Beyond the Euthyphro Trap: Why God Doesn’t Just Do Good - He Is Good

God Isn’t Good. He’s Goodness Itself: Unpacking Classical Metaphysics

TL;DR

The classic Euthyphro Dilemma forces a false choice: is something good because God commands it (arbitrary whim), or does God command it because it’s already good (an external rule above Him)? Classical theism rejects both. Through the Convertibility of Being and Goodness and the doctrine of Divine Simplicity, God doesn’t measure up to a moral standard or invent one out of thin air - God is the standard. Evil isn’t a rival substance, but a defect (privation) in being, making ultimate Goodness identical to the ultimate Fullness of Being.

Introduction

For over two millennia, critics and believers alike have wrestled with Plato’s favorite theological trap: the Euthyphro Dilemma. If morality comes from God, is it just an arbitrary decree He could swap tomorrow, or is He bound by an independent moral law outside Himself? Most contemporary debates stall right here, treating God like a cosmic judge consulting an external rulebook.

Classical theism blows past this deadlock entirely. By retrieving two cornerstone doctrines of medieval and ancient metaphysics - the Convertibility of the Transcendentals and Divine Simplicity - we find that God does not "possess" goodness the way we possess a trait. Goodness and Being are the exact same reality viewed from different angles, meaning ultimate reality and ultimate moral perfection are one and the same.

Laying out the mechanics of Pure Actuality and privation theory solves the abstract dilemma neatly on paper, but how does this hold up when it collides with real-world pushback? Critics often argue that this identity is a semantic sleight of hand, that it ignores horrific suffering, or that it reduces morality to human utility.

To see why the classical framework remains airtight, we have to test it directly against the sharpest philosophical objections.

This article argues that God and absolute goodness are metaphysically identical, providing a rigorous solution to the classic Euthyphro Dilemma (which asks whether morality is arbitrary or independent of God).

Rather than choosing between those two options, classical theism proposes a third way: God is the standard itself. This claim is built on two primary philosophical pillars:

• The Convertibility of Being and Goodness: Classical metaphysics defines "goodness" as the fullness of existence or the successful actualization of a thing's intended purpose. Because evil is not a positive substance but a privation (a lack or malfunction of being, like a crack in a knife), merely existing inherently possesses a degree of goodness. See this short explanation of The Convertibility of the Transcendentals

• Divine Simplicity: God does not simply possess good qualities; He is entirely devoid of separate parts or changing attributes. As pure actuality with no unfulfilled potential, God is the ultimate fullness of Being—meaning He is Goodness itself.

This article articulates Divine Nature Theory (often referred to in contemporary philosophy as a modified or refined version of Divine Command Theory). See Robert Merrihew Adams book, Finite and Infinite Goods

The concept that God equals goodness (or vice versa) is a cornerstone of classical theism and Christian philosophy. It is primarily built to solve a classic Euthyphro Dilemma: 

* If God commands what is good, is it good simply because He says so (which makes morality arbitrary), 

* or is He commanding it because it is already good outside of Him (which means a standard exists higher than God)?

By anchoring goodness directly in the nature of God, philosophers argue that goodness is neither 1) independent of God nor 2) a random whim. Goodness is simply what God is.

The Distinction: Metaphysical vs. Moral Good

This is where people often get tripped up. Saying "to have being is to have goodness" does not mean that everything that exists is morally upright. Philosophers separate this into two categories:

Type of Goodness	Definition	Example
Metaphysical Goodness	The sheer perfection of existing and having functional capacities as a creature.	A tiger has immense metaphysical goodness: it is fast, powerful, and a highly actualized predator.
Moral Goodness	How a rational being chooses to direct their capacities in alignment with ultimate truth.	A human being using their intellect to help others rather than harm them.

Even a deeply corrupt or wicked person still possesses immense metaphysical goodness. They have a mind, a will, life, and existence, all of which are inherently good gifts of being. Their wickedness is not a physical substance inside them; it is a spiritual or moral malfunction, a failure to use their being the way it was designed to be used.

Why does "being" mean to have a degree of "goodness"?

The idea that "being" (existence) and "goodness" are fundamentally the same thing is one of the most elegant, yet mind-bending, concepts in classical metaphysics. It is known as the doctrine of the convertibility of being and goodness (convertibilitas entis et boni).

To understand why medieval philosophers like Thomas Aquinas claimed that merely existing gives something a degree of goodness, you have to shift away from how we use the word "good" today (which is usually a moral or emotional label) and look at it through the lens of metaphysical perfection.

Why Does God Equal Good? Metaphysical Foundations of Classical Theism

The claim that God equals goodness (or conversely, that ultimate Goodness is identical to God) is not a mere comforting platitude or a lazy definition trick. In the tradition of classical theism, shaped by centuries of Christian, Jewish, and Islamic philosophy, this identity statement is a rigorous metaphysical solution to one of the oldest problems in ethics: the Euthyphro Dilemma.

First raised by Plato in his dialogue Euthyphro, the dilemma asks: Is something good because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is already good?

• If things are good simply because God commands them, morality becomes arbitrary. If God commanded murder tomorrow, murder would suddenly be "good."

• If God is commanding things because they are already good outside of Him, then an independent standard of morality exists higher than God. This means God is not the ultimate reality; He must submit to an external moral law.

Classical theism escapes this trap by rejecting both options. It proposes a third way: God does not look to an external standard of goodness, nor does He invent it on a whim. God is the standard. Goodness is identical to the divine nature.

But how can a personal entity be identical to an abstract moral perfection? To understand this, we have to explore the bedrock of medieval metaphysics.

---

1. The Core Metaphysics: The Convertibility of Being and Goodness

To modern ears, saying "existence equals goodness" sounds bizarre. We see plenty of existing things—diseases, tyrants, accidents—that we label as "bad." However, medieval philosophers like Thomas Aquinas operated under the doctrine of the Convertibility of the Transcendentals.

Note: The "Convertibility of the Transcendentals" basically means that philosophical idea stating that every aspect of reality, or "being", is fundamentally one, true, and good. These properties are convertible, meaning if you have one, you inherently have all of them. See here or here 

In this framework, Being (existence) and Goodness are conceptually distinct, but perfectly identical in reality. They are two sides of the same coin.

Goodness as "Fullness of Being"

To understand this, we must define "good" the way the ancients did: a thing is good to the extent that it successfully actualizes its intended nature or purpose. Goodness is completeness; it is the "fullness of being."

Consider an everyday object: a kitchen knife.

• What makes a knife a good knife? It has a sharp blade, an ergonomic handle, and structural integrity. These are all positive realities—they represent the "fullness" of what a knife is meant to be.

• What makes a knife a bad knife? A dull blade, a cracked handle, or rust. Notice that dullness, cracks, and rust are not "positive substances" created and added to the knife. A crack is a lack of structural integrity. Dullness is a lack of sharpness.

Therefore, badness or evil is always a privation (privatio boni)—a hole, a lack, or a malfunction where being ought to be. Since evil is a negative space (a lack of being), it logically follows that being itself is inherently good. To exist at all is to possess some degree of metaphysical reality, and to possess reality is to possess a degree of goodness.

