Partial LA?

[Josheb]

Do their consciences bear witness to it? Because sinners are without excuse, right?

Not quite. What Romans 2 states is their consciences bear witness to the Law's requirements being written on their heart, and witness is specifically specified to apply when "by nature" they do what is right. That text also specifies the conscience bearing witness occurs on the day when God judges them.

Romans 2:12-16
For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

That is much different than their consciences bearing witness to sin. It's a curious text because just a few verses later Paul says the Gentile (the uncircumcised) who keeps the Law judges those of the circumcision who does not . It's curious because if neither of them have Jesus then it turns out the Gentile might succeed the Jew (as far as the Law goes)!

How can they intrinsically deny if they aren't aware of it?

Great point. I'll make note of this and adjust my posts in the future. The better word is "apathetic," or "no regard." However, the intent was to communicate the reality of God, or the Bible, or any Christian like you or me presenting the gospel, the premises that God exists but humanity has estranged themselves (individually and collectively) from God by disobedience, or what the Bible calls "sin," and God has made a way to repair that breach and avoid the inevitable consequence of sin by simply believing in Jesus.

The non-believer then replies, "I do not believe any God exists. I do not believe a thing you call 'sin' exists, and I do not believe Jesus exists or that I have any need of any of it." That is the denial of which I speak.

You point is, of course valid, because the Calvinist response to the Arminian doctrine of salvation that asserts faith precedes regeneration is confronted with, "How can they have faith in a God they do not believe exists?" So when I say the deny God, sin, and Jesus it does not conflict with Romans 2:15. Humans are moral creatures. Humans are also spiritual creatures, and social creatures, as well. They cannot genuinely be otherwise because that is how we are made. Acting morally and acknowledging morals exist are two different things in their thinking.

Dichotomy between prelapsarian & postlapsarian is based on free-will and is not a matter of limiting God or his attributes.

??? I never said otherwise.

We are not limited because God is Sovereign but because of sin.

That is incorrect. We are limited by both.

God allowed the Fall to happen, but he did not cause Adam to fall, make sense?

I completely agree and nothing I have EVER posted should ever be construed to say otherwise. I wonder if, perhaps, my posts have been confused with another because much of post 120 is non sequitur. I've never disputed God allowed the fall. I've never disputed God did not cause Adam to fall. Asking me if it makes sense does not make sense.

He fell by his own "Free-Will" choice to disobey God.

Yep. Except his will is not free. Adam "fell" because he possessed the ability, the liberty to disobey God. His will was not free to disobey God without suffering the consequences of his choices and his actions. He was not free to will it. He was not free to ump 1000 feet in the air, and he was not free to jump 1000 feet in the air and avoid dying when he disobeyed God. The word "free" means absent any controlling influence, unfettered, or to do as one wishes. Adam was not free to do as he wished because Adam would have wished to disobey God and not die. The moment God said, "Do not eat.... or you will die," THAT was a control limiting his volitional agency and conduct. Adam could choose to disobey with consequences, but he was NOT free to choose to disobey without consequences. That was not a choice available to him. His will was limited.

And was punished for it.

Yep. That is exactly what I said.

If God would have coerced Adam to sin then punished him for it, God would be guilty of sin and evil, understand?

Non sequitur. I've never said Adam was coerced. Many times have I quoted WCF 3.1 and stood firm on the statement God did not author sin. I'm not understanding why it is you think I needed to have that posted to me.
Perhaps it is related to this...

Look Civic...​

I'm not civic. Not even close.

That being said, I've just realized I myself have confused your posts with another's. In my previous exchange with @makesends (#118), I recommended he take up the matter of partial LA with you, but I realize the op is @His clay 's, not yours. My bad. Please (all three of you) accept my regrets for any confusion that may have caused.

 

[makesends]

Because libertarian free-will in the Garden Temple was given to Adam by God so that he could "FREELY" choose to obey or disobey God. And by God endowing Adam with the ability to choose freely. He either would fulfill God's command of the Covenant and live or disobey it and die by his own actions. If God doesn't give Adan this ability to choose freely either way. Then Adam can't choose freely because of the void faculty to choose. So, then God who created this way without the ability to choose freely, become the author of sin.

