www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Simple Divine Essence vs. Complex Nature of God

Folks,

I have run into an Orthodox philosopher, a very astute gentleman, that believes the Western understanding of a simple essence of God is completely an utterly irreconcilable to the complex nature of the Eastern tradition (e.g. an ontological distinction between essence and energies). He insists that BOTH concepts can't be true nor are they reconcilable: one is heresy and the other is orthodox. Some of his points:

1) Simple Essence destroys free-will in God, since will is an attribute (God's attributes in the western framework are identical to his essence analogically) that is necessary to Him. Hence, His will to create was of necessity. God really had no alternate possibility to create or not to create (both options, create or not-create, being good).

2) Free-will is destroyed at the eschaton in the western framework because the elect can only will one possibility, the divine essence. Thus, the elect have no alternate possibilities. As where the eastern view, the partaking of the divine energies gives an infinite number of them (all equally good).

I think I can answer #2 sufficiently. That since it is necessary that the divine essence is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways, because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God (ST Ia q.23a.5). Thus, when the intellect perceives the divine essence, the intellect judges this as infinitely complex(as stated above), and the infinte multiplicities of good are manifested to it. The intellect judges which good it wishes, and the will follows. This is how I would answer the objection from a Thomistic framework.

With #1, I don't have quite the confidence. But at first glance it doesn't appear that since will is identical to his essence (analogically of course) and that will is necessarily of Him, that then this follows that He wills by necessity (see ST Ia q.19 a.2-3). I need to develop this one more.

Has anybody done any work on this topic of simple vs. complex nature of God? Does anyone concur with this Orthodox gentleman? I appreciate any comments.

Thank you,
Daniel

Huh?!!! Is this gentleman objecting to the fact that God is objectively good and WILL and CAN only do good? Is this gentleman entertaining the possibility that God MIGHT choose to do evil and does good only because He WILLS to do good?

We can only speak of God inasmuch as He reveals Himself to us, and He has revealed Himself to us as a God Who is goodness personified ("Why do you call me good? Only God is good").

God's complexity is a statement on the mystery and incomprehensibility of God - nothing more nor less. It is not the diametrical opposite of the Western understanding of simple Essence. This man can philosophize as much as he wants on the nature of God's complexity. Most Orthodox would just leave it alone.

In any case, this man has no authority to say what is or what is not heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

Mardukm,

He is not saying that God has the possibility of doing evil. Because of the metaphysical disinction between God's nature as essence and energy, God has a multiplicity of good things to will (e.g., He can choose to create or not to create, both options being good). God's will is not of essence, but of energy. Which is why their would be free-will in God, because 1) He is the source of his actions and 2) that he has alternate possibilities (all of them being good possibilities). In contrast to the Western view he claims that: since will is necessary to God, and hence identical to the divine essence (analogically of course), creation was by necessity. Thus, this destroy creatio ex nihilo, since creation would be of essence and not of will.

I think this is fallacious, but I need to look into it more. I don't want to misrepresent his view.

Daniel

First off - Latin theology is - Latin theology - and uses the concepts and terms of Latin based and developed philosophy - as its vehicle.

Eastern theology is Greek based and uses the terms and definitions which have their origin from the peak of Greek philosophy. So Eastern theology which is much closer to the language of cosmogony - uses these Greek terms and concepts as their vehicle.

Each must be understood in their own context of time and culture and within the development of the church and its doctrines. While they share many similarities - they are not totally similar or else they would be the very same thing. This - is simple. One is not the other. So simple as to be confusing to the mind which measures itself by its success at handling complex knowledge.

Since most of these people are long dead (the foundations of theology) they cannot learn our modern use of words and language in order to speak to us in our own language - so it is up to us to learn their language and use of words to discover their intended meaning. In other words - it takes effort on our part to discover what they meant to tell us.

Your friend is trying to meld the two into one. As if the Old French language and the modern French language (while sharing similarities) could ever be - one thing - and not two dialects of the same language. Almost - two different languages that share some things in common.

I use that comparison because I had a heck of a time finding a French speaking person who could remember anything about what is called �Old French�. I found her in Canada - I believe she is probably dead now. She was invaluable to me by correcting the many errors that French translators had done to the documents I was studying - when they translated into English. They had mistakenly assumed that the rules of language that they knew for French were applicable to Old French as well. Their translation was frustrating to me - hers was crystal clear. Yet to this day they continue to sell their books and perpetuate what is essentially a myth that they created and attribute to the original author of the old manuscript. Ah - a waste of time - let them go on believing the myth that they created yet attribute to the original author.

