The Euthyphro Dilemma and the Sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham

[Prodigal_Son]

God did not want Abraham’s obedience. He wanted Abraham’s trust. A loving father can yell at his kids and get them to obey but what kind of love is that? God wants more than our slavish obedience. The pharisees demanded obedience and see where that got them? God wants our love. He want’s us to trust him.

Amen, brother!

And yet, do remember that Jesus spoke of His **obedience **to the Father. I think you will find that obedience follows from trust, and that obedience IS an important goal. But trust – and love! – are more central.

 

[ddarko]

I think Calvinists believe that. However I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever taken a position on this. I hope they leave that one open.

Really? I don’t think this has anything Calvinistic here.

I think the word “greatest” is ambiguous. By “greatest” conceivable being do you mean he must be good? If so then I agree something that must be good must be good. But then if good is just whatever he decides it is then I’m not sure good and evil maintain the same significance.
But if you mean greatest as in most powerful and most knowing – then it wouldn’t have to be good. I could conceive of a universe where nothing is good or evil and yet something could be the most powerful and most knowing thing.

I also wonder if you are fully appreciating the command theory. If God wills murder to be good it is good. If command theory is right and God wills murder to be good he is not willing something “bad” to be good. In that universe murder is good. It’s good because God wills it.

If the command theory is the case It does strike me that morality seems arbitrary and loses some of its import. I suppose it is the same when some people try to define “truth” as what most people believe instead of that which accords with reality. It becomes subjective and its significance diminishes.

No no no. This is the error you are making.

The maximally great being includes the property of being Good. That is an essential property. NOT a contingent property.

So when you say “God wills murder to be good he is not willing something “bad” to be good.” is logically impossible. God will never will MURDER in any possible world.

Another way to see this is by seeing the error in saying God does what is good. If God does what is good, then this Goodness is outside of him. It must be in an entity that is not present in God, uncreated by God. But then God is definitely not the creator of everything and not the maximally great being since he lacks something.

Therefore Goodness must be an essential property of God.

Did that clarify?

God Bless

 

[TimothyH]

Amen, brother!

And yet, do remember that Jesus spoke of His **obedience **to the Father. I think you will find that obedience follows from trust, and that obedience IS an important goal. But trust – and love! – are more central.

And why was Jesus obedient, even to the point of death, death upon a cross?

Because he believed that God would… yes… you guessed it… raise him from the dead!

-Tim-

 

[ddarko]

And why was Jesus obedient, even to the point of death, death upon a cross?

Because he believed that God would… yes… you guessed it… raise him from the dead!

-Tim-

You do realize that trust without doing the will of the father is not a Catholic position right? It’s like saying Faith without Works. You might have missed my Post #79.

God Bless

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If God does what is good, then this Goodness is outside of him. It must be in an entity that is not present in God, uncreated by God.

This doesn’t follow. Goodness might be dependent upon God, and yet God might conform to the goodness. We cannot say that “goodness” is identical to “God’s preference”, although the list of things denoted by the two terms are identical. God prefers things *because *they are good.

I think we’re being misled by the red herring of thinking of “goodness” as an object or an entity. Goodness is not a Platonic Form, nor is it some thing. Goodness is a **way **that things can be.

We say that God is “independent” and “needs nothing”. This is true, but do we mean by this to say that independence (as a way of being) is created by God? I don’t see why. Nothing would be independent – or good – apart from God. Why should we think about independence – or goodness – as a thing, however?

But then God is definitely not the creator of everything and not the maximally great being since he lacks something.

What does He lack, on this line of thinking?

Therefore Goodness must be an essential property of God.

It can be an essential property without Him “creating goodness”. I am essentially male, but I did not create maleness.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And why was Jesus obedient, even to the point of death, death upon a cross?

Because he believed that God would… yes… you guessed it… raise him from the dead!

