Yes. They could only exist if they were the product of his deliberate design. Moreover, all the effects of sin could only exist if God designed the universe so as to produce those effects, thus they must also be his fault.
Take just one example: lust. Lust is the basis for many sins. If we did not experience lust, we would not commit any of its related sins.
Science has proven that lust is hardwired into the brain: it exists there as a fundamental component of the actual design of the human brain and body. So if God designed that brain and body, he must have consciously and deliberately programmed it to experience and be motivated by lust. Yet there is no credible reason for any intelligent designer to program our brains to feel lust. Lust serves no intelligent purpose. We don't need it to experience love. We love friends, neighbors, and family without experiencing lust; even love for our spouses isn't produced by lust, but respect and admiration and compassion. And we don't need lust for procreation. Most life on earth reproduces without even brains, much less the means to experience lust. God could have designed the universe so that love between a man and a woman spontaneously generates a child.
However, evolution by natural selection (in other words, the complete absence of a compassionate and intelligent designer) explains why our brains are programmed to feel lust. Indeed, it is the only plausible explanation of that fact. As a product of God's design, it makes no sense at all. But as such a product, God shares responsibility for all the sins motivated by the lust that he installed in our brains.
Comments
If God makes people sin, isn't that contradictory?
----------
The logic is pretty simple, really:
Premise 1 - God did these things.
Premise 2 - It is impossible for God to have "faults" (defects or imperfections).
Conclusion - Therefore, it is not a defect or imperfection for God to do these things.
----------
...says it all. Timothy even did us the favor of using the generic word "things" to illustrate that Christian "logic" can answer *any* criticism (so long as you're willing to never think about it again).
Was God wrong for ordering the slaughter of the Amalekites? Nope, because God did it, and nothing God did can be wrong.
Was God wrong for setting up a system of eternal punishment and torture? Nope, because God did it, and nothing God did can be wrong.
Brilliant!
Wait, what?? No, Timothy's premise 2 is faulty logic.
Please, come up with a better answer.
I'm afraid I don't follow your argument. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind trying to lay it out with clear and specific premises and a conclusion that necessarily follows from those premises for me. If you'd rather communicate via email, feel free to use the Contact Us page.
Andrew,
You are correct regarding the Amalekites and the existence of Hell. You are also correct that Christian logic can answer any criticism. In fact, it is the only worldview in which coherent logic is possible.
Anonymous,
James 1:13 is addressed here:
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=147
As I am sure you know a syllogism is only as good as its premises and the conclusion, while perhaps a logical derivative of the premises, is true only if the premises are true. I take issue with premise 2. You offer no proof of its veracity. In fact, this is a logical fallacy because your premise is a conclusion itself for which you have offered no evidence to establish it as true. A very textbook example of begging the question. Any person convinced by this argument will be so only because they have accepted your conclusion despite any and all evidence to the contrary. In other words, premise 2 and your concluson require faith, and as we know faith is the acceptance of a conclusion without any evidence to support it or in spite of evidence to the contrary.
I established premise 2 in the first few paragraphs of my answer above. To reiterate:
AP1 - God has ultimate authority.
AP2 - If God were ever in error, He would have deviated from that which is in ultimate authority.
AC1 - Therefore, since God cannot both be the ultimate authority and not be the ultimate authority, God is never errant.
The question asked was "If God created everything and decided how it would be, wouldn't our sins be his fault?" So, the questioner grants the premise that God exists. This does not need to be proven. The questioner grants that God created everything. This also does not need to be proven. The questioner grants that God decided how everything would be. This likewise does not need to be proven. All are granted assumptions within the original question and therefore none need to be proven.
See the following comment for a continuation...
BP1 - God causes everything to happen the way it does.
BP2 - Sin happens.
BC1 - Therefore God causes sin to happen.
BC2 - Therefore God is at fault.
You'll note that I agree with BP1, BP2, and BC1. However, because I agree with BP1, I reject BC2. I do not believe that BC2 follows logically from BP1 and BP2 -- in fact, I believe BC2 is logically precluded from being possible specifically because of the veracity of BP1 (see AP1, AP2 and AC1 above).
There is no begging of any question here.
Thanks and God bless.
BP1 - God causes everything to happen the way it does.
BP2 - Sin happens.
BC1 - Therefore God causes sin to happen.
BC2 - Therefore God is at fault.
is a very accurate description of the logical argument. However, the reason why there is a disagreement at all is that the definition of "God" is used differently between Timothy and the original author of the question. Timothy is assuming, due to Scripture, that the nature of God is such that he cannot be morally errant. God is described in Scripture as being morally perfect; there is, however, no logical reason why moral perfection and metaphysical perfection are mutually inclusive. A metaphysically perfect and all-powerful God who was morally imperfect could easily create the Scripture to lie and say he was, in fact, the moral ideal. The point of reasoning on which Timothy's argument turns is an assumption based on faith rather than logic, which he is not explicitly including.
