The Church, our Mother

Matthew 23
37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! 38 Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "

-- Allegorically: the hen is the Church, who constantly calls out to her young lest they go astray. Just as a hen takes care of her own, so the Church regenerates the faithful in Baptism, feeds them with her preaching, and loves them with maternal affection (Auctor Imperfecti, Incomplete Commentary on Matthew).
----------------------------

Catechism of the Catholic Church

I think that even Protestants would benefit enormously from reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is nothing in this statement that Protestants would disagree with. It is carefully crafted and elegant, drawing its ideas from all of the great Catholic theologians all throughout church history, as well as the clear teaching of Scripture. 

I never dreamed I would be recommending this, but life is funny that way. Through a series of seemingly meaningless coincidences, I found myself on this path. Not sure if I will convert, but in many ways, I have already been converted. I don't have anything against Protestants. It's not that kind of conversion where someone becomes disillusioned with their faith and looks for another Christian option. No, not at all. I have nothing but gratitude in my heart for those Christians who shared God's Word with me from the time I was a small child. 

Does God guide the world and my life?

Yes, but in a mysterious way; God guides everything along paths that only he knows, leading it to its perfection. At no point in time does something that he has created fall out of his hands.

God influences both the great events of history and also the little events of our personal life, without reducing our freedom or making us mere marionettes in his eternal plans. In God "we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). God is in everything we meet in all the changes in our life, even in the painful events and the seemingly meaningless coincidences. God wants to write straight even with the crooked lines of our life. What he takes away from us and what he gives us, the ways in which he strengthens us and the ways in which he tests us all these are arrangements and signs of his will. (YOUCAT question 49)

Add caption

You can find and online version of it here. 

You can also subscribe to a daily reading from the CCC here. 

What's Up With This?

I started following St. Thomas Aquinas through the teachings he left behind. I have learned some really important lessons.


Let me say first of all that I feel a bit like a child playing around in the kiddie pool. I have  not yet learned how to swim. Even so, just as that child can get tremendous enjoyment from splashing around in the water, I feel that I have gotten tremendous joy and peace of mind by my very pre-school, toddler level of Thomistic thought. Please excuse any errors. I am putting links in the sidebar to Thomist websites that seem to actually know what this is all about. Hopefully, they will forgive me, and hopefully anyone reading this will consult with those resources.

These are just the reflections of what I have called the fly's view from the horn of the great ox which is Thomas Aquinas.

I am trying to read St. Thomas' own works as much as I can to get a feel of the original sources. The problem is that I am a very slow reader.  I tend to learn through listening and through dialogue rather than through the written page. So,  I am also in conversation with a Thomist to get a feel for how Thomism works. Here is a quick definition of that word.


Thomism is the philosophical school that arose as a legacy of the work and thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), philosopher, theologian, and Doctor of the Church.

Wikkipedia



Many Christians call themselves by the name of  important Christian theologians - like Calvin or Luther. In the Catholic tradition, there are many groups that take the name of a specific Christian teacher and saint, like the Franciscans after St. Francis, the Jesuits after, well, Jesus, and so forth. Many others define themselves as Thomists. 

So, this blog is dedicated to my feeble attempts to understand what Thomism is and how it can apply to my own life. I came to this late in life, but I will do my best to learn from this master teacher of philosophy and theology. It brings quietness and freedom  to my mind I have to say. 

I have studied Calvinism, and I like a lot of what I see there. However, it seems to be a bit formulaic. The Doctrines of Grace as seen in Scripture thrill me, however. It just seems that a person has to be able to express doctrines in such a precise way that I could never be a good Calvinist. I suppose, though, that a Calvinist could also use the kind of reasoning that Thomists use. If I understand right, Thomism is a way of defining and defending the Truth. It is apologetic in nature as well as philosophical and theological. 

Thomism has to do with what Aristotle called "right reason." Thomism, as I understand it, encourages Christians to use their God-given powers of reason to arrive at truth. Our founding fathers used the term "laws of nature and nature's God." Thomism helps a person see what those laws of nature are, using nature itself as a teacher that points us towards God. As final authority, we have Scripture itself. 

The Thomist  uses Scripture as a  backstop if you will to keep a person from error. If what the person thinks nature  is saying contradicts Scripture, then that person's understanding is off. 

