The following is a discussion of several aspects of the Marian motherhood of Christ, Christians and the consequent Marian aspect of the Holy Spirit as the Love of God which causes Christians to imitate Mary's life with Christ.
Mary as Mother of God and Christians.
Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. As a mother is a mother of a person and Jesus was a divine person, therefore Mary is the mother of a divine person. As a divine person is God, and Mary as the mother of a divine person, then Mary is the mother of God. As Mary is the mother of God, which occurs within the divine work of salvation, Mary is intimately involved with the ad extra Trinitarian work of salvation. Mary's role towards Christ as His mother extends to her role as the mother of all Christians. For Mary became the mother of God, so men may become like God as having Christ as their brother (Rom 8:29). If Jesus is the brother of Christians, then Christians have a familial relationship with Christ which infers the mother of Christ is the mother of Christians.
Mary's Maternal Cause through the Sacraments.
Men enter into Christianity by being born again through baptism (Titus 3:5). Baptism is the sacrament of life in which the Holy Spirit is infused into the soul. Baptism is then the sacrament that imitates Mary as the maternal cause of Christ's birth. Baptism is then a Marian sacrament and correspondingly, the infusion of the Holy Spirit and the accompanying gifts of the Holy Spirit in baptism are also Marian. For a Christian who is born again through baptism is born as through Mary as the mother of all Christians.
As Mary is the mother of Christians and Christians are born again through the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is maternally caused by Mary as from a mother who causes the new life of Christians. The Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Holy Spirit all have Mary as the maternal cause, along with Christ as the meritorious cause and the sacraments as the instrumental causes. As the Holy Spirit has a Marian cause, the Holy Spirit will act consistently with Mary's life to bring about the life, assumption and glorification analogous to that of Mary in the life of Christians. The work of the Holy Spirit is then a divine work that tends towards the glory of God, through the glory offered to Christ, from Mary.
Marian Aspect of Pentecost as the Birth of the Church.
For Christ came from Mary, and the Holy Spirit came from Christ in imitation of Mary's virginal birth of Christ through the power of God. Consequently, the Pentecost event (Acts 2) is the entrance of the Holy Spirit into the Church is a Marian, birth event which brings about life to the church, just as Mary gave life to Christ. The birth of the Church through the Holy Spirit as an imitation of Mary infers the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist, along with St Peter's preaching and the prayers of the Christians are also Marian actions (Acts 2). All actions of the Holy Spirit in the Church are in some manner an imitation and fruit of Mary's life, who herself had a life inspired by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:26-38).
The Holy Spirit's work of Love as through Mary.
As one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit is love (Gal 5:22-23), and the Holy Spirit is caused by Mary, the love of the Holy Spirit is a manifestation of the love of Mary. It is fitting that the Marian aspect of the Holy Spirit be granted to Christians, for the Holy Spirit's action in the life of Mary is a manifestation of the love of God towards all men through Mary's consent to grant life to Christ and raise Christ as a child and thereby provide the sacrifice to save men from their sins.
Conclusion - Because Mary is the mother of God and Christians are brothers of Christ, Mary is the mother of Christians. And consequently, the Holy Spirit's action within the Church will imitate the life of Mary, including the love Mary had for her Son and for humanity. The Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Holy Spirit tend to make Christians imitate Mary whereby Mary acts as a maternal cause to give birth and raise up Christian children unto spiritual adulthood. The Holy Spirit given at Pentecost is a manifestation of the love of Mary for Christ and humanity.
Friday, August 31, 2018
Thursday, August 30, 2018
Exposing Some Major Contradictions in Evangelical Young Earth Creationist Thought.
The History of Creationist Thought
Dr. Todd Wood discusses some of the history of creationist thought as understood by some of the church fathers and some reformation theologians such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. Dr. Wood begins the discussion by proposing a historical understanding of the Genesis creation narrative by showing -
1) NT texts that speak of Adam and Eve and Noah's flood as historical events.
2) Church fathers that speak of the age of the universe as known through a literal, historical reading of the Genesis 5-11 genealogies.
3) The Reformation theologians also concur with the young age of the universe.
Dr Wood has established a principle of universally accepted understanding of the young universe based upon divine revelation. But then Dr Wood discusses some aspects of the Galileo case with the moving Earth theory and claims the motion of the Earth was proven in the 19th century (T29:10ff). Dr Wood also states the scriptures teach the motionless Earth where he quotes from the OT texts (1 Chron 16:30, Ps 104:5) which teach the Earth does not move -
He set the earth on its foundations, never to be moved.
Then Dr Wood discusses some more aspects of the Galileo case and claims the Earth's motion was proven in the 19th century (T37:10).
What then is the major contradiction in the Evangelical young Earth movement as presented by Dr Wood? The young Earth movement claims -
1) Genesis teaches a historical creation event and the age of the universe may be derived from the Genesis 5-11 genealogies. The historicity of the Genesis texts is required as a realist approach to OT texts which serve as a realist understanding of the NT texts that speak of Christ's passion, and resurrection. The realist approach is used to show the evangelical faith is realist and not based upon a fictional, or symbolic, or mythical biblical account of creation.
In short, the young Earth evangelical creationists assume a realist, historical based reading of the Genesis creation and Genesis 5-11 genealogies.
2) Other parts of the Old Testament are assumed to be unreliable which speak of the motionless Earth, such as the Psalms, Joshua, and 1 Chronicles. Such texts are treated according to another hermeneutical method which assumes Dr Woods explanation of science's proof for the motion of the Earth.
In short, the young Earth evangelical creationists do not assume a realist, historical based reading of other passages of the Old Testament that are in fact historical books of the Bible, such as Joshua and 1 Chronicles.
Another contradiction associated with the above approach is to -
1) Assume science cannot prove an old Earth, and the Bible teaches a young Earth.
2) Assume science can prove a moving Earth, and the Bible teaches a stationary Earth.
1) and 2) have contradictory assumptions concerning the power of science. 1) assumes science models cannot prove an old Earth and 2) assumes science models can prove a moving Earth.
And another contradiction associated with the above approach is to -
1) Appeal to a long-held history of the church's understanding of biblical texts to teach a young Earth.
2) Ignore the same long-held history of the church's understanding of biblical texts to teach a moving Earth.
1) and 2) have contradictory assumptions concerning the veracity of the long-held history of the church's understanding of biblical texts.
The above post is not made to mock the young Earth creationist approach to the biblical text, but only to highlight one inconsistency with the Evangelical approach. The young Earth creationist movement has much to say that is worth considering under the ambit of Noah's universal flood and the age of the universe. But the above problems can only be removed if the movement embraces a motionless Earth as part of their platform.
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
An Argument for the Benefit of the Truth of the Divinely Revealed Flood Geology Model Against a Fundamental Assumption Contained within the Modern Secular Based Science of Geology.
Modern geology is based upon a fundamental principle of - the present is the key to the past. So if slow rates of deposition are observed, the current rates are then assumed to be a key indicator of what has always occurred in the past. The slow rates are based upon the notion that what currently occurs now geologically has always occurred. And yet this simple, foundational assumption is never proven but only assumed.
For the past may have had forces and physics, and events that are different to that currently observed today. And if so, the long ages calculated based upon the assumption of the present as the key to the past, may, in fact, lead to false conclusions.
According to divine revelation, geologically, the past is different to the present in some respects.
1) There was a time when the Earth did not exist, and then came into existence through a creation event.
2) There was a time when men, animals and plants were larger and had longer life spans than the present.
3) There was a time when there was a global flood which caused massive amounts of extinction of plants and animals and caused many geological formations such as mountain ranges and large deposits of sedimentary rock.
As the above there points are truths found in Genesis, the assumption that the past is the key to the present is false. In fact, the assumption that the past is the key to the present is true. For the past reveals there were changes in the structure of the atmosphere, the structure of the continents, and the processes of the formation of mountains and fossilisation.
If we take the Genesis account as true, modern geology is wrong to assume the present is the key to the past, when the past is the key to the present. Or again, perhaps the geological record is more complex than the above simplistic division accoding to the two principles of -
1) The present is the key to the past.
2) The past is the key to the present.
Which may involve another four more realistic alternative principles -
3) The past is in some manner the key to the present.
4) The past is in some manner not the key to the present.
5) The present is in some manner the key to the past.
6) The present is in some manner not the key to the past.
The flood geology of modern Christian geologists accounts for the above four principles (3-6) in a model that accounts for geological formations prior, during and after the global flood. The universality of principles 1 and 2 above is seemingly beyond the power of an empirical theory to bear. For a geological theory should include moderate principles that can be defended, rather than sweeping principles that are only assumed to apply always and everywhere without any proof given for such a claim.
For the past may have had forces and physics, and events that are different to that currently observed today. And if so, the long ages calculated based upon the assumption of the present as the key to the past, may, in fact, lead to false conclusions.
According to divine revelation, geologically, the past is different to the present in some respects.
1) There was a time when the Earth did not exist, and then came into existence through a creation event.
2) There was a time when men, animals and plants were larger and had longer life spans than the present.
3) There was a time when there was a global flood which caused massive amounts of extinction of plants and animals and caused many geological formations such as mountain ranges and large deposits of sedimentary rock.
As the above there points are truths found in Genesis, the assumption that the past is the key to the present is false. In fact, the assumption that the past is the key to the present is true. For the past reveals there were changes in the structure of the atmosphere, the structure of the continents, and the processes of the formation of mountains and fossilisation.
If we take the Genesis account as true, modern geology is wrong to assume the present is the key to the past, when the past is the key to the present. Or again, perhaps the geological record is more complex than the above simplistic division accoding to the two principles of -
1) The present is the key to the past.
2) The past is the key to the present.
Which may involve another four more realistic alternative principles -
3) The past is in some manner the key to the present.
4) The past is in some manner not the key to the present.
5) The present is in some manner the key to the past.
6) The present is in some manner not the key to the past.
The flood geology of modern Christian geologists accounts for the above four principles (3-6) in a model that accounts for geological formations prior, during and after the global flood. The universality of principles 1 and 2 above is seemingly beyond the power of an empirical theory to bear. For a geological theory should include moderate principles that can be defended, rather than sweeping principles that are only assumed to apply always and everywhere without any proof given for such a claim.
An Argument for Christ Meriting the Act of Creation of the Universe as through the Cross.
The scriptures inform the reader that Christ redeemed man through the cross (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 6:19, 20; Gal 3:13; 4:4, 5; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; 1 Tim 2:5, 6; Tit 2:14; Heb 9:12; 1 Pet 1:18, 19; Rev 5:9) as a meritorious act of sacrifice by Christ (Rom 3:21-26). An effect of the cross is the new creation which brings man into communion with God (Rom 6:4, 2 Cor 5:17, Eph 4:24). Furthermore, the Christ as an anti-type event fulfils the Old Testament (Rom 3:21), which infers the cross and the new creation has its type in the Genesis creation event.
The cross as a meritorious action of Christ must have occurred in some manner prior to the initial creation event for the cross to be a meritorious act connected to the Genesis creation event.
Comment - As God is outside time, Christ's merit can be applied to the initial creation event. The meritorious nature of the cross is consistent with the notion that God's providential plan for human history is centred upon Christ's works. Christ then acts to initially create, then redeem, re-create and glorify based upon the work of the cross.
The cross as a meritorious action of Christ must have occurred in some manner prior to the initial creation event for the cross to be a meritorious act connected to the Genesis creation event.
Rev 13:8 - All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.As Christ merited the second creation through the cross, and the second creation event fulfils the first creation event, the cross is then a meritorious action of Christ which causes Christ to be the creator of the universe in the Genesis creation event.
Comment - As God is outside time, Christ's merit can be applied to the initial creation event. The meritorious nature of the cross is consistent with the notion that God's providential plan for human history is centred upon Christ's works. Christ then acts to initially create, then redeem, re-create and glorify based upon the work of the cross.
Monday, August 27, 2018
An Argument for all Actions of all Men having Mary as a Maternal Cause within God's Providential Plan of Salvation.
The universe was created by the Word of God (John 1:3) for the glory of God the Father. The Father's glory is to glorify the Son through the passion, death, resurrection and ascension into heaven, united to the human nature of Jesus Christ. The universe is then created for the sake of the Incarnation of the Word of God. But the Incarnation involves the Predestined plan that in God's providential plan, Mary would become the mother of the Word of God.
