An Argument for the Centrality of the Eucharist in the Gospel

The following is an Argument for the Centrality of the Eucharist in the gospel.

The gospel is promised by the Old Testament prophets to be a -

1) new Exodus (Isaiah 40-55),

2) new Creation (Isaiah 65:17),

3) restoration of Israel (Isaiah 11:11; 43:5, 6; Jer 31:8-10, et al)

4) In-gathering of the Nations (Isaiah 11:9, 43:9 et al) to Zion (Isa 52:7-10)

5) a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34).

6) The kingdom of God (Dan 2:44, Zech 14:9, Hab 2:14)

1) The Eucharistic Gospel within the Exodus Theme

The old Exodus began with a Passover sacrifice and meal (Exodus 12), and continued in the wilderness as a journey with the manna (Exodus 16), to the promised land where Israel covenant life with God was that of a priestly son of God in union with God as his divine spouse (Isa 54:5).
So too the new Exodus begins with a new Passover sacrifice and meal (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19b-20), and a wilderness experience with the new manna (John 6).
As the Eucharist is both the new Passover sacrifice and the new manna in the desert, the Eucharist is essential to the gospel.

2) The Eucharistic Gospel within the Creation Theme

The old creation was Israel's covenant life with God, whereby Israel was the first born son (Ex 4:22), and the new Adam as head of the human race.
The new creation is therefore analogous to the old creation whereby the church as the new Israel of God and the new Adam, within the new covenant.
The old creation as Israels covenant life is centered upon the liturgical sacrifices and liturgical laws of the temple.
Analogously the new creation is then centered upon the liturgical sacrifices and liturgical laws of the new temple as Christ and the Church.
Such liturgical sacrifices Christ and the Church is fittingly enacted in the Eucharistic sacrifice as part of the new creation.

3) The Eucharistic Gospel within the Restoration of Israel Theme

The old Israel consisted as twelve tribes who acted in covenant union with God as a kingdom of priests (Ex 19:6). Israel was effectively destroyed through the two exiles into Assyria and then Babylon, never to return to its glory under king David and Solomon.
The restoration of Israel is promised to occur in the OT prophets along with the gathering of the nations to Zion (Isa 25:9, Ezek 37).
As the restored Israel of God, the Church is the anti-type of Davidic Israel. As such, then the church must have Yahweh as the spouse just as Israel had Yahweh as a spouse (Jer 3:1-14).
But Yahweh had Israel as a spouse through a covenant sacrifice and covenant banquet meal (2 Sam 6), as a divine marriage banquet.
Hence the church as the restored Israel must also have an analogous covenant, divine marriage banquet.
Such as banquet in the Church is the Eucharistic banquet whereby Christ is made present as both the groom of the church and the banquet.

4) The Eucharistic Gospel within the In-gathering of the Nations Theme

The nations are promised to be gathered to a mountain to participate in the Messianic banquet (Isaiah 25:6-9) as an act of salvation for the resurrected peoples.

6 On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines.
7 On this mountain he will destroy
the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
the sheet that covers all nations;
8 he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove his people’s disgrace
from all the earth.
The Lord has spoken.
9 In that day they will say,

“Surely this is our God;
we trusted in him, and he saved us.
This is the Lord, we trusted in him;
let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.”

Baptism is the sacrament of resurrection (Rom 6:1-11), whereby Christians are then brought into the sacramental economy to participate in the Eucharistic banquet in the Messianic age, just as new members of the Mosaic covenant were brought into the Passover meal after circumcision (Ex 12:43-49). The mountain of Isaiah is the new Zion as the church (Isa 25; Dan 2), where God resides as groom and host of the banquet.
The Eucharistic banquet is the banquet sacrament of the Messianic age.

5) The Eucharistic Gospel within the new covenant Theme

The old Mosaic covenant was confected through the sacrifice of an animal and the banquet union of Israel with Yahweh on Mt Sinai (Ex 24:11).
The new covenant is then a fulfillment of the old covenant, which will bring about a far greater sacrifice and far greater banquet between the Church as the new Israel and Christ as the groom of the Church (1 Cor 5:7-8).
The Eucharist is the sacrifice and banquet of the new covenant fulfilling the old Mosaic sacrifice and Mosaic feast on Mt Sinai.

