Deeper Waters

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through the doctrine of God and we’ve been using the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas as our guide. Those who do not have a copy of the Summa can read it at newadvent.org. We are going to start tonight discussing the eternity of God. Before we do that, I have my prayer requests. First off, I ask for prayer for my Christlikeness. Second, I ask for prayers for my financial situation. Finally, I ask for prayers for a third related area in my life.

This is one of the times where the term is defined. We seem to have a difficulty with eternity. We can think of infinity. We can think of goodness. Immutability is no problem. However, what does eternal mean? We are so bound by time that we cannot seem to think of anything outside of it.

Centuries before Aquinas, the Christian philosopher Boethius wrote a book called “The Consolation of Philosophy.” Boethius defined eternity in this book as “The simultaneously-whole and perfect possession of interminable life.” If anyone hasn’t read this book, I do recommend you get it. There is some fascinating philosophy in that.

But is this a good definition? After all, interminable is a negative term, and negative terms don’t belong to what is without defect. Aquinas answers however that we understand the essences by negating what they are not. The negation is not in the essence but in the understanding. Infinite is really a negative term. It means “Without limits. It’s not saying the essence is negative or with defect however.

What about eternity describing a duration? Duration regards being rather than life. Therefore, the idea of life should not be in this definition. However, Aquinas says that what is eternal is not just being but also living and there are things that are that are not living. God however is eternally living and he is eternal. Therefore, life is a valid term to use.

A whole is that which has many parts. How can eternity be a whole then as eternity has no parts? However, Aquinas says it is called whole not in the sense of having parts, but in the sense of lacking nothing.

Scripture also speaks of many days and times together. The goings forth of Christ are from eternity, from the days of old, in Micah 5:2. Therefore, not all of eternity is simultaneous. However, Aquinas argues that this is metaphorical language. It is putting the events of eternity, if they could even be called such, in ways we can understand.

It is superfluous to call it whole and perfect as the two statements mean the same thing. However, Aquinas says whole is used to describe the succession of time. Perfect is used to describe the now of time. The usage of both is to put God on an altogether separate field.

Duration also does not imply possession, but eternity is a kind of duration, so it is not possession.  This is a term however used to describe the holding of eternity immutably. The one who does this is changeless.

For our purposes, Aquinas gives us the further idea that time is the number of movement with regards to before and after. God is eternal, and therefore, there is no before and after in him.

We shall begin unpacking this tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Last night, we took a little sidetrip off of the path to answer an objection. I won’t be repeating that tonight because I have no desire to play biblical ping-pong back and forth. Now it could be fun elsewhere, but we’ll never finish the study. Could I answer the post later? Maybe, but this blogger is a busy blogger. We’re going to wrap up this topic tonight however and then move on to the eternality of God. Our guide in the doctrine of God, in which we’re studying immutability now, has been the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, which can be read at newadvent.org. Before looking at the topic tonight, I wish to present my usual prayer requests. First, my Christlikeness as I am constantly aware of the need I have to be a better man. Second, I ask for prayer for my financial situation. Finally, I ask for prayer for a related area of my life. Let’s now get to the question.

God is immutable, but is he the only one? What about the angels? They do not have matter at all and so they do not change materially. What about the blessed who are in Heaven? Will they change? What about the forms themselves? Is goodness something that is variable? Is it subject to change?

Aquinas, of course, argues that God alone is immutable. Only he is the one who is simple and infinite and perfect after all. Still, for Aquinas, it’s not enough to just assert it and for we Christians, it should mean more than just an assertion on our part as well. We need to know why it is we believe what we believe, which is a way we could learn from our Christan forebearers.

One sure way things are mutable for Aquinas is that they do not have their own being. This would even apply to the angels. While the angels experience time in a different way than we do, there was a time when the angels were not. Looking further at the angels, although they do not differ by body, they can still fill place. This was the point in asking even how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No one in the medieval period I know of asked that question, but it is really a most important question as it gets to the nature of angels. Can several angels dance on the head of a pin? If so, why? If not, why? That’s another topic however.

