will, and to choose between good and evil. We are not moral agents, subject to moral law, if we can only choose the bad, as most Christians mistakenly believe. Likewise, God is good because He always chooses the good of being. And He is not a robotic slave of His nature, as some Christians seem to think. (See my upcoming article, titled “Is God Free?”

Israel’s repeated failure

The historical books (Judges, Kings) show a pattern: Not an inability in principle or in fact—but consistent failure in practice, according to ChatGPT.

But why is there consistent failure? Is it because God decreed our failure, or is it because we continue to make evil choices for which we are entirely responsible? I think the hang-up for most Christians is the idea that the only way to explain our sin is that we must be born inclined to sin or determined to sin. But Adam and Eve were not created born to sin or inclined to sin, and yet they sinned all on their own as they listened to and yielded to the serpent’s temptation instead of the voice of God. Nothing more is needed to explain our sin.

The need for heart transformation reveals there is something more to it.

From Deuteronomy again:

“The LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart… to love the LORD.” (Deut. 30:6)

And later prophets intensify this. From the Book of Jeremiah:

“I will put my law in their inward parts… and write it in their hearts.” (Jer. 31:33)

From the Book of Ezekiel:

“I will give you a new heart… and cause you to walk in my statutes.” (Ezek. 36:26-27)

ChatGPT says these verses suggest that something in humans needs divine renewal, not just instruction, as in Titus 2, which addresses the grace of God.

I agree that these passages state that humans need divine intervention and renewal. But if it is more than divine teaching, persuasion, and instruction, what else specifically is needed? And does God do this for only the elect? Are we supposed to infer that God must give us a special ability? But it doesn’t say that, does it?

ChatGPT, on behalf of Calvinists and the general Christian consensus, quotes several verses in which God claims to be the author of this transformation, but neglects to quote other passages of Scripture in which God tells us to circumcise our own hearts, create a new heart ourselves, or be born again. Those seem to lay the responsibility at our feet rather than at God’s.

It is not “either/or.” Either God does it all, or we do it all.

It is “both/and”: God does His part, and we must cooperate and do ours. God seeks us out and persuades us to get right with Him. He doesn’t do it for us, as the Calvinists claim.

3. I asked ChatGPT what it thought. This is the response to this question. What Did Ancient Israel Likely Think?

Putting it together, the most faithful summary is:

1. Yes—obedience is truly expected and possible

• God commands it as something they can do
• Responsibility is real

2. But—humans are not morally neutral

• There is a persistent inclination toward evil
• People tend to fail repeatedly

3. Therefore, help from God is needed

• Not necessarily “total inability.”
• But definitely not self-sufficient righteousness    

ChatGPT states that humans (infants) are not morally neutral. What does that mean? If we are not morally neutral at birth, then how can we be moral agents subject to moral law? This makes no sense at all. If we are not born morally neutral, then we are born sinners, as Calvinism teaches? And if not, then we must be born inclined to sin, which makes sinning close to inevitable, or inevitable? But what does that mean, and are we still moral agents subject to moral law? Was Jesus born inclined to sin like us, for Scripture states Jesus was born with our nature? In my humble opinion, these questions are impossible to answer and reconcile with Scripture if we are not born morally neutral.

I agree that we need God, and that is not because we are born totally unable and totally depraved. We need God because our situation is far worse than Calvinism believes. If we are born totally depraved or with just a bent toward sin, then we have a ready-made excuse for our sin. But if we are born able to obey but are unwilling and refuse to obey, then our sin is all the more aggravated, wicked, and evil. I am for a doctrine that lays all the evil at our feet and not God’s. Calvinism’s doctrines make God out to be the evil actor and us to be the victims. They deny this, but their denial is vain.

4. According to ChatGPT. Where Your Statement Is Right—and Where It Needs Nuance

✔️ Correct:

It is biblical to say: Disobedience is willful, not forced, and not decreed or inevitable. People are held accountable because they can obey, writes ChatGPT.

This aligns well with:

• The yetzer framework
• Much (most) of early Jewish and pre-Augustinian Christian thought

⚠️ Needs qualification:

According to ChatGPT, it would be too strong to say: “They had full ability, and lack of ability was not an issue at all.” I strongly disagree with ChatGPT.

