Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Well that was interesting, Ethan

illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 7:01:47 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Recently I created a thread & meme targeted at the excuse given to us called free will, that would be where it is claimed God values the free will of the rapist to rape a child over the well being of the child not to be raped, I called this into question, and I knew feathers would be ruffled, and feathers were indeed ruffled.

http://www.debate.org...

Now granted the responses where nothing I had not seen before and nothing I had not expected before hand.............Except when one person came along and informed us

Ethang5...""Dumb clucks who don't even know the doctrine they want to debate. Every one is as guilty as a child rapist in the light of God's holiness. God should stop YOU too, not just the rapist."

Listen to what you just heard.
Artaxerxes
Posts: 181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 2:29:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 7:01:47 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Recently I created a thread & meme targeted at the excuse given to us called free will, that would be where it is claimed God values the free will of the rapist to rape a child over the well being of the child not to be raped, I called this into question, and I knew feathers would be ruffled, and feathers were indeed ruffled.

http://www.debate.org...

Now granted the responses where nothing I had not seen before and nothing I had not expected before hand.............Except when one person came along and informed us

Ethang5...""Dumb clucks who don't even know the doctrine they want to debate. Every one is as guilty as a child rapist in the light of God's holiness. God should stop YOU too, not just the rapist."

Listen to what you just heard.
I believe the idea is that no one is truly innocent. It is often an argument by atheists that "innocent" people get harmed. Bad things happen to "good" people. This is understandably a frustrating concept, as an all powerful God could most certainly step in and intervene. However, that is simply not the way it works. I am under the impression that you know what the Bible teaches on this subject, so I will not waste your time in explaining it. Though no Christian views someone as truly being innocent, so the line of reasoning used by atheists often does not line up with that of Christians.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 2:35:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 2:29:24 PM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/4/2016 7:01:47 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Recently I created a thread & meme targeted at the excuse given to us called free will, that would be where it is claimed God values the free will of the rapist to rape a child over the well being of the child not to be raped, I called this into question, and I knew feathers would be ruffled, and feathers were indeed ruffled.

http://www.debate.org...

Now granted the responses where nothing I had not seen before and nothing I had not expected before hand.............Except when one person came along and informed us

Ethang5...""Dumb clucks who don't even know the doctrine they want to debate. Every one is as guilty as a child rapist in the light of God's holiness. God should stop YOU too, not just the rapist."

Listen to what you just heard.
I believe the idea is that no one is truly innocent. It is often an argument by atheists that "innocent" people get harmed. Bad things happen to "good" people. This is understandably a frustrating concept, as an all powerful God could most certainly step in and intervene. However, that is simply not the way it works. I am under the impression that you know what the Bible teaches on this subject, so I will not waste your time in explaining it. Though no Christian views someone as truly being innocent ...

Everyone is born in an innocent and sin-free state.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Artaxerxes
Posts: 181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 2:39:45 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 2:35:40 PM, annanicole wrote:

Everyone is born in an innocent and sin-free state.
So you reject the doctrine of original sin?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 2:46:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 2:29:24 PM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/4/2016 7:01:47 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Recently I created a thread & meme targeted at the excuse given to us called free will, that would be where it is claimed God values the free will of the rapist to rape a child over the well being of the child not to be raped, I called this into question, and I knew feathers would be ruffled, and feathers were indeed ruffled.

http://www.debate.org...

Now granted the responses where nothing I had not seen before and nothing I had not expected before hand.............Except when one person came along and informed us

Ethang5...""Dumb clucks who don't even know the doctrine they want to debate. Every one is as guilty as a child rapist in the light of God's holiness. God should stop YOU too, not just the rapist."

Listen to what you just heard.
I believe the idea is that no one is truly innocent. It is often an argument by atheists that "innocent" people get harmed. Bad things happen to "good" people. This is understandably a frustrating concept, as an all powerful God could most certainly step in and intervene. However, that is simply not the way it works. I am under the impression that you know what the Bible teaches on this subject, so I will not waste your time in explaining it. Though no Christian views someone as truly being innocent, so the line of reasoning used by atheists often does not line up with that of Christians.

It does, however, present a dichotomy of either innocent and not, thereby removing the nuance and destroying any meaning being the word. If everyone is not innocent, full stop, then what information does that word convey about someone more than the word "human"? Personally, I'd find it appalling that an allegedly benevolent god would hold a kid who lied to his grandma saying her cooking was good at the same level as one who enacted and enjoyed mass murder.

In essence, I think that the defense referenced in the OP constitutes a Suppressed Correlative logical fallacy (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...). If someone asks why is this evil person allowed to act and the response is that we are all evil, anyway, I don't think that's an acceptable response.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 3:47:21 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 7:01:47 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Recently I created a thread & meme targeted at the excuse given to us called free will, that would be where it is claimed God values the free will of the rapist to rape a child over the well being of the child not to be raped, I called this into question, and I knew feathers would be ruffled, and feathers were indeed ruffled.

http://www.debate.org...

Now granted the responses where nothing I had not seen before and nothing I had not expected before hand.............Except when one person came along and informed us

Ethang5...""Dumb clucks who don't even know the doctrine they want to debate. Every one is as guilty as a child rapist in the light of God's holiness. God should stop YOU too, not just the rapist."

Listen to what you just heard.
I think another way to look at this might be, why doesn't God intervene and stop abortion?

I don't know what you're stance on abortion is, but a number of posters here certainly don't see this as an evil act.

Of course any kind of rape is horrible. Most of us know that, but chances are there are rapists who don't think it's wrong. And let's say our society decided that rape is not evil as long as there are certain parameters. That may seem far fetched, but many people don't oppose rape if the victim is in prison, and one who committed the same crime. Abortion is killing babies, but a large segment of society considers it okay as long as the child is still in a womb, or under a certain stage of development within a womb.

The point is that you may not consider yourself deserving of having any of your actions stopped, but that's probably based on your perception of morality. God could have stopped you from calling your neighbor a fat idiot for allowing his sprinklers to hit your car (not implying you did that), but if you think it was justified, you wouldn't have a problem with God inaction. So the question becomes, where do you personally draw a line between actions worthy of God's intervention, and actions not?
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 3:55:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 2:39:45 PM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/4/2016 2:35:40 PM, annanicole wrote:

Everyone is born in an innocent and sin-free state.
So you reject the doctrine of original sin?