What about the blessed? Well first off, there will be a massive change in the blessed when they receive their bodies again. However, they too can change location. They will not change in their ontology and righteousness in Heaven, but the accidents that comprise them can change.

As for the forms, the forms do not change in their nature in that they are not the subjects of change, but they change with regards to their subjects which are changable. They can be in something at one time and not be in it at another time. This cannot be said of God who is in all places at all times equally and fully.

We shall start discussing the eternality of God tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been studying the doctrine of God and we’ve been using the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas as our guide. Last time, we discussed the topic of immutability and with that, impassibility. No one has said anything about God not changing yet, which is clearly taught in Scripture, but I have had a reply about impassibility, to which I would like to address that tonight and keep in mind, this is building on the prior foundation of the other doctrines of God. Before that, I ask for your prayers. First, my prayer of being a more Christlike man. Second, for my financial situation with income tax refunds certainly helped, although with my political stance I do hope the future doesn’t change that too much. Finally, I ask for prayers for a third related situation.

Poster Jeff, who I think I know, left some comments. I’d like to go through them.

My post: “It can produce emotions, but emotions are a trait of bodily beings as they are a reaction to something. Since God does not have a body, then he does not have emotions.”

Jeff: I don’t understand why a spiritual being can’t have emotions.

Reply: Note that saying it’s not understand why a spiritual being can’t have emotions doesn’t mean that spiritual beings have emotions. The best reply at this point would be to be agnostic and say “I’m open to the case.” Of course, Jeff could be, but it seems he’s arguing otherwise.

My case is they don’t because being a body, we have chemicals and physical sensations angels don’t have. Consider the act of love. Love is seeking the good of the other. You don’t need emotions to do that. In fact, we can do that when we don’t have emotions and at times when we have contrary emotions. I’m sure a mother isn’t always brimming with love when she has to wake up early the next morning and she hears crying at 2 A.M.

Jeff: I think what you might be trying to say is that God can’t have “flighty” emotions.

Reply: No. I’m not nor has impassibility throughout the ages taught that. If I had meant flighty emotions, I would have said such.

Jeff: He’s not like a teenager who is your best friend one minute and then two days later can’t stand you; he’s not like a girlfriend who “loves you but isn’t ‘in love’ with you”, etc.

Reply: He’s not one who has flighty emotions because he has no emotions. It’s the same reason God can’t have a toothache. It’s not because he has indestructible teeth, but because he has no teeth.

Jeff: But, for example, you attribute joy to God, and joy is certainly an emotion.

Reply: To which I say “Why should I believe it is?” I think there is an emotion of joy but the danger is we are taking the attitude and making it an emotion. For instance, we read about God having compassion and then thinking “God must have emotions!” No. He has compassion. He seeks the good on those who are in pain.

Now when we do that, we can have a corresponding emotion. Also, we may not always have that. That’s fine either way. What matters is that we do the compassionate thing.

Joy is not an emotion. Joy is having what you want. God does. He has himself. That does not mean he has an emotional response about it. We often do and do so so much that we think it must be an emotion.

Jeff: Do you mean that God can’t have emotions that fluctuate seemingly at random (which is how humans sometimes are), or maybe that He has something like a “posture” that is emotional but permanent — eg God is always in a state of joy, God always loves you, and His posture towards a person or a situation never changes?

Reply: The latter is more like it. I just don’t tie any emotion to this since God is not in a body. Note the word in emotion is motion, which indicates a change. God does not change in his substance to have emotions. In fact, angels don’t change in their substance either. Humans do as body/soul unities. Now when we are just souls apart from the body, we won’t have emotions, but we won’t be fully human.

Keep in mind in all of this I am not condemning emotions per se. Emotions in us are good things for that is how God made us. Of course, we can misuse them and give them a place that they do not deserve, just as we can with our minds and our bodies. However, they do not exist in God because he is a different kind of being.