I am also reminded of Freud - who - in the original German - outline a much losers �it is like� and open system - which later translators solidified into a rigid and concrete set of rules. If Freud when to university today and listened to himself being taught - he would have no idea what was being taught because it is Freud like - but it is not Freud.

Your friend is trying to do the humanly impossible. Or maybe he is just setting the stage for his already pre-assumed judgment to be released and appear justified. But he is doing that because he is trying to enter from the outside. If he already understood what the words (which are indicators, pointers, mere external symbols of an inner and imperceptible experience of mind and spirit which we call understanding) if he already understood what the words pointed to as meaning - then he would understand both theologies speak of the very same thing. It is the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. The spirit produces the letter - but the letter cannot produce the spirit.

Knowledge and understanding are not the same thing. If they were - we would understand everything that we had knowledge of - and we find that this is not the case. And so understanding does not always and necessarily - follow our ability to gather knowledge.

But you will get no where telling him this - and his pride will be offended. He is trying to �pry the box� open. The desert monks of Egypt would say he is �running ahead of God�. And �if you see someone who is ascending the ladder to heaven by his own power - grab his foot and pull him down.�

We are all guilty of this at times. More times than we would want to know about. I share his love of philosophy - it is the vehicle and language of theology - and so I too, have so often fallen into this pit.

If you are pulled into trying to totally reconcile the words and terms of Eastern theology with the words and terms of Latin theology - you will forever wader in an intellectual labyrinth.

Perhaps you might suggest to him to learn one language (theology) and then learn the other - but do not try to speak them both at the same time because that will produce - unintelligible nonsense.

-ray

All,

I'd like to hear some comments and/or responses to this by St. Gregory Palamas:

If according to the delirious opponents and those who agree with them, the Divine energy in no way differs from the Divine essence, then the act of creating, which belongs to the will, will in no way differ from generation (gennan) and procession (ekporeuein), which belong to the essence. If to create is no different from generation and procession, then the creatures will in no way differ from the Begotten (gennematos) and the Projected (problematos). If such is the case according to them, then both the Son of God and the Holy Spirit will be no different from creatures, and the creatures will all be both the begotten (gennemata) and the projected (problemata) of God the Father, and creation will be deified and God will be arrayed with the creatures. For this reason the venerable Cyril, showing the difference between God's essence and energy, says that to generate belongs to the Divine nature, whereas to create belongs to His Divine energy. This he shows clearly saying, "nature and energy are not the same." If the Divine essence in no way differs from the Divine energy, then to beget (gennan) and to project (ekporeuein) will in no way differ from creating (poiein). God the Father creates by the Son and in the Holy Spirit. Thus He also begets and projects by the Son and in the Holy Spirit, according to the opinion of the opponents and those who agree with them. (Capita 96 and 97.)

Daniel

Dear Daniel, I would say that looking at it from the Greek [especially Palamite or Cabasilan] perspective,is the West who has made the complexities of various types and levels of grace, etc. one reads of from later Western theologians.

As Ray correctly has stated, much of this is a matter of perspective from the theological and philosophical "camp" one is formed in.

In the East, while the vehicle of procession, etc. is certainly debated to various levels of sophistication, the Essence of God retains a supersimplicity. Likewise the concept of Essence and energies itself is one of the most beautiful and incredible simplicity, immersed in the primal mystery of God.

Just like Scripture tells us

John 1:1-3

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.

~~~~~
That is what it says in Scripture
God is the Creator and Jesus did the Creating
~~~~~
Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.

~~~~
The wind swept over the water: A mighty wind: literally, "a wind of God," or "a spirit of God"; cf Genesis 8:1
~~~~

The Holy Spirit did the work

Pani Rose

OK.. Let us give it a try. Beaware that without further context these are simply my first impressions.

>If according to the delirious opponents and those who agree with them,
Translation: my opponents are - out of their minds. (hehe)

> if - the Divine energy in no way differs from the Divine essence,
Translation: if the act is the same as the actor

>then the act of creating, which belongs to the will, will in no way differ
> from generation (gennan) and procession (ekporeuein), which belong to the essence.
Translation: then the act of willing to-create is the same as the methods and means.

They are certainly joined (the act and means of acting) but I do not think it proper to say that the artist�s hands (the means by which the paint is applied) is the same as the will of the artist to paint a painting.

