Free will defense?

[37818]

Pretty sure 37818 is a presuppositionalist, so you may end up talking past one another.

Well you are partly right. My view is type of presuppositionalism. I am not
Reform, not Calvinist nor Arminianism in point of view. All view points have and make presuppositions. Everyone presumes somethings to be true or not true. No exceptions. Christians presume the word of God is true. Or at least they should.

[Doug Shaver]

Is there any way for me to know what God's way is except for some man to tell me?

Yes. From God Himself. Know that God has used men to both write and speak His words.

That's a contradiction. I may believe that some man is speaking or writing God's words, but I'm still getting the words from that man.

The Apostle Paul on that matter wrote: ". . . For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. . . ." Letter to the church of Thessalonica. (1 Thessalonians 2:13.)

Paul is saying: You heard it from men and you believed that it was from God.

The Apostle John wrote, ". . . If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. . . ." (1 John 5:9.)

Same thing.

Jesus is cited by John to have argued, ". . . My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent Me. If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. . . ." (John 7:16-17.)

So, now I have John's word that the words of Jesus were the words of God.

You have not told me how I can know God's way. You have told me that I should believe that the way of some men is the way of God. And furthermore, you told me in effect that I should believe it just because those men say so.

[Doug Shaver]

Of course you could say the same thing about any piece of knowledge for which you do not have first-hand experience, but skeptics seem to think this is a problem only when it comes to Christianity.

Not this skeptic. I see it as a problem for a multitude of assertions having nothing to do with Christianity.

[37818]

That's a contradiction. I may believe that some man is speaking or writing God's words, but I'm still getting the words from that man.

Paul is saying: You heard it from men and you believed that it was from God.

Same thing.

So, now I have John's word that the words of Jesus were the words of God.

You have not told me how I can know God's way. You have told me that I should believe that the way of some men is the way of God. And furthermore, you told me in effect that I should believe it just because those men say so.

Never merely because some men say so. The claim is, if one is willing to do God's will, that one would know from God. (John 7:16-17.)

Some things for you to note:

The prophecy of the Messiah who would be a man.

Deuteronomy 18:18-19,
. . . I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put My words in His mouth; and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which He shall speak in My name, I will require it of him. . . .

The Apostle Paul made the following assertion,

2 Corinthians 4:3,
. . . But if gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: . . .

That the lack of the gospel is the reason men are lost.

So what have you thought that gospel message is? What it actually meant?

Jesus in that prayer He made the night He was betrayed:

John 17:3,
. . . And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. . . .

It is by knowing God, being born from God (1 John 5:1), that one possesses eternal life. Like knowing 2 + 2 is 4. Once you know it you cannot not know it. (Short of brain injury.)

[Doug Shaver]

Never merely because some men say so.

Then show me another reason.

The claim is, if one is willing to do God's will, that one would know from God. (John 7:16-17.)

The man who wrote John's gospel said that.

So what have you thought that gospel message is? What it actually meant?

It doesn't matter what I think the message is. You're telling me what you think the message is, and I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is whether I have a good reason to believe that message.

[37818]

Then show me another reason.

God says so is the only reason you need. Now you choose to disallow God using men.

The man who wrote John's gospel said that.

All "special" revelation is written using men. But then any science interpreting God's direct revelation is also written about by men. You accept your direct experience of natural revelation as "natural laws."

You are unwilling to test the special revelation (John 7:16-17). It is testable.

It doesn't matter what I think the message is. You're telling me what you think the message is, and I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is whether I have a good reason to believe that message.

The only good reason to have is if it is really from God (1 John 5:9-12). But then maybe remarkably it seems you deliberately want to avoid finding out from God (John 7:16-17).

You seem to think because men are involved in writing words attributed from God that it cannot be true. Just ask God, if you have not already.

Understand if there is a genuine gospel to be accepted. By not believing it is just the same as believing any other kind of supernatural lie.

[Mountain Man]

Not this skeptic. I see it as a problem for a multitude of assertions having nothing to do with Christianity.

I don't agree, but at least you're consistent.

[Doug Shaver]

God says so is the only reason you need.

I have no reason, aside from the say-so of some theists, to believe that God said anything to me.

You are unwilling to test the special revelation (John 7:16-17).

No, I'm not. I've been testing it for my entire adult life. It has never passed.

You seem to think because men are involved in writing words attributed from God that it cannot be true.

I have never thought it and have never said it.

[37818]

I have no reason, aside from the say-so of some theists, to believe that God said anything to me.

Well it goes to what you either never understood or have never believed. Natural revelation (Romans 10:17-18; Psalm 19:1-4).

No, I'm not. I've been testing it for my entire adult life. It has never passed.

This is a big deal. Remember I had asked you?

So what have you thought that gospel message is? What it actually meant?

And your response:

It doesn't matter what I think the message is.

Let me phrase the question this way: If you were to explain to someone else how to become a Christian?

[Doug Shaver]

Let me phrase the question this way: If you were to explain to someone else how to become a Christian?

If anyone were to ask me, "How do I become a Christian?" my initial response would be: "Why ask me?"

[Mountain Man]

You seem to think because men are involved in writing words attributed from God that it cannot be true.

No, he would say that we can not verify that it's true.

Doug is a bit of epistemological train wreck since his particular brand of uncertainty undermines even his own worldview, but to his credit, he at least seems to apply his standards consistently, or at least he tries to.

But even he isn't a lost cause. He can still evaluate a worldview based on its internal consistency and then from there see how well it explains things he observes in the real world. The idea is to determine if something is probably true when absolute certainty is unwarranted.

[37818]

If anyone were to ask me, "How do I become a Christian?" my initial response would be: "Why ask me?"

But did you not at one time have a view? Do you not have some kind of view now?

[Doug Shaver]

But did you not at one time have a view?

I used to be a Christian, if that's what you're asking.

Do you not have some kind of view now?

My view now begins by noting the diversity of beliefs among all those who call themselves Christians, including different beliefs about what is required in order to be a Christian. Some groups assert that only those who accept their particular doctrines are true Christians while others are more accepting of those who disagree with them. My view now is that, as an outsider, I have no grounds for adjudicating which group is most entitled to call themselves Christians. Thus, as far as I am concerned, anyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian.

I might have a different view if I thought we had reliable knowledge about what Jesus of Nazareth actually taught his disciples, but I don't think we have that knowledge.

[37818]

I used to be a Christian, if that's what you're asking.


My view now begins by noting the diversity of beliefs among all those who call themselves Christians, including different beliefs about what is required in order to be a Christian. Some groups assert that only those who accept their particular doctrines are true Christians while others are more accepting of those who disagree with them. My view now is that, as an outsider, I have no grounds for adjudicating which group is most entitled to call themselves Christians. Thus, as far as I am concerned, anyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian.

I might have a different view if I thought we had reliable knowledge about what Jesus of Nazareth actually taught his disciples, but I don't think we have that knowledge.

OK.

When you were a professing Christian. What was it you would have explained as to how to know for sure?

[Mountain Man]

IMy view now begins by noting the diversity of beliefs among all those who call themselves Christians, including different beliefs about what is required in order to be a Christian.

As I like to say, I don't have to defend what they believe, only what I believe.