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 the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas has been our guide. Those who do not have a copy of the Summa are invited to go to newadvent.org where they can read a copy for free. I ask for your prayers especially as I go through this series and in my life period. As I prepare this, I want to eliminate the illusion that those of us in this field are spiritual giants who have no struggles in our life and have such an intimate walk with God that we don’t feel normal sufferings. We do, and can do so deeply. Also, while our minds can work well in these areas, they can seem to lack in our struggles. Thus, my first prayer request is for continued Christlikeness. The second is my finances. The third is an area in my life related to both of these.

Now to the question. Is goodness a final cause? We need to look back and remember our causes in Aristotle and the two the medievals added. Our formal cause is what something is, to which we are good by formal cause as is God, though he has no cause technically. Our material cause is matter, which is also good. We’re not Gnostics. Our efficient cause, that which brings us into being, is God who is good. Our instrumental cause is God’s Wisdom, which I’ve argued elsewhere is Jesus, who is good. Our exemplar cause, that which we are made after, are the eternal ideas in the mind of God, which are also good. The final cause is the why of our existence and that is goodness.

Those who have been following along will see this question is really obvious in a way. If all desire perfection, then we all desire to be the best we can be and ultimately, being is good. What is especially interesting about this question, particularly for me, is that Aquinas ties in beauty with this, and regular readers know I am a philosopher of beauty.

Starting with the final cause, we all desire goodness. Why we do anything ultimately is we perceive that there is some good to be obtained, hence this would be a problem for moral relativism. If there is no good, there really is no reason to do anything. There is no reason to even disagree with me unless you think it is good that people believe your position over mine.

What about beauty? Beauty is another aspect of being and beauty relates to the mind, it is that which pleases when seen. Aquinas does not mean anything subjective by this however as if to say “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” He would balk at that. Beauty for him is that which is in due proportion.

This is important in our times where people think things have to fit some sort of ideal to always be beautiful. Aquinas’s philosophy allowed room for a lot more beauty than ours does today. Now there is no doubt some qualities a thing must possess to be beautiful or else beauty would be subjective, but our categories today are way too exclusive.

If we do not see our fellow human beings as beautiful, then our standards are way too exclusive. Now Aquinas would agree there are some things we ought not to see as beautiful, but these are because the humans themselves as beautiful and the things we see detract from what is.

If we meet someone with a missing limb for instance or a deformity of some sort, Aquinas would think that the missing limb or deformity is not beautiful, but who would really disagree? It is not beautiful because it points to a lack that the person ought to have. In fact, we as Christians believe this is something good about the resurrection of the body. We will have good and complete bodies that won’t be lacking.

Lest anyone think I’m being hard on some, I will pick on myself as well. I have had scoleosis surgery which means that my back has a scar straight down the middle for where a steel rod was put on my spine. Now I already certainly am underweight and definitely do not have what I would consider the manly build that I am supposed to have, but I think Aquinas would say my scar is not beautiful, and I think he’d be right. There will come a day when I no longer have this scar.

Yet beauty is what inspires us to do what we ought to do, and this includes the beauty of Christ. We want our actions to be beautiful. We want our goals to be beautiful. We want to be beautiful. This isn’t just a female thing. Men should want this for themselves as well. Being a Christian means having a Christian view of beauty, and beauty being in the eye of the beholder is not a Christian view.

Beauty is in the object and things are beautiful for we have a beautiful God. We as Christians need to have a doctrine of beauty and be recognizing what all falls into this category.Let us do all we can to honor beauty and help those around us to be more beautiful so we can be presented to Christ as a beautiful bride.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I was very pleased today to hear someone tell me that this blog is getting them interested in Aquinas and his thought! That’s quite the compliment! For any who are interested in that, I will give the advice of Lewis for another philosopher. “Read Plato. Not books about Plato.” Those interested can go to newadvent.org and read the links there to the Summa. Of course, I have nothing against you getting your own copy. Before we begin tonight, I would like to mention my prayer requests. First off, I ask for prayer for my Christlikeness. There is honestly so much and I see myself as so fallen. There’s work to be done and I depend on the Holy Spirit and I pray I submit more to the scalpel of the divine surgeon. Second, my financial situation. It’s getting better, but it will be an expensive Summer. Finally, I ask for prayers for a third situation in my life. Now on to the blog.

