Volitional versus rational
- Thread starter SteveB
- Start date
According to your mind but I have the mind of Christ.
Yrs for I receieved from God redemption just as Jesus did in Matt 3:16. You dont believe God came to him and redeemed him to His heaven where he opens up what redemption is in that man do you !!!
Exactly -- and I am His son, you reject sonship for to you to be is gnostic lies as you preach His ways in the son is only lies.
Theophilus
Well-known member
Great topic Steveb.Quite often on the atheist forum I've heard repeatedly by atheists that they have a rational problem with the bible and the gospel of Jesus.
As such, I have had the pleasure of stumbling upon an article about this topic by J. Warner Wallace.
Volitional Resistance to Christianity Often Masquerades as Rational Opposition | Cold Case Christianity
Most atheists describe themselves as "rational" resistors, but many converted atheists recognize the role volition played in their resistance.coldcasechristianity.com
I got rather excited about it and after further research on it I decided to post an OP on the atheist forum.
In the 10 years that I've been posting on the atheist forum, this is literally the only OP that not one person has commented on.
Admittedly, it's rather disappointing, but i found it very curious and as I've considered it, I've realized that they have absolutely no rebuttal to it, as their idol of intelligence has been silenced.
I checked the OP this morning and 158 views have occurred.
I sure a few are believers, and the rest unbelievers. I have no idea if the articles I've linked have been read or not. I did state that a number of the articles were behind a pay wall (meaning that access would cost $.)
The articles I've posted make it pretty clear that rationality is seldom if ever a valid point. The point is more often about volition.
As the gospel is a matter of volition and even emotions, people who reject Jesus do so on those bases, and then hide behind their claims of rationality.
I dont think they are so opposed about the notion for a God but the people who claim to be of God that act like they are superior over them. I once was atheist until that truth came to light why Christianity is declining rapidly world wide.
Who would want to be a part for most are only hypocrites trying to force their beliefs onto another. Catholic do it, Mormons do it, Seventh day do it, Baptists do it and so do all the other 35000 denomination who do the same things and ironic is, none of these can agree about their gods and argue with one another about their gods. Some of these who call themselves Christian has three gods.
SteveB
Well-known member
Lol .......
SteveB
Well-known member
Did you actually read the articles?
No.
SteveB
Well-known member
I encourage you to. Specifically the first one. The rest are secondary to the point
OK.......
Josheb
Well-known member
I disagree.
No amount of intellectual understanding saves. That view is called Gnosticism. Similarly, no amount of volition saves. A person cannot will themselves into salvation. I don't know of any religion that's ever held that position. To the degree knowledge and volition must be manifested in/by/with effort the results is works-based salvation and most religions subscribe to that perspective. The gospel of Jesus Christ alone argues a salvation that is through faith.
In Christianity salvation is by grace, not by faith. In other words, salvation is first and foremost a work of God, not the human. This poses a variety of problems for those in whom God is not (yet) at work. Indignation is the most frequent response, even though it most likely occurs unawares. How can God not save me? I'm a decent person deserving of salvation? Of course, for the ardent or conscious atheist things like the existence of God and the condition of sin are denied. Sin does not exist so there is no need of salvation. If I have no need of salvation then even if there is a God what need have I of Him? Much of this goes unarticulated in the thought and consciousness of those in whom God has not worked and even where it does occur on one's own it occurs absent the input of the God who is there and is not silent (to use a phrase from Francis Schaeffer).
There are two implications for the Christian. The first is don't waste your time evangelizing those in whom God is not at work. The second is find the place of resistance in that person's soul and speak to that with the knowledge and power only God can give you in that moment if you want to be effective.
Mere intellect saves no one. The intellect of the flesh cannot get to God on its own. All the atheist has is the intellect of the flesh and that should cause us to pray, not argue (and I mean that in the sense of presenting a case, not being argumentative or divisive). The only reason to evangelize is in response to the directive of God. Sharing the gospel in general en masse and sharing the gospel individually look much different. It's the difference between Paul speaking on Mars Hill and Philip speaking to the Ethiopian in the desert.
