 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > A Question For Greg Boyd. (About God being fundamentally opposed to evil.) | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/24/2005 5:57 PM (GMT -6) |   | If holiness in God is automatic and involuntary, what praiseworthiness can there be in it? Who praises their computer for doing what it was PROGRAMMED to do? What's more, how can you have a truly PERSONAL relationship with a machine (even if it is a "Personal" Computer)? 
All the objections raised, "that we can take at face value that God cannot lie," etc. are also handled by my view. I AFFIRM God cannot lie. But, as with ALL moral actions, it is a statement of God's RESOLUTE WILL TO DO RIGHT, not something He just can't help. My view allows us to affirm GOD's REAL PERSONALITY, while I honestly can't see how the "automatic holiness" view of God renders him anything more than a ROBOT, incapable of either good or evil.
What I think you guys are completely missing is the nature of moral action. In my view, no one can be said to be the author of a moral action unless the PERSONAL WILL is involved in it. Therefore, the idea that "God could sin" is just simply ridiculous and impossible, even on my view--FOR IN MY VIEW GOD PERPETUALLY AND FOREVER RESOLUTELY WILLS BENEVOLENCE, WHICH BY DEFINITION EXCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF SINNING WHEN SO DISPOSED TO LOVE.
And when it all comes down to it, it seems to me that the biggest worry you guys have about my view is that it's "unthinkable." (too scary to contemplate). Somebody remind me, why are we all Open Theists anyway if "scariness" or "unthinkability" is the indicator of whether we ought to believe a thing or not?
QUESTION: Was creating the universe a GOOD thing for God to do? Could he have chosen not to? Or did He simply HAVE TO (automatically and involuntarily) create, because it was His "nature" to create?
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 4/24/2005 11:30:04 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/24/2005 6:02 PM (GMT -6) | |
John: If God says "be holy for I am holy," but He can't help being holy and we can't help being sinful, then we are once again thrown into the quandary of even knowing what "good" and "holy" is.
Tom: Perhaps, but since it's not the case that we can't help being sinful where's the problem. Since we humans lack the proper equipment (we don't have the "automatic holiness machine" or "holy nature" inside us like God does) to be Holy as God is holy, then we truly CAN'T help being sinful. How do you not see this point?
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 4/24/2005 7:24:34 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/24/2005 6:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
When I say God has the ABILITY to sin, I'm only affirming His ability to make moral choices. That's what I understand "materially free" to mean. He TECHNICALLY has the ability to do either good or evil.
Again, I think you, Starky, and Jeff all misunderstand a basic building block to my argument here--that one CANNOT be FORCED to do a MORAL action--the blame or praise always devolves upon the one who FREELY CHOSE to perform the action. If a person holds a gun to your head and makes you rob a bank, THAT PERSON is the one responsible for the ACT, not you.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.netPost Edited (JEE) : 4/24/2005 11:55:09 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/24/2005 6:13 PM (GMT -6) | | | Here are three articles that express the view I have been trying articulate here. My point in posting them is simply to show that I'm not the only one who thinks this way, and to no doubt express it better than I could.
- The Assurance of God's Faithfulness - by Kel Good. The companion piece to the above article examining how we can rely on God being faithful when that faithfulness is voluntary.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.netPost Edited (JEE) : 4/24/2005 11:53:59 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/25/2005 7:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Just a little more...
I had saved some posts from a long time ago...and was able to locate the threads where we talked about this before. It was called "Love and Freedom in the Hereafter" from 2003.
After a long discussion, here was Iconoclast's (where the heck is THAT guy?) take:
Meph is right on that the conceptual framework of necessary and contingent results in a serious problem when it comes to our conceptualization of love. You [Doc] and Tom keep bypassing this issue to simply argue about the pragmatic issue of whether love must be chosen for contingent beings. It is a fine argument but surely you must concede that you have lost the metaphysical grounding for it. Meph has taken away the metaphysical grounding that “love must be chosen”. “Love must be chosen” is no longer “necessary” - it itself is now contingent which simply means that it no longer MUST be chosen.Thus, you are agreeing with Meph that it is true that love does NOT have to be chosen to be genuine love. Regardless of what the pragmatic effects of this are related to contingent beings and the free-will defense / theodicy surely it must be conceded that this is a truly absurd result that needs to be accounted for. Meph the super-meticulous physicist ran the equation as defined and it “blew up” into an “infinite” result.
What Iconoclast recognized was the point that I'm making here. A metaphysical law MUST apply to all beings under it's scope. The principles of logic (like the identity and non-contradiction) apply to all things INCLUDING GOD. As such, we can say that the "laws of logic" are indeed metaphysical. To say that God's love is fundamentally UNCHOSEN...but, at the same time, to claim that love must be chosen as a metaphysical law of the universe is contradictory.
