Question on God creating by necessity

[Dranu]

Okay, I am a little perplexed by one of the doctrines of the Church. Namely one that is stated in Dei Filius, Cannon 1(5):
“If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.”
Now, what is most difficult for me to understand is that statement condemning the idea that God creates “as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself”. By reason alone, it seems to me that this is the case (though that God is still free in so doing, for freedom seems only that you are self-caused and not forced by somethign external).

The reason I state this is because:
God only does what is in accordance with His perfect will. If creation is either God’s perfect will or it is not. If it is not, then God wills imperfectly, and thus is imperfect. If it is, then God must do it or He is imperfect for refraining from perfection. Therefore, God could have created as he did and this is necessarily so.
It thus seems then that God necessarily created (I would add that this does not mean God did not create freely since all free will means is being your own cause without an external determination).

Now either my logic is flawed or I am misunderstanding the doctrine. Maybe by ‘necessity’, the Church means is more akin to how food or God is ‘necessary’ to our existence, rather than simply that God must have ‘necessarily’ (had no multiplicity of choices in the way He) acted.

Any help would be great!

 

[babs57]

Perfect love requires relation. The Trinity is perfect being in perfect relation, and exists in eternity. But the trinity is One, and so necessarily requires relation. Have you ever read Martin Buber’s I and Thou?

 

[Rudy_Baga]

The sentence is rather long. Read it as “If anyone holds (believes) that God did not create by His will free from all necessity…”, and it puts it into the correct context. The error is in the belief that God did not create from His freewill.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Now, what is most difficult for me to understand is that statement condemning the idea that God creates “as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself”. By reason alone, it seems to me that this is the case (though that God is still free in so doing, for freedom seems only that you are self-caused and not forced by somethign external).

“…as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself…” is condemned. There is no necessity in God’s creative act or in anything else he does. " Freedom " has nothing to do with being " self-caused . " God is absolutly free from any type of compulsion, interiorly or exteriorly. If he were under any type of compulsion he would not be God, would he.

The reason I state this is because:
God only does what is in accordance with His perfect will. If creation is either God’s perfect will or it is not. If it is not, then God wills imperfectly, and thus is imperfect. If it is, then God must do it or He is imperfect for refraining from perfection. Therefore, God could have created as he did and this is necessarily so.
It thus seems then that God necessarily created (I would add that this does not mean God did not create freely since all free will means is being your own cause without an external determination).

Forget all this, you are to confused in your thinking to get into all this. Stick to your Catechism, go to Church, do your spiritual reading, pray, do good works. Leave the Theologizing and Philosophicizing to those trained for it. I think it is dangerous for you.

 

[Adrienne5678]

Forget all this, you are to confused in your thinking to get into all this. Stick to your Catechism, go to Church, do your spiritual reading, pray, do good works. Leave the Theologizing and Philosophicizing to those trained for it. I think it is dangerous for you.

I respectfully disagree.
I commend you for your eagerness to learn and understand. As St. Albert the Great once said: “The noblest power of man is reason. The highest goal of reason is the knowledge of God.”

Now, I am no philosophy expert.
But I gather that the canon section that you bolded deals with the nature of love itself.
To love is to give. And if God loves and is Love, He gives. This is also evident in The Trinity.
And so, man was created. Made to receive the love God has to give and to give love in return.

 

[R_C]

“If anyone …] holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself …] let him be anathema.”

Now, what is most difficult for me to understand is that statement condemning the idea that God creates “as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself”. By reason alone, it seems to me that this is the case

God is perfect. He is the fullness of everything. The fullness of life, of love, of wisdom. He is not lonely, either, for the Father and the Son are eternally united in ineffable love, a Love that is a Divine Person, the Holy Spirit.

From a rational point of view, he really did not need us. We just brought trouble, so to speak.

However God decided out of His free will, with no need to do so, to create creatures that would be similar to Him - in His image and likeness. Free creatures.

And when we rebelled, instead of simply nullifying us or undoing creation, the Son took flesh, became human as well, and suffered the most sorrowful pains, even unto death, so that we may repent, go back, and be saved. He even descended to the land of those who had already died and only He knows how many billions he rescued and brought to His heavenly abode.

Now He definitely had no necessity to suffer. Much less to suffer as much as He did in the Passion. Why did He choose to do so? Out of free will. For the same reason He created us.