EVERYBODY rejects Jesus rationally apart from the work of God in them to do otherwise. The gospel is first and foremost the work of God, and then and only thereafter a work of intellect, affect, and volition.
SteveB
Well-known member
I'd say that you have conflated the willful choosing to follow Jesus and the intellectual assent to a series of ideas about God, Jesus and the bible.
Definitely NOT talking about Gnosticism. Regardless of what you want to think about it.
??
So, repentance towards God and faith in Jesus isn't a requirement to be saved?
Seems like you're so into trying to figure out how to win arguments that you have literally turned yourself off from reasoning clearly.
Then I'm going to say that you're not actually paying attention.
But, I have a novel idea.
How must we be saved from our sin?
Is choice involved in it at all, or are we preprogrammed automatons which have a switch flipped inside us? And if so, who flips the switch?
What is faith?
How is it acquired?
Are you sure?
Because I read in Hebrews 11:6 that without faith, it's impossible to please God.
I further read in Ephesians 2:8-9 that faith is required to enjoy the gift of eternal life.
Hmm, so what does this mean?
Do you have any basis for this belief you're espousing?
I'm having a problem with all this stuff you've stated.
In not one comment have you provided any biblical support or reference, against which I'm able to check what you claim.
Perhaps you think this is acceptable. I do not.
My knowledge of the bible says that you should not be trusted, because nothing you have stated is verifiable against the bible.
Acts 17:11, and 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22.
So, if you actually want to be taken seriously, then take yourself seriously enough to include biblical references against which I'm able to corroborate what you have stated.
Thank you.
Josheb
Well-known member
That can certainly be said but it's not true, correct, or accurate. So stop assuming I have conflated anything, act as if no conflation occurred, and re-read what I wrote as if that assumption is incorrect and no conflation occurred.
For that sake of our collaborative future exchanges learn to keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.
Square this away now because I also just got finished responding to another op you authored and there are parts there where I have disagreed, too. It is NOT personal. Don't make it personal.
Willful choosing absent intellectual assent is a false dichotomy. There is no intellect absent the will. There are no choices made some degree of assent absent some knowledge and understanding, at least not in mentally healthy people. The false dichotomy of separating intellectual assent, knowledge and understanding of the gospel from volition never happens. That will be a dead end because there isn't a single example of such a person in the entire Bible and the argument that was just unnecessarily created is lost. Correct the error by not automatically assuming I conflated anything and start over.
That was pretty cr@ppy, and completely unnecessary.
Re-read my op-reply. Count the number of times I mentioned you personally and specifically. Count them. Then look at whether or not any of those mentions were derogatory or in any way personally critical of you or derisive. It will be discovered the word "you" is posted only three times and not a single one of them is specifically about you (everyone will benefit preaching from the Spirit's leading) and not a single one of them was in any way critical, derisive, derogatory, dismissive, or demeaning.
Then do the same with your own post and ask yourself why it is comments like those below were thought constructive or appropriate for cogent discourse,
"you have conflated..."
"Regardless of what you want to think..."
"Seems like you're so into trying to figure out how to win arguments..."
"....you have literally turned yourself off from reasoning clearly."
"you're not actually paying attention."
"Perhaps you think this is acceptable."
"...if you actually want to be taken seriously...."
There's not a kind word in the entire post! It's filled with off-topic, unwarranted criticism. I am not the subject of this conversation! Why was I mention at all??? What would your response be someone said those things to you about you?
Then, after having examined all the derogatory "you" statements in that post, go back and count the statements that have anything to do with this op. Count those that are specifically and directly related to the op. Then, when the fact there's not a single op-relevant word in that post is recognized, ask why that choice was made instead of op-relevant content that would have furthered cogent discourse.
Make amends, Steve.
