good moral conduct Flashcards

1
Q

catholic belief justification by works

A

The catholic church traditionally took the side of justification by works. They believe that justification comes first from baptism but that it can then be lost by the committing of mortal sins. Justification can then be regained by confession, reconciliation and penance, which involves confessing sins and doing good works to make up for them.

Purgatory is a place Catholics believed existed for Christians who hadn’t done enough penance for their sins before dying. In medieval times, penance involved the sale of indulgences, which were certificates authorized by the pope granting a sinner freedom from penance. These were sold for money, which the Vatican used to pay for buildings. It was even claimed that money could be given to save souls from purgatory.

The Epistle of James appears to suggest that justification is by works, not faith alone. James points out that if someone is in need of food, just having faith won’t actually solve that problem, works are needed.

James points out that even the demons believe in God, so mere faith that God exists can’t mean much, since demons are clearly not saved. James claims that Abraham was justified by his works – his willingness to sacrifice his son due to his devotion to God. He had faith in God, but the faith was “active along with his works, and faith was completed by works … you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone … faith without works is dead” James 2:14-26)

The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats also suggests that works are important for justification/salvation. During the second coming of Jesus he will divide all the people of the world into the good – the sheep – and the bad – the goats. To those on his right he welcomes into the kingdom of God because they were good to other people and, Jesus says, thereby good to him. Jesus then casts those on his left into ‘the eternal fire’ as they were not good to others when alive and so by extension not good to him. (Matthew 25:31-36)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

luther sola fide

A

Luther, the protestant reformer, was influenced by St Paul, especially Romans 1:16-17 where Paul claimed that salvation comes to “everyone who has faith” which Paul based on the old Testament passage “He who through faith is righteous shall live”. St Paul claims that God’s grace is not something humans are good enough to earn, because we all sin. We cannot do good enough works to be deserving of God’s grace, therefore justification by faith must be more important. St Paul illustrates with Abraham, pointing out that Abraham had faith in God which made him “righteous” (Romans 4:3).

Luther proposed Sola fide, which means justification by faith alone. Luther was also influenced in this by Augustine’s teaching on original sin. As mankind is fallen and sinful, humans are incapable of saving themselves. Therefore, it is by faith alone that humans can be saved, not works. Justification is received by humans passively, meaning that it is not because of any effort that they make.

Luther’s theology was also partly a reaction to what he saw as corruption in the Catholic Church. The focus on good works became a vehicle for corruption because it enabled the Church to claim that giving the good work of giving them money could lead to salvation or at least freedom from purgatory.

Luther claimed that doing good works are the result of being a faithful Christian, but it is the faith that is relevant to salvation. So, Luther does manage to incorporate works as having great value in Christianity, but only as a symptom of faith. He used an analogy; faith and works are like fire and heat, the latter flows inevitably from the former. This is how he can explain the parable of the sheep and the goats in which Jesus suggests the works of people are what saves them. Luther can claim those works were salvific only because they were the symptom of faith, which is what was truly salvific

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

council of trent response to luther

A

This council took place from 1545-1563. It claimed that both faith and works were required for justification because works were an essential part of faith. Their argument is that if you consider what the function of faith is, you should see that good works are required in combination with it for it to perform that function and thus have value, without which, as James says, faith would be ‘dead’.
James points out that even the Demons believe in God. This suggests that James was distinguishing between two types of faith. There is the faith that demons have, which must be what James refers to as ‘dead’ and it seems that the reason it is dead is because it involves evil works. The other kind of faith which is not dead must therefore be a faith that is combined with and bolstered by good works. There is a kind of faith which is dead and valueless because it cannot perform its function of uniting a being with Christ, as can be seen in the case of demons. Only faith combined with good works is the living kind which unites a being with Christ.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

protestants response

A

Protestants respond that Trent’s proclamation contradicts the bible teaching that good works do not merit grace because grace is a “gift” from God. The point is that a gift cannot be something earned or worked for, so grace cannot be ‘earned’ by good works’.

“God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God.” (Ephesians 2:8).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

catholics to protestants

A

However, Catholics respond that they are not saying works ‘earn’ justification. The Catholic view is that justification works in two phases:

1, righteousness is enabled through baptism.
2, righteousness is preserved and regained (if lost) by participation in the Eucharist and by penance which includes doing good works.

This relative certainty of justification is a middle position between assurance of salvation and the despair of views like predestination. Neither faith nor works can be said to merit justification, but both count as progress towards it,

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

sanders on luthers misunderstanding of st paul

A

Sanders claims that if we understand Paul’s historical context, we will see that although he seemed to speak against works, actually it was the particular works that Jews regarded as distinguishing them from Gentles (e.g. circumcision) that Paul was speaking of when he wrote about the unimportance of works for salvation.

