Catholic responses to Blake Ostler (Mormon apologist)?

[TOmNossor]

Rebecca,
I remember listening to a lecture given by Blake.
Toward the beginning he said, “I do not know how many of you have read Thomas Aquinas …”
I thought to myself, “I have.”
Then he added, “… in Latin.”
And I thought, not so much.

You called the idea that God is love an underlying assumption in Aquinas and all Catholic thought. I originally misread that and thought you certainly have never read Aquinas. It has been a few years since I read Ostler, but as I recall he STARTS with “God is Love.” And he explores many things said about God, but will not compromise on the love of God. Aquinas does not start at God is love. He starts at God exists.

Have you read Aquinas?

Next, I am attacking no straw man. You are.
Do you believe that God is immutable?
Did Aquinas believe that God is immutable?
How can an immutable being love?
I say not well.
Only like a benevolent dictator who loves the surf on the outskirts of his kingdom; Maybe this is love, but it is not the love God has for us. How can God love me if my pain and joys have no affect upon Him?

Because “not well” is not precise, I offered the idea of Aseity. If this describes God, He cannot know my free actions because I chose them. This is precise.
Does God posses Aseity (or exist A Se)?
Are my actions caused by me (not caused by God)?
How can God know them?
Where is the straw?

I will tell you where I think the straw is. A brilliant man once said that everything Aquinas wrote was as Straw. When you have met and loved God, I think this brilliant man was right. The God described in Aquinas is straw compared to the God who loves us.

BTW, I really enjoyed this a long time ago. I think it is more appropriate to the subject at hand than the book you recommended. But, I do not think Pope Benedict XVI was/is a Thomist; and I do not think he deals with Thomistic thought in this encyclical.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Thank you for your insight, TomNosser, but I wasn’t looking for praise of Ostler. I am looking for information about Catholic responses to Ostler.

I found a brief response to Ostler by a blogger here, if anyone is interested:

thirdmillennialtemplar.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/mormon-philosophers-objection-to-omnipotence/
Are you Seraphim?
I have said before the Omnipotence must be qualified to not include in God’s that He SOLELY brings about my free actions. I think in a creation ex nihilo universe where men do not have libertarian free will, God does SOLELY bring about my “free” actions.
I will try to re-read through the post you linked too, but I think there is real distinction here.
If you are Seraphim, perhaps you might want to weigh in on the questions I have posed to Rebecca as a start?

I can offer two criticism of Ostler, but they are minor and I follow his thoughts in most places.

If you are Seraphim, I hope you have read his 3 volume Exploring Mormon Thought.
I think his arguments are much better developed there.
Charity, TOm

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Tom,

Welcome back. The Blake Ostler cannot grasp the intellectual depth of St. Thomas Aquinas. I studied him under a Dominican with a group and it was so hard…even the priest grappled with questions and answers…this is a group, not someone who knows so much like Ostler.

Correction: It was St. Thomas Aquinas himself, after most of his theological works, was in prayer, became elevated above the floor in ecstasy with a number of witnesses to this event. When he came back down, he said he saw a glimpse of heaven, and he then considered his works now as straw.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Here is a blog that is worth a read: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/10/god-man-and-classical-theism.html edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-on-divine-simplicity.html edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-on-divine-simplicity.html edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/05/davies-on-divine-simplicity-and-freedom.html

 

[lax16]

Hello,
I have read about everything I can get my hands on from Ostler. The strength of his arguments has pulled me from positions I previously held.
I think his toughest critique of Catholic thought comes in his second book **Exploring Mormon Thought: Problems of Theism and the Love of God. **In this book he critiques a lot of LDS thought too.

I doubt he would say that his work is primarily apologetic. I think he would claim he is first a philosopher. He has absolutely offered apologetics.
Here is an anti-Aquinas argument that I think dismantles much of Catholic thought on the nature of God. It is mostly my translation of Ostler. It is probably more complex than an argument that would pull anyone from one religion to another, but it is a problem I have with Catholic thought.

1. It is easy to say, “the Bible says, ‘call no man father,’” Catholics call men “father;” therefore, Catholicism contradicts the Bible while claiming to embrace the Bible.
*2. How about this, Catholics believe that God the Father is non-begotten and non-proceeding, God the Son is non-proceeding but begotten, and God the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. How is it possible that these three are co-equal? Or co-eternal? *
3. How is it true that God is impassible and unchanging and yet He love us individually.
Or
3a. How can we freely choose between two available options and God know (before or after our choice it does not matter) what we did choose and yet He is impassible.