If the scriptures backing my comments were desired one single simple question, "Hey, Josh, would you mind showing me the scriptures where these things are said can be found?" would have been a measurably better response. I will gladly walk with any respectful poster through the relevant scripture to prove the veracity of my posts. It's a curious criticism given there are no scriptures cited in the op and none in the article, either. Is a double standard being applied hypocritically?
I'm also going to suggest you pm three CARM members whose opinions you respect, and you ask them about my knowledge of scripture because I never post anything I can't back up with well-rendered scripture and I am confident even those with whom I have disagreement will bear witness to that effect. Just because scripture wasn't cited, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I will gladly walk with any respectful poster through the relevant scripture. Be respectful.
Of course, if there's no interest in learning where scripture supports what I posted in my op-reply then silence is all that's needed. I'll understand the lack of response as an indication of lacking interest. Similarly, if there is something specific I posted for which the scriptural basis is wanted then ask for that, and do it without criticism, derision, of negative insinuation.
Romans 12:10-12
Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality.
Ephesians 4:29
Let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth, but if there is any good word for edification according to the need of the moment, say that, so that it will give grace to those who hear.
Philippians 2:3
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility consider one another as more important than yourselves;
Philippians 2:3 KJV
Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
Make it right.
preacher4truth
Well-known member
You're a glutton for punishment my friend. Many have attempted to deal with this guy @SteveB and unfortunately he has relegated all Reformed/Calvinists as;That can certainly be said but it's not true, correct, or accurate. So stop assuming I have conflated anything, act as if no conflation occurred, and re-read what I wrote as if that assumption is incorrect and no conflation occurred.
For that sake of our collaborative future exchanges learn to keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.
Square this away now because I also just got finished responding to another op you authored and there are parts there where I have disagreed, too. It is NOT personal. Don't make it personal.
Willful choosing absent intellectual assent is a false dichotomy. There is no intellect absent the will. There are no choices made some degree of assent absent some knowledge and understanding, at least not in mentally healthy people. The false dichotomy of separating intellectual assent, knowledge and understanding of the gospel from volition never happens. That will be a dead end because there isn't a single example of such a person in the entire Bible and the argument that was just unnecessarily created is lost. Correct the error by not automatically assuming I conflated anything and start over.
That was pretty cr@ppy, and completely unnecessary.
Re-read my op-reply. Count the number of times I mentioned you personally and specifically. Count them. Then look at whether or not any of those mentions were derogatory or in any way personally critical of you or derisive. It will be discovered the word "you" is posted only three times and not a single one of them is specifically about you (everyone will benefit preaching from the Spirit's leading) and not a single one of them was in any way critical, derisive, derogatory, dismissive, or demeaning.
Then do the same with your own post and ask yourself why it is comments like those below were thought constructive or appropriate for cogent discourse,
"you have conflated..."
"Regardless of what you want to think..."
"Seems like you're so into trying to figure out how to win arguments..."
"....you have literally turned yourself off from reasoning clearly."
"you're not actually paying attention."
"Perhaps you think this is acceptable."
"...if you actually want to be taken seriously...."
There's not a kind word in the entire post! It's filled with off-topic, unwarranted criticism. I am not the subject of this conversation! Why was I mention at all??? What would your response be someone said those things to you about you?
Then, after having examined all the derogatory "you" statements in that post, go back and count the statements that have anything to do with this op. Count those that are specifically and directly related to the op. Then, when the fact there's not a single op-relevant word in that post is recognized, ask why that choice was made instead of op-relevant content that would have furthered cogent discourse.
Make amends, Steve.
If the scriptures backing my comments were desired one single simple question, "Hey, Josh, would you mind showing me the scriptures where these things are said can be found?" would have been a measurably better response. I will gladly walk with any respectful poster through the relevant scripture to prove the veracity of my posts. It's a curious criticism given there are no scriptures cited in the op and none in the article, either. Is a double standard being applied hypocritically?