The Breakdown: Metaphysical Good vs. Moral Good

To keep your blog readers from getting confused, it is essential to draw a sharp line between two types of goodness:

1. Metaphysical Goodness: The sheer perfection of existing and possessing functional capacities. A cancer cell or a devastating hurricane possesses immense metaphysical goodness because they are highly active, powerful realities fulfilling their physical natures perfectly.

2. Moral Goodness: This applies strictly to rational beings with free will. Moral goodness is achieved when a creature uses its metaphysical capacities (like intellect and will) to align with ultimate truth and the design of reality.

When a person acts wickedly, they do not possess a physical substance called "evil." Rather, they are suffering from a moral malfunction—they are taking inherently good things (desire for justice, strength, intellect) and misdirecting them.

---

The Pillar of Divine Simplicity

The second major philosophical foundation is the doctrine of Divine Simplicity. In classical theism, God is not a "composition" of different parts. He does not have a body, nor is He a collection of psychological attributes pieced together.

If God had goodness the way a human "has" a good sense of humor, it would mean goodness is an attribute separate from God's core essence. If that were true, God would be dependent on the attribute of goodness to be good.

Divine Simplicity states that God is His attributes. * God does not have power; He is Power itself.

• God does not have existence; He is the Act of Existence itself (Ipsum Esse Subsistens).

• God does not have goodness; He is Goodness itself.

Because God has no potentiality—meaning He cannot change, cannot decay, and lacks absolutely nothing—He is the ultimate fullness of Being. And because the fullness of Being is the definition of absolute perfection, God and Goodness are one and the same reality.

---

The Intellectual Lineage: The Thinkers Who Built the Concept

This idea was not invented overnight; it is the result of a brilliant synthesis of Greek philosophy and monotheistic theology.

Plato (428–348 BC) — The Metaphysical Framework

In The Republic, Plato introduced the concept of the Form of the Good. He used the famous Sun Analogy: just as the sun in the physical world gives light so we can see, and gives energy so things can grow, the "Form of the Good" gives truth to the intellectual world and gives existence to all other forms. For Plato, the Good is the highest, most ultimate reality, existing beyond being itself.

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) — The Theological Synthesis

Augustine took Plato's abstract "Form of the Good" and identified it as the personal God of scripture. He famously used this to solve the Problem of Evil. If God created everything, and God is completely good, where did evil come from? Augustine answered that God did not create evil because evil is not a thing. It is merely the turning away of the creaturely will from the Summum Bonum (the Highest Good).

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) — The Logical Systematizer

Aquinas took Aristotle's concepts of potency (potential) and act (actuality) and applied them to God. He argued that everything in the universe is a mix of what it is and what it could be (a seed has the potential to be a tree). God, however, has no unfulfilled potential. He is Pure Act (Actus Purus). Since He is fully actualized, He is the fullness of Being, making Him essentially Goodness itself.

Robert Merrihew Adams (1937–2024) — The Modern Analytic Defender

In the late 20th century, secular philosophy largely dismissed these medieval concepts as outdated. Adams single-handedly brought them back into analytic prominence with his book Finite and Infinite Goods. He argued that "the Good" is not an abstract concept, but a concrete reality: the nature of God. Human actions are morally excellent to the exact degree that they resemble or faithfully reflect the divine character.

---

4. Addressing Critical Objections

Objection: "Isn't this just a semantic trick? You're just redefining the word 'God' to mean 'Good' so that God wins the argument by default."

The Response: No, because the argument is based on independent metaphysical deductions. 1) We arrive at the concept of God by looking at the universe and realizing there must be a primary cause that is Pure Actuality and Being itself. 2) We arrive at the concept of Goodness by realizing that perfection means the fullness of being. The philosophy shows that these two separate lines of inquiry collapse into the exact same metaphysical reality.

Objection: "If being equals goodness, then why is the world filled with so much horrific suffering and physical evil?"

The Response: Classical philosophy distinguishes between metaphysical goodness and experiential or physical evil. A predatory virus has metaphysical goodness (it functions perfectly according to its nature), but its interaction with a human body causes a privation of health in the human. The suffering is real, but it confirms the theory: suffering is always experienced as the loss or corruption of a good thing (health, life, peace), proving that good is the fundamental reality, and evil is a parasite upon it.

Objection: "The phrase "God is good" is meaningless if it's unfalsifiable. If there is no scenario where God could be considered evil, no matter what he does, then calling him good is the same as saying "God is God".

The Response: This objection mistakenly concludes that this makes the statement "God is good" a meaningless tautology. It falls apart because it 1) relies on a modern, purely moral definition of "good" and 2) ignores  the objective metaphysical mechanics of being and privation laid out. In short, the objector did not read or understand the argument presented.

Objection: "If you define a 'good' knife to be a sharp one, that's an outside judgement".

The Response: This objection misunderstands the difference between an arbitrary, subjective value judgment and an objective, teleological fact. Goodness is derived from nature and purpose. A knife is, by definition, an instrument manufactured specifically to cut.

Sharpness is not an "outside opinion" we vote on; it is the physical reality required for a knife to successfully actualize its own nature. If a knife cannot cut, it is failing to be what it actually is.

Calling a dull knife "bad" is no more an outside judgment than calling a broken compass "defective" - it is a statement of functional fact based on what the object was designed to do. To claim that all definitions of goodness are entirely external completely strips words of their meaning. If a knife's goodness has nothing to do with its ability to cut, then the word "knife" itself ceases to mean anything specific.

Objection: I think that just pushes the dilemma back a step rather than solving it. Is gods nature that way it is because god decided it or is it because something requires gods nature to be a certain way.

The Response: You are critiquing my argument using Option 1 of the Euthyphro dilemma rather than the classical theist framework (the Third Way) I explicitly laid out. So you just ignored my argument.... 

Objection: As for the rest of your post I think most people's objections boil down to. They have different philosophical perspectives and see no reason to adopt yours.

The Response: The claim that "people have different philosophical perspectives and see no reason to adopt yours" is a conversational exit, not a logical rebuttal. Pointing out that alternative worldviews exist does nothing to invalidate the internal consistency, explanatory power, or structural logic of the framework presented.

Objection:  Are you talking about the"God" of classical theism or the Christian "God"?

The Response: Virtually all Christian theologians  argue that there is no contradiction between the two. They contend that the deeply personal God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the metaphysically necessary, uncaused First Cause of the philosophers, revealing Himself personally to a creation He sustains perfectly in being

Objection:  If God is identical with absolute Goodness, then what about Isaiah 45:7 - 'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things'. Is it fair to say that given the above quotes you think creating evil (something the Christian god "the Lord" claims to do) is an expression of "absolute Goodness" by the Christian god "God" (i.e. "the Lord")?

The Response: The argument relies entirely on a translation choice in the King James Version (KJV). The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 45:7 is רַע (ra'ah). While the KJV renders this as "evil," the word does not mean moral wickedness in this context; it means calamity, disaster, distress, or adversity.

 This is made clear by the Hebrew poetic parallelism of the verse itself, which pairs opposites: Light is paired with Darkness. Peace ( Shalom / שָׁלוֹם - meaning well-being, prosperity, or wholeness) is paired with Ra'ah (calamity or distress).

God is not saying He authors moral wickedness or sin. Rather, in the context of addressing King Cyrus, He is asserting His total sovereignty over history: both prosperous times and catastrophic judgments come from His hand, shattering the dualistic Persian worldview (Zoroastrianism) that attributed good and calamity to two competing, equal deities.

Objection:  You’re equivocating two different goods. A knife being good as a knife is not the same as moral good.

The Response: The objection assumes that "moral good" and "functional good" are two entirely different species of reality that have nothing to do with each other. In classical metaphysics, Goodness is a transcendental property of Being. Goodness simply means the fullness of being according to a thing's nature.

• A knife is "good" when it perfectly fulfills its nature (by being sharp and cutting well).

• A human being is "good" when they perfectly fulfill human nature.

Therefore, moral goodness is not a magically distinct category of "good"; it is simply functional goodness applied to a rational agent.

The only reason a knife’s goodness isn't "moral" is that a knife lacks a rational soul, intellect, and free will. A knife cannot choose whether to fulfill its purpose.

Humans, however, are rational creatures. Our "function" or purpose, the fulfillment of our nature, includes the proper use of our intellect and will to act in accordance with truth, justice, and reason.

Objection: Let's accept your premises for now. Under them, evil and sin seemingly cease to exist.  

Sin and evil are instead tools invented by god, imbued with the same goodness he is. They function somewhat like any other natural law he is said to have shaped: physics, chemistry, biology, take your pick. The formation of viruses and cancer, the level of privation they cause, their existence and impact all intended by god. 

So, rather than seeing them as a parasite upon realty, they ought to be interpreted as the good and proper functioning of relatity.

Simply because humans experience them and dislike them doesn't mean god sees it the same way. To god, all the suffer could ultimately (both metaphysically and morally) be good. It's just a human failing or limitation to think otherwise.

The Response: Your argument assumes that under classical theism, sin, and evil are positive substances, "tools invented by God," like gravity, electromagnetism, or a biological law. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the metaphysics presented.

God creates every substance and mechanism in reality, and those things are inherently good in their being. Evil is not a mechanism; it is a privation. God no more invented evil than a musician invents a sour note, or a physicist creates cold. Cold is simply the absence of heat; a sour note is a deviation from harmony. God sustains the underlying reality, but the defect itself has no independent ontological existence to be shaped or imbued with goodness.

• You are also conflating two distinct types of privation: natural evils (like viruses or cancer) and moral evils (sin).

•  Natural Evils:A virus isn't morally "evil" in itself, it is a biological entity fulfilling its nature, though its interaction with human biology causes a privation of health. Classical theism readily acknowledges that God ordains a physical universe with structural limitations, decay, and physical suffering, which can ultimately serve a greater metaphysical purpose (such as soul-making or maintaining a consistent ecosystem).

• Moral Evils (Sin): Sin is entirely different. It is a defect in the rational will turning away from God who does not "intend" or "use" the sin itself as a design feature; rather, He permits the possibility of the defect because granting true creaturely freedom possesses a higher ontological value than creating a universe of forced, robotic perfection.

You claim that "to God, all the suffering could ultimately... be good." This slips into a form of moral relativism. Under classical theism, God does not look at a horrific moral atrocity and think, "Ah, excellent, a good and proper functioning of reality." God views evil precisely as it is: a tragic, real corruption of a good thing He created. While God's omniscience allows Him to weave even the broken, fractured choices of free creatures into an ultimate tapestry of justice and redemption, the fracture itself remains fundamentally a defect, not a divine design tool.

Objection:  This doesn't really work. An animal's intended nature or purpose is to reproduce. So it would be "good" under your definition for one animal to rape another animal of its species in order to procreate. We can come up with many examples of animals behaving according to their nature that is not "good" because it causes harm. When you define good so as to allow causing harm and you define evil so as to allow reducing harm then I don't think your definitions match how anyone actually uses the word.

Additionally, who decides what something's intended nature or purpose is?

A sociopath has a brain that works in a way so as to give them a different intended nature or purpose than a philanthropist.

And there's lots of examples of things that humans assign one purpose to but a different animal might assign a different purpose to.

Or take the sun - we might say its purpose is to give light and heat but that's not exactly true.. If it burns up all it's outer fuel and turns into a cooling white dwarf it is still fulfilling an intended purpose but we would say it is not.

And you use words like completeness and fullness which implies that something that IS actualizing its intended nature or purpose but is not complete or fulfilled that it isn't good. So a kitchen knife that has not yet cut everything it is intended to cut in it's lifetime is not a good knife?

The Response: The objection claims that because an animal's natural drives can lead to forced reproduction or violence, fulfilling its "nature" means rape or harm must be considered "good" under your framework. This completely conflates a material biological impulse with an ontological final cause (purpose).

1) In classical metaphysics, a creature's purpose is not defined by whatever base, physical survival behaviors manifest within a fallen, resource-scarce ecosystem. An animal's true flourishing includes its proper relation to its environment, the preservation of its species, and structural harmony. Physical violence or predation in nature represents the inherent structural limitations and physical privations of a material, changing universe, not the absolute definition of metaphysical excellence.

2) The critique argues that a sociopath has a different "intended nature or purpose" than a philanthropist, implying that purpose is entirely subjective or relative. This is a severe metaphysical error.

A sociopath does not possess an alternative, equally valid human nature; they possess a damaged human nature. Sociopathy is a psychological and neurological defect, a literal privation of the empathy, rationality, and relational capacities that naturally belong to a fully functioning human being. To claim a sociopath is successfully fulfilling an alternate "purpose" is like claiming a kitchen clock that runs backward is successfully fulfilling an alternate "purpose" compared to a working clock. It mistakes a structural malfunction for an intentional design.

3) The objection asks whether a kitchen knife isn't "good" until it has cut every single item it will ever cut in its lifetime, confusing teleological design with chronological exhaustion.

A knife is good simpliciter if it possesses the structural capacity and actualized features (sharpness, balance, integrity) to fulfill its function perfectly right now. It does not need to exhaust every potential future action to be a complete reflection of a knife. God, being Pure Actuality, has no future potentiality to fulfill, lacks absolutely nothing, and stands entirely outside of time, meaning He possesses the ultimate "fullness of being" statically, completely, and eternally.

4) Finally, the objection claims that defining evil as privation fails because "people associate evil with causing harm."

But what is "harm"? Harm is quite literally the destruction, loss, or corruption of a positive good (e.g., harming a body is depriving it of health; harming a mind is depriving it of peace). You cannot define harm or a reduction of harm without implicitly assuming a baseline of wholeness and well-being that ought to be there. By reducing evil to something that causes harm, you've inadvertently proven the classical theistic point: Good is the primary, substantial reality, and evil is merely its distortion.

Objection: To understand Goodness as "Fullness of Being", we must define "good" the way the philosophers: a thing is good to the extent that it successfully actualizes its intended nature or purpose.' So, god says its good because it adheres to this criteria right? The entire question is 'what is it that makes us consider something to be good?', and here we have our answer with no gods in sight. We consider a thing good when it does what we want it to do.

The Response: Your objection claims that defining goodness as the actualization of an intended nature means "we consider a thing good when it does what we want it to do," concluding that goodness is just human preference with "no gods in sight."

This is a massive slide from objective teleology to subjective utilitarianism. When classical philosophy defines a "good knife" by its sharpness, it is not saying the knife is good because it satisfies a human whim. It is saying the knife is good because it possesses the objective, structural excellence necessary to fulfill its intrinsic nature as a cutting tool.

If a human decides to use a beautifully sharp, structurally perfect knife as a screwdriver and breaks it, the knife hasn't suddenly become "metaphysically bad." The human is simply misusing a fundamentally good object. Goodness is grounded in the ontological integrity of the object itself, not the arbitrary desires of the observer.

2) If we accept your definition, that goodness is entirely dependent on "what we want it to do", then the very concept of objective morality instantly evaporates.

• If a society "wants" a totalitarian system to suppress a minority group, and that system functions seamlessly to achieve that goal, you would be forced to call that system "good" because it is doing what they want it to do.

By stripping away the concept of an objective, intrinsic nature designed by an ultimate reality, you collapse all of ethics into pure power dynamics and relative preferences. The classical definition prevents this collapse by insisting that a things' nature is an objective fact, not a social construct.

3) You ask, "What is it that makes us consider something to be good?" and claim the answer requires no god. But you are missing the foundational question: Why do things have an intrinsic, intelligible nature to begin with?

A knife has an intended purpose because a human mind designed it with a final cause in view. But what about human beings? What about the universe itself? If there is no supreme Intellect (God) to anchor the design blueprint of human nature, then human beings have a) no intrinsic purpose, b) no objective standard of flourishing, and c) no basis for genuine moral obligations.

By trying to smuggle the word "purpose" into a purely secular, godless universe, you are using the currency of theism while denying the bank that backs it. Without God as the ultimate source of Being and blueprint, "purpose" is just an illusion, and your definition of good falls apart into pure arbitrariness.

Objection:  The trouble comes in when you get into the weeds here. So suppose god said theft is good. Well then it would be good, because god is perfectly good, and it is his moral view that theft is good.  So that's the first horn.

If you try to resolve this by saying "god couldn't hold the view that theft is good because _____", well now you are limiting god using reasoning. That reasoning provided is the external thing above god. That's the second horn.

The Response: The core flaw in this objection is treating logical impossibilities (like a "married bachelor," a "four-sided triangle," or "theft being absolute goodness") as if they are actual things or actions that God is being restricted from doing.

In classical metaphysics, a contradiction is not a thing; it is non-being. It is pure nonsense. To say "God cannot make a square circle" is not to say God lacks power; it is to say that a square circle is literally nothing.

God's omnipotence means He can actualize any possible reality. It does not mean He can actualize absolute nothingness or logical absurdities. Therefore, stating that God cannot hold a view that contradicts His own nature is not an external limitation; it is a description of His absolute, uncompromised perfection.

Secondly, the objection claims that if we use reasoning to show why God cannot declare theft to be good, then that "reasoning provided is the external thing above god." This completely misunderstands the pillar of Divine Simplicity explained in the original post.

We are not holding God accountable to an independent, cosmic textbook of logic floating out in space. Logic and truth are not external standards that God must consult; logic is the human description of the internal consistency of God's own mind and being.

God does not "obey" the law of non-contradiction. Rather, the law of non-contradiction exists because God is perfectly consistent, unchanging, and true to His own nature.

When we use reason to analyze God, we aren't placing reason above Him; we are using a tool (which He gifted to rational creatures) to map out the foundational architecture of reality that He sustains. 3) If God could simply wake up tomorrow and declare theft, murder, or betrayal to be "absolute goodness," then goodness is reduced to a contentless word. It becomes pure, raw power and totalitarian whim, the exact trap of the first horn of the dilemma.

By grounding goodness and logic perfectly inside the immutable, unified nature of God, classical theism successfully completely bypasses both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. God cannot declare theft to be good because theft is a privation (a stealing of a good that belongs to another), and the Fullness of Being cannot be, or desire, a lack of being. It has nothing to do with external rules; it has everything to do with God being entirely whole.

You are treating logical consistency as if it were a traffic law God is forced to obey. But under Divine Simplicity, logic isn't a rule above God; it is an expression of who God is. God cannot make theft 'good' for the same reason He cannot make a square circle: because contradictions are non-being, and the Fullness of Being cannot produce nothingness. Pointing out that God cannot contradict Himself doesn't limit His power; it affirms His absolute perfection."

Objection: This definition of "good" was pitched by ancient Greek philosophers and later syncretized into Christianity. If Plato and Aristotle missed something, both Aquinas's and your entire faith on the subject is resting on imperfect foundation. Let's hope their conceptualization of "good" is indeed "good" according to their own standard.

The Response: You are committing a genetic fallacy. We don't accept the teleological definition of good out of blind faith in Plato or Aristotle; we accept it because it remains the most logically robust explanation of value and being available to human reason. Furthermore, the Christian faith is founded on the historical revelation of Jesus Christ, not Greek texts. Classical metaphysics is simply the tool used to precisely describe the structural consistency of that revelation. 

Objection: Having an "intended" nature or purpose requires intent. Who specifies God's intent? If it is God Himself, then morality is still arbitrary under your cited definition of "good." To make this argument work, you have to include another premise: "God is unable to change His own nature." Aquinas would be pleased.

The Response: You are making a category error of applying the rules of created objects to the Creator. Created things have an 'intended nature' because they receive their being from an outside source. God doesn't have an 'intended nature' because He is uncaused Being itself. Furthermore, God's unchangeableness isn't a restriction forced on Him by a higher power; it is the definition of absolute perfection. To change implies a defect, either moving toward a perfection you lack, or away from a perfection you had. As Pure Actuality, God lacks nothing, meaning His nature is necessarily and eternally invariant.

Objection: The only way this makes any difference is if God *cannot* change Himself. Not that He will not change, but that He is literally unable to do so. So what "higher power" is preventing God from changing His nature? Many apologists claim God's own nature prevents God's own nature from changing. If that is your position as well, what power placed restrictions on God's nature such that it is unable to modify itself?Ultimately Aquinas's scholarly arguments to this effect just kick the can further rather than actually addressing the question.

The Response: You are treating immutability like a straightjacket forced onto God by a higher power, but it is actually the definition of absolute perfection. Change requires a defect, it means you are either moving toward a fullness you lack, or away from a fullness you had. As Pure Actuality, God lacks absolutely nothing, meaning His nature is necessarily and eternally invariant. Aquinas doesn't 'kick the can' by stating this; he hits the logical floor where the can stops rolling.

Objection: Divine Simplicity is heavily dependent on Greek philosophy's definitions of terms and reasoning built on those definitions, later syncretized into Christianity. In God we trust--all others please bring data.

By simply assuming Divine Simplicity, your argument introduces a logical impossibility: that a term defined as a state achievable by any entity, is also the definition of a single entity independent of other entities. State of any entity = a single independent entity is a logical contradiction of terms.