The universe is then made by the Word of God as part of a providential plan to glorify God the Father and God the Son through Mary as mother of Jesus, as the Word of God made flesh. In other words, the creation of the universe is analogous to a family action of God the Father, God the Son and Mary as mother of God the Son. For the Father wills that the Son create the universe within the divine plan, whereby Mary becomes the mother of God the Son. Through Mary becoming the mother of the God the Son, Christ is then able to complete His mission to redeem men and glorify the Father.
The Father and Son own the universe as the divine cause of the creation of the universe. The Father and Son also own Mary as the creator of Mary. But Mary has maternal authority over the Son of God and thereby has a maternal right to all that God the Son owns. As God the Son owns the universe, then so too, Mary as the mother of the owner of the universe also participates in the ownership of the universe. As Mary then owns the universe with God the Father and God the Son, Mary has a proportionate power over the universe as the mother of the creator.
Furthermore, as Mary owns the universe, she has an authority over all men and thereby has a genuine role in God's providential plan for all men. All men are then born, live and die under the authority of Mary as the maternal head of the human race. The power of God exercised to create each human soul and direct all human action is directed from the Trinitarian God, through Mary as from God the creator and preserver acting with power through Mary as the mother of all men. For just as God created the universe to cause Mary to become the mother of the universe and maternal head of all men, so too, God also acts with the mother of all men to move men to act in accordance with God's providential plan.
For when God caused Mary to become the mother of God, God then acts with Mary as mother of God, to convey the power of God, for God never acts in an inefficacious manner. So when God acted to cause Mary's divine maternity, He did so because God included Mary within the divine plan for all men. Consequently, Mary is not only the mother of Christ 2000 years ago, she is the human person as mother of God and all men, around which the divine plan of creation, redemption, sanctification and glorification is determined.
And, because God's providential plan is a plan that exercises God's prudence, and prudence is the practical act to order everything for an end, God's providence always acts to have Mary participate in the glory of God as the mother of the divine saviour and creator. All actions of all men are then within the divine providential plan to give glory to God through the glory granted to Mary, as mother of God, and mother of all men. Also, because Mary is the maternal cause of God's providential power, Mary is also the maternal cause of all miracles, and all sacramental grace. Therefore any healing and any sanctifying grace obtained by any man is through the mediation of Mary. All actions of all men are then in some manner Marian actions of men moved by divine power as through the mediation of Mary.
To deny that Mary has a causal role over the lives of all men is to conclude that God has acted to cause Mary to become the mother of God, but then to exclude Mary in the divine plan for all men. The contradictory inclusion of Mary within the divine plan for all men through Christ, and then exclusion of Mary in the divine plan for all men is not in accord with God the creator, who always creates creatures to act in accord with the office granted by God. As Mary's motherhood of God was perfect, and Christ is the divine head of the human race, then Mary is the mother of the human race.
As mother of the human race, she always acts with divine providence to have the divine power applied to move men in accord with the divine plan. Whenever a man uses his free will to make a moral act, he does so because Mary has acted with the power of God to enable that man to act. All merit of all men is then through the mediation of Mary along with the divine power, and divine grace merited by Christ. Also contrarily, Marian mediation to cause all human action does not conclude Mary being a cause of any human sin. For Mary is impeccable, just as her divine Son is impeccable and any sin caused by men is a defect in men and not in Mary willing the sin as a Mediatrix between God and men.
Conclusion - Mary is a Maternal Cause of all men's actions within God's Providential Plan of Salvation. Mary is the mediatrix of all grace and of all miracles.
The universe is then made by the Word of God as part of a providential plan to glorify God the Father and God the Son through Mary as mother of Jesus, as the Word of God made flesh. In other words, the creation of the universe is analogous to a family action of God the Father, God the Son and Mary as mother of God the Son. For the Father wills that the Son create the universe within the divine plan, whereby Mary becomes the mother of God the Son. Through Mary becoming the mother of the God the Son, Christ is then able to complete His mission to redeem men and glorify the Father.
The Father and Son own the universe as the divine cause of the creation of the universe. The Father and Son also own Mary as the creator of Mary. But Mary has maternal authority over the Son of God and thereby has a maternal right to all that God the Son owns. As God the Son owns the universe, then so too, Mary as the mother of the owner of the universe also participates in the ownership of the universe. As Mary then owns the universe with God the Father and God the Son, Mary has a proportionate power over the universe as the mother of the creator.
Furthermore, as Mary owns the universe, she has an authority over all men and thereby has a genuine role in God's providential plan for all men. All men are then born, live and die under the authority of Mary as the maternal head of the human race. The power of God exercised to create each human soul and direct all human action is directed from the Trinitarian God, through Mary as from God the creator and preserver acting with power through Mary as the mother of all men. For just as God created the universe to cause Mary to become the mother of the universe and maternal head of all men, so too, God also acts with the mother of all men to move men to act in accordance with God's providential plan.
For when God caused Mary to become the mother of God, God then acts with Mary as mother of God, to convey the power of God, for God never acts in an inefficacious manner. So when God acted to cause Mary's divine maternity, He did so because God included Mary within the divine plan for all men. Consequently, Mary is not only the mother of Christ 2000 years ago, she is the human person as mother of God and all men, around which the divine plan of creation, redemption, sanctification and glorification is determined.
And, because God's providential plan is a plan that exercises God's prudence, and prudence is the practical act to order everything for an end, God's providence always acts to have Mary participate in the glory of God as the mother of the divine saviour and creator. All actions of all men are then within the divine providential plan to give glory to God through the glory granted to Mary, as mother of God, and mother of all men. Also, because Mary is the maternal cause of God's providential power, Mary is also the maternal cause of all miracles, and all sacramental grace. Therefore any healing and any sanctifying grace obtained by any man is through the mediation of Mary. All actions of all men are then in some manner Marian actions of men moved by divine power as through the mediation of Mary.
To deny that Mary has a causal role over the lives of all men is to conclude that God has acted to cause Mary to become the mother of God, but then to exclude Mary in the divine plan for all men. The contradictory inclusion of Mary within the divine plan for all men through Christ, and then exclusion of Mary in the divine plan for all men is not in accord with God the creator, who always creates creatures to act in accord with the office granted by God. As Mary's motherhood of God was perfect, and Christ is the divine head of the human race, then Mary is the mother of the human race.
As mother of the human race, she always acts with divine providence to have the divine power applied to move men in accord with the divine plan. Whenever a man uses his free will to make a moral act, he does so because Mary has acted with the power of God to enable that man to act. All merit of all men is then through the mediation of Mary along with the divine power, and divine grace merited by Christ. Also contrarily, Marian mediation to cause all human action does not conclude Mary being a cause of any human sin. For Mary is impeccable, just as her divine Son is impeccable and any sin caused by men is a defect in men and not in Mary willing the sin as a Mediatrix between God and men.
Conclusion - Mary is a Maternal Cause of all men's actions within God's Providential Plan of Salvation. Mary is the mediatrix of all grace and of all miracles.
Friday, August 24, 2018
An Argument for the Mariology Associated with the Creation Event is Evidence for a Geocentric Universe.
The universe was created by Christ (John 1:3). And as Jesus always acts in accord with the commandments, He always acts to honour His mother. Therefore, the universe was made by Jesus to honour His mother. For the Earth as the centre of the universe was the location at which Jesus became and man through Mary and lived with His mother until He began His Earthly ministry after the wedding at Cana.
The universe must then in some manner reflect the honour the Son of God grants to His mother. The created universe is then a universe constructed by the Son for the honour, or glory of His mother. One way in which such honour is granted to His mother is if the Earth is located in a special place within the universe, analogous to the special place Mary has in heaven. The Earth, like the Marian thone near the centre of the Heavenly Jerusalem next to Christ's throne of God in heaven, is located at the centre of the universe. For the Earth was once a home of His mother, and must in some manner be a reflection of Her heavenly home.
Mary with a throne of the queen of heaven is a place and office directly tied into the structure of the universe. As Mary is located at the right hand of Christ, who is at the throne of God, then so too the Earth as the centrepiece of creation is located at the stationary point of the universe. For just as the angels and saints in heaven serve Christ and His mother in heaven, so too the multitude of bodies in the universe move and act to serve the Earth (and Christ's mother) in its central location, as a type of Christ's and His mother's heavenly throne.
Conclusion - The Marian aspect of the creation event is linked to the predestined plan of God to glorify the resurrected Christ and His mother, Mary as queen of heaven. The plan to create the universe for the glory of Christ and His mother infers the universe is most fittingly geocentric. For where Christ and Mary reside, there is the centre of God's plan for the universe.
The universe must then in some manner reflect the honour the Son of God grants to His mother. The created universe is then a universe constructed by the Son for the honour, or glory of His mother. One way in which such honour is granted to His mother is if the Earth is located in a special place within the universe, analogous to the special place Mary has in heaven. The Earth, like the Marian thone near the centre of the Heavenly Jerusalem next to Christ's throne of God in heaven, is located at the centre of the universe. For the Earth was once a home of His mother, and must in some manner be a reflection of Her heavenly home.
Mary with a throne of the queen of heaven is a place and office directly tied into the structure of the universe. As Mary is located at the right hand of Christ, who is at the throne of God, then so too the Earth as the centrepiece of creation is located at the stationary point of the universe. For just as the angels and saints in heaven serve Christ and His mother in heaven, so too the multitude of bodies in the universe move and act to serve the Earth (and Christ's mother) in its central location, as a type of Christ's and His mother's heavenly throne.
Conclusion - The Marian aspect of the creation event is linked to the predestined plan of God to glorify the resurrected Christ and His mother, Mary as queen of heaven. The plan to create the universe for the glory of Christ and His mother infers the universe is most fittingly geocentric. For where Christ and Mary reside, there is the centre of God's plan for the universe.
An Argument for the Sacrament of the Eucharist as the Central Sacrament of the Gospel.
The gospel is the good news revealed by God as the creator of the universe. The creator of the universe has created man, who comes to know about reality as through material substances. God communicates the gospel to man in accordance with the necessities of human nature. Therefore, it is fitting that God act along with material things to communicate the gospel to man. But the gospel is the power of God and the righteousness of God (Rom 1:16-17).
Therefore, the power and righteousness of God must be communicated to man as through a material substance.
Yet the power of God conveyed through a material substance can only be objectively known by man to occur when the words spoken to cause the power of God to occur are known. Such words spoken by men to cause the power of God to act are the words given to men by God to cause God to be faithful to act with the words spoken. The words spoken are the words as the form that act with the material substance. In short, the gospel as the power of God involves worlds and material substances instituted by God to permit men to know when and how the power of God is conveyed as God acting faithfully with the words and material substances.
Such a union of word and material substance in association with the cause of the power of God, is the same as the form and matter of a sacrament. The words as the form and the material substances as the matter, combine as instituted by God, to allow men to know when and how God acts faithfully to the Gospel to cause the power of God. Therefore, the gospel as the power and righteousness of God is a sacrament. But the sacrament will best be a sign of the gospel, whereby the gospel is conveyed by God as the act of divine love to create all things, preserve all things, redeem men from sin and bring men into communion with God. But because God is good, and love is good, then God is love.Therefore, the sacrament of the gospel is the sacrament that acts as a sign of God’s love.
Yet again, the sacrament of God’s love is also a sacrament of God’s divine love, which is a magnificent love that brings about the most intimate union possible. For God is magnificent and what is magnificent is regal and therefore royal. And what brings about the most intimate union is analogous and far exceeds the most intimate union of human love as experienced in human marriage. And God is the author of life analogous to a seed that causes life in creation. God as analogous to the seed of life is analogous to a groom that causes the seed of life within His creation. The divine love is then a love of a divine, royal king, who is the analogous groom of humanity, who acts to bring about a union analogous to marriage between Himself and humanity.
The sacrament that best acts as a symbol of the above divine act is the sacrament derived from an ancient civilisation which celebrated the union of God and man through divine signs. For an ancient civilisation is a civilisation closest to the creation event and thereby closest to the prime truths revealed by God. But God reveals the prime truths to man which contains truths ordered towards the greatest divine acts. And the greatest divine acts are always ordered towards union of God and man.
Then the prime truths are ordered towards the marriage of God and man. Then the oldest civilisation will have sacraments as signs of the divine marriage. Such an old civilisation can trace its beginning back to the creation of the first men. Israel of the Old Testament can trace itself back to the first creation. Therefore, the sacramental signs within Israel are the signs most likely to be the gospel. Such a sacramental sign is that of royal bread and wine consumed by the covenant people as an act of covenant marriage between Israel and the God of Israel.
