Greg on Presuppositionalism: Can any atheist act be non-sinful?

[Arial]

Why would it matter if I gave the wrong answer? That would just mean the Calvinist God of Westminster Confession Section 3 had ordained me to give the wrong answer.

Red herring.

If God is glorified when I act in harmony with his secret will, I infer that divine contentment is probably more important than whether some creature is "correct" about something.

Why would you infer anything about God if you don't believe he exists?

God's "contentment" is not the issue.

Whether some creature is "correct" about something is not the issue.

But concerning a creature. A creature by definition must have a creator. Who is that? Who would he be giving a "correct" answer to? Who/what determines the "correct" answer. You are very inconsistent with yourself.

 

[makesends]

regardless, it doesn't matter if the unregenerate is in a constant state of sin, you are still asking them to sin when you ask them to steal a candy bar, and you are equally asking them to sin when you ask them to answer whatever apologetics question you put to them. Unless you find biblical precedent for Christians asking unbelievers to sin, your theology would dictate that you never ask anything of the unregenerate, you only ask something of the regenerate.

Don't know how much Bible you know, but you are dealing with us according to it, whether you intended to or not. God himself has set up this scenario, and there's no escaping it. He gave Babylon every opportunity to repent and she did not. As any Christian insisting on self-determinism would tell you, God's offer, God's commands, God's goodness, is real. The fact that the unbeliever is locked into his sin, corrupt at the core, does not disagree with that. In fact, it insists on it. IF a person would only repent, obey, love, the blessings would come. But the fact is that they will not, indeed they cannot. Their sin[fulness] owns them. If I had to order it, I would say they cannot BECAUSE they will not, instead of the other way around.

It's not a joke, a lie, a false offer. If they would only obey, (but they will not).... Their sin, then, is in their antipathy, their enmity, their rebellion, against God. When they sin they are demonstrating what they are. With every breath, they demonstrate what they are, to God, who looks on the heart to judge the deeds, and to any other witnesses on that day when every thought and motivation is revealed.

Anyhow, that is how I see this. That is pretty much my answer to you, though there is a lot more. That it works out that a person asked to do something sins in doing it, does not mean they are being asked to sin. The sin is endemic to themselves, not to the person asking.

 

[makesends]

Then god thinks you are facilitating sin when you ask an unbeliever to do anything while they remain in a state of unbelief. I cannot find any biblical precedent that says Jesus or the apostles went around asking unbelievers to commit sins.

Lol, it appears to me to mention, it is not as though, were they to not be asked to do that something, that their sin would be any less.

 

[Greg]

Red herring.

Why would you infer anything about God if you don't believe he exists?

The inference isn't for me, its for you. If you think something can be more important than God's personal contentment, feel free to argue it. Otherwise, consistency with your own theology would require that you cease saying and doing anything that gives the appearance that anything could possibly be equal to, or greater than, the importance of God's personal contentment. A Calvinist should never ask "why did Mike steal that car?" Under Calvinist theology, the fact that Mike stole it, forces the conclusion that God's Judgmental or Hardening decree was glorified by it. Yes, I'm aware that biblical authors did not think God's glorification of himself was the only thing of importance, and in this I charge them with inconsistency.

God's "contentment" is not the issue.

I made it the issue by using God's will to trivialize every "human perspective". You believe God's glorifying of himself is the most important concern in all heaven and earth. So you aren't being consistent with that when you pretend that atheists cannot account for moral good and bad. I accuse you of attributing more importance to my alleged depraved understanding than actually exists. Your theology forces you to conclude that God's glorifying himself is infinitely more important than an atheist's inability to account for morality. A true Calvinist has no reason to do anything except praise God for literally everything they experience with their senses.

Whether some creature is "correct" about something is not the issue.

Oh, ok. So when you asked me

Arial said:
So where does this universal "morally right and good" come from? What is it based on?

You didn't care whether my answer was correct or incorrect?

But concerning a creature. A creature by definition must have a creator. Who is that?