I think we’re on the same page here. We ought to obey those who (a) know better, and (b) are trustworthy. Anyone who does not know better, or is not trustworthy, is not properly an authority – although it is sometimes prudent to act as if he or she is an authority. (Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s).

 

[ddarko]

This doesn’t follow. Goodness might be dependent upon God, and yet God might conform to the goodness. We cannot say that “goodness” is identical to “God’s preference”, although the list of things denoted by the two terms are identical. God prefers things *because *they are good.

Anything has to be grounded somewhere. Good needs an ontological basis. If God simply prefers to do Good, then God cannot be the ontological basis. God cannot ‘conform’ to Good because this suggests again that God is not the ontological basis of goodness.

Therefore, Good must be ontologically grounded elsewhere other than God.

Since this other entity, being or concept is not from God, then we have a problem.

Did that explain it a bit more?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

It can be an essential property without Him “creating goodness”. I am essentially male, but I did not create maleness.

This is true for you because you are a contingent being. God is not a contingent being.

And the argument is not that God is good because he created Good. God is the paradigm of Good. His nature determines what is Good.

To say God created good is Voluntarism and I don’t think its a viable Christian position.

God Bless

 

[joemccarron]

1)Really? I don’t think this has anything Calvinistic here.

2)No no no. This is the error you are making.

3)The maximally great being includes the property of being Good. That is an essential property. NOT a contingent property.

4)So when you say “God wills murder to be good he is not willing something “bad” to be good.” is logically impossible. God will never will MURDER in any possible world.

5)Another way to see this is by seeing the error in saying God does what is good. If God does what is good, then this Goodness is outside of him. It must be in an entity that is not present in God, uncreated by God. But then God is definitely not the creator of everything and not the maximally great being since he lacks something.

Therefore Goodness must be an essential property of God.

Did that clarify?

God Bless

I numbered your paragraphs just to be more clear.

It’s just a hunch on Calvinism. No need to go into detail as to why I have that hunch. I could be wrong.

In paragraph 4 you seem to be putting morality outside of God. Why wouldn’t God will murder to be good if by the very act of willing it to be good he makes it good? You see you say God would never do that because you do see morality, to some extent, as independant of his will.

As for paragraph 5 I am with Prodigal Son in that I don’t think what you say follows. Perhaps list the specific premises that you believe logically lead to the conclusion that you want.

I also agree with Prodigal Son that Good and evil aren’t really something like Plato described. However I do think they are features of reality. Good and evil are real properties of certain actions.

 

[ddarko]

In paragraph 4 you seem to be putting morality outside of God. Why wouldn’t God will murder to be good if by the very act of willing it to be good he makes it good? You see you say God would never do that because you do see morality, to some extent, as independant of his will.

I think you’ve misunderstood. Goodness is not outside of God in the view I propose.

It is not the mere act of God willing something that makes something Good or Bad. God’s nature is GOOD. Therefore we know something must be good if God wills it. To say God can will murder to be good is therefore a logically absurd statement. God does not will anything contrary to his own nature.

God’s nature is GOOD because it is an essential property of being God.

As for paragraph 5 I am with Prodigal Son in that I don’t think what you say follows. Perhaps list the specific premises that you believe logically lead to the conclusion that you want.

Um I explained it to Prodigal Son couple of posts above. Is that not sufficient?

The point is that if Good is not within God, then it has to be ontologically grounded somewhere else. Therefore God lacks something and has to conform to something outside of him. It’s even more problematic how to answer where this Goodness is ontologically grounded.

A maximally great being must therefore possess GOOD as an essential property. The question you raised about the possible worlds you could imagine cannot be actualized. For a maximally great being exists in every possible world and if he MUST possess a certain quality in one possible world, then he must possess it every possible world. Since he is present in every possible world, GOOD exists in every possible world due to his presence.