Therefore, because God has created, then from His nature seeks to marry humanity, the sacrament of royal bread and wine is the sacrament of the gospel. Such a sacrament of the gospel is the Eucharist. Therefore, the Eucharist is the sacrament of the gospel.
The Problem of the Incredulity of Protestant Beliefs founded upon the Reformation Movement.
Protestantism is an incredulous belief system that has the following insuperable problems -
1) The Reformation has no mandate or authority from God to teach the novel doctrines found in the Reformation. The reformation is then not from God, but of only a human origin and is therefore not salvific.
2) The Reformers disagreed with each other on many points of faith and practice, thereby inferring the movement was merely another human attempt to promote human novelties. Such a movement containing a multitude of contradictions in faith and practice is not for God and therefore not binding on any believer.
3) The Reformation assumes the corruption of the Roman Catholic church and the re-establishment of the gospel once proclaimed in the early church but then thought to have been lost. The assumptions that underpin the reformation are both false. For the Roman Catholic church is the church of history is the church of the bible with the accompanying properties of indefectibility and infallibility. Therefore the early church was the same Roman Catholic church of the Reformation age, which cannot become corrupt and cannot be reformed through novel doctrines. The assumed corruption of the faith is impossible, for the corruption is against the nature of the church. Also, the assumed regaining of the gospel is also false, as the gospel cannot be lost from an indefectible church.
4) The Reformation assumes the binding nature of private interpretation of divine revelation as found only in the scriptures. Both the doctrines of private interpretation of divine revelation and the doctrine of sola scriptora are false.
5) The Reformation has no public miracles it can refer to as divine signs of the authenticity of the movement. A religion from God is a religion from a God of infinite power who has and does act within history to validate genuine movements from God. The distinct lack of public miracles associated with the reformers is a strong indication that the Reformation was not from God.
6) The Reformers frequently changed their minds on matters of faith and morals and generations of Protestants subsequent to the Reformers did not continue to hold to everything the Reformers held as being from God through Christ. The lack of consistency of belief with the reformers and their subsequent followers is a strong indication the Reformation is only another human movement which is inherently unstable.
7) The Reformation doctrines, such as the double imputation theory reduce the biblical God down to a nominalist brute who acts to cause the Son of God to suffer for the sake of God the Father imputing sin and righteousness. Such imputation by the Father is very similar to the nominalist world of Occham, whereby even God can only legally name things, rather than act to restore the very nature of righteousness in a manner consistent with the righteousness of God. The nominalist god of the Reformers is only a god of the nominalist human mind that cannot act within nature to restore nature, for God can only nominate, rather than know all things and act with power within all things.
8) The Reformation causes denominationalism which is unbiblical, godless and inhuman. For denominationalism is from error, and error is not from God. Denominationalism is from error, as from men, which is then godless. And finally, denominationalism is inhuman for the system causes men to fall into sins of despair and indifferentism, or irrational fundamentalism concerning matters of the most importance - salvation.
9) The Reformation causes endless debates over matters of faith, whilst such matters of faith were settled long ago at church councils. The indifference of the Reformation to the authority of church councils logically leads to reducing the meaning of divine revelation down to who can best debate the meaning of divine revelation so as to win the debate. Such a position is incredulous.
10) The Reformation causes a false understanding of the sacraments as ordinances or only signs that do not act to cause grace. Such a false understanding of the sacraments causes many to be indifferent to sacramental theology and thereby forego the benefit of graces caused by the real sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church.
11) The Reformation causes a detachment of the believer to the teaching authority of the church. The detachment causes many believers to either overestimate their ability to have the truths contained within the deposit of faith, or underestimate their ability to know virtually anything of divine truth. The detachment caused by the Reformation is an outcome that makes the movement incredulous.
12) The Reformation promotes the notion that those without authority can usurp those who have legitimate authority whilst teaching the new Protestant faith provides a guarantee of salvation. Such a convoluted series of events and false guarantee of salvation makes the Reformation incredulous.
13) The Reformation repudiated many truths of faith that have a strong witness in church history whilst promoting several contradictory systems of belief. The two acts of ignoring prior universally held beliefs whilst promoting several competing Protestant belief systems is doubly incredulous.
14) The Reformation caused many denominations to form and then die off. The formation and later death of so many denominations show the Reformation causes division and the death of belief. Such actions infer the Reformation is incredulous.
15) The Reformation includes several diverse worship services invented by the reformers contrary to the well documented and well accepted Eucharistic liturgy that prior to the Reformation was taught to have been from God through the Christ event. The new and novel Protestant worship services not found in history prior to the Reformation infer the Protestant form of worship is of human origin. Such a problem means the Reformation is incredulous.
1) The Reformation has no mandate or authority from God to teach the novel doctrines found in the Reformation. The reformation is then not from God, but of only a human origin and is therefore not salvific.
2) The Reformers disagreed with each other on many points of faith and practice, thereby inferring the movement was merely another human attempt to promote human novelties. Such a movement containing a multitude of contradictions in faith and practice is not for God and therefore not binding on any believer.
3) The Reformation assumes the corruption of the Roman Catholic church and the re-establishment of the gospel once proclaimed in the early church but then thought to have been lost. The assumptions that underpin the reformation are both false. For the Roman Catholic church is the church of history is the church of the bible with the accompanying properties of indefectibility and infallibility. Therefore the early church was the same Roman Catholic church of the Reformation age, which cannot become corrupt and cannot be reformed through novel doctrines. The assumed corruption of the faith is impossible, for the corruption is against the nature of the church. Also, the assumed regaining of the gospel is also false, as the gospel cannot be lost from an indefectible church.
4) The Reformation assumes the binding nature of private interpretation of divine revelation as found only in the scriptures. Both the doctrines of private interpretation of divine revelation and the doctrine of sola scriptora are false.
5) The Reformation has no public miracles it can refer to as divine signs of the authenticity of the movement. A religion from God is a religion from a God of infinite power who has and does act within history to validate genuine movements from God. The distinct lack of public miracles associated with the reformers is a strong indication that the Reformation was not from God.
6) The Reformers frequently changed their minds on matters of faith and morals and generations of Protestants subsequent to the Reformers did not continue to hold to everything the Reformers held as being from God through Christ. The lack of consistency of belief with the reformers and their subsequent followers is a strong indication the Reformation is only another human movement which is inherently unstable.
7) The Reformation doctrines, such as the double imputation theory reduce the biblical God down to a nominalist brute who acts to cause the Son of God to suffer for the sake of God the Father imputing sin and righteousness. Such imputation by the Father is very similar to the nominalist world of Occham, whereby even God can only legally name things, rather than act to restore the very nature of righteousness in a manner consistent with the righteousness of God. The nominalist god of the Reformers is only a god of the nominalist human mind that cannot act within nature to restore nature, for God can only nominate, rather than know all things and act with power within all things.
8) The Reformation causes denominationalism which is unbiblical, godless and inhuman. For denominationalism is from error, and error is not from God. Denominationalism is from error, as from men, which is then godless. And finally, denominationalism is inhuman for the system causes men to fall into sins of despair and indifferentism, or irrational fundamentalism concerning matters of the most importance - salvation.
9) The Reformation causes endless debates over matters of faith, whilst such matters of faith were settled long ago at church councils. The indifference of the Reformation to the authority of church councils logically leads to reducing the meaning of divine revelation down to who can best debate the meaning of divine revelation so as to win the debate. Such a position is incredulous.
10) The Reformation causes a false understanding of the sacraments as ordinances or only signs that do not act to cause grace. Such a false understanding of the sacraments causes many to be indifferent to sacramental theology and thereby forego the benefit of graces caused by the real sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church.
11) The Reformation causes a detachment of the believer to the teaching authority of the church. The detachment causes many believers to either overestimate their ability to have the truths contained within the deposit of faith, or underestimate their ability to know virtually anything of divine truth. The detachment caused by the Reformation is an outcome that makes the movement incredulous.
12) The Reformation promotes the notion that those without authority can usurp those who have legitimate authority whilst teaching the new Protestant faith provides a guarantee of salvation. Such a convoluted series of events and false guarantee of salvation makes the Reformation incredulous.
13) The Reformation repudiated many truths of faith that have a strong witness in church history whilst promoting several contradictory systems of belief. The two acts of ignoring prior universally held beliefs whilst promoting several competing Protestant belief systems is doubly incredulous.
14) The Reformation caused many denominations to form and then die off. The formation and later death of so many denominations show the Reformation causes division and the death of belief. Such actions infer the Reformation is incredulous.
15) The Reformation includes several diverse worship services invented by the reformers contrary to the well documented and well accepted Eucharistic liturgy that prior to the Reformation was taught to have been from God through the Christ event. The new and novel Protestant worship services not found in history prior to the Reformation infer the Protestant form of worship is of human origin. Such a problem means the Reformation is incredulous.
On the Removal of Denominationalism and the Associated Doctrinal Confusion through an Argument for Public Revelation's Co-Natural Union to a Divinely Instituted Public Authority.
According to the Roman Catholic Church, the sources of divine revelation are 1) scripture, 2) the magisterium which teaches via the Popes and bishops within church councils, 3) tradition including, the liturgy and the church fathers. According to Protestantism, the source of divine revelation is the scriptures subject to the private interpretation of the believer with the assistance of information gathered from the church fathers. The only and binding source of divine revelation is the scriptures. Consequent to the approach taken by Protestantism, to reduce the understanding of revelation to the private judgment of the believer, there are currently now about 30,000 denominations with many conflicting doctrinal beliefs and practices.
The existence of the many Protestant denominations with their many conflicting beliefs and practices is a strong indication of the error of private interpretation embraced by Protestants. The error of private interpretation and the many resulting contradictions within Protestantism also provides an occasion to demonstrate the necessity of an institution found upon and preserved by the divine power that acts with divine revelation to preserve, protect, teach and promote the content of divine revelation without error.
To both avoid a multiplicity of errors, and promote divine truths throughout history, divine revelation then requires a teaching authority within the church that is both instituted and protected from error by God. Such an institution is then co-natural with the content of the sacred deposit of faith, to act as God's mouthpiece on Earth on matters of faith.
Conclusion - the nature of divine revelation as divine truth given within history, and the fallen nature of man with its propensity to fall into error, requires a divinely instituted church with the powers to teach divine revelation without error. Such a church is recorded within the new testament as having the powers to bind and loose (Matt 16:18-20, 18:18) and as the source of all divine truth (1 Tim 3:15). The existence of the church which alone can trace itself back to Christ and the apostles and has strong evidence within church history is then the church that has the powers to teach the content of divine revelation. The church is then both the protector of divine truth and the intellectual saviour of mankind who has a propensity to fall into a multitude of errors on matters of faith.
It is natural for divine revelation to account for the weaknesses of human nature that causes sin and division. As divine revelation has been given by God to save men from sin, it is co-natural for divine revelation to be promulgated by a divine public institution that publically promotes divine truth and publically protects men from errors against divine truth.
As a divinely founded institution as the church, is connatural with divine revelation and divine revelation occurred in history, the church of history is the guardian and promoter of divine revelation. That church which is connatural with divine revelation is the Roman Catholic church, for it alone has the content of faith and practice found in history from Christ and the apostles.
The existence of the many Protestant denominations with their many conflicting beliefs and practices is a strong indication of the error of private interpretation embraced by Protestants. The error of private interpretation and the many resulting contradictions within Protestantism also provides an occasion to demonstrate the necessity of an institution found upon and preserved by the divine power that acts with divine revelation to preserve, protect, teach and promote the content of divine revelation without error.
To both avoid a multiplicity of errors, and promote divine truths throughout history, divine revelation then requires a teaching authority within the church that is both instituted and protected from error by God. Such an institution is then co-natural with the content of the sacred deposit of faith, to act as God's mouthpiece on Earth on matters of faith.
Conclusion - the nature of divine revelation as divine truth given within history, and the fallen nature of man with its propensity to fall into error, requires a divinely instituted church with the powers to teach divine revelation without error. Such a church is recorded within the new testament as having the powers to bind and loose (Matt 16:18-20, 18:18) and as the source of all divine truth (1 Tim 3:15). The existence of the church which alone can trace itself back to Christ and the apostles and has strong evidence within church history is then the church that has the powers to teach the content of divine revelation. The church is then both the protector of divine truth and the intellectual saviour of mankind who has a propensity to fall into a multitude of errors on matters of faith.
