My Top 13 Best Arguments for God

Here is a list of the 13 best argument for God’s existence that I have written or formulated:

1. The Bonaventurean Ontological Argument
2. The Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Simplicity
3. The Modal Ontological Argument from Anselm’s Apophatic Definition
4. The Anselmian Ontological Argument
5. The Cartesian Ontological Argument
6. The Argument for an Omnipotent Being from Aristotelian Actualism
7. A Mereological Interpretation of Aquinas’s Third Way
8. The Argument from Essential Uniqueness
9. The Indispendability Modal Ontological Argument (Voltairean Variation)
10. A Deontic-Ontological Argument from Gratitude
11. The Argument from Hope
12. An Induction based on the Modal Ontological Argument
13. The Knowability Argument for an Omniscient Mind

 

Avoiding Modal Collapse

Consider the following:

Let,

g ≝ God

a ≝ God’s act of creation Now, according to the argument from Modal Collapse:

1. ☐(∃x)(x = g) (premise)

2. ☐(a=g) (premise)

Therefore

3. ☐(∃x)(x = a)

The fear, is that if God’s act of creation exists of necessity, then all contingent facts become necessary. However, I would propose the following:

C<x,p,ω> ≝ x creates the fact of p in world ω
a* ≝ (ɿx)(∀p)[(♢p ∧ ♢~p) →(∃ω)(C<x,p,ω>)]

However, this does not cause modal collapse, it seems to me.

As (3) above would really just mean:

4. ☐(∃x)(∀p){[(♢p ∧ ♢~p) → (∃ω)(C<x,p,ω>) ∧ (∀y)[(♢p ∧ ♢~p) → (∃ω)(C<y,p,ω>) → (y=x)]}

The act of creation could even involve an index of all possible worlds, e.g.: (∀p){(♢p ∧ ♢~p) →[(C<x,p,ω1> ∨ C<x,p,ω2>) ∨… C<x,p,ωn>

Necessitating that the act of creation is that which creates contingent facts in all of the possible worlds does not necessitate those facts. Rather, this is akin to thinking ☐♢p, and ☐♢p → ♢p, not ☐p.

Note, that a* can rigidly designate and be identified with God across all possible worlds, thus the very same act of creation does the explanatory work for why contingent facts vary across possible worlds. The same act is true in every world, but the results are a unique set of contingent facts in that world, and a set of contingent facts true in other possible worlds as they relate to that world.

Victorinus’s Implicit Marian Interpretation of the Woman in Revelation 12

Victorinus’s Commentary on Revelation (circa AD 280-304) is often thought not to support a Marian interpretation of the Woman in Revelation 12, as he explicitly identifies her as the “Ancient Church”:

“The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people”(Commentary on the Apocalypse, From the 12th Chapter, 1).

For instance, Greg Weaver writes, “Victorinus, as we can see by the quote, believes the woman to be not Mary, but the church of the ages—the church which first came in the biblical Fathers and has continued unbroken into the new covenant era. Not as a different church but as a matured church. He puts both the Jewish patriarchs, prophets and then the apostles inside this same unit typified by the woman” (“Is the Assumption of Mary Found in Revelation 12“).

There are a few things to note here: 1) the ancient Church includes Ancient Israel, as evidenced by the inclusion of “the prophets” and the notion that Christ had taken flesh from the selfsame people. In this, Victorinus offers a genealogical reflection of Christ’s flesh, which he mentions earlier in his commentary when he discusses the Four Living Creatures and connects each to one of the Four Gospels. The living creature with the face of a man is identified with Matthew. Of this creature, Victorinus writes:

“And in the figure of a man, Matthew strives to declare to us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh. Therefore, in enumerating from Abraham to David, and thence to Joseph, he spoke of Him as if of a man: therefore his announcement sets forth the image of a man” (Victorinus. From the 4th Chapter, 7-10).

Indeed, it is quite clear that it is Mary and her ancestors that gave flesh to Christ. Victorinus understands the incarnation and birth of Christ to be a concrete historical reality, in which Jesus Christ “…has at this time taken a beginning from the Virgin” (ibid. From the 1st Chapter, 4).

This is all the more interesting when we find that Victorinus interprets the Woman of Revelation 12 as bringing forth Christ at a concrete point in time. This is made clear when he writes:

“And the earth helped the woman, and opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. That the earth opened her mouth and swallowed up the waters, sets forth the vengeance for the present troubles. Although, therefore, it may signify this woman bringing forth, it shows her afterwards flying when her offspring is brought forth, because both things did not happen at one time; for we know that Christ was born, but that the time should arrive that she should flee from the face of the serpent: (we do not know) that this has happened as yet” (ibid. From Chapter 12, 6, emphasis mine).

Therefore, the Woman of Revelation 12 is portrayed as bringing forth Christ at a specific point in history. Given Victorinus’s other statements about the Virgin Mary and the origins of Christ’s incarnation and birth, identifying the Woman as the one who brings forth Christ in His birth implicitly refers to the Virgin Mary, from whom Christ took flesh.

Victorinus presents a multifaceted view of John’s vision of the Great Sign, representing both past and future events, where the Woman simultaneously embodies Ancient Israel, the Church, and the one who brought forth Christ through birth, i.e., the Virgin Mary—the perfect confluence of these concepts.

Formally, I’d represent my argument this way:

P1. If Victorinus interprets the Woman of Revelation 12 to bring forth Christ at a concrete point in time and to provide his flesh such that it is genealogically connected to Israel while understanding this genealogical connection to be through Mary, then Victorinus has an implicitly Marian interpretation of the Woman of Revelation 12.

P2. Victorinus interprets the Woman of Revelation 12 to bring forth Christ at a concrete point in time and to provide his flesh genealogically, understanding this genealogical connection to be through Mary.

