Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[renniks]

Do you argue free will could make that confession avoidable, negating the salvation?

Of course. God isn't in the business of forcing allegiance to himself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Of course. God isn't in the business of forcing allegiance to himself.

So are you saying one can lose their salvation? What do you think it means when he says that those who the Father gives him he will not lose?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Of course. God isn't in the business of forcing allegiance to himself.

Funny how you depend on words like "force" to describe what God does so tenderly, changing a heart to GLADLY choose what is right.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Of course not. What does the verse clearly say? It says the belief in the heart and confessing Christ leads to salvation. Belief is a choice.

And how can one make that choice? After all, simply saying one chooses does not demonstrate that the choice is not caused.

Second, how do you change the wording to "leads to"? Is there a version with that import?

 

[renniks]

So are you saying one can lose their salvation? What do you think it means when he says that those who the Father gives him he will not lose?

Forfeit, not lose. Salvation is contingent on faith.

 

[renniks]

And how can one make that choice? After all, simply saying one chooses does not demonstrate that the choice is not caused.

Second, how do you change the wording to "leads to"? Is there a version with that import?

The order is clear. Confess and believe and be saved. How does one make any choice? Asking the question shows you assume everything is caused by an outside force.

 

[JAL]

editing...

 

[JAL]

What in the world does consciousness have to do with matter?

Um...Have you ever heard of the human brain? You're so brainwashed by 2,000 years of Platonic dogma that you can't see the obvious. Tertullian's proof for the materiality of the soul stands unrefuted after 1800 years. Even Charles Hodge admitted he had no solution.

Wait. I know the answer. Nothing!!!

Yep - they brainwashed you real good. This is a category mistake. Maybe I'll explain that later. It's understandable for ordinary guys like me and you. But when even Thomas Acquinas makes that mistake, it's unconscionable - it's intellectual dishonesty because he's too smart for that.

Uh, no it's really not like it at all. Not at all. At all.

I have no idea why you would say that. Do you actually defend anything you assert? Or just assert it?

Why use Scripture at all if, as you say, you are a staunch materialist?

Empty rhetoric and polemics. Everyone has a position. Don't fault me for naming mine.

My position resolves 26 objections unsolved for 2,000 years, and you react - how? Empty rhetoric. This is why the church remains where it is.

My mind is either too large or too small for that to add up. It's not that I mind wasting your time thereby keeping you from serving this stuff up to someone who might buy it, but you need to understand that if you believe God Himself crawled out of some primordial ooze then we've got an infinite way to go to come to some sort of agreement.

Simple. If God's holiness is innate, it merits no praise. You get that, right? There is one UNANIMOUS definition of merit among Christians - and probably most non-Christians as well. Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over a period of time. For example, would the cross have merit without suffering? Or imagine two kids, one lazy but born filthy rich, the other born dirt poor but acquires wealth gradually by diligence. Which one has merit? Don't praise me for innate qualities - don't praise for being human, having red blood,or dark hair. That's not merit. It merit no praise. Note that the lazy kid is UNACCOMPLISHED. That's how the church has defined God for the last 2,000 years (with the possible exception of the cross as His one act of merit but I'm not even sure the cross qualifies on their assumptions). And this issue is just ONE of the 26 problems mentioned.

You can't just flatly contradict yourself and expect someone like me - outside the circle of brainwashing - to take you seriously.

I don't hold to a radical uber-literalist approach to Scripture but I don't believe that emissions from the nostrils of a materialist form of a Christ have precedence over Scripture

Have you heard of Thomas Oden? He was arguably the world's foremost expert on the church fathers in his day. He wrote an unusual systematic theology where, instead of drawing his own conclusions, he regurgitated doctrines in church consensus for the first 1,000 years and, typically, up until the Reformation. He said that at John 20:22, the literal rendering is the Holy Breath. Here's that verse if you read it lately:

"Jesus breathed on them, and said, 'Receive the Holy Breath'" (Jn 20:22).

Jesus was expelling physical breath from His nostrils. Only a person indoctrinated into Platonic philosophy could possibly consider a non-materialistic reading here. Note this is the TITLE of the Third Person - titles don't change from verse to verse. For example if God is Father in one passage, He is not "step-daughter" in another passage that uses the same Greek word. He is "Father" in all such passages.

. The Holy Spirit never contradicts Scripture.

Spirit? Where did you get THAT title? Oh that's right. Plato.

Look there's no scriptural evidence for Plato's theory of magical immaterial substance. All the data in Scripture points to materialism. I can link to plenty of posts where I demonstrate that fact in verse after verse after verse. But should I bother? I suspect that, just as you ignored John 20:22 for example, you'll ignore every verse of Scripture in preference for Plato.

The Bible says that 1+1+1=1. You can't materialize that by saying God is like a brain with 3 physical parts because if they're physical they're separate and cannot equal 1. They equal 3. 3 people who work together harmoniously on a project are still 3 people. There are not one as God is One.

This is silly. You're implying that unity and multiplicity are mutually exclusive. Yet you have ONE brain comprised of MANY parts. It is both ONE - and MANY. That's a clear explanation of the Trinity. Secondly, what constitutes a person? Volition. Free will. The ability to choose, somewhat independently of other volitions. I've defined 3 separate regions of volition in the Godhead.


