The Divine Command Theory (DCT) explains which actions are moral based on whether or not God commands it. The theory is difficult to support due to its flaws, arbitration, and even due to the essence of God. While Divine Command Theorists may completely support this theory, I will argue why the theory is impractical and cannot dictate what is morally right or wrong. In understanding if this theory holds ground we must question what God commands. Instead of uncritically accepting a theory we must put it to question and eliminate any flaws.
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.
In verse 3, it reads “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Gen 1.3). God did not have to lift a finger throughout His creation; he simply spoke, and something came out of nothing. Additionally, Genesis makes it clear that God created all things exactly as He intended. To show this, after every day of creation, the passage reads “And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1). God was perfect in his creation, making every aspect of the universe to His exact specifications.
He would carry this around everywhere, as a memorial of this very fateful day. As an important side note, it is significant to mention the distinction that Pascal makes with regards to the two Gods. Before this intense vision, one could find him believing in the God of mathematical infiniteness and wisdom, much as the scholars would. Nevertheless, he finds that he had been visited by the same God as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had. As such, this was not the result of reflection and reason, but of a vivid experience.
Pascal believed in heaven as possible infinite gain, however Descartes believed that the nature and existence of an external world as something that cannot be fully known or understood. 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
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
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. This means that God either comes from nothing or something.
Acts 17:24-19 Paul taught heathen idol worshipers that there is a true and living God who made the world and rules over it. He gives to all life, breath, and all things. In Him we live and move and have our being. Even heathen poets recognize that we are the offspring of God. This should teach us that God cannot be simply gold or stone or something that man has made.
With this, it can be said that “He must understand Himself perfectly, which includes a perfect understanding of all that He causes, which is everything.” It is understood, then, that inasmuch as we understand that the perfection of understanding is in God, the understanding of His creatures can be also attributed to Him perfectly. Thus, God knows all other things by knowing Himself inasmuch as all His effects are in His essence in an intelligible mode, for all things are in God virtually as effects in their cause. St. Thomas argues that the cause of all things is God. He states that
PERSONS OF THE TRINITY We serve One God. The Bible supports the oneness of God, but we must understand that all three persons of the Trinity are God. Throughout the Bible we see indications that God is the “Heavenly Father”. For example, 2 Corinthians 6:18 tells us, “And I will be your Father, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty” (NLT). Psalm 89:26 says, “He shall cry to Me, ‘You are my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation’” (NKJV).
He says that it is really not possible to change ones mind on their philosophy such as Aquinas did in this argument. He said that one cannot say that there are certain causes for why things happen, then turn around and say that the universe we live in has a main cause. This was just one of the main critiques of this argument. Along with the past two arguments, there is another argument that deals with God’s
Reason can adequately attain certain conclusions, but it should not be treated separately from faith because faith can help prevent mishaps in judgment. As Pope John Paul II outlines in Fides Et Ratio, during the Fall “man was in no position to discern and decide for himself what was good and what was evil,” (Paul II 14). Man needed God to assist him in making the right choice but instead acted prideful and tried to use solely reason. Sin enables reasoning to become distorted, which ultimately impairs the truth when man attempts to avert himself from God. When this occurs, man ultimately becomes “the fool” (Paul II 12) by attempting to avoid the assistance God can provide.