This is a brief and strong argument that my long time friend Jonathan Sakovich brought to my attention:
P1: Only God is Good
P2: Jesus is Good
P3: Therefore, Jesus is God
Premise 1 is supported by the following:
Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
This verse teaches that only God is good
Premise 2 is supported by the following:
Hebrews 4:15 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
This verse teaches that Jesus was without sin and hence good.
Is being without sin the same as being good? I'm not so sure it is. A rock is without sin, but it doesn't make sense to say that a rock is good (or that a rock is God)....
ReplyDeleteA morally agent without sin is good, a rock is not a morally agent.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Jesus is called righteous:
1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
It's pretty clear that Jesus is good. Hence, he is God.
God Bless,
NPT
Are babies sinful?
ReplyDeleteYes, Of course. For more on this look at the following:
ReplyDeletehttp://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/search/label/Original%20Sin
So sin isn't the result of choice?
ReplyDeleteAll sin except origin sin is a result of free choice. So most sin is the result of choice and one sin is not a result of choice. This has to do with my divine consequentialism.
ReplyDeleteSo a baby who's mother miscarries through no fault of her own (the mother's) is damned to suffer in hell for eternity even though it was never even given a chance to accept Christ? How does this glorify god?
ReplyDeleteI think all infants who die go to heaven through the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ, that is how that glorifies God.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to grill you here, but your last response seems to be a jump from your prior responses. In fairness, I didn't completely read the link you provided earlier. Do you justify this belief anywhere? I'm assuming you either have or could.
ReplyDeleteWhy would I think that you are grilling me? What belief are you referring to?
ReplyDeleteI don't know, I'm asking a lot of questions and that can be interpreted as grilling. As to the belief, it's in your last post:
ReplyDelete"I think all infants who die go to heaven through the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ, that is how that glorifies God."
Oh yes...of course...
ReplyDeleteAs for the philosophical reasons why I think children go to heaven is because they have not actually manifested their hatred toward God so it would glorify God less if he sent them to hell and it would glorify him more if he showed his grace and mercy towards so they can only boast in the Lord and find their dependence in him for salvation.
The Bible does not really address the issue of whether or not babies go to heaven except in this one place:
2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me."
David's infant child dies. David went to heaven and David said he will go to him.
All this to say we have more reasons to affirm the proposition that infants go to heaven rather than to reject it.
What is 'sin'?
ReplyDeleteAlso, how would babies "boast in the Lord and find their dependence in him for salvation. "?
Babies don't have the cognitive abilities to do this - so I'm guessing you don't mean a literal 'boast'.
Sin is doing opposite of God's prescriptive will either actually or legally imputed.
ReplyDeleteBabies would get new adult resurrection bodies so they would be able to boast if they had grounds for it, but as it is they do not.
"Sin is doing opposite of God's prescriptive will either actually or legally imputed."
ReplyDeleteDoesn't it have to be more then that, if original sin exists?
"Babies would get new adult resurrection bodies so they would be able to boast if they had grounds for it, but as it is they do not. "
I'm not sure I understand how this would help - they would still not have the cognitive abilities to boast. Simply put, they have not learned to communicate.
Quick question - off topic:
ReplyDeleteI'm fairly certain that I read somewhere that you have your suspicions of the TAG (as in, maybe it's not a completely sound argument or something similar), that said, I was always curious how a TAG proponent would deal with solipsism.
Meaning, while it seems to me that - for pragmatic reasons at least - there's no reason to hold to solipsism. However it doesn't seem disprovable. In otherwords, it's coherent worldview and as such would provide refute the TAG.
What do you think?
Doesn't it have to be more then that, if original sin exists?
ReplyDeleteResponse: No: "legally imputed"
I'm not sure I understand how this would help - they would still not have the cognitive abilities to boast. Simply put, they have not learned to communicate.
Response: Infants would learn in heaven or God would give them basic knowledge immediately. One would not be an infant for all eternity.
I'm fairly certain that I read somewhere that you have your suspicions of the TAG (as in, maybe it's not a completely sound argument or something similar), that said, I was always curious how a TAG proponent would deal with solipsism.
ReplyDeleteResponse: I think TAG shows that probably Christianity is true rather than it shows it could be the only logically possible world view infallibly known by discursive argumentation. I also reject their implicit coherentism within Traditional presuppositional systems of thought.
The TAG proponent would say that Solipsism holds that only you exist. So if you are the only mind that exists then God does not exist. So they would probably use arguments for God's existence to show that something else exists other than yourself namely God.