Are all beings good? This is the question Aquinas is asked. Aquinas affirms that they are indeed good, which would be surprising to many of us. Aquinas says that every being as being is good. Why is this the case? All being is some form of actuality and all forms of actuality are some form of perfection and all perfection is desirable. In that case, then everything is good.

This strikes us as odd because we can immediately think about evil and ask “Are we saying that is good?” This is, in fact, one of the objections that Aquinas has to deal with. Aquinas says that nothing is evil insofar as it has being. It is only evil in that it lacks the being it ought to have.

For instance, I do not have the power to run at super speed like Clark Kent. Now I’m not saying it wouldn’t be nice to have that power, but I unfortunately don’t. However, in me, that is not an evil because that is not a power that I possess by nature. When Clark Kent, however, is exposed to green or blue kryptonite, it is an evil because that is a power he ought to have by nature.

On the other hand, I have two eyes and if I lost sight in both of them, that would be an evil in my eyes because the eyes were designed to see and eyes that do not see are evil insofar as they don’t see, although they are good, insofar as they are eyes. What about someone like Hitler? Hitler was not a good man in that he lacked virtue. That is, it is of the nature of man to fulfill a certain role and he was created to be a good being. Hitler was not a good man in that he was not a man of virtue we should admire, but insofar as he was a man, we say he was good for while human beings can fail to be good morally, they are still human. I beg you readers to understand definitely that I am in no way saying the morality of Hitler was good.

For Aquinas, pure evil cannot exist. It is the absence of all being. Evil is a parasite and it requires the existence of good first. If there is no good, there can be no evil. Hence, all beings ultimately are good insofar as they have being. Application for us? We must keep that in mind with our fellow man. They are good because they have being. Not morally good, but ontologically good. We should treat them accordingly.

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 Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas which can be found at newadvent.org. We’re going through the doctrine of God as each Christian needs to have a good understanding of God. If you enter into a relationship with someone, it’s important to know who they are. Remember that Jacob should have known who he was marrying the first time around. First off, I have my prayer requests. I ask for prayer in my Christlikeness. Mainly, I need to get my thought life under control. This is something that I regularly struggle with and it’s keeping me from being the man that I need to be. The second is for my financial situation. Then I have a third request on a related are in my life I am working on. For now, let’s get to the question.

Aquinas gives a really short answer to this one. When we consider it, we will also see how simple it is. Aquinas says that before we can think of something, we must have an idea of that something. If we have an idea of something, then we must see that that something is. It is only when we have an idea that something is, that we can ask if that something is good.

When we ask if something is good, we want to know “A good what?” As soon as we say what, we imply that we are talking about something existing. We can’t think of goodness apart from the idea of something existing. We can think of something existing however and not seeing it as good, even though Aquinas would disagree. For Aquinas, all that exists is good insofar as it has existence.

Aquinas also has raised the objection about the person who desires non-being. Are they not desiring goodness apart from being? Aquinas answers that what they are desiring is relative non-being. They want that which they are going through to be that which they are not going through. They want non-being in the sense that they don’t want being as they have it now.

Le us remember what was said earlier. Even the suicide wants to be happy. It is because he is not happy that he is committing suicide. He thinks he’ll be better off and if that means non-existence, well that’s something better to him than what he’s going through at the moment. He’s just not thinking straight.

Aquinas would say that what is wanted is the removal of an evil and Aquinas has already said that goodness and being are really the same. Hence, what is wanted is the removal of non-being. This is one reason we all hate sin in ourselves and in each other. The reason we hate it is that it detracts us and others from being who we were meant to be, which is good. When we get to Heaven, we will have the removal of all that is not us, and then we shall be entirely good. Keep in mind this with good theology. It always has application to how we live.

