40 replies
  1. Luke says:

    Dr. Turek,

    You say: “we will still have free will in heaven, but we’ll have no reason to sin because we won’t lack anything we want. So evil exists because free will exists.”

    Doesn’t this argument contradict itself? It seems that the conclusion of your premeses would be that “evil exists because we lack things we want”.

    We can keep free will, but be rid of evil! You say this clearly.

    We can be rid of evil if “we [don’t] lack anything we want” so this condition should be included with either an and or or as a reason evil exists to give an accurate accounting of your views.

    Luke

    Reply
    • Andy (@ItsAndyRyan) says:

      People who have everything they need commit evil all the time. Likewise there are plenty of good people who lack all sorts of things.

      If the argument is that it is intrinsic badness that makes the former do bad things then why wouldn’t that still apply in heaven? If it’s possibly to take away that intrinsic badness without affecting the person’s free will, then why isn’t that possibly on earth?

      Reply
  2. Greg says:

    Sorry Frank but I’m with Bill on this one. You saying that atheists have to steal from god to make a moral argument is only true to you because you have pre-decided that god is the one and only true source of morality. But if we are critical thinkers we realize that good and evil are positions at which we arrive by reason and trial and error and that we don’t need a deity to tell us which is which. And by the way, that’s how the bible and all texts that contain moral or ethical statements came to be, evolved. Mere men, informed by reason and trial and error chose and rejected and changed and chose and rejected and modified and ….. until they came up with the most utilitarian standard they could think of. You’re not one of those that still claims that the law of Moses, because it came straight from the mouth of Yahweh, was progressive and way ahead of it’s time and contemporaries are you? Because anyone who cares to read knows that is hog wash. It was better than other moral codes in some respects and far worse in others.

    Another reason I think your argument is bunk is that Christian theology, at least your variety, makes abortion a more humane decision than allowing life. You believe that 100% of aborted babies go to heaven, based by the way on zero exegetical evidence. You simply believe this because you believe god is good and would not send an “innocent” baby to hell before he had a chance to do right or wrong. Note: the doctrine of original sin says that there are no innocent, unborn babies. They are all supposedly born under the course of Adam’s sin and deserving of hell. Also, this belief of yours is in sharp contrast to what Paul says in Romans 9, that Esau was created for destruction, for hell. While he was still in the womb, before he had done either right or wrong, god had destined him for hell simply because he had the power and will to do so. And mind you, so the suffering Esau endured in hell could serve as a contrast to the mercy and love Jacob was shown by Yahweh. That’s right, so Jacob and others of the elect would realize how much mercy god was having on them by electing them and not torturing them forever like he would Esau.

    My wife and I decided to give this infallible, superior, objective, biblical morality a try at Christmas and it really worked out well. We wanted our daughter to have a clear picture of just how much we loved her so we lavished thousands of dollars worth or gifts and hours of praise on her on Christmas morning, then we took our son, who by the way we really love and had no desire to see perish, out in the garage, strung him up by the feet, doused him with gasoline and lit him on fire. The torment and suffering he experienced, the screams, the agony were so touching to our daughter. It was a family Christmas memory for the photo album. We only wished we had the power to make the suffering eternal so her feelings of appreciation and thankfulness could last forever. It was clear to her that morning that we really loved her deeply. (End of ridiculous, yet accurate analogous digression.)

    So, you can’t say all aborted babies go to heaven. Because you don’t know that and Romans 9 strongly contradicts what you believe. But, back to the superior morality of aborting babies. If all aborted babies go to heaven, and less than half of those that live to the magical “age of accountability” go to heaven (see Matthew 7:13 and following) it seems to me that abortion is the absolute best evangelical tool conservative Christians have available to them. Who would be so cruel as to force a person to live to the age of accountability and be exposed to a greater than 50% chance of going to hell? Stop fighting the abortionists. They are populating heaven for you. Evangelically speaking, they are kicking your butt. Oh but I forgot, if we abort all babies they won’t get to take their spin on life’s roulette wheel of “glory vs. perdition”. They won’t be blessed with the possibility of living a horrible life of poverty, want, pain, neglect and abuse and then on top of that get to spend eternity in hell because they didn’t get their abstract theology right. I’m opposed to abortion but not because Yahweh told me so. Can you see the evil of your doctrine? Can you see why thinking people rebel against it? They don’t rebel against it because their minds are darkened and they are evil, they rebel against it because IT is evil. Your wasting a good education Frank. Take off your inerrancy straight jacket and breathe, think critically. You can do it.

