Do You Believe in Absolutes?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry: This is nothing more than talking out of both sides of their mouth.

HP: It is done every day. Just as Biblicist tries to tell me I am twisting his words when I point out his 'willing' or his 'freedom, or the 'choice' he so freely speaks concerning, in reality have absolutely nothing to do with any moral notion IF the will is nothing more than a puppet of ones 'sinful self.'

They have a clear disconnect between their statements and the logical ends of their stated positions.

Oh well, upward and onward. :thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

"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.

Is it too difficult to understand that God created Adam with free choice and responsibility previously spelled out to him in the use of free choice. That is the definition of a secondary cause in simple application to Adam.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

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.

You should learn to cease from making up differences based on nothing more than your preconceived ideas.

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.

Yes, the act of sinning destroys the moral likeness and not being born dead on sin, as the Calvinists teach.. Please tell me what evidence you can give that demonstrates that these two verses are not speaking about the same thing:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Gen.1:27).

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

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry, hold the fort. I go to the wood pile (literally) on that last comment by Biblicist.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Is it too difficult to understand that God created Adam with free choice and responsibility previously spelled out to him in the use of free choice. That is the definition of a secondary cause in simple application to Adam.

According to Calvinism if God ordains something then that thing will happen. If God ordained that Adam would sin is there any possible way that he could have avoided sinning?

If the Calvinists are right and God ordained all things to happen then how could anyone assert that Adam had any choice in the matter? If the Calvinists are right then he had no "free will" in regard to his sin.

Tell me how Adam could have done anything other than sin since the Calvinists teach that from all eternity God ordained all things which will happen"

Thanks!

 

[The Biblicist]

Please tell me what evidence you can give that demonstrates that these two verses are not speaking about the same thing:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Gen.1:27).

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

Your own words are sufficient:

Yes, the act of sinning destroys the moral likeness

Are all those whose blood has been shed by men in the moral image of God???? Hence, you can be in the "image" of God in some other sense then in the moral "image" of God" UNLESS all whose blood is shed are all in the MORAL IMAGE of God!?!

Are those whose blood are shed but not in the "moral" image of God still in some sense in the "image" of God?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Your own words are sufficient:

Yes, the act of sinning destroys the moral likeness

Are all those whose blood has been shed by men in the moral image of God????

Can you not distinguish between being "created" and the things which follow being created.

A man is created in the image of God but sometime later in life all men sin. But that sin does not negate that they are created in the image of God.

Of course anyone who has the slightest degree of spiritual discernment understands that since a person is made in the image of God he does not come out of the womb spiritually dead! That condition could not possible be the same as being created in the image of God!

 

[The Biblicist]

According to Calvinism if God ordains something then that thing will happen. If God ordained that Adam would sin is there any possible way that he could have avoided sinning?

If the Calvinists are right and God ordained all things to happen then how could anyone assert that Adam had any choice in the matter? If the Calvinists are right then he had no "free will" in regard to his sin.

Tell me how Adam could have done anything other than sin since the Calvinists teach that from all eternity God ordained all things which will happen"

Thanks!

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

God clearly ordained that they took and crucified Christ! Did they have any choice? Could they be held accountable "wicked hands."

Answer that and you answer your own paradoxical question.

By the way, the construction of the grammar behind "the determinate council and foreknowledge of God" is the Grand Sharpe rule. Therefore, it should be understood to mean that the second noun is merely a further desciption of the "determinate counsel" of God.

This is easy to see in building a house. You first have a blue print/plan. That is the determinate counsel. Based upon that blue print you KNOW beforehand where every room, every plug in, every door will be located. Hence, the foreknowledge of God is knowledge of all events as purposed (Rom. 8:29 "according to His PURPOSE" before Romans 8:29-30 "foreknew..predestinated...called...justified....glorified).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

God clearly ordained that they took and crucified Christ! Did they have any choice? Could they be held accountable "wicked hands."

That answers nothing. The Lord was "delivered" by the determinate council of God but the actual putting to death of the Lord Jesus was altogether the responsibility of those who killed Him. The lord Jesus described the time of the crucifixion in the following way:

"When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness" (Lk.22:53).

God was not accountable in any way for killing the Lord Jesus:

"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 Jn.1:5).

 

[The Biblicist]

Can you not distinguish between being "created" and the things which follow being created.

A man is created in the image of God but sometime later in life all men sin. But that sin does not negate that they are created in the image of God.

Nice try but no prize! When they "sometime later in life...sin" are they still in the "image" of God EQUALLY as man was created in Genesis 1:26-27????? You have already admitted they are not because they are no longer in the moral image of God when they sin. If they were, there would be no need for restoration of that image (Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 3:18) would there!

Of course anyone who has the slightest degree of spiritual discernment understands

Nice slanderous demeaning comment on those who simply disagree with you!!!

that since a person is made in the image of God he does not come out of the womb spiritually dead! That condition could not possible be the same as being created in the image of God!