I'm willing to presume, solely for the sake of argument, it is the Calvinist god.

Who would he be giving a "correct" answer to?

Strawman. YOU asked ME to answer a question about the origin of morality. I was presuming two things:
a - You were asking ME, so you were not expecting God to speak for me, you were expecting ME to answer, and
b - You wanted me to give a "correct" answer.

Who/what determines the "correct" answer. You are very inconsistent with yourself.

No, instead, you seem to think that if I don't give an "atheist explanation" for morality or whatever, and if I merely throw your theology right back at you, I'm "inconsistent with myself". Not true. Let me explain: YOU believe that your god determines what answer is correct. So I can reasonably denounce the significance of your question by pointing out that your theology says God's opinion is far more important to consider, and my opinion is of no significance whatsoever. Why then, do you ask me to account for the origin of morality, when your theology says the atheist's perspective is a guaranteed disaster?

If you feel dissatisfied because I won't explain the origin of morality in a way consistent with my atheism, then my goal is to show my reasonableness in rejecting biblical doctrine. If you think I can't show such reasonableness without providing the "atheist explanation" of various phenomena like the origin of morality, you are wrong. I think the case for Christianity is not the least bit compelling, nor can it be made compelling via a presuppositional apologetics approach. I don't have to "refute", I only have to reasonably discern that the case in favor of Christianity is extraordinarily weak.

 

[makesends]

regardless, it doesn't matter if the unregenerate is in a constant state of sin, you are still asking them to sin when you ask them to steal a candy bar, and you are equally asking them to sin when you ask them to answer whatever apologetics question you put to them. Unless you find biblical precedent for Christians asking unbelievers to sin, your theology would dictate that you never ask anything of the unregenerate, you only ask something of the regenerate.

You may as well claim that God tempts people, when he causes all things to happen just as they do. It is the sinner that sins. I am not making him sin, by asking him to do something. That's simply illogical. You are jumping categories. Do you know what sin is? We've been telling you.

Is God sinning by making all the circumstances into which a person makes a sinful decision? Of course not! By definition sin is against God. He is not against himself. I would not be surprised if you would still hold your guns and use it to 'prove' that God cannot, therefore, exist!

The construction you propose is vacant of workers. If a sinner sins, it is the sinner that sins. If I ask them to do something, I am not asking them to sin. I am asking them to do something. If I ask a good Samaritan to help someone I am not asking them to sin. I am asking them to help someone. If they sin in doing so is them sinning. Two different things.

If someone is at enmity with God, he is sinning all day long, not just at the highlights and events of the day.

This is somewhat analogous to another question: Is God unjust to stop a life short? Why? Is there something about this life that makes it meaningful that a person lives 500 years as opposed to 500 minutes? When he's dead is he going to look back and say, "Well, that went well, and was all worth it!"? —If God is God, this life is not about us, and not about this life, which is one of the premises from which you operate.

This is, in part, why I have asked the questions I have, and why I started another thread for you on the fact of existence. You see, you have to admit to Willed Omnipotence of First Cause as a definition, in order to even deny it exists, or you are not really an atheist. So, if you want to prove "no God", you have to show the discrepancies behind such a being. Be consistent. God can do as he pleases with what belongs to him. He owns the universe. He owns all fact. Sin is rebellion against him. Enmity against him. Me asking someone to do something is not making anyone sin that is already sinning all day long. There's nothing new in the sin he does when I ask him to do something.

 

[makesends]

I made it the issue by using God's will to trivialize every "human perspective". You believe God's glorifying of himself is the most important concern in all heaven and earth.

Actually, you are mocking the notion of the importance of God's glorifying himself, by misrepresenting it. The question isn't this as opposed to that. Nothing we do (or fail to do) will actually detract from his glory. His purpose in glorifying himself, like all the other facts within his decree, are accomplished by use of means—it is not automatic. It is only sure. Therefore, there is no contradiction between attributing importance to anything, because it cannot oppose the God's glory. Second, it is not our job to see to it that God is glorified in the end. That is his doing, though he uses means to accomplish it. We cannot know his hidden will in its entirety, nor can we accomplish it by force of will. It is his job to see it done.