    Reply
  3. Greg says:

    Why won’t anyone (given the doctrines of the age of accountability and the eternal, conscious torment of the unbeliever) attempt to refute my logic on the greater good of condoning abortion? Do you just see it as the rantings of a lunatic or is my logic unassailable? Any takers?

    Reply
    • craig says:

      ” Do you just see it as the rantings of a lunatic or is my logic unassailable? Any takers?”

      Yes Greg if that it is what you want.

      Your logic is flawed and assailable because its based on the erroneous presumption (not assumption) that sin is a behavioral problem. Its not; bad behavior or “wrongness” is only symptomatic of sin. Sin is an identity problem, not a behavioral problem. “Sin” simply means “without”. I know that its common to say that “sin is an archery term meaning to miss the mark” like sin is due to the archer being unskilled and cant hit the target to save his life, when in reality its just the opposite. He cant hit the mark because the mark is missing.

      A dog barks because that is what dogs do. I can imitate a dog bark pretty well, but that doesn’t make me a dog; it just makes me sound like a dog, even if I do get down on all fours and cover myself in a suit of hair.

      Genesis 2:17 even states as such. “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

      God didnt say “if you eat of that tree I’m gonna kill you” He said “ye shall surely die” The tree of the knowledge of good and evil both share the same root–that is death. Yes, the knowledge of good leads to death. The pharisees and legalists of the day and today try to live out their existence based on knowledge of good and evil. Jesus came to restore the path to the tree of life, not good behavior.

      Insofar as the deal with Esau is concerned, God isnt interfering with Esau’s choices in life, its just that God knew what Esau’s choices were going to be before Esau made them. If your definition of “freewill’ is “to be able to pull the wool over God’s eyes at some “random” point in life and make a decision He is not aware of so i think I can outsmart Him or so that He owes me something” then that is equally as flawed

      Reply
        • craig says:

          ““Sin” simply means “without””
          Who says?

          I am unaware of any language of antiquity or modern (not modern day garbage English) in which it means anything other than that. Do you?

          Why’s that then? God has knowledge of good – does that lead to death too?

          Its not the action that is called into question. it is the identity of the doer of the act. Example if your loved one were on their deathbed and Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Saddam Insane all showed up with beautiful bouquets of flowers and were hoping for a sincere speedy recovery of your loved one, what would be your response? Its not the act being bad, its the fact the act is being done with bloody hands by people you know could care less about your loved one

          Reply
          • Andrew Ryan says:

            “I am unaware of any language of antiquity or modern (not modern day garbage English) in which it means anything other than that. Do you?”

            Dictionary: Sin, noun
            1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
            2.any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
            3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offence:

            “its the fact the act is being done with bloody hands by people you know could care less about your loved one”

            You talk about ‘modern day garbage English’ but then you say ‘could care less about your loved one’. ‘Could care less’ means the opposite of what you think it does. If you could care less that means you DO care. You need to say ‘people who COULDN’T care less’.

            At any rate, your analogy with Hitler etc has nothing to do with my question. You clearly said ‘knowledge of good leads to death’. Does this apply to God?

          • Luke says:

            Craig said: “I am unaware of any language of antiquity or modern (not modern day garbage English) in which it means anything other than that. Do you?”

            I can think of many.

            Honestly, it was an interesting idea. When I read your note, I thought this must have been the origin of the word (I was excited to learn something new), but it turns out that it’s not connected in any way. I checked in four etymology collections, and none mentioned a link to this meaning of ‘sin’ in even the Latin (Romance) Languages (which are the languages with this meaning).

            Thanks,

            Luke

      • Greg says:

        Why does Yahweh’s version of free will require the threat of eternal violence? In my thinking true free will would not have the added component of coercion. My wife didn’t agree to marry me because her only other option was eternal conscious torment. Do you see how illogical it is to say that god’s love is unconditional. “Love me or go to hell forever” is hardly love without condition.

        And regarding Esau, you’re making the text say what you want it to. It absolutely says it was god’s election (predestination) decided before Esau was born and had done good or evil. Spin it to make it more palatable if you wish but your doing eisegesis.

