An Argument for the True Faith

[Doug Shaver]

Desire follows upon knowledge.
For no being can be desired if it not first known.
Once known, a thing may then be desired.
But what is known, has being.
Hence what is desired is being understood as a good.
Therefore desire as an appetite following knowledge is always an appetite for being, which is the good.

I see a lot of metaphysical presuppositions in there, probably Aristotelian.

[Sparko]

Your argument consists in a series of disconnected bible quotes followed by a disconnected conclusion. Therefore your argument is incoherent.

Really? It shows that nobody is good. You are arguing that everything and every body is good.

Maybe you need to send the verses to the Pope so he can interpret them for you?

Good is a mode of being. Whatever thing is, has being and is then good.

You realize the difference in "existence is intrinsically good" and "something exists therefore that thing is good?"
Satan exists. Satan is not Good. His having existence is good because it is better to exist than not to exist. But him existing doesn't make him good. Your argument was that since God existed that made God good. It doesn't logically follow.

All moral acts have being and hence are good ontologically.
But not all moral acts are ordered towards the fitting good, and some moral acts are therefore unlawful. Killing your wife is ontologically good, for it is an act, and any act has being, which is good. But the same act is morally unlawful, and then evil, for the act is not in accord with reason and is thereby unlawful.

JM

so based on your argument, then:
evil is a moral act and hence is ontologically good.
Therefore evil is good.
Therefore good = evil.
Therefore God is evil.

Desiring to murder your wife is not good. It is a twisting and corruption of something good: Wanting to be happy. - but the corrupted desire is evil, not good. You see the difference?

[37818]

Stock standard Reformed rhetoric that is based upon the Lutheran myth (or some such similar myth) and its attached false doctrines of justification by faith alone.

JM

In other words you really do not know the true faith. You see it is by God's witness that one can know. ". . . If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: . . ."

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
Your argument consists in a series of disconnected bible quotes followed by a disconnected conclusion. Therefore your argument is incoherent.
Really? It shows that nobody is good. You are arguing that everything and every body is good.

It merely shows you can quote some texts without any context and no reference to any authority to tell us the meaning of those texts. The quotes do not tell us that nobody is good, for there are psalms that speak of the righteous.

Maybe you need to send the verses to the Pope so he can interpret them for you?

Maybe you should try to make an actual argument.

Good is a mode of being. Whatever thing is, has being and is then good.
You realize the difference in "existence is intrinsically good" and "something exists therefore that thing is good?"

The thing is good ontologically because it exists. It is morally good if its will aligns with the law.

Satan exists. Satan is not Good. His having existence is good because it is better to exist than not to exist. But him existing doesn't make him good. Your argument was that since God existed that made God good. It doesn't logically follow.

You seem to equivocate on existence and good here. Satan is good according to nature, but evil according to will.

All moral acts have being and hence are good ontologically.
But not all moral acts are ordered towards the fitting good, and some moral acts are therefore unlawful. Killing your wife is ontologically good, for it is an act, and any act has being, which is good. But the same act is morally unlawful, and then evil, for the act is not in accord with reason and is thereby unlawful.

JM
so based on your argument, then:
evil is a moral act and hence is ontologically good.
Therefore evil is good.
Therefore good = evil.
Therefore God is evil.

Desiring to murder your wife is not good. It is a twisting and corruption of something good: Wanting to be happy. - but the corrupted desire is evil, not good. You see the difference?

Every desire is ontologically good for it has being, but is either good or evil according to the desire being in accord with law or not. Your argument confuses ontological and moral goodness and evil. You interchange the two to come to a false conclusion.

JM

[JohnMartin]

In other words you really do not know the true faith. You see it is by God's witness that one can know. ". . . If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: . . ."

Faith alone theology has no evidence in the NT. The only time faith alone appears in the NT is in James 2:24 whereby justification is by works and not by faith alone. Faith alone theology is directly rebutted by James.

JM

[Sparko]

It merely shows you can quote some texts without any context and no reference to any authority to tell us the meaning of those texts. The quotes do not tell us that nobody is good, for there are psalms that speak of the righteous.



Maybe you should try to make an actual argument.




The thing is good ontologically because it exists. It is morally good if its will aligns with the law.



