"Goodness existing eternally apart from God.."

[havemercy]

Mr. X:

Actually, beginning with the medieval R. Catholic church, the idea of goodness existing eternally apart from God became very popular and influenced the church’s views on issues like free will and the necessity of works. Aquinas seemed to believe that goodness existed apart from God, and thus that goodness could be obtained apart from God. Calvin, and to a lesser degree Luther, changed the tide of Christian thought in this regard to some extent, but the presumption does still exist in modern semi-pelagianism and arguably in arminianism.

Me:

Come again?

Mr. X:

The idea that moral good existed eternally apart from God–and that God did not create moral good–goes back to Plato (possibly Socrates, though it’s not clear whether Eurythro was as much about Socrates as it was about Plato). Plato believed that moral goodness, like the rest of the universe, has existed eternally, and that lack of moral goodness was a function of ignorance rather than a failure to follow the wills of the gods. Thus, for the ancient Greeks, moral goodness could be distinct from religious adherence. The Hebrews believed something different, what is now called the divine-command theory of morality: that morality is defined by God and is intertwined with religious adherence. I would argue that the NT–and thus the early Christian church–supports this view, although with the new wrinkle that moral goodness could be found only through a relationship with the Divine rather than through adherence to the divine law. The NT does not seem to say that moral goodness is an uncreated, eternally existing thing that can be obtained apart from a relationship with God.

The Greek eternal goodness idea, though, crept back into the church in the middle ages and found a home with the rise of semi-pelagianism. If man were morally good by nature and capable of adherence to the moral law apart from the grace of God, then it could follow that moral good itself exists apart from God.

While I don’t know that Aquinas wrote on this subject specifically (though I also don’t know that he did not)–which is why I used the word “apparently,” I do know that Aquinas believe a) that knowledge and wisdom can be obtained by man apart from God and b) that man could be morally good apart from God’s grace. It seems to follow that moral goodness, a function of wisdom per the Greeks, exists independently of God and can be found without God …

Comments? What is the Catholic view on this? AH!

 

[Lazerlike42]

Moral goodness does not exist apart from God, but it is not simply defined by a delcaration of God either. Moral goodness is God in His essence. Every aspect of earthly life is simply a shadow of heavenly life, a grand stage designed to “look something like Heaven.” Sex, for instance, was designed to look something like the Trinity. What makes a thing morally good is neither God declaring it to be nor some eternal good that is seperate from God.

Rather, what makes a thing morally good is in that it matches the “pattern” of God. In other words, since all of this life is shadows designed to “look something like God,” a thing is morally good when the shadow conforms to what the reality truly is. For example, sex is morally good in marriage because it is the total self giving of one person to another in so complete a way that it becomes a third person, just like the Trinity is the total self giving of one person (the Father) to another (the Son) in such a way that it becomes a third person (the Holy Spirit).

Morality exists not because God recognized it and instructed us in it, and ot because God defined it, but because morality is God.

 

[francisca]

Morality is about our behavior and its measure (good or bad).

A man who does not know God can be good (moral) because he is formed by his good experience, his good family life, his good parents, his good cultural values, good society values.

Moreover, a person is born with a conscience. Most primitive and honest, this conscience knows the difference between “life” and “death”. And if somebody’s conscience is “clear”-- never having been obstructed with bad values-- he surely prefers “life” over “death”.

Since God is Life, a person with a sane mind will have a basic knowledge about Him, even if nobody teach him anything about God and Goodness. Thus a sane person will have “a measure of respect about life” (his own life at least, and the life of others through learnt social behavior).

A person who does not know God will know that “to kill other human being” is bad because he knows that he wants to continue living and therefore so do other human beings. This is the basic morality, that I believe, becomes the basic measure of morality in the world.

