What is Creation Ex Nihilo? (Mariusz Tabaczek, OP)

welcome everybody once again on my part uh i'm glad uh that you are here with me and yes without further ado i will begin my presentation and lecture on the topic of creation in thomas aquinas i will now switch to the presentation mode and then i will begin okay so when we think about creation uh and creation theology i think the thoughts that the thought of most of us goes immediately to the first chapter of the book of genesis and we think that the theological account of creation should and usually comments on the six days of creation in the book of genesis now we may be or we should be then surprised uh to find that thomas aquinas in his treatise on creation in the summa theologia he does not actually refer that much to this to the account of six days in the book of genesis actually he has a separate treatise on the six days of uh on the work of six days in the book of genesis so he you know in a way in one way he separates the treatise on six on the work of six days from the treaties on creation why would he do that well i believe that thomas aquinas carefully reading the account in the book of genesis he simply realizes that the account of the work of six days in the book of genesis speaks predominantly about what actually happened with the world after it was already created what we read about in the account of genesis are uh the changes that happened actually in modern in the material world after it was created therefore thomas aquinas distinguishes in his treatise on the work of six days he distinguishes three parts of the work of six days and only the first part is what he calls opus craziones the work of creation what happens afterwards is the opposite distinction that is the work of the distinction or separation of things created in anime in inanimate matter and then opus ornatus which is the origin of things that are alive plants and animals and eventually human beings so once again thomas aquinas realizes that in the account of six days probably the only one sentence actually that speaks about creation is the first sentence where we read that god created the heavens and the earth then the term creation comes back with the origin of man because his soul is being created ex nihilo like the rest of the universe of the material universe but once again thomas realizes that creation is actually covered by this one sentence in the account of six days and that is why i believe in his account of creation in his treatise on creation he simply tries to explain and understand better what this very first sentence in the book of genesis actually means and he does it in reference to his metaphysical and philosophical system and his account we might classify it i believe as uh nowadays we would call it a philosophical theology so let's then therefore follow aquinas and leave aside the account of six days in genesis and concentrate only on this very first sentence which says once again that god created the heavens and the earth now trying to understand what this actually means this very act of god thomas realizes that as it sometimes happens in our life that it is easier to say what creation is not rather than to say what creation is well what what we trace and observe in our everyday life is change we see how things change and so we see movement and change and this is the way in which new things and novelty comes into existence in this world therefore you know the intuition we may have is might we might have an intuition that creation would be a special type of change or a special type of movement and here aquinas says that would be a wrong assertion he claims that what is created is not made by movement or by change because that would because movement or change requires something pre-existent that can be moved or can move or can change therefore he would say that god by creation produces things without any sort of movement we may go forward and say that the creative act of god considered formally is beyond all categories that we use to describe the reality around us it is not any sort of change the creation act of god it is not any sort of movement this is not a change of quantity of quality of relationship to anything else this is not creation so i would call this the negative aspect of the definition now as such therefore we may say that creation has a super or supra categorical character or we may say transcendental character now we have a difficult task then how can we defy a transcendental act of god trying to give a positive aspect of the definition i believe thomas has a more complex uh proposition for us first he formulates what i believe is the the first side of the of the active or i would say he has the active and passive aspect of this positive um or the the active and passive side i'm sorry the active and passive side of the positive aspect of definition so the active site of this positive definition would be that creation is an er is that is an active divine agency on the part of god and on the side of creatures it would be defined as passive reception of divine agency on the parts of everything that is being created by god now what do we mean by active agency on the part of god here thomas would say or says that primarily this active divine agency on the part of god is bringing the universe bringing the material universe into existence out of nothing that is ex michilo without any pre-existing mother the other side of the this active divine agency on the part of god is sustaining and preserving or upholding all contingent entities in their existence in the fact that they are but also in their essence in the fact or in what they are the these for aquinas are two most important aspects of each creature each creature is exists is exists and each creature is something so it has its essence now what is the definition of the passive side of of the creative act of god this would be the dependence of all created entities on god once again in the fact that they are which is their existence but also in the fact or in what they are that is in their essence so i would like to suggest that this would be a complex positive account of what creation is for thomas aquinas now let's go through those various aspects and let's try to see how he defies them and explains them so let's begin with the primordial creative act of god we may be surprised here or those of us who know the two greatest philosophers of antiquity that is aristotle and plato and those of you who