[Mad Dawg]

I would say "No", God is not able to lie because that would violate His unchanging nature (God is truth) as described in the Bible. If He lied He would cease to be God. Instead, He would be something else, not the God the Bible describes. The same would apply to God ceasing to exist or making a rock He couldn't lift. However, this in no way is a curtailing of God's freedom, which is absolute. When I think of freedom I think of freedom from "what". The only "what" for God would be His own nature, which is defining, so I don't think the issue of freedom would really apply to that.

Just to tie it up rhetorically, since God has "all the power that is" therefore we can see that the ability to lie is not, strictly speaking a "power."

To me, this has important, what, resonances with the whole question of free will and the rest.

As I've said before, SOMETIMES Calvinists and the "irresistible grace" crew appear to be denying freedom, but I'm not sure that's right. When God shows even the slightest hint of His love and glory, it is freedom to affirm, and slavery to reject. Whether and how one can "freely" chose slavery is another question. But similarly, when we feelthy papists insist on "free will" WE are the ones who appear to be put in the position of saying that it's an exercise of freedom to choose fornication over enjoying the Truth.

My latest infatuation is with a very nice but difficult book, very Catholic I have to say, which looks at this question in terms of Nominalism and "Scholastic Realism". The book is by Servais Pinckaers, O.P. (he's Belgian) and it's title is The Sources of Christian Ethics. It's a slog, but an interesting slog.

The relevance is that Pinckaers argues that the "Freedom from what?" idea of freedom comes from Nominalism, and that Nominalism is pretty much the focus of evil in the late medieval (intellectual) world.

He suggests, following Aquinas, that instead the will is directed to "the good" (which is more than moral good) and to be attracted to what is not good is a defect of the will, and therefore a compromise of freedom. Try this:

The ability of free will to choose between various things in conformity with the end ['end' as in 'that for the sake of which', man was created with the 'end' of the vision of God] shows the perfection of freedom; but to choose something not ordered to the end, that is, to sin, evinces a defect of freedom. Therefore the angels, who cannot sin, enjoy greater freedom of choice than do we, who can.

Summa, First Part, question 62, article 8, reply to objection 3

But to make a LONG, LONG argument short, Pinckaers proposes (following Aquinas) that freedom is "Freedom FOR excellence" before it is freedom FROM anything. I would add that it is because we are sinners and everything we see is affected by that, it is quite understandable that our first thought of freedom would be "freedom from." But as we live, pray, think the Gospel, we see that freedom is really freedom TOWARD.

FWIW.

Turning to other news: Go directly to your library and pick up Edward Feser's The Last Superstition for a rollicking good time refuting atheism. The guy is trained as a philosopher and writes like Ann Coulter. It is more fun than you can imagine.

Have a great day.

[Forest Keeper]

He [Pinckaers] suggests, following Aquinas, that instead the will is directed to "the good" (which is more than moral good) and to be attracted to what is not good is a defect of the will, and therefore a compromise of freedom. Try this:

The ability of free will to choose between various things in conformity with the end ['end' as in 'that for the sake of which', man was created with the 'end' of the vision of God] shows the perfection of freedom; but to choose something not ordered to the end, that is, to sin, evinces a defect of freedom. Therefore the angels, who cannot sin, enjoy greater freedom of choice than do we, who can. --- Summa, First Part, question 62, article 8, reply to objection 3

But to make a LONG, LONG argument short, Pinckaers proposes (following Aquinas) that freedom is "Freedom FOR excellence" before it is freedom FROM anything.

I'm not sure what is "more than moral good", but I'm still confused. Are they talking about regenerate or unregenerate man? I can't imagine the latter, as that would indicate the view that when born (now) the human is naturally drawn to the good. That would not match my understanding of the Catholic view of original sin. If this is the case, would you fill me in?

If, however, they are supposing regenerate man then the above makes much more sense to me. Even so, I would reorder what Pinckaers said to be: "Once we are free FROM the bondage of sin we are THEN free FOR excellence".

Anyway, thanks much for the book suggestions. The Feser book does sound really interesting.