I'm also going to suggest you pm three CARM members whose opinions you respect, and you ask them about my knowledge of scripture because I never post anything I can't back up with well-rendered scripture and I am confident even those with whom I have disagreement will bear witness to that effect. Just because scripture wasn't cited, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I will gladly walk with any respectful poster through the relevant scripture. Be respectful.
Of course, if there's no interest in learning where scripture supports what I posted in my op-reply then silence is all that's needed. I'll understand the lack of response as an indication of lacking interest. Similarly, if there is something specific I posted for which the scriptural basis is wanted then ask for that, and do it without criticism, derision, of negative insinuation.
Romans 12:10-12
Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality.
Ephesians 4:29
Let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth, but if there is any good word for edification according to the need of the moment, say that, so that it will give grace to those who hear.
Philippians 2:3
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility consider one another as more important than yourselves;
Philippians 2:3 KJV
Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
Make it right.
7 nYou hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
8 o“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as pdoctrines the commandments of men.’”
I hope you can reach him, and as far as I can tell he thinks we are hypocrites which entails being lost. But do the responses as to the LORD for the observers, it's appreciated.
Josheb
Well-known member
lol At least Steve didn't call me a glutton
Scripture directs us to at least attempt to work out the places of division, and to do so scripturally. Ultimately, Steve can't stop anyone from posting and I, personally, and somewhat adept at posting correction while ignoring those refusing to be polite, respective, and collaborative. I've told Steve (and others) I'll simply go through a post line by line, break it down and point out the errors and provide scripture-based correction without them and a few here will testify to the forensic prowess.
I'd prefer not to go that route with anyone.
Didn't you and I have a recent exchange that started out with a little conflict that was easily and readily amended? "Well done!" I say! Very commendable, greatly valued, and I hold in higher esteem those who can do that than those who will not. Disagreement happens. Divisiveness should not. Those of us who happen upon disagreement and manage to maintain politey accomplish two things: integrity with our faith, and a good witness for others. I cut my teeth in cyberspace over at CraigsList's religion forum where people who believe in God are used as fodder for derision and abuse by antitheists. I didn't have a clue places like CARM existed. There's nothing here I can't handle even in my gluttony
.The choice is simple: well-mannered and respectful discourse or not. Obedience to God and His word limits that choice to a single option and I do not care that anyone spites me for pointing it out.
Little I posted was specifically Reformed, btw, and it would be a mistake to read the post through that lens. I understand the emphasis on "God first and foremost" sounds monergistic but the simple fact of scripture is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." There's nothing specifically sectarian about understanding evangelism, proselytizing, preaching begins with God. As the Creator, there's nothing particularly sectarian about the inseparable overlap and collaborative work of the mind, heart, will, and action and if you're going to have that conversation with a Christian psychologist, you're going to have that conversation form a position of willingness to learn than that of wrongly imaging you know more than someone who has spent his entire Christian life specifically studying those matters
. Gotta go. Y'all be good and be blessed
preacher4truth
Well-known member
Yes, like I said I wasn't trying to not get along with you, or however I put it. Glad we hashed that out.lol At least Steve didn't call me a glutton
Scripture directs us to at least attempt to work out the places of division, and to do so scripturally. Ultimately, Steve can't stop anyone from posting and I, personally, and somewhat adept at posting correction while ignoring those refusing to be polite, respective, and collaborative. I've told Steve (and others) I'll simply go through a post line by line, break it down and point out the errors and provide scripture-based correction without them and a few here will testify to the forensic prowess.
I'd prefer not to go that route with anyone.
Didn't you and I have a recent exchange that started out with a little conflict that was easily and readily amended? "Well done!" I say! Very commendable, greatly valued, and I hold in higher esteem those who can do that than those who will not. Disagreement happens. Divisiveness should not. Those of us who happen upon disagreement and manage to maintain politey accomplish two things: integrity with our faith, and a good witness for others. I cut my teeth in cyberspace over at CraigsList's religion forum where people who believe in God are used as fodder for derision and abuse by antitheists. I didn't have a clue places like CARM existed. There's nothing here I can't handle even in my gluttony
The choice is simple: well-mannered and respectful discourse or not. Obedience to God and His word limits that choice to a single option and I do not care that anyone spites me for pointing it out.
