|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 7, 2008 0:19:58 GMT -5
This is something I just wrote and have been thinking a lot about. Let me know what you guys think. Tell me if this makes sense at all.
Epistemological Basis for Confidence & Accuracy How can truth be confidently known as certainly true?
By Jesse Morrell
When dealing with epistemology the question of foundations for confidence and accuracy necessarily arise. Truth is objective reality which transcends opinions and preferences. Knowledge is when this truth is apprehended and the facts of reality are properly interpreted.
But upon what basis can a finite creature be sure of anything? Upon what grounds can we have certainty? If reality is objective, which is must be or else it is not reality, and if reality be vast and extensive, how can we who are limited and finite have grounds for any confidence to assert any claim to be accurate whatsoever? In the world of an unbeliever, there is no revelation from an infinite God. So our most thoughtful claims and assertions, as finite beings, would be but ignorant guesses in a universe of such vast truth.
If left to ourselves, as the unbeliever claims we are, what we claim to know and what we think to be true would be nothing more then what we claim to know and what we think is true. But how can the finite be sure that he has attained objective truth? How can we be confident that what we claim to know is actual reality? For what we think we perceive as reality might not be reality at all but could be a delusion or an illusion. And what we think is a proper interpretation of that perceived reality may not be an accurate interpretation at all but could be grossly mistaken and wrong, and the opposite of what we thought might actually be true.
In the world of an unbeliever, we would have to arrogantly and ignorantly assume the accuracy of our own limited understanding, we would have to presuppose the accuracy of our own senses and reason, which are prone to mistake and error and by necessity are finite and limited. Not to mention that to remove God is to remove the very foundations of reason and logic, without which we cannot account for these things at all. To remove the transcendent infinite God who reveals truth to His creatures, we are left with endless skepticism about everything. And in such a world, to claim to know anything is nothing more than empty claims built upon nothing but arrogance and pride, grounded upon no basis at all because all we would have is the mere assumption that what we think is logical is actually logical, that what we think is reasonable is actually reasonable, and what we think is real is actually real. This world of the unbeliever is destructive at its very essence of all truth and understanding of reality, completely demolishing any hopes of any accurate epistemological discovery or acquisition.
In a universe of objective reality, apart from the concept of revelation from the Infinite God, men would have to know all truth or know no truth at all. For if we don’t know all truth, how can we be sure what we think we know is actually true? And if we are to know some truth as actually true, we would have to know all truth to know if we perceive it and interpret it aright. If we live in a universe that has no transcendent infinite God who grants revelation to His creatures, then we ourselves must know all truth or else we cannot know any truth. We would be omniscient or omni-nescient with no option of a middle position. We would possess all truth or possess no truth, knowing all or knowing nothing. Without a transcendent infinite God who clearly perceives and knows all of reality, who clearly and infallibly grants revelation to the finite, finite creatures would have no foundation or grounds for certainty, to have any confidence in truth to be accuracy perceived and interpreted.
To question God requires that we question everything. And to question everything leaves no room to be certain of anything. To start with uncertainty one must end with uncertainty, because uncertainty does not offer a frame work by which certainty can be acquired. Uncertainty is in fact to be baseless, to be without the means of acquisition. Uncertainty can only lead to more uncertainty. We must be certain of something to have a foundation upon which to build and expand. It is impossible to acquire any truth if you do not start with some truth. And in the world of the unbeliever, it would be impossible to affirm anything as truth unless you already have all truth, for what is considered to be true by a finite creature might not actually be true, and the only way for him to know whether it is or whether it isn’t is by knowing all truth all at once.
Without ourselves being infinite, or without revelation from the Infinite, we are left with hopeless skepticism. But skepticism itself could not be certain if skepticism is true. Skepticism itself claims to be sure that we cannot be sure, it claims to be certain that we cannot be certain, it claims to know that we cannot know. So if skepticism were true, skepticism could not be acknowledged as truth, because to acknowledge skepticism as true is to depart from the very claims of skepticism, namely that truth cannot be known.