It is natural for divine revelation to account for the weaknesses of human nature that causes sin and division. As divine revelation has been given by God to save men from sin, it is co-natural for divine revelation to be promulgated by a divine public institution that publically promotes divine truth and publically protects men from errors against divine truth.
As a divinely founded institution as the church, is connatural with divine revelation and divine revelation occurred in history, the church of history is the guardian and promoter of divine revelation. That church which is connatural with divine revelation is the Roman Catholic church, for it alone has the content of faith and practice found in history from Christ and the apostles.
An Argument for the Divine Truth of the Roman Catholic Church as Associated with the Divine Properties of Indefectibility and Infallibility of the Church.
The new testament letters were written to a historically based church. The historically based church portrayed in the New Testament has the property of indefectibility as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). For what is the principle of truth is the principle of all statements from the church, always stated as true. And what is always stated as true is indefectible.
Furthermore, the historically based church has the property of infallibility, for the church has the power to bind and loose which is connatural to the divine power to do the same binding and loosing (Matt 16:16-20, 18:18). As God binds and looses without error, then the church must also bind and loose without error. And for the church to bind and loose without error is for the church to be infallible.
And also, the Roman Catholic church is the church of history, as derived from Christ and the apostles. For the Roman Catholic church has the historical evidence for the universality and consistency of practice and belief from Christ and the apostles. Therefore, the letters and gospels of the New Testament were written by the apostles, who were Roman Catholics for the Roman Catholic church. Therefore, the Roman Catholic church is both indefectible and infallible on matters of faith and morals.
Consequently, all objections to the faith and morals taught and practised by the Roman Catholic Church are always false objections, which cannot demonstrate any error in faith or practice. And also consequently, all versions of Christianity are in error where those versions of Christianity disagree with the Roman Catholic Church.
Comment - The Catholic vs Protestant debates over Christian doctrines and practice are always biased towards the truth of the Roman Catholic faith as the measure of all that has been revealed by God through Christ. Any apologist against the Roman Catholic faith can never win the debate via arguments based upon truth.
Thursday, August 23, 2018
The Problem of Atheists Simultaneous Affirmation of Something and Nothing as the Sufficient Reason of be for the Existence of Things.
Some atheists hold to the existence of infinite regresses to account for the existence of all finite creatures.
Yet other atheists such as Lawrence Kraus hold to the emergence of the universe as from nothing.
Therefore, atheists simultaneously hold to something and nothing as the sufficient reason of be of creatures.
As nothing is the negation of being and something is being, then atheists simultaneously hold to contradictory reasons as the sufficient reason of be of creatures.
Conclusion - Atheism is a confused amalgamation of contradictions.
Two Arguments for the Infinite Power of Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ.
Argument 1
Christ is the creator of the universe (John 1:3).
The creator of the universe has infinite power to cause something from nothing.
Mary is the mother of Christ.
Christ is without sin and therefore perfectly obeys his mother at all times.
Therefore, Christ always grants His mother perfect honour at all times.
Perfect honour from God is not empty, but full of the power of God.
The power granted by the Son towards the mother is in proportion to the dignity of the office of the mother of God.
The dignity of the office of the mother of God is in proportion to the dignity of a divine person.
The dignity of a divine person is infinite.
Therefore, the power the divine Son grants His mother s an act of honour is an infinite power.
Therefore, Mary as the mother of Jesus, has an infinite power.
Argument 2
Mary is now the queen of heaven with her son as the king.
For the Son is the Davidic Son who fulfils the Old Testament Davidic kingdom which had the office of queen mother who governed the kingdom through the Son and mother.
Similarly, heaven is the fulfilment of the Davidic kingdom, and thereby Mary is the new queen mother who governs heaven with Christ as her Davidic Son.
Heaven is the ultimate end of the act of the Son of God who redeemed mankind.
The act of the divine Son is infinite.
An infinite act is in proportion to an ultimate end that is an infinite good.
Mary is then the queen of heaven as ruler over a kingdom that is infinitely good.
As the ruler has power in proportion to the kingdom ruled, Mary has an infinite power in heaven.
And further, an infinite power in heaven equates to an infinite power on Earth, for God always acts on Earth from Heaven to carry out His will.
Therefore, Mary has an infinite power on Earth.
An Argument for the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Impeccability of Will Throughout Her Life.
Christ is God incarnate.
Mary is the mother of Christ.
God has absolute rights over all of creation as master of all things.
Therefore, Christ has absolute rights over Mary as His mother.
God is all holy and therefore has rights to create and preserve Mary is all Holy.
For along with an all holy nature is an all holy reputation.
And a man’s reputation is from those he associates with and especially those of His family.
Likewise, Christ’s reputation as the all holy God is persevered by having an all holy mother.
And therefore, because Christ is all holy and has the right to an all holy mother, Christ has the absolute right to both create and preserve from sin the all holy mother.
But to create an all holy mother is the Immaculate Conception.
And to preserve and all holy mother is the preservation of Mary with an impeccable will.
Therefore, because Christ is the all holy God, Mary was immaculately conceived and preserved without sin.
And analogously for similar reasons stated above, St Joseph as Christ’s adoptive father was also very holy and was quite possibly the second holiest human person after Christ’s mother.
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
An Argument for the Anti-Christian Nature of Evolutionary Theory.
Evolution teaches the ongoing progress of the universe, including biological improvement. The theory includes the notion of an ever-improving humanity from the primary humanoids which evolved from the population of apes. In short, evolution implies the high point in human history is always yet to come, when humanity is fully evolved to be everything evolution causes man to be. Evolution then must avoid the perfection of humanity in the past and look forward to an ever greater fulfilment of humanity.
By evolution promoting an ever greater humanity, evolution must deny the perfect humanity of Christ as God the Son, the Word made flesh, who divinised humanity. In denying the divine perfection of humanity caused by Christ, evolution must ignore Christ's divine work and promote another materialistic divine work, of the materialist god of pantheism. Evolution then must ignore the real work of the real God and promote a false work of the false, pantheistic god of evolutionism.
By promoting a false version of humanity, evolution must oppose the work of Christ and therefore must oppose Christ as the high point of humanity. Evolution is then an anti-Christian theory promoted by those who either knowingly, or unknowingly oppose Christ's divine work, with a false, pantheistic work. In short, evolution replaces the Christian divinity who cause a divinised humanity with a pantheistic, materialist divinity which causes a materialist humanity.
By evolution promoting an ever greater humanity, evolution must deny the perfect humanity of Christ as God the Son, the Word made flesh, who divinised humanity. In denying the divine perfection of humanity caused by Christ, evolution must ignore Christ's divine work and promote another materialistic divine work, of the materialist god of pantheism. Evolution then must ignore the real work of the real God and promote a false work of the false, pantheistic god of evolutionism.
By promoting a false version of humanity, evolution must oppose the work of Christ and therefore must oppose Christ as the high point of humanity. Evolution is then an anti-Christian theory promoted by those who either knowingly, or unknowingly oppose Christ's divine work, with a false, pantheistic work. In short, evolution replaces the Christian divinity who cause a divinised humanity with a pantheistic, materialist divinity which causes a materialist humanity.
Sunday, August 19, 2018
Some Unresolvable Problems Associated with Prophecy Used to Determine the Canon of Scripture in Association with the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptora.
Some Protestant adherents of sola scriptora advocate the argument that prophesies may be used to determine the canon of scripture. For it is argued that prophecy given in the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament. The fulfilment of prophecy indicates both the Old and New Testament books were written by God. Yet there are several problems with the use of prophecy to establish the canon of scripture –
1) Prophesy is not specified within the scriptural text as an indicator of inspiration of the text. So the use of prophecy to determine the canon of scripture is extrinsic to the inspired text and therefore a property of the text artificially imposed to define the canon.
2) Prophesy does not conclude to the inspiration of any text. For a prophet may state a prophetic utterance and that utterance was subsequently written down. Yet the writing of the text may only be a historical witness to prophecy, without any need to posit the text was authored by God.
3) Similarly, when Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophesy, the New Testament gospels and letters may only have faithfully written down what occurred without any need to posit the text was authored by God. For any witness at any time could have written down what was observed as a historical document. Furthermore, there have been many miracles witnessed in human history and much was written down as through eyewitnesses to the miracles. Yet nobody claims the written testimony of said miracles is in any way inspired text. Therefore similarly, any claims to the inspiration of the ancient Christian texts may not rest upon faithful witnesses who wrote down what occurred.
Both the Old and New Testament documents may be considered as historically faithful documents without any need to posit or conclude that any document was authored by God. The problem of the canon of scripture is unresolvable within Protestantism, for there is no authority within the Protestant system that can be used to define the canon of scripture. The appeal to prophesy, like all the other appeals to apostolic authorship of the New Testament, and authorship of the prophets for the Old Testament also fail to establish any text was written by God.
4) The text may be inspired regardless of the existence of any prophecy. For example, the letter of Jude contains no prophecy and is considered to have been authored by God. As inspiration exists independent of prophecy, prophecy cannot be used to conclude to the inspiration of any text.
5) There are no criteria drawn from the inspired text to determine if a text is inspired. For if the inspired text speaks of criteria for the inspiration of a text, and those criteria are used to determine the inspiration of the text, the method used to determine the canon is always circular. For example, if a text says an inspired text must be true and of apostolic origin to be inspired, then if the truth and apostolic origin of a text is used to determine the canon, then the canon is always self-referencing according to the selection criteria of truth and apostolic origin used to determine the canon.
Or stated in another way,
The text says an inspired text is true.
The text is true.
Therefore the text is inspired.
Conclusion - Therefore the text is inspired because it is true, and the text is true because it is inspired.
The above conclusion is circular, and therefore any method that uses criteria derived from the text to determine the canon of the inspired text will always be self-referencing. The only viable way to establish that any text was written by God is to appeal to oral tradition along with an authority in the Old Testament church of Israel and the New Testament church to bind and loose as an act of authority from God. These church authorities alone can establish the canon of scripture and these authorities are either rejected or ignored by the false principle of sola scriptora as used by Protestantism.
4) The text may be inspired regardless of the existence of any prophecy. For example, the letter of Jude contains no prophecy and is considered to have been authored by God. As inspiration exists independent of prophecy, prophecy cannot be used to conclude to the inspiration of any text.
5) There are no criteria drawn from the inspired text to determine if a text is inspired. For if the inspired text speaks of criteria for the inspiration of a text, and those criteria are used to determine the inspiration of the text, the method used to determine the canon is always circular. For example, if a text says an inspired text must be true and of apostolic origin to be inspired, then if the truth and apostolic origin of a text is used to determine the canon, then the canon is always self-referencing according to the selection criteria of truth and apostolic origin used to determine the canon.
Or stated in another way,
The text says an inspired text is true.
The text is true.
Therefore the text is inspired.
Conclusion - Therefore the text is inspired because it is true, and the text is true because it is inspired.
The above conclusion is circular, and therefore any method that uses criteria derived from the text to determine the canon of the inspired text will always be self-referencing. The only viable way to establish that any text was written by God is to appeal to oral tradition along with an authority in the Old Testament church of Israel and the New Testament church to bind and loose as an act of authority from God. These church authorities alone can establish the canon of scripture and these authorities are either rejected or ignored by the false principle of sola scriptora as used by Protestantism.
Conclusion – The use of prophecy to establish the canon of scripture is a failure.
Other criteria such as historicity, authored by prophets, or kings, or priests, the recording of miracles, wisdom and proverbial content, the recording of both natural and supernatural secrets, the unity of story, or any other criteria found in the text, all fall into the same logical trap of self-referencing criteria to determine the canon of scripture. All criteria based upon the text content are then insufficient to determine the canon of scripture.
Furthermore, we may say it is fitting that an inspired text be true, historically reliable, contain much wisdom, and secrets. But such properties of the text do not demonstrate the text was authored by God. For any text may have the same criteria, but only be authored by man, without inspiration.
Other criteria such as historicity, authored by prophets, or kings, or priests, the recording of miracles, wisdom and proverbial content, the recording of both natural and supernatural secrets, the unity of story, or any other criteria found in the text, all fall into the same logical trap of self-referencing criteria to determine the canon of scripture. All criteria based upon the text content are then insufficient to determine the canon of scripture.
Furthermore, we may say it is fitting that an inspired text be true, historically reliable, contain much wisdom, and secrets. But such properties of the text do not demonstrate the text was authored by God. For any text may have the same criteria, but only be authored by man, without inspiration.