Jeff: I would likely quibble with that a bit, but I think your statements in your post, taken collectively, require the conclusion that you don’t consider joy to be an emotion, which would be surprising.

Reply: Which is expected for a post-Cartesian person probably in American culture. Go back before Descartes and your view would have been considered the unusual one. This is the post hoc fallacy actually. Because an emotion follows joy, the emotion is joy. No. One can have joy without a strong emotional response and the same for love.

Keep in mind we can go to Scripture where God seems to experience emotions. This is metaphorical language. I could go to Scripture and say God raises us up on eagles’ wings, longs to gather us like a hen, and protects us under the shadow of his wings. Well the conclusion is obvious. God, according to the Bible, is a big chicken. Those would be interpreted metaphorically however to avoid the obviously absurd conclusion.

I’m consistent in my hermeneutic. Does that mean God doesn’t have literal love towards us? No. The love is real. It’s just not an emotion. That distinction needs to be made clear. I haven’t really taken anything from you. God loves you just the same as he always has. He’s just not sentimental. He is eternally unchanging in his nature which means his love for you can never end.

I don’t know about you, but I consider that awesomely good news.

We can continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Last night, we wrapped up our study of God’s omnipresence and today, we’re going to be starting a look at God’s immutability. Our guide is the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas which can also be read at newadvent.org. Along with this, I will be discussing God’s impassibility. Aquinas does not have a section on it, but I consider it a part of the study of his immutability. Before that, I wish to present my prayer requests. First off, I ask for prayer for my Christlikeness and meeting with a good counselor today I think helped a long way towards that. Second, I ask for prayer for my financial situations. Third, I ask for prayer for a third related area in my life. For now, let’s get to the question.

Is God Immutable? Thomas answers by stating as has been said earlier that God is pure actuality. He thus has no potential in him and is in that way incapable of change. He also has no parts as he is simple and because he has no parts, he cannot undergo change as having part of him go from being A to being B.

He is also infinite which means that he can take on any new perfections for to be infinite would mean he contains the perfection of all being. Therefore, since he contains all perfection, he will not take on anything new.

But what about impassibility? What does that mean. It means that God does not have emotions.

This sounds bad to so many of us. Doesn’t God love us deeply. Yes he does, but love is not an emotion. It can produce emotions, but emotions are a trait of bodily beings as they are a reaction to something. Since God does not have a body, then he does not have emotions.

Emotions are also reactions to something. In order to have an emotion, there must be something God is reacting to, but for that to be the case, then it would have to be that God is in time. If God is in time however, then he is a changing being and as has been shown, he is immutable.

Does that mean God doesn’t love you? No. In fact, he loves you with the deepest love of all. It is a love that is not altered by the passions of a body. He is constantly seeking your greater good. We can be thankful that we cannot blackmail God by appealing to emotion. He will love us regardless. Consider the case of being in the hospital. Do you want the doctor who is operating on you caught in his passion, or the one who is not emotional and is giving you what you need best. Of course, I realize the analogy isn’t perfect. Still, we do know emotions can keep us from loving as we ought at times.

Doesn’t the Bible speak of God being angry? It does, but this is also metaphorical language just like the language of him having a body is. Hence, my hermeneutic is consistent. I treat the language of God’s passions as metaphors while treating the language of him having a body as a metaphor as well. It’s up to those who think he’s passible to tell me why one should be seen as a metaphor and the other shouldn’t.

Of course, if you believe the anger is literal, then let me ask this. Is God eternally angry? Will God throughout all eternity be angry because there will be people in Hell? Now you might say “Well no. He won’t be angry. He’ll be sad though.” Really? You think God will be eternally sad about people? You think the suffering of someone is enough to overpower the very joy of the Trinity?

