How does God create "the act of existing" out of nothing?

[Linux]

What I was driving at, though, was that speaking of God as though he were a part of other things diminishes the understanding of his creative act as distinct from Himself.

That depends on what you mean by being a “part” of something. The handle of a paint brush is not ontologically identical to the brush. Of course if God is an intrinsic expression of a things essence, then that would be a problem since in that case a things “whatness” would be God. But since we know that at no point does act become identical with essence, even when conjoined, then we know that God does not become the “whatness” of thing by conjoining his power of actuality with an essence. Esse (the act of reality) never becomes identical with creatures. The act of a creature is not identical to the creature and this is made evident by the fact that creatures come in and out of existence.

The brain depends, for its activity, on the supply of oxygen provided by the lungs/circulatory system.

You are speaking about a different kind activity and dependency here that has nothing to do with having the power to bring potency to act. That a brain processes data is secondary to that which brings the potency of these processes to act. That which is essentially distinct from actuality cannot be that which actualises potency.

Creatures are mediums of God’s power, they do not have their own distinct source of power.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

God is the only ETERNAL, ALWAYS WAS/IS/WILL BE ‘Esse’ from which ALL OTHER created/made esse has emanated by ‘His Will’/Purpose. All that is wrong or evil is as an outcome/reaction of some of His fallable creations’ - namely Angels and Humans - cognitive self-willful [by-passing/opposing God’s Will] choice. At least that is my own ‘understanding’.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Creatures are mediums of God’s power, they do not have their own distinct source of power.

Oh really! You mean all the trouble and misery I have caused myself and others, was God’s doing. That would be a relief, if I knew it weren’t wrong.

BTW ppl, don’t go by what I say or what this individual writes. Follow the church’s teachings.

Recall yesterday’s responsorial Psalm:

Responsorial Psalm PS 106:34-35, 36-37, 39-40, 43AB AND 44
R. (4a) Remember us, O Lord, as you favor your people.

They did not exterminate the peoples,
as the LORD had commanded them,
But mingled with the nations
and learned their works.
They served their idols,
which became a snare for them.
They sacrificed their sons
and their daughters to demons.
They became defiled by their works,
and wanton in their crimes.
And the LORD grew angry with his people,
and abhorred his inheritance.
Many times did he rescue them,
but they embittered him with their counsels.
Yet he had regard for their affliction
when he heard their cry.

There are many ideas around us that can lead us astray.

 

[Linux]

Oh really! You mean all the trouble and misery I have caused myself and others, was God’s doing. That would be a relief, if I knew it weren’t wrong.

I never said that God makes your choice, i said God actualizes the potency of that which is making the choice. More cannot come from less. The power to create is God’s and God’s alone. Secondary causes do not reduce potency from nothing to something; they are not involved in the act of creatio exnihilo, and i think the Church backs me on that. God brings every instant of change into reality. Every instant of change is creation exnihilio.

BTW ppl, don’t go by what I say or what this individual writes. Follow the church’s teachings.

I think people can think for themselves. They don’t need you to think for them.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Oh really! You mean all the trouble and misery I have caused myself and others, was God’s doing. That would be a relief, if I knew it weren’t wrong.

That is not what is entailed by Linux’s point. God sustains all creatures in being. He is the sustaining power through which all things exist. The fact that you remain in existence even when you do evil, does not accord with either God’s will or his power. He continues to “underwrite” your existence (speaking generally) as a mercy to you, giving you the opportunity to “get on side” or back into harmony with his creative will. At some point, his mercy will run its course and his justice will take over. I wouldn’t presume anything just because God’s power keeps you (or I) in existence in the interim that that entails what you (or I) do is in accord with his will.

BTW ppl, don’t go by what I say or what this individual writes. Follow the church’s teachings.

I agree fully!

 

[prodigalson2011]

That depends on what you mean by being a “part” of something. The handle of a paint brush is not ontologically identical to the brush. Of course if God is an intrinsic expression of a things essence, then that would be a problem since in that case a things “whatness” would be God. Since we know that at no point does act become identical with essence, even when conjoined, then we know that God does not become the “whatness” of thing by conjoining his power of actuality with an essence. Esse (the act of reality) never becomes identical with creatures. The act of a creature is not identical to the creature and this is made evident by the fact that creatures come in and out of existence.

