63. Conformity of Human Will to Divine Will

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Question of Divine Will Conformity (Article 9) #

• Whether the goodness of the human will depends on conformity to the divine will
• The objection from Isaiah 55: God’s ways are infinitely exalted above human ways, making conformity seemingly impossible
• The counter-argument from Matthew 26 and the Our Father: Christ and Christian prayer presuppose conformity to divine will

Conformity by Imitation, Not Equality (Article 9 - Resolution) #

• The human will cannot conform to divine will by equiparentia (equality)
• Rather, conformity occurs by imitatio (imitation)
• Analogy to Matthew 5:48 (“Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”): This does not mean achieving equality but imitating divine perfection to the extent human nature allows
• God wills nothing except in willing his own goodness; the divine goodness is the measure and standard of all things

Wisdom as Divine Knowledge #

• Following Aristotle: wisdom is divine knowledge in two senses: (1) its object is God, and (2) it is the knowledge that God alone or God most of all possesses
• The word “philosopher” originated with Pythagoras, who claimed God alone is wise; hence philosophers are “lovers of wisdom” (φιλόσοφος), expressing humility about human knowledge
• Truth is the conformity of knowledge to its object; the cause is more true than the effect
• The first cause (God) is most true; creatures know truth by conforming their knowledge to reality as ordered by God

Article 10 - Material vs. Formal Conformity #

• Key question: Must the human will conform to divine will in the thing willed (materially) or only in the reason for willing (formally)?
• The objections raise practical difficulties: We cannot know what God wills in particular; God wills damnation for some, yet we cannot be held to will our own damnation; willing a father’s death would violate piety
• Resolution: The human will must be conformed to divine will formally (in the reason for willing) but not necessarily materially (in the thing willed)

The Formal and Material Distinction #

• Material aspect: The thing itself that is willed
• Formal aspect: The reason or aspect under which it is willed (the end or intention)
• Analogy from sight: color is material; light is formal (color becomes visible through light)
• The object of will has two elements: (1) the thing willed (material), (2) the reason for willing it (formal, pertaining to the end)

The Common Good Principle #

• The goodness of the will depends on the intention of the end, which is the common good
• A creature’s natural desire (like a part of a body) is ordered to the common good of the whole
• Example: The hand naturally protects the head because the head’s good is the good of the whole body; thus the hand is ordered to a greater good than its own preservation
• For a will to be right, a particular good must be willed materially but the common good must be willed formally (as the reason or end)
• Example of the judge and the thief’s wife: Both have good wills. The judge, considering the common good (justice), wills the thief’s death as punishment. The wife, considering the private good of the family, wills he not be killed. Both have rational grounds, but the judge’s good is more universal.
• In matters of state (e.g., military draft), the common good of the nation outweighs the good of a family; thus a mother should submit her will to this higher good

Knowledge and Conformity #

• We can know what God wills in general: whatever God wills, He wills under the reason of it being good
• We cannot know in particular what God wills in every case
• Therefore: We are held to conform our will formally (willing what is good under the aspect of good), but not materially (we need not know or will the particular thing God wills)
• In the state of glory, the blessed will conform their will to God both formally and materially, seeing God’s will in all things

The Our Father and Conformity #

• The first three petitions (hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done) concern goods not fully realized in this life—only eschatologically
• The last four petitions concern goods achievable in this life
• The structure reflects Augustine’s division of the seven petitions
• Thomas Aquinas divides them differently: first two petition the end; second two petition the chief means (doing God’s will); last three remove impediments

Key Arguments #

Objection 1: Impossibility of Conformity (Article 9) #

• Premise: Isaiah 55 declares God’s ways infinitely exalted above human ways
• Inference: If conformity requires equality, it is impossible; therefore humans cannot be required to achieve it
• Response: Conformity is by imitation, not equality; just as Christ calls us to perfect imitation of the Father (not equality)

Objection 2: Knowledge Problem (Article 9) #

• Premise: We cannot will what we don’t know
• Premise: We do not know what God wills in particular
• Inference: We cannot be required to conform our will to God’s in particular matters
• Response: We know God wills all things sub ratione boni (under the aspect of good); this common knowledge is sufficient for formal conformity

