Tuesday, November 9, 2010

A Philosophical Argument in Favor of Perfect Perpetual Obedience for Justification

A reason for thinking that justification requires perfect obedience is from Anselmian perfect being theology. Perfect being theology starts with the premise that God is a perfect being and then from that premise it infers certain characteristics about the nature of God. The reasoning then for the Law requiring perfect obedience for justification would be as follows: God is the most perfect being and because he is the most perfect being he will have every property that is better to have rather than for Him to lack that property. It is better for God to have the property of requiring perfection in his law for justification rather than not. This is a strong intuition because of the fact that a perfect being would obligate perfection for justification rather than be satisfied with imperfection for justification. Therefore, it follows from this that God obligates perfection for justification. Furthermore, it also seems that it would be better for the most perfect being to have the highest quality of righteousness rather than lacking this property. The highest quality of righteousness would be such that it would require perfection for righteousness. God has the highest degree of righteousness and therefore requires perfection for righteousness.

This is for the paper I am writing for Active Obedience in my Holy Spirit Class @ WSCAL, so any feed back would be most appreciated. (Just so everyone knows this is a indirect argument for justification in Christ alone by faith alone because only Christ was perfect to earn justification in our place which is received by us through faith).

4 comments:

  1. Nate,

    I agree with your first premise and conclusion, but the use of 'better' or 'worse' impresses in my mind a gradable scale--near perfect is better than somewhat perfect, and totally perfect is better than near perfect. It subscribes to obedience an inherent goodness to itself and therefore God chooses the highest virtue to be in concert with His nature. In other words, this virtue, by its inherent qualities, obligates God to choose it as that which He will require. I would prefer the language of necessity:

    By virtue of divine establishment that results from God's ex nihilo creation (all things from Him and through Him and to Him) and God always acting in accordance with the 'law' of His Being, it is necessary and could not be otherwise than that God would require perfect obedience, Himself being perfect.

    Just as God is the necessary Being, so His requirement is necessary. In this way obedience has no inherent quality that exists apart from God's nature "determining" that it is good.

    Of course, I know you agree with this. But I don't know that, even with the proper qualifications, I could get on board with the language of 'better' and 'worse.' Peace and love to you my brother.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Gary,

    The language of better does not suggest a lack of necessity or a scale of qualities in God (or that it is possibly different lesser properties that God could have), but rather it is just language we use to epistemologically determine what properties God has, which would be the greatest properties because he is the greatest.

    I would have trouble speaking any other way. If I want to compare between a being who knows all true propositions except one proposition and a being who knows all true propositions (the former being would be logically impossible, but not conceivably possible). I know of no other use of language to epistemologically determine which being is the greatest possible being apart from using terms such as "greater" or "better". Obviously once this is determined one would know what the greatest possible being has.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

    Grace and Peace,

    Nate

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, but the argument to evaluate good vs. better vs. best can only be applied espistemologically to imperfect or finite things. An argument concerning the greatest perfection cannot even be analogically predicated of God. This is because God's perfection is found in his simplicity, aseity, and the combination of His incommunicable properties. To take your example:

    A Being who knows all propositions we would call 'best' or 'perfect.'

    But a Being who knows all but one proposition would actually not be called 'good.' This Being would not be God in any sense and not worthy of worship. To be almost perfect is to be wholly imperfect. Thus, if we cannot have analogical knowledge of God's perfection we cannot use analogical categories of best, better, or good.

    All this to conclude, you state that you know of no other way to to comprehend what is the most perfect APART FROM the categories of better and best. I say, however, that I know of no way AT ALL to comprehend what is most perfect apart from necessity and all things being united to Him.

    Fair enough though. I have grown more enamored with your argument already. Your argument is 'good' but mine is 'better.' Ha.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Yes, but the argument to evaluate good vs. better vs. best can only be applied espistemologically to imperfect or finite things."

    Why think this?

    "But a Being who knows all but one proposition would actually not be called 'good.' This Being would not be God in any sense and not worthy of worship. To be almost perfect is to be wholly imperfect. Thus, if we cannot have analogical knowledge of God's perfection we cannot use analogical categories of best, better, or good."

    This may be true but it is hard for me to see how this affects my arguments.

    "All this to conclude, you state that you know of no other way to to comprehend what is the most perfect APART FROM the categories of better and best. I say, however, that I know of no way AT ALL to comprehend what is most perfect apart from necessity and all things being united to Him."

    Well I have a different intuition I would say that I would be able to have some sort of analogous knowledge and comprehension other than necessity and it is not clear what you mean by being united to him...but perhaps you could flesh out these ideas tomorrow at lunch.

    Grace and Peace,

    Nate

    ReplyDelete