I was reading from the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas this morning on the subject of Evil (I know, huh?). Evil, according to Aquinas, actually does not exist – at least not as a substance or thing.
What then is Evil? It is nothing more than the “privation of the good (or of perfect being).” So a thing is called evil if it lacks a perfection or good that it ought to have. So if a man lacks sight, this is called evil for him, but if a stone lacks sight, this would not be considered evil because a stone is not equipped by nature to have the faculty of sight. This brings out the fact that not every good (thing, being, whatever) can be the subject of evil in the same way, but only in respect to some perfection, quality, or good that it should have by nature, of which it can be deprived. So when a good being (good in that he or she has being) lives in such a way as to lack virtue in accord with his nature (such as self control, patience, reason, love and respect for others) he is said to be acting poorly or evil.
Something else I thought about while reading through this was the question of whether or not God (who is the ultimate perfection or good) can be the subject of Evil. As Aquinas would say, "I’ll answer that!" – (All this talk about perfections, potential, and deprivation is making me hungry). First, God doesn’t “have” perfections, He “is” perfection. Secondly, God is pure Actuality with no Potentiality whatsoever. Therefore, God has no perfection that has the potential of being deprived, so God can never be the subject of Evil (or maybe I’m just hungry, let’s see what I think after breakfast).
I now go to actualize my potential to be full and satisfied!
14 comments:
Thought: God has no potentiality only actuality and so is not and can not be suject to evil. Jesus, however, God the Son had potentiality as he learned obedience by what he suffered. So God the Son was subject to evil. He never actualized his potential for evil and only actualized his potential for perfection. (This is looking at it from his human nature). Jesus is perfection as to his divine nature and so actualized his human potential to conform to the actualized perfection of his divine nature. He did so in submission to the power of the Holy Spirit thus shaping the mold for believers to be conformed to his likeness. That likeness is to actualize his perfection in our potential (human nature) by the power of the Spirit. His potentiality (toward perfection), his actuality (perfection), and his ability (realizing perfection)...all for our good and ultimately for his glory.
Nice blog! I can't wait to read the next one. KC
Well said, Charles. What you said feels right and it sounds right, and from what I know about the Word of God, most of it is supported by scripture. So thanks for sharing, I appreciate the way you explained.
I want to remind people to be aware of wordings that sound good and are articulated well by people, but cannot be substantiated with scripture. Because someone speaks well (or have the gift of the gab) does not make what that person say true. Part truth, but not sharing the full counsel on a matter (half truth), is not truth as well. I work with scientist who submit technical documentation to me on a daily basis. If I was not aware of what standard to measure the completeness of the documentation to, I would accept their work as meeting the standard because it sound very professional and technical. Therefore, it must be true and completed, right? Wrong. Using the scientific lingo, and being articulate and sounding sophisticated alone does not make you right. No matter how well written or well spoken their language is, what they communicate to me in writing or otherwise, is my job to make sure it is supported with objective evidence. They must support every claim they have made, or I cannot accept their work as completed.
So, I'm not saying to be critical of every word that a person speaks. I am, however, saying that all that glitters is not gold.
Charles, I would have to disagree with a little. Jesus did not actualize his human potential to conform to his divine, actualized perfection. It is not possible to do because a completely actualized human being is still a human being. Though perfectly human, it is still limited and subject to human limitations. A human being cannot become divine by actualizing all of its potential. Also, technically, it was not God the Son that was subject to evil. It was the Person of Jesus that was subject to evil. If God the Son was subject to evil, then everything Shawn wrote was incorrect. God cannot be subject to evil in any of His Persons.
Sandy, I was reading your response to Shawn's post and I found it interesting that you applauded Charles for saying what feels right, sounds right, and is biblically right when, in all honesty, Charles' response was only partially correct. Or, in your words, a half-truth. My point isn't to slam Charles. The distinctions I made in my response are rather fine ones. In common speech, we often use the term "God the Son" to refer to the person of Christ. But since Shawn's post was a bit more technical, I found it important to point out the distinctions and say why they are important. You don't want to say that a human that actualizes all of its potential then becomes God. Even when a person actualizes all of his potential, he is still a man. Jesus, as such, was still a man. I guess my point is that we shouldn't simply rely on what feels right or sounds right, we should try to determine what is right. Feelings and sounds can be misleading.
Leroy – I agree with your comments. Too often we are “quick” to agree with statements because they,”...feel and sound right." Feelings should never serve as a barometer for gauging the accuracy of statements (i.e. wordings that sound good and are articulated but not substantiated by scripture). But I must also add that there are times that we label folks as having the gift of gab because we may not fully understand the topic at hand (in this case, the Nature and Essence of God). However, it is important to note that just because you don’t understand something is not grounds to reject it. On the contrary it should motivate us to go a little deeper in our studies...
Sandy, I have to agree with Leroy's reasoning behind why you should agree with a person. The standard is Scripture alone. However, as John Piper says, "You have a nose (feeling) for what is right because you read Scripture."
Leroy, thank you for your interest in a critical review that brings us closer to the truth than we originally articulate. In that same spirit let me challenge your correction. Jesus the Christ is one Person with two Natures (human and Divine) not two Persons (Jesus human and the Son Divine). Jesus the Christ is the Person of the Son who has two distinct Natures. Therefore, God the Son (Person) via his human Nature was subject to evil. He actualized his human Nature to a righteousness equal to his divine righteousness. God the Son actualized human (Nature) righteousness to his Persons (divine) actual righteousness and thereby provided mankind with a human righteousness that is able to stand in the presence of divine righteousness. The Person of the Son did not make humans divine in Nature but in a staus of righteousness and did so from a human Nature. I hope this clears up what I did not articulate in my earlier responce. Charles
Hey Charles, thanks for your comment. I believe the distinctions Leroy made are technical but necessary. When we speak about Christ, we must remember to distinguish between His two natures (divine and human). So when we speak of his divine nature, Jesus is Pure Actuality with no potentiality whatsoever. When we speak about Jesus in his human nature, we can say that he had the potential to grow, learn, tire, hunger, and so on. I believe that is the distinction that you was pointing out, you just happen to use the phrase "God the Son" when identifying Jesus as the subject of evil in his humanity. That is what made it problematic even though you ended the sentence with the phrase "This is looking at it from his human nature."
