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

[Greg]

I've rejected the gospel. What action could I perform while still an unbeliever and before regeneration that would not constitute sin? Suggestions would be

• Drop off the kids at school
• Visit my mom in the hospital
• Fix the broken porch step
• Donate clothes to Salvation Army
• Leave early enough in the morning to get to work on time
• Pay off my speeding ticket
• Protect a child from a vicious dog
• Give my friend a ride to the airport
• Keep harping at the kids to clean their darn rooms!

My experience is that different Calvinists answer differently. Most say all those suggested acts are non-sinful for unbelievers, the sins would be violations of the 10 commandments.

But other Calvinists, more fundamentalist in doctrine, cite Hebrews 11:6 and insist that until I become regenerated, all of my acts, done while I was yet an unbeliever and before regeneration, were sin on my part.

 

[makesends]

I've rejected the gospel. What action could I perform while still an unbeliever and before regeneration that would not constitute sin? Suggestions would be

• Drop off the kids at school
• Visit my mom in the hospital
• Fix the broken porch step
• Donate clothes to Salvation Army
• Leave early enough in the morning to get to work on time
• Pay off my speeding ticket
• Protect a child from a vicious dog
• Give my friend a ride to the airport
• Keep harping at the kids to clean their darn rooms!

My experience is that different Calvinists answer differently. Most say all those suggested acts are non-sinful for unbelievers, the sins would be violations of the 10 commandments.

But other Calvinists, more fundamentalist in doctrine, cite Hebrews 11:6 and insist that until I become regenerated, all of my acts, done while I was yet an unbeliever and before regeneration, were sin on my part.

The way I put it, all the acts, for whatever use God has for them, are for God's purposes, and according to his decree. BUT, at the core, the motivations of those not born again were at enmity with God.

Not that there aren't other places to show the same effect, but Romans 8 says that the 'mind of the flesh' cannot please God.

To me, it is not the act that constitutes sin. It is the heart. Jeremiah 17:10 "I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve."

 

[John Bauer]

I've rejected the gospel.

Okay.

What action could I perform while still an unbeliever and before regeneration that would not constitute sin?

None.

 

[Arial]

I've rejected the gospel. What action could I perform while still an unbeliever and before regeneration that would not constitute sin? Suggestions would be

• Drop off the kids at school
• Visit my mom in the hospital
• Fix the broken porch step
• Donate clothes to Salvation Army
• Leave early enough in the morning to get to work on time
• Pay off my speeding ticket
• Protect a child from a vicious dog
• Give my friend a ride to the airport
• Keep harping at the kids to clean their darn rooms!

My experience is that different Calvinists answer differently. Most say all those suggested acts are non-sinful for unbelievers, the sins would be violations of the 10 commandments.

But other Calvinists, more fundamentalist in doctrine, cite Hebrews 11:6 and insist that until I become regenerated, all of my acts, done while I was yet an unbeliever and before regeneration, were sin on my part.

Everything " morally good" an unbeliever does will not change the fact that the person is still a sinner. It will not change his heart which stands at enmity with God. The acts themselves are externally good (civil good) but morally defective before God because they are not generated from a heart that has faith in God. There is no neutrality. even good acts are ultimately misdirected (not for the glory of God or love for him). Not every act is equally evil, but all righteousness is corrupted and insufficient for justification.

The issue is not how much sin a person is committing but how can he be reconciled to God.

You are presupposing in the above scenarios that those acts are morally good. And also presupposing that all, believer or unbeliever will consider them morally good acts. and you would be correct. As an atheist who rejects the gospel you are borrowing moral categories from the Christian worldview while denying its foundation.

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

 

[JesusFan]

I've rejected the gospel. What action could I perform while still an unbeliever and before regeneration that would not constitute sin? Suggestions would be

• Drop off the kids at school
• Visit my mom in the hospital
• Fix the broken porch step
• Donate clothes to Salvation Army
• Leave early enough in the morning to get to work on time
• Pay off my speeding ticket
• Protect a child from a vicious dog
• Give my friend a ride to the airport
• Keep harping at the kids to clean their darn rooms!

My experience is that different Calvinists answer differently. Most say all those suggested acts are non-sinful for unbelievers, the sins would be violations of the 10 commandments.

But other Calvinists, more fundamentalist in doctrine, cite Hebrews 11:6 and insist that until I become regenerated, all of my acts, done while I was yet an unbeliever and before regeneration, were sin on my part.

You are an a lost sinner state, but that does not mean cannot still do 'good deeds/works", just that God would not accept it as being such i n regards to saving you from your sins

 

[Greg]

The way I put it, all the acts, for whatever use God has for them, are for God's purposes, and according to his decree. BUT, at the core, the motivations of those not born again were at enmity with God.