If a man is surrounded by goodness all of his life, he may possess a good conscience : He likes to help others, because his friends always help him. He is a responsible man, because he witness his responsible parents. Up to this point he is a good moral man, without God. But what if bad things happen to him? He might still be good after one or two bad experiences, but he might turn bad after meeting a lot of bad things. Thus morality is shaky without an absolute value, morality is relative.

“life for life” or “blood for blood” starts from the deepest of man’s primitive conscience. From here, man behaves and conduct his life in relation with each other : man consciously try to be good/ bad based on his conscience scale. This is what the world call morality : it is about “Is this behavior good? Or bad? Why?”

In this world there are many “relative” morality : morality without absolute measure. Some of them (relative morality) are not in opposition with Absolute Goodness. Thus, they are “OK”. For example : You gave me a beautiful present, I feel like I need to give you a present this coming occation. (Although presents may cause “materialistic relation”, giving presents is not a bad behavior)

But some relative morality are in opposition with the Absolute Goodness. Most extreem example is " euthanasia" : without an absolute measure, it is difficult to decide whether euthanasia is good or bad, because although our conscience know to kill is bad, but what if the person ask for it “I want to die, please help me to die” ?. Without God, we will say to ourselves “Well, he ask for it. He seems to have enough reasons not to want to live again. Let’s help him to get what he wants” This is an extreem example.

In our life, we are constantly “talking” to our conscience : without knowledge about God, our conscious reasons will be of relative moral goodness. But with God we will have an Absolute Good to guide our moral scale.

Having said those,

Moral goodness as An Ideal can be said as God Himself, but this is potentially misleading : because moral is about human behavior (Ideal human behavior is found in many saints and holy men and Jesus as the peak). It’s better to say it this way : all goodness comes from God, thus our good behavior, good morality comes from Him as well. Morality as a teaching/ a doctrine is a definitive guidance for our behaviour. This latter one is not God. Rather it is a discussion about humanity / our own behavior (may or may not involve God). Morality as a person’s conscience is a personal measure, and it will be more godly as the person believe God more. Goodness eternally only exist in God, but not always by conscious reasons. There is no goodness exist apart from God.

 

[mosher]

When speaking about God and His relation to goodness the Philosophers cited were not speaking about moral goodness but rather ontological goodness. These two types of goodness cannot be confused or used interchangeable. For example the Devil is good ontologically but he lacks goodness (is evil) morally. As a direct corollary he lacks ontological goodness but that is another discussion.

For goodness to exist apart from God is absurd in the fact that for God to be God then God must be creator. Because God is creator then it is necessary that He is not only the cause of the creation itself but it is also necessary that God sustains things in being. Because God sustains things in being He must not only be eminent but he must be immanent in creation by His power. Thus, to say that goodness exists apart from God would be as silly as saying that anything exists apart from God. God is the source and sustainer of all being by the very fact that He is God. By the nature of God and by the nature of created things it is not possible for goodness to exist apart from God.

As far as morality is concerned it is not contingent upon God except that God posits the Divine positive law which in turn informs the natural moral law. By this man can come to the knowledge that an action is right or wrong without the assistance of divine revelation. However, all actions are dependent upon actual grace as is clearly taught by St. Thomas via St. Augustine. However, this grace does not modify in any way the morality of the action but rather gives the actor the ability to act.

Mr. X not only has a poor understanding of the Greeks he as a completely incorrect understanding of St. Thomas. The posts sound as if the poster read an article on Wikipedia and then began to pontificate as if he knew what he was speaking about. Sorry to be “seemingly” uncharitable but as a philosopher and theologian I am insulted by his sophistry.

 

[havemercy]

lazer and mosher, thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. That was a lot to take in though!

