Do You Believe in Absolutes?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Is there some truth, that all men of reason possess, granted to them by God intuitively, that needs no additional evidence for them to recognize the truth and recognize the validity of it and its demands upon their intents and subsequent action? Is there moral truth that is so basic in nature that even though one has never heard of the Scriptures or of salvation, granted to me universally, they intuitively or instinctively recognize as truth on the merits of such intuitive knowledge alone?

It is OK to back your positions by Scripture or reason if you so desire.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me explain something once again, A first truth of reason needs NO explanation to understand the validity of it.

Your problem is your premise. We are not talking about understanding the validitiy of natural revelation. Light shines and that validates it. However, it is a total different thing to EXPLAIN WHY light shines or EXPLAIN WHAT LIGHT is! To answer those two questions you need SPECIAL REVELATION.

This is true with the light of conscience. Conscience NEVER PROVIDES EXPLANATION of what is moral or immoral but simply DECLARES it by approving and disapproving and that declaration validates it and regardless if the conscience is morally accurate or inaccurate, the conscience still holds the person accountable for violating what his conscience validates as wrong.

The fact that conscience can be trained by the immediate culture in the home and in society to condemn what God approves and approve what God condemns demonstrates that conscience without special revelation is not a safe guide to defining or explaining moral versus immoral.

Your position is that philosophy is sufficient to explain what is moral versus immoral based upon natural revelation without special revelation is simply false!

Natural light is sufficient only to condemn because it declares right from wrong even when what it declares as right may not be right in God's sight or what it delcares as wrong may not be wrong in God's sight. However, what conscience serves is a validation that man willfully sins against whatever the conscience validates to be the standard for right and wrong.

This is precisely why when Paul deals with the matters of conscience in things neither right or wrong in and of themselves BUT TO HIM THAT ESTEEMETH SOMETHING WRONG TO HIM IT IS WRONG and to him that violates something neither right or wrong in itself, but because he violates what his own conscience validates as right and wrong - to him it is sin because it was not done in keeping with faith - conviction of what was right or wrong by conscience.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Your problem is your premise. We are not talking about understanding the validitiy of natural revelation. Light shines and that validates it.

HP: Then Ruiz in indeed wrong, his theory false.

Biblicist: However, it is a total different thing to EXPLAIN WHY light shines or EXPLAIN WHAT LIGHT is! To answer those two questions you need SPECIAL REVELATION.

HP: No one has to know or understand why light shines, or the light itself would not be sufficient to be their judge as SCRPTURE states it will be. They will not be judged 'only' if they understand 'why.' Neither Scripture nor reason affirms any such thing, nor does reason or Scripture state that they must understand why, for the truth to induce compliance or motivation to act in accordance to its demands or to be judged by it in the end.

Where does Scripture tell you 'why' moral issues are moral? Where does Scripture state 'why right is right and wrong is wrong. Go ahead. Demand as Ruiz does that right could be wrong and wrong could be right apart from Scriptures revelation if you think you can support such a notion.

Don't forget that you cannot use Scripture to make such a point. That is not allowed. In doing so you will be using your premise (that Scripture is the only source of such truth) to make your point, and Ruiz calls that 'reasoning in a circle.' That is a logical fallacy. You will first have to prove that God exists, and that Scriptures are correct, all apart from Scripture of course. :thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Then Ruiz in indeed wrong, his theory false.

No, Ruize is RIGHT! Philosophy cannot define or explain what is moral or immoral apart from special revelation! All philosophy and philosopher's from which it comes can only provide HUMANISTIC and PAGANISTIC definitions and explanations of moral and immoral APART FROM DIVINE REVELATION.

HP: No one has to know or understand why light shines, or the light itself would not be sufficient to be their judge as SCRPTURE states it will be.

It does not matter how distorted may or may not be the moral code of conscience in order to judge a man for violating it! The judgement is based on the fact that what his conscience deemed right or wrong he intentionally violated. That is what reveals him to be a sinner by nature and condemns him of sin. It does not matter if what his conscience deemed as right is really right or what it deems as wrong is really wrong. What matters is that he intentionally violates whatever his conscience deems right or wrong thus manifesting he is a sinner BY NATURE.

Where does Scripture tell you 'why' moral issues are moral? Where does Scripture state 'why right is right and wrong is wrong. Go ahead. Demand as Ruiz does that right could be right and wrong could be right apart from Scriptures revelation if you think you can support such a notion..

The written Law of God defines WHAT is moral and immoral (Rom. 3:21) and the Bible from cover to cover tells us WHY what it defines is moral and immoral because GOD SAYS SO - HIS SPECIAL REVEALED WORD on this subject.

