MMOTW, what makes the most perfect being of them all?

[OldRegular]

God exists OUTSIDE of His creation, and He can freely chose when/how/where etc to intervene and interact within it!

He is eternal, and He IS the beginning and the End, as He is SOVEREIGN, and that means He has BOTH predestination and Foreknowledge of ALL things that will ever happen...

Well said!

And when jesus became God Incarnate, He did NOT change in His Nature of very God, its that He added also to His being very Human nature too!

Chalcedon probably said it better except for making Mary the mother of God. It is important to keep in mind that the two natures were separate.

Just curious, how do you view God as a trinity?

Good question and good luck!

 

[humblethinker]

Using 'more perfect' and 'most perfect' is not advised.

Regarding the modification of absolutes such as unique, dead, pregnant, entirely, etc. and, in this case, perfect, there is controversy. I believe that JoJ is correct, that taken in a strict literal sense, the word perfect should not be modified. The statements regarding 'a more perfect being' could be worded so that they would not bother JoJ, Old Regular and children. In fact, since this has caused some irritation to at least these three people, I regret that I didn't post a "*Grammar Alert*" warning in the OP.

The use of 'most perfect being' by philosophers is not a defeater to the points they are making any more than the use of 'more perfect union' is a defeater to the intents of the Constitutional Convention. I am concerned that this matter of grammar is being used as a defeater for discussion on the subject. In the case where my concern is warranted, I think that such actions are uncharitable. As I conveyed earlier, I am willing to accept the criticism of the philosophers usage of language especially since the criticism hi-lights the difficulty of talking of a "perfect being" (God). Such criticism goes to the point of the OP and I indicated a willingness to use the criticism to further discussion. However, it appears that my detractors (maybe not the child though…) are more obstinate than charitable. So, I will hopefully be able to leave off of discussing this 'most perfect' usage of language, realizing now that some people will take the incorrectness as a defeater and not be interested in addressing the intended meaning.

Examples of controversy:
Preamble of the US constitution "...in order to form a more perfect union…"
Grammarphobia.com
There are many more...

Interesting articles about language and usage:
http://grammar.about.com/od/tz/g/usageterm.htm
http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/absadjterm.htm

For further discussion about the strict grammar issues in this thread, please create a new thread instead. Wait, I've made it easier…

 

[OldRegular]

It is my understanding that this Forum is for the discussion of Baptist Theology, not the vagaries of philosophy!

 

[Cypress]

It is my understanding that this Forum is for the discussion of Baptist Theology, not the vagaries of philosophy!

""There has never, and never will be, any theology that is performed without implicitly deferring to philosophical principles, whether or not they are discussed or referred to as self-understood philosophical principles. There is simply no “Bible alone theology,” as if one is allowing only the Bible to inform their theological point of view, because even within that position their is the implicit philosophical positions about the link between Scripture and theology or the anti-philosophical streak usually present in Reformed theology."......more from Bryce here.... http://amtheomusings.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/no-theology-without-philosophy-part-1/

 

[Yeshua1]

Regarding the modification of absolutes such as unique, dead, pregnant, entirely, etc. and, in this case, perfect, there is controversy. I believe that JoJ is correct, that taken in a strict literal sense, the word perfect should not be modified. The statements regarding 'a more perfect being' could be worded so that they would not bother JoJ, Old Regular and children. In fact, since this has caused some irritation to at least these three people, I regret that I didn't post a "*Grammar Alert*" warning in the OP.

The use of 'most perfect being' by philosophers is not a defeater to the points they are making any more than the use of 'more perfect union' is a defeater to the intents of the Constitutional Convention. I am concerned that this matter of grammar is being used as a defeater for discussion on the subject. In the case where my concern is warranted, I think that such actions are uncharitable. As I conveyed earlier, I am willing to accept the criticism of the philosophers usage of language especially since the criticism hi-lights the difficulty of talking of a "perfect being" (God). Such criticism goes to the point of the OP and I indicated a willingness to use the criticism to further discussion. However, it appears that my detractors (maybe not the child though…) are more obstinate than charitable. So, I will hopefully be able to leave off of discussing this 'most perfect' usage of language, realizing now that some people will take the incorrectness as a defeater and not be interested in addressing the intended meaning.

