Many 20th century theologians, even Catholic ones, present us with a God that changes. “The unchanging God is dead,” they say. They premise their musings on God, esp. on his inner Trinitarian life, on this thesis that God changes.
In fact, the thesis that God changes is heresy. The Church in her constant and universal teaching condemns it. Thus, a good theologian should condemn it. Not to do so is heresy.
It helps us to see why God must be immutable. We attempt to do that in this podcast. We also consider and reply to various objections from recent thinkers who argue that God is mutable. While these thinkers are trying to get God closer to them, in fact they push him away. For the God who is beyond all change is more interior to me than is the god who changes, who is on the level with me, only bigger … but in a corner of the universe, far away.
In this podcast, we examine God’s simplicity. The upshot of the proofs for God’s existence has tremendous yield. In order to be the Act without potency that is source of the world, God must be utterly simple. So, we have a theological reason for affirming divine simplicity. We also have a dogmatic reason for affirming it: The Church teaches it. And since the Church teaches it, there is a Scriptural basis for this affirmation as well. If it is not explicitly in Scripture, it is at least not contradictory to Scripture. But the great Old Testament is built around the unicity and oneness of God. So, it is a Scriptural affirmation as well. If you’d like to follow the argument more closely, you might acquire my text (linked here) that outlines this and other treatments of dogmatic issues.
In this podcast, I first indicate the range of the “First Way,” its analogical extensions. These extensions indicate the richness of the yield of the first way. I consider the First Way to be demonstrative; however, even if one only considers it invitational to thought, the yield to which it invites is rich.
Second, I offer a reading of the Fourth Way indebted to some great thinkers of the 20th century and also to Edward Feser. As sketched in the ST, the 4th Way needs supplementing. It is, as are the other arguments, a “thumbnail sketch” of a deep line of argumentation. The 4th Way is often called the “Platonic” way. However, Aquinas cites only Aristotle. Indeed, elsewhere, when he approaches God’s existence in this line of argumentation, he cites Aristotle. I suggest, following the above thinkers, that there is an Aristotelian causal argument underlying this way. The global, macroscopic picture is Platonic, in the manner of Christian Platonism, but the underlying argument is Aristotelian. In short, Platonic Participation calls for an Aristotelian causal analysis. But Aristotelian causal analysis is shored up and macroscopically expressed in the Platonic idiom.
Today, the first of two podcasts concerning proofs for the existence of God.
If you’d like to follow the argument more closely, you might acquire my text (linked here) that outlines this and other treatments of dogmatic issues.
Just as St. Paul reasoned with the Athenians towards the existence of the God he proclaimed, so human reason can argue with those of good will towards the existence of the God who transcends all reason, who is a Fire, Terrible and Marvelous, Forgiving and Tremendous.
This is a podcast on Legitimate and Illegitimate pluralism in theology.
First, we paint two caricatures of errors. Two extremes, as it were. These are obviously problematic.
Then, we argue for a more profound understanding of this issue. God is one. All differences among the saints and doctors must not be prized for their own sakes. Rather, we must let truth build lovely upon truth. Thus, all that rises must converge.