A brilliant Catholic philosopher by the name of Alexander Pruss has given an argument from 1 Corinthians 10:13 against the Reformed doctrine of mongergism in sanctification:
For clarity's sake 1 Corinthians 10:13 reads as follows:
“No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”
Pruss’s Blog post can be read here for more detail.
But Dr. Pruss draws this argument from 1 Corinthians 10:13 against the Reformed view of causal determinism in the process of salvation:
“1) For any temptation, the faithful Christian will receive a grace sufficient to withstand that temptation.
2) Some faithful Christians succumb to temptation.
3) Some faithful Christians fall to a temptation that they have received a grace sufficient to withstand.”
From This Dr. Pruss concludes:
“But the puzzle is greater for Christians of a more Reformed bent, who normally see a grace sufficient for A as in fact a grace that necessitates A. This is, after all, the standard Reformed view of salvific grace: anybody who has received the grace sufficient for salvation is one of the Elect, and because of the receipt of the grace is necessarily going to be saved.
The question now is whether a Reformed Christian can give a different story about sanctifying grace, so that a person can receive a grace sufficient to withstand temptation and yet fall to that temptation. If not, then Reformed Christianity is not tenable in the light of (1) and (2).”
My Critique of Pruss’s argument:
I would reject Premise one (For any temptation, the faithful Christian will receive a grace sufficient to withstand that temptation) on the grounds that I think that Christians do not receive sufficient grace to avoid sin in all cases in their sanctification (if you are catholic then you would confuse justification and sanctification and say "in the process of justification"). Pruss might say “well then how might you deal with 1 Corinthians 10:13?” My answer to this is more exegetical and theological than it is philosophical.
I would take 1 Corinthians 10:13 as referring to falling away from salvation (i.e. becoming apostate) when one is being tempted, either by consciously giving up their faith or by being tempted continually into living in unrepentant sin (which would thereby show that the person was never justified by faith to begin with). My reason for this is found in the preceding verse. Verse 12 is a warning about falling away like those who fell away from the covenant as described in 1 Corinthians 10:1-11. Moreover, someone can fall away from the covenant having never been a true believer, but rather having been either baptized as a confessing believer (where the confession was not genuine) or as an infant. In this life we may have uncertainty given our sinful desires and struggles as a believer as to whether we are truly internally saved in the covenant of grace or whether we are just external members with a man-made profession. Our works give us assurance of salvation because those who have been justified by faith can be assured of it on the evidence of good works. And Paul is teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:13 that God will never allow a believer to be tempted to give up his faith in Christ either by living in sin or by rejecting the gospel. In other words, you will not sin and be tempted so much that you lose your faith as a Christian and fall into the unbelief. Far from being a verse against Calvinism, it seems to me that this verse supports the doctrine of perseverance of the saints (the "P" in TULIP).
To sum up: I am saying that 1 Corinthians 10:13 is referring to temptation to the sin of falling away from faith, or sins (living in sin) that lead to falling away. And Paul teaches us that in fact this cannot happen with believers because God will always give you a way out (which would then lend support to Calvinism).
I also have another reason for believing that 1 Corinthians 10:13 cannot be referring to believers in every instance of temptation having two alternative possibilities (i.e. having libertarian freewill; being able to sin and not sin in any circumstance C with the same casual background F) with regards to sanctification. My reason is more systematic: I believer that Romans 7 is referring to a believer and Paul says of believers (including himself) that they can at times lack the ability to carry out the good.
As Paul teaches us about believers:
Romans 7:18 "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out."
The reason we know this is a believer is because Paul says that this person gives thanks to Christ and yet still struggles in the same section:
Romans 7:25 "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."
Christians, then, do not always have sufficient grace with regards to every act in sanctification, but rather they have sufficient grace in order that they do not lose their salvation, which I have argued is what 1 Corinthians 10:13 refers to. Thus, I conclude that we do not have a good reason to accept Dr. Pruss’s argument.
Nathanael,
ReplyDeleteI am saying that 1 Corinthians 10:13 is referring to temptation to the sin of falling away from faith, or sins (living in sin) that lead to falling away.
That reasoning goes against the context of the passage, Paul was not talking strictly about falling away, but about committing various individual sins. Look at the context preceding verse 13,
6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." 8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now all[b] these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.
And even after he states,
13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.
He follows it up with an exhortation to avoid another common temptation,
14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.
This is clearly speaking of individual temptations each believer faces, which are all common to man, none of which will be of such magnitude that we are unable to presently endure it. 'Enduring' temptation by definition indicates bearing up under it -- not yielding to it. The Necessitarian evasion of the passage's implications would have us believe that one can be 'enduring' temptation while simultaneously yielding to it! Besides being conceptually absurd, that notion also doesn't fit the context of the subsequent command to flee idolatry (a specific sin mentioned above).
My reason is more systematic: I believer that Romans 7 is referring to a believer and Paul says of believers (including himself) that they can at times lack the ability to carry out the good.
Romans 7 speaks of the mind being brought into captivity by the law of sin and death,
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
But Romans 8 immediately clarifies that this is not a present condition for those walking in the Spirit,
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
We cannot be presently enslaved to the law of sin and death and simultaneously freed from it. Paul writes in Romans 7 of himself apart from God and Christ (strictly 'in the flesh,' so to speak), under which condition he was a slave to sin (for without Him we can do nothing - John 15:5), but the very next paragraph makes it unequivocally clear that being in the Spirit through Christ, he is no longer a slave, for if Christ dwells in us, we're not in the flesh, but in the Spirit (vs. 9).
There is no contextually viable scriptural reason to believe that saints are irresistibly predetermined to sin; 1 Corinthians 10:13 then stands as an iron-clad testament to the fact that God's children always do have the choice to endure temptation.
That reasoning goes against the context of the passage, Paul was not talking strictly about falling away, but about committing various individual sins. Look at the context preceding verse 13,
ReplyDelete6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." 8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now all[b] these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.
And even after he states,
13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.
Response: I believe this has to do with all sorts of sins, but I believe this refers to living in those sins such that it would demonstrate that you never were saved (which as Paul teaches here cannot happen), so I think my interpretation agrees with the context fine on that score.
He follows it up with an exhortation to avoid another common temptation,
14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.
This is clearly speaking of individual temptations each believer faces, which are all common to man, none of which will be of such magnitude that we are unable to presently endure it. 'Enduring' temptation by definition indicates bearing up under it -- not yielding to it. The Necessitarian evasion of the passage's implications would have us believe that one can be 'enduring' temptation while simultaneously yielding to it! Besides being conceptually absurd, that notion also doesn't fit the context of the subsequent command to flee idolatry (a specific sin mentioned above).
Response: Again I do not think a Christian will continually live in the perpetual sin of Idolatry or any sort of outrageous sin continually, that is why God will bring the believers through this temptation so we do not fall away from the covenant like the Israelites.
Romans 7 speaks of the mind being brought into captivity by the law of sin and death,
Response: Yeah this refers to the indwelling sin in the believer and Paul's realization that the more Holy he is the more despair he feels at times.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
But Romans 8 immediately clarifies that this is not a present condition for those walking in the Spirit,
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
We cannot be presently enslaved to the law of sin and death and simultaneously freed from it. Paul writes in Romans 7 of himself apart from God and Christ (strictly 'in the flesh,' so to speak), under which condition he was a slave to sin (for without Him we can do nothing - John 15:5), but the very next paragraph makes it unequivocally clear that being in the Spirit through Christ, he is no longer a slave, for if Christ dwells in us, we're not in the flesh, but in the Spirit (vs. 9).
Response: I would view this in a legal category and not as a metaphysical category, as referring to justification. I would say that the believer has the Spirit of God and the indwelling sinful flesh. How could anyone deny that? Are you perfect?
1 John 1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Jesus has asked you in Matthew 5 to be perfect and you and I have failed at that miserably.
There is no contextually viable scriptural reason to believe that saints are irresistibly predetermined to sin; 1 Corinthians 10:13 then stands as an iron-clad testament to the fact that God's children always do have the choice to endure temptation.
Response: Ephesians 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. 11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
He works all things to purpose of his will, even our sins. So I guess I would have to disagree with you on that. But I really appropriate your thoughts. I hope you have a good day!
God Bless,
NPT
Response: I believe this has to do with all sorts of sins, but I believe this refers to living in those sins such that it would demonstrate that you never were saved (which as Paul teaches here cannot happen), so I think my interpretation agrees with the context fine on that score.
ReplyDeleteFew problems here, Paul states that you "can endure," not that you inevitably "will endure;" 'can' and 'will' are not the same thing. Secondly, 1 Corinthians 10:13 this is referring to specific temptations that arise, for which God makes a way for us to endure. One who hasn't fallen away from the faith, yet is succumbing to temptation isn't 'enduring' the temptation itself (as the passage indicates God will provide means for), he is yielding to it despite God's provision. Claims that Christians are actually tempted beyond any ability to endure the temptation then fly directly in the face of this passage, both textually and contextually.
Romans 7 speaks of the mind being brought into captivity by the law of sin and death,
Response: Yeah this refers to the indwelling sin in the believer and Paul's realization that the more Holy he is the more despair he feels at times.
No, this clearly refers to outright captivity to sin. As can be seen from verse 7 and onwards, the thought expressed here is how sin takes its hold and kills one spiritually (verse 9); and phrases like,
"For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice." (verse 19)
Refer to the old mode of living, which is in diametric opposition to the lifestyle free from the bondage of sin that he describes in chapter 8,
For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father." (vs 13-15)
And is also in complete contrast to the liberty in Christ he'd just finished writing of in chapter 6,
For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be [in the likeness] of [His] resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with [Him], that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. ... Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. ...But God be thanked that [though] you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. ...But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. (Romans 6:5-7, 11-14,17-18, 22)
We who are in Christ are no longer slaves to sin, for Christ has set us free. This fact plainly establishes the context from which to interpret the rest of Paul's thought.
We cannot be presently enslaved to the law of sin and death and simultaneously freed from it. Paul writes in Romans 7 of himself apart from God and Christ (strictly 'in the flesh,' so to speak), under which condition he was a slave to sin (for without Him we can do nothing - John 15:5), but the very next paragraph makes it unequivocally clear that being in the Spirit through Christ, he is no longer a slave, for if Christ dwells in us, we're not in the flesh, but in the Spirit (vs. 9).
Response: I would view this in a legal category and not as a metaphysical category, as referring to justification. I would say that the believer has the Spirit of God and the indwelling sinful flesh. How could anyone deny that? Are you perfect?
Again incorrect. It is not speaking strictly legally: things like walking according to the Spirit and setting our minds on things of the Spirit denote far more than just legal status. I also believe that Christians have the Spirit of God in them as well as a sinful nature, it does not follow that we are slaves to that nature any longer (though we may yield ourselves to it again, Rom 6:13, 16).
There is no contextually viable scriptural reason to believe that saints are irresistibly predetermined to sin; 1 Corinthians 10:13 then stands as an iron-clad testament to the fact that God's children always do have the choice to endure temptation.
Response: Ephesians 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. 11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
He works all things to purpose of his will, even our sins.
That's stretching the contextual limitation of the term 'all things' beyond its intended scope -- unless of course we argue that when Christ expounded "all things to His disciples" (Mark 4:34), it must have necessarily included Super Bowl statistics. Also, God can work His will in a matter by different means than brute necessitation, His plans often involve letting people do what they want (to include sin) to achieve His purpose, without Him being the architect or innovator of their wickedness. There are also points at which God explicitly states that some things were not His decree,
And they built the high places of Baal which [are] in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through [the fire] to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.' (Jeremiah 32:35)
God certainly foreknew that they would act wickedly (He prophesied that they would through Moses), but it's comes quite lucidly from the statement that it wasn't His idea.
Hello J.C.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your engaging response and your time thus far.
Few problems here, Paul states that you "can endure," not that you inevitably "will endure;" 'can' and 'will' are not the same thing. Secondly, 1 Corinthians 10:13 this is referring to specific temptations that arise, for which God makes a way for us to endure. One who hasn't fallen away from the faith, yet is succumbing to temptation isn't 'enduring' the temptation itself (as the passage indicates God will provide means for), he is yielding to it despite God's provision. Claims that Christians are actually tempted beyond any ability to endure the temptation then fly directly in the face of this passage, both textually and contextually.
Response: can and will are both equally possible since in the Greek there are no subjunctives or futures with respect to the infinitive, but I would prefer the future since the nearest verb in the preceding context is a future verb, thus I would translate it in the future tense rather than the subjunctive. The one who has not fallen away from the faith but is succumbing to some temptations does have the strength to continue you on his Christian life and he is able to endure the Christian life dunamai can have this sense of the strength to carry on rather than some sort of libertarian philosophical sense. Thus, in light of that I think that my reading is compatible. My reading being: that no temptation you experience will make you want to give up on your Christian walk and/or make you doubt your salvation to the point of falling out of the covenant.
Romans 7 speaks of the mind being brought into captivity by the law of sin and death,
Response: Yeah this refers to the indwelling sin in the believer and Paul's realization that the more Holy he is the more despair he feels at times.
No, this clearly refers to outright captivity to sin. As can be seen from verse 7 and onwards, the thought expressed here is how sin takes its hold and kills one spiritually (verse 9); and phrases like,
Response: I think Paul clarifies and says this is only with respect to his flesh.
Romans 7:18 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh.
And here Paul speaks of these two principles in the believer:
Galatians 5:17 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would.
Refer to the old mode of living, which is in diametric opposition to the lifestyle free from the bondage of sin that he describes in chapter 8,
Response: Well this could not mean that you are entirely free from sin because everyone sins. And everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin, so in a sense we are all slaves to sin but yet we have the Spirit of God. Thus, I would say that these verses are contrasting the difference between the believers have the Spirit and the non-believer not having it. Or I would say that it is referring to their legal status both seem equally possible to me.
And is also in complete contrast to the liberty in Christ he'd just finished writing of in chapter 6,
For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be [in the likeness] of [His] resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with [Him], that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. ... Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. ...But God be thanked that [though] you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. ...But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. (Romans 6:5-7, 11-14,17-18, 22)
Response: I would view Romans 6 legally and with reference to justification rather than in metaphysical categories.
We who are in Christ are no longer slaves to sin, for Christ has set us free. This fact plainly establishes the context from which to interpret the rest of Paul's thought.
Response: Well then you must be perfect because I am not. And neither was Paul. I suppose then that everyone in the world besides you or other perfectionist are going to heaven.
1 Timothy 1:15 15 The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost of sinners;
Paul is speaking here in the present tense.
John 8:34 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin.
1 John 1:10 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Again incorrect. It is not speaking strictly legally: things like walking according to the Spirit and setting our minds on things of the Spirit denote far more than just legal status. I also believe that Christians have the Spirit of God in them as well as a sinful nature, it does not follow that we are slaves to that nature any longer (though we may yield ourselves to it again, Rom 6:13, 16).
Response: Yes, it is legal. God sees us as if we are walking perfectly with the Spirit of God and setting our minds on the things of the Spirit but in truth we are not. If you believe in a sinful nature then we are slaves to sin according to John.
John 8:34 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin.
If you commit sins and you are a believer then you do not match the person in Romans 6 and 8 according to your systematic interpretive grid. It is hard to see how you can get from Romans 6:13 and 16 that we can yield ourselves to sin and still be believers, unless you reject that and you think every sin we commit we are not longer believer but that we lose our salvation, in which case if you think that then I will have to provided verses the next time around for the perseverance of the saints.
