Ontology Vs Ethics and Categorical fallacy
Many do the say with things like healing, saying: “I prayed, but did not get healed, thus, it is God’s will for me not to be healed.” This is the same categorical stupid mistake of saying, “trees and dogs are the same, therefore, why don’t’ trees walk?” The phrase “the will of God,” is being used as an informal fallacy of equivocation to hide the informal fallacy of a categorical error. This makes the error harder to detect. The phrase, “the will of God,” in Scripture can refer to either God’s causality or to His commandments. If one were to mix these up, then they are saying “Trees walk like dogs.” They have twisted God’s word to their stupidity and bias.
Vincent Cheung gives some good examples of Scripture on this ontology vs ethic distinction.
1 Samuel 2:25
His sons, however, did not listen to their father’s rebuke, [precept]for it was the LORD’s will to put them to death.[decree]
Mark 3:35, For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother. [precept]
1 Peter 3:17, For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil. [decree] [1]
Christian ontology and Christian ethics are not the same categories. Christian ontology: God CAUSED Pharaoh to be hardened to let His people go. Christian ethics: God COMMANDED Pharaoh to let His people go. Christian ontology: God CAUSED your faith to be hardened so that your first prayer was lacking faith. Christian ethics (James 5): God COMMANDED you to pray in faith to be healed. And Jesus commanded to pray and never give up. Remember when the disciples could not heal the father’s child? Jesus did not say, it must therefore, be God’s will for the healing not to happen. Rather, considering that the Father CAUSED their faith to be weak, Jesus did NOT conclude Christian ethics from causality. He instead did what has always been God’s nature and will(command), which is to heal those who ask. Jesus healed the boy despite the what God had already caused, because God’s COMMAND is our ethic. To conclude an ethic (What I ought to do) from ontology is invalid. It is a non-sequitur; it imports information not contained in the premises of God word into the conclusion. It is as logically invalid as the Israelites in Psalm 50 saying, “because we need food and drank, God needs food.”
For the Elect that point is that though Jesus Christ’s imputed righteous (ethics) they have completed the requirement of obeying God. They have been credited with a perfect Christian ethic that is fulfilled and the receipt printed off. After new birth they are given the Holy Spirit that causes(ontology) them to behave in accordance to the perfect obedience already credited to their accounts. That is, as Pharaoh could not resist God causing him to reject His command, the Elect cannot resist the Holy Spirit causing them to be sanctified.
Oshea Davis.
The Logic of Romans. (A future release) parts will be release on https://osheadavis.org
Endnotes---
[1] Vincent Cheung’s essay, “Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11.” (www.vincentcheung.com). It is also found in his book, Sermonettes Vol. 8, chapter 4. 2015. Pg, 22-32.
See also, Martin Luther, Bondage Of The Will, and his point of Imperative vs the Indicative.