Both nature and Scripture have to agree. So a Christian can argue from both sources of Truth.  There is an assumption as well that God is a reasonable God. It is about using right reason, the reasoning ability that God gave to each human being. Scripture is not always explicit, however. Where Scripture is not explicit, we do not have to speak for it or force Scripture to say what we want it to say. We bow to it. It does not bow to us. 

God is the God of both nature and special revelation found in His Word and revealed in the person and work of His Son, Jesus Christ. 

Christmas Eve Mass

My husband was willing to attend Christmas Eve mass with me last night.

First of all, we both get up around 4 AM almost every day, so maybe we should have chosen Christmas Morning Mass instead of last night's mass. The thing is the choir at St. Olaf's - yes, we live in an area that was settled mostly by Norwegians - sang and I wanted to hear the music. They did a decent job, singing for at least 1/2 hour before the service and then during it as well. We arrived at about 10:30 and sat in the very back. It was all traditional carols and songs. If we had sat up near the choir, it would have been nice to actually sing along with them.

We're not Catholics.

The church building is a wooden structure made in a kind of Scandinavian design with arched beams for the roofline. It's not Latin America.

The service was nice, but I have to admit that during one of the congregational songs I actually started to fall asleep!  I found out that people really cannot sleep standing up. Fortunately, the Pew caught me and kept me from falling down on the floor!

The short message was a little odd to me, but I have to admit that I can't get it our of my mind. He did a ltitle thing where he gave us all a gift. It was special, magical glasses for us to be able to see something. He then showed us where the word "peace" was written on the beams of the church, up above us. He was giving us peace.

What was he talking about? The odd thing is that I have such a sense of God's presence and His peace today. It is Christmas, of course, so that day is generally peaceful because so many are gathering in Jesus' Name and prayers and songs of praise are being directed towards Heaven in a way that is not true  every day.

We also visited a little with a young lady - and her dad and stepmom  - sitting in front of us. She had gone to school with our daughter. She was good friends with a mutual friend of our daughter. He's an amazing clarinetist with a fancy music degree and is once again auditioning for positions with orchestras. He had kind of burned out and was working as a barista in a coffee place!  It was good to hear he was back practicing and auditioning.

There was also an adolescent boy sitting next to us. He made sure he wished us peace during the paz - which is something I don't quite get into. The service went a little past midnight, and the boy looked over at me at midnight, pointed at his watch, smiled and said, "It's Christmas!"  How sweet!

We felt comfortable there but left before the last hymn was over.

Also, we attended our church's service at 6 PM, which was beautiful. We also sang, praised God, heard the Christmas story, lit candles, and then celebrated Jesus' birthday with a cake. The church was full.I have to say that our music was much better.  We have some really talented, godly young people who lead us in worship.

A couple of little kids - now all grown up - that I taught years ago were there. Big hugs all around, which I love! I told John that I was glad I was nice to him when he was a little pre-schooler and kind of unruly - but cute and fun - 'cuz now he's very big and tall! That's what I love about our church. We have so many great families.

We had also been to my mother in-law's for Christmas dinner yesterday afternoon. It was a great time, even though my husband's father passed away last July. We had good food, opened presents, and then sang Christmas carols around the piano. Nice.

What does it all mean as far as my interest in Catholicism? Not sure. Interesting. I am at least gaining a better understanding of what she is. You see, I have loved Catholic theology and philosophy for years now, but I didn't realize that was what I love. I also love my Evangelical background. Love's not a bad thing.

I know that Debbie Macomber chooses a word every year to focus on. She is not Catholic but did grow up in the Catholic Church. Debbie is one of my heroes. Well, I have not read many of her books, but she is an amazing woman.  Knit Together shows what drives her as a writer and as a Christian. She also shares in the book the difficulties she had in becoming a writer, including her dyslexia. She is a woman of God, and a great lady.

So, maybe the custom of choosing a word a year to focus on isn't such a bad idea. In fact, last year I spent a lot of time thinking about "glory" because that was the topic of a conference we participated in.

Why not focus on "peace" this coming year, starting with the entry of the Prince of Peace into the world?


 Don't know, but all that we experienced yesterday, including Mass,  gives me beautiful things to think and wonder about. I like that.

The Incarnation

 The Lord has taught us two truths, namely, the divinity of the Blessed Trinity and the humanity of Christ. 
- St. Thomas Aquinas

This morning I was overwhelmed by the idea of the Incarnation. For St. Thomas, these two truths- the divinity of the Blessed Trinity and Christ's humanity - were foundational. These were the two pillars of his theology and philosophy, it seems to me. Everything else flowed from those two great doctrines. If anything was his secret formula to success as a Christian, these were it. 