C. Victorinus has an implicitly Marian interpretation of the Woman of Revelation 12 [From P1, P2 MP].

Defense of Premises:

P1: The crux of this implication is that if Victorinus believes that the historic event of Christ’s birth is represented in the “bringing forth of Christ” represented in Revelation while not explicitly naming the woman as the Virgin Mary, then it is an implicit identification of the woman as the Virgin Mary.

P2. This premise is defended through an analysis of Victorinus’s Commentary, especially noting his underlying understanding of the Virgin and her genealogy as the source of Christ’s flesh, and and the identification of Christ’s nativity with the vision of the Woman in Revelation 12.

Potential objections?

1. The woman is not explicitly called Mary: the conclusion of this argument is not that the Woman is explicitly identified as Mary, so to object in this way is a red herring. This objection ignores the actual conclusion, which is that Victorinus implicitly identifies the Woman with Mary.
2. Implicit interpretations are improbable or tenuous: Implications are not inherently improbable or tenuous, they are just mediated by more steps. This can mean that the identification is less strong than it would be were it explicit. In this case, though, Christ is said to have been “brought forth” by the Woman in this vision and it is explicit that this occurred in history by the Virgin. So, though it is implicit, it is not tenuous.
3. Victorinus says the Woman is the Ancient Church: The identification of this sign with the Ancient Church would only preclude a Marian interpretation, if signs functioned in an exclusive way. However, signs, especially the Apocalyptic signs of John, can take on layers of meaning, and so an argument which appeals to the fallacy of affirming the disjunct is especially fraught with difficulties. Signs and symbols can have multiple meanings simultaneously. I am not taking the stance of an exclusive Marian interpretation in Victorinus, while my opponent will likely have to adopt the stance that he is offering an interpretation to the exclusion of others.

Lastly, my analysis accords with scholars like D.J. Unger (1949) who writes, “…Victorinus seems to suppose that Mary is the Woman in the background, else he has a mixture that is hard to understand. For the Child is the personal Christ in his personal birth and Ascension, supposing his physical Mother as the Woman. Again, his interpretation relative to the Church, does not seem to destroy the tradition about Mary as the Woman…”

Indeed, Thomas Livius concurs as well, saying, “S. Victorinus in the 3d century, in his interpretation of the Woman in the Apocalypse, identifies, so to say, the Church with the Blessed Virgin” (1893, 265, fn. 2)

So, I think we can conclude that one of the earliest commentaries on Revelation implicitly identifies the Woman of Revelation 12 as the Virgin Mary.

References:

Livius, T. (1893). The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries. United Kingdom: Burns and Oates.

Unger, D. J. (1949). DID SAINT JOHN SEE THE VIRGIN MARY IN GLORY? The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 11(3), 249–262. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43720132

Victorinus. (1886). Commentary on the Apocalypse. Trans. R. E. Wallis. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7. Eds. A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm&gt;.

Weaver, G. (2023, June 11). Is the Assumption of Mary found in Revelation 12? Anabaptist Faith. https://anabaptistfaith.org/mary-assumption-revelation-12/

Possibility of the Anselmian God

Dx ≝ x is ontological determinate

Gxy ≝ x is greater than y

©… ≝ it is conceivable that…

g ≝ (ɿx)~©(∃y)Gyx

1. (∀x)[~♢(∃y)(y=x) ⊃ ~Dx] (premise)
2. (∀x)(~Dx ⊃ ©(∃y)Gyx) (premise)
3. ~Dg (IP)
4. ©(∃y)Gyg) (2,3 MP)
5. (∃x){~©(∃y)Gyx ∧ {[(∀z)~©(∃y)Gyz ⊃ (z = x)] ∧ ©(∃y)Gyx}} (4 theory of descriptions)
6. ~©(∃y)Gyμ ∧ {[(∀z)~©(∃y)Gyz ⊃ (z = μ)] ∧ ©(∃y)Gyμ} (5 EI)
7. ~©(∃y)Gyμ ∧ {©(∃y)Gyμ ∧ [(∀z)~©(∃y)Gyz ⊃ (z = μ)]} (6 Comm)
8. {~©(∃y)Gyμ ∧ ©(∃y)Gyμ} ∧ [(∀z)~©(∃y)Gyz ⊃ (z = μ)] (7 Assoc)
9. ~©(∃y)Gyμ ∧ ©(∃y)Gyμ (8 Simp)
10. ~~Dg (3-9 IP)
11. ~♢(∃y)(y=g) ⊃ ~Dg (1 UI)
12. ~~♢(∃y)(y=g) (10,11 MT)
13. ♢(∃y)(y=g) (12 DN)

Premise 1: Basic idea would be that if something is not possible, then it lacks a determinate nature, since, by explosion, anything could be asserted to be true of it, or not true of it.

Premise 2: Again, if something is not ontologically determinate, then it is always conceivable that there be something greater than it, since one could conceive of something similar to it but with some other determination of properties.

Thus, the Anselmian God is metaphysically possible, Q.E.D.

The Five Solae (Catholic Style)

In discussing Sola Fide with Protestants, I have seen reference to the following quote (though I cannot source it directly to Martin Luther). The point of this post is that when you nuance the solae appropriately with scripture and tradition, it becomes the Catholic Magisterial position. The half-truths of Protestantism become the full-truths of Catholicism:

 

1. Sola Fide “by faith alone”

This is a rejection “works salvation” that many accuse Catholics of believing.

Protestant Proof Text:

• “Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Rom 3:27-28).
• “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom 5:1)
• “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,  not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Rather, faith alone saves, but a faith that saves is never alone (for it is formed by works of love).

Catholic Scriptural Nuances:

• “And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” (1 Cor 13:2).
• “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love” (Gal 5:6).
• “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.” (Jas 2:14; 26).