Examples of controversy:
Preamble of the US constitution "...in order to form a more perfect union…"
Grammarphobia.com
There are many more...

Interesting articles about language and usage:
http://grammar.about.com/od/tz/g/usageterm.htm
http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/absadjterm.htm

For further discussion about the strict grammar issues in this thread, please create a new thread instead. Wait, I've made it easier…

God revelation of Himself in BOTH the Bible and most of all in Jesus is sure, that of vain philosphies, IS NOT!

 

[OldRegular]

""There has never, and never will be, any theology that is performed without implicitly deferring to philosophical principles, whether or not they are discussed or referred to as self-understood philosophical principles. There is simply no “Bible alone theology,” as if one is allowing only the Bible to inform their theological point of view, because even within that position their is the implicit philosophical positions about the link between Scripture and theology or the anti-philosophical streak usually present in Reformed theology."......more from Bryce here.... http://amtheomusings.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/no-theology-without-philosophy-part-1/

First I believe that every thinking person is a theologian, even an agnostic or an atheist. They postulate the existence of a god or gods or the nonexistence of a god or gods. Now if some want to call that a philosophical theology then so be it. Philosophy, good or bad, if there is a distinction,:laugh: can speculate about God but that is all.

With all due respect to he writer of the reference I disagree totally, particularly the comment that there is "no Bible alone theology". Biblical Theology alone, in my opinion, is the only true theology. Knowledge of God can only come because He chooses to reveal Himself. Fortunately He has done so. The Apostle Paul tells us that He has revealed certain truths about Himself through His Creation. However, it is only through His Word, living and written, that we can KNOW Him.

Bryce says:

Before I discuss further, let’s talk a little history about the relationship of theology and philosophy in Christianity.

Given the theology of the RCC it is obvious that philosophy or the Teaching Magisterium is a poor substitute for the Word of God.

 

[John of Japan]

""There has never, and never will be, any theology that is performed without implicitly deferring to philosophical principles, whether or not they are discussed or referred to as self-understood philosophical principles. There is simply no “Bible alone theology,” as if one is allowing only the Bible to inform their theological point of view, because even within that position their is the implicit philosophical positions about the link between Scripture and theology or the anti-philosophical streak usually present in Reformed theology."......more from Bryce here.... http://amtheomusings.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/no-theology-without-philosophy-part-1/

This statement is simply baloney. Did you pay attention to who said it? The author of the blog is (1) only a college junior studying philosophy, and (2) a Roman Catholic.

 

[John of Japan]

Regarding the modification of absolutes such as unique, dead, pregnant, entirely, etc. and, in this case, perfect, there is controversy. I believe that JoJ is correct, that taken in a strict literal sense, the word perfect should not be modified. The statements regarding 'a more perfect being' could be worded so that they would not bother JoJ, Old Regular and children. In fact, since this has caused some irritation to at least these three people, I regret that I didn't post a "*Grammar Alert*" warning in the OP.

Thank you for this paragraph. I think you are beginning to understand my points, but haven't arrived yet.

Once again, my point is not grammar, so a "Grammar Alert" would have accomplished nothing. Grammar is: "Any systematic account of the structure of a language; the patterns that it describes; the branch of linguistics concerned with such patterns" (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, by P. H. Matthews, p. 163). My point is not at all about the structure of language, but the meaning of language. My point is based on semantics: "The study of meaning" (ibid, 361).

The use of 'most perfect being' by philosophers is not a defeater to the points they are making any more than the use of 'more perfect union' is a defeater to the intents of the Constitutional Convention. I am concerned that this matter of grammar is being used as a defeater for discussion on the subject. In the case where my concern is warranted, I think that such actions are uncharitable. As I conveyed earlier, I am willing to accept the criticism of the philosophers usage of language especially since the criticism hi-lights the difficulty of talking of a "perfect being" (God). Such criticism goes to the point of the OP and I indicated a willingness to use the criticism to further discussion. However, it appears that my detractors (maybe not the child though…) are more obstinate than charitable. So, I will hopefully be able to leave off of discussing this 'most perfect' usage of language, realizing now that some people will take the incorrectness as a defeater and not be interested in addressing the intended meaning.

