Why God is Worthy of Our Praise

[YouAreAwesome]

That doesn't solve the problem. The new birth is defined as the divine imposition of holiness. No room for sin, on the assumption of indivisibility into parts. On the other hand, if you've accepted divisibility into parts, then every theologian in church history would consider you an official subscriber to materialism.

When a christian sins, they don't sin because they are sinful, that is, because have a sinful nature. But they sin because they either believe they have a sinful nature, or because they gave in to external temptation. How does this not solve the problem. I'm sorry, in confused why this doesn't solve it.

 

[JAL]

When a christian sins, they don't sin because they are sinful, that is, because have a sinful nature. But they sin because they either believe they have a sinful nature, or because they gave in to external temptation. How does this not solve the problem. I'm sorry, in confused why this doesn't solve it.

Because regeneration is defined as holiness. I'll clarify.

When we say that God is holy, note we don't find it necessary to add, "And as an added bonus, He is not the type of person who sins periodically."

That would be redundant. Holiness excludes sin. Since holiness defines regeneration, any sin would by definition constitute a deregeneration. You'd no longer be a child of God. The only reason that you find this argument surprising and confusing is that, in sheer intellectual dishonesty, evangelical theologians have been in denial about this contradiction for 500 years. They neither discuss it nor mention it. That's where I come in. I call attention to it, and then solve it by arguing that only a portion of your material soul was regenerated. Your sinful nature lurks in the remainder of your soul. Actually this is pivotal to Paul's argument in Galatians 3:1-6. There he is arguing what I said earlier - sanctification is the process of being incrementally filled with the Third Person (i.e sanctification proceeds by outpourings upon those parts of you still unregenerate).

P.S. If you weren't aware that holiness defines regeneration, I here provide you with one proof (but there's definitely more than one). On sixty occasions, the NT refers to the churches as "the saints", using the Greek adjective for holy and thus literally as "the holy ones". That's the same greek adjective used 90 times in the title "The Holy Breath".

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Oh, right, you seem to want to posit an infinite past, in which case today would never have been reached as yet

This shows you haven't spent enough time pondering Zeno.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Because regeneration is defined as holiness. I'll clarify.

When we say that God is holy, note we don't find it necessary to add, "And as an added bonus, He is not the type of person who sins periodically."

That would be redundant. Holiness excludes sin. Since holiness defines regeneration, any sin would by definition constitute a deregeneration. You'd no longer be a child of God. The only reason that you find this argument surprising and confusing is that, in sheer intellectual dishonesty, evangelical theologians have been in denial about this contradiction for 500 years. They neither discuss it nor mention it. That's where I come in. I call attention to it, and then solve it by arguing that only a portion of your material soul was regenerated. Your sinful nature lurks in the remainder of your soul. Actually this is pivotal to Paul's argument in Galatians 3:1-6. There he is arguing what I said earlier - sanctification is the process of being incrementally filled with the Third Person (i.e sanctification proceeds by outpourings upon those parts of you still unregenerate).

P.S. If you weren't aware that holiness defines regeneration, I here provide you with one proof (but there's definitely more than one). On sixty occasions, the NT refers to the churches as "the saints", using the Greek adjective for holy and thus literally as "the holy ones". That's the same greek adjective used 90 times in the title "The Holy Breath".

You should know by now I don't sit with the common thought. I am holy. If my actions do not reflect that, or my heart in some way, there are still old habits in my physical body that need to come into line with who I actually am. That is the other reason I didn't mention before. I am a saint. I am holy.

 

[JAL]

You should know by now I don't sit with the common thought. I am holy. If my actions do not reflect that, or my heart in some way, there are still old habits in my physical body that need to come into line with who I actually am. That is the other reason I didn't mention before. I am a saint. I am holy.

Good trees don't produce bad fruit. And let's not dwell on any unconscious matter constituting your body. It cannot be blamed for sin.

 

[JAL]

This shows you haven't spent enough time pondering Zeno.