So you aren't being consistent with that when you pretend that atheists cannot account for moral good and bad. I accuse you of attributing more importance to my alleged depraved understanding than actually exists. Your theology forces you to conclude that God's glorifying himself is infinitely more important than an atheist's inability to account for morality. A true Calvinist has no reason to do anything except praise God for literally everything they experience with their senses.

Ha! Going by what you, and everybody insisting on self-determinism, claims, even that is superfluous. Why admit that much? Why should a Calvinist bother to praise God?? That's like claiming that God is unloving by allowing people to die young—why stop there? Why not scream about the misshapen horror of deformities from birth, or the wiping out of billions before Noah, including children, or the unspeakable acts of man against child??

You must not have read the several allusions to the fact that what God has determined is SURE to happen —not automatic. He uses means, and both our rebellion and obedience, faith and doubt, decisions and deeds, thoughts and sleep, are means to his ends.

 

[atpollard]

I'm really only here to interact with those who are Christian by faith. See my goals as stated in my profile.

Sorry, but that sounded a lot like “no one that isn’t a presuppositionalist fundamentalist is a ‘Christian by faith’ as I (Greg) define a Christian” … which is a “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

I am a Christian.
Good day.

 

[John Bauer]

Then every time you ask an unregenerate person to do anything, at all, such as asking them to answer any question you put to them, you are asking them to commit a sin.

False. I am asking you to do some good x, and you are choosing to do it sinfully. The problem is not that you are being asked to do evil, but that you insist on doing even right things in a sinful way. That is on you, not me. A command can be righteous and obligatory (e.g., “you shall not murder”) even when the person commanded will only perform it sinfully (e.g., for idolatrous reasons). The defect lies in the agent, not in the command.

Your inability is moral, not physical. You have the physical ability and mental capacity to do what is right. But you refuse. You rebel against God’s authority and assert your own, and then you redefine what is right as if your authority is legitimate.

 

[Greg]

Don't know how much Bible you know, but you are dealing with us according to it, whether you intended to or not. God himself has set up this scenario, and there's no escaping it. He gave Babylon every opportunity to repent and she did not. As any Christian insisting on self-determinism would tell you, God's offer, God's commands, God's goodness, is real. The fact that the unbeliever is locked into his sin, corrupt at the core, does not disagree with that. In fact, it insists on it. IF a person would only repent, obey, love, the blessings would come. But the fact is that they will not, indeed they cannot. Their sin[fulness] owns them. If I had to order it, I would say they cannot BECAUSE they will not, instead of the other way around.

It's not a joke, a lie, a false offer. If they would only obey, (but they will not).... Their sin, then, is in their antipathy, their enmity, their rebellion, against God. When they sin they are demonstrating what they are. With every breath, they demonstrate what they are, to God, who looks on the heart to judge the deeds, and to any other witnesses on that day when every thought and motivation is revealed.

Anyhow, that is how I see this. That is pretty much my answer to you, though there is a lot more. That it works out that a person asked to do something sins in doing it, does not mean they are being asked to sin. The sin is endemic to themselves, not to the person asking.

As any Christian insisting on self-determinism would tell you, God's offer, God's commands, God's goodness, is real. The fact that the unbeliever is locked into his sin, corrupt at the core, does not disagree with that....It's not a joke, a lie, a false offer. If they would only obey, (but they will not)....

But the Calvinist churches split on that issue a long time ago. The CRC say the fact that the gospel command falls on the reprobate ears means God is issuing a well-meant offer of salvation to them. The PRC says this is impossible because God's rendering them reprobate requires that he doesn't even call them, the only reason they hear the gospel is because God has refused to tell Christians who the elect are, leaving Christians with no other choice except to preach the gospel promiscuously. Consequently, the PRC interpret the "all men" in Acts 17:30 to mean "all the elect", which is consistent with the Calvinist tendency to remind us that universal terms about man usually aren't meant in an absolute way.