If the fellowship of the Trinity cannot keep someone happy, then no one can ever be happy. The suffering of the lost cannot overcome the joy of the Trinity. That doesn’t mean their loss is something to celebrate and God does not celebrate that, but it does mean he’s aware of their mistake but knows that the joy he has in being God is far greater.

That same triune joy is what we will partake of. We will see him and be eternally happy in knowing him. No suffering at all can overcome that, be it the suffering of those in Hell or the thought of our past sins. Seeing God will make it impossible for us to dwell in sadness on anything.

God’s impassibility does not make him cold. It makes him ever near. It means he has joy and love that cannot be altered in anyway. His attitude towards us does not change. He always loves us. I say he even loves the people in Hell. He loves them so much he gives them what they’ve wanted. They want to be away from him and live life without him and he gives them that.

Impassibility is a blessed doctrine from my perspective and one the church held for centuries. May we return to it.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We are currently going through the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas with the goal of developing a deeper understanding of the doctrine of God. People who do not have a copy of the Summa can go and read the one at newadvent.org. I also know I got a free copy of at least the first book on Kindle so if you have a kindle or an IPhone app with kindle, you can go that route. I do ask for your prayers as well. First, I ask for your prayers for my continued Christlikeness. Second, I ask for prayers for my finances. Finally, I ask for prayers in a third related area in my life. For now, let’s get to the question.

We’ve been covering God’s omnipresence and we’re going to wrap that up tonight by asking if God alone is everywhere. Aquinas answers of course that he is. What is important to God is that he is everywhere essentially and not by his very nature. If there was a grain and that grain was the size of the universe, then that grain would be everywhere, but it wouldn’t be essentially. It’d just happen to fit perfectly.

What about the universe itself? Not every part of the universe is in every part. The universe has several parts to it. Jupiter is not in Saturn. Our galaxies are not in other galaxies. (I do realize some galaxies are coming together, but only one thing can be in a location at one time.

To God alone however does it belong to be everywhere essentially not by the nature of the universe, but by the nature of himself. Now this is where things are going to get really exciting for Aquinas as we’ve said earlier. However, as I say that, I realize that we should see all doctrine of God as exciting.

You take the smallest grain now that you can imagine. How much of God is in that space where the grain is? Answer. All of him. There is not one place in this universe where the entire presence of God does not dwell. He is all around you. It’s a creepy feeling in some ways as I sit here typing and think “Yes. God is here all around me. He’s at my keyboard. He’s at my dinner nearby. He’s in the ginger ale I have to drink. He’s everywhere.

Application of this? We need to be more aware of God. I wonder when we get to Heaven if we’ll look back and think on so many hard times in our life and realize when we look back that God was there all along. I am remembering the story of the footprints in the sand where the man walks along on the beach with God and there are two footprints, but when life gets hard, there is one set. God tells him he didn’t leave him. It was in the hard times, that God was carrying him.

This should also make us be aware of sin. Try to do something wrong? God’s always watching. Thankfully, he’s also always there with his love and forgiveness. Paul says in Acts 17 that he is not far from any of us. Yes. Paul knew very well how to do his metaphysics. Let’s remember that today and the rest of our lives.

We shall begin a new topic on the doctrine of God tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I hope the rest of you had a weekend as enjoyable as mine was. As we wind down this Sunday afternoon, we’re going to be continuing our look at the doctrine of God. Our textbook, as it were, for this study is the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, which can be read at newadvent.org. We are studying God’s existence in things, or as it is known at newadvent.org, his omnipresence. First, I have some prayer requests. I ask that you all pray for my Christlikeness, which can be constantly hampered by my incessant introspection. Second, I ask for prayers for my financial situation. Finally, I ask that you pray for a third related are in my life.

The question tonight is if God is everywhere by essence, presence, and power. Let’s go through these one at a time? For an interesting exercise, if you’re not reading the Summa along with me, when the objections come, spend a few minutes thinking about the objection and see if you answer like Thomas does.