Because the Old Testament also says:

• The heart is bent (Genesis 8:21)

Let me respond to this passage. Scripture doesn’t state or imply that the heart is bent at conception. We bend it voluntarily as we unlawfully gratify our lusts and passions, and that becomes our character or nature; we alone are responsible. This verse doesn’t establish any inability.

• Israel repeatedly fails.

Is their failure due to an inherited inability or by their refusal to submit to God? ChatGPT assumes the former, but Scripture does not state that. What is stated explicitly is that Israel continued to be stiff-necked, stubborn, and wicked of their own doing. And that is why God divorced Israel.

If their repeated failure is because of an irresistible craving for sin, then there is no failure, because that implies we could do otherwise. But if Calvinism is true, then we can’t do otherwise; therefore, what appears to be a failure is not. It is God’s decree, so how can they be sinful?

• God must change the heart

But ChatGPT neglects to say that God also says, “Circumcise yourselves, and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.” ChatGPT wants us to believe that God alone is responsible for this, and that until he does it, we have no power to do it ourselves. But that is nothing but speculation, which follows the lies of Original Sin.

Remember, these are ChatGPT’s comments on my position that we are born neutral and fully able to obey God. What do you think?

5. A Better One-Sentence Summary, according to ChatGPT

A more precise way to say it would be:

Ancient Israel understood obedience to be genuinely possible and required, but also recognized a deep-seated inclination toward sin that made obedience difficult and often unrealized without God’s help.

I disagree with ChatGPT’s one-sentence summary, as I explained above. ChatGPT seems to feel the need to include some level of depravity, apparently to appease the Augustinian Calvinists. When Jesus became a man, did he, too, have this level of depravity and a deep inclination to sin that made obedience difficult? If not, how is it true that Jesus knows what it is like to be tempted as we are tempted? And how is it true that God never tempts us beyond our ability to escape the temptation?

This is my revision of ChatGPT’s statement. What do you think?

Ancient Israel, from Adam to Christ, understood obedience to be genuinely possible and required by God. Israel also recognized a deep-seated inclination toward sin (not inherited from Adam but developed through the constant practice of sin and rebellion against God) that made obedience difficult unless they genuinely repented of their sin as God demanded.

God, in His grace, came to save sinners, not the righteous. That grace persuades sinners to stop their rebellion against God, repent of their sins, and be saved. The unwilling person must be made (persuaded and convinced) willing with God’s help, because they are so selfish and bound by their own wicked habits that many need to know God is helping them.

But how does God help them? Does God zap them with special power, or does He help them think rightly about such matters? Does God help by His encouragement, instruction, conviction, and discipline? Does God create something new in us, or does His help come as Titus 2 grace?

What About Ancestral Sin?

What does “ancestral sin” mean in Eastern Orthodoxy? Does it define more precisely what we inherit from Adam?

In Eastern Orthodox theology, especially as articulated by figures like Irenaeus of Lyons and later John Chrysostom, the fall of Adam is understood primarily as introducing physical death, corruption, and a disordered condition into human existence—not inherited guilt as with Augustine.

So instead of saying:

• We inherit Adam’s guilt (Western “original sin” emphasis),

Orthodoxy says:

• We inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin—mortality, corruption, and a propensity toward sin. This is like the Yetzer Ha-Ra and Yetzer Ha-Tov ideas.

This is often summarized as: We are born into a damaged environment and condition, not born already guilty before we act, according to ChatGPT.

2. What is actually “inherited”?

Orthodoxy does affirm that something real is passed on—but it’s not usually framed as “depravity” in the Augustinian sense. Rather:

• Mortality (we die)
• Corruption (our nature is weakened, subject to decay)
• Inclination toward sin (not irresistible, but real)

A key text often used is Romans 5, but the East interprets it differently: humanity sins because it is mortal and corrupt, not because it is born legally guilty and inherits a sinful nature from Adam.

So, what exactly is passed on? If it is not total depravity and total inability to stop sinning, then it must be a partially depraved and partially unable nature? But what does that mean? How does one define partial inability? And doesn’t the very idea that we are partially depraved mean that we are not fully able to do what is right? How then can we be held responsible for not doing what we can’t fully do? Does that make any sense?