The only foundation for accurate knowledge in a vast and extensive universe must be a transcendent infinite God of truth who gives revelations of truth directly to the minds of His creatures. As it is written, “the Spirit of truth…. will guide you into all truth”. (John 16:13). Truth must be revealed by God (Rom. 1:18-20) and without revelation from the infinite God, who knows all things, nothing at all can be known by the finite with any grounds of confidence and accuracy. Without His revelation, granted by His good character, we as finite could not be sure of anything, but would have to question everything, having no foundation to build knowledge upon at all. We would be left guessing at our very best, while having to guess our own guesses, groping in the dark, not even sure of the reality of our own existence.
“Trust in the Lord with all you heart; and lean not unto your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5). Unless the infinite good God, who knows all things, reveals truth about the vast universe to His creatures, we could not have a basis to confidently and accurately know anything about anything at all! Only the Christian, who recognizes truth as revelation from God, has such grounds for affirming truth at all. The truth of God must precede all other truth. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” (Proverbs 9:10)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 7, 2008 10:19:39 GMT -5
In essence:
Without knowledge or revelation from the Infinite to the finite, we are left with nothing more then a finite perspective and finite interpretation of a universe of uncertainty. There is absolutely know basis for knowledge without God, to question God means you must question everything, and therefore be eternally uncertain of anything.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Feb 7, 2008 12:38:03 GMT -5
So, basically you are saying that we must start with a source outside of ourselves because if we start with ourselves everything is merely subjective and left to our own inductive reasoning? And if it's subjective, it's not necessarily fact.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 7, 2008 18:48:19 GMT -5
On campus today I took this apologetic approach and found it to be very powerful. Atheists actually affirmed that they could not be sure of anything. They said that they could not even be sure that they themselves exist. And if they do exist, how do they know anything about themselves? For all they knew, the Universe was created only 5 seconds ago and they were created with all the memories that they possess. The logical conclusion of atheism must be skepticism. Even empiricism itself, which atheists pride themselves on, is absolutely useless since they have no basis to say that anything exists at all.
Yes that's right. Truth is objective reality. Knowledge is the proper interpretation of that reality. But as finite creatures, apart from revelation from God, how can we be sure that we perceive reality and interpret reality accurately? The atheist has to assume the accuracy of his perception and the accuracy of his interpretation, when, as a finite creature in a vast universe, he has no grounds to assume this. Not so with the Christian. The Christian admits that truth is objective reality, and that knowledge is the right interpretation of that knowledge, and admits that we are finite and cannot know anything on our own. But, the Christian acknowledges the infinite God who knows all things, who grants revelation to His finite creatures. The unbeliever is entirely and utterly baseless, while the Christian recognizes God as the source of knowledge and truth.
Consider this also. Since the unbeliever denies revelation from an infinite God, he is only left with assuming the accuracy of his own perceptions and interpretations. But of course, he has no basis for this assumption. As a finite creature in a vast universe, the laws of probability alone would be against this assumption.
So the unbeliever cannot even be sure that he himself exists, let alone that facts or objective reality exists. So the challenge of the unbeliever, "prove to me that there is a God" assumes too much for his position. He assumes that there is an absolute reality and therefore absolute truth, he assumes that proofs and facts exist. He not only assumes that facts exist, but he also assumes that facts can be known and can be properly interpreted. But, without revelation from the infinite, we could not affirm the existence of anything at all. To question the existence of God requires that we question our own existence, and the existence of absolutely everything. Because we have no accurate source of knowledge by which we can know anything. So in reality, the existence of any fact at all proves the existence of God, because without the existence of God, facts themselves could not be known to exist. So when the unbeliever says, "prove to me that there is a God" he assumes too much and even betrays his own position.
