On the fifth week of the AT Seminar Series Sameer Yadav, Assistant Professor of Religious
Studies at Westmont University, delivered a paper titled “Love: Creaturely and Divine.” In his paper Yadav dealt with Schellenberg’s divine hiddenness argument by providing what could be called a “Plantingian Divine Imaging Defense.”
An Overview of “Love: Creaturely and Divine”
Although not new, the problem of Divine Hiddenness (DH) became the subject of extensive philosophical discussion when J.L. Schellenberg published his book, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason, in 1993. Schellenberg and others who put forth this argument appeal to existence of non-resistant non-believers as evidence for the non-existence of a perfectly loving God. We can summarize the main idea of DH as:
If God is perfectly Loving, then non-resistant non-belief does not exist. But it seems as though non-resistant non-belief does exist. Therefore, a perfectly loving God does not exist.
You can read the rest of this post over at Fuller Seminary’s Analytic Theology Blog.
Today I got word that I was accepted to be a participant at the Herzel Institute (Jerusalem) Young Scholar’s Workshop and Conference on Revelation at Mt. Sinai:
It is with great pleasure that I am writing to inform you that we are able to offer you a place at our Young Scholars Workshop which will take place in Jerusalem on June 12-22, 2017. The workshop will involve a week of classroom seminars and discussions, visits to key sites in Jerusalem, as well as an international conference at which leading scholars in Jewish Philosophical Theology from around the world will present. Our program includes lunches and informal meetings, and plenty of time to engage others in conversation.
During the workshop, participants will present a 15-20 minute symposium paper in response to reading materials that will be sent out prior to the workshop. The paper will be presented in a classroom seminar for discussion by workshop participants and scholars.
We will be discussing topics such as: “The Bible as Philosophy?” “The Metaphysics of Hebrew Scripture”; “Is the Biblical God Perfect Being?”; “What Does It Mean for God to Speak?”; “Bible as a Tradition of Inquiry”; “Approaching God Through Metaphor”; “God’s Plans, Failures and Alliances”; “Should God Be Our King?”; “Discovering a Name of God”; “Who Makes Things Happen in the Bible?”
I would never have imagined I would be going to Israel for a theological conference, let alone have the expenses covered by a scholarship. This is such an amazing opportunity. If you are wondering what the Herzl Institute is, here is some info:
The Herzl Institute will serve as a hub of collaboration, research and joint learning for Jewish scholars, clergy, lay leadership and students who seek better answers to the challenges ahead through a more rigorous engagement with the riches of Hebrew Scripture and rabbinic sources.
The Herzl Institute welcomes the participation of Christian and other non-Jewish scholars and students who see the sources of Judaism as offering an opportunity for foundational renewal within the context of their own nations and faith traditions. The Herzl Institute will conduct an array of intensive outreach activities, including public events, publications, and new media platforms aimed at bringing the fruits of its work to a broad public in Israel and abroad.
Last week at 2016 Analytic Theology Seminar Series at Fuller Seminary Thomas Ward presented a paper on love for God in Duns Scotus’ works. For interaction with this paper
see a forthcoming blog post by JT Turner on Fuller’s Analytic Theology Blog. In the meantime here are some notes on Thomas Ward’s Lecture.
Love, Obedience and Moral Obligation: Reflections on Scotus
- Scotus – Divine Command is not the source of our obligation to Love God above all things. Love of God entails an obligation to obey his commands.
- This might not be a actually a divine command theory
- Scotus – so widely believed to be DCT & V
- Scotus’s views do not comfortably bear these labels
- Quinn: V – thesis that morality depends on the will of God
- Murphy some moral status M stands in dependence relationship D to some act of the divine will A
- If this is true – Scotus is not V – some moral obligations that don’t dpend on God’s will, i.e. the moral obligation to love God.
- Scotus & Ockham were more liberal about what they thought it was logically possible to do.
- According to Kent he is V, Williams he is not, Under Quinn & Murphy he is not, According to Evans he is not either.
- A Mitigation Interpretation
- A mitigating interpretation – giving reasons why God legislated what he did, etc.
- Thomas William’s unmitigated – God can do whatever is logically possible
- Scotus – there are necessary moral truths over which God has no control:
- Necessary moral truths – are logically necessary
- This affects how we should think of the claim that God can do logically possible for God to do (as opposed to logically possible simpliciter)
- Scotus – God must be loved
- This is independent of the command to love him
- From this obligation to love God, we can derive an obligation to obey God’s commands
3.Scotus on the Natural Law
- If its part of natural law: first practical principles known in virtue of their terms or as conclusions that necessarily follow from them. If some precept p is part of the natural law then p is necessary in a very strong sense: God cannot make P false
- Loose sense natural law – not entailed by but highly consonant with natural laws
- He thinks some of the 10 commandments are part of natural law – the first table belong to the natural law in the strict sense, the second table belongs to the natural law in the loose sense
- Augustine – we love our neighbor for God’s sake. Scotus might be seen as continuing the Augustinian intstrumentalization of the great commandments.