3. How this differs from Western “original sin.”

The contrast largely comes from Augustine of Hippo:

• Augustine (Western tradition):
  • Inherited guilt from Adam
  • Human will is bound (often leading to doctrines like total depravity and total inability later on). Human will is bound; therefore, in a real sense, it is no longer free.
  • Grace is necessary not just to heal but to enable any good at all
• Eastern Orthodoxy:
  • No inherited guilt
  • Human will is wounded and not destroyed, and still free
  • Grace is necessary, but cooperative (synergy)

4. Are humans capable of obeying God?

Here’s where your instinct is basically correct, but needs precision, according to ChatGPT. Orthodoxy teaches:

• Humans retain real freedom (free will is not lost)
• Humans can respond to God
• But they cannot be healed or saved without grace

This is called synergy (cooperation between human will and divine grace). Think of it like:

• God initiates, empowers, and sustains
• Humans genuinely respond and participate

So, Orthodoxy rejects both:

• Total inability (as in strict Calvinism)
• Pure self-sufficiency (as in Pelagianism)

5. Is there “depravity”?

If by “depravity” you mean:

• Total corruption = No (that is rejected)
• Real inner disorder and weakness = Yes (that is affirmed)

Orthodox writers often prefer language like:

• “illness” instead of guilt
• “corruption” instead of total depravity
• “passions” (disordered desires) rather than a totally ruined nature

But what exactly does any of this mean?

6. Practical theological difference

This leads to a very different emphasis in salvation:

• Western (especially Augustinian traditions): Legal categories (guilt, justification, pardon)
• Eastern Orthodox: Therapeutic categories (healing, restoration, participation in divine life—theosis)

Christ is seen less as primarily paying a legal penalty and more as:

• conquering death
• healing human nature
• restoring communion with God

7. Bottom line

ChatGPT says my summary is close, but here’s a sharper version:

• Yes, Orthodoxy believes we inherit a fallen condition from Adam
• No, it does not teach inherited guilt or total depravity
• Yes, humans are genuinely capable of responding to God
• But that response is always dependent on and empowered by grace

But we are able to do as required, and God’s grace comes in because we are unwilling to do as required, not unable, as Augustinian Calvinism plainly teaches, and Eastern Orthodoxy gives mixed messages by saying that we can but can’t unless God gives us special grace, which implies that we are unable and can’t. And if we are in any way unable, then how can we be held responsible? Grace is no longer grace; it becomes justice.

I responded to ChatGPT, ” What does corruption actually mean? ChatGPT responds. “Good—this is exactly where the discussion either becomes clear or stays vague. Let’s slow it down and make each piece concrete, because in Orthodox thought, these aren’t just labels—they describe how human experience actually works.”

1. What does “corruption” mean?

ChatGPT writes, ‘When Eastern Orthodox writers talk about “corruption,” they are not saying your nature is evil or destroyed. They mean your nature is no longer stable, whole, or properly ordered. Think of it like this:

• Originally (in the state of Adam before the fall), human nature was:
  • oriented toward God
  • internally harmonious
  • not subject to decay

All that sounds great, and I agree with ChatGPT on this point. But let us not forget that even the perfect Adam and Eve sinned, did they not? How is that to be explained? Could it be their own ordered passions under real temptation, as the Bible clearly states?

ChatGPT continues, ‘After the fall, human nature becomes:

• subject to decay (physical and psychological) – I agree with this point
• internally disordered
• weakened in its ability to stay aligned with the good

Seriously? I take issue with the last two bullet points. After the fall, are we to believe that all humanity has become weakened in ability and internally disordered? Does that actually make any sense at all?

If perfect Adam and Eve sinned, and they were not internally disordered or weakened in their ability to stay aligned with the good, doesn’t it seem impossible for his posterity not to sin? Of course it does. How can a thinking person believe that Adam’s posterity will not inevitably sin because they inherit these liabilities from fallen Adam? Yet, perfect Adam sinned, and he had none of these liabilities, but Adam and Eve still sinned. Sin is the only conclusion.

If this isn’t the foundation of Augustinian total depravity, then what is?

