God's Self Expression and the World

[J_Peterson]

Something I’ve been thinking about recently.

The Son is the self expression of the Father, or can be thought of as God’s idea of Himself. This idea that God has of Himself is so perfect that it is identical to Him. Now the Son, being God, should also have an idea of himself. Why doesn’t the Son generate another Son, and so on? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen this covered. What is the argument against it?

Also, if the Son is the self expression of the Father, is it possible that the world is the self expression of the Son? I like the sound of it but I’m not sure it holds water. I’m thinking that this may make the world God which we know isn’t true but I’m not sure about it.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Counterpoint]

Something I’ve been thinking about recently.

The Son is the self expression of the Father, or can be thought of as God’s idea of Himself. This idea that God has of Himself is so perfect that it is identical to Him. Now the Son, being God, should also have an idea of himself. Why doesn’t the Son generate another Son, and so on? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen this covered. What is the argument against it?

Also, if the Son is the self expression of the Father, is it possible that the world is the self expression of the Son? I like the sound of it but I’m not sure it holds water. I’m thinking that this may make the world God which we know isn’t true but I’m not sure about it.

Hope that makes sense.

The Course teaches that the Son does…

“Thus, the Son gives Fatherhood to his Creator, and receives the gift that he has given Him. It is because he is God’s Son that he must also be a father, who creates as God created him. The circle of creation has no end. Its starting and its ending are the same. But in itself it holds the universe of all creation, without beginning and without an end.” - A Course In Miracles

(Note: “Creation,” in the context of the Course, refers to the eternal, not the temporal. IOW, “eternal creation” equals “eternal generation.”)

 

[J_Peterson]

The Course teaches that the Son does…

“Thus, the Son gives Fatherhood to his Creator, and receives the gift that he has given Him. It is because he is God’s Son that he must also be a father, who creates as God created him. The circle of creation has no end. Its starting and its ending are the same. But in itself it holds the universe of all creation, without beginning and without an end.” - A Course In Miracles

(Note: “Creation,” in the context of the Course, refers to the eternal, not the temporal. IOW, “eternal creation” equals “eternal generation.”)

I don’t know if I’m comfortable with that as it seems to take primacy away from the Father who is unbegotten and first in all things. The Holy Spirit may fit the above as He proceeds from both the Father and the Son in an eternal give and take.

I’m also not at all familiar with the Course in Miracles.

 

[Counterpoint]

I don’t know if I’m comfortable with that as it seems to take primacy away from the Father who is unbegotten and first in all things. The Holy Spirit may fit the above as He proceeds from both the Father and the Son in an eternal give and take.

It’s quite the contrary. The teaching establishes the Father as the Prime Creator.

“It must be understood that the word “first” as applied to Him [the Father] is not a time concept. He is first in the sense that He is the First in the Holy Trinity Itself. He is the Prime Creator, because He created His co-creators. Because He did, time applies neither to Him nor to what He created.” - A Course In Miracles

 

[J_Peterson]

It’s quite the contrary. The teaching establishes the Father as the Prime Creator.

“It must be understood that the word “first” as applied to Him [the Father] is not a time concept. He is first in the sense that He is the First in the Holy Trinity Itself. He is the Prime Creator, because He created His co-creators. Because He did, time applies neither to Him nor to what He created.” - A Course In Miracles

Doesn’t that contradict the first quote which stated that the Son must also be a father? The Son cannot be the Father, they are two distinct persons. By equating the two you collapse the Trinity to one person and you end up a Unitarian. Also, if the Son generates the Father, is it the same Father or another one? I see too many issues with this, sounds like “turtles all the way down” to me.

I appologize, this is foreign to me as I like to approach thsese questions from a Catholic perspective and rarely give other theologies even time.

 

[fred_conty]

Something I’ve been thinking about recently.

The Son is the self expression of the Father, or can be thought of as God’s idea of Himself. This idea that God has of Himself is so perfect that it is identical to Him. Now the Son, being God, should also have an idea of himself. Why doesn’t the Son generate another Son, and so on? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen this covered. What is the argument against it?

