Do You Believe in Absolutes?

[Ruiz]

Thanks for you answer, Ruiz. However, you failed to even address the fact that Calvinism teaches that in the past God decided that only some are to be saved so a person's future depends on what is nothing more or less than an iron decree of fate.

Why would I need to address this. You did not bring up any philosophical problems from a presuppositional format for me to address. Now, I will disagree with your wording, "fate" is not a Biblical nor a theological term but a term rooted in an atheistic mindset. As well, we are not talking about the theology of Calvinism, this is something that is clearly taught in Scripture. Yet, this could be debated in another thread. We are talking philosophy an in philosophy I believe that worldview and presuppositions of Calvinism to be consistent from a presuppositionalism using the transcendental argument. This, in other words, is not a debate on Calvinism but a discussion of presuppositional worldviews/philosophy.

Essentially, if you want to debate Calvinism, there are several other threads doing that. However, I approach the world through the worldview of Calvinism. My answer to his question is based upon that worldview. We can debate the issue, but that is not the topic of this thread. The topic is really more philosophical.

 

[Ruiz]

HP: I was going to just let this slide but it is so far over the top that it needs to be highlighted.

Ruiz implies here, IMHO, that the only reason why Hitler was blameworthy or Christ was praiseworthy is because of "special revelation", 'special revelation' being Scripture I presume. Who is he kidding. The murder of several million human beings would not be blameworthy prior to Scripture being written according to him, and neither could have God been viewed as praiseworthy before Scriptures either???. (I am assuming he believes that Jesus was indeed God manifest in the flesh.) You cannot get further from the truth than to make such a remark. Before Scripture God gave man a conscience. Conscience indeed testifies as to the blameworthiness or praiseworthiness of formed intents and subsequent actions without the aide of Scripture. That point has been illustrated by even the heathen, head hunters that had NEVER read Scripture or heard a gospel message knowing full well that they had did wrong by taking innocent life.

Ruiz, you could not be further from the truth with the remarks you posted.

I agree that God gave man a conscience. That is true. However, prove that conscience apart from Special Revelation. You must presuppose Special Revelation is true before you can get to an idea of moral absolutes or moral declarative. Otherwise, you are advancing an idea of morality that you must admit is made up.

Your illustration of head hunters begs the question. They still killed. Indians still raped little girls for their "religion." Yes, I agree that God bears witness against these people in their conscience, but you said that no philosophy was found in Scripture and that General Revelation is proven without Special. Yet, you refer to Special Revelation to prove your point. By doing such, you are arguing my point.

Thus, you must prove your point without any reference to Special Revelation. The Head Hunter repented because of Special Revelation. Deep down, it took Special Revelation for them to see their sin and turn. The law convicted them and without this Special Revelation, they would not see it as wrong.

Again, the question I ask is a serious philosophical question, one that has been on the forefront of philosophical argumentation for the last 30 years. How do you prove any morality without Special Revelation. You appeal to conscience, but you have not proven your point apart from Special Revelation. How does General Revelation give us any morality? Saying it is conscience reminds me of the philosophers who basically said, "you tell me it is evident all by itself, is another way of saying you cannot support your argument."

 

[Ruiz]

HP: You have the Scriptures. Read Psalm 19. Here is your opportunity to simply believe God's Word, in that He has revealed Himself to the world through nature. Just because Scripture tells us of His revelation, does not mean that the revelation comes only from Scripture. Scripture simply reveals that God indeed has revealed Himself apart from Scripture. God says that due to such revelation, all men are without excuse.


HP: Whatever you are asking is beyond me.


HP: Sorry but his comments here are irrational IMHO.

Again, I believe in general Revelation, but you said that we didn't need Special Revelation and that Special Revelation was inferior to General Revelation. You must prove your point. What I am challenging is two points. First, I believe in Special Revelation but you have to prove your point without Special Revelation. Secondly, because I believe something does not mean it is philosophically consistent for you to believe what I believe. If you say that Special Revelation has no overarching worldview philosophy and that we must trust General Revelation, I am going to hold you to those words.

My worldview stated clearly that my presupposition is Special Revelation. You assume the opposite. Thus, I am waiting for you to prove morality without appealing to Special Revelation.

You see, the issue is what you can prove. Philosophically you cannot even prove General Revelation can give you morality without using Special Revelation. You cannot begin with Special Revelation according to your own philosophy. So, I am waiting for you to prove something using General Revelation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ruiz: "you said that no philosophy was found in Scripture

"

HP: Simply a false charge without merit. Show me where I have ever stated or implied such a thing.

 

[Ruiz]

"

HP: Simply a false charge without merit. Show me where I have ever stated or implied such a thing.

You said on post #7

Scripture is simply not the best source of revealed revelation of the mind and how it works. God has given to man consciousness, an awareness of his inner self and how it works that is the 'best' source of direct evidence and information on mental philosophy, second to none.