We shall continue the topic of goodness tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We are going through the Summa Theologica in order to understand the doctrine of God. The Summa can be read online at newadvent.org. Last night, we finished the perfection of God and we’re going to start now with goodness, but before discussing the goodness of God, we need to discuss goodness in general. Before that, I need to go over my prayer requests. Goodness in general is interesting when beginning a prayer request for Christlikeness. I am more aware of where I want to be and just wonder what it will take to get there. Second, I ask for prayers for my financial situation. Finally, I ask for prayers for a third related area in my life.

This might sound like an odd question to some. Does goodness differ from being? Who would ask that? The medievals would. With the advent of uncovering the works of Aristotle, there was an emphasis on the doctrine of being. Goodness was considered to be a transcendental whereas wherever being was, there was goodness.

It is not a shock that Aquinas uses the very definition of goodness that comes from Aristotle, who he and others referred to as “The Philosopher.” When Aristotle defined goodness, he defined goodness as that which is desirable.

By doing this, we can avoid the Euthyphro dilemma. This was the dilemma asking in a monotheistic context, is something good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is good? Aristotle would have been familiar with the Euthyphro, the dialogue of Plato, from which this argument comes.

This can often be used to try to stump Christians on the goodness of God. Some say we define goodness by God’s nature, which is just as circular. Why not go Aristotle’s route? Define goodness first? It is the route that Aquinas takes.

This is the path that Aquinas takes when he says that goodness is that which is desired. This is an important point. The only reason anyone desires anything is they think it is good. There is some good in all that someone desires.

The vigilante for instance who takes matters into his own hands wants justice, which is a good thing. The abortionist aborting their child wants a lot of good things. The suicide even wants a good thing or else he would not be committing suicide. We can agree that there can be good ends in mind to action, such as justice, relief from financial pain, or the end of suffering, but the means to get there are not good.

Aquinas says the real good to be desired however is perfection. All desire their perfection. (Being a constant perfectionist, I agree.) To be perfect is to be actual. That which is most actual is God who is perfect and whose nature is being as well. (Hence, Aquinas would argue that all really desire God. Even the atheist does.)

But how does this answer the question? It would seem they are the same. Aquinas says no because being does not expressly contain the idea of being desirable. Goodness does. However, he does agree that something is good insofar as it possesses being. So what is his answer exactly then?

For Aquinas, they are the same in nature, but not in our conception of them. By saying something is, we state that it exists. By saying that it is good, we are saying that it is desirable. While they are the same in reality, they are different in concept.

We shall continue looking at goodness tomorrow.

Hello everyone. Welcome back to Deeper Waters where we dive into the ocean of truth. We’re going through the Summa Theologica now which can be read at newadvent.org. We’re looking at the doctrine of God and today, we’re going to wrap up our talk on God’s perfection. First, I wish to give my prayer requests. I’d appreciate prayers for my continued Christlikeness. Yesterday was a hard day and last night a difficult night. I am becoming increasingly aware of many aspects of my fallenness that need to be changed. Second, I ask for prayers for my financial situation. Finally, I ask for prayers for a third related area in my life. The Lord knows. He is perfect after all.

Can anything be like God? It’s quite interesting the ways that religions can go on this one. Mormonism, for instance, teaches that God was once a man as you and I are (Excepting women who get to be joined to their spouse in an eternal celestial marriage) and that if someone is a good Mormon including going through temple services, then they will become gods of their own planet just like God became the god of this planet.

Islam, on the other hand, has a God who is quite unknowable. He is totally unlike his creation. This would seem to have someone end up in agnosticism in the nature of God. These are the extremes we want to avoid. God is not just a pumped-up man, as Mormonism has enough problems with God’s simplicity which we’ve already studied. However, in Christianity, we are to know God and for that, we need to know something about him.