The handle of a paint brush is not identical to the brush, but neither are the bristles. The brush is the sum composite of bristles and handle. Likewise, a creature is not identical to its esse but neither is it identical to its essence. If that were so, all men would be exactly the same. All trees would be exactly the same. Things of a certain species are alike in their essence, but different precisely in their existence.

We can take the logic further and say that if creatures were identical to their essence, not only would they be identical to one another, but their existence would have to be included in their essence.

Not only is God the only thing identical to His existence, He is also the only thing identical to His essence.

But the point is this: by your theory, whether or not God became the “whatness” of a creature, He would become the “isness” of the creature, which would obviously mean that the creature is God, albeit under the appearance of some particular form of “whatness.”

You are speaking about a different kind activity and dependency here that has nothing to do with having the power to bring potency to act.

There is no such thing as an activity that has nothing to do with “the power to bring potency to act.” That is exactly what “activity” is: activating, or actualizing, a potency. The source of your error is apparent in your reply to Aloysium, which I shall address shortly.

That a brain processes data is secondary to that which brings the potency of these processes to act. That which is essentially distinct from actuality cannot be that which actualises potency.

A creature is not distinct from its actuality, otherwise it would not be a real thing. It is distinct from the act whereby it is made an actuality.

Creatures are mediums of God’s power, they do not have their own distinct source of power.

On the contrary, “God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions.” (CCC, 1731). And more to the point, “Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act.” (CCC, 1732)

If creatures (specifically rational creatures) did not have their own distinct acts, and therefore their own power, that would mean that either a) God did everything for them or b) creatures could manipulate God’s power, which is His will, to their own ends.

Creatures have their own power, but that power is given and sustained by God.

Moreover, “that whereby an agent acts is its act.” A thing acts according to its nature, but it does not act by its nature. It acts by its existence: only an act can move potency to act. But God’s act is His act alone; it is His will. It cannot contradict itself. Free will would be impossible if we did not have our own act.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I never said that God makes your choice, i said God actualizes the potency of that which is making the choice.

That’s a fancy way of saying the exact same thing.

You are committing what William Lane Craig calls the “taxicab fallacy.” You can’t just follow a train of logic to your desired destination and then stop. You must follow it all the way through. If creatures have no power of their own, God is necessary not only to actualize their choices, but the entire process of thought that led to that choice, which means creatures play absolutely no active part in their actions. They are simply God’s hand puppets.

More cannot come from less. The power to create is God’s and God’s alone. Secondary causes do not reduce potency from nothing to something; they are not involved in the act of creatio exnihilo,

This is the gratuitous error of which I was speaking. Potencies are not “nothing”, they are “passive powers.” That is to say they are possibilities inherent to things by their nature, while not being a part of their nature per se. For instance, a ball’s potential to spin is inherent to it by its very shape. It does not require a divine intervention from God for that potency to be actualized, it simply requires some external agent to apply an act of appropriate force.

The “act of spinning” imparted is not something “created ex nihilo”, it is a passive power within the ball that has been made active by the agency of something else. Though that potency is inherent in the nature of the ball, it is not identical to it precisely because it requires the actualizing power of some other act (be it gravity, wind, a hand, etc.)

the Church backs me on that. God brings every instant of change into reality. Every instant of change is creation exnihilio.

No, it is not. Creation is not a change. On the contrary, “what is created, is not made by movement, or by change. For what is made by movement or by change is made from something pre-existing.” (Summa Theologiae, First Part, Q. 45, Art. 3)

“Creation ex nihilo” is the making of something in its whole substance (with nothing presupposed). The movement from potency to act in creatures is simply an accidental change within a substance, with the substance of both the agent and recipient of the act presupposed.

I don’t know where you’re coming up with this stuff.

I think people can think for themselves. They don’t need you to think for them.

Funny you should say that, because if “God brings every instant of change into reality,” then people can’t think for themselves. For thinking implies an endless series of changes in the intellect, each one of which must be “created” and “actualized” by God.

 

[prodigalson2011]

That is not what is entailed by Linux’s point. God sustains all creatures in being. He is the sustaining power through which all things exist.