Both Iconoclast and John (he was John Earp back then) agreed saw the problem, but didn't feel the sting because they both affirm that God's loving nature was PRIMARILY a function of choice. I tried to argue against this concept on the basis of it's problematic nature with respect to the perichoretic Trinity. To say that it is even a logical possibility for God to choose not to love is to say that it was a logical possibility for God to choose NOT to exist in eternal loving sociality in Godself. This would mean that God's trinitarian sociality is not NECESSARY, but a contingent outworking. I trust that everyone here would see what kind of problem would arise from saying THAT.
Kel Good doesn't seem to take God's loving perichoretic existence into account in his treatises. He speaks of God as a monad. But surely, he has to understand that if we are talking about LOVE being a moral choice...that this would have to be applied to the relationality between the Father, Son, and Spirit...for it is a relation of love. For Mr. Good to continue the idea of love being chosen for God, he'd have to admit the logical possibility that God could refuse to love Godself in a true essential sense. Why? Because every member of the Trinity is God. Now is Mr. Good willing to assert such nonsense? I highly doubt it. But I hope that we see how important it is to keep the TRIUNE nature of God firmly in mind.
--------------------
This is what I said on that older thread...
If I were to consider God a MONAD or something to that effect, then I would have less of a problem saying that God chose to love..and that this was an "eternal choice" in that God's choice really did antedate and determine God's innate disposition...
HOWEVER...
If someone believes that God is NECESSARILY a community of being (especially according to Doc's trinitarian conception), then saying that God's choice antedates and determines God's disposition becomes very problematic indeed...for obvious reasons.
So what is my problem? I cannot conceive of a omniscient, omnipotent, necessary, eternally trinitarian God in perpetual, perichoretic love relationship within Godself...having the genuine ability to choose NOT to love (or as Iconoclast would say, to choose NOT to exist!) In my mind, to say that this described God could have the ability to choose not to love is extremely problematic.
----------------
I feel this issue is very important in that it deals with to crucial things:
1) the nature of God's triunity
2) the viability of the free-will defense (ala the idea of TWT 1)
Thoughts?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 4/25/2005 8:19:18 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/25/2005 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | |
As always, good to the last drop. Nice to see Mephi chimming in.
I have saved some old posts too. Here’s one of Doc’s:
Doc said...
Tom is the most amazing thinker I’ve ever met. He’s right about everything he says, especially when disagreeing with Mephi. That Tom is amazing. We must be related as eternal twins. Maybe we share the same mind or something. I stopped posting on the discussion site because I knew Tom was there taking care of things. Yay Tom!
Juuuuuust kidding folks.
OK, I gotta run, but I wanna very quickly reply to a couple things:
The Great Iconoclast: You [Doc] and Tom keep bypassing this issue to simply argue about the pragmatic issue of whether love must be chosen for contingent beings. It is a fine argument but surely you must concede that you have lost the metaphysical grounding for it.
Tom: Actually Doc and I argue on metaphysical grounds, not practical grounds (whatever that is), that love must be chosen for finite beings. The “finiteness” IS the metaphysical grounds for the law in question.
Mephi: What Iconoclast recognized was the point that I'm making here. A metaphysical law MUST apply to all beings under it's scope. The principles of logic (like the identity and non-contradiction) apply to all things INCLUDING GOD.
Tom: I DO think that the law in question applies to God. It’s true for God that “finite beings must be libertarianly free to choose to love.” But since God is not a finite being, the law, though it’s true for him, doesn’t describe a proposition of which he is the subject, i.e., a truth which he instantiates. For example, it’s true for me that “a necessary being not have a cause other than itself for its existence.” That metaphysical law is true FOR all beings, necessary and contingent, though it only express a truth ABOUT its subject, i.e., necessary beings. Since I’m not a necessary being this law doesn’t apply to or embrace my own contingent existence, though the truth it expresses is true for me as well. I recognize its truth, though I don’t instantiate it.
So, there’s no inconsistency is saying there are differences between necessary and finite beings and that there are ways a necessary being intantiates qualifites or attributes and ways a finite being instantiates the same qualities or attributes. One of these differences (I think) is that God, who is necessarily good, instantiates love necessarily while we who are finite and so not necessariliy anything, must libertarianly choose to love. Far from abandoning any metaphysical grounds for claiming a difference here, Doc and I were appealing to the metaphysics of necessary as opposed to finite being.