As I said above:
AP1 - God has ultimate authority (God causes EVERYTHING to happen the way it does).
AP2 - If God were ever in error, He would have deviated from that which is in ultimate authority.
AC1 - Therefore, since God cannot both be the ultimate authority and not be the ultimate authority, God is never errant.
This would apply to any error, moral or metaphysical, and any concept of God that meets AP1, as the Christian God does. Where exactly are my unincluded premises?
I'm not following how you are defining evil. It seems to me that evil (or sin) is a deviation from the moral authority, which the questioner presupposes is God.
This leads me to AC1 - God cannot both be the ultimate authority and not be the ultimate authority.
You seem to have a definition for evil that presupposes a separate moral authority distinct from the One who "decides how everything would be".
But if that's the case, He decides how everything would be and it is not the case that He decides how everything would be. If that's what you're claiming, its thoroughly incoherent.
- Probably, but since the question assumes that Christianity rejects evolution and the science behind it, the question is badly flawed.
No intelligent person - Christian or otherwise - thinks that the world, or the people in it are just holograms in God's video arcade. So it's not Gd's fault that we are killing the planet, it's our fault. And it's not Gd's fault that we are too greedy to prevent the death's of millions from hunger. It's our fault. If it were all pre-ordained, there would be no need for a theology which includes a final Judgement, would there?
Reasoning ends when we say "god did it coz god wanted it to happen and whatever he does is the absolute truth". Then the point of argument never comes into picture. we can stop it when it starts. The very point of gods existence is in question when Man just a small part of such a huge universe.
No one seems to be taking issue with McCabe’s use of the word “fault”. McCabe is twisting this discussion by defining “fault” as a defect, imperfection, or error. But the question is referring to responsibility, and thus, moral culpability. To rephrase the question: if God created everything and decided how things would be, isn’t God responsible for our sins? In other words, shouldn’t God be morally culpable for our sins? The answer is “yes”.
McCabe’s argument is irrelevant since premise 2 (below) uses a different understanding of “fault” than used in the question.
Premise 1 - God did these things.
Premise 2 - It is impossible for God to have "faults" (defects or imperfections).
Conclusion - Therefore, it is not a defect or imperfection for God to do these things.
McCabe says, “It might very well be a "fault" for me to cause someone to sin, but that does not mean it is a "fault" for God to do so. After all, He is God.” But he never explains why being a god exempts him from responsibility, though we, as humans, are not exempt under the same circumstances. Is it merely because God is more powerful and can assert his will by force – i.e. might makes right? What is it about being a god that exempts him from culpability?
The fact is God is responsible or blameworthy for our sins. He created us sick and commands us to be well, and when we fail (since God has created us with the desire to sin and burdens us with Adam & Eve’s sin) we are banished to eternal torture. If a human ruler behaved this way, we would call him a tyrant and a criminal. Such a person would deserve the death penalty for the countless suffering he caused. Does McCabe actually think this behavior is morally acceptable?
2. The concept you've presented of immorality is incoherent:
If Christianity is true, then the Christian God never does anything immoral.
If Christianity is false, then the concept of immorality has no meaning, since all things derive their meaning from the person of the Christian God.
To suggest that immorality has meaning is to agree that Christianity is true and that the Christian God is perfectly good. Therefore, to suggest the Christian God is immoral is to accept the truth of Christianity while simultaneously rejecting it. This incoherent position is what you are advocating.
3. To be responsible is not the same as to be "blameworthy". The latter is a subcategory of the former. The two cannot be equated.
Also, you state that the concept of immorality is incoherent. You said that if Christianity is true, then God never does anything evil. The keyword is "if". You believe that anything God says and commands is good. To you, it isn't that God can only do good. It is that whatever he does is deemed good.
But humans deem an act to be good (or evil) based on an act's impact on humans. And if Christianity is false (which it is) then God is a criminal. In fact, by human standards (the only standard that matters), God is synonymous with evil. And the evil in this world is his "fault".
You say "the term 'fault' does not mean error, defect, or imperfection", yet you also say "we generally reserve the term when referring to negative or blameworthy situations".
I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to say, or how it calls into question my original answer. Let me put this as clearly as I can: God causes us to sin, but it is not sin for Him to do so. If your argument is that, according to Christianity, God causes us to sin, then I agree with you. If your argument is that, according to Christianity, He is wrong to do so, then I disagree with you, because such a suggestion is logically incoherent.
If your argument is all about spin and semantics, then I am uninterested in the discussion.
"Humans deem an act to be good (or evil) based on an act's impact on humans."
I don't and I'm a human. Frankly, I doubt even you agree with your concept of "good". Is it perfectly moral to beat or mutilate one's pet simply because it brings happiness to the human who does it?
