RE: Theists: What do you mean when you say that God is 'perfect'?
November 30, 2017 at 11:17 am
(This post was last modified: November 30, 2017 at 11:26 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
LOL 10 theists, 11 opinions...
JOR:
A little research confirmed my original belief. The theological definition of perfection is nested in the classical and scholastic traditions and, as such, has a more precise meaning than common contemporary usage., so it was a nice surprise to see the Angelic Doctor give a precise definition:
"...the first active principle must be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is said to be most perfect according as it is in act, because we call perfect that which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection" & "...created things are then called perfect when from potency they are brought into act, this word 'perfect' signifies whatever is not wanting in act..." - Question 4 Article 1 of the Summa
So this definition returns us to Question 2 and first of the 5 ways.
The above is how the word 'perfection' is defined according to natural reason and also seems to match biblical references to perfection, as in Matt 5:48, 1 Co 13:10, Php 3:15, and especially Jas 1:14, 17, 25 & 3:2. The Greek root used is 'teleioo' which means to bring to an end or completeness.
People commonly think of moral perfection as compliance with specific prohibitions and performance of various obligations. However, these prohibitions and obligations are derivative. The base concept for moral perfection is virtue which is a kind of good. And good is associated with the degree to which a thing fulfills its potential (the degree to which it is in act). A strong, cunning, and ferocious tiger is a fine exemplar of tigerness and by that standard considered 'good'; although many a monkey would beg to differ. A complete tiger is one at actualizes all the virtues of what it means to be a tiger. And what goes for tigers goes for all types of things, from triangles to people.
Now this is a topic that has me curious and I haven't fleshed out all my thoughts on it. So any attempt by me to answer specific questions about all the theological ramifications of Divine Perfection may be premature although as we proceed, I welcome wrestling with your concerns.
SteveII:
I am concerned that when we talk about the Nature of God or His attributes that we may both be on thin ice. That concern is why I mention how we do not truly know what God is (as the Father) but only what He is not. This is how Aquinas puts it:
"Although we cannot know what God is, nevertheless in this doctrine we make use of His effects, either of nature or of grace, in place of a definition...even as in some philosophical sciences we demonstrate something about a cause from its effect, by taking the effect in place of a definition of the cause." - Question 1, Article 8 of the Summa
I take this to mean that what we casually refer to as attributes are more specifically effects of a God who remains incomprehensible. So for example, when we say that God is Ominipotent, what we are actually referring to is His presence in all potency. Or that when we say He is Merciful, Mercy is truly the effect of His agency and not an attribute of God properly. This is not exactly the kind of subtle distinction I would present or defend to most of this lot. Just something to keep in the back of our minds.
JOR:
A little research confirmed my original belief. The theological definition of perfection is nested in the classical and scholastic traditions and, as such, has a more precise meaning than common contemporary usage., so it was a nice surprise to see the Angelic Doctor give a precise definition:
"...the first active principle must be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is said to be most perfect according as it is in act, because we call perfect that which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection" & "...created things are then called perfect when from potency they are brought into act, this word 'perfect' signifies whatever is not wanting in act..." - Question 4 Article 1 of the Summa
So this definition returns us to Question 2 and first of the 5 ways.
The above is how the word 'perfection' is defined according to natural reason and also seems to match biblical references to perfection, as in Matt 5:48, 1 Co 13:10, Php 3:15, and especially Jas 1:14, 17, 25 & 3:2. The Greek root used is 'teleioo' which means to bring to an end or completeness.
People commonly think of moral perfection as compliance with specific prohibitions and performance of various obligations. However, these prohibitions and obligations are derivative. The base concept for moral perfection is virtue which is a kind of good. And good is associated with the degree to which a thing fulfills its potential (the degree to which it is in act). A strong, cunning, and ferocious tiger is a fine exemplar of tigerness and by that standard considered 'good'; although many a monkey would beg to differ. A complete tiger is one at actualizes all the virtues of what it means to be a tiger. And what goes for tigers goes for all types of things, from triangles to people.
Now this is a topic that has me curious and I haven't fleshed out all my thoughts on it. So any attempt by me to answer specific questions about all the theological ramifications of Divine Perfection may be premature although as we proceed, I welcome wrestling with your concerns.
SteveII:
I am concerned that when we talk about the Nature of God or His attributes that we may both be on thin ice. That concern is why I mention how we do not truly know what God is (as the Father) but only what He is not. This is how Aquinas puts it:
"Although we cannot know what God is, nevertheless in this doctrine we make use of His effects, either of nature or of grace, in place of a definition...even as in some philosophical sciences we demonstrate something about a cause from its effect, by taking the effect in place of a definition of the cause." - Question 1, Article 8 of the Summa
I take this to mean that what we casually refer to as attributes are more specifically effects of a God who remains incomprehensible. So for example, when we say that God is Ominipotent, what we are actually referring to is His presence in all potency. Or that when we say He is Merciful, Mercy is truly the effect of His agency and not an attribute of God properly. This is not exactly the kind of subtle distinction I would present or defend to most of this lot. Just something to keep in the back of our minds.