So, Paul was actually remarking on the shift in the nature of God’s covenant from the Jewish to the Christian version. Christians think the covenant expanded to all people, so there was no more need for some works to distinguish those inside it from those outside.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what is predestination

A

Predestination is the view that our ultimate fate, that of heaven or hell, has already been predestined by God. If true, this would mean that good works are not what save us.

Predestination is typically a variant of the view that salvation is by faith, however theologians like Augustine claim that faith is only possible for those who God has predestined.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what is st pauls view on predestination

A

St Paul’s justification of predestination. Romans 8 & 9 contain an exposition by St Paul on predestination and how it links with God’s justice in judging us. In Romans 8, Paul writes that “God works for the good of those who love him … For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son … And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified”. Paul seems to be saying that God has predestined some people to be saved.

In Romans 9, Paul remarks on the prophecy God made to Rebekah when pregnant with twins, that “The older will serve the younger”. God said he loved the younger (Jacob, whose descendants became Israel) and hated the older (Esau, whose descendants became an opposing tribe). Paul remarks that what is striking is that this prophecy was made before the twins were born or had done anything “good or bad”. This looks like Paul is saying that God predestines some to be loved by him and others to be hated.

Additionally, Paul references the example of the Pharaoh to whom God sent ten plagues in an attempt to free the Jews from slavery in Egypt. The Pharaoh wanted to free the Jews before the final plague, but God hardened his heart, making the Pharaoh refuse to let the Jews go, upon which God sent the final plague which killed the first born son of all Egyptian families.

Paul acknowledges that, given such examples, some might find it strange and unjust for God to hold us accountable for our actions if we are simply controlled in this way. Paul then responds: “But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?” Paul also points to something God said to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy”. Paul seems to be suggesting that predestination is not unjust because God has the right to do what he wants.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

wrights against romans 9

A

Regarding Romans 9, Paul does describe God electing people in relation to individuals – but Wright claims that Paul is not talking about election for salvation, but election to having a significant role in God’s plan to redeem the world after the fall. It’s not about election in the sense of being saved but election to God’s purpose. We should understand Paul as claiming that some of Abraham’s family, like Jacob, are predestined to play an important role in God’s plan, and others like Esau are not.

Wright concludes that Paul simply “does not address … the ultimate predestinarian question: does God actually before all time determine that certain persons will be elected, chosen, predestined for salvation. He seems determined to stick with his question that he’s much more interested in which is how God’s redemptive historical plan is being carried forward through the people of Israel.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

augustine support for st paul

A

In Romans 8, St Paul seems to hold to predestination, which is the view that our fate in the afterlife, i.e. whether we will go to heaven or hell, is already unalterably fixed. Augustine thought this view of election followed logically from the doctrine of original sin and grace. If we cannot get ourselves into heaven then God has either predestined us for heaven, or he hasn’t and our original sin damns us to hell. This view is called double predestination: that heaven is predestined for some and hell for others.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

augustine on orginal sin and electrion

A

Original Sin is the idea that the first sin of Adam and Eve disobeying God’s command resulted in a corruption in all humanity. Original sin is a corruption in human nature which makes people want to sin. All humans have inherited Original Sin from Adam and Eve according to Augustine as we were all ‘seminally present in the loins of Adam’. Augustine thought that the biological basis for procreation was “some sort of invisible and intangible power … located in the secrets of nature” yet then goes on to argue that all future generations of people are “in the loins of the father”. Augustine claims “We were all in [Adam] … we all were that one man who fell into sin” We existed in merely a “seminal nature from which we were to be begotten” but when that became “vitiated through sin” it became impossible for anyone to be born without original sin.

Augustine’s exclusivism holds that we are so corrupted by original sin that genuine persevering faith in Jesus is only possible with God’s help: his gift of grace, which predestines some people to have and keep faith in Christ and thus be one of the ‘elect’ who will be saved.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

pleaguis on original sin

A

Pelagius: predestination and Augustinian original sin makes punishment unjust. Pelagius argued that if we have original sin and are thus completely unable to avoid doing evil, it would surely be unjust for God to punish us for our sinful behaviour. It’s not ethical for all humanity to be blamed for the actions of Adam and Eve. This suggests an indefensible view of moral responsibility – that people can be responsible for actions committed by others which is of special absurdity in this case since the action occurred before they were even born. Pelagius concludes that only our having free will and thus being without coercion from original sin makes sense of the prevalent biblical theme of God’s judgement and punishment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

augustine response to pleaguis

A

Punishment is just for sinful beings: Augustine is not actually arguing that God himself blamed all humanity for Adam’s sin, he’s merely pointing out that it was a factual consequence of Adam’s sin that all future humanity, in Adam’s loins, became infected with original sin. It’s not God’s fault, it’s Adams’. So, Augustine argues that predestination is not unjust of God, since we are corrupted by original sin and so if we go to hell it is deserved.

