CategoriesAll
Whether a name can be given to God?
A name can be given to God in a way that the creature can describe its own understanding of what God is to itself and others around it. However, the name given to God will never portray the Divine Essence accurately because creatures that are in the corporeal flesh are not capable of seeing the Essence of God, for it is beyond the understanding of the creature to do this, nor could it perceive it and live, because the Divine Essence of God is before the creature, and raised up above all of its senses, intellect, and understanding. However, the creature can assign names to God so as to describe God, even though the name given to God does not represent God in His fullness. Furthermore, calling an “apple” an apple is an accurate expression of the essence of what is described. In this case, an apple. For one can bite into it and remove its seeds and be filled with its sugary richness. The senses can identify the apple in more ways than one and the intellect understands fully its role and purpose in its created environment. But with God, we only know Him by His effects, and what He chooses to reveal to us as for the edification of self and others. His Essence cannot be seen or fathomed, so no name will ever fully describe Him accurately and justly. Nonetheless, the created still assign names and descriptions to their Creator so as to identify ideas and things to the intellect that perceives God and shares in His message with others around them. Whether any name can be applied to God substantially? Any name that is applied to God by the created (creature) may describe Him in some way according to the perception of the one conveying the name, but whether or not the name altars or affects His substance in any way is completely impossible. For the names given to God by creatures has no effect on Him, because all names, descriptions, and things that simply exist to our own senses in our world are completely pre-existent in God. Additionally, the names we give God is less of a charge against Him, and more of an indicator or measure of us indicating our relationship to God. To further elaborate, negative names that are applied to God affects His substance in no way, but simply reminds the listener of just how close or far away from God that creature is who is naming Him. See for yourself, if you were to go up to an atheist and ask him about God, he may respond with something like, “I don’t follow your ‘Sky Daddy.’” The atheist would say this in a negative way, but this insult or mockery would have no effect on God, and would actually signal to the hearer of the message that this person is further away from God, because of the false mocking name he used to describe God. Seeing as how this harms God in no way or benefits Him in anyway, it is also a good indicator to the state of grace (or lack of) that soul is in, and in by doing so - the creature who attempts to name God effects itself more than the label it gives or apportions to God, either negatively or positively, for the one who praises God shall not go unrewarded, and the one who curses God shall not go unpunished. Now, walk up to a Priest and ask Him about God, and he may refer to God as, “The Lord,” or “God the Son,” or “God the Father,” or “God the Holy Spirit,” or “The Blessed Trinity.” By these names of God, they pay honor to Him, but still do not affect Him in any way that His substance must change substantially. Moreover, it is just an indicator of the reverence one may show for their Creator, and is a reminder to the observer that this Priest is closer in relationship to God than the atheist is, simply by their words alone, for if we know God by His effects, then we must also know creatures more intimately by their effects (what they say and do or reveal to us by their good and bad deeds) as well. Whether any name can be applied to God in its literal sense? Some names are given to God by creatures in the metaphorical and literal sense. Both are proper depending on their context. For example - in the metaphorical sense, God could be referred to as “The Rock,” or the “Foundation” of the faith and hope in the believer, and this would be a proper metaphorical name for God because although He is just not a rock alone or a poured concrete slab of rebar for the base of a building, we also know Him to be the One who keeps all things into being in a more higher and eminent way, and this of course pre-exists any metaphor or material matter in our known environment that could describe Him. In the same way, for example, in the literal sense - God could be called “Good,” and this would be a true literal statement, even though it does not describe everything about the Divine Essence, it nonetheless contains Good in it, which also describes God because He alone is Good and is the source to which all Goodness comes from. Are any names applied to God synonymous? Names given or applied to God are not all the same in idea. For God Himself is One in reality, but many in idea, so as far as creatures can associate Him in a suitable manner to their intellect - such as “God is All,” or “God is in the clouds,” or “God is in our hearts”, or “God is just, or “God is love,” or “He who fashioned us in the womb,” or “The One who stretched out the universe with His hand.” What is obvious here is that by what was said - it transmits a different idea about God - even though the One reality in all these statements is God. The created intellect obtains understanding of the First Principle (God), which sets all other principles into motion and being (created things), and then flushes many ideas of that First Principle into substances it can describe and understand so as to magnify the various perfections God apportions to creation in an imperfect manner because creatures can only imitate His likeness, but never portray it in its fullness - even though some may display it in a higher or lesser degree depending on