Asking Questions of Judaism.

I have copied a part of a thread from Theologyweb started in on 14th April 2016, the topic of Judaism.

I have recently been listening to a Jewish apologist, Tovia Singer. I have placed these comments/questions on his discussion forum here in response to his video entitled Did God Destroy the Second Temple Because Jews Rejected Jesus? - and now place them at Tweb for further comment.

Some questions and comments for the Jews at Tweb to consider ("you" in the comments below refers primarily to Tovia Singer) –

If you believe the Jews have a covenant with God, what then must God take away from the Jews for the Mosaic covenant to come to an end? 

If God did end the Mosaic covenant, then God would take away the means to continue the Levitical sacrifices, the Day of Atonement sacrifice, the line of Davidic kings, and remove the many laws, which cannot be kept apart from a functioning temple?

If the Mosaic covenant has ended, what more need God take away from the Jews to demonstrate to them that He has done just that - taken away the Mosaic covenant? 

If God has not taken away the Mosaic covenant, why then did God take away so much (temple, liturgy, sacrifices, festivals, means to keep all the laws) from the Jews in 70AD and kept these things away from them for so long?

Why did God take away so much from the Jews around about the time that Christianity was born through the Christ event? 

After all Christian claim Jesus was God, and hence Jesus was the incarnate temple of God. How do Jews explain these historical coincidences, which we all arranged by God’s providence?

If you believe the Jews still have a covenant with God and yet cannot keep the law and do not have a functioning priesthood, what value within the Mosaic covenant was the temple and the functioning priesthood in the OT? 

If the temple was central to the Mosaic covenant, why is the temple not central to the ongoing functioning of the Mosaic covenant after 70AD? 

If the temple was Not central to the Mosaic covenant (you would have to establish this fact), why was the loss of the temple then the occasion for the Rabbis to so radically revise the Jewish understanding of the OT?

If post temple, Rabbinic Judaism has reinterpreted the OT to account for the destruction of the temple, what covenant value was there in the pre 70AD understanding of the OT scriptures? 

What authority did the Rabbis have to re-interpret the OT after 70AD? 

If a reinterpretation of the OT scriptures occurred after 70AD, what value can be placed upon any interpretation of the texts, that may be subsequently revised when historical events do not subsequently support a past or present understanding of the OT texts? 

If we have witnessed Judaism radically re-understand the OT, based upon historical events in Jerusalem, what confidence can we have with Rabbinic claims concerning their understanding of any OT texts?

The OT contains the theology of the broken covenant. When a covenant is broken, it must be renewed for the covenant to become functioning again. If the loss of the temple has brought about a broken covenant, when will the Mosaic covenant be restored and how? 

If the loss of the temple has not brought about a broken covenant, why not?

Also if the Jews cannot keep the Torah, why is the Mosaic covenant not broken? 

What would it take for modern Judaism to teach the Mosaic covenant is broken? 

If the Mosaic covenant cannot be broken after the temple, or because of the loss of some part of the Mosaic covenant, why then was the Mosaic covenant broken in the OT and not ever after the loss of the temple in 70AD?

Furthermore, your claim that we can hear the footsteps of the Messiah also is inconsistent with the standard Jewish apologetic that the suffering servant is Israel. If Israel suffers to redeem men from sin, is then Israel the Messiah, who will suffer and rebuild the temple? 

Also, what then is this ever close Messiah going to do with regard to sin that Israel has not yet done? Will he also suffer sin and if so, why does he have to suffer for sin if Israel has already done so in the past?

The Problem of John Calvin's Burden of Proof Concerning His Own State of Regeneration whilst Holding His own Novel Doctrines.

John Calvin developed a new theology, commonly called Calvinism, in which he proposed a new understanding of what Jesus did, the sacraments, the Church and authority, justification, the value of the scriptures and private interpretation as the means by which men come to know the content of divine revelation. Part of John Calvin's new theology is the notion of the assistance of the Holy Spirit who is understood as the third person of the divine Trinity. The Holy Spirit's assistance of the man who interprets the sacred text assumes the man is regenerated, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Prior to regeneration, men are corrupted by original sin and cannot do any good acts. After regeneration, the regenerate man is open to the action of the Holy Spirit. 

But Calvin's new theology bears a burden of proof because Christianity up until the time of Calvin's new theology had never known Calvinism. As Christianity is a historical religion with historically based faith communities with an authority structure, that held councils to determine church doctrines, anyone who proposes new doctrines must have the new theology subject to the measure of Christianity as found in the church history. Calvin, therefore, must also participate in that burden of proof and demonstrate that he, as the author of the novel theology, is regenerate by the Holy Spirit and thereby worthy of being moved by the Holy Spirit, and then worthy of a hearing from the rest of Christendom. For Calvin's new doctrines are open to the criticism that his version of Christianity is merely his own invention which contains many errors, which cause the Calvinist to sin, and thereby become an unregenerate.

We may ask if Calvin's novel doctrine of double predestination is a heresy then is Calvin a regenerate when he invented the new doctrine? If he was, then he arrived at a new doctrine apparently under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which much of Christendom rejects. The claim of the regenerate man privately interpreting the sacred text with the assistance of the Holy Spirit is problematic. Alternatively, Calvin was not regenerate and the Holy Spirit did not assist him in his private interpretation and according to both Calvin's theological system and Thomas Aquinas' theological system, Calvin sinned by inventing a new and false doctrine. 

Accordingly, any other doctrines invented by Calvin may also be subject to a similar scrutiny, showing the claims of Calvin's theology bear a burden that is both problematic and unverifiable. For Calvin's new theology is his own invention, which he must defend in opposition to church history, and in opposition to problems caused within his own theological system and in opposition to other theological systems such as that of Thomas Aquinas.

Two fundamental questions concerning Calvin's theology are - was Calvin a regenerate man when he acted as an interpreter of the text to attain his many novel doctrines not found in church history? Or was John Calvin in a state of sin and his theology cannot be trusted from within his own system as judged by the doctrines of historical Christianity? For if Calvin was an unregenerate whilst writing his Institutes of the Christian religion, then many, or all of his own novel doctrines are only the falsities of a sinful man that are to be rejected by all men. If John Calvin was, however, a regenerate man when he taught is new and false doctrines, then there is at least some basis to hear his case against the Catholic church, whilst his false doctrines remain false. 