Is God in things by essence? For something to belong to a thing, it must belong essentially to that thing. If there is something essential to being a human, then as long as I am a human, then I must have that thing. However, God is not in anything essentially, therefore he cannot be in things by essence.

The answer? The fallacy is in how you think about essence. God is not in things by the essence of the things themselves, but by his own essence. It is his essence that says that he is in all things. It is not based on what the things themselves are, but if he is not in all things, then he cannot be God. Therefore, God is essentially in all things.

What about presence? Isn’t that the same. After all, if he is in all things by his essence, then there is nothing that he is absent from. However, if he is not in all things by essence (Assuming the prior objection had not been answered), then he is not in all things by presence. In fact, to say he is is superfluous.

Thomas answers that this is not superfluous. A thing can be present to another when it is present by sight. I see outside of where I sit a river and a building. These things are present to me in my line of sight, even if I am not walking through the river or am at or in the building that I see in my sight.

God is the cause of all things by his power, however, he is also the cause by his knowledge and his will. However, it is not said that he is in things by knowledge and will. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is in them by power.

Aquinas says that knowledge and will requires that the thing known and the thing willed be in the thing that knows and wills. The idea of the painting must be in the mind of the artist first and the will must be in the artist in order to bring about that thing. Thus, by knowledge and will, it is better to say that things are in God.

However, power is an acting principle. By power, the agent acts on that which is external to itself, although the agent can also act on itself. In this case in philosophy, what the agent acts on can be called the patient. The conclusion however is that God is indeed in all things by his power.

Tomorrow, we shall continue our study.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters. Right now, we’re going through the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas which can be read at Newadvent.org if you do not own a copy. If you don’t in fact, I’d say you could not really be hurt by ordering one. We’re going through in an attempt to study the doctrine of God. I do ask that you remember me in prayer however. First, for my Christlikeness as I am noticing many things that need to be changed in me. Second, I ask for your prayers for my financial situation. Finally, I ask for prayers for a third related area in my life. For now, let’s get to the question.

Is God omnipresent? After all, that would mean that God is in every place. However, how can an incorporeal being be in a place? Note that word “place.” It describes an area of location. The ancients did not speak of “space.” When they spoke of the world beyond the Earth, they spoke of the heavens. What we call space is an area filled with several places.

The reality is that God is in every place as the cause of the existence of that place. It does not mean however that the place that he is in contains him. Rather, if God was not, then we could say that that place was not. How could it be that a place exists, that is, participates in being, but was totally unconnected from the source of all being?

Also, God is in every place in that if something is in that place, God is the source of that being’s existence. If I am in one place, it keeps me from being in many other places. I cannot be here and be in a separate city on the opposite side of the planet. I can move from place to place which means that I can be contained by place.

So another question we could ask then is how much of God is in every place? Once again, we can be thankful we started with divine simplicity. Since we have that, we know the answer ultimately to the question. The answer is that the question itself is a nonsense question.

Since God is simple, it cannot be the case that part of him is in any place. After all, he has no parts. Thus, the conclusion must be that all of God is in every place that exists. Where I am sitting right now, all of God is here right now. Where you are sitting, rather it be just down the street, in the same city, or on the other side of the world, all of God is present there as well.

The applications of this are enormous. That means that when you pray, you can be sure that God is an ever-present audience to your prayers. It also means that when you are thinking of sinning, God is also an ever-present audience to that. You cannot escape his eye. The old saying has been “Wherever you go, there you are.” Pertinent to us is “Wherever you go, there he is.”

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through the doctrine of God right now and our guide for this has been the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. If you are wanting to view the questions being discussed, go to Newadvent.org. Right now, what we’re talking about tonight is under the topic of omnipresence, which I find interesting and that’s for a later comment. Before we begin tonight’s entry, I have my prayer requests. First, I ask for prayers for my Christlikeness and in this case I think a strong point would be to realize the forgiveness of God and the transforming power he gives, but then to ask to be like Christ is already a realization of that power to a degree. Second, for my financial situation. Third, I ask for prayers for the third related area of my life. For now, let’s go to the text.