6) The Eucharistic Gospel within the kingdom of God Theme

The old Israel consisted as twelve tribes who acted in covenant union with God as a kingdom of priests (Ex 19:6).
Therefore the church as the fulfillment of the old Israel is also a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9).
As the old kingdom of priests performed sacrifices, then the church as the new kingdom of priests (Mal 1:11) will also performed sacrifices.
The Eucharistic is the anti-type fulfillment of the old Israel as a kingdom of Priests, whereby the Eucharist is a sacrifice confected by the church to fulfill the promises of the prophets for a universal priesthood (Isa 66:19-21) and a sacrifice performed by the gentiles (Mal 1:11).

Conclusion - As the Eucharist is central to the above six themes within the gospel as promised by the prophets, the Eucharist is central to the gospel.

JM

Arguing for the Divine Institution of the Catholic Papacy.

An Argument is proposed below for the Divine Institution of the Catholic Papacy.

The Papacy is defined in the Catechism as the Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church.

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

Argument proposed -

The Old Testament documents the covenant life of Israel in the covenants made between God and Moses (Ex 19-34), then God and King David (2 Sam 7).

The covenants were promised within the prophets to be superceded by a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34) made along with the divine action of a new Exodus (Isaiah 40-55) and the in-gathering of the nations to a restored Israel (Isaiah 11:11; 43:5, 6; Jer 31:8-10, et al).

The Church is the restored Israel of God, the Church will manifest the perfections of the Davidic kingdom, for the NT fulfills the OT.

As the Davidic kingdom was a kingdom of priests (Ex 19:6), with a prime minister with the power of the keys to bind and loose (Isaiah 22:21-22) over the Davidic kingdom, then the Church is the fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom.

Jesus is the Messiah (Matt. 8:29; 14:33; 26:63-64; 27:43; Mark 1:1; 3:11; Luke 1:35; 4:41; 22:70 et al) who causes the new Exodus, new covenant and the restoration of Israel.

As Jesus acts to fulfill the Davidic kingdom, He does so by causing the church to be a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9), with a chief minister who is granted the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:16-19).

As the Davidic kingdom had successors of priests and kings, then so too the church also has succession from the apostles, who were both priests and kings (as testified by the witness of history).

As Peter was alone given the keys of the kingdom to bind and loose (Matt 16:16-19), then St Peter as head of the apostles must also have had successors, who also have the power to bind and loose (evidence is also attained to the witness of church history concerning the successors to St Peter).

Therefore from the nature of the gospel promised in the OT whereby the church is the fulfillment of Davidic Israel, and the witness of church history, the church has the Papacy instituted by Christ to fulfill the office of chief minister of the restored Israel of God.

Therefore the Papacy is an institution from God.

JM

A modified version of Arguments Against Agnosticism

1)

Practical atheism means mans life is indifferent to the existence of god as the ultimate end of man's moral action.

Agnosticism concludes that god may or may not exist and there is not enough evidence to know either way concerning god’s existence.Agnosticism is therefore indifferent to the existence of god.Agnosticism is therefore indifferent to God as the ultimate end of man's moral actions.Agnosticism is therefore practical atheism.But atheism is false (as shown in the post discussing problems with atheism).But agnosticism is a form of atheism as practical atheism.Therefore agnosticism is false.

2)

Agnosticism concludes that the existence of god cannot be known.
But the human intellect is ordered to know the nature of bodies and therefore being.
God is a being.
Therefore man can know that god exists through analogy from the created order to the uncreated order through the knowledge of being.
Therefore agnosticism contradicts the nature of mans ability to know natures and being.
What contradicts man's knowledge is false.
Therefore agnosticism is false.

3)
Agnosticism concludes that the existence of god may or may not be known.
If the existence of god may be known, then man can know a being that is not a body, but is a spirit.
A spirit is more unlike a body than like a body.
As man knows natures through bodies, then man knows a spirit by analogy from a body.
As god is a spirit, then god is known through analogy from a body.
As analogy is commonly used by man as a valid form of knowledge, and God can be known by analogy, then agnosticism is false.

4)
Agnosticism concludes that it is not possible to know that god exists.
Yet man knows of the existence of god as the first cause, mover, perfector, necessary being and orderer.
Therefore man does know of the existence of god under the character of first cause, mover, perfector, necessary being and orderer.
Therefore agnosticism is false.

5)
Agnosticism concludes that it is not possible to know the nature of god.
Yet natural theology concludes that the nature of god is divine, whereby He is the subsistent being, which exists simply, containing all perfections either formally in the divine nature, or virtually, according to power.
As the divine nature is known through reason and by analogy from creatures, then agnosticism is false.