I'm sorry you feel we've been obstinate and uncharitable. Tell me where I've been uncharitable and I'll apologize. As for a new thread, I'm sticking with this one, since you use the word "perfect" in the OP title. I think my linguistic objections are quite within the range of the OP.

Now, more about "perfect." First of all, the word is polysemous, meaning that it has more than one meaning. In modern English it can mean "just right," as in "That meal was perfect." It can mean being without blemish, as in "a perfect specimen." It can mean complete, as in "a perfect fool." My computer dictionary gives 11 meanings. This explains the completely proper usage of the word in "a more perfect union." The framers of the U. S. Constitution certainly did not use this word in the same way as we do when we say that God is perfect. They meant a more complete, a more mature union. Even in the Bible the word "perfect" in the KJV does not always mean what we mean when we say perfect. The Greek adjective teleios had the meaning of "mature" as well as perfect in the sense that God is perfect.

When we say God is perfect, we are saying He is without fault and without sin. Here is what Strong says on perfection as an attribute of God: "By perfection we mean, not mere quantitative completeness, but qualitative excellence. The attributes involved in perfection are moral attributes. Right action among men presupposes a perfect moral organization, a normal state of intellect, affection and will. So God's activity presupposes a principle of intelligence, of affection, of volition, in his inmost being" (Systematic Theology, A. H. Strong, p. 260).

When we consider God's moral perfection, a "more perfect" God is impossible. He is completely perfect in every moral way. He not only has no sin in Him, no moral or ethical failure, He is holy--not just in his actions, His very nature is holy. That cannot be added to by "more" holiness.

 

[Benjamin]

This statement is simply baloney. Did you pay attention to who said it? The author of the blog is (1) only a college junior studying philosophy, and (2) a Roman Catholic.

:laugh: People denying philosphical principles exist in theology while presenting that reasoning which is purely fallacious and rhetorical!

Hmm, at least some evidence of lack of critical thinking skills (philosophy) is presented with that example.. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[John of Japan]

:laugh: People denying philosphical principles exist in theology while presenting that reasoning which is purely fallacious and rhetorical!

Hmm, at least some evidence of lack of critical thinking skills (philosophy) is presented with that example.. :smilewinkgrin:

If I get you right (maybe I don't, maybe you mean my reasoning--but then I haven't denied that philosophical principles exist in theology, only that they are necessary), you mean the young man saying "There has never, and never will be, any theology that is performed without implicitly deferring to philosophical principles" and then giving exceptions among Protestant theologians. Oh to be a college junior again and know everything!

I admit I could have said that a lot better. I guess my disgust at the choice of a quote (quotes in a debate are supposed to be authoritative) caught up with me at an existential moment. :smilewinkgrin: There is such a disjunct between that blogger and we Baptists on the BB....

Consider a theologically uneducated missionary translating the Bible into a tribal language. (There have been many such down through the years. The tribal people will then develop a theology based strictly on the Bible, having no access whatsoever to any philosophy, Western or Eastern, unless one defines philosophy very broadly, as in the native philosophy of hunting--"Follow the tracks, make sure you're not seen by the animal, hit him in the neck with your blowdart." I found the young man and Prof. Lesko in the comments, both, to have just about that broad a definition of philosophy.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

This statement is simply baloney. Did you pay attention to who said it? The author of the blog is (1) only a college junior studying philosophy, and (2) a Roman Catholic.

In Philosophy....(a critically important discipline) that type of argument you just posed is known to be a fallacy called a "genetic" fallacy...basically it consists of saying "consider the source"....The source is bad, ergo, so is the argument....

(2) a Roman Catholic.

