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

[Greg]

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.

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.

I'm finding this to be a point of redundancy and will not repeat myself until further notice.

 

[Greg]

All you are doing is picking a scripture from one place with no contextual or exegetical work, to pit it against something you take from somewhere else treated in the same manner. That is not a proper hermeneutic to apply to anything, not just the Scripture.

Yer a little late to the game, pal. I've already acquired concessions from other Calvinists that Romans 14:23 certainly is saying that "every breath you take" is a sin. I therefore decided formal exegesis of the passage was unnecessary.

Do you consider it to be legitimate engagement to a person to ignore all they say, not address it, and just repeat all the same mistakes?

Sorry, but I've reached my limit on reviewing who said what and when.

See posts #4 and 13 and address their content if you are genuinely wanting to discuss as you claim.

Nope, I disagree with you that I've failed to genuinely discuss my claim. I'm not a juvenile delinquent. I don't see it as a sign of defeat when I initiate the end of a "he said/she said". I'll answer your other claims, but I'm not going to plough through previously tilled ground just because you are positively certain that all I did was dishonestly bait and fail to engage in proper hermeneutics.

Paul is not writing to the unregenerate but to the regenerate.

Correct, though I don't call them "regenerate" for obvious reasons.

And he is dealing with a problem that had arisen among the recipients of that letter. It had to do with the Jewish dietary laws. Some of the Jews in the community were having difficulty letting go of lifelong practices according to the Jewish covenant law. They had not reached to a maturity to understand that they did not contribute to salvation, and they still considered it a sin to eat what had been sacrificed to idols. If they considered it sin and then did it anyway under pressure of those who knew it was not, then to them it was sin. They did not eat from faith---but violated their own code. "But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." There, I gave you the context. You are misapplying the scripture.

But I have a quotation from Trinitarian inerrantist bible scholar R. H. Mounce, who denies that the key phrase there (whatsoever is not of faith is sin) is limited to the context. And unfortunately for you and the others here, he agrees with me that the "whatsoever" is ANY act done without faith:

The final clause of v. 23 (“Everything that does not come from faith is sin”) is applicable on a much wider scale than the immediate context.132 Whatever is done without the conviction that God has approved it is by definition sin.133 God has called us to a life of faith. Trust is the willingness to put all of life before God for his approval. Any doubt concerning an action automatically removes that action from the category of that which is acceptable.

Mounce, R. H. (2001, c1995). Vol. 27: Romans (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary (Page 258). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.​

That’s not presuppositionalism—that’s a collapse of basic moral categories. God doesn’t just judge that we act, but what we do and why we do it. If you erase the “act itself,” you erase the law of God and can’t distinguish truth-telling from lying.

I don't care what the bible says elsewhere. I'm reasonable to say the last clause of Romans 14:23 is reclassifying as sin ANY act, regardless of how it might look to unregenerate man, if that act is done without Christian faith. Thus according to Paul, the fact that the unregenerate man heated up soup in a microwave, and did so without faith, means that particular act by that particular man was a sin for that man, even if using a microwave wouldn't be a sin for a Christian.

It doesn't matter if there's a why and a how we sin, and it doesn't matter if God takes every true fact into account when judging us. I'm using the factual truth Paul alleged and showing how its logical consequences required more fanaticism than Paul and his followers were willing to admit. And since Trinitarian inerrantists accuse each other of refusing to go where somebody's particular logic leads, I see no reason to think that one Trinitarian inerrantist from 2000 years ago was a special exception requiring us to defend him to the death. Paul often reasoned in ways logically inconsistent with his other beliefs. Nothing new here.

MOD EDIT: Edited to add proper citation at least in the first quote.
​

 

[Greg]

I don't think God's contentment has anything to do with anything. Is it reasonable for me to believe that?

Not if you want others to see you as a sincere devoted Christian.

That is actually a rolling on the floor laughing emoji.

