Justification And Theory Of Justification

Sometimes when we hear the word justification we find it accompanied by other “ation” words: sanctification, glorification, propitiation, regeneration and imputation. These words are from time to time used interchangeably. This can be confusing and needs to be clarified before continuing. Imputation is where credit has been given. It can also mean to lay responsibility on someone. With God, imputation is where He accounts righteousness to the believer. Sanctification is separate from justification. Justification is about one’s position with God; sanctification is about one’s spiritual condition. Propitiation is defined in “Reformation tradition as the satisfaction of divine wrath upon sin”. Regeneration is the creation of a new heart and new spirit. This change of heart and spirit is what allows us to live righteous lives. Glorification comes once we receive our heavenly reward. It is the completion of our salvation.

In my understanding of the Cosmological Argument I would have to say that I agree the most with Clarke’s explanation. Not only is it short and sweet but it almost takes Aquinas’ argument and folds it up and puts it in its pocket. I think believe it is much clearer for anyone to see and admit that everything that happens in this world is connected and caused by previous events and decisions. Due to this anyone can go back to the story of Adam and Eve and ask themselves the question of what caused these two? It is at this point where one is forced to admit that there is an “unmoved mover”, an independent being, and an uncaused cause who is called God.

DeVries argues, “It is not making ourselves righteous. It is not sanctification. It is not simply belonging to the Christian church because you profess Christ as Lord. Justification has to do with God as Judge. It is the declaration that you are free from guilt and condemnation in the sight of God. It is an anticipation of future judgment.” In his article “Justification: A Doctrine in Crisis,” Carl Henry asserts, “Justification is God’s declaration and implementation of his eternal will giving

Aristotle proposes an argument called the ‘Regress argument,’ (Wrenn) this argument is essentially the debate of knowledge versus belief using the epistemological theories of knowledge. Aristotle takes the side of foundationalism based on the simple fact that it defends knowledge and it that knowledge requires basic justified beliefs. In the argument it states that coherentism is simply beliefs supported by other beliefs therefore leading to no concrete knowledge behind the beliefs. For example, if I say that next month is the April, it is justified by two other beliefs, that this month is March and the month after April is May (Delaney, 1976). This example displays that for justification of coherentism it is simply derived from further beliefs. However, for foundationalism, all beliefs are justified, which we can

Jonathan Vogel wrote Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation as a solution to accept the real world hypothesis over any skeptical hypothesis. Vogel presents a compelling argument for a definitive reason to accept that the world we are experiencing is in fact the real world. I believe that Vogel’s argument falls short of proving a reason for accepting the real world hypothesis over a skeptical one. In this paper I will clearly explain Vogels argument, explain some important concepts to understand, and attempt to refute the argument.

Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, last night, Abigail Williams accused Goody Proctor of an attempted murder by witchcraft. The charge included a needle in a witch poppet and one in Abigail’s abdominal. Today, I will prove Goody Proctor’s innocence of this malignant and malicious charge of attempted murder.

Causation refers to whether the defendant's conduct caused the harm or damage in a crime and it must be established in all result crimes. Causation in criminal liability is divided into factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation is the starting point and consists of applying the 'but for' test. In most cases, factual causation alone will be enough to establish causation. However, in some circumstances it will also be necessary to consider legal causation. Legal causation is when the result must be caused by a culpable act, the act of the defendant may not necessarily need to be the only cause, but must be more than minimal. Factual causation is

The core idea of Albert Camus’ philosophy of absurdity centralizes upon the idea that humans exist in a meaningless universe, and follows that humans must simply accept this fact to live life to the fullest. In addition to this absurdist notion, Albert Camus also uses The Stranger to show how humans still strive to create superficial meaning to fulfill their own personal needs. Through the experiences and interactions in Meursault’s life, Camus illustrates that in spite of how events in life follow no rational order, society attempts to futilely create meaning to explain human existence.

BRUNSWICK, OH- The ball glides down the alley striking the top pin causing them all to ripple down. Brunswick’s bowling team's season is coming to an end and for the seniors their jersey’s put to retirement. Some seniors will continue to play in college but for most their final game is almost here.

First let’s take a look at justification. Justification is a word that can be used morally, ethically, in our dailies life and in this case in the courtroom. Examples of justification can been seen in cases of self-defense or necessity. For example, is justified taking someone's life if he or she had reasonably and

Peter Singer is a moral philosopher that approaches ethical issues from both a utilitarian and vegetarian point of view. Utilitarianism is a theory in which one’s action maximizes utility, to generate total benefit and reducing negatives. In Peter Singer’s essay, Utilitarinism and Vegetarianism, he argues that people who follow and apply the principles of utilitarianism should ultimately become vegetarians and that vegetarians should follow utilitarianism. This paper will review and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments in Singer’s essay.

Even though the coherence theory of truth differs from the coherence theory of knowledge, which states that a belief is justified if the belief coheres with a set of beliefs that forms a coherent system (Audi,

Moral theories can help justify the decisions that are made. Each theory has separate viewpoints in which other theories borrow elements from. Moral theories attempt to explain what it is that makes some actions right and others wrong. These are then used as a guide to making choices. They operate at a more general level than moral or legal principles and rules. The four main groups that one should be aware of are: Utilitarian, Kantian, Aristotelian and Feminist.

Throughout history, philosophers have been trying to come up with a clear way to provide the justification of our beliefs and knowledge. Noah Lemos offers readers explanations of both foundationalism and coherentism for theories of justification. These two different theories offer very different ways to explain the basis of our beliefs. For a foundationalist, they believe that all of our beliefs can be broken down until we reach a basic belief. This belief would be largely independent of other beliefs and not derived from other beliefs. A coherentist feels that a belief can be reasonably justified if it is coheres with our other beliefs.

A discussion of moral theories must begin with a discussion of the two extremes of ethical thinking, absolutism and relativism. Moral Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards where moral questions are judged and can be deemed right or wrong, regardless of the context. Steadfast laws of the universe, God, nature itself are the forces that deem an action right or wrong. A person’s actions rather than morals and motivations are important in an Absolutism proposition. Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the