6)
Agnosticism concludes that the nature of the supernatural cannot be known in God.
Yet the existence of the supernatural is demonstrated from reason as follows.
Every being is common to other beings in so far as it has actions in common to other beings
Every being is distinct from other beings in so far as it has something proper to it alone and not to other beings.
The supreme being has perfections that are both common to all other creatures, yet the supreme being is unlike all other beings which are not supreme.
As the supreme being is unlike all other beings, the supreme being must have a perfection that is unlike all other beings.
As all other beings are natural, then the supreme being has natural perfections in common with other creatures and perfections that are proper to it alone and thereby unlike creatures.
A perfection in the supreme being that is unlike natural creatures is not natural, but supernatural.
But agnosticism concludes that we cannot know that the supreme being, nor the supernatural order exists.
Yet deductive reasoning demonstrates the supreme being, nor the supernatural order exists.
Therefore agnosticism concerning supreme being, and the supernatural order is false.

7)
Agnosticism concludes that the nature of the supernatural cannot be known.
Agnosticism then concludes that neither reason, nor faith has access to the supernatural in God, nor any evidence in creation for the supernatural in the supreme being (called God).
Yet God is supernatural (as shown above) and has chosen to intervene in history through supernatural actions such as prophecy, healing and other miracles (as part of Christian revelation).
As these miracles are true (such as Christ's resurrection), then the action of God in history is also true.
Those miracles have been accompanied with a divine teaching that has informed man through public revelation concerning the nature of the supernatural life in God.
This supernatural life in God is the life of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
As God has told man of the nature of the supernatural life which is then known by men through faith, then agnosticism is false.

JM

If Protestantism is true then . . .

Some points are given below to show the consequences if Protestantism is true -

If Protestantism is true then -

1) Individual interpretation of a text called scripture is true. Yet there is no evidence in that text that God wants men to privately interpret a text, nor is there any evidence that private interpretation of a text is the normative means to determine Christian doctrine.

2) Subjectivism is true, for Protestantism is based upon the subjective judgements of the Reformers and subsequent subjective judgements of later Protestants. Yet subjectivism is false, for truth is always objective.

3) The gospel of the sacraments is false and the gospel of justification by faith alone is true. Yet there is 1) strong evidence for old testament sacraments, and new testament sacraments, and 2) no evidence in the bible for justification by faith alone, and 3) very little to no evidence for justification by faith alone in church history.

4) Church history is irrelevant to revealed truth. For the history of the church is Catholic, containing much evidence for Catholic doctrine and practice. Yet the reformers rejected church history, or only selectively embraced church history and invented many novel doctrines, such as 50 Heterodox Beliefs of Luther in 1520. Yet Christ is God and therefore must control church history, contrary to the illogical rejection of the Protestant reformers.

5) Worship of God is not detailed in the OT nor the NT. For example, there is much detail missing concerning the practices of the Day of Atonement sacrifice and the prayers said at the Passover. Similarly there is little in the NT regarding NT worship of God. Yet the Protestant reformers based their understanding of the Christian faith upon the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Therefore according to the reformers, God has permitted to exclude any detailed instructions for the worship of God in the NT. But at the same time the bible is emphatic that true worship of God is required in the manner detailed only by God, through his covenant community. The inconsistent nature of the OT and NT worship as detailed in the text and the nature of God means the reformers would always be uncertain as how to worship the true God. This lack of certainty means there is always the probability that some reformers were not worshiping God the way He wants to be worshiped, and therefore were committing grave sins of idolatry.

6) Believers can invent their own doctrines and begin their own denominations apart from the work of Christ. Yet such action only leads to scepticism and indifference to doctrine. Hence the ability to begin one’s own denomination is actually an act against faith, which leads to a secular state. Hence Protestantism leads to unbelief.

7) The reformers were correct, yet they disagreed with each other on many points of doctrine and practice. Likewise subsequent generations of Protestants also disagree with each other on many points of doctrine and practice. Hence doctrinal difference and practice, which brings chaos, violence and indifference, is the product of the true faith. Such is absurd.

8) The reformers had no authority apart from apostolic succession. Hence any believer can make up any doctrine without any authority. such only leads to chaos, which is absurd.

9) The reformers taught justification by faith, yet differed on the content of the faith. Hence the reformers chief doctrine involves a grave uncertainty concerning who has faith, for nobody has the authority to define the content of the faith.