ChatGPT continues. A simple analogy:

• Not a car with no engine (that would be total inability)
• More like a car with a damaged engine that still runs—but poorly, inconsistently, and needs repair

So, according to ChatGPT, “corruption” is a real weakening and disordering of human nature, not its destruction. Most analogies have weakness built in. This one is no exception. A car is not a good analogy, for it is not a moral one.

But doesn’t this imply an inability to stop sinning? And was Jesus born with this implied inability? If not, then Jesus does not know what it is like to be tempted as we are.

And how is it true that God gives a way of escape out of temptation if we are born somewhat disabled? Refer back to my comments regarding perfect Adam and Eve and the fact that they sinned without being corrupted or disabled.

2. ChatGPT writes, ‘How does corruption actually show up in real life?

This is where it becomes very practical. Corruption explains things like:

a. Inner conflict

You can know something is right—and still feel pulled the other way, according to ChatGPT. My response is that it is nothing but temptation. And this is exactly the picture of perfect Adam’s temptation.

ChatGPT continues, ‘This is exactly what Romans 7 describes: “The good that I would do I do not…”

Orthodoxy would say:

• That tension is not proof you’re totally depraved
• It’s evidence of a fractured condition

I do not believe it. The tension is temptation and not a fractured condition. What if Romans 7 describes not the Christian, but the unsaved person drawn to the things of God yet refusing to repent of their selfishness? See my two articles on Romans 7.

b. ChatGPT continues: weakness of the will

ChatGPT says we are capable of choosing the good, but:

• it feels harder than it should (say who? Augustine, Calvin et al)
• consistency is difficult (says who? Augustine, Calvin et al)
• effort is required where it once wouldn’t have been (says who, and how is that perfect Adam and Eve sinned?)

So, the will isn’t gone—it’s fatigued, distracted, and less steady, according to ChatGPT. Again, how can perfect Adam and Eve have sinned when their will wasn’t fatigued, distracted, or less steady? Why am I having a hard time making sense of this? Does this make any sense to you?

c. Disordered desires (“the passions”)

Desires themselves aren’t evil, but they become misaligned:

• desire for food can lead to gluttony
• desire for rest can lead to laziness
• desire for good things can lead to obsession or idolatry

So, corruption doesn’t create desire—it distorts it, writes ChatGPT.

I do not believe it. That is nothing but temptation, which is not sin. And again, sinless Adam and Eve sinned when their desires were not disordered at all. How did that happen? If they sinned without “disordered desires,” how is it not true that our disordered desires are a degree of inability?

3. ChatGPT writes, ‘What does “inclination toward sin” mean?

ChatGPT says this is subtle but important. It does not mean:

• you are forced to sin
• You are born guilty
• You are incapable of obedience

ChatGPT claims it means this. In the same situation, you are more likely to choose wrongly than a fully healed human would.

Says who? Augustine, Calvin, et al.? And yet perfect Adam and Eve, without an inclination toward sin, sinned? Angels sinned. Therefore, saying we are able to obey God even though we inherited an inclination toward sin from Adam sounds like we are born partially unable to obey God. And any degree of inability is a ready-made excuse to keep sinning, is it not?

Why? Because:

• our perception is clouded

Adam and Eve were not born with clouded perception. How did they sin? Was it lust and temptation, as James describes?

• our desires pull unevenly

Says who? Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, et al.? Were Jesus’ desires pulling unevenly? If not, then he doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are.

• our will is weakened

How weakened? Was Jesus’ will weakened as well? And if perfect Adam and Eve sinned and their will was not weakened, then is this not inability? Of course it is.

So, the “inclination” is like a tilt in the system—not a lock.

Did Jesus have a tilt in his nature like us? Of course not. What about sinless Adam and Eve, who sinned but did not have a tilt in their system? How did they sin? Does this make any sense to you? What am I missing?

4. A helpful picture, declares ChatGPT

Imagine a scale that’s supposed to be perfectly balanced:

• In the original state: perfectly even
• In the fallen state:
  • the scale is slightly tilted toward self, fear, and short-term desire

You can still choose the good—but you’re always working against that tilt, writes ChatGPT. That’s the Orthodox idea of inclination. According to ChatGPT, Jesus was tempted to the very end. But ChatGPT neglects to mention that these same Christians also believe that it was impossible for Jesus to sin. Can you square that circle?