1) On the human level - someone can have a will to do something but yet have no means by which to do it. For whatever reason, Palamas is not taking that into account. Perhaps he is considering that all that God wills - is never without means to be accomplished. I am not sure why he makes no distinction between the act and the means of acting.

The painter may have the will to paint - but if he has no paint by which to do the act - it does not mean that he no longer has the will. The difference here is - will and way. The will to do something and the way in which it is done.

Perhaps I have not grasped his thoughts. I do not know the context of his argument with his �opponents�.

2) Generation and procession are not the same thing. I do not think it is the same thing that the artist births a child (generate) and paints a painting (procession). The difference between generation (passing the seed of self to produce another self-sameness) and procession (an effect taking place within something else - an image).

> If to create is no different from generation and procession,
Translation: if the act of creation is no different from the means.

Now he is all balled up. He is considering all three things to be the same thing.

The will to act, the act, the means of the act, etc� all balled up.

This is especially troublesome because of the difference between generation and procession. Generation (the birth of something of the same nature) and procession (forming an image in something not of the same nature).

>then the creatures will in no way differ from the Begotten (gennematos)
>and the Projected (problematos).
Translation: then what is created (creatures) is the same as what has been generated and manifested by procession.

In philosophy and theology when applied to God� that which is created is from no-thing. It is �birthed� or generated. That which is made or formed - is formed or made from - some existing substance. We form or make a vase from clay. We say �I created it� but we mean �I formed it from something else.�

In the concepts of the cosmogony of Moses - the principle of man (adam) is created (bere) from no-thing and then that now-existing substance is further formed (�let us form man in our own image�) through the act of Providence. And so we have the image of the prophets with the potter (God) forming the clay (man).

>If such is the case according to them (these delirious opponents) then both the Son of God
>and the Holy Spirit will be no different from creatures,
Translation: The Son of God and the Holy spirit are creatures.

The trouble begins because we do not know if this faulty logic really belongs his opponents or to Palama�s himself. It may be that Palama�s misunderstands them or that they really do hold this faulty logic. We do not know if �they� believed this of if it is just that Palama�s believes that they believe this and they really do not. Which ever the case - Palama�s own logic is now faulty.

>and the creatures will all be both the begotten (gennemata) and the projected
>(problemata) of God the Father, and creation will be deified and God will be
> arrayed with the creatures.
Translation: all creatures are then begotten (generated) and are god (god-nature by generation) and God is a creature like they are.

Here Palama seems to think that the generation that nature does - is the same as the generation that God does. Generation within nature is not the same as generation outside of created nature (within God). It is - like - but is not the same one �thing� or act. God does not generate the Son in the same way that a cow generates a calf. There is a likeness - but not a sameness.

>For this reason the venerable Cyril, showing the difference between God's essence and energy,
>says that to generate belongs to the Divine nature, whereas to create belongs to His Divine energy.

>This he shows clearly saying, "nature and energy are not the same."
>If the Divine essence in no way differs from the Divine energy, then
>to beget (gennan) and to project (ekporeuein) will in no way differ from
> creating (poiein). God the Father creates by the Son and in the Holy Spirit.
> Thus He also begets and projects by the Son and in the Holy Spirit, according
>to the opinion of the opponents and those who agree with them. (Capita 96 and 97.)

Obviouly Palama did not personally like his opponents... but in trying to show the illogic of thier theory - Palama uses faulty logic himself.

Therefore - nothing about it proves or disproves Cyril's statement.

It seems typical of human nature when two people are arguing... battering each other becomes the primary motive... truth and reason are regulated to the back seat.

On the other hand it often does us great good to see into the human nature of saints - they were not faultless... they remained human. Being a saint does not mean they were free from error or emotions. IF they became saints then we can too.

-ray

Ray,

I think what Palamas' point there, is if will is identical to God's essence, the result is pantheism, not that God is a creature like us. But since this doesn't square with reality, he feels justified in his distinction. However, this all assumes he's correct in his premise.

Now I don't square with his reasoning there since the only thing God wills by necessity is himself (which includes the eternal generation of the son and procession of the holy Spirit), but anything ad extra he wills freely and is gratuitous. So actually if Palamas' premise is correct on divine simplicity, in my opinion, God would not be able to will anything other than himself, thus, there would be no creation. But we know this is clearly false. When you get some time (it's long), take a look at this article; it's a solution to the problem of divine simplicity from a Thomistic view: The Good as Self-Diffusive in Thomas Aquinas [opwest.org]

Daniel

Right. It amounts to the same thing. We are saying the same thing. Two side of the same coin.