There is no contextually viable scriptural reason to believe that saints are irresistibly predetermined to sin; 1 Corinthians 10:13 then stands as an iron-clad testament to the fact that God's children always do have the choice to endure temptation.
That's stretching the contextual limitation of the term 'all things' beyond its intended scope -- unless of course we argue that when Christ expounded "all things to His disciples" (Mark 4:34), it must have necessarily included Super Bowl statistics. Also, God can work His will in a matter by different means than brute necessitation, His plans often involve letting people do what they want (to include sin) to achieve His purpose, without Him being the architect or innovator of their wickedness. There are also points at which God explicitly states that some things were not His decree,
And they built the high places of Baal which [are] in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through [the fire] to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.' (Jeremiah 32:35)
Response: It did not enter into God’s mind that they should do such and such or did he ever think of commanding the evil, but God did cause it to be. This is the distinction between the prescriptive will of God and the descriptive will of God. There is a difference between causing something to be and commanding someone to be. For Jesus and his disciples there is a reason to limit the content. But if there is no reason to limit the content of all things then it simply means all things. God has a universal purpose that includes everything; there is nothing unreasonable about that contextually or philosophically.
God certainly foreknew that they would act wickedly (He prophesied that they would through Moses), but it's comes quite lucidly from the statement that it wasn't His idea.
Response: It was not his idea to command it but it was his will to cause it to be.
God gives everyman his decision and the way he is.
Jeremiah 10:23 23 I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.
1 Corinthians 4:7 7 For who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?
Everything that happens and that is done we receive from the hand of God and he has a good reason for every evil event that he causes, that is to his greater end, his Glory. I wrote something on the problem of evil and Calvinism on this blog, that will respond to any of those philosophical concerns that an anti-calvinist might have.
I want to apologize if any of the content that has been discussed so far has offended you. I hope well for you and I look forward to your response, have a good day.
God Bless,
NPT
Response: can and will are both equally possible since in the Greek there are no subjunctives or futures with respect to the infinitive, but I would prefer the future since the nearest verb in the preceding context is a future verb, thus I would translate it in the future tense rather than the subjunctive.
ReplyDeleteBut the word dunamai itself implies only capability, not automatic fulfillment of what one is capable of.
The one who has not fallen away from the faith but is succumbing to some temptations does have the strength to continue you on his Christian life and he is able to endure the Christian life dunamai can have this sense of the strength to carry on rather than some sort of libertarian philosophical sense.
There is no indication of "strength to carry on [despite yielding to temptation]" but the ability to escape (and thus endure) the temptation itself. The escape he speaks of is typified by Paul's exhortation to flee idolatry, indicating that it is means of escape to avoid falling to specific temptations that God provides. A Christian who is presently succumbing to temptation is neither escaping it nor enduring it, despite capability to do otherwise.
And here Paul speaks of these two principles in the believer:
Galatians 5:17 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would.
Yes, I agree, but the context of the passage itself there also indicates that we are not slaves to the sinful nature, for its desires do not need to be fulfilled because of the Spirit within us.
I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. (Galatians 5:16)
Response: Well this could not mean that you are entirely free from sin because everyone sins.
I never said I was incapable of sinning or past being tempted, I'm saying that through Christ I'm free to escape temptation.
And everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin, so in a sense we are all slaves to sin but yet we have the Spirit of God.
I don't believe that everyone who is a Christian is sinning all the time.
Thus, I would say that these verses are contrasting the difference between the believers have the Spirit and the non-believer not having it.
Which is what I conclude of Paul's statement of himself in Romans 7, the 'before and after.'
Response: I would view Romans 6 legally and with reference to justification rather than in metaphysical categories.
The passage again encompasses action, not only status. "...do not let sin reign in your mortal body," "do not present your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you...," denote action that is corollary to a changed heart.
We who are in Christ are no longer slaves to sin, for Christ has set us free. This fact plainly establishes the context from which to interpret the rest of Paul's thought.
Response: Well then you must be perfect because I am not. And neither was Paul. I suppose then that everyone in the world besides you or other perfectionist are going to heaven.
I'm sorry, when in any of this discourse did I claim perfection? To equate 'not being a slave of sin' with 'you must be perfect' is a glaring leap of logic. Not being impelled to do something (that is, not being a slave to it) does not mean that I can't (or haven't) surrender to it of my own accord.
1 Timothy 1:15 15 The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost of sinners;
Paul is speaking here in the present tense.
Yes he is, for the memory of his past sins was a heavy reminder both of his wickedness and God's mercy, but that this refers to his past life as a persecutor is obvious from the very next verse,
However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
The mercy he obtained in Christ was contra the wickedness he had committed before His conversion. It does not indicate that Paul was presently living a life of abominable sin, which he decries as damnable several times through the New Testament.
John 8:34 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin.
I agree, which is why we are warned not to submit to sin. Christians should not and are not compelled to live lives of sin.
1 John 1:10 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
I never stated anything even akin to the idea that 'I've never sinned,' not sure where you're going with that one.
Again incorrect. It is not speaking strictly legally: things like walking according to the Spirit and setting our minds on things of the Spirit denote far more than just legal status. I also believe that Christians have the Spirit of God in them as well as a sinful nature, it does not follow that we are slaves to that nature any longer (though we may yield ourselves to it again, Rom 6:13, 16).
Response: Yes, it is legal. God sees us as if we are walking perfectly with the Spirit of God and setting our minds on the things of the Spirit but in truth we are not.
This passage isn't speaking about how "God sees us," it is speaking about actions of those who are Christ's. "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Cannot be interpreted as "God sees us as always walking in the Spirit," apart from heavy eisegesis.
If you believe in a sinful nature then we are slaves to sin according to John.
John 8:34 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin.
Incorrect, if we have the Spirit of God in us as well, then having a sinful nature is not equivalent to obeying it. Hence scripture commands,
For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (Romans 8:13-14)
If you commit sins and you are a believer then you do not match the person in Romans 6 and 8 according to your systematic interpretive grid.
Freedom from compulsion to sin does not imply that we can't choose to succumb to temptation anyway.
It is hard to see how you can get from Romans 6:13 and 16 that we can yield ourselves to sin and still be believers, unless you reject that and you think every sin we commit we are not longer believer but that we lose our salvation, in which case if you think that then I will have to provided verses the next time around for the perseverance of the saints.
I don't believe that every sin suddenly makes every believer a non-believer, God grants men space to repent, and is faithful and just to forgive those who walk in the light. I do believe it's possible for a saint to fall away if he or she remains obstinate against God.
Response: It did not enter into God’s mind that they should do such and such or did he ever think of commanding the evil, but God did cause it to be. This is the distinction between the prescriptive will of God and the descriptive will of God. There is a difference between causing something to be and commanding someone to be.
I don't buy into the "God's contradictory wills" conjecture. Also, if it did not enter into His mind that they do this, then He couldn't have caused them to do it, unless of course God causes things He doesn't intend (which I don't belive).
For Jesus and his disciples there is a reason to limit the content. But if there is no reason to limit the content of all things then it simply means all things. God has a universal purpose that includes everything; there is nothing unreasonable about that contextually or philosophically.
Which requires assuming a priori that God doesn't allow libertarian choices, contrary to the testimony of 1 Corinthians 10:13 and elsewhere, since that would be an obvious limitation of scope. And as I'd pointed out, there are more ways to accomplish one's purpose than outright necessitation.
God gives everyman his decision and the way he is.
Jeremiah 10:23 23 I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.
God directs men's steps, this is especially apparent when one realizes that nothing occurs that God doesn't allow, but it's a foregone conclusion to assume that this means that man always does what God desires. Christ prophesied over Jerusalem,
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!" (Luke 13:34)
Clearly, if God wanted one thing and they did another, then men do not always live as God desires that they do.
1 Corinthians 4:7 7 For who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?
I agree, our salvation is nothing to boast of, for we only have what we've received from the hand of God.
Everything that happens and that is done we receive from the hand of God...
That's an incorrect use of the passage, 'receive' is of active voice, it speaks of something taken that is offered, not something conferred upon an otherwise passive agent. This passage speaks of salvation and its associated benefits, not every single minute choice we make.
...and he has a good reason for every evil event that he causes, that is to his greater end, his Glory.
God doesn't ordain evil that good may come, evil is still evil and is diametrically opposite holiness. God is Holy and is not the author/architect of any evil (much less all of it), the two concepts are completely mutually exclusive.
I want to apologize if any of the content that has been discussed so far has offended you.
The part about me being a perfectionist was a bit left-field, but I think you were probably trying to point out where you think my logic would lead. Don't worry about it, I'm not easily offended.
Hello JC,
ReplyDeleteThank you again for your engaging response.
But the word dunamai itself implies only capability, not automatic fulfillment of what one is capable of.
Response: I argee, dunamai does have the sense of only capability but at the same time given the context it can suggest automatic fulfillment if certain conditions are met. I would take this passage to be one of those and John 6:44. Given the usage of the future in the text and other canonical considerations it seems that one would want to hold to a fulfillment of this if one is regenerate, God will provide a way so that they will endure it and not fall away (1 Cor. 10:12).
The one who has not fallen away from the faith but is succumbing to some temptations does have the strength to continue you on his Christian life and he is able to endure the Christian life dunamai can have this sense of the strength to carry on rather than some sort of libertarian philosophical sense.
There is no indication of "strength to carry on [despite yielding to temptation]" but the ability to escape (and thus endure) the temptation itself. The escape he speaks of is typified by Paul's exhortation to flee idolatry, indicating that it is means of escape to avoid falling to specific temptations that God provides. A Christian who is presently succumbing to temptation is neither escaping it nor enduring it, despite capability to do otherwise.
Response: I think the indication is in 1 Corinthians 10:12 as I have argued in my post. I think that if someone falls into idolatry that will make them feel so much despair that they might just want to give up on their Christian walk. Again, speaking of enduring temptation and not sinning as the theme of this text is just repeating what you already believe about what this text is teaching and thus it provides no positive argumentation to your case; in other words it seems rather question begging.
Yes, I agree, but the context of the passage itself there also indicates that we are not slaves to the sinful nature, for its desires do not need to be fulfilled because of the Spirit within us.
Response: We are not slaves to a sinful nature because of what Christ has done for us by imputing his righteousness to us. But aside from that you did not deal with the inability that is spoken here that occurs between the struggle between the flesh and the Spirit.
Galatians 5:17 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. (Galatians 5:16)
Response: This is an imperative and not an indicative. God can command us things that we cannot fulfill at times. As Matthew teaches:
Matthew 5:48 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
And given my interpretation of Romans:
Romans 7:18 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.
So showing me what God commands is not the same as showing us what we can do. This is the confusion that most Reformed folks accuse Catholics of, namely, confusing the indicative and the imperative. But I am not accusing you of being Roman Catholic, so do not take that personally. I am just saying that Protestants have believed this to be the error of Rome, but believing does not make you of Rome. A lot of good libertarian folks at Biola would reject this distinction and they are not Roman.
I never said I was incapable of sinning or past being tempted, I'm saying that through Christ I'm free to escape temptation.
Response: Okay, I understand that. So then Romans 6 and 8 is compatible with sinning then? If so how much sin? What is the cut off point? It seems that if it is compatible with sinning then it ought to be compatible with the person in Romans 7.
I don't believe that everyone who is a Christian is sinning all the time.
Response: That is fine. But John says that if we commit any sin we are a slave to sin. Sin is singular in the Greek and English text.
ESV John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.
Which is what I conclude of Paul's statement of himself in Romans 7, the 'before and after.'
Response: Well just because the Spirit is not mentioned in Romans 7 does not mean the person does not have the Spirit that is a argument from silence. We see other characteristics that believers have in Romans 7 and thus we conclude it is a believer but we need not think that every characteristic ought to be there.
do not let sin reign in your mortal body," "do not present your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you...," denote action that is corollary to a changed heart.
Response: This is an imperative. I would categorize this as a mistake between confusing the indicative and the imperative. This presupposes the Kantian view of ethics that ought implies a can in the libertarian sense of the world can.
I'm sorry, when in any of this discourse did I claim perfection? To equate 'not being a slave of sin' with 'you must be perfect' is a glaring leap of logic. Not being impelled to do something (that is, not being a slave to it) does not mean that I can't (or haven't) surrender to it of my own accord.
Response: I apologize for making that inference. But you have to understand why I thought that. John says if you sin you are a slave to sin, so in order not to be a slave to sin you must not sin. That is probably why I thought that.
Yes he is, for the memory of his past sins was a heavy reminder both of his wickedness and God's mercy, but that this refers to his past life as a persecutor is obvious from the very next verse,
However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
The mercy he obtained in Christ was contra the wickedness he had committed before His conversion. It does not indicate that Paul was presently living a life of abominable sin, which he decries as damnable several times through the New Testament.
Response: It never says in the text that he in only reflecting on his past sins, the very indication of the present tense being used of him being a sinner implies that he is still sinner at that time. The next verse is in the past tense suggesting obtained salvation in the past. All this suggests is that one can sin and still have salvation.
John 8:34 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin.
I agree, which is why we are warned not to submit to sin. Christians should not and are not compelled to live lives of sin.
Response: John is not talking about submitting to sin, he is talking about those who do sin. Any sin you commit shows that you are a slave to sin.
James 2:10 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.
We held responsible for the entire law of God if we just sin once, so it seems like we are in deep trouble if we sin but just once as well.
I never stated anything even akin to the idea that 'I've never sinned,' not sure where you're going with that one.
Response: So then you admit that sinning is compatible with 6 and 8. Then why can’t that person in Romans 7 be that person in 6 and 8?
This passage isn't speaking about how "God sees us," it is speaking about actions of those who are Christ's. "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Cannot be interpreted as "God sees us as always walking in the Spirit," apart from heavy eisegesis.
Response: I would infer from the context of Romans and the rest of the Biblical canon that this is our status when we are viewed in Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. Since I believe the person 6 and 8 is referring to believers, but incompatible if view with any sin, but believers sin obviously, so it has to be referring to our legal status.
If you believe in a sinful nature then we are slaves to sin according to John.
John 8:34 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin.
Incorrect, if we have the Spirit of God in us as well, then having a sinful nature is not equivalent to obeying it. Hence scripture commands,
For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (Romans 8:13-14)
Response: This is not a command but a statement of fact. That is why the Greek is indicative and thus I would view it as how God legally views us.
Freedom from compulsion to sin does not imply that we can't choose to succumb to temptation anyway.
Response: I believe that we can sin according to our nature but I would not call this compulsion. It would only be compulsion if you had a libertarian a priori commitment to ability. Besides that Romans 6 and 8 does not talk about compulsion and succumbing to sin, it speaks as if there is not sin whatsoever.
It is hard to see how you can get from Romans 6:13 and 16 that we can yield ourselves to sin and still be believers, unless you reject that and you think every sin we commit we are not longer believer but that we lose our salvation, in which case if you think that then I will have to provided verses the next time around for the perseverance of the saints.
I don't believe that every sin suddenly makes every believer a non-believer, God grants men space to repent, and is faithful and just to forgive those who walk in the light. I do believe it's possible for a saint to fall away if he or she remains obstinate against God.
Response: If we sin we are not walking in the light. Where do you get that God gives men space to repent and forgives them? Where do you get from the scriptures that one can struggle with sin and still be a Christian? I guess it just seems to me the person in Romans 6 and 8 are not compatible with any sort of sinning given a non-legal interpretation. And it also seems to me that a reading of John will reveal that any sin makes you a slave to sin, so if we are slaves to sin then how can Paul predicate all those things of us metaphysically in Romans 6 and 8?