That response is grasping at straws. And if I address it at length, you'll likely go back to the other strategy of hiding behind the "it's all resolved in another dimension" fog. This is what I like to refer to as linguistic camouflage - theologians and philosophers who articulate propositions typically too vague to comprehend and contradict. At least you're in good company - most of the "great" ones did it.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

That response is grasping at straws. And if I address it at length, you'll likely go back to the other strategy of hiding behind the "it's all resolved in another dimension" fog. This is what I like to refer to as linguistic camouflage - theologians and philosophers who articulate propositions typically too vague to comprehend and contradict. At least you're in good company - most of the "great" ones did it.

But your solution is not foggy, it's just incoherent. Your idea of a logical sequence starting all motion does not make sense, and a starting mass that does not exist in time breaks the idea of space-time. From what i can make out this is a huge problem in your model, probably the biggest problem.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Good trees don't produce bad fruit. And let's not dwell on any unconscious matter constituting your body. It cannot be blamed for sin.

The brain creates pathways i.e. habits. If we break a habit that is by creating a new pathway. However the old pathway still exists. Our brains never delete those thought pathways. So after we're regenerated it takes some time for plus new birth to take over those old pathways a nba create new ones. When we are born again, is there a physical change in our body that is measurable? Of course not. So in your model, what does it mean to be born again?

 

[JAL]

The brain creates pathways i.e. habits. If we break a habit that is by creating a new pathway. However the old pathway still exists.

You're missing the point. An ongoing state of holiness/regeneration is NOT punctuated by occasional sin. You're not solving the problem unless you accept my solution of a soul divisible into parts.

Our brains never delete those thought pathways. So after we're regenerated it takes some time for plus new birth to take over those old pathways a nba create new ones. When we are born again, is there a physical change in our body that is measurable? Of course not. So in your model, what does it mean to be born again?

As with everything else, materialism is the only model that can explain EXACTLY how regeneration occurs. (In fact all immaterialist theologians call it 'inscrutable' admitting they cannot explain it on their model).

Simple. Your thoughts proceed as physical streams of matter, particularly in the brain. So for example here's two things God does to regenerate you (but as I said only part of you is regenerated so far, pretty much the rest is the sinful nature)
(1) He enables you to believe in Christ as Lord by physically moving your thought-currents in directions conducive to the acceptance of that assertion.
(2) He cleanses you of sinful passions by, for instance, fixing hormonal imbalances and arousing holy passions. We know this can be done physically because, for example, at puberty, hormones physically impassion you to the opposite sex - they tangibly affect your thought-content.

 

[JAL]

But your solution is not foggy, it's just incoherent. Your idea of a logical sequence starting all motion does not make sense, and a starting mass that does not exist in time breaks the idea of space-time. From what i can make out this is a huge problem in your model, probably the biggest problem.

Nonsense. Logical subsequence is simply a mental categorization.

For example I consider color to be a property logically subsequent to tangibility. Why so? Because until you have some tangible matter, you don't really have color. So we can say:
(1) Color is temporally simultaneous with matter.
(2) But it is logically subsequent.

#2 is just a mental categorization useful for comprehending reality after the fact. It has no bearing on the actual dynamics of how reality works.

In the same way, I regard matter as incessantly volitional - volitionality is as incessant as color. Therfore the first motion is logically subsequent.

This is hardly a "big problem." You seem to be on a fishing expedition.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

You're missing the point. An ongoing state of holiness/regeneration is NOT punctuated by occasional sin. You're not solving the problem unless you accept my solution of a soul divisible into parts.


As with everything else, materialism is the only model that can explain EXACTLY how regeneration occurs. (In fact all immaterialist theologians call it 'inscrutable' admitting they cannot explain it on their model).

Simple. Your thoughts proceed as physical streams of matter, particularly in the brain. So for example here's two things God does to regenerate you (but as I said only part of you is regenerated so far, pretty much the rest is the sinful nature)
(1) He enables you to believe in Christ as Lord by physically moving your thought-currents in directions conducive to the acceptance of that assertion.
(2) He cleanses you of sinful passions by, for instance, fixing hormonal imbalances and arousing holy passions. We know this can be done physically because, for example, at puberty, hormones physically impassion you to the opposite sex - they tangibly affect your thought-content.

