Summa Blogologica - Question 4: God is Perfect

I took a week off. Wow. What a busy week. Did you miss it? It’s hard to even know what sort of traffic this blog generates. Is anyone reading this? Eh, who knows.

Here is the fourth question in the Summa Theologica. Is discussed the Perfections of God. You will need to remember the qinque viae (“five ways”) from question2, specifically the degrees of perfection from which we know God exists. This plays huge role in the rest of the Summa, but especially here.

As Christians we often are seen as arrogant for claiming our God is perfect,

 

but as you will see, it is a more of a requirement to be God at all, and less of an opinion on how cool or awesome He is. I don’t usually include them, but here you will see the objections that St. Aquinas answers. It’s important in some of these cause we have to know first of all what the antagonist would say, then our response.  Without further delay, here we go:

--------------------------------------------------------

Article 1 consists of whether God is perfect. The objections state that God is not perfect because (1) things that are perfect are “completely made” and since God is not made at all, he is not perfect, and (2) also that since God is the beginning and beginning seem imperfect, God is imperfect. Since God is pure act, he is perfection. With God there is not a need to compare “beginnings and development” or degrees of perfection occurring over time. God is simultaneously the end as well; in fact, He is outside time completely. So, we know that God is not just a simple beginning but is the end as well, and thus is simultaneously the beginning and end and is perfect in that. Therefore there is no being made process or perfection over time, there just is completeness always present. This is perfection.

Article 2 consists of whether of the perfections of all things are in God. The objections are that God is simple, and the diversity of the perfections in the world cannot exist in God who is simple, and also that since many things are perfect would be opposite and opposites cannot coexist, this negates the ability of perfections to exist in God. The reply to these is that we have already determined that God has no accidentals, so each of these perfections are not in God as accidents because God is His very essence or nature (He is what He is). However, since God is pure act, all of these perfections are his essence and by this we mean to say that his perfections are emanating, that his essence is always acting.

Article 3 consists of whether any creature can be like God. Thomas defends that the comparison of man to God in likeness is that of analogy. Where man can be like God in likeness, but not in genus and genre, such as that of a statue being made like a human, but is not really inversely comparable. A reflection on this in my own words comes from the creation of all things by God, which are an effect. If God caused all things in creation and we are to assume that a cause is “like” its effect then we have an insurmountable amount of things that are “like” God and cannot then tell what likeness is since we have a wide range of incomparable things. The key is participation in this likeness. We are participating in his essence, being, and substance.

--------------------------------------------------------

What’s the take away? It’s really all in Article 1, that God is perfect because He cannot achieve a better version of Himself – He just is. Things in the world can achieve perfections but these things cannot be themselves perfect. God can, and God is, because God is outside space, time, and is always was. Say it any which way you want to – God cannot get better or more good or achieve anything because He already has.  That’s pure perfection.

So when you hear “perfect,” know how it is properly used. It’s not simply, what we like most or, which is better according to an individual or a civilization, but is the achievement of what potential a thing is capable. For God, He has no potential because He is just Himself.

Now do you see why this saying in the picture below is somewhat of a contradiction to the person God is? Whoever says this is referring to God's interaction with THEIR time, not His. Right?

Want more on Question 4?

Go here for the Summa itself, and here for a summarized version.