Some Summa for the Summer Time

[_veritas]

Fr. Frank:

I have not heard the phrase “open theism” before. My understanding of “free will / divine prerogative” is that God chooses to allow our free will completely so that our choice can be genuinely free in response to Him (positive or negative / heaven or hell).

Yes. I agree. And no other Catholic I know knew what the “open theism” theory was either when I asked them (including priests and even a theology professor… ) Most of my Protestant friends knew what it was though (btw, most Protestants seem to also reject the open theism theory–though it is still hotly debated in many denominational circles). It sounds like it is just a new name for the old theory that supports a kind of predestination with limited free will on our part. Anyway, moving on…
Fr. Frank:

Is this really a limiting of God? For Him to choose to forget may seem like a limiting of His own memory. But unlike as we make choices that limit us (which car to own), God’s choice would seem to be for more freedom in that He is more perfectly free to love. (That phrase has the difficulty of implying His perfection is not complete if He does not forget all sin, so I don’t like the way it is phrased very much - I just don’t know how else to put it )

This is an interesting thought… At first, I thought perhaps I could reconcile this with what I said earlier by clarifying that God will forget “at the end of time”… but that doesn’t work, because with God all times coexist within eternity… ARGH!!

I have to say that I’m still not convinced, as it still seems to be a limitation of God’s essence, which is total be-ing, and is complete, otherwise it is not God… for this to happen, God’s knowledge would be incomplete and therefore not God!!

We might just have to agree to disagree on this one, lacking any other observations or references to take into consideration Can anyone else out there help us out here?
Fr. Frank:

One last comment on my part: my interpretation of this I see as just one possible explanation for the experience of Heaven and Purgatory. All of our “guesses” can only be that. Remember Plato’s *cave *analogy? I think that is part of our problem describing all this.

Yes! I agree–we’re definitely in Plato’s “cave” in a sense… Until we get out of the cave and see the light for ourselves, we cannot comprehend it.

For those who might be reading and have no idea what Plato’s “cave analogy” is, I will try to give a very brief description.

Here is a diagram of the cave:
http://foxborough.k12.ma.us/pc/PCGraphics/CaveDiagram.gif
Plato tells us that we are initially like the prisoners–only able to see the shadowy figures in front of us, that is the only truth and reality that we know of. Now, when one of the prisoners is freed slightly and able to turn his head, he will be able to actually see what is happening behind him. The shock of what he sees and the pain of moving the neck may be great, but in the end he will come to have a better vision of reality. Likewise, if he is freed and able to leave the cave entirely, he will have an even harder time coming to terms with the new knowledge of what reality is. Now, consider him going back to his fellow prisoners, none of which have experienced what he has experienced. To them, there is no reality other than the shadows on the wall in front of them–and nothing he does to try to explain it to them would make much of a difference in their worldview.

If you are interested in reading Plato’s Cave Analogy passage for yourself, it is found in “The Republic”, Book VII, and is available for reading online at ship.edu/~cgboeree/platoscave.html
Fr. Frank:

I am sure glad all these discussions are so civil. Keep pushing me, folks. I’m still just learning myself.

It’s been fun

+veritas+

 

[JimG]

squirt:

God’s existence and essence are the same thing. God IS ‘be-ing’ (or ens in Latin.

I seem to recall a prof trying to explain this by saying that it would be easier if the verb “to be” were a regular verb: i.e. I be, you be, he be, etc.

We can say that a star shines, but a supernova shines brighter. God "be"s at a higher level than us. He "be’s more. After all, that’s his job description!

Our essence is to be human. God’s essence is “To Be,” which is nicely summarized as “I Am Who Am.”

God’s attributes are not separate from His essence, and thus, are equal to his existence. God’s justice is His mercy. The wrath of God is His love.

JimG

 

[squirt]

JimG:

I seem to recall a prof trying to explain this by saying that it would be easier if the verb “to be” were a regular verb: i.e. I be, you be, he be, etc.

We can say that a star shines, but a supernova shines brighter. God "be"s at a higher level than us. He "be’s more. After all, that’s his job description!

