Is the god of classical theism binding on Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Windfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Windfish

Guest
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html

The above is a dense and interesting treatment of divine simplicity, immutability, divine conservation, etc. I recommend that you give it a read.

Anyway, the blogger is a Catholic, and he, at several points in his post, indicates that this philosophy is Church dogma. Is he correct? If this is the case, I have a lot of questions. 😛
 
Just skimming his blog post, and knowing the author is very well respected, I would tend to say yes. Why don’t you pose your questions and we will see what works? Could lead to a fascinating discussion.
 
Windfish said:
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html

The above is a dense and interesting treatment of divine simplicity, immutability, divine conservation, etc. I recommend that you give it a read.

Anyway, the blogger is a Catholic, and he, at several points in his post, indicates that this philosophy is Church dogma. Is he correct? If this is the case, I have a lot of questions. 😛
Click to expand...
This is not my area of interest. However, I would be careful about the vocabulary. For example, is the “dogma” of divine simplicity the same as God is pure spirit?
I did not read a lot of the link; but in skimming I saw that one teaching was followed by what I would consider speculation about the applications of the meaning. But then, what do I know?

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9 contains the answer to the mysteries of life.
 
How does it match up to this?


  1. *]he Knowledge of the Nature of God
    *] Our natural knowledge of God in this world is not as immediate, intuitive cognition, but a mediate, abstractive knowledge, because it is attained through the knowledge of creatures. (Sent. certa.)
    *] Our knowledge of God here below is not proper (cognitio propia) but analogical (cognitio analoga or analogica). (Sent. certa.)
    *] God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men. (De fide.)
    *] The blessed in Heaven posses an immediate intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence. (De fide.)
    *] The Immediate Vision of God transcends the natural power of cognition of the human soul, and is therefore supernatural. (De fide.)
    *] The soul, for the Immediate Vision of God, requires the light of glory. (De fide. D 475.)
    *] God’s Essence is also incomprehensible to the blessed in Heaven. (De fide.)

    The Attributes or Qualities of God

    The Attributes of God in General
    *] The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence. (De fide.)
    *]
    *]The Attributes of the Divine Being
    *] God is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
    *] God is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
    *] God is absolutely simple. (De fide.)
    *] There is only One God. (De fide.)
    *] The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God. (De fide.)
    *] God possesses an infinite power of cognition. (De fide.)
    *] God is absolute Veracity. (De fide.)
    *] God is absolutely faithful. (De fide.)
    *] God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)
    *] God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.) D 1782.
    *] God is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) D1782.
    *] God is absolute Beauty. D1782.
    *] God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)
    *] God is eternal. (De fide.)
    *] God is immense or absolutely immeasurable. (De fide.)
    *] God is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Life
    *] God’s knowledge is infinite. (De fide.)
    *] God’s knowledge is purely and simply actual.
    *] God’s knowledge is subsistent
    *] God’s knowledge is comprehensive
    *] God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
    *] The primary and formal object of the Divine Cognition is God Himself. (Scientia contemplationis)
    *] God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
    *] God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
    *] By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
    *] God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)
    *] God’s Divine will is infinite. (De fide.)
    *] God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom. (De fide.)
    *] God is almighty. (De fide.)
    *] God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth. (De fide.) D 1782.
    *] God is infinitely just. (De fide.)
    *] God is infinitely merciful. (De fide.)
 
PKinsale said:
Just skimming his blog post, and knowing the author is very well respected, I would tend to say yes. Why don’t you pose your questions and we will see what works? Could lead to a fascinating discussion.
Click to expand...
To start, I am not familiar with the philosophical proofs of classical theism. To be fair to the blogger, it was not his intent to lay them out, and I have just ordered his book on Aquinas to to see if I can learn more. If anyone is familiar with the logic and philosophy, I would love to read more.

Second, this abstract God is not, I don’t think, compatible with the one revealed to Israel and through Christ. This God is unchanging, immutable, simple, etc. Well, how can this God act if He cannot change? How can he perform the act of answering my prayers - or even more basic, how can He act in time like in the Incarnation? How can He speak to Moses and to the prophets and to Israel? Don’t these things fly in the face of unchangeability, immutability, simplicity, etc.?

