"If divine transcendence is an intelligible concept, it must be understood according to a rule enunciated by Maximus the Confessor: whereas the being of finite things has nonbeing as its opposite, God’s being is entirely beyond any such opposition. God’s being is necessary ... because it transcends the dialectic of existence and nonexistence altogether; it is simple and infinite actuality, utterly pure of ontic determination, the “is” both of the “it is” and of the “it is not. It transcends, that is to say, even the distinction between the finite act and finite potency, since both exist by virtue of their participation in God’s infinite actuality, in which all that might be always supereminently is.”
Yet the argument – either we are free or we are determined – is difficult to shake off when we seek either/or answers.
The answer means we must look deeper into the idea of creatio ex nihilo and our participation in the eternal freedom of God. Most importantly, we must recognise the qualitative difference between the divine act of creation and creaturely causality.
"In the end, it is no more contradictory to say that God can create – out of the infinite wellspring of his own freedom – dependent freedoms that he does not determine, than it is to say that he can create – out of the infinite wellspring of his being – dependent beings that are genuinely somehow other than God. In neither case, however, is it possible to describe the “mechanism” by which he does this. This aporia is simply inseparable from the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo – which, no matter how we may attempt to translate it into causal terms we can understand, remains forever incomprehensible to us."
Many of our conundrums flow from a false conception of divinity and disappear once we begin to grasp the nature of transcendence. We glimpse the absolute Mystery that eludes our reason. Questions will, inevitably, remain...
(Discussion of David Bentley Hart Impassibility as Transcendence)
Yet the argument – either we are free or we are determined – is difficult to shake off when we seek either/or answers.
The answer means we must look deeper into the idea of creatio ex nihilo and our participation in the eternal freedom of God. Most importantly, we must recognise the qualitative difference between the divine act of creation and creaturely causality.
"In the end, it is no more contradictory to say that God can create – out of the infinite wellspring of his own freedom – dependent freedoms that he does not determine, than it is to say that he can create – out of the infinite wellspring of his being – dependent beings that are genuinely somehow other than God. In neither case, however, is it possible to describe the “mechanism” by which he does this. This aporia is simply inseparable from the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo – which, no matter how we may attempt to translate it into causal terms we can understand, remains forever incomprehensible to us."
Many of our conundrums flow from a false conception of divinity and disappear once we begin to grasp the nature of transcendence. We glimpse the absolute Mystery that eludes our reason. Questions will, inevitably, remain...
(Discussion of David Bentley Hart Impassibility as Transcendence)
Last edited:
