Page History

...

1.0 There are Christian theologians and philosophers who allow that God can be really related to creatures, even while denying that God must be so related (cf., e.g., Austin Farrer, Reflective Faith: 178-191; Thomas V. Morris, Anselmian ExplorarionExplorations: 124-150). But this seems to be an untenable position---first position—first of all, for the properly philosophical reason that it is incoherent. Consider the following argument:

...

1.8 Therefore, if God need not be really related to creatures, God cannot be really related to creatures (conclusion from 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7).

1.8 9 Either, then, God can be really related to creatures, in which case God also must so be related, or God need not be really related to creatures, in which case God also cannot be so related (conclusion from 1.8, and the contrapositive of 1.8).

...

2.1 Each and every creature, being redeemed as well as created by God, makes a value difference to God---its God—its redemption by God consisting precisely in its being given to make such a difference (necessary implication of the Christian witness).

...

2.4 Therefore, either a necessary implication of the Christian witness is false of or God not only can be really related to creatures, but also must be so related (conclusion from 2.2 and 2.3).

...