The blogger offered this analogy to describe divine conservation: God sustains the existence at every moment like a musician sustains his music. If the musician stops, the music stops. No, this is attractive, as it does away with controversial notions like Intelligent Design, but doesn’t this imply determinism of the kind that is incompatible with Catholic belief? It seems to lean more toward Calvinism.

Read the comments to the blog, and you’ll see my other concerns. A prominent Orthodox philosopher thinks that Aquinas is all defunct and that Catholicism, in following his philosophy, is irrevocably heretical.

Finally, I simply don’t understand some of the major conceptions. Such as:
It entails that He does not “have” existence, or an essence, or His various attributes but rather is identical to His existence, His nature and His attributes: He is His existence which is His essence which is His power which is His knowledge which is His goodness. (I have discussed some of these points in greater detail in the posts on simplicity linked to above.)
Click to expand...
Bizarre, no?
 
Windfish said:
Finally, I simply don’t understand some of the major conceptions. Such as:
Click to expand...
If you don’t mind I would like to share my opinion. What I got from that is that since God “is,” he is existence. The truth of being has a miraculous essence to it. It is unknown, with an unknown purpose. That essence creates reality. The power to exist. We see that power through sciences, that describe the natural world. How it all works is the Knowledge. And the very fact that we obtain knowledge, implies recognition of being. Allowing us to have knowledge, to understand existence, is the Good. He ‘gave’ us the ability to know we exist, rather than just existing.

So just by God existing, he obtains all essences of definitions.
 
Windfish said:
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html

The above is a dense and interesting treatment of divine simplicity, immutability, divine conservation, etc. I recommend that you give it a read.

Anyway, the blogger is a Catholic, and he, at several points in his post, indicates that this philosophy is Church dogma. Is he correct? If this is the case, I have a lot of questions. 😛
Click to expand...
I’m familiar with the author of that blog and I would advise caution. Actually, that’s good advice when reading any layman’s blog – whether a philosopher giving his opinions or apologist offering arguments.

It’s best to start with the official teachings of the Church and explore from that point.

Catholic philosophers can tend to dogmatize their own concepts. That has been going on for a long time. The good Franciscans and Dominicans have had some major conflicts on how to explain reality and the faith philosophically.
 
Windfish said:
Bizarre, no?
Click to expand...
Yes, it does get bizarre especially when even more technical language is used.
It entails that He does not “have” existence, or an essence, or His various attributes but rather is identical to His existence,
Click to expand...
What this means is that the quality of existence (for example, if “existence” was a thing) is not something that God has, like we have any object, or even have a body.

This is true because existence would have to come from somewhere else – but it can only come from God. So, “this thing called existence” was not created by God. It’s not something that He made (because He would have to exist before He made it). God didn’t get existence from anyone (or anywhere else).
He is His existence
Click to expand...
When we boil it down, God just is. “I am who am”. That’s the perfect description from the Bible.
which is His essence which is His power which is His knowledge which is His goodness.
Click to expand...
This is where it gets more difficult. But the point is, that God’s existence is not made up of various parts - a little of this and a little of that. It’s a complete fullness.
 
I would offer that to God, action is not changing. When I walk down the street, I am changing location because I am a finite creature moving through space. God is infinite and therefore cannot change location.

We can change our minds, but God, and angels, cannot.

God exists outside of time and can function in time, but will not be bound by it. We can pray for someone’s healing, not knowing whether he has been healed, but God would know our prayer before we offer it and choose to act accordingly and heal the person if it is his will.

What is your alternative?

I did not see the Orthodox comment, but if that is what the Orthodox believe it is, well, wrong, of course. And no reflection on the merits of the blogger himself.
 
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut guys. reggieM, that was a helpful breakdown, though that last part I still understand.
 
Yes, Edward Feser is correct. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Catechism ( Hardon, S.J.) or the Roman Catechism for a more complete treatment of what Catholics must believe about the nature of God.

Thank you for this reference, Feser seems very solid, I may look into more of what he has to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top