So what? Was Jesus tempted like we are, who are born inclined to sin? Of course not. And Adam and Eve were not created with this bent toward sin, yet they sinned. How probable is it that we won’t sin when we are born inclined to sin? Is it close to zero? The closer it is to zero, the more unable we are to do as God requires. The more unable we are to obey, the less culpable we are and the more blameworthy God is. That is why I don’t believe any of this. God is good by choice, all the time. He is also worthy of worship and praise.

5. How does mortality connect to all this?

This is a key insight in Eastern theology (you see it in Athanasius of Alexandria, especially):

• Because humans became mortal, they became:
  • fearful (of death)
  • self-protective
  • attached to temporary things

And those conditions feed sin. So instead of saying: “We sin because we’re guilty by nature.” Orthodoxy often says: “We sin because we are mortal, corrupted, and trying to survive apart from God.” That’s a very different causal chain, according to ChatGPT.

Is it very different or just slightly different? I do not agree with how ChatGPT and EO have characterized this. We sin, like Adam and Eve sinned, because we let our lusts and passions override what we know to be true and what we know God wants from us. That is the power of temptation, which is sufficient by itself to explain sin in ourselves. We do not need total depravity, partial depravity, inclination toward sin, wounded will, sin nature, and so on to explain why we sin just like perfect Adam and Eve did.

And that explanation makes us all the more guilty and blameworthy. Calvinism does the exact opposite, and that is why it is wrong. Calvinism makes God the criminal and us innocent.

6. ChatGPT writes, ‘So, are we actually capable of obeying God?

ChatGPT on behalf of Orthodoxy says, here’s the precise Orthodox position:

• Yes, humans retain real freedom
• Yes, obedience is genuinely possible
• No, it is not easy, natural, or self-sufficient anymore
• Yes, grace is necessary—not to replace the will, but to heal and strengthen it

My response. But how is the will healed and strengthened? Where does the truth come into play? ChatGPT continues, ‘So, you could say: We are not unable—but we are impaired.

My response. Was Jesus impaired like us? How about perfect Adam and Eve- were they too impaired and imperfect? And if they were not created impaired and yet they sinned, how can anyone reasonably believe that impaired humans will not automatically sin? It makes no sense to me. How about you?

7. ChatGPT continues, where your instinct is right (and where to refine it)

You said: “We are fully capable of obedience to God with his grace.” That’s very close, but Orthodoxy would sharpen it slightly:

• Not “fully capable” in a neutral sense
• But “capable through a real cooperation with grace that heals our condition over time.”

ChatGPT, on behalf of Eastern Orthodoxy, says we are “not fully capable in a neutral sense.”

But what does that actually mean? Does it mean we are not fully capable because we inherit a corrupt nature (bent to sin) from Adam? The bottom line is that we are fully capable, but not fully capable at the same time. I find that objectionable.

Why is all this necessary? Moral agents must be fully able to do as commanded. If they are not, in the fullest sense, able to obey commands, then there is no blame for not obeying them. Could it be any other way and still make moral sense?

ChatGPT continues, ‘Because salvation isn’t just:

• choosing correctly once

And this is precisely what many evangelicals believe. Many can remember the day and hour that they “trusted Christ” and were eternally saved, even though they continue to sin.

Biblical Salvation is:

• being restored into a different kind of human being, writes ChatGPT

How much time does that actually take? Most evangelical Christians appear to believe that it takes an entire lifetime. And even then, these same Christians believe Christian’s sin daily, in thought, word, and deed. How is that “being restored into a different kind of human being?” It isn’t at all.

8. Bottom line in plain terms, according to ChatGPT

• Corruption equals your nature is damaged and disordered, not destroyed
• Inclination to sin means you are biased toward wrong choices, but not forced

That sounds somewhat reasonable until we consider perfect Adam, Eve, and Jesus. Was Jesus corrupt, and did he have an inclination or bias to sin? Most Christians would say absolutely not. How, then, does Christ know what it is like to be tempted as we are tempted? It can’t be true. Or am I out of my mind?