Much as I (along with all Theologically committed Baptists may despise Catholic Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Practical Theology and numerous other things).....We frankly owe them a debt of gratitude.....their Theology Proper, and their Theology of Man have shaped the thinking of all Western thought including us post-modern Baptists....It is from Catholics that we steal our explanations and understanding of the Trinity....even many of our assumptions of Christology and Hamartiology is owed to their work. Much as it pains me to say it.....Their Theologians were (historically) always the best Philosophers as well. No classical Theologian, during any formative period of Western Thought from the Middle Ages and forward till about the 19th Century was even permitted to study Theology until they had studied Philosophy...I pine for those days again sometimes. For someone to even be capable of making a statement like "there is a 'Bible-aloneTheololgy'". Is to assume a myriad of Basic assumptions about the nature of Epistomology and the nature of Reality itself which are the products of centuries of Philosophy. EVERYONE philosophizes...Most are simply unaware of it....As they said in "A fish Called Wanda": <----a film I never personally watched since it is not rated "G":

Wanda: You're an ape...
Otto: Apes don't read Philosohy
Wanda: Yes, they do, Otto, they just don't understand it...
(paraphrased)

You are an intelligent and educated guy....I am sure you understand what Cypress and HT and others are driving at.

 

[John of Japan]

In Philosophy....(a critically important discipline) that type of argument you just posed is known to be a fallacy called a "genetic" fallacy...basically it consists of saying "consider the source"....The source is bad, ergo, so is the argument....

I admit I said it very poorly. But frankly I don't think the genetic fallacy is always a fallacy. "Consider the source" can be a good warning. "Logic" (in the technical sense) is not always right.

Much as I (along with all Theologically committed Baptists may despise Catholic Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Practical Theology and numerous other things).....We frankly owe them a debt of gratitude.....their Theology Proper, and their Theology of Man have shaped the thinking of all Western thought including us post-modern Baptists....It is from Catholics that we steal our explanations and understanding of the Trinity....even many of our assumptions of Christology and Hamartiology is owed to their work. Much as it pains me to say it.....Their Theologians were (historically) always the best Philosophers as well. No classical Theologian, during any formative period of Western Thought from the Middle Ages and forward till about the 19th Century was even permitted to study Theology until they had studied Philosophy...I pine for those days again sometimes. For someone to even be capable of making a statement like "there is a 'Bible-aloneTheololgy'". Is to assume a myriad of Basic assumptions about the nature of Epistomology and the nature of Reality itself which are the products of centuries of Philosophy. EVERYONE philosophizes...Most are simply unaware of it....As they said in "A fish Called Wanda": <----a film I never personally watcheed since it is not rated "G":

Wanda: You're an ape...
Otto: Apes don't read Philosohy
Wanda: Yes, they do, Otto, they just don't understand it...
(paraphrased)

You are an intelligent and educated guy....I am sure you understand what Cypress and HT and others are driving at.

It's a complex subject, but I believe I understand it. As I said at the start I read and studied philosphy somewhat, though certainly not an expert. I stick to my guns though about (1) the linguistic error of calling something "more perfect" and (2) my belief that we don't need philosophy to do theology (which I considere a separate arguement from whatever philosophy was used in the past to form theology). In particular, modern philosophy (from existentialism on) is full of traps, having abandoned as it has the classical philosophical questions of the existence of God, the origin of evil and so forth.

Again, few Americans are familiar with Eastern philosophy, but I live in a Confucian society and see the evil Confucious formed, and through the Chinese martial arts see the evil Taoism has created. So any statement connecting philosophy and theology should be carefully delineated, rather than stated generally as in the OP.

 

[Benjamin]

If I get you right (maybe I don't, maybe you mean my reasoning--but then I haven't denied that philosophical principles exist in theology, only that they are necessary), you mean the young man saying "There has never, and never will be, any theology that is performed without implicitly deferring to philosophical principles" and then giving exceptions among Protestant theologians. Oh to be a college junior again and know everything!