Little I posted was specifically Reformed, btw, and it would be a mistake to read the post through that lens. I understand the emphasis on "God first and foremost" sounds monergistic but the simple fact of scripture is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." There's nothing specifically sectarian about understanding evangelism, proselytizing, preaching begins with God. As the Creator, there's nothing particularly sectarian about the inseparable overlap and collaborative work of the mind, heart, will, and action and if you're going to have that conversation with a Christian psychologist, you're going to have that conversation form a position of willingness to learn than that of wrongly imaging you know more than someone who has spent his entire Christian life specifically studying those matters
Gotta go. Y'all be good and be blessed
I've made attempt to reconcile with some of those who oppose themselves. This includes the person you are engaged with. My initial response to his first post in Cal/Arm was met with name-calling. Tried to get it reconciled, and in 2 Timothy 3 manner (lovers of self, irreconcilable &c). Sad to say, this is a trait of anti-Calvinists.
Those of us, no matter which "side" we want to belong to, should all repent and be ready to reconcile. I extend this to others and myself. Sadly all I expect is the mocking and ridicule in response.
Anyhow, carry on, appreciate your posts which I read in between study time.
Josheb
Well-known member
That is the essence of the problem to be solved. It has the misguided perception of being inter-personal when it is, in variably and in fact, intra-personal.
Scripture is diagnostic. It tells us in no uncertain terms it is out of the abundance of our heart that we speak (Lk. 6:45), not anything whatsoever in another's heart. So those who get angry at others, hold those they have never personally met with contempt, those who have a defensive or adversarial response are, according to scripture, acting out of something within themselves. It is quite an inconvenience
. James told us in fairly blunt terms the tongue (and by extension the fingertips with which we type), is the most difficult parts of the body to control. He tells us directly the double-minded action of praising God and cursing others simply should not happen. Rhetorically asking why we fight he answers the question authoritatively: because our motives are wrong. Our motives are selfish, and he compares it with adultery!!! One my favorite passages is Titus 3:9-11. It's the "three strikes" rule. "Warn" (or politely request ?) a person once, then again, after that rejection the factious person, have nothing to do with them, "knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned." Sounds harsh, yes? It's quite sobering when we look into the mirror of our own posts and realize we're culpable; the scriptures on those occasions are talking about us! Some won't look. Some won't listen. They won't listen to the well-meaning correction of sincerely patient, kind, loving siblings. The words and the effort are considered dross.
Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
Yikes!
Is the diagnosis of scripture true? YES! Let God be true and all men liars! No one gets where they want to get attacking others. You are spot on when saying "those who oppose themselves."
And, if you'll permit me to move on and return to the subject asserted for discussion in the op
, one of the points I was endeavoring to make is the unified nature of our cognitive, emotional, volitional, and behavioral faculties. NONE of those components acts separately from the other. The KJV puts it succinctly when it states, "As he thinketh in his heart, so he is." This proves very important when conversing with the atheist because that individual's heart - according to Romans 1 - is darkened and it has been given over by God to his lusts. Find that man's lusts and you'll understand his heart and how he thinks . Scripture is diagnostic. I just happen to work in a field in which correct diagnosis is necessary, we all have training specifically in that area, and lots of practice. Doctors, psychologists, lawyers and others with that learning and skill set can (and should) learn how to apply scripture to that knowledge and skills and vice versa... especially in the area of evangelism! However, there is something more important than applying scripture diagnostically to the evangelistic intersection of two people. The priority is hearing God. God alone knows the human heart AND the heart issues of the one He is saving. It is, after all, God's salvation and God who saves. We're just momentary conduits of soil preparation, seed planting, seed watering, weed removal, or maybe - if we're blessed to be included in that moment - the harvest. According to Luke 15:10 there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner's repentance. Pretty cool God let us in on that party, yes?