Now, Mephi’s imagined scenario—a finite person being created and given the inability to not love (or given a nature that loves necessarily)—is just science-fiction in my opinion. He keeps saying “It’s true, I can imagine it. It works. It’s evidence. God is an example of it.” But it just isn’t the case. God is not an example of a being who was given her necessary goodness as we finite beings are given the inability to not love in the scenario he's imagining. And this difference is huuuumongous. Since the imagined inability to not love has to be given to finite creatures in Mephi's science-fiction novel, the creatures imagined cannot stand in as examples of the sort of necessarily loving and good being God is since he's not given his inability to not love.
More later I hope!
Sleep tight,
Tom Post Edited (TGB) : 4/25/2005 10:18:37 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/25/2005 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
I DO think that the law in question applies to God. It’s true for God that “finite beings must be libertarianly free to choose to love.” But since God is not a finite being, the law, though it’s true for him, doesn’t describe a proposition of which he is the subject, i.e., a truth which he instantiates. For example, it’s true for me that “a necessary being not have a cause other than itself for its existence.” That metaphysical law is true FOR all beings, necessary and contingent, though it only express a truth ABOUT its subject, i.e., necessary beings. Since I’m not a necessary being this law doesn’t apply to or embrace my own contingent existence, though the truth it expresses is true for me as well. I recognize its truth, though I don’t instantiate it.
So, there’s no inconsistency is saying there are differences between necessary and finite beings and that there are ways a necessary being intantiates qualifites or attributes and ways a finite being instantiates the same qualities or attributes. One of these differences (I think) is that God, who is necessarily good, instantiates love necessarily while we who are finite and so not necessariliy anything, must libertarianly choose to love. Far from abandoning any metaphysical grounds for claiming a difference here, Doc and I were appealing to the metaphysics of necessary as opposed to finite being.
Heh.
Your idea "finite beings must be libertarianly free to choose to love" is disputable. That's my point. For this to be true, you'd have to say this:
Finite sentient beings MUST BE able to morally deliberate.
Moral deliberation (in this case, the choice whether or not to love) presupposes libertarian freedom to do so.
Tatian's argument was dealing, in part, with VIRTUE. He said that the only way that a finite being could be VIRTUOUS is if said being GREW into their love via MORAL DELIBERATION and a growing constancy of these decisions towards the good and loving. He basically said that the finite beings could NOT, by definition, have any type of infused loving character because they were finite and contingent. But Tatian was inaccurate. Somehow, he assumed that being a finite being ESSENTIALLY ENTAILED a striving towards virtue. Tatian obviously didn't understand process theology or the idea of dispositions! Heh 
It is possible to conceive of finite sentient beings who DO NOT morally deliberate!
Unless someone...ANYONE...could make the case that the capacity for moral deliberation is a ESSENTIAL, NON-NEGOTIABLE aspect of what it means to be a finite sentient being (so much so that it is a metaphysical LAW), then the idea that "finite beings must be libertarianly free to choose to love" is heavily disputable.
*************************************
Tom:
Now, Mephi’s imagined scenario—a finite person being created and given the inability to not love (or given a nature that loves necessarily)—is just science-fiction in my opinion. He keeps saying “It’s true, I can imagine it. It works. It’s evidence. God is an example of it.” But it just isn’t the case. God is not an example of a being who was given her necessary goodness as we finite beings are given the inability to not love in the scenario he's imagining. And this difference is huuuumongous. Since the imagined inability to not love has to be given to finite creatures in Mephi's science-fiction novel, the creatures imagined cannot stand in as examples of the sort of necessarily loving and good being God is since he's not given his inability to not love.
God is an example of a being who's loving behavior and relationality emerge UNCHOSEN from the consistent actualization of God's disposition to love. THIS, my good friend, is the similarity to which I point. God loves because it's in his NATURE to. It is fully conceivable to talk about a "holy robot" of a person who LIKE GOD could only perform loving actions because of the was his nature was given to him by God. The only difference we would HAVE to posit between God and sentient creatures in this regard would be that God's loving disposition would be NATURAL to Godself while our loving disposition would be DERIVED from God's loving disposition via "subjective aim"
Surely, you see this.
Oh, and...as far as my "imagined scenario", how about we look at the eschatological view of humanity. We are positing a state where human beings will have a solidified disposition towards love that never fails to be actualized. This is EXACTLY the state we are talking about when we are discussing a finite sentient being with an unchangable, though not necessary, disposition towards loving from when loving behaviour and intentions emerge. I'm just saying that God could have created us with this state from the beginning...IF GOD HAD WANTED TO.
So, how is this "science-fiction"?
**********************************
Tom:
If my position really does entail God's love not being a "virtue" then so be it. I'm not entirely convinced this would mean God is not praiseworthy or admirable.
WOW!! That's huge! So are you saying that God is NOT praiseworthy or admirable for his loving behavior or intentions towards us? Or are you saying that God IS praiseworthy or admirable for his loving behavior or intentions towards us...but it's just not VIRTUOUS of God to be so?