But even if you are consistent with your own description of goodness, defining the concept of "good" by its impact on humans is purely arbitrary: there is absolutely no reason the rest of us should agree to your theories of what is "good" any more so than those of Gordon Gecko or Adolf Hitler -- you don't have ontological authority.
Since you have no ontological authority, any explanation of what qualifies as truly "good" that you can possibly invent is definitively arbitrary, regardless of how many others agree with it.
Apart from the Christian God, "good" loses all meaning (as does everything else).
"By human standards... God is synonymous with evil."
This may very well be the case, but it just serves to demonstrate how skewed and inaccurate our views of ourselves are. We actually think that we, whose very thoughts are predetermined by God, are in an ontologically authoritative position to condemn Him! LOL!
I think it's important to point out that judging any worldview using the standards of another is a form of straw man. Each worldview stands or falls based on its own standards.
And, except for Christianity, they all fall by their own standards. This includes all forms of Humanism.
I can also assert that my god, Demented Santa Claus, is good. He takes toys away from little boys and girls without their permission at Xmas time. He also sprinkles cyanide dust on the cookies that mom & dad left for him. But while I admit he took the toys and did sprinkle cyanide on the cookies, he didn't steal or poison anyone since stealing and poisoning are not good and defies the definition that I've arbitrarily assigned to Demented Santa Claus. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
I guess the concept of "fault" makes no sense to your God just as "stealing" and "poisoning" make no sense to my Demented Santa Claus.
Moreover, I never claimed that morality was arbitrary. That's your erroneous reading of my post. Read it again without injecting your biases into my words.
As for your last post, I see you've conveniently removed my phrase expressing that the only standard that matters is the one we (as humans) establish. Even if God exists, there is no reason why I should assume he is good; you've never demonstrate that as fact. Nor have you given me reason to use God as the standard for establishing what is good. You've merely asserted it without evidence. But I'm glad you admit that God is synonymous with evil (by human standards).
I've explained why God necessarily exists because of the impossibility of the contrary and why He has necessarily caused all temporal things because of the impossibility of the contrary:
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=424
Up above in my original column on this very page I explained why the God that necessarily exists is necessarily good, likewise because of the impossibility of the contrary.
Inventing your own creation of a god that cannot possibly be real is simply another straw man and has nothing to do with the discussion.
God bless.
Also, you stated, "Inventing your own creation of a god that cannot possibly be real is simply another straw man...." Funny you should say that. That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you about YHWH.
"You did not demonstrate that God is necessarily good."
Sure I did. Here's another way to look at it:
P1 To sin is to disobey God.
P2 God does not disobey Himself.
C God does not sin.
God is good because of the impossibility of the contrary. As I explained in the original answer up above, it's incoherent to suggest otherwise.
P1 = To sin is to disobey God.
P2 = God does not sin (since sin = to disobey God).
C = Therefore, God does not sin
Sorry if I'm not convinced.
Premise 1 already implies that God is the standard for determining what is good, hence, the concept of sin. Isn't that what is in question? You seem to be assuming the very thing that AgAp asked you to prove.
1. AgAp claims that if the Christian God exists, He is immoral. However, if the Christian God exists, then P1 and P2 are true by definition. Therefore, AgAp's claim is that P1 and P2 are true, yet the conclusion that necessarily follows from them is false. AgAp's claim is utterly incoherent.
2. Even if AgAp somehow did not intend to presuppose P1 and P2, they are necessarily true anyway within any worldview that accepts the validity of the laws of logic in conjunction with any concept of authoritative morality. To state that someone is "moral" or "immoral", and for that statement to have meaning, necessitates the validity of P1 and P2.
P1 = To sin is to disobey Satan
P2 = Satan does not disobey himself
C = Satan does not sin
This is bad argument. I still have not proven that P1 is true, and I have merely reiterated P1 in another form (i.e. in P2).
Moreover, your post above misunderstands the point. You assume that sinning is immoral or not sinning is moral. But that is the question; you haven't demonstrated that. To disobey God may be the moral thing to do or to obey God may be the immoral thing to do.
Your second point has already been addressed in another post.
"To disobey God may be the moral thing to do..."
Not if we are talking about the Christian God. If you are talking about some other God, or some distorted version of the Christian God who has no moral authority, then you are committing a straw man fallacy. If you are talking about the Christian God, you are talking about someone with moral authority. If you are talking about someone without moral authority then you are not talking about the Christian God.
Having complete moral authority is part of the definition of who the Christian God is. He isn't the Christian God if He has no moral authority: He's somebody else.
Here you go: Matthew 5:48; Luke 18:19; Deuteronomy 32:4.
If you are postulating a god who is not moral, then you are clearly postulating a god other than the one that Christians worship and you are not arguing against Christianity but rather a straw man. Go ahead and reject immoral gods. Your rejection of immoral gods has nothing to do with Christianity or the Christian God.