Can anything be like God? Aquinas says that there are three ways one can be like something else. The other is to be an exact representation, in which in this case, there would be an equality of the forms between the original and the object that is like the original.

The second way is for two things to have the same form but to have it in different degrees. The favorite of Aquinas to use is whiteness. It is to have something that is white and then to have something else that is more or less white than that.

The final is the same form, but not in the same way. Now for God, this is being, but Aquinas gives an example of how the sun can give its heat, but it is not received the same way. For this, we must remember that the medievals spoke of superhot to describe the heat of the sun. We could have heat here, but the sun’s heat was different by kind and not degree.

This is how beings can be like God. They receive being, but they do not have it in the same way. An important distinction must be made here. We are like God. God is not like us. Consider if you were to look in a mirror. What you see in the mirror is like you. You are not like what you see in the mirror.

Prepare for a good time tomorrow as we start talking about goodness.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas to help us come to a deeper understanding of the doctrine of God. For those who do not have a copy of the Summa, one can be found at NewAdvent.org. First, I ask for prayers for my Christlikeness. Today has been a really hard day for me and it’s being a hard night and I just ask that you pray for me in this. There are some nights I think we become exceptionally aware of our fallenness. The second situation to pray for is my financial one. Finally, I ask for prayer in a third related area of my life.

Are the perfections of all things in God? Thomas Aquinas says they are. This means that if something is to attain to its perfection, it must reach for God. Someone can say “Well what about the atheist?” Yes. The atheist must reach for God as well. He will not reach for God directly, but he will reach for the lesser, the things that God has made and for the good, the true, and the beautiful he sees in the world, but all the while, he is perhaps unknowingly searching for God.

Aquinas argues that they do for any perfection in something must exist in its cause in some way. A man can give the nature of a man to a man in the process of being a parent. (And of course, let’s not be pedantic. We all know that it’s the women that give birth, but the men are a part of that. We could simply say human to be sure.)

In another sense argues Aquinas, the sun is the likeness of whatever is produced by the power of the sun. We must remember that for the medievals, fire was hot, but the sun was super-hot. It was not different by degree but by kind. Any heat that existed on Earth received that heat somehow from the sun ultimately.

What would it mean for the sun to be perfect heat? It would mean that all the perfections that exist in heat somehow exist in the sun so that the sun would lack nothing that would be fitting for the perfection of heat. Aquinas argues that the same is true for God.

The difference is that God is being so that all that is perfect of being itself is found in God. He lacks nothing that is fitting to being pure actuality. Aquinas says he can have even the basis of composed things in him just as the sun being one heat can be the perfection of all other things that are generated by its heat.

In conclusion, for us, if we want to find our perfection, we must look to God. Now this doesn’t mean total ontological perfection as we will never be like God in that way, but it does mean that if we are to be perfect human beings, we are looking fruitlessly if we do not look for such in God.

We shall conclude the doctrine of perfection tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters. We’re going through the Summa Theologica and we’re discussing the doctrine of God. The Summa Theologica is the masterpiece of Thomas Aquinas and can be read at newadvent.org. Tonight, we’re going to be starting the doctrine of God’s perfection. Before that, I have prayer requests. First, I ask for prayers for my Christlikeness. Today has been a really difficult day in that area, but maybe it could be that the days you are most aware of your fallenness are the days that you are actually improving the most. Second, I ask for prayers for my financial situation. Third, I ask for prayers in a third related are of my life. For now, let’s get to the topic. Is God perfect?

Some readers are saying “Well of course God is perfect.” This was the beauty of the medievals however. They wanted to prove everything and make sure of their arguments. In fact, as you read the Summa, you notice that Aquinas brings forward the strongest arguments that he knows of against the position that he holds. I sometimes speculate that maybe he had his students go out and find arguments for a “Can you stump the teacher?” kind of game.

So what arguments were brought against God being perfect? Well the first is that something perfect is completely made. God however is not made, therefore God is not perfect.

The second is that God is the first beginning of things, but the beginning of things is not perfect, just as the seed of a tree is not perfect, therefore God is not perfect.