Not that there aren't other places to show the same effect, but Romans 8 says that the 'mind of the flesh' cannot please God.

To me, it is not the act that constitutes sin. It is the heart. Jeremiah 17:10 "I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve."

Not sure if your distinction is relevant to my point. You apparently believe that it is not possible for an unregenerate man to do anything at all, without sin arising...if not in the act itself...then in the heart. Do I understand correctly?

 

[Greg]

Okay.



None.

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.

 

[Greg]

The acts themselves are externally good (civil good) but morally defective before God because they are not generated from a heart that has faith in God.

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.

 

[Greg]

You are an a lost sinner state, but that does not mean cannot still do 'good deeds/works", just that God would not accept it as being such i n regards to saving you from your sins

Sure, but I'm not talking about possibly doing something that might save me from my sins. I'm asking whether an unregenerate can, while remaining unregenerate, give his kids a ride home from school without sinning. Your other Calvinist friends here seem to think the answer necessitated by Calvinist theology is "no". The fact that I drove the kids home with no intent to glorify god, requires that you make a decision: that act was either a sin, or it wasn't.

 

[atpollard]

But other Calvinists, more fundamentalist in doctrine, cite Hebrews 11:6 and insist that until I become regenerated, all of my acts, done while I was yet an unbeliever and before regeneration, were sin on my part.

I had Romans 14 more in mind …

Romans 14:13-23 [NASB]

Therefore let's not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this: not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's [or sister's] way. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to the one who thinks something is unclean, to that [person it is] unclean. For if because of food your brother [or sister] is hurt, you are no longer walking in accordance with love. Do not destroy with your [choice] of food that [person] for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For the one who serves Christ in this [way] is acceptable to God and approved by [other] people. So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the person who eats and causes offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or [to do anything] by which your brother [or sister] stumbles. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is the one who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But the one who doubts is condemned if he eats, because [his eating is] not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.​

​

In this paragraph, we have a lesson and a warning for the people of faith that even actions which are not forbidden, but permitted, performed by people of faith ARE SIN if they are not acts performed in love for God … all acts not born in faith (service of God) ARE SIN.

So what does an unbeliever do that is an act performed from FAITH (in God)?
What does an unbeliever do that is not SIN?

 

[makesends]

Sure, but I'm not talking about possibly doing something that might save me from my sins. I'm asking whether an unregenerate can, while remaining unregenerate, give his kids a ride home from school without sinning. Your other Calvinist friends here seem to think the answer necessitated by Calvinist theology is "no". The fact that I drove the kids home with no intent to glorify god, requires that you make a decision: that act was either a sin, or it wasn't.

It is not that the act of driving them home is considered sin. Your very breath is sin, if that is the case. It is not your deeds, but the intents of your heart —again, not your feelings, not even your loving care for your kids— but the enmity against God that corrupts every motivation. God is altogether just, thorough and exacting. In whatever manner a thing is done from whatever heart it is done in, it only fetches exact payment.

 

[makesends]

Not sure if your distinction is relevant to my point. You apparently believe that it is not possible for an unregenerate man to do anything at all, without sin arising...if not in the act itself...then in the heart. Do I understand correctly?

Close enough, though rather mis-stated. (I'm afraid your use of that will approach the use I see synergists make of what they suppose are freewill statements in the Bible, resulting in their statements objecting to determinism.)

It is not "sin arising" as such, but sin already at the core of their motives, even at the core of all they do without realizing it, because they are at enmity with God. Their deeds do not "become" sinful, but are sinful. The sin in them is the enmity against God.

 

[Arial]

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.

The above statement is not just analytical--it is strategic. It tries to force my position into sounding absurd. It fails because the absurdity is in the person who presents it.

It is actually a classic move: "Your view leads to absurd consequences; therefore, it must be false." There is convoluted "logic" and serious category error in order to make the assertion.

We are not asking them to sin. We are asking them to do what is objectively right. The problem is not the action it is the heart in rebellion against God. Did you miss that part of my post? Their sin lies in doing even right things while suppressing the truth of God. Another question for you even though you have not answered the two in the post you are responding to. That is not a sincere intent to debate.

On what basis do you call anything "right" at all?"

And this is your category error. You collapse two distinct categories.

Normative category (objective moral status of the act itself)​

Religious/ethical category (moral condition of the agent before God)​

In Reformed theology an act can be normatively right yet still morally deficient before God.

In your post you move illegitimately from: This act is sinful, because of the agent's unbelief to this act is itself sinful, therefore commanding it equal commanding sin.