You fully understand that this statement is based on two unproven assumbtions:

1. That "image" always includes everything Adam possessed in areas of LIKENESS to God before the Fall. - New birth denies this

2. That infants are reproduced in all areas of likeness before the fall without any post-fall consequences due to a change of likeness found in Adam after the fall versus before the fall. Death in infants denies this. Abundant scriptures denies this:

Psa. 53:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Job. 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Pr 22:15 ¶ Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God

Every parent knows from observational experience that children ALWAYS require discipline to restrain evil that naturally flows from their hearts as soon as they are able to express themselves.

Solomon says this is "bound in the heart" of a child and discipline is necessary to drive it from them. David says that they were conceived "in sin."

Why is it that children need to be trained to do what is right but naturally do what is evil without any training, if they are not evil by nature from birth?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Nice try but no prize! When they "sometime later in life...sin" are they still in the "image" of God EQUALLY as man was created in Genesis 1:26-27?????

I said that a person is no longer in the image of God when he sins.

Nice slanderous demeaning comment on those who simply disagree with you!!!

So you disagree and are willing to argue that a person is created in the image of God even though they come out of the womb spitually dead?

Go ahead, I want to hear that argument.

You fully understand that this statement is based on two unproven assumbtions:

Your argument is based on nothing other than you assumptions.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

The Lord Jesus was born of a woman so using your logic He could not be righteous.

Job. 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Are you saying that Mary, who was in need of salvation, was sinless?

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God

Yes, all have sinned but that is not in regard to how a person is created.

Every parent knows from observational experience that children ALWAYS require discipline to restrain evil that naturally flows from their hearts as soon as they are able to express themselves.

If you are right then why would the Lord Jesus say the following in regard to little children?:

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.19:13-14).

Are we to believe that the Lord shared your idea but yet He would say of them that "such is the kingdom of heaven"? Of course not! Children are described as being "an heritage of the Lord":

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps.127:3).

 

[Ruiz]

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!

I think philosophy and theology are cousins. As well, my point in this entire thread has been that we must have the presuppositions of the Bible when forming our philosophy. I take the Van Tillian view of presuppositionalism as my basis, that we are foolish to not presume the Bible first.

 

[Ruiz]

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

No, as a presuppositionalist the issue is quite different. As a presuppositionalist, I would think this debate between Bahnsen and Stein. This is considered one of the top debates on the existence of God in the 20th Century and revolutionized how people discuss God. This is also the basis of my view on Special Revelation.

I also invite you to read Van Till's apologetics entitled, "Defending the Faith". This isn't his best work, but still a classic (and free).

The key issue we face is whether we will surrender to carnal thought or by being renewed by Scripture.

Yet, listen to the debate by Bahnsen. This is required listening in many apologetics classes and it changed how ethics and apologetics was discussed for the next 20+ years.

 

[Ruiz]

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:

First, I cannot prove a negative. Yet, Watch the Stein debate as he does a great job in explaining the issue. I had a last minute meeting today so I have been unavailable most of the day and am about to go to another meeting in about 10 minutes. However, Bahnsen's rebuttal is a very good answer to these questions.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Every parent knows from observational experience that children ALWAYS require discipline to restrain evil that naturally flows from their hearts as soon as they are able to express themselves.

Jerry: If you are right then why would the Lord Jesus say the following in regard to little children?

HP:A man can only last so long in a woodpile.:smilewinkgrin:

This issue of infants is destined to come up in every other conversation. We need to address infants and small children and their natures once again.
It is often suggested, that if infants need no training to do evil, it necessitates the notion that they are born in sin.

OK, have it your way. Condemn all infants to hell as sinners, for if they are that is what they deserve. Now tell us why all will not inherit hell as their reward? Show us one Scripture anywhere that says that God simply automatically saves them apart from faith and repentance. Show us one Scripture that states or implies God regenerates infants in order to save them. They would have to be regenerated would they not being sinners with a sinful nature?
Go ahead, say sola Biblica one more time just for the record. I await your Scriptural response. :thumbsup:

 

[Gup20]

Psa. 53:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.

In this passage we see a pattern of making a statement and then making a second statement that adds to or further clarifies the first statement. It says they go astray after they are born, not while in the womb. It says "from" the womb, meaning once they "come from" the womb - in other words, after they are born.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Shapen in iniquity - Shapen is the word chuwl which means to writh, dance, twist, to be born, to be brought forth. Iniquity is the word avon which can mean 'punishment for iniquity' or 'consequence for iniquity'. Notice the word "sin" is used in the verse. David could have used the word sin - chet - but used avon instead.

Furthermore, in the second half of the verse, you must apply the verb to the subject consistently. If you apply "sin" to David, then you must also apply "conceived" to David in a consistent manner and that would mean that David conceived himself which is ridiculous.

So the verse could literally be translated - "I was brought forth under the punishment for sin; my mother was a sinner when she conceived me. "

The verse shows the total hopelessness of David. He was born inheriting death, and he couldn't even rely on a righteous inheritance from his parents to save him. This makes MUCH more sense of the verse considering the poetic prose nature of the passage. It is the same style as chapter 53 - a statement and then another statement that underscores or expounds on the first.