God Bless

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Good question. I think that, in a sense at least, good does exist separate to God – good is not simply “God’s preference”. Some things are not merely desired, but desirable. For example, it is desirable that – if God were to create mankind – God also provide mankind the means of salvation. And it is desirable that small babies not experience intense pain. These things would not stop being desirable if God, per impossible, suddenly stopped desiring them.

Why are those things desirable though? Because we desire them? How does that make them intrinsically desirable?

Would you prefer a universe devoid of communication? If it is good for people to converse with and inform other people, why wouldn’t it be good for God to converse with and inform those He has created? Do you think our being able to read God’s mind would make the universe better in some way?

I would think that if God can recognize good that he would permit us to also recognize good rather than have to tell us what good is. Now assuming the Bible has some truth in regards to what good is, there are some big things that are considered good and bad and they mostly agree with survival instincts and cultural development, like the whole no murder and stuff. Then theres the smaller ones like not wearing more than two fabrics at once. Or not working on Sunday/Saturday, or homosexuality being a bad thing. Those aren’t recognizable as good or bad, or at least not to me and they certainly require reading the Bible before understanding the Bibles perspective on the matter.

Morality is a set of rules. I am a father, and I often speak to my children about what they should and should not do, and why. But this is clearly not the center of my relationship with my children. The center of that relationship is trust and love.

Yes but morality is a about conduct in all situations where as faith, trust and love are all about a single relationship. If morality were more valued by God, perhaps the would would be a better place.

Perhaps you are being misled by a prominent misunderstanding of the Christian concept of faith. Faith is not simply belief. Abraham believing that God existed, and that God was good, did not play any real role in his actions. What mattered was that Abraham trusted God to be good to him, even though Abraham knew that he did not deserve children as countless as grains on the sand, etc.

My understanding of the Christian concept of faith is this; now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Don’t you think trust, and love, are more important than rule-following?

Depends on the rule, there are some rules I value more than trust and love, one of them being, no murder.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Do you question moral implications when they are based on the command to love others?

Of course I do and I most certainly question the notion that such moral implications are based on the command to love others.

 

[tonyrey]

Of course I do and I most certainly question the notion that such moral implications are based on the command to love others.

Why?

 

[tonyrey]

So God has the right to command us to commit any atrocity whatsoever?

Then He may be commanding you to do what is evil

But he can stop you from doing it.

Too late! The command is evil if it is to kill unnecessarily.

Your error is that by his command, you assume that God willed Isaac to be killed by Abraham. That is an error.

I do **not **believe that.

Even Scripture shows that Abraham did not CONFUSE it to be as such. He had full faith that God at the end of the day will still have Isaac alive. (Don’t know if you read my post to you earlier about this).

He hoped but he also suffered fear.

There is nothing moral or immoral in God giving you a set of instructions and telling you to follow it.

That makes God amoral!

 

[tonyrey]

I

According to you God was deliberately giving Abraham the impression that it was His Will that Isaac had to be killed. That amounts to coercion…

You think God commanded Abraham to kill his son even though it wasn’t necessary. To give him that impression would clearly and unmistakably be **cruel **and deceitful.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Why?

In order to gain a better understanding.

 

[ddarko]

Then He may be commanding you to do what is evil

Too late! The command is evil if it is to kill unnecessarily.

I do **not **believe that.

He hoped but he also suffered fear.
That makes God amoral!

Tony,

Please refer to Post #79

God Bless

 

[po18guy]

Not really. Personally, I have a son named (not coincidentally) Isaac. What strikes me is that I always should act out of love for Isaac. This does not conflict with acting out of love for God – nor, according to the New Testament, can it conflict. But I do question how Abraham could have been acting out of love for his son Isaac when he went to sacrifice him.

I do admit that I’m hesitating here. I do not hold my position dogmatically, and I’m willing to listen to explanations of how Abraham might let a knife descend upon his son out of love. Perhaps pain was not considered so serious in Biblical times. Paul clearly mentions that Abraham had faith that God could raise Isaac from the dead, so it wasn’t the killing that was the problem (in a sense).