Sacred Tradition:

• “Just as faith without works is dead, so the reverse is also true. Therefore let integrity in faith shine forth along with the glories of upright living. (Cyril of Alexandria AD444, Letters 55.2)
• “Each thing works through its form. Now faith works through charity. Therefore the love of charity is the form of faith.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II.4.3).
• “James is talking here about faith after baptism, for a faith without works can only make us more guilty of sin, seeing that we have received a talent but are not using it profitably. The Lord himself demonstrated the need for works after baptism by going into the desert to do battle with the devil. (Mt 4:1-11) Paul also exhorts those who have entered into the mystery of faith to “strive to enter his peace,” (Heb 4:4) as if faith by itself were not enough. Holiness of life is also necessary, and for that great efforts are required.” (Oecumenius, Commentary on James).

Magisterial Teaching:

• “The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it. But “faith apart from works is dead”: when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body” (CCC 1815).
• “But whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith, and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we be therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons; but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, then is it no more by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle saith, grace is no more grace. (Council of Trent VI.8.).

2. Sola Scriptura “by Scripture alone”

This is a rejection of the infallible authority of the Church in teaching the meaning of scripture.

Protestant Proof Text:

• “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Rather, scripture alone is God-breathed, but a Scripture that is God breathed is never alone (for it is complemented by Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium).

Catholic Scriptural Nuances:

• “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15)
• “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:26).
• “…if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15).
•  “…So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)
• “So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’  And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.” (Acts 8:30-31).

Sacred Tradition:

• “Concerning the teachings of the Church, whether publicly proclaimed (kerygma) or reserved to members of the household of the faith (dogmata), we have received some from written sources, while others have been given to us secretly, through apostolic tradition. Both sources have equal force in true religion. No one would deny either source no one, at any rate, who is even slightly familiar with the ordinances of the Church. If we attacked unwritten customs, claiming them to be of little importance, we would fatally mutilate the Gospel, no matter what our intentions or rather, we would reduce the Gospel teachings to the bare words” (Basil of Caeserea, AD375 On the Holy Spirit 66)

Magisterial Teaching:

• “It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls” (Dei Verbum II.10).

3. Sola Gratia “by Grace Alone”

This is a rejection of the Catholic view that we participate with God’s grace through a synergy, or cooperation.

Protestant Proof Text:

• “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Rather, grace alone saves, but the grace that save is never alone (for it initiates cooperation and transformation in the life of the sinner).

Catholic Scriptural Nuances:

• “As God’s co-workers we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain.” (2 Cor 6:1)
• “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12-13).

Sacred Tradition:

• “We should not suppose, because he said, “For it is God that works in you both the willing and the doing,” that he has taken away free will. For if that were so he would not have said above “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” For when he bids them work, it is agreed that they have free will. But they are to work with fear and trembling so that they will not, by attributing the good working to themselves, be elated by the good works as though they were their own” (Augustine, AD 430 On Grace and Free Will 21)

Magisterial Teaching:

• “The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, “since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it: ‘Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing'” (CCC 2001).
• “[This synod] furthermore declares, that, in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be taken from the preventing grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, by which, without the existence of any merits on their parts, they are called; that so they, who through sins were turned away from God, may, through His quickening and assisting grace, be disposed to turn themselves unto their own justification, by freely assenting to, and co-operating with that said grace: so that, while God toucheth the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly inactive while he receives that inspiration, inasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, without the Grace of God, by his own free will to move himself unto justice in His sight. “Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you, we are admonished of our liberty: when we answer; Turn thou us, O Lord, unto thee, and we shall be turned, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.” (Council of Trent VI.5).

4. Solus Christus “through Christ alone”

This is a rejection of the Catholic mediation of the priests, saints, and the Church.

Protestant Proof Text:

• “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.” (1 Tim 2:5-6).

Rather, Christ alone is the sole mediator between God and man, but Christ is never alone (for he, who is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, draws us sacramentally into his one body, one priesthood, and one mediation).

Catholic Scriptural Nuance:

• “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).
• “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning.” (John 15:26-27).
• “You yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).
• “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:12-13).
• “Yet I have written you quite boldly on some points to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (Rom 15:15-16).

Sacred Tradition:

• “Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also. Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”(Ignatius of Antioch AD107, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8 )

Magisterial Teaching:

• “Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all” (Lumen Gentium 8 ).
• “Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it.” “No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.” (CCC, Paragraph 970)

5. Soli Deo Gloria “to the Glory of God alone”

This is a rejection of the veneration of the saints.

Protestant Proof Text:

• “To him be glory forever. Amen” (Rom 11:36)
• “I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” (Isa 42:8).

Rather, glory to God alone, but the Glory of God is never alone (as it is super-abundant, sanctifying, and ultimately glorifying the saints who are duly venerated to His Glory).

Catholic Scriptural Nuance:

• “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God” (Rom 8:17-19).
• ““I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me” (Jn 17:20-23).
• “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith” (Hebrews 13:7).
• “…My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.” (Luke 1:46-49)

Sacred Tradition:

• “To the saints honour must be paid as friends of Christ, as sons and heirs of God: in the words of John the theologian and evangelist, As many as received Him, to them gave He power to became sons of God. So that they are no longer servants, but sons: and if sons, also heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ: and the Lord in the holy Gospels says to His apostles, Ye are My friends” (John of Damascus, ~AD740 Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Concerning the honour due to the Saints and their remains. Ch XV)

Magisterial Teaching:

• “This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent… For all of us, who are sons of God and constitute one family in Christ, as long as we remain in communion with one another in mutual charity and in one praise of the most holy Trinity, are corresponding with the intimate vocation of the Church and partaking in foretaste the liturgy of consummate glory” (Lumen Gentium VII.51).

A discussion with ChatGPT 4.0 on different models of Ecclesiology

Ok, now the Davidic Kingdom came to be. Christians see Christ and His Church as the fulfillment of the Davidic monarchy. Speculate counterfactually. What if the prophesies of the Old Testament and fulfillment in the New Testament were found in the establishment of the Church in the model of the Judges.[?] What would that Church look like.[?] Describe it.