This might seem unfair, but Augustine puts it down to the “secret yet just judgement of God”, indicating that it is inscrutable – impossible for us to understand – but we should have faith it is just. Augustine points to Psalm 25:10: ‘All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth,’ and concludes: neither can his grace be unjust, nor his justice cruel”.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what is the sanctity of life principle

A

The sanctity of life is the Christian key moral principle that life is sacred. This means it was created by God for a religious purpose. There are different views about the sanctity of life, the implications for whether it can ever be acceptable to end life and its applicability to the embryo and unborn child.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what is the conservative view of the sanctity of life

A

The conservative, sometimes also called the ‘strong’ sanctity of life view, claims that because God created human life, only God has the right to end it. Humans were created in God’s image, further suggesting that human life is especially valuable.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” – Jeremiah 1:5.

The sixth of the ten commandments is “thou shalt not murder”.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

application of strong sactity of life on embryos

A

The conservative view of the sanctity of life suggest that abortion is almost always wrong, perhaps excepting cases where the mother’s life is in danger due to a medical problem with the pregnancy.

Some Catholics argue that abortion could be justified by the doctrine of the double effect if the mother’s life is in danger due to a medical problem with her pregnancy. In such cases, the intention behind the abortion is to save the life of the mother, which is in accordance with the primary precepts. Killing the foetus is against that precept but so long as it is not the intended effect then it can be morally acceptable

17
Q

the conservative view allowing unnecessary suffering

A

The conservative or ‘strong’ sanctity of life view is most typically criticised as allowing unnecessary suffering and thus being uncompassionate. There are people with terminal illnesses at the end of life who are suffering greatly and want to die. They are in a state of indignity, and it seems uncompassionate to force them to continue living in their state of suffering and indignity. Similarly, if someone becomes pregnant through rape then it seems uncompassionate to prevent them from having an abortion if that’s what they want.

18
Q

liberal disagreement to strong sanctity of life

A

Liberal views of the Bible would disagree with the strong sanctity of life view because they don’t think that these Bible verses are the perfect word of God.

19
Q

what is the weak sanctity of life

A

This is typically a liberal view. Liberal Christians do not believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God and so do not regard its claim that killing human life is wrong to be an absolutist strict rule that must always be followed. They would regard sanctity of life as an important principle but only one of many themes found in the Bible. So, although sanctity of life is an important principle in judging the value of a life, there are other principles that should also be included, such as quality of life. Quality of life refers to how much happiness or suffering a life has. If low, then the life has low quality. Jesus’ emphasis on compassion is also an important principle that should be considered. In some cases, therefore, considerations about the quality of life and compassion might outweigh the sanctity of life.

20
Q

church of england on sanctity of life unborn child

A

The Church of England is an example of this view, though they weigh the sanctity of life consideration very highly compared to many liberal Christians and only allow abortion in cases where the mother or foetus is going to die soon without abortion.

‘The Church of England combines strong opposition to abortion with a recognition that there can be – strictly limited – conditions under which it may be morally preferable to any available alternative.’

‘In the rare occasions when abortion is carried out beyond 24 weeks, ‘Serious foetal handicap’ should be interpreted strictly as applying to those conditions where survival is possible only for a very short period’

21
Q

social order in catholics against church of england

A

Sanctity of life as required for social order. This Catholic argument is based on Aquinas’ natural law, which is the idea that God designed all things, including humans, to have the potential to live in harmony if they follow God’s natural laws, which involves preserving human life. If we go against that natural harmony then then our society will break down because living contrary to God’s design is unnatural and leads to immorality and social disorder. It is dangerous for human beings to give themselves the right to decide who gets to live and who doesn’t because we are unworthy of that power and would be corrupted by it. We need to believe that life is sacred otherwise we will treat it as less valuable. Mother Theresa summed up this kind of argument well during her speech upon receiving the noble peace prize. She claimed “the greatest threat to world peace is abortion. If a mother can kill her own child in her own womb, what is left to stop us from killing one another?”

22
Q

against the disruption of social order northern europe

A

The social order argument doesn’t seem to be true. Northern Europe has the most atheistic countries where quality of life is acted on instead of sanctity of life, but those countries are nonetheless some of the most stable and happy in the world. So, it just doesn’t look like it’s true that sanctity of life is a requirement for social order.

23
Q

fletcher and the bible

A

Fletcher argued that traditional views of Biblical inspiration face a dilemma of two possible approaches, each with serious downsides. Option one is to view the Bible as needing interpretation, from which rises the issue of the perhaps impossibility of deciding whose interpretation is correct. Fletcher illustrates this with the competing interpretations different theologians have made of the Sermon on the mount.

Option two is to take the Bible literally, but Fletcher argued that is an even worse solution, because the “headache” of interpreting what the bible meant is far less trouble compared to trying to live as a literalist. Fletcher gives the example of ‘do not resist one who is evil’ as an example.