Wouldn't that be interesting? This would mean that sentient creatures have the ability to be VIRTUOUS beings while God wouldn't.
Wow.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 4/25/2005 11:31:43 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/25/2005 4:29 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Mephi: Tatian's argument was dealing, in part, with VIRTUE. He said that the only way that a finite being could be VIRTUOUS is if said being GREW into their love via MORAL DELIBERATION and a growing constancy of these decisions towards the good and loving.
Tom: Tatian sounds like a smart guy.
Mephi: He basically said that the finite beings could NOT, by definition, have any type of infused loving character because they were finite and contingent.
Tom: Right.
Mephi: But Tatian was inaccurate.
Tom (head tilting to the side): Touch not mine anointed one!
Mephi: Somehow, he assumed that being a finite being ESSENTIALLY ENTAILED a striving towards virtue. Tatian obviously didn't understand process theology or the idea of dispositions! It is possible to conceive of finite sentient beings who DO NOT morally deliberate!
Tom: Yeah, sure, it’s possible to conceive of finite sentient beings who do not morally deliberate. What is impossible (to my mind) is conceiving of finite sentient and loving beings who never morally deliberated. If all they ever were was "finite and sentient" but never "free," then they'd by defintion also fail to be loving, personal sentient beings. I wasn’t suggesting (nor do I think Tatian suggests) that “finite sentient” creaturliness implies “libertarianly free” creaturliness in and of itself. I was suggesting that “finite sentient and loving” creatureliness implies “libertarianly free” creaturliness (or “libertarianly chosen compatibilistically free” creaturliness).
Mephi: Unless someone...ANYONE...could make the case that the capacity for moral deliberation is a ESSENTIAL, NON-NEGOTIABLE aspect of what it means to be a finite sentient being…
Tom: Nobody’s arguing that Bro. What we’re arguing is that the capacity for moral deliberation is a necessary prerequite to being a finite loving being.
Mephi: God is an example of a being who's loving behavior and relationality emerge UNCHOSEN from the consistent actualization of God's disposition to love. THIS, my good friend, is the similarity to which I point.
Tom: But in God’s case what is “unchosen” is also “not given” to God or determined for God from some will or being other than God. But in our case what would be “unchosen” WOULD be “given” to us by the “choice” of another (God’s), in which case our goodness would NOT really be “unchosen.” It would be “chosen” for us by God. There would be a “choice” behind our love, just not our choice. That’s the difference.
Mephi: God loves because it's in his NATURE to. It is fully conceivable to talk about a "holy robot" of a person who LIKE GOD could only perform loving actions because [it] was his nature was given to him by God.
Tom: Inconceivable to my mind (which is not to say you’re not right). I just don’t at all see it. See, God’s loving nature is not something someone chose for him. But in our case it would be. It’s the fact that a “will” other than the “will” of the one loving has determined THAT one loves, and this renders your holy robot problematic for me.
Mephi: The only difference we would HAVE to posit between God and sentient creatures in this regard would be that God's loving disposition would be NATURAL to Godself while our loving disposition would be DERIVED from God's loving disposition via "subjective aim"
Tom: And that, my friend, is the problem. It makes sense to say one can acquire goodness through choice. It makes sense to say one is necessarily good in his own, necessary, underived nature. It doesn’t make sense (to me) to say one can choose goodness for another.
Doc, where are you?
Mephi: Oh, and...as far as my "imagined scenario", how about we look at the eschatological view of humanity. We are positing a state where human beings will have a solidified disposition towards love that never fails to be actualized. This is EXACTLY the state we are talking about when we are discussing a finite sentient being with an unchangable, though not necessary, disposition towards loving from when loving behaviour and intentions emerge. I'm just saying that God could have created us with this state from the beginning…
Tom: Oh, ho, ho, ho my friend. If in the eschaton our compatibilistic goodness is acquired through libertarian choice and in your imagined scenario it is NOT so acquired but is rather fed intravenously to us via God’s unconditional determination, then it CAN’T be EXACTLY the same state. Two states are exactly the same if they’re identical in EVERY respect, history included. But your two states would have entirely different histories, and THAT is huge.
Tom (previously): If my position really does entail God's love not being a "virtue" then so be it. I'm not entirely convinced this would mean God is not praiseworthy or admirable.
Mephi: WOW!! That's huge! So are you saying that God is NOT praiseworthy or admirable for his loving behavior or intentions towards us?
Tom: I hope not!
Mephi: Or are you saying that God IS praiseworthy or admirable for his loving behavior or intentions towards us...but it's just not VIRTUOUS of God to be so?