I think his major point is that - there is a difference between essence and the energies. This is an Eastern theological concept of the uncreated energies of God. It is to make a difference between the essence of God (his nature) and the actions of God (his energies or acts). Palama opens by stating what he believes to be the �delirious� position of his opponents�

>the Divine energy in no way differs from the Divine essence

And so we are to assume that Palamas sees it differently (that there is a difference between the essence of God and the acts of God. We can know this is his point because he closes with Cyril ("nature and energy are not the same.") which is to say that he has now proved his point that there is a difference between essence (nature) and energies (actions).

So it is clear that Palamas position is� there is a difference between essence and energies� and anyone who does not know that is delirious.

He then proceeds to prove (but by adding his faulty assumptions) that the stance of his opponents leads to (as you well recognized) what amounts to pantheism� but the way in which Palama does this, is itself, through faulty logic - because he assumes that there is no difference between the products of generation and procession. And so any logic is lost. The results are untrustworthy.

The difference being that generation begats the same nature (a child is born) while procession effect an image in an unlike nature (the potter forms the vase of clay).

Since Palams raises the question - it is fair for us to answer it.

The answer follows.

God is - the act of God.

Unlike creatures (where things are always the origin of an act) God is not - a thing. He is no-thing. The acts of God do not have an origin in a thing or essence. We can speak about the essence of God and the nature of God and know something about God by using these concepts, but these are concepts (essence and nature) which have application only legitimate within the created world - but no application outside of the created world.

God is neither an essence nor a nature. God, being uncreated and therefore not a �thing� can not have an essence (which created things have) nor a nature (which created this are given).

The act of God - is God itself.
He - is pure - act.
The Will of God is God himself.

As you rightly say - there is something likened to �necessity� about this. �the only thing God wills by necessity is himself�. This statement is in the right direction. If we remove �necessity� statement (for necessity is a concept which only applies in the context of time) then we can boil it down further to - God is his own act of being God. Act - and not essence. An act with no origin in essence.

We might say that the essence of God is his act - or that the act of God is his essence - but as soon as we bring the idea of an origin for the act - into the picture - we go astray.

We can understand this by looking at the subject of - existence.

Something that �exists� is something which is involved in the act of existing. It has existence (the act of existing). If it ceases the act of existing it ceases to exist. This is what the name of God given to Moses expressed�.

�I am - that which I shall become�
�I am (present tense) that which I shall be (future tense)�

In other words �I am my own act of be-coming�.

Origin, essence, nature, energies - these are all concepts that are borrowed from sense experience and the physical created world. That is the stuff or theological and philosophical terms. Sign, pointers, indicators - to something that they are - like.

God has no origin (essence) nor any type of nature (essence and nature can only be said of created things). But of course - we often talk as if God did have an essence and a nature.

So the best we can say is that�
God - is - God�s act - of being God.

The act of God - is God himself� in the same way that the act of existing is - existence.

In created nature - an act always comes from an origin - and that origin (essence or nature) may be inert. In other words the essence may act or not act. The essence and the act being different from each other. A man may sit without acting or he may get up and act. The key ingredient here is - time. At this moment in time the man may sit inert and not be acting, and at the next moment in time he may get up and now act in some way.

Time, however, does not apply to God. And so �necessity� having it application only within - time - has no meaning - outside of - time. Hence - there is no necessity to the act of God.

-------

So, Palama�s �delirious opponents� are - right - there is no difference between the essence of God and the acts of God. Hence - the essence or nature of God is his own act. The energy of God is the essence of God and the essence of God is the energy of God. The next step is to dismiss the concept of essence (an origin which may at times be inert) at all. Which leaves us with the fact that God is not an essence nor a nature - but a simple, timeless, uncomplicated, act - having no beginning (no origin) and no end.

His opponents, being right (on this particular subject) does not make Palama 'wrong'. His 'opponents' have just further deleveolped an understanding the subject. When one learns higher math (algebra) one does not turn around and say that basic math is now 'wrong'. Each system of math is appropriate to its object. One can not do algebra by just using the rules of simple math - and one can not do simply math by using the rules appropriate to algebra.