        Reply
  4. craig says:

    Greg……consider the following from Ravi Zacharias

    About evolution of Morality

    When you say there’s such thing as evil, you are saying there’s such thing as good. When you say there is such thing as good you have to posit a moral law for a basis for which to differentiate between good and evil. If you posit a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver. Dawkins denies that there must be a law giver. There must be a personal law giver because every question of evil is either raised BY a person or else ABOUT a person which means the concept of personhood is inextricably bound to the moral impetus of the question. You cannot have the moral impetus in the question unless you have essential worth to personhood and that the only way to have essential worth to personhood is that there is a transcendent moral, valuable, uncreated, intrinsically worthy first cause. By virtue of Him we have that intrinsic worth, not because it has been conveyed by the state, or culture other power. So if intrinsic worth is indispensable to the validity of the question, then only way to justify intrinsic worth is if we are created by a being of worth and therefore the question is only valid if worth is intrinsic. Worth is not intrinsic if we are here by the result of random time+space+matter+chance. So the question of evil self destructs with the notion that human worth is nothing more than matter and culture and is real when you see essential intrinsic worth of a person. So the question is raised by a person or about a person which means personal value is indispensable and you by default need a transcendent, personal, moral, uncaused first cause to justify moral worth and personhood

    Reply
    • Greg says:

      Yet, Ravi, like all other apologists fails to address the double standard of morality found all over the old testament. He, like all others, resorts to special pleading when pressed on why the Canaanite genocides were righteous but the 9/11 attacks were evil. Once again I say, why does an all powerful god need men to kill for him. The answer is right in front of your face and the very thing you would say if someone tried to use that excuse for killing today. You would quickly reply, “god did not tell you to kill”. Failure to condemn the genocides in the book of Joshua laid the moral groundwork for the violence of the Crusades, the slaughter of the American Indians, the immoral retaking of “the land” in 1948, all of the violence of Islamic fundamentalists, the 9/11 attacks, etc.

      Reply
      • craig says:

        Greg

        It seems painfully obvious that you dont desire to want to accept the Christian reason for there being evil in this world. Please then, enlighten us all why is there evil, from whence does it originate, and what is the solution for it? Moreover, what is the standard you appeal to determine if said action is either good or evil?If you’re pleading atheism (or more likely anti-theism) then my question has no meaning in your worldview

        Reply
        • Greg says:

          Well, if we’re talking about how the human race became infected with it I think just about any etiological explanation could adequately compete with the story that it was caused by the consumption of a piece of fruit that a woman ate because of the enticements of a talking snake. You act as if the concept of evil, how it came to be and how men became infected with it originated within the pages of the bible. I used to believe that until I did some reading outside of my philosophical comfort zone. I can only recommend that you take a brief survey of ancient cultures. You will find many fall stories that predate the biblical one. Just take your pick, but, hopefully in the process it will be obvious to you that you are choosing between competing “mythologies”. Additionally, what if the answer is, “I don’t know”. I’ll admit, not a very satisfying answer but perhaps unavoidable.

          Seems to me that if Jesus were necessary for dealing with the evil in men then only Christians would show evidence of being less evil than the general population. I personally don’t see that.

          If someone skinned you alive and covered you with chili powder would you need Jesus to show up and say, “Hey Craig, be offended and object, that’s evil.” Would you have to frantically flip through the pages of the bible looking for chapter and verse on why this type of heinous treatment was wrong? I don’t think so. The nerve endings in your subcutaneous tissue would do a perfectly sufficient job of that for you.

          Reply
          • craig says:

            Greg,

            “I used to believe that until I did some reading outside of my philosophical comfort zone. I can only recommend that you take a brief survey of ancient cultures”

            My question is then ” What kind of conclusion did you come to as the result? Are any of them true”?

            I too have read many other religious systems, both eastern, western, cultic (Mormons, JW’s and Roman Catholicism), and mythologies, and various and sundry paganisms (freemasonry). None of them address objectively WHY evil exists nor the source of it, nor what standard it refers to make a differentiation between good and evil. They either deny its existence or say its not real or is merely an illusion such as Buddhism, atheism, “Christian science”.

            “Additionally, what if the answer is, “I don’t know”. I’ll admit, not a very satisfying answer but perhaps unavoidable”

            I don’t think its unavoidable. It may be disagreeable, or one may not like it, believe it or understand it, but to say the answer “has to be anything but God” is equally wrong.

            John Lennox told Dawkins the very same thing. “The God Delusion is a 450 page book put together by the mind of Richard Dawkins which is infinitely more complex than the book. So the answer of how “The God Delusion” came to be is from Richard Dawkins is not an answer”

            How comforting is it to a child who has lost his/her parents in a car wreck to say “Well, it just happened; there’s no rhyme nor reason for it”. Perhaps the idea “that we as humanity live in a fallen world filled with fallen people and jacked up creation.People make wrong choices (if drunk driver) or slippery roads and lack of judgment”. We’ll never in this lifetime know WHY specifically a certain act of atrocity is allowed to happen.