I accept the idea that before Adam sinned, there was no sin in the world. And when he did sin, then I guess that was the "original sin." The effects of that sin have been felt all down through the ages. The guilt of it, however, was and is Adam's alone: we merely suffer the ancillary consequences. If by "original sin", you imply that the guilt of Adam's sin was somehow passed right on down the line, so much so that an infant is born guilty of committing a sin that it never committed in the first place, then no, I do not believe that. THAT is a pernicious doctrine, a blight upon theology, because it is the starting point - the little tap-root - of all sorts of errors.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Artaxerxes
Posts: 181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 4:24:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 3:55:08 PM, annanicole wrote:

So you reject the doctrine of original sin?

I accept the idea that before Adam sinned, there was no sin in the world. And when he did sin, then I guess that was the "original sin." The effects of that sin have been felt all down through the ages. The guilt of it, however, was and is Adam's alone: we merely suffer the ancillary consequences. If by "original sin", you imply that the guilt of Adam's sin was somehow passed right on down the line, so much so that an infant is born guilty of committing a sin that it never committed in the first place, then no, I do not believe that. THAT is a pernicious doctrine, a blight upon theology, because it is the starting point - the little tap-root - of all sorts of errors.
Then I disagree with you. Everyone is born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12).
Artaxerxes
Posts: 181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 4:24:57 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 2:46:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:

I believe the idea is that no one is truly innocent. It is often an argument by atheists that "innocent" people get harmed. Bad things happen to "good" people. This is understandably a frustrating concept, as an all powerful God could most certainly step in and intervene. However, that is simply not the way it works. I am under the impression that you know what the Bible teaches on this subject, so I will not waste your time in explaining it. Though no Christian views someone as truly being innocent, so the line of reasoning used by atheists often does not line up with that of Christians.

It does, however, present a dichotomy of either innocent and not, thereby removing the nuance and destroying any meaning being the word. If everyone is not innocent, full stop, then what information does that word convey about someone more than the word "human"? Personally, I'd find it appalling that an allegedly benevolent god would hold a kid who lied to his grandma saying her cooking was good at the same level as one who enacted and enjoyed mass murder.
A transgression against God is the same regardless of what that transgression is. Now, the transgression might have a larger impact in our world. For example, a simple white lie more than likely has less of an impact on us than a mass shooting. However, both acts transgress against God. Both transgressions can be forgiven equally.

In essence, I think that the defense referenced in the OP constitutes a Suppressed Correlative logical fallacy (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...). If someone asks why is this evil person allowed to act and the response is that we are all evil, anyway, I don't think that's an acceptable response.
I do not believe a Christian would actually provide that response. That is not the response given by this Ethan guy nor is it the response I would give. An evil person is allowed to do evil because of what was just stated: they are allowed to do it. We have free will. We can do as we wish. You can go out and murder everyone you see, as that is your freedom as a human being. You can also decide not to and instead spread a message of anti-murder. You have the freedom to decide what you want to do. This is a very fundamental understanding for most Christians (reformed Christians tend to reject this idea).

Satan was free to disobey God and tempt Eve. Eve was free to listen to Satan instead of God. Adam was free to listen to Eve instead of God. Humans were created with the freedom to choose.

In regard to logical fallacies, I would like to quote Cornelius Van Til:
"As self-explanatory, God naturally speaks with absolute authority. It is Christ [...] who speaks in the Bible. Therefore the Bible does not appeal to human reason as ultimate in order to justify what it says. It comes to the human being with absolute authority. Its claim is that human reason must itself be taken in the sense in which Scripture takes it, namely, as created by God and as therefore properly subject to the authority of God."
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 4:56:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 2:29:24 PM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/4/2016 7:01:47 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Recently I created a thread & meme targeted at the excuse given to us called free will, that would be where it is claimed God values the free will of the rapist to rape a child over the well being of the child not to be raped, I called this into question, and I knew feathers would be ruffled, and feathers were indeed ruffled.

http://www.debate.org...

Now granted the responses where nothing I had not seen before and nothing I had not expected before hand.............Except when one person came along and informed us

Ethang5...""Dumb clucks who don't even know the doctrine they want to debate. Every one is as guilty as a child rapist in the light of God's holiness. God should stop YOU too, not just the rapist."

Listen to what you just heard.
I believe the idea is that no one is truly innocent. It is often an argument by atheists that "innocent" people get harmed. Bad things happen to "good" people. This is understandably a frustrating concept, as an all powerful God could most certainly step in and intervene. However, that is simply not the way it works. I am under the impression that you know what the Bible teaches on this subject, so I will not waste your time in explaining it. Though no Christian views someone as truly being innocent, so the line of reasoning used by atheists often does not line up with that of Christians.

A 5 year old (or younger) child who is raped by a priest deserves what they get because they are "born in sin"?
What a delight religion truly is.
Artaxerxes
Posts: 181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 4:58:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 4:56:46 PM, desmac wrote:

A 5 year old (or younger) child who is raped by a priest deserves what they get because they are "born in sin"?
What a delight religion truly is.
I am not sure why you made this addressed to me, as I did not hint to anything remotely like this lol.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 5:03:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 4:24:54 PM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/4/2016 3:55:08 PM, annanicole wrote:

So you reject the doctrine of original sin?

I accept the idea that before Adam sinned, there was no sin in the world. And when he did sin, then I guess that was the "original sin." The effects of that sin have been felt all down through the ages. The guilt of it, however, was and is Adam's alone: we merely suffer the ancillary consequences. If by "original sin", you imply that the guilt of Adam's sin was somehow passed right on down the line, so much so that an infant is born guilty of committing a sin that it never committed in the first place, then no, I do not believe that. THAT is a pernicious doctrine, a blight upon theology, because it is the starting point - the little tap-root - of all sorts of errors.

Then I disagree with you. Everyone is born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12).

Oh, I know you do! I knew that to start with. Your doctrine, however, implies that each and every conversion from this supposed state requires a miracle from God. Such would have to be the case. Thus, the gospel itself ceases to be God's power unto salvation. Nope, conversion requires the gospel ... plus.

And .... the two passage that you cite do not even come close to teaching what you teach. Look at Psalm 51:

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (KJV)

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me." (ASV)

Lots of people were conceived in sin. And lots weren't. It so happens that David was. I believe I'd be very cautious in developing an entire theological position upon ambiguous, difficult-to-translate - and often very poetic - passages.

I repeat: the Calvinist version of total hereditary depravity (which is what you are really advocating) is the little tap-root from which many, many almost absurd doctrines emerge.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Artaxerxes
Posts: 181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 5:21:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 5:03:28 PM, annanicole wrote:

Then I disagree with you. Everyone is born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12).

