The Self-existence of God

Lord of all being! Thou alone canst affirm I AM THAT I AM; yet we who are made in Thine image may each one repeat ”I am,” so confessing that we derive from Thee and that our words are but an echo of Thine own. We acknowledge Thee to be the great Original of which we through Thy goodness are grateful if imperfect copies. We worship Thee, O Father Everlasting. Amen.

”God has no origin,” said Novatian and it is precisely this concept of no-origin which distinguishes That-which-is-God from whatever is not God.

Origin is a word that can apply only to things created. When we think of anything that has origin we are not thinking of God. God is self-existent, while all created things necessarily originated somewhere at some time. Aside from God, nothing is self-caused.

By our effort to discover the origin of things we confess our belief that everything was made by Someone who was made of none. By familiar experience we are taught that everything ”came from” something else. Whatever exists must have had a cause that antedates it and was at least equal to it, since the lesser cannot produce the greater. Any person or thing may be at once both caused and the cause of someone or something else; and so, back to the One who is the cause of all but is Himself caused by none.

The child by his question, ”Where did God come from?” is unwittingly acknowledging his creaturehood. Already the concept of cause and source and origin is firmly fixed in his mind. He knows that everything around him came from something other than itself, and he simply extends that concept upward to God. The little philosopher is thinking in true creature-idiom and, allowing for his lack of basic information, he is reasoning correctly. He must be told that God has no origin, and he will find this hard to grasp since it introduces a category with which he is wholly unfamiliar and contradicts the bent toward origin-seeking so deeply ingrained in all intelligent beings, a bent that impels them to probe ever back and back toward undiscovered beginnings.

To think steadily of that to which the idea of origin cannot apply is not easy, if indeed it is possible at all. Just as under certain conditions a tiny point of light can be seen, not by looking directly, at it but by focusing the eyes slightly to one side, so it is with the idea of the Uncreated. When we try to focus our thought upon One who is pure uncreated being we may, see nothing at all, for He dwelleth in light that no man can approach unto. Only by faith and love are we able to glimpse Him as he passes by our shelter in the cleft of the rock. ”And although this knowledge is very cloudy, vague and general,” says Michael de Molinos, "being supernatural, it produces a far more clear and perfect cognition of God than any sensible or particular apprehension that can be formed in this life; since all corporeal and sensible images are immeasurably remote from God.”

The human mind, being created, has an understandable uneasiness about the Uncreated. We do not find it comfortable to allow for the presence of One who is wholly outside of the circle of our familiar knowledge. We tend to be disquieted by the thought of One who does not account to us for His being, who is responsible to no one, who is self-existent, self-dependent and self-sufficient.

Philosophy and science have not always been friendly toward the idea of God, the reason being that they are dedicated to the task of accounting for things and are impatient with anything that refuses to give an account of itself. The philosopher and the scientist will admit that there is much that they do not know; but that is quite another thing from admitting that there is something which they can never know, which indeed they have no technique for discovering.

To admit that there is One who lies beyond us, who exists outside of all our categories, who will not be dismissed with a name, who will not appear before the bar of our reason, nor submit to our curious inquiries: this requires a great deal of humility, more than most of us possess, so we save face by thinking God down to our level, or at least down to where we can manage Him. Yet how He eludes us! For He is everywhere while He is nowhere, for ”where” has to do with matter and space, and God is independent of both. He is unaffected by time or motion, is wholly self-dependent and owes nothing to the worlds His hands have made.

Timeless, spaceless, single, lonely, Yet sublimely Three, Thou art grandly, always, only God is Unity! Lone in grandeur, lone in glory, Who shall tell Thy wondrous story? Awful Trinity! Frederick W. Faber

It is not a cheerful thought that millions of us who live in a land of Bibles, who belong to churches and labor to promote the Christian religion, may yet pass our whole life on this earth without once having thought or tried to think seriously about the being of God. Few of us have let our hearts gaze in wonder at the I AM, the self-existent Self back of which no creature can think. Such thoughts are too painful for us. We prefer to think where it will do more good – about how to build a better mousetrap, for instance, or how to make two blades of grass grow where one grew before. And for this we are now paying a too heavy price in the secularlzation of our religion and the decay of our inner lives.

Perhaps some sincere but puzzled Christian may at this juncture wish to inquire about the practicality of such concepts as I am trying to set forth here. ”What bearing does this have on my life?” he may ask. ”What possible meaning can the self-existence of God have for me and others like me in a world such as this and in times such as these?”

To this I reply that, because we are the handiwork of God, it follows that all our problems and their solutions are theological. Some knowledge of what kind of God it is that operates the universe is indispensable to a sound philosophy of life and a sane outlook on the world scene.

The much-quoted advice of Alexander Pope, Know then thyself, presume not God to scan: The proper study of mankind is man, if followed literally would destroy any possibility of man’s ever knowing himself in any but the most superficial way. We can never know who or what we are till we know at least something of what God is. For this reason the self-existence of God is not a wisp of dry doctrine, academic and remote; it is in fact as near as our breath and as practical as the latest surgical technique.

