Category: Summa Theologica

Welcome back readers to Deeper Waters as we continue our dive into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through the doctrine of God in Christian thought and tonight, we’re going to continue our look as we begin a focus on the mercy of God. Our guide that we have been following has been the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. This can be read for free at newadvent.org. Tonight, we’re going to be asking if mercy can be attributed to God.

Our first objection to this is that mercy is a kind of sorrow. However, as we looked earlier, we found that God is impassible and thus, he cannot be said to have a passion. If we were right earlier, it would seem that we are wrong now and we must look again at several other doctrines. However, could it be that we are wrong now?

Mercy is a passion in the sense of the experience, but not in the act. God acts in ways that are merciful, but this is not because he has a passion within him that is responding to something, but rather because of his divine wisdom. The great joy if impassibility is knowing that God cannot be swayed by something external to himself. Because someone has more emotion, that does not mean God’s heart leans towards them more. You cannot blackmail God in any way.

The second argument says that mercy is a relaxation of justice. However, based on 2 Timothy 2:13, God cannot deny himself. If he were to have mercy then, it would seem that he would be denying himself for he does not possess justice so much as he is justice per his simplicity.

Aquinas answers however that God does not go against justice but rather does something that is more than justice. For instance, suppose you have a debt of $100 to a man. You pay him $200 when you repay your debt. You did not go against justice, but rather, you went beyond it. You gave him what you owed him and then you gave him even more.

Mercy is the same way. Mercy is a gift. To forgive someone something is to bestow upon them a gift. The God who can forgive our sins is one who is indeed terrifying. He can forgive them as a gift and is not forced to punish. What forgiveness we have, we should see as a gift of divine grace.

The purpose of mercy is to remove defects from what one has. Mercy is seen as the goodness that expels defects. Where justice is owed for some lack in something, mercy means going the extra mile. Justice says punish the sinner. Mercy says he can be punished, but he can instead be forgiven as a gift. Justice says repay the man the money you owe. Mercy says to repay and give him even more from what he lacks out of your bounty.

We can be thankful that God is merciful, though it is not in the sense of experiencing a passion, but in the sense that he gives us not only what we owe, but that by which he chooses to bless us. Forgiveness is a benefit to us. God is not benefitted by forgiving us, but we can exalt him for the forgiveness he has given and spread the glory of his Name.

Let’s do that.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters. Thanks to a commenter who stated that they understand the switch to married life. It’s an interesting one but a good one. Readers can expect the blog to go up earlier. For our studies, we are looking at the doctrine of God and having our guide for that be the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. This can be read for free at newadvent.org. We’re talking about the justice and mercy of God and tonight, we’re going to be asking if the justice of God is truth. Let’s go to the question!

Immediately, we are presented with the idea of great teachers of the past, and in this case, Anselm and then Aristotle, who wasknown as the Philosopher in the medieval period. Dante had referred to Aristotle as “The Master of those who know.” Anselm is especially famous for the ontological argument. A side note here is that the medievals knew to respect those great teachers who came before them. Would that we could learn that!

For Anselm, we are told that he said that justice resides in the will. However, when we did a study on truth earlier, we concluded that truth resides in the intellect. If justice resides in the will and truth resides in the intellect, then it would seem that the justice of God cannot be truth.

Aquinas answers that when we speak of justice, we are also speaking of the law that governs. The law resides in the mind of God. However, when it comes to meting out the justice, that resides in the action. Thus, the idea resides in the intellect but the working out of the idea resides in the will and thus, there is no contradiction.

But what about the Philosopher? He argued that truth is a virtue separate from justice. If that is the case, then it would seem that the justice of God cannot be truth.

Aquinas knows the passage well however and says that the truth that Aristotle is speaking of here is virtue whereby a man shows himself in word and deed to be what he really is. In other words, he is true to himself. This means that it is in conformity with what is signified and is not simply the effect lining up with its cause and rule.

Why is this the case? Aquinas says that truth does consist in the equation of the idea in the intellect with the reality. However, the intellect can also be the rule or measure of things. How true is an artwork? It is true if it corresponds to the idea the artist had in his mind.

This is the same way it is with justice. The way of justice lies in the wisdom of God. When things are done in accordance with that wisdom, they are done truly. It is because of this that when God acts, we say that God acts in truth. He acts in accordance with his wisdom just as an artwork is to be in accordance with the artist.

Tomorrow, we shall look at part 1 of 2 on mercy.