Now, one is stupid. I have defended Catholicism from such idiocy myself. (But I think LDS are attacked similarly here at Catholic Answers).

Two is more complex, but I am not convinced there is no way out of it.

3a is very philosophy heavy, but I believe Aquinas struggled with this and didn’t solve it.

Let me state it somewhat differently.

1. All that God is and knows is uncaused. God is what He is independent of anything that is not-God. He possesses Aseity. Or he exists absolutely “a se” of Himself. Nothing predicated of God may be said to be caused by anything that is not-God.
2. Humans possess genuine freedom. What this means exactly is debated, but Aquinas and Augustine seemed married to the idea that we act by choosing what we think we should such that our actions are caused by our will. We act in a way that is the result of our choice.
3. God knows all things. While philosophers have debated what “all things” are, nobody would suggest that God does not know what I choose to do yesterday. God knows what I did yesterday.
4. It is impossible for what I did yesterday to be independently caused by me such that I was free act as I saw fit and for God to know what I choose to do yesterday without some component of His knowledge being caused by my choice.

So if I cause my acts FREELY, God cannot know what I FREELY caused and still not be affected by me.

While it may seem trivial to the casual observer how God could know what I did yesterday, it is not if God possesses Aseity. One might say, surely God can “watch” me make a choice (some might even talk about watching from “eternal time,”) but to observe me do something is to be affected by me and God is not.

The reason I link it with #3 is that this is a big deal for me. If God is unchanged, immutable, and impassible; I cannot believe He loves me. Believing God loves me is IMO necessary for having a proper relationship with God. Therefore I reject the idea that God is immutable, impassible, absolutely unchanging, and exists a se. The God I know loves me as an individual and is affected by me. He hears my prayers because I choose to offer them. He feels my love because I express it to Him. He has an I-Thou relationship with me, not an I-It relationship with me.
cont …

Hi Tom!

You have provided some interesting information. The one thing I can’t get past though, is this: **The Jewish people have believed these things about God for thousands of years. **Christianity is a continuation of this (plus the Messiah of course!). To contradict the Jewish understanding of God is incomprehensible and unacceptable.

Mormonism is a new starting point. It just can’t be. We can’t work backwards.

 

[TOmNossor]

First, Hello Kathleen. I will try to comment a little more on what you wrote later (hopefully).
Second, ChristIsTheWay, I have read some Feser before. I hope to be able to go through some of the thoughts he presents.

Lax,
You said:

Hi Tom!

You have provided some interesting information. The one thing I can’t get past though, is this: **The Jewish people have believed these things about God for thousands of years. **Christianity is a continuation of this (plus the Messiah of course!). To contradict the Jewish understanding of God is incomprehensible and unacceptable.

Mormonism is a new starting point. It just can’t be. We can’t work backwards.

Before I address what the ramifications of pre-Christian Jews being Thomists might be …

What is your source for what Jews THOUGHT before Christ on these issues. It has been my impression that Jews, like early Christians, drunk deeply from Greek thought. I am not saying this is necessarily bad, just that I do not think there is an “imutability” of God present in pre-Christian Jewish thought.
What are your thoughts?
Charity, TOm

 

[KathleenGee]

God is all knowing. He has given us free will, but our free will to be private people won’t work.

He will find out irregardless. That is because He has given us a spirit, a soul. This is where we share immortality with God Who breathed His spirit into the clay of Adam. Each of us with our souls have a conscience.

Our conscience is down deep in our being, and it is the conscience through which the Holy Spirit most subtly speaks to us in our unique nature God has blessed each one of us with.
Our beings are the temples of the Holy Spirit, the place where God communes with us.

Without baptism these ‘communes’ are vague shadows, impressions and inspirations that are attempting to break through the bondage of Original Sin to come into the light by Baptism so that we can begin to learn to recognize God at work within us.

I think it would be wise to take Thomas Aquinas’ study of God, his first book of the Summa, at a Catholic learning center, so that you can get the full picture without slant or misunderstanding. You want to get the ‘full deck’.