In retrospective, it is truly amazing how much God loves us and how little we deserve His love. God forgive me, His love for us is almost irrational! But, as St. Paul wrote, “* God’s nonsense is wiser than human wisdom*” :hug1:

 

[J_Peterson]

Forget all this, you are to confused in your thinking to get into all this. Stick to your Catechism, go to Church, do your spiritual reading, pray, do good works. Leave the Theologizing and Philosophicizing to those trained for it. I think it is dangerous for you.

I kind of agree with this. I found that focusing too much energy on this stuff can move you away from God. For me I was thinking of God as more of an abstract principle rather then something intimate and personal. I still read a bit of philosophy, I take what I understand and leave what I don’t. Prayer is way more important. God will let you understand what He wants you to understand. If something confuses you, move on.

 

[greylorn]

Okay, I am a little perplexed by one of the doctrines of the Church. Namely one that is stated in Dei Filius, Cannon 1(5):
"If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema."
Now, what is most difficult for me to understand is that statement condemning the idea that God creates “as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself”. By reason alone, it seems to me that this is the case (though that God is still free in so doing, for freedom seems only that you are self-caused and not forced by somethign external).

The reason I state this is because:
God only does what is in accordance with His perfect will. If creation is either God’s perfect will or it is not. If it is not, then God wills imperfectly, and thus is imperfect. If it is, then God must do it or He is imperfect for refraining from perfection. Therefore, God could have created as he did and this is necessarily so.
It thus seems then that God necessarily created (I would add that this does not mean God did not create freely since all free will means is being your own cause without an external determination).

Now either my logic is flawed or I am misunderstanding the doctrine. Maybe by ‘necessity’, the Church means is more akin to how food or God is ‘necessary’ to our existence, rather than simply that God must have ‘necessarily’ (had no multiplicity of choices in the way He) acted.

Any help would be great!

One of the reasons that I like the Church, more so when younger than today, was because it seemed to me that despite conflicting dogmas and illogical beliefs, somewhere back in the day before Augustine and Aquinas, early thinkers obtained some insights into metaphysical truth. Somehow the Church has maintained memories of those truths, as an adult retains memories of childhood.

To your credit as a scholar you’ve unearthed one of these fundamental lines of truth. To your discredit, however, you’ve attempted to bury your findings beneath philosophical obfuscations.

It seems likely that all human attempts to discern the purposes of a Creator will amount to guesswork. Most will base their guesswork upon dogma, but a few will derive it from “best evidence,” as is the current style with modern cosmologists.

I’ve taken an intermediate road and have, in my book, proposed that necessity was indeed the reason for creation. Putting it simply, “God” made an early, perfectly natural mistake, and creation of our universe was his way of dealing with it.

 

[greylorn]

The sentence is rather long. Read it as “If anyone holds (believes) that God did not create by His will free from all necessity…”, and it puts it into the correct context. The error is in the belief that God did not create from His freewill.

Instead of, “the sentence is rather long,” might it not have been more correct to say that you didn’t understand it and will make up your own interpretation?

 

[greylorn]

The sentence is rather long. Read it as “If anyone holds (believes) that God did not create by His will free from all necessity…”, and it puts it into the correct context. The error is in the belief that God did not create from His freewill.

Instead of, “the sentence is rather long,” might it not have been more correct to say that you didn’t understand it and will make up your own interpretation?

 

[Dranu]

" Freedom " has nothing to do with being " self-caused .

Yes, I think it does, but I do not think that violates any doctrine to say so. If something is self-caused then it is moved by itself (is its own master), if it is not then it is moved by another (forced/determined/not its own master). Thus it is at least necessary to free will.

" God is absolutly free from any type of compulsion, interiorly or exteriorly. If he were under any type of compulsion he would not be God, would he.

How is it properly called ‘compulsion’ if it is truly interior? If I will to do something then that thing I do I am forcing myself to do… I think perhaps you are thinking in human term since we are complex rather than simple beings. Our bodies may have certain movements we do not will, yet compel us (twitches, etc). One may say this is ‘internal’, but God is simple and is not compeled by other parts of Himself, since His will is Himself.

Forget all this, you are to confused in your thinking to get into all this. Stick to your Catechism, go to Church, do your spiritual reading, pray, do good works. Leave the Theologizing and Philosophicizing to those trained for it. I think it is dangerous for you.

Fides Quarens Intellectum tends to be the position of the Church. I do appretiate your concern though, and if I was not asking this in faith, was loosing my common sense, or saying the Church was wrong, then you may be right to some degree. Just to make sure everyone is clear, I am trying to figure out if my reasoning is wrong or if I misunderstand the Church (either side of the disjunct implies the Church is right). I am not saying the Church is wrong.