According to Thomas Aquinas, the principle is the cause of all action. If John Calvin was an unregenerate man, then Calvin acted as a corrupted, and sinful principle of his own, novel and false theology. If Calvin was corrupt, then his theology is also corrupt. If his theology is corrupt, then Calvin was also probably corrupted through his own sins of heresy, and schism.

The Problem of the Inconsistency of John Calvin's Doctrines of Total Depravity and Private Interpretation of the Scriptures.

John Calvin taught two novel doctrines that are incompatible with each other. The two doctrines of total depravity and private interpretation of the scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit lead to the inevitable condemnation of John Calvin and all those who hold to Calvin's two doctrines as unregenerate men who always or nearly always sin. 

Total depravity is a doctrine of John Calvin who taught that every act of the unregenerate man is a sin caused by the bond of the human will as an effect of original sin. Total depravity is summarised in several points in an article entitled - John Calvin On Total Depravity

2.3.2 - Romans, ch. 3, as witness for man's corruption

Now his intention in this passage is not simply to rebuke men that they may repent, but rather to teach them that they have all been overwhelmed by an unavoidable calamity from which only God's mercy can deliver them.

Let this then be agreed: that men are as they are here described not merely by the defect of depraved custom, but also by depravity of nature. The reasoning of the apostle cannot otherwise stand: Except out of the Lord's mercy there is no salvation for man, for in himself he is lost and forsaken [Rom. 3:23 ff.]...it is futile to seek anything good in our nature.

2.3.5 - Man sins of necessity, but without compulsion

Because of the bondage of sin by which the will is held bound, it cannot move toward good, much less apply itself thereto; for a movement of this sort is the beginning of conversion to God, which in Scripture is ascribed entirely to God's grace...Therefore simply to will is of man; to will ill, of a corrupt nature; to will well, of grace.

According to John Calvin, man has a nature that only wills sin prior to the action of Christian grace.

John Calvin also taught the doctrine of private interpretation assisted by the action of the Holy Spirit to understand the sacred text. Calvin's doctrine is stated in an article entitled - The living voice of God: John Calvin on the supreme authority of Holy Scripture.

No amount of argument or testimony, Calvin was convinced, would be sufficient “to prove to unbelievers that Scripture is the Word of God … for only by faith can this be made known.” Even so, “Scripture will ultimately suffice for a saving knowledge of God only when its certainty is founded upon the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit.” 

The phrase, "inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit" assumes the regeneration of the Christian and the assistance of the Holy Spirit to help the regenerated man understand the truths contained within the sacred text. Yet to have the correct understanding of the text infers the Christian holds to all of the orthodox doctrines as revealed by God. For if one or more heterodox doctrines are held, the man is in serious danger of committing a sin against the faith, such as the sin of heresy. If the sin has been committed then there is no way of correctly understanding the text, for the unregenerate man only ever commits sin without grace.

Yet Calvin's doctrine of private interpretation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is itself not found in the scriptures and for good reasons. One such reason is private interpretation cannot have any binding power over the believer, for divine revelation is public, and for all men, and not private revelation. Consequently, divine revelation demands a public institution and a public understanding of the truths contained in revelation, in part to guard the sacred deposit against those who reduce revelation down to privately understood truths.

As private interpretation is itself a doctrine not found within divine revelation and is a doctrine against the nature of public revelation, the doctrine is heterodox. As private interpretation is heterodox, it is a sin to hold to the doctrine as being revealed by God. Therefore within John Calvin's method, heterodox doctrines are presupposed to the Christian man who is also considered to be a regenerate man and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, John Calvin's two doctrines of total depravity and private interpretation are contained within his own novel theological system that exists only from the mind of John Calvin, largely apart from church history, church councils and apart from any divine authority. Calvin's own novel theology is also made with large differences to that of other Reformers such as Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and John Knox. In short, John Calvin's novel theology is made in opposition to most of historical Christendom and in opposition to many of the other Reformed theological systems. In other words, everyone else other than John Calvin thinks John Calvin's theology contains many heresies that are not revealed by God.

So according to John Calvin, a regenerate Christian can interpret the scriptures as long as the understanding is orthodox according to John Calvin's novel theology. But everyone other than John Calvin and the Calvinists thinks John Calvin's theology is a mixture of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, inferring that most of Christendom think John Calvin's method of private interpretation is inconsistent with total depravity.

For all Christians except Calvin and the Calvinists think Calvinism contains heresy and the Calvinists are then sinning by holding to Calvinist errors. Yet Calvin and Calvinists hold they are regenerate and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit by privately interpreting the scriptural texts in accordance with Calvin's novel and false theological system. John Calvin's doctrines then cause Calvinists to fall into sin and become unregenerate and act as though they were totally depraved. Yet Calvinists also hold to Calvinists as being regenerate men as evidenced by holding to Calvin's novel and false doctrines. The Calvinist quandary is apparent because Calvin's two doctrines of total depravity and private interpretation are inconsistent with each other.

Conclusion - Because both of Calvin's doctrines of private interpretation and total depravity are false, the two doctrines are logically and practically incompatible with each other. Such incompatibility between two doctrines is an indication that Calvinism is a false systematic theology that is not reflective of God as the source of Calvinist doctrine.

The inconsistency between the two doctrines is only a small part of the problematic nature of Calvinism. Because private interpretation is a false doctrine, then all of Calvinism is inconsistent with any doctrine within Calvinism that is true, and also may or may not be inconsistent with all of Calvin's false doctrines as well. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is true, but inconsistent with the false doctrine of private interpretation. Alternatively, the false doctrine of limited atonement is a Calvinist error that is consistent with the false doctrine of private interpretation. For only through private interpretation can one arrive at the falsity of limited atonement as a doctrine that does not, in fact, exist within the sacred text.

The Problem of the Burden of Proof to Demonstrate the Authority of the Protestant Reformers to Legitimately Oppose the Roman Catholic Church with Many Novel Doctrines and Practices not Previously Found in Church History.

The Protestant Reformers taught the Roman Catholic Church had become corrupt and no longer taught the gospel once delivered to the saints. The Reformers made claims and demanded to be taken seriously by European Christian society. Yet the Reformers had a burden of proof to bear to demonstrate their claims that they were teaching the only true gospel of justification by faith alone that had been lost. The Reformers had to -

1) Explain how church history up until the Protestant Reformation was dominated by Roman Catholic doctrine and practice, along with the similar doctrines and practices of the Orthodox churches that can trace their origin back to Christ and the apostles through the schism that occurred in 1054. The Reformers invented new doctrines and practices in contradiction to the 1500 year Roman Catholic tradition. Such a large divergence of doctrine and practice from church history must be taken into account and shown to have a greater truth value than Church history. 

