References and Further Reading 1. The Non-Empirical Nature of the Ontological Arguments It is worth reflecting for a moment on what a remarkable and beautiful!
Let me start off with the caveat that I am not, at this moment, a Universalist. I currently find it difficult to reconcile a Universalist position with certain Scriptures that seem to clearly hint at eternal punishment. So I would like to propose this idea as a thought experiment for the Conciliar Post community to engage in rather than as a conclusive argument.
He was an author who published many works and popularized the Satisfaction Model of the Atonement, which was an earlier version of Penal Substitution. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: But obviously this is impossible.
Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding in reality.
If you put this argument in a standard form, it would look something like this: It should also be noted that Calvinism seems to be incompatible with this argument. In Calvinism, God is purely an exertion of will. If that is true, then whoever is saved is saved because God has eternally decreed it to be so.
Similarly, whoever is damned is damned because of the same eternal decree. I find this position to be problematic, almost to the point of functional pantheism.
Here is what the ontological argument for universalism would look like: Now admittedly, this could pose a problem because it raises a fundamental question: If so, it raises the same difficulties I raised in the article linked above about Calvinism and Pantheism.
It seems that free will is a prerequisite to a relationship becoming any kind of real possibility. Giving someone a free choice whether they will enter a relationship or not entails two potentialities: In the Christian understanding, sin is symptomatic of a rejection of God.
Maybe a similar, but much more redemptive reality, is true of souls who reject God. Perhaps his love envelopes them and eventually wears them down to the point where they relent. Only in this instance, it is the moment they are saved. Cook, He went to Liberty University for his undergraduate and graduate degrees in Biblical Studies where he was also on the debate team.
He lives with his wife Caroline, their son Jude, and their two dogs.The Ontological Argument In Anselm's ontological argument he is trying to prove the existence of God, his argument is an argument purely based on the mind and does not require the moral agent to venture into the real of the senses.
Anselm: Ontological Argument for God's Existence One of the most fascinating arguments for the existence of an all-perfect God is the ontological argument.
While there are several different versions of the argument, all purport to show that it is self-contradictory to deny that there exists a .
Saint Anselm Of Canterbury Inbunden. Monologion and Proslogion In the?Proslogium?, or?Discourse on the Existence of God? we find the origination of the ontological argument for the existence of God. Saint Anselm?s rationalizations for Christian beliefs are continued in his?Monologium?
or?Monologue? in which he . In the 11th century, Saint Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, proposed the first and best-known ontological argument for the existence of God. An ontological argument is an argument that attempts to prove the existence of God by thinking alone. The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his work Proslogion.
Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be thought", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God.
Descartes proves the existence of God using an ontological argument, one aimed at understanding the existence, the essence, the being of God. Saint Anselm of Canterbury also makes the existence of God evident using the ontological proof.