            Greg one thing I will completely agree 100% is “Seems to me that if Jesus were necessary for dealing with the evil in men then only Christians would show evidence of being less evil than the general population. I personally don’t see that.”

            Thats what it should be, but its not for a variety of reasons. First of all, ALL men women and children have an inborn sense of right and wrong, regardless of societal or religious background. There is not a single tribe, society, nation, empire or dynasty in all the history of mankind that has ever cherished the idea that it is desirable to take your neighbors stuff, sleep with his wife, or purposely tell statements to create deception (ie a lie). God has written the moral law on the hearts of all men. Its just that we suppress that truth, because we dont like it and we love to do evil works and remain in the dark

            The overall picture can be seen from the video on this website “Is God Good”.

            Hypocrisy is not a monopoly of the church. AA (both Alcoholics Anonymous and American Airlines) are full of hypocrites. So is Walmart, PETA, Congress, the Boy Scouts, Nazi Germany and all other endeavours in between.

            On a personal note I used to be a “practical atheist”; that is one who could make some words come of out his mouth acknowledging that there is probably some sort of vague nebulous ethereal God, but my conduct in life surely didnt reflect that. He might’ve cared about me personally, but frankly I never cared because I was the God of my own universe. I knew many Godly people who carried out their lives in the most Godly manner with most upright fervent integrity and morals. My response to that was “Great…good for you. I’m glad that works for you” , like somehow their worldview didn’t include me. Watching how they handled adverse situations in life and coming out smelling like a bed of fresh picked roses never once prompted me to ask about the hope that lies within them. Truth be told, i didn’t need to ask because I knew what the answer was. And I was not willing to bend the knee to that answer because I loved my sin too much. NO ONE (until recently)ever took the time to show me WHY Christianity is true. If its not, then sign me up for Wicca so I can have all the sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll I can want. If it IS true, then throws a whole new wrench into the works, because the claim its worldview makes is that ALL things are subject to Him who made them. That claim drags me into that worldview and my selfish self doesn’t like that, because self doesn’t want anyone telling it “thou shalt not”. But once I found out WHY that is, it made a whole lot more sense and it made a whole lot more sense than any other explanation out of the world in which we live.

            thots????

          • Andy (@ItsAndyRyan) says:

            Craig: “How comforting is it to a child who has lost his/her parents in a car wreck to say “Well, it just happened; there’s no rhyme nor reason for it”.”

            For a start, how comforting something is has nothing to do with whether it’s true.

            For a second, how comforting is it to tell children that their parents might be now suffering an eternity of hell?

            For a third, I don’t know anyone who’d ‘comfort’ a child in that way (although I equally don’t see the comfort in telling a child that a drunk driver killed their parents because it was ‘God’s plan’).

    • Andy (@ItsAndyRyan) says:

      “If you posit a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver.”

      A moral system based on the say of a particular individual is no moral system at all. Saying ‘This is wrong because X has given us that moral law’ simply begs the question. Why does THAT make it wrong? If this moral law giver proclaimed that torturing babies was right, what would that actually MEAN?

      “By virtue of Him we have that intrinsic worth”
      If our worth is dependent on Him then it isn’t intrinsic, it’s by definition dependent.

      “then only way to justify intrinsic worth is if we are created by a being of worth”
      So whence does God get his worth? If we only have worth if we were created by a being of worth, then it follows that God can only get intrinsic worth by also getting created by another being of worth, and so on. If GOD can simply have worth without being created by another being of worth then it’s special pleading to say that we can’t.

      “Worth is not intrinsic if we are here by the result of random time+space+ matter+chance.”

      Why not?

      Reply
  5. Louie says:

    Greg – I see the logic of what you say, but murder is sin. God says to be fertile and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. There must be something about living life that is special to God, because if God wanted to fill heaven with babies/people, he could do that without our help.

    Reply
    • Greg says:

      Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness. I know this sounds crazy to you but the type of argument you employ makes me think of this.

      Reply
  6. craig says:

    (must be a broken link..either that I’m a completely inept computer nicompoop (probly more the latter than the former)

    to Luke

    Honestly, it was an interesting idea. When I read your note, I thought this must have been the origin of the word (I was excited to learn something new), but it turns out that it’s not connected in any way. I checked in four etymology collections, and none mentioned a link to this meaning of ‘sin’ in even the Latin (Romance) Languages (which are the languages with this meaning).

