36. God's Immutability and Eternity: Definition and Nature

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

God’s Immutability as Divine Property #

• God alone is altogether unchangeable (omnino immutabilis)
• Immutability is proper to God; all creatures are changeable in some way
• Changeability occurs either through God’s causality (dependence on divine power) or through internal potency

Types of Creaturely Changeability #

• Corruptible bodies: Changeable in substantial being (matter compatible with loss of form) and accidental being (subject compatible with lack of accident)
• Celestial bodies (per Aristotle and Thomas): Unchangeable in substantial being, but changeable in local being (place to place)
• Bodiless/Incorporeal substances (angels and separated souls): Unchangeable in substantial being; changeable according to place (application of power) and choice (before beatification)
• Blessed creatures: Unchangeable in their beatific vision but are creatures who had a beginning

Boethius’s Definition of Eternity #

• Definition: “Totesimo et perfecta possessio vitae interminabilis” (the all at once and perfect possession of unending life)
• Contains essential negations addressing temporal characteristics we experience
• Each word in the definition is necessary and objected to separately in the article

The Relationship Between Time and Eternity #

• Time is the number of motion according to before and after (numbering succession in motion)
• Eternity is the grasping of uniformity entirely outside motion—no before and after
• Just as time follows upon motion, eternity follows upon unchangeableness
• Boethius’s comparison: “The now that flows along makes time; the now that stands still makes eternity”

Four Negations in Eternity’s Definition #

1. No beginning and end: Negating the temporal limits creatures experience
2. All at once (totesimo): Negating the before and after present in time
3. Perfect possession: Negating the imperfection and flux of temporal moments
4. Life (vita): Emphasizing operation and activity, not merely static being

Key Arguments #

Why Changeability is Not Proper to God #

• Objection 1 (Matter and Motion): The philosopher says matter is in everything that is moved. Created substances (angels, souls) lack matter, so they cannot be moved. Response: This addresses only substantial and accidental changeability; changeability through God’s power (causality) is separate.
• Objection 2 (The Blessed): All the blessed have arrived at their last end and are therefore immobile. Response: The blessed are unchangeable in their choice and beatific vision through divine power, but changeability remains to them in other ways (e.g., place).
• Objection 3 (Forms): Forms are invariable; therefore, unchangeableness is not proper to God alone. Response: Forms are unchangeable as subjects of change (not themselves capable of variation), but the subject having the form can be varied.

Why Each Word in Boethius’s Definition is Essential #

• Negation: Objection that negation belongs only to deficient things. Response: We know simple things through composite things; negations increase as we ascend from composed to simple, culminating in God.
• Vita vs. esse: Objection that duration pertains more to being than to life. Response: Eternal life extends to operation as well as being; the measure of eternity involves operation (like time measures motion), so “life” better captures duration in eternity.
• Tota (Whole): Objection that eternity is simple and cannot have parts. Response: “Whole” means nothing is lacking, not that it has parts; uses analogy of “omnipotent” (omni = all, meaning nothing lacking in power).
• Perfect and Whole are Redundant: Objection from Aristotle that whole and perfect mean nearly the same. Response: In time, they address different negations—“whole” removes before and after; “perfect” excludes the imperfection of the now.
• Days and Times in Eternity: Objection that plural temporal terms cannot apply to eternity. Response: These are metaphorical applications; scripture applies bodily and temporal names to the incorporeal God metaphorically.
• Possession vs. Duration: Objection that possession does not pertain to duration. Response: Possession signifies immutability and stability, negating the fleeting character of temporal moments.

