Far too often, folks presume quite a lot when hearing Leibniz’s claim about the best — for example, that every event, including our sins and wicked choices, emerge from divine design and are in some sense good. But such presumptions are far too simplistic and not necessarily presumed by Leibniz or others, such as John of Damascus, who make such claims — as I show in later chapters.
As for divine freedom, yes, God’s freedom is very different from our own, and necessarily so, given the metaphysical differences between God and creatures. But I disagree that the fact means we should not use the word. The word is still analogically true, just as it is analogically true that God is wise, just, merciful, good, loving, etc.
Most if not all talk of God is analogical, but analogical does not mean false. The key is to engage in true analogical reasoning and avoid false analogy. To reject the validity of this is to reject all theological talk and reasoning in favor of fideism, which I utterly reject.
Thank you very much Dr N Jacobs. Thoroughly enjoying this, despite how much is stretches my thinking patterns :)
How embarrassing for me. I thought you wrote a type when you wrote "Leipzig." haha. Leibniz is from Leipzig.
No worries. I appreciate you looking out for me, Chris.
Thank you, Nathan for the correction. I spoke without thinking it through. regarding the Freedom issue. Thanks again.
My pleasure, Ivan. Thank you for subscribing!
Well, of course… we could not speak about God, unless we use the language that God himself enabled us to use.
I would say that this is the best of all possible worlds ,under the circumstances (😇)
Also ,Gods freedom is so very different than man’s ., that the same word should not be used ..
Hi Ivan,
Far too often, folks presume quite a lot when hearing Leibniz’s claim about the best — for example, that every event, including our sins and wicked choices, emerge from divine design and are in some sense good. But such presumptions are far too simplistic and not necessarily presumed by Leibniz or others, such as John of Damascus, who make such claims — as I show in later chapters.
As for divine freedom, yes, God’s freedom is very different from our own, and necessarily so, given the metaphysical differences between God and creatures. But I disagree that the fact means we should not use the word. The word is still analogically true, just as it is analogically true that God is wise, just, merciful, good, loving, etc.
Most if not all talk of God is analogical, but analogical does not mean false. The key is to engage in true analogical reasoning and avoid false analogy. To reject the validity of this is to reject all theological talk and reasoning in favor of fideism, which I utterly reject.
Thanks for reading and for your support!