God passing over people

[thinkandmull]

There cannot be an infinite number of efficient causes ordered per se. This is the argument of Aquinas’ second proof for the existence of God.

Even if God eternally created the world, physically each physical movement would be explained by the one before it. This is (1) impossible (2) takes away all argument for God’s existence

 

[thinkandmull]

Eternity applied to God means immutability as time involves succession. Aquinas says “the idea of eternity follows immutability as the idea of time follows movement.” As Vico noted in post #206, the CCC#202 quotes Lateran Council IV as God being unchangeable. This means that if God could change somehow, then he wouldn’t be unchangeable. Accordingly, God is absolutely unchangeable, he is the infinitely perfect being who possesses the whole fullness of being at once and not in succession.

Thus, the word of God says “all good giving and every perfect gift* is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change.” (James 1: 17).

And, “Of old you laid the earth’s foundations;
the heavens are the work of your hands.They perish, but you remain;
they all wear out like a garment;
Like clothing you change them and they are changed,
but you are the same, your years have no end.” (Psalm 102: 26-27).

And “For I, the LORD, do not change” (Malachi 3:6).

In a word, if God could change than he wouldn’t be God.

God’s most essential self cannot change, but perhaps can in other ways. It is not true that “the idea of eternity follows immutability”. That’s a false deduction

 

[thinkandmull]

No one seems to be getting at what I’m proposing here. Perhaps the nature of God is unchangable, but need this also apply to his mind? This does not seem plausible, as God more or less constitutes a psychic continuity, by which use humans within our own logical framework judge persons as persons. So by having personhood, God must have a mind.

Therefore, we must justify the statement that a perfect mind reaches a state that is static. That would be a much more difficult case to make, but I wonder if anyone here is willing to make it? Anyone willing to go down the rabbit-hole with me?

I’m willing to speculate with you

 

[thinkandmull]

St. John of Damascus, DE FIDE ORTHODOXA: AN EXACT EXPOSITION O: L.2, C.20 *CHAPTER XX. Concerning the natural and innocent passions.

• We confess, then, that He assumed all the natural and innocent
  passions of man. For He assumed the whole man and all man’s
  attributes save sin. For that is not natural, nor is it implanted in us by
  the Creator, but arises voluntarily in our mode of life as the result of
  a further implantation by the devil, though it cannot prevail over us
  by force. For the natural and innocent passions are those which are
  not in our power, but which have entered into the life of man owing
  to the condemnation by reason of the transgression; such as
  hunger, thirst, weariness, labour, the tears, the corruption, the
  shrinking from death, the fear, the agony with the bloody sweat, the
  succour at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the
  nature, and other such like passions which belong by nature to every
  man.

All, then, He assumed that He might sanctify all. He was tried and
overcame in order that He might prepare victory for us and give to
nature power to overcome its antagonist, in order that nature which
was overcome of old might overcome its former conqueror by the
very weapons wherewith it had itself been overcome.

The wicked one, then, made his assault from without, not by
thoughts prompted inwardly, just as it was with Adam. For it was not
by inward thoughts, but by the serpent that Adam was assailed. But
the Lord repulsed the assault and dispelled it like vapour, in order
that the passions which assailed him and were overcome might be
easily subdued by us, and that the new Adam should save the old.

Of a truth our natural passions were in harmony with nature and
above nature in Christ. For they were stirred in Him after a natural
manner when He permitted the flesh to suffer what was proper to it:
but they were above nature because that which was natural did not
in the Lord assume command over the will. For no compulsion is
contemplated in Him but all is voluntary. For it was with His will that
He hungered and thirsted and feared and died.

If Jesus’s will really could not be taken by evil, than are you saying that he felt the weakness of his will but not in the sense that it could break? Therefore when we say Jesus was tempted we mean tempted differently then when we say we are tempted. Also with unchangeableness. There is unchangeableness absolutely and in every way, and unchanging is essential good will

 

[Richca]

Even if God eternally created the world, physically each physical movement would be explained by the one before it. This is (1) impossible (2) takes away all argument for God’s existence

Since God is eternal, he could have caused an eternal effect, which would have resulted from God, the first cause. Accordingly, an eternal effect such as if the world was eternal does not do away with a first efficient cause which is God. That the world is not eternal we take on faith, that is, divine revelation and the word of God.

 

[Richca]

God’s most essential self cannot change, but perhaps can in other ways. It is not true that “the idea of eternity follows immutability”. That’s a false deduction

If God can change, then he is not unchangeable. This is contrary to Holy Scripture “For I, the LORD, do not change” (Malachi 3:6), as well as what the Church teaches in the CCC#202 quoting Lateran Council IV which has been noted already a few times in this thread.

