Does God want to be fruitful?

[Pugsly]

Most people think God could have created ANY possible world He wanted…i don’t believe that to be true.

Perhaps, there is One narrow Path through creation wherein God rescues the maximum QUANTITY and QUALITY of souls.

If God is Perfectly Virtuous…He will not violate His perfection with contradictions…such as allowing free creatures to actualize then overriding their freedom by forcing them into Heaven. Therefore, a perfectly Merciful God might look for the most fruitful of possible worlds…and allow a world where the MOST free creatures make it to Heaven.
Yes, I think there is actually a narrow Path that runs through the dark sea of chaos (possibilities)…and that Path happened to have some ugly things on it…Hitler…Sandy Hook…etc…but it is the overall, most Fruitful Path God could choose.

What do you think?

 

[Anthony_V]

Read: Pure Nature

 

[Pugsly]

Read: Pure Nature

I am not forwarding the idea that God created evil…I agree with Professor Harden (and the Catholic position) that God allowed limited good and restrained limited evil for a time in the Garden. Yet, God is Pure Act and His movement toward creation was seemingly aimed at one Perfect Choice…Jesus. Saving us…is a glorious “by-product” that God’s Wise Perfection and Prudent Creativity knew would result.

 

[cap76]

Most people think God could have created ANY possible world He wanted…i don’t believe that to be true.

Perhaps, there is One narrow Path through creation wherein God rescues the maximum QUANTITY and QUALITY of souls.

If God is Perfectly Virtuous…He will not violate His perfection with contradictions…such as allowing free creatures to actualize then overriding their freedom by forcing them into Heaven. Therefore, a perfectly Merciful God might look for the most fruitful of possible worlds…and allow a world where the MOST free creatures make it to Heaven.
Yes, I think there is actually a narrow Path that runs through the dark sea of chaos (possibilities)…and that Path happened to have some ugly things on it…Hitler…Sandy Hook…etc…but it is the overall, most Fruitful Path God could choose.

What do you think?

Creation is the stage upon which we observe the works and ways of the LORD. Therefore, I believe that in order to answer this question regarding God’s fruitfulness in the Creation, I believe we need to first ask, “why did God bring the Creation into existence?”

*Proverbs 16.6, “The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.”
*
We see from this text that God’s purpose for making all things was for Himself and this includes (explicitly) the wicked.

We see this also from the winess of the Seraphim and Cherabim in His heavenly court continually crying out,
Isaiah 6.3, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD God Almighty! The whole earth is full of Thy glory!”
Here, we see angelic hosts testifying to their witness of the Creation. For, the Creation itself bears witness as well:
Psalm 19, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.”
And in turn, the people observe and bear witness:
Psalm 97.6, “The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory.”
So, it appears thus far, that one of God’s cheif concerns in His Creation is the praise of of His own glory:
Psalm 8.1, “O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.”

I would say that God’s chief purpose in the Creation is the manifestation of His own glory.
Now, to answer your question in light of this. Any fruit He produces would be to the praise of His glory. Therefore, by the testimony of angels and men to the manifold ways in which God’s glory is revealed in and through the Creation, God is very fruitful indeed!

 

[Anthony_V]

I am not forwarding the idea that God created evil…I agree with Professor Harden (and the Catholic position) that God allowed limited good and restrained limited evil for a time in the Garden. Yet, God is Pure Act and His movement toward creation was seemingly aimed at one Perfect Choice…Jesus. Saving us…is a glorious “by-product” that God’s Wise Perfection and Prudent Creativity knew would result.

My point was that the divine election of humans to partake in the divine nature was not something due to them. God didn’t have to make the universe the way it is. That doesn’t mean his choice was arbitrary (it transcended arbitration, i.e. divine love), but it was free and unnecessary.

I think you may be asking this from a different angle though. Are you really asking, in an inverse paradigm, whether God micromanages the universe?

