Omnipotent Question
Probably a dumb question but I'm wondering why Jews and Muslims-if they believe in an all-powerful God (in this case, for the Jews God the Father and for Muslims their false deity Allah) who can do whatever He wants, why do they not think that God could not come down to Earth being fully man and fully God?
I'm not sure a bunch of Catholics are the right group of people to answer that question.  Catholics believe what we believe precisely because we believe God truly can do whatever He wants, and that it was His will to become incarnate.
I think they believe that Almighty God can become incarnate, but that He simply didn't choose to do so.
Jesus gives every human creature the GRACES to recognize him and his Church, what they did with those graces only JESUS knows and they will be judged by it.
It's not too difficult to understand their position, actually.  God is omnipotent, but what does it mean to be omnipotent?  Using Thomistic philosophy, we would say that omnipotence is the ability to be the efficient cause of any effect and is able to effect motion so as to actualise any potentiality.  Prime mover and prime cause.  This does not allow for the ability to actualise something where there is no potential, or to effect something which is a contradiction.  In other words, God can do all things which are possible to be done, but not things which by their very nature are logically impossible.

God Himself is a fully actualised, immutable (i.e. unchangeable) being, so to suggest that He "became man" is to suggest there is some potential which was actualised, and that He changed, which to them will sound blasphemous!  You can see too from here how it would be easy to stray into a Docetist view of Christ not "really" being man but only taking the appearance of man, or vice versa with Arianism.

How to reconcile this, then?  I am not brave enough to try myself, so I shall quote instead from the Catholic Encyclopaedia.

Catholic Encyclopaedia: The Incarnation Wrote:It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh. At the moment of conception, in the womb of the Blessed Mother, through the forcefulness of God's activity, not only was the human soul of Christ created but the Word assumed the man that was conceived. When God created the world, the world was changed, that is, it passed from the state of nonentity to the state of existence; and there was no change in the Logos or Creative Word of God the Father. Nor was there change in that Logos when it began to terminate the human nature. A new relation ensued, to be sure; but this new relation implied in the Logos no new reality, no real change; all new reality, all real change, was in the human nature. Anyone who wishes to go into this very intricate question of the manner of the Hypostatic Union of the two natures in the one Divine Personality, may with great profit read St. Thomas (III:4:2); Scotus (in III, Dist. i); (De Incarnatione, Disp. II, sec. 3); Gregory, of Valentia (in III, D. i, q. 4). Any modern text book on theology will give various opinions in regard to the way of the union of the Person assuming with the nature assumed.

N.b. I disavow any inaccurate statements I made, and request that someone please correct me if there are any!

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)