know thomas aquinas you know that he in a way prefers the aristotle and his philosophy and here we are facing this uh definition of the primordial creative act which i have said it or defied a minute before as bringing into existence ex nihilo things creatures we actually find aquinas who defies this very act of god in a platonic way which may sound strange to us he says this is the emanation of all being from the universal cause which is god and this emanation of all being we designate by the name creation why is this or might be considered even dangerous for aquinas well you may be familiar with neoplatonism where this emanationist scheme is understood in this way where being flows from god and therefore in a way one way or the other all created things are divine at least to some extent so you may ask a question why would aquinas use the language of emanation which in minds of many would be associated with with this sort of theology well aquinas does it in my opinion because he this is his way to express and emphasize that creation is extinction that god creates out of nothing let me explain it to you aquinas says if we want to be uh faithful to this very statement that god creates from nothing we need to realize that this nothingness non-being is not something that god acts upon because we tend to it's hard for us to imagine non-existence probably we cannot even do that but we usually think about space that is empty no it's not a space it's pure nothingness and aquinas says if this is pure nothingness it cannot receive any action on the side of god non-being is not the recipient of divine action therefore aquinas says if this is the case and only god exists before he begins to create we have to agree with the statement and we have to actually assume or believe in the fact that everything truly flows from god emanates from god that is why he uses this platonic definition here now thus aquinas wants to say that creation therefore being the emanation from god does he wants to say that creatures are at least partly divine i don't think so he wants to avoid this extreme he also wants to avoid the other extreme where and there are thinkers uh that he knows who and philosophers who would say that god creates from pre-existing mother and therefore mother mother is co-eternal with yet somehow separated from god he also wants to avoid this extreme he wants to stay in the middle and he wants to say that what happens is that creation is emanation from god and yet creatures are not divine their existence comes from god and yet it is a created existence it differs from the existence of god now one could say well maybe this is self-contradicting and this claim he should actually choose one of those sides and there's no a third way and he's just you know designing something that you cannot defend philosophically in order to defend this claim aquinas emphasizes that our predication here about god is analogical and for him this would be the analogy of being that we apply here which will be an example of the analogy of participation that would mean that the being that we predicate about creatures and god who is the creator is in a way the same being because the being of created things flows from god and yet it is not equal or the same as the being of god because the being of god is transcendental totally different from the being of creatures therefore the language that we use here aquinas would say is neither univocal nor equivocal it is an analogical language so the um that the being that we predicate about things created and god once again is uh is unallowed is being it's it's it's predicated analogically so this would be his way to defend the claim that his uh position here is not self-contradicting now what is being created therefore in this first creative act of god what is being created i believe in i understand in aquinas's understanding is the most primitive matter and this according to ancient philosophy would be four elements earth water earth and fire we have many more elements nowadays but back then this is how they understood the most basic elements and aquinas reads genesis actually here i refer to his account of six days where he meditates on the book of genesis and he says that what is being named in this first day of creation when after when god created the universe what is being named is just earth and water and he says moses who for him wrote the book of genesis doesn't mention earth and fire because though these were uneducated people who he write it for and it would be hard for them to actually understand that air and fire are also elements they thought they must be material but for him these are also elements one important aspect here those of you who may know aquinas's philosophy more you are probably aware of the fact that he understands that what underlies the very fabric of the universe and all matter that is empirically verifiable and tangible is primary matter which is pure potentiality a metaphysical principle of potentiality why do i mention it here because it is tempting here at least for some to think that this potentiality of there being something before anything actually was out there that this potentiality was before god started creating and what god did was he actualized this actualize this potentiality so that things came into existence so this nothingness would be this principle of potentiality and actually aquinas rejects this idea and he claims that primary matter is also created the very possibility of being anything else but god also is created in a way and therefore what god created was not primary mother or he did not use primary matter as the principle of potentiality but he created matter which is already informed by those four types of forms earth water earth fire creation for aquinas therefore and i want to emphasize it is instantaneous and that is why he distinguishes it from the account of the six days in genesis where it the the way mother was changed and transformed and gave origin to plants and animals this is already happening in time whereas creation is not in time this is an instant even the term instantaneous is not proper but we don't find any better term because in instance um instantiation or instantaneous action or um occurrence is already referring to time it is an aspect of time and instance within a time whereas we want to say that it is beyond time it comes from the eternity of god where there is no time for aquinas therefore creation would be an origin of space