Tom: Yeah, probably that. What I’m wondering about is this: We praise God and admire him for OTHER things that we admit are necessary and unchosen qualities. We admire God’s omniscience, for example. Yes, we praise God for her vast and infinite knowledge. But where are those who argue that we ought not to admire God’s vast knowledge on account of its being unchosen and necessary. After all, it’s not like God had to study for it, work for it, go to college to achieve knowledge of all truths. Hmm? Come on now. It’s true. What business do we have admiring God’s vast knowledge then? But we do.
On a more trivial and human level, we admire (though maybe we shouldn’t) unchosen, given traits and qualities in others, like their physical beauty. Of course what defines physical beauty differs from culture to culture, but not the fact that some natural, inherited, unchosen traits (hair color, eye color, breast size, dimples, square chin, whatever) are meaningfully admired and praised. I’m not suggesting we should do this. Maybe we shouldn’t. I’m just saying we DO do it and we find it meaningful.
Mephi: Wouldn't that [Tom's suggestion that God might be admired for his loving behavior but just not virtuous on account of it] be interesting? This would mean that sentient creatures have the ability to be VIRTUOUS beings while God wouldn't.
Tom: Oooo. But if that’s the case, it wouldn’t mean that admiration for God’s goodness would be meaningless, not unless you can find a way to show that our (mistaken or not) admiration of God’s vast knowledge or of the natural beauty of others is also meaningless.
But then again, one could consider God's loving behavior "virtuous" in the sense of being "virtue-defining" as opposed to "virtue-fulfilling," just as God can be considered "moral" in the sense of being "morally obliging" but not "morally obliged."
(Lest John get too excited in thinking Mephi is actually agreeing with him that God has the ability to do evil, let it be know that Mephi agrees with ME that God is necessarily good and cannot do evil. At least he was the last time we had this conversation with Iconoclast. Iconclast agreed with me and Doc that "love requires freedom" was indeed a metaphysical law, but that if this was the case for us, Iconoclast argued it also had to be the case for God. So he argued that God was libertarianly free to do evil. What Mephi argued then was that since "love requires freedom" is NOT a metaphyical law, it was instantiated by NEITHER God nor us. So Mephi, since you agree that God is necessarily good (like me) what do YOU do about praising and admiring God's goodness and love?)
Tom Post Edited (TGB) : 4/25/2005 4:46:55 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/25/2005 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/25/2005 4:42 PM (GMT -6) | | P.S.: It has never been my contention that God is ONLY praiseworthy for His moral attributes. I have no problem saying God is praiseworthy for his natural attributes as well. But MORALLY praiseworthy or blameworthy actions are by definition voluntary, as far as I can tell.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.netPost Edited (JEE) : 4/25/2005 4:47:46 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/25/2005 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | |
John: P.S.: It has never been my contention that God is ONLY praiseworthy for His moral attributes. I have no problem saying God is praiseworthy for his natural attributes as well.
Tom (with head in vice-grip): Please tighten it ONE MORE round John, and put me out of my misery! 
I wasn't questioning whether or not you ONLY praise God for his moral attributes. I'm assuming you praise God for natural attributes. But you object to "natural goodness" or "necessary goodness" because (among other reasons) it's not chosen (it's automatic), the assumption being we can't meaningfully admire what a person is or does by necessity. Your objection requires this assumption to work. However, if God is omniscient by necessity (and not as a result of choice), and if you admire and praise God for his knowledge, then obviously a quality's being "necessary" doesn't stand in the way of it's also being admirable. So on what basis can you object (as you have and do) that God's goodness isn't admirable if it's necessary?
Tom Post Edited (TGB) : 4/25/2005 5:00:27 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/25/2005 5:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Yeah, sure, it’s possible to conceive of finite sentient beings who do not morally deliberate. What is impossible (to my mind) is conceiving of finite sentient and loving beings who never morally deliberated. If all they ever were was "finite and sentient" but never "free," then they'd by defintion also fail to be loving, personal sentient beings. I wasn’t suggesting (nor do I think Tatian suggests) that “finite sentient” creaturliness implies “libertarianly free” creaturliness in and of itself. I was suggesting that “finite sentient and loving” creatureliness implies “libertarianly free” creaturliness (or “libertarianly chosen compatibilistically free” creaturliness).
and...
What we’re arguing is that the capacity for moral deliberation is a necessary prerequite to being a finite loving being.
Ok. You cannot conceive of finite, sentient, loving beings who don't have the ability to morally deliberate...because finite, sentient beings cannot be loving without being libertarianly free to morally deliberate.
Now, what does this tell us?
You are asserting the TWT 1 thought here. That love REQUIRES freedom for finite, contingent beings. You are also linking "loving" inextricably with MORAL DELIBERATION (ie. a sentient being's ability to choose whether or not to love) for sentient creatures.