It is not that Scripture cannot or doesn't shed light on mental philosophy, but rather that there is far greater latitude for error in trying to develop mental philosophy from Scripture because the system of mental philosophy in Scripture is not spelled out in clear terms, nor is it the intention of Scripture to reveal that which is clearly revealed by consciousness of ones inner self, but rather is assumed. For one to approach a study of mental philosophy, from Scripture alone, would be akin to approaching a study of optics by starring into the sky through a pair of coke bottles strapped together by duct tape.

You believe General Revelation is the best source and relegate Special Revelation to coke bottles. Thus, in your approach you should exclude beginning any knowledge from Special Revelation, as it is "akin to approaching a study of optics by starring into the sky through a pair of coke bottles." What I find interesting, when I challenge you on General Revelation, you turn to Special Revelation. However, your own words must begin with proving things in General Revelation, not Special. Beginning with Special Revelation is how I begin arguments as I believe all true knowledge begins with Special Revelation. When you begin with Special Revelation you contradict yourself by beginning approaching the topic by "staring into the sky with a pair of coke bottles."

My view is the opposite. I believe General Revelation will give you some truth, but it only becomes clear through Special Revelation. I will not let you prove your point with Special Revelation because your presuppositions discount Special Revelation.

My contention is that without Special Revelation first, you cannot prove anything. Nothing can be assured or proven unless you take the God of the Bible as true and use that in your philosophy.

Thus, considering your point of view, you believe that while the Bible can add to a philosophy, it is not an overarching philosophy that sets everything clearly.

In post #5 you said:

I have to consider that there are those, I simply do not desire to view, even on this list, as 'opposed to reason,' that try to refute the most basic intuitive universal knowledge God has granted to man. Without such knowledge and understanding we could not discern anything in reality from Scripture of any fixed moral context.

Thus, you believe that reason develops the Bible. Yet, i will say that reason would be irrational without the Bible. If there is no God of the Bible then reason would be irrational; there could be no accounting for universal abstracts. If, for instance, we embraced the dualism of the far eastern religion or the psuedo dualism of the Greek/Roman Gods, we would be wandering with no rational means of deciphering the world. Only if Special Revelation is true can we trust logic and reason.

Thus, I come back to my point. How can you, relying upon General Revelation alone, trust anything is true? There is no rational basis for any of your statements. You merely make presuppositional statements, but that is irrational. Where do you derive this belief in General Revelation? Prove it! Yet, to prove it you turn to Special Revelation which also notes that General Revelation is insufficient.

Thus, you want to use Special Revelation, though you say it is not helpful and needs General Revelation. My view is that you must use or assume Special Revelation in order to prove your point. You can't escape it, without Special Revelation you have no argument to make.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ruiz: The problem with the question about general revelation is that you must assume Special Revelation to get to your General Revelation question. In other words, you are drawing upon Special Revelation to prove that General Revelation is the philosophy that trumps Special Revelation. That is part of my point, without Special Revelation you cannot prove anything.

HP: Let me make this perfectly clear. We are first believers and Scripture is always welcomed to make any point one has on any subject. One can use it as primary evidence or supporting evidence, whatever they so desire. This is no heathen philosophical course. This is an exercise to discern the true philosophy Scripture assumes, and to see if in fact the philosophy we believe is assumed in Scripture agrees with revelation from God in other areas of revelation.

Jerry made some excellent observation concerning truths of general revelation, pointed to by Scripture but not established by Scripture. Ruiz simply avoided them.

Of a truth I believe true philosophy can to some degree be established apart from Scripture, and even needs to be examined apart from Scripture to a degree. Scripture speaks of general revelation. It does not suggest that one has to first read Scripture to understand the import of general revelation in the least. One does not have to read Scripture before he reads Scripture, before he reads Scripture to understand and recognize the general revealed truth found in Scripture. Jerry pointed this out clearly in post #18. Romans 1:18-20, Job 37: 3-4, 22,24.

Here is living Scriptural evidence, to us a believers, that general revelation exists outside of Scripture and that Scripture is not the only source of general revelation nor does one have to read scripture to know clearly about general revelation. If you believe that is circular reasoning, hang in there. It gets better.

I mentioned a first truth of reason NOT found directly in Scripture, but clearly I believe it is assumed to be true by Scripture. It is found in post #8. Ruiz he has avoided it altogether unless I missed something, which can happen in these debates. I will post it again. "To do anything praiseworthy of blameworthy one must have contrary choice.

Apart from contrary choice, no choice is possible and apart from choice, nothing blameworthy or praiseworthy can be predicated of ones intents or subsequent actions."