Secondly, the reality of being a Catholic is that it is not that Jesus is all love and kindness. Conversion to Christ is encountering Him. And what makes Him present to us today is that He suffered and died for us.

Without Christ’s suffering and death, He would not be here with us today. We are addressing an actual living encounter with the wounded but risen and glorified Lord Jesus.

 

[Stephen168]

Hello everyone,
According to many of my Mormon friends, Blake Ostler is the best apologist the Mormon faith currently has, and in their words “nobody has been able to refute his arguments.” I was wondering if any Catholic philosophers or apologists have taken the time to address any of his arguments. The closest thing I have found is this brief dialogue that took place between Ostler and a Catholic philosophy professor here. If nobody has already taken the time to respond to Ostler’s arguments, maybe someone here will take up the gauntlet

It is my understanding that he rejects creation ex nihilio and the Trinity. While he claims to be Mormon he does not teach ‘mormon orthodoxy.’ I’m not sure why a Catholic philosopher would take the time to address him personal because he only represents himself, but I think Catholic philosophers have addressed Mormonism which include some of his ideas.

 

[lax16]

Before I address what the ramifications of pre-Christian Jews being Thomists might be …

What is your source for what Jews THOUGHT before Christ on these issues. It has been my impression that Jews, like early Christians, drunk deeply from Greek thought. I am not saying this is necessarily bad, just that I do not think there is an “imutability” of God present in pre-Christian Jewish thought.
What are your thoughts?
Charity, TOm

My source, primarily, is what Jews still believe today. Jews do not believe, and never have, any of the LDS teachings about God. For instance, that God was once a man with a body.

The following is an excellent summary of Jewish belief:
(taken from)jewfaq.org/g-d.htm

The Nature of G-d

• Most areas of Jewish belief are open to significant dispute, but not the nature of the Creator
• There are several well-accepted beliefs about the nature of the Creator
The nature of G-d is one of the few areas of abstract Jewish belief where there are a number of clear-cut ideas about which there is little dispute or disagreement.

G-d is One

One of the primary expressions of Jewish faith, recited twice daily in prayer, is the Shema, which begins “Hear, Israel: The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd is one.” This simple statement encompasses several different ideas:

There is only one G-d. No other being participated in the work of creation.
G-d is a unity. He is a single, whole, complete indivisible entity. He cannot be divided into parts or described by attributes. Any attempt to ascribe attributes to G-d is merely man’s imperfect attempt to understand the infinite.
G-d is the only being to whom we should offer praise. The Shema can also be translated as “The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd alone,” meaning that no other is our G-d, and we should not pray to any other.
G-d is the Creator of Everything

Everything in the universe was created by G-d and only by G-d. Judaism completely rejects the dualistic notion that evil was created by Satan or some other deity. All comes from G-d. As Isaiah said , “I am the L-rd, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the L-rd, that does all these things.” (Is. 45:6-7).

G-d is Incorporeal

Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d’s body (the Hand of G-d, G-d’s wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d’s body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d’s actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.

We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form.

G-d is Neither Male nor Female

This follows directly from the fact that G-d has no physical form. As one rabbi explained it to me, G-d has no body, no genitalia, therefore the very idea that G-d is male or female is patently absurd. We refer to G-d using masculine terms simply for convenience’s sake, because Hebrew has no neutral gender; G-d is no more male than a table is.

Although we usually speak of G-d in masculine terms, there are times when we refer to G-d using feminine terms. The Shechinah, the manifestation of G-d’s presence that fills the universe, is conceived of in feminine terms, and the word Shechinah is a feminine word.

G-d is Omnipotent

G-d can do anything. It is said that the only thing that is beyond His power is the fear of Him; that is, we have free will, and He cannot compel us to do His will. This belief in G-d’s omnipotence has been sorely tested during the many persecutions of Jews, but we have always maintained that G-d has a reason for allowing these things, even if we in our limited perception and understanding cannot see the reason.

G-d is Omniscient

G-d knows all things, past, present and future. He knows our thoughts.

G-d is Eternal

G-d transcends time. He has no beginning and no end. He will always be there to fulfill his promises. When Moses asked for G-d’s name, He replied, “Ehyeh asher ehyeh.” That phrase is generally translated as, “I am that I am,” but the word “ehyeh” can be present or future tense, meaning “I am what I will be” or “I will be what I will be.” The ambiguity of the phrase is often interpreted as a reference to G-d’s eternal nature.

