tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post466187624240713074..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Aquinas, “existence”, and the failure to observe the Creator-creature distinction Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35299992516594386482014-04-25T07:26:38.032-04:002014-04-25T07:26:38.032-04:00I didn't see how Aquinas "failed to prope...I didn't see how Aquinas "failed to properly recognize the Creator-creature distinction". It is recognized. It is, however, as I said in my first paragraph, "a secondary something". I am not at all talking about the particular ways that God is different. I merely stated that the emphasis on this distinction -- as a secondary, not a primary thing -- and that lack of care about this distinction "leads to the kind of confusion in which Roman dogmas and Protestant doctrines cannot be reconciled after 500 years of differences."<br /><br />By the way, I can't imagine a Biblical statement in which God says "my essence is identical to my existence". God says all kinds of things about himself in Scripture, but that is not one of them. <br /><br />FYI, <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/04/aquinass-donum-superadditum-vs-alien.html" rel="nofollow">in a blog post this morning</a>, I've fleshed out how this "chain of being" philosophy has played itself out doctrinally in Aquinas. John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33854179432834094152014-04-25T07:18:44.235-04:002014-04-25T07:18:44.235-04:00I think you display almost total ignorance here of...I think you display almost total ignorance here of what I've said and also what Van Til said. The Great Chain of Being existed far earlier than Aquinas did -- and I've discussed his notion of <i>Image of God</i> (and its deficiencies) in <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/04/aquinass-donum-superadditum-vs-alien.html" rel="nofollow">a blog post this morning</a>. <br /><br />Now, if you want me to be kinder to you, you'll apologize for your "depraved redheaded stepchild" remark, because it's totally based on ignorance and prejudice of what both Calvin and Van Til had to say.<br /><br />It is ridiculous for you to think that Van Til did not read Aquinas. Nobody said that Aquinas was "unconscious" of the way that God is different. In fact, in my opening paragraph, Van Til says that this "distinction" existed in Aquinas, but just not where it needed to be. <br /><br />Even within the Incarnate Christ, however, you ought doctrinally to recognize that this distinction exists "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union," <br /><br />So "if you really want to play the game", you, of course, will wise up and speak honestly about things, before you go mouthing off as you have done here. John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50837916702467450712014-04-25T00:18:08.398-04:002014-04-25T00:18:08.398-04:00I am hard pressed to see how the citations from Aq...I am hard pressed to see how the citations from Aquinas here suggest that he in any way failed to properly recognize the Creator-creature distinction. <br /><br />You seem to be complaining that, in Roman Catholic theology/philosophy, God is regarded as sharing the trait of "existence" with creatures rather than being "in a totally other category." I don't know what to make of this complaint. Are you suggesting that God is somehow beyond being, like Plotinus's One? Or, less radically, that existence is predicated of God and of creatures not univocally but rather analogically? - in which case, you are ironically sounding like a Thomist!<br /><br />Perhaps you merely mean to emphasize that God exists in a different way than his creatures do - and this is something with which Aquinas would abundantly agree. He affirms that God is self-existent; that he exists necessarily; that he is the independent First Cause upon whom all other beings depend for their exist; his essence is identical to his existence; even abstract ideas do not exist dependently of the divine mind; and so on. With most or all of these I would hope an orthodox Protestant would be in hearty agreement! <br /><br />Thus your comment that on Aquinas's view, "God and man are all 'sort of in this thing together'" is just a display of unscholarly sectarian silliness. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50466023233045482882014-04-24T13:59:07.255-04:002014-04-24T13:59:07.255-04:00Now, see, you can go a lot lot further than Aquina...Now, see, you can go a lot lot further than Aquinas! From the upcoming abstracts for the Oxford patristics conference in September:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.britishpatristics.com/#!papers-k-z/cpur" rel="nofollow">St Gregory the Theologian’s Bold Dictum</a><br /> Gabrielle Thomas<br /><br />The writings of St Gregory the Theologian have been prized for centuries on many accounts, including his theological anthropology. The image of God is a theme running through Gregory’s Oration on Baptism in which Gregory, as the image of God conducts a conversation with the devil, during which he suggests that the devil should ‘worship’ him and other baptised believers. The tradition of the devil’s ‘worship’ of the image of God is evident in the pseudepigraphal Life of Adam and Eve, which when considered together with the Oration on Baptism, sheds light on Gregory’s interpretation of the implications of a human being created as the image of God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55638068113767184882014-04-24T12:56:13.745-04:002014-04-24T12:56:13.745-04:00Actually, it sounds more like Aquinas' model l...Actually, it sounds more like Aquinas' model leads to the Great Chain of Being and an understanding of Man being basically made in the image of God, whereas Van Til leads to alienation and the model of Man and Creation as a depraved redheaded stepchild who was never really loved. <br /><br />But mostly, I think the problem is that Van Til is acting like he's never read anything of Aquinas on the various kinds of revelation. Aquinas is certainly not unconscious of the way God is way way way different from humans in both kind and degree, and of how much "condescension" (in the old sense) it took for the Son to take on flesh and become Man. <br /><br />But Aquinas does start from the very old idea that in Eden, humans were greater than they are now but not as great as, say, a saved human in a resurrection body. So there's a lot more room for the original humans to be made in God's image and likeness, and for humans to fall but not to be totally worthless even as fallen, unbaptized beings. (And here you can insert Shakespeare's speech about what a piece of work is man, or Tolkien's poem about humans retaining the power of subcreation even after the Fall.)<br /><br />God is not totally alienated from His Creation, because He made us in His image and likeness, and because He then became one of us. The distinction between Creator and Creation is lessened not because of us, but because God wishes it to be bridged by Him. Using the stuff that He gave us is not presumption; rather, it is a waste if we don't use the bridge He died and rose to give us. He's the one Who named us His children and co-heirs, so any complaints about excessive fraternization between Creation and Creator should go to Him.<br /><br />If you really want to play the game, of course, you'd want to haul in the Orthodox folks' models....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com