D, given all we’ve talked about regarding aseity, necessary existence, and the identity of that as ‘personal, loving’ existence…I was just re-reading Zizzy and Papanikolau on divine freedom. It’s clear that they apply freedom to the choice of each divine person to affirm their love freely, i.e., unnecessarily. They’ll agree this “free” choice of the divine persons to love one another occurs “eternally,” but as Papa argues that it’s not the case that whatever is eternal is necessary (contradicting Aristotle and the whole philosophical tradition). Papa really wavers (I’ll try to find the quotes for you) by admitting God “exists necessarily” but that the “tropos” (mode or manner) of his existence (which is specified as “loving existence”) is in no way subject to necessity. SO they draw the dividing line between ‘freedom’ and ‘necessity’ with respect to God along a path that divides “existence” per se and “love” per se. ‘Existence’ is just a blunt, necessary fact which is freely determined in loving, personal ways. There is nothing necessary about the concrete (loving) manner of divine existence. God is not “necessarily” loving personal existence. God is “necessary existence” yes—pause—but not “necessary loving existence.”

I know you don’t like to criticize EO heavy weights, but come on.

T