Instead of uncritically accepting a theory we must put it to question and eliminate any flaws. By using Euthyphro’s Dilemma as an argument against the authority of the Divine Command Theory we can begin to question whether or not it is an acceptable account for morality. Euthyphro’s dilemma questions God’s view on piety and its overall goodness. It questions this through asking if God loves piety because it is good or is piety good because the God loves it. By this we are trying to figure out if certain acts such as loving thy neighbor are only
 According to widely accepted notion of Christianity, sins can only be forgiven by accepting Jesus Christ as savior, by grace and through faith.  Although there are multiple conceptions of the atonement of Christ through historical period. Moral Transformation is one of the foremost paradigm of Christian history, still followed by Orthodox Church, stated salvation can only be achieved by faithfully and sincerely adhering to the teachings of Jesus and Jesus’s crucifixion is a mere martyrdom.  According to Christus Victor, salvation held after the spiritual struggle by defeating Satan’s power on human nature as Jesus defeated Satan.  The perspective of Ransom from Satan evolved the idea of Christus Victor by adding the notion that Jesus’s atonement has snatched the power of Satan and set humanity free from his curse.
And the part that the Law misses is Jesus and salvation through him and he came to this earth to fulfill it. As it is stated in Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” He said this in my opinion to emphasize that completing the law is impossible thus salvation is a really difficult thing to achieve without Jesus as he tell us in Matthew 5:20 “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Bible Gateway NIV). Another example of this is seen in Acts 13:38-39 “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the Law of Moses”(Bible Gateway NIV). Therefore, I believe that we cannot obey the law to its totality because it is humanly impossible without the figure that fulfills the Law this being
The Apostle Paul addresses this subject in great detail that was foreign to the Gospels, as he sets forth the principle that death ends the dominion of the law and then illustrates the principle through the marriage relationship. “But if her husband dies she is free from the law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress" (The Holy Bible, Rom 7:2-3). In some instances, the laws of a state or local authority regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage ignore or even violate the teachings of the Bible. In such cases, as Christians, "we must obey God rather than men" (The Holy Bible, Acts
'who is of the truth') listens to Jesus (cf. 10:3, 16, 27). If Jesus' kingship is indistinguishable from his testimony to the truth, and if his followers are characterized by allegiance to his testimony rather than by violent upheaval, Pilate is forced to recognize that Jesus is the victim of a Sanhedrin plot. Moreover, there is an implicit invitation in Jesus' words. The man in the dock invites his judge to be his follower, to align himself with those who are 'of the truth'.
Moreover, they argue that sanctification changes people’s nature, and it changes the direction to live for God. The reformed theologians suggest three ways of sanctification: through the union with Christ, by means of the truth, and by faith. The reformed perspective on the pattern of sanctification is likeness to God (Christ-likeness), because people once had the image of God, before the Fall. The word “renewing” is important for reformed theologians, because their perspective on sanctification is to be renewed. Reformed theologians learned, from Romans 8:29, that Christ-likeness is the purpose of choosing people; and it is not merely one of the suggestions to be Christ likeness people, but it is command to become like one.
God is the creator. It is necessary. It would undermine the message of the cross. It proves the age of the Earth. The word YOM It would contradict the Bible Sin would have existed before the rebellion of Adam and Eve Why six days?
However, Biblical character Peter clearly states in 2 Peter 1:20 to “ know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.” By the same token, if one still chooses to interpret these religious statements, why must they do so in such an immoral manner? Why must Christianity be the antagonist behind domestic conflict if an individual uses it content to falsely support wicked acts, such as slavery? American history tells its audience that Christian interpretation affected the perspective in which Americans saw social and political principles even though the gospels of Christianity have yet to deviate thus far. One can see large scale ideas such as Manifest Destiny exist in history where Americans claimed it was both inevitable and their god given right to expand westward despite the Bible ever truthfully saying so. Manifest Destiny was an unethical principle created to wrongly accumulate land following the Mexican-American War.
In 2:3 the author regards himself as one whose knowledge of Christ was secondhand. By contrast Paul vehemently declares that his apostleship and message were directly from Jesus Christ (Gal.1:1 &12) Other worthy suggestions include Luke , Barnabas Silas and Apollos. The arguments that speak against Paul’s authorship, speak for Lucan authorship: his second hand knowledge of Jesus and even the witness of ancient church traditions. Though such scholars as Calvin and Delitzsch have supported Lucan authorship that Luke was a Gentile remains a major obstacle. Both Barnabas and Silas were leaders in the Jerusalem church and thus had the status to write to Jewish Christians wherever they lived.
Aquinas’ argument connects the life of Christ with his work of redemption rather than hang only on that one incident that happened on the cross. He argues that the cross was not the ultimate goal, that the life of Christ, taken as a whole imparts virtue and righteousness in us more than our belief on his death and resurrection. Aquinas argues further, that since Christ's humanity had to be evident for him to partake of the punishment meant for human, he at the same time took with him the imperfection of humanity. The process by which Christ does this through his works of exorcism, healing and through taking upon himself the sins of the world to die for the sinful humanity. Through the cross, Christ bears with him the sins of humanity and in exchange, he gives humanity salvation.Through this, humanity gets a hope of eternal life despite of his sinful nature.