Third, God’s essence has been shown to be being itself, but that would seem to be the most imperfect. After all, it is received by everything and receptive of all modification.

Let’s be clear in this that we’re not talking about moral perfection. Now I do believe that in a sense, God does possess moral perfection, though I don’t think moral can apply to God like it can to us, as if God does what he ought to do because there’s a moral law outside of him that he has to obey. This is talking about ontological perfection. God is complete in his being lacking nothing appropriate to his existence.

Aquinas tells us that Aristotle said the ancients did not ascribe perfection to the first principle, because they saw everything as material and a material being could not be the perfect one. However, God is not material. That which is material is always in a state of potentiality as matter can always change. God, however, as an agent is always in a state of actuality. God being the first and the source of all actuality must be most perfect then.

What of the objections? For the first, Aquinas says that something is called perfect when it is brought into the actuality it ought to have. Thus, whatever does not lack in its mode of being is perfect. It doesn’t matter whether the thing has been made or not.

For the second, the material being cannot be first as has been said so that must be after something else that is actual. For this, Aquinas could easily return to his first way and demonstrate God from there and since he is immaterial and being, he is perfect.

The final one is the one I think the most difficult but Aquinas answers it well. Being is the actuality of all things, but the problem is we are comparing the giver to the receiver. It’s the other way around. They receive being in their limitation. They cannot be as actual as God is because they are limited by their forms and/or matter.

Tomorrow, we shall ask if the perfection of all things is in God.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We are studying the doctrine of God with the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas being our guide, which can be found at newadvent.org. Right now, we’re studying the doctrine of God’s Simplicity and tonight, we’re going to wrap that up. Before that, I do have some prayer requests. First, I ask that you pray for me in my Christlikeness that needs to develop. Second, I ask for your prayers in my financial situation. Finally, I ask for prayers for a third related area of my life. For now, let’s get to the doctrine.

Does God enter into things in that his being is mixed into the being of all other things? It would seem that we could easily arrive at this conclusion if we agree that God’s existence is his essence. If that is so, does that mean that all that exists is participating in God?

No. Because God’s nature is existence, it does not follow that all that exists is participating in that nature. Once again, we return to the causes that Aristotle gave us with the two that were added by the medieval thinkers. The main one we want to see tonight is the exemplar cause. The exemplar cause is that after which something is made. The example would be blueprints being the exemplar cause of a building.

This is where the doctrine of analogy is so important. All that is here is based on that which is in God. For instance, we are told that he is the Father from whom all Fatherhood comes. Fatherhood that we see here is based on him. If you look in the mirror, that which you see in the mirror is like you. You are not like it. You are the primary object. It is the secondary and depends on you. If you go away, that which is in the mirror is no longer there. If the mirror was shattered however, it would not effect your existence.

In saying this, Aquinas avoids the error of pantheism. God is not entered into the world in that he takes part in its existence. He does not enter the composition of things for he cannot have any potential in his nature. This doesn’t present a problem for the incarnation however. The church was very clear to say tht the divine nature in Christ was never mixed with the human nature.

Thus, as we conclude the doctrine of the simplicity of God, we have seen that God is indeed altogether simple. However, what does this tell us? It tells us a way that he is unique in comparison to creatures in that he does not depend on anything else for his being but rather is his own being. Not even the angels can claim that. However, to say that God is simple is to only tell us one thing about God. While it is a big part, it is not the whole story. When we continue tomorrow, we shall start looking at the doctrine of his perfection.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters. We are continuing our dive into the ocean of truth as we study the doctrine of God with the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas as our guide. You can read the Summa for yourself at Newadvent.org. We’ve been going over the doctrine of the simplicity of God for now. Before that, let’s cover prayer requests. I ask that you pray for me in my Christlikeness. It’s an area I really need to work on. Second, I ask that you be praying for my financial situation. Third, I ask for prayers for a third related area in my life. Now let’s get to the seventh question on simplicity. Is God altogether simple?