But Tom, WHY must this be the case? If we can assert that a sentient being can exhibit GENUINE LOVE from a fundamentally unchosen source inherent to said being (like a disposition), then this would seem to counter the idea that love for ANY sentient being must be chosen to be genuine. The fact that God does this necessarily is beside the point. If it is NOT CONTRADICTORY to make the claim that "A sentient being can exhibit genuine love from a fundamentally unchosen source inherent to said being", then it should be able to apply to ANY sentient being, including finite creatures.
********************
Tom:
See, God’s loving nature is not something someone chose for him. But in our case it would be. It’s the fact that a “will” other than the “will” of the one loving has determined THAT one loves, and this renders your holy robot problematic for me.
and...
It makes sense to say one can acquire goodness through choice. It makes sense to say one is necessarily good in his own, necessary, underived nature. It doesn’t make sense (to me) to say one can choose goodness for another.
Ok. I hear you saying this:
If it's the case that a sentient being A's loving behavior and intentionality emerges from a "loving nature" inherent in A that has been CHOSEN for them by some other sentient being B, then A cannot be said to be exhibiting personal, loving relationality.
I think this misses the bigger point, Tom...which is...
If it's the case that sentient being A's loving behavior and intentionality emerges from a "loving nature" inherent in A that is NOT A PRODUCT OF THEIR OWN CHOICE, then sentient being A cannot be said to be exhibiting personal, loving relationality.
This idea encompasses yours by getting to the root issue: choice. My principle simply says that ANYONE whose loving activity emerges from a LACK OF moral deliberation cannot, by definition, have personal, loving relationality. This would make WHERE the "loving nature" came from an irrelevant question.
But YOU don't want to go there because God would fall into this camp, right? God's personal, loving relationality is NOT fundamentally a product of ANYONE'S choice...not even God's. But we still consider it genuine.
Here's my thought. If it is meaningful to say that a sentient being can be a personal, loving being even without the fundamental ground of that loving relationality being CHOSEN by that being, then there is absolutely no reason to say that finite, sentient beings MUST be libertarianly free with respect to moral deliberation in order for them to be genuine loving, personal beings.
******************************
Tom:
What I’m wondering about is this: We praise God and admire him for OTHER things that we admit are necessary and unchosen qualities. We admire God’s omniscience, for example. Yes, we praise God for her vast and infinite knowledge. But where are those who argue that we ought not to admire God’s vast knowledge on account of its being unchosen and necessary. After all, it’s not like God had to study for it, work for it, go to college to achieve knowledge of all truths. Hmm? Come on now. It’s true. What business do we have admiring God’s vast knowledge then? But we do.
On a more trivial and human level, we admire (though maybe we shouldn’t) unchosen, given traits and qualities in others, like their physical beauty. Of course what defines physical beauty differs from culture to culture, but not the fact that some natural, inherited, unchosen traits (hair color, eye color, breast size, dimples, square chin, whatever) are meaningfully admired and praised. I’m not suggesting we should do this. Maybe we shouldn’t. I’m just saying we DO do it and we find it meaningful.
VERY insightful point. VERY!
*************************
Tom:
So Mephi, since you agree that God is necessarily good (like me) what do YOU do about praising and admiring God's goodness and love?
I appreciate it like unto the way I appreciate the sun. The sun can't be anything other than what it is or do anything other than what it does. But the sunsets, sunrises, warm sunny days that the sun helps to create are awesome. Same way with God's love. It's not to be taken for granted JUST BECAUSE God can't do otherwise.
*******************
Tom:
I wasn't questioning whether or not you ONLY praise God for his moral attributes. I'm assuming you praise God for natural attributes. But you object to "natural goodness" or "necessary goodness" because (among other reasons) it's not chosen (it's automatic), the assumption being we can't meaningfully admire what a person is or does by necessity. Your objection requires this assumption to work. However, if God is omniscient by necessity (and not as a result of choice), and if you admire and praise God for his knowledge, then obviously a quality's being "necessary" doesn't stand in the way of it's also being admirable. So on what basis can you object (as you have and do) that God's goodness isn't admirable if it's necessary?
I agree with your main point. But I'd like for you to change your terminology. Instead of saying "necessary", say "UNCHANGABLE". We already know that if something is necessary that it is unchangable. What's important to note is that some existent can be CONTINGENT (meaning not necessary) and yet be unchangable.
This is what I'm trying to get you to focus on. It's possible to conceive of sentient, finite beings who love like God loves: as an emergent property from the interaction of dispositional reality and volitional actitity where the dispositional reality never fails to be actualized. These beings would have loving thoughts and intentions UNCHANGABLY...even though they are obviously not necessary beings.