Here’s some of our conversation continued (all Mr. X):
Mr. X:

Aquinas believed that wisdom and knowledge could be obtained apart from God, and he believed that man possessed moral goodness apart from the grace of God (this is, more or less, what people mean by semi-pelagianism). Here’s a brief summary: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism

As for being heretical, this was an age when men like Capernicus and Leonardo de Vinci were considered heretical because they were progressive, while popes were engaging in lascivious lifestyles and sending men to die in unholy wars fought for the purpose of political and financial gain. This was a church that adopted a belief, pelagianism, that Augustine had declared a heresy a few centuries earlier. “Heretic” seems to have carried a different meaning in that time than it does today.

…the divine command theory of morality promoted by Calvin, Kierkegaard and others. God is goodness, and goodness is Godness. That’s not the theory of morality promoted by Aquinas or what is considered the “traditional” Christian view. Lewis followed the traditional view, not the divine command view (as seen in his argument from natural law in Mere Christianity and in Abolition of Man)

The problem is that Lewis and Aquinas and others who hold this view have to allow for the possibility of God not being moral. The implication is that God makes moral choices, and the fact that he happens to have (apparently) chosen goodness consistently does not mean, necessarily, that he will always choose goodness. I find that the constraints on God’s autonomy–that he is ruled by a moral law just like the rest of us–as immoral and repugnant as Lewis finds the opposing view.

In the divine command view, we can be accused of worshipping power. In the traditional view promoted by Lewis, we could be accused of worshipping goodness inasmuch as we do good not because God commands it, but because of some other, independent standard exists. Either side could have idolatrous temptations. Worshipping God because he is good, which Lewis said we should do, is no better than worshipping goodness (just as he suggests the divine-command view is no better than worshipping power itself).

Going back to the topic of this thread, I think there’s a logical problem with the view of Aquinas and Lewis. Aquinas departed from Plato and Aristotle, who believed that goodness existed eternally separate from God (or to the Greeks, the gods), and suggested that goodness sort of sprung forth from the mind of God. Thus, God would be, if not the Creator of moral goodness, certainly the source of all moral goodness. If this is so, then how could God also be subject to the laws of a thing he created? God does not seem to be subject to laws of physics or constraints of time; he has the divine power to intervene in either, and he has intervened in both. Why would God be subject to the moral laws that originated in him in the first place?

 

[mosher]

havemercy:

lazer and mosher, thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. That was a lot to take in though!

Here’s some of our conversation continued (all Mr. X):

Each quote I will take in turn:

1. He is completely incorrect. Thomas affirms the doctrine of Grace of Augustine. There is no place in the writtings of Thomas where he embraces a semi-pelagian position. Further his characterization of the age is not only incorrect but he is mixing two eras together Thomas was not a contemporary of DaVinci they lived about 300 years apart from eachother. His argument becomes untenable because of its intrinsic inaccuracy.
2. Again he does not understand Thomas because Thomas does not argue what he says he is arguing Thomas said.
3. His ignorance of Thomas is amazing

I suggest you read the summa yourself in the area concerning the nature of God. You will be easily able to respond to his insinuations.

 

[havemercy]

mosher:

Each quote I will take in turn:

1. He is completely incorrect. Thomas affirms the doctrine of Grace of Augustine. There is no place in the writtings of Thomas where he embraces a semi-pelagian position. Further his characterization of the age is not only incorrect but he is mixing two eras together Thomas was not a contemporary of DaVinci they lived about 300 years apart from eachother. His argument becomes untenable because of its intrinsic inaccuracy.
2. Again he does not understand Thomas because Thomas does not argue what he says he is arguing Thomas said.
3. His ignorance of Thomas is amazing

I suggest you read the summa yourself in the area concerning the nature of God. You will be easily able to respond to his insinuations.

Thanks! Have you read Peter Kreeft’s Summa? Summa Theologica is so beyond me right now and I was wondering if it would be a good introduction to St. Thomas.

Peace!

 

[Contarini]

Mr. X is completely full of it. Sorry to be rude, but he doesn’t pull any punches himself. And when people state arrogantly things that have no relation to reality, they deserve to be told their errors in no uncertain terms.