Objection 1 to Article 10: Limitation by Ignorance #

• Premise: What God wills is unknown to us
• Premise: The good grasped is the object of the will
• Inference: The human will cannot conform materially to divine will
• Response: We are not required to conform materially; formal conformity (willing under the aspect of good) suffices

Objection 2 to Article 10: The Problem of Damnation #

• Premise: God wills the damnation of those He foreknows will die in mortal sin
• Premise: If we must conform our will materially to God’s, we would be required to will our own damnation
• Premise: This is unfitting and unjust
• Response: God does not will damnation as damnation; He wills justice. We are held to will the justice of God and the order of nature, which is sufficient conformity

Objection 3 to Article 10: Violation of Piety #

• Premise: When God wills someone’s father to die, if the son conforms materially by willing his father’s death, this violates filial piety
• Inference: Material conformity cannot be required
• Response: Correct; only formal conformity is required. The son wills his father’s health (or recovery) according to natural inclination and divine gift; this is itself a conformity to God as efficient cause who gave him this nature

Important Definitions #

Equiparentia (ἐquiparentία) #

• Conformity by equality; making two things equal
• Impossible between human and divine will due to infinite disparity
• Example: The meter bar in Paris is the standard; all other measures are conformed to it as a standard, not through equality

Imitatio #

• Conformity through imitation; replicating a pattern to the extent one’s nature allows
• The proper mode of human conformity to divine will
• As Christ teaches: imitate the perfections of the Father without achieving equality

Ratio Boni (λόγος τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ) #

• The aspect or reason under which something is perceived as good
• God wills all things sub ratione boni
• The formal object of the will

Conformitas Materialis vs. Formalis #

• Materially: Willing the same thing God wills
• Formally: Willing according to the same reason God wills (the reason being its goodness or its order to the common good)

Syneidesis (συνείδησις) - Conscience Applied #

• While not explicitly defined here, the lecture assumes conscience applies universal knowledge of divine will (that God wills the good) to particular acts

Examples & Illustrations #

The Judge and the Thief’s Wife #

• The Judge: Wills the thief’s death as justice (a punishment for theft). His will is good because he considers the common good and the reason of justice.
• The Wife: Wills the thief not be killed because she considers the private good of the family. Her will is also good because she has a rational ground.
• Resolution: Both have good wills, but the judge’s is oriented to a greater (more universal) good. In conflict, the higher good takes precedence.
• Application: During wartime, the state may draft a father for military service despite the family’s desire to keep him home. The mother, while having a good reason to will his stay, should conform to the higher common good (national security).

St. Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh (2 Corinthians 12) #

• Paul’s Prayer: He prayed three times for God to remove a “thorn in the flesh” (suffering/temptation)
• God’s Response: God refused, saying His grace is sufficient and power is perfected in weakness
• Analysis: Paul’s will to be healed was good (natural inclination). He did not know God’s particular will (to keep the affliction for Paul’s humility). Yet Paul conformed to God’s will by accepting the affliction. This is formal conformity without material conformity in the particular.
• Application: After the fact, Paul could recognize that the suffering was for his good (humility); thus retrospectively the material conformed too, though he didn’t know it beforehand.

King David’s Child (2 Samuel 12) #

• The Situation: David’s child became ill and David prayed for recovery
• David’s Response: While the child was sick, David fasted and wept. When the child died, David arose and worshiped, saying “now I go to him”
• Analysis: David willed the child’s health (natural good), but when God’s will became clear through the child’s death, David conformed himself to it. This shows how formal conformity to God’s will (as just and providential) can coexist with initial willing of particular goods that differ from what God wills.

