Catholic responses to Blake Ostler (Mormon apologist)?

[TOmNossor]

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.

I do not believe the Jewish authors of the Bible believed God was immutable.
I do not believe the Christian authors of the Bible beleived God was immutable.
This is about the immutable God or ???
Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

Hi Tom - As I see it, you are asking to make chicken soup without the chicken.

You are coming to the whole discussion with a Mormon view of God, refuse to think about the God of Judaism and that Jesus himself was a Jew (or perhaps you would say, a modern Jew?) and therefore, the conversation has stalled.

I am not trying to be difficult, but trying to find common ground in which to begin the discussion. The True Nature of God is absolutely essential to this conversation.

Without a definition we can both (all) agree on, I feel that I can’t contribute beyond here.

I am sure some of the other posters will be able to converse on the topic.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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?

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.

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 don’t know why you think St. Thomas imposes dictatorship in God. Probably that is why the answer you are getting is to read more of St. Thomas, and why I say, you have built a straw man.

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.

I don’t know why you think God is not paying attention to you. You still haven’t explained.

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).

Possible, but you are guessing at what another person thinks.

What Catholics see is confirmation of what we believe, God is God, and as creature we cannot understand God. We can try, in different ways, including philosophy to explain what we believe about God, or to explain the mysteries that God has revealed.

Mormons make God into the image of themselves, I think for the same reasons, a desire to understand God. But this approach denies the transcendence of God, making God nothing more than a super hero, a man with super human abilities.

So, what I see in you, is the inability to let go. Let God be God. Be still, and know,that He is God.

I also see that you have precisely a backwards view of the Fatherhood of God. A human father is not the template for Fatherhood, God is. Also why I recommended Pope Benedict’s book, because he speaks to this as well.

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.

That is your assertion, which no Catholic would agree with, including St. Thomas.

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

I’m still not understanding why you think immutability effects free will or love. Perhaps if you posted the relevant writing of St. Thomas.

 

[TOmNossor]

On my phone now.
Lax and Rebecca to me this boils down to what the word "immutable " ( or “aseity”) means.
I can provide my thoughts, but I would look it up before I did.
If I understand those words remotely correctly all I have said follows and nothing either of you have said acknowledges the glaring problem.

This is about the belief that God is immutable.
If you get to it before I do could you provide a definition.

If I was more humble and/or I had not seen this issue unaddressed so many times, I woukd conclude I am just too stupid to talk to you. Maybe I am.

Lets forget I am a Mormon.

Is God immutable or not?
if so what in my reasoning is flawed?

I do not get why this question is so hard unless it is unanswerable from a faithful Catholic position. Then I understand. Else am at a loss. Of course I have a pride problem so maybe that is it.
Charity,
TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Rebecca,
The important part of "benevolent dictator " scenerio is that some suggest God loves us by willing "good " (benevolence) for us without experiencing our joys and pains (the distant surf) .
This is the inlet definition of “impassible love” I have seen.

And the human father loves less well than the real God. But the human father loves better than the impassible God.

Hope that clarifies some.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

On my phone now.
Lax and Rebecca to me this boils down to what the word "immutable " ( or “aseity”) means.
I can provide my thoughts, but I would look it up before I did.
If I understand those words remotely correctly all I have said follows and nothing either of you have said acknowledges the glaring problem.

This is about the belief that God is immutable.
If you get to it before I do could you provide a definition.

If I was more humble and/or I had not seen this issue unaddressed so many times, I woukd conclude I am just too stupid to talk to you. Maybe I am.

Lets forget I am a Mormon.

Is God immutable or not?
if so what in my reasoning is flawed?

I do not get why this question is so hard unless it is unanswerable from a faithful Catholic position. Then I understand. Else am at a loss. Of course I have a pride problem so maybe that is it.
Charity,
TOm

I don’t think you are stupid. You have to explain how you are getting from point a to point b.

Immutable means unchanging.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
The important part of "benevolent dictator " scenerio is that some suggest God loves us by willing "good " (benevolence) for us without experiencing our joys and pains (the distant surf) .
This is the inlet definition of “impassible love” I have seen.

I guess the problem I’m having understanding this is how you fit Jesus Christ into this idea of a God who does not suffer with us. (?)

I think, and it is just a tinkering here in my head, that an OT view of God, without the revelation of the Son of God, might support what you are saying. But we aren’t Jews, we are Christians.

And the human father loves less well than the real God. But the human father loves better than the impassible God.

Hope that clarifies some.
Charity, TOm

Again, you need to explain why you believe this! I’m not trying to be obtuse, but you made a leap that hasn’t been explained.