"Libertarian" free-will, meaning 'uncaused' free-will? I'm sorry, but there is no such thing, except for in God himself. Hopefully, by "libertarian" you mean something other than what most self-determinists mean by it.

Further, Adam could not have made a choice either way without a preference or impulse or some other cause. The question isn't even whether Adam was informed or able to consider alternatives, but whether he simply chose. He did, and chose wrong, just as God ordained. That is in itself enough for God to destroy him. But that he did so informed and able to consider alternatives leaves him without excuse.

For proof of the notion of God causing all things to come to pass precisely as they will come to pass, simple cause-and-effect will suffice. God caused the beginning. Everything else came to pass as a result. But, even better, God knew before creating; therefore, God intended whatever comes to pass, to happen.

To insert a self-contradiction, that a creation can do anything uncaused, invokes a large gap in logic. The Bible doesn't call for it, so why "Libertarian" free will? Our judgement of what we don't like is not sufficient. Our assessment of God's role according to our notion of love or fairness isn't enough.

Adam freely chose. I agree. Uncaused? —nope. Un-coerced? —yep. Libertarian? —nope.

 

[makesends]

Humans are moral creatures. Humans are also spiritual creatures, and social creatures, as well. They cannot genuinely be otherwise because that is how we are made. Acting morally and acknowledging morals exist are two different things in their thinking.

Well put. Thank you.

And I think, that is even in Adam, though we like to consider him as 'innocent' (ignorant?) as an animal, before his sin. —But was he?

 

[makesends]

Do God-denying sinners believe in sin? How can a person be aware of something they intrinsically deny.

I saw you and @Ladodgers6 discussing "intrinsically" earlier. Not sure what is your use of it here. "Intrinsically" meaning basic to their sinful nature, or basic to their God-given purpose as generic humans, or basic to their God-given purpose as predestined-end, or what?

Sometimes what is ontological to our being, but temporal, doesn't seem quite the same as what we will be, eternally. Certainly, in the end, there is a huge difference, life and death difference, in the end, but even now, though it is hard to see for some.

 

[Carbon]

I'm not civic. Not even close.

OOps
I think he didn't mean that.

You sure aint, thankfully.
Far from it.

But it's funny.

 

[Josheb]

Well put. Thank you.

And I think, that is even in Adam, though we like to consider him as 'innocent' (ignorant?) as an animal, before his sin. —But was he?

Conditions are different for Adam (and Eve) prior to Genesis 3:6-7. God made Adam good, unashamed, and sinless AND the world in which he lived was likewise good and sinless. That means Adam's entire existence was different than our own. One of the chief differences is his ability to learn from contrast. Adam could recognize that which was not-good simply because it was not good. There was nothing not-good in creation prior to Genesis 3:6-7..... except the serpent. Sometime between Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 3:1 the events described in Isaiah 14 occurred. Satan disobeyed God before Adam disobeyed God. Satan's existence in the garden shouldn't have been a problem because Adam (and Eve) were good, unashamed, and sinless AND had been given all the power and authority they needed to rule over everything on the earth. They'd been commanded to subdue the earth (and all of its desolation). They'd also been given all power and authority to rule over all the creatures in Eden. That would include the serpent.

The point of all of that is what Adam does NOT know is a much different kind of ignorance than ours. The pre-disobedient, the pre-Genesis 3:6-7 Adam's ignorance is different than the post-Genesis 3:6-7, post-disobedient Adam's ignorance because the post-disobedient Adam isn't just adulterated by sin and death, he has lost his ability to learn by contrast. He is no longer good, unashamed or sinless. He is the exact opposite on all three accounts. Now there is nothing good in him and he can no longer measure that which is not-good simply by his own inherent goodness. Now everything that is not-good is much like him.... not good. John 3:19-20 puts it well.

John 3:19-20
This is the verdict: that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

That is exactly what happened in Genesis 3:7. They hid. Spiritually, psychologically, hiding is a shame-based behavior. It is the direct opposite of confession and repentance.

Adam was the last human to ever live in a good and sinless state in a good and sinless world. Jesus, the "last Adam" was a good man (Mk. 10:18 not withstanding) but he did not live in a sinless world. That's one of the reasons his life is so remarkable and to be emulated because he lived sinlessly in a sin-saturated world. Granted, he's not merely human, but that's not the point. The point is that there was a time when ignorance was not the problem it is today. We might use the phrase "lack of knowledge" as a just discriminator.