 

[KathleenGee]

Very solid foundation, Lax, of Jewish belief.

It is from Judaism, however a small number of people, that salvation has come to the world.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
I remember listening to a lecture given by Blake.
Toward the beginning he said, “I do not know how many of you have read Thomas Aquinas …”
I thought to myself, “I have.”
Then he added, “… in Latin.”
And I thought, not so much.

You called the idea that God is love an underlying assumption in Aquinas and all Catholic thought. I originally misread that and thought you certainly have never read Aquinas. It has been a few years since I read Ostler, but as I recall he STARTS with “God is Love.” And he explores many things said about God, but will not compromise on the love of God. Aquinas does not start at God is love. He starts at God exists.

Have you read Aquinas?

Next, I am attacking no straw man. You are.
Do you believe that God is immutable?
Did Aquinas believe that God is immutable?
How can an immutable being love?
I say not well.
Only like a benevolent dictator who loves the surf on the outskirts of his kingdom; Maybe this is love, but it is not the love God has for us. How can God love me if my pain and joys have no affect upon Him?

Because “not well” is not precise, I offered the idea of Aseity. If this describes God, He cannot know my free actions because I chose them. This is precise.
Does God posses Aseity (or exist A Se)?
Are my actions caused by me (not caused by God)?
How can God know them?
Where is the straw?

I will tell you where I think the straw is. A brilliant man once said that everything Aquinas wrote was as Straw. When you have met and loved God, I think this brilliant man was right. The God described in Aquinas is straw compared to the God who loves us.

BTW, I really enjoyed this a long time ago. I think it is more appropriate to the subject at hand than the book you recommended. But, I do not think Pope Benedict XVI was/is a Thomist; and I do not think he deals with Thomistic thought in this encyclical.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

Charity, TOm

Tom,

Perhaps in a group of LDS you could ask who has even heard of Aquinas, and you might get a few raised hands. Do you think it is wise to assume Catholics have not read Aquinas? FYI, I discovered the Angelic Doctor, who I had never heard of, while still an atheist and was floored. At that time I read the Summa, and since that time I have taken an undergrad philosophy course which included St. Thomas, in a secular philosophical sense.

I am not a philosopher, I am a Catholic, as was St. Thomas, and so is Pope Benedict. A Catholic does not have to be a Thomist to understand the underlying assumption that God is love, as it is central to Catholic teaching.

Why you think the immutability of God destroys love, I can’t fathom. My guess is that you believe God must need in order to love. Specifically, that God must need you in order to love you? If that is a correct guess, then I can only recommend that you don’t confuse love with need.

Scripture teaches both the immutable nature of God, and the compassion of God. God does not become, God is. God does not come to love you because you love God, God loves you. Period. Unconditionally and unwaveringly. The greatest evidence is the Cross.

To believe God relies on your love of Him, implies that God can be lacking in love in the case of one who does not love God first. God is not reliant on us, we are reliant on God. The God we rely is love.

The book I recommended speaks directly to your questions about the begotten Son and proceeding Spirit. I try to no throw book titles out there just for the hell of it.

God loves you.

Rebecca

 

[lax16]

Very solid foundation, Lax, of Jewish belief.

It is from Judaism, however a small number of people, that salvation has come to the world.

Yes, I love the part that states that many things about Judaism are open to interpretation, but NOT the nature of God.

That says it all.

Mormonism cannot build upon the foundation of Judaism for that very reason. Therefore, discussing Mormonism as the religion that could bring forth the Messiah is an impossibility.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, I love the part that states that many things about Judaism are open to interpretation, but NOT the nature of God.

That says it all.

Mormonism cannot build upon the foundation of Judaism for that very reason. Therefore, discussing Mormonism as the religion that could bring forth the Messiah is an impossibility.

Mormons believe Judaism at the point of Christ was apostate. The coming of Jesus Christ occurred for our salvation, and to restore His Church, which they believe was originally founded with Adam. This Adamic Church waxes and wanes, goes into apostasy, and is restored, in cycle after cycle. Judaism, at the time of the prophets, is seen by them as a manifestation of the “true church”, but that church went into apostasy before Christ was born.