Actually, Peter, it is exactly what is entailed by Linux’s point (see my 2 posts above). Linux is not simply saying that god is the sustaining power through which all things exist (and thus have their own power), but the motive power by which they act. In other words, every act is literally a personal act of God (including your sins.)

The fact that you remain in existence even when you do evil, does not accord with either God’s will or his power. He continues to “underwrite” your existence (speaking generally) as a mercy to you, giving you the opportunity to “get on side” or back into harmony with his creative will. At some point, his mercy will run its course and his justice will take over. I wouldn’t presume anything just because God’s power keeps you (or I) in existence in the interim that that entails what you (or I) do is in accord with his will.

On the contrary:

“God’s permission of evil in the things governed by Him is not inconsistent with the divine goodness. For, in the first place, the function of Providence is not to destroy but to save the nature of the beings governed. The perfection of the universe requires the existence of some beings that are not subject to evil and of other beings that can suffer the defect of evil in keeping with their nature. If evil were completely eliminated from things, they would not be governed by Divine Providence in accord with their nature; and this would be a greater defect than the particular defects eradicated.”

God’s sustenance of our existence is not an act of mercy; His forgiveness is. His preservation of our being is in accord with His nature regardless of our actions. As Aquinas says, “The function of Providence is not to destroy but to save the nature of the beings governed.” In the end, even the unrepentant will not be annihilated: Hell is just as eternal as Heaven.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Actually, Peter, it is exactly what is entailed by Linux’s point (see my 2 posts above). Linux is not simply saying that god is the sustaining power through which all things exist (and thus have their own power), but the motive power by which they act. In other words, every act is literally a personal act of God (including your sins.)

Augustine, in On Grace and Free Will seems to be claiming that God empowers both. That he empowers “motives” precisely because he sustains free will in existence.

2 Chronicles 21:16-17 Here it is shown that God stirs up enemies to devastate the countries which He adjudges deserving of such chastisement. Still, did these Philistines and Arabians invade the land of Judah to waste it with no will of their own? Or were their movements so directed by their own will that the Scripture lies which tells us that the Lord stirred up their spirit to do all this? Both statements to be sure are true, because they both came by their own will, and yet the Lord stirred up their spirit; and this may also with equal truth be stated the other way: The Lord both stirred up their spirit, and yet they came of their own will. For the Almighty sets in motion even in the innermost hearts of men the movement of their will, so that He does through their agency whatsoever He wishes to perform through them—even He who knows not how to will anything in unrighteousness.

newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm Ch. 42

My reading of this is that God empowers a perfectly free will, but the choices are left to the will itself. That is what I meant by “underwrites” free will. He provides both the sustaining power and the “motility” of the will, but the choices belong to the agent.

As usual, I welcome correction of false notions.

 

[prodigalson2011]

prodigalson2011:

The handle of a paint brush is not identical to the brush, but neither are the bristles. The brush is the sum composite of bristles and handle. Likewise, a creature is not identical to its esse but neither is it identical to its essence. If that were so, all men would be exactly the same. All trees would be exactly the same. Things of a certain species are alike in their essence, but different precisely in their existence.

We can take the logic further and say that if creatures were identical to their essence, not only would they be identical to one another, but their existence would have to be included in their essence.

Not only is God the only thing identical to His existence, He is also the only thing identical to His essence.

But the point is this: by your theory, whether or not God became the “whatness” of a creature, He would become the “isness” of the creature, which would obviously mean that the creature is God, albeit under the appearance of some particular form of “whatness.”

Adding to the point:

“That whereby a common essence is individuated cannot pertain to many. Although there can be many men, it is impossible for this particular man to be more than one only.”

“That whereby a common essence is individuated” is an esse. An act of existence takes a common essence (such as “the essence of man”) and makes it an individual being. To this act of existence, differences accrue which distinguish one man from another.

Further:

“A number of individuals comprised under one species differ in their existence, and yet are alike in their one essence. Accordingly, whenever a number of individuals are under one species, their existence must be different from the essence of the species.”

This is what is meant by the distinction between essence and existence in creatures. It does not mean that the act of existence is not a real part of them; quite to the contrary. It is by virtue of their particular act of existence that they become individuals in their own right. The essence of man is common to all men, but the act of existence is not.

Again, it is by the accrual of accidental differences to their act that they are different from other things of their species. Since nothing can accrue to God, this obviously precludes His being their act.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Augustine, in On Grace and Free Will seems to be claiming that God empowers both. That he empowers “motives” precisely because he sustains free will in existence.