Sinless lack of knowledge is not identical to sinful ignorance.

And as far as the matter of volition goes, Adam's (and Eve's) volitional agency, or will, was limited by two of the items in the previously provided bullet list. Adam's will could not overrule God's will, and Adam's will could not violate many of the design limits of creation (although it is reasonable to believe he could have commanded the elements much like Jesus did because that would fall within his purview as a sinless man with all of God's authority to subdue the earth. His will was not free. He had agency, or liberty, but not unfettered autonomy. That all changed in an instant when he disobeyed God. In an instant he lost his goodness, he lost his unashamedness, he lost his sinlessness AND the entire world in which he lived was adulterated. He lost much (but not all) of his authority AND God added to the burden (Gen. 3:16-19 and Rom. 1:24-28). They were, as Paul words it, "given over" to his lusts. Even temptation changed. James details how we are dragged away and enticed by our desires or lusts (the NIV says "evil lusts" but the word "evil" does not exist in the Greek). The good, unashamed, sinless Adam (and Eve) has not untoward lusts. There is nothing sinful in him by which he might be enticed and dragged away. His choice was not adulterated by sin. He was the most free man who has ever lived (aside from Jesus). He is not the freest man who will ever live because all of us in Christ will one day be raised incorruptible and immortal. That means we will never be able to be corrupted. There will be no act of disobedience and no act of disobedience will cause our demise. Praise God!

 

[Josheb]

OOps
I think he didn't mean that.

You sure aint, thankfully.
Far from it.

But it's funny.

Did I see a post recently bearing his moniker? Thought I had. Perhaps it was in a legacy thread from last year .

 

[Carbon]

Did I see a post recently bearing his moniker? Thought I had. Perhaps it was in a legacy thread from last year .

He did show and posted a couple in the "Why have you forsaken me" thread. But he has run off again.

 

[civic]

He did show and posted a couple in the "Why have you forsaken me" thread. But he has run off again.

lol I haven’t run off I’ve been busy with my job and forum. I’m glad you guys are amused.

 

[Carbon]

lol I haven’t run off I’ve been busy with my job and forum.

Oh okay, my apologies.

I’m glad you guys are amused.

Not really. But good to see you.

 

[civic]

Oh okay, my apologies.

Not really. But good to see you.

Honestly I like you guys fwiw. I miss ya all .

 

[Carbon]

Honestly I like you guys fwiw. I miss ya all .

You're not such a bad guy yourself.

 

[civic]

Did I see a post recently bearing his moniker? Thought I had. Perhaps it was in a legacy thread from last year .

No it’s me brother and as I have always said I respect you as a Calvinist , a human being , a believer , a counselor etc … you are a good egg in my book even though we differ in our doctrines. The same with @His clay @Carbon @ReverendRV @Ladodgers6 .

 

[civic]

You're not such a bad guy yourself.

lol I still love you bro

 

[Josheb]

I saw you and @Ladodgers6 discussing "intrinsically" earlier. Not sure what is your use of it here. "Intrinsically" meaning basic to their sinful nature, or basic to their God-given purpose as generic humans, or basic to their God-given purpose as predestined-end, or what?

I define and use the word as the dictionary does. "Intrinsic" means that which naturally belongs or is otherwise a basic essential of whatever the "intrinsic" refers to.

For example, as a social scientist who's studied in the fields of anthropology, sociology, and social psychology one of the remarkable things I;ve learned is that humanity has always been social, moral, and spiritual. You and I (assuming you've seen the evidence) would call those three conditions "absolutes," but post-postmodern secularism does not believe in absolutes, so they call them "universals." Seriously. Often have I been corrected by my elders and my peers in academia when I used the former term (it's often very political). As far back in history as we have studied, we can find no evidence of any "hermit" culture. Humans congregate and socialize, share, commune, and although there is lots of variation (statistical and normative) there is no non-social culture ever observed. The same holds true for morality. ALL human groups codify conduct, and they tend to do so along common metrics (very similar to the Code of Hammurabi and the Ten commandments). There are exceptions to the common rule, but they all codify things like murder, theft, marriage, etc. It's okay to kill someone in the other tribe, but if you kill someone in this tribe it's murder. Post-postmoderns emphasize the diversity and minimize the uniformity. That does not change the facts. Similarly, as far as we go back in history, we find humans have always worshipped something other than, larger than themselves. It does not matter whether its rocks and trees or gods or God, we've always been spiritual. There are no atheist cultures inhuman history.