Pointing Out Some Fallacies in Protestant Apologetics.
The following video includes a discussion on how to do Christian apologetics. Some of the statements by the Presbyterian minister reveal some of the entrenched problems with Protestantism which cannot be resolved.
At about time 28:40 the speaker begins to enunciate the biblical method of apologetics, where he says -
The problems with the biblical method of apologetics are as follows -
1) The method begins with a false argument which is logically invalid through the fallacy of circularity. Such a method of apologetics can only be as good as other methods if all other methods also begin with a false argument. Therefore if the biblical method of apologetics is the preferred method, then all Christian apologetics is false. The Christian apologist is then forced to make an argument against say, atheism, when the Christian position is also false. Such a method is self-defeating and therefore false.
2) The method assumes the truth of the Presbyterian minister's version of sola scriptora. When in fact sola scriptora was a human invention of Martin Luther and other Reformers about 500 years ago. The diverse versions of sola scriptora have never been defended, for sola scriptora always falls into the fallacy of -
2a) Self-referencing authority - the scriptures are inspired, for the scriptures say they are inspired. Such a statement is circular.
2b) Reference to an external authority inconsistent with the principle being defended - If an external authority is appealed to, to establish sola scriptora, such as the church fathers, or church councils, the external witness does not establish the authority of the text. For the text's inspiration and inspiration is not dependent upon an external witness according to sola scriptora. The inspired text is inspired because God wrote the text and not because an external witness says only the text was written by God.
3) The minister's claim that all worldviews start with a circular premise is also a claim that is not verified, and also false. There are other worldviews that are not Christian, which do not begin with a circular premise but are false for other reasons. Alternatively, there is another worldview that is true, but not Protestant and does not suffer from any logical fallacy at all.
4) Alternatively, if the biblical method of apologetics begins with a false method and claims all worldviews begin with the same fallacy, then all worldviews are false. Therefore the biblical method of apologetics is a false worldview arguing against all other false worldviews, for the other worldviews to be dropped in favour of the false Protestant worldview. The biblical method of apologetics is a pessimistic method that assumes everyone is locked into a false position and nobody has the truth, but seeks for the conversion of others to another false worldview.
Conclusion - The Protestant version of the biblical method of apologetics is false, based upon the true premise of the inspired text, derived from the fallacy of circular reasoning, and the fale claim that all worldviews are also based upon the same fallacy.
Presuppositional Apologetics Series - Part 01 - Contrasting Methods (Note - The entire Youtube channel entitled "Protestant witness" was deleted at around about 13 September 2018).
I don't look for evidences and proofs for the validity of Gods word. God's word is my starting point. God's word is the presupposition by which I evaluate everything else. Some may object and say your world view is circular. All word view commitments are completely circular.
The problems with the biblical method of apologetics are as follows -
1) The method begins with a false argument which is logically invalid through the fallacy of circularity. Such a method of apologetics can only be as good as other methods if all other methods also begin with a false argument. Therefore if the biblical method of apologetics is the preferred method, then all Christian apologetics is false. The Christian apologist is then forced to make an argument against say, atheism, when the Christian position is also false. Such a method is self-defeating and therefore false.
2) The method assumes the truth of the Presbyterian minister's version of sola scriptora. When in fact sola scriptora was a human invention of Martin Luther and other Reformers about 500 years ago. The diverse versions of sola scriptora have never been defended, for sola scriptora always falls into the fallacy of -
2a) Self-referencing authority - the scriptures are inspired, for the scriptures say they are inspired. Such a statement is circular.
2b) Reference to an external authority inconsistent with the principle being defended - If an external authority is appealed to, to establish sola scriptora, such as the church fathers, or church councils, the external witness does not establish the authority of the text. For the text's inspiration and inspiration is not dependent upon an external witness according to sola scriptora. The inspired text is inspired because God wrote the text and not because an external witness says only the text was written by God.
3) The minister's claim that all worldviews start with a circular premise is also a claim that is not verified, and also false. There are other worldviews that are not Christian, which do not begin with a circular premise but are false for other reasons. Alternatively, there is another worldview that is true, but not Protestant and does not suffer from any logical fallacy at all.
4) Alternatively, if the biblical method of apologetics begins with a false method and claims all worldviews begin with the same fallacy, then all worldviews are false. Therefore the biblical method of apologetics is a false worldview arguing against all other false worldviews, for the other worldviews to be dropped in favour of the false Protestant worldview. The biblical method of apologetics is a pessimistic method that assumes everyone is locked into a false position and nobody has the truth, but seeks for the conversion of others to another false worldview.
Conclusion - The Protestant version of the biblical method of apologetics is false, based upon the true premise of the inspired text, derived from the fallacy of circular reasoning, and the fale claim that all worldviews are also based upon the same fallacy.
Friday, August 17, 2018
An Argument for the the Virgin Mary's Motherhood of the Christian Life as through Authority Over Christ and the Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost.
St. Bernardine of Siena - The conception of the Son of God conferred upon the virgin [Mary] the right to administrate everything that was granted to the Son. [Mary] had a certain jurisdiction over the temporal processions of the Holy Ghost, so that no creature receives any grace of virtue except through the distribution of the Virgin Mary.
The Holy Ghost is sent from Christ who is caused by Mary as Christ's mother.
Mary has maternal authority over Christ as a mother has authority over a Son.
What has authority over the Son has authority over that which is caused by the Son.
For everything the Son does is subordinated to the authority of His mother as dictated by the ten commandments.
Christ then always acts to honour His mother.
Therefore Christ's sending of the Holy Ghost is an act to honour His mother.
And then because the Holy Ghost's temporal mission is caused by the Son who acts under the authority of Mary, and to honour Mary, Mary has authority over the Holy Ghost's temporal mission.
But the Holy Ghost's temporal mission is to cause Christian grace and the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost in Christians.
Therefore Mary has authority over Christian grace and the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost.
And therefore Mary is the mother of all Christians and mother of the Christian spiritual life.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
The Mystery of Atheism and the Divine Preservation of all Things.
Atheists deny the existence of God, and yet the existence of God is proven through the five ways of St Thomas Aquinas. According to Thomas Aquinas, God is being and the universal cause of being. God is then the cause of being of all atheists, whilst atheists deny the existence of God as the cause of their own being. The divine preservation of atheists is a secret hidden in plain sight from atheists. For atheists know the existence of any creature is a brute fact, which cannot be accounted for when God's existence and universal causation is denied. Yet atheists continue in unbelief in the existence of God as the only cause that can properly account for their ongoing existence from one moment to the next moment.
Atheists are aware of the problem of existence, and are aware of the solution to the same problem, but do not give consent to the solution in God who causes all being. Atheists are then aware of a secret within the universe, which has been revealed to them, but which they cannot resolve. The secret is the mystery of existence without sufficient account given, whilst denying the only proper account of existence in God. Atheism is then at least in part, a modern triple mystery (secret revealed but never fully understood) -
1) The entire universe is unaccounted for within atheism. Therefore within atheism, the universe exists without sufficient reason.
2) As there is no proof for atheism, God as the only solution to the problem of the unaccounted for existence of creatures is denied without sufficient reason within atheism. Therefore atheism exists without sufficient reason.
3) God out of divine love keeps atheists in existence, who are sinning against him as through unbelief, whilst God has no need for atheists at all.
The above three points are all mysteries associated with atheism. For all are known in part but never fully understood.
Atheists are aware of the problem of existence, and are aware of the solution to the same problem, but do not give consent to the solution in God who causes all being. Atheists are then aware of a secret within the universe, which has been revealed to them, but which they cannot resolve. The secret is the mystery of existence without sufficient account given, whilst denying the only proper account of existence in God. Atheism is then at least in part, a modern triple mystery (secret revealed but never fully understood) -
1) The entire universe is unaccounted for within atheism. Therefore within atheism, the universe exists without sufficient reason.
2) As there is no proof for atheism, God as the only solution to the problem of the unaccounted for existence of creatures is denied without sufficient reason within atheism. Therefore atheism exists without sufficient reason.
3) God out of divine love keeps atheists in existence, who are sinning against him as through unbelief, whilst God has no need for atheists at all.
The above three points are all mysteries associated with atheism. For all are known in part but never fully understood.
The Problems of Atheism's Denial of the Universal Prime and Consequent Affirmation of Diverse Secondary Creatures.
Atheism denies the existence of God and theism affirms the existence of God. Monotheism affirms God is being and the universal cause of being. Atheism then denies the existence of being and the universal cause of being. And yet according to ontology, being has modes of one, something, true, good and the beautiful. Therefore, by atheism denying the existence of the prime being which is the universal cause of being, atheism also denies -
1) The prime being and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime being. The act to be of creatures is the prime act of a creature which cannot be accounted for within atheism. The existence of any creature and all creatures is then reduced to a superstition whereby the creatures has being which has no reason of being within atheism.
2) The prime one and the unity of all creatures as from the prime one. The union of all creatures as through the common act to be is not accounted for due to the denial of the prime being which is the prime unity. By denying the prime unity, atheism then reduces the commonality of being in all creatures to a negation of the prime unity. From atheism's denial of the prime being, the negation of the prime being, which is the same as the negation of the prime unity of being, is then according to atheism, the universal cause of the commonality of all being within creatures. Or more simply, according to atheism, the negation of unity is the universal cause of the common unity of being in all creatures. Or again, negation in the prime is the universal cause of the affirmation of the many common to all creatures. Such a consequent negation and affirmation of the same as a conclusion of atheism is false.
3) The prime something, and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime something. Atheism denies the existence of the prime something and affirms the secondary creatures as something are not dependent upon the prime. Creatures as the many something(s) are then ultimately dependent upon the negation of the prime, which is a negation of something. Such a consequent negation and affirmation of the same as a conclusion of atheism is false.
4) The prime true and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime true. Atheism denies the existence of the prime true and affirms the secondary creatures as true are not dependent upon the prime. Creatures as the many something(s) are then ultimately dependent upon the negation of the prime, which is a negation of truth. Such a consequent negation and affirmation of the same as a conclusion of atheism is false.
Also if the prime truth is denied, then there is no universal cause of truth acting in all things. Therefore all creatures have unaccounted for truth, which infers creatures are then in some manner always true, for creatures exist and what exists is true. But because the prime truth is denied, the truth of creatures is not accounted for as from the prime being. Then consequent to atheism, creatures are in some manner true, but in another manner superstitious and thereby always false. The universe of atheism is always composed of the two principles within all things of the true and the false.
5) The prime good and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime good. Similar to the argument in point 4 above. All creatures have being and are therefore good. But the goodness of creatures is not accounted for. The universe of creatures is then always of things that are in some way all good, but in another way, always lacking the good, through the unaccounted for being of all creatures.
6) The prime beautiful and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime beautiful. Again, similar to the above arguments. The universe of creatures is then always of things that are in some way all beautiful, but in another way, always lacking the beautiful, through the unaccounted for being of all creatures.
Atheism's denial of the universal prime and the affirmation of the diverse secondary in creatures concludes to a universe that is full of -
1) Creatures that exist without any ontological reason to exist.
2) Creatures that are one according to the commonality of the act to be, yet the act to be is from the negation of the prime one act.
3) Creatures that are things dependent upon the prime negation of a thing.
4) Creatures that are always true, but also always false.
5) Creatures that are good, but also always lack the good and are then evil.
6) Creatures that are beautiful yet the beautiful is from the negation of the prime beautiful.
Conclusion - According to atheism, all creatures that have being, are one, something, true, good and beautiful, are creatures as from a negation of the same in the prime. For, as being is not accounted for in creatures when the prime being is denied, then the one, something, true, good and beautiful are also not accounted for within creatures. The universe of atheism is a universe of one, something, true, good and beautiful as from a negation, or as from nothing. Such a conclusion is false, therefore atheism is false.
1) The prime being and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime being. The act to be of creatures is the prime act of a creature which cannot be accounted for within atheism. The existence of any creature and all creatures is then reduced to a superstition whereby the creatures has being which has no reason of being within atheism.
2) The prime one and the unity of all creatures as from the prime one. The union of all creatures as through the common act to be is not accounted for due to the denial of the prime being which is the prime unity. By denying the prime unity, atheism then reduces the commonality of being in all creatures to a negation of the prime unity. From atheism's denial of the prime being, the negation of the prime being, which is the same as the negation of the prime unity of being, is then according to atheism, the universal cause of the commonality of all being within creatures. Or more simply, according to atheism, the negation of unity is the universal cause of the common unity of being in all creatures. Or again, negation in the prime is the universal cause of the affirmation of the many common to all creatures. Such a consequent negation and affirmation of the same as a conclusion of atheism is false.