I don't buy into the "God's contradictory wills" conjecture. Also, if it did not enter into His mind that they do this, then He couldn't have caused them to do it, unless of course God causes things He doesn't intend (which I don't belive).
Response: Why do you not buy it? God can commands things to creatures because it is good for creatures to do and it reveals his righteous character. But why think that God commands are what he intends? I do not see any reason for thinking this so I make the distinction between God’s commands and intents. Of course God intends to command, but what he commands he does not necessarily intend.
Which requires assuming a priori that God doesn't allow libertarian choices, contrary to the testimony of 1 Corinthians 10:13 and elsewhere, since that would be an obvious limitation of scope. And as I'd pointed out, there are more ways to accomplish one's purpose than outright necessitation.
Response: I do not believe there are any passages elsewhere and I obviously disagree with your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 10:13. But yeah if you are correct about that then there are some instances by which we should limit it.
Jeremiah 10:23 23 I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.
God directs men's steps, this is especially apparent when one realizes that nothing occurs that God doesn't allow, but it's a foregone conclusion to assume that this means that man always does what God desires. Christ prophesied over Jerusalem,
Response: It does not say here that God allows men to do such and such; rather it says that the way man is because of God and that God directs his steps.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!" (Luke 13:34)
Clearly, if God wanted one thing and they did another, then men do not always live as God desires that they do.
Response: I believe that God wanted them to. But God had a reason for overriding that want, perhaps to display his justice and glory. People can have wants and desires, but there can be other reasons for overriding these wants. You believe the very same thing. You believe that God wants all humans to be saved, but God has a greater want: Human libertarian freedom and God overrides the want to save all human agents with the want for them to be genuinely free. Likewise, I would predicate the same thing of this verse but in a Calvinistic framework. Now I am assuming you hold to a classic freewill defense, but if you are not then I am sorry that I put you in that category.
1 Corinthians 4:7 7 For who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?
Response: This verse is not about just salvation it is about every action, I see no reason for limiting the scope of this, unless you are correct about other passages, so this does sort of beg the question on both our parts…perhaps.
...and he has a good reason for every evil event that he causes, that is to his greater end, his Glory.
God doesn't ordain evil that good may come, evil is still evil and is diametrically opposite holiness. God is Holy and is not the author/architect of any evil (much less all of it), the two concepts are completely mutually exclusive.
Response: God can cause evil and be holy because the evil he causes brings about greater holier end such that if he had not caused the evil such a holy end would not exist. I do think they are mutually exclusive if you think that this makes God evil, but I do not think God causing evil for a greater ends is evil of him but rather good. Would you murder a terrorist if you could save the lives of 20,000 million people? I would.
The part about me being a perfectionist was a bit left-field, but I think you were probably trying to point out where you think my logic would lead. Don't worry about it, I'm not easily offended.
Response: I am so sorry then. I explained above why I thought that above. But you are right maybe I should not have used that sort of language. Anyways, thanks for your time. I hope that you are doing really well.
God Bless you,
NPT
There is no indication of "strength to carry on [despite yielding to temptation]" but the ability to escape (and thus endure) the temptation itself. The escape he speaks of is typified by Paul's exhortation to flee idolatry, indicating that it is means of escape to avoid falling to specific temptations that God provides. A Christian who is presently succumbing to temptation is neither escaping it nor enduring it, despite capability to do otherwise.
ReplyDeleteResponse: I think the indication is in 1 Corinthians 10:12 as I have argued in my post. I think that if someone falls into idolatry that will make them feel so much despair that they might just want to give up on their Christian walk. Again, speaking of enduring temptation and not sinning as the theme of this text is just repeating what you already believe about what this text is teaching and thus it provides no positive argumentation to your case; in other words it seems rather question begging.
Actually, I did argue the case further from verse 14, which brings the statement from verse 13 into a real-world scenario, a 'practical application' of the concept he'd put forth in the previous verse (escaping temptation by fleeing it), or to summarize the though: 'God will make a way for you to escape every temptation, therefore flee idolatry.'
Response: We are not slaves to a sinful nature because of what Christ has done for us by imputing his righteousness to us. But aside from that you did not deal with the inability that is spoken here that occurs between the struggle between the flesh and the Spirit.
...
Response: This is an imperative and not an indicative. God can command us things that we cannot fulfill at times.
...
This is an imperative. I would categorize this as a mistake between confusing the indicative and the imperative.
The inability in Galatians is not being expressed as a complete inability, but a hindrance to our living unto God. The concept of Christians putting away sin is more than just some foggy and impossible imperative, but reality for those who love Him; this is evidenced in Paul's words near the conclusion of his discourse on walking in the Spirit,
And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Galatians 5:24)
Clearly this dispels any myths of a 'total inability' for Christians to live for Christ.
I never said I was incapable of sinning or past being tempted, I'm saying that through Christ I'm free to escape temptation.
Response: Okay, I understand that. So then Romans 6 and 8 is compatible with sinning then?
Is the concept of surrendering one's self as a slave compatible with being free?
I don't believe that everyone who is a Christian is sinning all the time.
Response: That is fine. But John says that if we commit any sin we are a slave to sin. Sin is singular in the Greek and English text.
...
Response: John is not talking about submitting to sin, he is talking about those who do sin. Any sin you commit shows that you are a slave to sin.
And the tense is present active, i.e. whoever is committing sin is its slave. Likewise, if I am submitting myself to Christ, then I am a slave of righteousness in Him. So Christ's words in John comport well with Paul's,
Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. (Romans 6:16-18)
Response: It never says in the text that he in only reflecting on his past sins, the very indication of the present tense being used of him being a sinner implies that he is still sinner at that time. The next verse is in the past tense suggesting obtained salvation in the past. All this suggests is that one can sin and still have salvation.
Such an interpretation requires divorce of the tense from the context, for Paul had just set the stage for it in recounting his past life as one of the worst kinds of sinners,
...although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
He could therefore properly describe himself as a horrid sinner based solely upon the record of sin accrued in his life before Christ, while not living according to the flesh (which is still not uncommon today). Paul implies of 'us' (inclusive of himself), that we were formerly sinners in Romans 5:8 ("While we were yet sinners, Christ died for the ungodly...."). It is one thing being a sinner in the sense of one who has committed sin (in that sense, all Christians are 'sinners saved by grace'), it is quite another to be a sinner engaged in unrepentant and willful sin.
This passage isn't speaking about how "God sees us," it is speaking about actions of those who are Christ's. "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Cannot be interpreted as "God sees us as always walking in the Spirit," apart from heavy eisegesis.
Response: I would infer from the context of Romans and the rest of the Biblical canon that this is our status when we are viewed in Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. Since I believe the person 6 and 8 is referring to believers, but incompatible if view with any sin, but believers sin obviously, so it has to be referring to our legal status.
Believers may sin, but one who remains in Christ will not continue in sin. 'Walking after the Spirit' plainly refers to real action, which fits the context of scripture perfectly since 'faith' that produces no action is dead and cannot save (James 2).
For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (Romans 8:13-14)
Response: This is not a command but a statement of fact. That is why the Greek is indicative and thus I would view it as how God legally views us.
"Being led" is not being "legally viewed." Such an interpretation finds no basis in the wording or context. You've got a catch-22 going btw, any commands for believers to live according to God's commands you chalk up to being non-realities because they are not indicative, and any statements about how believers actually do live you attribute to being merely how God sees us with no necessary real world correlation (non-reality) because they are indicative.
Colossians 3:9-10 states,
Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him....
This refers to real action on the part of believers, Christ never did, legally speaking, 'put off the old man' and its necessarily sinful deeds, for He had nothing to put off being sinless. This rather refers to repentance unto righteousness and obedience through Christ, not imputation.
Response: If we sin we are not walking in the light. Where do you get that God gives men space to repent and forgives them?
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. (Revelation 2:21)
Where do you get from the scriptures that one can struggle with sin and still be a Christian? I guess it just seems to me the person in Romans 6 and 8 are not compatible with any sort of sinning given a non-legal interpretation.
Actually, it's quite simple if you understand Ancient Near Eastern literary form. One can state what a situation is to be intended to in hyperbolic language without going into the issue of exceptional cases. 1 John is largely written this way, it expresses the basic, essential differences between believers and unbelievers. One of the differences is that the lost are in sin, believers act righteously. Taking these passages at woodenly literal face value, one would conclude that believers are literally incapable of sinning (see 1 John 3:9), whereas the strictly legal standpoint runs against the rocks with passages like,
In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:10)
This refers not to God's perception of believers, but what is manifest (made evident and known).
However, if the Hebrew mindset in communicating concepts is understood, then this makes perfect sense. John is putting forth what is typical to ideal of genuine disciples (which is not to say that we cannot lapse from it as 2:1 affirms). It's not a hard and fast, "this is how every believer without exception will always live every minute of the day," but is simply expressing, "this is the way genuine believers act." Skeptics against Christianity often try to attack the Bible by taking such statements expressing a generality and asserting that that it's trying to communicate a sweeping 'no exceptions' truth so they can call scripture erroneous at the first obvious exception.
I don't buy into the "God's contradictory wills" conjecture. Also, if it did not enter into His mind that they do this, then He couldn't have caused them to do it, unless of course God causes things He doesn't intend (which I don't belive).
Response: Why do you not buy it?
Because contradictory wills in an infinitely intelligent Being are nonsensical.
God can commands things to creatures because it is good for creatures to do and it reveals his righteous character. But why think that God commands are what he intends? I do not see any reason for thinking this so I make the distinction between God’s commands and intents. Of course God intends to command, but what he commands he does not necessarily intend.
I was speaking of what God intentionally causes though, not commands.
Response: I believe that God wanted them to. But God had a reason for overriding that want, perhaps to display his justice and glory. People can have wants and desires, but there can be other reasons for overriding these wants.
Which is why I believe God doesn't need multiple wills to fulfill paradoxical purposes. Libertarian choices often come down to choosing between competing desires.
Response: It does not say here that God allows men to do such and such; rather it says that the way man is because of God and that God directs his steps.
But limiting what one can do is a form of direction. 'Direct' does not necessarily imply 'exhaustively decree.' God can override free will at points if He wishes, and can direct men to achieve specific outcomes, but He has delegated to men the preparation of their own hearts.
The preparations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD. (Proverbs 16:1)
Which leads into our next point of discussion....
God doesn't ordain evil that good may come, evil is still evil and is diametrically opposite holiness. God is Holy and is not the author/architect of any evil (much less all of it), the two concepts are completely mutually exclusive.
Response: God can cause evil and be holy because the evil he causes brings about greater holier end such that if he had not caused the evil such a holy end would not exist. I do think they are mutually exclusive if you think that this makes God evil, but I do not think God causing evil for a greater ends is evil of him but rather good. Would you murder a terrorist if you could save the lives of 20,000 million people? I would.
No, I wouldn't commit murder to save lives, for murderers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Good ends do not justify the commission or machination of sin. God allows created beings to sin of their own accord (and often capitalizes upon the results), but the darkness in their hearts is solely of their own independent volition, it absolutely did not come from anything within God.
Hello JC,
ReplyDeleteI have really learned a lot from this interaction. I appreciate the time you have spent on this. I hope we can continue to have iron sharpen iron. Even though we disagree, I do not want you to think that I think badly of you. I hope the best for you and I hope the Lord Blesses your studies in his word.
Actually, I did argue the case further from verse 14, which brings the statement from verse 13 into a real-world scenario, a 'practical application' of the concept he'd put forth in the previous verse (escaping temptation by fleeing it), or to summarize the though: 'God will make a way for you to escape every temptation, therefore flee idolatry.'
Response: I understand that you have argued your case in verse 14 but in my last response I believe I have too. I believe mine is compatible with the practical application of the verse. God will give you the strength so that you can carry on and do not fall like the Israelites in the midst of temptation, therefore flee from idolatry.
The inability in Galatians is not being expressed as a complete inability, but a hindrance to our living unto God. The concept of Christians putting away sin is more than just some foggy and impossible imperative, but reality for those who love Him; this is evidenced in Paul's words near the conclusion of his discourse on walking in the Spirit,
And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Galatians 5:24)
Response: But you have not entirely crucified the flesh. And this is a impossible command for us to follow, which is why Christ had to do it for us so that we can produce works of gratitude by the Spirit of God.
And the tense is present active, i.e. whoever is committing sin is its slave. Likewise, if I am submitting myself to Christ, then I am a slave of righteousness in Him. So Christ's words in John comport well with Paul's,
Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. (Romans 6:16-18)
Response: So then believers who sin are slaves to sin, but that seems incompatible with the person here in Romans 6, which is why I think the legal view is more reasonable than the metaphysical view.
Such an interpretation requires divorce of the tense from the context, for Paul had just set the stage for it in recounting his past life as one of the worst kinds of sinners,
...although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
He could therefore properly describe himself as a horrid sinner based solely upon the record of sin accrued in his life before Christ, while not living according to the flesh (which is still not uncommon today). Paul implies of 'us' (inclusive of himself), that we were formerly sinners in Romans 5:8 ("While we were yet sinners, Christ died for the ungodly...."). It is one thing being a sinner in the sense of one who has committed sin (in that sense, all Christians are 'sinners saved by grace'), it is quite another to be a sinner engaged in unrepentant and willful sin.
Response: To be clear: I do not think that people can be believers and living in unrepentant sin. So in that sense, I agree with you. But Paul’s switching from the aorist to the present does suggest that he is still sinning as a believer. Thus, the usage of the present tense has to be accounted for since it does not say that he is reflecting upon his sins. Now he does talk about how he was sinful in the past and that how Christ saved him, but that does not negate the fact that he presently calls himself the chief of sinners. Nothing in the context negates that, because it is compatible for me to say I was save at point T-1 from all the sinful deeds I have committed in the past, but now I am still a sinner at point T-2. This switch from the aorist to the present is a deliberate switch on Paul’s part and I do not think your view accounts for this.
Believers may sin, but one who remains in Christ will not continue in sin. 'Walking after the Spirit' plainly refers to real action, which fits the context of scripture perfectly since 'faith' that produces no action is dead and cannot save (James 2).
Response: Again, I would use the context and other considerations in the biblical canon that are predicated of believers and non-believers. From this I would infer that this is legal. Christ walked according to the Spirit perfectly as a man and this is imputed to us. All of Christ actions are imputed to us. But I believe we produce works that flow necessarily from our justification, so I am not saying that Christian only sin and produce no fruits that confirm there justification. Thus, I have no problem with anything James says in his second chapter.
"Being led" is not being "legally viewed." Such an interpretation finds no basis in the wording or context. You've got a catch-22 going btw, any commands for believers to live according to God's commands you chalk up to being non-realities because they are not indicative, and any statements about how believers actually do live you attribute to being merely how God sees us with no necessary real world correlation (non-reality) because they are indicative.
Response: That is not a catch-22. I would say passages like James 2 and others suggests that believers have to have fruits of the Spirit, but we often times fail to deliver on this fruit, but in some instances we need to have it in order to confirm our justification. Christ was perfectly lead by the Spirit and this is imputed to us and it being viewed legal is justified by other verses in the canon and in the book of Romans itself. Legality is one of the only clear categories Paul gives us to view what Christ did for us.
Colossians 2:14 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
Colossians 3:9-10 states,
Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him....
This refers to real action on the part of believers, Christ never did, legally speaking, 'put off the old man' and its necessarily sinful deeds, for He had nothing to put off being sinless. This rather refers to repentance unto righteousness and obedience through Christ, not imputation.
