Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 2

Bercot highlights Clement of Alexandria’s claim that “God is not involuntarily good,” contrasting God with fire being “involuntarily hot”; what do you think Bercot is trying to protect about God’s character by insisting God does good “voluntarily,” and what feels risky or objectionable about saying God has “the power to choose good or evil”?

Another way to ask: Why does Bercot stress that God does good by choice, not automatically like fire is hot? What seems dangerous or wrong to you about saying God could choose good or evil?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests Bercot is protecting God’s moral praiseworthiness and the coherence of free will: God does good because He chooses it, not because He is mechanically forced into it. The risky part is that it can sound like God might actually choose evil, even though Bercot insists evil is “so contrary to His nature” that it is not a real possibility.

Support from Transcript:

Clement’s quote: “God is not involuntarily good… the imparting of good things is voluntary… He benefits others from His free choice.”
Bercot says many assume God “did not have the power to choose evil… only… good,” and calls this “very new thinking.”
He argues this point is “so important… or we don’t ever comprehend why God permits evil,” because if God were involuntarily good, “then the question would be quite valid” why evil exists.
He frames it as “within the ability of godhood to do evil… but he voluntarily chooses to do good because his nature is good.”
He also guards God’s goodness: evil is “so far from His nature” that “evil things aren’t even a temptation to Him.”

Discussion Follow-ups What wording would help you keep both truths Bercot is trying to hold: real free will and unshakable goodness? Where do you fear this language could be misunderstood?

Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 2 of 10