ChatGPT

What an intriguing counterfactual scenario! If the prophecies of the Old Testament and their fulfillment in the New Testament were based on the model of the Judges rather than the Davidic monarchy, the resulting Christian Church might have several distinguishing features:

1. Decentralized Leadership: Rather than a centralized leadership structure with the pope as the ultimate earthly authority (akin to the king in the Davidic monarchy), the Church might have regional or tribal leaders arising to address spiritual, moral, or even physical threats to the Christian community. These leaders would emerge based on divine appointment, and their authority would last for a lifetime, but not be passed on hereditarily.
2. Divine Appointments: Leadership roles would be characterized by direct divine intervention. God might inspire certain individuals through dreams, prophecies, or miraculous events, signaling their role as a spiritual leader.
3. Emphasis on Charismatic Gifts: The Church might place a significant emphasis on the charismatic gifts of the Spirit, much like the unique abilities and empowerment the Judges received. Leaders might be known for their spiritual prowess or miraculous capabilities, like Samson’s strength or Deborah’s prophetic insight.
4. Crisis-driven Leadership Emergence: Leaders would arise primarily in response to crises. This could be in the face of persecution, moral degradation, theological disputes, or other challenges. Once the crisis is resolved, the leader’s primary role might diminish, though their spiritual and moral influence could remain.
5. Less Hierarchical: With no centralized monarchy model, the Church might have a more egalitarian structure. Leadership might be more fluid, with different individuals stepping up as Judges based on the needs of the time and community.
6. Local and Cultural Adaptation: Just as the Judges were deeply embedded in their tribal contexts, leaders in this Church might tailor their teachings and practices to the local cultures and challenges they face, leading to a greater diversity in liturgy, practice, and theology across regions.
7. Periodic Renewal Movements: Given the cyclical nature of the Judges’ period – Israel forsaking God, facing oppression, crying out for help, a judge arising to deliver them, and a period of peace before the cycle began again – the Church might see regular revivalist movements. These movements would call people back to the original teachings of Christ and address the contemporary challenges faced by the Church.
8. Primary Role of God as King: The emphasis would continually be on God (and by Christian extension, Jesus Christ) as the true ruler of the Church. Any human leadership would be seen as temporary and divinely appointed, with Christ being the ultimate judge and savior.
9. Narrative Emphasis on Deliverance: The stories and teachings might focus significantly on the motif of deliverance – how God continually raises leaders to deliver His people from various forms of bondage, drawing a parallel to Christ’s ultimate act of deliverance on the cross.

Such a Church would be dynamic, adaptive, and resilient, with its challenges leading to new emergences of leadership and regular renewals of faith. While this is a speculative exercise, it’s a fascinating lens to imagine how the history and structure of Christianity might have been different under the Judges model.

How would this compare to a Church that is based on the Davidic Kingdom?

ChatGPT

The Davidic Kingdom model, as understood by Christians, emphasizes the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies through Christ as the ultimate Davidic King and His Church as the extension of this Kingdom. This model is more centralized, monarchic, and covenant-based, which results in different emphases and structures compared to a Judges model.

1. Centralized Leadership: The Davidic Kingdom model leads to a more centralized system, as seen in the papacy. The pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is viewed as the spiritual successor to Peter, whom many Christians believe was entrusted by Christ with a primary leadership role. This reflects the central authority vested in the Davidic King.
2. Covenant-Based Theology: The Davidic Covenant emphasized a forever reigning king from David’s lineage. Christians see this promise fulfilled in Jesus, the eternal King. The Church, then, becomes the new covenant community, where the old promises are realized and made universal.
3. Hierarchical Structure: Reflecting the organized structure of a monarchy, the Church has a hierarchy with clear roles and authorities, including bishops, priests, and deacons.
4. Stability and Continuity: Monarchies emphasize stable succession. This is mirrored in the Church through the unbroken line of popes and the emphasis on apostolic succession, ensuring continuity in teaching and authority.
5. Universal Outreach: Just as the Davidic King ruled over a unified kingdom, the Church based on the Davidic model aims for a universal (catholic) outreach, transcending local and tribal boundaries.
6. Emphasis on Worship and Liturgy: The Davidic period saw the establishment of the Temple as the central place of worship. Similarly, the Church emphasizes the importance of liturgy, sacraments, and the Eucharist, with the Mass as a central act of worship.
7. Royal Theology: The Davidic model gives prominence to Christ as King. Feast days, liturgical celebrations, and theological emphases revolve around the kingly, priestly, and prophetic roles of Christ.
8. Protective Authority: As the shepherd of the Kingdom, the Davidic King was responsible for the safety and well-being of the people. Similarly, the Church, under its leadership, sees itself as the protective guardian of the faith and its adherents.
9. Teaching Authority (Magisterium): Based on the promise to Peter in the New Testament, the Church claims a unique teaching authority, the Magisterium, entrusted to maintain and interpret the deposit of faith.

In comparison:

• The Judges model would foster a Church that is more decentralized, adaptive, and charismatic in leadership. It would emphasize divine deliverance and God’s direct intervention in raising leaders in times of crisis.
• The Davidic Kingdom model promotes a Church that’s more structured, continuous, and universal, emphasizing the eternal kingship of Christ and the unbroken lineage of authority and teaching.

While both models would undoubtedly focus on God’s guidance, care, and the central role of Christ, the expression and organization of these themes would differ based on the foundational Old Testament model they are drawing from.

What ecclesiology is more akin to the Judges model you have developed?