In plainer terms--If "God is goodness," and goodness is "the extent that [a free will entity] successfully aligns with ultimate truth and the design of reality," then by your own definition, any free will entity that has fully actualized in this way is God. If I fully actualize my alignment with ultimate truth and design of reality, I become God, by definition. Except you also define God as independent of any created entity, so I cannot be God.

The Response: You are conflating a participated reflection with the source itself. A creature's moral goodness is a measure of its alignment with an external design. God's goodness is identical to His very being; He doesn't align with a standard; He is the standard. If a mirror perfectly reflects the sun, it doesn't ontologically transform into the sun. Your claimed contradiction completely vanishes once you recognize the metaphysical distinction between a contingent being who achieves perfection in time, and a Necessary Being who is eternally Pure Actuality.

Conclusion 

Equating God with Goodness is neither a semantic trick nor an evasion of hard questions; it is the logical floor where philosophical inquiry meets ultimate reality. When evil is properly understood as privation—a parasite on the good rather than an independent substance—and God is understood as the uncomposed, immutable Act of Existence itself, the Euthyphro Dilemma collapses. We are left not with an arbitrary tyrant or a subordinate deity, but with the necessary, uncaused source of all truth, beauty, and moral excellence. God doesn't point the way to goodness; all genuine goodness points directly back to Him.

Appendix 

'Here is the philosophical foundation and the reading material to explore it deeply.

---

The Philosophical Foundations

Two major metaphysical doctrines allow philosophers to equate God with Goodness:

• The Convertibility of the Transcendentals: In medieval philosophy, reality has ultimate properties called "transcendentals", chiefly Being (Existence), Truth, and Goodness. Philosophers argued that these are fundamentally the same thing viewed from different angles. To have being is to have a degree of goodness. Because God is a supreme, unlimited Being, He is identical to supreme, unlimited Goodness.

• Divine Simplicity: This is the classical framework stating that God has no parts, attributes, or accidental properties. God doesn't have goodness the way a human "has" a good day or a good character. If God had goodness as a separate trait, He would be dependent on that trait. Therefore, God is His attributes. God is Justice; God is Love; God is Goodness.

Recommended Books

If you want to dig into the mechanics of how this works, these texts bridge the gap between historical foundation and modern philosophical defense:

On the Free Choice of the Will — Augustine

• Why read it: It is one of the foundational texts explaining the relationship between God, the human will, and the nature of the Good. It’s highly readable and shows Augustine wrestling directly with where goodness comes from and how evil is simply a turning away from that ultimate Good.

Aquinas (A Beginner's Guide) — Edward Feser

• Why read it: Reading Aquinas raw can be incredibly dense. Feser provides an exceptionally clear, modern defense of Thomistic metaphysics. He spends significant time breaking down Divine Simplicity and why classical theism views God not as a "super-being" among other beings, but as Being and Goodness itself.

Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics — Robert Merrihew Adams

• Why read it: This is a modern masterwork in philosophy of religion. Adams explicitly defends the view that the Good is identical to God. It is an analytical, rigorous look at how we can anchor objective moral values in a divine nature without falling into logical traps.

Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality — David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls

• Why read it: This is an excellent, highly accessible contemporary book that directly addresses the "Euthyphro Dilemma" (the question of whether God creates or follows goodness). It argues passionately that a robust defense of objective morality naturally points to a God who is essentially good.

The Convertibility of the Transcendentals: Being, Unity, Truth, and Goodness

The Convertibility of the Transcendentals: Being, Truth, and Goodness

This post serves as an explainer for the foundational concept of the Convertibility of the Transcendentals, expanding on the principles discussed in Why Does God Equal Good?

The Convertibility of the Transcendentals is a classical metaphysical doctrine stating that every aspect of reality—or "being"—is fundamentally one, true, and good. These primary properties are convertible, meaning that wherever genuine being exists, unity, truth, and goodness are inevitably present as well.

The Four Primary Transcendentals

To understand how reality hangs together, classical philosophy breaks down the four universal attributes shared by every existing thing:

• Being (Ens): The fundamental reality that something exists rather than remains nothing.

• Unity (Unum): A thing is complete, integrated, and undivided in its own identity (it exists as a coherent "one").

• Truth (Verum): A thing is intelligible and real; it conforms to reality and can be known by an intellect.

• Goodness (Bonum): A thing possesses natural order, purpose, and desirability according to its proper design and end (teleology).

---

The Three Rules of Convertibility

• Same Reality, Different Vantage Points: These are not four distinct, separable parts glued onto an object. They are simply different ways of perceiving a single, unified reality.

• Coextensive Scope: If something possesses Being, it necessarily possesses Unity, Truth, and Goodness. It is metaphysically impossible for an object to exist while being completely divided into nothing, entirely unintelligible, or purely evil.

• Interchangeability: Identifying the authentic "goodness" of a thing is simply another way of describing its "fullness of being" or its objective "truth."

---

Analogy: The Flawless Diamond

Consider a perfectly cut diamond to see this convertibility in action:

• Being: The diamond is a real, physically existing substance in space and time.

• Unity: It exists as a single, coherent gemstone—not scattered, loose dust.

• Truth: Its atomic lattice and geometric symmetry are entirely intelligible; when tested, it proves itself to be an authentic diamond.

• Goodness: Because it realizes the full potential and purpose of what a diamond ought to be, it possesses inherent beauty, strength, and value.

The diamond does not acquire these traits sequentially; its very act of existing as a diamond embodies all four simultaneously.

Why It Matters

Historically championed by thinkers like Plato, Augustine, Philip the Chancellor, and Thomas Aquinas, this doctrine establishes that existence is fundamentally positive. No created substance is intrinsically evil or broken by the mere fact of its being. Evil is not a self-subsisting thing, but a privation—a fracture or lack of goodness, truth, or unity in something that is otherwise real.

For a deeper technical breakdown, explore the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Transcendentals.

The Anatomy of Goodness: What Actually Makes an Act Right?

Introduction

We constantly evaluate human behavior as "good" or "bad," but we rarely pause to define what actually gives an action its moral worth. Is an act good simply because no one got hurt? Because it produced a positive result? Or because the person had good intentions?

In classical theism, goodness is not an arbitrary rule or a vague feeling; it is grounded in the very nature of God and the proper fulfillment of how reality is designed to function (teleology). To evaluate whether any action is truly good, classical ethics breaks every moral choice down into three interconnected components—traditionally called the Three Fonts of Morality: the Object (the act itself), the Intention (the motive), and the Circumstances (the context). If any one of these three elements is compromised, the entire act loses its integrity.

Analogy

The Three-Legged Stool & The Fresh Apple Pie

Imagine baking an apple pie from scratch. For the pie to be truly good, three distinct elements must come together:

1. The Ingredients (The Object): You must use fresh, wholesome apples and flour - not sawdust or poison.

2. The Purpose (The Intention): You bake it to nourish and delight your family, not to lace it with poisen to kill them.

3. The Setting (The Circumstances): You serve it hot at dinner, not throwing it across the room during an argument.

If you bake with prime ingredients and genuine love, but throw it at someone's face, the act is ruined. If you serve a beautifully plated dessert with a polite smile, but the apples are rotted with poison, the whole dish is defective.