Fletcher concludes that the Bible should not be thought of as a legalistic ‘rules book’ and that ethical teachings like even those of the sermon on the mount at most offer us ‘some paradigms or suggestions’. This makes Fletcher’s approach to the Bible an example of the liberal view of inspiration; that the Bible is not the perfect word of God. So, although the Bible states that many things (e.g. killing, homosexuality and adultery) are wrong, Fletcher doesn’t think a Christian should view those as unbreakable rules. Whatever maximises agape is allowed, no matter the action.

24
Q

fletcher and the embryo

A

Fletcher would claim that abortion, like everything else, can only be judged on a situational basis. If abortion maximises agape, then it is good. If it does not, then it is bad. Depending on the situation, Fletcher might accept abortion in cases where:

The mother’s life is threatened
The fetus has a terminal medical condition
The pregnancy was the result of rape

25
Q

fletcher critic

A

Love is subjective
Situation ethics grants people a dangerous amount of freedom (Barclay)
Situation ethics ignores most of the commands in the Bible

26
Q

changing in society from pacifist

A

Jesus himself seemed to recommend pacifism:

“You have heard it said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone slaps your right cheek, turn for them the other cheek also”

Jesus himself never did violence. The closest he came was flipping some tables of money lenders in the temple and throwing them out. Early Christians were often pacifists like Jesus, often willing to die (be martyred) for their faith rather than do violence. The 10 commandments also contain a command against killing.

However, in 313AD Christianity become the official religion of the roman empire. The roman empire was not pacifist (to say the least..) – so when Christianity became its official religion, pressure mounted on it to form a theology which would not conflict with roman territorial ambition

27
Q

Augustine on justifying war

A

Augustine was instrumental in formulating just war theory during the next century. He argued that Jesus’ teachings on non-violence applied only to individuals – who should indeed follow them and not immediately report to violence.

However, Romans 13:4 seems to suggest that the ruling authorities have the right to use the ‘sword’ to carry out ‘God’s wrath on the wrongdoer’. So Augustine concluded that the state can be justified, if against wrongdoers.

“They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’”

Just war theory is the Christian theory about the conditions required for a war being morally acceptable. Augustine and Aquinas developed the Just war theory.

28
Q

jus de bellum - conditions for starting a war

A

A legitimate authority must start the war – one which has the duty of upholding the common good. In the past this would be a religious authority like the Pope. Today it could be the united nations.
Just cause. The purpose of a war must be just. It cannot be for the purposes of destroying a people, or gaining land/resources.
“A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.” – Augustine.

Right intention
“An evil intention, such as to destroy a race or to absorb another nation, can turn a legitimately declared war waged for just cause into a wrongful act” – Augustine.

Last resort. All other non-violent means of addressing the issue must have been attempted before war can be justified.
Reasonable chance of victory. If a war is likely to fail in achieving its good purpose, then it is a pointless harm which should not be risked.
Proportionality.A war must cause more good than harm.

29
Q

jus in bello condition for just war

A

This refers to the conditions required for just conduct in war.

The force used during the war must not be greater than is required.
Humanity/discrimination. Violence must not be used against civilians or prisoners of war.

30
Q

jus post bellum defeated nation

A

Jus post bellum
If a defeated nation deserves punishment
Those who have been wronged might deserve compensation.
Punishment and compensation must be proportionate.

31
Q

just war and mass destruction

A

Proportionality in bello (during the war) seems to require that nuclear weapons can only be used if another nation uses them first.

32
Q

apocalyptic theology -those who want mass destruction

A

However, what about groups that want world destruction. E.g. adherents to apocalyptic theology. Those who think that the world ending is a good thing because it will bring on the apocalypse would not be deterred by mutually assured destruction – because they want that destruction.

Mistakes. There were many instances during the cold war between the USA and Russia – where each country had nuclear weapons aimed at each other – where reconnaissance instruments were faulty or information was flawed which led those in command to mistakenly believe that the other country had just fired nuclear weapons. Avoiding nuclear Armageddon was just down to pure luck and rational thinking of those in charge who realised a mistake had been made.

Nuclear weapons will only get cheaper and easier to produce as technology improves. The difficulty at controlling their spread

33
Q

nuclear weapons used in the world

A

The only nuclear weapons used in war was during world war 2, when America dropped two nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and then Nagasaki, resulting in around 130,000 to 225,000 deaths. The justification for this was that it would help the war end faster because it would force Japan to surrender, potentially saving millions of lives in total.

If it helped the war end faster, does that justify it? It seems disproportionate, and targets civilians (is indiscriminate) – which go against just war principles… but if it helped the war end faster and saved more lives, does that justify it?

34
Q

What does dominion mean

A

its means having power over something

35
Q

Imago dei

A

humans