ChatGPT

The ecclesiology that most closely resembles the Judges model, as described, would be one that emphasizes decentralized authority, charismatic leadership, and adaptability based on immediate needs rather than a set hierarchy or tradition. The ecclesiologies of various Christian traditions have elements that resonate with this model:

1. Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements: These Christian groups place a heavy emphasis on the active work of the Holy Spirit, charismatic gifts, and the rise of leaders based on spiritual gifting rather than institutional ordination or apostolic succession.
2. Congregationalism: In this model, each local church congregation is independent and self-governing. There’s no overarching hierarchy that enforces doctrine or practice. Instead, the congregation itself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures, makes decisions.
3. Anabaptist Groups: Communities like the Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites emphasize the immediate community and local leadership. While they do have established traditions, their leadership structure is more akin to a Judges model, emphasizing discernment and the Spirit’s guidance in community decision-making.
4. Quakers (Religious Society of Friends): Quakers emphasize the direct leading of the Holy Spirit and make decisions in community meetings where they wait for consensus and the Spirit’s guidance.
5. Some House Church Movements: In various parts of the world, especially places where Christianity is a minority or persecuted, house church movements have arisen. These groups often lack a central authority and adapt quickly to the surrounding challenges. Leadership often arises based on perceived spiritual gifting, necessity, or discernment by the community.
6. Emergent Church Movement: While diverse, some elements of the emergent church movement emphasize decentralized authority, community discernment, and adaptability over strict adherence to tradition.

However, no ecclesiology precisely matches the Judges model in full, as each Christian tradition has its unique blend of Scripture interpretation, tradition, and practice. Yet, the above examples resonate with aspects of the Judges model in their emphasis on decentralized authority, the role of the Spirit, and adaptive leadership.

Are you basing what you have said about the comparison based on previous conversations we have had? For instance, are you being influenced by my Catholicism?

ChatGPT

I don’t have the capability to recall previous interactions or specific details from our past conversations. Each session with me is stateless, meaning I don’t remember past interactions with users. My answers are generated based on the information and context provided in the current conversation and the vast amount of general information I’ve been trained on.

Regarding the comparisons I made, I based them on the general descriptions of the Judges model I previously elaborated upon and the known characteristics of the ecclesiologies mentioned. I wasn’t influenced by any specific individual’s religious affiliation, including your Catholicism.

What ecclesiologist are closer to the Davidic monarchy model?

ChatGPT

The Davidic monarchy model, as it’s typically understood in terms of ecclesiology, is one of centralized authority, succession, and a hierarchy that leads to a singular head. In terms of real-world ecclesiologies, the following are closer to the Davidic monarchy model:

1. Roman Catholicism: The most notable example. The Pope is viewed as the Vicar of Christ on Earth and the Bishop of Rome. He serves as the visible head of the entire Catholic Church. The idea of apostolic succession—where bishops can trace their lineage back to the apostles—is also an essential component of the Church’s structure. This mirrors the hereditary nature of the Davidic monarchy.
2. Eastern Orthodoxy: While the Eastern Orthodox Church is a communion of autocephalous (independently headed) churches, there is still a recognized primacy (though not supremacy) of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Apostolic succession is also a significant factor in the Orthodox Church.
3. Anglicanism: The Archbishop of Canterbury holds a primacy of honor in the Anglican Communion, though each province operates autonomously. Anglicanism also holds to the concept of apostolic succession, particularly in the high church traditions.
4. Some older Protestant denominations: While many Protestant denominations emphasize a priesthood of all believers and don’t have a centralized figure like the Pope, some of the older and more liturgical Protestant denominations (e.g., certain Lutheran and Anglican groups) have maintained episcopal structures and can have elements that resemble a Davidic monarchy model, though usually to a lesser degree than in Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Other Christian denominations and ecclesiologies operate on very different models, with some emphasizing a more congregational or presbyterian structure, which distributes authority among members or elders rather than consolidating it in a singular figure or office.

Which would be closest?

ChatGPT

Of the ecclesiologies mentioned, Roman Catholicism is the closest to the Davidic monarchy model. Here’s why:

1. Centralized Authority: In the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope holds a singular, centralized authority over the entire Church. This is reminiscent of the centralized rule of the Davidic kings over Israel.
2. Succession: Just as the Davidic monarchy was based on a line of succession, with the throne being passed from one king to another, the papacy is based on apostolic succession, with each Pope being seen as a successor to St. Peter, whom Catholics believe to be the first bishop of Rome.
3. Global Jurisdiction: The Davidic king had jurisdiction over all of Israel. Similarly, the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the entire Catholic Church, which spans the globe.
4. Spiritual Significance: The Davidic king was not just a political leader but also held spiritual significance for the Israelites. The Pope, too, is not merely a temporal leader; he is seen as the Vicar of Christ on Earth, holding a crucial spiritual role for Catholics worldwide.
5. Infallibility: The Pope, when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, is believed to be infallible, according to Catholic doctrine. This unique spiritual protection mirrors the special anointing and divine mandate that the Davidic kings were believed to have.

While other ecclesiologies have elements of centralized authority and succession, none encapsulates the Davidic monarchy model as comprehensively as Roman Catholicism.

You do realize that this result has some significant theological importance. This would suggest that Roman Catholicism is closer to the model Christ promised.

ChatGPT

Yes, the comparison between the Roman Catholic ecclesiology and the Davidic monarchy, and drawing from it theological implications, is an argument that has been presented by various Catholic theologians and apologists throughout history.

The New Testament repeatedly alludes to Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, the promised king from the line of David. For instance, in the Gospel of Luke, the angel tells Mary regarding Jesus: “The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” (Luke 1:32-33)

The role of Peter is also seen as pivotal. In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus tells Peter, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This has been interpreted by Catholics to highlight the primacy and authority of Peter, reminiscent of the keyholder or steward role in the Davidic kingdom (e.g., Eliakim in Isaiah 22:20-23).

Given these scriptural allusions and the parallels drawn between the Church’s structure and the Davidic monarchy, many Catholics argue that their ecclesiology most fully realizes the biblical promises about the Church and its leadership.