Certainly, God empowers everything, in the sense that all other powers are dependent on His as their cause and sustenance. But Linux is saying there is no other power but God’s. Yet that is what free will is: an individual power to choose.

My reading of this is that God empowers a perfectly free will, but the choices are left to the will itself. That is what I meant by “underwrites” free will. He provides both the sustaining power and the “motility” of the will, but the choices belong to the agent.

Indeed. He creates and sustains the power of creatures by His own power. The point is that the power of creatures is not the power of God, but the creation of God.

I think if we talked more about this we would find we more or less agree. But my point to you was that Linux’s argument goes much further than this (as my preceding replies illustrate.)

Linux’s argument is that creatures have no power of their own, which means that they have no will of their own because the will is a power. The same applies to any other natural operation. For:

“God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.” (CCC 306, Providence and secondary causes)

As usual, I welcome correction of false notions.

I hope this has been helpful

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Actually, Peter, it is exactly what is entailed by Linux’s point (see my 2 posts above). Linux is not simply saying that god is the sustaining power through which all things exist (and thus have their own power), but the motive power by which they act. In other words, every act is literally a personal act of God (including your sins.)

On the contrary:

“God’s permission of evil in the things governed by Him is not inconsistent with the divine goodness. For, in the first place, the function of Providence is not to destroy but to save the nature of the beings governed. The perfection of the universe requires the existence of some beings that are not subject to evil and of other beings that can suffer the defect of evil in keeping with their nature. If evil were completely eliminated from things, they would not be governed by Divine Providence in accord with their nature; and this would be a greater defect than the particular defects eradicated.”

God’s sustenance of our existence is not an act of mercy; His forgiveness is. His preservation of our being is in accord with His nature regardless of our actions. As Aquinas says, “The function of Providence is not to destroy but to save the nature of the beings governed.” In the end, even the unrepentant will not be annihilated: Hell is just as eternal as Heaven.

Actually Linux is correct as far as it goes. God is the Primary cause of the brain’s activity, the movement of the muscles, etc., yet the soul, through the will, makes the choice. So, in a way, when we sin, we force God to be an innocent participant in the act. This is one reason why sin is so hineous.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

Actually Linux is correct as far as it goes. God is the Primary cause of the brain’s activity, the movement of the muscles, etc., yet the soul, through the will, makes the choice. So, in a way, when we sin, we force God to be an innocent participant in the act. This is one reason why sin is so hineous.

Linus2nd

You agree with the following?

Creatures are mediums of God’s power, they do not have their own distinct source of power.

This is what I understand to be pantheism.

In the words people here have been using, I am pretty sure the above implies that creatures are mediums of God’s Esse.

This is how I understand the word:
medium |ˈmēdēəm| noun
1 an agency or means of doing something:
2 the intervening substance through which impressions are conveyed to the senses or a force acts on objects at a distance

If Linux’s statement is correct then I don’t understand the meanings of “medium” and “power” as they are being used.

It seems Linux is saying that God not only is the primary cause but the sufficient (I may not be using the right word here) cause. When I choose, I act.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Actually Linux is correct as far as it goes. God is the Primary cause of the brain’s activity, the movement of the muscles, etc., yet the soul, through the will, makes the choice. So, in a way, when we sin, we force God to be an innocent participant in the act. This is one reason why sin is so hineous.

Linus2nd

God is the cause of the existence and activity of the brain, the muscles, etc., but he has given to his creation powers of its own, so that it operates separate from, but dependent upon Him, insofar as those powers must also be sustained by Him. In other words, while he is the primary cause of the brain’s activity, He is not actually the activity of the brain itself, which is what Linux’s claim amounts to: if God must personally actualize every potency, then He must personally bring about every fragment of thought that ever passes through a person’s mind. They have no power of their own, and thus no power to think or will or act. So on Linux’s view, God is not an “innocent participant” at all. Rather, he is the sole guilty party.

God does not participate in our evils any more than a car manufacturer participates in a drunk driver’s. In short, we abuse the powers God has given us.

 

[Linux]

The handle of a paint brush is not identical to the brush, but neither are the bristles. The brush is the sum composite of bristles and handle. Likewise, a creature is not identical to its esse but neither is it identical to its essence.