Instead of simply addressing it directly , Ruiz took off on a rabbit trail and tried to indicate no basis of morality can be established apart from Scripture. The only thing sillier I have ever heard along this line would be the often heard false comment, 'you cannot legislate morality.' Both Ruiz's comment and the last one mentioned are far from the truth. Morality of one kind or another is legislated daily, and some basic elements of truth concerning morality, notions of right and wrong, are indeed intuitively planted by God apart from Scripture.

One knows instinctively that they do not desire to be killed. They know intuitively that they do not desire their own things stolen. Both of these notions are intuitive moral notions that are universally held by all men, and are known apart from Scripture. They are moral issues, in spite of the philosophical nonsense Ruiz tries in vain to establish, that nothing moral could be determined apart from Scripture, and that killing millions of Jews could be right and one could believe that Christ did nothing praiseworthy. Much learning has obviously clouded the reasoning powers of some.

Certainly men devoid of Scripture could argue for or against anything, even intuitively held principles, and argue, as Ruiz is attempting to do 'sans general revelation or reason,' but all that shows is that men can do despite and argue despite God's intuitive knowledge. They cannot justly establish that nothing can be morally ascertained apart from Scripture. they can simple argue to argue, as Ruiz is again attempting to do.

Getting back to the point I have tried to establish. God has instilled first truths of reason into the heart of man to guide him in morality and in making moral decisions. Scripture tells me He has, but is not specific in what exactly those instilled principles are. I believe it indeed assumes those same principles, it simply does not spell them out. Scripture does not in reality need to. If a man will deny the validity of such basic intuitive knowledge, what hope is there of such a one understanding anything whatsoever concerning morals and truth??

I am trying to discover them by introspection into my God given makeup. What should I look for? I need to look for principles that need NO supporting evidence to prove to man their validity, not even Scripture. I am looking for universal principles that that all men of reason recognize to be truth. Certainly I have not discovered the principle I mention myself, nor been the first to recognize it as truth and set it forth as a first truth of reason, but one thing that did happen, is that when I heard it stated, I knew instinctively to be, intuitively, and without question, God instilled truth. It did not have to be illustrated, or proven to me. My mind immediately recognized the validity of the statement and I knew intuitively that it must of necessity be a God instilled first basic truth of reason.

Once again I set it before the list for any and all to tell us why this is not a first truth of reason, instilled into the heart by Creator God, to be used in the formation of making sound moral decisions, both in life, philosophy, theology and any other field of pursuit.


To do anything praiseworthy of blameworthy one must have contrary choice.

Apart from contrary choice, no choice is possible and apart from choice, nothing blameworthy or praiseworthy can be predicated of ones intents or subsequent actions.

Thoughts?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ruiz, you quote me and then again try to make me say something I have not said nor indicated. Try reading my statement sans your false accusations. Thanks.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ruiz: My contention is that without Special Revelation first, you cannot prove anything. Nothing can be assured or proven unless you take the God of the Bible as true and use that in your philosophy.

HP: You are simply and eternally wrong. Because one is stubborn enough, or wicked enough refuses in this world to accept the proof of some things or beleives nothing at all, does not force the conclusion that nothing can be proven, it only reflects their stubborn heart condition.

There is coming a day, called the judgment, that all men will come face to face with God Himself, the Source of all truth. Those that have refused His clear evidence and refused to accept the evidence He instills within us as true and just, will come face to face with the reality of their stubborn rebellious hearts and reap the rewards of their own doing.

Of a truth. All revelation by God, general and Special, will be proven once for all for all to plainly see. Time will PROVE that to be true. All truth will be proven to all in good time.

See Ruiz, you are not dealing with a heathen philosopher as you must believe you are.You simply cannot hold my feet to the same fires. I don't play their silly games, and I will not play yours either. Sorry.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Forgive me, but I should have mentioned a Scripture that has been mentioned before but to no avail it would seem, that proves my point, that general revelation prior to or apart from Scripture, does in fact reveal truth to the hearts of all men. (regardless who says such is not the case, it still is truth and will be recognized by all to be truth, EVEN THOSE WHO HAVE NEVER SEEN OR READ THE SCRIPTURES. All will admit to the truth in good time.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Now, let's turn the tables on Ruiz. Prove to us there is a God.

 

[billwald]

>Ruiz: It is the Word of God that creates into us presuppositions. We don't have private interpretations nor do we create the Scripture/intepretations of Scripture, but Scripture creates in us a new way of thinking, new presuppositions, etc.

Logically, every small denomination and some large ones have a private interpretation of scripture else they would not exist.

Further, even turning good stuff into absolutes is dangerous and fanatical thus the the OLD saying, "To heavenly minded to be earthly any good (useful)."

 

[The Biblicist]

One knows instinctively that they do not desire to be killed. They know intuitively that they do not desire their own things stolen. Both of these notions are intuitive moral notions that are universally held by all men, and are known apart from Scripture.

