I believe it is more accurate to say that rather than "emanate" from the nature of God the principles of logic are summed up in the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Logos Jesus Christ. Logos denotes more than just "Word," it means more so Rational Principle. Logic and Truth, therefore, are Personal insofar as they are brought together and reach their apex in a specific Person who became Incarnate. It is true that concepts such as "being" did not emerge by accident, but they describe a certain mode of existence that I believe cannot be ascribed to God in terms of His essence. This is transcendant element. The immanent element is that this God whose essence is beyond being and therefore unknowable also comes down to us, through His activities in which He is wholly present. It is only through His action in history and the lives of the Prophets, Apostles, Fathers, and Saints that God becomes known. All language used to describe God must be qualified since the intent language and analogy always fall short of the full reality of God which is apprehended only through the experience of God Himself. In most if not all cases, an analogy between the essence of God and the essence of creatures results in crude anthropomorphism that borders on blasphemy. Though I agree that the terms used to describe God often sound like analogies between God and something created, these refer to God as He is manifested in history and through the lives of holy men and women rather than to God as He Is in Himself. That we cannot know.
I think you misunderstand my comments on the nature of God. I simply meant to offer an alternative framework through which to view the problem of nature and person. That nature determines person must be demonstrated rather than assumed. As I said in my above post, I think this mistake carries huge ramifications for the doctrine of God and of Christ. Though I agree that *in theory* God would be circumscribed by His nature, it becomes difficult to say just what God is circumscribed by since His nature is limitless, without boundaries.
I do not believe that God can will contrary to His nature; I also believe that God is free. That God cannot be free if He wills only good operates under the assumption that freedom requires an option between good and evil. If this is the case then God is not free, because it is impossible for Him to sin. But I believe on the contrary that freedom only requires a number of options to choose from, and that these options can all be good. If I have the option to feed the hungry or to clothe the naked, both of these options are good and I am free to choose between them, even my choice excludes the possibility that I kick an old lady. The reason that man is able to commit evil acts is due to the distinction between Uncreated and Created. As uncreated, God is immutable, i.e. unchangeable, but as created, mankind is mutable, his nature is unstable insofar as through his personal choice he deliberates and chooses between either good or evil, and ends up effecting his nature accordingly. God wills man to attain virtue, but in freedom, so God does not relinquish His sovereignty. Furthermore, God wills man to be conformed to His Image, and Christ IS that Image. Through the Incarnation all are conformed to Christ, because He unites human nature to His Person, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Logos. This is why throughout the New Testament Christ is spoken of as "the second Adam," His Incarnation replaying the events of the fall and of the history of Israel and also of the individual's history, this time to an opposite conclusion. This is why Christ is said to recapitulate all things in Himself, and why He is said to save all men. He saves them through the union of His Divinity to our humanity, but our personal appropriation of that salvation depends on how we are raised - either we will be raised to bliss, as St. John says, or to damnation, but all partake of the resurrection of Christ. "One died for all, therefore all died." Whereas Adam succumbed to temptation, Christ overcame it and thereby elevated human nature in its union to HIs Person.
Forgive me, I have to head out, but I will respond to other points later when I have time. I can point you to literature that deals thoroughly with this subject if you wish, however. Take care.
I think you misunderstand my comments on the nature of God. I simply meant to offer an alternative framework through which to view the problem of nature and person. That nature determines person must be demonstrated rather than assumed. As I said in my above post, I think this mistake carries huge ramifications for the doctrine of God and of Christ. Though I agree that *in theory* God would be circumscribed by His nature, it becomes difficult to say just what God is circumscribed by since His nature is limitless, without boundaries.
I do not believe that God can will contrary to His nature; I also believe that God is free. That God cannot be free if He wills only good operates under the assumption that freedom requires an option between good and evil. If this is the case then God is not free, because it is impossible for Him to sin. But I believe on the contrary that freedom only requires a number of options to choose from, and that these options can all be good. If I have the option to feed the hungry or to clothe the naked, both of these options are good and I am free to choose between them, even my choice excludes the possibility that I kick an old lady. The reason that man is able to commit evil acts is due to the distinction between Uncreated and Created. As uncreated, God is immutable, i.e. unchangeable, but as created, mankind is mutable, his nature is unstable insofar as through his personal choice he deliberates and chooses between either good or evil, and ends up effecting his nature accordingly. God wills man to attain virtue, but in freedom, so God does not relinquish His sovereignty. Furthermore, God wills man to be conformed to His Image, and Christ IS that Image. Through the Incarnation all are conformed to Christ, because He unites human nature to His Person, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Logos. This is why throughout the New Testament Christ is spoken of as "the second Adam," His Incarnation replaying the events of the fall and of the history of Israel and also of the individual's history, this time to an opposite conclusion. This is why Christ is said to recapitulate all things in Himself, and why He is said to save all men. He saves them through the union of His Divinity to our humanity, but our personal appropriation of that salvation depends on how we are raised - either we will be raised to bliss, as St. John says, or to damnation, but all partake of the resurrection of Christ. "One died for all, therefore all died." Whereas Adam succumbed to temptation, Christ overcame it and thereby elevated human nature in its union to HIs Person.
Forgive me, I have to head out, but I will respond to other points later when I have time. I can point you to literature that deals thoroughly with this subject if you wish, however. Take care.
Upvote
0