However, it’s essential to note that while these arguments hold significant weight within Catholic theology, they are not universally accepted among all Christian denominations. Other Christian traditions interpret these and other related scriptures differently and have different ecclesiologies and understandings of Church authority. As always, theological discussions like these should be approached with respect for diverse perspectives and an understanding of the broader Christian tradition’s richness.

The Fallacy of Independent Premises

Here is a kind of logical fallacy that may afflict some thinkers:

The Fallacy of Independent Premises: An unreliable inference method, especially in probability, in which one unreflectively assumes that the premises of an argument are independent of one another, or in which one thinks that it is logically virtuous, e.g. to avoid circularity, to treat them in this way.

Given that most arguments attempt to capture an underlying relevance, and appeal to background knowledge, evidence, or warrant that may require the updating of one belief in light of the other, it is an unreliable method of inference to, for instance, determine the probability of each premise in an independent manner, and not consider how the factors that went into assessing the likelihood of one premise might require updating when considering the probability other premises. This can lead to an assessment of the strength of an argument that fails to account for the holistic or synergistic relationship among premises.

Example:

Prior probability of P1 is .9 (prior to considering the probability in light of P2).
Prior probability of P2 is .5 (prior to considering the probability in light of P1).
Since the conjunction of P1 and P2 is logically equivalent to some conclusion C, the probability of C is the product of the prior probabilities of P1 and P2, i.e. 0.45.

One must attempt to consider the interrelationship between P1 and P2 by which posterior probabilities might be assigned for a more accurate impression of how likely the conclusion is.

An argument against Sola Scriptura

D1. A ‘Rule of Faith’ is a consistent source or standard by which beliefs and practices are measured, derived, or confirmed. [Justification: By Stipulation]

P1. If Sola Scriptura is true, then it is not the case that there is another infallible rule or faith apart from Scripture. [Justification: Analytically true]

P2. If there is an infallible Witness of the Holy Spirit, which is a consistent source or standard, distinct from Scripture, by which beliefs and practices are measured, derived, or confirmed, then there is another infallible rule of faith apart from Scripture. [Justification: D1 and semantic meaning of “distinct from scripture”]

P3. There is a Witness of the Holy Spirit. [Romans 8:16 “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God; 1 John 5:7 “And the Spirit is the one who testifies because the Spirit is Truth.” John 15:26 “But when the helper comes whom I will send to you from the Father the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” Acts 5:32 “And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 “And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.” Ephesians 1:13-14 “In him you also, when you hear the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believe in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” John 16:13: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come”]

P4. The Witness of the Holy Spirit is a consistent source or standard by which beliefs and practices are measured, derived, or confirmed. [Justification: See references above along with Hebrews 10:15-17 “And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, ‘This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord” I will put my laws on their heart, and write them on their mind,’ and then he adds, ‘I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more”; 1 Corinthians 2:12-13 “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given to us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom, but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.” Malachi 3:6 “For I, the LORD, do not change…” Numbers 23:19 ““God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?”]

P5. The Witness of the Holy Spirit is distinct from Scripture. [Justification: see especially Ephesians 1:13-14 above where the “word of truth” and “gospel of your salvation” is distinguished from seal of the Holy Spirit, which acts to guarantee the promises. Note also, how the witness of the Holy Spirit functions to assure and convict the believer of the Scriptures, so if the witness of the Holy Spirit were not distinct from the Scriptures themselves, then it would be Scriptures alone which functionally accomplished this (and given that it is impersonal, it would do so consistently), but 1 Corinthians 2:12-15 teaches that the natural man does not understand the Scriptures while those who are spiritual are able to interpret spiritual truths; see also the Ethiopian Eunuch and Philip in Acts 8:31-35 and 2 Peter 3:16 as evidence that the Scriptures can be difficult to understand and are not identical to the understanding which the Holy Spirit personally and freely provides]

P6. The Witness of the Holy Spirit is infallible. [Justification: see 1 John 5:6-7 which emphasizes not merely that the Spirit is truthful, but that the Spirit is truth, also John 16:14 above, Numbers 23:19 above, and Titus 1:2 “In hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began.” Note also that while fallible subjective interpretations of the witness of the Holy Spirit are possible, this is distinct from the objective witness itself, just as interpretations of scripture are fallible, while the Scriptures are an infallible rule. See, for instance 1 Corinthians 2:12 which notes that we “might understand” not that we ourselves are infallible in or subjective reception of what we receive. See also Acts 10:17 where Peter wonders about the vision he has received. Finally note that a subjective false belief that one is experiencing a “Witness of the Holy” is not a counter-example to the infallibility of an authentic witness, but would again be analogous to false interpretations of scripture, or perhaps reading a false Gospel, which prove to be no obstacle to the claim that scripture, or itself, is an infallible rule of faith]

C1. There is an infallible Witness of the Holy Spirit, which is a consistent source or standard, distinct from Scripture, by which beliefs and practices are measured, derived, or confirmed [From P3-P6].

C2. There is another infallible rule or faith apart from Scripture [From P2 and C1].

C3. It is not the case that Sola Scriptura is true [From P1 and C2].

I believe the main point of contention would be with P5, as the Protestant is likely to argue that there is some sort of tight unity or functional indivisibility between Scripture and the Witness of the Holy Spirit. However, this is insufficient for the argument. For instance, in Catholicism there is a tight union between sacred tradition and sacred scripture. Indeed, they are thought to be unified as the Word of God (Dei Verbum 9: “Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end.”). Despite this unity, and source in the Holy Spirit, both Protestants and Catholics acknowledge that this position is incompatible with Sola Scriptura.