Aquinas offers a number of arguments. First off, he stresses everything that has been said before regarding the simplicity of God which is what we’ve spent the past few days covering. Aquinas is going to give a few more points on this issue however.

Aquinas says that every composite thing comes after its parts and is dependent on them. God is not dependent on anything however. God is his own being. Therefore, he is altogether simple.

Third, every composite thing has something that puts it together as nothing unites itself. However, God is the efficient cause of all and there is no efficient cause of him. Because of this, he is altogether simple.

Fourth, Aquinas also says that every composite has potentiality and actuality.  Either one of the parts actualizes another, or all of them work together to actualize the whole. This would apply even to angels whose being actualizes their form.

Fifth, when something has parts, none of the parts are the whole. For instance, I am a man, but my hands that are typing are not men in themselves. My legs are not men, and my head is not a man. It is only when all the parts are combined that we have a man.

The same works in reverse. Consider a substance like water. Let’s suppose you have a gallon of it. Now each part of that is water, but you cannot take a part and say this part is a gallon. It is when all the molecules of water come together that you have a gallon of water.

This is what’s so amazing when we think about an argument like Richard Dawkins’s 747 argument against God’s existence. It’s quite amusing since Dawkins thinks that he has refuted the five ways of Thomas Aquinas when he hasn’t even touched them. This one he could have learned the answer to however if he had simply read the very next chapter.

One of the great problems for many atheists today is that they don’t understand good theology. They don’t take the time to really understand the worldview they’re arguing against. As a Christian, I think it’s important to be able to argue for the resurrection and for the existence of God. I also think it’s important to be able to argue against them. Why? I want to know the arguments of my opponents and their position and I want to know it better than they do.

One such position is simplicity. Dawkins fails because he does not have a Christian understanding of God, but a materialistic one.

And coming from that view, we can always expect he’ll fail.

We shall continue looking at simplicity tomorrow

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’re looking at the doctrine of God and using the Summa Theologica as our guide which can be found at newadvent.org for those who don’t own a copy of the Summa. We’re studying the doctrine of God’s simplicity. Before that though, I wish to present my usual prayer requests. First off, I sincerely hope you all are praying for my Christlikeness. I become more aware of my fallen nature every day. Second, I ask your prayers for my finances. Third, I ask prayers for the third related area in my life. For now, let’s look at Simplicity.

What is an accident? Many of us might think of two cars suddenly crashing when one loses control. Well in modern parlay, that can be considered an accident, but when it comes to philosophical language, the term accident means something different.

An accident is something that a thing possesses and it in no way affects the substance of the thing. It could lose that thing or have that thing taken away without changing the thing itself. So is there anything in God that he could lose and he would still be God? Is there anything that could be added to him and he could still be God?

One argument is that there are things that are in God that are also in us and they are accidents for us. Wisdom and power for us are accidents, but in God, they are attributes. The necessary idea is that they must be accidents in God as well.

Aquinas will expand on this later, but his main point is that these are not accidents in God because we are understanding them in a univocal sense, that is, in the same way. We do not possess wisdom the way God possesses it. It is not that we get more wisdom and eventually we have God-wisdom. God possesses wisdom by nature whereas we possess it by gift.

An accident is something that has potential as well. It can be or not be in the thing. For God however, there can be no potential. Because of this, it is the case for an accident makes something actual in the very substance of the thing. The accident of laughing makes man a creature capable of laughing.

If God has something added to his essential being, then he is being + something and that constitutes a change. If he has something that can be taken away, then that means he has something that is non-essential to his being. There would be parts of being and that has already been ruled out by saying that God is his essence and his own being. Being is absolutely simple and has no parts.

All that is God is essential to him and he possesses nothing non-essential. Well what about the incarnation? God did not take on human nature. The second person of the Trinity did, but the essence of deity did not. Jesus was and is a person who happened to be fully God and fully human as well without mixing the natures.

So is God altogether simple then? That’s what we shall ask tomorrow.