Also, if the Son is the self expression of the Father, is it possible that the world is the self expression of the Son? I like the sound of it but I’m not sure it holds water. I’m thinking that this may make the world God which we know isn’t true but I’m not sure about it.

Hope that makes sense.

John 1;1-3
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.”

St. John is referring to the Word which is Jesus(God-man), the second person of God. He is second, not in time, but in generation from the Father. Both are equal since there is but one God.

Everything that was created came to be thru his image. For Jesus is the image of the Father, or the Word-Son of the Father. Therefore being the spoken Word, every creature came to be thru his image, so that all creatures reflect the Father created thru his Word.

The love between the Father and the Son comes the Holy Spirit, not in time, but in spiration from the Father and Son. There is no first, second or third in the Holy Trinity in time, but only in the way we express it.

So then there are three persons, distinct, but not separate since there is but one God.

Jesus said, “have I been with you so long and you still do not understand that when you see me you see the Father?” He is the image, Word, Son, of the Father and a perfect reflection of the Father.

And so Jesus said that when we see him we see the Father.

And we also see the Father reflected in all things in this world, that is, the goodness. And this is what we are encouraged to see in everything created, the reflection of God. So that our life experience becomes emersed in the divine at every moment we live and drawn to God by creation itself.

And the reason the Son does not generate another Son is that God has taught us what he is. We really have no way of arriving at the knowledge of the divine Trinity unless God had given us this knowledge.

May God our Father give you grace and peace.

 

[Tom_Baum]

It’s quite the contrary. The teaching establishes the Father as the Prime Creator.

“It must be understood that the word “first” as applied to Him [the Father] is not a time concept. He is first in the sense that He is the First in the Holy Trinity Itself. He is the Prime Creator, because He created His co-creators. Because He did, time applies neither to Him nor to what He created.” - A Course In Miracles

According to “A Course in Miracles”, God is not a Trinity because for God to “be” a Trinity, God had to always have been a Trinity but from what you wrote from “A Course In Miracles”, God became a Trinity, God wasn’t always a Trinity, correct?

God, by definition, is and was not created and since “A Course In Miracles” states that “He created His co-creators”, this would mean, according to “A Course in Miracles”, that the Son and the Holy Spirit would not be God but part of God’s creation therefore the premise of “A Course In Miracles” is that God is NOT a Trinity, correct?

 

[J_Peterson]

St. John is referring to the Word which is Jesus(God-man), the second person of God. He is second, not in time, but in generation from the Father. Both are equal since there is but one God.

**And the reason the Son does not generate another Son is that God has taught us what he is. We really have no way of arriving at the knowledge of the divine Trinity unless God had given us this knowledge. **

May God our Father give you grace and peace.

I guess I’ve never understood what is meant by “made through the image”. You could say that the idea that the world is the Words expression of Himself is my way of reconciling it but I’m not sure if it’s in line w/ Catholic theology. If I am wrong (which is likely), what’s a good explanation of what is meant by “made through the image”?

I don’t discount the bolded part because it is true. Have any philosophers covered it though? I’m curious if there are any philosophical arguments against it.

 

[Tom_Baum]

St. John is referring to the Word which is Jesus(God-man), the second person of God. He is second, not in time, but in generation from the Father. Both are equal since there is but one God.

Everything that was created came to be thru his image. For Jesus is the image of the Father, or the Word-Son of the Father. Therefore being the spoken Word, every creature came to be thru his image, so that all creatures reflect the Father created thru his Word.

The love between the Father and the Son comes the Holy Spirit, not in time, but in spiration from the Father and Son. There is no first, second or third in the Holy Trinity in time, but only in the way we express it.

So then there are three persons, distinct, but not separate since there is but one God.

Jesus said, “have I been with you so long and you still do not understand that when you see me you see the Father?” He is the image, Word, Son, of the Father and a perfect reflection of the Father.

And so Jesus said that when we see him we see the Father.