Our essence is to be human. God’s essence is “To Be,” which is nicely summarized as “I Am Who Am.”

God’s attributes are not separate from His essence, and thus, are equal to his existence. God’s justice is His mercy. The wrath of God is His love.

JimG

Hi Jim,

I’ve always been kind of fascinated by the different ways “Ego sum qui sum” has been translated. (Sorry for quoting the latin … I don’t know the original Hebrew.)

Sometimes it’s “I Am Who Am”, sometimes “I Am Who I Am”, sometimes “I Am Who IS” (well, actually some of the translations I’m talking about are in French … but same idea).

I always liked the 3rd one in terms of conveying God as be-ing / ens.

 

[JimG]

Or it could be: I Am Who Be, but it would sound too much like slang.

JimG

 

[Fr.Frank]

squirt:

I’ve always been kind of fascinated by the different ways “Ego sum qui sum” has been translated. (Sorry for quoting the latin … I don’t know the original Hebrew.)

I think (as almost trite as we have made it) it is transliterated as “Yahweh”.

One of my professors in Seminary suggested it is not just un-pronounce-able to the Jews, but that it’s meaning should be more of a phrase like: “I am who am, and I shall be with you as who am”. Implying that He will be with us according to His plan and be-ing, not according to our limitations of understanding or desire.

Gee, I seem to be stuck on refering back to Plato’s cave !!

 

[squirt]

Hi Fr Frank,

Yahweh, eh? Doh … I guess I should have known that one.

But I certainly wouldn’t have known that bit that your Seminary prof offered as an explanation of the name. Thanks!

And Jim,

How about “I be who be”?

 

[squirt]

plodding away slowly …

(it looks like i got the numbering wrong in the last bit … didn’t notice that things skip from 1.16 to 1.18 on the website …and from 1.18 to 1.20 … it’s way too late to go back and edit … oh, well … the numberings should have been 1.15, 1.16, 1.18, 1.20, 1.21-1.22, 1.23)

1.24
Anything that is, has characteristics. God can’t be characterised by ‘substantial differentia’. Basically, God isn’t made of something to which additional characteristics are added on. If that were so, He would have (or have had) potentiality to have something superadded to Himself.

1.25
God can’t be classified into a genus. One way of looking at it is that thing that exist have substance and accident. Well, God doesn’t have accidents, so that rules one out. If He is in the genus of substance, but substance as ‘mere existence’ can’t be a genus. If so, all substance would be its own existence. ??? it kind of makes sense, maybe.

Anyway, 1.24 and 1.25 are really just getting at the fact that God can’t be defined in the way people were used to defining things in terms of their characteristics or their assignment to genus and species.

1.26
God isn’t the form of all things. If so, everything would be absolutely one, since God is absolutely one.

1.28
God is perfect. If imperfect, there would be potentiality in God. This was ruled out way earlier in SCG. So, if you buy into the no potentiality, this follows.

1.29
Creation is like God. God is not like His creation. Effects reflect their cause, effects do not create a likeness to them in their cause.

1.30
What can we say about God? What names can be predicated of God? (Here’s where it gets interesting. What is God’s perfection? What is contained in this simple, non-classifiable, non-differentiated God? What can we understand about Him, who transcends our imagination?) We can’t understand what He is, but (i) we can know something about what He is not; (ii) we can understand something via his effects which stand in relation to him.

1.31
God is simple. Not made out of several characteristics. But we need to predicate several ‘individual’ perfections of Him, since we only understand ‘individual’ perfections as reflected in his creation.

1.32-1.34
When using words to describe God, they are neither univocal nor equivocal, but used analagously.

Perfection in God is not the same as in His creation → good when applied to God can’t be univocal (identical meaning) to the same word applied to us.

Perfection in God is not completely foreign to what we mean when talking about His creation. So, the term good isn’t equivocal (completely different meaning).

Talk about God is ‘analagous’ … kind of like ‘in proportion’. Good in man will never attain the goodness in God, but there is something ‘in common’ between the two.