Semalsia Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 [quote name='Myles']Omniscience does not imply there are things not possible for God to know and cannot because of God's timelessness which gives him an adiastemic 'view' of our diastemic created reality. All Catholic theologians including Molinists believe that God has an infallible knowledge of the future and cannot but do so because God existence is outside and beyond us.[/quote] Oh, too bad. It would have made a lot of sense.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 [quote]Following the chain of logic you employ to justify God's creating the world by neccessity as it is, could one not also say that since there is no potentiality in God to choose between possibilities God must by neccessity be creator? This however, you would accept, is an errenous notion. As is argued in Summa theol., I-I, 19, 10 God must will nothing by neccessity apart from that which is neccessary, namely absolutely actualisation of all possible perfections: Himself. [/quote]I too would like to discuss this. It seems that we just scratched the surface of this in the thread about God and the big rock with LD. Answering this question would have a profound impact on how we understand the Incarnation. If God could have done none other (as far as creating the wolrd), then was the Incarnation by necessity as well? If so, where does that leave Christianity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Myles, I would suggest that you cite the Summa Theoogica, Prima Pars, Question 19, Article 3, rather than article 10, as St. Thomas more aptly deals with this very specific issue.Now, the answer to your question is actually relatively simple, though I cannot promise you will like it : . First, I do not hold to Aquinas' view of Free Will. Rather, I think that St. Anselm gives a much better account of what free will is. In the section that you cited above, we clearly see that Aquinas' motivation for saying that God wills some things not necessarily is in order to be able to assert that God has free will. But for the Anselmian this is not a problem, and so I am not bound to assert that God wills non-necessarily. Second, I find Aquinas' arguments uncompelling because he attempts to prove (in Article 3) that God wills some things non necessarily by appealing to the fact that God's goodness is complete in itself, and so does not need other things (contingent being). This, however, is not what I am saying. I am saying that [i]because[/i] God's goodness is perfect in itself it necessarily desires to share that goodness in an outpouring of Love, and so forms contingent being. This is, in fact, what Aquinas himself points out just previously (in Article 2). In this case, Aquinas makes the error of mistakenly switching cause and effect: It is not necessary for God to create things apart from himself in order to perfect his own Divine goodness, but rather, his own divine goodness necessarily creates things apart from Himself. Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 [quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 24 2006, 09:48 PM']I too would like to discuss this. It seems that we just scratched the surface of this in the thread about God and the big rock with LD. Answering this question would have a profound impact on how we understand the Incarnation. If God could have done none other (as far as creating the wolrd), then was the Incarnation by necessity as well? If so, where does that leave Christianity? [right][snapback]897209[/snapback][/right] [/quote] With Saint Anselm, I maintain that once the Fall occurred, the Incarnation became necessary. As he outlines in his [i]Cur Deus Homo[/i], with the Fall man owed a debt to God that he could not repay. Now Divine Justice demands that either what is owed be repaid, or that the debtor be punished according to the degree of his crime. But an offense against God is of infinite degree, and so merits infinite punishment. In accord with His Divine Mercy, however, God desires not to punish his creation if there is another way. Man must give what he owes to God, and only God has what is owed to Him, thus, a God-Man was the only means of our salvation. Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Feb 24 2006, 10:24 PM']With Saint Anselm, I maintain that once the Fall occurred, the Incarnation became necessary. As he outlines in his [i]Cur Deus Homo[/i], with the Fall man owed a debt to God that he could not repay. Now Divine Justice demands that either what is owed be repaid, or that the debtor be punished according to the degree of his crime. But an offense against God is of infinite degree, and so merits infinite punishment. In accord with His Divine Mercy, however, God desires not to punish his creation if there is another way. Man must give what he owes to God, and only God has what is owed to Him, thus, a God-Man was the only means of our salvation.[/quote] You just about won me over to being an Anselmnian with that. Very well put. I must say that I have always loved the "tension" between divine justice and mercy that is settled in purgatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 yea, its beautiful to see how the two are not contrary, but rather complete each other. : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 (edited) [quote]I am saying that because God's goodness is perfect in itself it necessarily desires to share that goodness [/quote]I am just curious about this...Is this to what you are referring?[quote]God wills not only Himself, but other things apart from Himself. This is clear from the comparison which we made above (1). For natural things have a natural inclination not only towards their own proper good, to acquire it if not possessed, and, if possessed, to rest therein; but also to spread abroad their own good amongst others, so far as possible. Hence we see that every agent, [b]in so far as it is perfect and in act, produces its like[/b]. It pertains, therefore, to the nature of the will to communicate as far as possible to others the good possessed; and especially does this pertain to the divine will, from which all perfection is derived in some kind of likeness. [b]Hence, if natural things, in so far as they are perfect, communicate their good to others, much more does it appertain to the divine will to communicate by likeness its own good to others as much as possible[/b].