{Content deleted for violation of rule 2.2 and a host of others.}

 

[Arial]

Yer a little late to the game, pal. I've already acquired concessions from other Calvinists that Romans 14:23 certainly is saying that "every breath you take" is a sin. I therefore decided formal exegesis of the passage was unnecessary.

Do not speak so disrespectfully to members. Your first response to a post if the post it is responding to will have their name in it. I do not know what you are doing that removes it---it has only recently been happening, but it should be easy enough to stop doing whatever it is. See the quote from you above. All I did was highlight it and hit "reply".

 

[Greg]

The argument is vapid, but off-topic in the end. We've shown you why, and you just double down on your tangent, as though that was the subject of the OP. This is YOUR own OP; I'm beginning to wonder if you wrote the OP for the purpose of ending up here, even though this is a tangent. But, ha!, that would be disingenuous, and you are, no doubt, operating with intellectual integrity, no? Regardless, you can't make your 'logical' progression here work.

The OP asks if an unbeliever can do anything that would not constitute sin. This side-question does not address that, but only attempts to make use of the answer you were given.

Your attempt to play down the significance of the CRC/PRC split is abortive, because my bringing it up was directly on point. YOU are the one who initiated this comment:

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)....

When you said the offer was not false, you directly implicated the dispute that divided the CRC from the PRC. My point in bringing it up was that you engaged in misrepresentation, and pretended as if "it's not a false offer" was some sort of settled doctrinal truth, when in fact it wasn't. That is, were I to say it was a false offer, I'd be making the same argument the PRC made to the CRC, i.e., that under CRC logic, there is no way the offer could be genuine, it HAS to be false.

Yes, that matter wasn't in the OP, but YOU are the one that subsequently made a claim which justified me in bringing up one form of division within Calvinism.

 

[makesends]

Your attempt to play down the significance of the CRC/PRC split is abortive, because my bringing it up was directly on point. YOU are the one who initiated this comment:



When you said the offer was not false, you directly implicated the dispute that divided the CRC from the PRC. My point in bringing it up was that you engaged in misrepresentation, and pretended as if "it's not a false offer" was some sort of settled doctrinal truth, when in fact it wasn't. That is, were I to say it was a false offer, I'd be making the same argument the PRC made to the CRC, i.e., that under CRC logic, there is no way the offer could be genuine, it HAS to be false.

Yes, that matter wasn't in the OP, but YOU are the one that subsequently made a claim which justified me in bringing up one form of division within Calvinism.

As I stated before, I was addressing your tangent in making those statements. Back to the OP, now?

 

[Arial]

Not if you want others to see you as a sincere devoted Christian.

Do you seriously, an atheist, considering yourself an authority of what a sincere devoted Christian is? If I agreed with the wild misrepresentation you presented as a Christian belief, I would be exhibiting a Christian sadly in need of greater intelligence and reading comprehension. The fact that it was presented as Christian belief shows the person doing so knows nothing of Christian doctrine. Which means they are trying to show their own reasonableness in rejecting Christianity from the standpoint of not even knowing what it is but considers their own assumptions about what it is as reasonable. That would make a good definition of "unreasonable" in the dictionary.

You have to make it look unreasonable by misstating it in an unreasonable way and that would be seen by almost anyone over the age of 25 I would hope as someone who can only defend his premise by using logical fallacies and hope no one notices. Or possibly simply a troll who thinks more of themselves than they ought.

 

[makesends]

Not if you want others to see you as a sincere devoted Christian.



Don't care. I'm still going to permanently ignore them. I decided long ago that I'm finished with the idiots who seem to love Jesus for little more reason than to give then an excuse to indulge their immaturity. And in this I have the support of the vast majority of actually real Christian scholars. That's sufficient for me to feel that such disassociation is reasonable.

To whom are you speaking? It isn't hard to in some substantive way, identify them. I should think if you want your statements heard, you would make the effort to alert them.

 

[Greg]

Ariel: Do you seriously, an atheist, considering yourself an authority of what a sincere devoted Christian is?