- Second Table – If that good were not commanded, the ultimate end could still be attained and loved (beatific vision), the attainment of the ultimate end would still be possible.
- Second table conformity is at best contingent upon achieving the ultimate end
- Second table is contingent in the fact that God could have put forth other commands or none at all
- First table commands describe precisely what natural law requires
4.The logical necessity of the practical necessity that God must be loved
- Deus est diligendus… is a practical truth preceeding any act of the divine will
- Conclusion: Scotus thinks that God’s doing or willing anything in any way contrary to Deus est diligendus “includes a contradiction” and is therefore impossible.
5.Logical Modalities a la Scotus
- Real possibility: something is really possible if there is a power to bring it about
- Logical Impossibility: defined in Scotus’s terms as a certain way in which terms cannot be combined by the mind because of the relationship of terms in a proposition, namely that they are opposed to one another
- Logical Necessity IFF its contrary (or subcontrary) and contradictory are logically impossible.
- God must be loved is necessary in this sense.
6.God must be loved
- A logically necessary practical necessity
- What should be loved the most is the best – so God should be loved the most
- If we grasp the meanings of these terms we just “see” that God should be loved the most
- There is a normative connection between love and the good
- God has not choice but to be the highest God, thus he has no choice to be the object of greatest love
7.Logically Possible for Whom?
- Its logically possible to hate God, but God can do anything which does not entail a contradiction, God should be able to hate himself. Why not?
- A command to hate or to fail to love God is prima faciaie logically possible
- Needs to be qualified: Humans, robots, elepthans can kick a soccer ball but pens and parameciums can’t. So do determine logical possibility we need to consider the PHI-ing in relation to the x.
- Hating God is logically possible for humans and angels, but for God it is logically impossible.
- The terms God & failing to love God are opposed to eachother.
- God’s power means – God can do whatever is logically possible for God to do
8.God must love God
- His radical voluntarism is more moderate if understood as “God can do whatever is logically possible for God to do.” Vs. “God can do whatever is logically possible.”
- God by nature has intellect and will & is therefore capable of happiness + God has no potentiality, so he is happy. Only by knowing God can a person be happy. So God loves God.
9.God can’t command you to hate God
- Also God cannot dispense anyone from their obligation to love God.
- Where God to issue a command – never love me
- Either it would generate a moral obligation or it wouldn’t
- JERK MOVE
- If so, he would have a moral obligation to love him and NOT love him. This would be an command in which one would be determined to fail
- This is a jerk move, so God cannot possibily will to obligate some never to live him
- OR… FRUSTRATION MOVE
- God would be frustrated in his legislative obligation
- But God cannot be frustrated: he gets what he wants
- So He could not possibly issue a command which could not generate a moral obligation
- If so, he would have a moral obligation to love him and NOT love him. This would be an command in which one would be determined to fail
- From Love to Obedience
- Loving God, is “to repeat in our wills… God’s will for our willing. But willing what God wills for our willing is obedience. So it is necessarily true not just that God is to be loved, but that God is to be obeyed.”
- One of the problem of DCT – is that they can’t show there are obligations to obey the command
- What we need then is some other obligation to obey divine commands
- We are required to love God, but not simply because it is commanded, but because it is logically necessary.
- We have this moral obligation that does not depend on God’s will, because it is logically necessary that we love God.
- This helps w/certain objections to DCT
- God could command horrendous things
- DCT is circular
See the message below from Allison Wiltshire
The following is a guest post by a friend of mine Derek Saenz. Here he reflects upon his past experience as a theology student at Talbot Seminary (which happens to be FULL of philosophy students).
If you think that many seminary students look at philosophy students and think, “These guys are just a bunch of know it alls, gibbering on about a bunch of theoretical nonsense,” then you’d be right.
Why is this the case? What is a philosophy student to do?
I’m glad you asked:
Many of us are fundamentally oriented toward more concrete thinking.
When we get some, “Really smart Philosophy guys,” in our classes we don’t know quite what to do with you all.
Sure, we can get a bit abstract with talk of different doctrines. But the great simple truth of Christianity is that Jesus was a real man, who really lived, and really died – like physically. And the resurrected and rose – again physically. That’s the beauty of our faith, we can tell the story of Jesus to illiterate seven year olds anywhere in the world and they can rrock it.
Many of your non-philosophizing seminary classmates were those illiterate seven year olds. And the sad truth is that many of us never gained a deeper understanding of our faith.
Which leads to my next point:
We come from fundamentally different backgrounds.
The last philosophy class I took was in my second year of junior college and it had to do with virtue ethics – and I was a little lost even then! Philosophy folks eat this stuff for breakfast before pondering the deep significances of the Theory of the Analytic Whatever.
