God defies definition. This is not to say that the concept GOD is incoherent (although humans are capable of misunderstanding, mischaracterising, and misrepresenting God). God is other; He is distinct from His creation, and yet – so Christianity teaches – God invites mankind to interact with Him. Such interaction requires some element of commonality; without it, there can be no communication. Christians understand God’s interaction with us to be through condescension; to understand Him fully is beyond us. The greatest act of condescension, as taught by the Gospel, is that God took on human flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
If God exists, the Incarnation is paradoxically both surprising and logical. God is by definition supremely benevolent. If this characteristic is removed, the concept of God becomes incoherent and God cannot exist: for anything that is incoherent is not real. (Note, incoherence itself has categories: humans can hold incoherent views in the realm of imagination; but this does not entail that such views correspond to anything in reality).
Such benevolence would lead to creation of a world. When that world went wrong (through free will), benevolence would lead to its redemption. The nature of human sin and is such that the path of redemption leads through the Incarnation of God Himself (although mankind did not clearly foresee or understand this; wisdom on this matter has come through revelation and hindsight).
Benevolence is a personal characteristic. Benevolence apart from personhood is incoherent. Feuerbach, an atheist, posited the idea that the concept GOD was a projection. He held that mankind, troubled by the hostility of the physical world and their own capacity for evil, created the concept GOD and chose to believe in God’s existence as a coping mechanism. It is more comforting to believe that the universe was created and created by a supreme Benevolence, than to accept that it simply exists and that there is no objective meaning to our existence.
Have we followed the route that Feuerbach described? Or have we believed in God because there is a God and because His nature and existence can – and must be – inferred from reality?
Can an eternal being exist without personhood? Is that a coherent concept? What is the substrate of existence? What is the ultimate Reality? It cannot be less than the glory of mankind – indeed it must be more.
The philosophy of emergent properties is a complex sub-discipline, much of which must lie beyond the scope of this post. However, it is sufficient to observe that our contingent minds cannot come from something that is not mind at all. Therefore, there must be a necessary Mind and that Mind must be co-extensive with Ultimate Reality.
(Intermediate great minds between humanity and God are also possible – thus thrones, principalities, powers, angels, demons, etc. However, God is logically necessary, which is why Greco-Roman paganism cannot be true, since its pantheon does not conform with the coherent definition of GOD.)
This post has served to introduce the main part of the argument. A following post will round off the series by unpacking that part in more detail.
All Along the Watchtower 
On another note, I would like your take on Fr. Z’s recent rant on the “restrainer” to be found here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2019/09/the-restrainer-of-2-thessalonians-liturgy-and-the-end-times-wherein-fr-z-speculates-and-rants/
LikeLiked by 1 person
My view is that Michael the Archangel is the Restrainer and that the Third Temple will be built.
LikeLike
The long answer is that I disagree with the importation of Catholic ideas into 2 Thessalonians 2. There is good scholarship to show that Paul’s audience expected the Antichrist to defile a physical temple, just as Antiochus Epiphanes did. The author is right to read 2 Thessalonians 2 futuristically and to see Saint Michael as the Restrainer (there is good scholarship from Cambridge on that exegesis). If you are interested in this topic and want a scholarly book, I would recommend Alan Kurshner’s “Antichrist Before the Day of the LORD”. Otherwise, I can recommend blogs that you can read for free. Since this is really a nexus of ideas, if you want to pursue it further, I’d suggest specifying a particular idea you want to discuss/read about. and I’ll find appropriate resources. If you want a patristic approach, I can recommend various passages from the Fathers. Augustine of Hippo takes an opposing view, but I’m happy to provide refutations of him if you provide me with particular passages that set out his eschatology.
LikeLike
Thanks, but it is not necessary. My interest is that an exceptionally credible priest is seeing the eschatology beginning to play itself out during our present crisis. I agree with the “restrainer” as Michael the archangel as well. The Catholic perspective has usually taken a non-committal stance on such prophecies although they have presented a number of works concerning how it will play out. But ordinary priests warning about the present crisis along these lines is pretty uncommon though not necessarily unheard of . . . but the first time Fr. Z has been as specific as this though he admits that he is just now starting to formulate his position. I thought that was interesting and I appreciate your input as I know that this is something that you study and of particular interest to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Its amazing what some catholics say. im in another blog and the things im hit with are just….i have no words for. they take my breath away. One girl said jesus was catholic and the apostles were catholic and the 7 churches of Rev 1 thru 3 were catholic churches.
catholic perspective on prophesy….the CC says they dont mean what they say. they mean what ever the catholic big mouth wants them to say. Its hard to get any 2 catholics to come up with the same answer. The prophesy about the woman rides the beast and sits on 7 hills and dressed in purple and scarlet with the gold cup…..you get as many perspectives as the number of catholics you ask about that. The one thing they all have in common is that its not their wonderful meek and gentile generous pure and white harmless as a dove holy universal catholic church.
I recenty asked some lady her perspective on why none of Jesus 7 churches arent in Rome. the several long answers i got werent readable. One of her diatribes said those churches are gone because they didnt heed the warnings. I kept pressing….why isnt one of the churches in Rome. Her answers kept getting more philosophical. I finally gave up.
LikeLike
I’m keeping notes for future posts! I’ve been working on some good stuff on the Synoptics under the lens of Joseph Ratzinger’s theology.
But I think I am going to make it my goal to expose Balthsarian soteriology.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Glad you’re enjoying the posts: I thought you’d like some contemplation of the junction of Anselm and Aquinas. Glad to hear the studies are going well. Blessings on you and your wife.
LikeLiked by 1 person