I admit I could have said that a lot better. I guess my disgust at the choice of a quote (quotes in a debate are supposed to be authoritative) caught up with me at an existential moment. :smilewinkgrin: There is such a disjunct between that blogger and we Baptists on the BB....

Consider a theologically uneducated missionary translating the Bible into a tribal language. (There have been many such down through the years. The tribal people will then develop a theology based strictly on the Bible, having no access whatsoever to any philosophy, Western or Eastern, unless one defines philosophy very broadly, as in the native philosophy of hunting--"Follow the tracks, make sure you're not seen by the animal, hit him in the neck with your blowdart." I found the young man and Prof. Lesko in the comments, both, to have just about that broad a definition of philosophy.

Above OldRegualr is laughing off philosophy and basically claiming it is only for “speculating” for the existence of God. I have had a similar discussion before pertaining this subject about giving logical reason (1Pet 3:15), for one’s faith. Here is some of my argument:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1680110&postcount=10

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1680178&postcount=12

Philosophy is a science that uses logical principles to “draw out the truth” in the words of a claim. The science of logic (philosophy) is universal and extends to every language, whether it is simplistic or highly developed, it exists in some form, for without it, without a means to determine the truth in words about a claim it can not be known to be rationally true. It IS that broad.

Personally, I believe a person has a big problem if he says he cannot logically reason for his faith, contend for his faith in a rational and reasonable way. To state, as a Determinist often does, that one’s faith had to be placed upon him, that he had no choice but to believe, is not giving reason for the hope and faith in you, it is like admitting one is too proud to bow down to accepting the truth that every man is given (Rom 1;20) and saying it had to be force upon you. It is basically saying the truth cannot “really” be known (Psa25:5, Isa1:18, John 1). Apologetics about theology, and/or evangelism without a philosophy from one’s own heart and mind of how it can be known to be true is void of reason and valueless as far as language goes.

I believe this "mere College Junior'" (fallacy John!:smilewinkgrin makes a valid recognizable point when he speaks of “the anti-philosophical streak usually present in Reformed theology” and believe his statement of “There has never, and never will be, any theology that is performed without implicitly deferring to philosophical principles, whether or not they are discussed or referred to as self-understood philosophical principles.” is not only accurate but is typically taught at the beginning in Basic Logic 101 along with the argument of whether or not truth can be known.

I admit I could have said that a lot better.

:laugh: I know you could, It just struck me as hilarious because of what was being said and it could have been a textbook example of a fallacy. Sorry, I just like to tease sometimes and figured you could take it...I was just passing by and wasn't even going to get into this thread. :tonofbricks:

 

[John of Japan]

Above OldRegualr is laughing off philosophy and basically claiming it is only for “speculating” for the existence of God. I have had a similar discussion before pertaining this subject about giving logical reason (1Pet 3:15), for one’s faith. Here is some of my argument:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1680110&postcount=10

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1680178&postcount=12

Philosophy is a science that uses logical principles to “draw out the truth” in the words of a claim. The science of logic (philosophy) is universal and extends to every language, whether it is simplistic or highly developed, it exists in some form, for without it, without a means to determine the truth in words about a claim it can not be known to be rationally true. It IS that broad.

Personally, I believe a person has a big problem if he says he cannot logically reason for his faith, contend for his faith in a rational and reasonable way. To state, as a Determinist often does, that one’s faith had to be placed upon him, that he had no choice but to believe, is not giving reason for the hope and faith in you, it is like admitting one is too proud to bow down to accepting the truth that every man is given (Rom 1;20) and saying it had to be force upon you. It is basically saying the truth cannot “really” be known (Psa25:5, Isa1:18, John 1). Apologetics about theology, and/or evangelism without a philosophy from one’s own heart and mind of how it can be known to be true is void of reason and valueless as far as language goes.

I believe this "mere College Junior'" (fallacy John!:smilewinkgrin makes a valid recognizable point when he speaks of “the anti-philosophical streak usually present in Reformed theology” and believe his statement of “There has never, and never will be, any theology that is performed without implicitly deferring to philosophical principles, whether or not they are discussed or referred to as self-understood philosophical principles.” is not only accurate but is typically taught at the beginning in Basic Logic 101 along with the argument of whether or truth can be known.