Actually, beginning with the medieval R. Catholic church, the idea of goodness existing eternally apart from God became very popular

   Utter nonsense.

The idea that moral good existed eternally apart from God–and that God did not create moral good–goes back to Plato (possibly Socrates, though it’s not clear whether Eurythro was as much about Socrates as it was about Plato). Plato believed that moral goodness, like the rest of the universe, has existed eternally, and that lack of moral goodness was a function of ignorance rather than a failure to follow the wills of the gods.

Right. The gods. Not god. Later Neo-Platonism posited that the Forms (such as “the Good”) existed in the divine “Logos” which was an emanation from the One. In other words, these later pagan thinkers certainly did not think that goodness existed apart from God.

Thus, for the ancient Greeks, moral goodness could be distinct from religious adherence. The Hebrews believed something different, what is now called the divine-command theory of morality: that morality is defined by God and is intertwined with religious adherence.

I can’t see that the Hebrew Scriptures support the divine command theory. I don’t see that they speculate on the matter at all.

If man were morally good by nature and capable of adherence to the moral law apart from the grace of God, then it could follow that moral good itself exists apart from God.

That makes no sense whatsoever. There is no shred of logic in this argument. The moral law comes from God. All human activity is possible only because of God’s sustaining presence every minute.

While I don’t know that Aquinas wrote on this subject specifically

Right. Mr. X clearly doesn’t know anything about Aquinas. So he shouldn’t be making claims about him.

I do know that Aquinas believe a) that knowledge and wisdom can be obtained by man apart from God

Aquinas taught nothing of the sort. I dare Mr. X or anyone else to find a passage where Aquinas taught this.

Aquinas believed that we know the external world through sensory impressions rather than through direct divine illumination that enables us to share in the divine Ideas. This may be what Mr. X has in mind. I like the divine-illumination theory myself, and I can’t blame Mr. X if he does as well. But by no stretch of the imagination can one twist Aquinas’s position into an affirmation that knowledge is gained apart from God. We couldn’t so much as exist apart from God, in Aquinas’s view.

and b) that man could be morally good apart from God’s grace.

Aquinas believed that one can do good acts (though not acts that have any merit in God’s sight) without infused supernatural grace, yes. I’m not sure that Aquinas spoke of these acts as “morally good”–I believe this was a later Thomist category. If I remember rightly, Aquinas’s example of a good act done without grace is building a house–the same example Calvin uses for the kind of acts that can be done without grace!

It seems to follow that moral goodness, a function of wisdom per the Greeks, exists independently of God and can be found without God …

No, it does not seem to follow. Again, there is no logical connection here whatsoever. All good acts are possible only because God is acting in us. That is true of building a house, drawing a breath, listening to music–everything we do and everything that we are is a participation in God. The only acts that do not participate in God’s goodness are evil acts–but even then it is only the evil of the act that does not participate in God–and evil in itself is not a thing at all, but a privation of something that ought to be there.

Edwin

 

[mosher]

havemercy:

Thanks! Have you read Peter Kreeft’s Summa? Summa Theologica is so beyond me right now and I was wondering if it would be a good introduction to St. Thomas.

Peace!

No I have not I do not generally like abreviated versions of the Summa. I did use Tour of the Summa by Tan Publication for a short time as a crutch while I was reading the real Summa. I am being told that the problem with Kreeft’s Summa of the Summa is that he only addresses the Natural Reason aspects of the Summa and not the Theology contained in the Summa so for this discussion I would not say that it is a good selection.

Contarini:

I can’t see that the Hebrew Scriptures support the divine command theory. I don’t see that they speculate on the matter at all.

In the Tanak (The Old Testament) there are many instances of the argument of Divine Command such as the Ten Commandments of the other Laws given to the Hebrews concerning worship or conduct. However, the flaw that Mr. X has is that he does not realize that Natural Law morality flows from Divine Command itself. However, it is not God making things good but rather being, flowing from his very nature is good in itself.