    French “sans”—without
    Spanish “sin”— without
    Italian “senza”—without

    The interesting thing is that the word “sin” isnt even mentioned in the Bible til Gen 4:7 when God talks to Cain about his offering. The fall occurs in Gen 3. Gen 4 is the first mention of the word “sin” in the Bible with reference to bad behavior. Additionally, if sin were merely a matter of conduct, then Jesus should have shunned the prostitutes, politicians and the like and made sure he only hung out with the Pharisees. They did many good works (on the outside) and conducted themselves in public better than anyone else

    thots Luke?

    Reply
    • Andy (@ItsAndyRyan) says:

      Craig, the Romance languages you quote (Sans, sin, senza) all have their route in the Latin word Sine, which indeed means ‘without’. Whereas the English word ‘Sin’ is derived either from the Latin word ‘sons’, meaning guilty, or the Greek archery term ‘sin’, meaning ‘error’ (it meant to miss the target).

      Reply
      • Luke says:

        And even if, can we just point out that in fact there are non Latin-derived languages in the world. It seems wildly Eurocentric (and more than that, of course) to say that if x means something in Latin, it means it in “any language”.

        Reply
  7. Luke says:

    Craig,

    Since you asked for my thoughts, so I shall share them:

    Craig said:“Additionally, if sin were merely a matter of conduct, then Jesus should have shunned the prostitutes, politicians and the like…”

    I don’t see why. Why do you think he should? Jesus never said anything like “I’d never hang out with sinners”. There is nothing disallowing him from being with them. Jesus has a pretty clear message that leads me to think he would be very open to being with them. The man says this very clearly, actually. We don’t even have to interpret or look for context. It’s the sick who need a physician, do they not?

    Craig said:“and made sure [H]e only hung out with the Pharisees.”

    Is it your contention that the Pharisees did not sin?

    It is not mine. In fact, I think the Pharisees were, in general, not very good or caring people. This oversimplifies, but they cared for little but their own vanity. Not exactly a hallmark of a loving or caring person. Judging only by what the Bible presents, I feel very comfortable in saying that the Pharisees were terrible people. (The healing on the Sabbath episode is a very clear illustration of this for me.)

    Craig said:“They did many good works (on the outside) and conducted themselves in public better than anyone else.”

    I’ll plead ignorance on this, but not a single good work of the Pharisees comes to mind from the Bible. Can you give some examples? I mean actual good works, of course — helping the poor, loving the other, treating an alien as a brother, visiting someone in jail — not “works of the law” as St. Paul smartly put it.

    Craig said:“thots Luke?”

    I hate this kind of thing, because I am genuinely not trying to be a jerk, or insinuate you are not smart. I’m just trying to help so others don’t judge you more harshly. The word you are meaning to write is “thoughts”. (It’s like pointing out to a stranger on the bus that their zipper is down; it’s so awkward, and one feels almost guilty doing it, but one can only hope the person finds it helpful.) Sorry.

    Reply
    • craig says:

      Luke,

      sorry for the late reply.

      “I hate this kind of thing, because I am genuinely not trying to be a jerk, or insinuate you are not smart. I’m just trying to help so others don’t judge you more harshly.”

      My sentiments exactly. What I’m trying to point out is that “sin” is not just bad behavior. Bad behavior is symptomatic of sin. Just like headaches, body aches, pain, fever chills, clammy sweats are not the flu, but symptomatic of the flu. You can take tylenol, nyquil or anything else to help deal with the symptoms of the problem, but tylenol, nyquil or the like will never treat the flu. Its our identity that is the problem.

      The hog in the waller may be the cleanest sweetest smelling hog in the whole lot and may behave better than the rest of those in there with him. Will said hog be allowed to live in the farmers home? No. Why? because he’s a hog. “Hogness” is the hogs problem, not his actions.

      Because then its easy to say “Well, did pre-fall Adam and Eve ever behave wrongly?” I dont think its a yes or no answer. The best response I’ve heard for this (and it still falls short) is the analogy of a diaper. A baby comes into the world and cant control its bodily functions so measures are taken (ie diapers) to control or limit the mess (“grace” if you will). No one condemns the baby for messing his diaper. However once the baby is 13 years old and messes his pants in the same manner he did as a baby when he should know better than to go to the bathroom then the same behavior that was acceptable in infancy is not acceptable anymore (Yes this analogy still falls short and describes behavior but I think you can get the point)

      If it were merely a behavior problem then it wasnt necessary for Jesus to be God,and just any great man or teacher could save us from our bad behavior. By our very nature we can do nothing BUT sin. As Frank said in the video we are born with a bent toward evil (or probably more accurate–selfishness). Its harder to do the right thing or to help someone else to your exclusion. Being evil is easy.