Such a burden has never been seriously undertaken by the Reformers, nor the subsequent reformed churches. For such a burden is too difficult to bear. At every stage of the Reformed defence of their burden, they are confronted with the Roman Catholic accusation of the Reformers having made a human invention of a multitude of new doctrines and practices not previously found in church history.

2) The Reformers had to explain how they had authority greater than that of the Roman Catholic church when the Reformers had no authority to invent any new doctrines and practices. Yet the Romand Catholic church and the Orthodox churches have the authority of apostolic succession to continue the traditions handed to them from Christ and the apostles, through the Popes and the bishops. The Reformers have the burden of proof to show they have more, or the only authority to change doctrines and practices found in church history, when in fact there is no authority granted to any group of men outside the church as found in scripture, or tradition. 

Such a burden has never been seriously undertaken by the Reformers, nor the subsequent reformed churches. For such a burden is too difficult to bear. At every stage of the Reformed defence of their burden, they are confronted with the Roman Catholic accusation of the Reformers having made a human invention of their own authority to teach and govern in Christ's name when no such authority exists within Protestantism. 

3) The Reformers had to explain where the principle of private interpretation came from when the Reformers had no mandate to privately interpret the scriptural texts to arrive at their novel doctrines and practices. In fact, private interpretation is against the nature of public revelation that demands a public institution be set up to teach and guard the entire deposit of faith including all practices found in tradition. 

As the principle of private interpretation is not found within divine revelation, the reformers used a method alien to divine revelation. Also because private interpretation is not found in church history as the means by which doctrines are taught and defended against heretics, the Reformers have only an invented, false principle used to arrive at new and false doctrines and practices.

4) The Reformers had to explain how the Reformers disagreed with each other on many doctrines and practices when they taught the new gospel, and yet Christendom was meant to take them seriously. After all, if the reformers and their Protestant descendants could not agree with each other over many doctrines, what confidence can anyone have that any of the so-called Reformers were, in fact, reforming anything, rather than only inventing their own doctrines and practices? There is no confidence in such a scenario, for widespread confusion and diversity of Reformation doctrines and practices is only explainable through Protestant errors and not the God of truth and infinite power.

5) The Reformers had to explain how their differences of doctrines and practices logically conclude to a practical atheism, and simultaneously hold to the claim that they were teaching the true gospel. For real differences in doctrine and practice between the Reformers and later Protestants infers God has not revealed doctrines and practices, but only men have come to diverse opinions concerning the content and meaning of divine revelation. Such a real difference means God knew those difference would occur but chose to make a revelation that would end in mass confusion, error and unbelief. 

The god of Protestant revelation is then the god of an implied agnosticism, confusion and unbelief. Such a god is a false god, which infers the Reformers and later Protestantism promotes which logically concludes to a practical atheism. Therefore the Reformers gospel is really not the gospel of Christ, but the gospel of practical agnosticism, which infers atheism. The Protestant god is only a human invention as a partial imitation of the true God of church history, whilst denying the authority of the church and church history caused by the true God of history.

6) The Reformers had to explain why anyone would want to take them seriously when the early Reformers were men of deep moral flaws. For example, Martin Luther rebelled against church doctrine, church history, and removed seven biblical books from the Old and New Testaments. He also broke his vows made as an Augustinian monk, married an ex-nun, and invented at least fifty doctrines different to Catholic doctrines whilst claiming to have a scrupulous conscience. Other Reformers also had moral flaws. The deep moral flaws of the Reformers is difficult to defend when they opposed the Catholic church based upon deep morals flaws that caused corruption in the Catholic church at the time.

Conclusion - The Reformers made claims about their own authority and about their gospel which are claims they must bear. As the burden confronted by the Reformers and later Protestant churches is enormous, such a burden will never be met with any convincing arguments. Therefore there is no compelling reasons to take the Protestant Reformation seriously as a movement from God, but rather only an errant movement of men without any authority from God, made in opposition to the corruption within the Catholic Church. 

The Catholic church had corruption within it, but the solution to the corruption was not a revolt against the true church instituted by Christ, but a reform from within using the bishops and Popes given to the church and humanity by the Holy Spirit.

A Problem of Infinite Regress Associated with Atheism.

Infinite regress is proposed by atheists to account for the existence of any contingent substance, such as a tree, or any creature. Such an infinite regress is a series of creatures with a term in the creature but without a beginning. According to regress the number of creatures required to cause one creature is not a number. For an infinite series is not a number, but a series without limit, and therefore without an odd or evenly numbered beginning. Yet the creature caused by the infinite series is an odd number as the prime, and therefore number 1 creature of the series. The next creature in the series is then even and therefore number 2 and so on. 

Every creature in the series can be numbered from the first creature, through the entire series. But to number each member of the series with a known value is to assign a value to every member of the series, which cannot be known in the infinite series. For an infinite series has neither odd nor even number of members and therefore no member of the series has a number.

If we contrast the infinite series to the infinite regress proposed by the atheist, we note a significant difference between the two series.

1) An infinite series is neither odd nor even in any member, for there is no term in the series that is either odd or even. Therefore no member of the series has a known number in relation to every other member of the infinite series.

2) An infinite regress series of creatures with a term in one creature is a numbered series. Therefore every member of the infinite regress is numbered. Yet the infinite regress is without an original creature as the first cause of the infinite series and therefore no member of the series is numbered.

The infinite regress series has a contradiction concerning the numbering of any or every member of the series. In one manner the members have no number, but in another manner, each member of the infinite series has a number. Therefore the same series has every member of the series both numbered and not numbered. Such a series is self-contradictory and therefore impossible.

Conclusion - The infinite regress proposed by the atheist is a series that causes a contradiction. Such a series cannot account for the existence of any creature. Therefore the atheist has not proposed a viable explanation for the existence of any creature.

The other alternatives proposed by atheists also fail, such as the something from nothing argument, and the brute fact argument to account for the existence of creatures. As atheists cannot give a sufficient reason of be for the existence of any creature, atheism is false. For what is irrational cannot explain reality and is always false.

