Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[JAL]

No, my man. One's logic does not supersede the authority of Scripture.

I have no direct access to Scripture - only to my fallible interpretations of it. And generally my only clear indicator of an incorrect interpretation is my perception of apparent logical contradictions. During exegesis, my logic must ALWAYS dictate the meaning of Scripture simply because I have no other option. Of course in my view, exegesis is merely a crutch - it's a last resort for those of us who, like me, have not attained to prophethood (1Cor 14:1). Prophets like Paul understood the Scriptures via direct revelation - but I'll try not to get sidetracked into that discussion. More info here as well.

No, my man. One's logic does not supersede the authority of Scripture.

The exegete MUST define the moral virtues according to his own logic, for reasons stated - AND He must hold God to that same moral standard. Otherwise you wind up with logical contradictions (indicating an erroneous interpretation of Scripture). Here's why we must hold God to our standards. I personally define love as kindness. Now suppose God's definition of love deviates from MY definition. That means three problems:
(1) I have no hope.
(2) The biblical promises are self-contradictory because they PURPORT to comfort us by promising us God's "love", but if He defines love as something OTHER than kindness, they are cause for ALARM - absolutely terrifying in fact.
(3) Our Bible translations are all wrong. You want an ACCURATE translation, right? When someone deviates from MY definition of kindness, my word for him is "unkind". Therefore if God deviates from MY definitions of virtues, then I should want the Bible translations updated to accurately describe Him as unkind, unloving, unmerciful, unworthy, dishonest, unjust, unfaithful, and so on.

If you come up with something that denies Scripture, think again.

You Reformed thinkers came up with a doctrine that self-contradicts at every turn and thus doesn't qualify as a viable exegesis. Think again.

BTW, your term "designed...inexorably" as you use it there, is a bit vague. Don't pretend that we are not totally and willfully involved in our own sin.

Freedom to act "according to nature" is not sufficient freedom. Real freedom means, to some extent, that my free will determines my nature, at least in part. The following is not freedom in the libertarian sense:

Perhaps you need to see the crude picture of a child stirring up an ants' nest. He knows what they will do and causes them to act according to their nature.

God providing for us to behave according to our sinful nature is not the same as God making us robots.

Admittedly we are not absolute robots - we can often choose the lesser of two evils - but if God's design is ultimately the reason why I sin, that's not sufficient libertarian freedom to comply with MY definition of a virtuous God. In fact, that's not even a coherent definition of sin, it's rather coercion. Suppose someone spikes your food with a drug that consumes you with an obsessive desire to murder someone. Are you to be blamed for this coercion? Or is he? Let's cut out the nonsense here.

 

[fhansen]

He IS responsible for his own corruption. Again, don't pretend that we are not totally cooperative with our fallen nature. We might blame Adam that we are born in sin, yet we are glad for it, and indulge in it. No, it is OUR fallen nature.

But if we can't do otherwise then we're not responsible for that corruption; we'd have no choice but to cooperate. It'd be like punishing a wild animal, eternally, for being a wild animal.

 

[SkyWriting]

Where does the bible say God "re-created" us in his image?

Everywhere that "bara" is not defined as "Poof!"
it is defined as a process of changing or altering what is there.

bara': choose
Original Word: בָּרָא
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: bara'
Phonetic Spelling: (baw-raw')
Definition: brings about (1), clear (2), create (6), created (32), creates (1), creating (3), Creator (4), cut them down (1), make (2), produced (1).

Strong's Hebrew: 1254. בָּרָא (bara') -- choose

 

[SkyWriting]

I have no direct access to Scripture - only to my fallible interpretations of it. And generally my only clear indicator of an incorrect interpretation is my perception of apparent logical contradictions. During exegesis, my logic must ALWAYS dictate the the meaning of Scripture simply because I have no other option.

We always have choices. Man's logic has no standing with God.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is folly with God.

Jeremiah 31
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.