love, faithfulness, denial of self, deeds, and election. Never can this occur all in one idea or understanding, but many ideas and understandings, thus all one reality which is God. Finally, the perfections that are manifest in creatures, such as charity, wisdom, love, and justice etc. that are apportioned among all of them, pre-exist in God completely and in the most perfect manner. Whether what is said of God and of creatures is univocally predicated of them? God is of a different order than anything which exists in a genus. No name that belongs to God also belongs to creatures, for anything a creature has is a quality from God - to include wisdom, strength, talent and the like. It is not proper to say “God has wisdom like Socrates,” because God was before and after Socrates, and everything Socrates displayed - including wisdom and the power to argue - came from none other than God alone as an apportioned attribute or quality which is in Him in a more better and perfect way. Therefore, the essence and substance of something depends on the genus they are categorized under and because of this God and creatures are known differently by their effects in an equivocal manner. Whether names predicated of God are predicated primarily of creatures? Does the child name the parent? Does a pet leash the master? Can a building pre-exist its architectural design plans? No - for all of these come after. So, in the same way, names are applied to God rather than creatures because anything which is being described such as a trait or attribute or even a thing that does something pre-exists in God in a more higher and perfect way, to which all things such as creatures flow forth from. However, it is not wrong to refer to God in the metaphorical sense so as to convey Him to others in a higher degree or honorable mention, such as “God carries the message of truth like a bullet,” and “The Truth of God is like the Sun - shooting rays of heat across the sky, for it is impossible that anyone on the ground not feel its heat!” These examples carry an imperfect truth as we can perceive them by the things we know and can relate to while paying honor to the First and Last Cause, which is God, although not quite describing Him accurately and fully - as this is impossible in the created, just as it is impossible that the child names the parent - for the parent had a name that was given before the existence of the child, and whether or not the child wishes to “rename” the parent later on, it shall not matter, for the name the parent has pre-exists whatever name given to the parent by the child. So it is with God, who pre-exists the child, the parent, and any name that could be given to them by another. Whether names which imply relation to creatures are predicated of God temporally? Names as they relate to creatures such as “governor,” and “mayor,” or “chieftain” and the like is how the creature identifies the likeness of what is being described in such a way they know how to react or respond to what they are about to encounter, receive, or interact with and this belongs to them in a temporal way. In the same way, when we call “The One Who Is” - “Lord,” it's not so much that we are affecting His Essence, Being, or changing anything about His Substance, rather we are speaking of things we can describe in accordance with our nature so they can be identified and reacted to in the proper manner. Next, coming to this realization, it can be said that the relation that is established between creatures and God in regard to a name is a temporal function, not something originating from eternity. Also, as it was said before, God is of His own order outside of creation, and everything that is in existence temporally is ordered to Him, while the relation is from creatures to God, but not God to creatures in any true sense other than idea as creatures are referred back to Him. Whether this name “God” is a name of the nature? God is made known to us by His effects in the world around us. It is not possible for us to know fully or even see His nature as it is, but we can recognize His divine nature by His effects, and when we apply or assign Him names which depict Him in a manner our intellect recognizes - we signify many attributes associated with Him as we do other things. For example, if we call the Lord - “A High King,” we also infer to other creatures that this important title oversees the operations and accountability of everything within a King’s dominion, and in comparison - allows us to identify correctly what we are describing in the likeness we associate to other things. Is the Lord exactly like a King? No, but - He is like a King in the way we associate Him to one, as in the literal sense He is the King above all Kings - The One who pre-exists the title to begin with. So, the name of something we give it can describe the nature of something as we understand it, without completely depicting the full nature of God in its fullness - because this is unknowable to the created. Whether this name “God” is communicable? The divine nature is only conveyed by some idea, description, or less than perfect image or example within the realm of the material principle (by participation or accident such as a human portrayal of God in a painting) that creatures can identify and recognize. Names occur not in reality as we declare them, but they occur in our own mind as we perceive them - so in this way, the reality of God by His name is not communicable in reality to the divine nature, but it is communicable in as much as we can understand it and talk about it or make it known to others by signifying Him through a name to which others can recognize. The meaning of “God” in your own mind might not be the same as the meaning of “God” in the mind of another, thus the two conflict, however, in reality, the name itself “God” which attempts to communicate the divine nature is not affected in anyway, nor can it even be perceived properly in fullness within the form