and time as well referring to time he will he will reflect and actually claim that it is possible to think uh of a universe which uh is timeless doesn't have an beginning or end in time not eternal by but but everlasting and still created but then he would conclude that based on the scripture and on the revelation we actually have to acknowledge that that the universe has an origin in time and therefore time and space begin with the beginning of the universe now let's go to one b which is the divine conservation of things thomas says that the being of every creature depends on god so that not for a moment could it subsist but would fall into nothingness were it not kept in being by the operation of divine power therefore god continuously preserves preserves things in existence what is important here from my point of view is terminology because thomas uses the term conservation as conservation of things in their existence he also uses a term conservation in bono conservation things in goodness in what is good for them he uses this term as well nowadays we also use another term it is more modern term conservatio anihi conservation from falling back into nothingness this is what god does constantly with all created things but what is important for me is that thomas uh yes he uses the term he he uses this phrase where he says that the present preservation of things by god is a continuation of the action whereby he gives them existence when they can't when they come into existence but i want to emphasize that aquinas never uses a term that is very popular nowadays that is the term creatio continua continual creation this term is never used by aquinas francisco suarez one of commentators of aquinas and a very famous one he is the first one who actually claims that aquinas uses this term continual creation and it is not true because aquinas never uses this term why is it important for us i think it is important because it helps us to understand once again that the create creative act of god happened just once he brought everything into existence uh out of nothing and then he continually keeps things in existence this would be this continuation of this primordial creative act but all the changes that happen within the created universe they do not belong to creation but uh to divine conservation of things and to divine governance of the universe therefore my claim here would be that the term oftentimes used nowadays with reference to the evolutionary theory which i'm not going to discuss because this is not the subject of this lecture but it is important to mention here that this term is very popular nowadays and it is being claimed by many scholars that god continuously creates and he gives power to create or some aspect of this power to create two creatures that are engaged into in evolutionary transformations i have just finished writing a paper and it was accepted for publication in theology and science a paper where i actually go against this claim showing that it diminishes the the creative act of god and goes against the traditional classical theology of for example thomas aquinas who clearly states that no creature can create no creature can have can have a creative power so that is why i would be skeptical about the cr the term creation i think you may use it but you have to be very careful now the passive aspect of create of of creation is the dependence of creatures on god and aquinas has many passages when he says that creation actually is nothing but the relation of creature to the creator and this relation is the relation of dependency of the created uh the dependency of all creatures on on god now what is this dependency about or how do we classify or how do we elaborate on on it this is a dependence on god primarily for aquinas he emphasizes it many times in existence god brings in his creative act everything mother material universe into existence and therefore the dependence of god on god of created things would be a dependence in existence but also i want to emphasize even though aquinas does not do it in a in a clear way but you can find it in his writings a little bit scattered this claim that it is also a dependence on god in essence therefore not only in the fact that creatures exist but also in what they are creation is the act whereby a thing is made according to its whole substance that would that means uh or both in terms of the fact once again the fact that it exists and in the in the in the aspect of it being what it is so analyzing aquinas's work we can see how all four aristotelian types of causation and per accidents that is quasi-causal character of chance all of them important to explain what things are and how they behave how they change or and why they don't change sometimes these all aspects are have their ultimate origin and origin and source in god so when it comes to material aspect things are made of something thomas would say mother can have no other cause than an agent which acts by creating that is god even going deeper to this primordial primary matter this principle pure of pure potentiality aquinas would say this is also something that is created this metaphysical aspect of reality is also created prime matter in some way is even though it is not actualized but it's in some way is this potentiality for there being something therefore god must be the cause of prime mother in respect to which nothing pre-exists when it comes to formal causation so formal cause or formal aspects of things decides about what things are form organizes matter but not only in terms of its shape but in the way mother functions in all aspects of what material things then are sometimes pretty complex here aquinas says that form is something divine and he speaks that about forms of all created things so this is a reference to his you know platonic uh reference to m to emanationism he says it is being divine not uh trying to say that things are actually divine but because every form is a certain participation so again using this analogy or analogy of participation every form is a certain participation in the likeness of the divine being which is pure act and that is why also in this formal aspect of what things are uh all creatures depend on god god and this is another reference to uh to plato here uh in the divine mind says aquinas there are exemplar forms of all creatures these are divine ideas and also in this way all created things depend on god so it's not only the form that i have here on earth