It is never a waste of time to contemplate the mystery of the Trinity and the mystery of the Incarnation - God with us.


I was also overwhelmed by the thought that Christ was born in a moment of time - real time. It's another aspect of His humanity and the fact that He entered this world just like all of us. Even though He is eternal God, He limited Himself as far as His humanity goes to an instant we call birth.

Of course, that assumes His conception at a specific moment in time as well. Of course, His conception was unlike any other human being's conception. It was of the Holy Spirit, not of any human father.

So, He is the God-man. God because He is God, and man because He has a human mother, Mary. He was conceived while she was still a Virgin, and she remained a Virgin after He was born. The Virgin gave birth!

Matthew 1:23

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).

Quoting Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Traditionally, the moment of Christ's birth is celebrated at the stroke of midnight on Christmas Eve. I love that tradition. No, not so much because that was the very moment, since my time zone is many hours behind Israel's. 12 hours if I remember right. 

It's that remembering Christ's moment of birth and fixing a time like tradition does, tells us of the reality of the Incarnation. Christ was conceived at a specific time, and he entered this world at a specific time. 

Then there is this sublime passage. I remember when I was young falling in love with John 1:1-18.  

 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God....14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. ... 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God,[e] who is at the Father's side,[f] he has made him known.

John 1 English Standard Version (ESV)

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as awitness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own,[b] and his own people[c] did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) 16 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.[d] 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God,[e] who is at the Father's side,[f] he has made him known.

NECESSITY OF GOD’S EXISTENCE

CHAPTER 6

NECESSITY OF GOD’S EXISTENCE

The same line of reasoning clearly shows that God necessarily exists. For everything that has the possibility of being and of not being, is mutable. But God is absolutely immutable, as has been demonstrated. Therefore it is impossible for God to be and not to be. But anything that exists in such a way that it is impossible for it not to exist, is necessarily Being itself,ipsum esse. Necessary existence, and impossibility of nonexistence, mean one and the same thing. Therefore God must necessarily exist.


Moreover, everything that has a possibility of being and of not being, needs something else to make it be, for, as far as it itself is concerned, it is indifferent with regard to either alternative. But that which causes another thing to be, is prior to that thing. Hence something exists prior to that which has the possibility of being and of not being. However, nothing is prior to God. Therefore it is impossible for Him to be and not to be; of necessity, He must be. And since there are some necessary things that have a cause of their necessity, a cause that must be prior to them, God, who is the first of all, has no cause of His own necessity. Therefore it is necessary for God to be through Himself.
-------------------------------------------------

God's existence is necessary for there to be any existence at all. It is also impossible for Him to not exist. In fact, He is Being itself. God's being is through Himself and through nothing outside Himself. His Being does not change. In fact His being cannot change.  


It's not like that with created things. It is not necessary that any of us exist. In fact, it is possible for us not to ever have existed, and existence itself would not suffer at all. However, for existence to have any meaning, there must be God to give it that meaning. The fact that He reveals Himself  as the self-existent One - Jehovah - shows from Scripture that He is the source of all existence. 

The amazing thing is that St. Thomas used God's message in nature to prove what special revelation confirms. Of course Thomas knew Scripture as well as or better than anyone. However, he proved that by looking at creation and using human reason, that same conclusion can be demonstrated as an irrefutable fact - God is necessary and it is impossible for Him to not exist. 

There is no other rational way to explain our own existence. 

Of course, in Christian philosophy - especially Thomism - there is a distinction made between "existence" and "being." I'm not quite sure how to express that, but I am working on it. The idea, - as I understand it in my very inadequate and beginner-level understanding - is that God is Being itself. Everything in creation derives its existence from God. He did not just create things and let them just go their merry way. He also sustains all of creation, from the dirt under our feet to mankind, created in the image of God, to the farthest galaxy. It is all sustained by Him every moment of every day. In fact, every day is a new creation. 

If God changed - that is, if He moved - then all of creation would be affected.

He must be. Otherwise, there is no being and no existence to even talk about. It is present tense "be". He must continually "be", or nothing else can be.

In Him we live, and move and have our being.

Well, I think I'm on the right track, but I don't quite get it.


http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html

The Eucharist - The Body of Christ

1 Corinthians 11:24
and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

Anscombe wrote a brilliant little piece called On Transubstantiation. It can be found in the book Faith in a Hard Ground, but also can be found by clicking on the title I provided. 