We are to love God above all things. We know that God is all good. Both Abraham and Isaac were God’s creations and possessions, since they came from Him and returned to Him. Thus, God has full control over the time, place and method of their demise. God is inscrutable in His ways, but desirous of obedience to His commands - for this reason the ten Commandments were issued to Moses.

Consider, from 2 Samuel 6, the story of Uzzah. King David was accompanying the Ark on its return to Israeli possession. No one was to touch the Ark of the Covenant. For that purpose, rings were attched to it so that bars could be used to lift it. Human hands were not to touch it. But, when the Ark was in danger of falling, Uzzah reached out and touched it to steady it - a good thing in man’s eyes, but a violation of God’s command not to touch it. Uzzah was struck dead on the spot. Was God just or unjust?

The most poignant example of an apparent injustice done in compliance with the will of God is our Lord Jesus. In the garden at Gethsemane, Jesus earnestly prayed, for three hours, that the chalice of His Blood might pass Him by. But, Jesus remained obedient - even unto death on a cross, in compliance with the Father’s will. Was Jesus’ death an abuse? For man, yes, but not for God.

Taking all of this (and more) in toto, it is Abraham’s obedience to his God that was credited as righteousness. There was no mistake, there was no injustice, there was only a test of obedience. Based upon this obedience (Genesis 22:12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”), Abraham was made the father of many nations - a reward.

Paul would say that faith, not obedience, is righteousness. This may not be important, however, since many of the obedient are also faithful – although some obey merely out of fear.

But, Paul was speaking under the New and Eternal Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant. As well, listen to Jesus Himself: “If you love me, keep my commands” (John 14:15), “Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves Me” (John 14:21), “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.” (John 15:10).

Faith, yes - but also keeping His commands out of that love, and out of simple obedience.

 

[tonyrey]

In order to gain a better understanding.

A better understanding of what?

 

[tonyrey]

God can do anything he wants with you. He can kill you or let you live. Same with Isaac. He is the author of life.

God can kill us but He would never do it because we are His children.

After all, everyone deserves death as a result of original sin, CORRECT?

No! We are not culpable because our ancestors sinned.

So when we say Murder is a SIN, we mean that someone has disobeyed God’s will. God, as the life giver is the only person with the authority to take it away. Does he have that authority? CERTAINLY!!! He gave you life, he can take it away from you. He has exercised it many times like in the curses against Egypt. Therefore, Abraham and Isaac and anyone else at that time was deserving death (covenant curses) due to breaking of the first covenant by Adam & Eve.

We do not deserve to die because we didn’t ask to be born! We have done nothing to deserve death but neither do we deserve to share life with God. That is why Jesus came to lift us up to heaven if we obey His commandment of love

Therefore, if Abraham is following God’s will, then there is no SIN. Why? Because he is doing God’s will. Is God wrong to use Abraham as an instrument to end another life?

God does not use anyone as an executioner.

No, entire humanity was deserving of death and we see numerous occasions where God uses and commands his people in the Old Testament to end the lives of others.

Not in the New Testament. Jesus told us to love our enemies and pray for them.

So your idea that God can never command us to do Evil is rather a meaningless statement. This presupposes that God is commanding an EVIL thing when he is NOT. Everyone was deserving of death due to sin and it was only due to God’s mercy that he spared anyone.

No one deserves to die nor does anyone deserve to live. Life is a free gift. It is the **natural **consequence of the biocycle created by God.

Otherwise from your line of argumentation, every death of a creature happens according to God’s pre-planned providence and therefore God must be unloving since he is morally responsible for all the deaths in history.

God is not unloving because death is the **natural **consequence of the biocycle He created through the laws of nature. The fact that He has created us as persons in His own image implies that we transcend the laws of nature and unlike animals we will survive after death. Yet we don’t have the right to share His life in heaven. That is a gift bestowed on us by the sacrifice Jesus made for us. Deo Gratias.