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

Some Thomistic Concepts Introduced and Discussed.

St Thomas Aquinas holds the title as universal doctor of the Church. He is responsible for writing the great works of the Summa Theologia and Summa Contra Gentiles, among many other important works. I intend to introduce some Thomistic concepts for discussion.

The first concept is that of the person which may be understood in contrast to that of being in God.

Question - What is the difference between a being and person in God?

Answer - being in God is the divine nature. God is being. A person is understood diversely as -

1) a hypostases or supposit of rational nature. A hypostases is a concrete thing, for example a a chair existing in the real is a concrete thing. Likewise a person is a concrete thing existing in the real, and therefore a hypostases. A person is also different from a chair for a person is rational, and thereby has the spiritual powers of intellect and will. A person is then a concrete thing, existing in the real, with an intellect and will.

If this definition is transferred to the notion of a divine person, each person is then a concrete thing with an intellect and a will. Yet in God, there is only one intellect and one will, for God is not composed of parts, nor has accidental perfections. A divine person is also a hypostases or supposit as a concrete thing. Such means the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three, concrete things that exist in the real. Each concrete thing existing in the real is really distinct from the other. The Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit and so on. The Father is then a concrete thing with an intellect and will. This definition does tell us something of the nature of a divine person, but the definition is lacking according to the manner in which 1) the Father's personhood is not that of the Son and Holy Spirit, and 2) the Father's intellect and will is identical to that of the Son and Holy Spirit. Likewise for the Son and Holy Spirit.

2) that which is incommunicable. A person owns everything which it has. For example Peter owns his arms, legs, eye, heart, thoughts, willing and actions. Each of these parts can be communicated to another. Such as an idea. Peter can have an idea, which is known to him and is therefore Peter's idea. Peter can then also express the idea to another and thereby communicates the idea to another. Likewise Peter can give every other part of himself to another. For example, Peter can give all of his actions to another as to an employer.

However, there is something Peter cannot communicate, or give to another. That which cannot be communicated to another is Peter's person. Peter is the name we give to the person, which is that that cannot be given to another. When Peter gives, it is Peter, and not another person that gives. Peter then cannot give something of himself that is Peter, for there is not person, prior to the person of Peter, by which Peter can be given to anther. Peter, then is the name given to the personhood of the rational substance, which is fundamentally incommunicable.

When applied to God, the divine person is that which cannot be communicated to another within God. The Fathers, intellect, will, being, and life are all communicated to the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet the Father as a person, cannot communicate His own distinct personhood to another divine person. For the Father is, and always will be a distinct, incommunicable being, other than the Son and the Holy Spirit. Like wise for the Son and the Holy Spirit.

3) the first subject of attribution. The first subject is that subject which is before all others. A second subject is that which depends upon the first subject as a first. For example, my hand is the subject of my fingers. My fingers are dependent upon my hand as a third subject is dependent upon a second subject. The hand is then in turn dependent upon the first subject, which is the owner of all other subjects. The first subject, is the person that owns all the attributes of the man, called Peter. Peter has hands, legs and arms and habits, which are all owned by Peter. All these things are known as attributes. Therefore Peter, is the first subject of attribution, and is therefore the human person, who owns all of the attributes.

When applied to God, the F/S/HS all own the divine attributes. The divine persons who own the divine attributes are the first subjects of attribution. Therefore in God, there are three, first subjects of attribution.

4) Substantial relation. There is no examples in creation of a substantial relation. We do however have examples of accidental relation. Predicamental relation occurs when a substance has an accidental being towards another, whereby that relational (accidental) being is not the natural power of the substance. For example a Father has an accidental relation to the Son. The Father as man, is naturally a rational animal, and is not thereby naturally a Father. This means, man as the nature of man, is rational animal, and man as man is not from the nature of man, a father. In this way, fatherhood, motherhood, sonship and daughterhood are all accidental to the nature of man, and are thereby predicated of man. For example, Peter is a father, Jane is a mother. Both the predicates of father and mother indicate they are accidental to the nature of man.