Oh, I know you do! I knew that to start with. Your doctrine, however, implies that each and every conversion from this supposed state requires a miracle from God. Such would have to be the case. Thus, the gospel itself ceases to be God's power unto salvation. Nope, conversion requires the gospel ... plus.
A conversion from a fallen state? I am not sure that anyone is fully converted out of a fallen state. To my knowledge, you identify as a saved Christian. Do you not sin anymore? Of course you do, you have to. It is impossible for you not to. With that said, no one is "converted" from a state of sin. We are all sinners. We are just forgiven by God.

And .... the two passage that you cite do not even come close to teaching what you teach. Look at Psalm 51:

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (KJV)

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me." (ASV)

Lots of people were conceived in sin. And lots weren't. It so happens that David was. I believe I'd be very cautious in developing an entire theological position upon ambiguous, difficult-to-translate - and often very poetic - passages.
You only really dealt with one of the two passages I presented and you did not even do that great of a job on the one you did address (Jeremiah 17:9). However, I will provide you with more passages if you desire it:

"And he called to him the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man. [...] But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings: these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man." (Matthew 15:10, 11, 18-20)

"For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous." (Romans 5:19)

Look at the struggle the Apostle Paul had:
"For I delight [o]in the law of God after the inward man: but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity [p]under the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of [q]the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." (Romans 7:23-25)

The whole Bible teaches the understanding of original sin. I suggest that you take into consideration what is written in Mark 7: 6,7:
"He said to them: 'Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.' You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.'"

I repeat: the Calvinist version of total hereditary depravity (which is what you are really advocating) is the little tap-root from which many, many almost absurd doctrines emerge.
This teaching is evident prior to John Calvin ever writing on the topic.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 6:30:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 5:21:54 PM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:03:28 PM, annanicole wrote:

Then I disagree with you. Everyone is born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12).

Oh, I know you do! I knew that to start with. Your doctrine, however, implies that each and every conversion from this supposed state requires a miracle from God. Such would have to be the case. Thus, the gospel itself ceases to be God's power unto salvation. Nope, conversion requires the gospel ... plus.
A conversion from a fallen state? I am not sure that anyone is fully converted out of a fallen state. To my knowledge, you identify as a saved Christian. Do you not sin anymore? Of course you do, you have to. It is impossible for you not to. With that said, no one is "converted" from a state of sin. We are all sinners. We are just forgiven by God.

And .... the two passage that you cite do not even come close to teaching what you teach. Look at Psalm 51:

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (KJV)

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me." (ASV)

Lots of people were conceived in sin. And lots weren't. It so happens that David was. I believe I'd be very cautious in developing an entire theological position upon ambiguous, difficult-to-translate - and often very poetic - passages.
You only really dealt with one of the two passages I presented and you did not even do that great of a job on the one you did address (Jeremiah 17:9). However, I will provide you with more passages if you desire it:

"And he called to him the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man. [...] But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings: these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man." (Matthew 15:10, 11, 18-20)

... and you are trying to prove by that passage that an infant is a born sinner?

"For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous." (Romans 5:19)

... says nothing at all about an infant being a born sinner, totally depraved at birth.

Look at the struggle the Apostle Paul had:
"For I delight [o]in the law of God after the inward man: but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity [p]under the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of [q]the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." (Romans 7:23-25)

Paul didn't even intimate that he was a born sinner, totally and completely depraved. Apparently one must believe the doctrine first, then use his imagination to see it in these passages that you provide.

The whole Bible teaches the understanding of original sin. I suggest that you take into consideration what is written in Mark 7: 6,7:

Well, then let's see a passage to that effect.

"He said to them: 'Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.' You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.'"

The passage has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that an infant is a born sinner, born guilty of committing a sin or sins and totally depraved.

I repeat: the Calvinist version of total hereditary depravity (which is what you are really advocating) is the little tap-root from which many, many almost absurd doctrines emerge.

This teaching is evident prior to John Calvin ever writing on the topic.

Maybe so, but I doubt anyone could find it in the passages you've provided. At best, the theory must already be at the forefront of one's thinking, and then he must insert it into those passages.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 6:38:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 4:24:57 PM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/4/2016 2:46:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:

I believe the idea is that no one is truly innocent. It is often an argument by atheists that "innocent" people get harmed. Bad things happen to "good" people. This is understandably a frustrating concept, as an all powerful God could most certainly step in and intervene. However, that is simply not the way it works. I am under the impression that you know what the Bible teaches on this subject, so I will not waste your time in explaining it. Though no Christian views someone as truly being innocent, so the line of reasoning used by atheists often does not line up with that of Christians.

It does, however, present a dichotomy of either innocent and not, thereby removing the nuance and destroying any meaning being the word. If everyone is not innocent, full stop, then what information does that word convey about someone more than the word "human"? Personally, I'd find it appalling that an allegedly benevolent god would hold a kid who lied to his grandma saying her cooking was good at the same level as one who enacted and enjoyed mass murder.
A transgression against God is the same regardless of what that transgression is. Now, the transgression might have a larger impact in our world. For example, a simple white lie more than likely has less of an impact on us than a mass shooting. However, both acts transgress against God. Both transgressions can be forgiven equally.

Is it also true that, similarly, all good deeds of men fall short of the glory of God? This isn't explicitly expressed by verses like Romans 3:23, but would be in line with them.

In essence, I think that the defense referenced in the OP constitutes a Suppressed Correlative logical fallacy (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...). If someone asks why is this evil person allowed to act and the response is that we are all evil, anyway, I don't think that's an acceptable response.
I do not believe a Christian would actually provide that response. That is not the response given by this Ethan guy nor is it the response I would give.

It happens. Not all people give reasonable responses. Such does not represent the core idea, though. And it was depicted in the OP as Ethan giving that response, "Every one is as guilty as a child rapist in the light of God's holiness", to a similar dilemma. I don't know if this is the actual case, which is why I just referenced the OP.

An evil person is allowed to do evil because of what was just stated: they are allowed to do it. We have free will. We can do as we wish. You can go out and murder everyone you see, as that is your freedom as a human being. You can also decide not to and instead spread a message of anti-murder. You have the freedom to decide what you want to do. This is a very fundamental understanding for most Christians (reformed Christians tend to reject this idea).

Free will needs to be examined a little more deeply. Sure, you can do what you wish, but what determines what your wishes are? Did a narcissist willing choose to be that way? Did a person with weak willpower choose to be that way? Free will is very nebulous, but it ultimately does not place responsibility for an individual's actions on that individual. Now, I mean this is a grand and ultimate sense rather than a societal sense, just to be clear.

Satan was free to disobey God and tempt Eve. Eve was free to listen to Satan instead of God. Adam was free to listen to Eve instead of God. Humans were created with the freedom to choose.