For reasons known only to Himself, God honored man above all other beings by creating him in His own image. And let it be understood that the divine image in man is not a poetic fancy, not an idea born of religious longing. It is a solid theological fact, taught plainly throughout the Sacred Scriptures and recognized by the Church as a truth necessary to a right understanding of the Christian faith.

Man is a created being, a derived and contingent self, who of himself possesses nothing but is dependent each moment for his existence upon the One who created him after His own likeness. The fact of God is necessary to the fact of man. Think God away and man has no ground of existence.

That God is everything and man nothing is a basic tenet of Christian faith and devotion; and here the teachings of Christianity coincide with those of the more advanced and philosophical religions of the East. Man for all his genius is but an echo of the original Voice, a reflection of the uncreated Light. As a sunbeam perishes when cut off from the sun, so man apart from God would pass back into the void of nothingness from which he first leaped at the creative call.

Not man only, but everything that exists came out of and is dependent upon the continuing creative impulse. ”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made.” That is how John explains it, and with him agrees the apostle Paul: ”For by him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” To this witness the writer to the Hebrews adds his voice, testifying of Christ that He is the brightness of God’s glory and the express image of His Person, and that He upholds all things by the word of His power.

In this utter dependence of all things upon the creative will of God lies the possibility for both holiness and sin. One of the marks of God’s image in man is his ability to exercise moral choice. The teaching of Christianity is that man chose to be independent of God and confirmed his choice by deliberately disobeying a divine command. This act violated the relationship that normally existed between God and His creature; it rejected God as the ground of existence and threw man back upon himself. Thereafter he became not a planet revolving around the central Sun, but a sun in his own right, around which everything else must revolve.

A more positive assertion of selfhood could not be imagined than those words of God to Moses: I AM THAT I AM. Everything God is, everything that is God, is set forth in that unqualified declaration of independent being. Yet in God, self is not sin but the quintessence of all possible goodness, holiness and truth.

The natural man is a sinner because and only because he challenges God’s selfhood in relation to his own. In all else he may willingly accept the sovereignty of God; in his own life he rejects it. For him, God’s dominion ends where his begins. For him, self becomes Self, and in this he unconsciously imitates Lucifer, that fallen son of the morning who said in his heart, ”I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. . . . I will be like the Most High.”

Yet so subtle is self that scarcely anyone is conscious of its presence. Because man is born a rebel, he is unaware that he is one. His constant assertion of self, as far as he thinks of it at all, appears to him a perfectly normal thing. He is willing to share himself, sometimes even to sacrifice himself for a desired end, but never to dethrone himself. No matter how far down the scale of social acceptance he may slide, he is still in his own eyes a king on a throne, and no one, not even God, can take that throne from him.

Sin has many manifestations but its essence is one. A moral being, created to worship before the throne of God, sits on the throne of his own selfhood and from that elevated position declares, ”I AM.” That is sin in its concentrated essence; yet because it is natural it appears to be good. It is only when in the gospel the soul is brought before the face of the Most Holy One without the protective shield of ignorance that the frightful moral incongruity is brought home to the conscience. In the language of evangelism the man who is thus confronted by the fiery presence of Almighty God is said to be under conviction. Christ referred to this when He said of the Spirit whom He would send to the world, ”And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.”

The earliest fulfillment of these words of Christ was at Pentecost after Peter had preached the first great Christian sermon. ”Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” This ”What shall we do?” is the deep heart cry of every man who suddenly realizes that he is a usurper and sits on a stolen throne. However painful, it is precisely this acute moral consternation that produces true repentance and makes a robust Christian after the penitent has been dethroned and has found forgiveness and peace through the gospel.

”Purity of heart is to will one thing,” said Kierkegaard, and we may with equal truth turn this about and declare, ”The essence of sin is to will one thing,” for to set our will against the will of God is to dethrone God and make ourselves supreme in the little kingdom of Mansoul. This is sin at its evil root. Sins may multiply like the sands by the seashore, but they are yet one. Sins are because sin is. This is the rationale behind the much maligned doctrine of natural depravity which holds that the independent man can do nothing but sin and that his good deeds are really not good at all. His best religious works God rejects as He rejected the offering of Cain. Only when he has restored his stolen throne to God are his works acceptable.

The struggle of the Christian man to be good while the bent toward self-assertion still lives within him as a kind of unconscious moral reflex is vividly described by the apostle Paul in the seventh chapter of his Roman Epistle; and his testimony is in full accord with the teaching of the prophets. Eight hundred years before the advent of Christ the prophet Isaiah identified sin as rebellion against the will of God and the assertion of the right of each man to choose for himself the way he shall go. ”All we like sheep have gone astray,” he said, ”we have turned every one to his own way,” and I believe that no more accurate description of sin has ever been given.