Transcendental relation occurs when there is a relation within a thing that is ordered to act towards another, from the nature of a thing. For example, the eye is an organ of sight and is thereby from the nature of eye, ordered towards another thing - illuminated colour. Similarly, the other senses are also ordered towards another, and thereby are transcendentally related to another, as to an object.

In God there are no accidents. Therefore in God, there is neither predicamental, nor transcendental relation. All in God is substance. Yet in God it has been revealed that there is opposition and therefore relation. Each relation in God is not accidental, but substantial. Therefore in God, there are three persons, whereby each person is defined as a substantial relation. The F is a substantial relation to the Son. The Son is a substantial relation to the Father, etc. There are four relations in God of F->S, S->F, F&S->HS, and HS->F&S. Each relation, of F/S/HS indicates a divine person as a being towards another.

Now as to the question of what is the difference between a being and person in God? The differences are according to manner of defining person within God.

1) a hypostases or supposit of rational nature. A divine person is a hypostases. The divine being is the being had in common with the three divine hypostases.

2) that which is incommunicable. A divine person is that which is incommunicable. The divine being is that being which is communicated to each of the divine persons.

3) the first subject of attribution. A divine person is that first subject of the divine attributes. The divine being is owned by three divine, first subjects of the F/S and HS.

4) Substantial relation. A divine person is a substantial being towards another. The divine being of each person is not had as a being towards another, but as being had is common. The divine person is then a mode of being, particular to each person, whereby the divine being had in common is being had as essence.

Further Discussion on the Concepts of Being and Person in God.

God is one being, but the one being is had in diverse modes in the three persons. As Christians we cannot say God is not one being. God is being and God is three persons, who are three modes of the one, essential being. God is then according to person, three modes of being, but according to essence, one being. A mode does not indicate a really distinct being had apart from that being. For example, a piece of string may be had according to different modes of straight and curved. The string is the same, but the manner by which the string exists is modally different. For the string to be really distinct, the string would have to be distinct to the chair, or table. The string is not the chair or table, but the string. So too the straight and bent piece of the same string, are modes of the same string. Hence the modes of string do not mean the bent string is really distinct from the straight string.

Analogously, the three divine persons and the divine essence are not really distinct from each other. The divine person is not another thing, distinct from the divine essence, like the table or chair are distinct from the string. In God, all the divine persons and the divine essence are one, but had in different modes, and are therefore distinct by modes of being. God is being. F, S and HS are three beings, modally different to the one essence of God, which is being.

The difficulty in understanding this manner of understanding God, is the modes of the string are accidental, but the modes in God are substantial. We creatures only know of accidental modes of existence, such as the modes of string. Hence, we do not know by experience of any substantial modes of existence. To then say God is three and one according to modes of being, cannot be understood in itself, but only according to analogy from the experience of accidental modes had in creation.

To understand modes of being in God by analogy from creatures only provides some assistance in removing any allegation of contradiction in God. The modes of being in God are simply not knowable in themselves to man. We cannot know what the diverse modes of being in God really are essentially in God, for the distinction made in God according to modes of being is wrapped up in the supernatural mystery of God as both one and three. Therefore when we arrive at the conclusion, along with Basil the Great, that the distinctions of person and nature in God are according to mode, we do so, knowing that we have only obtained some insight into what has been revealed by God, without ever directly knowing the nature of God, nor how God is both three and one.

I could tell you how a car works, then you would both know what a car is and how it works. God has told mankind what He is as both one and three, but not how both one and three work out in the inner life of God. Such an explanation would consist in God explaining the transcendent life to a creature, which is a life that only God, who alone has a supernatural mind, can fully comprehend. Evidently God cannot explain such a reality to creatures, whereby the creature comes to know that reality in God, which is naturally above a creatures comprehension. Only in heaven, when the saints see the divine nature face to face in the beatific vision, whereby the mind of a creature is raised to the supernatural life of God, will the creature know the inner workings of the divine life. So too, God has revealed the Trinitarian life of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In doing so, He has shown man there is a life in God had properly in God alone. Yet man simply cannot fully comprehend in this life, what this inner life of God really is.