 

[SteveVH]

On my phone now.
Lax and Rebecca to me this boils down to what the word "immutable " ( or “aseity”) means.
I can provide my thoughts, but I would look it up before I did.
If I understand those words remotely correctly all I have said follows and nothing either of you have said acknowledges the glaring problem.

This is about the belief that God is immutable.
If you get to it before I do could you provide a definition.

If I was more humble and/or I had not seen this issue unaddressed so many times, I woukd conclude I am just too stupid to talk to you. Maybe I am.

Lets forget I am a Mormon.

Is God immutable or not?
if so what in my reasoning is flawed?

I do not get why this question is so hard unless it is unanswerable from a faithful Catholic position. Then I understand. Else am at a loss. Of course I have a pride problem so maybe that is it.
Charity,
TOm

Merriam Webster
not capable of or susceptible to change

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tom, i was thinking on a series of discussions I participated in at my parish, where we discussed charity. We understand caritas by looking at God’s charity towards us. The relevant point to this thread, is God in his compassion is moved.

So perhaps that is the piece we are missing here.

traces-cl.com/2010/02/charitygift.html

 

[Stephen168]

I cannot make it work (and this is not JUST an axe I hit the Catholic Church with, but a reason that I think Catholicism doesn’t work at least in its most prevalent thought traditions. That God really loves me is much more important than that He is unchanging, immutable, impassible, …).
And if you think the above is easy to understand and want more (much harder to understand by my lights – I only think I get it), I can share why God cannot create ex nihilo men who have “libertarian free will.” This comes from a Catholic philosopher and from Ostler (their conclusions are the same their arguments are almost the same). I could believe in the Calvinistic God that MUST exist if God created ex nihilo and we do not have LFW, but He is not the God who loves in the sense that the real God is.
Anyway, my experience with both of the above arguments is that few Catholics deal with them.

RoryMcKenzie56; 6558486:

Hi Tom,

I do not have the ability to satisfy you regarding the speculations of the doctors, but I think I may have a chance at making you reevaluate the apologetic usefulness of your argument. I think you will be a little disappointed to discover how little the Church has definitivekly taught regarding God’s immutability. Even if I grant your point, the Church is not, I think you will agree, necessarily committed to its defense.

I am the one who raised the important question about what it is in the Councils that teaches that God has a kind of immutability that removes the possibility of love. The words are the teaching. And I will show that if it is a difficulty for the Catholics, it is equally a difficulty for Mormons.

First we need to examine what the Church has officially taught regarding impassibility. It is rather late in arriving on the scene, and then very briefly, without any developed explanation, with the Church already over a millenium old and the Eastern Schism having occurred.

1. “We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple…”

-----Lateran Council IV, Ecumenical XII, canon 1, 1215 AD, (Fordham Univ. translation)

The official teachings that follow will be of the same character.

1. “We believe that this holy Trinity is not three Gods but one God, omnipotent, eternal, invisible, and unchangeable.”

-----Council of Lyons II, Ecumenical XIV, Profession of Faith of Michael Palaeologus, 1274 AD, (Denzinger’s #463) (for chronological reference, St. Thos. Aquinas died on his way to this council)

1. “First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons.”

-----Council of Florence, Ecumenical XVII, Session 11, 4 Feb., 1442, (EWTN website)

1. “The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection. Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.”

------Vatican Council I, Ecumenical XX, Session 3, ch. 1, 24 April, 1870, (EWTN website)

In conceding your argument, I do not disparage the great doctors and saints of Holy Mother Church who have expounded upon God’s impassibility with such rigor that you find it inconsistent with love. I am nearly certain that they correctly expIain the apostolic teaching. But even if they have corrupted the true meaning, I think you will see that the difficulty is not found in the teachings of the four councils quoted. The difficulty is only among the speculative theologians. However reliable Catholics hold them to usually be, they are fallible.

I suggest that in whatever way we reconcile God’s love with His unchangeableness in James 1:16, 17, is the way we do it with regard to the four recent councils. I am sure, accepting the Epistle of James as canonical, Latter-day Saints acknowledge a sense in which God is immutable without compromising the possibility of love. If this was the only objection you could raise toward your becoming Catholic, I could heartily encourage you to endorse a Jamesian “modified immutability”.

Following the apostolic teaching which is clearly found in James, and without necessarily endorsing the speculations of the Fathers, schoolmen, or doctors, we simply find that the Church has officially taught us what is said in Scripture about unchangeability. Whatever James meant, the Church means and it is compatible with the love of God revealed elsewhere in Holy Scripture. If philosophy is helpful to our theology that is fine, but we believe whether she is a serviceable handmaid or not.