The Reduction of the Value of Human Life to that of a Passing Pleasure in Atheistic Based Arguments for Euthanasia.

Atheists have argued for euthanasia as the means necessary to alleviate human suffering and thereby act in a compassionate manner to be more humane. One premise assumed in the atheistic argument is man's life is ordered towards pleasure and comfort in accord with normal health. Human health is then a good in itself, but health and human life is for the sake of pleasure.  And when pleasure is removed through suffering, the human life becomes unworthy of living and must be resolved by the termination of human life.

The atheist's argument is reducible down to man exists for pleasure, and when pleasure is removed, the reason for existence is removed. Therefore when the reason for existence is removed, man should be removed through euthanasia. The value of man is reduced down to a passing feeling of an emotion. Such a value of man assumes a materialist understanding of man and an associated secular horizontalism concerning reality which excludes any reference to a transcendent God, or life after death.

Contrarily, the value of man in Christianity is far greater than a passing pleasure. For man has an immortal soul and has been created by God to see God in the next life. Man then has a value beyond the secular order of reality and a value in proportion to man's imitation of God and order towards God as the ultimate true good.

Conclusion - The atheist's argument for euthanasia is based upon the false premise of man's fulfilment or order towards only the pleasant good apart from the fitting good of God as the true ultimate end of man. Atheism's false materialist understanding of man does conclude to the avoidance of suffering as the greatest evil in life, and the promotion of euthanasia to avoid suffering. 

Yet because man is not a materialist reality, but a composite of body and soul, suffering is then not the greatest evil in life, but sin is the greatest evil that removes the ultimate end of man as God seen face to face. As euthanasia is objectively gravely disordered, euthanasia is an act that is ordered towards men committing mortal sin and having the true ultimate end removed in the damnation of those who practice such acts.

The Problem of the Universal Falsity of all Things Contrary to the Supposedly Singular Truth of Atheism.

If all things are ontologically false, then atheism is true. For atheism denies the existence of God who is being and the only universal cause of being. As there is no universal cause of being and creatures cannot cause their own being, then all things exist as though all of reality is false. For no thing can exist without a reason of be of the thing's existence. For example, the tree exists, and thereby has being, but the being of the tree is only accounted for through the existence of God as being and the universal cause of being of all creatures that causes the being of the tree. 

Yet atheism concludes to the insufficient reason of be of all creatures, whilst creatures do exist. As there is an insufficient reason of be of creatures, the affirmation of any creatures is then always a false affirmation. Then because the existence of all creatures is false, atheism is true. But because the existence of creatures is affirmed by everyone who exists and lives in the real, the affirmation of the falsity of creatures, is itself an affirmation that is false. Consequently, creatures do exist as true and atheism is false.

Conclusion - Atheism is only true if the existence of all creatures is false. But because the existence of creatures is true, atheism is false. 

Atheism's Close Association with Solopsist Hinduism.

Atheism denies the existence of God. And theism affirms the existence of God, who is being. By denying the existence of God, atheism must deny the God who is itself being and the only universal cause of being. The denial of being and the universal cause of being infers the quasi denial of the existence of all things that exist, for only God as being can cause the being of creatures. But for the atheist to deny the existence of all things, whilst the atheist exists to perform the act of denial is to act as though the only thing that is real is the singular atheist. The atheist is then acting very similar to the solopsist who deny's the reality of all things other than himself, or perhaps other than his own thoughts. 

And because the atheist does not have any proof for the non-existence of the God, who is being, the atheist must only be an atheist by belief. Yet such belief is comparable to the polytheism of Hinduism which affirms that reality is an illusion. For the atheist denies the only cause of the existence of all things, but in some manner also affirms the existence of all things. Such a denial and affirmation of things existing is very similar to the Hindu gods who convince men that reality is an illusion. For an illusion seems real but does not have any causes for the existence of anything. The atheist belief is likened to Hinduism which must affirm and deny reality, for atheism denys reality and the universal cause of reality, but must live in reality. At the same time, the atheists convince each other of atheism and the consequent illusion of reality, as likened to the polytheistic gods of Hinduism who act to deceive men.

As atheism is very similar to solopsism and Hinduism, the atheist is likened to a solopsist Hindu, whereby the atheist is real to himself, and all other things are only like an illusion that cannot be explained.

Asking Questions of Reformation Theology on the Theme of Justification.

1) Where does scripture teach that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the sinner? Rom 3:28? 

2) How can you be sure that such passages actually teach what Luther thought those passages mean, when nobody (or hardly anyone) before Luther thought those passages meant what Luther thought they meant? 

3) If those passages can be explained within Lutheranism, whereby you are subjectively persuaded of the veracity of such explanations, how then do you explain passages that say faith alone does not justify, such as James 2:24? Or faith without love is worthless, in 1 Cor 13:13?

4) Why is there any need for imputation of Christ's righteousness when the sinner is regenerated by the Holy Spirit?

5) What does the imputation of Christ's righteousness actually mean? Does it mean God the Father speaks, or judges? And if so, why would the Father do such an act, when the Father has infinite power to create all things and is thereby able to re-create the sinner as righteous?

6) If Christ's righteousness is imputed, why not the Holy Spirit's righteousness, and/or that of the Father's righteousness as well?

7) To selectively quote Augustine only means Lutheranism is based upon quote mining a Church father. Why would one consider Lutheranism defended through the use of quote mining, when the Lutheran doctrine of imputation is better defended by citing and explaining scripture along with explanations of Church fathers on those same texts which align with Lutheran doctrine?

8) If Lutheranism has no recourse to the above sound method of using both scripture and the church fathers, why then believe Lutheranism is anything more than the invention of Luther alone, made apart from what has been revealed?

9) Why believe any Lutheran theology when Luther had no authority to proclaim his new theology?

10) Why believe any of the reformers when no reformer had any authority to make up a new theology?

11) Why believe the reformers were actually reformers and reforming the church when church history is so thoroughly Catholic and not reformed, Calvinist, or Baptist?

12) Why believe the Calvinist, or Lutheran doctrines on the Eucharist (or penal substitution) and reject the Catholic doctrines, when 1) Calvin and Luther disagreed with each other and 2) neither had any authority, and 3) those reformed doctrines were not verified by any authoritative Church councils?

13) Where does scripture say faith is an instrument, as required by the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone?