A creatures essence is its intrinsic identity and esse is not.

If that were so, all men would be exactly the same. All trees would be exactly the same. Things of a certain species are alike in their essence, but different precisely in their existence.

Men can be different because the essence of man is not identical to existence and its principle of differentiation is matter. Thus there can be actual differentiation of the same nature. Esse actualizes natures. Differentiation in turn occurs because of the inherent principles involved in the nature of that which is being created.

We can take the logic further and say that if creatures were identical to their essence, not only would they be identical to one another, but their existence would have to be included in their essence.

As far as i can tell you have a flawed understanding of how a universal is differentiated among many substances since you seem to think that esse as distinct from God is the principle of differentiation. Also it does not follow logically that if the essence of man is identical with that which is actually man that therefore essence is identical with esse. That would only follow if being actual was an intrinsic expression of a things nature, but what sense then does it make for that nature to begin or cease to exist. It makes no sense.

Not only is God the only thing identical to His existence, He is also the only thing identical to His essence.

Esse is God’s essence, and so there can be only one.

But the point is this: by your theory, whether or not God became the “whatness” of a creature, He would become the “isness” of the creature, which would obviously mean that the creature is God, albeit under the appearance of some particular form of “whatness.”

No it would not, since esse is not identical with substances. A substance is an essence that has been given actuality; it is not an essence that is actuality itself.

There is no such thing as an activity that has nothing to do with “the power to bring potency to act.”

Well there obviously is, since a creature cannot act unless its potency to act is actualized and since an essence as it is actual is not its actuality it cannot be that which actualizes its potency.

A creature is not distinct from its actuality, otherwise it would not be a real thing. It is distinct from the act whereby it is made an actuality.

What you are saying here does not make any sense and completely undermines the esse and essence distinction.

You are saying that a creature is not distinct from the act of existence.

In and of itself a creature is not a real thing. It is actual because esse has been conjoined to essence, and the two remain distinct even when conjoined.

On the contrary, “God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions.” (CCC, 1731). And more to the point, “Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act.” (CCC, 1732)

I have not argued against that.

If creatures (specifically rational creatures) did not have their own distinct acts, and therefore their own power, that would mean that either a) God did everything for them or b) creatures could manipulate God’s power, which is His will, to their own ends.

No, it means that God actualizes the potential actions of your nature. Secondly i did not say that creatures do not have some kind of Act, but their act is not identical to the act of existence. And since power comes from the act of existence (more does not come from less) it must come from that which is pure actuality and this power cannot be distinct from it. Creatures have power only in an analogous sense*(they do not really have power, only something like it*). This is to say they have kinds of “actions” intrinsic to their nature. But this is a completely passive power in the sense that a things activity is absolutely contingent on something else external to its nature. Its like a car that can make certain actions once it is moving, but it cannot act at all if it does not have the fuel or power to generate that activity.

Creatures have their own power, but that power is given and sustained by God.

If they truly have their own distinct power to exist and act, it make no sense to speak of God as sustaining them. Because then you are speaking of two principles that are not truly the act of existence or power as it relates to creatures intrinsic nature; they completely impotent concepts and are completely other than the labels you have arbitrarily placed upon them.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God is the cause of the existence and activity of the brain, the muscles, etc., but he has given to his creation powers of its own, so that it operates separate from, but dependent upon Him, insofar as those powers must also be sustained by Him. In other words, while he is the primary cause of the brain’s activity, He is not actually the activity of the brain itself, which is what Linux’s claim amounts to: if God must personally actualize every potency, then He must personally bring about every fragment of thought that ever passes through a person’s mind. They have no power of their own, and thus no power to think or will or act. So on Linux’s view, God is not an “innocent participant” at all. Rather, he is the sole guilty party.

God does not participate in our evils any more than a car manufacturer participates in a drunk driver’s. In short, we abuse the powers God has given us.