This dogma is one of the biggest obstacles that I had in coming to the Catholic faith. Anscombe swept that away. I will not try to repeat her reasoning on the subject, but I will try to get down a few of my thoughts that were triggered by what she wrote. 

You see, she understands how Protestants like me think and what we have been taught. She converted to Catholicism from Protestantism. Now, I do not know if I will convert to the Catholic Church or not, but I admit that I am thinking about it. 

Here are Jesus' words. 

1 Corinthians 11:24

This is my body which is for you

It seems like we Protestants are taught to kind of skp over these words quickly so we won't fall into the alleged error of thinking that the bread is really the body of Christ. 

We really don't know how to explain the absolute declaration of Jesus Himself - This IS my body. 

Does He mean that this is like His body, and that is all there is to it?  It is just a symbol, we are told, but a symbol of what? A symbol of something real and mysterious or a symbol with no real meaning. Yes, even Anscomb acknowledges that there is a symbolic side to what Jesus is saying. 

Then, isn't the next phrase curious? He tells us to do this. To do what? To break bread and eat it as His body. Then comes the even more curious phrase - 

do this in remembrance of me.

In remembrance? Of what. Well, of how He broke the bread, blessed it, and told them that it was His body. 

Even more curious is the fact that He had not yet done on the cross what He was asking them to remember. He had not yet given His body, yet they were to remember. 

His body is for us. That is considerably more than merely symbolic, and He was talking about the bread they were about to eat. Besides, He was talking as if the resurrection had already taken place. So, the break is about His life, not just about His death. We take in His life when we eat the bread in remembrance of Him. 

In a way, when we say that the bread is merely a symbol of Christ's death and imparted life, but not really having any physical substance we are denying the Incarnation. Well, Protestants don't deny the Incarnation - God made flesh. (John 1) Think of it this way, though. Christ became a real man, a real human being. His human body is real, not just symbolic or spiritual. The bread  also becomes His real body and in more than just a symbolic way. It IS Hid body. 

The same with the cup, representing His blood, and also really His blood. It is not magic, but it is a mystery. Christ in you, the hope of glory. (Colossians 1:27)

We believe that He really is in us through faith by the Holy Spirit. He is not in us merely in a symbolic way, but rather in a real way. Yes, it is a mystery, but the ancient church embraced this mystery as the real interpretation of Jesus' words and the real meaning of the Eucharist. This is the original interpretation and practice of the Church. Why was it changed? 

If it was how the Church observed and understood Communion until the time of Martin Luther, then that should tell us something. 

CHAPTER 5

THE ETERNITY OF GOD

The further conclusion is evident that God is eternal. For everything that begins to be or that ceases to be, is affected in this way through motion or change. But we have just shown that God is absolutely immobile. Consequently He is eternal.

Caput 5

Quod Deus est aeternus

Ex hoc autem apparet ulterius Deum esse aeternum. Omne enim quod incipit esse vel desinit, per motum vel per mutationem hoc patitur. Ostensum est autem quod Deus est omnino immobilis. Est ergo aeternus.

---------------------
God never began to be. He never ceases to be. He is not affected at all by motion or change. He is immobile. 

He has to then be eternal. Someone who has no beginning, who has no end, who never changes, who never moves - from potentiality to actuality - has to also be eternal. He always IS. 

The Immobility of God

Okay, so a lot of the complex logic loses me in this. However, I do get this part. God must be immovable. How would I explain it to a child? Not sure. Maybe they'd explain it to me. I'll try. 

If God moved like the wind moves, then everything would fly apart. Even if just part of Him moved like the wind, it would be bad for us. Can you imagine?

So, God moves things around, but He stays still.

How does He move things? He made things like the wind to do His work for Him. In fact, he made motion. He made it so that things could move by the mysterious thing we call motion. Just imagine that! 

Here is what the dictionary says about motion. 

"the action or process of moving or being moved."

Now, this tells us what motion does, but it doesn't tell us what motion is or where it came from. 

Motion comes from God. How? No one can tell us how. That's God's secret. In fact, people don't even try to tell us what motion is, only what it does. All the definitions of motion tell us what motion does. Yes, but what IS it? 


Can you think of other things that move and change? They are all evidence that God started things moving, but He stays the same. 

Everything that moves has something else making it move. Think about it. You move your hand. With your hand, you move a glass of water. You pick it up and move it to your mouth to take a drink. 