These three things are intrinsic to humanity.

Sometimes what is ontological to our being, but temporal, doesn't seem quite the same as what we will be, eternally. Certainly, in the end, there is a huge difference, life and death difference, in the end, but even now, though it is hard to see for some.

I would say that is because we are "in process." We are not the finished product. I used to build go-carts when I was a kid and I often drove my go-cart before it was finished and since I was always improving things, changing things, the go-cart was never finished. The wheel eventually became a Formula One racer, a jet plane, a space shuttle, or a Mars rover.

What God made in Eden was prototypes. Adam was always going to die (physically). It is appointed for man to die once and then face judgment. There is no life without death and no death without resurrection. Once sin set in the question became, "Is it a resurrection to eternal life, or a resurrection to eternal destruction?" The metaphor scripture uses is that of a seed dying in the grown, growing into something different (a plant according to its kind) that is reproductively bearing fruit. In 1 Cor. 15 Paul uses the word "sown." We were "sown" corruptible (not corrupted). That's a reference all the way back to pre-Genesis 3:6-7 Eden. The goal was always to live, die, resurrect and be transformed into spiritual bodies and incorruptible and immortal lives.

None of those particulars are intrinsic BUT they are part of our ontology.

Does that make sense?

 

[civic]

I define and use the word as the dictionary does. "Intrinsic" means that which naturally belongs or is otherwise a basic essential of whatever the "intrinsic" refers to.

For example, as a social scientist who's studied in the fields of anthropology, sociology, and social psychology one of the remarkable things I;ve learned is that humanity has always been social, moral, and spiritual. You and I (assuming you've seen the evidence) would call those three conditions "absolutes," but post-postmodern secularism does not believe in absolutes, so they call them "universals." Seriously. Often have I been corrected by my elders and my peers in academia when I used the former term (it's often very political). As far back in history as we have studied, we can find no evidence of any "hermit" culture. Humans congregate and socialize, share, commune, and although there is lots of variation (statistical and normative) there is no non-social culture ever observed. The same holds true for morality. ALL human groups codify conduct, and they tend to do so along common metrics (very similar to the Code of Hammurabi and the Ten commandments). There are exceptions to the common rule, but they all codify things like murder, theft, marriage, etc. It's okay to kill someone in the other tribe, but if you kill someone in this tribe it's murder. Post-postmoderns emphasize the diversity and minimize the uniformity. That does not change the facts. Similarly, as far as we go back in history, we find humans have always worshipped something other than, larger than themselves. It does not matter whether its rocks and trees or gods or God, we've always been spiritual. There are no atheist cultures inhuman history.

These three things are intrinsic to humanity.

I would say that is because we are "in process." We are not the finished product. I used to build go-carts when I was a kid and I often drove my go-cart before it was finished and since I was always improving things, changing things, the go-cart was never finished. The wheel eventually became a Formula One racer, a jet plane, a space shuttle, or a Mars rover.

What God made in Eden was prototypes. Adam was always going to die (physically). It is appointed for man to die once and then face judgment. There is no life without death and no death without resurrection. Once sin set in the question became, "Is it a resurrection to eternal life, or a resurrection to eternal destruction?" The metaphor scripture uses is that of a seed dying in the grown, growing into something different (a plant according to its kind) that is reproductively bearing fruit. In 1 Cor. 15 Paul uses the word "sown." We were "sown" corruptible (not corrupted). That's a reference all the way back to pre-Genesis 3:6-7 Eden. The goal was always to live, die, resurrect and be transformed into spiritual bodies and incorruptible and immortal lives.

None of those particulars are intrinsic BUT they are part of our ontology.

Does that make sense?

You should get a YouTube channel bro as I think you would even be more effective in reaching people in that venue. I’m willing to bet you would come across ever better in that environment. I’ll be the first to admit it’s not easy at all debating you on a forum. And I’m guessing you are even more persuasive in person.