Contarini:

Aquinas believed that we know the external world through sensory impressions rather than through direct divine illumination that enables us to share in the divine Ideas. This may be what Mr. X has in mind. I like the divine-illumination theory myself, and I can’t blame Mr. X if he does as well. But by no stretch of the imagination can one twist Aquinas’s position into an affirmation that knowledge is gained apart from God. We couldn’t so much as exist apart from God, in Aquinas’s view.

The nice thing about Thomas is that he actually makes room for both. He rejects the view of Augustine as the normal way in which we know things however he in the same breath gives room for the view of Augustin as an extraordinaty means of God granting knowledge.

Contarini:

Aquinas believed that one can do good acts (though not acts that have any merit in God’s sight) without infused supernatural grace, yes. I’m not sure that Aquinas spoke of these acts as “morally good”–I believe this was a later Thomist category. If I remember rightly, Aquinas’s example of a good act done without grace is building a house–the same example Calvin uses for the kind of acts that can be done without grace!

All acts can only be done because of God’s grace. However, the difference is if they are actual grace or through sanctifying grace. Actual grace allows us to do anything but if we do a good act without Sanctifying grace then it does not build a moral virtue but rather a natural virtue or in the case of the Theological virtues which are infused virtues their natural counterpart is only virtue by analogy. So, for Thomas it is necessary to have Sanctifying Grace to build merit but not to do good or evil because to do good or evil is still dependent on God giving us actual grace.

 

[jimmy]

havemercy:

Comments? What is the Catholic view on this? AH!

Mr X is completely wrong. The Church has always taught that the only thing that is eternal is God Himself. God is so unified that His goodness is Himself. God is the essence of goodness according to Aquinas. There is no goodness apart from God. The only way a man can be good is through communion with God. I will is amoral without God because there is no absolute good. Here is what Aquinas says.

1. God is good by essence: all other beings by participation: therefore nothing can be called good except inasmuch as it bears some likeness to the divine goodness. He is therefore the good of all good. Hence it is said of the Divine Wisdom: There came to me all good things along with it (Wisd. vii, 11). Summa Contra Gentiles, Volume 1, chapter 40

 

[jimmy]

The Greek eternal goodness idea, though, crept back into the church in the middle ages and found a home with the rise of semi-pelagianism. If man were morally good by nature and capable of adherence to the moral law apart from the grace of God, then it could follow that moral good itself exists apart from God.

No it didn’t.

While I don’t know that Aquinas wrote on this subject specifically (though I also don’t know that he did not)–which is why I used the word “apparently,” I do know that Aquinas believe a) that knowledge and wisdom can be obtained by man apart from God and b) that man could be morally good apart from God’s grace. It seems to follow that moral goodness, a function of wisdom per the Greeks, exists independently of God and can be found without God …

No he didn’t. As I said above, Aquinas believed that a man can only obtain goodness through participation with God(Read the quote from Aquinas). A man is only good because he conforms to the divine goodness.

 

[jimmy]

Aquinas believed that wisdom and knowledge could be obtained apart from God, and he believed that man possessed moral goodness apart from the grace of God (this is, more or less, what people mean by semi-pelagianism). Here’s a brief summary: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism

As for being heretical, this was an age when men like Capernicus and Leonardo de Vinci were considered heretical because they were progressive, while popes were engaging in lascivious lifestyles and sending men to die in unholy wars fought for the purpose of political and financial gain. This was a church that adopted a belief, pelagianism, that Augustine had declared a heresy a few centuries earlier. “Heretic” seems to have carried a different meaning in that time than it does today.
*
Get a knew source. Wikipedia is not correct on Aquinas if that is what it says. I have read some of Aquinas’ works and he blatantly contradicts this.
*As for Copernicus, he was not considered a heretic. In fact his teaching was endorsed by the pope. He was supported. *
The Church never adopted pelagianism or semi-pelagianism. Aquinas was far from a semi-pelagianist. His view was very Augustinian.