of the body fixated to the material principle that makes up nature and the universe. Whether this name “God” is applied to God univocally by nature, by participation, and according to opinion? The name “God” is an idea which resembles the likeness of many things to people as they perceive it. The idea of God includes the opinion of the human being as he can relate to The Name. For example, someone who refers to God as “The Blessed Trinity,” would be correct in that by words he has identified the divine nature. Now, a pagan can relate the idea of God to a block of wood, or a demonic spirit posing as a God - even though this is false, as a block of wood is simply a block of wood and subjected to the material principle, and also that a demon is just a spiritual creature without a body, even though it may think it is something more because of demonic pride and to trick the pagan further into sin so as to worship it so the pagan descends into further error. Even then, in this example - the human who is correct in associating God to the Blessed Trinity still only has an idea of it - to which the divine nature resides, but can only demonstrate some kind of likeness to it as he alone understands it, just as Saint Augustine experienced with the boy trying to collect the ocean water into a sand hole he dug up while he was stuck pondering the mystery. Therefore, it would be proper to conclude that the name “God” is applied analogically, because it is a mixture of some senses and reality, but lacking in others as anyone can really understand it under the signifying label of a single word or name. Whether this name, HE WHO IS, is the most proper name of God? The name HE WHO IS, is most properly applied to God in three ways: One, by what it signifies. The Name does not signal form or creature or what is created or anything of the like - but EXISTENCE in its fullness, which presupposes the idea of a cause or movement. Secondly, by way of the universality of its use. The more precise or restricting the word is, the narrower the chances of the name being applicable to things. For example, if I asked somebody to goto the grocery store and purchase milk - many options could be purchased such as Lactaid, whole, 2%, or even soy milk. However, when I ask for lactose free milk, the options are narrowed from four to one. Furthermore, if I were to ask someone to goto the grocery store to “purchase me something,” then the realm of possibility the word “something” signifies widens from one to four possible items, to possibly thousands of items the helper decides to bring back to me. So, in the same way, the name HE WHO IS captures a more absolute perspective of what we are talking about and attempting to describe in God who should not be subjected to the mere likeness of a creature, or a stone, or a block of wood - for all these things prexist in Him. Third and lastly, the significance of multiple things all at once - such as before, now, after, future, and never ending - all of these words can fall under the name HE WHO IS because all of the words that are described fall under this name, which is properly fitted to God in a more higher way than terms associated to the likeness of creatures as one understands them. Whether affirmative propositions can be formed about God? Affirmative propositions about God can be formed by the human intellect - which is a gift from the Divine Nature so as to know and recognize God. For humans were made Holy and in His image, possessing the full capability within themselves to know God. Also it was given to human beings to accept or reject Him by way of our free-will choices (being in participation which produces accidents, as opposed to an essential being in actuality - which is God). In addition, it has been said that God Himself is simple, and is of His own essence and truly within Himself, not requiring anything else to Be, as He alone is His own self-subsisting substance sustaining Himself as the First Cause and Principle of all things in being. Realizing this, it is hard for the human intellect to comprehend a simple form that is of its own essence, like God is simply. The human intellect is material and understands compound things (because humans are compound beings who are both corporeal and spiritual). So, when given an idea that is simple, man’s intellect (which can only see the material principle), must add something else to it so as to identify it in terms it can comprehend or understand. Nonetheless, it still so happens that man can recognize and come to know God by his intellect because the intellect is an operation of the soul, which is beyond the material principle, and not attributed to any corporeal organ of the flesh. With that said, the intellect may not come to know God in the fullness of His essence, but man can come to know God by recognizing His effects around Him and the likeness of other things He can attribute to God by way of the divine intellect the Lord gifted him. Hence, true propositions can be formed about God because He alone has given us the ability to do so as to have a more established relationship with Him as son/daughter to Father would in a household where a family dwells. This is His ultimate gift to us - that we should come to know Him by our own free-will - for the Lord wants children in His house, not pets. Satan wants pets and slaves he can oppress, torture, rape, and abuse. Not so with God - who gives the creature the choice to choose Him or reject Him, to be under His roof or to live outside from His presence.
I am blessed to be a Third Order Lay Dominican. However, the ideas expressed in this post are my own and do not represent the endorsement of or position of the Order of Preachers as a whole.
Commentary regarding Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae derived from: ST part (I), Q. 1-26 from newadvent.org with permission. Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.
0 Comments
|
mr. scott lowry, op
|
RSS Feed