If that's not what you wanted me to demonstrate, please let me know what you did want me to demonstrate.
Moreover, quoting the Bible isn't proof that God is good. It only demonstrates that the Bible says he is good.
Does this answer your question?
So your logic is basically that God wrote the Bible and the Bible says God is good; therefore, God must be good. That's unassailable reasoning. Where do I sign up to become a believer?!
An omnipotent, singular, personal God necessarily exists because of the impossibility of the contrary and He necessarily is the First Cause (and thus the ultimate authority) behind all things temporal.
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=424
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=4
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=248
Since God is necessarily the ultimate authority, in what way is it coherent to suggest that He has not done what He ought? "Ought" according to what authority?
The question presumes that a god exists, but it does not presume God’s goodness. It is asking, Is God responsible (at fault) for the manifestation of sin (evil in action) in his creation. In other words, is God the creator of evil?
McCabe’s fallacious argument from definition presumes that God is perfect and cannot sin. While his argument may be logically valid, it is not logically sound because it presumes the conclusion of God’s goodness in the premise.
If God spans time and created everything with intent, then God MUST be responsible for all that exists, including the existence of sin in HIS creation. If God didn’t want sin to exist then he only needed to make a different creation where sin doesn’t exist. What we have in this creation MUST be exactly what God wants, which is the existence of sin and a Hell for punishment.
While God can be an authority, that doesn’t mean he isn’t an evil authority when it comes to human well-being.
Evil according to whom?
Evil according to the facts relating to things which are detrimental to human well-being.
If the Christian God exists (which He must if He caused sin), then He meets the Biblical description. If He does not meet the Biblical description, then he cannot be said to be the Christian God.
By the Biblical description, He alone is in authority over all of His creation.
In order for something to be "wrong" in some way, it must be contrary to that which is in authority. God, in the Christian view, can certainly create something that is contrary to Him (in opposition to Him, disobedient toward Him); but He cannot be contrary to Himself: there is a huge difference between sinning and causing someone else to sin. God does one, not the other.
I think your final statement clears things up nicely -- according to Humanism, if the Christian God exists, He is bad. Thus, if the Christian God exists, Humanism is obviously false (or "wrong") and should be repented of.
Christianity and Humanism, as you've demonstrated, are definitely incompatible.
My goal has been to accurately represent the Biblical position. I believe attempting to accurately represent the scriptures is in fact the historical Christian position. Have I failed in accurately representing them? If so, how?
Thanks.
It is not my intent to deify the scriptures, if that is essentially what you are suggesting I am doing. However, in representing Christ, is it appropriate to represent Him in a way other than how He represents Himself (Matthew 4:10, 11:10, 13:14-15, 26:24, 26:31, 26:54; Mark 14:21, 14:27; Luke 4:21, 7:27, 22:37, 24:44, 24:46; John 13:18, 17:12, 19:28), or other than how His hand-picked representatives represented Him (Matthew 2:17-18, 27:9; Acts 1:16, 3:18, 3:22, 13:33; Romans 9:33, 14:11, 15:3, 15:21; Galatians 3:8, 3:13, 3:22)?
Could you provide me with an example or two where I have been more "rigidly Biblical" than the Bible permits? And it would be helpful if you could explain, from scripture, how my use of scripture is incorrect, since that is the accusation you have leveled.
Thanks.
Would you define for me what you yourself mean when you use the term "the church" in your last comment?
http://goo.gl/Oq9IQ
In this particular passage in 1 Timothy, I would take it to mean either "the entire body of Christ including all believers", or possibly "any given assembly or gathering of believers", or conceivably both at once, as Matthew Henry seems to understand it:
http://goo.gl/ADFkU
I'd like to make certain we aren't talking past each other.
Thanks.
"The Church, specifically, is every member of His Body -- those called out."
What then is the church's relation to the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15?
That it defines the truth? This would make the church into God Himself, so this interpretation seems unreasonable.
That it discerns the truth? But pillars and supports do not discern. The metaphor fails miserably if this is the intent.
That it upholds the truth? This is indeed the church's job, I think we both agree, and, metaphorically, pillars and supports could be said to do likewise.
[continued]
It seems then that 1 Timothy 3:15 states that it is the job of "every member of His body", as you said, to uphold the truth. But if this is the case, in what way does this pertain to your accusation toward me? I am simply doing what 1 Timothy 3:15-16 calls me to do, upholding the truth of Christ. How does it follow, based on 1 Timothy 3:15, that I am unBiblical in my rigid Biblicism, per your accusation?
All I am saying is that you accused me of being unBiblical by being too Biblical, and then you cited 1 Timothy 3:15 as justification for this accusation. But 1 Timothy 3:15 doesn't seem to justify your accusation against me.