|
|
|
Post by rebecca on Feb 7, 2008 19:07:43 GMT -5
On campus today I took this apologetic approach and found it to be very powerful. Atheists actually affirmed that they could not be sure of anything. They said that they could not even be sure that they themselves exist. And if they do exist, how do they know anything about themselves? For all they knew, the Universe was created only 5 seconds ago and they were created with all the memories that they possess. The logical conclusion of atheism must be skepticism. Even empiricism itself, which atheists pride themselves on, is absolutely useless since they have no basis to say that anything exists at all. Yes that's right. Truth is objective reality. Knowledge is the proper interpretation of that reality. But as finite creatures, apart from revelation from God, how can we be sure that we perceive reality and interpret reality accurately? The atheist has to assume the accuracy of his perception and the accuracy of his interpretation, when, as a finite creature in a vast universe, he has no grounds to assume this. Not so with the Christian. The Christian admits that truth is objective reality, and that knowledge is the right interpretation of that knowledge, and admits that we are finite and cannot know anything on our own. But, the Christian acknowledges the infinite God who knows all things, who grants revelation to His finite creatures. The unbeliever is entirely and utterly baseless, while the Christian recognizes God as the source of knowledge and truth. Consider this also. Since the unbeliever denies revelation from an infinite God, he is only left with assuming the accuracy of his own perceptions and interpretations. But of course, he has no basis for this assumption. As a finite creature in a vast universe, the laws of probability alone would be against this assumption. So the unbeliever cannot even be sure that he himself exists, let alone that facts or objective reality exists. So the challenge of the unbeliever, "prove to me that there is a God" assumes too much for his position. He assumes that there is an absolute reality and therefore absolute truth, he assumes that proofs and facts exist. He not only assumes that facts exist, but he also assumes that facts can be known and can be properly interpreted. But, without revelation from the infinite, we could not affirm the existence of anything at all. To question the existence of God requires that we question our own existence, and the existence of absolutely everything. Because we have no accurate source of knowledge by which we can know anything. So in reality, the existence of any fact at all proves the existence of God, because without the existence of God, facts themselves could not be known to exist. So when the unbeliever says, "prove to me that there is a God" he assumes too much and even betrays his own position. God doesn't believe in athiests and neither do I, that's my answer. I can't argue with somethig that doesn't exist.
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 14, 2008 22:06:28 GMT -5
I do not mean to go off topic but as a Calvinist that believes in a compatabilistic free-will and not a libertarian free-will I have a question that does impact our apologetic on campuses. How can a libertarian free-will believer hold to the belief that the Bible is the Word of God and not the word of man and God? I thought about this after hearing Jesse on the Two Reformed Brothers show. Correct my understanding
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 14, 2008 22:37:46 GMT -5
Simple. You believe that the men who wrote the scripture were "holy men" and therefore submitted to God and wrote exactly what God wanted them to. Is there some type of argument that it's impossible to hold to libertarian free-will and the inspiration of the Bible?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 14, 2008 22:43:56 GMT -5
How can you being a Calvinist that believes in a compatabilistic free-will believe that Christians can sin?
Unless I am misunderstanding what compatabilism teaches, it teaches that you can only make decisions that line up with your "nature" as opposed to making decisions contrary to your "nature."
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 14, 2008 23:05:33 GMT -5
Thanks for the answer
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 14, 2008 23:18:20 GMT -5
However, to be consistant with libertarian free-will it is possible that the Bible is not just the Word of God but also the word of man. For example, if Paul or Peter one day did not want to submit to God's will they could of wrote whatever they willingly choose to wrote.
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 15, 2008 0:51:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 15, 2008 11:03:55 GMT -5
I don't really see the problem. The writers of the Bible were holy men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They could have chosen to be unholy men, but they didn't. That's the whole point. They were men who did the will of God.
It is like saying, "If Jesus had a free will, how do you know that being crucified was really what God wanted? Jesus could have been doing his own thing."
The truth of the matter is that Jesus did have a free will, the Father did want His Son to be a sacrifice, and Jesus did the Fathers will.
Jesus could have prayed for twelve legions of angels, but he didn't.
Likewise, the question, "If the Apostles had a free will, how do you know that they wrote what God really wanted? They could have been writing their own thing."
The truth of the matter is, that the Apostles did have a free will, they were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the Apostles wrote what God wanted them to write.
The Apostles could have become Gnostic's if they wanted to, but they didn't.
(It is also important to note that the Gnostic's denied free will. The Gnostic's taught that men have ruined natured incapable of good. But the disciples of the Apostles all taught free will).
Besides, if the Apostles backslide and did their own thing, God could have:
1. Killed them before they did any major damage 2. Destroyed their writings through countless means
But God has preserved the Words that He spoke through His prophets and through His Apostles. The prophets could have become false prophets, but they didn't. The Apostles could have become false apostles, but they didn't. They sealed their testimony with their blood, and their words are affirmed by our own God given conscience.