Quote:
“Do not err, therefore, my dearest brethren. Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration.”
------The Epistle of James 1:16, 17

Rory

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ah well, the topic is familiar.

 

[TOmNossor]

I guess the problem I’m having understanding this is how you fit Jesus Christ into this idea of a God who does not suffer with us. (?)

I think, and it is just a tinkering here in my head, that an OT view of God, without the revelation of the Son of God, might support what you are saying. But we aren’t Jews, we are Christians.

Again, you need to explain why you believe this! I’m not trying to be obtuse, but you made a leap that hasn’t been explained.
I do not think the God of the Old Testament is immutable. “God repented…”

I think Christ is God who suffered with us, but one of the reasons Catholics postulated the dual nature of Christ was to explain how the impassible God became man and suffered. Because God could not suffer and yet Christ the man did suffer. I see no reason to believe that Christ had a dual nature. I also do not see an impassible God in the Bible.
Arianism argued that Christ suffered so He could not be God.
After affirming the divinity of Christ the dual nature of Christ was necessary to preserve the impassibility of the divine nature.

From the thread Stephen168 found here is this from Pelikan. It is important in that it speaks to Lax and his concern about what Jews taught AND it is important because it is my LDS way of dealing with Rory’s quote of James.

From Pelikan:
The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) pp. 22:

In Judaism it was possible simultaneously to ascribe change of purpose to God and to declare that God did not change, without resolving the paradox; for the immutability of God was seen as the trustworthiness of his covenanted relation to his people in the concrete history of his judgment and mercy, rather than as a primarily ontological category. But in the development of the Christian doctrine of God, immutability assumed the status of an axiomatic presupposition for the discussion of other doctrines.

I would suggest that from before Nicea through after the 4th Lateran council the immutability of God has been an “axiomatic presupposition.” It IMO is difficult for Hans Kung to extract himself from this form of immutability.

I think Rory in the thread linked by Stephen168 suggested a Jamesian view of immutability was possible. I think such would be difficult when the term “immutability” was so specifically used in councils AND when the premise of absolute immutability of God was such a force in the early councils.

Would you suggest that a modified view of immutability should be embraced?
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Ah well, the topic is familiar.

Yes, and again Tom introduces his strawman.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I do not think the God of the Old Testament is immutable. “God repented…”

I think Christ is God who suffered with us, but one of the reasons Catholics postulated the dual nature of Christ was to explain how the impassible God became man and suffered. Because God could not suffer and yet Christ the man did suffer. I see no reason to believe that Christ had a dual nature. I also do not see an impassible God in the Bible.
Arianism argued that Christ suffered so He could not be God.
After affirming the divinity of Christ the dual nature of Christ was necessary to preserve the impassibility of the divine nature.

From the thread Stephen168 found here is this from Pelikan. It is important in that it speaks to Lax and his concern about what Jews taught AND it is important because it is my LDS way of dealing with Rory’s quote of James.

From Pelikan:
The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) pp. 22:

I would suggest that from before Nicea through after the 4th Lateran council the immutability of God has been an “axiomatic presupposition.” It IMO is difficult for Hans Kung to extract himself from this form of immutability.

I think Rory in the thread linked by Stephen168 suggested a Jamesian view of immutability was possible. I think such would be difficult when the term “immutability” was so specifically used in councils AND when the premise of absolute immutability of God was such a force in the early councils.

Would you suggest that a modified view of immutability should be embraced?
Charity, TOm

As I said, I am not a philosopher. Logically, an immutable God makes sense to me, without sacrificing God’s love. I still don’t know where you see it doesn’t, or what needs modifying!

Of course Jesus is God, and Jesus is Man, that does not change our belief that Jesus suffers with us. It isn’t like you can cut Him in half and say, half of Jesus does not understand our suffering and not have pity for us. Jesus is a whole Person, of two natures. Not two halves of a person.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, and again Tom introduces his strawman.

I’d like to understand the thought process to get where he is, doesn’t seem we’re able to communicate though.