      Reply
      • Andy (@ItsAndyRyan) says:

        Well if people can’t help but sin thanks to the nature we were born with that is ultimately due to God, then doesn’t that kind of let people off the hook for bad behaviour? You’re saying we really have no choice in the matter.

        Blaming us is like blaming that hog, according to that logic. And why are we like that? Because of something our ancestors did? That’s no reason at all – an all-powerful being is choosing to pass that down post-Adam. If it’s happening, it’s His choice; no reason for that to happen if He doesn’t want it to. Any rules saying it gets passed down is a rule He came up with.

        So He can’t blame us for not reaching a standard we have no hope of reaching. You’d say yourself that it’s an impossible standard, so you might as well blame a monkey for not being able to play the violin.

        Reply
        • craig says:

          Andy,

          Yes yes yes….. you have hit the nail on the head in describing our predicament

          “Blaming us is like blaming that hog, according to that logic. And why are we like that? Because of something our ancestors did? That’s no reason at all – an all-powerful being is choosing to pass that down post-Adam. If it’s happening, it’s His choice; no reason for that to happen if He doesn’t want it to. Any rules saying it gets passed down is a rule He came up with”

          See if this analogy sounds reasonable.

          —If I commit a crime (say for example -computer system hacking) and I carry that crime out on my local municipal government, then I have to answer to local law enforcement
          –If i commit the same crime and carry it out against my state of Texas, then I have to answer to the authorities in Austin with more severe punishment.
          —If I commit that same crime, instead now I hack into the DoD computers in Washington DC, I now have committed an even more serious crime. (it used to be called an archaic word “treason”–which is still a hangable offense)

          –Now…..lets say that I commit that same crime again. This time I’m able to hack into the defense grid in the German govt. Now, I as Craig personally have committed a serious crime against Germany, not only in my personal capacity, but I also as an American have given the German govt the right to exercise its power and authority to declare war on America. This declaration of war on America is foisted upon all the American people without their knowledge or consent. They are dragged into the consequences of my choice and have no choice in the manner

          Consequently the wrath of the German govt is upon every American now because of my one single treasonous act done in my “American-representative”-ness

          That is the problem we face. This is called federal headship which is a Biblical concept. here a short concise reference https://carm.org/federal-headship

          You’re right Andy,its not fair. Its not fair to us and it certainly isnt fair to God, because God now has to come up with the way (not “a” way, but “the”way) to be able to reconcile us to Himself

          “So He can’t blame us for not reaching a standard we have no hope of reaching. You’d say yourself that it’s an impossible standard, so you might as well blame a monkey for not being able to play the violin.”

          The monkey could play the violin to the point where he makes Itshak Perlman sound like a 3rd grader. Its the “monkiness”, not the violinist skill thats the problem

          Andy, again, you are so correct!! God is not blaming us for reaching a standard we have no hope of reaching. God gives us the 10 Commandments as DESCRIPTIVE of our condition, not PRESCRIPTIVE to have a better life. He gave us those to show “you cant meet my standards, so stop trying.” He gave us those also to do exactly what Paul says.

          Romans 3 “19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God”

          The purpose of the Law is to silence the proud, arrogant, self righteous man (ie ALL of us–whether we know it, believe it, agree with it or understand it)

          The above analogy also demonstrates the reasonableness of the doctrine of Hell and “why does a temporal offense require an infinite punishment”? (ie it doesn’t seem like the punishment fits the crime…..And that’s true…from man’s point of view.)

          Reread the analogy. The same person commits the same act, yet the offense gets increasingly greater and thus so does the punishment. Its not that the act or doer of the act is so spectacularly evil. So what’s changed? ITS THE ONE AGAINST WHOM THE CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED. See the difference? As the receiver of the offense increases with stature, power , influence, and authority, so does the punishment. So with that…what SHOULD be the rational reasonable punishment be for an offense against a 100% perfect, holy, just, and infinite God? The answer is that the punishment should be holy, just, perfect, and inifinite

          That is WHY the perfect sacrifice HAD to be done by not only 100% man, but also had to be 100% God to satisfy the legal requirements to fulfill the Law but also provide the way the Christ’s righteousness can be imputed.

          If this was all there was to Christianity, then it is a sad pathetic story indeed. But its not….This is what separates Christianity from all other belief systems. All other belief systems say virtually “Mankind is inherently good and so long as your good works outweigh the bad stuff and if whatever power greater than yourself who’s in charge of the show is in a good mood that day, you might have a better afterlife” Christianity says the opposite…”you cant earn right standing with God on your own merit, you dont have the qualifications…But there is one who already has done it for you.” Christ died for sinners.