Response: By Paul speaking of us putting on the new man, is referring to the instrument by which we received the new man legally, and this instrument is by faith alone. Thus, if you make the distinction between instruments and the things apprehended by us through these instruments I think this makes perfect sense of passages like these.
Response: If we sin we are not walking in the light. Where do you get that God gives men space to repent and forgives them?
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. (Revelation 2:21)
Response: Granted. Thanks for a good use of these texts and answering my question.
Where do you get from the scriptures that one can struggle with sin and still be a Christian? I guess it just seems to me the person in Romans 6 and 8 are not compatible with any sort of sinning given a non-legal interpretation.
Actually, it's quite simple if you understand Ancient Near Eastern literary form. One can state what a situation is to be intended to in hyperbolic language without going into the issue of exceptional cases. 1 John is largely written this way, it expresses the basic, essential differences between believers and unbelievers. One of the differences is that the lost are in sin, believers act righteously. Taking these passages at woodenly literal face value, one would conclude that believers are literally incapable of sinning (see 1 John 3:9), whereas the strictly legal standpoint runs against the rocks with passages like,
In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:10)
This refers not to God's perception of believers, but what is manifest (made evident and known).
However, if the Hebrew mindset in communicating concepts is understood, then this makes perfect sense. John is putting forth what is typical to ideal of genuine disciples (which is not to say that we cannot lapse from it as 2:1 affirms). It's not a hard and fast, "this is how every believer without exception will always live every minute of the day," but is simply expressing, "this is the way genuine believers act." Skeptics against Christianity often try to attack the Bible by taking such statements expressing a generality and asserting that that it's trying to communicate a sweeping 'no exceptions' truth so they can call scripture erroneous at the first obvious exception.
Response: First, off I do not buy the whole Hebrew mindset card here because they had the same concepts of language as we do. D.A. Carson and other scholars have shown this to be a fallacy. Secondly the context of first John is attacking Greek Gnostic philosophical notions of Christ; they believed that matter was evil so they believed in a docestic phantom Jesus without real flesh and blood. So I think in light of Johns Greek context in first John I think your historical arguments do not correspond or apply to this book. I would agree that 1 John 3:10 is not legal. I have never argued that believers do not do righteousness or do not love their brothers. This is an indication of a believer. But it is one thing to say that they do these things and entirely other thing to say that they do these perfectly and all the time, which I reject. However, 1 John 3:9 is legal. The word for practice is simply the Greek word for do. Thus, I would translate it as such:
1 John 3:9 No one born of God commits sin; for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.
We cannot sin because we are clothed in Christ’s perfect righteousness and in this sense we are perfect, in the legal sense, but in the metaphysical sense we struggle with sin, sometimes we produce good works and other times we fall into sin.
Because contradictory wills in an infinitely intelligent Being are nonsensical.
Response: I think they are reasonable. Could you give me a syllogism suggesting how it is a contradiction or why it is unreasonable? They are not in contradiction because they are addressing different things with respect to God.
I was speaking of what God intentionally causes though, not commands.
Response: Yeah, so in light of that there does not seem to be a problem here.
Which is why I believe God doesn't need multiple wills to fulfill paradoxical purposes. Libertarian choices often come down to choosing between competing desires.
Response: I do not believe the purposes here are not paradoxical. You have not given a syllogism or an argument to show this as of yet.
But limiting what one can do is a form of direction. 'Direct' does not necessarily imply 'exhaustively decree.' God can override free will at points if He wishes, and can direct men to achieve specific outcomes, but He has delegated to men the preparation of their own hearts.
The preparations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD. (Proverbs 16:1)
Response: Semi-compatiblism is such that one can say the actions are of the agents will, but that God causes the agents will do such and such. Thus, there is a distinction between agents will and God’s via primary and secondary causation. With that being cleared up, Proverbs 16:1 is compatible with what semi-compatiblist says about humans in relation to the divine will. Jeremiah 10:23 is talking about how the way of man is not in himself, so it implies a little more than just direction as you have mentioned.
No, I wouldn't commit murder to save lives, for murderers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Good ends do not justify the commission or machination of sin. God allows created beings to sin of their own accord (and often capitalizes upon the results), but the darkness in their hearts is solely of their own independent volition, it absolutely did not come from anything within God.
Response: I would disagree on the basis of the Bible and intuition. Rehab the Prostitute in Joshua 1-6 lies to save the spies and in James 2 she commended for this. The Hebrew Mid-wives in exodus 1 are blessed for lying to pharaoh. Liars do not inherit the kingdom of God, but in some cases lies do are not sinful when they preserve innocent life. Thus, when it says things like liars do not inherit the kingdom of God it refers to the lying that is not moral justified on the basis of our intuitions or God’s word.
I would also argue philosophically that your conception of God is necessarily false, a God that allows creatures to have libertarian independence of the will.
P1: God is the greatest possible being
P2: It is better to be dependent on the greatest rather than not
P3: God being the greatest possible being entails that he is necessarily dependent only upon the greatest, namely, himself.
P4: If agents have libertarian free decisions then whatever they choose they will causes God’s knowledge to be what they choose.
P5: God knowledge is dependent upon creatures that have libertarian free decisions.
P6: creatures are lesser than God
P7: If P4 is true then the greatest possible being would be dependent on the lesser.
P8: If this were true we could think of a greater being namely one that is only dependent upon the greatest.
P9: The greatest possible being would not be the greatest possible being (Contradiction)
C: Hence, God being the greatest possible being entails that creatures cannot have libertarian free will.
Also it is interesting; the main thing that motivates libertarian freedom is something that is unbiblical. The intuition that supports libertarian freedom is that if we cannot do other than what we can do then we are not free and thus not morally responsible. But one wonders when one makes this line of argumentation if whether or not they are paraphrasing the objector in Romans 9.
Romans 9:18-20 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Thus, the reason for believing libertarian freedom is something that inherently unbiblical and philosophically untenable.
But thanks for reading this and I eagerly await your response.
In Christ,
NPT
Hey Nathanael, I hope you had a good weekend. I've enjoyed the interaction as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Galatians 5:24)
Response: But you have not entirely crucified the flesh. And this is a impossible command for us to follow, which is why Christ had to do it for us so that we can produce works of gratitude by the Spirit of God.
But it's not a command here, it's indicative of what Christians do. Yes, imperfectly at times, nevertheless it reflects that when we walk in Christ, we are no longer slaves to sin.
So then believers who sin are slaves to sin, but that seems incompatible with the person here in Romans 6, which is why I think the legal view is more reasonable than the metaphysical view.
Romans 6:16 affirms that those who sin are its slaves, there is no problem with what Romans 6 states being actual since it describes how we can and are intended to live through Christ.
Christ was perfectly lead by the Spirit and this is imputed to us and it being viewed legal is justified by other verses in the canon and in the book of Romans itself. Legality is one of the only clear categories Paul gives us to view what Christ did for us.
Colossians 2:14 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
A passage that speaks of Christ doing something legally does not negate Paul's plain statements of what Christ has done for us in our own walks as well, Galatians 5:24 (cited above) being just one example.
Colossians 3:9-10 states,
Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him....
This refers to real action on the part of believers, Christ never did, legally speaking, 'put off the old man' and its necessarily sinful deeds, for He had nothing to put off being sinless. This rather refers to repentance unto righteousness and obedience through Christ, not imputation.
Response: By Paul speaking of us putting on the new man, is referring to the instrument by which we received the new man legally, and this instrument is by faith alone. Thus, if you make the distinction between instruments and the things apprehended by us through these instruments I think this makes perfect sense of passages like these.
But it does not speak of just the old man, but his deeds as well. This is again Paul's concept of Christ freeing us not only from the eternal consequences of sin, but enslavement to sin itself.
Response: First, off I do not buy the whole Hebrew mindset card here because they had the same concepts of language as we do. D.A. Carson and other scholars have shown this to be a fallacy.
No, it's not a fallacy (I'm not talking about New Perspective on Paul btw). Of course they have many of the same concepts of language that we do, but other such communicative forms are quite common through scripture, as John Pilch, Bruce Malina, Marvin Wilson and others have plainly demonstrated; and which can be plainly seen from even a casual reading of the Bible.
As just one of many examples, I've debated the subject of drinking before with people who insist that consuming any amount of alcohol is a sin (I'm a Moderationist). I've heard some try to condemn it on legal grounds, and others deny that Jesus turned water into actual wine; they base this largely on the condemnations of drunkenness (which I agree with fully, as I'm not arguing for being drunk) and a Westernized reading of Proverbs 23:31 to prove that wine was forbidden by God in the Old Testament. Such a view has always fallen flat when it's been pointed out that God explicitly allowed people to drink strong drink at one of the feasts (Deuteronomy 14:26), the Hebrew 'shekar' being a clear reference to fermented wine. The statement in Proverbs is not in fact not to be taken as an all-encompassing universal command, but a good demonstration of applied Hebrew 'block logic.'
A more glaring example of the use of extreme language comes from Christ's words,
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)
Adopting the typically Western "strict letter of the law" approach, some cults have actually arisen that proclaim that we must literally, actively hate our families. This is of course ridiculous if one understands the Jewish forms of communication (standard use of extreme/hyperbolic language to express that our love for God must be so great, that our other loved ones are hated by comparison). Read that and tell me that our typical methods of communication don't differ substantially at points. Even in modern times, Westerners still have trouble grasping the way Easterners (to include Middle/Near East) think, as many U.S. servicemen can testify to. I haven't read Carson on the subject, but I doubt he would label recognizing such obvious differences in mindset as a fallacy.
Secondly the context of first John is attacking Greek Gnostic philosophical notions of Christ; they believed that matter was evil so they believed in a docestic phantom Jesus without real flesh and blood. So I think in light of Johns Greek context in first John I think your historical arguments do not correspond or apply to this book.
John was still a Jew, writing to a Greek audience didn't suddenly make him start writing with the same mindset as a Greek; which is underscored by the fact that Westerners still often misinterpret John's words about believers not sinning (which is where movements like 'temporal Christian perfection' come from).
I would agree that 1 John 3:10 is not legal. I have never argued that believers do not do righteousness or do not love their brothers.
For what it's worth, I'm very glad you believe that.
This is an indication of a believer. But it is one thing to say that they do these things and entirely other thing to say that they do these perfectly and all the time, which I reject.
As do I, which is what I was trying to say. 1 John broadly establishes basic differences between believing and non-believing in 'all-or-nothing' language.
Semi-compatiblism is such that one can say the actions are of the agents will, but that God causes the agents will do such and such. Thus, there is a distinction between agents will and God’s via primary and secondary causation. With that being cleared up, Proverbs 16:1 is compatible with what semi-compatiblist says about humans in relation to the divine will.
And because of sinfulness in the created agents, this is all the more reason I reject Necessitarianism.
Jeremiah 10:23 is talking about how the way of man is not in himself, so it implies a little more than just direction as you have mentioned.
How? If God is directing man's steps, then how would that necessitate more than direction? Additionally, I believe this also carries the implication that man does not know how to walk properly of his own accord; Psalm 37 states,
The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD, And He delights in his way.
Which is not to say that man has no libertarian volition, but that he does not know how to direct himself in a way that is good apart from God's guidance. Man technically can make his own way, but he will fail in doing so, such as Jereboam devising wickedness out of his own heart (1 Kings 12:33). Such a way of wickedness clearly was within this man's self, but it predictably led to his downfall. Or to put it plainly, the blind can lead the blind -- but their steps will inevitably end in failure.
I would disagree on the basis of the Bible and intuition. Rehab the Prostitute in Joshua 1-6 lies to save the spies and in James 2 she commended for this. The Hebrew Mid-wives in exodus 1 are blessed for lying to pharaoh. Liars do not inherit the kingdom of God, but in some cases lies do are not sinful when they preserve innocent life. Thus, when it says things like liars do not inherit the kingdom of God it refers to the lying that is not moral justified on the basis of our intuitions or God’s word.
But deception of the form used by Rahab is not what is being condemned in Revelation; the lies being spoken of don't fit such a context any more than murder fits a soldier killing an enemy combatant. It is no longer a sinful deception or murder in such a context, and there is a substantial difference between killing someone in battle versus actual murder (note 1 Kings 2:5). Such actions are acceptable within the law of God and even commended. But sinners typically act out of evil motive, and being non-self-existent the evil motive itself had to be imagined somewhere, which if Necessitarianism is true, can only have been from God. Additionally, by the 'murder is justifiable' logic, murdering the de facto terrorist doctors who perform abortions would be perfectly justifiable since it would in all likelihood save many lives.
I would also argue philosophically that your conception of God is necessarily false, a God that allows creatures to have libertarian independence of the will.
P1: God is the greatest possible being
P2: It is better to be dependent on the greatest rather than not
P3: God being the greatest possible being entails that he is necessarily dependent only upon the greatest, namely, himself.
P4: If agents have libertarian free decisions then whatever they choose they will causes God’s knowledge to be what they choose.
P5: God knowledge is dependent upon creatures that have libertarian free decisions.
Equivocaiton in terminology, God is not 'dependent' (as in having need of) upon His creatures, His choosing to let creatures make choices with knowledge dependent upon their self-determination does not impugn His independence, since He had no compulsion to create them in the first place. Point 2 is also a begged question, since there is evil in the world, knowledge of what goes against one's self is not better dependent upon one's self. These postulates being flawed, the rest of the syllogism does not follow.
Also it is interesting; the main thing that motivates libertarian freedom is something that is unbiblical. The intuition that supports libertarian freedom is that if we cannot do other than what we can do then we are not free and thus not morally responsible. ...Thus, the reason for believing libertarian freedom is something that inherently unbiblical and philosophically untenable.
But this is not my motive for holding to LFW; but even at that, nowhere does Romans 9 state that God wills to harden people unconditionally. Arguments based upon guessing motives typically don't fare well btw.
It is one thing being a sinner in the sense of one who has committed sin (in that sense, all Christians are 'sinners saved by grace'), it is quite another to be a sinner engaged in unrepentant and willful sin.
Response: To be clear: I do not think that people can be believers and living in unrepentant sin. So in that sense, I agree with you. But Paul’s switching from the aorist to the present does suggest that he is still sinning as a believer. Thus, the usage of the present tense has to be accounted for since it does not say that he is reflecting upon his sins. Now he does talk about how he was sinful in the past and that how Christ saved him, but that does not negate the fact that he presently calls himself the chief of sinners. Nothing in the context negates that, because it is compatible for me to say I was save at point T-1 from all the sinful deeds I have committed in the past, but now I am still a sinner at point T-2. This switch from the aorist to the present is a deliberate switch on Paul’s part and I do not think your view accounts for this.
I've already accounted for it with common use of language, whereas the view you espouse produces direct contradiction with Paul's own words of exhortation: If Paul were a man who remained steeped in wrongdoing, it would have been extremely bad advice for him to say,
Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:1)
If he were presently, actively still the chief of sinners, would this imply that we should strive to be exceedingly sinful in our actions as well?
I understand that you have argued your case in verse 14 but in my last response I believe I have too. I believe mine is compatible with the practical application of the verse. God will give you the strength so that you can carry on and do not fall like the Israelites in the midst of temptation, therefore flee from idolatry.
But your defense relies upon the interpretation of 'escape' and 'endure' meaning [roughly] 'not falling unto damnation by,' as opposed to my interpretation of 'actually escaping.' In other words, (to my understanding) your defense relies upon the 'enduring' in the passage not meaning to actually escape doing what we are tempted to do, and therefore does not fit with the immediate exhortation to escape doing what we are tempted to do. Summarizing your position with the application:
"No temptation [even if you've been unconditionally foreordained to succumb to it] will jeapordize your salvation, therefore flee idolatry."