Back to the wind.  Forces of nature make the wind move. The wind moves the trees. 

Everything that moves is moved by something else. 

Think of this, too. Everything God made is moving. He keeps it all moving like it's supposed to, but He doesn't change. Everything He made is always changing, but not Him. Weird, right?  

Are you moving right now? How are you doing that? 

God is called the unmoved mover. How cool is that? What a great God He is! He is also the frist mover, since He made everything start to move in the first place. 

Well, that may not be a perfect explanation, but I think I'm understanding. Scripture and the experience of Christians tell us that God did not just start everything moving but that He is active in His Creation as well. He did not just set things into motion and let them go. He is the Ruler over His creation as well, including us. 

CHAPTER 4

THE IMMOBILITY OF GOD

We clearly infer from this that God, who moves all things, must Himself be immovable. If He, being the first mover, were Himself moved, He would have to be moved either by Himself or by another. He cannot be moved by another, for then there would have to be some mover prior to Him, which is against the very idea of a first mover. If He is moved by Himself, this can be conceived in two ways: either that He is mover and moved according to the same respect, or that He is a mover according to one aspect of Him and is moved according to another aspect. The first of these alternatives is ruled out. For everything that is moved is, to that extent, in potency, and whatever moves is in act. Therefore if God is both mover and moved according to the same respect, He has to be in potency and in act according to the same respect, which is impossible. The second alternative is likewise out of the question. If one part were moving and another were moved, there would be no first mover Himself as such, but only by reason of that part of Him which moves. But what is per se is prior to that which is not per se. Hence there cannot be a first mover at all, if this perfection is attributed to a being by reason of a part of that being. Accordingly the first mover must be altogether immovable.

Among things that are moved and that also move, the following may also be considered. All motion is observed to proceed from something immobile, that is, from something that is not moved according to the particular species of motion in question, Thus we see that alterations and generations and corruptions occurring in lower bodies are reduced, as to their first mover, to a heavenly body that is not moved according to this species of motion, since it is incapable of being generated, and is incorruptible and unalterable. Therefore the first principle of all motion must be absolutely immobile.
------------------------------------------

This is a fun one to think through, and I've not quite gotten it. 

This first part makes sense to me, kind of. I want to play with these thoughts first, and then look at what I am supposed to understand from this.:


We clearly infer from this that God, who moves all things, must Himself be immovable. If He, being the first mover, were Himself moved, He would have to be moved either by Himself or by another.

God must be immovable. That makes sense from Scripture. I'll start there. 

1  Corinthians 15:58English Standard Version (ESV)

58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

It makes sense that a God who is immovable would command His people, through His apostle to be immovable in our work in the Lord. This work will produce something good. It is not in vain. 

It seems like this verse is an example of the principle of potentiality moving towards actuality that Thomas explained. Not sure if I am right, but maybe? 

I mean, we stand firm. We then act in ways that please God. We labor. This labor produces something of lasting value. It is not in vain. 

We ourselves must be immovable for this to happen. If we change our minds or fluctuate between wanting to do something good that would be pleasing to God and not wanting to do something good, then there will be no good product of our labor. We will be doubting and unsure, thus unstable in all our ways as James said (James 1:8). 

It is not a perfect example, since we can and do change our minds. God cannot and will not. It wold not  even make sense for God to want to be moved. It goes against His nature. Hence, the Apostle Paul has to tell us not to change our minds or weaken in our resolve to continue to do the Lord's work. 

Can't we deduce from this that God is immovable and wants us to be like Him in that regard?  I think so. If He were moveable, then we wouldn't even be here. If He fluctuated or changed His mind, or weakened in His resolve, then His labor of creating everything would have been in vain.

Scripture also says in Hebrews 13:8 that Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. This supports the idea that God, the first mover, is not Himself moved. There are so many Scriptures that remind us of God's immobility contrasted with our human instability.

Now, how could someone further deduce the fact that the first mover must be Himself immobile?


He cannot be moved by another, for then there would have to be some mover prior to Him, which is against the very idea of a first mover.

The first mover cannot be moved by someone or something else. That's clear. Otherwise that thing or person would be the first mover. Aquinas already established that there has to be a first mover, and that we call God. 



 Hence there cannot be a first mover at all, if this perfection is attributed to a being by reason of a part of that being.

One part of the first mover cannot move while another part remains unmoved. If there is any part of the first mover that is in motion, then there is a kind of instability it would seem to me, and that instability would predominate, just as the unstable man is unstable in all his ways. 