 

[1Reformedman]

Everywhere that "bara" is not defined as "Poof!"
it is defined as a process of changing or altering what is there.

bara': choose
Original Word: בָּרָא
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: bara'
Phonetic Spelling: (baw-raw')
Definition: brings about (1), clear (2), create (6), created (32), creates (1), creating (3), Creator (4), cut them down (1), make (2), produced (1).

Strong's Hebrew: 1254. בָּרָא (bara') -- choose

that does not support your claim to the idea that God Recreated us in his image Recreated. We were created ONCE!! Man first then he was put to sleep and his rib extracted to create his wife. There is absolutely NO reference in the bible to us having been recreated.

 

[SkyWriting]

that does not support your claim to the idea that God Recreated us in his image Recreated. We were created ONCE!! Man first then he was put to sleep and his rib extracted to create his wife. There is absolutely NO reference in the bible to us having been recreated.

Yes, "bara" is a process, generally a long drawn out process.
Yes, it only happened once. We were changed from natural man
to enlightened man only once. That continues today. We are born
again only once.

 

[1Reformedman]

Yes, bara is a process, generally a long drawn out process.
Yes, it only happened once. We were changed from natural man
to enlightened man only once. That continues.

Evolution is garbage...

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolution is garbage...

True. Nothing is random...though they insist it is.
God controls the location of each electron in the Cosmos and holds them in place.

 

[JAL]

We always have choices. Man's logic has no standing with God.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is folly with God.

You're right - if we're talking about direct revelation. At issue here (on this thread), rather, is the nature of exegesis. Suppose an exegete (such as yourself) is pondering one possible interpretation of a passage. He finds himself able to list a slew of ways that the interpretation logically or factually contradicts the factual data in the passage (facts that he finds to be incontrovertible).

What should he do? Is he warranted - by the very nature of exegesis - in dismissing that interpretation, at least tentatively for now? Or must he cast all his logic to the wind and therefore wholeheartedly accept what to him, seems contrary to Scripture?

Please clarify, because I'm not sure what you're advising me to do in these kinds of scenarios.

 

[Cis.jd]

Not that this analogy applies, but to demonstrate a principle. Even a robot chooses. And its choice has results. Likewise with the ants, they respond to stimulus according to their nature. If you want to call that their programming, ok, I don't mind. How many levels above that are we? But we are willful, and our nature can be seen to determine our choices EVERY time. If God saw to it that each of us is subject to that nature, that does not deny our responsibility for our own sin, nor our responsibility to fight our own sin nature.

Does the principle suddenly change simply because it is God? Is is delusional to blame one's upbringing or genetics or other circumstances for our crimes. How does God's use of those things make it any different as far as our own responsibility?

A robot doesn't chose. It does what it is programed to do and if it some how doesn't it's called a malfunction. Even your retorts are false and it shows you are just guessing for something to answer.

You are doing nothing but making excuses as to why your views poses problems in many of the Bible teachings/stories such as the fall. What we are compared to him has 0 relevance to the question you are demanded to answer. You are circling around trying to bury the fact that you know your views don't make sense and are logically inconsistent with scripture and just common sense.

Get over it already because you are just trying to save face.

 

[JAL]

From another thread:

If he made some to be destroyed, it is to display his power and purity and justice and glory. "To make known his wrath and his power", in the words of Scripture (see Romans 9:22).

Christians have adduced that verse for double predestination, but it actually bespeaks "wrath" for the truly guilty.

Charles Hodge's so-called "defense" of federalism (Adam as our rep), as I recall, essentially was to claim that, even though we'd normally classify such skewed jurisprudence as the work of an evil tyrant, God gets a free pass! I have my own theory of Adam and Original Sin that avoids the traditional weak points, plus a theory of sovereign election built on him, but I don't want to derail the current thread.

