Hi Jason, thanks for the reply.
I don’t think you or your approach is shallow LOL! I feel honoured that you’d address my arguments at all, to be honest…
I’m wondering if some of our differences are due to your progressive-logical-argument perspective (where simultaneous and ontologically integrated phenomena are dealt with separately and in sequence, because one is required to understand the other). From that perspective, yes, God’s active but isolated self-existence can be seen as occurring ‘first’ or being more ‘fundamental’ (in a logically progressive sense) than anything proceeding from this.
But it does not follow that there is no ontological necessity with subsequent phenomenon (as you yourself demonstrate). I think you’re saying that God’s active self-existence somehow ontologically entails that He act in a particular way toward non-God entities (i.e. in a way consistent with all the attributes of Himself). I agree with this. But if there can be ontological links between God’s self existence and his behavior toward non-God entities, what is so special about the act (or continuous process) of ‘creation’?
Also I’m not arguing for anything as drastic as parity, let alone parity between any being (e.g. God) and another being (e.g. non-God). I’m comparing two of God’s activities. And I’m not talking about a hypothetical as-yet undeveloped or unspecified God (a blank minimalistic God, for whom isolated eternal self-existence may well be possible without violating its nature). I’m just saying that I think there is an inseparable ontological integration between the Scriptural God’s act of self existence (which is in accordance with his specific nature), and His natural unrestricted expression of Himself (including the act of creation).
Of course the act of creation is ‘different’ in terms of description or logical progression, to the act of self-generation (i.e. they have no true ‘parity’). I’m not so radically pantheistic to want to deny this! I’m saying these two activities/processes cannot occur without each other - as if they were both ontologically necessary manifestations of an underlying process, or as if one were are description of merely one facet of the other.
Regarding ‘Free Agency’, my understanding of it is that it is a deliberate term designed to distinguish itself from Free Will, by describing what is actually Free (the agency of the person, rather than the will). In order for the agency to be truly free, every phenomenon that is derived from the soul must reflect and express that soul, meaning that technically (if everything was known, i.e. in God’s mind) the soul can be truly and accurately interpreted from the phenomena derived from it, from its ‘expressions’. This means that emotions, desires, the will, perceptions, etc, cannot have ‘random’ or unpredictable / uninterpretable factors that distort the expression of the soul (i.e. that limit the freedom of that soul’s agency). This is why Free Agency states that the will cannot be directed at anything other than whatever the soul currently perceives as the ‘best option’.
BTW, the ‘will’ in Free Agency has nothing to do with physical ability. Of course you can will something (perceive it to be the best option) that you can’t actually achieve.
Free Agency makes a point of using the word ‘freedom’, to battle the notion that we are puppets. We are our own agents with distinct characteristics, and we have freedom to actually express who we actually are in a meaningful and interpretable way in the world. The reason God can actually ‘judge’ us based on our actions, will, emotions, desires, etc, is that these really do express our souls. ‘Responsibility’ in this picture is more a statement about the actual state of our souls - if you perform an evil act or desire evil things, you are responsible because it means your soul actually has evil in it. I think God preserves our agency, by NOT arbitrarily forcing to act / will / feel / desire / perceive a certain way, but rather limiting Himself to allowing our souls to express who they actually are.
We know that our souls change over time, and the phenomena derived from them also change. People grow, conversion happens, faith and sin are not static. And this reflects itself in our wills, emotions, actions, etc. But the way our souls grow is itself a phenomenon derived from that soul - some souls are harder to change in a particular way than others. So for God to preserve our Free agency, He must not only ensure that our wills / emotions / actions actually reflect our soul (rather than being forced against our wills, like puppets), but He must also ensure that the growth and development of our soul is true to itself (rather than being arbitrarily forced to have certain characteristics, so that it will will and act as God intends).
I’m getting tongue-tied I’m writing this far too late at night…
Basically God has limited Himself, and does respect aspects about our humanity that make us special and responsible and meaningful agents. But this does not preclude Him perfectly designing the development of our soul to have the will / emotions / perceptions that He wants us to have, and to behave the way He wants us to behave (over time, via influences that He knows we will respond to).
I’m always interested to hear how people think Free Will is superior to this kind of Free Agency. I personally have not yet seen why it would be required for e.g. love or responsibility or ‘Image of God’, or for God to be consistent with His own character, etc. You mention several times that you do think it is required. Can you describe why?