Yes, that is what I said. But the Primary cause is the Primary cause right now in every act, He is immediately Present to every act of his creatures, not only keeping them in existence but by keeping His the laws of their natures operating according to His will and directing them to their final end. They exercise their own legitimate causality but through His causality. He is giving me the immediate power to type these words. If He should withdraw that power I could not type them. " In Him we live, move and have our being. "

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

In other words, while he is the primary cause of the brain’s activity, He is not actually the activity of the brain itself, which is what Linux’s claim amounts to: if God must personally actualize every potency, then He must personally bring about every fragment of thought that ever passes through a person’s mind. They have no power of their own, and thus no power to think or will or act. So on Linux’s view, God is not an “innocent participant” at all. Rather, he is the sole guilty party.

God does not participate in our evils any more than a car manufacturer participates in a drunk driver’s. In short, we abuse the powers God has given us.

I do get the impression from reading Augustine’s On Grace and Free Will that God precisely does “bring about every fragment of a thought that ever passes through a person’s mind.” In a sense, God’s active power enables and underwrites free will precisely by doing this. That active power, where will is concerned, must be a kind of genie that is in the constrained position of doing every bidding of the will in order to empower choice. That is where the “freedom” of the will is located, in fact. The choice is that of the agent, but empowered by God. In this sense, God “allows” evil as a condition for the freedom of agency of the will. If God is Actus Purus that actualizes all potentials, he must actualize even this, which, as Linus pointed out, is precisely why sin is so heinous.

In addition, if human free agency is respected by God, the active power of God could never be so active as to be overwhelming of the agent in terms of influence. There would have to be a kind of “balance” maintained so that the will is left with live alternatives towards or away from the good.

It is precisely in how God empowers free will that the will is truly free from the physical causal order by continually enabling live choices on the part of the agent so that the agent bears responsibility for those choices. The power and authority of God is, in a sense, delegated to the agent in an active way. The agent could not be held responsible for choices unless the power is also granted for the choices to be implemented.

On a side note, this is also an argument against the Protestant idea of salvation by faith alone and for the Catholic idea of sanctification. The will must be reformed into complete harmony with the will of God so that the two wills act together. It is not a loss of our will, but a conformity to the will of God. That can only be accomplished by a complete reforming of the will so that its very internal structure and integrity are remade. That cannot occur through a single declarative act of belief, but rather an ongoing process of sanctification (choices continually made in harmony with the grace of God toward the Good.)

Again, this is wide open to correction.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Peter,

Yes, but we must be careful not to go beyond what Thomas himself said. It is a difficult topic to be sure. I have always liked his explanation as expressed in Sent., d. 37, q. 1, a. 1;. P. Mandonnet, pp 857-858.
" Solution: I answer that it should be said that God is essentially in all things, not nonetheless so that he is mixed together with things as if he were a part of any thing. To make this evident, it is necessary to note three points. First, it is necessary that a mover and a thing moved and an operating agent and a thing made exist simultaneously, as is proven in Book 7 of the Physics. But this occurs in a different way in corporeal things and spiritual things. For, because a body by its essence, which is circumscribed by the boundaries of quantity, is determined to some position, it cannot be that a moving body and a moved body are in the same position. Hence, it is necessary that they exist simultaneously by contact, and in this way, a body causes change by its own power, because by all means it can, up to some point, change another thing which is unchanged that is immediately united to it. However, a spiritual substance—the essence of which is wholly independent of quantity or position and, consequently, a place—is not separated from that which it moves by place or position. But where the thing that is moved is, there is the mover itself. The soul, for instance, is in the body, and the power that moves the heavens is said to be on the right side of the sphere that it moves—motion begins from this point, as is established in Book 8 of the Physics.
The second point is that the being of any thing and of any part of it comes immediately from God, because, according to faith, we maintain that only God creates. To create, however, is to give being. The third point is that that which is the cause of being cannot desist from the operation by which being is given without the thing itself also ceasing to be. For, as Avicenna says in Book 1, Chapter 11 of the Physics, the difference between the divine agent and a natural agent is that a natural agent is only a cause of motion, and the divine agent is the cause of being. Hence, according to him, when any efficient cause is withdrawn, its effect is removed, and therefore, when a builder is withdrawn, a house’s being is not destroyed—the being whose cause is the weight of the stones that remains—but the house’s becoming is destroyed—the becoming whose cause was the builder. And similarly, when the cause of being is withdrawn, being is destroyed. For this reason, Gregory says in Book 16, Chapter 37 of Morals that all things would fall into nothingness if the hand of the omnipotent one were not preserving them. Hence, it is necessary that his operation by which he gives being be not intermittent but continuous, and for this reason, it is said in John 5:17, My father is at work until now, and I am at work. From all these points, it is plainly inferred that God is most intimate to every thing just as the being that is proper to a thing is most intimate to the thing itself, which can neither begin nor last except by God’s operation through which he is united to his work so that he is in it. "