 

[thinkandmull]

If God can change, then he is not unchangeable. This is contrary to Holy Scripture “For I, the LORD, do not change” (Malachi 3:6), as well as what the Church teaches in the CCC#202 quoting Lateran Council IV which has been noted already a few times in this thread.

There’s a different between **absolutely **unchangeable and unchangeable. Why do you think you know God’s being so well?

 

[thinkandmull]

Since God is eternal, he could have caused an eternal effect, which would have resulted from God, the first cause. Accordingly, an eternal effect such as if the world was eternal does not do away with a first efficient cause which is God. That the world is not eternal we take on faith, that is, divine revelation and the word of God.

The Bible says “in the beginning” but doesn’t clarify if it was “in the beginning” ontologically or temporally. Anyway, arguing for a first efficient cause assuming there is an eternity of causation is not an argument from physics, that the world is impossible without a non-material willing being. The series explains itself by each preceding motion whether you posit God or not. All you are left with is a philosophical argument, which I don’t bother with.

 

[Rohzek]

If God can change, then he is not unchangeable. This is contrary to Holy Scripture “For I, the LORD, do not change” (Malachi 3:6), as well as what the Church teaches in the CCC#202 quoting Lateran Council IV which has been noted already a few times in this thread.

This runs contrary to simple logic. Let’s begin with the principle of psychic continuity. An individual is at a fork in the road. There they initially decide to go left. But two minutes later they change their mind and decide to go right. We would not say that the person who went left and the person who went right are two different people. Why? Because the person has psychic continuity.

Now let’s run the same scenario with a rubber ball. The ball goes left. Then it comes back, but is cut in half. Then it goes right. Is it the same ball? Conceptually, humans are not capable of answering this question satisfactorily because the ball does not contain a psychic continuity. This problem was recognized by Plutarch in the story known as the Ship of Theseus, John Locke, etc. Because God is a personal being, these principles apply just as much to him. He contains a psychic continuity. The change in physical features, such as the hypostatic union, forms, apparitions, etc. do not constitute a change in person because God has psychic continuity.

 

[Richca]

This runs contrary to simple logic. Let’s begin with the principle of psychic continuity. An individual is at a fork in the road. There they initially decide to go left. But two minutes later they change their mind and decide to go right. We would not say that the person who went left and the person who went right are two different people. Why? Because the person has psychic continuity.

Now let’s run the same scenario with a rubber ball. The ball goes left. Then it comes back, but is cut in half. Then it goes right. Is it the same ball? Conceptually, humans are not capable of answering this question satisfactorily because the ball does not contain a psychic continuity. This problem was recognized by Plutarch in the story known as the Ship of Theseus, John Locke, etc. Because God is a personal being, these principles apply just as much to him. He contains a psychic continuity. The change in physical features, such as the hypostatic union, forms, apparitions, etc. do not constitute a change in person because God has psychic continuity.

I’m not sure what your point is here but I will say there is an infinite difference between God and creatures. Are you saying God is changeable like creatures?

 

[Rohzek]

I’m not sure what your point is here but I will say there is an infinite difference between God and creatures. Are you saying God is changeable like creatures?

That’s a simplistic breakdown. I’m just proposing that God has a mind similar in fashion like we do albeit different. I say this on the basis of God having a personhood or three rather. And as many philosophers have noted in the past, we judge people the same person on the basis of psychic continuity. For example, how many grains of sand must I remove from a boulder until it is no longer a boulder? No one can answer this question, because our brains are incapable of providing a satisfactory answer for objects that do not have personhood. Now let’s take the fable The Princess & the Frog. The prince is transformed into a frog and so on. Any child hearing this fable has no difficulty in grasping the fact that the prince is the same person whether before he transformed, when he was a frog, or after he returned to normal. The basis for the child’s knowledge of this without having to have it explained to the child is the fact that it is instinct for us humans to judge the sameness of persons on the basis of psychic continuity.

In short, by following this understanding it is entirely plausible for me to imagine God changing his mind on something, yet remain the same person and unchanged. His personhood maintains his immutability.

 

[Vico]

If Jesus’s will really could not be taken by evil, than are you saying that he felt the weakness of his will but not in the sense that it could break? Therefore when we say Jesus was tempted we mean tempted differently then when we say we are tempted. Also with unchangeableness. There is unchangeableness absolutely and in every way, and unchanging is essential good will

Divine nature is not changeable but human nature exists along with divine nature in Christ. There are two wills and it is the human will that is referred to in Jesus with regard to temptation. Some souls will to Love and others to Malice, is it a dogma that this is by free will.