Charles Hodge has a basic contradiction in his stance. Even he would admit, after all, that God's holiness is depicted in Scripture as diametrically opposed - the exact polar opposite - of how evil men behave, especially tyrants. Therefore he should have reformed his Reformed theology.

Hodge's teaching is valuable as a warning to us - a lesson on how NOT to theologize. If your Doctrine of God includes the sort of reproachable behavior definitive of evil men, it's time to fix it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Therefore he should have reformed his Reformed theology.

You draw a logical conclusion where there is none. If God's holiness is diametrically opposed to sinfulness, how does God's behavior resemble that of evil men? He is not us. He has to right to do as he wishes with us. Not just the ability. Evil is by HIS definition --not ours. He is not subject to it.

Funny (not saying you are one of these, but) many I argue with on these forums don't seem to have much of a problem with the "royalty" in Congress living by a different standard than that to which they subject us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

A robot doesn't chose. It does what it is programed to do and if it some how doesn't it's called a malfunction. Even your retorts are false and it shows you are just guessing for something to answer.

A robot chooses as it is programmed to chose. Two or more options presented to it, it MUST choose as it is programmed. You may call that no choice. I don't much care what you call it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are doing nothing but making excuses as to why your views poses problems in many of the Bible teachings/stories such as the fall. What we are compared to him has 0 relevance to the question you are demanded to answer. You are circling around trying to bury the fact that you know your views don't make sense and are logically inconsistent with scripture and just common sense.

Get over it already because you are just trying to save face.

Keep struggling, friend. Maybe the hardest thing for you to face, in spite of my inept representations of the truth, is that it only makes sense for God to accomplish it all from the very beginning. Whether, as some cosmologist like to poetically say, and as Deists like to think, God created, sowing the seeds of destiny in the disparities of his creation, or as Theists seem to think, he interjects himself throughout, or as I like to think, he inhabits and sustains the very essence of the smallest particle of matter, energy, and whatever else there may be, God causes. We are an effect.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But if we can't do otherwise then we're not responsible for that corruption; we'd have no choice but to cooperate. It'd be like punishing a wild animal, eternally, for being a wild animal.

You would like us to be responsible for "accepting" Christ. Why shouldn't we be responsible for rejecting Christ? We can't do right, as shown by the fact that we always CHOOSE to reject. We are the cause of our choices, and as Adam sinned, we have that nature to do so. To blame God is to say not only that he caused it in whatever way he did (which I happily admit to) but to say he is evil for doing so (which I vehemently deny). He has the right to do whatever he chooses to do with us. Rail against him, or thank him for having mercy on some.

I would like to know why it is considered our fault if we do wrong after all the influences and genetic predispositions we accept as fact, yet when God is interjected into the conversation all the sudden it is HIS fault?

 

[JAL]

He is not us. He has to right to do as he wishes with us. Not just the ability. Evil is by HIS definition --not ours. He is not subject to it.

Incorrect. Exegesis is such that evil and virtue are to be understood in a way consistent with MY definition, if I am the exegete, to avoid contradicting myself and undermining Christian hope, as demonstrated at post 128. Please respond to that post instead of reasserting conclusions already refuted. When responding, please also take into consideration post 136 as well.

You draw a logical conclusion where there is none. If God's holiness is diametrically opposed to sinfulness, how does God's behavior resemble that of evil men?

You don't seem to be following the argument. Again, Hodge contradicted himself. He admitted that God, in his theology, acted in a way definitive of an evil tyrant (while claiming it is okay because He is God). This contradicts Scripture, because Scripture claims that God does NOT behave the way that evil tyrants do.

