God's omnipotence and St. Thomas Aquinas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guilherme123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guilherme123

Guest
I understand this is the view of St. Thomas Aquinas on God’s omnipotence:
Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible.
Click to expand...
This concept of omnipotence is very good to resolve all these paradoxes, but there is a problem: this concept implies that there are impossible things that God can’t do, while the Bible says in some passages, like Luke 1,37, that "nothing is impossible to God ":
For with God nothing Shall be impossible (Luke 1,37)
Click to expand...
I would like to understand how Thomas’s concept explain what is said in the Bible.
 
Guilherme123 said:
…
I would like to understand how Thomas’s concept explain what is said in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. The universality of the object of the Divine power is not merely relative but absolute, so that the true nature of omnipotence is not clearly expressed by saying that God can do all things that are possible to Him; it requires the further statement that all things are possible to God. The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness. “Hence,” says Thomas (Summa I, Q. xxv, a. 3), “it is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production, than to say that God cannot produce it.”
Click to expand...
McHugh, J. (1911). Omnipotence. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm
 
Last edited:
In the context of the passage by Luke, the angel was speaking about the incarnation and Elizabeth’s miraculous pregnancy. So these good things are possible for God. He is omnipotent. What St Thomas Aquinas is getting at is that God cannot do evil, that would be impossible.
 
“Nothing is impossible to God”, according to the Bible, so why doens’t he make the intrinsically impossible capable of production?
 
Can an omnipotent being bind itself? Does God make any promises in the bible? So if He promises something does that mean He can’t do the opposite? Intrinsically, triangles have three sides, so God won’t (can’t?) make triangles with any other number of sides. To me this also follows along with freewill and why God does not force us to love Him because, intrinsically, love can not be forced.
 
Aquinas does not go to explain through the Bible, his work is based on Aristolian metaphysics. Duns Scotus criticised such thinking as to limit God, indeed Aquinas give the Angels attributes belonging to God such as immaterial and immutability.
Scotus thought that Revelation should be the primary knowledge of God, not finite human reasoning.

Main problem arises when one threat God as a moral agent, he is not.

But to answer your question, Thomists would say that God is perfect (include omnipotentnce) because God’s reason that which is orentied toward the good is perfect. Meaning that he could not do things that go against his moral perfection.
 
Yes, and I am still not seeing the answer. Thomas’s concept says that there are impossible things to God and the Bible says otherwhise.

If there is nothing impossible to God, so He should be able to make the intrinsically impossible capable of production.

Maybe the problem is that I don’t understand/know what the Bible wants to explain.
 
Last edited:
Guilherme123 said:
Yes, and I am still not seeing the answer. Thomas’s concept says that there are impossible things to God and the Bible says otherwhise.

If there is nothing impossible to God, so He should be able to make the intrinsically impossible capable of production.

Maybe the problem is that I don’t understand/know what the Bible wants to explain.
Click to expand...
Make a square triangle. It would involve a redefinition of both.
 
God does nothing “alone”, but in co-operation, co-agency, with his “faithful”, whether his Angels or his People. It requires Faith, the same confidence of the reality of what is to be which God has (this is why Jesus often said, “O you of little faith; if you had the faith as a grain of mustard seed…”)

God never changes, never knows anything new, always knows himself doing what he does in the temporal world “with the joint faith of one who contingently and temporally has faith.” When YOU know with full Faith that God is doing something all would call “impossible” for God, it will be done (the only trouble is, you will not ever partner with our LORD as his Servant and know this “unGodly” thing taking form. So it will not be, not because God “cannot”, but because his supposed co-operator, co-agent, does not know with Him.

You will need to consider questions 44 through the considerations of Angels in the Prima Pars, plus be fully familiar with Augustine’s understanding of creation “In the Beginning” being “In the Word”, and the knowing of Angels in knowing form in formless, void, primal matter temporally while God knows an eternal knowing of them contingently knowing with him.

Gabriel knew as God eternally knows, as did Mary, and as did John’s parents in time. Temporally contingent meeting an eternal knowing together in a moment.
 
Last edited:
Guilherme123 said:
“Nothing is impossible to God”, according to the Bible, so why doens’t he make the intrinsically impossible capable of production?
Click to expand...
Logical contradictions, the intrinsically impossible, and evil aren’t ‘things’; they don’t have a positive existence.

If read in context, the passage is obviously referring to things which we might commonly consider “impossible” or far too difficult to be accomplished, such as a woman conceiving in old age. All these things are possible with God.
 
OnlyULord said:
To me this also follows along with freewill and why God does not force us to love Him because, intrinsically, love can not be forced.
Click to expand...
I fail to see the connection between love and free will.

We don’t make a conscious decision about who or what we love. And if we don’t make a conscious decision about who we love, then how can it be claimed that such choices are based upon free will?

If I could make a conscious choice about who or what to love, then I could indeed force myself to love something by the mere conscious choice to do so.
 
I guess that would depend on the definition of love that is implied here. If you were to say “I love that hat you are wearing” or “I love that plant you have on your deck” does that compare to “I love you” or “I love God”? I would not necessarily give my life or change my life for the hat or the plant. Do we have a choice to follow God or not? So if I choose to believe that you do not exist, can I still love you? I suppose that the love could still be present, but if you choose to do nothing with it, is it true love?
 
I found this nice answer on Quora that I think answers my question:
I was requested to try to answer this question.

I would like to first respond to one answer that at first I thought was good, but then had to reject it. This has to do with the claim that God CAN lie, but He CHOOSES not to lie. The Bible however clearly states:

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

And yes, the Bible does say this:

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

I think the answer is, God CANNOT do everything.

Gasp, a Christian saying God can’t do everything? I suggest one takes a more careful consideration on what “things” God can do. In Matthew 19, Jesus was talking about the fact that with God’s help, anyone can enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but it is impossible without that help.

Now, am I contradicting the passage? I think that it is important to see how often this kind of language is used, and how we automatically adjust it to the context. For example, consider this Bible verse:

Philippians 4:13

I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Does this mean I can BECOME GOD through Christ’s help? I don’t think so. The context has to do with being able to handle whatever God allows to happen in our lives, both good and bad.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
lelinator said:
40.png
OnlyULord:
To me this also follows along with freewill and why God does not force us to love Him because, intrinsically, love can not be forced.
Click to expand...
I fail to see the connection between love and free will.

We don’t make a conscious decision about who or what we love. And if we don’t make a conscious decision about who we love, then how can it be claimed that such choices are based upon free will?

If I could make a conscious choice about who or what to love, then I could indeed force myself to love something by the mere conscious choice to do so.
Click to expand...
It is not the emotion of love but the free will of charity which is spoken of.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1810 Human virtues acquired by education, by deliberate acts and by a perseverance ever-renewed in repeated efforts are purified and elevated by divine grace. With God’s help, they forge character and give facility in the practice of the good. The virtuous man is happy to practice them.

1822 Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Guilherme123 said:
Yes, and I am still not seeing the answer. Thomas’s concept says that there are impossible things to God and the Bible says otherwhise.

If there is nothing impossible to God, so He should be able to make the intrinsically impossible capable of production.

Maybe the problem is that I don’t understand/know what the Bible wants to explain.
Click to expand...
Do you believe in literally cutting off your hand or plucking put your eye if it causes you to sin?
 
Yeah, I understood the message.

My problem is that I was taking this on the literal side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top