Can you demonstrate or show that Satan could have actually chosen to do otherwise? Can you prove that is was actually possible for Adam to have acted otherwise? How does one differentiate between a determined world and a world of free will?

In regard to logical fallacies, I would like to quote Cornelius Van Til:
"As self-explanatory, God naturally speaks with absolute authority. It is Christ [...] who speaks in the Bible. Therefore the Bible does not appeal to human reason as ultimate in order to justify what it says. It comes to the human being with absolute authority. Its claim is that human reason must itself be taken in the sense in which Scripture takes it, namely, as created by God and as therefore properly subject to the authority of God."

Firstly, the fallacy was directed at the response, not the Bible. Secondly, why would a God specifically give 'instructions' in a way which it was impossible for humans to fully understand? Thirdly, if the Bible is beyond the grasp of human reasoning, then why do you trust that which does make sense to you? If our reasoning is invalid or compromised in interpreting the Bible, then all of it is; not just that which blatantly rails against it.
Artaxerxes
Posts: 181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 7:42:09 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 6:30:54 PM, annanicole wrote:

You only really dealt with one of the two passages I presented and you did not even do that great of a job on the one you did address (Jeremiah 17:9). However, I will provide you with more passages if you desire it:

"And he called to him the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man. [...] But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings: these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man." (Matthew 15:10, 11, 18-20)

... and you are trying to prove by that passage that an infant is a born sinner?
Yes. Note the following:
"But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man. "

"For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous." (Romans 5:19)

... says nothing at all about an infant being a born sinner, totally depraved at birth.
We are made sinners because of Adam. We are made righteous through Christ. I cannot make it any more clear than Paul did.

Look at the struggle the Apostle Paul had:
"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." (Romans 7:23-25)

Paul didn't even intimate that he was a born sinner, totally and completely depraved. Apparently one must believe the doctrine first, then use his imagination to see it in these passages that you provide.
Are you suggesting that Paul chose to be a sinner? An Apostle of Christ chose to be a sinner as opposed to righteous? The same one that said men were made sinners because of Adam?

The whole Bible teaches the understanding of original sin. I suggest that you take into consideration what is written in Mark 7: 6,7:

Well, then let's see a passage to that effect.
Read with both eyes as opposed to one.

"He said to them: 'Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.' You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.'"

The passage has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that an infant is a born sinner, born guilty of committing a sin or sins and totally depraved.
I did not say Mark 7:6, 7 had anything to do with original sin. I am saying that you are following the doctrines of men.

This teaching is evident prior to John Calvin ever writing on the topic.

Maybe so, but I doubt anyone could find it in the passages you've provided. At best, the theory must already be at the forefront of one's thinking, and then he must insert it into those passages.
Not at all. Both of the passages in the OT I presented lay the foundation of being born a sinner. The passages out of the NT amplify this understanding.
Artaxerxes
Posts: 181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 7:42:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 6:38:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:

A transgression against God is the same regardless of what that transgression is. Now, the transgression might have a larger impact in our world. For example, a simple white lie more than likely has less of an impact on us than a mass shooting. However, both acts transgress against God. Both transgressions can be forgiven equally.

Is it also true that, similarly, all good deeds of men fall short of the glory of God? This isn't explicitly expressed by verses like Romans 3:23, but would be in line with them.
I would not quite jump to that conclusion from Romans 3:23. We are all sinners and it is because of that reason we fall short of the glory of God.

An evil person is allowed to do evil because of what was just stated: they are allowed to do it. We have free will. We can do as we wish. You can go out and murder everyone you see, as that is your freedom as a human being. You can also decide not to and instead spread a message of anti-murder. You have the freedom to decide what you want to do. This is a very fundamental understanding for most Christians (reformed Christians tend to reject this idea).

Free will needs to be examined a little more deeply. Sure, you can do what you wish, but what determines what your wishes are? Did a narcissist willing choose to be that way? Did a person with weak willpower choose to be that way? Free will is very nebulous, but it ultimately does not place responsibility for an individual's actions on that individual. Now, I mean this is a grand and ultimate sense rather than a societal sense, just to be clear.
I agree with you. There are definitely influences in people's lives that interact with their wills.

Satan was free to disobey God and tempt Eve. Eve was free to listen to Satan instead of God. Adam was free to listen to Eve instead of God. Humans were created with the freedom to choose.

Can you demonstrate or show that Satan could have actually chosen to do otherwise? Can you prove that is was actually possible for Adam to have acted otherwise? How does one differentiate between a determined world and a world of free will?
Well, we can examine what the Bible states in regard to man's free will:
"I take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; and you must choose life so that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving Jehovah your God, by listening to his voice, and by sticking to him, for he is your life and by him you will endure a long time in the land that Jehovah swore to give to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20)

"The plans of the diligent surely lead to success, But all who are hasty surely head for poverty." (Proverbs 21:5)

"If only you would pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river And your righteousness like the waves of the sea." (Isaiah 48:8)

"You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind." (Matthew 22:37)

"Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going." (Ephesians 9:10)

So we see repeatedly that God has given man choices. They can choose life, plan, choose to pay attention to commandments, etc. We know that Adam had this free will by exmaining what is said about him:
"Now Jehovah God had been forming from the ground every wild animal of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call each living creature, that became its name." (Genesis 2:19)

God did not have the knowledge of what Adam would name them. Instead, He brought them to Adam and waited to see what he would name them. Adam had the free will to choose what he would name them.

Since Satan is an angel, we must look at what is said about angels in the Bible regarding free will:
"Certainly God did not refrain from punishing the angels who sinned, but threw them into Tartarus, putting them in chains of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment."

So you see, there are many angels that chose to sin, Satan included. All creations of Jehovah have an expression of His qualities, including free will.

In regard to logical fallacies, I would like to quote Cornelius Van Til:
"As self-explanatory, God naturally speaks with absolute authority. It is Christ [...] who speaks in the Bible. Therefore the Bible does not appeal to human reason as ultimate in order to justify what it says. It comes to the human being with absolute authority. Its claim is that human reason must itself be taken in the sense in which Scripture takes it, namely, as created by God and as therefore properly subject to the authority of God."

Firstly, the fallacy was directed at the response, not the Bible. Secondly, why would a God specifically give 'instructions' in a way which it was impossible for humans to fully understand? Thirdly, if the Bible is beyond the grasp of human reasoning, then why do you trust that which does make sense to you? If our reasoning is invalid or compromised in interpreting the Bible, then all of it is; not just that which blatantly rails against it.
Van Til did not suggest that we cannot fully understand the Bible. We just simply cannot apply our fallible human ways of reasoning in an effort to justify Scripture.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 7:52:47 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 2:46:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/4/2016 2:29:24 PM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/4/2016 7:01:47 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Recently I created a thread & meme targeted at the excuse given to us called free will, that would be where it is claimed God values the free will of the rapist to rape a child over the well being of the child not to be raped, I called this into question, and I knew feathers would be ruffled, and feathers were indeed ruffled.

http://www.debate.org...