I know you could, It just struck me as hilarious because of what was being said and it could have been a textbook example of a fallacy. Sorry, I just like to tease sometimes and figured you could take it...I was just passing by and wasn't even going to get into this thread. :tonofbricks:

It's okay, I can take it. :laugh:

But the idea that philosophy is by definition good is a very narrow view of philosophy. Again, the idea that logic exists only in philosophy is wrong. (I'm not sure that these things are what you are saying.)

I think logic is a God-given human trait. We didn't get it from philosophy, which only explained what was already there in human logic. Reasoning is a gift from God; we don't need philosophy to teach us how. I've heard some very logical statements from Japanese people totally unversed in philosophy. (There are no true Japanese philosophers, though they have professors of philosophy in their colleges.)

Consider these non-logical philosophies: existentialism, logical positivism (no longer held by anyone because Wittgenstein had no logic in his works), Taoism and Confucianism.

Edited in: Okay, I see from your referenced posts that you agree that logic/reasoning is the gift of God.

 

[John of Japan]

Again, few Americans are familiar with Eastern philosophy, but I live in a Confucian society and see the evil Confucious formed, and through the Chinese martial arts see the evil Taoism has created. So any statement connecting philosophy and theology should be carefully delineated, rather than stated generally as in the OP.

I have to apologize to humblethinker. I just re-read the OP and it doesn't say a thing about philosophy per se (though I think that is where it is coming from).

 

[OldRegular]

I have to apologize to humblethinker. I just re-read the OP and it doesn't say a thing about philosophy per se (though I think that is where it is coming from).

It should be noted that none of those espousing the superior virtues of philosophy are philosophers by profession. It follows then, using logic, that they are simply engaged in the vagaries of philosophy!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[humblethinker]

Thank you for this paragraph. I think you are beginning to understand my points, but haven't arrived yet.

Maybe I haven't but that is not to say that it is only the case that your points are the only ones that are in need of understanding. I sense that you are prepared not to budge.

Once again, my point is not grammar, so a "Grammar Alert" would have accomplished nothing. Grammar is: "Any systematic account of the structure of a language; the patterns that it describes; the branch of linguistics concerned with such patterns" (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, by P. H. Matthews, p. 163). My point is not at all about the structure of language, but the meaning of language. My point is based on semantics: "The study of meaning" (ibid, 361).

Are you saying that a change in the grammar would NOT result in a change in the meaning?

I'm sorry you feel we've been obstinate and uncharitable. Tell me where I've been uncharitable and I'll apologize. As for a new thread, I'm sticking with this one, since you use the word "perfect" in the OP title. I think my linguistic objections are quite within the range of the OP.

Imo, titles of OP's are more for 'marketing' and do not require any element of face-value 'truthiness'. It seems that you have a different opinion?

Now, more about "perfect." First of all, the word is polysemous, meaning that it has more than one meaning. In modern English it can mean "just right," as in "That meal was perfect." It can mean being without blemish, as in "a perfect specimen." It can mean complete, as in "a perfect fool." My computer dictionary gives 11 meanings. This explains the completely proper usage of the word in "a more perfect union." The framers of the U. S. Constitution certainly did not use this word in the same way as we do when we say that God is perfect. They meant a more complete, a more mature union. Even in the Bible the word "perfect" in the KJV does not always mean what we mean when we say perfect. The Greek adjective teleios had the meaning of "mature" as well as perfect in the sense that God is perfect.

So, do you know how the philosophers used the word? Does what you view as the misuse of the word mean that they cannot convey meaning consistently between one another?

When we say God is perfect, we are saying He is without fault and without sin.

Really? Is that the only thing that means when we are talking about God? I would not be surprised if people who thought such did get confused by the philosophers... I'd suggest that they save themselves time and frustration and just listen, if they must.