It is true that human nature is equipped with a moral conscience, whose job is restricted to merely approving or condemning. However, conscience can never reveal WHY something is moral or immoral only DECLARES it is wrong or right by the response of conscience. Conscience must receive further training by either reasons established by speculative philosophical humanism which determine cultural laws or by special revelation from God.

What God provides through natural revelation is sufficient to make man responsible for his responses to conscience and nature's revelation of God and His power but not sufficient to explain why something is moral or immoral. Neither is natural revelation sufficient to reveal salvation as that must come by special revelation.

If the presence of special revelation (the gospel) was necessary to condemn all men we should keep the gospel a secret so that no man will be condemned.

If natural revelation was sufficient to save all men, then there is no need for special revelation.

Apart from special revelation, there is no accurate philosophical basis to EXPLAIN why anything is moral or immoral. Conscience does not explain, it simply either condemns or condones. Natural creation does not explain but simply DECLARES God and His power. Hence, all philosophy derived apart from divine special revelation leads either to secular humanism or religious apostasy which are all PERVERTED explanations and practices. This is precisely what Paul teaches:

Rom. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Natural LIGHT is sufficient to CONDEMN but not to EXPLAIN. Natural light is only DECLARATIVE of right, wrong, God and His power but does not EXPLAIN right versus wrong or God and His power.

Men come into this world CONDEMNED already by ONE MAN'S OFFENCE and their own person willful rejection of natural light makes MANIFEST their nature by birth and like the proverbal saying, "the sun light melts butter but hardens clay" so natural light manifests the clay of man's fallen nature and the more they are exposed to light the more their hatred is revealed (Jn. 3:19-20).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Don't you dare, Ruiz, go to Scripture first. If you do that, you will have to prove they are true first. What standard of truth can you prove is truth to judge them by?

I wonder where he might go to find evidence of a God?? If he cannot 'prove' it apart from Scripture to an inquisitive mind, does that somehow 'prove' that is cannot be properly established apart from first going to the Scripture? If he goes to Scripture first to prove there is a God, would not that be called, by a common philosopher, a logical fallacy, reasoning in a circle as I recall Ruiz saying my approach was?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: It is true that human nature is equipped with a moral conscience, whose job is restricted to merely approving or condemning.

HP: So Biblicist, would you agree or disagree with Ruiz that one cannot know something is blameworthy or praiseworthy apart from Scripture?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I will even allow a simple proof text, of your personal choice, to make your point Biblicist, if you are having trouble taking a decisive stand on the issue Ruiz has raised one way or the other. Of course a simple, I agree with Ruiz, or I do not agree with his position would be appreciated. :thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: So Biblicist, would you agree or disagree with Ruiz that one cannot know something is blameworthy or praiseworthy apart from Scripture?

He cannot know WHY it is praiseworthy or blameworthy apart from scripture. He can only know it is praiseworthy or blameworthy by DECLARATION but not by explanation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

My question to the list: Is the notion that Ruiz suggests, that nothing can be established or proven as blameworthy or praiseworthy apart from FIRST going to Scripture correct? Is Scriptural revelation necessary to establish intuitive truths instilled in the heart of man by God, 'without which,' first going to Scripture, they cannot be established as truth?

If I, in any way, am misrepresenting what he said, please someone, anyone, set me straight. I do not desire to beat against the wind.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist:He cannot know WHY it is praiseworthy or blameworthy apart from scripture. He can only know it is praiseworthy or blameworthy by DECLARATION but not by explanation.

HP: You are simply avoiding the question. I asked nothing about 'why.' Try again. Was Ruiz correct in his view as stated by him?

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist:He cannot know WHY it is praiseworthy or blameworthy apart from scripture. He can only know it is praiseworthy or blameworthy by DECLARATION but not by explanation.

HP: You are simply avoiding the question. I asked nothing about 'why.' Try again. Was Ruiz correct in his view as stated by him?

Without "WHY" you cannot provide an explanation. Your position is Philosophy can provide an explanation apart from special revelation. My position is that without "WHY" the only resultant philosophical explanation will be secular HUMANISTIC or religious PAGANISTIC explanations. This is exactly Paul's explanation to general revelation as well (Rom. 1:19-22).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let me explain something once again, A first truth of reason needs NO explanation to understand the validity of it. It needs no additional proof to understand the import of its demands on ones intents and actions, Those are intuitively understood. If something needs supporting evidence, or needs a declaration as to 'why', such is NOT a first truth of reason.

Now back to the question. Does one have to go to Scripture first to understand the validity of intuitive truth instilled in the heart of man, in the form of a first truth of reason or an immutable truth of justice? Ruiz says a man must FIRST go to Scripture to understand or prove the validity of such inner revelation by God. Is he correct in his theory as he presented it?