Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[JAL]

You actually believe this? I think we have polarized views then and doubt any agreement can be found between us regarding this topic.

Actually, deep down, I think you believe it too. If your kid walked up and punched you in the face, what would be your reaction? "That's okay, son, I realize you don't have free will."

 

[Mark Quayle]

For the reason given in the post cited. You might want to address the actual arguments instead of wasting my time by ignoring them.

Rambling is just wasting my time. If you have a point to make, then make it. Sin is not bad genes. If God created some Martians, and wasn't careful, thus allowing them to have bad genes causing savage behavior, that's not sin. Sin isn't something that HAPPENS to me. It is a deliberate free choice to do evil, and the sinful nature is the subsequent addiction to such evil tendencies. Any alternative definition of sin and the sinful nature is logically incoherent.

In a word, let's use proper terminology. If you have in mind bad genes, then call it bad genes - don't call it a sinful nature and DON'T classify it as reprehensible.

But we aren't talking about savage behavior. And since you seem unable to show how it cannot be passed down genetically, you seem to me to be unable to back up your claim that a person cannot be born in sin. I also don't find it likely you will explain to me to the many Bible verses that say we are born in sin, or words to that effect. Here are 3, from a google suggested website, for your convenience. The link shows many more.

Ps 58:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."

Ephesians 2:3 "Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest."

Romans 5:12 "
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--"

19 Bible verses about Being Born In Sin

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually, deep down, I think you believe it too. If your kid walked up and punched you in the face, what would be your reaction? "That's okay, son, I realize you don't have free will."

You are again, assuming Predestination precludes real choice. You still have not demonstrated how that is so.

You also have not answered my question: How, if you admit both to free will and to the chains of cause-and-effect, so that people are brought to their current situations, what difference does it make to consider God to be the First Cause in that chain?

 

[JAL]

But we aren't talking about savage behavior.

(Sigh) Any kind of behavior deemed inappropriate.

And since you seem unable to show how it cannot be passed down genetically...

I already did. You simply keep ignoring the argument. Here it is again. It cannot be passed down genetically because BAD GENES ISN'T SIN. Suppose Jesus underwent a surgery, during which the surgeon mutated his genes. Is he now thereby a sinner? Ridiculous. That's why the Evangelical theologian Donald Bloesch, was honest enough to admit two things:
(1) The sinful nature cannot be defined as something biologically/genetically transmitted.
(2) The transmission of the sinful nature cannot be explained on current church assumptions.

... you seem to me to be unable to back up your claim that a person cannot be born in sin.

Blatant misrepresentation. At least three times I've referred your to my own theory of Adam.

 

[JAL]

You are again, assuming Predestination precludes real choice. You still have not demonstrated how that is so.

I can't tell if you're shifting topics. Do you believe in libertarian freedom, or not? Or are you going to keep vacillating on the issue every time it suits you, like the other poster seems to be doing?

You also have not answered my question: How, if you admit both to free will and to the chains of cause-and-effect, so that people are brought to their current situations, what difference does it make to consider God to be the First Cause in that chain?

I don't get your point. Libertarianism isn't the claim that cause-effect NEVER happens. It isn't the claim that EVERY decision is free. Rather it is the claim that if we are to be BLAMED and PUNISHED for our behavior, it must have its origins in at least one free act.

 

[Mark Quayle]

(Sigh) Any kind of behavior deemed inappropriate.
I already did. You simply keep ignoring the argument. Here it is again. It cannot be passed down genetically because BAD GENES ISN'T SIN. Suppose Jesus underwent a surgery, during which the surgeon mutated his genes. Is he now thereby a sinner? Ridiculous. That's why the Evangelical theologian Donald Bloesch, was honest enough to admit two things:
(1) The sinful nature cannot be defined as something biologically/genetically transmitted.
(2) The transmission of the sinful nature cannot be explained on current church assumptions.

Blatant misrepresentation. At least three times I've referred your to my own theory of Adam.

No surgeon can mutate such a genetic predisposition to rebel against God. God, however, can certainly do so. Your argument smacks of the Atheists' claim that God cannot exist since the miracles in the Bible are ludicrous. If God exists, he can do whatever he chooses to do.

Regardless, I don't claim that is how it is done --you still haven't shown that the sin nature is not "inherited" from Adam, since the Bible does indeed claim we all have a sin nature. Likewise it also says sin of Adam brought death into the world, and THUS death came to all men, for all have sinned. Romans 5:12, and look at vs 19: "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,..."

 

[JAL]

No surgeon can mutate such a genetic predisposition to rebel against God. God, however, can certainly do so.

Ok suppose God the Father did the surgery on Jesus. I suppose in that case Jesus is thereby a sinner and should be burned in hell?

Regardless, I don't claim that is how it is done --you still haven't shown that the sin nature is not "inherited" from Adam, since the Bible does indeed claim we all have a sin nature. Likewise it also says sin of Adam brought death into the world, and THUS death came to all men, for all have sinned. Romans 5:12, and look at vs 19: "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,..."

I don't deny any of those verses. We are born in sin - just not in the Reformed way. If you still don't understand how, it's because you refused to read the post that I referred you to four times. The point of that post is that the Reformed understanding of Adam doesn't work. We are indeed born in sin, but not for Reformed reasons.

