Necessary v. Contingent
1. The necessary must exist.
2. God is necessary.
3. God's plans are necessary.
4. The contingent exist.
5. The necessary supersedes the contingent.
6. Human beings are contingent.
7. Human being's plans are contingent.
8. Human being's needs are contingent.
Therefore, the suffering of the contingent is permissible.
It could be stated that it is a weaker sense of necessity in point 3 than points 1 and 2.
1. The necessary must exist.
2. God is necessary
2. God is necessary
I would view 1,2 as within absolute necessity.
Open Edition Journals: Philosophia Scientia What is Absolute Necessity? Bob Hale 16/2/2012
Open Edition Journals: Philosophia Scientia What is Absolute Necessity? Bob Hale 16/2/2012
Cited
Absolute necessity might be defined as truth at absolutely all possible worlds without restriction. But we should be able to explain it without invoking possible worlds.
By my definition 1,2 are necessary in all possible worlds.
3. God's plans are necessary.
This could be explained as relative necessity.
Cited
The standard account defines each kind of relative necessity by means of a necessitated or strict conditional, whose antecedent is a propositional constant for the body of assumptions relative to which the consequent is asserted to be necessary.
The relative necessity of (3) has as antecedent the absolute necessity of (1,2).
Further, God, within his infinite, eternal nature, would only be morally obligated to keep his revealed word, as in promises, in regard to contingent, human beings. These are documented in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament within a theistic, Christian worldview.
In contrast, some may view God’s plans as contingent as opposed to necessary. If God’s plans for humanity are contingent, because he could have done otherwise, the fact these contingent plans come from a necessary being would still have them supersede the plans and needs of the contingent.
---
Further, God, within his infinite, eternal nature, would only be morally obligated to keep his revealed word, as in promises, in regard to contingent, human beings. These are documented in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament within a theistic, Christian worldview.
December 8, 2018
The necessary, what exists by necessity, to parallel this philosophical concept with that which is biblical, has plans that exist within the contingency of finite creation, in the context of the material universe and as well with the existence of finite angelic and demonic beings.
Biblically and based on theological and philosophical reason:
God, as what is necessary can complete divine plans with options, however, as they take place within a contingent reality...
I see two options:
1. Perfect will
Direct cause
2. Permissible will
Indirect cause
Allowing
---
2 Peter 2: 3 8
But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
As I read in Erickson, that is a Calvinist theologian, taking his idea (paraphrased) as a reasonable theological possibility (361).
God's perfect will is that all are saved. (2 Peter 3).
God's permissible will is only those chosen are saved. (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 8-9).
There is also a reasonable objection that it is theologically possible that it is God's perfect will that occurs, at least in regard to human salvation and the citizenship of those within the culminated Kingdom of God. In that case, 2 Peter 3, is not discussing salvation but the repentance of those in Jesus Christ. The 'you' being those already covered by the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Those in the Christian Church reading the scripture.
As my mentor at Columbia Bible taught me, sometimes we live with theological tension. Add biblical and philosophical tension, in this case.
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.