Who among us wrongly imagines we know what another needs? Or incorrectly assumes we can read another's mind? We have great difficulty knowing our own mind; how then should we think we can know a stranger's?!?! So, I was very surprised to learn there was resistance to the idea we should first and foremost rely on the God who is first and foremost above all. The Spirit within each of us should easily and readily testify to the veracity and efficacy of that truth. Yes?
Josheb
Well-known member
That's pretty good.Quite often on the atheist forum I've heard repeatedly by atheists that they have a rational problem with the bible and the gospel of Jesus.
As such, I have had the pleasure of stumbling upon an article about this topic by J. Warner Wallace.
Volitional Resistance to Christianity Often Masquerades as Rational Opposition | Cold Case Christianity
Most atheists describe themselves as "rational" resistors, but many converted atheists recognize the role volition played in their resistance.
I got rather excited about it and after further research on it I decided to post an OP on the atheist forum.
In the 10 years that I've been posting on the atheist forum, this is literally the only OP that not one person has commented on.
Admittedly, it's rather disappointing, but i found it very curious and as I've considered it, I've realized that they have absolutely no rebuttal to it, as their idol of intelligence has been silenced.
I checked the OP this morning and 158 views have occurred.
I sure a few are believers, and the rest unbelievers. I have no idea if the articles I've linked have been read or not. I did state that a number of the articles were behind a pay wall (meaning that access would cost $.)
The articles I've posted make it pretty clear that rationality is seldom if ever a valid point. The point is more often about volition.
As the gospel is a matter of volition and even emotions, people who reject Jesus do so on those bases, and then hide behind their claims of rationality.
I know I weighed in on this op earlier but let me add some more thoughts. Divisions between cognition, affect, and volition are false. None of them work apart from the other. However, apologetically speaking, the gospel is a spiritual matter, not a psychological matter. the humanism and psychology of the human dissent must be addressed but any such effort that neglects the absence of the Holy Spirit in the atheist (or antitheist) is bound to limited fruit, if any. For this reason it is incumbent upon every evangelist/apologist to be praying while evangelizing or "defending" the faith. Only God knows the pint(s) of resistance in that person's mind, emotion, and will, and only the Holy Spirit can reveal that to us.
And that becomes an article of faith and trust for us, not them. Do we trust what we intuit or hear God speaking to us about this providential intersection of the regenerate and unregenerate (because none of those exchanges occurs in absence of God's purpose)? Sobriety is also required because every single one of those exchanges is fodder for either life or death. If and when God brings that person from death to life then the record of that exchange does not bring condemnation, but for those who persist in unbelief that record justifies their condemnation. They cannot, as a consequence of the exchange, say, "I did not know, I never heard!"
We live in a world where neglect, abuse and trauma are the norm. Pastors and counselors, as well as victims and survivors of trauma know things no one should know. We've come up close and personal with human depravity - others' and our own. The effect of those episodes is very real and among those effects is a disruption and re-wiring of cognition, affect, and volition as well as conduct. It's always best to err on the side of caution, especially if not trained and/or experienced in recognizing the symptoms of sin as the manifest in a person's spirit and soul. I'm not saying a professional education is required. All that is needed is a reading of scripture attends to those matters as the Word describes them because those passages do not come accompanied with little neon signs announcing themselves.
One who was an atheist and now of God, my observation is atheists have a belief about a god not much different from our denominations who do the same thing, make laws to govern what they believe. Catholics do it, Mormons do it, atheists do it, Muslims do it, Baptists, Methodists, you name it, all of these has laws to govern their beliefs about a god.
The only reality of God is when He comes to the individual and manifests Himself in you. Until then these denominations are no different at all from an atheist. Ive been on both sides of that fence.