Even despite his creation of the world if we are to agree and follow God’s guidance without question this theory shows us that we are actually instead only undermining God’s goodness. Another major issue with the Divine Command Theory is the non–moral commandments listed in the Bible. If we were to strictly abide by the theory we would have to follow every command God makes as if it were moral code. Certain commands God makes are still applicable in every day life, the 10 commandments and even others can easily be followed by a dedicated individual.
As stated, God has created all of nature and thus His truth should be able to be found through it. Because of this, Christians should also understand that knowledge gained from nature can be true even if it is not outlined in the Bible. As a sinful people discerning God’s truth from nature, it is necessary for there to be a lot of wisdom and self-reflection on the Christian’s part. In understanding psychology and theology, we as Christians must first understand intellectual humility. Entwistle said this about intellectual humility, “Humility as an intellectual virtue involves our recognition of our intellectual abilities and liabilities.
No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (Bible Gateway NIV) I agree to what Peter stated in Acts 15:7-11because it goes accordingly to what the gospel is for; it is for all the people not only Jews. Thus, I believe we are not under the Law because it draws away Gentiles form the truth.
Furthermore, defenders of the divine command theory like Alston have faced the Euthyphro dilemma by says that although God’s commands make right actions right, God is morally perfect and hence would never issue unjust or immoral commandments. On their eyes, God’s nature is the standard of moral goodness, and God’s commands or words are the origin of all obligation and kindness.(Jeremy Koons, n.d.) One well-known objection to divine will/divine command moral theories is that they commit us to the view that God’s will is arbitrary, and the arbitrary will of God is not a plausible basis for morality.(Thomas,
Deeper than that, how did any of us thinking substances come about this idea of God? Descartes argues that “this idea is innate in me, just as the idea of myself is innate in me.” In other words, the idea of God is one that was not drawn from the senses, meaning it cannot possibly be an adventitious idea. The idea of God also is one that Descartes, or any finite, thinking thing, could have come up with because. This is due to the fact that God is such an infallible, eternal being, there is no possible way that any of us imperfect substances could have made it up because that would mean that a cause can have an effect that is greater in objective reality.
He thought this because he believed it involved that the elect that salvation that the elect could get could also be gained by the non elect person as a result of their own effort to salvation. Which I believe from my religion to not be true. I believe that anyone has the open and free will to receive salvation it's not only given to a specific group of people. But Calvin did not believe this to be true he believed that the reprobate are the people that God intentionally chooses to neglect, I don't believe that God neglects anyone that does not neglect him. John Calvin believed firmly in election and predestination and he backed his beliefs with biblical statements.
This is because critics may question the origins of God based on Descartes’s claim that perfection precedes imperfection and “something must come from something”. (Bennet 2004, 12) It is important to note that perfection in itself reaches a limit because it is incapable of improving further, thus when God possesses the sum of all possible perfections, it would mean that God does not have potential for anymore improvements. This presents a dilemma for Descartes because if God is already perfect, and perfection is viewed to be a form limit itself, then there must be no being who is more perfect than God himself. However, since everything has a cause, God must have origins as well.
Pascal also believed that the belief in God as the only reasonable choice, when Descartes believed that God should always be held true. Their beliefs still back up this objection though. If nothing is known about the external world, or the external world is infinite gain, there is still no absolute certainty in which side of the wager to choose, therefore betting on God as true is still the most reasonable
Thus, it means that morality does not come from religion but comes from human nature; and people do not have to be religious to develop morality inside them, but definitely religions play a significant role in building a moral basis of the
Each part of his system goes on to support some further argument, as in the case above wherein his argument regarding knowing God’s existence by natural knowledge is a support for his premise 2. This interconnectedness and cohesion is present throughout Aquinas’ works and is, itself, a defense against objections since it makes any objection seem unlikely to penetrate Aquinas’ defenses. Resultingly, it seems reasonable to doubt that my objections to Aquinas’ argument are unmet. It may be that they are met and overcome in other section of the Summa Theologica or even in other works of Aquinas’, but it seems likely that they are addressed by Aquinas
This coincides with my next argument in that God has created a world that allows for both good and evil, and along with this, he gave humans the ability to make their own choices. God allows humans, who are not all-powerful and not necessarily wholly good beings to have the decision to make between being good and being evil. I am a firm believer in this hands-off approach that God may have taken during his creation because free will allows people to ultimately choose their own path in life, and while allowing the possibility for evil to occur God himself remains both wholly good and all-powerful. Without free will it would be unclear as to what makes humans unique individuals; free will allows for the understanding that humans can be themselves and choose their outcomes ultimately resulting in them deciding their lives. Unfortunately, free will along with good and evil go hand in hand.
Be that as it may, the scholar can, in the event that he wishes, acknowledge this feedback. He can concede that no discerning confirmation of God 's presence is conceivable. Also, he can in any case hold all that is key to his position, by holding that God 's presence is known in some other, non-judicious way. I think, notwithstanding, that an all the more telling feedback can be made by method for the convention issue of shrewdness. Here it can be appeared, not that religious convictions need discerning backing, but rather that they are emphatically unreasonable, that the few sections of the crucial philosophical convention are conflicting with each other, so that the scholar can keep up his position in general just by a significantly more amazing dismissal of reason than in the previous case.
If right and wrong comes from God, nothing else matters. Opposing views of friends, parents, public opinion or experts in any field take a back seat. When we are confident that God said it and we are committed to God, that settles it.” (Wilkens, S, 1995, pp. 170). A death row inmate donating his organs to save the lives of 8 people and also save or improve the lives of up to 50 people by donating tissues and eyes can result in the salvation of his life.
There is a reason for our world to have suffering since it is built into the structure of the world. That reason, Hick argues, is for “soul-making”, or character building (129). Without having some suffering, then there would be no characters, such as courage. The higher morality of God relates back to that because He has a legitimacy for that suffering. Here, I agree with Hick.
Humans are now able to develop and maintain this relationship with God. What exactly should this relationship look like? According to Luther our relationship with God should be one that is respectful and dependent on God. The Small Catechism’s examination of The Creed provides examples of this, “I believe that God has made me and all creatures… and all this out of pure, fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness in me; for all which I owe it to Him to thank, praise, serve, and obey Him. This is most certainly true,” (Luther 15).