          The kicker is “how do i get this forgiveness credited to my account?” Its the simplest, most difficult thing a man can do…..Its called repentance and faith…Seeing yourself in the mirror of the 10 Commandments and realizing that you break every one of them 1000’s of times per day in either thought word or deed. God sees the thoughts and intents of the heart, whether or not the act is ever carried out. When we are crushed under the weight of the Law to see our true predicament and that the only thing we deserve is the wrath of God because we are not good people; we are poor, miserable, blind, wretched, and naked.

          The other side of the repentance coin is something called “faith” or “trust”. This doesn’t mean a mental assent to a statement or agreement of fact. its the difference between belief “that” and belief “in”. Just like if you’re going down on a crashing plane, you’re not just going to settle for having accurate information about a parachute, you’re going to put it on because you know that it is the only thing that can save you from certain death

          Once we see our true condition, we cry out to God to save us from not only God, but from our hopeless condition. When we see ourselves as God sees us, our only appropriate response should be to turn from our sin (inherent condition) to God. When we do that, God will grant you everlasting life, a new heart, and new desires. We turn to God not because of fear of Hell, bur rather that God has been so KIND to SAVE us from Hell. Our motive is one of gratitude, not fear

          Reply
          • Andy (@ItsAndyRyan) says:

            “You’re right Andy,its not fair. Its not fair to us and it certainly isnt fair to God”

            But it’s God’s rule – he’s the one doing it. No reason not to pass it on if he doesn’t want to.

          • craig says:

            “But it’s God’s rule – he’s the one doing it. No reason not to pass it on if he doesn’t want to.”

            No, its not His rule. His only rule was “Do not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil….in the day that ye eat of it ye shall surely die”

            Nowhere did God say “i’ll kill you if you eat it” This is why there is an identity problem. The actions of one man produced an internal change to all of us. This change resulted in a “changing of the guard” so to speak. Our self-will was never designed to run the body because it is making its decisions based upon the knowledge of good and evil…the spirit is designed to make decisions based upon the voice of God. Once the spirit died, it was either the will or the body that was left to govern the body.

            Yes we’re are still human, but we are now spiritually dead to the things of God. We are still spiritually alive in regards to darkness.

            God is not “passing this on” by tyrannical whimsical fiat decree to get his jollies and watch us squirm; our genetic code is passing this on. A “corrupted hard drive producing another corrupted hard drive” when the fact is that what we really need is a factory reset

            Your statement seems like its trying to create the impression that the fall was unanticipated and God had to huddle up the angels to come up with plan B.

            “No reason not to pass it on if he doesn’t want to.”

            God can do anything that is logically possible. This means he could make automatons like the stepford wives if he wanted to. But how else can perfect love be demonstrated unless the option to reject the love is present? The problem we have is we think too highly of ourselves and that we don’t need (want) God Unless we are first shown that we have a debt that is unpayable in our flesh or works, we see the Gospel as confusing and offensive. Confusing, because we dont think we have a debt and offensive because it insinuates you do when you don’t think you’ve done anything wrong

            Its more unfair to God than to us, because only the death of God’s own Son can extricate man from his condition.

            We are not responsible for being born into sin; however, we ARE responsible for appropriating the only cure for sin

          • Andy (@ItsAndyRyan) says:

            “See the difference? As the receiver of the offense increases with stature, power , influence, and authority, so does the punishment.”

            Why? By that logic killing a beggar should be seen as a lesser crime than killing a successful businessman. That sounds wrong to me.

            “what SHOULD be the rational reasonable punishment be for an offense against a 100% perfect, holy, just, and infinite God?”

            A perfect God should be incapable of being offended by a petty crime. Why take it seriously if someone takes His name in vain? Why should He care, presuming he’s not petty and vain himself?

            “Consequently the wrath of the German govt is upon every American now because of my one single treasonous act done in my “American-representative”-ness”

            But as you say, this isn’t far on those who’ve committed no crime, and you can say that it’s not God’s rule that we must all be punished for Adam and Eve’s crime, but if it’s not His, then whose rule is it? Who created it if not God? And why is God beholden to someone else’s rule?

          • craig says:

            A perfect God should be incapable of being offended by a petty crime. Why take it seriously if someone takes His name in vain? Why should He care, presuming he’s not petty and vain himself?

            oh…why is that? Whats petty to you is not to Him. If i took your mothers name ( something ostensibly petty in my book) in vain and slandered it around the internet for my own purposes, both you and her would be offended, I could take that as being petty, but you, your mother and law enforcement wouldnt see it the same way…….and we’re broken and fallen. How much more should God be upset? In that vein then, in addition to slandering your mother’s name, wouldnt God also be offended as well since she is also made in the image and likeness of God as well?