Strictly speaking, while it should be granted that the Witness of the Holy Spirit would not conflict with scripture or add revelation to scripture, it does not bear exactly the same functions and properties that scripture has, which is why I emphasize that scripture alone read apart from the Spirit is not comprehensible. While the Scriptures may be materially sufficient and the foundation upon which the Holy Spirit assures, convicts, and illuminates, these operations are interpersonal between God and a particular believer. Again, this may occur in conjunction with scripture, but it is not strictly identical to scripture, and so numerically distinct.

A secondary critique that I anticipate is that the Witness of the Holy Spirit, being internal, is inherently subjective and fallible. Here, I intend to emphasize that even though the Holy Spirit witnesses internally to us, the Holy Spirit’s witness can be distinguished as the object while it is the subject who receives this witness. This is analogous to the Scriptures themselves, which could be memorized internally, but which will always remain objective, while the subject who seeks to understand the Scriptures may fail to do so, as mentioned in the examples in P6 of the Eunuch and Peter’s comments about Paul’s writings. As the subjective fallibility of scripture is not an obstacle to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, so also should it not be an obstacle to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. For surely there must be something distinct between what the Holy Spirit witnesses and what the fallible believer understands, i.e. if the believer understands something erroneous it was not in virtue of what the Holy Spirit witnessed, the defect would have to be in the believer.

If one is satisfied by the arguments and justifications above, one might now be open to the idea that the Holy Spirit witnesses to the Church about Scripture in a ways that has providentially led to the development of sacred tradition! This sacred tradition is not to be understood as additional inspiration, but illuminations of the Scriptures and developments upon the seeds that are already contained within it. For an individual like myself, I may be mistaken about what I think the Holy Spirit witnesses to me about the Scriptures, but I also have faith that the Magisterium itself is guarded from error because the Church is guided into all truth as John 16:13 promises.

How Could Accidents Remain? The Example of Corpses, Grapes, and Wheat

Here is an analogy by which we might better understand the doctrine of transubstantiation: a corpse would not be a natural human substance for Aristotle, since it has lost the unifying principle of the human soul, which is the form of the human being. So, a corpse is an assemblage of underlying substances arranged in a way that we call “human” (human by “equivocation” motivated by causal history and appearances). Despite this substantial change, many appearances of a living human remain and persist on the dimensive substrate of that assemblage of diverse substances. Now, in this case, the matter of the human remains and is reduced to more primitive substances (through a slow process of decomposition), whereas in transubstantiation, the matter itself is changed and is not reduced. Nonetheless, there is an arrangement of the elements of the species of the Eucharist (the dimensive quality), and it is upon this that appearances can remain for a time (though such appearances and arrangements can be destroyed as well, even though Christ is not destroyed).

What I would say, though I may be wrong about something so mysterious, is that it is Christ who is substantially present and “sacramentally arranged” (not in way that circumscribable, since every part of the arrangement is wholly Christ). Christ in every part is the substance, and yet there is a dimensive quality to the arrangement in which the accidents of bread and wine remain.

So, the difference in the analogy is that in the corpse, the dimensive quality is preserved by an assemblage of diverse underlying material substances of the human body.  Again, the corpse can have a “human appearance” for a time, even without there being a unified human substance. Likewise, the bread and wine, both artifacts in the first place–not natural substance (made from human hands), are assemblages that undergo a substantial non-circumscribed change to Christ. Hence, there is not a diversity substances that circumscribe the Eucharist (as in a decomposing corpse), or even different parts of Christ, i.e. merely his heart, hand, or leg, but such that the full substance of Christ is found in every part of the assemblage of the sacramental elements (the dimensive qualities in which Christ’s real presence is sacramentally assembled).

Indeed, it may be instructive that Christ opted for artifacts for this transformation. These aren’t true natural substances in themselves, but they possess distinct appearances anchored in their dimensive quality. It signifies that it is possible for humans, in a rudimentary way, to associate accidental qualities to artificial assemblages. In this process, the natural substances employed lose their initial unity and experience substantial change. However, unlike in the sacrament, the artificial arrangement assumes a near entirely new appearance without than maintaining much of a likeness to wheat or grapes (I say “near entirely” since some of the “wheaty” or “grape-like” taste of those substances remain in the assembled artifact even without the presence of an in-tact substance of grape or wheat).

The question might be as to whether there can be dimensive qualities to Christ’s sacramental non-circumscribed presence, but I think that just is what it means to distinguish Christ’s presence in the Eucharist from anything outside the spatial limits of the consecrated elements of the Eucharist.

So, when the Catholic Church refers to the Eucharist as “bread” and “wine”, they do so through the symbolic appearances, in the same way the corpse of a human appears and is symbolic of the human that was once there. It is an equivocal use of language.

The Explanation Dilemma and Divine Freedom

1. Either the act of creation takes on the property of being explicable because God chooses it, or God’s choosing an act of creation because it has of itself the property of being explicable.
2. If it is the former, then it seems that God’s choosing the act of creation is itself brute, and the only explanation for creation is God’s choosing it.
3. If it is the latter, then it seems God’s act of creation is necessitated, in that God assessed the options and found one option to objectively possess features that were sufficient for his selection.
4. So, either God’s act of creation is brute or necessary.

The former horn is untoward insofar as the admission of bruteness is an undesirable violation of the PSR. The latter horn is untoward insofar as it leads to modal collapse and one particular act of creation was an inevitable outcome for God to choose.

What if we escape those horns by saying the God chooses God’s act of Creation because God is identical to the His Sufficiency of Reason. God’s nature, then, is the standard of all-sufficiency, and so the sufficiency of all things is explicable insofar as they are reflective of and grounded in God’s all-sufficiency. Thus, God’s act of creation is not beholden to an external principle of sufficient reason (modal collapse) , nor is God’s act of creation itself creative of sufficient reason (as if explicability pops into existence ex nihilo and brutely from God’s actions). Rather God is, in effect, the subsistent act of the sufficiency of reason itself, i.e. Holy Wisdom. He confers sufficiency on other things freely but neither in an arbitrary nor deterministic way.