This has some similarities to how I think about it. But there are some big differences. I believe after we sin, our bent is toward sin from then on. It affects our soul in this negative way and even tarnishes our spirit. Our choices and thoughts become confused and sinful. After a new birth into the kingdom of heaven, we become our true self. It is possible to start completely fresh and begin a new life on the spot. However, often a person still walks in the old brain pathways in the body. It takes a while, usually, to create new ones. Following conversion, we don't sin because we are sinners, we are not sinners. We are holy. Any sin following new birth is not the true us. It is the old pathways. It is giving in to temptation external, not internal. We must learn to live out what we now are. There is no contradiction in this message. And the Holy Spirit leads us into the truth. When you say,

An ongoing state of holiness/regeneration is NOT punctuated by occasional sin. You're not solving the problem unless you accept my solution of a soul divisible into parts.
​

I realise we are in agreement in an abstract way. For me,

before conversion
spirit<-->soul<-->body.

after conversion
(S)pirit-->soul-->body​

Note the difference in the communication between parts. I could be wrong here, but the overall gist is that the Spirit becomes "one" with my spirit and births new life into my soul and body (specifically the brain pathways). Where is the contradiction in this way of thinking?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Nonsense. Logical subsequence is simply a mental categorization.

For example I consider color to be a property logically subsequent to tangibility. Why so? Because until you have some tangible matter, you don't really have color. So we can say:
(1) Color is temporally simultaneous with matter.
(2) But it is logically subsequent.

#2 is just a mental categorization useful for comprehending reality after the fact. It has no bearing on the actual dynamics of how reality works.

In the same way, I regard matter as incessantly volitional - volitionality is as incessant as color. Therfore the first motion is logically subsequent.

This is hardly a "big problem." You seem to be on a fishing expedition.

No, that is still a problem because you still haven't explained how there can be a cause before time exists. I understand you're trying to argue that a logical subsequence is a part of the thing itself and is somehow outside of time but still can begin time, but this is incoherent.

But this is not the main force of the challenge I was making, the main challenge is how space can exist apart from time in the first place. You posit matter as existing, even before time began. This is inconsistent with space-time as one unit.

 

[JAL]

No, that is still a problem because you still haven't explained how there can be a cause before time exists.

You don't understand logical subsequence. There is no before. You're thinking of temporal subsequence.

Time must have a beginning (because an infinite past would mean that today hasn't been reached yet), and that beginning is simultaneous with the existence of the Totality.

The only other two alternatives to my view, I think, are:
(1) God and time have always existed and thus God has an infinite past. This seems to be your view. Unacceptable.
(2) God is atemporal, but somehow He created time. Incoherent because consciousness is loudness (an ongoing stream of sensations) and thus an atemporal God is unconscious/dead.

and of course my view:
(3) Volition, like color, is innate to matter, and thus movement (time) is innate (immediate upon its existence). Thus the beginning of time is logically subsequent, not temporally subsequent, to the existence of matter. God is inherently temporal, certainly not atemporal.

But this is not the main force of the challenge I was making, the main challenge is how space can exist apart from time in the first place. You posit matter as existing, even before time began. This is inconsistent with space-time as one unit.

Again: You don't understand logical subsequence. There is no before. You're thinking of temporal subsequence.

 

[JAL]

Any sin following new birth is not the true us.

Regeneration is a work of God. He makes you holy - and sustains that holiness/regeneration. Sin is therefore impossible, unless you are divisible into parts. (The regenerated parts do not sin).

For me,

before conversion
spirit<-->soul<-->body.

after conversion
(S)pirit-->soul-->body​

You become the Spirit? Or He becomes you? Incoherent.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

(1) God and time have always existed and thus God has an infinite past. This seems to be your view. Unacceptable.

Not exactly. God and time have always existed in heaven with its own laws, but our universe did not exist in any sense, therefore space-time as we know it began.

(3) Volition, like color, is innate to matter, and thus movement (time) is innate (immediate upon its existence). Thus the beginning of time is logically subsequent, not temporally subsequent, to the existence of matter. God is inherently temporal, certainly not atemporal.

Ok so time began when matter began. This is what I also believe. However you are arguing the negligibly conscious matter just "existed" while I am arguing it came from heaven (in heaven "just existed" must make sense due to space-time working differently, while here, it remains incoherent without calling on a cause.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Regeneration is a work of God. He makes you holy - and sustains that holiness/regeneration. Sin is therefore impossible, unless you are divisible into parts. (The regenerated parts do not sin).