********************
My thought still remains:
If it is true that a sentient being can have loving behavior and intentionality emerge from a "loving nature" inherent in that being that is NOT A PRODUCT OF THEIR OWN CHOICE...but at the same time, be considered a personal, loving relational being...
Then it is NOT a metaphysical law that love REQUIRES freedom in any respect...or that love requires moral deliberation in finite, sentient beings.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/25/2005 7:34 PM (GMT -6) | | John, I think this statement by Meph kinda brings to the fore what I'm trying to say:
Meph: My principle simply says that ANYONE whose loving activity emerges from a LACK OF moral deliberation cannot, by definition, have personal, loving relationality.
I'm agreeing that God does deliberate, but His sensibilities are unchangeable - He is incorruptible. Thus, He sometimes chooses to suffer to accomplish an end via means consistent with His own sensibilites. But being fully cognizant of all relevant factors in any given choice, and being powerful enough to choose consistent with His own greatest interest (i.e., consistent with His own greatest good), He necessarily chooses accordingly without fail. It is not automatic like a machine - there is true deliberation, but it's "nothing for a stepper," to use a cliche.
BTW, this gets back to the whole debate about omniscience. And no, Tom, I'm not trying to restart it.  I think what I'm arguing fits more in line with Scott Taylor's view.
Anyway, hope that clears up my viewpoint in a way to where you see that I'm arguing for non-machine-like actions by God, also.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/25/2005 11:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
I guess this is just not my week to communicate well, but I'll try one more time...
My fundamental point in all this discussion has simply been that love must be CHOSEN. End of story. Period. That's it. I realize you, Meph, and others, perhaps even Doc, now must deny this is always true (and make an exception in the case of God), but in any case, that's a difficulty you all must deal with.
That said, my objection to the automatic view of God's holiness is that it actually DENIGRATES HIS RIGHTEOUS AND HOLY CHARACTER.
You said, "the assumption being we can't meaningfully admire what a person is or does by necessity." However, that is not an accurate representation of my view at all. My POV is that all moral action is volitional, and that we can't meangingfully admire a "person" (for lack of a better word and for the sake of argument I'll use that terminology here) who does something "moral" automatically (which really is a flat contradiction in terms in my view).
For example, I know of a poor, unfortunate man who, quite uncharacteristically for him, began acting more and more strangely, and ended up killing himself. Upon autopsy, it was found that he had a deadly brain disease that had literally eaten away parts of his brain, such that the medical examiner ruled with absolute certainty this was the cause of his erratic behavior which had led to his eventual suicide. Personally, I have a hard time seeing how this poor guy was at all responsible for his actions while in such a demented state. His actions could not be evil except insofar as he had conscientious control of his mental and deliberative faculties.
You said: So on what basis can you object (as you have and do) that God's goodness isn't admirable if it's necessary?
Precisely because, the nature of moral action being volitional, moral-category actions can only be praiseworthy or blameworthy only to the extent that they indeed were freely chosen. Was it (morally) good or evil for God to initially create? Could He have refrained from creating?
It seems to me that a denial of the "love must be chosen" principle completely destroys the foundational argument in the trinitarian warfare theodicy in particular and free will theism in general. If God has no meaningful free will except in a compatibilistic sense, then neither do any of us necessarily, and Calvinism or Universalism are perfectly reasonable alternatives philosophically.
Anyway, sorry to be such a bother to you. You can let off the vise-grip (of your own making) if you want to. 
Sincere blessings,
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.netPost Edited (JEE) : 4/25/2005 11:59:35 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/26/2005 9:55 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
The only clarification I would like is how you deal with the idea of the eternal perichoretic relationship between the 3 persons of the Trinity. It would seem to me that you would have to say that it was a logical possibility (though not necessarily a "historical" possibility) that any of the 3 persons of the Godhead could cease to love any of the other Godhead members. Because all of the other members are all equally God, this means that you have to say that it was a logical possibility for God to refrain from loving Godself. THIS would essentially equal to saying that it was logically possible for God to DENY Godself. To say that God resolutely wills not to do this doesn't really help my concern. My concern is the possibility that your view holds within it. Help me understand how one could hold it to be a logical possibility that the one NECESSARY being of the universe can possess the logical possibility to DENY itself essentially. 
There would be no reason imaginable for a perfectly loving and perfectly intelligent and perfectly perceptive Being to ever stop loving another perfectly loving, perfectly intelligent and perfectly perceptive Being, especially Another, of which, one had perfectly loving communication with, understanding of, and loving experience of.
Does that help any, Meph? It's the best I can come up with right now, with my head all stuffy.