And we also see the Father reflected in all things in this world, that is, the goodness. And this is what we are encouraged to see in everything created, the reflection of God. So that our life experience becomes emersed in the divine at every moment we live and drawn to God by creation itself.

And the reason the Son does not generate another Son is that God has taught us what he is. We really have no way of arriving at the knowledge of the divine Trinity unless God had given us this knowledge.

May God our Father give you grace and peace.

John is not referring to Jesus, per se, but is referring to Who Is known and referred to as the Second Person of the Trinity and it was and is the Second Person of the Trinity Who became Jesus in the Incarnation because the “when” that John is speaking of is before the Incarnation.

If All three Persons of the Trinity were not always there, as opposed to being generated, than God is NOT a Trinity.

God is only a Trinity if God was always a Trinity not if God became a Trinity.

When Jesus said, “If you have seen Me, then you have seen the Father”, Jesus was flat out saying that He Is God and that there is something else about God, that being that God Is One and yet not quite One in the way that we think of One, that is beyond our human understanding.

 

[Counterpoint]

Doesn’t that contradict the first quote which stated that the Son must also be a father? The Son cannot be the Father, they are two distinct persons.

There is no contradiction. The Son is “a father,” not “the Father.” If you’re a son, then your father is a father because he has sired or procreated you. And if you have sired or procreated a son, then you’re also a father. But you’re not your father. Right? So, the teaching is perfectly coherent.

By equating the two you collapse the Trinity to one person and you end up a Unitarian. Also, if the Son generates the Father, is it the same Father or another one? I see too many issues with this, sounds like “turtles all the way down” to me.

Well, I have already corrected your misunderstanding.

I appologize, this is foreign to me as I like to approach thsese questions from a Catholic perspective and rarely give other theologies even time.

Well, this is a philosophy forum (or, at least it purports to be one). So, I was simply furnishing you with a rational explanation to the question you asked in the OP, namely, “Why doesn’t the Son generate another Son, and so on?” However, if you are interested in an explanation from a strictly Catholic perspective, then I would suggest you read the OP in my thread entitled “Divinization: Partakers of the Divine Nature.”

 

[Counterpoint]

According to “A Course in Miracles”, God is not a Trinity because for God to “be” a Trinity, God had to always have been a Trinity but from what you wrote from “A Course In Miracles”, God became a Trinity, God wasn’t always a Trinity, correct?

This is incorrect. The Course states:“It must be understood that the word “first” as applied to Him [the Father] is NOT a time concept. He is first in the sense that He is the First in the Holy Trinity Itself. He is the Prime Creator, because He created His co-creators. Because He did, time applies neither to Him nor to what He created.”

This is explaining a logical relationship, not a temporal one. Therefore, the Trinity is eternal (i.e. timeless). (By the way, Catholicism holds that the Father is the first person of the Trinity too. So, on this point, both the Course and traditional Christianity are in agreement.)

God, by definition, is and was not created and since “A Course In Miracles” states that “He created His co-creators”, this would mean, according to “A Course in Miracles”, that the Son and the Holy Spirit would not be God but part of God’s creation therefore the premise of “A Course In Miracles” is that God is NOT a Trinity, correct?

This is incorrect. “Creation,” in the context of the Course, implies something eternal, not temporal. IOW, the Course’s “eternally created” equals traditional Christianity’s “eternally begotten” and/or “eternally generated.”

 

[J_Peterson]

There is no contradiction. The Son is “a father,” not “the Father.” If you’re a son, then your father is a father because he has sired or procreated you. And if you have sired or procreated a son, then you’re also a father. But you’re not your father. Right? So, the teaching is perfectly coherent.

Well, I have already corrected your misunderstanding.

Well, this is a philosophy forum (or, at least it purports to be one). So, I was simply furnishing you with a rational explanation to the question you asked in the OP, namely, “Why doesn’t the Son generate another Son, and so on?” However, if you are interested in an explanation from a strictly Catholic perspective, then I would suggest you read the OP in my thread entitled “Divinization: Partakers of the Divine Nature.”