Putting it this way does not invalidate, at all, the Eastern theology of a diffrence between God's essence and his uncreated energies. Both theologies point toward something that is true and valid about God and are an aide to understand something of God. Neither theology - is God. God does not need to follow and conform himself to any theology. Theology reveals something about God - theology does not define God. Theology can bring us near to God but to enter into God one must leave also leave theology - outside.

I forget who said it but � �religion and theology is the only idol that Providence allows us to have. To enter into the transforming union with God we must even give these up. We must pass naked, completely engulfed, in the dark night of blind faith alone. Union with God is not an act of the intellect but an act of the will.�

In any event�. My dear Augustini� I have been trilled to discuss these things with you. I regret that we have so little space and time avavilabe to learn each other's terms. You have an uncanny grasp. You would make a wonderful discussion partner. I shall read the link you gave me.

I have said too much - as always.

Cheers.

-ray

hi, recomend him to read THE HELIOTROPIUM - comforming the human will to the devine, by Jeremas Drexelius. published in 1627 - and translated to english (from latin) in 1862. toodles & God bless, sUSAn

A well written paper.

After a quick read... I am pleased to say that I agree with the conclusion and had already put it, in my last post, in my own words (not having read the link yet).

Necessity belongs to the created natures (psyche and soma) and has no meaning outside of these two created natures. In other words necessity only exists within creation and time.

God (not being subject to time) can not be said to... desire, and then act in order to finally obtain the fulfillment of the desire.

This 'chain' can only take place where - time - is a limiting factor.

The moment in act or action (the time the act takes) is the span of time that separates the desire from its fulfillment. Or perhaps better said - joins the desire to its final goal of fulfillment.

If there were a desire which was immediately fulfilled - then its immediate fulfillment would make it - no desire at all in the first place. The separation of desire from fulfillment - is the time in between - the time in which the act is acting.

So - necessity - can not be applied to God - at all - because God is not subject to - time - at all. No time separates God�s desire from its goal of fulfillment - and so there simply is no desire there in the first place. God can not have a desire of necessity. His act (or will) is perfectly free from necessity or desire.

Necessity IS inherent with creatures. Just as time is inherent with creatures.

As regards the goodness diffused upon creation - this too seems well written. I hesitate to improve upon Thomas - but if he had taken a further step he would have been even higher in understanding.

In his concept of the diffusion of goodness upon creation - Thomas assumes that creation is self-sufficient. In other words - that God created (past tense) and set creation in motion. This gives a self-sufficiency to creation which - it does not have.

This view - which assumes a beginning of time and an end of time - is consistent with his view of (and problems with) predestination.

Thomas, like Calvin, struggles with the concept of how a person can be predestined for heaven or hell - before the person's birth into the world. How can that be reconciled with free will? Thomas makes a valiant effort to answer that� while Calvin fails miserably. Of course they were not the first to struggle with predestination - and they will not be the last.

Again, what trips him up - is - time.
I have forgotten the details of Thomas, on predestination, so forgive me.

What trips them up is that they assume time to be an object of self-sufficiency. Something that exists - by itself. Something that would exist even if no human existed. What Thomas did not take account of is that - time - is a human experience. Like sight - and sound - taste and touch. It has no existence separated from the human experience of it.

Remember the old koan� �If a tree falls in the forest, and no man is there to hear it - does it make a sound?� The answer is no - because - sound - is a human experience. It takes place �inside� the human and not outside the human.

So, also, is time.

Our experience of time is a function between - memory, intellect, and our ability to project from these two - what may be the future.

The predestination of the past and future - are dependent upon - the now. This moment - now. It is - relationary.

Let me show you in a simple and not complicated way.

Take dominos and place them standing in a line (so that if you trip one - it will trip the next - and the next - and the next - so on). Begin at one end of the table (let us say to your left) and make the line go across the table to your right.

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

You know what I mean.

Now let us label the left side - the beginning. The beginning of - time. And let us label the right side of the table - the end of time. Stand at the center of the table and lable that 'present'.

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
past.....present......future
............you...............

Now - trip the chain - from the left side - and you will see each domino - trip the next - the next - so on and so on - right past you - all the way to the right side (the end of time) so that the very last domino falls off of the table.

/ / / / / / / / / / / / /

Great - now you have seen predestination - devoid of free will. When you tripped the first domino (at the beginning of the timed chain) - the very last domino was - predestined - to fall off of the table.