Hello everyone. I hope you all have enjoyed reading back posts on Deeper Waters. I have been enjoying myself on a honeymoon and getting used to married life. This doesn’t mean Deeper Waters is ending. Not at all. The wife and I are interested in expanding Deeper Waters further. We do hope to have a more global outreach however so that my activity in other areas will be shortened so that it can be more focused in still other areas. For now however, we are returning to our study of Thomas Aquinas and the doctrine of God in the Summa Theologica. This can be read for free at newadvent.org. Tonight, we’re going to start discussing the justice of God and asking the question if justice does exist in God.

Aquinas wishes us to realize that there are two kinds of justice. The first is communicative justice. This consists in the mediums of exchange such as buying and selling. This does not exist in God. The other is distributive justice. In this, a ruler gives someone the rank that they deserve. This kind does exist in God since he does give his creation what they have.

But does not justice lie in not doing what one wills but what one ought? However, in Ephesians 1:11, we are told that God works all things according to the counsel of his will. Since doing what one wills and pleases is not justice, then it appears that God is not just.

However, this is answered in that this is the way it is for humans. Humans need a law outside of themselves to reach the potential that they ought to reach. However, there is no moral restraint outside of God on God. I do not even consider it accurate to say God is moral, in that it implies that he does what he ought to do and there is nothing outside of God that says he ought to do such. God does not will anything that is not in accordance with wisdom and is rather a law unto himself. Thus, God is just.

How can God be said to be just however if it cannot be said that there is nothing that he owes anyone?

Justice in God however is the fitting accompaniment of his goodness and is fitted to each person according to the divine wisdom. God has a debt to himself. He is to act according to his will and his wisdom. Aquinas quotes Anselm who said that if God punishes the wicked, that is good for they deserve it. If he does not punish them, that is also good for mercy belongs to his goodness. Essentially, we simply have to trust God.

We conclude then with Aquinas that justice does rely in God. Of course, the outworkings of that justice will be pointed out in further blogs and again, I can highly recommend doing what one reader of Deeper Waters is doing. Going to Newadvent.org and reading up on Aquinas’s thought yourself. There is nothing like approaching the old saint himself.

We shall continue tomorrow.

We’re at the point now of wrapping up our study of the love of God. As we have seen, there has been a lot of metaphysics involved. Tonight, we’re also going to see some exegesis. For those who do not know, our guide as we’ve been looking at the doctrine of God has been the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. This can be read for free at newadvent.org. Tonight, we’re going to be asking the question of if God always loves better things more.

In this case, we have some passages and maybe the objections will show an interesting way of looking at the passages and while we wouldn’t interpret them that way, we can stop and think “I wonder why I never even had that question pop into my mind before?”

The Scriptures say that God so loved us that he gave his only Son for us and about how much God has given us in giving us Christ. Well who would give up a greater thing for a lesser thing? Since God sacrifices Christ for the world, then surely though Christ is the better, God still loves the world more.

But this is not so according to Aquinas. While God does will the good of the world, he wills the good of Christ more. We are not given a name above all names. We are not ontologically in the position of glory that Christ is in. If we looked at just the cross, maybe there could be a point, but there is the resurrection and the ascension as well.

But what about angels? Does not the Bible say that we are a little lower than angels, but yet he loves us more apparently? Aquinas answers that some angels are better than men and some men are better than angels. We are better than fallen angels, but the good angels are better than us. God assumed human nature because our needs were greater.

There is some debate in the medieval philosophers as to the salvation of fallen angels and one idea presented is that since each angel is its own species, they could not be saved because God would have to become each individual angel in order to save them, and he could not do that. There is no “angelic nature” as it were to save. There are angels to be saved.

But doesn’t the text also say that there is more rejoicing over one sinner who repents than ninety-nine who have no need of repentance? Yes it does. However, this is also become such a sinner is more penitent. Aquinas speaks of how it had been said that in battle, the general desires most the soldier who has fled and yet after fleeing bravely pursues the enemy, more than the one who has never fled, but also never done a brave deed.

Basically, God’s loving better things more is his willing something a greater good. This is especially so the more like something God is. Maybe it’s time we as Christians take seriously then the call to holiness and righteousness. It is something that we are constantly called to. We are not called to be successes in our careers or loved by the world, but we are called to be holy. Let us be.

Thus concludes our look at the love of God and we begin preparation for another section.

Welcome again all readers and greetings to those as well who are reading via the medium of TheologyWeb. I welcome people with comments to also come to TheologyWeb and join in the fun as I hope we have many lively debates started on relevant topics. Tonight, we continue our look at the most relevant topic of all, the doctrine of God. Our guide for our study has been the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas which can be read for free at newadvent.org. Tonight, we’re going to continue our study of the love of God by asking if God loves all things equally.