Did God create Adam and Eve with a bias toward sin? I’m not aware of any biblical evidence that states or even implies that. Then how did they sin?

If this is all true, then we are born with a handicap, which is an inclination to or bias toward sin, but not Jesus. And we are still supposed to believe he understands us and shows us the way to victory. We have a disadvantage that Christ didn’t have, so how can he know what it is like to be tempted when you are bent that way, and he is bent in the opposite direction? Does this really make sense to anyone?

• Freedom remains. You can obey God (My response, but not fully free, as we just read)
• Grace is essential not because you’re incapable, but because you’re wounded

Was Jesus born wounded like us? Would any Christian agree with that? And why is special grace essential? Is grace essential to give us the ability? Or is grace essential to work with us and make us willing to use our inherent ability righteously?

ChatGPT tells me I have put my finger on a real tension—not a trivial one—and it’s exactly where different traditions draw different conclusions. But the issue becomes clearer if we separate two things that often get blended: what “human nature” is, and what condition that nature exists in after the fall.

I asked ChatGPT for the following, as my remaining objection won’t let me leave this alone. The above was a bit helpful, but I still have a problem with it. Scripture says that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are and that he was born with our nature, not Adam’s pre-fall nature – see part 4 of this series relating to Hebrews 2 and 4.

Adam was born perfect, with a perfect parent (God) in a perfect environment, and had no inclination or bent toward sin. And yet Adam and Eve sinned. How did the angels sin?

What about Adam and Eve? How did they sin when they were not created with a bent to sin? Plus, they were not born with a wounded will or in a weakened condition. Yet they sinned. If Jesus took on our post-fall nature, how is it true that he took on our natural bent and inclination to sin? Makes no sense to me.

ChatGPT responds with the following.

1. How could Adam and the angels sin if they weren’t “inclined” to?

ChatGPT writes, ‘This part actually runs counter to the idea that sin requires a corrupted nature. (No kidding!) In both Eastern Orthodox thought and many early fathers (like Irenaeus of Lyons), the explanation is:

• Rational creatures were created good, but also mutable (capable of change)
• They had genuine freedom—not just the ability to choose the good, but the ability to turn away from it.

My response. Is that not free will? Of course it is. Don’t all moral agents have free will? And doesn’t free will mean we can choose between good and evil? So:

• Adam did not sin because he had a bent toward sin (clearly that is true)
• He sinned because he was free and not yet perfected (He was not yet tempted by the serpent, and when tempted, he lost his perfection and innocence.)

Same idea with angels (often discussed by fathers like Gregory of Nyssa):

• They were not corrupt
• But they were not confirmed in goodness (I do not believe it. They were until they sinned, just like Adam.)
• Therefore, they could fall (Because they had free will. Is there any other reasonable explanation?)

According to ChatGPT, the Orthodox answer is: Sin does not require a prior sinful nature—it only requires freedom that is not yet fully united to God.

I agree, but why don’t they state this plainly instead of leaving the impression that we inherit an inclination and corruption to sin from Adam? Why was that needed if Adam and Eve, like some angels, sinned without such a handicap or depravity? Why do theologians state that we are born sinners who can do nothing but sin?

2. Then what changed after the fall?

After the fall, humanity didn’t become “free” for the first time—it became:

• mortal
• corruptible
• internally disordered

So now we don’t just have freedom—we have freedom operating under damage, according to ChatGPT.

My response. But what kind of damage- corruption (handicap)- are we talking about? And does this damage amount to some degree of inability? If so, that is a problem and inconsistent with justice and accountability.

ChatGPT writes, ‘That’s where “inclination” comes from. It’s not what causes the first sin—it’s what results from it.

My response. Why does ChatGPT state the obvious? But why must we inherit a bent toward sin from Adam? Are they thinking that without this damage/handicap, we would actually pass the test that perfect Adam and Eve failed? Are they serious?

3. So, what does it mean that Jesus took “our nature”?

This is the heart of your question, according to ChatGPT.

The Orthodox tradition (articulated strongly by Athanasius of Alexandria and later Maximus the Confessor) makes a crucial distinction:

Christ assumed:

• true human nature

That is not true by their own admission. How so? Keep reading the next part, where it says, “But Christ did not assume: sin itself, disordered desires, and an inner inclination toward evil. But these things are necessary for Christ to have truthfully assumed actual human nature.