Part of the mystery of revelation is God has revealed some truths to man, without revealing the full nature of those truths. For example, God has revealed the Word became flesh, but He has not revealed how this mystery was caused. Likewise God has revealed that man is justified by a free act of grace, yet the nature of grace is not fully understood by men in this life. Similarly, we know of the one and three in God, but we cannot fully comprehend in this life, what that means.

God is one and God is three. God is a Trinity, understood in this life by faith, and in the next life by vision.

JM

Further Questions on the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Some further questions are proposed for the reader to consider with regard to statements made in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

[quote]I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3] [/quote]

Question – God’s call is said to be linked directly to justification. Where in the scriptures is God’s calling always linked directly to justification and thereby indicates that all grace of calling is irresistible? If there is one verse that indicates men can act against God’s calling, then irresistible grace is debunked.

Question – If God accounts persons righteous, “not by anything . . . done by them”, how does God account persons righteous by faith, when faith is an act done by the person? Isn’t the Westminster confession (WC) self contradictory here? Why not?

Question – If God accounts righteousness “not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them”, why doesn’t God account all men righteous for Christ's sake alone? After all, if faith is not an act “done by them” [the justified], then faith need not be done, and hence God can justify any person apart from anything that person has done.

Question – If God accounts a man just, apart from any thing “done by them”, why not account faith to the person as well?

[quote] II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5] [/quote]

Question – If there are no verses that actually state faith is an instrument, why did God never say faith is an instrument, when faith is essential to justification?

Question – If faith is an instrument, how do you know, if all the evidence in the scriptures is only from prepositions such as “through” or “by” in association with faith?

Question – If faith is an instrument, why would God make such a truth that is so essential, so vague?

Question – If faith is an instrument, why is this truth not found in church history until the reformation? Did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the church until the reformation? If so, how can you be sure the HS is teaching the truth in the WC?

Question – If faith is an instrument, what is the instrument? What does it do? What does it not do?

Question – If faith is an instrument, how does it differ from a virtue such as hope and love?

Question – If faith is an instrument, what are the consequences of the instrument with regard to sin and grace? Should we equate grace with an instrument?

Question – If faith is taught by the WC to be an instrument, but is in fact a virtue and not an instrument then the WC teaching on justification is false, is it not?

Question – If faith “is ever accompanied with all other saving graces” why don’t these graces act as an instrument with faith to justify, when there are no texts that actually teach faith alone, or faith is ever alone?

Question – If faith is alone that justifies and faith is an instrument and there are no explicit texts that teach either of these apparent truths, what certitude does one have that both are true, over any claim that they are merely the inventions of men?

Question – The WC says in another text that scripture interprets scripture via the explicit interpretation the implicit, or more vague texts. If faith as an instrument is only known through implicit or vague texts, how do we know that such is true when there are no explicit texts as required by the method described by the WC?

Question – What assurance does one have that the WC’s teaching is true, when the only scriptural evidence for faith as an instrument is a number of prepositions, assumed to infer faith as an instrument, without any other explicit scriptural support, or without any support from church history? Not much, or none at all.

[quote] [4] JOH 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: ROM 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. ROM 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. [/quote]

Question – If faith is an instrument, that alone causes justification, how does faith not exclude the work of Christ? After all, alone means alone and not another cause of justification.

Question – If faith is an instrument, why use the word “alone” when no text in the NT ever associates the phrase “faith alone” with justification, except James 2:24, which denies man is justified by faith alone.

Question – If faith is an instrument, why not hope and love, or any other virtue?

Question – If faith is an instrument, why is not faith a virtue like hope and love?

Question – If faith is an instrument, that is dead without love, why is love not an instrument as well that informs love?

Question – If faith is an instrument, and faith alone justifies, how is faith alone, when it must be informed by love to be living?

Question – If faith is an instrument, accompanied by saving graces that works through love, how does one not lose justification if one sins against love?

Question – If sin against love does not cause a loss of love in union with faith how can love still exist along with sin?

Question – If sin against love does cause a loss of love, how can faith alone justify, without love that is said to be an accompanied saving grace?

[quote] III. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father's justice in their behalf.[6] Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them;[7] and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead;[8] and both, freely, not for any thing in them; their justification is only of free grace;[9] that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.[10] [/quote]

Question – the justified can sin but not lose justification, can one sin against faith and not lose justification? After all after one has faith, then according to the WC, one cannot lose justification.