that depends on god but also the idea of divine mind of god of in divine mind uh that he has of me from eternity this is also the way in which my uh essence depends on god when it comes to efficient causes something you know contributes uh to in an efficient way for things to change and for things to come into ex into being in the universe where matter changes constantly so aquinas says that this sort of efficient uh causes that make things to originate but also when something is already there and has some efficient actions that that it can perform in all all those aspects of efficient causes that we observe around us and our own efficient powers they are rooted once again in god and also in this aspect all creatures depend on god here aquinas develops those crucial distinctions into primary and secondary and principle and instrumental causation emphasizing that yes all efficient causes depend on god and actually god because they depend on god god can can and thus work in the created universe through those secondary and instrumental causes this is efficient causation also uh the fourth type of causation the final causation aquinas after aristotle observes uh goal directedness in the universe for him all things have intrinsic principle of goal directedness which is it is easiest to see it in countries and living entities you know trees produce flowers and fruits there's a certain cycle that they go through so this is a teleological aspect of their anti of their uh of what they are but also in animate creatures uh for aquinas and for aristotle they would also have their internal teleology so aquinas would say that first of all the end of all things which is some extrinsic good is outside in reference to the universe therefore everything uh called is called good from divine goodness because uh this teleological aspect uh for aquinas has um refers to the goodness of think as well so it has a normative aspect in a way uh it is good for me to be a human being and to eat and do all sorts of things it is good to a stone to be a stone and to be hard for for example so each thing has a proper goodness to it and he says that all good uh or everything is called good from the divine goodness as from the first exemplary effective and final principle of all goodness and very important passage from his treatise on creation where he says that all things desire god as their end look and they may do it uh and it refers uh to intellectual beings like that is human beings but also to sensible beings like animals then all other entities creatures uh which are uh which that is plants and inanimate creatures so they all in his understanding desire god as their end through the fact that they are what they are uh and it does not introduce pan psychism for aquinas once again because his language is analogical here right so they they desire god because their existence flows from god and they depend on their essence on god but this is not pancyagism now arizona spends lots of time on chance and fortune uh and aquinas follows him uh and for our lecture here what is important is to realize we should realize that for aquinas god who is the governor of the universe intends some of his effects to be established by way of necessity and others contingent contingently that means that uh chance and fortune for aquinas like for aristotle to begin with are ontologically real we do not say that things happen by chance because we don't know the true cause for them we say that something happened by chance because there is no actual cause for that occurrence even though it's a chance events they always happen in a world where there is regularity there can be chance because things happen for a purpose because there are formal causes efficient causes and regularity in nature and for aquinas referring it to god chance and fortune are real and they are real because it is god who wants that some things will happen or happen by way of necessity and some others contingently yet for and at the same time from god's perspective uh as to the order of divine providence saint thomas would say nothing in the world happens by chance once again he does not say here that chance is not real it's just that it is just epistemological this is our lack of knowledge no for him it is ontologically real but from the divine perspective uh it is it falls under god's providence so for god it is not chance in a way within his eternal causing of things of what they are okay so we may say therefore that god as creator of primary matter and all forms source of efficient causality and natural teleology as well as the transcendent cause of the occurrences attributed to chance and fortune is the first and ultimate cause of the essence of all of each contingent entity so by this we have learned that it is not only in the fact that things are but also in the fact in what they what things are all creatures depend on god therefore we may say that to be created according to aquinas is to be dependent on god in esse in the fact that entities exists exist and in essencia in the in what things are and this rule applies both to entities that came into being ex nihilo at the beginning of creation and existed or still exist in time if there are such things as well as to those that come into being throughout the history of the universe from already existing mother due to causality of other creatures they all depend on god in the fact that they are and in what they are even though many of them uh probably the majority of things that surround us they don't come into existence when we see actually them coming into existence they don't come into existence ex nihilo and this once again tells us that thomas aquinas understands creation as the as a relationship towards god so uh therefore he would say that creation in the creature is only a certain relation to the creator as to the principle of its being in god creation would be once again this primordial act of bringing everything into existence ex nihilo and then sustaining things in existence and also in what they are this is on the side of god on the side of creatures that would be creation would be defined by aquinas as this special type of relationship of dependence on god and thus creation is a kind of relation once again he emphasizes so that nothing prevents it its being in the creature as its subject this creation in the creature is the relationship of dependence on god for aquinas this dependence is on our side and for him god does not depend