You seem to equivocate on existence and good here. Satan is good according to nature, but evil according to will.



Every desire is ontologically good for it has being, but is either good or evil according to the desire being in accord with law or not. Your argument confuses ontological and moral goodness and evil. You interchange the two to come to a false conclusion.

JM

I am sorry but can you provide citations from the Pope that align with your interpretations? You see, I don't want to accept any private interpretation. m'kay? Thanks.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Maybe you should try to make an actual argument.

oh_the_ironing.jpg

[37818]

Faith alone theology has no evidence in the NT. The only time faith alone appears in the NT is in James 2:24 whereby justification is by works and not by faith alone. Faith alone theology is directly rebutted by James.

JM

No. The Apostle Paul, ". . . But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. . . ," Romans 4:5, based on Genesis 15:6. Which James cites in 2:23 (along with Isaiah 41:8.) which was long before Isaac was born. And James regarding Abraham being justified by his works, 2:21, refers to Genesis 22:12 many years later when Isaac was a young man.

[JohnMartin]

No. The Apostle Paul, ". . . But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. . . ," Romans 4:5, based on Genesis 15:6. Which James cites in 2:23 (along with Isaiah 41:8.) which was long before Isaac was born. And James regarding Abraham being justified by his works, 2:21, refers to Genesis 22:12 many years later when Isaac was a young man.

The works Paul refers to are Mosaic covenant works such as circumcision, which is no replaced by baptism. Faith alone only appears in James 2:24 where justification by faith alone is denied.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

Faith alone theology has no evidence in the NT.

No evidence at all? Not really. The evidence is not conclusive, obviously, but the evidence is there in Ephesians 2:8-9.

[37818]

The works Paul refers to are Mosaic covenant works such as circumcision, which is no[w] replaced by baptism. Faith alone only appears in James 2:24 where justification by faith alone is denied.

JM

Ah, I should have added [t]. But you are are thinking baptism replaced circumcision. But that is irrelevant not being true. Besides that, Abraham being justified by faith alone not only preceded Genesis 22:12 by years, also preceded the Law by 430 years. James does not deny Abraham being justified by faith. The works did follow the faith showing that it was genuine. (Ephesians 2:10.)

[JohnMartin]

Ah, I should have added [t]. But you are are thinking baptism replaced circumcision. But that is irrelevant not being true. Besides that, Abraham being justified by faith alone not only preceded Genesis 22:12 by years, also preceded the Law by 430 years. James does not deny Abraham being justified by faith. The works did follow the faith showing that it was genuine. (Ephesians 2:10.)

Faith is always organically united to hope and love in justification. Faith is a habit whereby a man believes what God has said. Hope is a habit whereby a man desires the good promised by God, as known by faith. And love is a habit which desires God above all creatures as the ultimate end of man. Hope and love naturally follow from faith. Hence faith alone theology is always false.

Even St Paul defined faith in terms of hope in Heb 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Also faith without love is worthless, indicating faith must be united to love to give life. 1 Cor 13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Evidently the biblical position is faith is never alone, but is united to hope and love. Faith alone theology is merely the invention of a renegade monk who couldn't keep his vows, so he reduced justification down to faith alone.

JM

[JohnMartin]

No evidence at all? Not really. The evidence is not conclusive, obviously, but the evidence is there in Ephesians 2:8-9.

There is no evidence that any passage uses faith as an instrument as the reformers taught. Hence passages such as Ephesians 2:8-9 do not provide any evidence for faith alone theology. The entire show is a fictional invention by a few men who could not keep their vows and made up a way to be justified without keeping the commandments.

JM

[shunyadragon]

so based on your argument, then:
evil is a moral act and hence is ontologically good.
Therefore evil is good.
Therefore good = evil.
Therefore God is evil.

Excellent exercise in logic!!!!!! Congratulations on your conclusion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course, no one else including atheists will come to your conclusion!!!!!

[Sparko]

Excellent exercise in logic!!!!!! Congratulations on your conclusion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course, no one else including atheists will come to your conclusion!!!!!

Well that is because it is not "my" logic. It is the logic of John Martin, as it really is if his original claims are correct. It would help if you actually read the thread.