Question – If the only sin is a sin against faith that causes a loss of justification, what happens to faith as an instrument? Does the instrument become annihilated, or does God put it back into heaven?

Question – Justification and sanctification are separated in the WC, yet Justification and sanctification are not doctrinally separate in church history. What confidence does one have that the separation of Justification and sanctification are correct, when the separation is an novelty based upon no explicit texts for faith as an instrument and no texts that say faith alone justifies?

[quote]IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13] [/quote]

Question – If the HS applies Christ unto them and cause them to be holy, what need is there for justification by faith alone? If one is made holy by the HS, why not have the work of the HS as the cause of justification?

Question – If the HS causes both faith and sanctification, why separate the two acts, when both are cause by the same HS?

[quote]V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;[14] and although they can never fall from the state of justification,[15] yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.[16] [/quote]

Question – If “they can never fall from the state of justification”, then they can act against saving graces of love done in works with faith. So the saving graces of love and good works can be lost, but not justification, which saves. How does this reasoning make any sense?

Question – If one cannot lose justification, then justification is for the elect who are called and have faith. Such means justification is tied into unconditional election of the saints. How can election be unconditional when faith is required as a condition for justification?

[quote]VI. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.[17] [/quote]

Question – If the justification of believers is the same in the OT and NT, why was king David and Israel both punished for sin when Christ took the punishment for sin as a penal substitute on the cross?

JM

Moon Phases and Orbit Are Incompatible with the Heliocentric Model

The phases of the moon and the Earth's Orbit around the sun are Incompatible with the Heliocentric Model.

The moon phases are portrayed as consistent over a lunar cycle. The cycle is based upon the moons elliptical orbit around the earth as one focus of the ellipse.

Part A

Yet the Earth orbits the sun, like the helicopter orbiting the moving helicopter.

The motion of one helicopter orbiting the moving helicopter produces a spiral shape. This spiral shape of the orbiting helicopter indicates an acceleration and deceleration of the helicopter relative to the straight line helicopter. Comparatively the moon orbits the moving earth and should produce accelerations and decelerations observed on earth that are not compatible with an elliptical orbit. Yet the Helio model claims the moon orbits the moving earth in an ellipse. The incompatibility of the Helio claim of the elliptical moon orbit with a spiral path of the moon against the moving earth invalidates the Helio model.

The nature of a elliptical orbit of the moon as an ellipse is incompetent to account for the motion of the moon around the earth. For every time the moon moves with the earth's orbit, the moon must accelerate, and when the moon orbits against the earth's orbit, decelerate to account for the observed lunar cycle. An elliptical orbit is simply incompatible with an orbiting earth.

The problem becomes worse when we note the moons elliptical orbit processes, which means over a period of time the moons perihelion and aphelion rotate in space around the earth. The rotation of the perihelion and aphelion means the Helio model cannot account for the moon as an elliptical orbit around the earth. For the moons orbit with its ever processing perihelion and aphelion cannot consistently provide for the accelerations and decelerations on a monthly basis in relation to the earth's orbit. Every month the moon must accelerate on the far side of the sun-earth-moon alignment and decelerate on the close side of the sun-moon- earth alignment. Theses accelerations and decelerations are not consistent with an elliptical orbit.

The symmetry of the lunar cycle shown above is incompatible with the spiral motion expected of the moon orbiting the earth is space as indicated above. If the moon orbits the earth via an ellipse, we should observe a non symmetrical shadow on the moon over the lunar cycle. There should be light on the moon for a long time when the sun-earth-moon alignment, and a lighter for a shorter time with the sun-moon-earth alignment.

Part B

The standard elliptical orbit model has a fixed focus. The Helio model requires the earth to move through space with changes in velocity and distance to the sun. Hence the Helio model requires a non fixed focus to the earth as the focus of the moon's elliptical orbit. A non fixed focus of an elliptical orbit is not in accord with the model of the elliptical orbit with a fixed focus. Hence the moon cannot be consistently modeled as being an ellipse and seeing from Earth the accelerations and decelerations expected of an elliptical orbit. 