Yes. "sincere" and "devoted" have certain meanings not hidden to all but the elect. And while "Christian" might mean anything today, I'm no less capable than you are of finding out from the bible what Jesus and the NT authors thought a devoted sincere Christian would be. You said "I don't think God's contentment has anything to do with anything. Is it reasonable for me to believe that?" It doesn't matter if that remark could come from a possible definition of a sincere devoted Christian. There's no way most people on this board would agree such a statement could possibly come from a sincere devoted Christian, unless they meant such people can possibly SIN with such remarks. Most people on this board aspire to Westminster Shorter Catechism (Question 1), which says man's chief end is to glorify God...

If your chief end is to glorify God, your chief end is to do that which makes God content. So when you say God's contentment has "nothing to do with anything", you have departed from what is typical of a sincere devoted Christian.

If I agreed with the wild misrepresentation you presented as a Christian belief, I would be exhibiting a Christian sadly in need of greater intelligence and reading comprehension.

The fact that it was presented as Christian belief shows the person doing so knows nothing of Christian doctrine.

That's right. I've been studying the bible for 30 years. Years clearly wasted because I still know "nothing" about Christian doctrine.

Which means they are trying to show their own reasonableness in rejecting Christianity from the standpoint of not even knowing what it is but considers their own assumptions about what it is as reasonable.

That's why my book stresses the need to accurately quote conservative Trinitarian Evangelical and Reformed scholars, to make sure what we claim to reasonably disagree with, is the real thing and not a caricature.

That would make a good definition of "unreasonable" in the dictionary. You have to make it look unreasonable by misstating it in an unreasonable way and that would be seen by almost anyone over the age of 25 I would hope as someone who can only defend his premise by using logical fallacies and hope no one notices. Or possibly simply a troll who thinks more of themselves than they ought.

All you are doing is venting your opinion that I got important stuff wrong. I've decided we've reached redundancy, and I won't trifle with you further unless you bring up matters other than what we've previously ploughed through under this OP.

 

[makesends]

Yes. "sincere" and "devoted" have certain meanings not hidden to all but the elect. And while "Christian" might mean anything today, I'm no less capable than you are of finding out from the bible what Jesus and the NT authors thought a devoted sincere Christian would be. You said "I don't think God's contentment has anything to do with anything. Is it reasonable for me to believe that?" It doesn't matter if that remark could come from a possible definition of a sincere devoted Christian. There's no way most people on this board would agree such a statement could possibly come from a sincere devoted Christian, unless they meant such people can possibly SIN with such remarks. Most people on this board aspire to Westminster Shorter Catechism (Question 1), which says man's chief end is to glorify God...

I could've sworn you were familiar with the disingenuous method of quoting out of context. Maybe you aren't.

If your chief end is to glorify God, your chief end is to do that which makes God content. So when you say God's contentment has "nothing to do with anything", you have departed from what is typical of a sincere devoted Christian.

You look from the POV of self-determinism. That the chief end of man is to glorify God doesn't make it any one person's main thrust, as though he has anything to add to God's Glory, or as if God's glory is increased by the person's deeds purposed through free will, apart from God's Glorifying himself. We cannot add to God's glory. But we are privileged to watch it.

That's right. I've been studying the bible for 30 years. Years clearly wasted because I still know "nothing" about Christian doctrine.

If you've been studying the Bible for 30 years, then you are familiar with the notion of the unbeliever not understanding it, no?

 

[QVQ]

Not if you want others to see you as a sincere devoted Christian.

A sincere devoted Christian is not concerned with how others see him.

The sin is in the "heart" as others have stated.
Motive and expectations, for the sinner are always for his own gain and his own good.
That is the "heart" of sin.

The love of I, me and mine

 

[Greg]

A sincere devoted Christian is not concerned with how others see him.

