Obedience
In an attempt to provide a counter-example to someone (you know who you are) I give the barest bones argument on obedience as it occurred to me.
1 God exists? a: yes b: noif b forget the whole thing, if a continue
2 God has a will? a: yes b: no
if b go back to 1 and re-examine, if a continue
3 Follow God's will? a: yes b: no
if b go back to 1 and re-evaluate, if a continue
4 Follow God's will either: a per se or b: per accidens
if b then 3a or 3b equally valid, if a then obedience.
Thus obedience as a virtue requires God exists, He has a will, one follows God's will and that is intentional. Therefore there is some sense in which God's will must be knowable. But this can be known in two ways: the indelible stamp of natural law on men's hearts, and also in terms of the moral law that does not pertain to natural law. Therefore, we continue:
5 God's law is knowable: a Institutionally or b: privately
but if b then either back to 4b which rejects obedience, or private personal revelation to everyone, which contradicts natural experience. Therefore, if 5a then there is an institution of God (church). Therefore:
6 The institution of God is: a: visible b: invisible
But if 6b then back to 5b.
Therefore, if there is a God, with a will, that is to be followed in itself, there must be a knowable moral law institutionally in a visible church. This, according to the brief argument I have inadequately lain out, is obedience.
I will agree with that. Private revelation of the Bush kind, helps nobody and, most likely, hurts everyone.
That said, we cannot ignore the fact that there is a particular someone(s) who must assess/interpret Scripture.
The obvious response to the above sentence, is "no shit," and "so what?" And I would affirm both expressions.
You are right to say that there must be an external law and, I think, in my post, perhaps not until later in the comments, I affirm that.
To be honest, and perhaps this is where we depart, I am less concerned with defining what is a good work (a noble and difficult task) as I am to reflect on the actions done in faith. We can talk about revelation, faith and deeds and how are are to interpret and enact these things but that is a different discussion than what I am going for.
Truly and honestly, I am unsure what we are disagreeing about.
Argued by
Andrew Simone |
8:25 PM
We are not disagreeing so much as on separate planets on this one. I was not attempting to define a good work, as you have said, or to reflect on the actions of faith. I think these are both peripheral to the point of obedience. For it strikes me that without obedience there can be no faith, good works or any other such thing. "not my will but Yours be done" sort of thing. Without it, one becomes some sort of antinomian [see http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/antinomi.htm for an overview].
Finally, I wrote this because I could not quite figure out what reading your post had to do with obedience. You lost me. Without a "obedience is . . . " or some other I could not grasp what you were saying it was, was for, had to do with, or anything else.
Argued by
beitiathustra |
8:39 PM