Where does the sequence end though. As I see it there will be an infinite number of fathers/sons. Where does the Holy Spirit fit in this? Through which Son was the world created?

I simply meant that I know nothing about the Course (or other theologies for that matter) so my questions and misunderstandings are coming from ignorance. I welcome other opinions/ideas but because I only read Catholic books there’s a chance I will not understand some things that you present. My head can only fit so much

 

[fred_conty]

The Course teaches that the Son does…

“Thus, the Son gives Fatherhood to his Creator, and receives the gift that he has given Him. It is because he is God’s Son that he must also be a father, who creates as God created him. The circle of creation has no end. Its starting and its ending are the same. But in itself it holds the universe of all creation, without beginning and without an end.” - A Course In Miracles

(Note: “Creation,” in the context of the Course, refers to the eternal, not the temporal. IOW, “eternal creation” equals “eternal generation.”)

Since “course in miracles” was brought up in the thread, I think you should read what Oprah Winfrey is selling these days.

snopes.com/politics/religion/newageoprah.asp

newagedeception.com/new/shop/oprah-televangelist.html

 

[fred_conty]

John is not referring to Jesus, per se, but is referring to Who Is known and referred to as the Second Person of the Trinity and it was and is the Second Person of the Trinity Who became Jesus in the Incarnation because the “when” that John is speaking of is before the Incarnation.

If All three Persons of the Trinity were not always there, as opposed to being generated, than God is NOT a Trinity.

God is only a Trinity if God was always a Trinity not if God became a Trinity.

When Jesus said, “If you have seen Me, then you have seen the Father”, Jesus was flat out saying that He Is God and that there is something else about God, that being that God Is One and yet not quite One in the way that we think of One, that is beyond our human understanding.

If All three Persons of the Trinity were not always there, as opposed to being generated, than God is NOT a Trinity.

God is only a Trinity if God was always a Trinity not if God became a Trinity.

The misunderstanding here is that "generating’ means first one and second one, that is, one existed before the other. But this isn’t the reality when speaking of eternity where time isn’t. When we speak of “generating”, it means that it happens “spontaneiously”, all at once. So there is no Father and then there is the Son, rather the Father and the Son “happen” together.

This has been a problem with some religious beliefs who claim that the Father existed first since Jesus said that he came from the Father. They took these words of Jesus to mean that the Father in some way gave birth to Jesus, and therefore Jesus is a little less than the Father. But in reality, tho Jesus is the image and Word spoken by the Father, this did not happen in sequence, but at once.
The Father is God and the Son is God and both being God are equal, which means one is not less than the other.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[J_Peterson]

The misunderstanding here is that "generating’ means first one and second one, that is, one existed before the other. But this isn’t the reality when speaking of eternity where time isn’t. When we speak of “generating”, it means that it happens “spontaneiously”, all at once. So there is no Father and then there is the Son, rather the Father and the Son “happen” together.

This has been a problem with some religious beliefs who claim that the Father existed first since Jesus said that he came from the Father. They took these words of Jesus to mean that the Father in some way gave birth to Jesus, and therefore Jesus is a little less than the Father. But in reality, tho Jesus is the image and Word spoken by the Father, this did not happen in sequence, but at once.
The Father is God and the Son is God and both being God are equal, which means one is not less than the other.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

A good analogy to add to what you said is one from Plato (I think, I read it in Aquinas). Imagine a foot eternally planted in the sand. The footprint must have existed from eternity along with the foot but still has the foot as a cause.

 

[Counterpoint]

Where does the sequence end though. As I see it there will be an infinite number of fathers/sons. Where does the Holy Spirit fit in this? Through which Son was the world created?

In order for me to answer that, I need to give some background.

In the Course, “Heaven”. (or the universe) is the creation of God; Earth (or the world) is not. Earth is the world of separation. Heaven is eternal and real; earth is temporal and illusory. So, the creation, the separation, and the reunification or reconcilation occurred simultaneously from the perspective of God’s eternal now. The Holy Spirit heals or reconciles the separation.

The creation is infinite.