=========================================
Here are some question for you RC,
If the false prophets do not have a free will, but God causes them to speak lies, how can you trust God's Word at all?
Also, how could God be angry with false prophets if they do not have a free will? And how could they be punished? They are not doing their own thing, they are doing the Sovereign will of God right? Wouldn't that mean that God is angry with His own Sovereign plan?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 15, 2008 18:17:35 GMT -5
Yes, that is right. They could have. It's not possible that the Bible is mixed with just "mere men's" words because the church would have known if there was error. The Holy Spirit would have shown those apostles who were walking with the Lord the error just like Paul did with Peter. Also, the other disciples didn't blindly follow the Apostles (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures and the Holy Spirit surely testified to each Christian the writings were true.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 15, 2008 18:25:20 GMT -5
I think we can't discount the Holy Spirit testifying to Christians that the scriptures are true. To be honest, I don't just believe the Bible because someone told me that they guys who wrote it had apostolic authority. I believe it because God has shown me that is it true. I'm sure every Christian can testify to that.
As you know, there are many ways you can prove the Bible is correct, but what everyone who is born again can testify is that it was a revelation from God that started their life as a Christian. If it works like this today, how much more was it in effect during "bible days?"
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 15, 2008 18:29:02 GMT -5
Interesting article, RC. I've never heard anyone say some of the stuff that author was saying. To be honest, it's hard to make sense of it. It seems to be full of contradictions. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding him...
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 16, 2008 1:07:08 GMT -5
I think I might of answered some of your questions on the open theism thread. I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Aug 16, 2008 2:48:18 GMT -5
Interesting article, RC. I've never heard anyone say some of the stuff that author was saying. To be honest, it's hard to make sense of it. It seems to be full of contradictions. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding him... Josh - That is the basic Calvinistic view of the four conditions of man in regards to will. RC maybe you can post links to the first half for clarification.... 1) Pre Fall - 2) Post Fall - 3) Regenerated - 4) Glorified What aparent contridictions do you see? Please point them out in the quote... I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.. Thanks, Paul
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 16, 2008 14:07:13 GMT -5
Interesting article, RC. I've never heard anyone say some of the stuff that author was saying. To be honest, it's hard to make sense of it. It seems to be full of contradictions. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding him... Josh - That is the basic Calvinistic view of the four conditions of man in regards to will. RC maybe you can post links to the first half for clarification.... 1) Pre Fall - 2) Post Fall - 3) Regenerated - 4) Glorified What aparent contridictions do you see? Please point them out in the quote... I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.. Thanks, Paul Sure, I'll give it a shot. This seems impossible to me. Well, I guess it could be possible depending on your view of what sin is. That is probably where I was missing his view. I can't think of anywhere the Bible describes men as both sinners and saints. I understand the imputed righteousness position, but with that view alone (without a real imparted righteousness) you are only seen as saints before God, right? Is that what he is saying? That you live as a sinner but God sees you as a saint? I'm not implying antinomianism by that last question. I just say that so you don't feel pressured to answer it as such. This is one that really doesn't make sense to me. After a man is regenerated he no longer uses that liberty for evil as he did before regeneration, but then again sometimes he does use it like he did before regeneration. I don't understand what he means by saying a regenerate person doesn't use his "power of choice" for evil then turn around and say that sometimes he does. It's almost like saying when men are unregenerate they can only chose evil, but after they are regenerate they can chose both evil and good. If this is true then doesn't that contradict the compatibilistic view of "free will?" If men can only chose what is according to their "nature" then how can men with a new nature chose sin? Maybe this is a better question to ask: why can't a regenerate man chose what he wants, when what he wants is according to godliness? That statement seems to stand at odds with the last statement. How can we be free from the dominion of sin and yet still not be free from it where we don't have to "partly choose evil." Here is my biggest delima with this position. 1)If God wants man to be wholly holy, and 2) man can only do what is in accordance with his nature, 3) a regenerate man wants to be wholly holy, 3) God imparted to regenerate man all things that are needed for godliness in this present world (1 Peter 1:4; Titus 2:11-12), then what stops a regenerate man from actually being a saint in spirit, soul, and body, before the coming of the Lord (1 Thes. 5:23)?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 16, 2008 20:55:56 GMT -5
