Thank you cheers.

I know this was 4 years ago, so I hope you have grown to be more like Christ.

Well what makes a Theistic Personalist like Craig a good scholar is he makes a heroic effort to understand his opponents actual positions instead of wasting everybody's time with straw men and argument by mere mockery.

One minor omission I see above to Craig's explanation of divine simplicity is he leaves out an explicit statement God contains no metaphysical composition not just physical. God contains no passive potency made act. His did mention there is no real distinction between Essence and Being in God so I would count that as minor.

Of course the real distinctions between the Subsisting Divine Relations/Divine Persons in the Godhead are neither physical nor metaphysical by mysterious which is why the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't violate this doctrine. Many atheist critics of the Trinity make this mistake. Even the careful ones.

Cheers.

This week’s Q&A at ReasonableFaith someone asked William Lane Craig about divine simplicity. Craig explains it this way:

The doctrine of divine simplicity holds that there is no composition or complexity in God. The doctrine has been variously understood throughout church history. Everyone agrees that God is not composed of material parts, since He is not a physical object. But at the other end of the spectrum, followers of Thomas Aquinas claim that in God there is not even a distinction between essence and existence. Rather God just is the pure act of being.

In order to understand this claim, we need to have some prior understanding of Thomistic metaphysics. For Thomas, finite beings are one and all composed of essence and existence. A thing’s essence is its individual nature, where the nature of a thing is given in answer to the question, “What is it?” For example, a horse has a certain nature that makes it a horse rather than, say, a man or a lion. A thing’s existence is given (or not) in answer to the question, “Is it?” By considering the essence of a horse, we cannot answer the question as to whether it exists. Its essence is distinct from its existence.

It is crucial to understand that for Thomas this is not merely a conceptual distinction which we make in our minds. Rather it is a metaphysical or real distinction within creatures. Creatures are metaphysically composed of essence and existence. By “existence” Thomas means an act of being which instantiates the essence. Existence is not a property which is added to a thing’s essence; rather it is the instantiating of that essence. Thomists like to emphasize the verbal nature of the word “being” or “to be” (in Latin esse). Being is not a property but an act of instantiation. So if some creature is to exist, being must be conjoined to its essence in order for that creature to be a real thing.

So the claim that God is absolutely simple entails (given the real distinction between essence and existence) that God is the pure act of being. It is unacceptable to hold that God has a certain nature, say, deity (not to speak of the various essential properties normally ascribed to God such as holiness, aseity, omnipotence, omniscience, eternity, and so on), to which the act of being is necessarily conjoined. An essence serves to restrict being to this or that sort of being, say, a man or a horse. But since He is simple, God’s act of being is not constrained by any essence. He just is the pure act of being unrestricted by any nature. He is, as Thomists like to say, being itself subsisting (ipsum esse subsistens).

After giving the above explanation, Craig went on to give a short critique of it but he made a mistake there. But it is good that he devoted much space to explain divine simplicity first.

For info only.

:)

Cheers!

You seem to think taking care of poor or sick people requires Christianity.

Yes, I also do not believe being a Christian is a prerequisite towards helping the sick and poor. Luke 13 and Matthew 7 both describe people in Hell wanting leave and enter heaven, and Jesus refusing them access. That's not what a "definitive self-willed exclusion" is.

Hi Michael,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion of the Scriptures, but I don’t see any indication of a wrathful Jesus imposing hell on anyone in Luke 13 and Matthew 7.

I don’t see why religion gets the blame for an interfaith marriage. Isn’t it the responsibility of both parties to assess these differences before entering into a relationship?

Respectfully I would suggest reading up on the Crusades. Most of them were not Church sanctioned. The first Crusade was largely a rescue mission of Christians, for example.

There’s no way candy-coat that some of the actions of member of the Church were wrong, but it was not the teaching of the church to do such things.

Euthanasia makes a non-involved party (such as a doctor whose job it is to help people and do no harm) complicit in a murder.

By the way, it would be incorrect to assume something just because I didn’t comment on it.

Do you see Christians doing any good in the world? For example, when they take of poor and sick people, do you see that as a good thing?

Peace.

The Bible always describes Hell as something imposed externally by a wrathful Jesus (luke 13, Matthew 7) and says people in hell want to ge tout. Yet the cahtolcic Catechism and catholic teachings call Hell a "Definitive self-willed exclusion"! And my point is'nt that interfaith marriages are forbidden, it's that differences in faith can drive people apart and prevent said relationships. And Pope Urban II's speech trigger the Crusades, a lengthy and bloody series of wars. people accused of heresy were burned alive, and religious wars and massacres between Catholics and Protestants ravaged Europe. For 1600 years now Shia and Sunni Muslims have been at each other's throats. Without religion, the Israel-Palestine conflict would just end today and 9/11 would've never happened. And Catholics teaching is strictly against euthanasia, saying it's "playing God". And you didn't mention all the other stuff I listed. Scant doubt because you have nothing to refute it with.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I can only speak for my limited understanding of Catholicism.

Catholics don’t promote war, and divide families.

Inter-faith marriages are allowed to the best of my knowledge. All the inter-faith couples I know (one Catholic – the other something else) were allowed to marry – some even to atheists and Jews.

My understanding of the Catholic faith is to treat all people – including LGBT folks – with respect and dignity.

As far as euthanasia goes – we live in a free country, where the majority rules. If you support suicide you are free to do so, as I am free to promote dying with dignity.

Respectfully, I think you may have some bad information regarding hell. Hell is for those who reject God with their dying breath - not someone who makes a mistake in a moment of weakness.

My one hope is that you are not lopsided in your assessment of Christianity’s impact on the world. Sadly, some of its member have fallen short, but I think if you are fair and weigh everything Christians have done over the centuries, I think you will find the good far outweighs the bad.

Peace.

additional:

Verse 613:
613 Christ's death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world",439 and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the "blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins".440

Yeh what that has to do with your original false claim Quote"The Catechism of The Catholic Church explicitly states word for word that the punishments of Hell and purgatory are "not imposed externally by God, but following from the very nature of sin". END?

You are drunk Mike. Sober up and go home and DO YOUR HOMEWORK.