tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5330445127860908542..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Searching hearts and mindsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72530788220604600042018-07-22T08:47:55.104-04:002018-07-22T08:47:55.104-04:00Lol, I can't believe no one mentioned Romans 9...Lol, I can't believe no one mentioned Romans 9 yet!<br /><br /><b>Romans 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand:<br /><br />12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”<br /><br />13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”<br /><br />14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!</b><br /><br />God can even destine people whether they "actually" did anything good OR bad, before they're even BORN, no less, and that he is not unjust to do so! So why couldn't God pre-emptively condemn an infant? I don't see why he couldn't if unborn babies are fair-game.<br /><br />I think James White is right. Craig is a very nice, very smart man. But he is a FRIGHTENING theologian. lol When he gets down to brass tacks, it's like we're not even talking to a Christian anymore.Prince Asbelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06084817183123423099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36027656471010569122018-07-21T05:40:45.911-04:002018-07-21T05:40:45.911-04:00I think your objection can be countered by simply ...I think your objection can be countered by simply adding to “they never do” “they never intend to do” in Craig’s last sentence. As infants lack moral awareness (see Deuteronomy 1:39, Isaiah 7:16), they are not only not able to do evil acts, but also not able to intend to do evil acts.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-555749039461236202018-07-20T22:26:40.965-04:002018-07-20T22:26:40.965-04:00That’s weird. WLC/Moreland wrote the following in ...That’s weird. WLC/Moreland wrote the following in their revised edition of Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview:<br /><br />“The force of this objection [against Christ’s being punished for our sins] depends on the probability that if the doctrine of imputation is true, then we should have some experience of such a transfer in human affairs. But why think that? The proponent of penal substitution might plausibly respond that our want of such experience is hardly surprising, since imputation of sins or guilt is a uniquely divine act. Arguably, only God as supreme Lawgiver, Judge, and Ruler is in a position to impute the sins and guilt of one person to another. But are we utterly bereft of analogies to imputation? We think not.”<br /><br />They go on to give analogies in civil law of “vicarious liability”. He gives a good defense of penal substitutionary atonement, which includes a defense of the imputation of our sins to Christ, but now denies the possibility of someone’s being punished for the sin of another? Maybe I’m missing something. I know he goes on to say that any such objection assumes a metaethical contrary to his preferred divine command theory. Perhaps that sort of imputation of guilt between merely human parties is illicit. But God himself does not have moral obligations insofar as he does not issue commands to himself, and thus he could take on a human nature and give himself sacrificially (so long as that sort of thing is consistent with his nature). Or so argues WLC. I agree with him there, but the only difference I can see is that it’s the God-man Jesus having the sin imputed to him rather than another mere man. Is that the only difference? In either case, there’s still the similarity of God being the one doing the imputing, so I still don’t understand WLC’s objection in that article.Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07547006817210841406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64425451889950253492018-07-20T20:45:24.838-04:002018-07-20T20:45:24.838-04:00I wonder what he would say to the charge that his ...I wonder what he would say to the charge that his reasoning is Pelagian, as it does not view humanity as condemned in Adam, but only for the individual sins committed by the person. A non-federal headship view is problematic, as God condemns lots of infants, children, wives, cattle, etc. for the sins of a federal head. B. C. Hodgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02828477115799852133noreply@blogger.com