 

[Riley259]

The source of goodness is God and thus doesn’t exist apart from God. God is the ultimate standard for goodness and holiness.

 

[francisca]

havemercy:

Quote :
The problem is that Lewis and Aquinas and others who hold this view have to allow for the possibility of God not being moral. The implication is that God makes moral choices, and the fact that he happens to have (apparently) chosen goodness consistently does not mean, necessarily, that he will always choose goodness.

I find that the constraints on God’s autonomy–that he is ruled by a moral law just like the rest of us–as immoral and repugnant as Lewis finds the opposing view.X):

If we talk about Goodness as The Ideal, it means God
If we talk about Goodness as perceived by our taughts about our own behavior, it means “morality”

Morality is about our behavior. Although our good behavior comes from God (we receive God’s grace to do good works), does not mean that “morality” as a concept “rules” God, because morality is about our own behavior.

God is up there, we cannot go up there unless He reach down to us. Morality is our concept of “good” does not mean that our concept is perfect. Thus morality can never be used as the standard to measure God. Thus if somebody talk about “goodness” as “morality”, he can say “God is outside morality” (meaning morality cannot acheive God, but it does not mean that moral goodness exist “apart” from God).

 

[Contarini]

The problem is that Lewis and Aquinas and others who hold this view have to allow for the possibility of God not being moral. The implication is that God makes moral choices, and the fact that he happens to have (apparently) chosen goodness consistently does not mean, necessarily, that he will always choose goodness.

That’s ridiculous. Where do these people get these ideas from?

Goodness is God’s nature. “Happens to have” has nothing to do with it. Goodness is one of the names we give the undivided divine essence.

Edwin

 

[havemercy]

Mr. X:

Copernicus was not considered a heretic. In fact his teachings were endorsed and supported by Rome and the Pope.

The Roman Catholic church condemned the Copernican helio-centric view of the solar system at Galileo’s trial. I believe that Pope John Paul officially apologized for this a few years ago.

Also, the Church has NEVER adopted pelagianism or semi-pelagianism.

The church has never officially adopted semi-pelagianism. In practice, the church was semi-pelagian from the middle ages through the reformation, and arguably after that. It has taken a more encouraging direction recently, however.

The reformation was a reaction against the church’s semi-pelagianism. If the church were not semi-pelagian, there’s probably no 95 Theses, no reformation, etc.

There is no place in the writtings of Thomas where he maintains anything remotely semi-pelagianistic.

Smarter people than I debate whether Aquinas was more augustinian or semi-pelagian. I’m more interested in his philosophy than his theology, though, and the issue is off the subject of this thread. Aquinas, in his philosophy, maintained a stern confidence in the free will of human mind and its ability to discover truths (including moral truths) apart from divine revelation. This seems to contradict augustinian depravity. I believe that the current Pope, Ratzinger, in fact departs from Thomism for this reason; that is, because of its optimistic view of the human will.

God is so unified that His goodness is Himself. God is the essence of goodness according to Aquinas. There is no goodness apart from God. The only way a man can be good is through communion with God. Without God there is no absolute good. Here is what Aquinas says:

**2. God is good by essence: all other beings by participation: therefore nothing can be called good except inasmuch as it bears some likeness to the divine goodness. He is therefore the good of all good. Hence it is said of the Divine Wisdom: There came to me all good things along with it **

(Wisd. vii, 11). Summa Contra Gentiles, Volume 1, chapter 40
Aquinas believed that a man can only obtain goodness through participation with God (read the quote from Aquinas). A man is only good because he conforms to the divine goodness.

Aquinas believed that goodness flows from God, not that goodness is God such that an act is good only by virtue of God willing it. The Greeks postulated that a natural law governed moral decisions, that this law was distinct from the gods. One of Aquinas’s great contributions to philosophy is that he Christianized the natural law, making it originate in God. But, for the Greeks, Aquinas, and those that followed (including Lewis), a person could be good apart from God if the goodness resembled divine goodness. Human reason–imparted by God, of course–was an alternative path to divine goodness. Communion with God was not necessary.