The same ideas are discussed in S.T., Part 1, Ques 103-104
I explain it this way. God creates the nature if each being ( that would include tha laws governing all the operations of that being, and its matter if it is not a spiritual being) and its act of being ( see the underlined in the quotation above). Thomas explains elsewhere that God is present by his Substance wherever He acts. It is clear that He is intimately present to each creature in all its acts because the being’s nature, matter, act of existence, activity must all be maintained in existence at all times. And this is what makes sin so heinous. He is giving us the power to act, he is keeping our matter and nature, our inner physical laws, our act of existence all going as we abuse Him by sinning.

That is why St. Pau says, " …did you not know that you are Temples of the Holy Spirit? "
and " In Him we live and move and have our being. "

Linus2nd

 

[prodigalson2011]

Yes, that is what I said. But the Primary cause is the Primary cause right now in every act, He is immediately Present to every act of his creatures, not only keeping them in existence but by keeping His the laws of their natures operating according to His will and directing them to their final end. They exercise their own legitimate causality but through His causality. He is giving me the immediate power to type these words. If He should withdraw that power I could not type them. " In Him we live, move and have our being. "

Linus2nd

And I agree. But the key is that he gives you your own power. He sustains you, and thus he sustains that power. But that power is yours alone. God’s is the supreme power and the cause of all other powers, but he has given his creation the dignity of exercising its own power. But you already know that.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I do get the impression from reading Augustine’s On Grace and Free Will that God precisely does “bring about every fragment of a thought that ever passes through a person’s mind.” In a sense, God’s active power enables and underwrites free will precisely by doing this. That active power, where will is concerned, must be a kind of genie that is in the constrained position of doing every bidding of the will in order to empower choice. That is where the “freedom” of the will is located, in fact. The choice is that of the agent, but empowered by God. In this sense, God “allows” evil as a condition for the freedom of agency of the will. If God is Actus Purus that actualizes all potentials, he must actualize even this, which, as Linus pointed out, is precisely why sin is so heinous.

I think this is carrying the idea too far. God does not actualize all potentials, otherwise creation would not have, as the Catechism says, “the dignity of acting on its own.” There is no meaningful freedom if creation plays no active (actualizing) part in its unfolding. God actualizes everything that exists, but he does not actualize every passive power (potency) contained in those things. That is left to secondary causes. That is precisely where the freedom of creation, and consequently, freedom of the will, enters in.

In addition, if human free agency is respected by God, the active power of God could never be so active as to be overwhelming of the agent in terms of influence. There would have to be a kind of “balance” maintained so that the will is left with live alternatives towards or away from the good.

Yes, but the freedom of the agent supposes that the agent has some kind of power of its own. That is, an ability to actualize certain potentials on its own.

It is precisely in how God empowers free will that the will is truly free from the physical causal order by continually enabling live choices on the part of the agent so that the agent bears responsibility for those choices. The power and authority of God is, in a sense, delegated to the agent in an active way. The agent could not be held responsible for choices unless the power is also granted for the choices to be implemented.

What does it mean to “empower”? It means, literally, to “give power” to something. Now, we cannot manipulate God’s will, and thus we cannot manipulate his power. Our freedom, then, must be a kind of power that God has given us distinct from His own.

On a side note, this is also an argument against the Protestant idea of salvation by faith alone and for the Catholic idea of sanctification. The will must be reformed into complete harmony with the will of God so that the two wills act together. It is not a loss of our will, but a conformity to the will of God. That can only be accomplished by a complete reforming of the will so that its very internal structure and integrity are remade. That cannot occur through a single declarative act of belief, but rather an ongoing process of sanctification (choices continually made in harmony with the grace of God toward the Good.)

Ah, precisely! Since God’s power is His will, it follows that if our power is God’s power, then we cannot fail to do His will. This is clearly not the case. For we have a will of our own. And our will is, in itself, a power (i.e. an ability to act freely; and to act is precisely to actualize).