Doesn't follow contextually. What it indicates is:
"God makes a way for you to escape and endure temptation, therefore flee idolatry."
Which fits perfectly, since a way to escape (i.e. flee) from such a temptation is exactly what God has provisioned.
We cannot sin because we are clothed in Christ’s perfect righteousness and in this sense we are perfect, in the legal sense, but in the metaphysical sense we struggle with sin, sometimes we produce good works and other times we fall into sin.
Relating this concept back to your answer to 1 Corinthians 10:13, when you state, "Christ walked according to the Spirit perfectly as a man and this is imputed to us.", then I must ask, do you believe there is any sin that would (even in theory) cause a believer to fall away unto perdition if we have been imputed with Christ's righteousness? If so, how would this be (assuming we are permanently declared legally righteous as Christ)?
I was speaking of what God intentionally causes though, not commands.
Response: Yeah, so in light of that there does not seem to be a problem here.
I had stated why this would be a problem with,
I don't buy into the "God's contradictory wills" conjecture. Also, if it did not enter into His mind that they do this, then He couldn't have caused them to do it, unless of course God causes things He doesn't intend (which I don't believe).
Which is why I believe God doesn't need multiple wills to fulfill paradoxical purposes. Libertarian choices often come down to choosing between competing desires.
Response: I do not believe the purposes here are not paradoxical. You have not given a syllogism or an argument to show this as of yet.
Wait, you do believe that God does have contradictory wills, yet don't accept that His purposes are at times at least paradoxical?
Because contradictory wills in an infinitely intelligent Being are nonsensical.
Response: I think they are reasonable. Could you give me a syllogism suggesting how it is a contradiction or why it is unreasonable? They are not in contradiction because they are addressing different things with respect to God.
A syllogism isn't even required, contradictory wills within the same mind are by definition contradictory. Additionally, God's nature in its entirety is Holy, and there is nothing in Him that is unholy. Now it's beyond question that unholiness exists, it therefore must have its origin outside of God who is too pure for to look on sin. It's simply absurd to declare that everything God hates with His entire Being somehow is necessitated from within Himself. John notes the pure separation of God from wickedness,
This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5)
Yet there is spiritual darkness and wickedness in the world. Where did it come from? Even appeal to motive at this point is irrelevant, since a spiritually dark motive is still wickedness both by intention, design, and execution; and if Necessitarianism is true, then that darkness could only have arisen directly from within God in whom is no darkness, which is an inescapable contradiction.
Hello JC,
ReplyDeleteSorry it took me awhile this time. I had to study for a Hebrew mid term. My weekend was crazy...they need to make Westminster easier.
But it's not a command here, it's indicative of what Christians do. Yes, imperfectly at times, nevertheless it reflects that when we walk in Christ, we are no longer slaves to sin.
Response: According to John we are, because anybody who sins is a salve to sin. But I do not think the Bible ever teaches a imperfect notion of crucifying the sinful flesh imperfectly. I think that in light of this it is better to take this verse as a legal indicative of a believers status in Christ.
Romans 6:16 affirms that those who sin are its slaves, there is no problem with what Romans 6 states being actual since it describes how we can and are intended to live through Christ.
Response: Okay, good. So then it seems that the person in Romans 7 then can be a slave to sin and still be a Christian. Granted, I would also see Romans 7 as the believer who is holy and as time goes on he is more and more sensitive to sin. The more he wants to be Holy the more he hates the sin he commits. There is an intense struggle here because the believer wants to be Holy and delights in law of God, but there are times that he sins and this drives him crazy because he is sensitive to sin. In light of how you would take Romans 6 and 8, I do not presently see a conflict here between that a Romans 7.
A passage that speaks of Christ doing something legally does not negate Paul's plain statements of what Christ has done for us in our own walks as well, Galatians 5:24 (cited above) being just one example.
Response: I believe Christ has helped us in our Christian lives, but I think that Galatians is referring to our imputed status. I was not saying that Col. Negates this idea but rather that I would see many verses as imputation when it seems fit in the immediate and canonical context; Galatians in many parts happens to be one of them.
But it does not speak of just the old man, but his deeds as well. This is again Paul's concept of Christ freeing us not only from the eternal consequences of sin, but enslavement to sin itself.
Response: My interpretation is compatible with this because I think that Christ has legally imputed his deeds to us, thus the old man is gone in everything, including deeds. However, I do think that Paul and others do motivate us on the basis of our legal declaration. Thus, I can say: You have been imputed with Christ’s righteousness and saved from your sins, therefore, do not lie. The grace of God and his imputation to believers is a cause of gratitude to produce fruits of the Spirit of God.
No, it's not a fallacy (I'm not talking about New Perspective on Paul btw). Of course they have many of the same concepts of language that we do, but other such communicative forms are quite common through scripture, as John Pilch, Bruce Malina, Marvin Wilson and others have plainly demonstrated; and which can be plainly seen from even a casual reading of the Bible.
Response: Yeah, I believe it is. Carson flushes this out in exegetical fallacies. I know you are not talking about the new perspective on Paul. In my reading of the Bible I have seen no evidence of that and you gave one verse to support that, but again I would take a literal reading of that, Matt Williams for example takes this reading and he is a scholar on the Gospels.
As just one of many examples, I've debated the subject of drinking before with people who insist that consuming any amount of alcohol is a sin (I'm a Moderationist). I've heard some try to condemn it on legal grounds, and others deny that Jesus turned water into actual wine; they base this largely on the condemnations of drunkenness (which I agree with fully, as I'm not arguing for being drunk) and a Westernized reading of Proverbs 23:31 to prove that wine was forbidden by God in the Old Testament. Such a view has always fallen flat when it's been pointed out that God explicitly allowed people to drink strong drink at one of the feasts (Deuteronomy 14:26), the Hebrew 'shekar' being a clear reference to fermented wine. The statement in Proverbs is not in fact not to be taken as an all-encompassing universal command, but a good demonstration of applied Hebrew 'block logic.'
Response: I would say that Proverbs is a different genre than John and I would agree with about this in that genre but not in John’s. I do not drink much, but I do not think it is a sin. I do not use the Old Testament laws that repeated in the New Testament because I think the Mosaic law is abolished (Heb 8:13).
A more glaring example of the use of extreme language comes from Christ's words,
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)
Adopting the typically Western "strict letter of the law" approach, some cults have actually arisen that proclaim that we must literally, actively hate our families. This is of course ridiculous if one understands the Jewish forms of communication (standard use of extreme/hyperbolic language to express that our love for God must be so great, that our other loved ones are hated by comparison). Read that and tell me that our typical methods of communication don't differ substantially at points. Even in modern times, Westerners still have trouble grasping the way Easterners (to include Middle/Near East) think, as many U.S. servicemen can testify to. I haven't read Carson on the subject, but I doubt he would label recognizing such obvious differences in mindset as a fallacy.
Response: I have actually discussed this verse with New Testament Scholars and to be clear the language is literal. In Judaism if one were to put someone above their family like this they would consider it to be hatred and thus Jesus was working with in that cultural framework. Of course, Jesus might take issue with their definition of what hatred and love might be, but in this text he using this cultural understanding of hatred to communicate the extent by which people ought to follow him.
John was still a Jew, writing to a Greek audience didn't suddenly make him start writing with the same mindset as a Greek; which is underscored by the fact that Westerners still often misinterpret John's words about believers not sinning (which is where movements like 'temporal Christian perfection' come from).
Response: Yeah, that is true but I still think that John being an inspired Apostle and addressing things in Greek philosophy which brought about the Hersey gnosticism would have been more precise on this. But again I am saying this because I do not buy the whole Jewish mindset idea. So I really do not expect that to convince you. I just see no reason for not taking John’s statements as not literal. Could you provide citation for who else views this about first John. Because in my experience most commentators view this verse in a non-legal way try to make arguments about the Greek syntax and how the John uses an infinitive and aorist in a way that suggests habitual action rather than one action. This is what others say who hold my view of Romans 7, but rejects the legal view of 1 John. My my professor holds this view, and I was totally unconvinced when he was arguing it in class.
For what it's worth, I'm very glad you believe that.
Response: I am glad that you are glad about this. In my readings most people who are Reformed and hold my understanding of Romans 7 would want to say that it is evident in their lives at times that believers love their neighbor and do righteousness acts. But there are many times in the believers life were he will want to do this but fails and that if he does not fail he still is in despair about the times he does fail, but this despair, I believe drives us to the cross of Christ and helps us produce works of gratitude.
As do I, which is what I was trying to say. 1 John broadly establishes basic differences between believing and non-believing in 'all-or-nothing' language.
Response: Okay fair enough, I would probably emphasize the struggle more than you would in the believer’s life, but I would also want to say that there are fruits in ones life that demonstrate to others that they are a genuine believer. I struggle a lot with sin and I constantly struggle but it is pretty evident to me and others that I am believer.
However it is interesting to me:
Hebrews 11:13-14 13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.
Hebrews 11:31-32 31 By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies. 32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets-
Hebrews seem to teach that these Old Testament Characters were saved, yet people like Samson who slept with prostitutes, was vengeful, and brutal is included in this category. This, I think is a good argument, for believers struggling with sin and justification by faith alone.
And because of sinfulness in the created agents, this is all the more reason I reject Necessitarianism.
Response: Yeah, this is not really an interactive detailed response and it suffers from not being sufficiently clear as to what mean. I reject Necessitarianism, semi-compatiblist does not entail Necessitarianism because I believe in contingency and I believe in libertarian agency with God alone. Thus, the necessary and sufficient conditions for being morally responsible and free would be different from that of just being merely morally responsible.
How? If God is directing man's steps, then how would that necessitate more than direction? Additionally, I believe this also carries the implication that man does not know how to walk properly of his own accord; Psalm 37 states,
Response: The way that man is, is not in him, but in God. If I say the way computer is, is not because of the computer but because I me, I think we would take that to mean more than direction. Let me be clear with what I am saying:
P1: Libertarian agency is thesis that agent choices are what they are on the basis of what the agent chooses and nothing causing it sufficiently external to the agent.
P2: Are choices are what they are on the basis of God externally causing us sufficiently
C: Therefore, Libertarian agency is false.
P2 is justified because the way we are is not in us but in God. This seems pretty clear.
The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD, And He delights in his way.
Which is not to say that man has no libertarian volition, but that he does not know how to direct himself in a way that is good apart from God's guidance. Man technically can make his own way, but he will fail in doing so, such as Jereboam devising wickedness out of his own heart (1 Kings 12:33). Such a way of wickedness clearly was within this man's self, but it predictably led to his downfall. Or to put it plainly, the blind can lead the blind -- but their steps will inevitably end in failure.
Response: I understand what you believe but I do not think this is a good argument for that. Of course, one can say in semi-compatiblism that it out of their own heart that they do such and such, but that statement could entail that there own heart was caused to be what it is. I agree with Psalm 37, the steps of a good man are ordered, but I do not see how this is a valid and sound argument against determinism. In fact I would say that this verse more or less suggests that God determines at the very least all of our good actions.
But deception of the form used by Rahab is not what is being condemned in Revelation; the lies being spoken of don't fit such a context any more than murder fits a soldier killing an enemy combatant. It is no longer a sinful deception or murder in such a context, and there is a substantial difference between killing someone in battle versus actual murder (note 1 Kings 2:5). Such actions are acceptable within the law of God and even commended. But sinners typically act out of evil motive, and being non-self-existent the evil motive itself had to be imagined somewhere, which if Necessitarianism is true, can only have been from God. Additionally, by the 'murder is justifiable' logic, murdering the de facto terrorist doctors who perform abortions would be perfectly justifiable since it would in all likelihood save many lives.
Response: Oh I agree with you about the issue of ethics. I do not think it is no longer sinful lying but it is good to say something not true in those contexts. I was trying to articulate this earlier. But I think God is good and I think when he does things for the greater good and thus it is no longer evil. We still perform the evil that God causes us to do, but we do it for an evil end and desire and thus I would think we deserved to be punished for that, but God does not and thus God performs no evil on his part. I reject necessitarianism and I will give arguments later on in this response for why I reject it. Thus, whatever God causes is not evil, but agents through secondary causes bring about evil.
Equivocaiton in terminology, God is not 'dependent' (as in having need of) upon His creatures, His choosing to let creatures make choices with knowledge dependent upon their self-determination does not impugn His independence, since He had no compulsion to create them in the first place. Point 2 is also a begged question, since there is evil in the world, knowledge of what goes against one's self is not better dependent upon one's self. These postulates being flawed, the rest of the syllogism does not follow.
Response: I was referring to metaphysically dependent throughout the entire syllogism and thus there is no equivocation. In order for God to know every true proposition when he creates he needs to know what you will choose; if you choose A then God will believe that you choose A if you choose B then God will have believed that you choose B. God does need to know everything to be essential God and part of that is dependent on what you will choose. Even if God does not create he still knows what you would possibly do and thus he dependent on your actual decision and your possible ones. I would say God causes the evil and thus he his only dependent on his being for knowledge and nothing outside of it, whereas in your view God does not choose what you will choose, you choose what God will know and thus God is dependent on you for knowledge. If you reject premise two then that seems sort of counter intuitive; are you saying that it is better for God to be dependent on his lesser creatures? How is being dependent on something lesser outside of yourself in any sense good making property? By the way I do not think God had to create.
But this is not my motive for holding to LFW; but even at that, nowhere does Romans 9 state that God wills to harden people unconditionally. Arguments based upon guessing motives typically don't fare well btw.
Response: Paul asks rhetorically, who can resist his will? Obviously the answer is no one. But in Libertarian free will you can always do other than what you do and thus you could resist God’s will, which is contrary to the teaching of Romans 9.
It is one thing being a sinner in the sense of one who has committed sin (in that sense, all Christians are 'sinners saved by grace'), it is quite another to be a sinner engaged in unrepentant and willful sin.
I've already accounted for it with common use of language, whereas the view you espouse produces direct contradiction with Paul's own words of exhortation: If Paul were a man who remained steeped in wrongdoing, it would have been extremely bad advice for him to say,
Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:1)
If he were presently, actively still the chief of sinners, would this imply that we should strive to be exceedingly sinful in our actions as well?
Response: I have never argued that Paul or any believer should strive after sinful actions. Paul never did nor have I. You can imitate people and not be like them in every respect. In fact that is precisely what the Greek word means. I would say Paul is an imitator of Christ in that he loves the law of God and he tries to be perfect, where as Christ loves the law of God, tries to be perfect and was. Thus, I do not think this is bad advice but good advice.
I understand that you have argued your case in verse 14 but in my last response I believe I have too. I believe mine is compatible with the practical application of the verse. God will give you the strength so that you can carry on and do not fall like the Israelites in the midst of temptation, therefore flee from idolatry.
But your defense relies upon the interpretation of 'escape' and 'endure' meaning [roughly] 'not falling unto damnation by,' as opposed to my interpretation of 'actually escaping.' In other words, (to my understanding) your defense relies upon the 'enduring' in the passage not meaning to actually escape doing what we are tempted to do, and therefore does not fit with the immediate exhortation to escape doing what we are tempted to do.