The Our Father Structure #

• First Three Petitions: “Hallowed be thy name,” “thy kingdom come,” “thy will be done”—goods not fully realized in this life
• Last Four Petitions: “Give us our daily bread,” “forgive us,” “lead us not into temptation,” “deliver us from evil”—goods attainable in this life
• Augustine’s Division: Separates the transcendent from the immanent petitions
• Thomas’s Division: (1) First two petition the end; (2) second two petition the chief means to the end (doing God’s will); (3) last three remove impediments

Humility and Temperance (Implicit Example) #

• Someone might will to eat candy despite having sorrow for sins and repugnance to even venial sin
• This illustrates the tension between knowing the good (conformity formally to God’s will for virtue) and particular willing (materially willing pleasure)
• Understanding this better requires meditation and prayer

Aristotle and the Pythagorean Origin of “Philosophy” #

• Historical Point: Pythagoras, upon being praised as wise by contemporaries, demurred, saying “Don’t call me wise; God alone is wise. Call me a lover of wisdom (φιλόσοφος)”
• Significance: This humility about human wisdom versus divine wisdom is embedded in the word “philosopher” itself
• Application: Wisdom for Aristotle is divine knowledge—either about God or the knowledge God most possesses. Human wisdom imitates this remotely through understanding first causes.

The Definition of “Reason” with Two Senses #

• Reason is a knowledge of reason in both senses: (1) knowledge about what reason is, and (2) the knowledge that reason has about itself
• Similarly, theology is knowledge of God in both senses: (1) knowledge about God, and (2) the knowledge God has
• The three books on the soul: knowledge of the soul understood both as knowledge about the soul and the soul’s knowledge of itself through its powers, powers through acts, acts through objects

Notable Quotes #

“Not as I will, but as you will” (Matthew 26 - Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane)

• Exemplifies the conformity of the human will to the divine will that Christ models
• The foundation for the petition in the Our Father: “thy will be done”

“Be perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48)

• Interpreted as a call to imitation, not equality
• Clarifies that conformity to divine will is by imitatio, not equiparentia

“Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Our Father, Matthew 6:10)

• The petition that directly expresses the conformity of human to divine will
• In heaven, the blessed conform their will both formally and materially; on earth, formally

“As the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are exalted my ways from your ways, and my thoughts from your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9)

• Objection to conformity; met by the response that conformity is by imitation, not equality

“Be imitators of me as I am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1 - St. Paul)

• Illustrates the chain of imitation: Paul imitates Christ; the faithful imitate Paul
• Shows how conformity to divine will operates through exemplars

“God alone is wise” (Pythagoras, cited through Aristotelian tradition)

• Reflects the humility proper to human seeking of wisdom
• Grounds the definition of philosophy as love of wisdom, not wisdom itself

Questions Addressed #

Article 9: Does the Goodness of the Human Will Depend on Conformity to Divine Will? #

Question: Is it possible and required for human will to conform to divine will when God’s ways are infinitely above ours?

Resolution: Yes, but by imitation, not equality.

• The highest good is God; the human will’s goodness depends on being ordered to God
• God’s goodness is the measure and standard (just as the first thing in any genus is the measure of all things in that genus)
• Conformity occurs through imitation: humans approximate divine willing insofar as reason grasps truth and orders acts to the common good
• The analogy of Christ’s call to perfection clarifies: “be perfect as your Father” means imitate divine perfection within human capacity

Article 10: Must the Human Will Conform to Divine Will in the Thing Willed? #

Question: Is material conformity (willing the same thing God wills) required, or only formal conformity (willing for the same reason)?

Resolution: Formal conformity is required; material conformity is not (in this life).

Key Points:

• The will follows reason’s grasp of the good. Reason can grasp something as good for one reason and not good for another reason simultaneously (e.g., the judge sees thief’s death as good for justice; the wife sees it as bad for the family)
• God wills all things under the aspect of the common good (His own goodness, which is the good of the whole universe)
• Creatures naturally grasp particular goods proportioned to their nature
• For a will to be right, it must will particular goods ordered to the common good formally, but need not know materially what God wills in every case
• In the state of glory, the blessed will conform their will both formally and materially because they will see God’s will in singular things
• In this life, formal conformity (willing the divine good and common good as the end) is what can and should be achieved

Subsidiary Clarifications:

• We know God wills all things sub ratione boni; this universal knowledge is sufficient
• God does not will damnation as damnation but as justice; conformity to God requires willing the justice of God
• Natural inclinations (e.g., to preserve one’s child or to recover from illness) are themselves gifts from God and participate in conformity to Him as efficient cause
• Parents praying for a sick child’s recovery do not act badly even if God wills the child’s death, because they act according to natural inclination and without culpable ignorance