• mortality
• the capacity to suffer, hunger, be tempted, and die

All humans inherit these things. So what? Christ inherited an advantage over all the rest of us, and we are still supposed to believe that he knows what it is like to be tempted as we are. Seems impossible to believe.

But Christ did not assume:

• sin itself
• disordered desires
• an inner inclination toward evil

This is often summarized as: He assumed the consequences of the fall (like death), but not the sinfulness of the fall, writes ChatGPT.

My response. Same comment as above. All humans assume the consequences of Adam’s fall and some of the consequences of our parents’ sins, but Christ did not assume the disadvantages we inherit (sin, disordered desires, and an inner inclination toward evil), which directly contradicts what ChatGPT claims. Christ, therefore, must have had a leg up on us and can’t possibly know what it is like to be a human tempted as we are. Is this not accurate?

4. Isn’t that a contradiction?

ChatGPT writes, ‘It can sound like one.

And my response is that it sounds like a contradiction because it actually is a blatant contradiction, but Orthodoxy would say the confusion comes from equating:

• “fallen human nature.”

with

• “human nature as such.”

And I question: what in heaven’s name does that mean?

ChatGPT writes, ‘They would argue: Corruption is not essential to being human. And I argue that free will is essential to being human, and corruption implies a free will that is not completely free.

ChatGPT writes that it’s a condition attached to humanity. But not in the case of Jesus Christ, which is the objection. ChatGPT, on behalf of Orthodoxy, now makes it sound like corruption is a substance that can cling to us somehow naturally via procreation. Seriously?

ChatGPT continues, ‘So, when Christ takes “our nature,” He takes:

• What is essential to humanity

That is, everything essential except free will, because many Christians believe Christ can’t sin.

• plus the blameless consequences of the fall 

ChatGPT means suffering and death.

But Christ does not take on:

• the internal disorder that leads us toward sin

And I respond: here is another example of how Christ had an advantage over all the rest of us, yet we are expected to be sinless like Christ. How is that just? And how is it that Christ took on human nature and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin? This makes no sense to me.

5. Why doesn’t Jesus have the “inclination to sin”?

Because in Orthodox thought, that inclination is tied to:

• corruption
• disordered passions
• separation from God

And Christ is:

• fully united to God (He is the Son)
• without inner division

So, His temptations are real (as in Hebrews 4:15), but

• they are external pressures, not internal disorder
• He experiences hunger, suffering, etc.—but not a warped desire toward evil

Are we to believe that Christ’s temptations are real and not real at the same time? All this jangling about words and their meaning. All this clearly shows that we are at a disadvantage to Christ. Moreover, it shows that Christ doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are tempted when a person craves sin.

6. Then is Jesus really like us?

Orthodoxy would say: Yes, more truly human than we are.

Because:

• We are “human nature + corruption”
• Christ is “human nature as it is meant to be.”

I regard this as theologically pious-sounding nonsense. And where does this corruption exist? Does it exist alongside our human nature, or is it an essential part of it? If it is part of our nature and Jesus supposedly took on our nature, then Jesus was born a human with corruption. If he wasn’t born with a corrupted human nature, then he can’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are. But is there any Christian who actually believes that Jesus was born with a corrupted human nature?

What they appear to be saying is that Jesus was born with Adam’s pre-fall nature and that we are born with a post-fall nature, which is depraved to some extent. See part 4, where the Bible clearly states that Jesus took on the nature of Abraham, not pre-fall Adam.

Moreover, it doesn’t show that Jesus is any more human than we are, as ChatGPT and Orthodoxy claim. If what they claim is true, it reveals Jesus’ advantage over us, yet we are expected to be as perfect as Jesus. Seriously?

That said, Jesus is the example of what human nature is meant to be. And Jesus took on our nature to prove that we can be holy.

So paradoxically:

• Our condition is abnormal
• Christ’s humanity is the true standard, normal

I do not buy it. If our condition is abnormal and Christ is normal, he doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are, which is what the bible actually declares.

