So, in an attempt to exemplify what an actual argument is, I offer this--no frills or filler, no ironic jabs (despite how much I wanted to). For clarification, every argument contains a 1. Premise, 2. Logical inference, 3. Conclusion. Every argument contains certain assumptions as well--EVERY argument. Example: even when I use a word, I assume that word signifies the same (or roughly similar) thing to you. It does not advance the discussion or count as more points for your side if you pretend that you aren't assuming things. It just helps you to justify yourself and not convince others. Now something should be noted as regards the specific arguments below. In the first section, I offer the conclusion that is proclaimed by the group of believers; I do not offer the conclusion that their argument actually affords. See the footnote at the end for more information.
It is common for
certain believers to criticize the belief/statement that "God's first
purpose is to glorify himself." They prefer to believe that "God's
first purpose is to love."
Argument: If God's
first purpose is to glorify himself, then God is selfish.
Assumption:
God is not selfish.
Conclusion:
Therefore God's first purpose cannot be to glorify himself.
Argument 2:
"God is love," says Scripture.
Assumption:
Something God "is" must be fundamental to his existence.
Conclusion:
Therefore God's first purpose must be to love [humans/creation/something
other-than-self].*
However those who
argue thus have a theological omission.
Omission:
God exists in trinity.
Those in the
"Glory" camp (commonly called 'Reformed') would thus rewrite the
argument:
Argument: If God's
first purpose is to glorify the other persons of the Trinity, then God is
self-giving.
Assumption:
To self-give is to love.
Conclusion:
Therefore God is ultimately loving and self-giving towards the other members of
the Trinity.
Argument 2:
"God is love," says Scripture.
Assumption:
Something God "is" must be fundamental to his existence.
Conclusion:
Therefore God's first purpose might be called "love" towards the
Trinity.
Counter-Argument:
Humans/creation/something other-than-self have not always existed.
Assumption:
If God is cannot fulfill his existence, he is incomplete; if incomplete he is
imperfect.
Conclusion:
Therefore God's first purpose cannot be to love humans/creation/something
other-than-self |OR|
Alternative
Conclusion: God is imperfect.
Argument 3: God is
perfect.
Assumption:
The 'perfect' is fully worthy of glory & love.
Conclusion:
Therefore if God is to remain perfect, he must respond rightly to that which is
perfect [namely love & glorify it].
*As stated in the introduction, I believe the actual conclusion the argument affords is that God must love. However, adherents to this camp insert the direct object(s) of humanity, creation, etc. Probably, I believe, because they start with the conclusion and argue backwards instead of starting with their premise and arguing forward.
