Christ, divine simplicity, and actus purus

[quaestio45]

It seems to me that Christ is not compatible with the divine simplicity, nor as an extent, the concept of actus purus.

For it seems to me that to be divinely simply is to be completely devoid of the possibility of division, for the entire substance would be of the exact same singular nature. However, if Christ were of a human nature along with a divine nature, then it must be that there can be division within God (the divine and the human), therefore, it does not seem as if the claim “God is divinely simple” can be compatible with Christ.

Secondly, it does not seem as if Christ can be compatible with the “actus purus” concept of God as an extent, for one must necessarily hold if they believe in “actus purus” that God is immutable. However, prior to the conception of Christ, God was of a purely spirtual nature (spiritual father, spiritual son, and the Holy spirit), but after his conception, the son changed from being purely spiritual to being human too. Thus, there was a change in God from having all the persons of the God head be spiritual, to having one of the persons be human. As such, a change occurred, to which would contradict our conception of an “actus purus” God. Therefore, Christ is incompatible with “acutus purus”.

P1) To be divinely simple is to be indivisible into components and lacking all composition
P2) Christ is God the son, whom holds a divine and human nature
P3) Christ, and therefore God, has a divisible nature along with composition
C1) Therefore, Christ cannot be a member of a divinely simple trinity.
P4) God is actus purus and thus unchanging
P5) Before Christ, God was purely spiritual, while after Christ, God had a composite God head, and thus there was a change
C2) Christ cannot be a part of an actus purus God.

 

[Vico]

It seems to me that Christ is not compatible with the divine simplicity, nor as an extent, the concept of actus purus.
…

The natures and person was discussed in the early councils, especially Council Of Ephesus and Council of Chalcedon, for some thought there should be two persons in Jesus Christ. The Holy Trinity is one divine nature. The Person of the Son assumed human nature without change or division. What was created is the body and soul of Jesus Christ, but with one person, the Son of God. One divine person, two natures, and two wills.

See Denzinger, from Chalcedon:

148 Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all teach that with one accord we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in human nature, truly God and the same with a rational soul and a body truly man, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with us according to human nature, like unto us in all things except sin, [cf. Heb. 4:15]; indeed born of the Father before the ages according to divine nature, but in the last days the same born of the virgin Mary, Mother of God according to human nature; for us and for our deliverance, one and the same Christ only begotten Son, our Lord, acknowledged in two natures,’ without mingling, without change, indivisibly, undividedly, the distinction of the natures nowhere removed on account of the union but rather the peculiarity of each nature being kept, and uniting in one person and substance, not divided or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son only begotten God Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as from the beginning the prophets taught about Him and the Lord Jesus Himself taught us, and the creed of our fathers has handed down to us.

http://patristica.net/denzinger/

 

[STT]

It seems to me that Christ is not compatible with the divine simplicity, nor as an extent, the concept of actus purus.

For it seems to me that to be divinely simply is to be completely devoid of the possibility of division, for the entire substance would be of the exact same singular nature. However, if Christ were of a human nature along with a divine nature, then it must be that there can be division within God (the divine and the human), therefore, it does not seem as if the claim “God is divinely simple” can be compatible with Christ.

Secondly, it does not seem as if Christ can be compatible with the “actus purus” concept of God as an extent, for one must necessarily hold if they believe in “actus purus” that God is immutable. However, prior to the conception of Christ, God was of a purely spirtual nature (spiritual father, spiritual son, and the Holy spirit), but after his conception, the son changed from being purely spiritual to being human too. Thus, there was a change in God from having all the persons of the God head be spiritual, to having one of the persons be human. As such, a change occurred, to which would contradict our conception of an “actus purus” God. Therefore, Christ is incompatible with “acutus purus”.

P1) To be divinely simple is to be indivisible into components and lacking all composition
P2) Christ is God the son, whom holds a divine and human nature
P3) Christ, and therefore God, has a divisible nature along with composition
C1) Therefore, Christ cannot be a member of a divinely simple trinity.
P4) God is actus purus and thus unchanging
P5) Before Christ, God was purely spiritual, while after Christ, God had a composite God head, and thus there was a change
C2) Christ cannot be a part of an actus purus God.

They claim that there is a union between different natures. I am just wondering how Jesus could then be left along on the cross when He was saying “Oh God why you forsaken me?”.

 

[quaestio45]

What was created is the body and soul of Jesus Christ, but with one person, the Son of God. One divine person, two natures, and two wills.

Well God the son did have a change in so far as he was free from having any body at one point and then at another point he had a body, right? Or at least firmly attached to one, correct?

 

[CRM_Brother]

"Oh God why you forsaken me?”.

This is not a strict prosaic statement on the part of Christ but rather the opening line to Psalm 22, which explains that while God may appear to be absent, the reality of the situation is that He always accompanies us, even in our darkest hour.