7. ChatGPT continues, your core objection (stated sharply)

You’re basically saying: “If Jesus doesn’t share our corrupted condition, how can He truly share our nature?” That’s a serious question. The Orthodox answer is:

• If He shared our sinful inclination, He would need to save Himself

That is simply not true. ChatGPT, on behalf of Eastern Orthodoxy, is assuming that Jesus would have yielded to the sinful inclination (temptation), but why is that necessary to assume? It is not necessary at all. 

Jesus was really tempted just like us, and he still did not sin. This only means his temptation is real, just like ours. But what if there is no inherited sinful inclination or corruption? What if this is about lust and temptation, like in the case of the angels and Adam and Eve, who were not born corrupted, yet they sinned?

What ChatGPT and Eastern Orthodoxy appear to be saying is that Jesus would need to save Himself if he were actually ever tempted. Scripture is clear that Jesus was tempted to sin but did not. His temptation was real.

• If He did not share our human nature, He couldn’t save us

ChatGPT writes, ‘So, they hold a middle line: He shares our nature fully, but not our corruption as sin.

My response. This is no middle line. If they are accurate, then Jesus doesn’t fully share our nature, contrary to what they claim. To truthfully share in our human nature, Jesus would necessarily need to be born with a corrupted nature, bent toward sin, just like we are.

8. Where the real disagreement lies     

This is where Christian traditions part ways:

• Some Western traditions (especially post-Augustine of Hippo) tend to blur nature and corruption more tightly
• Eastern Orthodoxy insists on distinguishing them (That is somewhat true but not fully true)

ChatGPT continues, ‘So, your discomfort is understandable—it comes from asking: “Can you really separate nature from its fallen condition?”

Orthodoxy answers: yes.

Augustinian traditions often lean toward: not so easily can they be separated

I am not trying to be argumentative, but I do not see how it can be done without inconsistency and contradiction. If Jesus was born fully human, then he must have been born with a corrupted and weakened nature like us. If not, it is impossible that Jesus knew what it was like to be tempted as a human being, like us, who are born bent toward sinning because of our corrupted nature.

I agree with the Jews and early Christians who believe that all humanity is born with Yetzer Ha-Ra and Yetzer Ha-Tov. We are born to love virtue and hate vice. And we do until some selfish interest or passion tempts us to reject virtue and commit vice to gratify ourselves unlawfully.

9. Bottom line according to ChatGPT

• Adam and the angels sinned without a sinful inclination—because they were free but not perfected
• Humans now sin with an added inclination due to corruption (My comment: That is a very real handicap or disadvantage, which is a very real type of inability. Did Jesus have this inability?)
• Christ takes true human nature and mortality, but not sinful inclination (My comment: Christ is therefore not fully human as we are, contrary to what they claim.)
• Therefore, Christ is:
  • fully human
  • genuinely tempted
  • yet without sin or inner disorder

None of this is true in my estimation. Christ is not fully human as we are, and his temptation is easier than ours because we are born craving sin, but he was not born that way. All of this is an attempt to smuggle in a bit of inability and depravity to appease hardliners who think humanity is totally depraved and totally unable. Therefore, grace must be redefined as either irresistible or nearly so.

Genesis 3. What did God say when Adam and Eve sinned?

• In verse 14…..God said to the serpent…thou art cursed above all cattle….and dust shalt thou eat
• In verse 15….God said to the serpent…And I will put enmity between thee and the seed of the woman…..and it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel
• In verse 16….God said unto the woman, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,
• In verse 17…..And unto Adam he said, Because thus hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life: thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee…..In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: or dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return

One last thought needs repeating. In Genesis 3, God tells us all the effects and consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin. You will search in vain to find anything close to Augustinian Calvinism on Original Sin, total depravity, total inability, and salvation in the present commission of sin. You will not find anything resembling the falsehood that from Adam all humans are born sinners and unable to do as God commands.

And I am very doubtful that you will find any material support for any of this until Augustine arrives on the scene in the 5^th century.

Why is that? Did God forget to mention that curse for thousands of years? Did He intentionally neglect to inform us of that? Or could it be that it is not true and not one of the curses?

In Part 3, we will consider Maximus the Confessor to determine if he can satisfactorily answer my objections.