IF a person would only repent, obey, love, the blessings would come. But the fact is that they will not, indeed they cannot. Their sin[fulness] owns them. If I had to order it, I would say they cannot BECAUSE they will not, instead of the other way around.

That's all irrelevant in light of the CRC/PRC split on the well-meant offer. The PRC deny that God ever extends the gospel command to the reprobate in the first place, so the nonsense of about "they cannot because they will not", aside from denying the First Point of Calvinism (it's not total depravity, but total inability), is pointless. Your God's unwillingness to save many people is a bigger theological conundrum than whether will or ability is primary in human choice-making.

That it works out that a person asked to do something sins in doing it, does not mean they are being asked to sin. The sin is endemic to themselves, not to the person asking.

The sin being endemic to them betrays knowledge on your part that should, if you are consistent with Romans 14:23, dissuade you ever asking any unbeliever to do anything ever again. If you know a lunatic cannot answer your question without going looney, yet you ask him the question anyway, you ARE asking him to go looney, despite the fact that his lunacy is endemic to himself.

And I wasn't implying that you "cause" a person to sin by asking the unregenerate to do something. I simply meant that you are asking them to sin...which would itself be a sin since there is no precedent in the bible justifying a Christian to ask anybody to do anything that would constitute sin.

 

[Greg]

You may as well claim that God tempts people, when he causes all things to happen just as they do. It is the sinner that sins. I am not making him sin, by asking him to do something. That's simply illogical. You are jumping categories. Do you know what sin is? We've been telling you.

Is God sinning by making all the circumstances into which a person makes a sinful decision? Of course not! By definition sin is against God. He is not against himself. I would not be surprised if you would still hold your guns and use it to 'prove' that God cannot, therefore, exist!

The construction you propose is vacant of workers. If a sinner sins, it is the sinner that sins. If I ask them to do something, I am not asking them to sin. I am asking them to do something. If I ask a good Samaritan to help someone I am not asking them to sin. I am asking them to help someone. If they sin in doing so is them sinning. Two different things.

If someone is at enmity with God, he is sinning all day long, not just at the highlights and events of the day.

This is somewhat analogous to another question: Is God unjust to stop a life short? Why? Is there something about this life that makes it meaningful that a person lives 500 years as opposed to 500 minutes? When he's dead is he going to look back and say, "Well, that went well, and was all worth it!"? —If God is God, this life is not about us, and not about this life, which is one of the premises from which you operate.

This is, in part, why I have asked the questions I have, and why I started another thread for you on the fact of existence. You see, you have to admit to Willed Omnipotence of First Cause as a definition, in order to even deny it exists, or you are not really an atheist. So, if you want to prove "no God", you have to show the discrepancies behind such a being. Be consistent. God can do as he pleases with what belongs to him. He owns the universe. He owns all fact. Sin is rebellion against him. Enmity against him. Me asking someone to do something is not making anyone sin that is already sinning all day long. There's nothing new in the sin he does when I ask him to do something.

You may as well claim that God tempts people, when he causes all things to happen just as they do.

Hold your horses: You people here have, several times now, tried to get around an argument by pretending what I argued is "like" some other situation that you can easily debunk. All you are doing is creating more unnecessary complexity when you pretend that I'm supposed to stand back in awe of James 1:13 and not dare question it.

But anyway, you say I might as well claim God tempts people. Yes, that's what I say must logically be the result of biblical Calvinist theology. James 1:13 is an error in the bible. Is the verse denying God is primary cause of tempting people? Or is it denying his involvement in all possible chains of causes?

It is the sinner that sins. I am not making him sin, by asking him to do something. That's simply illogical.

I never said your asking the unregenerate to do something was "making" him sin. I merely argued that you are still doing something the bible forbids, and ASKING him to sin when you ask him to do anything beyond repentance and faith.