They see themselves as the current restoration, which is a restoration of Christianity and Judaism. You see this in their taking on terms like “Gentiles”, where everyone who is not Mormon is a “gentile”. Also, seen in their belief that they are spiritually adopted into one of the 12 tribes of Israel if their physical lineage doesn’t already have them there.



Obviously, to anyone who can think for just a moment outside of the Mormon box, the idea has many holes.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My source, primarily, is what Jews still believe today. Jews do not believe, and never have, any of the LDS teachings about God. For instance, that God was once a man with a body.

The following is an excellent summary of Jewish belief:
(taken from)jewfaq.org/g-d.htm

The Nature of G-d

• Most areas of Jewish belief are open to significant dispute, but not the nature of the Creator
• There are several well-accepted beliefs about the nature of the Creator
The nature of G-d is one of the few areas of abstract Jewish belief where there are a number of clear-cut ideas about which there is little dispute or disagreement.

G-d is One

One of the primary expressions of Jewish faith, recited twice daily in prayer, is the Shema, which begins “Hear, Israel: The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd is one.” This simple statement encompasses several different ideas:

There is only one G-d. No other being participated in the work of creation.
G-d is a unity. He is a single, whole, complete indivisible entity. He cannot be divided into parts or described by attributes. Any attempt to ascribe attributes to G-d is merely man’s imperfect attempt to understand the infinite.
G-d is the only being to whom we should offer praise. The Shema can also be translated as “The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd alone,” meaning that no other is our G-d, and we should not pray to any other.
G-d is the Creator of Everything

Everything in the universe was created by G-d and only by G-d. Judaism completely rejects the dualistic notion that evil was created by Satan or some other deity. All comes from G-d. As Isaiah said , “I am the L-rd, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the L-rd, that does all these things.” (Is. 45:6-7).

G-d is Incorporeal

Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d’s body (the Hand of G-d, G-d’s wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d’s body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d’s actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.

We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form.

G-d is Neither Male nor Female

This follows directly from the fact that G-d has no physical form. As one rabbi explained it to me, G-d has no body, no genitalia, therefore the very idea that G-d is male or female is patently absurd. We refer to G-d using masculine terms simply for convenience’s sake, because Hebrew has no neutral gender; G-d is no more male than a table is.

Although we usually speak of G-d in masculine terms, there are times when we refer to G-d using feminine terms. The Shechinah, the manifestation of G-d’s presence that fills the universe, is conceived of in feminine terms, and the word Shechinah is a feminine word.

G-d is Omnipotent

G-d can do anything. It is said that the only thing that is beyond His power is the fear of Him; that is, we have free will, and He cannot compel us to do His will. This belief in G-d’s omnipotence has been sorely tested during the many persecutions of Jews, but we have always maintained that G-d has a reason for allowing these things, even if we in our limited perception and understanding cannot see the reason.

G-d is Omniscient

G-d knows all things, past, present and future. He knows our thoughts.

G-d is Eternal

G-d transcends time. He has no beginning and no end. He will always be there to fulfill his promises. When Moses asked for G-d’s name, He replied, “Ehyeh asher ehyeh.” That phrase is generally translated as, “I am that I am,” but the word “ehyeh” can be present or future tense, meaning “I am what I will be” or “I will be what I will be.” The ambiguity of the phrase is often interpreted as a reference to G-d’s eternal nature.

Well, current Judaism is apostate. Mormons seek to regress to a time when the Hebrews struggled with polytheism. Mormons see the Hebrew’s polytheism as support for their multiple gods and goddesses. Judaism moving to strict monotheism is a sign of Judaism’s apostasy.

 

[TOmNossor]

God is all knowing. He has given us free will, but our free will to be private people won’t work.

He will find out irregardless. That is because He has given us a spirit, a soul. This is where we share immortality with God Who breathed His spirit into the clay of Adam. Each of us with our souls have a conscience.

If the above is a solution to my query then the best I can read of it is that our Spirit is God so that when we chose God knows, but it is not knowledge from outside of God.
I cannot image that is what you are saying. Are you answering my query?

Without baptism these ‘communes’ are vague shadows, impressions and inspirations that are attempting to break through the bondage of Original Sin to come into the light by Baptism so that we can begin to learn to recognize God at work within us.