in any possible way on created universe because god in his trinity he exchanges love so he doesn't need to create something to have something to love creation does not change anything in god because uh he's he is unchangeable for uh thomas aquinas therefore this relationship uh is the relation is a relationship of dependence on the side of creatures and not on the side of god where it puts we may ask where does this put aquinas in a reference to other contemporary notions of creation and the relationship between god and the universe we have classical communism to your left uh these i'm sorry this is the view that i have just described and in a way that it is defined by thomas aquinas we have god who is in a way separate from the universe because god's existence and being is not uh univocal or it's not the same when compared with the existence of the created universe and yet we have this relationship of dependency creation emanates from god yet is not divine and remains in this constant dependency on god we have these which claims that there is a universe and there is god and he is also radically transcendent but uh there is no ongoing and constant relationship of dependence on god anymore god created the universe and simply withdraw he withdrew himself from the universe and the universe operates operates by the powers that god posited in the universe in in this created universe the third possibility that is being discussed and accepted by at least some thinkers is panthe pantheism that is a claim that the universe is divine and if we think about pantheism usually in terms of spinoza who would say god siva natura which means god or nature where the term or the name god is being kept but the true the truth is that this is the minority among pantheists to claim that god is nature they the more popular version of pantheism simply says that the universe is divine they want to live aside and leave behind the term god because of the connotations that we have with the term god as being transcendent unchangeable and so forth so the claim would be that universe as as as a whole is divine and this is the major claim of pantheism there is also at least a number of thinkers who present and support pandees which is a claim that at the beginning there was god who then created universe in a way that he posited himself in created universe and he ceased to exist as god separated from the universe from uh from the universe so this would be and he also does not change anything in he he stopped he stopped being what he was before creating and now there is just the universe which is divine but it's not god anymore you know thought as transcendent in any possible way and then we have most popular view nowadays or i would say yes very popular at least in the circles of uh of the dialogue between natural sciences and theology the dialogue that i uh work in part of it that is pan and theism which claims everything is in god and yet god is more than the universe so you see it on the slide that this is this uh this uh this scheme where we have universe within the substance of god and therefore there is a constant interchange or exchange between god and the universe therefore god is being changed by the fact that he created and by this or he's being changed based on this relationship that he has with creation with created universe the language of making space inside of the being of god uh in order to accept universe this language is being used this theology questions traditional attributes of god his uh radical uh ultimate transcendence his unchangeability uh his impossibility and others classical attributes of god it also uh yeah and this exchange between god and creatures there's there is a mutual relationship here something that would be rather not acceptable for the classical tease we also have thinkers who uh propose pandees which would be a claim or a theory or a definition of creation and relationship between god and the and the universe where we have universe that is within the substance of god again but god does not change anything in the universe he does not act in this universe so it is within the being of god but it is uh it operates by once again the powers that god posited in this created universe so you can see how it differs from uh the teaching of thomas aquinas and classical theology where the universe is created by god and it depends on god constantly brought into existence ex nihilo which is not the case in uh at least not in all other uh schemes that you have on this slide uh they claim that uh the uh that the that world come the universe comes into existence ex nihilo you would for example find the pan entities who would claim that uh universe in a way uh might be or should be thought as being eternal uh with god together with god uh so that would be another difference uh so yeah these are um principal differences that we have between those uh theologies of uh creation and i think that would be uh that would be it uh for uh for tonight on my part i hope i helped you uh uh or this lecture helped you to understand better how aquinas understands creation which is once again the act by which god brings into existence ex nihilo in an instantaneous and act everything that is the entire universe which afterwards enters very complex processes of change where mother having its potentialities gives or gives origin to new things but creation is once again this primordial act of bringing stuff ex nikilo into existence and keeping this stuff into in existence and also in reference to what things are and on the side of the creatures one last time it is the dependence on god in the fact that they are and in what they are and this is uh the passive aspect of uh the definition of creation that aquinas uh presents us with uh thank you uh for your time for your uh participation and now i believe uh i will switch off uh from the presentation mode and i uh think that we should have should now have some time for questions so you can maybe the best way would be to put them on chart and then i would be able to see them hopefully if you have questions yes there is a question from juliana or maybe you can turn on your microphone and just say the question and uh yeah i think it's easier can you hear me uh yes i think i can okay uh it's an observation thank you very much for the very deep and yet very clear presentation um what i'm going to start with with an observation and then make a question the observation is the following there is the