Matthew Kirby

Building on previous work synthesising the metaphysics of the divine in Aquinas, Palamas, and Scotus, this paper outlines how God’s contingent, ad extra actions relate to his immutability and simplicity. Using the concept of intrinsic ramifications of the simple divine form and a spatial/geometrical model of the divine ideas, it is shown that his relations to creation are real in him (not merely extrinsically denominated) without adding to his actuality or knowledge. His spontaneous creative choice and energy are a necessary formality in him, but were genuinely contingent as to what was chosen. This free choice determines the form that the plurality of energies (as metaformalities) take in creation. Freedom is possible for creatures in our universe due to quantum theory. State reduction is where libertarian free will can act. God’s singular creative act of picking out a world (across its history) in toto will have two moments if creation itself contains freedom: the first chooses a world-type with particular initial conditions and patterns of change, the second actualises a particular world of that world-type, including by “granting existence to” the set of creaturely free choices that distinguish that world from others of the type. This allowing of existence to creatures’ acts of free will, unlike all other divine providence, does not involve determining essence, as the creatures determine their own volitional essence. Instead, the second moment can be understood at each free-will event either as God knowingly actualising the existence of the chooser who freely chooses a certain way, or a permissive divine choice that does not involve predetermination but combines with intuitive cognition of what the creature chooses to “respond” accordingly. This second, non-predetermining option results in a providence not based on prior decree of every detail.

In an earlier paper, Mark Spencer synthesized three understandings of divine simplicity, arguing that the Thomist account can be enriched by Scotist and Palamite distinctions. After summarizing that earlier work, this paper builds upon it in four main ways. Firstly, it relates Scotus’ logical (diminished) univocity to Aquinas’ metaphysical analogy in language about God. Secondly, it explores the limits of univocity and the formal distinction as applied to the divine essence (in the Palamite sense), utilising the scientific metaphor of tomography. Thirdly, it defends Palamite energies from the charge of being Thomistic accidents by introducing the concept of “intrinsic ramification” and applying that concept to the Thomistic divine ideas. Fourthly, it tabulates some significant pre-existing parallels between the three systems’ nomenclature in referring to similar aspects of the divine.