Important Definitions #

Eternity (Aeternitas) #

• The all at once, indivisible, unchanging duration that measures unchanging being
• Differs fundamentally from time, which measures motion and involves succession
• God is His own eternity, as He is His own essence and being

Time (Tempus) #

• The number of motion according to before and after (numerus motus secundum prius et posterius)
• Requires a numbering soul to actualize the number of succession
• Distinguished from mere motion by the counting intellect

The Now (Nunc) #

• Of time: Indivisible but flowing, always different while in one sense always the same; divides past from future
• Of eternity: Stands still, indivisible, unchanging; all moments present simultaneously

Potency and Act (Potentia and Actus) #

• Active potency: The ability to act
• Passive potency: The ability to be actualized or achieve perfection
• All creatures have passive potency; God is pure act (actus purus) with no potency

Examples & Illustrations #

The Frozen Moment (Fairy Tale) #

Imagine a spell freezing everyone in place (like servants frozen while serving dinner, waiting for the prince’s kiss to resume time). If one could stop the now of time at this moment, the life and activity possible within it would be extremely limited—you cannot hear a Mozart melody, drink wine, read an article, or accomplish anything substantial in a single indivisible instant. This illustrates the imperfection of temporal life and why eternity’s “perfect possession” negates this limitation.

Numbering Motion: The Sun’s Course #

The sun moves across the sky; we observe it here, then there, then elsewhere. We number these positions as before and after (morning, noon, evening). Similarly, we might measure days by marking wood each time the sun rises or sets. This numbering of succession in motion constitutes time.

Angelic Presence in Place #

When we say an angel “is in a place,” we do not mean the angel is contained or measured by that place (as a body is). Rather, through the application of the angel’s power to that place, the angel is said to be there equivocally. This differs from bodily presence (contact of surface) and from God’s presence (infinite power everywhere). It is more like when we say a sad story “touched your heart”—a causal presence through power applied to an object, not a physical presence.

Notable Quotes #

“Just as we come to a knowledge of simple things through composite things, so it is necessary for us to come to a knowledge of eternity through time.”

“The now that flows along makes time; the now that stands still makes eternity.” — Boethius

“God is rather strange, you know… the Greeks thought this was foolishness.” — Berquist, reflecting on the incarnation and death of Christ

“We know more what God is not than what he is.” — Principle of the via negativa

“Nothing is corrupted except through the fact that it loses its form.” — Explaining why bodiless substances cannot lose their substantial being

Questions Addressed #

Is Unchangeableness Proper Only to God? #

Berquist addresses the apparent objection that angels and blessed souls are unchangeable in their substantial being. The resolution clarifies that:

• All creatures are changeable through God’s causality: They depend on God’s will for existence and conservation; if God withdrew His action, all would return to nothing
• Properly speaking, only God is altogether unchangeable: Creatures participate in unchangeableness through divine causality, not intrinsically
• Good angels and blessed souls have limited unchangeableness: They are unchangeable in choice (after beatification) through divine power, but remain changeable in place and potentially other respects

Can Eternity Be Defined Through Negations? #

Objection: Negation belongs only to deficient things, which does not suit eternity. Response: As we ascend from composite to simple things, negations necessarily increase. Even geometry requires negation to define simple entities (point as having neither length, width, nor depth). Therefore, it is appropriate to define the absolutely simple God through negations.

How Can Temporal Language Apply to Eternal God? #

Objection: Verbs signify with time (was, is, will be); how can we speak of the timeless God? Response: Such language is metaphorical. God’s eternal now includes all temporal moments simultaneously. We borrow temporal language because our minds are bound to temporal imagination, but these terms apply equivocally to God, whose life knows no succession.

Why Use “Life” Rather Than “Being” in the Definition? #

Objection: Duration pertains more to being than to life, so the definition should say “possession of unending being,” not “life.” Response: Eternity’s measure corresponds to time’s measure of motion. Since time measures motion (activity/operation), not mere being, eternity is better characterized through “life,” which encompasses both being and operation—the dynamic perfection of God’s eternal activity of understanding and willing.

Connections to Broader Philosophical Framework #

Relation to Unchangeableness (Question 9) #

Immutability is the foundation for understanding eternity. God’s complete lack of potency and composition ensures unchangeableness; eternity is the mode of being proper to what is entirely unchangeable.

Analogical Knowledge #

The lecture exemplifies the analogical ascent from temporal to eternal: we understand eternity only by negating what we experience in time. This reflects the via negativa (negative theology) throughout Thomistic doctrine on God.

Natural Philosophy as Foundation #

Understanding time from Aristotle’s Physics IV is prerequisite to understanding eternity. The lecture emphasizes that without grasping motion and time, the concept of eternity remains opaque.