Morality works like that recipe: an action isn't good simply because one part went right. True goodness requires all three pieces - the act, the heart, and the setting - to be completely sound.

In classical theism, goodness is not an arbitrary rule or a subjective preference; an act is "good" when it aligns with the character of God and fulfills the intended design and purpose of creation (teleology).

To translate this foundational principle into clear ethical evaluation, classical philosophy evaluates every action through The Three Fonts of Morality:

1. The Objective Act (The Moral Object) The action itself must inherently foster order, life, truth, and genuine human flourishing, rather than causing their destruction or privation.

• Example: Feeding a starving person is objectively good because it directly sustains physical life and fulfills the fundamental duty of neighborly care.

• Is this circular? No. Classical ethics does not define goodness by merely saying it is "not evil." Rather, an act is good because it actively satisfies an objective, built-in design requirement for human well-being and flourishing.

2. The Intention (The Motive or End) The internal purpose driving the action must also be pure. Performing an objectively virtuous deed for a corrupt, selfish, or malicious reason contaminates the entire moral act.

• Example: Donating a substantial gift to a hospital is an objectively beneficial act. However, if the sole motivation is to extort the hospital board or inflate one's personal vanity, the deed is corrupted from within by a lack of genuine charity.

3. The Circumstances (The Context) The surrounding setting, timing, and consequences must be morally fitting. A good action placed in a destructive or improper context becomes disordered.

• Example: Speaking the truth is inherently good. Yet, disclosing the location of an innocent family hiding from Nazi soldiers is a catastrophic moral failure, as it turns a noble tool (truthfulness) into an instrument of unjust murder.

An action achieves true moral goodness only when all three pillars—the deed itself, the inner motive, and the surrounding context—harmonize with the nature of God and the reality He created. Evil does not need to introduce a brand-new element to ruin an action; moral failure occurs the precise moment any of these three foundations breaks down.

Is There A Christian Dilemma?

Introduction

The Islamic Dilemma is a well-known internal critique: the Qur'an commands adherence to prior scriptures (the Torah and Gospel) while simultaneously denying their core doctrines, placing Islamic theology in an inescapable bind. Seeking a parallel counter-punch, critics have recently attempted to construct a "Christian Dilemma."

The argument claims that the Bible acknowledges its own textual corruption. Pointing to warnings against altering the Law in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah's rebuke of the "lying pen of the scribes," critics assert that the biblical text is demonstrably altered, hopelessly compromised, and therefore entirely unreliable. However, this attempted dilemma fails because it commits two fundamental errors: it conflates scribal misconduct with manuscript erasure, and it ignores the robust historical science of textual transmission.

Rebuttal: Deconstructing the "Christian Dilemma"

1. The "Lying Pen of the Scribes" (Jeremiah 8:8–9): Bad Lawyering vs. Lost Manuscripts Critics cite Jeremiah 8:8 ("behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie") as an admission that the physical text of Scripture was altered beyond recognition. This completely ignores the linguistic and historical context of 7th-century BCE Judah:

• Administrative decrees, not erased scrolls: In the ancient Near East, royal and religious scribes did not simply copy manuscripts; they drafted legal ordinances, political edicts, and binding halakhic rulings. The "lying pen" refers to corrupt jurists drafting deceptive, unauthorized interpretations and policies while claiming divine authority to fleece the populace.

• The necessary baseline: Jeremiah’s entire indictment relies on an accessible, uncorrupted standard. In verse 9, he declares that they have "rejected the word of the LORD." A prosecutor cannot charge a defendant with violating a law code if the original law code no longer exists. For Jeremiah's rebuke to possess moral or legal force, the true Torah had to be intact and known to the community.

2. Sacrifices vs. Obedience (Jeremiah 7:21–23): Semitic Idiom vs. Contradiction Skeptics argue that God’s statement in Jeremiah 7:22—claiming He did not command sacrifices when leading Israel out of Egypt—flatly contradicts the elaborate rituals in Exodus and Leviticus, proving radical redaction. This objection collapses when understood through ancient Hebrew rhetoric:

• Comparative Negation: Ancient Semitic languages frequently used absolute negation ("Not A, but B") as an idiomatic device to emphasize priority, not literal exclusion.

  • In Hosea 6:6, God declares: "For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." The parallel clause clarifies that covenant loyalty is primary, not that sacrifice is forbidden.

  • In the New Testament, Jesus uses this same Semitic idiom in Luke 14:26 ("If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother..."), demanding supreme allegiance over family, not literal malice.

• Covenantal Sequence: When Israel departed Egypt, the foundational covenant delivered at Sinai (Exodus 19–20) centered entirely on moral obedience and the Decalogue. The sacrificial system was instituted as a remedial measure after the breach of the Golden Calf. Jeremiah is highlighting historical and theological priority: external ritual without heartfelt obedience is worthless.

3. The Textual Transmission Reality (The Fallacy of the "Telephone Game") The claim that early textual variants leave readers "picking and choosing with no way of knowing what is original" ignores how ancient Jewish and Christian texts were preserved:

• Multi-Stream Transmission: The Hebrew Scriptures were not funneled through a centralized, single line of transmission where a rogue faction could rewrite history unchecked. Copies spread across distinct geographical and textual streams—the proto-Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Greek Septuagint (LXX).

• The Dead Sea Scrolls Benchmark: The 1947 discovery of the Qumran manuscripts provided physical Hebrew texts dated from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE—over a millennium older than the standard medieval Masoretic manuscripts (such as the Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex). A comparative analysis demonstrated remarkable textual stability. The vast majority of variants are minor orthographic shifts, dialectical spellings, or scribal slips; not a single foundational narrative or major theological doctrine was altered or erased.

Conclusion

The attempted "Christian Dilemma" falls apart because it relies on a category error. Prophetic rebukes against corrupt religious lawyers and rhetorical idioms prioritizing obedience over empty rituals are not admissions of manuscript forgery. Far from leaving believers in a fog of subjective guesswork, the historical and textual record demonstrates that the biblical texts were preserved across independent manuscript traditions with astonishing fidelity. Jeremiah was exposing corrupt hearts—not an unrecoverable text.

Why Didn't God Just Not Create the Evil, Bad, Unrepentant People?

A common challenge raised against Christian theology—particularly regarding eternal judgment—asks a straightforward question: If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, why didn’t He simply refrain from creating the people He knew would choose evil and remain unrepentant?

On the surface, preemptively withholding existence from the unrepentant sounds like an elegant solution that prevents condemnation. However, this objection overlooks the reality of human history. We do not exist as isolated, independent silos; we are part of an intricately connected tapestry across space and time. Selectively removing the wicked from the timeline would trigger a massive ripple effect, inadvertently erasing millions of redeemed souls, marriages, children, and acts of virtue that only exist because of the complex chain reactions of our world.

Analogy

The Intricate Tapestry & The Loose Thread

Imagine a massive, centuries-old Persian tapestry depicting a vivid landscape. Interwoven throughout the fabric are rough, dark threads alongside bright, golden silk.

A novice looking closely at the dark threads might ask, "Why didn't the master weaver just leave out these dull, coarse fibers?"