Am I missing something?
God uses to reveal His will. To affirm this isn't to grant to the Church a divine status of its own. I am merely accepting the fact that God uses the Church to achieve His purposes. (More to come) thanks.
"You're calling people to accept your Scriptural philosophical system, not the Church spoken of in the 1st letter to Timothy."
Contextually, was the church spoken of in 1 Timothy governed by Christ through a single elevated patriarch based out of Rome, or does it appear to have been governed by Christ through a plurality of Apostles and elders based out of Jerusalem (Acts 8:14, 9:26-27, 11:2-3, 11:22, 13:31, 15:2, 15:4, 16:4, 21:17-18; Galatians 1:17-19, 2:2, 2:7-10, 2:11)?
Were individual assemblies governed by singular bishops, or a plurality of elders (1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14)?
Did this church teach that Mary was sinless, or that all have sinned (Romans 3:9, 3:23; Galatians 3:22) except for the spotless lamb of God (Hebrews 4:15, 9:14; 1 Peter 1:19)?
[continued]
Did it teach that most of those destined for heaven must first pay the penalty for their own sins in purgatory, or that the penalty for their sins had been paid in full by the Son of God Himself (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 2:17, 10:12, 10:26; Romans 3:24-25, 5:9; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 3:13; 1 John 2:2, 4:10; Acts 20:28; Revelation 1:5)?
Did it teach that "saints" are only those who have earned the title through proven heroic virtue, or that "saints" are the entire body of Christ (Acts 9:13, 9:32, 9:41; Romans 1:7, 16:15; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1, 13:13; Ephesians 1:1, 2:19, 5:3; Philippians 1:1, 4:21-22; Colossians 1:2; Philemon 1:5)?
Did it teach that baptism brought about the justification of the baptized, or that justification was freely given before the practice of baptism was inaugurated (Acts 10:47, 11:17; Ephesians 1:13; Romans 4:9; Galatians 3:2, 3:8-9, 3:17, 3:18)?
[continued]
According to this church of 1 Timothy, was Peter the stone upon which the church was built, or was Christ (Isaiah 28:16; Matthew 21:42; 1 Peter 2:6-7)?
Was Peter the only one commissioned to feed sheep, thereby making him supremely exalted, or were others given virtually identical commissions (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2)?
Did this church consist of a priesthood only available to celibate, scholarly and pious individuals who subject themselves to Romish claims (1 Corinthians 9:5; 1 Timothy 3:2), or a priesthood of all believers (Matthew 27:50-51; Romans 12:1; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Hebrews 13:15-16; 1 Peter 2:5, 2:9; Revelation 1:6)?
Was this a church that condemned "rigid" Biblicism, or that praised personal study of the scriptures and personal use of them to recognize false teachings (Acts 17:11, 17:2, 18:28; Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17)?
[continued]
Rome would have the beloved Apostle John, hand-picked by Christ in the flesh, subservient to the apparently fanciful and undiscerning Clement (1 Clement 25) based solely on the latter's geographical location, a self-serving premise never even hinted at in any of the Apostolic writings or known teachings of Christ.
Frankly, as a Christian, I would not counsel anyone to go to their local Roman Bishop for shepherding unless I desired to see that person eternally condemned.
But perhaps I am wrong. Feel free to make your case.
Not ignoring you -- you explicitly stated you didn't want to respond to my "understandable and valid challenges". My strategy throughout this site when dealing with alternate views is to (A) demonstrate the incoherence of my opponent's position and (B) demonstrate the coherence of my own. In terms of burden of proof, I currently think everyone shares the same burden and everyone should utilize the same strategy I have here delineated. Whenever people don't follow this process, I personally find their arguments wanting.
I believe I've done (A) by demonstrating that the Roman Holy Book is rejected by the Romans in my "challenges" above. I have demonstrated (B) by explaining my interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15, as you asked, showing that my understanding of it is perfectly consistent within my worldview.
[continued]
I'm not sure where on this website I have advocated "sola scriptura" per se, but I don't think I have anywhere, so I don't see why I should be expected to defend it. However, if you could show me somewhere that I myself am being inconsistent in my views, I will be forced to attempt (B) again, or to change my views.
FWIW, It may help me understand your "sola scriptura" challenge if you define that term for me as you are specifically using it.
Since none of the apostles were subservient to the Bishop of Rome and since none of them advocated that we should be, and since Christ likewise did not, I see no reason to assume Romanism as a default for Christianity. However, even if it were a default for Christianity, in an attempt to convert someone to it (like myself, for example), it seems to me that an argument for it still needs to be made.
"I believe attempting to accurately represent the scriptures is in fact the historical Christian position" was not intended to be exclusive by any stretch of the imagination. In other words, loving God is not excluded, loving one's neighbor is not excluded, and representing Christ, His Father, and the Spirit are also not excluded.