 

[Pugsly]

My point was that the divine election of humans to partake in the divine nature was not something due to them. God didn’t have to make the universe the way it is. That doesn’t mean his choice was arbitrary (it transcended arbitration, i.e. divine love), but it was free and unnecessary.

I think you may be asking this from a different angle though. Are you really asking, in an inverse paradigm, whether God micromanages the universe?

It’s kind of a rhetorical question…DOES GOD WANT TO BE FRUITFUL?..ofcourse He does. My point in raising the question is to look at how God could be fruitful…Isn’t this what the angels call “glory”…yet…Jesus refers to the “glory I had with You [Father] before the foundation of the world”. Therefore, a better question is…CAN God be fruitful?

And what would such “fruit” look like?

 

[grannymh]

I am not forwarding the idea that God created evil…I agree with Professor Harden (and the Catholic position) that God allowed limited good and restrained limited evil for a time in the Garden. Yet, God is Pure Act and His movement toward creation was seemingly aimed at one Perfect Choice…Jesus. Saving us…is a glorious “by-product” that God’s Wise Perfection and Prudent Creativity knew would result.

It is my humble understanding that the Garden (With a capital letter–does that indicate the Garden of Eden mentioned in the first three chapters of Genesis?) was filled with all kinds of stuff.

What do you specifically mean by “limited good”? Maybe the river? Its banks would certainly be a limitation.

 

[grannymh]

Read: Pure Nature

Small question. Does “pure nature” as in provided link mean that man’s nature was simply a material anatomy? Or does the link assume that man’s nature automatically is known as the unification of both the material and spiritual worlds? I am having trouble with this statement. “The Church, therefore, teaches that God could have created human beings without supernatural or preternatural gifts, but not in a condition of sin.” I would think that sharing in the spiritual world of God via the soul would be considered a supernatural gift.

I have Father Hardon’s 1981 *The Catholic Catechism, *but not his Dictionary. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with his Catechism except for the section I needed as a reference for a Church bulletin insert. Just wondering if this definition is expanded in the Catechism.

 

[Anthony_V]

Small question. Does “pure nature” as in provided link mean that man’s nature was simply a material anatomy? Or does the link assume that man’s nature automatically is known as the unification of both the material and spiritual worlds? I am having trouble with this statement. “The Church, therefore, teaches that God could have created human beings without supernatural or preternatural gifts, but not in a condition of sin.” I would think that sharing in the spiritual world of God via the soul would be considered a supernatural gift.

As a rule of thumb, “natural” is defined as “created”. Something can be relatively supernatural (such as the preternatural gifts), but is generally defined as “uncreated”. A pure spirit, for example, is created and natural to the being which it is (angels), while God is supernatural and uncreated in his being. Immaterial is often confused with “supernatural”. The meaning of “natural” is different in theology than in empirical science. Man’s “pure nature” would constitute a substantial union of body and spirit. Having a spirit does not confine man to a dichotomy of heaven or hell. What exactly the natural end of a spirit is, we can only speculate.

I have Father Hardon’s 1981 *The Catholic Catechism, *but not his Dictionary. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with his Catechism except for the section I needed as a reference for a Church bulletin insert. Just wondering if this definition is expanded in the Catechism.

No, this is a more rare term. I was able to find a lecture by Dr. Lawrence Feingold for you.

He has more of his lectures posted here.

I also have this from a book called Fundamental of Catholic Dogma (dogmatic theology) by Dr. Ludwig Ott which I am borrowing. It’s a pretty old (published 1955) book, but very reliable:

1. Merely Possible States
   a) The state of pure nature, that is, a condition in which man would possess all that, and only that, which appertains to human nature, and in which he could attain a natural final end only.

The possibility of a pure state of nature, which was denied by Luther, Baius, and Jansenius, is certain church doctrine. It springs as a necessary consequence from the doctrine of the supernatural character of the gifts of the primitive [pre-lapsarian] state.Pope Pius V rejected the assertion of Baius. The Church teaches therefore that God could have created man without supernatural or preternatural gifts, but not in a condition of sin.