 

[Greg]

I had Romans 14 more in mind …

Romans 14:13-23 [NASB]

Therefore let's not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this: not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's [or sister's] way. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to the one who thinks something is unclean, to that [person it is] unclean. For if because of food your brother [or sister] is hurt, you are no longer walking in accordance with love. Do not destroy with your [choice] of food that [person] for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For the one who serves Christ in this [way] is acceptable to God and approved by [other] people. So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the person who eats and causes offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or [to do anything] by which your brother [or sister] stumbles. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is the one who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But the one who doubts is condemned if he eats, because [his eating is] not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.​

​

In this paragraph, we have a lesson and a warning for the people of faith that even actions which are not forbidden, but permitted, performed by people of faith ARE SIN if they are not acts performed in love for God … all acts not born in faith (service of God) ARE SIN.

So what does an unbeliever do that is an act performed from FAITH (in God)?
What does an unbeliever do that is not SIN?

I also had Romans 14:23 in mind but planned to introduce it a bit later. But now that you've made absolutely clear how you believe, your position requires that when presuppositionalists like Jeff Durbin or Sye Bruggencate, or really any presuppositionalist at all, requests that some unbeliever answer their questions, they are asking the unbeliever to sin, because under Romans 14:23, the unbeliever's response itself, not arising from faith, must necessarily constitute sin.

That is, when you presuppositionalists ask us to answer whatever question you put to us, you are asking us to commit a sin.

 

[Greg]

Close enough, though rather mis-stated. (I'm afraid your use of that will approach the use I see synergists make of what they suppose are freewill statements in the Bible, resulting in their statements objecting to determinism.)

It is not "sin arising" as such, but sin already at the core of their motives, even at the core of all they do without realizing it, because they are at enmity with God. Their deeds do not "become" sinful, but are sinful. The sin in them is the enmity against God.

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.

 

[Greg]

It is not that the act of driving them home is considered sin. Your very breath is sin, if that is the case.

Now you are attempting a reductio ad absurdum, but it also backfires, since the answer is yes, if Hebrews 11:6 and Romans 14:23 are true, the unregenerate's very act of breathing is a sin, since it is something they "do", and it clearly isn't done in "faith". You probably think the extreme stupidity of the conclusion requires that something when wrong somewhere, but no. There is LITERALLY NOTHING the unregenerate can do that is free from sin. Perhaps you should become more fundamentalist in your theology, and conclude that if God infallibly predestined you to ask anything of an unregenerate unbeliever, that's because God ordained to harden them even further in their sin.

It is not your deeds, but the intents of your heart —again, not your feelings, not even your loving care for your kids— but the enmity against God that corrupts every motivation. God is altogether just, thorough and exacting. In whatever manner a thing is done from whatever heart it is done in, it only fetches exact payment.

When you ask the unregenerate unbeliever to answer whatever apologetics question you put to them (e.g., how do you account for the preconditions of intelligibility), do you realize that the only way they can answer, is to do so in a way that creates more sin? If you don't ask an atheist where logic came from, he won't have a reason to give the sinful answer "it's just conceptual". I cannot accept your distinction between heart and act. Romans 14:23 does not say everything done without faith, is done from a heart that is full of sin. It says every "thing" (act) done without faith, is a sin. Thus, to engage in the act of mowing your lawn, when faith is absent from the heart, is to turn the act of mowing into a sin. I therefore disagree with your attempt to make Paul's theology sound less fanatical than it really is.

 

[Greg]

The above statement is not just analytical--it is strategic. It tries to force my position into sounding absurd. It fails because the absurdity is in the person who presents it.

It is actually a classic move: "Your view leads to absurd consequences; therefore, it must be false." There is convoluted "logic" and serious category error in order to make the assertion.

We are not asking them to sin. We are asking them to do what is objectively right. The problem is not the action it is the heart in rebellion against God. Did you miss that part of my post? Their sin lies in doing even right things while suppressing the truth of God. Another question for you even though you have not answered the two in the post you are responding to. That is not a sincere intent to debate.

On what basis do you call anything "right" at all?"

And this is your category error. You collapse two distinct categories.

Normative category (objective moral status of the act itself)​

Religious/ethical category (moral condition of the agent before God)​

In Reformed theology an act can be normatively right yet still morally deficient before God.

In your post you move illegitimately from: This act is sinful, because of the agent's unbelief to this act is itself sinful, therefore commanding it equal commanding sin.

We are not asking them to sin. We are asking them to do what is objectively right.

That's false: every presuppositionanlist I could find in my experience and on the internet shows people like Bruggencate and Jeff Durbin asking short pointed questions of atheists and unbelievers. They are always saying "how do you account for the pre-conditions of intelligibility?", and "where did logic come from?". Those fall far short of "asking them to do what is right". Asking them to do what is right would be limited to stuff like "I ask you to repent of your sins and accept Jesus as your Lord".