14) If faith is an instrument, what sort of instrument is it? Is faith like a spanner, or a veil?

15) If faith is an instrument, are hope and love also instruments? Please explain.

16) If faith, and/or hope and love are instruments, what is the distinction between those as instruments and those as virtues given by God?

An Argument for the Stationary Earth.

Discussion

The question of the stationary earth has been discussed at length at Tweb with claims and counter claims being made concerning many different experiments. Such claims and counter claims seem to only confuse the issues being discussed without either side producing any clear proof for their model. However, I believe I have now found very strong evidence for a stationary earth from the experience of 747 direct flights from Sydney. In short the stationary earth and rotating earth models have very different predictions concerning winds.

1) The rotating earth model assumes the atmosphere rotates with the earth. Therefore large winds will appear to act on 747 at particular locations within the flight path.

2) The stationary earth model assumes the stationary atmosphere over the earth. Therefore no large winds will appear to act on 747 at particular locations within the flight path.

These two major differences between the two models will provide definitive evidence for the stationary earth model over and against the rotating earth model.

The Maths of the Rotating earth Model

Earth rotation velocity at equator – 1670 km/hr

If we assume the atmosphere rotates with the earth, then the atmosphere rotation velocity at 30,000 ft (9144m) above the earth’s surface is then –

Earth radius = 6,371 km

Earth rotation period = 24 hrs

Height of 747 jet above center of earth = 6,371+9144 = 6,380,144 m = 6380.14 km

Rotation velocity of the atmosphere at the equator, at 9.14 km above sea level is – 2 pi (6,380.14)/24 = 1669.47 km/hr


Sydney – latitude = 33°52′S

Rotation velocity at ground level = e cos (a)

Where e is velocity at the equator and a is latitude in degrees

Sydney rotation velocity rate at latitude = 1670 cos (33°52′S) = 1392 km/hr

Assume the atmosphere at the ground level rotates with the earth. Consequently the atmosphere rotation velocity 1392 km/hr

London - latitude - 51°30′N

London rotation velocity rate at latitude = 1670 cos (51°30′N) = 1044.15 km/hr

A flight from Sydney to London means the 747 begins at Sydney with a rotation velocity of 1392 km/hr. The jet takes off and reaches its cruising altitude of 9.14 km above sea level. When the jet crosses the equator at 9.14km above sea level, the relative rotation velocity of the atmosphere is –

1669.47 – 1392 = 277 km/hr

When the jet comes into land at London, the relative rotation velocity difference between the jet and the landing strip is –

Rotation velocity at Sydney ground level - Rotation velocity at London ground level

1392 – 1044 = 348 km/hr

If we take into account that a cyclone has a maximum velocity of about 280km/hr, the jet has to fly through the equivalent of –

1) A cyclone wind at the equator of about 277km/hr
2) A cyclone wind at London of about 348 km/hr.

Clarification - The rotating earth model requires 1) the atmosphere to rotate with the earth, as the co-rotation of the atmosphere and earth (earth-atm) and 2) the velocity vector of the 747 at Sydney remaining with the 747 for the entire journey. Then according to the rotating earth model, the velocity vector of the 747 of 1392 km/hr remains with the 747. Hence as the velocity vector of the rotating earth changes throughout the 747's flight path from Sydney to the destination, the relative velocity vectors of the 747 and the earths rotating atmosphere translates into a predicted wind vector acting on the 747. The wind vector is caused by the variable difference between the rotating earth-atm velocity vector and the 1392 km/hr velocity vector caused by the 747 beginning its journey from Sydney.

As the relative difference in atmosphere velocities acting on the jet are not experienced in flights over the equator, nor for flights landing at London. The rotating earth model cannot account for the fact that jets do not experience such winds calculated above. Such a large difference between the maths of the rotating earth and the facts of jet flights, which fly direct routes without experiencing the predicted winds, means jets flights are very strong evidence for a stationary earth.

Further evidence is gathered from direct flights from

Sydney to Singapore.

Sydney latitude 33°52′S

Sydney rotation velocity rate at latitude = 1670 cos (33°52′S) = 1392 km/hr

Singapore latitude 1°17′N

Singapore rotation velocity rate at latitude = 1670 cos (1°17′N) = 1669 km/hr

Velocity difference = 1669 -1392 = 277 km/hr

Sydney to Brisbane 

Sydney latitude 33°52′S

Sydney rotation velocity rate at latitude = 1670 cos (33°52′S) = 1392 km/hr

Brisbane latitude 27°28′S

Ground surface rotation velocity - 1670 cos (27°28′S) – 1484 km/hr

Velocity difference = 1484 -1392 = 92 km/hr

As the global earth/Heliocentric model claims the atmosphere rotates with the earth, then the relative velocity differences are indicative of wind velocities predicted to act against the 747 jet. As such wind velocities are not experienced against the jet, then the rotating globe model has been repeatedly invalidated and the stationary earth model has strong evidence.

Geostationary Claim – the lack of wind velocity experienced on 747 jets by the relative rotation of the atmosphere is proof that the rotating atmosphere model is false and therefore the stationary earth model is true.

Argument –

Step 1

1) If the rotating atmosphere model is false,

then

2) the non rotating atmosphere model is true.

But

3) The rotating atmosphere model is false,

Therefore

4) The non rotating atmosphere model is true.

5) But, as the non rotating atmosphere model is the stationary earth model.

6) Therefore the stationary earth model is true.

7) Therefore the earth is stationary.

Step 2

To prove rotating atmosphere model is false.

Argument –

1) A model makes predictions.
2) Predictions are tested by evidence.
3) If the evidence does not match the predictions, then the model is invalidated.
4) If the model is invalidated, then the model is false.

The four lines above correspond to the four lines below –

1) The rotating atmosphere model predicts large relative atmosphere velocities on jets at Brisbane, Singapore and London.
2) The large relative atmosphere velocities on jets is tested by observable evidence.
3) The evidence shows a lack of atmospheric winds against the jet at Brisbane, Singapore and London which does not match the predictions, then the model is invalidated.
4) As the model is invalidated, then the rotating atmosphere model is false.

Step 3

Using in the reasoning of Step 1.

Statements 1 and 3 are true, therefore statements 6 and 7 are also true.

As 6 and 7 are true, then the earth is stationary.

Step 1 is recapped below with the statements marked as true (T).