language a language problem between philosophy and physics um when philosophy talks about created matter a physicist would think that it does not include energy but some people would even say something like angels and souls are energy and you know this sort of comparison and energy in physics is the capacity to make something execute work like for example movement or change in volume or even changing temperature okay and now in modern physics is known to be related to mass okay so it seems to me that matter in philosophy includes both energy and matter in the physical sense this may be useful to clarify when talking to a mixed audience because i think that people's minds immediately gets into this confusion and the question is the following uh are angels made of prime matter angels and souls and it seems to me they are not but they are created so is that anything about their substance that is shared by material creation be it matter or energy in the physical sense and when you say that god made the whole of creation in one single instant does that include the souls and angels uh not souls of course but angels and the spiritual persons thank you these are very uh first of all a very good clarification obviously uh for aquinas this would be mother and energy obviously thank you very much and that's very helpful and i should uh next time i will remember to to mention it uh and with regards to spiritual substances so aquinas believes that god created in this first instantaneous act of creation all angels but but souls of human beings they are not created they are being created in time and this is this exceptional situation or or aspect of creation where there are entities that is human beings where when they have an origin in time god creates uh this is what aquinas believes creates ex-nihilo where each time a human being is being is being conceived he creates ex-nihilo a human soul so human beings are are very weird metaphysically speaking uh creatures within his systems system of philosophy and theology now angels are pure spirits therefore they don't have any mother there cannot be a primary matter which is not actualized this is only on the level of speculative analysis that we speak about primary matter as a metaphysical principle which is real yet when we look at the world surrounding us it is always actualized by some one or another substantial form therefore there cannot be a situation where we would have primary matter which is somehow taken or or or actualized by an angel in a way that it does not become a material thing a physical thing this is something uh which is unthinkable for aquinas angels they do not have any mother neither what you would say secondary mother which is a physical stuff nor a primary matter not to be my answer are there any other questions okay and they are okay uh first um i don't see i see abby gavin says he has a question okay gavin says uh has a question can you ask your question garden yeah yeah sure hiya i'm gavin here from ireland um thank you for the paper um it seems to me that um i i really enjoyed your paper but there were there was a little something missing and it seemed on my understanding of equine metaphysics metaphysics of it what's important here is his notion of essay or the act of existence in several places throughout his career and throughout his works aquinas gives a definition of creation as the production of the total substance nsa and when he gives those two histories of creation and the de potencia and then the sumitello gi he holds that philosophers haven't come to an appropriate notion of creation until they get to the notion of a cause of essay and um that this is something which is found throughout aquinas's writings so with that with that in place then it seems that the fundamental relation which is involved in creation and which explains aquinas platonism in this regard is that creatures are brought about they're brought into existence through uh they're being granted essay and so they enjoy this participation relationship which he outlines in the divine names um book five and so because you have that distinction between you know the essay community that the individual creature participates in and then the essay the venom that the essay camune participates in i kind of felt that that wasn't emphasized as much in your paper uh and i feel that maybe it needs to be addressed because what it means is that any creature any substance that exists exists precisely because it comes to participate in this act of creation the conservation of that substance is not a distinct act on god's behalf creation and conservation aren't distinct acts in god's behalf it's it's literally the the grand thing of essay to anything which enjoys essay um creation and conservation are distinct um experiences of ourselves in that one in the same act so i'm wondering how that's um sort of send with um you know the the possession your interpretation of thomas as you've presented it this evening thank you thank you very much and uh i agree with you 100 percent uh for aquinas the act of existence is the most perfect uh the act of all acts right uh well god is the act of all acts but this is the most perfect metaphysical uh um aspect or category that we that that he in a way discovers there's as you probably know a whole conversation on what it actually means and how it uh differentiates from uh from uh from s and what is the relationship maybe uh maybe you you are right that i did not emphasize it uh strong enough but on the other hand i think that what is oftentimes being uh forgotten is that the act of s of created things is the act of as of uh of something there is no uh created s without there being created essence and this is uh what i'm trying to emphasize whenever i teach it uh because i think it's actually sometimes uh forgotten and i wouldn't like to say i would still uh keep with aquinas saying that once again existence is the most perfect uh [Music] category of perfect or how do i say the highest metaphysical perfection of of things that we know is their s their essay but once one last time this is the s of something and that's why uh i would say uh or emphasize that this is how i understand it that when he says that creation is producing an entity with regards to its entire substance to to all aspects in reference to all aspects of of what it is so that would be again both essence and existence or maybe i should start existence of something that has this or that particular