116. Relations in God: Real Distinction and Divine Simplicity

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Relations as Identical with Divine Essence (Article 2) #

• Whatever is in God must be identical with His essence (secundum rem) because God is absolutely simple
• Relations in God cannot be accidents (as in creatures) or there would be composition
• Relations differ from essence only secundum rationem (according to definition/understanding), not in reality
• The name “essence” does not express the relational aspect, just as “understanding” and “loving” are identical with God’s being yet understood differently
• Both names of relation and names of substance imperfectly express what God is

The Paradox of Real Distinction Between Relations (Article 3) #

• Relations are identical with divine essence but are really distinct from each other
• This distinction is relative (not absolute), based on opposition
• The Father and Son are one thing according to substance but three things according to relation
• Real relations require real opposition; real opposition requires real distinction
• The distinction is “not according to an absolute thing” but “according to a relative thing”

Aristotelian Foundations #

• Berquist uses Aristotle’s Physics III, Lectio 5 to ground the distinction between relations
• Aristotle distinguishes four types of opposition: contradiction, privation/lack, contrariety, and relativity
• Relations (relatives) differ from absolute predicates (substance, quantity, quality) by their essential reference to another
• Relative opposition requires that each relative be opposed to its opposite

Key Arguments #

Against Confusion with Absolute Attributes #

Problem: If fatherhood = divine essence and sonship = divine essence, then fatherhood = sonship (just as God’s power and goodness are identical)

Solution: Unlike power and goodness, fatherhood and sonship imply opposite respects in their very definitions:

• Fatherhood = one from whom another proceeds
• Sonship = that which proceeds from another
• These opposed respects ground a real distinction between the relations themselves
• Parallels Aristotle’s example: acting upon and undergoing are the same motion but differ in definition (one from agent, one in patient)

Resolving the Original Objection (Article 3, First Objection) #

Objection: “Whatever things are the same to one and the same are the same to each other” - so if both relations equal the essence, they equal each other

Response: This principle holds “in those things which are the same in reality and in definition” but not “in those things which differ in their definition”

• Example: my kicking you vs. your being kicked - same motion, but kicking is from me; being kicked is in you from me
• Fatherhood and sonship: same essence, but fatherhood implies respect from which another proceeds; sonship implies respect from which one proceeds

Important Definitions #

Relation (πρός τι / ad aliquid) #

• Aristotle’s tenth category; characterized by “towards-ness” to another
• Distinguished from absolute predicates by their essential reference
• Can be real (grounded in nature) or of reason only

Real Relation #

• A respect between things grounded in their natures
• In God: based on processions that remain within God (generation, spiration)
• Real relations require real opposition

Secundum Rem vs. Secundum Rationem #

• Secundum rem: In reality; actually existing as distinct things
• Secundum rationem: According to reason; distinct only in how we understand/define them
• Relations to essence: identical secundum rem, different secundum rationem
• Relations to each other: really distinct secundum rem

Relative Opposition #

• One of four types of opposition (per Aristotle’s Metaphysics V)
• Characteristic of relations: each relative requires and is opposed to its correlative
• Unlike contrariety, relatives do not eliminate each other but require each other
• Example: double requires half; they are really opposed yet based on the same quantity

Absolute (in Thomistic usage) #

• Distinguished from relative/towards-another
• Signifies what something is in itself, not toward another
• Not the contemporary sense of “absolute” as independent, but rather non-relational

Examples & Illustrations #

Acting Upon and Undergoing #

• When I kick you, the action from me is really the same as the passion in you
• Yet kicking (from agent) and being kicked (in patient) differ in definition
• Similarly: warming the water (from fire) vs. water being warmed (in water)
• Shows how opposed relations can be identical in reality yet distinct in definition

The Road from Athens to Thebes #

• Aristotle’s example: Is the road from Athens to Thebes the same as the road from Thebes to Athens?
• In one sense identical (same road); in another sense different (different directions)
• Illustrates how Father and Son can be one substance yet really distinct relations

Double and Half #

• Four is double of two; two is half of four
• Not absolute predicates but relative and opposed
• Yet the relation is based on the same quantity
• Shows how relations create real distinction without absolute composition

Fatherhood in Creatures vs. God #

• In creatures: a man’s fatherhood is really distinct from his humanity (added accident)
• In God: fatherhood is identical with the divine essence
• Demonstrates the radical difference between created and divine relations

Knowledge and Love in God #

• God’s knowledge is not really distinct from God Himself
• Yet God really does know (not merely as a manner of speaking)
• Similarly: relations are really in God yet identical with His essence
• Shows how “really in God” does not require real distinction from God

Notable Quotes #

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and the Word was God” - St. John 1:1

• Berquist emphasizes the Greek πρός τι (toward) captures the relational nature
• Shows how the Word is both toward the Father (relation) and is God (substance identity)
• Exemplifies the resolution: relation and substance are one thing expressed in two ways

“Substance in divine things contains the unity of God, but the relation multiplies the Trinity” - Augustine

• Cited to establish that relations are essential to real Trinity, not merely of reason
• Without real relations, there would be no real trinity (Sabellianism)

“The divine essence comprehends in itself the perfections of all genera” - Thomas Aquinas

• Explains why one simple God has multiple names and relations
• Creature perfections are limited to one genus; God’s perfection is infinite and simple

“Whatever is in God is God”

• Central principle grounding that relations cannot be accidents in God
• Yet they are truly in God and truly distinguish persons

Questions Addressed #

How can relations be really in God without compromising divine simplicity? #

• Relations are identical with divine essence in reality (secundum rem)
• They differ only in definition/understanding (secundum rationem)
• This is possible uniquely to God as pure act with no composition
• Parallels how God’s understanding, loving, power, and goodness are all identical with His essence

How can the Father and Son be one God yet really distinct? #

• One in substance (no real distinction from essence)
• Really distinct in relation (opposed relatively)
• The distinction is not absolute but relative
• Requires understanding that “thing” does not mean one thing (distinction is not numerical in the ordinary sense)

Why are relations really distinct from each other when identical with essence? #

• Real relations require real opposition
• Real opposition requires real distinction
• This distinction applies to relations compared to each other (not to essence)
• In creatures, relations are distinguished from their subject and from each other; in God, only from each other

What is the difference between my fatherhood and God’s fatherhood? #

• In me: fatherhood is really distinct from my humanity (accident added to substance)
• In God: fatherhood is identical with divine essence
• Yet in both cases, fatherhood truly means “one from whom another proceeds”
• This shows how the same concept (fatherhood) has radically different ontological status in creator and creature