# God is Love



## T.A.G. (May 9, 2011)

respond to this argument or give your thoughts on it. I would like to discuss the benifets to this argument 

As William Lane Craig in his Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview

“ God is by definition the greatest conceivable being. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by his very nature, he must be giving himself in love to another. But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God's free will, not a result of his nature.”1


----------



## MMasztal (May 9, 2011)

T.A.G. said:


> “ God is by definition the greatest conceivable being. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by his very nature, he must be giving himself in love to another. But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God's free will, not a result of his nature.”1



I would break this up into a syllogism:
1. God is by definition the greatest conceivable being.
2. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. 
3. Now a perfect being must be a loving being.
4. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. 
5. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. 
6. So if God is perfectly loving by his very nature, he must be giving himself in love to another.
7. [Therefore]It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God's free will, not a result of his nature.” 

Quick thoughts as I have to go. Craig's thought process is driven by his Arminian theology. "Love" becomes God's prime attribute rather than "Holiness"

I find problems with Premise 1. ...greatest "conceivable" being.... This limits God to whatever one is able to "conceive". Also, premise 3 does not necessarily follow premise 2. Other attributes can be inserted and the syllogism can remain valid. The "love" stuff afterward therefore falls


----------



## Douglas P. (May 9, 2011)

MMasztal said:


> I find problems with Premise 1. ...greatest "conceivable" being.... This limits God to whatever one is able to "conceive".





Scripture tells us in many places that we cannot conceive of God (Isaiah 55:8-8, Col 2:1-10, Rom 1:18ff, Acts 17, and the list goes on) instead God must reveal himself to us.

Any attempt at rationalism comes right from the lips of Satan (Gen 3:1-7)


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 9, 2011)

T.A.G. said:


> respond to this argument or give your thoughts on it. I would like to discuss the benifets to this argument
> 
> As William Lane Craig in his Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
> 
> “ God is by definition the greatest conceivable being. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by his very nature, he must be giving himself in love to another. But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God's free will, not a result of his nature.”1



Who gets to define what a perfect being must be? Surely not an imperfect man. So that assertion is unfounded and pure philosophy on the part of the writer.

However, we know from scripture that God is love and therefore love is good. It is God who is the definer of good, not man. God who is perfect is the only one who can define perfection. And God who is good is the only one who can define good.

God loves himself and that is evident in Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:19 ESV
19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,

All of those destined to be in Jesus Christ are those who God loves.


----------



## Douglas P. (May 9, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> Who gets to define what a perfect being must be?



Apparently Lane Craig does...?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 9, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> > Who gets to define what a perfect being must be?
> ...


 
That's his first mistake. His assertion is formed as a statement of fact that the reader must accept to move forward in his argument. However, he has given no basis for where he got his facts. He just said that and based the rest of his statement on it.

---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 PM ----------




MMasztal said:


> Craig's thought process is driven by his Arminian theology.


 
Dr. Craig isn't an arminian. He is a molinist. Molinism is pure roman catholic heresy.

Dr. Craig is good at arguing for the existance of God agianst the atheist but other than that he has severe issues with consistancy in his theology.


----------



## MMasztal (May 9, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> Dr. Craig isn't an arminian. He is a molinist. Molinism is pure roman catholic heresy.



Thanks for the clarification. I had based my opinion on listening to his debate with Hitchens.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 9, 2011)

The problem we have is that we define love by our own human terms. God's love is so much greater than that. God loves people enough to send them to hell, and that is something that we can never truly understand with our fake, mushy, Hallmark Card idea of love.


----------



## T.A.G. (May 9, 2011)

ahah my reformed brethren, love is a great attribute of God, it is his very essence (not saying it is his only attribute that is who God is) 1 John 4. 

A few friendly thoughts 

michael: Who or where does it say God's prime attribute is holiness? God doesnt have one prime attribute...

my friend bill: Though granted human experience does not fully understand perfect love or the great depths and riches of God's love, the basic format of love man does understand. If God communicated to us in saying He is love and expected us to understand what this love meant by our basic human experience, but really to God love doesnt really mean what our basic human experience of love informs us, but means something else, then why couldnt love mean hate? 