10) Protestantism has no authority beyond the individual believer, or perhaps the vote of a group of believers. Hence any denomination will tend to have very limited authority, or alternatively tie itself to the national government as we see with Anglicanism. Neither option is from God as there is no evidence for denominationalism, nor a state church in the NT or church history prior to the reformation. Such a problem leads to an inevitable separation between church and state which is seen in the USA, or a false union of state and church in Anglicanism whereby a non ordained lay person in the reigning Monarch has the power to appoint bishops.

11) Calvinism teaches the church is not to be united to the state. Yet the state notoriously changes its position on morality through a process of inter-generational decay. Hence the church is always subject to a state in moral decay under the influence of a state that is subject to the effects of original sin. Hence a form of Protestantism will always tend towards a discontinuity against the whims of the government, be that a democracy, aristocracy, or a Monarchy. Hence the defect of not joining a denomination to the state infers Calvinist Protestantism is leads to a de facto separation of church and state, which infers the state will inevitably legislate laws that are against the Protestant gospel.

12) There is no infallible means to determine the extent of the canon of scripture. Hence the canon of scripture is merely a manmade set of books.

13) There are multiple methods to interpret a text and none of the methods are found within scripture. The conclusions arrived at using the methods are often contrary and sometimes contradict Protestant doctrine. Hence the doctrine of sola scriptura leads to an elitist understanding of Christianity according to the conclusions of bible professors, both for and against Protestant doctrinal history. The elitist Christianity then produces scepticism about the meaning of the biblical text, causing indifferentism within the denomination.

14) The reformed understanding of faith as an instrumental cause of justification is without merit in the bible, and reason. Hence such reformed doctrines must separate faith and reason, which in turn gives occasion to the rise of an age of sceptical rationalism which rejects faith. Faith is rejected by the rationalists because faith is incorrectly understood by both the rationalists from the Protestant tradition to be made apart, and sometimes against reason.

JM

An Argument for the True Faith

An argument below is proposed to conclude to the Catholic faith as the one true faith. The argument begins by establishing the truth of monotheism, then moves to the nature of religion, and then to the truth of Christianity, then to the truth of the Catholic faith. The argument only proposes the bare bones of the truth of each step. The argument then proceeds to show the logic of the Catholic position.

God either exists or not.
If God does not exist, then atheism is true.
But atheism is false, for God is the necessary being, without which no thing can exist.
Hence theism is true for atheism is false and theism is true of itself.
For God is the necessary being and a denial of which leads to absurdity.

Hence because theism is true, then either monotheism or polytheism is true.
If polytheism is true, then many necessary beings exist.
Yet the only necessary being is pure act which is one.
Hence polytheism is false.

If monotheism is true, then there is only one God.
As God is the necessary being, which is being by nature,
then from the nature of being as only one, there is only one necessary being.
Monotheism is true, then there is only one God.

As monotheism is true, then the one God is all powerful.
For being without limit is being with all perfect without limit.
Power then is a perfection, when in God, without limit.
Hence the one God controls all things.
But to control all things means to control world history.
Hence the one God controls world history.

If then the one God has revealed some truths to men, then those truths must be contained within history.
The divine truths contained within history must be lived out by the believers in history.
But to live out truths revealed by God is to live in accord with human nature with respect to God.
To live a human life with respect to God is to regulate human life in accord with 1) knowledge of divine truths, and 2) to direct men towards God through free moral action as regulated by natural moral law and divine positive law.

Therefore to regulate human life with regard to divinely revealed truths is to 1) propose truths of faith as a form of knowledge 2) propose laws to regulate human behaviour, and 3) propose worship of the one true God through which men can give glory to God.
Therefore to account for the nature of man in respect to God, the true religion must contain a creed, code and cult.
The creed is an expression of the truths revealed by God.
The code is an expression of the law whereby men are to obey and attain the ultimate end.
The cult is the institution by which men are to worship God.

The one true faith will be revealed by God.
Hence God will provide evidence that He has revealed truths to men, through truth and power.
God has provide evidence that He has revealed truths to men, through truth and power through the revelations received by the Patriarchs, Israel and finally through Jesus Christ.
For Christ as the seal of the prophets both claimed and proved that He was God through His perfect life, His perfect teaching, His fulfillment of prophesy and performance of miracles, such as His own resurrection.
As Christ was God, then His religion is the true faith.
Yet the religion of Christianity is divided into many denominations.
But as truth is one, then only one form of Christianity alone can possibly from Christ.
That form of Christianity must have a unity of doctrine, a creed, a law of conduct from Christ and a form of worship from Christ.
That form of Christianity must also have a strong witness throughout church history, for Christ as God controls Church history.