3) The prime something, and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime something. Atheism denies the existence of the prime something and affirms the secondary creatures as something are not dependent upon the prime. Creatures as the many something(s) are then ultimately dependent upon the negation of the prime, which is a negation of something. Such a consequent negation and affirmation of the same as a conclusion of atheism is false.
4) The prime true and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime true. Atheism denies the existence of the prime true and affirms the secondary creatures as true are not dependent upon the prime. Creatures as the many something(s) are then ultimately dependent upon the negation of the prime, which is a negation of truth. Such a consequent negation and affirmation of the same as a conclusion of atheism is false.
Also if the prime truth is denied, then there is no universal cause of truth acting in all things. Therefore all creatures have unaccounted for truth, which infers creatures are then in some manner always true, for creatures exist and what exists is true. But because the prime truth is denied, the truth of creatures is not accounted for as from the prime being. Then consequent to atheism, creatures are in some manner true, but in another manner superstitious and thereby always false. The universe of atheism is always composed of the two principles within all things of the true and the false.
5) The prime good and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime good. Similar to the argument in point 4 above. All creatures have being and are therefore good. But the goodness of creatures is not accounted for. The universe of creatures is then always of things that are in some way all good, but in another way, always lacking the good, through the unaccounted for being of all creatures.
6) The prime beautiful and the dependence of all creatures upon the prime beautiful. Again, similar to the above arguments. The universe of creatures is then always of things that are in some way all beautiful, but in another way, always lacking the beautiful, through the unaccounted for being of all creatures.
Atheism's denial of the universal prime and the affirmation of the diverse secondary in creatures concludes to a universe that is full of -
1) Creatures that exist without any ontological reason to exist.
2) Creatures that are one according to the commonality of the act to be, yet the act to be is from the negation of the prime one act.
3) Creatures that are things dependent upon the prime negation of a thing.
4) Creatures that are always true, but also always false.
5) Creatures that are good, but also always lack the good and are then evil.
6) Creatures that are beautiful yet the beautiful is from the negation of the prime beautiful.
Conclusion - According to atheism, all creatures that have being, are one, something, true, good and beautiful, are creatures as from a negation of the same in the prime. For, as being is not accounted for in creatures when the prime being is denied, then the one, something, true, good and beautiful are also not accounted for within creatures. The universe of atheism is a universe of one, something, true, good and beautiful as from a negation, or as from nothing. Such a conclusion is false, therefore atheism is false.
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
A Response to a Presbyterian Ministers Presentation on the Subject of Soli Deo Gloria.
The following is a response to some Calvinist statements made in a presentation on the subject of Soli Deo Gloria.
Soli Deo Gloria, "To God Alone Be Glory" from the "Reformation Solas" Conference.
(Note - The entire Youtube channel entitled "Protestant Witness" was deleted at around about 13 September 2018).
Presbyterian Minister (PM) - 10:43 Quotes from Romans 9, for who resists his will?
Answer - PM thinks Romans 9 concludes to God acting and man having no free will. Yet Romans 9 focusses on God predestining, and never denies free will. Yet the Calvinist does deny free will in contradiction to Romans 9 and many other places in scripture where free human choice is inferred.
PM – Is it unjust for God to judge mankind for being sinful when men could not be otherwise? No. Freedom to do otherwise is not necessary in order from someone to be accountable for something. The only thing needed from God to hold them accountable is the authority to do it.
Answer – This is only the Calvinist position then men have sin natures and are not free due to the effects of original sin. Many deny the Calvinist position, such as the Armenians, and the Catholics, who hold that men have free will. The Calvinist position makes God into a monster who created mankind just, then mankind became depraved and always sins without free will. The Calvinist God then judges men based upon sin caused as through men being compelled to sin from a depraved nature. Then again, if men are compelled to act without free will, then such acts are not sins. For sin and the accompanied imputation of guilt implies a just imputation of guilt to the man who freely acted against the law. For the Calvinist to hold that men are guilty of sin, and are also not free to act, then men are mere animals without rationality. The animal does not have free will, but only ever acts in accord with instinct. The Calvinist gospel, god and nature of man are all false.
It is also unjust that God judge any man who is not free to do otherwise than what the Calvinist understanding of human nature is - depraved and thereby always sinful. The PM comment that God is not unjust because God can hold men accountable assumes God does actually do what the Calvinist thinks God does, when in fact the Calvinists answer is only the fallacy of begging the question. For the Calvinist must beg the question regarding God actually acting to judge men with sin natures, whilst assuming the Calvinist has never proven men have sin natures, nor God actually judges men who could not have acted otherwise.
It is also unjust that God judge any man who is not free to do otherwise than what the Calvinist understanding of human nature is - depraved and thereby always sinful. The PM comment that God is not unjust because God can hold men accountable assumes God does actually do what the Calvinist thinks God does, when in fact the Calvinists answer is only the fallacy of begging the question. For the Calvinist must beg the question regarding God actually acting to judge men with sin natures, whilst assuming the Calvinist has never proven men have sin natures, nor God actually judges men who could not have acted otherwise.
PM - Some object and say, if God has decreed everything that happens how can he judge men that he has decreed men would do and they could not possibly have done otherwise? God has determined ahead of time (predestined) the final destiny of all men.
Predestine means to predetermine, or decide beforehand the eternal destinies of all men.
Answer – PM assumes predestination excludes free will, and yet PM has not proven men do not have free will. Further, PM has not accounted for the scriptural data that affirms free will, nor has PM accounted for diverse understandings of predestination. For predestination may be understood as God ordering all human acts as free will acts in union with grace to the end preordained by God to either glory or damnation. Free will is not excluded in Romans 9, but assumed wherever there is a reference to any human, moral action. Any text that discusses the divine election and does so that appears to indicate divine action without free will is only to focus on the divine act itself, without denial of free will. PM is wrong to assert predestination unto glory in Rom 8 infers no free will in man.
Further, the Calvinist understanding of predestination is only in accord with Calvin's fabricated and false understanding of double predestination, which says all men are predetermined by God to heaven or hell. Calvinist predestination follows from the total depravity of man, which no longer has free will and thereby must only act determinately to sin. Yet, because man does have free will and predestination is in fact only in accord with God predetermining men to glory and not to damnation. For damnation is only a result of defect in the human will which is the choice of man as a free agent. God is not responsible for sin and thereby is not responsible for damnation. God is therefore not responsible for predetermining men to sin, nor men to damnation.
The PM actually teaches below that Adam sinned without God acting to cause Adam's sin. Yet the PM must also hold to God acting to cause men to sin and thereby cause men to be damned in accord with His plan of predestination. Calvinism is false at many levels, which begins with the denial of free will and ends up making God into the ultimate despotic dictator of the universe that causes men to act always exactly as God dictates so some are glorified and some are damned, because the Calvinist God says so.
Further, the Calvinist understanding of predestination is only in accord with Calvin's fabricated and false understanding of double predestination, which says all men are predetermined by God to heaven or hell. Calvinist predestination follows from the total depravity of man, which no longer has free will and thereby must only act determinately to sin. Yet, because man does have free will and predestination is in fact only in accord with God predetermining men to glory and not to damnation. For damnation is only a result of defect in the human will which is the choice of man as a free agent. God is not responsible for sin and thereby is not responsible for damnation. God is therefore not responsible for predetermining men to sin, nor men to damnation.
The PM actually teaches below that Adam sinned without God acting to cause Adam's sin. Yet the PM must also hold to God acting to cause men to sin and thereby cause men to be damned in accord with His plan of predestination. Calvinism is false at many levels, which begins with the denial of free will and ends up making God into the ultimate despotic dictator of the universe that causes men to act always exactly as God dictates so some are glorified and some are damned, because the Calvinist God says so.
PM – Sin entered into creation, not by divine force, but by Adams desire to disobey God. God decreed Adams sin would happen. Was Adam forced to sin against his will? No. Did Adam want to do what was right in his heart? No. Sin was decreed by God but did not come into creation by the hand of God. The secondary cause, Adam was the one who brought sin into creation.
God was not the active agent with evil desires. Adam was. Adam sinned because Adam wanted to do so. But why would God decree that that would happen? God purposed it to His own glory. God was not involved in Adams sinful desires.
Answer – If God was not involved in Adams sinful desires, then Adam acted apart from God’s decree. For Gods decree is always active in accord with the Calvinist understanding of Romans 9. So God decreed that Adam would sin, which infers God was involved in Adams sinful desires, in contradiction to PM’s assertion that God was not involved with Adam’s sin.
Also, if Adam sinned after being made righteous by God in the initial creation event, then the original sin and the effects of original sin are from Adam acting as a free agent. Therefore, Adam’s sin and the associated guilt of man’s sin natures results from a free act of Adam. For the Calvinist, sin is caused in Adam by a free act. But then Calvinists claim mankind is always bound by a sinful nature as from Adam, whilst men do not have free will. For the Calvinist, sin is caused by both free will and not by free will.
Alternatively, if Adam was created without free will, then Adam could not have sinned, or God is responsible for sin and the effects of sin. God then acts for His own glory, which includes causing men to sin and then be damned. The alternatives for the Calvinist end in a contradiction or a false god of causing sin, whilst remaining all holy.
Furthermore, if "God was not the active agent with evil desires" then the Calvinist has admitted that God does not act to cause sin, because God is all holy. Yet God is a liar in the theory of penal substitution. So God does not actually cause Adam to sin, but in fact is the all-holy Calvinist God who sins as through lying at the cross to save some from sin and damn the others.
Furthermore, if "God was not the active agent with evil desires" then the Calvinist has admitted that God does not act to cause sin, because God is all holy. Yet God is a liar in the theory of penal substitution. So God does not actually cause Adam to sin, but in fact is the all-holy Calvinist God who sins as through lying at the cross to save some from sin and damn the others.
PM – will those who are happily content in their life of sin dare to say against the holy God for the things they freely and knowingly do against Him . . .
Answer – The PM has just contradicted himself by asserting men have free will to sin. For above the PM denied men have free will, where he said “freedom to do otherwise is not necessary” when discussing God's decree against men. Calvinism is a bundle of contradictions, just like all false versions of Christianity, or for that matter any false religion.
PM – Here we have the end of the argument. The potter has a right to make one for honour and one for dishonour.
Answer – God as the potter and man as the clay is only a metaphor highlighting God power over man to form man as God wishes. If men do not have free will as the Calvinists say, then it is God who is acting to form both the elect and the damned for glory and damnation without the free consent of men. Therefore, it is God who is actively causing virtue and grace within the elect and actively causing sin within men for damnation. For men do not have free will in the Calvinist system. All of God’s acts occur without men having free will, whilst God who is all holy, then causes men to sin. The Calvinist system is convoluted and contradictory because the Calvinists misunderstand St Paul and fail to make distinctions where required.
To counter the Calvinist claim above, one may also hold to free will and say God always acts as sovereign whilst men are always free. There is no reduction in the claims of divine sovereignty by man having free will.
To counter the Calvinist claim above, one may also hold to free will and say God always acts as sovereign whilst men are always free. There is no reduction in the claims of divine sovereignty by man having free will.
PM – God tolerates those vessels of destruction in order to make known the riches of his grace on the vessels of mercy.
Answer – The PM assumes the vessels of destruction and vessels of mercy are diverse groups of men. But PM fails to account that the two groups may in fact be the same group stated in two diverse manners. God tolerates the vessels of destruction so that those vessels would become the vessels of mercy is another possible outcome not considered by the PM. Rom 9:24-25 indicates the two groups are the same where Jews and gentiles are both chosen as “my people”.
Also apparently, the Calvinist God in Romans 9, who predestines all thing has to wait patiently for men to be damned and glorified. What is God waiting for when the entire plan is in accord with the divine will which is the only free agent acting in the play? The language of Romans 9 is against Calvinism, for there is nothing for the Calvinist God to wait patiently for at all. The Calvinist God has already programmed everything before the game starts and the game will only ever play out as God has pre-ordained.
Contrarily, the patience of God is better understood if men do have free will and the vessels of wrath are given time to become vessels of mercy through repentance.