But the weaver understands structural tension: those dark threads do not sit on top of the fabric; they are woven into the very warp and weft that hold the golden figures in place. Pulling out thousands of dark threads would cause the entire weave to unravel—destroying the intricate golden patterns and collapsing the surrounding structure.

The dark threads are not preserved because the weaver loves coarseness, but because He refuses to ruin the grand masterpiece that relies on the complete fabric to hold the golden threads together.

Your actions do affect others.

A single person's actions (like a smile or a scowl at the office) can start a chain reaction that alters the immediate environment and experiences of those around them. Because human lives are so deeply connected, one person's suffering or crisis provides a unique, interconnected society that allows others to develop deep moral virtues: a tragic situation forces onlookers to choose between cowardice and heroism (e.g., deciding whether to harbor a victim or deciding whether to disobey an evil order).

The Butterfly Effect of Existence

Intertwined lives allow for a ripple effect of compassion, sympathy, penitence, forgiveness, and reform that extends far down time and space. Without the initial tragedy, these profound moral responses could not actually exist. Many individuals turn to God in the aftermath of being exploited or harmed by ruthless evil people. Without that specific crisis, they may never have sought a relationship with God. Historically, the bravery of Christians facing violent persecution (orchestrated by evil regimes) has served as the catalyst for spectators and bystanders to convert.

If a person converts due to a crisis caused by an evil person, and that convert later marries and has children who also become Christians, those children would neither exist nor be saved. If the original evil actor had been "ripped out" of history. Millions of Christians who would have been born will never exist, which also erases all their downstream Christian descendants.

So while the "just don't create the evil/bad/unrepentant people" objection sounds great on the surface, it would actually have a massive ripple effect, erasing the downstream marriages, children, and believers who only exist because of the complex chain reactions of our interconnected world. In short, the rebellious do not get a veto over the existence of the good. Nor do they get a veto over God's purposes.

This seems to be what the wheat and tare parable is speaking to, at least in part; the coexistence of both forces challenges the faithful to stand firm and mature amidst difficulties. The servants ask, "Do you want us to go and pull them up?" and the master responds, "No, because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them." This perfectly mirrors the downstream generation argument; pulling out the "tare" physically damages or prevents the growth of the surrounding "wheat."

Best of All Possible Worlds

This concept, was originally articulated by the 17th-century mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. He argued that out of an infinite number of potential universes that God could have spoken into existence, this specific universe is the one that maximizes the greatest possible good with the least amount of necessary evil.

God cannot logically create a world where humans have genuine free will, yet simultaneously strip away the real-world consequences of that free will whenever it goes wrong. If He preemptively deleted every individual who would choose rebellion, there would be no one left since we have all sinned at one point.

Ultimately, a reality that allows for rebellion, yet masterfully weaves redemption and justice out of that brokenness, possesses a far greater glory than a hollow, sterile universe. A preemptive purging of the wicked would mean an accidental erasing of the repentant. The tares are permitted to grow alongside the wheat not because the Master treasures the weed [though Jesus did die for them as well], but because He guards the harvest with fierce devotion, refusing to risk a single precious grain.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the objection that God should have simply deleted the wicked before they were born would grant the unrepentant a functional "group veto" over the redeemed. A just and sovereign Creator does not allow the rebellion of some to derail His plan to create, bless, and redeem countless others. In the words of Jesus' parable of the wheat and the tares, the weeds are permitted to grow alongside the grain not because the farmer values weeds, but because He guards the harvest with fierce devotion—refusing to uproot a single stalk of wheat. Rebellion is permitted for a season, but redemption remains the final word.

Why God’s Perfection Doesn’t Destroy Your Free Will

The Nature Trap: Why God Can’t Lie and You Still Have a Choice

Introduction

A popular philosophical objection argues that classical theism destroys human free will: If God cannot violate His own nature, and humans are bound by theirs, then genuine moral choice is an illusion. On the surface, the logic seems tight. If the ultimate Creator is constrained by who He is, finite creatures must be locked on a deterministic track dictated by their unchosen biology, psychology, and desires. But does a nature that constrains action truly eliminate moral responsibility, or does this critique rest on a fundamental category error?

The Skeptic's Argument: Divine Nature and the Collapse of Moral Responsibility

This argument assumes the standard Christian doctrine that God cannot act against His own nature (e.g., God cannot lie) and adopts the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP)—the view that an agent is morally responsible for an action if and only if they possessed the genuine ability to choose otherwise.

The dilemma proceeds as follows:

1. Nature Constrains Action:

In classical theology, it is impossible for God to perform certain logically possible acts (such as lying or breaking a promise) solely because such acts contradict His immutable divine nature.

2. The Human Parallel:

If the supreme, all-powerful Creator is strictly bound by His nature, finite human beings must be equally bound by theirs. At any specific moment of decision ($T_1$), an individual’s nature—their composite beliefs, desires, neurological wiring, and psychological motivations—is fixed. A person cannot change who they are at will "like flipping a switch."

3. The Elimination of Alternate Possibilities:

Because an agent’s choice at the moment of decision must inevitably conform to their nature at that exact instant, they could not have chosen differently unless their underlying nature had been different. Imagining an alternate choice is merely an exercise of human imagination, not proof of actual modal freedom.

4. The Conclusion:

Since human beings do not choose their underlying nature, and since their actions are directly determined by that unchosen nature, no choice is ever genuinely free under PAP. Therefore, if God is bound by His nature, human moral responsibility collapses into rigid determinism.

The Rebuttal: Exposing the Flaw in the Nature Dilemma

To refute the skeptic's argument while operating strictly within the framework of the
Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP) and the classical premise that God acts in accordance with His nature, we need to dismantle the fatal leap made from divine nature to human nature.

The skeptic's syllogism rests on four core claims:

• God cannot violate His nature (e.g., God cannot lie).

• Therefore, an agent's actions are entirely determined by their nature.

• Humans cannot alter their nature at the exact moment of choice (T_1).

• Therefore, humans lack alternate possibilities and bear no moral responsibility.

This argument falls apart across three critical areas:

1. The Fallacy of Equivocation: Divine Nature vs. Human Nature

The argument treats "nature" as a monolithic concept that functions identically in a necessary, supreme Being and contingent, finite creatures. This is a fundamental category mistake—attributing properties belonging to one kind of reality to a completely different one (like asking what color the number seven is).

God’s Nature Is Ontological Perfection: When classical theology affirms that God "cannot lie," it does not describe an external boundary, an involuntary restraint, or a lack of power. God is the standard and source of reality and truth. A true limitation occurs only when there is a rift between what a being wills to do and what it can do. In God, will and nature are wholly unified.

Human Nature Is Inherently Deliberative: Human nature is not a fixed, single-track moral railroad. By design, our nature possesses the capacity for conflicting desires, moral tension, and rational evaluation. Unlike God's immutable perfection, human nature is structurally built with the latitude to choose among competing inclinations.

