Dealing With Objections

The conclusions reached so far in this work are not universally accepted by all people. Many objections have been raised against the reasonableness of the arguments I’ve made.

For the sake of clarity, the arguments I’ve made so far can be summarized: God made himself his own end in creating the world.

The End for Which God Created the World, by Jonathan Edwards (Author), Jason Dollar (Editor)

Edwards addresses several likely objections to his conclusion, that God made Himself His own ends in creation. He did not create with any purpose higher than this. Yes, there are subordinate ends, but this is the ultimate end.

He presents four objections, and for each he presents several responses. In this post, I will summarize these.

Objection 1: If God made himself his own ultimate end, then it would entail an inconsistency with his perfect and complete nature.

God is absolutely independent; He is an immutable being. Therefore, how could His ultimate end in the creating the world have something to do with a purpose aimed at Himself? Does this present some kind of need, or lack, in God? In other words, what purpose would God have in making Himself His own ultimate end?

Answer 1: This objection arises from wrong notions of God’s happiness.

The word happiness is going to come up often in dealing with these objections. When you read it, consider the meaning of happiness as found in the word that introduces Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount: beatitude, or beatitudo in Latin. This happiness is found in other-regarding action, not some sort of superficial self-regarding action. It is the happiness of true love, not superficial merriment.

In this, God’s glory and happiness are exclusively found in and of Himself. It is an infinite happiness: nothing can be added to it. Yet, this does not mean that God cannot find delight or pleasure in extending this glory and happiness to His creatures. God can have real happiness in seeing His creatures in a happy state.

This need not add anything to God. It is something God communicates to His creatures, not something He takes from them. We cannot reflect back to God something that He did not first give to us; we add nothing to Him.

Answer 2: There are no better alternatives to the conclusion that God made himself his own ultimate end.

The one objecting has already stated that God is perfect and complete. As this is the case, what alternative can be greater than the one offered by Edwards: God (the perfect and complete) made Himself the ultimate end?

God’s perfection and completeness cannot preclude Him “adding” something by creating the world – we know He created the world, and we know He is perfect and complete. Is it reasonable to say He desired nothing by creating? And if He desired something, is there something greater than God in all creation? The answer to both is no, of course. God’s ultimate end must be something worthy of His dependence. This can be nothing other than God Himself.

Objection 2: If God made himself his own ultimate end, then it would imply he was a selfish being.

I will say, this is an objection that came to my mind.

Answer 1: The objection arises from erroneous notions of selfishness and generosity.

Edwards must be addressing me when he says only the ignorant can have such erroneous views of the vise of selfishness and the virtue of generosity!

Self-respect does not have to be vicious or unbecoming. Of course, among created beings, we are to both respect the group more than our individual self, while at the same time we must not forego our self-interest for the sake of others. In other words, we must always judge relative value: at times, preferring the group is more valuable than preferring the self; at other times, the opposite is true.

The thing is, God is not a created being. All created beings are as nothing compared to Him – and God knows this, not out of arrogance or pride, but out of a well-understood concept of value. It is right that God values Himself more than He does His creatures – this preference truly capture the relative position of God and creature.

With this said, He also sent His Son to die for the sake of His creatures.

Answer 2: The objection fails to appreciate the benefits provided to creation as a whole when God makes himself his own ultimate end.

God is the author and Head of the entire system. Is it conceivable to think that His interests are contrary to the interests of the whole? Hardly.

Answer 3: The objection fails to appreciate the benefits provided to his creatures when God makes himself his own ultimate end.

By making Himself His own ultimate end, God provides tremendous benefits for creation. God finds so much wondrous delight in Himself that He desires to pour it out to (communicate with) His creatures. Is there a greater benefit to us that this?

Altogether, this objection fails. God pouring out Himself to us is the least selfish thing He could do, and at the same time the greatest example of His generosity.

Objection 3: If God made himself his own ultimate end, it would imply that he seeks the admiration of created beings in an unworthy manner.

Great men do not allow themselves to be influenced by the applause of others. They behave as they do because of their innate qualities, virtues, and desires. If this is true for men, how much more true is it for God? In other words, God seeking admiration is something not even worthy of a great man.

Answer 1: It is not unworthy for God to value what is most valuable in itself and to take pleasure in its existence.

Before creation, God considered some future existence, and had to consider this worthy to be brought into being. Otherwise, why create anything? As God is infinitely the most valuable being, to communicate His divine glory to His creatures is good in and of itself. It is an act of true love, not an act of desiring admiration. Of course, for our part, to admire God is an appropriate response to this act of true love. But this is the effect, it is not the cause.

Answer 2: It is not unworthy for God to condescend an infinite distance to show greatness toward his creatures.

Instead, it is worthy for God to take pleasure in something that is fitting. God’s willingness to “stoop down” to us in love is not something shameful; instead, it glorifies him infinitely. When the creature delights in God, God delights not because He needs them, but because He loves them.

Objection 4: If God made himself his own ultimate end, it would jeopardize his divine freeness and the obligation of his created beings to be grateful.

If God created the world for His own glory, our obligation of gratitude would be meaningless – after all, God did this for Him, not for us.

Answer 1: The glory of God and the good of his creatures are not at odds with each other.

These are not mutually exclusive propositions. The objection assumes that God’s glory and man’s good are distinct one from another. In fact, one is implied in the other. Within seeking His own glory, He is seeking the good of His creatures as well.

The overflowing of His glory is how God communicates His excellent qualities to us, and His excellent qualities are the source of our happiness. In the same act, God both honors himself and makes his people happy and joyful. This is because the good of the creature is found when we are in union and communion with God.

Further, this union is continuously growing throughout eternity. Our experience of Him is growing eternally. We are moving ever-closer to Him in this sense, but without ever achieving His nature.

In other words, God’s love and respect for the creature unites with the love and respect He has for Himself. There is nothing in this that detracts from the creature’s obligation to be grateful to God for His love.

Answer 2: For God, there is no inconsistency between doing good for others and doing so from a motive of self-love.

God’s benevolence and His self-sufficiency are always present. He alone is “I AM,” a being unto Himself. He is not motivated by something in the creature, because all that is good in the creature has come from Him in the first place.

Conclusion

This ends the first portion of Edwards’ argument, an argument from reason. He will next present his arguments from Scripture.