Tic - tic - tic - tic - tic - from start to finish.

This means that the fall of the first domino - had been the cause of the inevitable fall of the very last domino. The state of the first domino - predestines the state of the last domino. This is clear and simple.

Now - reset the dominos into a chain again - left to right just as you did before.

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Next - trip the first domino on the left - at the start of the chain�.

/ / / / / / / | | | | | | | | | | | | |

But this time - as the tic - tic - tic - progresses - before it gets passed you - make a decision if you will (or will not) take your hand and sweep some of the dominos away from the chain - and in that way break the chain before the motion.
/ / / / / / / | | . . . . | | | | | | | | |

If you do that - the chain will fail and the very last domino to the right - will not fall off of the table.

What you have just demonstrated is the power of free will.

You decided either A or B.

A) If you had decided to leave the chain intact while it was falling - then the very first domino would be the predestined cause of the inevitable fall of the last domino - just as it was before.

B) If you had decided to sweep away a portion of the chain - then the very first domino - now - by the action of your free will decision - was not ever predestined to knock over the very last domino.

You have set the predestination of the past (the first domino) and the future (the last dominio) - by the action of your free will through a decision of the present.

Let me repeat that.

Your free will of the present - has set the predestination of the past (the first domino - the one you tripped before you deciided what to do when the fall of the chain reachhed you) and that desicion also set the predestination of the future (what the last domino would do).

Note that because you had waited until several dominos had fallen - before you decided if you would let it continue or you would sweep some away and stop the chain reaction - that you had changed - the predestination - of a past event (the fall of the first domino).

Note that predestination has nothing to do with the intentions you had in the past. You may have had the full intention to trip the first dominao and let the whole chain fall - but as the chain reaction reached you - you may have then decided to sweep away some.

Predestination has to do with the past as a cause - and as to the meaning - of the past eventns (which meaning is entirely defined by the its relationship to your own state of mind in the present).

The predestination of the past - is always - dependent upon - the free will decision - of the - now.

In the moment that anyone accepts the grace of God - all events of the past contribute to aide and led him toward God. The moment a person deny God - then all events of the past do not contribute nor led him toward God.

Nothing - �changes� as to the physical events - what is different is the meaning - of the events of the past..

Because predestination is not an object. Like sight - sound - taste - touch - it is a human experience and meaning - that is entirely depended upon the relationship of the past to - this moment right here and right now.

That is all I will say about it. I have said it as simply as possible. If I have not said it well - I would not say it better by making it more complex.

-ray

Ray,

Thank you for your indepth thoughts and kind note. I'll be happy to say more about your reply, but alas, I'm burdened with little time.

Just a quick observation. Example #1 of your dominoes could be either occasionalism, since each Dominoe is acting on the other with efficient causation, or a strong compatibilism (depending on whether we ascribe to the dominoes any volition). Among the Reformers, this would be "compatible" with how Ulrich Zwingli viewed the universe. Heinrich Bullinger was a compatibilist (the character of the agent determines his movement, and God determines the character of each agent by his providence). Calvin was somewhere in between, he makes statements that support each view. Thomas, in my opinion, is somewhere in between compatibilism and incompatibilism, same with Augustine. Those that have little taste for their paradox usually force the issue more to the left or to the right. Example #2 of your dominoe scheme, looks to me something similar to how Suarez or Bellarmine might view the problem, known as Congruism. If I'm wrong, let me know.

A quick note on the article: the author does a good job of showing how Thomas' view of creation and the self-diffusion of the good of God is tied to final causation instead of efficient causation, which I think gives a satisfying resolution to the problems of divine simplicity.

Daniel

Yes - there is a limit to what we can do in here like this.

I am not familar with the -isms that you speak of. It is apprent that your are well read. I consider that a good thing. I, enjoy what I read and as you can tell, many would consider it dry.

As regards the dominos - my simple goal was to demonstrate how free will is a determining factor with predestination. That point seems to have been the hardest for 'scholars' to grasp. They tend to think of predestination within free will or do not know how to fit free will into it.

In any event. I admire your learning. Kept witin resonableness - it furnishes a wonderful 'room' within which enlightenment has something - to englighten. I do not think learning itself leads to enlightenment - but the room should also not be empty when the lamp is lighted.

Peace - and my thanks for this discussion. I needed something to take my mind away from daily work.

Your take on Thomas, Calvin etc.. is noted and I attach some value to your opinion.

Thank you.
-ray