But the Muslim represents Christ, as does the Baha'i, the Mormon, and the Roman. If we are representing Christ, which Christ are we representing? I attempt to represent the Christ of the scriptures.
[continued]
And if we are representing Christ, does that mean we are not representing the Father, or loving our neighbors, or presenting scriptural truths to those we speak to?
Of course not.
If "accurately representing the scriptures" is unscriptural, then the scriptures are incoherent -- lies or nonsense. If it is not what Christians have historically attempted to do, then "historical Christianity" is not my faith, nor do I wish it to be. Of course, I am not billing myself as a "historical Christian" -- merely as a Christian.
Let me know if I have misunderstood it, but your argument seems to be:
P1. Roman Pope X enunciated doctrine Y before anyone else had accepted it.
P2. McCabe agrees with doctrine Y.
C. Therefore McCabe ought to feel compelled to acknowledge the universal authority of Roman Pope Z in all matters of faith.
Frankly, even if I accept both premises (a stretch at best) I see no logical reason to feel bound to the conclusion -- it simply doesn't follow from the premises.
P1: Christ established a visible, institutional church to which He (being its Head) is wed.
P2: Christ promised to guide this Church until His return.
P3: This Catholic Church is the institutional
Church from which sects and schisms originally separated themselves (on various doctrinal grounds).
C: The Catholic Church is, therefore, that original institutional Church established by Christ Himself and safeguarded from error according to His promises.
Obviously, I am no logician! So help me out where I am mistaken. Thanks.
Since it seems clear to me that the Roman church has erred in a great many ways (some of which I mentioned above), then if in fact Christ promised to safeguard his church against error as you say, it follows that the Roman church is clearly not the church He established.
So P3 would be false.
I should note that Luther was excommunicated. He did not "separate himself" from the Romans -- rather they "separated themselves" from him. If Luther's concerns were justified, if his doctrines essentially correct, Romans are nothing more than wolves in sheep's clothing who fled from fellowship with the body of Christ the moment the light shined on their evil deeds (1 John 2:19).
Spin it like that and Rome are the schismatics.
Do you happen to live anywhere near Cincinnati?
What I hear you saying is the Roman church is the true church, therefore the Roman church is the true church.
EXAMPLE 1: "Your idea of spinning it one way to see Rome as schismatic fails b/c the Church is the very Body of Christ and He cannot be at odds w/ His own Body"
REPHRASED: Rome is the Body of Christ and Christ cannot be at odds with His own body, therefore Rome is the Body of Christ.
EXAMPLE 2: "If the Roman Church ever had a unique status by virtue of its Apostolic authority, why, then, it follows that this Church maintains this status"
REPHRASED: The Roman church has Apostolic authority, therefore the Roman church has Apostolic authority.
[continued]
EXAMPLE 3: "[Rome] is the institutional Church from which sects and schisms originally separated themselves... therefore, [Rome] is that original institutional Church established by Christ Himself..."
REPHRASED: Rome is Christ's original institutional church, therefore Rome is Christ's original institutional church.
You can feel free to keep assuming the very thing at issue, whether or not the Roman church was established by Christ and / or the Apostles as His official and authoritative body, with the Bishop of Rome as its perpetual head, but I myself have never assumed this and see the premise as both unBiblical and absurd. Unless you can give me good reason to come to that conclusion, instead of simply presupposing it, I think you're just spinning your wheels with me.
[continued]
Plus, it seems to me you gave the XYZ argument again...
P1. Roman Pope X denounced heresy Y before anyone else.
P2. McCabe denounces heresy Y.
C. Therefore McCabe ought to feel compelled to acknowledge the universal authority of Roman Pope Z in all matters of faith.
Before any of your examples where Rome denounced a heresy I also denounce, they accepted claims that seem to me to be equally heretical. An example would be the Creed of Chalcedon in which Mary is referred to as the "Mother of God". Given the hypostatic union, Mary is merely the mother of a man, not the "Mother of God", even as God did not die for my sins, only the Son's human nature did.
P1: Christ was God
P2: Mary was Christ's mother.
C: Mary was the Mother of God.
Which of those premises do you reject (OR how could those premises NOT lead to that conclusion)?
When Paul wrote 2 Timothy from Rome, he begs Timothy to come to him because everyone in Rome has abandoned him (2 Timothy 4:9-17). Given this, what Roman Bishop's authority is he appealing to when he condemns the Preterist heretics Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17-18)?
[continued]
If we meet at the racetrack and you discover my brother is driving one of the cars, you may ask "Which one is your brother?" I may then reply, "The black Volkswagen." We could then make the following argument:
P1. My brother is the black Volkswagen.
P2. My mother gave birth to my brother.