Also apparently, the Calvinist God in Romans 9, who predestines all thing has to wait patiently for men to be damned and glorified. What is God waiting for when the entire plan is in accord with the divine will which is the only free agent acting in the play? The language of Romans 9 is against Calvinism, for there is nothing for the Calvinist God to wait patiently for at all. The Calvinist God has already programmed everything before the game starts and the game will only ever play out as God has pre-ordained.
Contrarily, the patience of God is better understood if men do have free will and the vessels of wrath are given time to become vessels of mercy through repentance.
PM – God chose Jacob and not Esau. God chose to give mercy to some and justice to the rest.
Answer – The Jacob and Esau example does not conclude to the Calvinist position of election to glory for some and damnation to everyone else by God’s election alone without free will. The Jacob and Esau example only discusses covenant election, or God acting through the human channel which God chose to bless the nations. In fact, Esau had the blessing of the firstborn and then freely gave it away to Jacob. The Esau and Jacob example assumes free will is involved in changing God’s channel of election from Esau to Jacob.
Furthermore, the Jacob and Esau example infers a line of Patriarchs through which God intended to bless the world with divine sonship, rather than the standard Calvinist understanding that infers damnation for those hardened by God without free will. Jacob received the blessing and through Jacob, the nations are later blessed with divine sonship. Those who received the blessing are the same persons who received the letter from St Paul. All who receive divine sonship are then the vessels of mercy, that were once vessels of wrath, as caused by the salvation story through Jacob.
PM - Our salvation does not depend upon us in any way, because our salvation has its sole purpose in the glory of God.
Answer - The above statement is a non sequitur. Our salvation does not depend upon us only if a man does not have free will. And yet PM admits above that man both does and does not have free will. The glory of God is obtained if men are responsible for their own salvation by using their free will to say yes to God acting in union with God's grace. The glory of God does not require that men do not have free will.
Furthermore, acts of free will do not conclude to boasting associated with merit. For merit is inferred wherever a free act is done, even when done with the grace of God.
PM assumes far too much in his statments as true, which in fact are not true.
PM - all works are excluded.
Answer - works are included in several passages in the NT, such as Eph 2, and James 2. Works are only excluded when discussing God's work of grace in man without reference to man's free will, but assuming man's free will. Merit does not take away from God's glory, but assumes God's glory, for man that act freely imitate God who is free, to then become like God in heaven as free agents. Calvinism has many confusions and many wooden readings of passages in St Paul's letters.
Calvinists quite frequently miss the mystery and paradox involved in the biblical texts and claim their own reading of the text includes the full import of the text, when in fact the full import is often missed. For example, Eph 2 teaches God raised up men for good works, and thereby imply good works are involved in man's salvation. Yet the Calvinist reads the text as though good works automatically implies boasting which St Paul excludes. Contrarily, Eph 2 and other passages include works as acts of men done freely, whilst also being caused by God's grace acting within men. The action of divine grace that causes human action is then the reason why men cannot boast, rather than the Calvinist reading of Eph 2, that implies men cannot boast because works are excluded following upon man not having free will to do any meritorious acts.
The Calvinist reading of St Paul's letters is only one reading that contains contradictions, sophistry and errors. There is nothing compelling about Calvinism that requires any Christian to become a Calvinist.
PM - Unconditional election . . .
Answer - PM assumes unconditional election as from the premise of no free will in man and God predestining all things for his own glory. As men do have free will, the Calvinist version of unconditional election is false.
PM - It ruins the show to trust in your own works.
Answer - The Calvinists teach justification by faith alone. Yet faith is a work men do, and therefore the Calvinist gospel of justification by faith alone is in contradiction to the Calvinist gospel of all things are for the Glory of God alone.
The Calvinist show is a bundle of contradictions, where -
1) God is all holy and yet an unholy liar in the great exchange.
2) God is all good, and yet creates men for damnation which is a very great evil.
3) Men are created in the image of God, yet men are all depraved and more resemble the devil than God.
4) Works are understood as any human act, which do not justify. Yet faith is a human act that does justify.
5) All righteous works are as filthy rags. Yet God causes men to become new creations and even then, the divine work of the new creation is not good enough. For all man's works, even when regenerated and justified are as filthy rags. The Calvinist god of power is not powerful enough to make man's works good enough even when God makes men into a new creation.
6) All righteous works are as filthy rags. Faith is a righteous work. Therefore men are justified by filthy rags. But fithly rags is a metaphor for sin. Thereore men are both condemned and justified by different sins.
7) Calvinists claim to only follow God's word in the scriptures, and yet sola scriptora, and all of the other solas are not in the scriptures, but are rather only human traditions.
8) Calvinists have a version of Christianity that did not exist prior to John Calvin's inventions. Yet Calvinism claims to be the authentic Christianity, which all Christians in history either believed or are bound to believe. The Calvinist claim is incredulous.
9) Not all Calvinists follow all of John Calvin's theology. So not all Calvinists find Calvin compelling. Some Calvinists believe in human free will, whilst others do not.
10) Calvinists claim their version of Christianity is from God as the true gospel, and yet the church fathers and the early church were not Calvinist, but Catholic.
11) If all human acts are as filthy rags as Calvinism teaches, then all human institutions are sinful and worthy of destruction. Calvinism promotes the so called true gospel as a resolution to the human problem of sin, but Calvinism is inherently inhuman. For Calvinism concludes all that is human is depraved, and consequently should be opposed, except for the one thing called faith. Calvinism is both human and inhuman.
12) John Calvin is thought to be a reformer along with Martin Luther and yet the two men disagreed on many points of theology. The Calvinists must then defined the Reformation in accord with Calvinism but then claim Luther was a reformer, whilst ignoring Luther's doctrines which differed from Calvin. Calvin was a Reformer, and Luther a Reformer, but not so much a Reformer.
13) God is love, and yet His love of mankind is seemingly subordinated to His acts to always glorify himself through the vessels of wrath and mercy. Apparently, those in hell and heaven are there because God loves Himself enough to damn some, and glorify some others. The Calvinist god of love is one strange lover that seeks patiently to damn, when He could easily act to save, but also seeks to save when He could easily act to damn, all for the sake of His glory.
God is love, but hates some and has mercy on others, when in fact there is no real motive other than some mysterious decree from God to act for some and not for some others. The Calvinist God smells of a crazy fictional human invention, similar to the wrathful pagan Greek and Roman gods. God hates some because of His glory and also loves others because of His glory. Glory is then a motive for God to love and hate men.
There are so many contradictions within Calvinism and Lutheranism, it is difficult to take Reformation theology seriously.
PM - I'm not co-operating with anything . . .
Answer - then you have no assurance of your salvation, for your faith is as through grace acting within you to cause you to believe. Yet you claim you do not co-operate with anything. Your claim is only another one of many contradictions within Calvinism. Also, the very prayer in which you stated you did not co-operate with anything is, in fact, a grace given to you from God to pray. Hence prayer is also a co-operation of men acting with grace.
Calvinism claims the gospel is all for the glory of God, and yet the Calvinist gospel reduces God down to a manipulator of the show without any free human agency. The Calvinist gospel is like the puppeteer who moves all of the unfree puppets, and some end up in hell and other in heaven. The real gospel, however, includes the truth of human free will and human co-operation in the divine plan of salvation. The real gospel is the Catholic gospel.
Furthermore, if the Calvinist is not co-operating with God, how then does a man act to sin and therefore act in accord with the divine plan? Is sin a cooperation with God, or not? Is repentance a co-operation with God or not? The Calvinist makes claims but cannot provide clear answers to the above questions. Apparently, God is sovereign and acts to cause all things to occur, but no man actually co-operates with God to carry out Gods plan.
Also, the cooperation of man with God is clearly taught in Philippians 2:12-13, where God works inside Christians to will and accomplish -
12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.
Evidently, the Presbyterian minister's claim that he does not co-operate with God is against scripture.
Other Problems -
1) PM presents Romans 9 as the text used to conclude for the only reasons God acts to elect and damn, is based on God's glory. Yet there are other texts that imply men are elect and damned, based upon their own decisions. For freedom is clearly taught in many passages in the OT (Gen 2:16-17, Josh 24:15, Prov 16:9, Isa 55:6-7, etc) and the NT (Rom 6:23, 8:2, 1 Cor 7:21-22, 1 Cor 9:1, 1 Tim 3:3, Philemon 1:14).
2) The god of Calvinism imputes sin to Christ's account even though Christ did not sin, and imputes Christ's righteousness to the sinner's account, even though the sinner is unrighteous. The divine lies involved in the great exchange reduce God's holiness to an anthropomorphic scam, whereby God becomes the sinner to redeem sinful men.
If we apply the lies involved in the Calvinist gospel, God must then have predestined His own lies to redeem men and thereby gain glory from himself. God then gains glory through God sinning to save the elect. It would have been more God glorifying to never have sent His Son, so God would never have lied and all men would justly be sent to hell. Apparently, God's sin to save some and thereby glorify Himself whilst acting against His own nature as all Holy. Calvinism is simply not even remotely believable.
3) The Calvinist god lies in the great exchange to save the elect. The Calvinist god is, therefore, a false god, who sins, just as men sin. By the Calvinist worshipping the false Calvinist god, the Calvinist commits the sin of idolatry every Sunday. The false god of Calvinism leads Calvinists to hell through sins of idolatry committed every Sunday, whilst the Calvinists think they are the elect of God.
4) The Calvinist goes the to the bible to discover the gospel and yet the gospel is conveyed to mankind as from the church and oral tradition which existed prior to the written text. The Calvinist should be more consistent with history and go to the church of history first to discover the gospel and then within the context of church doctrine, seek to penetrate the meaning of the biblical text in accord with church teaching. By the Calvinist approaching the text first, without reference to church teaching, the Calvinist is open to receiving both truth and his own errors whilst remaining unaware of the errors. Such is the problem with sola scriptora which is unhistorical, and thereby also unbiblical. For the bible always has a historical context written for a historical faithful who already knew of the laws and sacraments as from God before the text was written.
The Calvinist approach to the biblical text is backwards.
5) Calvinists deny human co-operation in salvation as a result of their assertion of mans bondage to sin. The calvinist then assumes he has assurance of salvation because the work of salvation is entirely from God. The Calvinist has faith as a gift from God, whilst all other men do not. So the Calvinsit is saved, and other men are not saved. Yet again, if the Calvinist assertion of the bondage of the will is false, then the Calvinist assurance of salvation is also false and the Calvinist may in fact fall from grace, for the Calvinist must co-operate with God to attain asalvation, when in fact the Calvinist thinks he does not have to co-operate with God. The Calvinist assurance of salvation is no assurance at all, but only a fiction based upon the false notion of the bondage of the will.
6) Romans 8:30 - And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Calvinists quote from Romans 8:30 as (the golden chain) evidence for Calvinist predestination, and yet the New Testament does not contain any similar chain for damnation, like say - And those he predestined to damnation, he also did not call; those he did not call, he also did not justify; those he did not justify, he also damned. Why is there no similar chain of damnation if Calvinist double predestination is true? A perplexing problem indeed.
Recommendation - Calvinists should read the works of Thomas Aquinas to obtain a more realist understanding of human nature and the truthfulness of the Catholic Jesus Christ and His Catholic church which causes grace through the sacraments.
A Corollary - If men are not free and always must sin in accordance with their sinful nature, God is then the author of sin. For, God is the only free agent acting in human history to cause men to act in accord with His predestined plan. So when God sent His Son to die on the cross, He did so to redeem man, as by redeeming Himself as the author of all evil. The Calvinist god is the author of everything, and no man is free. So the Calvinist god must redeem Himself from His own plan in which the Calvinist god has predestined.
The Calvinist god is a false god invented by Calvinists who misunderstand St Paul's argument in Romans 9 and think St Paul assumes no free will whenever St Paul teaches men are dead in their sins (Rom 6:11, Eph 2:1). And yet, the true gospel has men dead in sin and then regenerated by the Holy Spirit so men can then act freely to love God (John 8:36, Rom 8:2, 1 Cor 7:22) above all things and thereby keep the commandments (1 John 5:3). The bondage to sin inferred by the phrase "dead in sin" does not infer men are always unfree. Dead in sin only refers to one aspect of the human condition (the human will being directed towards the love of creatures above God as a false ultimate end) which is resolved through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Because dead in sin refers to a false ultimate love, men are also free when dead in sin. For a man in the state of mortal sin may always acts freely to chose to do or not do any particular act, whilst loving a creature more than God. Men in sin have free will with regard to election of action, but not with regard to an ultimate end. When the sinner is converted through regeneration, the man loves God above creatures as the true ultimate end, and may also freely act to do or not do. The regenerate man is also free to sin mortally and suffer the loss of loving God above all creatures as the true ultimate end, and then direct all of his loves towards a creature as the false ultimate end.