To begin with, an objection is that God has equal care for all. Since he has equal care for all, it would follow that he loves all equally. Therefore, he loves all equally. Aquinas says that this is not so however. God does not deal out equal good to all and we as Christians know this seeing as not all get the final good of being in the presence of God with the beatific vision. However, God uses the same wisdom in his care of all.

But is not the love of God his essence? Since that is the case, then it would seem that since his essence does not change, then his love cannot change and if his love cannot change, then what reason do we have to believe that God wills his love towards others differently?

However, the love of another is the willing of that person’s good. God does not will His essence to them, for no creature can have the essence of God. He does will the good that is fitting to that creature for them to have in relation to the kind of being that that creature is. Therefore, he does not in this case either love all things equally.

God’s love extends to created things, but so does his knowledge and will. However, he does not know some things more than others or will some things more than others. If that holds true, then it would be true also that God does not love some things more than others.

Aquinas answers that knowing and willing signify only acts and the acts are not equal to the creatures that are the recipients of those acts. God could very well know some things more because there is more to know about them and will some things more because they have more being to them. In the same way, he can love some things more as well.

The basic answer Aquinas also gives is that if love is the willing of the good of another, then it is self-evident that there are some things that he loves more because not all things are equally good. If you disagree with this, then just ask yourself a question. Are you as good as God is? No.

We do this also on a human level. Your friends and your family and yourself are all equally human, but you also love each differently. We would not respect a man who treated his wife in the exact same way he treated all women. Of course, he should love all women in the sense that they are all humans, but he should give a different kind of love to the woman he’s married. A person should love all humans as they are all humans, but his parents and friends have a different love.

God most of all loves himself and we should as well. Is this egotistical on God’s part? No. It’s realistic. God is treating himself as the greatest good because he is the greatest good. He could not treat anything else as if it was the greatest good. God acts in conformity with reality. We should do the same.

Love all? Of course you should. However, realize love does vary, and that’s just fine.

We shall conclude this topic tomorrow.

We are continuing our look now at the love of God in Christian thought. Our guide for this is the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas at newadvent.org. This is also available on the IPhone, IPad, and ITouch with the new ibooks application and can no doubt be found on various other electronic devices that allow you to read works of literature. Of course, I always recommend most of all the version that you can hold in your hand. We’re talking about the love of God and we’re going to ask today if God loves all things.

Aquinas affirms that God does indeed love all things insofar as they exist. This is something we should do as well of course and indeed I will touch on this at the end. How can this be however as God’s love is eternal, but that which is the object of His love is not eternal?

Aquinas tells us that all things exist in God. That is, God knows in Himself what you and I are according to our proper natures and this is what He loves. This is why God can eternally love us but not eternally be angry at us. God loves that which is our proper nature because that is good. There is nothing about our proper nature however which can bring about eternal anger in God. This does not mean of course that God loves everything about us, and again, this is something I plan to touch on further at the end.

But are there not two kinds of love at least? There is the love of desire and there is the love of friendship. The love of friendship God does not have with creatures that do not possess rationality. Since that is the case, how can it be that God loves them? More importantly, if desire is based on need, then how can it be that God loves any of us since He does not need any of us?

That last point I wish to stress as in Bible College I did have a systematic theology professor who said that God created man because He needed someone to love. Acts 17:25 treats the idea of God needing anything as a mockery. Throughout the whole of Scripture, we see the constant praising and worship of God without wishing He could be greater or saying anything negative or limiting about Him. (The exception of course being that sometimes, the Psalmist and Jeremiah and others in sorrow can cry out to God as an oppressor of sorts, but this is more referring to His actions than to His nature.)

If God needed something, then He would certainly be lacking in perfection which we established early on in this series is something God has. After all, if God lacks some aspect of being that is not a limiting principle, where is He going to get it from? How does it exist apart from Him?

God loves out of desire but not out of desire for need but desire for our good. We can desire something for others as well as for ourselves and if someone is loved, then we naturally seek the good of that someone. As for friendship love, God does not have that with that which cannot reciprocate it, but He does have it with creatures like ourselves and angels.

There are passages that say God does hate sinners, but Aquinas will tell us that he loves sinners insofar as they are beings that exist, but insofar as they fall from that, he does not love them. I would also say that the word hatred refers to something being set at a distance as well and indeed, God does do that with sinners. He sets them apart from Him.

What does this tell us for ourselves? Our love should seek the good of the other as well and when we are doing that, we tend to find our own happiness. This does not mean we love everything about that person. In fact, that which holds back the person and is a negative influence on them we hate. Consider the parents of a child with a terminal illness. They love their child, but they hate that illness. If you have a loved one with a bad habit, you love them, but hate that habit. In fact, it is because you love them that you hate those things. Those things keep them from being them and if they are more them, it makes them more lovable.