Also the moon must travel through space in a spiral by -

1) accelerating with the sun-earth-moon alignment whereby the moon slows down against the motion of the earth around the sun, 

and 

2) decelerating with the sun-moon-earth alignment whereby the moon speeds up with the motion of the earth around the sun.

Such accelerations do not exist in the standard elliptical orbit model. Hence, if the Earth based observer sees the moon in an elliptical orbit around the earth, the elliptical orbit is only apparent and not real. For a real elliptical orbit cannot account for the motions in 1) and 2) above.

Alternatively, if the moon travels through space in a spiral as indicated in an above post, then it may be seen from earth as an elliptical orbit. Yet again, the moon's motion through space is not elliptical, but a spiral, which includes the motions of 1) and 2) which are not contained within the standard ellipse model. 

The various motions of the earth and moons are hopelessly complicated and cannot be reduced to a moon elliptical orbit. The procession of the moon's ellipse makes the moon's orbit more complex, and only adds to the problems of 1) and 2) above. For the appropriate accelerations and decelerations are required of the moon's orbit as the moon's ellipse processes. This is simply not possible for an elliptical orbit model.

A possible answer to this problem is to claim the moon is somehow attached to the earth via the phenomenon called gravity. Yet this answer only assumes a phenomenon not accounted for within the model. There is no force, and no phenomenon within the standard elliptical orbit model that accounts for the vacuous assumption that gravity causes the earth, as a moving focus, to then become the stationary focus of the moon's elliptical orbit. The vacuous assumption is essential to any defense of the Helio model, yet the assumption is without merit.

There are no compelling reasons to believe the Helio model can rigorously account for the orbit of the moon. The Helio model has several major weaknesses, one of is the moving focus of the moon's elliptical orbit. A similar problem occurs with all the other planets that orbit the moving solar system barycentre. The motion of the focus of the ellipse means the models must both affirm the motion, but then ignore, or hand wave away the problem under the simplistic assumption that the planets are just carried along with the moving barycentre. Of course to assume this answer is true is to contradict Newtonian mechanics that says acceleration requires a force. Yet the Helio model ignores this central teaching of Newtonian mechanics and claims to solve the problem of the moving focus without the need for forces to account for the ongoing attachment of the planets to imitate a non-moving focus.

If the focus of the ellipse is not moving, then the standard elliptical model, (which is itself problematic) may then be applied without the use of a force to explain the stationary focus. But if the focus moves via a change in velocity, then there is acceleration and an accompanied force that must be inserted into the model to have the accelerated focus correctly modeled within an elliptical orbit model. The force does not exist in the Helio model, which only assumes the earth as the focus of the moon's orbit is always stationary relative to the moon.

Part C

The problem with the Helio model also involves the two claims that 

1) within the Helio model the moon's orbit is an ellipse and 

2) the moon is seen from earth as an ellipse. 

Yet these two claims are incompatible with each other. 

If 1) is true, then 2) is false. 

The moons orbit cannot be an ellipse against a moving earth for the reasons given above. Hence 1) is false. If the moon is observed from earth as an ellipse. Then 2) is true.

If 2) is true, then 1) is false.

If the moon's orbit is observed from earth to be an ellipse, then 2) is true. But the orbit is in fact not an ellipse in space within the Helio model, for the Helio model of an ellipse does not account for the motions within the month to account for the earths orbit around the sun. Hence 1) is false.

The Helio model cannot hold to both 1) and 2) as both true.

Another aspect of the problem - If the moving focus is the earth as a real body with a real mass. As the real body moves through space, the body accelerates. As the accelerating body is the focus of the moon's ellipse, the ellipse must also accelerate along with the earth. The acceleration of the earth along with the moons ellipse means a force must be included within the moon's elliptical orbit, which is systematically ignored if we assume the focus moves, the ellipse moves with it. Simple. But in reality the problem is not so simple if we want to be consistent with Newtonian mechanics. Hence the problem.

If we ignore the acceleration of the focus of the moon's ellipse, we ignore the acceleration of the earth. In turn we ignore the motion of the earth around the sun. Which in turn means we ignore the Heliocentric model, with it's current claims to be the preferred model.

JM