J
- Status
J
jkiernan56
Guest
Greylorn, do you think you can improve a CIRCLE? Or do you think there is a better definition of a circle just around the corner? Sometimes a DOCTRINE cannot be improved either - because it too expresses THAT WHICH IS and CAN NEVER CHANGE. Don’t be afraid of DOCTRINE Greylorn as if you are assassinating your own mind. But rather … EMBRACE … lol
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Do contradictions exist?jkiernan56:
JK
Excellent point!
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
J
jkiernan56
Guest
Absolute nothingness cannot and does not “exist”. Think about it. Saying it does exist is like saying 1=2. Existence of absolute nothingness is innately contradictory. Yes, contradictions do exist, but once you get to the common denominator, they don’t exist in reality - but rather only in the land of make believe.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Yes. Contradictions do exist, but only as contradictions. There are no square circles except as contradictions.
God’s essence is existence. God necessarily exists. The universe exists contingently. If absolute nothingness precludes the existence of God then it exists only as a contradiction. If nothingness refers to the created universe then it is not a contradiction for it is possible for the universe not to have existed. Ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing nothing comes) does not contradict God’s creatio ex nihilo since God is not nothing.
J
jkiernan56
Guest
Have you ever read the scripture and the teaching of the Church that God has ALWAYS known and loved YOU and I? YOU and I were ALWAYS in the mind of God. From God’s perspective, you and I existed in potentiality from ALL ETERNITY.
The potential for you and I to exist - existed in God’s pure Actuality.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
I don’t potentially exist now, I actually exist. Now is part of all eternity.
J
jkiernan56
Guest
And your point is?
The point I was trying to make is again answering the question - where did YOU and I exist before creation? As one great theologian explained to me - YOU and I existed in the Potentiality of Christ. I don’t know exactly grasp the full meaning of what that is - but I can assure you the Potentiality of Christ is not ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS.
Yes, you and I are not potential now but actual, but again what was your point? I was addressing the question of where you and I were before we existed in actuality.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
God, being fully actual cannot (by definition) have potential.
J
jkiernan56
Guest
In once context you are correct and in another context you are wrong.
In the context of God’s essence, it is true God has no potential since He is pure Actuality.
There is nothing for God to gain or to become. You cannot add or subtract from God.
But in the CONTEXT of you and me - we were potential for God to bring into being. In this context and not the former - whatever is possible for God to do, is potential for God.
Please stop mixing apples and oranges.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
You’re the one mixing apples and oranges.
The CONTEXT of our existence is not the CONTEXT of God’s existence. Placing God in a CONTEXT where He exists temporally (and therefore mutably) is to anthropomorphize God.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
It has been fully explained to you what is intended by saying that God has the potentiality to create. When potentiality is applied in this context, it is referring to Gods ontological power alone, free of the context of change or becoming. The word potential can mean different things depending on the context. You refusal to acknowledge this, will not change this fact.
R
rvilbig
Guest
To address this question, we must differentiate between passive potency (which is the potency of matter) and active potency (which is the potency of God, humans and other agents). Aquinas addressed this in the Summa:
Power [ie potency] is twofold–namely, passive, which exists not at all in God; and active, which we must assign to Him in the highest degree. For it is manifest that everything, according as it is in act and is perfect, is the active principle of something: whereas everything is passive according as it is deficient and imperfect. Now it was shown above (3, 2; 4, 1 and 2), that God is pure act, simply and in all ways perfect, nor in Him does any imperfection find place. Whence it most fittingly belongs to Him to be an active principle, and in no way whatsoever to be passive. On the other hand, the notion of active principle is consistent with active power. For active power is the principle of acting upon something else; whereas passive power is the principle of being acted upon by something else, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, 17). It remains, therefore, that in God there is active power in the highest degree. (STh, q.25 a.1)
Furthermore, God’s active potency is manifest in the temporal world, according to the traditional interpretation of John 5:17: “My Father continues to work.” Make sense?
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Thank you Ryan.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
The term “potency” does not appear in the ST quote, in fact the phrase “God is pure act” does. You can’t shoehorn “potency” in. Had you copied the next paragraph you will find that God has active power, but not potentiality:
Reply to Objection 1. Active power is not contrary to act, but is founded upon it, for everything acts according as it is actual: but passive power is contrary to act; for a thing is passive according as it is potential. Whence this potentiality is not in God, but only active power.
As far as the scripture citation is concerned the ST addresses this as well (ST P1, Q9,A1):
These things are said of God in Scripture metaphorically. For as the sun is said to enter a house, or to go out, according as its rays reach the house, so God is said to approach to us, or to recede from us, when we receive the influx of His goodness, or decline from Him.
R
rvilbig
Guest
Active power is synonymous with active potency. Read it in Latin: “Relinquitur ergo quod in Deo maxime sit potentia activa” (Quaestio 25, Articululus 1)- which they translate as: “It remains, therefore, that in God there is active power in the highest degree.”, This is the same word used in your highlighted quote: “nam unumquodque patitur secundum quod est in potentia” - which they render “for a thing is passive according as it is potential.” The word “potentia” is translated as both power and potency, and is used interchangeably in this translation of Aquinas. God has active potency, I’m sure.
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
J
JDaniel
Guest
I must disagree with you, JK. Remember, THERE IS NO TIME where God is concerned. For God, there was no former, or latter, no before or after, God didn’t sit on His throne and ponder the questions of whether or not you or I should have the Gift of Life.
We were never potentials for God. Creation is the highest form of causation. It gives being to things that were not in privation - not in potency. How He did his, we may get a chance to find out! But, in the mean time, it is - and will remain - a mystery.
God bless,
jd
1
1holycatholic
Guest
You seem to be unaware that Aquinas has two definitions of potentia activa in the Summa. See Kreeft’s Summa of the Summa pp 180, or Verbum: Word and Idea in Aquinas by Lonergan, Crowe, and Doran pp 121-123.
The English translation of the ST on newadvent is correct.
J
jkiernan56
Guest
And what a wonderful mystery CREATION is !!! Even more so the wondeful mysteries of REDEMPTION and SANTIFICATION (Re-Creation) !!!
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. " Psalm 139:13-14
- Status