 

[Josheb]

I’ll be the first to admit it’s not easy at all debating you on a forum.

That is a common experience anytime we perceive ourselves to be debating a person and not discussing information.

You should get a YouTube channel bro as I think you would even be more effective in reaching people in that venue. I’m willing to bet you would come across ever better in that environment. I’ll be the first to admit it’s not easy at all debating you on a forum. And I’m guessing you are even more persuasive in person.

Thank you for the kind, affirming words. If I am persuasive, then why haven't you changed your views?

 

[makesends]

I define and use the word as the dictionary does. "Intrinsic" means that which naturally belongs or is otherwise a basic essential of whatever the "intrinsic" refers to.

For example, as a social scientist who's studied in the fields of anthropology, sociology, and social psychology one of the remarkable things I;ve learned is that humanity has always been social, moral, and spiritual. You and I (assuming you've seen the evidence) would call those three conditions "absolutes," but post-postmodern secularism does not believe in absolutes, so they call them "universals." Seriously. Often have I been corrected by my elders and my peers in academia when I used the former term (it's often very political). As far back in history as we have studied, we can find no evidence of any "hermit" culture. Humans congregate and socialize, share, commune, and although there is lots of variation (statistical and normative) there is no non-social culture ever observed. The same holds true for morality. ALL human groups codify conduct, and they tend to do so along common metrics (very similar to the Code of Hammurabi and the Ten commandments). There are exceptions to the common rule, but they all codify things like murder, theft, marriage, etc. It's okay to kill someone in the other tribe, but if you kill someone in this tribe it's murder. Post-postmoderns emphasize the diversity and minimize the uniformity. That does not change the facts. Similarly, as far as we go back in history, we find humans have always worshipped something other than, larger than themselves. It does not matter whether its rocks and trees or gods or God, we've always been spiritual. There are no atheist cultures inhuman history.

These three things are intrinsic to humanity.

I would say that is because we are "in process." We are not the finished product. I used to build go-carts when I was a kid and I often drove my go-cart before it was finished and since I was always improving things, changing things, the go-cart was never finished. The wheel eventually became a Formula One racer, a jet plane, a space shuttle, or a Mars rover.

I agree about being "in process". The way I like to think of it is that we are not even complete (whole) beings, and I tend to think those in hell never were. It lines up nicely for me with the idea of the supremacy of God being so inestimably above (or beyond) man that our complaints about his justice in condemning us for what we by nature do, simply don't figure on the scale of God's logic. Who are you, oh caterpillar?

What God made in Eden was prototypes. Adam was always going to die (physically). It is appointed for man to die once and then face judgment. There is no life without death and no death without resurrection. Once sin set in the question became, "Is it a resurrection to eternal life, or a resurrection to eternal destruction?" The metaphor scripture uses is that of a seed dying in the grown, growing into something different (a plant according to its kind) that is reproductively bearing fruit. In 1 Cor. 15 Paul uses the word "sown." We were "sown" corruptible (not corrupted). That's a reference all the way back to pre-Genesis 3:6-7 Eden. The goal was always to live, die, resurrect and be transformed into spiritual bodies and incorruptible and immortal lives.

None of those particulars are intrinsic BUT they are part of our ontology.

Does that make sense?

Yep. By intrinsic, you were referring to what is natural to all, temporally —not necessarily eternally.

 

[His clay]

It's not misleading at all. Either Adam sinned by his own free-will or he was forced, coerced to sin, follow? Now, if Adam did not sin by his own free-will, that makes God the author of sin and evil, get it?

Reductionism fallacy, for the issues aren't that simple. False dichotomy fallacy: Have you thought about option #3?

Since no one adheres to Adam being forced to sin, then why bring it up? It's a moot point that no one holds. Libertarian freedom is not the answer, for it violates too much scripture.

Did you ready my post about the causal conflation fallacy?

 

[His clay]

No it’s me brother and as I have always said I respect you as a Calvinist , a human being , a believer , a counselor etc … you are a good egg in my book even though we differ in our doctrines. The same with @His clay @Carbon @ReverendRV @Ladodgers6 .

I appreciate the comment. I know full well that I am a sinful person though. I see it every day. I think that it was John Newton who said something something like this. "There are two things that I have learned in life. First, I am a great sinner. Second, I have an even greater Savior."