The phrase, dead in sin involves several aspects of freedom that are ignored by the Calvinist, which should be embraced to have a more authentic understanding of the nature of sin and redemption.
Furthermore, the Jacob and Esau example infers a line of Patriarchs through which God intended to bless the world with divine sonship, rather than the standard Calvinist understanding that infers damnation for those hardened by God without free will. Jacob received the blessing and through Jacob, the nations are later blessed with divine sonship. Those who received the blessing are the same persons who received the letter from St Paul. All who receive divine sonship are then the vessels of mercy, that were once vessels of wrath, as caused by the salvation story through Jacob.
PM - Our salvation does not depend upon us in any way, because our salvation has its sole purpose in the glory of God.
Answer - The above statement is a non sequitur. Our salvation does not depend upon us only if a man does not have free will. And yet PM admits above that man both does and does not have free will. The glory of God is obtained if men are responsible for their own salvation by using their free will to say yes to God acting in union with God's grace. The glory of God does not require that men do not have free will.
Furthermore, acts of free will do not conclude to boasting associated with merit. For merit is inferred wherever a free act is done, even when done with the grace of God.
PM assumes far too much in his statments as true, which in fact are not true.
PM - all works are excluded.
Answer - works are included in several passages in the NT, such as Eph 2, and James 2. Works are only excluded when discussing God's work of grace in man without reference to man's free will, but assuming man's free will. Merit does not take away from God's glory, but assumes God's glory, for man that act freely imitate God who is free, to then become like God in heaven as free agents. Calvinism has many confusions and many wooden readings of passages in St Paul's letters.
Calvinists quite frequently miss the mystery and paradox involved in the biblical texts and claim their own reading of the text includes the full import of the text, when in fact the full import is often missed. For example, Eph 2 teaches God raised up men for good works, and thereby imply good works are involved in man's salvation. Yet the Calvinist reads the text as though good works automatically implies boasting which St Paul excludes. Contrarily, Eph 2 and other passages include works as acts of men done freely, whilst also being caused by God's grace acting within men. The action of divine grace that causes human action is then the reason why men cannot boast, rather than the Calvinist reading of Eph 2, that implies men cannot boast because works are excluded following upon man not having free will to do any meritorious acts.
The Calvinist reading of St Paul's letters is only one reading that contains contradictions, sophistry and errors. There is nothing compelling about Calvinism that requires any Christian to become a Calvinist.
PM - Unconditional election . . .
Answer - PM assumes unconditional election as from the premise of no free will in man and God predestining all things for his own glory. As men do have free will, the Calvinist version of unconditional election is false.
PM - It ruins the show to trust in your own works.
Answer - The Calvinists teach justification by faith alone. Yet faith is a work men do, and therefore the Calvinist gospel of justification by faith alone is in contradiction to the Calvinist gospel of all things are for the Glory of God alone.
The Calvinist show is a bundle of contradictions, where -
1) God is all holy and yet an unholy liar in the great exchange.
2) God is all good, and yet creates men for damnation which is a very great evil.
3) Men are created in the image of God, yet men are all depraved and more resemble the devil than God.
4) Works are understood as any human act, which do not justify. Yet faith is a human act that does justify.
5) All righteous works are as filthy rags. Yet God causes men to become new creations and even then, the divine work of the new creation is not good enough. For all man's works, even when regenerated and justified are as filthy rags. The Calvinist god of power is not powerful enough to make man's works good enough even when God makes men into a new creation.
6) All righteous works are as filthy rags. Faith is a righteous work. Therefore men are justified by filthy rags. But fithly rags is a metaphor for sin. Thereore men are both condemned and justified by different sins.
7) Calvinists claim to only follow God's word in the scriptures, and yet sola scriptora, and all of the other solas are not in the scriptures, but are rather only human traditions.
8) Calvinists have a version of Christianity that did not exist prior to John Calvin's inventions. Yet Calvinism claims to be the authentic Christianity, which all Christians in history either believed or are bound to believe. The Calvinist claim is incredulous.
9) Not all Calvinists follow all of John Calvin's theology. So not all Calvinists find Calvin compelling. Some Calvinists believe in human free will, whilst others do not.
10) Calvinists claim their version of Christianity is from God as the true gospel, and yet the church fathers and the early church were not Calvinist, but Catholic.
11) If all human acts are as filthy rags as Calvinism teaches, then all human institutions are sinful and worthy of destruction. Calvinism promotes the so called true gospel as a resolution to the human problem of sin, but Calvinism is inherently inhuman. For Calvinism concludes all that is human is depraved, and consequently should be opposed, except for the one thing called faith. Calvinism is both human and inhuman.
12) John Calvin is thought to be a reformer along with Martin Luther and yet the two men disagreed on many points of theology. The Calvinists must then defined the Reformation in accord with Calvinism but then claim Luther was a reformer, whilst ignoring Luther's doctrines which differed from Calvin. Calvin was a Reformer, and Luther a Reformer, but not so much a Reformer.
13) God is love, and yet His love of mankind is seemingly subordinated to His acts to always glorify himself through the vessels of wrath and mercy. Apparently, those in hell and heaven are there because God loves Himself enough to damn some, and glorify some others. The Calvinist god of love is one strange lover that seeks patiently to damn, when He could easily act to save, but also seeks to save when He could easily act to damn, all for the sake of His glory.
God is love, but hates some and has mercy on others, when in fact there is no real motive other than some mysterious decree from God to act for some and not for some others. The Calvinist God smells of a crazy fictional human invention, similar to the wrathful pagan Greek and Roman gods. God hates some because of His glory and also loves others because of His glory. Glory is then a motive for God to love and hate men.
There are so many contradictions within Calvinism and Lutheranism, it is difficult to take Reformation theology seriously.
PM - I'm not co-operating with anything . . .
Answer - then you have no assurance of your salvation, for your faith is as through grace acting within you to cause you to believe. Yet you claim you do not co-operate with anything. Your claim is only another one of many contradictions within Calvinism. Also, the very prayer in which you stated you did not co-operate with anything is, in fact, a grace given to you from God to pray. Hence prayer is also a co-operation of men acting with grace.
Calvinism claims the gospel is all for the glory of God, and yet the Calvinist gospel reduces God down to a manipulator of the show without any free human agency. The Calvinist gospel is like the puppeteer who moves all of the unfree puppets, and some end up in hell and other in heaven. The real gospel, however, includes the truth of human free will and human co-operation in the divine plan of salvation. The real gospel is the Catholic gospel.
Furthermore, if the Calvinist is not co-operating with God, how then does a man act to sin and therefore act in accord with the divine plan? Is sin a cooperation with God, or not? Is repentance a co-operation with God or not? The Calvinist makes claims but cannot provide clear answers to the above questions. Apparently, God is sovereign and acts to cause all things to occur, but no man actually co-operates with God to carry out Gods plan.
Also, the cooperation of man with God is clearly taught in Philippians 2:12-13, where God works inside Christians to will and accomplish -
12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.
Evidently, the Presbyterian minister's claim that he does not co-operate with God is against scripture.
Other Problems -
1) PM presents Romans 9 as the text used to conclude for the only reasons God acts to elect and damn, is based on God's glory. Yet there are other texts that imply men are elect and damned, based upon their own decisions. For freedom is clearly taught in many passages in the OT (Gen 2:16-17, Josh 24:15, Prov 16:9, Isa 55:6-7, etc) and the NT (Rom 6:23, 8:2, 1 Cor 7:21-22, 1 Cor 9:1, 1 Tim 3:3, Philemon 1:14).
2) The god of Calvinism imputes sin to Christ's account even though Christ did not sin, and imputes Christ's righteousness to the sinner's account, even though the sinner is unrighteous. The divine lies involved in the great exchange reduce God's holiness to an anthropomorphic scam, whereby God becomes the sinner to redeem sinful men.
If we apply the lies involved in the Calvinist gospel, God must then have predestined His own lies to redeem men and thereby gain glory from himself. God then gains glory through God sinning to save the elect. It would have been more God glorifying to never have sent His Son, so God would never have lied and all men would justly be sent to hell. Apparently, God's sin to save some and thereby glorify Himself whilst acting against His own nature as all Holy. Calvinism is simply not even remotely believable.
3) The Calvinist god lies in the great exchange to save the elect. The Calvinist god is, therefore, a false god, who sins, just as men sin. By the Calvinist worshipping the false Calvinist god, the Calvinist commits the sin of idolatry every Sunday. The false god of Calvinism leads Calvinists to hell through sins of idolatry committed every Sunday, whilst the Calvinists think they are the elect of God.
4) The Calvinist goes the to the bible to discover the gospel and yet the gospel is conveyed to mankind as from the church and oral tradition which existed prior to the written text. The Calvinist should be more consistent with history and go to the church of history first to discover the gospel and then within the context of church doctrine, seek to penetrate the meaning of the biblical text in accord with church teaching. By the Calvinist approaching the text first, without reference to church teaching, the Calvinist is open to receiving both truth and his own errors whilst remaining unaware of the errors. Such is the problem with sola scriptora which is unhistorical, and thereby also unbiblical. For the bible always has a historical context written for a historical faithful who already knew of the laws and sacraments as from God before the text was written.
The Calvinist approach to the biblical text is backwards.
5) Calvinists deny human co-operation in salvation as a result of their assertion of mans bondage to sin. The calvinist then assumes he has assurance of salvation because the work of salvation is entirely from God. The Calvinist has faith as a gift from God, whilst all other men do not. So the Calvinsit is saved, and other men are not saved. Yet again, if the Calvinist assertion of the bondage of the will is false, then the Calvinist assurance of salvation is also false and the Calvinist may in fact fall from grace, for the Calvinist must co-operate with God to attain asalvation, when in fact the Calvinist thinks he does not have to co-operate with God. The Calvinist assurance of salvation is no assurance at all, but only a fiction based upon the false notion of the bondage of the will.
6) Romans 8:30 - And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Calvinists quote from Romans 8:30 as (the golden chain) evidence for Calvinist predestination, and yet the New Testament does not contain any similar chain for damnation, like say - And those he predestined to damnation, he also did not call; those he did not call, he also did not justify; those he did not justify, he also damned. Why is there no similar chain of damnation if Calvinist double predestination is true? A perplexing problem indeed.
Recommendation - Calvinists should read the works of Thomas Aquinas to obtain a more realist understanding of human nature and the truthfulness of the Catholic Jesus Christ and His Catholic church which causes grace through the sacraments.
A Corollary - If men are not free and always must sin in accordance with their sinful nature, God is then the author of sin. For, God is the only free agent acting in human history to cause men to act in accord with His predestined plan. So when God sent His Son to die on the cross, He did so to redeem man, as by redeeming Himself as the author of all evil. The Calvinist god is the author of everything, and no man is free. So the Calvinist god must redeem Himself from His own plan in which the Calvinist god has predestined.
The Calvinist god is a false god invented by Calvinists who misunderstand St Paul's argument in Romans 9 and think St Paul assumes no free will whenever St Paul teaches men are dead in their sins (Rom 6:11, Eph 2:1). And yet, the true gospel has men dead in sin and then regenerated by the Holy Spirit so men can then act freely to love God (John 8:36, Rom 8:2, 1 Cor 7:22) above all things and thereby keep the commandments (1 John 5:3). The bondage to sin inferred by the phrase "dead in sin" does not infer men are always unfree. Dead in sin only refers to one aspect of the human condition (the human will being directed towards the love of creatures above God as a false ultimate end) which is resolved through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Because dead in sin refers to a false ultimate love, men are also free when dead in sin. For a man in the state of mortal sin may always acts freely to chose to do or not do any particular act, whilst loving a creature more than God. Men in sin have free will with regard to election of action, but not with regard to an ultimate end. When the sinner is converted through regeneration, the man loves God above creatures as the true ultimate end, and may also freely act to do or not do. The regenerate man is also free to sin mortally and suffer the loss of loving God above all creatures as the true ultimate end, and then direct all of his loves towards a creature as the false ultimate end.
The phrase, dead in sin involves several aspects of freedom that are ignored by the Calvinist, which should be embraced to have a more authentic understanding of the nature of sin and redemption.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)