2 Corinthians 3:5 ESV

Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God.”

2 Corinthians 12:9 ESV

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

2 Corinthians 9:8 ESV

And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work.

Divine Freedom, Mixed Relations, and Modal Collapse

I am interested in combining the Thomistic notion of the mixed relation with the distinction of modal actualism and modal possibilism. I think this can enhance our understanding of Divine (and perhaps creaturely) freedom, provide a response to modal collapse objections, make sense of God’s omnipotence, and also illuminate the boundless nature of God’s love.

Perhaps all possible worlds exist equally, in terms of a relation of reason for God, the real relation a world has to God would be that of actualization, i.e. the modal perspective from within that world may be more akin to actualism rather than modal realism or possibilism.

The modal realism and modal actualism could be perspectives of this mixed relations between creator and creature. The ensemble of possible worlds are a relation of reason that the creator has, owing to God’s apprehension of God’s own Goodness and Omnipotence. Our perspective of modal actualism is just our limited perspective of possibilities as they really relate to actualities both in the world and in God.

We have lost the Leibnizian sense that possible worlds are possibilities states of affairs within the mind of God, and many philosophers of religion picture possible worlds as various universes in which God is one of the denizens (a theistic personalist perspective). God, as a necessary being, inhabits every world and has Transworld identity, somehow. Rather, I would say that God is the condition for the possibility of possibility, and so the ground of the very structure of the modal landscape, which is nothing other than the over-abundance of God’s power.

Modal actualism is the perspective that these other possibilities are nothing other than powers, potentials, or capacities that are grounded in what actually exists in the world, and ultimately God. I would contend that modal actualism is the perspective we naturally take as we, creation, relate to God as creator. Thus, from our perspective, God created this world and there is, for instance, no Godworld, i.e. a world where God did not create anything. But Godworld is just as much a consequence of God’s omnipotence, as this actual world. It is, in a sense, a real possible world, but not the actual world, because the actual world just happens to bear a real relation to the creator, while Godworld does not (at least from our perspective). God’s overabundance of creation, then, means that he bears a relation of reason to the whole modal landscape, including alternative ways the world could have been. At the same time, the actual world really relates to God because we are contingent on God’s creative action.

Some seem to think God has to have a reason for this world and not that world, but God’s reason pertains to the whole modal ensemble, and we only think God must have a particular reason for the actual world, because we think he really relates to us the way we really relate to him. Thus, if God had actualized another world, God would have been different. This raises the problem: either God is changeable or there are no other possible worlds (modal collapse).

While we, as creatures, perceive and experience a real relation to our creator, God’s relationship to all of creation (and all possible worlds) is not like this at all. God’s understanding encompasses all possibilities, and it is within those possibilities that there would be facts in those worlds in which those worlds are really related to God, i.e. contingent upon God for actualization. From within the vantagepoint of those within a possible world, it would appear as though God had a preference for their world over all others, since the perspective of that world would be that it is actual and the others are only possible. Our perception of ‘real difference’ arises from our limited, creaturely perspective, whereas God’s relationship to creation is grounded in God’s unchanging nature.

In other words, a statement that has to be true in every world, w, is that every contingent fact of w is dependent on God’s act of creation. It would also be true in that world that all other worlds are possible worlds relative to it. So, while God’s unchanging reason for creation grounds the full ensemble of possible worlds, and that it is our real relation to God that makes it appear (phenomenologically, one might say) that God has a contingent or accidental preference to actualize us, and that if another world were actualized, God would have had different preferences (again, a Theistic Personalist God who inhabits each world, and is changed by the facts of those worlds).

So to avoid modal collapse on the level of the actual world, we might insist that there is a modal collapse that occurs on the level of ensemble of worlds. The ensemble of worlds is metaphysically necessary, a point that actually may be trivial, but also grounds our understanding of possibility and potentiality.

This does not mean that God does not love or care for us, but emphasizes that God’s love is indeed boundless and all-encompassing–far richer than we could possibly conceive. Moreover, God creates freely, on this model, because there is no antecedent cause necessitating his creation. Instead, it merely flows from God’s nature that this ensemble exists. Moreover, the actual world we find ourselves in is utterly contingent on God, and insofar as there are other possible worlds, we can genuinely say that the world we in which we find ourselves really relating to God could have been different.

An important caveat that might help to understand that other possible worlds are not other actual worlds would be this: 1. an actual world is one that really relates to God for its actualization. 2. It is true in every possible world that God is the ground of their being and that they really relate to God, but 3. It is not true from God’s perspective that each world is an actual world, since God does not really relate to those worlds, and 4. It is not true across one world to the next that other worlds are actual, since our access to those worlds are through God who only relates to the other worlds by reason. We bear no real relation to the other worlds, but only to God, so while those worlds are possibilities in the mind of God and possibilities for us, they are not other actualities relative to us. So, from any possible world’s perspective, creation appears as a free and unique choice, and there is no perspective where God has not made a free and unique choice.

Actuality is relative and perspectival. From God’s perspective, every world would perceive its dependence on God as a real relation. So God doesn’t pick or choose, but merely contemplates. But each world would have the real and true perspective that God has picked them in a unique and free manner. This is not an illusion, as it would also be the case that the other possible worlds, relative to each other world, would remain as mere conceptual relations in the mind of God. That is, in actuality there is only one actual world, and all others are possible. Counterfactually, each world would adopt the same position where it the actual world.

Lastly, this might serve as a model for our own creaturely freedom. That is, a person relates to a set of choices as a range of possible ways of acting. The actual choice bears a real relation to the person, the the antecedent choice was a relation of reason and not an antecedent sufficient condition that determined the action. In other words, it is only from the perspective of the choice made that the reasons were determinative in a causal sense. As we have minds, like God, we can relate to our choices in a conceptual mode.