 

[Celticnovice]

Did the Incarnation affect God’s immutability, though? No:

It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh. At the moment of conception, in the womb of the Blessed Mother, through the forcefulness of God’s activity, not only was the human soul of Christ created but the Word assumed the man that was conceived. When God created the world, the world was changed, that is, it passed from the state of nonentity to the state of existence; and there was no change in the Logos or Creative Word of God the Father. Nor was there change in that Logos when it began to terminate the human nature. A new relation ensued, to be sure; but this new relation implied in the Logos no new reality, no real change; all new reality, all real change, was in the human nature. Anyone who wishes to go into this very intricate question of the manner of the Hypostatic Union of the two natures in the one Divine Personality, may with great profit read St. Thomas (III:4:2); Scotus (in III, Dist. i); (De Incarnatione, Disp. II, sec. 3); Gregory, of Valentia (in III, D. i, q. 4). Any modern text book on theology will give various opinions in regard to the way of the union of the Person assuming with the nature assumed.

(Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Incarnation”; cf. St. Thomas Aquinas’ related comments in the Summa)…
Link:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/…utability.html

I copied and pasted this from another thread. I am sorry if this was already posted/discussed…until then, I’ll just be

 

[TexanKnight]

On my phone now.
Lax and Rebecca to me this boils down to what the word "immutable " ( or “aseity”) means.
I can provide my thoughts, but I would look it up before I did.
If I understand those words remotely correctly all I have said follows and nothing either of you have said acknowledges the glaring problem.

This is about the belief that God is immutable.
If you get to it before I do could you provide a definition.

If I was more humble and/or I had not seen this issue unaddressed so many times, I woukd conclude I am just too stupid to talk to you. Maybe I am.

Lets forget I am a Mormon.

Is God immutable or not?
if so what in my reasoning is flawed?

I do not get why this question is so hard unless it is unanswerable from a faithful Catholic position. Then I understand. Else am at a loss. Of course I have a pride problem so maybe that is it.
Charity,
TOm

Well, we certainlu know the lds god is changeable. he was once a sinful man, he changes his min d based on money, and he can ;t make up his mind on most issues

 

[TOmNossor]

As I said, I am not a philosopher. Logically, an immutable God makes sense to me, without sacrificing God’s love. I still don’t know where you see it doesn’t, or what needs modifying!

Of course Jesus is God, and Jesus is Man, that does not change our belief that Jesus suffers with us. It isn’t like you can cut Him in half and say, half of Jesus does not understand our suffering and not have pity for us. Jesus is a whole Person, of two natures. Not two halves of a person.
I am saying that the immutable and impassible God does not interact with me as a person.
The human father interacts with his son by experiencing the son’s hopes and fears. By celebrating the love the son give the father or lamenting the rejection of the father by the son. The impassible (immutable) God does not have access to this experience because He is totally unchanged.
I think Father Weinandy does an excellent job of explaining why so many Christians are rejecting the impassibility of God.
Here is his essay:
mrrena.com/2004/suffer.php
Note: Weinandy is quite good at expressing why the passibility of God is sweeping over Christian theology even though he argues this is a mistake.
I do not agree that it is a mistake especially if one does not embrace the theological positions built upon the absolute immutability of God.
Weinandy tries to redeem God from the criticism I and many modern theologians offer. Recommending his position is that it is the historical theology of Catholicism and Protestantism and the truths upon which many of the earliest theological controversies turned.
But, I think too much is lost.
I think there are very few folks in any worship service who conceive of God as impassible. To bring this to them would result in these words IMO(slightly out of context), “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.”

I do not think this is a straw man, but a real issue created by embracing God’s immutability in the axiomatic way it was embraced (a word used by Pelakan and Weinandy-I think).
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I am saying that the immutable and impassible God does not interact with me as a person.

And that god is a product of your making.

I do not think this is a straw man, but a real issue created by embracing God’s immutability in the axiomatic way it was embraced (a word used by Pelakan and Weinandy-I think).

God did not create your understanding of his immutability, you did. It is a strawman created by you, not by God or his Catholic Church. And you have known that for years.

 

[TOmNossor]

And that god is a product of your making.

God did not create your understanding of his immutability, you did. It is a strawman created by you, not by God or his Catholic Church. And you have known that for years.

It is not something I pretend to believe is a product of God’s immutablity.
Did you read Father Weinandy? By my reading he acknowledges my concerns and suggests that my concerns (or at least similar ones) have resulted in or threatened to result in “new orthodoxy.”

Now, I reject this doctrine. I also do not believe that Catholics or Protestants worship an impassible God. They just do not interact with God as if He doesn’t interact with them. I think almost every action we take in worship of God is taken as if God is passible.

That does not change the fact that I truly believe the doctrine of impassibility empties God of what we should worship.
I do not know what else to tell you. I do not think what Rory calls Jamesian view of immutability is consistent with the councils.
Charity, TOm