God has to be immobile Himself. Otherwise all of Creation - everything He set into motion - would be in a constant state of flux along with Hime. 

The fact that gravity follows its own rules as it were - and I don't know much about gravity except that it keeps me on the earth and not out in space. If those rules were to be changing constantly, or even in part, then I know we'd be in big trouble. Well, we would not be at all. 

If the oceans did not keep to their shores - and I know that can change, but only slightly compared to the vastness of the oceans - then we would not be able to live on the earth. There have to be certain constants or there can be no life and no universe. 

If the first mover were not immobile, then motion would not be able to consistently produce the same kinds of results. It seems I remember some discussion about different theories of physics and all that. I do not have a background in science and math, so those kinds of arguments lose me. However, there has to be a constant of some kind otherwise any talk of science would not make any sense at all. The assumption in the scientific method is that there are things that do not change, or that change in a consistent way. 

At the same time, the first mover can move creation whenever He wishes. In that way, He is always setting things into motion, but He is not Himself moved. 


Okay, I'm stuck. I'll check out the answer key.

[I checked the blog guy, and I can't figure out what he is saying. I think I'm on the right track, here.]



That's all the farther for now. Later...

The Existence of God

CHAPTER 3

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Regarding the unity of the divine essence, we must first believe that God exists. This is a truth clearly known by reason. We observe that all things that move are moved by other things, the lower by the higher. The elements are moved by heavenly bodies; and among the elements themselves, the stronger moves the weaker; and even among the heavenly bodies, the lower are set in motion by the higher. This process cannot be traced back into infinity. For everything that is moved by another is a sort of instrument of the first mover. Therefore, if a first mover is lacking, all things that move will be instruments. But if the series of movers and things moved is infinite, there can be no first mover. In such a case, these infinitely many movers and things moved will all be instruments. But even the unlearned perceive how ridiculous it is to suppose that instruments are moved, unless they are set in motion by some principal agent. This would be like fancying that, when a chest or a bed is being built, the saw or the hatchet performs its functions without the carpenter. Accordingly there must be a first mover that is above all the the rest; and this being we call God.
----------------------------------------------------------


Regarding the unity of the divine essence, we must first believe that God exists. This is a truth clearly known by reason.

Romans 1 supports what Thomas is saying, here. 

Romans 1

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

We Protestants would agree, but then we tend to teach people that they should not rely on their God-given ability to look at God's creation and reason from there back to who - or what - God is. This is especially a problem in Evangelicalism. Thus, we torture our minds. 

Of course, Thomas is not saying that one should abandon Scripture since he is constantly quoting God's Word. Nor is he saying that God does not need to renew the mind or reveal truth to the mind. He is saying that reason is how we understand all truth it seems to me. Remember that in the last chapter, he said that the starting point  is the Triune God and the God-man. That makes all the difference in the world. Some Reformed apologists, like Van Til, got this. 

Thomas explains why there has to be a First Mover who set everything else into motion. Yes, he is talking about the simple kinds of things we look at all the time. 

For example, I am looking out my window and see the trees moving. They are not moving by themselves, but a force outside them is making them move. That force is the wind. There are other forces that have made the wind be stirred up and in motion like it is right now. There are other forces behind those forces, and so forth until we get to what? 

There has to be something that is not itself moved, but rather is the first mover. This mover is not itself moved, otherwise we would try to find an earlier cause, and we would never end. Yet now even more than at the time of Thomas we know that there was a moment when everything was set into motion. We call it the Big Bang. 

Who or what produced the Big Bang?  That we call God, and He is not Himself moved by anything else. 

Otherwise,  we are reduced to speaking nonsense as many brilliant minds in our day are happy to do. 

Remember that Thomas' First Mover is the Triune God of the Christianity. 

But even the unlearned perceive how ridiculous it is to suppose that instruments are moved, unless they are set in motion by some principal agent. 

It is okay to say that such a supposition is ridiculous. Note, too, that Thomas appeals to even the unlearned mind. He appeals to common sense, the kind of rationality that often shows itself in children or the unlearned. The learned often have to be taught to ignore common sense and blather on and on about nonsense. There are brilliant minds who are happy to do that. Many of them teach in the finest universities, even. 


Thomas answers every objection using impeccable logic. Me, not so much, but this man thrills my soul like no other Christian thinker. He teaches me to go from the known and obvious - like wind - and trace it back to find God. Any child can learn to do that.