When you said that "Jesus actualized his human potential to conform to the actualized perfection of his divine nature" I wasn’t quite sure what you meant because to use the word "conform" lends to the idea that Jesus in his humanity actualized his human potential to the level of divinity. That would not be Christianity but more or less New Age. For Christ in his humanity or anyone for that matter to actualize all of their human potential is to be all that is potentially possible to be - as a human (intelligent, virtuous, strong and so on). So Jesus lived a perfect life before us and modeled how we should live before him, not to achieve divinity, but to live virtuously, righteously and good.
Sandy, I’m not sure if your comments were meant to suggest that while I may have sounded good, I did not make my case or present the whole truth. Frankly, I don’t know if you were commenting about me at all since I am not mentioned or even quoted in your comments. But I would agree with you that we should not agree with people simple because they are articulate or sound sophisticated.
Leroy and SpdzGrl, thanks for the clarity.
Hi Everyone,
Thanks for sharing your comments with me/others. I am not a theologian, or a technical person, nor do I care to critique or pick at every word a person say (especially if I believe I understand the point they are trying to make, and it is reasonably sound). When I say that what Charles said feel right and sound right to me, what I meant was that I can't say all of it is true, but from what I do understand about God and scripture, most of what Charles said is supported by scripture, and the intent of his thought feels right to my spirit. I can trust what I feel as long as what I feel lines up with the Word of God.
I don't claim to have the understanding of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, sowed-up, nor can I articulate scripture as some of the great theologians.
As far as the need to study every topic presented before me, or address every sentence within a topic, I trust God to give me the discernment to know which ones to indulge. Otherwise, I can be chasing my own tail trying to keep up with everyone's theology. I hang my hat where I believe Father is leading me.
Charles, I agree with you that Jesus was only one person with two natures. I just thought that using the term "God the Son" to refer to the Person of Christ seemed to lead to confusion. That's all. Second, I don't think Jesus' actualization of this human righteousness to divine righteousness is what allows us to stand before God. I'm not sure that divine righteousness is the same as human righteousness. For God to be Good is not the same as for man to be good. The nature of the "goods" are different. God is goodness; men have goodness. God is good infinitely and man is good finitely. Like Shawn said, what is human will always be so.
In November 2007 Dennis & Kimberly Quaid twins’ were accidentally given 10,000 unit doses of anticoagulant Heparian instead of the standard 10 units. The problem was that the nurse did not critique the vial to determine if the dosage was for an infant or adult. I use this example to stress that though many of us are not nurses (or Theologians for that matter); it is our responsibility to become critical in our thinking. In fact, that is what scripture teaches, “Test all things and hold fast to that which is good.” Not only do we not test the things (i.e. teachings, doctrines, etc.) presented before us but we regard such acts as being unnecessary.
In the case of the Quaid twins, it was later concluded that the overdose could have been prevented, if only the nurse would have read the vial properly and understood what she was reading. My prayer is that in times when we are unclear in what we are reading that we seek the assistance of those who know more than us on the subject before rendering a decision, because our haste has the potential of confusing and even harming others…
I sincerely thank everyone for the discussion as the dialogue forces me to really think about what I believe and why…so thank you for your comments :-)
Hey Everyone, just want to express my thanks again for all of the comments. I started the blog to develop a sense of community, and your comments help do just that. Let's get to know each other.
Hi spdzgrl,
I am not in a Good Clinical Practices or Good Laboratory Practices environment as a nurse is. A nurse’s job requires that she pay close attention to dosing details.
I don't believe that the scripture you used supports your claim that we should be critical and pick at words. In fact, Jesus did not go tit for tat with people, He was selective and only focused on the point He was led to make. It’s not a matter of Him not understanding, it’s a matter of addressing what our Father is leading us to address and not antagonizing people.
My initial intent was to compliment Charles for a job I thought was well done by how he shared how God cannot be subject to evil, but the person of Jesus was...but He never actualized that potential...all for our good and God's glory (in my summary).
I look at the Word of God intently, but it is so that I can understand what He is saying to me so that I can obey Him and then share with others, that they may apply it and experience life change. I am application-centered. This is how I am wired.
I try to pay compliments when they are due, and indulge in discussion without always needing to rain on someone's parade by critiquing their every word. When I feel it is really necessary, and need to come from me, I will.
So, we may not agree, but I still love you. I call it good Christian bonding :)
Thank you
Leroy, I am resonding to your statement "I don't think Jesus' actualization of this human righteousness to divine righteousness is what allows us to stand before God." I understand the distinction you are making between human righteousness and Divine righteousness. However, we have been given a righteousness from Christ that is said to be the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21 Rom. 3:21-22). Christ gives us this righteouesness so that we might stand in the presence of our righteous God. Without it we could not stand. We needed more than an example for how to live. We needed more than his death for our sin. We needed more than a right standing according to the law. We needed all of these and a positive relational righteousness - a life lived seeing God at work, understanding what he was doing, and willingly joining what he was doing (John 5:19-20) The Son of God lives as Jesus the Christ and accomplished all of this for us through his sinless and willful living, his death, and his resurrection. Those who believe this can now focus on worship of God and fellowship with him. I hope this clears up what I meant. I am sorry for any confusion I brought to the discussion.
Post a Comment