When Church history is examined there is a strong universal witness to the creeds, law and worship of the Catholic Church, with its apostolic succession, creeds of faith, church laws, and Eucharistic worship.
No other form of Christianity can produce the evidence from church history for the divine establishment and divine protection granted to the Catholic church.
For no other form of Christianity can both 1) trace its origin back to Christ, and 2) show a strong witness in history to the practice of faith throughout all of church history.
Hence the Catholic faith, based upon the work of Christ, with the bishops and Popes in Rome is the one true faith given by God to men.


Objection 1 - the doctrinal content of the Catholic faith is rejected by Protestants. Hence the Catholic faith cannot claim with certitude that the Catholic faith is the one true faith, for the Catholic faith does not have true doctrine.

Answer - The Catholic faith alone has a strong witness in church history. Hence only the Catholic faith can be considered as the true faith. If the Catholic faith is shown to have one or more doctrinal errors, then the Catholic faith is false, along with all other Christian denominations. But then, it has never been shown that the Catholic faith has errors, regardless of the claims of its opponents.

Objection 2 - The historical witness to the Catholic faith is not uniform. For there is witness to the presence of Orthodoxy, with its claims to apostolic succession.

Answer - The historical evidence for Orthodoxy is not evident until after the schism in 1054 AD. Hence the Orthodox cannot make any historical claim to their own particular ecclesiologies, or doctrines (contraception, divorce and remarriage) prior to the schism of 1054 AD. Hence the history of orthodoxy is without historical basis before 1054 AD. Hence only the Catholic faith which has historical witness from the apostles is the one true faith.

I realise the above argument is incomplete, due to the inability to demonstrate the truths of the Catholic faith as many Catholic apologists have done in the past. Yet the above argument does provide some indication of where a truth seeker may tend toward to find the true faith.

JM

An Argument for Purgatory.

Purgatory is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as -

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire -

The purification process necessary to attain holiness for heaven is a process that occurs between death and the beatitude of heaven.

Argument for the Existence of Purgatory.

The Lords prayer states "Thy will [of the Father] be done in earth, as it is in heaven (Matt 6:5-15; Luke 11:1-13).
The Father's will is that of God.
God's will is impeccable (Isaiah 6:3).
Therefore the Father's will is impeccable.

What is impeccable is without fault.
What is without fault is without sin.
The Father's will is impeccable and thereby without sin.

Jesus gave Christians the Lord's prayer to show Christians the will of the Father.
The will of the Father is that Christians have an impeccable will as that of the Father (Matt 5:45, 1 Pet 1:15) and as indicated in the Lord's prayer (Matt 6:5-15; Luke 11:1-13).
What Jesus gives, is to be followed to attain heaven, for Jesus as God is the perfect teacher.

Heaven is to see God face to face as the supernatural last end of man.
To see God face to face, infers man is in God's presence.
But to be in God's presence is to live a divine life in accord with the will of God (Rom 8).
To live a divine life in accord with the will of God means those men in heaven must have an impeccable will in union with God.
Yet we are told by God that men on earth sin and thereby are not impeccable.
And we are told that the just man sins seven times a day (Prov 24:16).
Hence men on earth sin regularly and thereby do not have impeccable wills.

For man to attain the vision of God requires that man die in the state of grace.
For a man to die in the state of grace means at death, mans will is ordered by grace towards God as the object of man's supernatural love.
Yet man's loving of God as the supernatural last end of man does not exclude minor sins which can be committed, but which do not remove man being directed towards his true final end.
For some sins do and other sins do not bring death (1 John 5:16).
Those sins which bring death are mortal and cause man to love a creature over that of God (Rom 2:12).
Other sins do not bring death and thereby do not remove the love of God that dominates man's will (Prov 24:16, 1 John 5:16).

Sins which do not bring death are venial sins.
Sins which do bring death are mortal sins.
Men who die in the state of grace may have committed venial sins and thereby have a human will directed towards God as the true final end of man.
Yet venial sin committed by men in the state of grace infers mans will in the state of grace is not impeccable.
Yet final beatitude is for men who have an impeccable will in union with the Father (1 John 3:1-3).
Hence men who die in the state of grace but have committed venial sins are unfit for heaven, for the human will is not impeccable.
Also men who die in the state of grace but have committed venial sins are unfit for hell, for the human will is correctly directed towards God as the ultimate love of man.
And hell is the false ultimate end of men who falsely love a creature above that of God when mortal sin is committed.
Hence the man who dies in the state of grace, is directed towards God, but without an impeccable will, whereby man cannot enter either heaven or hell.