Response: I would say it fits with the passage because the passage to flee from Idolatry is summarizing the whole section and not just that specific verse. The section as a whole is referring to how Israelites fell out of the covenant community because of Idolatry and Paul is summarizing this whole section with this imperative. But the previous verse talks about us falling and I would take this falling to be referring to falling away from the covenant community which is something only an unbeliever can do and the unbelievers of the Old Testament fell away from the covenant community because they whored after other God’s and it is on this basis Paul grounds his exhortation, rather than grounding it on some abstract vague notion of libertarian agency.
Summarizing your position with the application:
"No temptation [even if you've been unconditionally foreordained to succumb to it] will jeapordize your salvation, therefore flee idolatry."
Doesn't follow contextually. What it indicates is:
"God makes a way for you to escape and endure temptation, therefore flee idolatry."
Which fits perfectly, since a way to escape (i.e. flee) from such a temptation is exactly what God has provisioned.
Response: First of all, I do not think if a text lacks Calvinistic deterministic themes that therefore it does not teach Calvinism. So when Peter is doing things in Acts and so it does not have to say “Peter was causally determined and foreordained to preach the gospel to such and such”. So the fact that this text does not mentioned foreordination does not mean that foreordination is not taught in the Bible. So there is no reason to try to put that in as part of the text to try to make my position look non-contextual. And salvation does not need to be explicitly mentioned for a text to be talking about salvation. Thus, mine would look more like this:
No temptation will cause you too lose strength so that you might fall, God will have you endure.
With this in hand, it seems that my interpretation is perfectly plausible since the previous verses are talking about Israelites who were fell away from the covenant community, which is something that can still happen today to unbelievers in the covenant community but not believers.
Relating this concept back to your answer to 1 Corinthians 10:13, when you state, "Christ walked according to the Spirit perfectly as a man and this is imputed to us.", then I must ask, do you believe there is any sin that would (even in theory) cause a believer to fall away unto perdition if we have been imputed with Christ's righteousness? If so, how would this be (assuming we are permanently declared legally righteous as Christ)?
Response: Yes, it would be assuming this, that we are permanently declared legally righteous once we have faith and that faith cannot be lost. God will never let us sin to the point to were we lose our faith. If we are saved God will also never let us fall out of the covenant community on account of sin.
I had stated why this would be a problem with,
I don't buy into the "God's contradictory wills" conjecture. Also, if it did not enter into His mind that they do this, then He couldn't have caused them to do it, unless of course God causes things He doesn't intend (which I don't believe).
Wait, you do believe that God does have contradictory wills, yet don't accept that His purposes are at times at least paradoxical?
Response: I do not believe there are contradictions in his will or any paradoxical things about God. Sorry if you thought I was saying that. Everything God causes he intends to bring about. His commands are given to us merely as aim or purpose in our sanctification, to show his Holy character, and to drive us to Christ. These intents are in no way contradictory.
A syllogism isn't even required, contradictory wills within the same mind are by definition contradictory. Additionally, God's nature in its entirety is Holy, and there is nothing in Him that is unholy. Now it's beyond question that unholiness exists, it therefore must have its origin outside of God who is too pure for to look on sin. It's simply absurd to declare that everything God hates with His entire Being somehow is necessitated from within Himself. John notes the pure separation of God from wickedness,
This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5)
Yet there is spiritual darkness and wickedness in the world. Where did it come from? Even appeal to motive at this point is irrelevant, since a spiritually dark motive is still wickedness both by intention, design, and execution; and if Necessitarianism is true, then that darkness could only have arisen directly from within God in whom is no darkness, which is an inescapable contradiction.
Response: First of all what I am saying here does not entail Necessitarianism. One can hold to evil existing and causal determinism without saying that this possible world is the only possible one that exists and thus necessary. I would take 1 John 1:5 to be referring to the intrinsic properties of God, which are not evil; this why the preposition “in” is used here. The evil came from God but God is not evil. God is necessary so how is the world contingent? Well obviously by the fact that God is necessary does not mean that everything he does is necessary, likewise, just because God is good does not mean that he cannot cause evil to accomplish a greater ends. His intentions, design, are not evil and if he were not to execute the evil then he would not be that good because causing the evil brings about the greater good. Something that is meant for God and made to produce the greater good cannot said to be evil either in intention or design. This is why I would prefer you to write your arguments out in syllogisms. It would make things clearer because a lot of things you are saying are imprecise in content and in their entailment. Lastly, I never said God had contradictory wills but rather he does different things to accomplish different purposes. He gives us imperatives and shows us what he would want us to bring about to drive us to Christ and an aim in our sanctification. And he causes things to bring about a greater good. This is what we mean by two wills. These two wills are not contradictory and I am still waiting for a syllogism for how you show precisely how this is a contradiction.
I hope you have a good weekend. Thanks again for your time.
ReplyDeleteIn Christ,
NPT
And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Galatians 5:24)
ReplyDelete...it reflects that when we walk in Christ, we are no longer slaves to sin.
Response: According to John we are, because anybody who sins is a salve to sin.
Anyone who is sinning is a slave to sin; one can have been a slave in the past, but not presently.
But I do not think the Bible ever teaches a imperfect notion of crucifying the sinful flesh imperfectly. I think that in light of this it is better to take this verse as a legal indicative of a believers status in Christ.
That doesn't hold up very well, since the crucifying is spoken of in active voice, not passive; this is something believers do through Christ, not something done to or imputed to us as passive agents.
Response: Okay, good. So then it seems that the person in Romans 7 then can be a slave to sin and still be a Christian. Granted, I would also see Romans 7 as the believer who is holy and as time goes on he is more and more sensitive to sin. ...
Paul was describing himself prior to conversion. He describes himself as unable to serve God in such a state, in contrast with what scripture reveals about those who believe.
...how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:14)
The fact that a Christian may submit himself as a slave to unrighteousness (to his peril) does not make Christians (by default) slaves to sin.
But it does not speak of just the old man, but his deeds as well. This is again Paul's concept of Christ freeing us not only from the eternal consequences of sin, but enslavement to sin itself.
Response: My interpretation is compatible with this because I think that Christ has legally imputed his deeds to us, thus the old man is gone in everything, including deeds.
But this is again referring to the action of putting something off by the agent being spoken of, not solely a conferred status, which no amount of 'legalizing' can get around.
No, it's not a fallacy (I'm not talking about New Perspective on Paul btw). Of course they have many of the same concepts of language that we do, but other such communicative forms are quite common through scripture, as John Pilch, Bruce Malina, Marvin Wilson and others have plainly demonstrated; and which can be plainly seen from even a casual reading of the Bible.
Response: I would say that Proverbs is a different genre than John and I would agree with about this in that genre but not in John’s.
The genre itself displaying a much different mindset than Westerners typically adopt.
I do not drink much, but I do not think it is a sin. I do not use the Old Testament laws that repeated in the New Testament because I think the Mosaic law is abolished (Heb 8:13).
I do as well, I've heard them use that to argue that Jesus didn't change water to actual wine at Cana (they contend that He'd have been breaking the law).
A more glaring example of the use of extreme language comes from Christ's words,
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)
Response: I have actually discussed this verse with New Testament Scholars and to be clear the language is literal. In Judaism if one were to put someone above their family like this they would consider it to be hatred and thus Jesus was working with in that cultural framework.
Such a cultural framework clearly displaying that their mindset is indeed different in some ways -- my point.
Of course, Jesus might take issue with their definition of what hatred and love might be, but in this text he using this cultural understanding of hatred to communicate the extent by which people ought to follow him.
I agree, therefore it's fallacy to assume that a cultural understanding in which one communicates in such a way does not denote a different mindset where communication is concerned.
I just see no reason for not taking John’s statements as not literal. Could you provide citation for who else views this about first John. Because in my experience most commentators view this verse in a non-legal way try to make arguments about the Greek syntax and how the John uses an infinitive and aorist in a way that suggests habitual action rather than one action.
Yes, he is speaking on the whole of habitual action. I didn't say he wasn't speaking literally, this is a literal generality of how believers do and are supposed to live expressed in broad terms.
Hebrews seem to teach that these Old Testament Characters were saved, yet people like Samson who slept with prostitutes, was vengeful, and brutal is included in this category. This, I think is a good argument, for believers struggling with sin and justification by faith alone.
I do believe that salvation always has been by faith and not merit or keeping of the law (though keeping of the law to some extent in their context did demonstrate their faith in He who gave it). I also believe that through Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, New Testament believers have an advantage over those in the Old Testament where following God is concerned. They are part of the covenant as well, but did not have the freedom that believers in Christ now do in serving Him.
How? If God is directing man's steps, then how would that necessitate more than direction? Additionally, I believe this also carries the implication that man does not know how to walk properly of his own accord; Psalm 37 states,
Response: The way that man is, is not in him, but in God. If I say the way computer is, is not because of the computer but because I me, I think we would take that to mean more than direction.
For starters, people are not computers, I would know. But even given that we are comparable in some ways, my stating something to the effect of, "my computer doesn't decide what it's going to do, I do," does not denote exhaustive programming by myself to the exclusion of other agents. I had no hand in programming my operating system, so while I determine the overall course of its executions, many of the details were not my doing, but the result (for better or worse) of the determination of other agents. So my OS is a derivation of the determinations made by its programmers, just as LFW is a derivation of our men's own self-determination. Given sufficient know-how, I can override its methods of execution at some points, all points, or no points, or choose to frame my programming to be contingent or non-contingent upon the system's behavior; either way, its overall path of execution is still within my power and at my direction. So no, if someone said the way of their computer was in their own hands, I would assume a fair amount of synergistic interaction rather than conjecturing that they're patch-cording it entirely from scratch.
P1: Libertarian agency is thesis that agent choices are what they are on the basis of what the agent chooses and nothing causing it sufficiently external to the agent.
P2: Are choices are what they are on the basis of God externally causing us sufficiently
C: Therefore, Libertarian agency is false.
P2 is justified because the way we are is not in us but in God. This seems pretty clear.
But it does not say, "the way we are," but "the way of man," the word for way indicates a path or journey (which would not necessarily encompass all of his choices along the way); i.e. man cannot effectively direct himself. As noted concerning computers above, determining a general 'path' does not necessitate that I must have exhaustively engineered every detail. That being the case, P2 is merely assuming Determinism to argue Determinism, and is therefore a begged question.
I agree with Psalm 37, the steps of a good man are ordered, but I do not see how this is a valid and sound argument against determinism.
It was to show what directing one's steps means in context.
Which is not to say that man has no libertarian volition, but that he does not know how to direct himself in a way that is good apart from God's guidance. Man technically can make his own way, but he will fail in doing so, such as Jereboam devising wickedness out of his own heart (1 Kings 12:33). Such a way of wickedness clearly was within this man's self, but it predictably led to his downfall. Or to put it plainly, the blind can lead the blind -- but their steps will inevitably end in failure.
Response: I understand what you believe but I do not think this is a good argument for that. Of course, one can say in semi-compatiblism that it out of their own heart that they do such and such, but that statement could entail that there own heart was caused to be what it is.
So if such a way of man is within himself (albeit placed there), then it stands to reason that Jeremiah 10 is not speaking of an exhaustive determination of all mens' actions.
In fact I would say that this verse more or less suggests that God determines at the very least all of our good actions.
I would say all good actions are ordered by God.
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10)
Equivocaiton in terminology, God is not 'dependent' (as in having need of) upon His creatures....
Response: I was referring to metaphysically dependent throughout the entire syllogism and thus there is no equivocation.
Fair enough, I only mentioned it because I've seen the term equivocated to argue the point before.
In order for God to know every true proposition when he creates he needs to know what you will choose...God does need to know everything to be essential God and part of that is dependent on what you will choose. Even if God does not create he still knows what you would possibly do and thus he dependent on your actual decision and your possible ones.
But since my creation and capability to self-determine is dependent upon God creating me, His ultimate dependence of His knowledge is still within Himself.
I would say God causes the evil and thus he his only dependent on his being for knowledge and nothing outside of it, whereas in your view God does not choose what you will choose, you choose what God will know and thus God is dependent on you for knowledge.
Only where it concens me, which would not have occurred had He not freely allowed it to be so.
If you reject premise two then that seems sort of counter intuitive; are you saying that it is better for God to be dependent on his lesser creatures?
Concerning knowledge of sin which innately violates His Holy nature, absolutely.
How is being dependent on something lesser outside of yourself in any sense good making property?
Sinful thoughts and motives are inherently opposed to the nature of God, therefore knowledge as to thoughts and actions diametrically opposed to one's own self is better being not exhaustively dependent upon one's self.
But this is not my motive for holding to LFW; but even at that, nowhere does Romans 9 state that God wills to harden people unconditionally.
Response: Paul asks rhetorically, who can resist his will? Obviously the answer is no one. But in Libertarian free will you can always do other than what you do and thus you could resist God’s will, which is contrary to the teaching of Romans 9.
That's little more than a caricature of free will. I don't believe one can resist if God forces the issue, He can override free will if He wishes to, which I believe He does as punishment for some per Romans 1, 9, and elsewhere.
I've already accounted for it with common use of language, whereas the view you espouse produces direct contradiction with Paul's own words of exhortation: If Paul were a man who remained steeped in wrongdoing, it would have been extremely bad advice for him to say,
Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:1)
If he were presently, actively still the chief of sinners, would this imply that we should strive to be exceedingly sinful in our actions as well?
Response: I have never argued that Paul or any believer should strive after sinful actions. Paul never did nor have I. You can imitate people and not be like them in every respect. In fact that is precisely what the Greek word means. I would say Paul is an imitator of Christ in that he loves the law of God and he tries to be perfect, where as Christ loves the law of God, tries to be perfect and was. Thus, I do not think this is bad advice but good advice.
But if he were the literal and current 'chief of sinners' as you have claimed, then we have a contradiction, since those among the greatest of practicing sinners don't strive to be like Christ, nor bear fruits of repentance.
But your defense relies upon the interpretation of 'escape' and 'endure' meaning [roughly] 'not falling unto damnation by,' as opposed to my interpretation of 'actually escaping.' In other words, (to my understanding) your defense relies upon the 'enduring' in the passage not meaning to actually escape doing what we are tempted to do, and therefore does not fit with the immediate exhortation to escape doing what we are tempted to do.
Response: I would say it fits with the passage because the passage to flee from Idolatry is summarizing the whole section and not just that specific verse.
But if it's summarizing the whole passage, then that verse must logically be included and flow with the rest of the passage, that is to say, that it refers to escaping temptations such as idolatry.
The section as a whole is referring to how Israelites fell out of the covenant community because of Idolatry and Paul is summarizing this whole section with this imperative.
Ah, but if they fell because of idolatry, then the falling and yielding to temptation are inescapably linked. Escaping temptation is the means by which we endure it, note the wording,
...but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.
Response: First of all, I do not think if a text lacks Calvinistic deterministic themes that therefore it does not teach Calvinism. So when Peter is doing things in Acts and so it does not have to say “Peter was causally determined and foreordained to preach the gospel to such and such”.
I would have to disagree with you there, something cannot logically be teaching a distinct set of concepts that it doesn't contain distinct elements of.
So the fact that this text does not mentioned foreordination does not mean that foreordination is not taught in the Bible.
I believe in foreordination as well, but perhaps a bit differently than you do. If the scriptures explicitly state, "God will make you able to not commit X," then it's illogical to interpret the rest of scripture as "God unconditionally foreordained that you commit X."
So there is no reason to try to put that in as part of the text to try to make my position look non-contextual.
It was in brackets to denote that such wording doesn't appear in the text, it merely reflects the philosophy you've been consistently trying to interpret it by
(a mental note if you will). Even without the bracketed statement,
"No temptation will jeapordize your salvation, therefore flee idolatry."