You are jumping categories. Do you know what sin is? We've been telling you.

dismissed.

Is God sinning by making all the circumstances into which a person makes a sinful decision? Of course not!

Is dad sinning by making all the circumstances into which a person makes a sinful decision (putting a classified military manual in his son's room and then telling him "you shall not look at it")? Of course not!

By definition sin is against God.

Calvinists do not allow sin to be against God's "hidden" will, they only allow sin to be a thing in violation of God's "revealed" will. So when you speak to this atheist, you allege a definition of sin that other Christians disagree with. I can possibly be reasonable to stop the conversation so you two groups stop giving me contradictory apologetics.

He is not against himself. I would not be surprised if you would still hold your guns and use it to 'prove' that God cannot, therefore, exist!

Then you are not surprised that I observe the bible to teach both Calvinism and Arminianism, and therefore conclude: if any god exists, it cannot possibly be a god that squares with all biblical information.

The construction you propose is vacant of workers. If a sinner sins, it is the sinner that sins. If I ask them to do something, I am not asking them to sin.

That's foolish. If you know the next step a man takes will put him over the edge of a 300 foot cliff with nothing to slow his fall or cushion his landing on concrete, are you asking him to kill himself when you tell him to take that next step?

I am asking them to do something. If I ask a good Samaritan to help someone I am not asking them to sin.

Only if the good Samaritan is regenerate. If she lacks faith, her act of compliance will be sin regardless of how otherwise kind or helpful it was. Romans 14:23, Hebrews 11:6. Stop beleiving in biblical inerrancy, and these problems disappear like magic. Stop believing in apostle Paul's convoluted theology, and discover the true simplicity that is supposed to exist in Christ.

I am asking them to help someone. If they sin in doing so is them sinning. Two different things.

No, Romans 14:23 forces the conclusion that ANYTHING the unregenerate unfaithful person does, is a sin, and this was confirmed by other Calvinists here when I first brought up that verse. They think I sin when I blow my nose, because I don't do that act in faith, thus fulfilling the Romans 14:23 definition of sin.

If someone is at enmity with God, he is sinning all day long, not just at the highlights and events of the day.

Then it doesn't matter if during his day, he complies with a request from a Calvinist for a ride to church. THAT is also sin, for no other reason than the Romans 14:23 definition...the unbeliever did not do that deed in faith.

This is somewhat analogous to another question: Is God unjust to stop a life short? Why? Is there something about this life that makes it meaningful that a person lives 500 years as opposed to 500 minutes? When he's dead is he going to look back and say, "Well, that went well, and was all worth it!"? —If God is God, this life is not about us, and not about this life, which is one of the premises from which you operate.

I don't see the relevance. I think sticking with what Romans 14:23 means, will ensure that resulting arguments are more on course.

This is, in part, why I have asked the questions I have, and why I started another thread for you on the fact of existence. You see, you have to admit to Willed Omnipotence of First Cause as a definition, in order to even deny it exists, or you are not really an atheist.

My eternal universe is defined in a way precluding the relevance of "cause". It would hardly be etenral if there was a point far back in time when it "started". There is no "beginning" to an endless boundless universe.

So, if you want to prove "no God", you have to show the discrepancies behind such a being.

I have no intention of proving no god. See my bio. I seek to prove that my atheism is reasonable. reasonableness can be achieved long before I satisfy the curiosity of anybody who would challenge the view. Just like you think the newbie Christian can be reasonable to conclude God is a Trinity, even at such an early stage of learning that any Jehovah's Witness could trounce them in any debate. Please stop acting as if reasonableness is off the radar until technical comprehensiveness is achieved. Therefore if you say atheism is unreasonable, its clear you think it violates a particular standard of reasonableness, but certainly not the only viable standard.

Be consistent.

Reasonableness can be achieved even at the expense of consistency, but first, you didn't preface that with your Calvinism. "If the Lord wills..." then Greg will be consistent. Isn't that what James 4:15 requires you to do?