For many unwashed, dull, normal seminary students we come from the stale scent of old pizza and spilled soda from so many church youth rooms. We love Jesus. We got a Bachelor’s in something. The sad thing is, our Bachelor’s degrees were focused on the retention of information. Many times we were never pushed to question or truly understand what we were being taught. We were incented to simply study the required information and bubble it in on a Scantron.
We do topical sermons based around the Ten Commandments. We spend a week apiece on the different Fruits of the Spirit. We are simple-minded. We are concrete-thinkers.
Simply thinking concretely is dangerous because abstract ideas are actually the tool used in real life change. You can tell a man to, “Be nicer to your wife,” but the real reason he is so terrible to her is that he is a misogynist who truly believes women are worth less than men. You can’t combat this concretely, you must go to the magical land of abstract ideas – where real heart change happens.
Which leads to the greatest skills that all seminary students can learn from philosophy students:
We need to learn precision and tenacious curiosity from philosophy students.
I can’t tell you how many times a Master’s level student would say in class, “Well, I don’t get it! But you know what, none of this has to do with real ministry anyway.”
Can I tell you a story from the aforementioned “real ministry” about why precision in language is important?
I recently started listening to a message from the senior pastor of a church I was trying to work at. He was outlining his position on the roles women can hold in ministry. I cannot tell you how confused this guy sounded in his own church, in front of his own people, talking about a subject that he was “very passionate” about.
He started discussing “how to really read the Bible,” yet he conflated genre and context when explaining hermeneutics to his people. He was basically espousing a trajectory hermeneutic on stage, but he never used those words, he never even brought up to his people where he got the idea.*
At a church where nearly 500 people rely on this man to lead them in their pursuit of God, he was being more confusing than helpful. I wasn’t convinced that he knew what he was talking about. And in fact, it seemed like he was trying to hide that he didn’t really understand what he was saying by using common flowery preacher cliches. He went on and on about the “beauty of this,” and “the gospel that,” oh, and my favorite, “the beautiful, broken story that God weaves throughout and scripture and our lives.” These sayings can be used effectively, but if your main point is murky and all you can speak are these sayings, you’ve got trouble.
Here’s why this preacher was in trouble:
- He wasn’t precise in his language because he didn’t understand what he was talking about.
- He didn’t understand what he was talking about because he didn’t study enough.
- He didn’t study because he wasn’t really curious for the truth.
What can I do to help these poor, pathetic senior pastors to be?
Dear reader, I’m glad you asked:
Ask good questions, but don’t leave your classmates in the dust.
When you are in class, ask great questions of your professors. Many of my, “Oh, I get it now,” moments in seminary happened when a really bright philosophy student would ask an incisive question. The best questions brought clarity and precision to what the professor was trying to teach. Many times I didn’t know that I was lost in a discussion until a philosophy student would ask a great question. Remember, many of our undergraduate programs didn’t value questions or truly understanding material, they only valued the retention of information.
Philosophers, you are all experts in argument, logic, and the abstract. Will you use your powers for good or for evil? Will you shepherd those who are leading God’s people in their intellectual and spiritual pursuits? Or will you tire of us and let us drown in the filth of our own incompetent, narrow-mindedness?
Grab lunch or coffee or vending machine goodies with your non-philosophy classmates. Find a good blog or book that puts the Philosophy cookies on the low shelf for them. Ask them thought provoking questions. Teach and guide from a place of humility.
Because no one wants to listen to a know-it-all gibbering on about a bunch of theoretical nonsense.
*Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals, Webb.
Bio: Derek Saenz went to Talbot and got an M. Div. He has a wife, a daughter, and a cat. He is too dependent on caffeine. Follow him on Twitter @TheDerekSaenz
An Examination of Recent Philosophical Responses to Thomas McCall’s Argument Against Eternal Functional Subordination
by Christopher G. Woznicki
Since Thomas McCall first published Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of the Trinity in 2010 numerous papers have been written responding to his philosophical arguments against eternal functional subordination.
Among recent philosophical responses to McCall’s position a paper co-written by Philip Gons and Andrew Naselli and another by Bruce Ware stand out as the most significant. Gons and Naselli argue that McCall’s argument conflates the term “essentially” with “belonging to the essence.” Ware puts forth a reductio ad absurdum argument against McCall and shows McCall’s logic entails a denial of homoousios.
This paper enters into this debate by examining Gons and Naselli’s argument. It engages with recent philosophical literature dealing with the meaning of the term “essence” in order to show that their argument against McCall is unfounded.
The paper then turns to Ware’s argument to show that he has made a category mistake in comparing the property of being eternally begotten and the property of being functionally subordinate in all time segments in all possible worlds. Having critically examined these recent philosophical responses to McCall we see that McCall’s argument still holds up against its objectors.
The full-text of this paper is available for FREE by clicking here.