JoJ, imo, Calvinists see God as 'perfect' in more ways than as you have described here, ie. 'without fault and without sin'. They see that his perfection is also in every other aspect of his being, I would agree but here's what may be the heart of the issue: Their idea of 'perfect attributes' is different than other people's (arms, OVT's, other cals) views. Since God is 'perfect' in every single way, any change is for the worse. Therefore, God cannot really do the things that the Bible indicates he does, and the fact that the Bible talks of God as it does is attributed to 'mystery'. God, if he is perfect like this (as in 'any change is for the worse'), would be similar to Zeno's idea of a motionless universe and must exist atemporally and therefore the temporality we experience is a 'mystery' at best and an illusion at worst. (Cals, you may see this as a strawman, and it may be in some respects, but I do not intend to be malevolant in my explanation here but for me it does represent my take on how you understand your view. I am open to discussion and adjusting my estimation.) There is so much more that could be said as to how the ideas of 'perfection' influence our view of God and what he MUST be like.

Here is what Strong says on perfection as an attribute of God: "By perfection we mean, not mere quantitative completeness, but qualitative excellence. The attributes involved in perfection are moral attributes. Right action among men presupposes a perfect moral organization, a normal state of intellect, affection and will. So God's activity presupposes a principle of intelligence, of affection, of volition, in his inmost being" (Systematic Theology, A. H. Strong, p. 260).

This description by Strong, while his description includes 'being without fault or sin', I hear him say that there is much more to this kind of perfection than what you have said... an issue of semantics indeed!

When we consider God's moral perfection, a "more perfect" God is impossible. He is completely perfect in every moral way.

It sounds like you were presuming I was talking only about God's 'moral' perfection when used the word 'perfect' in the OP. If that is the case then I can see where you're coming from. But yet, the way you have defined 'perfection' directly above indicates that you think 'perfection' necessarily means 'moral perfection'. So, why would you modify 'perfection' with the word 'moral'? Are you not employing a tautology then? If so, this sentence I am composing is a defeater to whatever point you were trying to make ;-). (That last sentence was a friendly elbow... if it even makes sense ;-) )

He not only has no sin in Him, no moral or ethical failure, He is holy--not just in his actions, His very nature is holy. That cannot be added to by "more" holiness

This all begs the question of what is moral? What is holy? What are the attributes of God? This entire section of this board wrestles with these issues (as I'm sure you know already). This gets specifically at the issue of this thread.

If you say that the problem with the OP is a semantics issue, this it should be the case that a reasonable person could not understand the post, and this the main thrust of their objection, correct? However, I do believe that there are reasonable people here that do understand the OP, so, if that is the case, that should surely mean something to you... unless you would now make the case that they shouldn't understand the OP.

(I must now click 'submit reply' for sake of time and sanity... hopefully it comes across as I intend it to)

 

[humblethinker]

I have to apologize to humblethinker. I just re-read the OP and it doesn't say a thing about philosophy per se (though I think that is where it is coming from).

Thank you John. You are correct, it is where I was coming from and re-reading the OP, I'm at a loss for how it could be considered as otherwise but that is part of just being human... it happens to me way too much.

I appreciate your input and hope this thread doesn't disuade you from contributing in the future. You've definitely made me think about the issues and I've grown from that and... for that (and much more) I am greatful to you.

(For the difference it may make: I read this quote of yours before my last post)

 

[humblethinker]

(For the difference it may make: I read this quote of yours before my last post)

:tonofbricks: I meant to say 'after' not 'before'... there I go being human again...

 

[OldRegular]

However, I do believe that there are reasonable people here that do understand the OP, so, if that is the case, that should surely mean something to you... unless you would now make the case that they shouldn't understand the OP.

In order to really understand the OP, at least its intent, one must understand that you reject the Biblical revelation of God The OP is nothing more than an attempt to engage in a philosophical discussion of the nature of God. God is not the god of philosophy, He is not the god of speculation, He is the God of Revelation. The Apostle Paul addressed the false god of philosophy in his sermon on Mars hill. You can read it in Acts 17:22ff.