C. My mother gave birth to the black Volkswagen.
Both premises are true, and the conclusion follows from them, but the conclusion is not true. This is because the premises are both true, but not in the way that they need to be in order for the conclusion to follow from them. The "is" in the first premise is not equative: it cannot be replaced with an equals sign. My brother does not equal the back Volkswagen. And Christ does not equal God. If He did, we could make the following argument:
P1. The Son is God.
P2. The Father is God.
C. The Son is the Father.
[continued]
Again, both premises are true, but only in the same way that my brother is the Volkswagen. Therefore, the conclusion actually does not follow from them. What we have here is a confusion between common, pedestrian prose and technical philosophical terminology. A deductive argument requires the latter to be valid, but we have instead constructed these arguments out of the former.
So, no, your argument is invalid because to be valid it requires replacing the "is" with an equals sign. But Christ does not equal God.
P2 Mary is Christ's mother
C Mary is rightly identified as the Mother of God
To deny this is to deny the fullness of Christ's divinity.
On Luke 1:43, does Sarah equate Abraham with God (1 Peter 3:6)?
Trinitarian doctrine requires a distinction (difference) between a NATURE and a PERSON. Christ is a PERSON. God is a NATURE. Therefore, there is a difference in meaning between the words "Christ" and "God", just as there is a difference between "Herbert" and "human". They are not equivalent in meaning.
If we remove the distinction between NATURE and PERSON, if we make them equal, we have Unitarianism (instead of Trinitarianism) and Monophysitism (instead of the hypostatic union).
Ask your Bishop.
1. Render the Trinity a plurality (by asserting that Christ's divine nature doesn't constitute His fully divine status)
or
2. Deny the hypostatic union (that is essential to the person of Christ) by claiming, for example, that Mary only bore His human person & nature.
And lastly because my Bishop is a Catholic bishop, he would affirm Mary's identity as Mother of God. So telling me to ask him would do nothing to convince me of either your position or of my being confused about this matter (if that is sincerely what you were implying by suggesting I go and ask him about this).
I meant no insult. I have really enjoyed our conversation. I expected your Bishop to agree with me that "Christ" does not equal "God", even though of course he would affirm that Mary is the Mother of God.
On Monophysitism, I should have phrased my statement differently -- you are correct in that I did not represent it accurately. I should have said something more like, "if the person and nature are equated, Christ, one person, has only one nature, as in Monophysitism", rather than saying one would actually be a Monophysitist.
Christ is fully divine. I never asserted He was not. By this is meant that He has a divine nature, not that "Christ" equals "God".
Mary only bore His human nature -- not His divine nature. This in no way denies that He has a divine nature -- it simply clarifies the perpetual distinction between the two.
God bless.
P1 Only God possesses the divine Nature
P2 Christ possesses the divine Nature
P3 There is only 1 God
C Christ is God/Christ = God
To deny this, as I suggested earlier, is to either render the Trinity a plurality or deny the hypostatic union.
If Christ = God, and the Father = God, then Christ = the Father. This denies the Trinity. So, either Christ != God or the Father != God. Or both. This does not prove that Mary did not give birth to the divine nature... it simply demonstrates that to give birth to Christ is not necessarily the same thing as giving birth to the divine nature. At that point, there is no longer any reason whatsoever to assert that Mary did in fact give birth to the divine nature, and we are left asking ourselves if something perpetually eternal (Deuteronomy 33:27; Revelation 1:8) might begin to exist in a woman's womb, if something omnipresent (Ephesians 4:6; Psalm 139:7; Jeremiah 23:24) might be confined in location to only the birth canal, if something unchanging (Psalm 55:19; Malachi 3:6) would be nurtured from fetus to infant to child to adult, etc. With no reason to assert that it could, and every reason to assert that it could not, we assert the latter.
If A = B and B = C then A = C. This is, by definition, what it means to be equal. If A != C then either A != B or B != C. Or both.
If you are claiming that "equal" doesn't fit this definition, then you are claiming that "equal" doesn't mean "equal", or rather that "is" doesn't mean "equal" in this scenario, which is exactly what I am asserting. In other words, it sounds like you completely agree with me that "is" does not fit the definition of "equal" when we say "Christ is God".
I'd really suggest you talk with your bishop. I'm pretty sure he will agree that the "is" in the statement "Christ is God" is not equative, but possessive (it means "Christ HAS a God-nature").
God bless.
P1 to have a divine nature is to be God (not gods, b/c there is only 1 God)
P2 Christ possesses the divine nature
C Therefore, Christ is rightfully worshipped and called God (by virtue of His divinity) even though He is a distinct person within the Holy Trinity.
It seems like your hang up lies in the fact that there are 2 other divine persons whom Mary didn't carry in her womb. Therefore, we cant rightly call her God. However, His not being Them, does nothing to mitigate the fullness if His divinity which is grounded in the 1 divine nature they share as persons of the 1 Tri-une God. Further, when it seems that you're pressed, you avoid the implications of your position. Earlier I said that your position renders the Trinity a plurality OR denies the hypostatic union. You never spoke to that dilemma.