1) If the rotating atmosphere model is false, (T)

then

2) the non rotating atmosphere model is true.

But

3) The rotating atmosphere model is false, (T)

Therefore

4) The non rotating atmosphere model is true.

5) But, as the non rotating atmosphere model is the stationary earth model.

6) Therefore the stationary earth model is true. (T)

7) Therefore the earth is stationary. (T)



Conclusion – the earth is stationary.

Impossibility of the Naturalistic Based Rotating Universe Model Points to the Truth of the Rotating Universe’s Origin as the All-Powerful Creator.

There is no known natural process that can cause the entire universe to develop in such a manner to cause the entire universe to rotate around a single body. As no natural process is known to cause universal rotation from within the empirical sciences, then it is likely that there is no natural process that can cause universal rotation. In fact, based upon the unlikelihood of a natural cause of universal rotation from within the empirical sciences, we may propose an argument from philosophical reasoning to conclude to the impossibility of a universal, natural cause of rotation only from a cause acting within the universe.

The argument may be proposed thusly -

If there is a rotation of the universe around one point within the universe, then there is a universal rotation. But universal rotation infers there must be a universal cause of rotation. For universal rotation around one point means all parts of the universe rotate with a universally common rotation. But a universally common rotation has a universally common cause. For the rotation is one, and nature is expedient, then from expediency, the cause of rotation is also one.

That common cause of rotation must be a common cause of all parts of the universe that rotate. But as all parts of the universe infer no other relative parts, then a universal cause of rotation is a force without anything to act against. For in accord with Newton's laws, where there is a force, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Yet if there is a universal force acting in all parts of the universe, there are no parts of the universe for the universal force to have an equal and opposite reaction to.*

Just as a man who pushes a car, requires a pavement to push against as the extra part other than the car and the man. So too the universal force requires another thing other than that inside the universe to react to the universal rotating force. But as such parts are logically excluded from the universe (for all parts are also moving with the rotating universe), then there is no natural force within the universe that can cause the universe to rotate. Therefore, because no natural force exists within the universe to rotate the universe, only a cause other than a natural cause can be applied to rotate the universe.

Such a force is from a power that can act without the need for a reactionary force, as required in Newtonian mechanics. But such a situation infers the force is applied within the universe without a nature acting to counter the force. In other words, the rotating force must be applied within the universe from nothing and with no object to provide the reactive force. But to apply a force from nothing, (and without a reactive force) is a force applied only from God, who alone has the infinite power to enact something from nothing. Therefore, as only God can cause the universe to rotate, the rotating universe is not subject to naturalism, but only to supernatural creationism whereby the universe must have been created and then caused to rotate by the creator.

Therefore, where creation is revealed as a truth, the contrary revelation of a rotating universe is a truth found complementary to reason. For reason concludes that a rotating universe is only caused by God. Therefore, because a created universe is only created by God, a created rotating universe may be expected for only a rotating universe may be caused by God. Therefore, rotation points towards a creation event but may not prove** a creation event. And a creation event in turn points to a rotating universe but does not prove the existence of a rotating universe. 

Conclusion - Christian divine revelation contains the truth that the universe was created by God and the universe rotates around the Earth once per day. The above discussion shows the compatibility of the creation event with the rotating universe. Reason is then compatible with Divine revelation with respect to the creation of the rotating universe.

*Objection - one may object and say the Earth is stationary, so a cause of rotation has the Earth as an object against which the force of the universe's rotation may act against to conform to Newton's laws. 

Response - The Earth is located inside the universe, and outside the volume of the universe's mass that is rotating. The force that causes the universe to rotate cannot act against an object located outside, but only inside the volume of the universe as a body of motion. Therefore the Earth cannot act as an object against which the force of the universe's rotation may act to fulfil Newton's law of equal and opposite reaction. There is no solution to the problem other than a supernatural creator who causes the universe to rotate as from the divine power.

** The rotating universe may in fact be definitive evidence for the creation of the universe. For only a creator could cause the force required to rotate the universe.

The Problem of the Existence of the Angelic Realm as a Human Invention as Required by Atheism.

There is strong evidence in human history for the existence of the angelic realm, particularly for the existence of demonic activity as demonstrated by the existence of Satanism. An example of Satanism is the demonic cult worship of the Aztec false gods of the sun and moon which demanded human sacrifice. Many other examples of demonic activity may be given to demonstrate the existence of the angelic realm. Yet such creatures are created pure spirits which cannot be accounted for through any material cause as required by the materialism of atheism. As angels exist, then atheism cannot account for spiritual creatures that demands an uncreated spirit as the creator of the universe. Consequently, atheism is false.

The Problem of the Existence of the Trinity as a Human Invention as Required by Atheism.

The God of Christianity is the Trinitarian God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Trinitarian God is not explainable by reason alone, for the Trinity has three divine persons with one divine nature. As such a thing is unknown to creatures, for creatures only ever have one person that owns the one nature, then the divine Trinity is not derivable by reason, or from experience of creatures.  As the divine Trinity is only known by divine faith, atheism cannot account for the origin of the revelation of the Trinity nor for the doctrine of the Trinity, nor for the in-depth theology of the divine Trinity that has kept world-class theologians occupied for over 2,000 years.

The atheist may respond that the Trinity has been debunked and is therefore a human invention just like all other gods. But the atheists claim is null and void for the Trinity has been thoroughly discussed by Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant theologians for centuries and also defend by many able apologists. And no argument exists that debunks the Trinity.

Furthermore, the many Catholic public miracles such as Fatima, Guadalupe, Akita, Lourdes give witness to the truth of the Catholic faith and the revealed doctrine of the Trinity. For the Catholic miracles are performed by the Catholic God who has revealed himself as the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The power of God manifested in the miracles is a witness to the truth of God contained within the Catholic faith. As God is the prime truth, the Trinity is from the prime truth and cannot be in error.

The manifestation of the interior life of God as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a strong witness against atheism’s universal denial of the existence of God and any knowledge of God’s interior life.

The Problem of Denying the Action of Proper Causes Acting Now Associated with Atheism.

The monotheist uses the notion of proper cause to arrive at the existence of the first, uncaused cause. The proper cause is that cause, which has an immediate and direct proper effect derived from the proper cause. For example, a proper cause of the man building the house has the proper effect of the house being built.

The series of proper causes and effects is immediate, without any time delay. When the man builds the house, at the same time, the house is being built.