essence and when aquinas emphasizes that god did not produce formulas matter or primary but he produced or created in creation he brought into existence things once again these are already things that have both essence and existence that would be my answer to your uh point awesome thanks very much thank you uh i believe we still have time [Music] i hope i pronounced it right asks a question how is it possible that creation is a relationship for created beings and things but not for god uh for god aquinas has let me uh can i i will go back to the presentation mode because i actually have have a quotation on that i knew that i will not have time to uh to do it uh so i um i will try to actually uh just give me a second give me a second yeah let's go skip through it so um god aquinas believes that god is inner that god is in all things uh so in a way it will establish a sort a sort of relationship in a way we might say but it is not a relationship that changes god and this is important for him so this picture that you can see right now the scheme where this is a depiction of pan entities where creation is within the substance of god in a way this is not true for aquinas where here this changes god right because god this is hegelian in a way he posits himself in creation [Music] okay this is important for us but the world here cannot affect the being and knowledge of god so therefore even if the relation uh in relations in the heart of the trinity are real and the world relationship to god is real god's relationship to the worlds for aquinas would be a relationship in idea only this is the language he uses so he says when i think about something that let's say i've learned that there is a wall ahead of me that changes me the fact that i've learned about it but it does not change uh the wall that is in front of me but it is out there and i am in a relationship to this wall because it is out there in a certain distance from me so in a way we might say that for aquinas i have learned through divine revelation that i am in the relationship of dependency on god that changes me obviously the fact that i know it and the fact that i am in this relationship towards god and this is a real relationship on my side and in a way it is also a relationship uh on god's side but it is not a relationship of the same sort where it will change god in any possible way and obviously if you have five minutes uh many contemporary scholars they claim that this teaching is an absurdity and as craig and tracy say that it general paradise is christianity's most fundamental religious affirmation which is that god cares about creation and nils henrik gregerson says that all versions of pan and theism they assure the claim that there exists a real two-way interaction like i said before what would be the answer that we give to those claims that the world depends on god and god depends on the world so michael dodds he says that uh that the idea uh that uh like what aquinas teaches emphasizes uh that or what he teaches is an affirmation of god's transcendence and in intimate involvement in creation it does not put the fact that the relationship in god is not of the same type as the relationship in us does not put god far away from creation it simply tells us that he is transcendent uh in his in his relationship towards creatures and therefore he can be present in creation in the created world in a way that goes beyond any type of presence that we may think of and look this is the last passage that i want to bring here what michael dodd says real relations of mutual dependence arise between creatures that are never more than beside one another even if jesus says that men and women become one this is a metaphor they do become one in a way but they still keep their own identities still though they have real relationship right and probably the deepest one that people may have in this world marriage and friendship probably and dodds says that those sorts of relations they cannot capture the closeness the closeness of divine presence that arises from the action of god who is never simply beside but most deeply within the creature because the existence as gavin emphasized flows and i did before to be i believe so i did it flows from god so to predict such a relation of god the real relationship uh where being stands beside one another would be to reduce god to the level of one creature existing beside another in effect the notion of real relation is simply too remote to express the intimacy of god's presence says michael dallas so that would be my answer to the question maybe i was not right uh not not clear enough when i said there's no relationship on the side of god there is a relationship but it is not a real relationship such as the relationship that we have or any sort of relationship among creatures all right uh do we have any uh i don't see the one at the bottom arvin where is arvin arvin okay i'm reading your question first it seems that you agree with fabian revolves recent zygon papers which claim that krazzo continua perse is not found in somatology yes however he proposes a pneumatic neo-mythological role in creating continua do you agree with him [Music] actually i think i have read this paper because i subscribed to saigon but i don't remember exactly his uh he's under he proposes a pneumatological role in creating grazia continua honestly i don't like term krazzy continua i would like to leave it behind i think it's confusing so uh and i know that he tries to defend and redefine this term i don't like it so i don't think but i would have to go back and read this paper again especially this part when where he when he where he defies it second whether you agree or disagree with uh him it seems that you are in agreement with gods in that dependence in kriya karatsu continues should not reduce god as a univocal cause uh supposedly like bob russell's nioda please clarify if this yes this is my position i'm i'm a student of of michael dodds i'm his prodigy so i guess i i didn't go that far away from him uh in what i'm doing so yes i know bob russell very well he's my friend but uh yes i'm closer to michael dodge definitely okay any other questions um okay uh i'm curious wouldn't pan and atheism work well uh to describe the holy spirit working within our world especially in if saint thomas describes the continual work of god with existence uh and essence i would not i don't think so because the difficulty here is that the the the claim the the the