Then you deny Paul's advice which requires you to care about how others see you:

9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? (1 Cor. 8:9-10 NAU)

The only way you can obey the clear import is to be concerned about how the weaker brother sees you. If he's an alcoholic, you have to care how he sees you, which means you are not allowed to drink alcohol when he sees you.

 

[Josheb]

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

Let's start with a correct definition of sin. Define your terms.

 

[John Bauer]

Romans 14:23 doesn't say unbelievers choose to do things in a sinful way.

True, for it’s not talking about unbelievers at all. Paul is addressing disputes within the Christian community over conscience, food, and doubtful matters. The fact that we could have someone in this text acting “not from faith” doesn’t identify him as an unbeliever; the “one who doubts” is a brother with a troubled conscience in a disputed matter.

And you are not a brother. You do not belong to the class of persons that Paul is describing in this passage, so you cannot appropriate the verse as though it were speaking about the unregenerate.

It says the act in question constitutes sin if it is done without faith.

Yes sir, which is precisely what I said. To do something without faith, to act against conscience, is to do it sinfully.

The improper motive turns the act into a sin.

There is the act in itself and the act as performed. To speak with a little more philosophical precision, there is the act considered in its object, and the act as concretely performed by an agent with a motive and end. Some acts in themselves, if described too thinly, are morally neutral apart from more information. For example, “He took his neighbor’s phone.” That is under-described. Did he steal it, or did his neighbor hand it to him? That makes a difference.

It is the act as performed that makes it good or sinful, which is what we are talking about. An act may be good in its object yet sinful in the doing of it. For example, giving money to the poor, as an object in itself, is a good kind of act. But if done for idolatrous reasons, then it is sinful as performed. As for the unregenerate, every act is done for idolatrous reasons. Every thought, every word, every act.

However, there are also acts whose object is evil in itself—murder, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, and so on. These are sinful not merely because of motive, but because the object itself is disordered. In such cases, a person’s motive cannot redeem the act but only compound the sinfulness.

But if, because I'm an unbeliever, you know that 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. … 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.

Your argument is epistemic and it fails on two different fronts.

First, I simply cannot know what you claim I know. I may suspect you to be unregenerate by your profession and posture, but I could also be wrong—and I am wrong often enough for that to be likely. I also have no idea whether you are of the elect or not. Why is that relevant? Because I would first have to know you’re not of the elect before I could know that you “cannot possibly comply without sinning.” Why? Because it’s entirely possible for an unregenerate elect person to comply without sinning. God could, in the very moment of the act, regenerate you, grant repentance, and cause the act to proceed from faith. However, whether you are elect or reprobate is something I cannot know.

So, already your argument fails.

To add insult to injury, even if somehow I did know that you necessarily would perform the act sinfully, that still wouldn’t turn my request into me asking you to sin. This is simply a repeat of your original claim, which I already critiqued. Please interact with the distinction I made. Again, what I am asking you to do is some good X (e.g., feed the poor) and you’re choosing to perform that act sinfully (e.g., for idolatrous reasons). The sin lies in your motive and manner of performing it, not in my request. I asked you to feed the poor; I did not ask you to sinfully feed the poor.

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.

It really is absurd, but not for the reason you think. It is absurd because you attribute to me knowledge that no human could possess.

That's a denial of the first point of Calvinism (a.k.a. total inability).

No, it’s not. It is practically a restatement of it, but includes a necessary distinction—that the unbeliever’s inability is moral, not physical or rational. The unbeliever is accountable precisely because he possesses the physical and mental faculties necessary for obedience, yet he nevertheless refuses to obey God or submit to his authority. As Mitch Cervinka put it,

Man’s problem lies in the desires of his heart—he loves sin and hates righteousness—and this is what makes him guilty for his sins. He could obey God's law if he desired to do so. He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem: he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness.

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.

You are convinced that the Westminster Confession of Faith is good authority? Really?

Summary: My point stands undefeated: There is no action you could perform while unregenerate that wouldn’t constitute sin. Non posse non peccare.