[/quote]It is from the second Article. Edited February 25, 2006 by Paphnutius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Yes, I cited Article 2 in my previous post. In my mind, Aquinas' notion of freedom leads him to, if not inconsistent statements, statements that seem to be in serious tension with each other. The section that you cited could easily be interpreted as saying that God's act of creation follows logically from his Divine goodness (as I maintain it does), but he rejects this in Article 3 when he discusses that necessity is when one things follows logically from another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted February 25, 2006 Author Share Posted February 25, 2006 (edited) [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Feb 24 2006, 11:31 PM']yea, its beautiful to see how the two are not contrary, but rather complete each other. : [right][snapback]897271[/snapback][/right] [/quote] They complete each other in making Leibniz's argument wrong? Are you saying his argument never really answers the question and leaves the God that he said is wise possibly unwise? Am I understanding your point? What is the St. Anslem's view on free will? And maybe could either you or Myles explain this line [quote]God to choose between possibilities God must by neccessity be creator? This however, you would accept, is an errenous notion.[/quote] The term neccesary creator? Can not help but create? Is that what is meant by it? Is it errenous becuase it takes away God's free will in making the Earth? Thanks for help guys, maybe this should be under Apologetics, just the debate table gets more trafic. I don't have quite the knowledge in all this (yet!) and so I really appreciate your help on these questions that may seem pretty triva to you. Edited February 25, 2006 by rkwright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Point of interest:[quote]CCC 296 We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of [b]necessary [/b]emanation from the divine substance. 144 God creates [b]freely [/b]"out of nothing": 145 If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants. 146[/quote] [quote]295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. 141 It is [b]not the product of any [/b][b]necessity [/b]whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God's free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created." 142 Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: "O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all"; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made." 143 [/quote]I would agree Jeff, creation flows logically from the divine goodness, but not out of necessity. Also, as far as the outpouring of love being a necessity, I would state that the Trinity is self-sustaining in that necessity. The Father shows all His love to the Son which is then wholly returned, and from this sharing comes forth the Spirit. It was not necessary for the divine love to be shared that creation came about. Perhaps I misunderstood you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 [quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 25 2006, 05:36 AM']Point of interest: I would agree Jeff, creation flows logically from the divine goodness, but not out of necessity. Also, as far as the outpouring of love being a necessity, I would state that the Trinity is self-sustaining in that necessity. The Father shows all His love to the Son which is then wholly returned, and from this sharing comes forth the Spirit. It was not necessary for the divine love to be shared that creation came about. Perhaps I misunderstood you there. [right][snapback]897320[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Paphnutius it was was the Catechetical teaching of the Church that I had in mind when I queried Jeff's logic in the first place. As I said, I felt there was a little something missing from Jeff's presenation that did not prevent it being logically necessary rather than merely logically plausible that God creates. Accordingly if God's act of creation is only logically possible that doesn't appear to put any neccessity on the kind of world He must create either. I'm still unclear about how you're deducing from the Divine actus purus that the world in which we live is the only possible world that could have been brought into existence? God's acts ad extra are absolutely free why does it follow that what He is ad intra impacts upon that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Myles' date='Feb 25 2006, 06:18 AM']Accordingly if God's act of creation is only logically possible that doesn't appear to put any neccessity on the kind of world He must create either. I'm still unclear about how you're deducing from the Divine actus purus that the world in which we live is the only possible world that could have been brought into existence? God's acts ad extra are absolutely free why does it follow that what He is ad intra impacts upon that? [right][snapback]897372[/snapback][/right] [/quote]Was that directed towards me or Jeff? It started out with "Paphnutius," but ended as thought it were addressed to Jeff. Edited February 25, 2006 by Paphnutius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King's Rook's Pawn Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 One thing I've never understood is why the existance of evil is such a theological problem for so many people. I've never had a problem with it. In fact, I would have a problem with the notion of an existance in which we never experienced evil. Because if we never experienced evil--if we never experienced pain, suffering, injustice, sorrow, hate; if we were always perfectly content and there was no possibility of hate--what meaning would it have for us to love God or each other? None; we'd just be doing what we were bound to do. What opportunity would we have to show virtue? You can't express virtue unless there is something there for that virtue to fight. A world without evil would be a world in which nobody could be particularly good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 [quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 25 2006, 02:50 PM']Was that directed towards me or Jeff? It started out with "Paphnutius," but ended as thought it were addressed to Jeff. [right][snapback]897442[/snapback][/right] [/quote] It began by linking the Catechetical teaching you highlighted to my original qualms, I was agreeing with your citations. It ended by again asking clarification from Jeff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semalsia Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 [quote name='King's Rook's Pawn']In fact, I would have a problem with the notion of an existance in which we never experienced evil. Because if we never experienced evil--if we never experienced pain, suffering, injustice, sorrow, hate; if we were always perfectly content and there was no possibility of hate--what meaning would it have for us to love God or each other? None; we'd just be doing what we were bound to do. What opportunity would we have to show virtue? You can't express virtue unless there is something there for that virtue to fight. A world without evil would be a world in which nobody could be particularly good.[/quote] So without pain, suffering, injustice, sorrow and hate even Heaven would be meaningless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now