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/26/2005 10:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
Gotta run, but I promise I'll try to get back with you on that last question later. Just off the cuff, I would say that God's ultimate intention is benevolence (willing the good) or loving all supremely, and that this is the only WISE course of action He could take. He perfectly knows all the reasons in favor of and against acting either benevolently or malevolently, as well as knows all the consequences that would result from either choice, as a result sees both how self-defeating, death-dealing and irrational sinning is, as well as how LIFE-AFFIRMING, reasonable, and beneficial for all choosing love is, and chooses accordingly.
As the ultimate intention of the heart is, so are all the subordinate and supporting choices a moral being makes. God's ultimate intention is benevolence, and as a result, all the choices that flow out of that ultimate intention/heart/will are benevolent in character.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/26/2005 10:15 AM (GMT -6) | | John:
There would be no reason imaginable for a perfectly loving and perfectly intelligent and perfectly perceptive Being to ever stop loving another perfectly loving, perfectly intelligent and perfectly perceptive Being, especially Another, of which, one had perfectly loving communication with, understanding of, and loving experience of.
Does that help any, Meph? It's the best I can come up with right now, with my head all stuffy.
Sorry about your stuffy head. Hope you get better!
Let me grant the idea that if one were to posit two or more beings who were perfectly loving, intelligent, perceptive who had completely healthy intimacy with each other, with nothing external to the relationship forcing things otherwise, it would be EXTREMELY difficult to conceive of a reason why either being would cease loving the other.
The issue is that this, important though it is, is not my ultimate concern. My ultimate concern, with respect to the Trinity, deals with the NECESSARY nature of the triune God. If God truly is a necessary being, then God is triune necessarily. This means that God LOGICALLY could not be other than triune...if the triune God is a necessary being. Restated, it would be a logical contradiction to posit even the logical possibility that a being who exists in a NECESSARY triune loving sociality withing itself could cease to do so.
What you are positing, John, is the idea of two or more fully individual persons who have such loving relationality and intimacy between themselves that they WOULD never separate even though they could. The logical possibility of them separating or failing to love each other would have a drastically low probability of occuring but it would not be 0 and it would NOT constitute a logical contradiction. But this is NOT the situation with the idea of a necessary, triune being who exists in perichoretic relationship amongst the triune members of God.
Does this clarify my dilemma for you? Saying that it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for a necessary triune, perichoretically loving being to CEASE being perichoretically loving amongst its triunity via VOLITION...is equally absurd as saying that it's logically possible for A=A and A<>A to be true at the same time. (Notice that A<>A is a contradiction itself!)
This is what I'm trying to work out. And Mr. Good doesn't seem to help with that.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/26/2005 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | John:
Gotta run, but I promise I'll try to get back with you on that last question later. Just off the cuff, I would say that God's ultimate intention is benevolence (willing the good) or loving all supremely, and that this is the only WISE course of action He could take. He perfectly knows all the reasons in favor of and against acting either benevolently or malevolently, as well as knows all the consequences that would result from either choice, as a result sees both how self-defeating, death-dealing and irrational sinning is, as well as how LIFE-AFFIRMING, reasonable, and beneficial for all choosing love is, and chooses accordingly.
As the ultimate intention of the heart is, so are all the subordinate and supporting choices a moral being makes. God's ultimate intention is benevolence, and as a result, all his choices are benevolent in character.
Ah. I've heard something like this before. It goes like this...
God's ultimate intentionality is benevolence because God, in God's OMNISCIENCE, knows that benevolence and being life-affirming is the most WISE way to live.
What this entails is that God's benevolence is a factor of God's INFINITE INTELLIGENCE or omniscience. But this falls back into what Tom talks about...
What I’m wondering about is this: We praise God and admire him for OTHER things that we admit are necessary and unchosen qualities. We admire God’s omniscience, for example. Yes, we praise God for her vast and infinite knowledge. But where are those who argue that we ought not to admire God’s vast knowledge on account of its being unchosen and necessary. After all, it’s not like God had to study for it, work for it, go to college to achieve knowledge of all truths. Hmm? Come on now. It’s true. What business do we have admiring God’s vast knowledge then? But we do.
Tom's point hit's full force here. Ultimately, God's unchanging willingness to be benevolent is grounded on a NECESSARY characteristic that God COULD NOT be without...and could not change. If there is any attribute of God that we would HAVE to say is not a product of any volition or activity of God, it would be God's omniscience/infinite intelligence! But that means we have the same problem all over again. God CANNOT be less than all wise...which means that, assuming God is rational, God CANNOT make any UNWISE decisions. And when we link benevolence to WISDOM...
This means that God CANNOT FAIL to be benevolent because God CANNOT FAIL to be wise because God is NECESSARILY omniscient!
We have the same problem...just in a different form.
Is everyone seeing this?
But I'll wait on a further answer from John later. Maybe that will clear all this up for me.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
| 117 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:16 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|