A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Our free will limits God, does it not?
- Status
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Yes i understand; of course Jesus has a human nature as well a s divine nature.
But i fail to see how it is that God, at least apart of God, does not work progressively in time when considering human freewill. I cant say that God is apart of time, but he certainly “acts” within time; he may do this all at once even though we experience it in progressive time. Obvoiusly i cannot comprehend the grand scale on which the devine mind works.
But i fail to see how it is that God, at least apart of God, does not work progressively in time when considering human freewill. I cant say that God is apart of time, but he certainly “acts” within time; he may do this all at once even though we experience it in progressive time. Obvoiusly i cannot comprehend the grand scale on which the devine mind works.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
I dont know.
It does not limit his nature or his will or his ability to act; we limit are selves by acting against Gods will.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
By allowing us to choose something against His will and by giving us this choice, God limits Himself.
D
dball909
Guest
You know, it is often said that God has no limits. I was discussing this with a friend of mine, and came to this realization. God DOES have limits. Namely, HE cannot be anything other than God. If he were anything other than God, he would be being inauthentic, and God is never inauthentic.
He is, however, All in All. This, I assume, includes time. It includes, well, everything. So, in that respect, our free will does not limit God, because all our free actions can do is either lead us into our proper place in existence (All in All - God), or, when our free will contradicts the authenticity of reality (sin), we separate ourselves from the Truth. Since we are now separate, we cannot limit God, because we are no longer a part of him or the divine plan. Our free will does not change God, our free will changes us.
He is, however, All in All. This, I assume, includes time. It includes, well, everything. So, in that respect, our free will does not limit God, because all our free actions can do is either lead us into our proper place in existence (All in All - God), or, when our free will contradicts the authenticity of reality (sin), we separate ourselves from the Truth. Since we are now separate, we cannot limit God, because we are no longer a part of him or the divine plan. Our free will does not change God, our free will changes us.
C
cor
Guest
Well, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott lists it as a dogma (“de fide”) on p.36. He cites D (D for Denzinger) 428, 1782 which refer to the fourth Lateran Council and the First Vatican Council (which is referred to as simply the “Vatican Council” in the book as this is pre-vatican ii). He mentions they use the predicate “eternal” (aeternus). So the nature of this eternity doesn’t actually seem to be defined by the two councils but Ott asserts that the dogma in Catholic theology asserts that God is without succession. Some articles online about the theology and philosophy are here:
newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IIA
newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm
You can find lists of the dogmas/doctrines covered in Ott’s book online. Here’s one of them:
jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
The stuff in parenthesis reflect the degree of teaching authority or theological certainty it has.
Since the two Councils Ott cites apparently merely appellate God with the predicate “eternal” I would think a Catholic is free to believe as reason and faith dictates with regard to the nature of this eternity. But maybe the word was used by the Council with some theological background which gave it a technical meaning – if such is the case though, Ott’s book doesn’t say so explicitly.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
If we are separate from God, then God’s will is not everywhere. If God’s will is not everywhere, then His will is limited.
It is probably very wise to pray that our will be God’s will.
Now there is a way to save appearances (reconcile differences). And that is in the notion that life is a dream. If our lives in the fallen world are illusory then when we wake up our lives will be real. God is not in illusion, but in truth.
However, as CS Lewis, pointed out in the Hideous Strength, we can see God through illusion. Because everything depends for its existence on God. Illusion cannot exist without truth.
Is Paul not saying that life is a dream in 1Cor 13? Now we see through a glass darkly?
F
freesoulhope
Guest
In what way, and to what degree?
In my opinon, giving human beings freewill, is the greatest expression of his limitless eternal power; not a limitation. God losses nothing of his nature from are rebelious attitudes; he was quite happy to be by himself, but intead he chose to create a miserable gus like me. God isn’t trying to have power over us; if that were the case then you would be right to say that God is limited in methods or ways in which he can control us; he should have made robots in that case.
You could say that, because of are rebelious nature there is a limited amount of responsible and reasonable things he can do for us; but i would say that was a limitation on our part, God in his perfection simply respects that on ocassions depending on each indivisual, we dont want to know him, so he leaves us to are loathsome.
This says something about us, but i don’t know if it says anything about God in respect of limits. If God has Limits, it is because he has freely chossen that there is only a limited amount of things he can do for us when we behave badly. If thats what you mean by limitation, then it would seem that God is limited, but not because he is weak in nature, but because he freely chooses those boundries and limits.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I’ve just explained how in #27!
F
freesoulhope
Guest
from my prespective, though i maybe wrong, God being God is limited to being Holy, but it is not really a limitation; it is an eternal and perfect will that makes it imposible for him to sin. It is quite possible for us to never sin, and in doing so, are will would be like Gods, in sense that we will only will Good things.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Gods will is everywhere. You are Gods will. It is not Gods will that you should do evil, but our regection of God has not limited Gods will. If its my will that my children should be good, and one of them says to me, “i don’t want to”, and as a result, does something really wrong, you have to remember, it is also my will that my children should be punished or diciplined. It is Gods will that only the rightouess will make it to heaven. In light of that fact, i see no limitation.
Peace
Comes to think of it, im not sure.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Comes to think of it, im not sure
F
freesoulhope
Guest
If you are correct; what theological problems does Gods limitations represent?
J
JimG
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimG
That would mean he has parts. If he has parts, he can come apart, and is not indestructible or immutable, and thus not God…
freesoulhope:
As man (i.e. as human), Jesus has parts, a body, and existed in time and spce. As God (i.e., the divine nature, he has no parts, and no extension in time or space. The divine Word–the person who assumed a human nature, retains the divine nature and the attributes of the divine nature, while also assuming humanity. But the human nature is not of the divine essence.
Originally Posted by JimG
That would mean he has parts. If he has parts, he can come apart, and is not indestructible or immutable, and thus not God…
Exactly. But we can not use the fact of Jesus HUMAN nature to say anything about the essence of his DIVINE nature.
As man (i.e. as human), Jesus has parts, a body, and existed in time and spce. As God (i.e., the divine nature, he has no parts, and no extension in time or space. The divine Word–the person who assumed a human nature, retains the divine nature and the attributes of the divine nature, while also assuming humanity. But the human nature is not of the divine essence.
J
john_doran
Guest
they’re not really “limitations” in the strict sense of the word - the sorts of things we’re talking about are actually logically absurd, like asking if god can creat a square circle or a rock bigger than he can lift.
it’s not that an inability to perform logical impossibilities is a “limit”, it’s that the things themselves are actually meaningless in a very real way.
in other words, god can’t do it, 'cos there’s actually no “it” to do.
C
cor
Guest
But you can imagine, hypothetically, a universe where a particle is in stasis. It still undergoes the passage of time even though no change occurs. There’s no law of logic which prevents us from conceiving such a thing.
J
john_doran
Guest
well, if you exist in an einsteinian, relativistic universe, it actually makes no sense to say that a particle is in stasis: a thing can only be at rest in a given frame of reference - in an infinite number of other inertial frames, however, that particle will be in motion.
even in a newtonian universe of absolute space and time, as long as there are other changes going on around the static particle, it will be possible to speak about changes in that particle, e.g. with regard to its spatial/temporal/qualitative changes relative to the other changing things in its environment.
if you try to imagine a universe that is populated only by one, static, changeless particle, then i submit that there is no difference between imagining that universe and a universe with one, static, changeless particle, in which there is no time.
which means, to me, that you cannot, in fact, imagine time without change (if there is no difference between two things, then those things are the same).
- Status