Now here's what Millard J. Erickson admitted about the mainstream view of the trinity, "It is logically absurd from the human standpoint." The mainstream view of DDS means that God has NO PARTS. Thus it's not clear how you can get a Trinity out of that. They SAY it has been accomplished but Erickson's own words cast doubt on it.

Next, here's what Erickson admitted about the Hypostatic Union, he said it means we have to allow God making an exception such that "2 + 1 = 2". Is THAT what you want me to accept?

As far as your frustration goes, you only have to read my signature to see where I stand. But I can't say I agree with your counterpoint that God and man are exactly the same metaphysically speaking.

No problem. Just come back with a system that resolves the 26 contradictions and then I'll take you seriously. Fair enough?[/quote]

 

[BarnyFyfe]

Um...Have you ever heard of the human brain? You're so brainwashed by 2,000 years of Platonic dogma that you can't see the obvious. Tertullian's proof for the materiality of the soul stands unrefuted after 1800 years. Even Charles Hodge admitted he had no solution.

Yep - they brainwashed you real good. This is a category mistake. Maybe I'll explain that later. It's understandable for ordinary guys like me and you. But when even Thomas Acquinas makes that mistake, it's unconscionable - it's intellectual dishonesty because he's too smart for that.


I have no idea why you would say that. Do you actually defend anything you assert? Or just assert it?


Empty rhetoric and polemics. Everyone has a position. Don't fault me for naming mine.

My position resolves 26 objections unsolved for 2,000 years, and you react - how? Empty rhetoric. This is why the church remains where it is.
Simple. If God's holiness is innate, it merits no praise. You get that, right? There is one UNANIMOUS definition of merit among Christians - and probably most non-Christians as well. Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over a period of time. For example, would the cross have merit without suffering? Or imagine two kids, one lazy but born filthy rich, the other born dirt poor but acquires wealth gradually by diligence. Which one has merit? Don't praise me for innate qualities - don't praise for being human, having red blood,or dark hair. That's not merit. It merit no praise. Note that the lazy kid is UNACCOMPLISHED. That's how the church has defined God for the last 2,000 years (with the possible exception of the cross as His one act of merit but I'm not even sure the cross qualifies on their assumptions). And this issue is just ONE of the 26 problems mentioned.

You can't just flatly contradict yourself and expect someone like me - outside the circle of brainwashing - to take you seriously.
Have you heard of Thomas Oden? He was arguably the world's foremost expert on the church fathers in his day. He wrote an unusual systematic theology where, instead of drawing his own conclusions, he regurgitated doctrines in church consensus for the first 1,000 years and, typically, up until the Reformation. He said that at John 20:22, the literal rendering is the Holy Breath. Here's that verse if you read it lately:

"Jesus breathed on them, and said, 'Receive the Holy Breath'" (Jn 20:22).

Jesus was expelling physical breath from His nostrils. Only a person indoctrinated into Platonic philosophy could possibly consider a non-materialistic reading here. Note this is the TITLE of the Third Person - titles don't change from verse to verse. For example if God is Father in one passage, He is not "step-daughter" in another passage that uses the same Greek word. He is "Father" in all such passages.


Spirit? Where did you get THAT title? Oh that's right. Plato.

Look there's no scriptural evidence for Plato's theory of magical immaterial substance. All the data in Scripture points to materialism. I can link to plenty of posts where I demonstrate that fact in verse after verse after verse. But should I bother? I suspect that, just as you ignored John 20:22 for example, you'll ignore every verse of Scripture in preference for Plato.


This is silly. You're implying that unity and divisibility are mutually exclusive. Yet you have ONE brain comprised of MANY parts. It is both ONE - and MANY. That's a clear explanation of the Trinity. Secondly, what constitutes a person? Volition. Free will. The ability to choose, somewhat independently of other volitions. I've defined 3 separate regions of volition in the Godhead.


Now here's what Millard J. Erickson admitted about the mainstream view of the trinity, "It is logically absurd from the human standpoint." The mainstream view of DDS means that God has NO PARTS. Thus it's not clear how you can get a Trinity out of that. They SAY it has been accomplished but Erickson's own words cast doubt on it.

Next, here's what Erickson admitted about the Hypostatic Union, he said it means we have to allow God making an exception such that "2 + 1 = 2". Is THAT what you want me to accept?

No problem. Just come back with a system that resolves the 26 contradictions and then I'll take you seriously. Fair enough?

[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the diagnosis. Bye now.

 

[JAL]

Let's get something straight. Scripture has not a shred of evidence for Plato's theory of magical immaterial substance. ALL the data - both empirical and biblical - supports materialism. In what sense? In the sense that some of the data is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to cohere without recourse to physical dynamics.

There is NEVER a case where recourse to immaterial substance is even remotely compelling, in the effort to explain the empirical or biblical data. Apparently you presumed otherwise because you write:

What in the world does consciousness have to do with matter? Wait. I know the answer. Nothing!!!