Absolutely.
"If He was, how could she not be rightly called Theotokos/God-bearer?"
Because the one has no relevance to the other.
Christ has a divine nature. I have a right shoe. Christ has a human nature. I have a left shoe. Christ was born. I kicked a ball. Christ's human nature was born. My left shoe kicked the ball. Christ's divine nature was not born. My right shoe did not kick the ball. Christ is fully human in that He possesses a human nature to the same degree as anyone else. I am fully left-shoed in that I am wearing a left shoe to the same degree as anyone else. Christ is fully divine in that He possesses the divine nature to the same degree as anyone else (like the Father and Holy Spirit). I am fully right-shoed in that I am wearing a right shoe to the same degree as anyone else.
My right shoe did not kick the ball, even though I did and I am fully right-shoed.
A lengthy, completely off course example of poor logic, which completely misses the point, and doesn't address the question.
Bravo.
To understand Christianity in this regard, I suggest a review of the trinity, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
Pay close attention to the Trinity Shield in particular, because it basically states:
A = B = C, AND, A != C
Once you understand this, I think you will also understand that your conversation with something like Tim can be composed of entirely random letters, words and sentences, and will increase your knowledge by as much as any other process, including English words and sentences which you're trying to use now.
P1 Christ was divine while in the womb.
P2 Only God is divine
P3 There is only one God
P4 Christ was born of Mary
C Mary bore God (i.e. Mary is the mother of God)
When we say "Christ is God" or "Christ is divine", if the "is" is equative, then we are also claiming that "Christ is the Father". But He isn't. Therefore the "is" cannot be equative.
Is it possible in the English language for "is" to mean something other than "equals"? Yes. As I demonstrated with both the black volkswagen analogy and the shoe analogy, "is" does not have to be equative to make sense in the English language.
Do we agree with the statement "Christ possesses the divine nature"? I think we do. This statement is a possessive statement, not an equative one. In this statement, we are not saying "Christ = the divine nature", rather, we are saying that He possesses it.
[continued]
We know that "Christ is divine" or "Christ is God" cannot possibly be using "is" in an equative manner, as shown above, and we know that we agree with the possessive statement "Christ possesses the divine nature", so is it possible that these two statements, which seem very similar, are actually equivalent in meaning? My claim is, yes, that is exactly the case:
"Christ is God" = "Christ possesses the divine nature"
These two statements are exactly equivalent in meaning.
Mary bore a possessor of the divine nature. She did not bear the divine nature itself. Thus, it seems to me that there is no logical basis (since it doesn't deductively follow from any granted premises) or Biblical basis (since its use is nowhere encouraged in scripture) for the phrase "Mother of God".
[continued]
Further, "Mother of God" will always be understood as the "maternal origin of divinity" unless great elaboration, explanation, and twisting of the phrase is used to change its plain meaning. Even if we grant that "God" could simply be a title for any of the three persons of the Trinity individually, it is certain that the intended meaning behind the phrase will definitely be misunderstood. I tend to think it is intended to be misunderstood to increase a sense of superstitious esoteric mystery.
So, (1) there is no warrant for its use, and (2) its use is only misleading.
Keep in mind that neither I, nor anyone else, is obligated to respond to any of your comments. I personally feel that I have made my case quite clearly and have little intention of explaining it over and over and over again. This is not intended as an insult to you or anyone else. I simply have better things to do than repeat myself incessantly. I'm sure you do too.
[continued]
If you have not yet spoken with your Bishop about the non-equative nature of the word "is" when we say "Christ is God", I would still recommend you do so.
God bless.
-In order for something to be "wrong" in some way, it must be contrary to that which is in authority. God, in the Christian view, can certainly create something that is contrary to Him (in opposition to Him, disobedient toward Him); but He cannot be contrary to Himself: there is a huge difference between sinning and causing someone else to sin. God does one, not the other.
1. There is a God
2. God created everything that is, and determined how it would be.
3. God is perfect and good.
4. God does not cause anyone to sin (Tim's argument) despite evidence (the scriptures given purporting this to be the case)
5. Tim's counter [God is not at fault, because he is God (who is perfect) and therefore not at fault].
6. The question branches in either of two directions then. Either we accept this circular premise or we ask ourselves the big question. Is God really perfect/good? Again, I would answer no. If a toymaker created a freethinking toy that would eventually, by its own hand become imperfect, I would call that toy imperfect from the beginning. We know that God must do everything perfectly right? If he is unable to create something perfectly, then he himself must therefore be an imperfect creator by definition. This also rejects the idea of his very existence itself. An imperfect Christian God cannot by definition exist.