Don't forget that you cannot use Scripture to make such a point. That is not allowed. In doing so you will be using your premise (that Scripture is the only source of such truth) to make your point, and Ruiz calls that 'reasoning in a circle.' That is a logical fallacy. You will first have to prove that God exists, and that Scriptures are correct, all apart from Scripture of course. :thumbsup:

Hence, you are restricting the limits of this argument to the very premise of your own position????? Hence, you are excluding what the revealed mind of God has to say on this subject in order to prove you do not need the revealed mind of God to determine this subject? Hence, you are in fact, demanding that the human mind and speculative human philosophy must be recognized as the final authority in determining this matter???

No wonder Ruiz calls it "reasoning in a circle."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bibl;icist: Your problem is your premise. We are not talking about understanding the validitiy of natural revelation. Light shines and that validates it. However, it is a total different thing to EXPLAIN WHY light shines or EXPLAIN WHAT LIGHT is! To answer those two questions you need SPECIAL REVELATION.

This is true with the light of conscience. Conscience NEVER PROVIDES EXPLANATION of what is moral or immoral but simply DECLARES it by approving and disapproving and that declaration validates it and regardless if the conscience is morally accurate or inaccurate, the conscience still holds the person accountable for violating what his conscience validates as wrong.

HP: If you are correct, tell us 'why' they will be judged by something, or 'how' they will be judged by something that can either be wrong or right depending on some whimsical notion by whomever?? Some 'just' judgment that would represent.

No Biblicist, we KNOW intuitively right from wrong, morality, even if in a primitive form, in some matters just as absolutely as we know we exist.

Don't agree? Tell us why God says is right or wrong, and why something God says is wrong may be in reality right, as Ruiz suggests might be the case apart from Scripture.

When one denies or leaves the reality of intuitive knowledge, first truths of reason and immutable truths of justice intuitively understood, one leaves the realm of morality and reason altogether.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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."

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: If you are correct, tell us 'why' they will be judged by something, or 'how' they will be judged by something that can either be wrong or right depending on some whimsical notion by whomever??

It does not matter what conscience, or what society declares is right or wrong. What holds you accountable is whatever AUTHORITY makes such a declaration you violate it. Hence, you willfully violate conscience which is merely representative of AUTHORITY for right and wrong. That violation reveals you are a sinner by nature and you are held accountable for sins defined by whatever authority you willfuly rebel against or whatever light you rebel against.

The light simply makes manifest YOUR NATURE - Light HARDENS clay but does not make it clay but simply proves its true nature.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

My conscience convicts me of sin I had no choice in?? Are you serious?? Repent for the way God made me? Have remorse for merely being a human created by God in such a fashion? You cannot be serious. If you are, you are deceived in this matter of what constitutes sin, and blameworthiness for it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Still waiting for Ruiz to prove his assertion, that nothing can be determined as praiseworthy or blameworthy apart from first discerning that from Scripture, or that God really exist, or that Scripture are true and can be trusted. (Figure in your mind an icon of a man sitting at his desk, tapping on it with a pencil........):saint:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That violation reveals you are a sinner by nature and you are held accountable for sins defined by whatever authority you willfuly rebel against or whatever light you rebel against.

If any violation of God's commands or laws reveal that a person is a sinner by nature then we must believe that both Adam and Eve were sinners by nature before they sinned.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Why would I need to address this. You did not bring up any philosophical problems from a presuppositional format for me to address.

Howdy Ruiz,

I do not know how you can separate "philosophy" from "theology."

The word "philosophy" means "the study or science of the truths or principles underlying all knowledge and being (or reality)" (The American College Dictionary).

When it comes to a philosophy in regard to things concerning God there is only one source of that knowledge, and that is "theology," defined as "the science which treats of God, His attributes, and His relationship with the universe; the science or study of divine things or religious thruth" (Ibid.).

You want to separate "philosophy" from "theology" even though "theology" must form the very basid of ant "philosophy" in regard to things of God.

If I am wrong then explain my error.

Thanks!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry, believe it or not that is very close to a logical end to Calvinistic theology. The end being that God put it into Adam's heart to sin. I have heard a minister of a large Baptist church in our area state that very thing from the pulpit. I then went directly to a minister I knew in one of the largest, if not the largest Baptist church in our area that knew the other minister personally, and told him precisely what he said, and asked him if he could speak to his friend about his remark. He refused to even consider saying anything to him about his comment. So much for accountability among peers. I also went in person to the man that originally made that remark, as the Lord made the way and time possible, and asked him about it, but naturally, he would not budge from that ludicrous but logical end to Calvinism.

 

[The Biblicist]

If any violation of God's commands or laws reveal that a person is a sinner by nature then we must believe that both Adam and Eve were sinners by nature before they sinned.

Only if you refuse to recognize that the prefallen Adam was made in the moral "image" of God and that moral image was ruined and lost in the fall and only restored by new birth (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 3:18; etc.). Thus post-fallen Adam and posterity have a different moral nature/image than Pre-fallen Adam.