We should be pleased also when we see this in ourselves. We should hate that which is in ourselves that keeps us from being the best that we can be. It is no glory to God for you to not be the best that you can be. Wanting to be the best you can be is not arrogant. It is realizing who God made you to be and deciding that you want to pursue that with your life.

I hope this has been a helpful look at the love of God. It is a topic we shall continue tomorrow.

A friend of mine commented on the last blog saying humorously since we were moving into the love of God that that meant no more metaphysics. I’m sure he knows that’s not the case since, yes, there is even a metaphysics of love. That’s where we’re going to begin today in our look at the doctrine of God with the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas as our guide. You can read it for free at newadvent.org. Tonight, we will start this question with asking if love is in God.

Some objections to this rely on the belief that love is a passion. This is nothing new then really. Now let me be upfront and say that love can indeed result in strong passions. However, it does not always have passion. Those of us who are good fans of Lewis know that he has warned us that the passion is an explosion meant to start us off in the right direction, but we dare not make a diet out of that passion.

Aquinas tells us that God is not one with passions because those passions come through the senses out of the sense appetite. The body responds to love, fear, joy, anger, etc. Insofar as these relate to the senses, then they are passions that God does not have for he does not have senses. However, God can have eternal love and joy because that is a matter of the will and God eternally wills the good. This is also a reason why he does not have anger. God is not eternally angry at anything. That would mean he’s eternally responding to sin in a way that affects his very nature.

God does love however because he has a will and like any will, his will seeks the good. Aquinas tells us that we only seek the good directly and the evil indirectly. Consider the case of a man who wants to have an affair. He does seek something that he deems a good, pleasure. It is not to be disagreed that pleasure is a good. However, the way he seeks to get that good is an evil, he wishes to have an affair.

This is a point I like to use in the abortion debate. What are some reasons given for an abortion? So a teenager won’t have to raise a child, or so a woman can pursue a career, or to give financial peace. Now when I hear the goals desired to be reached in the debate, I by and large consider them good goals. However, the question I want to ask is “How does abortion help me to be good?” Just because my goal is good, that does not mean the means chosen to get there are good.

Keep in mind as has been said that the only way one can will something is if they believe that something is good. Now they could be twisted and evil and what they will is twisted and evil, but there is something that they are reaching for that they perceive to be a good.

Aquinas also tells us that an act of love tends towards two things. That is the good of the willer and the person for whom it is willed. Thus, to love your neighbor as yourself is to seek the other person’s good as if it was your own and in doing so, lo and behold, you find your good. So many of us run around seeking happiness for ourselves and yet what we need to realize is that if we seek the happiness of others, we will eventually find our own.

So we do conclude that love is in God for God is always willing the good and that includes his own good. It behooves us to be in covenant alignment with him and be on the receiving end of his good as well.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters. We have now expanded and can be found at theologyweb.com. I encourage all readers to come to the Deeper Waters section. Many comments that require long answers I will be glad to give such answers to there so we can have a better back and forth exchange. For now, we’re going to continue our look at the doctrine of God in Christian thought and our guide will be the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, which can be read for free at newadvent.org. Tonight, we’re going to conclude our look at the will of God by asking if the five signs of will are rightly said of the divine will.

First off, what are we talking about? These are the ways by which the moral will of God can be known. Prohibition is the forbidding of an action. Permission is God allowing an action that goes against his moral will. Counsel is persuasion to do a good action. Precept is when God insists upon an act as necessary. Operation is when he acts himself.

Are these rightly said? Yes they are. Aquinas wants us to keep in mind that God can at one time allow us to do something and then another time prohibit it. This depends on the event itself and the persons doing the event. An example would be that if you work at a company, you can be admitted to enter into staff only areas. When you leave that position, you cannot enter those areas. The company gives you the permission at one time and at the other time, they prohibit you.

He also wants us to realize that there are some signs of will that can only apply to rational creatures, namely us and angels. These are precept, counsel, and prohibition. It makes no sense for God to literally make a precept for how an animal ought to act and a prohibition for how it ought not to act. However, for us, he can give counsel to encourage us to do as we ought, prohibitions so we will know what we ought not to do, and precepts so we will know what it is we ought to do.

Also there is a distinction in how we come to the good. Prohibition is the area namely concerned with the denunciation entirely of an evil act. God does permit some things but these are things he will allow us to do for a greater good. There are sadly some situations that are less than ideal but these are allowed for the time being. Precepts are given so we may know the good that we ought to do and counsel in order for us to come to embrace that goodness all the more.