            If God were impervious to being offended, then that would say he turns a blind eye, in effect, to all the injustices in the world, Hitler wouldnt be seen as anyone who did anything wrong, maybe different choices and preferences, but again there would be no standard of justice

            Why? By that logic killing a beggar should be seen as a lesser crime than killing a successful businessman. That sounds wrong to me.

            Okay, change it up then….the crime for killing a bug, drowning a puppy, killing a man or woman or killing many men or women carries increased punishment…unless you ask PETA then all bets are off.

            But as you say, this isn’t far on those who’ve committed no crime, and you can say that it’s not God’s rule that we must all be punished for Adam and Eve’s crime, but if it’s not His, then whose rule is it? Who created it if not God? And why is God beholden to someone else’s rule?

            The analogy was used as an illustration. Incidentally, name one War we’ve ever been in that you had anything personally to do with it. None. but you as a fellow countryman are in the same boat as those caused the war.

            From God’s viewpoint, the crime is being born into our fallen nature, whether or not we ever act upon it. It would be unfair if there were no remedy for this. Thats why the Gospel is such good news. Again, our natural humanity doesnt think its done anything wrong in the sense of doing something wrong to physically harm someone else

            To satisfy your query of “But as you say, this isn’t far on those who’ve committed no crime, and you can say that it’s not God’s rule that we must all be punished for Adam and Eve’s crime, but if it’s not His, then whose rule is it? Who created it if not God?”

            Then the answer is “Yes” God himself decrees that since all have sinned and fall short of His glory” then the payment for being short is blood. Because just like in the OT, there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood/ Jesus paid the ransom in His life’s blood so you dont have to

            Let me ask you this then “what kind of evidence do you need to see that you,Andy, are guilty (just like me)in the sight of a Holy, just and perfect God and unless you repent, the Just Judge has no choice but to punish lawbreakers….just like in an earthly court except in heaven there are no crooked lawyers and the judge cant be bribed, there are no appeals.” There is only one attorney who can help and he will if you ask Him, but not until you see the need for it. i cant make you believe that; I can only present evidence that is the case

            Andy, i dont honestly know any other way to state what we’ve been going back and forth about. Are you genuinely confused about the whole thing (which can be fixed) or is it that you just dont like the idea of being held morally accountable for your life to a God who has complete and total ownership rights to you?(I cant help you with that)

          • toby says:

            “Whats petty to you is not to Him.”

            At this point you run into the problem of this being a perfect being with perfect knowledge that knows everything from beginning to end. So how do you justify this being holding us to a standard (itself) that it knows we can never attain. Yes, yes, he sacrificed himself to himself to fill this gap that he himself made that he knew we couldn’t bridge ourselves, yet instead of the debt being paid then and there and done, nope! we still have to freely love him. Nothing like forgiveness with strings attached. How does that work with a loving god. You’re forgiven . . . but you owe me this. Seems petty.

          • Greg says:

            According to Christian doctrine, god knew the fall would happen and the majority of all humans would end up in hell. How then is the decision to create not evil? Seems like if god really was “love” he would have decided that creating man carried too high a price. If he knew he was going to have to send billions to hell seems like the compassionate thing to do would be not to create. After all, he, the son and the spirit were perfectly content within themselves, weren’t they? And please don’t claim that everyone has the chance to accept Christ because any rational person knows this is not true.

          • craig says:

            “yet instead of the debt being paid then and there and done, nope! we still have to freely love him. Nothing like forgiveness with strings attached. How does that work with a loving god. You’re forgiven . . . but you owe me this.”

            there are no strings attached. If there are strings attached then by definition its not forgiveness, it then becomes a paid debt by the one who incurred the debt.

            The love is the only normal natural response to the Gospel. For one to say “Well, I got forgiven….check…now whats the next thing on the to do list?” has not been forgiven. Gratitude is the only proper response. Its not a “gotsta” motive but rather a “wantsta”

          • Andy (@ItsAndyRyan) says:

            “what kind of evidence do you need to see that you,Andy, are guilty (just like me)in the sight of a Holy, just and perfect God ”

            By whose definition of perfect? What do you mean by ‘perfect’ in this context? Can’t be improved? By whose idea of ‘improvement’? What makes him ‘perfectly just’?

            I’m not even sure this being makes sense as a concept. As for what evidence, better than offered in the bible, given that this ‘perfectly just’ being apparently condones slavery.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Frank Turek explains in two minutes why evil is necessary. It boils down to free will once […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>