Here is a great lecture on the unity of moral action: www.pinpointevangelism.com/libraryoftheologycom/writings/moralcharacter/Unity_of_Moral_Action_Finney.pdfYou cannot choose the glory of God as the supreme object of your pursuit (good) and choose your own selfish pleasure as your ultimate intention or pursuit (evil). In other words, you cannot serve two Masters. Good and evil are exact opposites, you cannot choose both of them at the same time. You can choose good one moment, and choose evil the next moment, but you cannot choose both at the same time. Sin or righteousness comes out of the will or heart (Isa. 14:13-14; Eze. 11:21; Ps. 58:2; Matt. 5:28; 12:35; 15:18-19; Lk. 6:45; Rom. 6:17; 10:10; 2 Pet. 2:14). And since we only have one heart, we are holy or sinful, righteous or unrighteous, moral or immoral, loving or selfish, obedient or disobedient, at any given time, but never both at the same time (Matt. 6:22-24; 7:17-18; 12:33; Lk. 11:34-36; Rom. 3:10-18; 2 Cor. 5:17; Tit. 1:15-16; Jas. 2:10; 3:11-12). You cannot serve two masters (Matt. 6:24; Lk. 16:13), since you only have one heart, you only have one will. A good tree will have good fruit. It cannot have bad fruit. - Jesus The same spring cannot give forth both bitter and good water. - James
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Aug 17, 2008 3:02:53 GMT -5
Josh,
Forgive me but you will have to allow me a day to respond.... Couldn't get to it this evening....
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 17, 2008 13:06:15 GMT -5
No hurry. I don't post everyday either.
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Aug 20, 2008 5:12:09 GMT -5
It is clear that though I may be able to conscisly answer (your questions) your presuppositions may, if not, will in fact prevent you from understanding.
If this wasn't the case you would have seen the answers given in the whole of the article. Most of these questions are already answered but yet you deny them and offer no Scriptural response for your denial - Oh if we could only truly be neutral in these matters.
This is one of the biggest struggles I see with entering into these discussions. As Calvinists we make a clear distinction between the conditions of man in regards to nature and will - Correct me if I am wrong, and I will stand humbly corrected, but I often find the opposing view overlapping the conditions of man.
Both Saint and Sinner one of Dr. Martin Luther's most well-known phrases, "Simul Iustus et Peccator" or "At Once Justified and Sinner" (also commonly translated as "Simultaneously Sinner and Saint").
Being baptized into Christ's death and resurrection, the sinner is declared blameless, Jesus' righteousness being imputed to the sinner's account for Jesus' sake.
We are accounted as righteous in the sight of God on the basis of Christ's righteousness not our own.
Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:
Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
1 Thessalonians 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.
Now there are many more passages that we could address that we can clearly see where the people of God are addressed as Saints but thre is no need to continue here as this is not the point of your objection. We can both whole heartedly agree that believers are also called saints throughout the New Testament.
Your obejection is to the fact that we still struggle with indwelling corruption and as saints we commit acts of sin.
Now as a Biblical Calvinist we nor I ascribe to the carnal christian heresy. We are commanded to be holy and to put away all sin.
Hebrews 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
I am glad you are not setting up the strawman that Calvinists are antinominan. Christ not only saves from Hell but from sin.
However we must deal with the fact that we are to live lives of continued repentance and faith. To this I ask, if we are perfected to what end is there a need for continual repentance?
James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
1 John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
Now let it be granted that we don't see the saints addressed specifically as sinners in these passages but we can clearly infer that this is the case at times by the given context.
These Epistles were written to saints in varioulos churches and they give clear instructions to the saints as how to conduct themselves in regards to commiting acts of sin.
1) We are to confess our sins one to another 2) We are to be assured of the forgivness of Christ, if we sin 3) We are to know we as "children" have an advocate with the father 4) We are to pray for "brothers" that we see sin.
By the very nature and contex of the Scriptures we can see that saints at times could and do commit sin. If we did not why would there need to be instructions on how to deal with sin in the life of a believer?
Now before you all go jumping off the deep end I am not saying that a regenerate man "must" sin but it is clear that the ability to sin is still there and if we do we have an advocate with the father.