In conclusion, when I read this list I am struck once again with how much the goal is about attaining divine goodness. In our modern world, we are more often concerned with how things are good for us. We don’t really ask often if things are good. We are busy finding the will for our lives rather than finding out what the will of God is. Perhaps we should look less at us and instead look more at God for our continuous sanctification.

Tomorrow, we shall begin discussing the love of God.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters as we continue our dive into the ocean of truth searching for those pearls. We’re going through the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas now in an attempt to understand the doctrine of God fuller. Our guide for this has been the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. That can be read for free at newadvent.org. Those who have products like the IPhone or Kindle can also download it. Best, however, would be to just purchase your own copy someday, at least the Prima Pars. We’re talking about the Will of God and today we’re going to be talking about the Will of Sign. Is that something distinguishable?

The Will of Sign refers more to the moral relationship that exists between God and men. This would mean such things like the Ten Commandments. Now in idea, we can speak about different wills in God. There is his sovereign will and there is his moral will. Sometimes, we speak of an individual will for some people, but I often think this falls more under the sovereign will in that he has a desire and he’s chosen certain individuals to fulfill that. In other words, the individuals play a part in the greater will of God. The will of God is not subservient to the individuals. We make it all about us, when really, if “God has a plan for our life” it is all about him. Not us.

The way we know what God’s will is also is that he has revealed it and he acts in accordance with what he desires. He punishes sin and he rewards goodness. We read in the Bible that God gets angry at sin. However, this is for our understanding of God’s view of sin. God does not get angry in the literal sense, but anger is a characteristic of one who punishes another and so when we see God acting in this way, we say of him that he is angry in the sense that he acts the way that an angry person acts.

The reason of course that God has only one will ultimately is that God is simple as has been said and what he has, he is. If there were two wills in God, then there would be parts to him. Once again, we are reminded that God is simple in his nature and why this is important. Aquinas went through his work in the order that he did for a reason and as we’ve gone through, we’ve seen that each part beautifully comes and builds on the part that came before it.

Today, we Christians should get out of this that we ought not to focus on so much an individual will for our lives but building on the nature of holiness in our lives. Is it not so much if you’re marrying the right person as it is if you are going to be the kind of spouse that you ought to be. It is not so much that you are picking the right career so much as if you are being the kind of employee you ought to be. It is not so much that you are going to the right school so much as you are being the right kind of student. God’s will for you, in fact, is not about you but about his glory.

I hope this has been a help to you. Remember everyone that what I do does depend on part from the help of people like you. I encourage any way in which you might want to help to make that a reality.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’re going through the Summa Theologica now of Thomas Aquinas in an attempt to better understand the doctrine of God. This can be read for free at newadvent.org. After all, if we are to truly worship God and live out his teachings for a lost and dying world, we need to know who he is. We’ve been studying the will of God and tonight we’re going to look at the question of if God has free-will.

This is a really short question, but I do hope to expand it some. I also desire to bring in some personal application for us. The first objection to the idea that God has free-will is that God does not have free choice because according to Jerome, who was the church father who translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate, God cannot sin.

Aquinas answers that this is not an objection against free will in the absolute sense. It only means that God is not free to sin. This is not a deficiency on the part of God. It is like the question of which general in a war is the deficient one? Is it the one who wins every battle and cannot lose or the one who can lose a battle? To answer this question, just choose which one you want to go out fighting your battles for you and which one you want to put your trust in.

This also applies to us. When we get to Heaven, we will not be able to sin because upon seeing God, our wills will be moved towards him and we cannot move away from his utter goodness and perfection. Freedom is not an end but a means and it will have met its means, that we will always be doing the good.

The second objection tells us that freedom is a matter of the reason and the will. However, God cannot will evil. Thus, he could only will the good. Since it is only the good that he is capable of willing, then it would seem to be that God does not have free will.

However, while God cannot will evil, God can will to choose between two opposites where neither one is evil. For instance, I can choose to stand up now or stay seated. Neither one is evil. Either choice can be made and neither choice will involve sin.

The ultimate reason for why this is the case however is that God must only will one thing necessarily and that is his own goodness. God cannot be bound by anything external to him as if he has to will that thing. God did not have to will our creation, but it was because of his love and his grace that he chose to bring this about. God did this freely. It is our privilege that we can truly turn in freedom and praise the Father above who gives us every good and gracious gift.

I hope this look at God’s freedom has been helpful. If you do support the work that is being done here, I invite your prayers for me in my own walk and if you wish to support financially, that’s welcome as well. Our ministry will be expanding soon and I look forward to sharing that when it happens.

We shall continue tomorrow.