In certain contexts, one can define "validity" in deductive terms: if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Richard Arthur defines validity as something along these lines (An Introduction to Logic, page 29). If an argument is valid, "it would be inconsistent to deny an argument's conclusion while simultaneously accepting its premises."
Here is a short valid argument in opposition to the idea that God wills/ordains evil:
1) God only wills actions that bring honor to his name.
2) No hypocritical actions bring honor to the name of God.
3) Therefore, God does not will hypocritical actions.
See Romans 2:24.
Another slightly different version of this argument:
1) All acts willed by God bring honor to his name.
2) No hypocritical acts bring honor to the name of God.
3) Therefore, God does not will hypocritical acts.
5 comments:
I'm not sure any theologian would say that God wills evil acts, whether or not their theory ends up being materially the same though is a different issue.
The Calvinist idea that ultimately what man wills as evil God wills as good (in the eternal perspective), is materially the same, i.e. God wills to use evil to achieve Good, since the will of the finite man has its first cause in God.
The Thomist response is more complicated and I'm not sure I understand it completely.
Ultimately, if all causes reduce to the ultimate first cause, there's no way around God willing evil, and thus theodicy is a real problem. Even if evil leads to good, that does not undo the evilness of the evil, and one cannot say that the evil is necessary for good unless that necessity was itself grounded in God, in which case God is still responsible.
This is one benefit of accepting a more dialectical metaphysics.
I write a bit about this here:
https://musingontheology.wordpress.com/2022/08/20/god-creation-and-evil-the-moral-meaning-of-creatio-ex-nihilo-by-david-bentley-hart/
And here's something on my views on possibility and necessity:
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2023/03/28/necessity-and-possibility-in-god/
Thanks for including the links, Roman. I'm going to post something later about the clams of theologians regarding this topic. One thing about Aquinas, he staunchly argues that God is not the cause of evil.
However, I have talked to pancausalists in the past who thought God causes both good and bad; Don Hartley also argues that causality of bad events can be traced to God eternal decree. Some have no problem saying God wills evil.
Wow ... I haven't encountered that. I mean I have encountered Calvinists, but they generally would shy away from saying that, at least then one's I've encountered.
With free will there can be all kinds of actions good and evil. Desire is what caused the angel that became Satan to act in an evil way.
God is responsible for free will, wrong desire is the reason for evil.
I agree 100%, Philip. James 1:13-15.
Post a Comment