God is Love

[T.A.G.]

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.]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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.