Hence there is a third state, whereby those men who die in the state of grace, without an impeccable will, in which God removes any imperfection in men to prepare men for heaven.
For men who die in the state of grace are directed by God to the true ultimate end, though imperfectly with venial sin.
And God does not act to frustrate His work of grace in men, but always acts to fulfill His work of grace.
For God does not contradict His own work in men.
Hence the work of grace performed by God, commenced when men are alive, will continue in men unto the perfection of impeccability.
Thereby men who die in the state of grace are ordered towards heaven, but because of venial sin, are not fit for heaven, but are further perfected by God in a third state that is neither heaven, nor hell.
The third state after death is rightly called purgatory by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Hence from the nature of man, venial sin and the impeccability of heaven, purgatory must exist.
Hence purgatory exists.

JM

Problems Proposed for Atheism.

Atheism concludes to God does not exist using the following or a similar argument from evil -

Argument from Evil

If God did exist, then He is both infinitely good and infinitely powerful.

Yet evil exists, which is a lack of a due good.

If both God and evil exists then

1) evil exists and God permits the evil making the all good God, evil

and

2) evil exists and God does not have the power to prevent the evil making the all-powerful God, not all powerful.

As evil exists then God is not all good and not all powerful.

Therefore God does not exist.

Problem 1) - Evil is a lack of a due good. If evil exists, then evil must reside in the good, whereby the good is the material cause of evil. The blind man is blind due to the evil of blindness, but also due to the goodness of the existence of the man. If the man did not exist, the blindness that resides in the man, would also not exist. Therefore the existence of evil assumes the existence of the good.

The good exists if evil exists, but the good is that which is appetible. And that which is appetible is a mode of being. Then if evil exists, the evil resides in a thing which has being. But being is either had by participation or by nature. If by participation, a thing has some being, which in turn is dependent upon the necessary being, which is God. Therefore is evil exists, God must exist, for evil presumes the good as a material cause, which can only be accounted for through the existence of the necessary being, which is God. Therefore, because evil is dependent upon the good and the good is caused by God, then because evil exists, God must exist.

Question - How then does atheism account for the existence of evil without accounting for the existence of the good?

Problem 2) - Evil in the world is caused by sin (Gen 3:17ff.) whereby sin is a defect in the will of a creature. The existence of evil is then dependent upon the existence of human free will. For atheism to then posit that evil exists apart from human free will, is to posit evil exists in the world apart from free will as revealed by God (Gen 3:17ff.). If so, then according to atheism, evil exists in the world apart from Adam's free will and thereby has its origin only in nature and not will. Consequently, atheism would claim God alone has authored evil as the creator of the universe in which we observe evil. Hence God is the powerless and evil, false god as concluded from the above argument from evil.

Question - How then does atheism account for the existence of evil without accounting for the Christian revelation that evil has its origin in human free will and the subsequent curse after the original sin?

Question - doesn't atheism require a false, a-priori denial of Christian revelation concerning the original cause of evil, to then propose the false argument from evil presented above, and to then conclude to God does not exist? If not why not?

Question - If atheism posits the cause of evil in nature and not will, how does atheism account for evil in nature, when nature is caused by God as the universal cause of all things?

Problem 3) - If the argument from evil concludes to God does not exist, the argument must contain within it an unresolvable problem concerning the nature of evil which is said to be incompatible with the existence of the all good and all powerful God. Yet the argument from evil must conclude to the existence of the all-powerful and all good God, for

1) God is the universal cause of being and therefore of the good, in which evil resides.

2) If evil exists, then God exists, which infers evil only exists because of the good. As the good is revealed by God through Christian revelation to include the restoration of the universe on the final day and ultimate union of men with God in beatitude, then the evil in the universe exists as part of the Christian revelation to ultimately glorify God and save men from sin.

Question - If the argument from evil is thought to conclude to God does not exist, then the argument must both implicitly affirm the existence of God and implicitly deny Christian revelation concerning the ultimate cause and ultimate resolution to the existence of evil. How then does the argument from evil conclude to the non-existence of God when God is implied in the argument and the correct resolution to the original cause and ultimate resolution to the problem of evil are both ignored?

JM