If then the atheist denies the notion of proper cause to arrive at the conclusion of the uncaused cause, the atheist must use another notion of cause and effect that has the effect occur at a time after the cause. For it is from the nature of proper cause that the effect be immediate and not delayed. Therefore, if say a common cause is posited to account for an effect, the common cause may occur at one time and the effect at a later time. For example, a man may water the plant, and later the water grows from the water. The water is then a common cause of the plant's growth along with other causes, such as the soil and the sun.

If then the atheist denies the notion of proper cause, an infinite series does not occur all together now, but must occur with an infinite delay. For if one cause has a delayed effect, then the same causes within the same infinite series will also have delays. As each delay is within an infinite series then the total delay must be infinite. But an infinite delay infers there is no observable effect of the infinite series. For an observation is within time, which itself does not occur at some moment which presupposes an infinite prior delay.

For the universe is posited by the academy to be of finite age. Yet so, if the age of the universe is infinite, still no effect would be observed for an infinite delay always remains in the infinite series of causes posited by the atheist to account for the existence of any contingent substance. Therefore, if the notion of proper cause is denied by the atheist, no good reason exists to account for the observation of any creatures as effects of the infinite series of causes.

Conclusion - if the notion of proper cause is denied by the atheist the existence of any substance cannot be accounted for. If the atheist accepts the notion of proper cause, there is an infinite series of ontologically prior causes acting now (always in the present) to cause the one contingent substance. The ontological priority of an infinite number of causes has its own problems discussed on other posts, such as the 1) inability of an infinite multitude to exist now, 2) the being within the series is uncaused, 3) and no creature can cause the being of another creature. Both affirmation and denial of the notion of proper causes in an infinite series concludes to the falsity of the series. Therefore atheism is false.

The Problem of Atheism’s Denial of God as the Uncaused Cause.

Monotheism concludes that the uncaused cause is God. Consequently, because atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, then atheism affirms only the existence of caused causes. A cause is defined as that which has a positive influence according to the being of another. An effect is defined as that which is positively influenced by the being of another.

A series of caused causes without an uncaused cause can be either –

1) Circular, such as A causes B causes C causes A. But such as series is inadequate to explain causation, for the same inadequacy is exists in each member of the series, making the series an ontological fiction. For the same inadequacy in all causes does not account for any cause within the series, nor the series. For the same inadequacy within each member of the series infers that no member has the required being to act as a cause when the being is always lacking in each member of the series.

2) An infinite series of proper causes acting now, such as A causes B causes C etc. This series is an ontological series whereby each member of the series acts now, to be caused and to cause another. But this series has no ontologically prior beginning, for each cause is a caused cause. This series is also inadequate to explain causation as each member of the series has the same deficiency of cause. For each member is dependent upon another member for a positive influence regarding the being of another, when each member of the series has the same deficiency in be. As the same deficiency exists in each member, then no member is a cause in the series. Therefore, the infinite series of caused causes cannot exist.

3) An infinite series of caused causes with the series having a cause that provides for the deficiency of all the causes within the series. But such a series is not infinite, for the diverse cause that provides for the other causes within the series provides for the being of the same defect within all the causes within the series. Such a diverse cause is then of a diverse species of the causes within the series. For the diverse cause has the being that the other causes do not have, thereby indicating the diverse cause with the additional being is itself not dependent upon another cause. Therefore, the diverse cause other than the infinite series of causes cannot be of the infinite series which is purported to account for observed causes. Therefore, an infinite series of causes with a singular diverse cause that provides for the same deficiency of all other causes within the series is not a fit cause within the infinite series.

4) A superstition whereby no reasoned explanation is offered in contradiction to the principle of sufficient reason which requires a reason of be of all causes.

Similar problems also occur with atheism’s denial of the unmoved mover, unorder orderer, unperfected perfector, and non-contingent necessary being. For the denial of each of these first acts involves an account of acts using series other than a finite series, which is non-circular.

Conclusion - Atheism's denial of God as the uncaused cause concludes with no alternative explanation for causes that is not fallacious. Similarly, atheism's denials of the unmoved mover, unorder orderer, unperfected perfector, and non-contingent necessary being also end with no alternative explanations that are not fallacious.

The Problem of the Union of Multiple Infinite Series within Contingent Substances with Atheism.

Atheism may posit an infinite series of causes to account for the existence of any single contingent substance. Yet atheism is frequently embraced with the affirmation of materialism and biological mechanicalism. If biological mechanicalism is affirmed by the atheist, there are multiple coincident infinite series required to account for each part of the existing biological substance. For biological mechanicalism affirms that a biological substance is composed of distinct biological parts that are placed together by natural causes, analogous to a Lego car with distinct Lego parts, or a brick wall with distinct brick parts.

Each part has its own distinct existence, yet existing united with all the other parts of the same biological system. Each part must then have its own distinct infinite series of causes to account for the existence of each part. Therefore, a biological substance must have multiple series for the multiple parts. Yet the multiple infinite series must exist both coincidently, but as 1) multiple distinct infinite series, and 2) as multiple infinite series found united in the one contingent biological substance.

For an infinite series is really only a series if the series is really distinct from any other infinite series. And the multitudes of infinite series are only causes of the same biological substance if the multitude of series coincides at the same terminus in the biological substance. So then, for atheism to account for the existence of a contingent biological substance, atheism must also account for how the multitude of distinct infinite series co-exist together at the same time and place. In short, such a multitude of infinite series existing and acting together must be an ordered multitude.

For each infinite series only acts to cause within itself as a series and does not act as the orderer of any other series. Then a multitude of series’ acting within one biological substance must be an ordered multitude by an act to order which is an act extrinsic to every member of the multitude of series. And the ordering of the multitude must also be accounted for through sufficient reason.

Then such an ordered multitude infers an ultimate orderer as the ultimate account for the ordered multitudes. And the ultimate orderer is the unordered orderer, which is God. Therefore atheism, along with a mechanistic understanding of biology infers a real unordered orderer, as God. Hence when atheism promotes an infinite series with a mechanicalist understanding of contingent substances, both denies and affirms the existence of the same God.

Therefore, atheism is false.

The Problem of the Affirmation of Infinite Regression and Affirmation of a Natural Finite Terminus to the Infinite Series Associated with Atheism.