Now for the fact that in God's eyes we are viewed as justified I appeal to Romans 8 and the golden chain of redemption.
Romans 8: 29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
1) justified 2) glorified: Both words are in the "aorist 1" tense.
Having been done at once and for all. In the sight of God the justification and glorification are settled. They are as good as done in relation to God and we just experience them in our life span through the outworking of regeneration, conversion, sanctification and glorification.
When speaking of compatibilism man's will is at liberty in that his actions are not forced or coerced - they are volunatry. However it does not mean that his actions are free from influence, prejuice, or inclination.
Now man has the ability to do what he desires most although not free from corruption - we are no longer in a state of original righteousness and struggle with indewlling corruption.
Would you agree that men are now born different than Adam and Eve were originally created?
Romans 7:21-23 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Yes, Yes, I know the differences we have with Romans 7 - but the question is not about our differences but how a Calvinist views the four fold state of man.
It is not that a regenerate man cannot chose we have the ability to do so and we do chose to live holy apart from sin.
We can also ask, "How did Adam and Eve sin?" They also had the ability to choose good in accordance with godliness and furthermore they were originally without sin and a not in a fallen world.
Ask yourself, "Why do you sin after being Born again?" or do you say since you have been born from above you have not sinned?
It is not a matter of if the possiblity of being perfect is there. To this we can both agree - Man has the abiltiy to live without sin.
We both have the same problem: "The mystery of Iniquity", although after the fall we have the corruption of our original natures to deal with. Adam and Eve were not corrupted.
Why is there "universal transgression" (I think that is the term you use... Help me out here Kerrigan?). Why can't a man live a perfect life - completly and totaly without sin?
When a Calvinist and the Bible speaks of the "dominion of sin" we don't speak of individual acts of sin but rather the principle of sin as a power the bondage of sin.
Romans 6:11-15 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
In verse 12 "sin" bears the definate article. It is not individual acts of sin but rather sin embodied in principle as a reigning power and presence. If the article was omitted we could make the argument that it is individual sins but because of the article we are forced to render it as an embodiment of sin. It is the reigning power of sin we are liberated from.
Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness
Romans 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
John 8:38 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
The four states of man's nature:
1) Pre-fall: able to sin/able not to sin 2) Post-fall: able to sin/unable not to sin 3) Reborn/Regenerated Man: able to sin/able not to sin 4) Perfected/Glorified Man: able not to sin/unable to sin
I think I have addressed most of this above but just for clarifications sake...
Again, I do not say that regenerate man is not a saint, nor do I say he is not able to live a perfect life - to this we would both agree.
The question is really, "What prevents a regenerate man from living a sinless perfected life before the comming of the Lord?" In the simplest form aside from the struggle of indewlling corruption I guess you can say it's.... "His voluntary choice...."
Again I ask, what stops you from being perfect after being born again or do you attest to not having sinned after being born from above?
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Sept 1, 2008 22:14:30 GMT -5
Rom 3:25
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Jan 10, 2009 23:40:48 GMT -5
Ok Jesse I am going to stay on topic. Concerning your article on epistemology how do you answer this question? Vincent Cheung makes this statement:
Second, not only do they [Psedo-Presuppusitionalists] fail just as miserably as the unbelievers in justifying or accounting for their reliance on sensation, intuition, induction, and science, they even admit that these irrational ways of knowing and reasoning are necessary in order to discover the contents of divine revelation. In other words, although they claim that it is revelation that accounts for, say, our sensations, our sensations are what allow us to access revelation in the first place.
The result is not just one vicious circle disintegrating into a mess of confusion and nonsense, but worse than that, they have placed themselves in the exact position of the unbelievers – they make themselves and their own human investigation the center and precondition of all knowledge. They explicitly place revelation under sensation, intuition, induction, and science. And in many ways, this is even worse than even an explicitly anti-Christian philosophy that has enough sense to question irrational epistemologies."
So one must presuppose the reliability of sensation and justify it by scripture which is circular reasoning (not a problem), but it results in two vicious circles, sensation is justified by scripture and scripture is justified by sensation. So Jesse how would you answer this epistemological dilemma?
|
|