Doesn't follow.
And salvation does not need to be explicitly mentioned for a text to be talking about salvation. Thus, mine would look more like this:
No temptation will cause you too lose strength so that you might fall, God will have you endure. With this in hand, it seems that my interpretation is perfectly plausible since the previous verses are talking about Israelites who were fell away from the covenant community,
But their fall was rooted upon their succumbing to temptation (note verses 6-10), it's therefore quite congruent to conclude that the passage is speaking about not yielding to temptation and falling thereby. Also note that your meaning for 'endure' is that they will 'not fall from the covenant commmunity' regardless of whether it's actually committed or not (since you divorce the correlative avoidance from escaping and enduring in verse 13), parsing this logic out we get:
"No temptation will cause you to [fall from the covenant community whether you succumb to it or not], God will have you [not fall from the covenant community whether you succumb to the temptation or not]. Therefore flee idolatry."
Which still doesn't follow the thought logically; note the repeated exhortation from the rest of the passage,
"we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted"
"do not become idolaters as were some of them"
"Nor let us commit sexual immorality"
"nor let us tempt Christ"
"nor complain, as some of them also complained"
Yet you've redefined 'escape' and 'endure' to mean simply 'not falling away because of [even if you're yielding to it]' That's impossibly convoluted since the way they fell was by yielding to temptation (being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin). Therefore the way to keep from falling in like manner as scripture warns us against is to escape the temptation that we may endure.
...which is something that can still happen today to unbelievers in the covenant community but not believers.
I would differ with you on that point. The scriptures explicitly warn the believing against falling away several times.
....do you believe there is any sin that would (even in theory) cause a believer to fall away unto perdition if we have been imputed with Christ's righteousness? If so, how would this be (assuming we are permanently declared legally righteous as Christ)?
Response: Yes, it would be assuming this, that we are permanently declared legally righteous once we have faith and that faith cannot be lost. God will never let us sin to the point to were we lose our faith. If we are saved God will also never let us fall out of the covenant community on account of sin.
I was asking if it were possible even in theory for a saint to fall away if they fell too deeply into sin (assuming that the only factor that changed from your view is God allowing it to occur); and if so, how/why?
Wait, you do believe that God does have contradictory wills, yet don't accept that His purposes are at times at least paradoxical?
Response: I do not believe there are contradictions in his will or any paradoxical things about God.
We're again using similar terminology to convey our ideas I think. Paradoxes aren't necessarily contradictory, though they are seemingly so.
Yet there is spiritual darkness and wickedness in the world. Where did it come from? Even appeal to motive at this point is irrelevant, since a spiritually dark motive is still wickedness both by intention, design, and execution; and if Necessitarianism is true, then that darkness could only have arisen directly from within God in whom is no darkness, which is an inescapable contradiction.
Response: First of all what I am saying here does not entail Necessitarianism. One can hold to evil existing and causal determinism without saying that this possible world is the only possible one that exists and thus necessary.
Sorry for the confusion, we're speaking 2 different languages again. When I say 'Necessitarianism,' I refer to the idea of God necessitating all that is, not excluding God having LFW.
I would take 1 John 1:5 to be referring to the intrinsic properties of God, which are not evil; this why the preposition “in” is used here. The evil came from God but God is not evil. God is necessary so how is the world contingent? Well obviously by the fact that God is necessary does not mean that everything he does is necessary, likewise, just because God is good does not mean that he cannot cause evil to accomplish a greater ends.
I would say that God doesn't 'cause' evil, but knows of it exhaustively, and can appropriate its effects to His own ends.
His intentions, design, are not evil and if he were not to execute the evil then he would not be that good because causing the evil brings about the greater good. Something that is meant for God and made to produce the greater good cannot said to be evil either in intention or design.
That's not true, if God designed evil, yet did not design it to be inherently evil, then it would not be inherently evil. Since sinful thoughts and motives are inherently evil, if they were designed by God, then they can only be so by design.
Lastly, I never said God had contradictory wills but rather he does different things to accomplish different purposes.
Sorry about that, I was under the impression that you did. When I wrote,
Because contradictory wills in an infinitely intelligent Being are nonsensical.
You replied,
Response: I think they are reasonable. Could you give me a syllogism suggesting how it is a contradiction or why it is unreasonable?
I assumed you believed it since you thought it reasonable, or perhaps I misunderstood you.
Response: Oh I agree with you about the issue of ethics. I do not think it is no longer sinful lying but it is good to say something not true in those contexts. I was trying to articulate this earlier. But I think God is good and I think when he does things for the greater good and thus it is no longer evil.
There is a crucial difference here, such cases are not fueled by an intrinsically evil motive. Sin contrary to God's law in its action and intent is a different matter altogether: Truly sinful actions are contrary to the nature of God, therefore nothing can justify them, and their commission is intrinsically pleasing to God in no sense whatsoever. Can one then necessitate evil that good may come without being defiled? No. Such actions necessarily require sin and sinful motives to be formed, which are not justifiable inventions in any circumstance. Scripture declares,
The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the Lord, But the words of the pure are pleasant. (Proverbs 15:26)
Yet Necessitarianism requires that all such abominations in fact be constructs of God's own making that originated in His own mind; therefore God would necessarily have to think the outpouring of His own mind to be inherently abominable. But more than hating just the evil thoughts themselves, Proverbs 6:18 states that "A heart that devises wicked plans" is also an abomination to God; yet in the Necessitarian philosophy, all wicked plans are ultimately the product of the mind of God, who then induces men to think them. Wicked men would no longer truly be "inventors of evil things," as Romans 1:30 states, for their inventions would not be their own design, but God's originally. Such wicked thoughts are completely incompatible with God's Holy and perfect nature, for His thoughts are not abominable in any sense. Or to put it as a syllogism:
P1: God is purely, perfectly, and infallibly Holy (A first principle of Christianity)
P2: He who is Holy cannot operate in an unholy fashion
P3: That which is is abominable to God is diametrically opposed to His Holiness, and thus inherently unholy
P4: What is inherently unholy remains so regardless of who devises it
Corollary to P4: If inherent unholiness of an action could be subverted due to person, position, or accompanying purpose, then God could commit acts contrary to His nature, such as lying or denying Himself, and it would somehow still be holiness for Him (conflicting with Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 6:18, and 2 Timothy 2:13); but God by His nature cannot do that which is inherently wicked
P5: God, being Holy, esteems wicked thoughts and motives to be abominable (Proverbs 15:26)
P6: A mind producing wicked thoughts and motives must necessarily be working contrary to God's Holy nature, to produce that which is contrary to it, making hearts that devise wicked plans abominable to Him as well (Proverbs 6:18)
P7: Exhaustive determinism requires that men's thoughts and motives are not of their own creation, rather that even every wicked imagination in their hearts that is contrary to the nature of God is irresistibly given to them (through some means) by God; hence the wicked thoughts do not ultimately originate within man's mind independently, but all of them must explicitly and exhaustively originate in God's own mind
P8: Accepting exhaustive determinism therefore requires that some of God's own thoughts and designs which He confers upon men to be inherently abominable to Himself; which would necessitate that His mind operate contrary to His perfectly Holy nature, said operation being necessarily unholy, thus precluding Him from being purely Holy (Contradiction with first premise)
In short, what is infallibly Holy cannot produce what is inherently unholy. God's Holy mind cannot produce or necessitate that which is inherently contradictory to itself. The mastermind behind criminal operations is just as (if not more) guilty than those he commands, for God cannot stand wicked thoughts. E.d. makes God the mastermind behind all evil thoughts, since He would be the only one dreaming up wicked schemes independently; it would also make Him the original author of all wickedness. Secondary causes are not a defense, since meticulously arranged causes can only perform exactly that which they are intended to do. If God caused what He finds inherently evil, then He had to intend for it to be inherently evil. To say otherwise, we'd have to label what is inherently evil as 'good.' But God's Holy nature is absolute, and therefore its antithesis must also be absolute. Evil is therefore always evil.
Sin is inherently evil, God is inherently Holy. Sin did not arise from within God.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey there, sorry it took me so long…I was really stressed in the midst of finals! Sorry about that. Thanks for your contribution to this discussion again.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who is sinning is a slave to sin; one can have been a slave in the past, but not presently.
Response: Well then given that concession it seems that you cannot hold that believers can sin. But you clearly think that believers can sin.
John clearly says that anyone who sins is a slave to sin.
John 8:34: Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.
P1: Believers are not slaves to sin
P2: Anyone who sins is a slave to sin
C: Believers cannot sin
This argument shows that you cannot believe that believers can ever sin whether this is the past, present, or future. I know you do not accept this because you think that believers can sin. This would then suggest that passages like this are best view as indicative statements about our status in Christ’s imputed righteousness.
Romans 6:16-17 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,
That doesn't hold up very well, since the crucifying is spoken of in active voice, not passive; this is something believers do through Christ, not something done to or imputed to us as passive agents.
Response: The fact that it is spoken of in the active voice is compatible with the imputation interpretation. This is because when one has been imputed with Christ’s righteousness God now legally views the believer as actively crucifying the flesh with all of its sinful passions even though this is not actually the case all the time with believers.
Paul was describing himself prior to conversion. He describes himself as unable to serve God in such a state, in contrast with what scripture reveals about those who believe.
ReplyDeleteResponse: First off no Christian can serve the law of God because the law of God states that one has to be perfect:
Matthew 5:48 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
We try and follow it to the best of our ability but obviously our best will never be good enough and that is why we need Christ.
We are all unable to follow this commandment and be perfect and this is what I think Paul is struggling with here. Because as James says that if you break the law but at one point then you are guilty for breaking all of it:
James 2:10 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.
But the person in Romans 7 cannot be Paul prior to conversion for the following reasons:
The present tense is used and the present tense grammatically cannot be a historical present. As Daniel Wallace notes in his book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:
“Some think that the first person present tense verb eimi, in John 8:58 is a historical present. But since all undisputed historical presents are third person, and since none involve the equative verb, this is rather doubtful.”
And he says again concerning Romans 7:
“In other words, one cannot appeal to the idiom of the historical present for support of the view that Paul is referring to his past, non-Christian life in this text.”
Thus with in mind this would be the argument against the Paul pre-conversion view of Romans 7:
P1: If one wishes to interpret Romans 7 as Paul prior to conversion then Paul has to be using the present tense historically.
P2: Paul is not using the present tense historically
C: Therefore, one cannot interpret Romans 7 as Paul prior to conversion
Secondly, Paul tells us how he viewed himself prior to conversion:
Philippians 3:6 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness, under the law blameless.
Paul as unregenerate Jew did not even realize that he was sinful or struggling with sin rather he thought he was a pretty righteous fellow. So it seems that Romans 7 does not depict someone who thought that they were righteous as Paul did.
ReplyDeleteThirdly, John Tells us that unbelievers hate the light and Paul tells us that people who are unregenerate have their minds set on the flesh.
John 3:19 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.
The person in Romans 7 however delights in the law of God rather than in the Darkness.
And Paul says:
Romans 8:7 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.
The person who is in the flesh is hostile to God, but the person in Romans 7 has a desire to follow God and his law.
Lastly, my previous response was trying to show how the person in Romans 6 and 8 is compatible with the person in Romans 7 because obviously we believe the person in Romans 6 and 8 can and does sin at times and is a slave to sin given what John says. Thus, one cannot use the argument that the person in Romans 7 is incompatible with the persons in Romans 6 and 8 on the basis that the person in 6 and 8 does not struggle with sin.
The fact that a Christian may submit himself as a slave to unrighteousness (to his peril) does not make Christians (by default) slaves to sin.
Response: Again, this does not account for my biblical argument from John that I have given above.
John 8:34 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.
But this is again referring to the action of putting something off by the agent being spoken of, not solely a conferred status, which no amount of 'legalizing' can get around.
Response: I take it that you are referring here to Colossians and Ephesians which reads:
Colossians 3:9-10 9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.
And again,
Ephesians 4:22-24 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
The idea of putting off the old self and putting on the new self would be us accepting Christ and receiving his righteousness. So the agent does in fact act through faith as the sole instrument to receive this but yet it is a legal status he receives, namely Christ righteousness making him legally a new man. So this accounts for the agents actions and the legal status, which is something as I stressed before is compatible with this verse. All of the putting off’s and putting on’s are in the aorist tense and thus suggests a past legal declaration that we have received thought our agency acting through faith alone.
ReplyDeleteThe genre itself displaying a much different mindset than Westerners typically adopt.
Response: I am not sure what you are trying to assert or arguing here. Perhaps in your next reply you can state this a bit more clearly. But from what I can glean it seems like that our mindset reading John and his genre would be similar to that of John’s especially that John was writing in Greek and arguing against Greek conceptions of Christ. Specifically, the view that matter is evil therefore Christ could not be incarnate and John is arguing and writing against that perspective in first John.
I do as well, I've heard them use that to argue that Jesus didn't change water to actual wine at Cana (they contend that He'd have been breaking the law).
Response: Wow…I honestly cannot believe they would go that far….
Such a cultural framework clearly displaying that their mindset is indeed different in some ways -- my point.
Response: I would argue that they had a different definition of hatred, but that is different than saying statements stating absolute inability to do a specific action means that you are in fact able to perform that action but only sometimes. Thus, the question here has do with differing cultures incorporating more content into a definition, rather than a different mindset about how terms are used altogether.
1 John 3:9 No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.
When John writes this he saying you cannot sin. You are saying that there mindset was such that this really means generally. What evidence do you have that under these literary circumstances this really means ability at times rather than complete inability to sin? We have evidence that in the Jewish culture that if you follow someone and at the cost of your parents you would literally and always hate them so long as you continued in that action. But we do not have good reason to think that statements concerning inability only meant inability sometimes. How would the author ever communicate inability in the language convention if he wanted to?
I agree, therefore it's fallacy to assume that a cultural understanding in which one communicates in such a way does not denote a different mindset where communication is concerned.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Yeah, I would agree with that.
Yes, he is speaking on the whole of habitual action. I didn't say he wasn't speaking literally, this is a literal generality of how believers do and are supposed to live expressed in broad terms.
Response: Actually the Greek word here is not iterative, habitual, or customary; rather it is gnomic use of the tenses as Wallace points out. You could only argue this if you believed that the Greek word choice here reflects it being habitual, but the thing is we do not know for sure if the Greek word choices are arbitrary or deliberate. If it were arbitrary it really would not reflect anything at all because there was no reason for why the authors choose one tense over another. This is why I think it safer to go down the legal route.
I do believe that salvation always has been by faith and not merit or keeping of the law (though keeping of the law to some extent in their context did demonstrate their faith in He who gave it). I also believe that through Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, New Testament believers have an advantage over those in the Old Testament where following God is concerned. They are part of the covenant as well, but did not have the freedom that believers in Christ now do in serving Him.
Response: How might you support this textually? I would agree to a certain extent, but I would not believe in a complete salvific antithesis between the Old Covenant and the new covenant. I would say there is an analogy between Old Testament Christian and New Testament Christian with respect to sanctification.
For starters, people are not computers, I would know. But even given that we are comparable in some ways, my stating something to the effect of, "my computer doesn't decide what it's going to do, I do," does not denote exhaustive programming by myself to the exclusion of other agents. I had no hand in programming my operating system, so while I determine the overall course of its executions, many of the details were not my doing, but the result (for better or worse) of the determination of other agents. So my OS is a derivation of the determinations made by its programmers, just as LFW is a derivation of our men's own self-determination. Given sufficient know-how, I can override its methods of execution at some points, all points, or no points, or choose to frame my programming to be contingent or non-contingent upon the system's behavior; either way, its overall path of execution is still within my power and at my direction. So no, if someone said the way of their computer was in their own hands, I would assume a fair amount of synergistic interaction rather than conjecturing that they're patch-cording it entirely from scratch.