 

[STT]

This is not a strict prosaic statement on the part of Christ but rather the opening line to Psalm 22, which explains that while God may appear to be absent, the reality of the situation is that He always accompanies us, even in our darkest hour.

How Jesus could be left alone if He and God are one?

 

[julietteamdg]

He said APPEARS to be absent, not IS absent.

 

[kapp19]

St. Thomas takes on this issue quite directly and thoroughly in the Tertia Pars (see Q1-7):

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm

It’s important to make all the right distinctions… And to allow the pieces to “fall into place” once assumptions have been made.

 

[kapp19]

The entire life of Israel is summed up in those words, in the context of the Crucifixion… specifically, God’s relationship with the Temple, its destruction, and reconstruction - now happening again, in Christ, the New Temple, Who is being destroyed and will be rebuilt in three days (cf. what is happening at the Temple at that very moment - the sacrifices, and the curtain tearing top to bottom, vis-a-vis the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, as the New Paschal Lamb, Whose Blood is upon a doorway to everlasting life, and Whose cloak is woven from top to bottom, etc.)…

-K

 

[Vico]

Vico:

What was created is the body and soul of Jesus Christ, but with one person, the Son of God. One divine person, two natures, and two wills.

Well God the son did have a change in so far as he was free from having any body at one point and then at another point he had a body, right? Or at least firmly attached to one, correct?

Catholic Encyclopedia describes the hypostatic union:

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.

The Divine Logos identified with Divine nature (Hypostatic Union) means then that the Divine Hypostasis (or Person, or Word, or Logos) appropriates to Itself human nature, and takes in every respect the place of the human person. In this way, the human nature of Christ, though not a human person, loses nothing of the perfection of the perfect man; for the Divine Person supplies the place of the human.

Drum, W. (1910). The Incarnation. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm

 

[BrunoMaria]

To measure God with and in human logic terms, is doomed from the start.
He who tries to, will never see God.

Our house-lady for 20 eras nw, a Polish Catholic asked me:

„how on earth can YOUR GOD see and allow the dying of these two little girls with now mom and dad of them left back in deepest agony?“

Now - this and similar outcries of doubts in Gd, we experience so often with people of weak belief.

It’s clear, that if God would prevent this grief, - no child world-wide would die. It couldn’t even die. Murderers couldn’t kill a child, nor ailment could. Such obviousness of God wouldn’t allow disbelief in God, belief’d be redundant as God’s being would be so obvious.

But God draw the curtain between Himself and us, so now it takes belief to recognize God in all of His creation (Ignatius of Loyola), and we have to die before we can actually see God in all eternity as reward for our belief. Such all misdoing and disasters remain potential.

First humans (Adamah) saw, at least heard God physically speak to them - until they made God very angry by disregarding His one and only command (whatever that was and is symbolized by the Apple).

From that point on Death came over the world with all it’s attending ills. God in His love even experienced in Jesus Christ (to mention this reversed as Jesus and God is One) all the misery when He was among us, and He healed many Mt 8:16, and He fed eg. in Mt 14:13.

Jesus Christ God in God also even suffered and grieved - eg in Mt 26:38 until He died same as we have to.

So, God knows about our little as real big sorrows. Believers though often do get real and concrete help of God - but it’s them only, who actually realize God’s hand.

Well, some think it’s „unfair“ that Jesus just healed those He met. What about the rest of the sick and weighed down with pain and sorrows - here now and today.

But then lets first ask ourselves, if we indeed are such firm believers in Christ, that we no longer hope, but instead know that we will see Jesus Christ to whom is given all power in Heaven and on earth.
continued in next post:

 

[BrunoMaria]

If we just hope instead of to know that it’s just as Jesus said, we haven’t too much chance to actually pass the narrow door Jesus spoke about.

And secondly; Jesus Christ who is God and One with the Father and The Holy Spirit said to His disciples in Luke 10,23: “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.”

In other words - we simply are born 2000 years after this - and same as the first humans, have to be without that physical togetherness with God, before we pass that probation on earth on the scale belie-disbelief.

But remember; least of those who met and touched God in Jesus Christ when He was here in flesh, where aware of it, nor did recognize Jesus as the Messiah and Christ.

Probably you and I hadn’t either if we had be present then.

Today too we miss recognizing God in all of His creation, and relay more on automatisms and coincidences of „Evolution“ as there always will be ever so clever evolutionists who „prove“ that it’s all just a logic array of it all - excluding God, like this tiny nice little duckling you protect, that struggles to get off you, right into to pond where all it’s predators wait for it.

James D. Watson, an American molecular biologist, remarked once to the subject:

“The theory of evolution is a globally recognized theory, not because it could be proven, but because it is the only alternative to creation that we do not want to believe in.”