LDS like Catholics recognize a connection to God produced when sacraments are carried out. Both of us I think MUST acknowledge that God reaches out to those who have not received these sacraments. If that were not the case, then the un-evangelized would have no hope of recognizing God and embracing Him even when they are evangelized. I am not satisfied with LDS distinctions concerning the need for these sacraments nor am I satisfied with Catholic distinctions.

I think it would be wise to take Thomas Aquinas’ study of God, his first book of the Summa, at a Catholic learning center, so that you can get the full picture without slant or misunderstanding. You want to get the ‘full deck’.

There is no questions that I could learn more about Aquinas. I have read portions of his Summa. I also read Kreeft’s Summa on the Summa.
I do not believe I am misunderstanding Aquinas in this area. Do you believe I am?
Does Aquinas teach that God exists “a se” or possesses “aseity?”
Linked to this is the question of if God is immutable.
Does Aquinas teach that God is immutable?

It is quite clear to me that this is what Aquinas teaches. The problem I highlight (that Ostler highlights) flows from this. Aquinas even recognizes it.

Have you read the problem I declare exists?
Can you solve it either by denying that Aquinas taught what I claim he taught OR by explaining why the problem does not logically follow from Aquinas’ teaching?

So, it is my opinion that increased education on Aquinas’ teaching is not going to resolve this for me.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

My source, primarily, is what Jews still believe today. Jews do not believe, and never have, any of the LDS teachings about God. For instance, that God was once a man with a body.

…

G-d is Omnipotent

G-d can do anything. It is said that the only thing that is beyond His power is the fear of Him; that is, we have free will, and He cannot compel us to do His will. This belief in G-d’s omnipotence has been sorely tested during the many persecutions of Jews, but we have always maintained that G-d has a reason for allowing these things, even if we in our limited perception and understanding cannot see the reason.

G-d is Omniscient

G-d knows all things, past, present and future. He knows our thoughts.

G-d is Eternal

G-d transcends time. He has no beginning and no end. He will always be there to fulfill his promises. When Moses asked for G-d’s name, He replied, “Ehyeh asher ehyeh.” That phrase is generally translated as, “I am that I am,” but the word “ehyeh” can be present or future tense, meaning “I am what I will be” or “I will be what I will be.” The ambiguity of the phrase is often interpreted as a reference to G-d’s eternal nature.

It was my guess that you were speaking of modern Judaism not ancient Judaism.
The Old Testament does not teach Immutability of God.
The Qumran community didn’t.
Truth be told, I do not know of much that is written.
We remember that Aquinas placed limits on God’s omnipotence. I have never seen such a treatment in ancient Jewish thought. It was enough for them to say God is omnipotent.

I am familiar with development in Catholic thought. I am less familiar with development in Jewish thought. But, I am unmoved by the idea that modern Catholicism must understand God’s immutability correctly because modern Judaism does.

Now, forgetting this, how does the immutable God know actions that I bring about through the exercise of my free will?
Ostler spends much more time critiquing Catholic theological/philosophical thought than defending the ancient roots of LDS theological/philosophical thought.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Perhaps in a group of LDS you could ask who has even heard of Aquinas, and you might get a few raised hands. Do you think it is wise to assume Catholics have not read Aquinas? FYI, I discovered the Angelic Doctor, who I had never heard of, while still an atheist and was floored. At that time I read the Summa, and since that time I have taken an undergrad philosophy course which included St. Thomas, in a secular philosophical sense.

I am really interested in an acknowledgement that my concern is unsolvable or a solution to my concern. I am glad you have read Aquinas. Have I miss-read him?

I am not a philosopher, I am a Catholic, as was St. Thomas, and so is Pope Benedict. A Catholic does not have to be a Thomist to understand the underlying assumption that God is love, as it is central to Catholic teaching.

It is true that a Catholic does not have to be a Thomist to be a Catholic.
Ostler would call himself a philosopher and that is why I started down this path.
I also do not think I have ever seen an acknowledgement of or a solution to the problem I am offering here. Telling me to read more Aquinas does not seem likely to help.
If you want to deny God’s existence “a se” or God’s “aseity” (I have been corrected as to how I use these words, but I was too thick to understand and implement the corrections), and declare that Aquinas was wrong (or I read him wrong), then fine, but I do not see that here yet.

Why you think the immutability of God destroys love, I can’t fathom.