Daivid: How is Molinism heresy? How does it damn some one or endanger some one to the lake of fire? How does it destroy who God is as revealed in Scripture to the point of another god?

How does one make love intelligible? One must have a universal that is grounded in God (his mind or being) or it is merely relative (evolutionary factor/particular). If God was love and love is giving oneself rather then wholly keeping to ones self, if love gives and receives etc. and if God is eternal, immutable, and doesnt need creation...how else is God love?

Doug: Scripture also tells us we all know God and are made in His image. It is bc of sin that we distort who God is and need revelation, but in reality we cannot escaping knowing this God as seen via our daily lives and beliefs. We can demonstrate this to unbelievers via apologetics/philosophy

Now I think where the ontological argument as well as this argument fails is it has biblical presuppositions as some of you have pointed out. How does one know that a morally perfect being is a loving being? If there is no God which is also to say if there is no moral obligation or moral values, then morally good doesnt exist and one could not presuppose a perfect being would love. Though, in basic human experience we do perceive that morality is there and that love is a universal as well as it being good etc. This of course can only be accounted for by the Christian worldview, which is why I believe if this argument is done in the right context with terms defined according to the biblical worldview, I dont see how this argument fails.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 9, 2011)

God's attributes are defined by His self-revelation and not by philosophical speculation about a conceivable Being using autonomous human reason to determine the best possible Being He could be. We don't reason assuming God has not spoken but reason because He has.



> For if we reflect how prone the human mind is to lapse into forgetfulness of God, how readily inclined to every kind of error, how bent every now and then on devising new and fictitious religions, it will be easy to understand how necessary it was to make such a depository of doctrine as would secure it from either perishing by the neglect, vanishing away amid the errors, or being corrupted by the presumptuous audacity of men. It being thus manifest that God, foreseeing the inefficiency of his image imprinted on the fair form of the universe, has given the assistance of his Word to all whom he has ever been pleased to instruct effectually, we, too, must pursue this straight path, *if we aspire in earnest to a genuine contemplation of God; - we must go, I say, to the Word, where the character of God, drawn from his works is described accurately* and to the life; these works being estimated, not by our depraved judgment, but by the standard of eternal truth. *If, as I lately said, we turn aside from it, how great soever the speed with which we move, we shall never reach the goal, because we are off the course. We should consider that the brightness of the Divine countenance, which even an apostle declares to be inaccessible, (1Ti 6: 16) is a kind of labyrinth, - a labyrinth to us inextricable, if the Word do not serve us as a thread to guide our path; and that it is better to limp in the way, than run with the greatest swiftness out of it.* Hence the Psalmist, after repeatedly declaring (Psa 93, 96, 97, 99, &c.) that superstition should be banished from the world in order that pure religion may flourish, introduces God as reigning; meaning by the term, not the power which he possesses and which he exerts in the government of universal nature, but the doctrine by which he maintains his due supremacy: because error never can be eradicated from the heart of man until the true knowledge of God has been implanted in it.
> 
> Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Book I, Chapter 6, Section 3


----------



## MMasztal (May 9, 2011)

T.A.G. said:


> michael: Who or where does it say God's prime attribute is holiness? God doesnt have one prime attribute...



I’ll take the word of the seraphim: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”


----------



## Pergamum (May 9, 2011)

I find the argument in the OP to be interesting because it shows, if our reasoning is consistent with revelation, that our monotheistic God is Trinitarian rather than the lone, hermit God Allah of the Muslims who had no one to love for all eternity past. Eternal love and fellowship is found in the Trinity.


----------



## T.A.G. (May 9, 2011)

again where does it say that is his prime attribute?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 9, 2011)

T.A.G. said:


> Daivid: How is Molinism heresy?



Please read the article below. It will answer your questions:



> The Heresy of Middle Knowledge
> 
> by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
> 
> ...




Molinism - The heresy of middle knowledge


----------



## T.A.G. (May 9, 2011)

Molinism's close brother is open theism...I wonder if this author understands Molinism...