“The circle of creation has no end. Its starting and its ending are the same. But in itself it holds the universe of all creation, without beginning and without an end.” - A Course In Miracles
.

I simply meant that I know nothing about the Course (or other theologies for that matter) so my questions and misunderstandings are coming from ignorance. I welcome other opinions/ideas but because I only read Catholic books there’s a chance I will not understand some things that you present. My head can only fit so much

Okay. I did not mean to overwhelm you.

 

[fred_conty]

A good analogy to add to what you said is one from Plato (I think, I read it in Aquinas). Imagine a foot eternally planted in the sand. The footprint must have existed from eternity along with the foot but still has the foot as a cause.

That’s good. I will remember that one.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Seems to me that the only thing that we do when we try to “explain” God is to prove our arrogance rather than just accepting that there are some things that are beyond our explainability.

I sure can’t explain God but as far as saying that the “different Persons” of God came about “spontaneiously” would mean that at one time or at a point in eternity God wasn’t, seems to me that can’t be true, either God always was or isn’t God, the “different Persons” of God could not have become spontaneously since one of the most basic of beliefs concerning God is that God always was and is and will be.

In other words when we try to explain the unexplainable all that we do is prove our incompetence in attempting to do this.

 

[Richca]

Something I’ve been thinking about recently.

The Son is the self expression of the Father, or can be thought of as God’s idea of Himself. This idea that God has of Himself is so perfect that it is identical to Him. Now the Son, being God, should also have an idea of himself. Why doesn’t the Son generate another Son, and so on? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen this covered. What is the argument against it?

Also, if the Son is the self expression of the Father, is it possible that the world is the self expression of the Son? I like the sound of it but I’m not sure it holds water. I’m thinking that this may make the world God which we know isn’t true but I’m not sure about it.

Hope that makes sense.

Catholics believe that the Father generates or begets the Son by His intellect. The Father bestows his own nature and substance on the Son which makes the Son identical to the Father. But the Son does not possess the intellectual power to generate or beget another divine person through the one intellectual power of the Godhead. That pertains to the Father only. Although the Son with the Father are the one source of the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the will of the Father and Son.
Also, the intellectual operation of the Trinity is made by one act and one act only. By one act of his intellect, the Father begets the Son. If the Son then generated another son through his intellect, that would involve another act of the one intellectual power of the Godhead. But there are not two acts or operations of the Godhead, there is only one. The Son does not possess a different intellect from the Father. There is only one intellect and one will in the Godhead which all three persons possess. The Father bestows his own nature and substance on the Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[J_Peterson]

Catholics believe that the Father generates or begets the Son by His intellect. The Father bestows his own nature and substance on the Son which makes the Son identical to the Father. But the Son does not possess the intellectual power to generate or beget another divine person through the one intellectual power of the Godhead. That pertains to the Father only. Although the Son with the Father are the one source of the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the will of the Father and Son.
Also, the intellectual operation of the Trinity is made by one act and one act only. By one act of his intellect, the Father begets the Son. If the Son then generated another son through his intellect, that would involve another act of the one intellectual power of the Godhead. But there are not two acts or operations of the Godhead, there is only one. The Son does not possess a different intellect from the Father. There is only one intellect and one will in the Godhead which all three persons possess. The Father bestows his own nature and substance on the Son and Holy Spirit.

NIce, thank you. I’ll need to think on that for a bit but I think that’s what I was looking for.

As far as my second question, I did get that answered. Both were prompted by my reading Crucified Love: Bonaventure’s Mysticism of the Crucified Christ by Ilia Delio, OSJ. She was hinting at this but finally stated it explicitly in Chapter 4: Ecstatic Union:

“If it is tue that the triune God creates after his image, the Word, then if follows that whatever created reality exists possesses in its inner constitution a realtion to this uncreated Word. Moreover, since the Word is the expression of the inner trinitaian structure of God, that which is created is an expression of the Word and bears an imprint of the Trinity itself”

I highly recommend this book by the way. It’s really changing the way I think about Christ and His relation to the World. I’ve been on a bit of a Franciscan kick lately.