This is a category mistake. Example of a category mistake: "I have a big vocabulary, but not sure if it's red or green." Huh? Those categories are not clearly related.

Same issue here. You're probably reasoning like this: "A thought isn't a lump of matter. Therefore it must be a immaterial substance." You're asking whether:
(1) Thought is material substance
(2) Thought is immaterial substance
Correct answer: Neither, because that's a category mistake. Conscious experience is NOT A SUBSTANCE. I can't pour you a glass of joy. Conscious experience is the EVENT of feeling something (to keep it simple). The QUESTION IN DEBATE as whether that event is transpiring for a material soul or an immaterial soul. And to resolve THAT question, all we can do is examine the empirical and biblical data. And when do that, materialism wins hands down.

The empirical data document physical interactions between mind and body. The PROBLEM here is that an intangible mind and tangible body could not be mutually impacting - such a claim would be a contradiction in terms. (This is the issue where even Charles Hodge admitted he has no solution). Let's consider some examples of mutual impact.
(1) Suppose I want you to know what I'm thinking. How do I get my thoughts into your mind? Simple. I physically blow air at you (I speak to you).
(2) Suppose I want your mind to fail a math test. Simple. I just physically spike your food with drugs or alcohol.
(3) Suppose I want to impair your thinking dramatically. Simple. I just hit you hard enough to induce brain damage.
(4) I never thought much about girls till puberty. Suddenly I couldn't get them out of my mind.
That's 4 examples of the body having a physical impact on the mind. Let's look at some examples of the mind having a physical impact on the body.
(1) Right now my body is sitting in a chair. How do I get it up and moving? Simple. I just make a mental decision in mind.
(2) Suppose my bladder is full. How do I control it? Simple. I make a mental decision to keep it constricted. Then, when I arrive at the bathroom, I make a mental decision to release it.
(3) Suppose my mind is reflecting on a heart-breaking event of the past. Suddenly physical tears start rolling down my face.
(4) Suppose my mind is mentally picturing a beautiful woman. Suddenly my reproductive organs become active.

If you believe God Himself crawled out of some primordial ooze then we've got an infinite way to go to come to some sort of agreement.

Rhetoric. Sensationalism. You're trying to make my system look as dirty as possible even though I expressly dissociated from ordinary matter and thus from biological evolution. Notice there is no actual REASONING in your words. (I sure hope I'm not that kind of debater).

 

[JAL]

Thank you for the diagnosis. Bye now.

This is the reaction expected from those who have no scripture to back up their position. Thanks for confirming.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Forfeit, not lose. Salvation is contingent on faith.

How is that faith generated and how is it maintained?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The order is clear. Confess and believe and be saved. How does one make any choice? Asking the question shows you assume everything is caused by an outside force.

Agreed that I do believe everything is caused by an outside force (and by our own will which itself is an effect too, not only a cause).

The order in which words are arranged in a sentence, and a sentence translated, at that, does not imply that order is the only sequence in which things happen. Do you not believe and then confess? What if you are unable to confess, mute or worse, clinically an idiot?

 

[BarnyFyfe]

This is the reaction expected from those who have no scripture to back up their position. Thanks for confirming.

I'm sorry. I don't have time to provide proof texts to disprove every erroneous conclusion you've come to. You seem thoroughly and enthusiastically satisfied with your views and I'm too old and tired to engage in an endless volley of words.

I will say that "contradictions" usually end up resolved as simple paradox, which should be expected as part of a relationship between a supreme being and finite creatures. Dice this up any way you like and revel in your victory. I have to get up early.

 

[JAL]

I'm sorry. I don't have time to provide proof texts to disprove every erroneous conclusion you've come to.

You don't have any texts disproving my views. Not sure whom you think you're fooling here.

 

[JAL]

The Bible says that 1+1+1=1.

And it wouldn't hurt to take a math class now and again.

 

[BarnyFyfe]

I wonder if double attacks of last-word-itis cause pain to the sufferer.

 

[JAL]

I wonder if double attacks of last-word-itis cause pain to the sufferer.

Not sure what you're implying. But if it pertains to post 443, here's the deal.

The Bible says that 1+1+1=1.

How can a hopelessly self-contradictory, completely incoherent premise serve as a BASIS for refuting my position?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If not God controlling the will, then obviously, the will has it's own control as is taught in scripture.
"You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!"
Acts 7:51
One cannot resist the Spirit if he has no will independent of that Spirit.

Oh, he has a will alright. It is in bondage to sin, and independent of the Spirit it always resists the Spirit. But it sounds like you think this proves wrong those who say free will is not sovereign will. We are all in bondage, either to sin, or to Christ.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But one cause doesn't make all choices pre determined, which is what reformed theology assumes if you take it to its logical conclusion.

How not? Can you show me how free will is causeless? One way or the other, your choices are caused from the beginning. Even, as I think you espouse, that God can insert himself, "interrupting the chain of cause-and-effect", he is still first cause of the effects of his insertion. There is no difference --free will is caused.

If you want to say that free will is not caused, but is only a causer, I have seen no evidence of that. To the contrary free will is influenced, and so caused. Furthermore, since you claim to believe Scripture, the will is subject to the law of sin, or the law of Christ.