most important claim of pandemism is once again that created universe is in god this very n pan and house this very n is the most uh difficult uh aspect of this a theological position in my book forthcoming book which will be published next year in may by notre dame press i actually go through the history of panantism a little bit but also i critically examine different meanings of this particle n in god and i think the difficulty is here of falling into pantheism and the truth is that when you go let's say to uh german idealists like hegel schleier schelling or you may see that there there's a there's a division some historians they classified them as pantheists and some as pan enthusiasts why well because envision is so confusing uh i think that it eventually collapses into pantheism because when you say that beings created beings are within the within god well what does that mean does it mean that they are substantially in god and then therefore therefore they are a part of god if this is what we mean uh we aquinas would never agree with that and the work of the holy spirit will be again for him as the work of entire trinity keeping things in existence but the work of the holy spirit is obviously to guide creation to its final consummation right this would be in his uh like the division of of labor if i may use this term in the trinity this would be the holy spirit uh uh work and action and this is it's one with divine action and i don't think the pan anti-stick scheme helps here uh because thomas aquinas in the eighth um an article of the of prima uh parts of his summa theology he actually uh openly and and in depth discusses the imminent presence of god in creatures and he does it without using uh without falling into pan anti-ism although at least once he use he uses a metaphor which actually is pretty close to pandentaistic metaphor but uh but i think he clearly distinguishes or manages clearly to distinguish the substance of god and the substance of creature and the difficulty in panelism is to merge them all right andrew uh asks what is the theological difference between saint thomas aquinas and saint gregory palamus on the concept of being and essence uh i am not knowledgeable of uh palamas well enough to answer to this question and i admit that uh so i'm sorry uh this is not my avenue uh what is uh the theological difference between yeah okay so i saw this and uh a ponct and my question is how is the existence of evil explained from creating hilo would it be right to consider it under chance and fortune no that would be a wrong proposition for aquinas because like i said chance and fortune they are ontologically real therefore they depend on god and therefore god wants there to be chance and fortune so if evil came from chance and fortune that would introduce evil in god and his will towards the universe so for aquinas he follows the teaching of actually fathers of the church of origin already and and and augustine and for him evil as the is is the lack of of being it's not anything positive it does not have any ontological reality it's it's a parasite on what is good and this is the way in which aquinas explains evil therefore god is not engaged in uh the occurrence of evil in the created universe he only allows for it yet aquinas admits that he does not not want it at the same time because there is evil and therefore his answer to this difficulty which actually is our experience is that god has the view from his eternity of the entire history of the universe and he has much broader horizon where by with his divine power he can bring uh much more goodness uh or good from evil therefore he allows for evil to be in the universe so that would be uh his answer okay [Music] that's all of them there's jose i see jose okay one last question jose my question would be that since creation is the total dependence of created beings from uh on god and since uh that creation is in a way instrumental in instrumentally instantaneously i'm sorry how could we make room for true freely acts for creatures well these are the most difficult questions in theology again uh it's not my specialty uh the free will but you see we again refer here uh to uh to predication and uh and the the fact that everything is created uh by god and in a way that god in his divine eternal wisdom and knowledge knows everything and causes everything even my talking to you uh this does not contradict for aquinas the fact that we actually do have a free will and it's not just a theater that god plays in front of us and it is because because uh what god knows is his knowledge from eternity and therefore when we predict knowledge about god it is not a knowledge that we have so he knows what i will do i will do but it's not the same sort of knowledge that i have that let's say in a second i will drink like a sip of water so this is different uh type of knowledge and therefore he it is possible to defend a claim that he sets up or creates the world where there is true contingency chance events and free will and free will is not for him uh does not hinge on there being chance and fortune no these are separate things there we can imagine a universe where there is no chance and fortune and yet there is a free human free will i don't know if it satisfies you uh but there is another brother here uh the angelicum who studies those things and we talk actually about this but i'm yeah i'm not an expert how come that you cannot be an expert in everything like albert the great he knew everything those days are gone okay one okay last question alexander ferrant is the incarnation a creative act of for aquinas i hope i'm not like introducing any heresy here but i would say yes because if jesus christ is a human being a hundred percent human being then he must be created so that would be my answer yes i'm pretty sure it's a correct one okay i guess uh the time is over once again thank you very much for your attendance and for all those questions and please tune to uh the future lectures that we will offer uh here at the angelico god bless you stay health and healthy i'm sorry and uh i will maybe give you a blessing at the end i guess yeah uh the lord be with you may almighty god bless you the father the son and the holy spirit amen thank you thank you so much

Channel: Angelicum Thomistic Institute

Views: 1,199

Rating: 4.6571426 out of 5

Keywords: Thomas Aquinas, Catholic, Theology

Id: p9kIFbMFxKw

Length: 74min 4sec (4444 seconds)

Published: Tue Nov 17 2020