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 9, 2011)

T.A.G. said:


> Molinism's close brother is open theism...I wonder if this author understands Molinism...


 
I believe Dr. McMahon does understand it indeed.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 9, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> Molinism - The heresy of middle knowledge



The term heresy is thrown out way too easily. Clearly there is a tension that exists between the reality of God's sovereignty and the guilt that clearly rests upon men for their sins. Molinism is an attempt to resolve this tension in a way that is both theologically and intellectually satisfying. That is not to say that it is correct, but it is not heresy. Far too many people refuse to even think about solving the tension between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility and simply choose to "live with the tension" I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, but if we throw out the heresy charge anytime someone dares to think, then we relegate christianity to the realm of the anti-intellectual.


----------



## MW (May 9, 2011)

MMasztal said:


> I find problems with Premise 1. ...greatest "conceivable" being.... This limits God to whatever one is able to "conceive".


 
In apologetics, "conceived being" is not intended as a limitation on God Himself but is understood in terms of what humans can know about God. It would be regarded as acceptable by any person who acknowledges the validity of the ontological argument.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 9, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> > Molinism - The heresy of middle knowledge
> ...


 
I believe that any system that isn't 5 point calvinism is ultimately heresy because there is only one truth and it isn't relative.


----------



## T.A.G. (May 9, 2011)

David: I cant believe you just stated that....so Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll preach heresy. 
What you just stated is a Non sequitur by the way
believing in absolute truth has nothing to do with the conclusion of your statement


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 9, 2011)

T.A.G. said:


> David: I cant believe you just stated that....so Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll preach heresy.
> What you just stated is a Non sequitur by the way
> believing in absolute truth has nothing to do with the conclusion of your statement


 
Well there is truth and there isn't. If one wants ot be consistant then that one needs to be a calvinist because that is the only true system there is.

Mark Driscoll is a 5 point calvinist though. I don't know about chandler. However even if they aren't they can preach a gospel that isn't heresy. they can point people to Christ even arminians can do that. God can use a donkey to spread the true gospel if he wants too. But in their own mind they believe falsehoods if they're not calvinists and all lies are of the devil. So, there it is. They may not be totally decieved but they are deceived in part. Many free willers don't even know Christ at all.


----------



## T.A.G. (May 9, 2011)

There are truths that you do not know or that you believe that isnt true, that doesnt mean you believe in heresy. Your argument for why it is heresy doesnt follow

Chandler and Driscoll are both 4.5 half pointers which according to you is heresy

Many Calvinists do not even know Christ....what is your point, you are decieved in false theology as well...


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 9, 2011)

T.A.G. said:


> There are truths that you do not know or that you believe that isnt true, that doesnt mean you believe in heresy. Your argument for why it is heresy doesnt follow
> 
> Chandler and Driscoll are both 4.5 half pointers which according to you is heresy
> 
> Many Calvinists do not even know Christ....what is your point, you are decieved in false theology as well...


 
Sure no one knows anything we're all heretics.

No. I believe there is truth and calvinism is it. Also there is no such thing as a 4.5 pointer.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 9, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> Sure no one knows anything we're all heretics



Obviously there is absolute truth, but simply being wrong about something does not automatically make one a heretic. Let's take the area of eschatology; I am an amillenialist, and I know from previous threads that you are a premillenialist and Tyler is a postmillenialist. So, which one of us is the heretic?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 9, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> > Sure no one knows anything we're all heretics
> ...


 
Well I'm the only one who is right obviously. 


Really. The bible teaches truth and we are to follow it to the best of our abilities and yes there are people who believe they are doing that yet they are heretics. The difference is being a reborn child of God.