Now granted the responses where nothing I had not seen before and nothing I had not expected before hand.............Except when one person came along and informed us

Ethang5...""Dumb clucks who don't even know the doctrine they want to debate. Every one is as guilty as a child rapist in the light of God's holiness. God should stop YOU too, not just the rapist."

Listen to what you just heard.
I believe the idea is that no one is truly innocent. It is often an argument by atheists that "innocent" people get harmed. Bad things happen to "good" people. This is understandably a frustrating concept, as an all powerful God could most certainly step in and intervene. However, that is simply not the way it works. I am under the impression that you know what the Bible teaches on this subject, so I will not waste your time in explaining it. Though no Christian views someone as truly being innocent, so the line of reasoning used by atheists often does not line up with that of Christians.

It does, however, present a dichotomy of either innocent and not, thereby removing the nuance and destroying any meaning being the word.

Well, no, I think this is the same fallacy used by evolutionists against creationists - "if God designed everything then design doesn't mean anything" (Which is why, btw, the creationist/evolutionist debate should be of interest to everyone - the mind bending needed to accept evolution spills over into other areas of thought.)

Anyway, it is only necessary for there to be an abstract alternative to, or even variation in, a uniform thing in order for the description to have meaning. If everything in the universe was blue, if every molecule emitted photons at that frequency (only), the abstract concept of frequency is still quite valid. There could be colors other than blue, even if there weren't, in our imaginary universe.

But, to complete our analogy, we'd have to have some clue what guilt or innocence means. How do you measure it? What units would you use? And so on. It's easy enough to grasp how molecules can vibrate at certain frequencies, but how on earth can they be innocent?
This space for rent.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 8:08:50 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 7:52:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/4/2016 2:46:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
It does, however, present a dichotomy of either innocent and not, thereby removing the nuance and destroying any meaning being the word.

Well, no, I think this is the same fallacy used by evolutionists against creationists - "if God designed everything then design doesn't mean anything" (Which is why, btw, the creationist/evolutionist debate should be of interest to everyone - the mind bending needed to accept evolution spills over into other areas of thought.)

Anyway, it is only necessary for there to be an abstract alternative to, or even variation in, a uniform thing in order for the description to have meaning. If everything in the universe was blue, if every molecule emitted photons at that frequency (only), the abstract concept of frequency is still quite valid. There could be colors other than blue, even if there weren't, in our imaginary universe.

But, to complete our analogy, we'd have to have some clue what guilt or innocence means. How do you measure it? What units would you use? And so on. It's easy enough to grasp how molecules can vibrate at certain frequencies, but how on earth can they be innocent?

While I do largely agree with you, this is different than the "design" issue. I mean this (above) in regard to practical use, because assuming that Christianity is true, there actually would exist and example (Jesus) and a means of determining guilt (just being human, allegedly). It's just that since humans are all guilty by default and if there's no difference in weight between differing transgressions, the term has no practical use. It's as useful as saying "that guy's a human", which tells you nothing about him. The difference is that there is never even a conceivable notion of non-design presented and that there are no to examples to which we can make comparisons. Let's not get into that on this thread, though.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 8:21:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 7:42:11 PM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/4/2016 6:38:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:

A transgression against God is the same regardless of what that transgression is. Now, the transgression might have a larger impact in our world. For example, a simple white lie more than likely has less of an impact on us than a mass shooting. However, both acts transgress against God. Both transgressions can be forgiven equally.

Is it also true that, similarly, all good deeds of men fall short of the glory of God? This isn't explicitly expressed by verses like Romans 3:23, but would be in line with them.
I would not quite jump to that conclusion from Romans 3:23. We are all sinners and it is because of that reason we fall short of the glory of God.

I wasn't. I should have left the question bare - my apologies.

An evil person is allowed to do evil because of what was just stated: they are allowed to do it. We have free will. We can do as we wish. You can go out and murder everyone you see, as that is your freedom as a human being. You can also decide not to and instead spread a message of anti-murder. You have the freedom to decide what you want to do. This is a very fundamental understanding for most Christians (reformed Christians tend to reject this idea).

Free will needs to be examined a little more deeply. Sure, you can do what you wish, but what determines what your wishes are? Did a narcissist willing choose to be that way? Did a person with weak willpower choose to be that way? Free will is very nebulous, but it ultimately does not place responsibility for an individual's actions on that individual. Now, I mean this is a grand and ultimate sense rather than a societal sense, just to be clear.
I agree with you. There are definitely influences in people's lives that interact with their wills.

But that's indicative of determination of will, so how can an evil person's actions be attributed to free will, then?

Satan was free to disobey God and tempt Eve. Eve was free to listen to Satan instead of God. Adam was free to listen to Eve instead of God. Humans were created with the freedom to choose.

Can you demonstrate or show that Satan could have actually chosen to do otherwise? Can you prove that is was actually possible for Adam to have acted otherwise? How does one differentiate between a determined world and a world of free will?
Well, we can examine what the Bible states in regard to man's free will:
"I take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; and you must choose life so that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving Jehovah your God, by listening to his voice, and by sticking to him, for he is your life and by him you will endure a long time in the land that Jehovah swore to give to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20)

"The plans of the diligent surely lead to success, But all who are hasty surely head for poverty." (Proverbs 21:5)

"If only you would pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river And your righteousness like the waves of the sea." (Isaiah 48:8)

"You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind." (Matthew 22:37)

"Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going." (Ephesians 9:10)

So we see repeatedly that God has given man choices. They can choose life, plan, choose to pay attention to commandments, etc. We know that Adam had this free will by examining what is said about him:
"Now Jehovah God had been forming from the ground every wild animal of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call each living creature, that became its name." (Genesis 2:19)

God did not have the knowledge of what Adam would name them. Instead, He brought them to Adam and waited to see what he would name them. Adam had the free will to choose what he would name them.

Since Satan is an angel, we must look at what is said about angels in the Bible regarding free will:
"Certainly God did not refrain from punishing the angels who sinned, but threw them into Tartarus, putting them in chains of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment."

So you see, there are many angels that chose to sin, Satan included. All creations of Jehovah have an expression of His qualities, including free will.