The problem is not the action it is the heart in rebellion against God.

It doesn't matter if that is true: Romans 14:23 doesn't say "whatsoever is done without faith, is done out of a heart in rebellion against God". It says "whatever is done wtihout faith is a sin". Paul is labeling the ACT as a sin, he is not merely saying the condition of the heart is the central issue. And it wouldn't matter anyway: I've asked in several different ways, whether an unregenerate can do anything while still unregenerate, without sinning. All of your Calvinist friends here have made clear the answer is "no". Well then, I remain an unregenerate according to your theology when you ask me any apologetics question. So the more you seriously expect me commit the act of responding, the more you seriously ask me to commit a sin.

Their sin lies in doing even right things while suppressing the truth of God.

Romans 14:23 doesn't allow any act of the unregenerate, whatsoever, to possibly be "right" in any sense. That verse calls any act done without faith, an act of "sin". Modern democracy might motivate you to say something polite like "protecting a child from a vicious dog is not sinful in and of itself", but Romans 14:23 requires that it is, if done without faith.

And this is your category error. You collapse two distinct categories.

Normative category (objective moral status of the act itself)​

Strawman. According to presuppositionalism, there is no such thing as moral status of the act itself. ALL acts obtain their true moral status from God. Until you deny that truth, Romans 14:23 will require that an act be sin for no other reason than that it be sin. There is no "act itself", there is only "act as judged by God"

In Reformed theology an act can be normatively right yet still morally deficient before God.

Then Reformed theology creates a category for an act that Romans 14:23 forbids. In presuppositionalism, "normative right" does not exist by itself, but exists only insofar as God has judged the act normatively right. God would hardly judge a morally deficient act as "normatively right". You must inject god's opinion into any conceivable thing, including whatever "categories" you create for the purpose of defining morals.

Please answer directly: If an unregenerate man changes the oil in his car, and he remains unregenerate before, during and after the act, did the ACT constitute sin, yes or no? I don't care why the act is sin, I only want you to plainly declare the ultimate moral ontology of the ACT.

 

[atpollard]

I also had Romans 14:23 in mind but planned to introduce it a bit later. But now that you've made absolutely clear how you believe, your position requires that when presuppositionalists like Jeff Durbin or Sye Bruggencate, or really any presuppositionalist at all, requests that some unbeliever answer their questions, they are asking the unbeliever to sin, because under Romans 14:23, the unbeliever's response itself, not arising from faith, must necessarily constitute sin.

That is, when you presuppositionalists ask us to answer whatever question you put to us, you are asking us to commit a sin.

1. I had to look up “What is a presuppositionalist?” … I am not a presuppositionalist. As a former atheist (practicing nihilist to be specific), I am content to allow you to begin from an assumption of “there is no God”.
2. Who appointed me as your mother? Man up and own what you do as YOURS. Even as an atheist, I never whined about ‘fair’ or someone else made me do anything.
3. Now to address the issue of “your sin” head on. SO WHAT? I mean, so what if every action of every person not “saved” (whatever that means) is a sin? Is it ok to be “a little enemy of God” but wrong to be a “big enemy of God”? What is the difference? What is the benefit? What is the penalty? … It reminds me of the old joke/argument about being “a little bit pregnant” or “a little bit dead”. One is either alive or dead. One either belongs to God, or one does not. If you want no part with God, what is that to me? I have no power to transform a heart or change a belief.
4. My responsibility is to the truth. Shame on me if I leave you in ignorance because I never TOLD YOU the truth. Shame on you if you were told the truth and you CHOSE TO REJECT IT.

 

[Greg]

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

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. 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.

But anyway, IMO, a person's sense of moral right and wrong is a result of a combination of their genetic predispositions and their environmental conditioning.

 

[Greg]

1. I had to look up “What is a presuppositionalist?” … I am not a presuppositionalist. As a former atheist (practicing nihilist to be specific), I am content to allow you to begin from an assumption of “there is no God”.
2. Who appointed me as your mother? Man up and own what you do as YOURS. Even as an atheist, I never whined about ‘fair’ or someone else made me do anything.
3. Now to address the issue of “your sin” head on. SO WHAT? I mean, so what if every action of every person not “saved” (whatever that means) is a sin? Is it ok to be “a little enemy of God” but wrong to be a “big enemy of God”? What is the difference? What is the benefit? What is the penalty? … It reminds me of the old joke/argument about being “a little bit pregnant” or “a little bit dead”. One is either alive or dead. One either belongs to God, or one does not. If you want no part with God, what is that to me? I have no power to transform a heart or change a belief.
4. My responsibility is to the truth. Shame on me if I leave you in ignorance because I never TOLD YOU the truth. Shame on you if you were told the truth and you CHOSE TO REJECT IT.

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