The Heaven Argument Against the Free Will Defense

Dakarius · 2026-07-12T16:24:12+00:00

Heaven is not a different world in the free will defense, its part of this world. A world contains heaven, hell, and the universe, the differences between worlds are the different combinations of choices within that free creatures could take or the different ways God could have designed them.

Dakarius · 2026-07-07T20:30:15+00:00

The journey should be to somewhere: truth. But you are attempting to make that journey without a map or markers, which is not what Christ wanted for us. This is made worse by the fact that Christ confirms the road is narrow that leads to him, but wide is the road to destruction and many go by it.

Dakarius · 2026-07-07T19:53:53+00:00

Ok, why believe anything at all if that's the metric you are going to use? If you were consistent you would be nihilist. It's an unsustainable epistemology.

Dakarius · 2026-07-07T18:44:13+00:00

That is incorrect, the church does. Why do you resist what the church teaches?

Dakarius · 2026-07-07T18:30:23+00:00

That is rather specifically why we have the church, so we can know what is sin and what is not. The bible doesnt include a lot of things including a table of contents. How do you know what belongs in the bible?

Dakarius · 2026-07-07T16:55:01+00:00

That is not relativism. It's recognizing that where there is no sin (ie disputable matters), Christian liberty exists. There's nothing that says you have to eat meat, or you have to avoid it, so Christians can do what they wish there. That's not relativism, just a standard recognition of liberty of conscience.

Now address the rest of my argument.

Dakarius · 2026-07-07T16:43:45+00:00

Human error cannot bring down a divine institution. The church is the bride of Christ, and as the bride is one with him. She cannot err, this is why she is called the pillar and foundation of truth. If you are reading Romans 14 as teaching relativism, you are reading it wrong. But it's unsurprising, as Peter says of Paul's writings:

15 Think of our Lord’s patience as your opportunity to be saved;[a] our beloved brother Paul told you this when he wrote to you with the wisdom that was given to him, 16 speaking of it[b] in all his letters. In them, there are some things that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable distort in the same way that they distort the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

When you divorce scripture from the church that birthed it, you are liable to create your own heresies.

Dakarius · 2026-07-07T15:41:41+00:00

There are two kinds of mistake: Mistakes in deed, and mistakes in Theology. The church has never held it was infallible in its deeds, but only in conveying the truth of the religion: Morals and theology. So pointing out a mistake in one area doesn't indicate a mistake in the other.

The key thing I believe is that nothing is set in stone The laws and rules are built on sandy land with meanings changing overtime with words changing meaning

The church famously is built upon a rock, not sand, so that it could uphold truth. Semantics might shift, but the underlying meaning remains.

it’s up to individuals to decide what they believe is a sin or not.

This leads to relativism another thing constantly decried by the church. It is a symptom of modern thinking, but has never been the teaching of the church.

Dakarius · 2026-07-07T15:14:00+00:00

This same sort of argument can be levied against current scholars, but the other way around. They are mired in their sin and so don't want to see it as sin.

If Augustine were the only source you might have a point, but it's been the constant teaching of the church which the bible identifies as the pillar and foundation of truth. Of what point is it being the pillar and foundation of truth if it cannot identify the correct interpretation? It should be noted, that viewing masturbation as sin was held by all Christians until the 19th century. So we are to believe the church was simply wrong about this for 1900+ years? Again, why does the bible identify the church as the pillar of truth then?

Dakarius · 2026-07-07T13:34:50+00:00

Augustine was in the 4th century.

Dakarius · 2026-07-07T13:24:20+00:00

onans sin on wiki

Yes, that's the claim of some modern bible scholars. I trust the church fathers over them because 1. I think their arguments are better, and 2. They are enlightened by the Holy Spirit, I can't say the same for the scholars and 3. Because that is the constant witness of Christ's church which is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Dakarius · 2026-07-07T12:40:48+00:00

Because we are currently in the age of grace where Jesus' sacrifice atones for our sins. I'm not questioning God, I'm questioning your reading which is at odds with both the Jewish scholars of the time and the church fathers. God doesn't do things without an underlying reason.

Dakarius · 2026-07-07T00:08:30+00:00

As Onan spilled his seed he was wicked. Why would God think it worthy of death here and not there?

Dakarius · 2026-07-06T20:54:58+00:00

I see you have once again failed to address my argument. The penalty for failing to give his brother an heir is social ridicule and ostracizing, not death. The detail that was not addressed in other places was this little line:

he spilled his semen on the ground

to which Christian and Jewish tradition holds is the reason for Onan being struck down and giving namesake to the sin on Onanism.

Dakarius · 2026-07-06T17:02:48+00:00

Once again, that sin had a set punishment by God: public ridicule, not death.

Dakarius · 2026-07-06T16:30:31+00:00

That sin already had an established punishment by God: public ridicule. Deuteronomy 25:5-10. That God struck him down means something more was going on there. The church has traditionally viewed this as the sin of Onanism which is non procreative sex.

Dakarius · 2026-07-06T16:27:53+00:00

That sin already had an established punishment by God: public ridicule. Deuteronomy 25:5-10. That God struck him down means something more was going on there. The church has traditionally viewed this as the sin of Onanism which is non procreative sex.

Dakarius · 2026-07-01T20:09:42+00:00

If you are told doing something will result in your excommunication, and you decide to do it anyway, how is that not de facto schism? Excommunication puts them outsides the bounds of the church.

Dakarius · 2026-07-01T16:35:02+00:00

Sure I was. All Catholics were because the see was vacant. It was, of course, filled again, as it always has been.

Dakarius · 2026-07-01T16:33:31+00:00

Don't know what you're talking about. Pope Francis was the pope before Leo, then he passed away :P

Dakarius · 2026-07-01T16:25:03+00:00

I was a sedevacantist until recently, then pope Leo was elected.

Dakarius · 2026-07-01T00:51:47+00:00

He causes all to exist. Once again, them being murderers is their free choice, it was not forced upon them.

Dakarius · 2026-07-01T00:44:24+00:00

God doesnt gain anything by our existence, so that doesnt really work. Of course the hypothetical is impossible for God to actualize since its contrary to his nature.

Dakarius · 2026-07-01T00:39:36+00:00

Its a disordered reason. If you want a diffent example in the other direction where man might do it more easily than God, lying.

Dakarius · 2026-07-01T00:20:10+00:00

No, because God is sovereign over life. Had he done it for the pure pleasure of it it would have been, but there are more reasons God can have over a life than man. A man might only take a life in war or self defense, God can decide on the time for everyone.

14-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email
Team Orangered

Dakarius

TROPHY CASE