Atheism may posit an infinite series of causes to account for the existence of any single contingent substance. By positing an infinite regress, atheism must posit that it is natural for each member of the infinite series to be caused and a cause of another creature. Also by positing an infinite regress, atheism must posit that it is not natural for creatures to not be both caused and a cause of another. For every member of the infinite regress is always caused and a cause of another. Yet what is assumed to be unnatural for an infinite number of caused causes is ignored and considered natural for the supposed natural terminus of the infinite series of caused causes in say the tree stump.

For the stump itself is caused, but does not cause the existence of another creature. The atheist must then assume that an infinite series of caused causes has a natural terminus in a creature, which is caused, but does not cause another. Its as though the infinite series of caused causes together has a nature of a creature as both a cause and an effect of another creature and the total sum of the infinite series has a terminus in one creature as an effect that is caused, but does not cause another. Or again in reverse, what is natural for an infinite number of creatures within the infinite series is then prevented from causing within the final creature in the series. The natural series of caused causes has its term in the un-natural tree stump, which is caused, but does not cause another.

The prevention of the final creature, as the natural terminus in the infinite series, from causing another creature is then not accounted for from within the infinite series. For each member of the infinite series, except the final member, is an effect and a cause of another. Yet no member, except the final member, is an effect without also being a cause of another. And thereby, the norm within the series is contradicted by the singular creature at the end of the series. As the norm within the series contradicts the singular creature at the natural terminus of the series, the natural terminus of the series is really either an un-natural terminus or an unaccounted-for terminus.

In summary, there are the following alternatives which all conclude to the mixing of natural causes with non-natural causes.

1) The infinite series of caused causes is natural. Then nature includes caused causes as the norm. The term of the infinite series is a caused creature, that does not cause another as the infinite series causes another. Then the stump as the term of the series is not natural.

2) The infinite series of caused causes is not natural. Then nature excludes caused causes as the norm. The term of the infinite series is a caused creature, that does not cause another as the infinite series causes another. Then the stump as the term of the series is the only natural creature.

3) The infinite series of caused causes has individual parts that are all naturally ordered to be caused and to cause. But collectively, the end result of the natural caused causes, is to produce only one effect, that does no cause. The infinite series contains a number of individual parts that are naturally caused causes, but collectively act against the nature of those same parts to have a term in a caused creature. The infinite series then has an inbuilt contradiction with respect to what is natural to individual parts is not natural to the collective term of those same parts. 

Therefore, because of the contradiction between what is natural and not natural, the posited infinite series is incompatible with the existence of the creature. 

Conclusion - The atheistic claim of an infinite series accounting for the existence of any creature is false. 

An Argument for God as the Metaphysical Cause Acting with the Biological Parents to Cause the Generation of a Child.

If a person is defined as the first subject of prediction, then that which is owned is owned by the person as the first subject. For example, the person called Peter owns his hands, arms, legs, and entire body. Peter as the first subject is then the owner of all things biological. The person is consequently not a biological reality, based in the body alone. For if the person was only a biological part of Peter's body, the reality of the person would be ontologically self-contradictory as demonstrated through the logically circular definition of person. For if the person is part of the biological body, Peter owns his body, would mean part of Peter's body owns Peter's body. But Peter own's his body, and then the part of the body that is the person of Peter is then both 1) the owner of all biology within Perter's body, and 2) owned by part of Peter's biological body. 

If the person is part of the biological body, the person is then both the owner and owned. But what is the owner has all things subject to it. Therefore in Peter's body, the person is ontologically superior to Peter's body. But what is owned is subject to another. Therefore in Peter's body, part of the body is ontologically superior to Peter's body. The part of Peter's body that is the person is then both ontologically superior to the body and inferior to the body. And what is both ontologically superior and inferior to itself is greater and lesser than itself, which is impossible. Therefore the person of Peter as the first subject of predication is not a part of Peter's biological body, as a biological reality of itself.

The person of Peter as the first subject is then something that exists and thereby has being. But the person of Peter is not biological, but must in some manner reside within a biological body. The person as the first subject is a being united to the biological body as the owner of the body. But furthermore, as man is composed of body and soul, the person as the owner of all of the man, is also the owner of the soul of the man, as well as the body. The person must then also in some manner reside within the soul of the body of the man. The person is an ontological reality within man, that is -

1) Superior to all parts of man.

2) In some manner resides within man, and thereby has a relationship of the subject as the owner in relation to the owned as subordinated parts of man.

3) Is not of the same nature of any part of man, but integrated into the nature of man. For if the first subject was of the same nature as any part of the man, the person would be ontologically self-contradictory as shown above with regard to the person as a biological part of Peter.

4) Is something that exists in man and thereby has being.

5) Cannot be caused by any of the parts of man, for the ontological inferior parts cannot cause the first subject which is ontologically superior to the parts and the sum of the parts.

6) Is an ontological reality in man that is an order of being other than the parts of man. The order of being is that which is according to before and after relative to some principle. The principle of the first subject is the principle of ownership of all the man's body-soul composite. The body-soul parts of men then always according to the principle of the owned, and are then always subject to the person acting as principle of all human acts.

7) Is an ontological reality that fundamentally resides in the superior part of man as the man's spiritual soul. For that which is superior is proportional to the superior and less proportional to the inferior. The superior then tends to more closely associate with the superior than the inferior. Therefore the person of man resides firstly in the spiritual soul of man, for the spirit is superior to the physical body, then secondarily resides in the body.

8) Is a spiritual reality, that is fundamentally not physical, but the owner of both the spiritual soul and body of man as two incomplete parts of man that exist together as a complete compound.

Accordingly, the person as the first subject is not a product of the biological causes of generation. For no parents of the child can act to cause that being within the child which is ontologically superior to any and all biological causes. The metaphysical reality of the person of the child must be accounted for as through a cause other than the parents. That cause must itself be proportional to the effect as a person. And what is proportional to the effect is itself a person who causes the production of the human person in the child. The person who is that cause of human personhood is itself being, for only being can proportionately cause being. And a person that is itself being is God. Therefore whenever a child is generated, the person of the child is caused by God who acts with the parents and the biology within the child to cause the person of the child.

Conclusion - whenever a child is born, God has acted within the created order to produce the person of the child within the child's body. Such an act of divine power is a preparation for the gospel, for all men born of parents are generated as from God who makes all men. As men are made by God, it is natural for men to return to God as the beginning and end of their own existence.