Correct. "The gods

." Not “God”. Eventually Neo-Platonism posited that the Forms (such as “the Good”) existed in the divine “Logos” which was an outpouring from the One. En d’autres termes, these pagan thinkers certainly did not think that goodness existed apart from God.

I think this is really where our difference lies. The fact that a natural law might originate in God does not entail that the natural law cannot exist apart from God. The Greeks (classical philosophers) certainly did not believe that goodness could only be obtained through communion with the gods. Socrates took his opposition to that idea to the death. Wherever the good originated, they believed, and Aquinas believed, that mankind was capable of discovering it on his own, that it exists independent of God.

Aquinas believed that we know the external world through sensory impressions rather than through direct divine illumination that enables us to share in the divine Ideas. Does this sound okay to you? I like the divine-illumination theory myself, and I know you do, but by no stretch of the imagination can one twist Aquinas’s position to have it seem like he’s saying that knowledge is gained apart from God. We couldn’t so much as exist apart from God from Aquinas’ standpoint.

One does not have to “twist” Aquinas’s position to assert that he believed that knowledge can be obtained through human reason without divine revelation. This was central to his philosophy.

Sheesh.

• I don’t know about Copernicus.
• I agree that the church has never adopted any sort of pelagianism. The Reformation was NOT a reaction to pelagianism but church authority, the selling of indulgences, and due to Luther’s inferiority complex.
• He says that Aquinas says “this” when I clearly pointed out that Aquinas says “that”.

Is it right for me to be pulling my beard out of my face?

 

[Contarini]

Yes, it’s right for you to be frustrated. He hasn’t cited a single passage from Aquinas to support his interpretations. He’s relying on Calvinist caricatures and knows nothing of the original texts as far as I can tell (my guess is that he’s been reading Cornelius Van Til or maybe Francis Schaeffer).

Aquinas did not think that goodness (in the ultimate sense) “flowed” from God. He thought that goodness was one of the names we give the ineffable divine essence. We can understand it only in part, even though it has no parts.

He needs to go read ST I, questions 6 (goodness) and 13 (naming God).

And he needs to give support for his claim that in Aquinas you can be good without God. That makes no sense. You can’t even exist without God. It isn’t a question of God “imparting” goodness and then stepping back. God is moving in all creation or it wouldn’t exist. Reason is not an “alternative” path–reason is a participation in the divine Intellect or it would be worth nothing.

Furthermore, for Aquinas all creaturely goodness, all creaturely wisdom is imperfect. You can’t be saved by natural goodness apart from grace both because it’s weakened by sin and because it’s intrinsically insufficient.

He can hold forth forever in generalities. Make him support his position with specifics or you will get nowhere.

Edwin

 

[jimmy]

havemercy:

Sheesh.

• I don’t know about Copernicus.
• I agree that the church has never adopted any sort of pelagianism. The Reformation was NOT a reaction to pelagianism but church authority, the selling of indulgences, and due to Luther’s inferiority complex.
• He says that Aquinas says “this” when I clearly pointed out that Aquinas says “that”.

Is it right for me to be pulling my beard out of my face?

Aquinas believed that goodness flows from God, not that goodness is God such that an act is good only by virtue of God willing it. The Greeks postulated that a natural law governed moral decisions, that this law was distinct from the gods. One of Aquinas’s great contributions to philosophy is that he Christianized the natural law, making it originate in God. But, for the Greeks, Aquinas, and those that followed (including Lewis), a person could be good apart from God if the goodness resembled divine goodness. Human reason–imparted by God, of course–was an alternative path to divine goodness. Communion with God was not necessary.