The appearance of choice doesn't necessarily imply free will. Certainly, even if your actions are determined, you can be said to choose your actions and will certainly appear to do so. From the viewpoint of a omniscient or sufficiently knowledgeable being, you're still going through the motions of making a choice but only one of them was the actually the case the entire time. As such, all I see in the above verses are words that indicate choice, not free will.

In regard to logical fallacies, I would like to quote Cornelius Van Til:
<quote snipped for space>

Firstly, the fallacy was directed at the response, not the Bible. Secondly, why would a God specifically give 'instructions' in a way which it was impossible for humans to fully understand? Thirdly, if the Bible is beyond the grasp of human reasoning, then why do you trust that which does make sense to you? If our reasoning is invalid or compromised in interpreting the Bible, then all of it is; not just that which blatantly rails against it.
Van Til did not suggest that we cannot fully understand the Bible. We just simply cannot apply our fallible human ways of reasoning in an effort to justify Scripture.

Right, but if our reasoning is even somewhat unreliable, how do we possibly determine which aspects of it that we do understand correctly? That second sentence appears quite damning in that no scripture can be reliably justified, good or bad.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 8:28:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 8:08:50 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/4/2016 7:52:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/4/2016 2:46:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
It does, however, present a dichotomy of either innocent and not, thereby removing the nuance and destroying any meaning being the word.

Well, no, I think this is the same fallacy used by evolutionists against creationists - "if God designed everything then design doesn't mean anything" (Which is why, btw, the creationist/evolutionist debate should be of interest to everyone - the mind bending needed to accept evolution spills over into other areas of thought.)

Anyway, it is only necessary for there to be an abstract alternative to, or even variation in, a uniform thing in order for the description to have meaning. If everything in the universe was blue, if every molecule emitted photons at that frequency (only), the abstract concept of frequency is still quite valid. There could be colors other than blue, even if there weren't, in our imaginary universe.

But, to complete our analogy, we'd have to have some clue what guilt or innocence means. How do you measure it? What units would you use? And so on. It's easy enough to grasp how molecules can vibrate at certain frequencies, but how on earth can they be innocent?

While I do largely agree with you, this is different than the "design" issue. I mean this (above) in regard to practical use, because assuming that Christianity is true, there actually would exist and example (Jesus) and a means of determining guilt (just being human, allegedly). It's just that since humans are all guilty by default and if there's no difference in weight between differing transgressions, the term has no practical use.

Yeah, ok, gotcha. Agreed.

The difference is that there is never even a conceivable notion of non-design presented and that there are no to examples to which we can make comparisons.

Well, there's direct and indirect, for sure. There's the difference between the part where the tennis player is striking the ball, and the trajectory of the ball after it leaves the racquet. Both are design, but the 2nd half is indirect and subject to forces outside the designer's initial intent. And I suspect this is analogous to this issue, because I can't see how you have good and bad without some kind of designer's intent in the first place. The same shape, for instance, might be good or bad depending on what the architect wants it for.
This space for rent.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 9:12:04 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 7:42:09 PM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/4/2016 6:30:54 PM, annanicole wrote:


You only really dealt with one of the two passages I presented and you did not even do that great of a job on the one you did address (Jeremiah 17:9). However, I will provide you with more passages if you desire it:

"And he called to him the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man. [...] But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings: these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man." (Matthew 15:10, 11, 18-20)

... and you are trying to prove by that passage that an infant is a born sinner?
Yes. Note the following:

"But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man. "

So? I'm not denying that. Certainly what comes out of a man's mouth comes forth from the heart. That doesn't mean that an infant is a born sinner.

"For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous." (Romans 5:19)

... says nothing at all about an infant being a born sinner, totally depraved at birth.

We are made sinners because of Adam. We are made righteous through Christ. I cannot make it any more clear than Paul did.

Then it's about as clear as mud. The passage does not say that anybody was a born sinner.

Look at the struggle the Apostle Paul had:
"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." (Romans 7:23-25)

Paul didn't even intimate that he was a born sinner, totally and completely depraved. Apparently one must believe the doctrine first, then use his imagination to see it in these passages that you provide.

Are you suggesting that Paul chose to be a sinner? An Apostle of Christ chose to be a sinner as opposed to righteous? The same one that said men were made sinners because of Adam?

I'm suggesting that all sin is a choice, dude. Name one that isn't.

This oughta be just dandy - and gets right the crux of the matter. If sinning isn't a choice, then it would be very becoming of you to inform us exactly which sin is or was not a choice.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 11:18:17 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 2:35:40 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/4/2016 2:29:24 PM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/4/2016 7:01:47 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Recently I created a thread & meme targeted at the excuse given to us called free will, that would be where it is claimed God values the free will of the rapist to rape a child over the well being of the child not to be raped, I called this into question, and I knew feathers would be ruffled, and feathers were indeed ruffled.

http://www.debate.org...

Now granted the responses where nothing I had not seen before and nothing I had not expected before hand.............Except when one person came along and informed us

Ethang5...""Dumb clucks who don't even know the doctrine they want to debate. Every one is as guilty as a child rapist in the light of God's holiness. God should stop YOU too, not just the rapist."

Listen to what you just heard.
I believe the idea is that no one is truly innocent. It is often an argument by atheists that "innocent" people get harmed. Bad things happen to "good" people. This is understandably a frustrating concept, as an all powerful God could most certainly step in and intervene. However, that is simply not the way it works. I am under the impression that you know what the Bible teaches on this subject, so I will not waste your time in explaining it. Though no Christian views someone as truly being innocent ...

Everyone is born in an innocent and sin-free state.

How do you explain Genesis 2:17?

"but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

What was that death?

Does this mean that before the age of reason all people are owed heaven?
Artaxerxes
Posts: 181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 12:29:43 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 8:21:49 PM, Chaosism wrote:

I agree with you. There are definitely influences in people's lives that interact with their wills.

But that's indicative of determination of will, so how can an evil person's actions be attributed to free will, then?
Because it is his will, regardless of the influences. For example, I may stay up extremely late one night and wake up extremely early for an exam the next morning. Let's say my grade on said exam reflects my lack of sleep. It is still my grade, regardless of the forces that may have had an influence on it (in this case, lack of sleep).

In the area of free will, someone may be raised in an alcoholic family and therefore a force is present that will lead that person to alcoholism. It was still the person's free will in the sense that God is not directing them toward any particular path. They had the freedom to choose. Just like his/her family did.