God can do as he pleases with what belongs to him.

I won't follow that argument out very long, because it blindly presupposes a classical theist interpretation of the bible. Not only is there subjectivity and the question of whether an outsider should bother with any theology that is less than infallible, but I think the biblical authors didn't know any more about God than today's Christians.

Me asking someone to do something is not making anyone sin that is already sinning all day long.

Incorrect. Sure, he is already sinning, but he probably won't commit the sin of faithlessly giving you a ride to the store if you don't ask him. Thus you can reduce the number of his sinful acts by refraining from asking him to do anything.
And for the last time: I never expressed or implied that you "make" or "cause" him to sin by simply asking the unbeliever to do something. I'm merely arguing that unless you can find precedent in the bible for Christians asking unbelievers to sin, YOU are sinning when you ask anything of an unbeliever. Under Romans 14:23, there is no difference between asking an unbeliever to accept a birthday gift, and asking that unbeliever to commit adultery.

There's nothing new in the sin he does when I ask him to do something.

Sure there is. Maybe he didn't plan to give lend you a hammer. So when you ask him and he complies, he has committed a sin he otherwise wouldn't have committed, and only because YOU asked him for a hammer. Had you not asked him anything, you could have reduced the number of his sinful acts that day by at least one.

 

[Greg]

Sorry, but that sounded a lot like “no one that isn’t a presuppositionalist fundamentalist is a ‘Christian by faith’ as I (Greg) define a Christian” … which is a “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

I am a Christian.
Good day.

Your use of a crying emoji reasonably indicates you are the type of Christian I label as a "reviler" or just a basic bully. I haven't had to use yet any blocking button this site may offer. Congratulations on being the reason I'll soon be solving that problem.

 

[Greg]

False. I am asking you to do some good x, and you are choosing to do it sinfully. The problem is not that you are being asked to do evil, but that you insist on doing even right things in a sinful way. That is on you, not me. A command can be righteous and obligatory (e.g., “you shall not murder”) even when the person commanded will only perform it sinfully (e.g., for idolatrous reasons). The defect lies in the agent, not in the command.

Your inability is moral, not physical. You have the physical ability and mental capacity to do what is right. But you refuse. You rebel against God’s authority and assert your own, and then you redefine what is right as if your authority is legitimate.

False. I am asking you to do some good x, and you are choosing to do it sinfully.

On the contrary, Romans 14:23 doesn't say unbelievers choose to do things in a sinful way. It says the act in question CONSTITUTES sin if it is done without faith. You keep trying to make a dichotomy between the act and the motive behind the act. Not true. The act itself is sinful because it wasn't done in faith. The improper motive turns the act into a sin.

The problem is not that you are being asked to do evil, but that you insist on doing even right things in a sinful way.

But if you know that because I'm an unbeliever, i cannot possibly comply with your request without sinning, then you are effectively asking me to sin. You asked an unbeliever for a ride to the store despite knowing there was no non-sinful way he could possibly comply. That's not simply asking for a ride. It's also asking the driver to commit sin.

That is on you, not me.

Your asking another person to sin would seem to require including you in the evil and not merely the unbeliever.

A command can be righteous and obligatory (e.g., “you shall not murder”) even when the person commanded will only perform it sinfully (e.g., for idolatrous reasons). The defect lies in the agent, not in the command.

But if you know the agent cannot possibly comply without sinning, then either you are totally irrational, or you WANT them to sin when you ask them to do anything. That's because the only alternative is "I knew he couldn't comply with my request without sinning, but I made the request anyway, hoping that he wouldn't sin" is absurd and totally irrational.

You have the physical ability and mental capacity to do what is right.

That's a denial of the first Point of Calvinism, aka total inability.

and then you redefine what is right as if your authority is legitimate.

WCF sec. 3 forces the conclusion that God wants me to answer you the way I actually am. If I'm answering you here the precise way God wants me, I'm so convinced that's good authority that I won't trifle further with you about it.