 

[JAL]

In the Reformed version, Adam is our representative. Thus, after Adam sins, God pronounces everyone guilty BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN BORN. That makes God a liar - He is lying when he says that the unborn are guilty of sinning against Him. That's the first problem. The second problem, as mentioned, is that it then becomes logically impossible for us to be born in sin since a sinful taint cannot be transmitted, for reasons I've been stating.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok suppose God the Father did the surgery on Jesus. I suppose in that case Jesus is thereby a sinner and should be burned in hell?


I don't deny any of those verses. We are born in sin - just not in the Reformed way. If you still don't understand how, it's because you refused to read the post that I referred you to four times. The point of that post is that the Reformed understanding of Adam doesn't work. We are indeed born in sin, but not for Reformed reasons.

Why would God want to do that? You aren't making much sense. You may as well ask if God can make a rock too big for him to pick up. I read it. But it claims logical necessity of your brand of free will, since God is just, etc, if I remember right. I think that.s lousy logic, and so here we go again. I think we've been around and around just about enough.

 

[JAL]

Why would God want to do that? You aren't making much sense.

Oh I see, He wouldn't want to do it to HIS kid. He just likes to do it to us and OUR kids - in a quantity upwards of 100 billion people. Can anyone say - monster?

 

[JAL]

Reformed theology is a massive insult to God. Sadly you're much more quick to rush to the defense of your beloved Reformed theologians instead of rushing to the defense of God's honor.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In the Reformed version, Adam is our representative. Thus, after Adam sins, God pronounces everyone guilty BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN BORN. That makes God a liar - He is lying when he says that the unborn are guilty of sinning against Him. That's the first problem. The second problem, as mentioned, is that it then becomes logically impossible for us to be born in sin since a sinful taint cannot be transmitted, for reasons I've been stating.

Already been answered. Enough already. You claim "can, can't, must, mustn't, means this or means that etc" and give your reasons (which no doubt seem logically sound to you). No doubt you think I do the same.

If you are willing to answer this, which I've asked now several times, I am willing to continue with this. If not, I'll drop it.

If we who believe in choice (even to whatever degree, call if Free Will or whatever) agree that choice is real, yet also admit do such things as genetic and upbringing's predispositions, and the influence of our circumstances. and to the logical rule of the chain of Cause-and-effect, what difference does it make to consider God as the First Cause of that chain of cause-and-effect? Why should that suddenly logically change the whole picture? Are we somehow now MORE controlled by cause-and-effect?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Oh I see, He wouldn't want to do it to HIS kid. He just likes to do it to us and OUR kids - in a quantity upwards of 100 billion people. Can anyone say - monster?

"Likes"? Where do you get that? He does whatever he does for his own purposes, not sadistically. Meanwhile, like I said, you still haven't shown the logical necessity for real choice to disclude predestination of that very choice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Reformed theology is a massive insult to God. Sadly you're much more quick to rush to the defense of your beloved Reformed theologians instead of rushing to the defense of God's honor.

That is indeed your own opinion. Glad you've got that tag line. I find it insulting to God's glory to claim that what is his immensely powerful, intelligent, just, gracious, kind and merciful work is man's work. Faith is the gift of God, not the invention of man.

 

[JAL]

If you are willing to answer this, which I've asked now several times, I am willing to continue with this. If not, I'll drop it.

If we who believe in choice (even to whatever degree, call if Free Will or whatever) agree that choice is real, yet also admit do such things as genetic and upbringing's predispositions, and the influence of our circumstances. and to the logical rule of the chain of Cause-and-effect, what difference does it make to consider God as the First Cause of that chain of cause-and-effect? Why should that suddenly logically change the whole picture? Are we somehow now MORE controlled by cause-and-effect?

I thought I answered at post 312. I'm not sure what I'm missing here. You seem to have an either-or mentality. You seem to think that reality must be one of these three possibilities:
(1) 100% free choice
(2) 100% cause-effect
(3) 100% random chaos
And you seem to have landed on option 2. But doesn't our everyday experience suggest a mixture of 1 and 2?

I honestly am not trying to sidestep your question. I just don't see where I failed to respond to it.

 

[JAL]

Ok maybe I'm beginning to understand the question...

 

[JAL]

Maybe what's you're saying, "I opt for choice 2. What's wrong with that? Isn't it possible that I'm right? Maybe reality simply IS pure cause-effect?" Okay my answer will depend on God's nature. Do you see God as having libertarian freedom in this schema? Is He the one exception to the rule?

 

[JAL]

That is indeed your own opinion. Glad you've got that tag line. I find it insulting to God's glory to claim that what is his immensely powerful, intelligent, just, gracious, kind and merciful work is man's work. Faith is the gift of God, not the invention of man.

(Sigh) We're not talking about saving faith. That's not been the focus of the last 250 posts worth of exchanges between you and me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I thought I answered at post 312. I'm not sure what I'm missing here. You seem to have an either-or mentality. You seem to think that reality must be one of these three possibilities:
(1) 100% free choice
(2) 100% cause-effect
(3) 100% random chaos
And you seem to have landed on option 2. But doesn't our everyday experience suggest a mixture of 1 and 2?

I honestly am not trying to sidestep your question. I just don't see where I failed to respond to it.

Free choice, if in any way contradicting cause-and-effect, is false. If, on the other hand, it works as a result of it, it is the kind of "free will" I espouse. It cannot operate by simple chance or chaos.

 

[Mark Quayle]

(Sigh) We're not talking about saving faith. That's not been the focus of the last 250 posts worth of exchanges between you and me.

I think we have been getting to that very thing the whole time. After all, this thread is called Free will, and original sin, which are corollary subjects within the discussion of saving faith, in Arminian-tending Christian Circles.