 

[Vico]

…
They claim that there is a union between different natures. I am just wondering how Jesus could then be left along on the cross when He was saying “Oh God why you forsaken me?”.

From the Haydock Commentary on Psalm 21, Verse 2:

Christ speaks with reference to his sacred humanity, as his divinity suspended its beatific influence, that he might drink the bitter chalice. Theod. S. Jer.

 

[quaestio45]

To measure God with and in human logic terms, is doomed from the start.
He who tries to, will never see God.

Not entirely. I’d say that God could never be fully understood logically because hes supra-rational, but that doesn’t mean we cannot begin to evaluate him with reason to understand his truth. For if Christ is truth himself, and truth may be investigated by the mind, then I believe men have nothing short of an absolute duty to seek out the truth where ever it leads for the end result (if honestly investigated) will always be Christ. Besides, let us not forget the men of the mind who found Christ through right reason such as St. Thomas Aquinas. So it is very much possible to follow such path and find the Lord (though again, that does not mean you can ever fully understand him or his nature).

 

[White_Tree]

Well God the son did have a change in so far as he was free from having any body at one point and then at another point he had a body, right? Or at least firmly attached to one, correct?

If I pour water into a bottle, is the water changed by virtue of being in the bottle, or is it still the same water?

 

[quaestio45]

If I pour water into a bottle, is the water changed by virtue of being in the bottle, or is it still the same water?

The substance is very much still the same, yes, however the form of the water changes to mold into that of the cup to which is its vessel. So there is a change in such scenario, just not a change of substance.

 

[White_Tree]

The substance is very much still the same, yes, however the form of the water changes to mold into that of the cup to which is its vessel. So there is a change in such scenario, just not a change of substance.

Fair enough. Here is a follow-up question then:

Is the spirit within the body, or is the body within the spirit?

Could it not be that the spirit is not a “substance” that enters into the body, taking the form of the body, but rather is the underlying substrate of reality in which the body dwells?

 

[kapp19]

I don’t think Thomas would agree at all with your claim that he “found Christ through right reason” - in fact he rejects this explicitly… to know the Persons of the Trinity requires the aid of grace, albeit working through the will and the intellect. John may indeed run to the tomb, but Peter must step in first before John can enter…

You did not respond to the Articles, from the Summa, sadly… if you want a serious engagement with the topic you’ve brought forward, that is the place to go.

 

[quaestio45]

You did not respond to the Articles, from the Summa, sadly… if you want a serious engagement with the topic you’ve brought forward, that is the place to go.

I won’t lie kapp, I find it very difficult to read Aquinas. It takes me around a day to fully digest what the good saint say’s on even just one topic (mostly because I find myself in a dictionary after each of his sentences ). Nonetheless, I did look, and what most struck relevant to me was a particular response to:
“Objection 1. It would seem that the union of the Divine and human natures is not anything created. For there can be nothing created in God, because whatever is in God is God. But the union is in God, for God Himself is united to human nature. Therefore it seems that the union is not anything created”

To which he replies:
" Reply to Objection 1. This union is not really in God, but only in our way of thinking, for God is said to be united to a creature inasmuch as the creature is really united to God without any change in Him"

However, I must confess, I still do not find myself fully satisfied. For there has to be undeniable change in God, for, like I said, there is a point when God did not have any connection to man in the person of the son, and a point in where he did. That be so, how can we say that God does not change in this instance? Or, am I perhaps thinking of this incorrectly kapp?

 

[quaestio45]

I don’t think Thomas would agree at all with your claim that he “found Christ through right reason” - in fact he rejects this explicitly… to know the Persons of the Trinity requires the aid of grace, albeit working through the will and the intellect. John may indeed run to the tomb, but Peter must step in first before John can enter…

Well yes, I do agree that he found God through faith and grace first and foremost, and I do agree that is truly the only way by which one may find God spiritually. However, what I meant by “find God” was something more like “to be drawn towards greater rational understanding of God”, to which is undeniable Aquinas did through his philosophizing.

Furthermore, I don’t think that you must always presuppose God in order to find God (as in, know God is real and begin to understand him). I believe deeply that reason can bring us that well, though of course not entirely. That’s actually how I came out of agnosticism; through reading philosophy and right reason and letting it convince me to believe there is a God, and from such, believe in God.

Fair enough. Here is a follow-up question then:

Is the spirit within the body, or is the body within the spirit?

Could it not be that the spirit is not a “substance” that enters into the body, taking the form of the body, but rather is the underlying substrate of reality in which the body dwells?

By spirit, do you mean the spirit of God the son, or spirit as in “soul”? If by spirit you mean “soul” then I cannot agree, for the human soul must be in complete union with the human body for a man to be complete. If you mean the spirit of God the son, then I’d say perhaps… I must confess, I know not whether the spirit of God could operate that way to be in union with man.