Response: I did not say people are computers; I was only using an analogy. Perhaps you took the computer analogy to conclusions that would be incompatible with Jeremiah 10:23. So let me more precise:
If I say that the way something is and the way it functions is not because of itself, then that would seems to be a general statement that is incompatible with libertarian agency since libertarian agency wants to say that many decision result from the way its own intrinsic agent causation. Jeremiah 10:23 says that this is not the case as a general statement and thus libertarianism seems to be false from this verse.
But it does not say, "the way we are," but "the way of man," the word for way indicates a path or journey (which would not necessarily encompass all of his choices along the way); i.e. man cannot effectively direct himself. As noted concerning computers above, determining a general 'path' does not necessitate that I must have exhaustively engineered every detail. That being the case, P2 is merely assuming Determinism to argue Determinism, and is therefore a begged question.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Well it does not just refer to a certain group of men or just men and women but rather mankind and thus I think it is appropriate to use the term “we”.
P1: The Bible says that way of men are not in themselves
P2: we are men
C: The way we are is not in ourselves
The Hebrew word can mean just way or disposition and the next phrase verifies this by pointing out one instance of this by saying that a man does not direct his own steps. This is perfect compatible with determinism since we hold that the way man is not in himself. But why would you think that it is not exhaustive?
It was to show what directing one's steps means in context.
Response: Yeah, but Psalm 37 is not contextually related to Jeremiah 10:24. Furthermore, Psalm 37 is teaching that man is responsible for his actions yet God determines them. This is something that is perfect compatible with Jeremiah 10:23 but said in different way because of different authorship.
So if such a way of man is within himself (albeit placed there), then it stands to reason that Jeremiah 10 is not speaking of an exhaustive determination of all mens' actions.
Response: No, because one can be exhaustively determined but yet we can still predicate that the agent is morally responsible for the action.
But since my creation and capability to self-determine is dependent upon God creating me, His ultimate dependence of His knowledge is still within Himself.
Response: Of course all Libertarians believe that God creates you as well as the facility of free will he gives you and allows you to exercise, but that really is not my point here. The problem is that if God does create or even if he does not he still knows what you will or would do. The knowledge is not within God because then God’s knowledge would determine what you would choose rather than you choosing it yourself and then God knowing it necessarily. In other words God would know that you would do y and you would do y because God knew it rather than your free decision being x and God knowing x because you freely choose it. The former God is not dependent on knowing what you will do rather God’s knowledge causes what you will do, but the latter what you will or would do causes God’s knowledge to be what it is; had you chosen something different God’s knowledge would be different. Remember even if God did not create he would still know what you would do had he created. Thus, there are aspects of God’s being that is dependent on the creature on the libertarian view.
Only where it concens me, which would not have occurred had He not freely allowed it to be so.
Response: God has to know what you would do had he created (since he knows every true proposition), this is not an option for him and thus in your view God is necessarily dependent on you for knowledge.
Concerning knowledge of sin which innately violates His Holy nature, absolutely.
ReplyDeleteResponse: I do not see how God knowing what is right or wrong really has to do with you rejecting that God is not absolutely dependent and in fact has to be dependent on human creatures with respect to their choices.
Sinful thoughts and motives are inherently opposed to the nature of God, therefore knowledge as to thoughts and actions diametrically opposed to one's own self is better being not exhaustively dependent upon one's self.
Response: Again, this is very unclear and I am not altogether sure if this is relevant to what I am asking. I am asking: How is being dependent on something lesser outside of yourself in any sense good making property? So with that in mind, God could have everything dependent on him and him not be evil. I would encourage you to read my response to the problem of evil.
That's little more than a caricature of free will. I don't believe one can resist if God forces the issue, He can override free will if He wishes to, which I believe He does as punishment for some per Romans 1, 9, and elsewhere.
Response: I think you are missing the point here. Paul in writing Romans 9 says that man cannot resist the will of God and yet God can still find fault and hold them responsible. Libertarian free will teaches that if one cannot resist or do other than what they do then they are not held morally responsible. Thus, the Bible directly contradicts libertarian freedom. Whether or not God in your view can or cannot override freedom Romans 9 is teaching not only does God override there freedom but he also punishes them for when he overrides it.
P1: Bible teaches that one can be held responsible and sufficiently caused
P2: Libertarianism teaches that one cannot be sufficiently caused and held morally responsible.
C: The Bible does not teach libertarian freedom.
But if he were the literal and current 'chief of sinners' as you have claimed, then we have a contradiction, since those among the greatest of practicing sinners don't strive to be like Christ, nor bear fruits of repentance.
Response: I believe Paul’s expression conveys the idea that he sins a lot even as a believer, I take it as an expression of how is life is rather than he is literally the leader of all sinners. I do not see the contradiction here given that understanding for Paul can sin and struggle with sin a lot but still want to carry out the good, which is what I am suggesting is going on in Romans 7.
But if it's summarizing the whole passage, then that verse must logically be included and flow with the rest of the passage, that is to say, that it refers to escaping temptations such as idolatry.
Response: Yeah and I happen to think that one cannot be truly a Christian and commit the sin of idolatry the way the Israelites committed it, so I think either way my interpretation is compatible here. There are some sins according to the bible that are like this such as not forgiving your neighbor and not providing for your family, and idolatry the way the Israelites committed it is one of those as well. If a Christian commits such a sin then this would demonstrate that he was never justified by faith to begin with.
Ah, but if they fell because of idolatry, then the falling and yielding to temptation are inescapably linked. Escaping temptation is the means by which we endure it, note the wording,
ReplyDeleteResponse: Yeah so with respect to idolatry then you would not ever to be able to commit that particular sin because it would show that you were never justified but obviously a true believer would never succumb to that.
...but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.
I would have to disagree with you there, something cannot logically be teaching a distinct set of concepts that it doesn't contain distinct elements of.
Response: There is no rule of logic or hermeneutic that says that in order for the bible to teach a doctrine it has to be contained explicitly or implicitly in ever text of the Bible. So I do not know to what law of logic or even of hermeneutics that you are referring here to.
I believe in foreordination as well, but perhaps a bit differently than you do. If the scriptures explicitly state, "God will make you able to not commit X," then it's illogical to interpret the rest of scripture as "God unconditionally foreordained that you commit X."
Response: Actually, foreordination in Reformed theology is always causally sufficient so given that understanding, which is the classical, you do not hold to it. I am not sure how I was making your position look non-contextual.
It was in brackets to denote that such wording doesn't appear in the text, it merely reflects the philosophy you've been consistently trying to interpret it by
(a mental note if you will). Even without the bracketed statement,
"No temptation will jeapordize your salvation, therefore flee idolatry."
Doesn't follow.
Response: Okay, I think it does…and I see no reason to doubt it.
But their fall was rooted upon their succumbing to temptation (note verses 6-10), it's therefore quite congruent to conclude that the passage is speaking about not yielding to temptation and falling thereby. Also note that your meaning for 'endure' is that they will 'not fall from the covenant commmunity' regardless of whether it's actually committed or not (since you divorce the correlative avoidance from escaping and enduring in verse 13), parsing this logic out we get:
"No temptation will cause you to [fall from the covenant community whether you succumb to it or not], God will have you [not fall from the covenant community whether you succumb to the temptation or not]. Therefore flee idolatry."
ReplyDeleteWhich still doesn't follow the thought logically; note the repeated exhortation from the rest of the passage,
"we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted"
"do not become idolaters as were some of them"
"Nor let us commit sexual immorality"
"nor let us tempt Christ"
"nor complain, as some of them also complained"
Response: Yeah I think people committing all those sins plus idolatry would suggest that they are not Christians and thus they would fall from the covenant community. So again, there is nothing incompatible with what you have said with my interpretation. I think my passages flows perfectly with that line of thought, why would it not?
Yet you've redefined 'escape' and 'endure' to mean simply 'not falling away because of [even if you're yielding to it]' That's impossibly convoluted since the way they fell was by yielding to temptation (being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin). Therefore the way to keep from falling in like manner as scripture warns us against is to escape the temptation that we may endure.
Response: I agree the way they fell was by yielding to temptation, but that is again compatible with my interpretation.
.
I would differ with you on that point. The scriptures explicitly warn the believing against falling away several times.
Response: I think that just because you can warn someone of something does not mean it is actually going to happen.
I was asking if it were possible even in theory for a saint to fall away if they fell too deeply into sin (assuming that the only factor that changed from your view is God allowing it to occur); and if so, how/why?
Response: To answer your question I do not believe that people can loss their salvation and for evidence of this proposition I am going to write a post in the next few days to support that.
We're again using similar terminology to convey our ideas I think. Paradoxes aren't necessarily contradictory, though they are seemingly so.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Yeah, I know. I do not believe there is either in theology.
Sorry for the confusion, we're speaking 2 different languages again. When I say 'Necessitarianism,' I refer to the idea of God necessitating all that is, not excluding God having LFW.
Response: No worries, I understand your position.
That's not true, if God designed evil, yet did not design it to be inherently evil, then it would not be inherently evil. Since sinful thoughts and motives are inherently evil, if they were designed by God, then they can only be so by design.
Response: God can plan and bring about evil sufficiently through mankind and demons, but the desire God has for the evil is to bring about a greater good, but the intentions of the demons and humans is not to bring about a greater end and thus God holds the demons and humans responsible but he is not responsible for evil. Since we meant it for evil but God meant it for good.
I assumed you believed it since you thought it reasonable, or perhaps I misunderstood you.
Response: I believe that God does not contradict himself ever and that he has two different types of wills: Commands and sufficiently causal decrees.
There is a crucial difference here, such cases are not fueled by an intrinsically evil motive. Sin contrary to God's law in its action and intent is a different matter altogether: Truly sinful actions are contrary to the nature of God, therefore nothing can justify them, and their commission is intrinsically pleasing to God in no sense whatsoever. Can one then necessitate evil that good may come without being defiled? No. Such actions necessarily require sin and sinful motives to be formed, which are not justifiable inventions in any circumstance. Scripture declares,
Response: I agree with everything you have said above. My view is that God does not sin, but he *metaphysically* sufficiently brings about sin in human beings. Human beings sin, but not God. When I say that God is the cause of evil I do not mean ethically or legally I mean metaphysically. God never sins, rather God produces actions that sufficiently bring about the greater good and those actions produce a causal chain that has sin in them but that sin is necessary in order to bring about the greater good.
The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the Lord, But the words of the pure are pleasant. (Proverbs 15:26)
ReplyDeleteYet Necessitarianism requires that all such abominations in fact be constructs of God's own making that originated in His own mind; therefore God would necessarily have to think the outpouring of His own mind to be inherently abominable. But more than hating just the evil thoughts themselves, Proverbs 6:18 states that "A heart that devises wicked plans" is also an abomination to God; yet in the Necessitarian philosophy, all wicked plans are ultimately the product of the mind of God, who then induces men to think them. Wicked men would no longer truly be "inventors of evil things," as Romans 1:30 states, for their inventions would not be their own design, but God's originally. Such wicked thoughts are completely incompatible with God's Holy and perfect nature, for His thoughts are not abominable in any sense. Or to put it as a syllogism:
Response: Well it’s a good thing that I do not hold to necessitarian philosophy as you define it.
P1: God is purely, perfectly, and infallibly Holy (A first principle of Christianity)
P2: He who is Holy cannot operate in an unholy fashion
P3: That which is is abominable to God is diametrically opposed to His Holiness, and thus inherently unholy
P4: What is inherently unholy remains so regardless of who devises it
Corollary to P4: If inherent unholiness of an action could be subverted due to person, position, or accompanying purpose, then God could commit acts contrary to His nature, such as lying or denying Himself, and it would somehow still be holiness for Him (conflicting with Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 6:18, and 2 Timothy 2:13); but God by His nature cannot do that which is inherently wicked
P5: God, being Holy, esteems wicked thoughts and motives to be abominable (Proverbs 15:26)
P6: A mind producing wicked thoughts and motives must necessarily be working contrary to God's Holy nature, to produce that which is contrary to it, making hearts that devise wicked plans abominable to Him as well (Proverbs 6:18)
Response: I agree with everything above. The things below I disagree with and I will give my reasons why.
P7: Exhaustive determinism requires that men's thoughts and motives are not of their own creation, rather that even every wicked imagination in their hearts that is contrary to the nature of God is irresistibly given to them (through some means) by God; hence the
wicked thoughts do not ultimately originate within man's mind independently, but all of them must explicitly and exhaustively originate in God's own mind
ReplyDeleteResponse: That is correct, but this does not make God wicked.
P8: Accepting exhaustive determinism therefore requires that some of God's own thoughts and designs which He confers upon men to be inherently abominable to Himself; which would necessitate that His mind operate contrary to His perfectly Holy nature, said operation being necessarily unholy, thus precluding Him from being purely Holy (Contradiction with first premise)
Response: If God’s intention is good and holy to bring about his glory it is hard to see how it is wicked therefore 8 does not follow, even if it is exhaustively determined.
In short, what is infallibly Holy cannot produce what is inherently unholy. God's Holy mind cannot produce or necessitate that which is inherently contradictory to itself. The mastermind behind criminal operations is just as (if not more) guilty than those he commands, for God cannot stand wicked thoughts. E.d. makes God the mastermind behind all evil thoughts, since He would be the only one dreaming up wicked schemes independently; it would also make Him the original author of all wickedness. Secondary causes are not a defense, since meticulously arranged causes can only perform exactly that which they are intended to do. If God caused what He finds inherently evil, then He had to intend for it to be inherently evil. To say otherwise, we'd have to label what is inherently evil as 'good.' But God's Holy nature is absolute, and therefore its antithesis must also be absolute. Evil is therefore always evil.
Sin is inherently evil, God is inherently Holy. Sin did not arise from within God.
Response: God’s goodness makes him holy. God in causing everything does not sin because he has a morally sufficient reason for causing evil, but God causing evil does not mean the action of him causing evil is evil, but rather man is evil. So God does nothing wrong and so he does not make himself unholy. But since all things come from God then metaphysically evil comes from God but this does not affect God’s holiness because he has a morally sufficient reason for it. I do not think that God thinks of evil and desires it the way sinful men do rather God thinks of the means of evil as terrible but he thinks of the ends that evil produces as glorifying to him because he shows his justice and mercy through evil therefore contributing to his greater glory. I believe that evil is always evil, I have never rejected that, but I do not think that metaphysically bringing about evil is sinful or evil if it brings about the greater good.
The Bible does not stretch out the definition of holiness in the way in which you describe so then there are no philosophical or biblical reasons to really accept it.
I have given my philosophical argument for determinism in which you have failed to give an adequate response to.
Furthermore, the biblical text seems to strongly suggest divine determinism:
ReplyDeleteRomans 11:36 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
All things come from God seems to be a clear interpretation of this verse, including evil events.
Ephesians 1:11 11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
All things come from his will which cannot be resisted (Romans 9:18-19 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?")
Given the biblical data and philosophical data divine determinism seems unavoidable.
I apologize for taking so long to respond to you. I had finals and I was over stressed and stretched out too thin. Thank you for continuing with me this interesting discussion. Thanks for your time.
In Christ,
Nathanael P. Taylor