Well, we can examine what the Bible states in regard to man's free will:
"I take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; and you must choose life so that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving Jehovah your God, by listening to his voice, and by sticking to him, for he is your life and by him you will endure a long time in the land that Jehovah swore to give to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20)

"The plans of the diligent surely lead to success, But all who are hasty surely head for poverty." (Proverbs 21:5)

"If only you would pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river And your righteousness like the waves of the sea." (Isaiah 48:8)

"You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind." (Matthew 22:37)

"Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going." (Ephesians 9:10)

So we see repeatedly that God has given man choices. They can choose life, plan, choose to pay attention to commandments, etc. We know that Adam had this free will by examining what is said about him:
"Now Jehovah God had been forming from the ground every wild animal of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call each living creature, that became its name." (Genesis 2:19)

God did not have the knowledge of what Adam would name them. Instead, He brought them to Adam and waited to see what he would name them. Adam had the free will to choose what he would name them.

Since Satan is an angel, we must look at what is said about angels in the Bible regarding free will:
"Certainly God did not refrain from punishing the angels who sinned, but threw them into Tartarus, putting them in chains of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment."

So you see, there are many angels that chose to sin, Satan included. All creations of Jehovah have an expression of His qualities, including free will.

The appearance of choice doesn't necessarily imply free will. Certainly, even if your actions are determined, you can be said to choose your actions and will certainly appear to do so. From the viewpoint of a omniscient or sufficiently knowledgeable being, you're still going through the motions of making a choice but only one of them was the actually the case the entire time. As such, all I see in the above verses are words that indicate choice, not free will.
If someone is to make a choice, then they must have free will. If we look at the definitions of the word "choice" in the Oxford dictionary, we get the following:
1) An act of choosing between two or more possibilities.
1.1) The right or ability to choose.
1.2) A range of possibilities from which one or more may be chosen.
1.3) A thing or person which is chosen.

I believe definition 1.1 captures the essence in which the Bible uses the word "choice." We, as humans, have the "right" to choose. God does not influence whether or not I sign in on this forum.

Van Til did not suggest that we cannot fully understand the Bible. We just simply cannot apply our fallible human ways of reasoning in an effort to justify Scripture.

Right, but if our reasoning is even somewhat unreliable, how do we possibly determine which aspects of it that we do understand correctly? That second sentence appears quite damning in that no scripture can be reliably justified, good or bad.
Ah, so we come to the age old question. There is ultimately no way that someone can really know. That is why there are so many Christian sects/denominations. We can discuss specific topics more thoroughly, but this would be a rather big thing to munch on if we make it too broad.
Artaxerxes
Posts: 181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 12:29:46 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 9:12:04 PM, annanicole wrote:

Yes. Note the following:

"But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man. "

So? I'm not denying that. Certainly what comes out of a man's mouth comes forth from the heart. That doesn't mean that an infant is a born sinner.
Yes, and what do those things do to the man?

We are made sinners because of Adam. We are made righteous through Christ. I cannot make it any more clear than Paul did.

Then it's about as clear as mud. The passage does not say that anybody was a born sinner.
Are infants not a part of the offspring of Adam? The same offspring that you just admitted to being made sinners?

Are you suggesting that Paul chose to be a sinner? An Apostle of Christ chose to be a sinner as opposed to righteous? The same one that said men were made sinners because of Adam?

I'm suggesting that all sin is a choice, dude. Name one that isn't.
Then I disagree.

This oughta be just dandy - and gets right the crux of the matter. If sinning isn't a choice, then it would be very becoming of you to inform us exactly which sin is or was not a choice.
What? I am not denying that there are personal sins. Some people struggle with lust while others do not, obviously. Some people are pathological liars, others are not.

Why exactly have you not touched Romans 3:23?
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 1:52:19 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 11:18:17 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 2:35:40 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/4/2016 2:29:24 PM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/4/2016 7:01:47 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Recently I created a thread & meme targeted at the excuse given to us called free will, that would be where it is claimed God values the free will of the rapist to rape a child over the well being of the child not to be raped, I called this into question, and I knew feathers would be ruffled, and feathers were indeed ruffled.

http://www.debate.org...

Now granted the responses where nothing I had not seen before and nothing I had not expected before hand.............Except when one person came along and informed us

Ethang5...""Dumb clucks who don't even know the doctrine they want to debate. Every one is as guilty as a child rapist in the light of God's holiness. God should stop YOU too, not just the rapist."

Listen to what you just heard.
I believe the idea is that no one is truly innocent. It is often an argument by atheists that "innocent" people get harmed. Bad things happen to "good" people. This is understandably a frustrating concept, as an all powerful God could most certainly step in and intervene. However, that is simply not the way it works. I am under the impression that you know what the Bible teaches on this subject, so I will not waste your time in explaining it. Though no Christian views someone as truly being innocent ...

Everyone is born in an innocent and sin-free state.

How do you explain Genesis 2:17?

"but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

What was that death?

Why, it means just what it says: when they partook of the forbidden fruit, they were banished from the Garden, and thus lost access to the Tree of Life. Thus, from that point forward, their physical death became certain.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 1:57:31 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 12:29:46 AM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/4/2016 9:12:04 PM, annanicole wrote:

Yes. Note the following:

"But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man. "

So? I'm not denying that. Certainly what comes out of a man's mouth comes forth from the heart. That doesn't mean that an infant is a born sinner.
Yes, and what do those things do to the man?

We are made sinners because of Adam. We are made righteous through Christ. I cannot make it any more clear than Paul did.

Then it's about as clear as mud. The passage does not say that anybody was a born sinner.
Are infants not a part of the offspring of Adam? The same offspring that you just admitted to being made sinners?

Are you suggesting that Paul chose to be a sinner? An Apostle of Christ chose to be a sinner as opposed to righteous? The same one that said men were made sinners because of Adam?

I'm suggesting that all sin is a choice, dude. Name one that isn't.
Then I disagree.

This oughta be just dandy - and gets right the crux of the matter. If sinning isn't a choice, then it would be very becoming of you to inform us exactly which sin is or was not a choice.

What? I am not denying that there are personal sins.

"Personal" sins? Can you name an impersonal one?

Notice that you were asked, "If sinning isn't a choice, then it would be very becoming of you to inform us exactly which sin is or was not a choice?"

You didn't name a one.

Some people struggle with lust while others do not, obviously. Some people are pathological liars, others are not.

Why exactly have you not touched Romans 3:23?

Because I didn't recall that you had cited it, but I should have: after all, it's always part of the "total depravity trio".

The passage simply states, " ... for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God". Apparently you think this means that a newborn infant has sinned, although you know as well as I do that the word "all" is frequently employed in the Bible without carrying the meaning of absolutely everyone and everything.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Artaxerxes
Posts: 181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 2:46:03 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 1:57:31 AM, annanicole wrote:

What? I am not denying that there are personal sins.