Only if you refuse to acknowledge Christ was born in that righeous pre-fallen image of God due to virgin birth and in all other aspects was equally human in nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

My conscience convicts me of sin I had no choice in?? Are you serious?? Repent for the way God made me? Have remorse for merely being a human created by God in such a fashion? You cannot be serious. If you are, you are deceived in this matter of what constitutes sin, and blameworthiness for it.

Don't twist my words. I never said any such thing. I said that it is the WILLFUL violation of conscience, regardless of developed, under developed, distorted conscience may be that manifests you are sinner by nature and you will be held accountable for violating that standard because it was WILLFUL violation.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Only if you refuse to recognize that the prefallen Adam was made in the moral "image" of God and that moral image was ruined and lost in the fall and only restored by new birth (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 3:18; etc.).

So I should disregard the following verses which say that we are made in the image of God?:

Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God" (James 3:9).

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man" (1 Cor.11:7).

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Gen.9:6).

 

[The Biblicist]

Still waiting for Ruiz to prove his assertion, that nothing can be determined as praiseworthy or blameworthy apart from first discerning that from Scripture, or that God really exist, or that Scripture are true and can be trusted. (Figure in your mind an icon of a man sitting at his desk, tapping on it with a pencil........):saint:

Straw man arguments! God cannot be proven by scripture or without scripture. Both scripture and nature declare him but neither attempt to prove him.

Conscience merely operates as an authority to condemn or approve. It makes no difference what moral standard it operates by. It does not matter if it is a standard that completely contradicts the revealed righteous standard in God's Word. It does not matter if its is a perverted standard that allows killing your neighbor but not your wife. It does not matter. What matters is that YOU willfully violate whatever the standard it provides. That is what God holds you accountable for and that is why you are without excuse even though you never heard the gospel or never read the Bible. You will be judged according to how you responded to law revealed to you. The point is that LIGHT manifests all men are sinners by NATURE not merely by actions.


Light simply REVEALS as that is the nature of light. It reveals a God. You can "understand" what you see but you cannot understand what it does not reveal and natural revelation does not reveal salvation, nor does it reveal what is true righteousness.

 

[The Biblicist]

So I should disregard the following verses which say that we are made in the image of God?:

Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God" (James 3:9).

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man" (1 Cor.11:7).

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Gen.9:6).

No, but you should learn to distinguish between things that differ! There is more to the "image" of God than a moral likeness. There is a volional and rational likeness. Some argue there is a trinune likeness.

Sin destroys the moral likeness between God and man. All humanity has lost that moral likeness and that is why the NEW BIRTH restores it.

DID CHRIST NEED TO BE REBORN TO RESTORE THAT MORAL LIKENESS???? No! Because of the VIRGIN BIRTH he came into this world not condemned by and under sin as other infants come into this world condemned by and under sin and the proof is they die!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, believe it or not that is very close to a logical end to Calvinistic theology.

Heavely Pilgrim,

I agree that that is the only logical end according to the Calvinists:

"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; III/1).

It is beyond me how the Calvinists can say that God ordained all that comes to pass and then turn around and say that He is not the author of sin. This is nothing more than talking out of both sides of their mouth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

QUOTE]
Biblicist: Don't twist my words. I never said any such thing. I said that it is the WILLFUL violation of conscience, regardless of developed, under developed, distorted conscience may be that manifests you are sinner by nature and you will be held accountable for violating that standard because it was WILLFUL violation.
[/QUOTE]

Biblicist, I am not twisting your word unless you can show me where one born a sinner can become one. Your 'willful' is not willful at all. Willful to you is doing what is necessitated (or 'dictated" in your own words), by self. You confuse willful with necessitated results every other sentence. If something is done 'willful', it must be free to do something other than it does under the very same set of circumstances. Your 'willful' is just another code name for necessity designed to throw the listener off of the necessitated fatalistic track your theology/philosophy naturally hails from and genders.

You telling me not to twist your words would be like me telling you not to twist mine when you might say my freedom in the following remark is not 'freely' doing anything at all, but rather is doing what it does by necessity.: The awful smell rises 'freely' from the dead corpse.

Use the word willful all you so desire, but if you say it is determined by ones 'sinful self' and that one cannot act in any other way, your willful is not willful in any moral sense of the word whatsoever. Morality, Biblicist, involves choices between two or more alternatives. If it is coerced by anything, including self, it is not moral in nature. Certainly something can be strongly influenced by self and be moral but it cannot be coerced by self and remain so.

 

[The Biblicist]

QUOTE]
Biblicist: Biblicist, I am not twisting your word unless you can show me where one born a sinner can become one.

Just another stupid word game!

SINNERS by nature SIN but they do not sin to become sinners by nature as that was obtained by "ONE MAN'S OFFENCE many were made sinners" by nature!

I know that is tough statement to understand but give it a try!