To begin with, let’s consider that this is under the topic of omnipresence. I had said yesterday that we would be writing about the existence of God in things. Since I do not have my book with me tonight, I had to go to newadvent.org and lo and behold, I find that this is referred to as omnipresence there. I noted yesterday that omniscience was not based so much on God knowing all things, which he does, but how God knows all things. The same could apply to omnipresence.

God is in all things however according to Aquinas. This does not mean that he is in them however as part of them either essentially or accidentally. Because we as Christians have Christ in us, that does not mean Christ is a part of us. In this case, he is relationally in us and he is the cause of all righteousness that takes place within us.

Readers by now should know that Aquinas stresses much on the being of God and this is the way that God is in all things. There can be no being that God is not the cause of. If something exists, then God is the cause of that which exists. Note that we are referring to the beings themselves and not their actions.

This also does not mean that God is contained by the beings that he is in neither more than Aquinas believes that the soul is contained in the body. Quite the reverse in fact. The body is contained in the soul as the essence of the soul limits the matter that the body is tied to.

What about demons? Aquinas answers this as well. God is in demons as the cause of their being, but he is not the cause of their deformity or their fall, although there is no doubt he allows it. The reason the demons exist is that God allows it. Inasmuch as they are beings, God is in them. While this may sound strange to us, the same applies to us as well, for we are not always acting the way we ought, yet inasmuch as we are what we are meant to be, God is in us and the more he is in us, the more we will become what we are meant to be.

Which brings us to application. God is in us and all that is good in us is that which comes from him. Are we as Christians going to take the time to look at our fellow man and see the good in him? Note that for the medievals, this would also include seeing truth and beauty in that person as well.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone. It’s good to be back and writing regularlyl again for Deeper Waters. We are studying the doctrine of God right now and the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. Those who do not have a copy can go to newadvent.org and read one there. Right now, we’re studying the infinity of God. We’re going to close up that topic tonight but first, prayer requests. First, I ask for prayers for my Christlikeness. Today has been a good day and I’ve got a good friend who’s working with me on a lot of issues especially in relation to my third prayer request. Second, for my financial situation. Third, for the area in my life related to both of these. For now, let’s get to the question.

Can an infinite multitude exist? Does there seem to be anything inherently impossible about the concept? After all, we can think of the adage that there is one angle at which a man may stand straight and an infinite number by which he may fall. When we say that, are we not making a truth statement? If we say the possibilities are endless, are we not pointing to an actual infinite?

This is done with math also. We can multiply numbers by infinity and we have all sorts of fun word games involving infinity. There is, for instance, the hotel with an infinite number of rooms and they clear out all the people who are in even numbered rooms and there’s still the same number of people in the hotel.

This is the point where we have to realize that because we can imagine something, that doesn’t mean it can be actualized. This is a situation I wish skeptics would realize concerning the Problem of Evil. So many think they can imagine all of these perfect scenarios where evil would not happen. Well you can imagine it, but that does not mean that those scenarios can be actualized.

Of course, as soon as we’re talking about created realities, Aquinas again says that these are limited by matter. They can be comprehended for they are made by their creator for a purpose. Since they are limited, they cannot be infinite. Now Aquinas has no problem with a potential infinite, but he does have a problem with an actual one.

What does all of this have to do with anything? I think for one thing, this will be important when we come to the question of God’s knowledge, which is a future topic. I’ll just try to whet your appetite a little bit here with the idea of “Does God know an infinite number of things?” This question will bear a relation to that one.

Furthermore, this helps us understand the nature of infinity. When we understand that better, we can understand God better for God’s nature is infinite. Yes everyone. Studying mathematics can help you come to a better understanding of God. All truth is God’s truth and the more we learn, the more we can come to know our God.

We shall start tomorrow on the existence of God in things.