That is an excellent question. Let me explain.
I do not need God to descend into despair if I decide I hate Him. I do not need Him to dance a jig if I choose to love Him. But, if He loves me I need Him to be affected by my love or rejection of Him at least some.
A Benevolent Dictator could be said to love a surf on the outskirts of his kingdom because the dictator wills good for all his subjects, but I have felt more from God than this. He is involved with me. He love me. He does not need me, but He wants me. When He has me He is affected positively and when I reject Him, He is affected negatively. He is more than the benevolent dictator. This is my experience of God, but this is not the God of Aquinas.

Again, I do not have power to make God joyful or sorrowful, I merely have the ability to pour a small bit into the glorious well that is God’s joyful existence. A small bit of good or bad, but my small bit.

An earthy father who was blissfully happy when his son won the wrestling tournament and blissfully happy when his son received a compound fracture at the wrestling tournament taking zero notice of either, would not be consider a loving father. We are to love one another as God loves us (see John 13:24). Surely this is not a command to love impassibly (whatever loving impassibly might possibly mean).

I do not know where you will go in responding to me. It is possible to turn this into the little child who wants Daddies attention, but if that is what it is then I am the little child and I can live with that. I do not need God to need me, just to love me in some real sense of the word love. And that is how I experience God’s love.

And that IMO is how Aquinas experienced God’s love toward the end of his life. And then Aquinas knew that all he had written was STRAW. I actually believe that Aquinas could not right what he had written with what he experienced. So he said what he had written was straw and never wrote again (or explained what he meant).

Again, God’s immutability leads to the problem that God cannot know actions I choose. It also leads to God being unable to love in a real way. I think it is ridiculous to say that God as Aquinas defined Him cannot know my free actions and I think the logical progression is very sound. I think that it is heartbreaking to say that God as Aquinas defined Him cannot love in a real way, but the logical progression is less easy to follow.

So, how can God be immutable and know what I freely choose? If this is impossible and yet God knows what I freely choose, then God is not immutable (and the heartbreak is avoided).
Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

It was my guess that you were speaking of modern Judaism not ancient Judaism.
The Old Testament does not teach Immutability of God.
The Qumran community didn’t.
Truth be told, I do not know of much that is written.
We remember that Aquinas placed limits on God’s omnipotence. I have never seen such a treatment in ancient Jewish thought. It was enough for them to say God is omnipotent.

I am familiar with development in Catholic thought. I am less familiar with development in Jewish thought. But, I am unmoved by the idea that modern Catholicism must understand God’s immutability correctly because modern Judaism does.

Now, forgetting this, how does the immutable God know actions that I bring about through the exercise of my free will?
Ostler spends much more time critiquing Catholic theological/philosophical thought than defending the ancient roots of LDS theological/philosophical thought.
Charity, TOm

Tom - Please define modern and ancient Judaism.

There is no discussing God and his immutability until we can come to a definition of God that is true and binding.

I really don’t see how we can discuss Ostler and his critiques without knowing who God is and for that we look to the religion of Judaism, not Mormonism.

 

[lax16]

Well, current Judaism is apostate. Mormons seek to regress to a time when the Hebrews struggled with polytheism. Mormons see the Hebrew’s polytheism as support for their multiple gods and goddesses. Judaism moving to strict monotheism is a sign of Judaism’s apostasy.

So now the Jews are apostates, too? Was Jesus?

 

[TOmNossor]

Yes, I love the part that states that many things about Judaism are open to interpretation, but NOT the nature of God.

That says it all.

Mormonism cannot build upon the foundation of Judaism for that very reason. Therefore, discussing Mormonism as the religion that could bring forth the Messiah is an impossibility.
I do not think that ancient Judaism evidences the philosophical precision present in the text you offered. Do you disagree?
If you do that is fine. I am not an expert on ancient Judaism and my sense that it DEVELOPED is not as solid as my sense that Catholicism DEVELOPED.

But, you said:

Hi Tom!

You have provided some interesting information.
Could you deal with the information?
If the immutable God cannot know my free actions AND the God we worship does know my free actions, then we do not worship an immutable God.
If Aquinas and the ancient Jews worked themselves into a box in 2000BC or Augustine, Aquinas, and the less ancient Jews worked themselves into a box in 420AD, the box is no more real. I do not want to be in a box where God loves me like a benevolent dictator and not like my Father.

What am I missing? Reject one of my premises or break the logic or ?
Charity, TOm