That being said there are some issues that are not central to the faith like eschatology so we do our best but salvation doesn't ride on it. Then there are some things like open theism and Molinism where people have made a mockery of the scriptures to such a degree that it obscures who God is. It neglects his character and makes a mockery of his justice and holiness. It makes God in the image of man is man centered and virtually idolatry with a christian name. Many of these people have created their own god and call him Christ. They teach falsehoods and lead people into deception. Therefore the word heresy is warrented. If it is warranted for pelagianism and semi pelagianism it is certainly warranted for molinism which is essentially no different.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 9, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> Then there are some things like open theism and Molinism where people have made a mockery of the scriptures to such a degree that it obscures who God is



I understand where you are coming from, and I am certainly not a fan of open theism, but I just think we need to use a little judgment before we throw out the heretic label.


----------



## steadfast7 (May 9, 2011)

I happen to like the argument. It's a good development of Anselm. I was expecting him to end up saying that God's perfect in giving of himself ultimately terminates on man, but he delightfully didn't go there. The implications for Muslim evangelism are certainly there and can be used in such a context. 

Although he's a Molinist with respect to free will, and probably Arminian in theology in general, that doesn't mean that everything coming from his mouth is rubbish. He's an incredible mind and one of the best contemporary defenders of the Faith. I know of no contemporary Reformed apologist who is as well published or enterprising in apologetic ministry as Craig is. It is dishonourable and unloving to label him as a heretic, in my opinion.


----------



## T.A.G. (May 9, 2011)

agreed Dennis, very well put


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 10, 2011)

He has freely called himself a molinist. Molinism is defined as heresy in the reformed tradition. So, there is nothing I can do with that. Sure he's a molinist with a lot of books published, but I will not condone molinism just to be "loving." It is heresy and that is all there is to it. This guy espouses it. He should know better.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/puritanworship/McMahonHeresyMiddleKnowledge.htm


----------



## Peairtach (May 10, 2011)

T.A.G. said:


> again where does it say that is his prime attribute?



The word "holiness" summarises all God's moral qualities e.g. goodness, including love, righteousness, justice, truth.

But "love" does not similarly summarise the qualities of goodness, righteousness, justice and truth.

In our catechism answer love is not explicitly mentioned but subsumed in "goodness".



> Q. 4. What is God?
> A. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.



Maybe the fact that God loves sinners is His most wonderful attribute for us? We would certainly not be here if it was not for it, anyway. 

So the fact that God loves stands out among His moral and other attributes as something very special and precious to us.


----------



## T.A.G. (May 10, 2011)

I never argued that God's main attribute was Him being Love, all I said was God did not have one main attribute as well as stating in God's very essence He is love 1 John 4


----------



## Douglas P. (May 10, 2011)

T.A.G. said:


> Doug: Scripture also tells us we all know God and are made in His image. It is bc of sin that we distort who God is and need revelation, but in reality we cannot escaping knowing this God as seen via our daily lives and beliefs. We can demonstrate this to unbelievers via apologetics/philosophy



Yes, we are to demonstrate that the unbeliever is made in the image of God and because of sin he is therefore a covenant breaker and in need of a covenant keeper. But, the point must be made (as Semper Fiedelis alluded to in #10) that William Lane Craig is attempting to rationalize with the unbeliever, which scripture unequivocally does not allow for. Reason is not the source of knowledge, Christ is. If our epistemological approach does not begin with the ontological Trinity, and instead begins with autonomous reason-or any other philosophy or thought in creation, then the inevitable outcome will be proof for a god that can only exist in our sinful imaginations.

Undoubtedly God can, and does (as he did in my life), use arguments rooted in unbelief to bring about true belief in the life of the elect. But that does not mean that the church should not continue to strive to remove all unbelief and hold ever thought captive to Christ.


----------



## MW (May 10, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> Yes, we are to demonstrate that the unbeliever is made in the image of God and because of sin he is therefore a covenant breaker and in need of a covenant keeper. But, the point must be made (as Semper Fiedelis alluded to in #10) that William Lane Craig is attempting to rationalize with the unbeliever, which scripture unequivocally does not allow for. Reason is not the source of knowledge, Christ is. If our epistemological approach does not begin with the ontological Trinity, and instead begins with autonomous reason-or any other philosophy or thought in creation, then the inevitable outcome will be proof for a god that can only exist in our sinful imaginations.