Job. 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Psa 139:13 For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb.

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother's belly.
​

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.​

Jesus was also the son of man born of a sinful woman. If you say he wasn't, then you say he is disqualified to be our redeemer.

Every parent knows from observational experience that children ALWAYS require discipline to restrain evil that naturally flows from their hearts as soon as they are able to express themselves.

You must have seriously hated your children to characterize them in this way. I have a daughter who is nearly 2 and she requires only minimal disciple. She is a true joy. I have observed she has a genuinely good and loving heart. She has such pure faith in those around her and always thinks good of those around her. In fact, I have learned so much about what pure, undefiled, unselfish love is from her. In her I have observed true empathy and altruism - something I find completely lacking in adults.

Solomon says this is "bound in the heart" of a child and discipline is necessary to drive it from them. David says that they were conceived "in sin."

Why is it that children need to be trained to do what is right but naturally do what is evil without any training, if they are not evil by nature from birth?

If you meet a child's needs, they tend to not behave in a depraved manner. The Bible says spare the rod spoil the child, it does not say too much love, affection, and service will spoil the child. Failure to discipline wrong behavior will spoil a child, not an over abundance of meeting their needs. I suggest that if your kids came out little sinners it is because you failed as a parent to meet their needs.

Hbr 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.​

It's a fear of not having needs met that enslaves people to sin and selfishness.

Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Col 3:21 Fathers, provoke not your children [to anger], lest they be discouraged.​

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ruiz: No, as a presuppositionalist the issue is quite different......

HP: I am not debating Bahnsen or Van Till. I am debating you. I did nothing other than to force you into the same philosophical/ logical box you attempted to force me into.

Ruiz, back to the real debate. This Scripture has been posted many times by more than one.

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."

Tell us why in your own words, this Scripture does not clearly refute your position that one cannot know anything blameworthy or praiseworthy without going to Scripture 'first.' Does not 'without excuse' set forth clearly they know without any excuse that their moral actions are either approved or disapproved by God? They might not know Him as God, but again that is no excuse for the violation of moral truths presented to the mind by conscience. They know intuitively right from wrong, at least in a limited degree, enough to convict them of sin.

Your response?

 

[The Biblicist]

I said that a person is no longer in the image of God when he sins.

So you disagree and are willing to argue that a person is created in the image of God even though they come out of the womb spitually dead?

Are you so foolish to deny that sinners are not still in the "image" of God in some sense? If not, then why command Noah and other adults about shedding blood of people who no doubt have already sinned???

You have admitted that a person can be in the "image" of God and yet not the MORAL image of God because of sin!

Your argument is based on nothing other than you assumptions.

This is why it is fruitless to even discuss anything with you! You won't even admit the obvious! These two assumption undergird you slanderous accusation!

1. That "image" after the fall always includes everything Adam possessed in areas of LIKENESS to God before the Fall. - New birth denies this

2. That infants are reproduced in all areas of likeness before the fall without any post-fall consequences due to a change of likeness found in Adam after the fall versus before the fall. Death in infants denies this. Abundant scriptures denies this:

Psa. 53:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Job. 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Pr 22:15 ¶ Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God

Every parent knows from observational experience that children ALWAYS require discipline to restrain evil that naturally flows from their hearts as soon as they are able to express themselves. So your presumption is contrary to observational experiences of every honest mother and father.

Solomon says this is "bound in the heart" of a child and discipline is necessary to drive it from them. However, you presumption is that the heart of a child is as pure driven snow until they willfully sin.


David says that they were conceived "in sin." However, your presumption is that sin is something foreign to their birth.

Why is it that children need to be trained to do what is right but naturally do what is evil without any training, if they are not evil by nature from birth?

Your presumption is that no such disciplinary restriction or training is necessary as they come into the world as pure as snow.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Gup20: You must have seriously hated your children to characterize them in this way. I have a daughter who is nearly 2 and she requires only minimal disciple. She is a true joy. I have observed she has a genuinely good and loving heart. She has such pure faith in those around her and always thinks good of those around her. In fact, I have learned so much about what pure, undefiled, unselfish love is from her. In her I have observed true empathy and altruism - something I find completely lacking in adults.

HP: Gup, I have observed the same thing in children. As the father of 6 children and 7 grandchildren, to consider a child as a wicked sinner is about unjust as it gets. It proves to me that some will go to any unjust unreasonable depth to support an Augustinian dogma. Thanks for your honest testimony even if it may appear go against a doctrine some might hold. God bless her and you as parents!!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Are you so foolish to deny that sinners are not still in the "image" of God in some sense? If not, then why command Noah and other adults about shedding blood of people who no doubt have already sinned???

HP: Somewhere I remember the connection you set forth between God and man. Lets see. It is necessity as I recall you implying. We are necessitated by our self due to the fact God is necessitated by His Self, according to you that is. Was it not you that told us also that we can create nothing, ......so that must mean such is the case due to being created in His image as well.