2. Conflating "Influence" with "Determination" (The Myth of the Single Output)

The skeptic claims that because a person cannot rewrite their core identity "like flipping a switch" at moment T1, their actions must be locked into one inevitable outcome. This misrepresents how agency operates under PAP:

Multiple Competing Desires: At any decision point (T1), an individual’s nature regularly contains competing motivations - such as a selfish impulse to keep found money versus a moral duty to return it.

Compatibility with Nature: Both actions are fully compatible with that person's nature.

The Power of Self-Determination: The agent retains the genuine capacity to deliberate and elevate one desire over the other. The presence of an unchosen nature does not reduce choice to a single possible output; rather, that nature provides the field of options within which alternate possibilities genuinely exist.

3. The Self-Defeating Collapse of the Determinist Critique

If the skeptic's strict view holds true - that an unchosen nature mechanically dictates every thought and action - the argument undermines its own validity:

If all human actions are passive outputs of fixed wiring, then the skeptic's act of constructing the argument, weighing evidence, and demanding rational assent is itself merely an involuntary biological reflex.

Under strict determinism, reason, blame, and intellectual honesty cease to exist. To present an argument expecting readers to freely evaluate its merits is to implicitly concede that human minds possess authentic agency that transcends mechanistic determinism.

Refutation Wrap-Up

Genuine freedom under PAP does not require an agent to exist outside of any nature whatsoever or start from an impossible blank slate. It requires the power of self-determination within the spectrum of possibilities that one's nature permits. Because human nature allows for a range of conflicting choices—unlike the pure, unified goodness of divine nature—humans retain the real alternate possibilities necessary for authentic moral responsibility.

Unpacking Matthew 24:36 and Christ’s Omniscience

The "Ignorant Jesus" Dilemma: Refuting the Classic Attack on Christ's Deity

Introduction

A cornerstone objection against the deity of Christ centers on Matthew 24:36 (and its parallel in Mark 13:32): "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."

The syllogism used by critics seems simple and devastating at first glance:

1. God is inherently omniscient (all-knowing).

2. Jesus confessed ignorance regarding the timing of His Second Coming.

3. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.

While this passage has fueled theological debate for centuries, orthodox Christian theology has consistently demonstrated that Christ's statement does not undermine His divine nature. When viewed through the lens of classical Christology, ancient Near Eastern cultural idioms, and broader scriptural context, Matthew 24:36 reveals the profound reality of the Incarnation rather than a deficiency in Jesus' divinity.

Three Classical Solutions to Matthew 24:36

1. The Hypostatic Union (The Two Natures of Christ) Formalized at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union affirms that Jesus Christ is one divine Person possessing two distinct, unconfused natures: fully divine and fully human.

• Human Nature: Christ assumed genuine human limitations. He experienced physical hunger, fatigue, localized presence, and intellectual growth (Luke 2:52: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature").

• Divine Nature: Christ remained co-eternal and co-equal with the Father, retaining infinite power, presence, and knowledge.

When Jesus spoke from the vantage point of His earthly mission, He operated through the limitations of His human nature. Experiencing localized knowledge no more disqualifies His deity than experiencing physical death on the cross disproves His immortality. The Incarnation means God the Son truly entered human vulnerability without forfeiting His divine essence.

2. Kenosis: Voluntary Functional Subordination In Philippians 2:5–8, Paul describes how Christ "emptied Himself" (ekenōsen), taking the form of a servant. Kenotic theology does not teach that the Son stripped Himself of divine attributes, but rather that He voluntarily surrendered the independent exercise of those attributes during His earthly ministry.

• Just as Jesus possessed the authority to call down legions of angels (Matthew 26:53) but chose submission, He possessed divine omniscience while willingly choosing not to access that knowledge independently of the Father's timing.

• Jesus operated in constant, deliberate dependence on the Father and the Holy Spirit (John 5:19; 8:28). Voluntary self-restraint is an act of sovereign power, not an intrinsic limitation of being.

3. Declarative Authority & Ancient Idiomatic Nuance

A third classical explanation focuses on the linguistic, cultural, and idiomatic context of first-century language. Rather than indicating an absolute defect in Christ's mental awareness, Jesus' statement functions as a formal declaration of functional jurisdiction and revelatory authority.

• The Causative and Declarative Sense of "To Know": In ancient Semitic thought and Hellenistic Greek idioms, verbs for knowing (Greek: oida / eidenai; Hebrew: yada) frequently carry a causative or declarative sense—meaning "to reveal," "to make known," or "to have the authority to disclose."

  • In Latin classical literature and Rabbinic discussions, a judge or envoy withholds information not because they lack data, but because they have no legal commission to publish the verdict.

  • A clear biblical example occurs in 1 Corinthians 2:2, where Paul writes: "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." Paul was not experiencing sudden amnesia regarding Jewish law or philosophy; he was stating his deliberate decision not to proclaim or teach anything else.

  • In Matthew 24:36, when Jesus states that only the Father "knows," the idiom communicates: "It is not the Son's mission to reveal or fix that day; that decree belongs exclusively within the Father's sovereign prerogative."

• The Ancient Near Eastern Betrothal Metaphor: Throughout the Olivet Discourse and the Parables that follow in Matthew 25 (e.g., the Ten Virgins), Jesus deliberately frames the Second Coming using first-century Jewish wedding customs:

  • Following the formal betrothal (erusin), the bridegroom departed to his father’s estate to prepare a bridal chamber (chuppah).

  • The groom was not permitted to return for his bride until the preparation was complete and the father formally approved the quarters.

  • When peers or bystanders asked the waiting groom when the wedding feast would take place, cultural convention dictated a set reply: "Ask my father; only he knows."

  • This was universally understood as a protocol of filial respect and legal authority, not genuine intellectual ignorance. Jesus adopts this exact bridal motif to teach His disciples that the timetable remains sealed until the Father gives the command.

• The Post-Resurrection Parallel (Acts 1:6–7): When the disciples ask the risen, glorified Christ - who has conquered death and received "all authority in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28:18) - whether He will restore the kingdom at that time, Jesus does not cite a lack of cognitive information. Instead, He defines the boundary of authority:

  "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority (exousia)." (Acts 1:7)

  This parallel reinforces that "knowing" the hour was never about an ontological deficiency in the Son, but about the sovereign distribution of divine roles: the Father decrees the appointed time, and the Son executes that decree.

The Broader Gospel Context

Isolating Matthew 24:36 ignores what the rest of the Gospel says about Jesus. Throughout Matthew, Jesus consistently exercises prerogatives exclusive to God:

• Forgiving Sins: Matthew 9:2–6

• Commanding Angels and Nature: Matthew 8:26–27; 13:41

• Amending Divine Law: Matthew 5:21–44 ("You have heard that it was said... but I say to you")

• Accepting Worship: Matthew 14:33; 28:9

• Claiming Omnipresence: Matthew 28:20 ("I am with you always, even to the end of the age")

Matthew 24:36 is not a theological defect; it is a profound testament to the Incarnation. When God the Son took on human flesh, He entered fully into our earthly experience—submitting His divine power to the Father's will and operating within genuine human limitations without ever surrendering His eternal essence. Far from diminishing Christ's deity, His statement magnifies His perfect humility, His functional obedience, and His role as the faithful servant who points all glory, authority, and final timing back to the Father.