 
So far as knowing the Christian faith is concerned, Craig rejects the magisterial use of reason and holds to the necessity of the Spirit's self-authenticating witness. His rationalism makes a back door entrance in that he distinguishes between knowing and showing the Christian faith and claims that in showing the Christian faith the roles of reason and the Spirit are virtually reversed. Presuppositional apologists would part company with him on that point.


----------



## MMasztal (May 10, 2011)

T.A.G. said:


> I never argued that God's main attribute was Him being Love, all I said was God did not have one main attribute as well as stating in God's very essence He is love 1 John 4



Read your OP. I know “you” never argued that God’s main attribute was love, but one would likely get the impression that W. L. Craig was implying that.


----------



## T.A.G. (May 10, 2011)

that is a presupposition on your part friend, that has nothing to do with the argument or it's validity

Doug that doesnt mean we cant state that one has a valid argument, use it to push off conjectures, using it to edify the Church, and even fix it a little bit and using it, but using it from a presupp standpoint.


----------



## jwright82 (May 13, 2011)

Semper Fidelis said:


> God's attributes are defined by His self-revelation and not by philosophical speculation about a conceivable Being using autonomous human reason to determine the best possible Being He could be. We don't reason assuming God has not spoken but reason because He has.



Nicley put Rich, very well said. To piggy back, if I may, one of the problems with this sort of ontological argument is it by implication posits a standered for perfection outside of God. For instance we, finite sinful humans, concieve of what "perfection" is and than compare our christian concept of God to that. This is unfounded because God by His self-revealation defines, philosophically or otherwise, what perfection actually is. This is not to say that this sort of argument is not on to something, obviously God is perfect, but only that we don't know what perfect is apart from God's self revealation, which is presupossed at this point.


----------



## MW (May 13, 2011)

jwright82 said:


> Nicley put Rich, very well said. To piggy back, if I may, one of the problems with this sort of ontological argument is it by implication posits a standered for perfection outside of God. For instance we, finite sinful humans, concieve of what "perfection" is and than compare our christian concept of God to that. This is unfounded because God by His self-revealation defines, philosophically or otherwise, what perfection actually is. This is not to say that this sort of argument is not on to something, obviously God is perfect, but only that we don't know what perfect is apart from God's self revealation, which is presupossed at this point.


 
There is nothing in the argument which places perfection "outside of God" or necessarily argues with independence from God's self-revelation. A logical argument might or might not think God's thoughts after Him. The fact that Scripture itself is not explicitly placed in the foreground is not an ipso facto denial of Scripture. I don't believe any person can successfully argue from Scripture that love is not a perfection of God. If one derives from Scripture that it is a perfection there is no reason why it may not be used in argumentation.


----------



## jwright82 (May 17, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> There is nothing in the argument which places perfection "outside of God" or necessarily argues with independence from God's self-revelation. A logical argument might or might not think God's thoughts after Him. The fact that Scripture itself is not explicitly placed in the foreground is not an ipso facto denial of Scripture. I don't believe any person can successfully argue from Scripture that love is not a perfection of God. If one derives from Scripture that it is a perfection there is no reason why it may not be used in argumentation.



The ontological argument, like the other classical arguments, has one fatal flaw it moves from an idea of "perfection", or "causality" and "order", and than moves to "proving" God on that basis. The problem is where do you get your conception of "perfection", or "causality" or "order", from? Like I said if you get it from scripture than you have simply offered a presupositional form of this argument, which the OP didn't include. So if we have not offered such a presupositional argument we are offering a different kind of argument, probably a classical one. In this case "perfection" is the crux of this argument, but in what ways is God "perfect"? What standered that is not presupositional in nature are we comparing Him to to see if He measures up? Some standerd that we have come up with, apart from scripture? Because if we admit that we have gotten this standered from scripture than you are no longer doing classical apologetics but presupositional apologetics. 

So to save face some standerd must be posited, logically, to compare God too to see if He is perfect. This is my point. To avoid presupositionalism you must get into these mucky philosophical waters, there is no other way.


----------