No, on the contrary. Aquinas specifically says that God is goodness and goodness is God. They are one and the same. To Aquinas, God is absolutely united. He can’t be divided. So according to Aquinas, God is His goodness. And since God is the highest good and according to Aquinas absolutely nothing exists apart from God, God is goodness itself.

Aquinas did not teach that someone could be good apart from God. As I already said, He teaches that God is goodness itself. Our goodness is in relation to our participation in the goodness of God. He also teaches that the higher virtues are infused by God. For this read his Disputed Questions on the Virtues.

Furthe Aquinas taught like Anselm that all men lost ‘justice or holyness’ through original sin. Yes, they lost holyness. He also teaches that a person must recieve sanctifying Grace(which is the Holy Spirit Himself). Here is what Aquinas says about whether man can do good without God.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 9:16): “It is not of him that willeth,” namely, to will, “nor of him that runneth,” namely to run, “but of God that showeth mercy.” And Augustine says (De Corrept. et Gratia ii) that “without grace men do nothing good when they either think or wish or love or act.” [Summa Theologica 1st part of 2nd part, Question 109, Article 2]

newadvent.org/summa/210902.htm

You can also read it in his commentaries on Romans and Ephesians.

Communion with God was not necessary.

On the contrary, he teaches that all men lost Original Justice or Holyness with Original Sin. Consequently sanctifying grace(the Holy Spirit) is absolutely necessary. That is why he also taught that baptism was absolutely necessary to recieve salvation.

 

[jimmy]

There is a problem with this guys arguements. He first says that Aquinas taught that ‘all goodness flows from God’(not true about Aquinas), then he goes on to say that Aquinas taught that you can be good apart from God. It is a self contradictory arguement. They are in opposition to eachother.

The church has never officially adopted semi-pelagianism. In practice, the church was semi-pelagian from the middle ages through the reformation, and arguably after that. It has taken a more encouraging direction recently, however.

The reformation was a reaction against the church’s semi-pelagianism. If the church were not semi-pelagian, there’s probably no 95 Theses, no reformation, etc.

No, the Church has never taught semi-pelagianism. There were nominalists who did teach semi-pelagianism. These are supposedly the sources that Luther had known. Luther did not know Aquinas’ teaching or many of the other doctors of the Church.

The Church has not changed its teaching. The teaching at the council of Trent in the sixth session is the current teaching and it was the teaching at the time of Aquinas and it was the teaching at the time of Augustine and at the time of the apostles. The teaching is that you are justified by both faith and works. Faith working in love is a good way of saying it. The eastern Christians call it synergy. It means that man must cooperate with the grace that God gives to man. This was the view of all the fathers of the Church.

 

[jimmy]

Smarter people than I debate whether Aquinas was more augustinian or semi-pelagian. I’m more interested in his philosophy than his theology, though, and the issue is off the subject of this thread. Aquinas, in his philosophy, maintained a stern confidence in the free will of human mind and its ability to discover truths (including moral truths) apart from divine revelation. This seems to contradict augustinian depravity. I believe that the current Pope, Ratzinger, in fact departs from Thomism for this reason; that is, because of its optimistic view of the human will.

Yes, Aquinas believed that you could discover certain truths through your intelligence. But the thing about that is that he calls the powers of the mind gifts from God. Your intelligence and logic are gifts from God. This is not semi-pelagianism. Semi-pelagianism says that you can make the first move toward God.

Free will is a doctrine that Augustine taught himself. Augustine specifically says,

Now He has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there is in a man a free choice of will. But how He has revealed this I do not recount in human language, but in divine. There is, to begin with, the fact that God’s precepts themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards. On Grace and Free Will; Chapter 1

Mr X makes the mistake of thinking that Augustine is infallible anyways. Even if Augustine didn’t believe in free will that does not mean there would be no free will. Augustine does make some mistakes in his writings. The Church fathers are very firm that there is free will and that we have the ability to accept the grace of God or reject it.