You become the Spirit? Or He becomes you? Incoherent.

Yes I agree, our regenerated spirit does not sin. It is impossible. I agree. He makes us holy, I agree.

We become one with the Spirit just like I am one with my wife. Not incoherent.

 

[JAL]

We become one with the Spirit just like I am one with my wife. Not incoherent.

You are not "one" with your wife. You are two distinct individuals. Your earlier diagram seemed to merge the human spirit with the divine Spirit. Here again, like most immaterialists, you're indulging in linguistic camouflage - language so unclear that it is difficult to question it because no one really knows what is being said.

Not sure this is going to be a productive conversation.

Yes I agree, our regenerated spirit does not sin. It is impossible. I agree. He makes us holy, I agree.

And so what part of me does sin? Here we are encroaching upon the incoherence of trichotomy. Suppose you reply that the soul is what sins, not the human spirit. Thus:
(1) The soul is the actual sinner in the human constitution
(2) Yet God regenerates the spirit - he "fixes" the part that was NOT sinning? While leaving the broken part intact?

Incoherent.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

You are not "one" with your wife. You are two distinct individuals. Your earlier diagram seemed to merge the human spirit with the divine Spirit. Here again, like most immaterialists, you're indulging in linguistic camouflage - language so unclear that it is difficult to question it because no one really knows what is being said.

Not sure this is going to be a productive conversation.

So what is marriage? Sex only? Of course not. Me and my wife are one. I already gave a short list of practical ways we are one. Again, my spirit becomes infused with the Holy Spirit and we become one in the same way my wife and I are one. It is not incoherent, it is completely coherent. I've given practical examples of the likeness, not airy examples.

And so what part of me does sin? Here we are encroaching upon the incoherence of trichotomy. Suppose you reply that the soul is what sins, not the human spirit. Thus:
(1) The soul is the actual sinner in the human constitution
(2) Yet God regenerates the spirit - he "fixes" the part that was NOT sinning? While leaving the broken part intact?

I've explained already. The part of me that sins is the old habits in my brain and body. Or we sin like Adam sinned.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

@JAL
Two more things:

First is clarification. My sin before regeneration changes me. I get affected by the sin spiritually. As I showed in the previous diagram. But when I am born again, my sin is only external and not internal. My actions do not change who I am or what I am. Over time our actions fall in line with the real us, the true us that is joined to God through Jesus by the Holy Spirit, within. This is not airy fairy, this is the biblical and spiritual truth.

I've also been thinking, yours is not a solution to the problem of evil. If you are arguing that God allows evil for the moment because of some ultimate goal, this is the exact stance of nearly all theodicies that claim God is in complete control, or could be in complete control, but decides not to be for some greater good. I don't like any of these theodicies for the reasons you already provide against other solutions. Did I miss a post where you answered how your theodicy is distinct?

 

[JAL]

So what is marriage? Sex only? Of course not. Me and my wife are one. I already gave a short list of practical ways we are one. Again, my spirit becomes infused with the Holy Spirit and we become one in the same way my wife and I are one. It is not incoherent, it is completely coherent. I've given practical examples of the likeness, not airy examples.

Please don't pretend you're being perfectly clear. Here's the diagram that you drew:

For me,
before conversion
spirit<-->soul<-->body.

after conversion
(S)pirit-->soul-->body

which seems to conflate you and the Third Person into a single individual. And when I questioned you on this point, your reply was ambiguous, as though standing on both sides of the fence.

Now you've introduced a new term - you say that your spirit is "infused" with the Holy Spirit. Of course no one can possibly say for sure what that means since, historically, immaterialists have never provided a clear definition of things like substance, location, spatiality, and interaction. Linguistic camouflage.

I've explained already. The part of me that sins is the old habits in my brain and body. Or we sin like Adam sinned.

Here too, completely unclear. YOU said that the moral agent (the spirit) is regenerated. Since it is holy (as you acknowledged) it cannot be indulging in the old sinful habits, viz. "The old is gone, the new is come" (2Cor 5:17).

Your words are incoherent because you are saying that your "old habits" commit sin. A habit is not a moral agent that sins. Have you now transitioned from trichotomy to quadrotomy?
(1) spirit
(2) soul
(3) body
(4) habits ???