More likely you DID follow the argument but have simply taken the position that the law of non-contradiction is irrelevant to the Doctrine of God. But as shown in post 128, such hermeneutics undermines the backbone of Christian hope.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have no direct access to Scripture - only to my fallible interpretations of it. And generally my only clear indicator of an incorrect interpretation is my perception of apparent logical contradictions. During exegesis, my logic must ALWAYS dictate the meaning of Scripture simply because I have no other option. Of course in my view, exegesis is merely a crutch - it's a last resort for those of us who, like me, have not attained to prophethood (1Cor 14:1). Prophets like Paul understood the Scriptures via direct revelation - but I'll try not to get sidetracked into that discussion. More info here as well.

Nevertheless, when learning, one mustn't jump to conclusions, but continue to study. So far, all I have learned has led me to the conclusions that I attempt declare here, but I happily admit they are not complete, and could even be wrong, yet nobody so far has been able to show me where I was wrong.

The exegete MUST define the moral virtues according to his own logic, for reasons stated - AND He must hold God to that same moral standard. Otherwise you wind up with logical contradictions (indicating an erroneous interpretation of Scripture). Here's why we must hold God to our standards. I personally define love as kindness.

I hope you are not claiming holding God to the same standard to be applicable as in: He command us do not kill --does that mean that God must not kill? He commands us not to be jealous --does that mean he must not be jealous? Love is whatever God says it is --not what I might conclude. I am constantly learning about it, and continually more amazed at all sorts of aspects of God's love. Kindness? yes for sure. Does that include therefore, whatever I take for kindness to my fellow man? We are not God's fellow men. He need not respect us as we should each other. Our dignity is his to do with as he pleases. He does not attribute dignity to our innate intellectual concepts and strength of will as we do, nor indeed to our innate being, apart from his plan for us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Now suppose God's definition of love deviates from MY definition. That means three problems:
(1) I have no hope.
(2) The biblical promises are self-contradictory because they PURPORT to comfort us by promising us God's "love", but if He defines love as something OTHER than kindness, they are cause for ALARM - absolutely terrifying in fact.
(3) Our Bible translations are all wrong. You want an ACCURATE translation, right? When someone deviates from MY definition of kindness, my word for him is "unkind". Therefore if God deviates from MY definitions of virtues, then I should want the Bible translations updated to accurately describe Him as unkind, unloving, unmerciful, unworthy, dishonest, unjust, unfaithful, and so on.

So don't trust YOUR definition! It is yours (and mine) that deviates from the truth, and only his is true.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You asked:
Is is delusional to blame one's upbringing or genetics or other circumstances for our crimes? How does God's use of those things make it any different as far as our own responsibility?

My question, typo and all, was rhetorical. It assumes the answer, that we do not (usually) consider everything we are subject to as to blame for what we do wrong. Intellectually, or at least conscience assessing, we mostly agree that when a person does wrong, it is indeed that person that does wrong.

I believe it is wrong to blame your surroundings for how you turned out. I know of many people who grew up in families and neighborhoods filled full of addicts and criminals but there are some who lived in those families and communities who didn't turn out that way. So how did they make it through without becoming a "product of their environment"? They chose not to be one and its that simple.

The way I grew up I thought it was normal to drink alcohol to excess because many People I was around were drunks, addicts and criminals, but that was my wrong thinking not what others told me. Even if others had told me such a thing it would still have been inaccurate and not true.

I agree completely.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We don't have to understand everything to understand... everything.

It is His pleasure, just like any parent, to want to see us be "children forever" by comparison to Him. Since He generates infinities (all of them), He can actually see this done. That is why He continuously says we have to have the spirit of a child to be with Him: we are going to be His literal children forever (even if we are great compared to everything else). We can still learn an infinite amount of stuff and things while at the same time remaining as children compared to the Most High God. And, indeed we have to continuously have the mentality and spirit of a child (open-mindedness, trust, faith, kindness, charity, etc.)

I agree with that, and can't help but add, that as his children, the Spirit within us, though from our pov operating in the most miniscule ways (or overpowering us, as it may be at times) does indeed understand everything, and IS IN US what we are becoming. We indeed have all the information, but not at our fingertips, but rather in our hearts, in our new being.