Help with Aquinas: from First Mover to Christian God

[m4dc4p]

I’ve been reading Aquinas lately, and feel I have a good handle on his proof for “a” Creator. However, I cannot seem to see where he makes the connection between “a” Creator and our God, according to our Christian understanding.

I ask because I’ve gotten an agnostic friend to admit that the first Mover argument makes sense, but I wonder if there is a rational path to the Christian God from there.

Any help is appreciated!

 

[john_doran]

have you read the rest of the first part (prima pars) of the summa? aquinas makes a fairly orderly progression from the existence of a first cause to its attributes (unity, simplicity, non-corporeality,infinity,eternity, goodness, etc.).

it would be easier to provide help if you were able to say which specific parts are giving you trouble…

 

[m4dc4p]

I’ve read part of a book called “Aquinas’ Shorter Summa.” I think its official title is much different, but essentially its a summary of the Summa. (amazon: amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1928832431/ref=dp_proddesc_0/103-1557274-2967026?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=507846)

I understand the arguments of immovability, immutability, and eternity. What I’m just not able to track is where you move from the necessity of the First Mover to identifying that entity with God. Why not identify the mover with some sort of “Absentee Watchmaker” or a universal “Force” with no consciousness? Is there a rational argument that Aquinas advances which brings you from “first mover” to God?

Hope that clarifies somewhat …

 

[itsjustdave1988]

m4dc4p:

I’ve been reading Aquinas lately, and feel I have a good handle on his proof for “a” Creator. However, I cannot seem to see where he makes the connection between “a” Creator and our God, according to our Christian understanding.

I ask because I’ve gotten an agnostic friend to admit that the first Mover argument makes sense, but I wonder if there is a rational path to the Christian God from there.

Any help is appreciated!

The way I explained it to my skeptical father was something like this…

You believe there is a Creator based solely upon natural revelation and reason. But, in light of all the theories about that Creator you are skeptical, right? So you asked how I decided for Christianity as opposed to deism (natural religion) or other forms of theism.

This is my reasoning…

If I were the Creator, would I create the world and all of its creatures only to abandon and ignore them (as deism presumes)? Or is it more likely that I would will to continue from the very genesis of creation, to interact with what I created? I think the latter is more likely. I would reveal myself to them in incremental ways, such that my complex nature wouldn’t simply overwhelm them. How would I interact with them, ultimately? I think that I would become Emmanuel (“God with us”, Matt. 1:23). I wouldn’t simply remain a God apart from my creation.

I’ve looked at all the other theories of theism, and they don’t seem likely compared to the Judeo-Christian revelation of God which is revealed in His Incarnate interaction with humanity.

I then gave my father the big picture of covenant theology which Scott Hahn presents in his book, A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God’s Covenant Love in Scripture. It seemed to get him thinking.