"Personal" sins? Can you name an impersonal one?
Yes, the one that Paul specifically speaks on in Romans 3:23. The one that is named in Psalm 51:5. We are born sinners because of the fall.

Notice that you were asked, "If sinning isn't a choice, then it would be very becoming of you to inform us exactly which sin is or was not a choice?"

You didn't name a one.
Because it is a silly question. We are born in sin, this is not a personal sin. Personal sins that we commit are lying, lusting, murdering, etc.

Why exactly have you not touched Romans 3:23?

Because I didn't recall that you had cited it, but I should have: after all, it's always part of the "total depravity trio".

The passage simply states, " ... for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God". Apparently you think this means that a newborn infant has sinned, although you know as well as I do that the word "all" is frequently employed in the Bible without carrying the meaning of absolutely everyone and everything.
So your only argument is that "all" does not really mean "all" because it does not fit into your man made doctrine?
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 3:05:01 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 2:46:03 AM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/5/2016 1:57:31 AM, annanicole wrote:

What? I am not denying that there are personal sins.

"Personal" sins? Can you name an impersonal one?

Yes, the one that Paul specifically speaks on in Romans 3:23. The one that is named in Psalm 51:5. We are born sinners because of the fall.

I didn't ask for your theology. I already know that. I asked you to specifically name an impersonal sin. You didn't do that.

Notice that you were asked, "If sinning isn't a choice, then it would be very becoming of you to inform us exactly which sin is or was not a choice?"

You didn't name a one.

Because it is a silly question. We are born in sin, this is not a personal sin. Personal sins that we commit are lying, lusting, murdering, etc.

Again, I didn't ask for your assumptions and your theology. I take from your answer (or lack thereof) that there is ONE "impersonal" sin - and it's the one that an infant is supposedly born with. In other words, if an infant isn't a born sinner, then there's no such thing as an "impersonal" sin.

Why exactly have you not touched Romans 3:23?

Because I didn't recall that you had cited it, but I should have: after all, it's always part of the "total depravity trio".

The passage simply states, " ... for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God". Apparently you think this means that a newborn infant has sinned, although you know as well as I do that the word "all" is frequently employed in the Bible without carrying the meaning of absolutely everyone and everything.

So your only argument is that "all" does not really mean "all" because it does not fit into your man made doctrine?

My argument is that "all" FREQUENTLY does not mean "each and every last one". At times it even includes animals. At times it means "each and every one". At times it means the majority of a given population. One's interpretation of that particular passage, Rom 3: 23, ALWAYS depends upon his preconceived notions. Thus, the passage is pretty much useless as a standard-bearer for any doctrine.

Notice that the passage says "ALL have sinned" - not "ALL were born in sin". Whatever or whoever the all is, you can bet they did something in order to be a part of it. Whether an infant is born in sin or not, the infant has not committed a single sin.

Is THIS the meaning that you intend to try to pass off on the passage? "For ALL NEWBORN INFANTS have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Never mind the adults, for they all were once infants - and they all were once newborns. If so, that's a new level of absurdity. Hear it:

Calvinist: " 'All have sinned' means 'all infants have sinned'."
Question: They've all sinned, but never committed a sin?
Calvinist: Yeah
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 2:40:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 12:29:43 AM, Artaxerxes wrote:
At 10/4/2016 8:21:49 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Would you mind addressing the question, though? Is it also true that, similarly, all good deeds of men fall short of the glory of God?

I agree with you. There are definitely influences in people's lives that interact with their wills.

But that's indicative of determination of will, so how can an evil person's actions be attributed to free will, then?
Because it is his will, regardless of the influences. For example, I may stay up extremely late one night and wake up extremely early for an exam the next morning. Let's say my grade on said exam reflects my lack of sleep. It is still my grade, regardless of the forces that may have had an influence on it (in this case, lack of sleep).

In the area of free will, someone may be raised in an alcoholic family and therefore a force is present that will lead that person to alcoholism. It was still the person's free will in the sense that God is not directing them toward any particular path. They had the freedom to choose. Just like his/her family did.

By what mechanisms would he have made that choice? With his brain, right? Did he choose the means by which his brain operates and makes decisions? No, he did not. His brain clearly exists with a means of evaluating data and making decisions based on that data, so who did choose how it works?

Well, we can examine what the Bible states in regard to man's free will:
"I take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; and you must choose life so that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving Jehovah your God, by listening to his voice, and by sticking to him, for he is your life and by him you will endure a long time in the land that Jehovah swore to give to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20)

<snipped for space>

So you see, there are many angels that chose to sin, Satan included. All creations of Jehovah have an expression of His qualities, including free will.

The appearance of choice doesn't necessarily imply free will. Certainly, even if your actions are determined, you can be said to choose your actions and will certainly appear to do so. From the viewpoint of a omniscient or sufficiently knowledgeable being, you're still going through the motions of making a choice but only one of them was the actually the case the entire time. As such, all I see in the above verses are words that indicate choice, not free will.
If someone is to make a choice, then they must have free will. If we look at the definitions of the word "choice" in the Oxford dictionary, we get the following:
1) An act of choosing between two or more possibilities.
1.1) The right or ability to choose.
1.2) A range of possibilities from which one or more may be chosen.
1.3) A thing or person which is chosen.

I believe definition 1.1 captures the essence in which the Bible uses the word "choice." We, as humans, have the "right" to choose.

I understand that you believe this, but that doesn't make it the case. A person without free will can make a choice. Consider a train conductor approaching a split in which he can either choose to flip the switch and go right or not flip it and go left. He chooses not to flip it and go left, so he made a choice. However, unbeknownst to him, the switch is inoperable and it would have been impossible for him to go right. So, did he really have a choice in reality? No, but he still actively decided. The act of choosing doesn't imply that all perceived choices are actually possible.

God does not influence whether or not I sign in on this forum.

How do you know that? How do you know that God didn't configure your brain in such a way that DDO would be appealing to you?

On a side note, do you believe that God is omniscient?

Van Til did not suggest that we cannot fully understand the Bible. We just simply cannot apply our fallible human ways of reasoning in an effort to justify Scripture.

Right, but if our reasoning is even somewhat unreliable, how do we possibly determine which aspects of it that we do understand correctly? That second sentence appears quite damning in that no scripture can be reliably justified, good or bad.
Ah, so we come to the age old question. There is ultimately no way that someone can really know. That is why there are so many Christian sects/denominations. We can discuss specific topics more thoroughly, but this would be a rather big thing to munch on if we make it too broad.

Agreed.