The witness of the saints has been in full harmony with prophet and apostle, that an inward principle of self lies at the source of human conduct, turning everything men do into evil. To save us completely Christ must reverse the bent of our nature; He must plant a new principle within us so that our subsequent conduct will spring out of a desire to promote the honor of God and the good of our fellow men. The old self-sins must die, and the only instrument by which they can be slain is the Cross. ”If any man come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me,” said our Lord, and years later the victorious Paul could say, ”I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”

My God, shall sin its power maintain And in my soul defiant live! ‘Tis not enough that Thou forgive, The cross must rise and self be slain. O God of love, Thy power disclose: ‘Tis not enough that Christ should rise, I, too, must seek the brightening skies, And rise from death, as Christ arose. Greek hymn

If you are claiming God Incarnate = God (as in the Godhead) then you are denying the humanity of Jesus.

When I say the words *God* and *God Incarnate* or *Jesus* do you think the same thing?

When people hear *God*, do you expect them to think *Jesus* or the Godhead?

When you say *Jesus* do you expect them to think that you’re talking about the *Father* or *Holy Spirit*?

When you yourself at speaking and use the term *God*, do you mean or expect people to think you mean *Jesus* or the Godhead, the Trinity?

The problem is renaming Mary to *mother of GOD* as opposed to the term the HOLY SPIRIT used in addressing her as *mother of JESUS*.

Referring to Mary as *mother of GOD* says a whole different thing than *mother of Jesus* no matter what semantic gymnastics Catholics would engage in to claim otherwise.

IIRC, the excuse Catholics give for changing the title of Mary was to clear up confusion that arose concerning the deity of Christ.

However, the right thing to have done, would be to have gone back to Scripture and taught correctly who Jesus was, not to rename Mary, removing any reference as all to Jesus.

There is no way that anyone who is not familiar with the concept of the Trinity would think that by calling Mary, *mother of God*, that you would by default mean *mother of God INCARNATE* or *mother of Jesus*.

The change in title says something else and only breeds confusion for those not taught in Catholic thinking. If the term has to be explained so that someone understand it correctly, there is a problem with the term and it needs to be tossed and a more accurate and self-explanatory one needs to be used so as to clear up the confusion.

If someone doesn’t know who Jesus is, TEACH THEM FROM SCRIPTURE. Don’t play name games with His mother.

If you are claiming God Incarnate = God (as in the Godhead) then you are denying the humanity of Jesus.

When I say the words *God* and *God Incarnate* or *Jesus* do you think the same thing?

When people hear *God*, do you expect them to think *Jesus* or the Godhead?

When you say *Jesus* do you expect them to think that you’re talking about the *Father* or *Holy Spirit*?

When you yourself at speaking and use the term *God*, do you mean or expect people to think you mean *Jesus* or the Godhead, the Trinity?

I am not claiming God Incarnate = God (as in the Godhead). God Incarnate is the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, Jesus Christ. As Jesus Christ, God Incarnate became fully human in every way but sin.

It really doesn’t matter what we think. It is what it is. Jesus is God, and was the child of the Holy Ghost, Immanuel, God with us, the Son of God, Savior, Redeemer, I AM, the Lord God, and all the other names that were revealed to us for Him in Sacred Scripture. And the Holy Spirit revealed to us that Mary was the mother of this person Jesus.

If you are claiming Mary is not the mother of God, then I do not understand how you are not also denying the divinity of Jesus. Can you explain to me how Jesus can be separated from God with regard to His mother?

Then the solution would be to become familiar with the concept of the Trinity as well as the hypostatic union of Jesus. To say that Mary is the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God is to say that Jesus is not God. I don’t see any other way to explain it.

I usually cite mathematics as evidence for God, in that the universe (at least as we perceive it) requires sequencing of fields and particles, that even here, billions of years later, has us looking back at that sequencing through the concept of number with remarkable understanding and derivative predictive power.

“Sh’ma Yisrael: Adonai Elohenu. Adonai echad.”

The argument that *Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God therefore Mary is the mother of God*, leads to the following conclusions using the same (for lack of a better term) *logic*:

If Mary is the mother of God and God is the Trinity, then Mary is the mother of the Trinity.

That puts Mary above the Godhead, makes Mary deity, makes her the mother of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, making them created, finite beings with beginning.

It totally messes up all kinds of theology.

Is Mary the mother of the Father?

Is Mary the mother of the Holy Spirit?

Is Mary the mother of the DEITY of the second person of the Trinity, the mother of the GODHOOD of Jesus?

Is not, Mary is NOT the mother of GOD.

I'll stick with agreeing with the Holy Spirit in what He inspired in Scripture: *Mary, the mother of Jesus*.

That way, I KNOW I can't be wrong.

The Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.

John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”

Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

The argument that *Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God therefore Mary is the mother of God*, leads to the following conclusions using the same (for lack of a better term) *logic*:
If Mary is the mother of God and God is the Trinity, then Mary is the mother of the Trinity.

Your logic is incomplete. Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God in the Second Person of the Trinity. As the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus is God, whole and entire. This is His divine nature. As the child conceived of and born from Mary, Jesus is a human being. This is His human nature. Jesus is true God and true man. As the mother of the person Jesus, Mary is His mother in His divinity and in His humanity. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

If Mary is the mother of God and God is the Trinity, it does not follow that Mary is the mother of all three persons of the Trinity. As explained above, and as revealed by the Holy Spirit, Mary became the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity. As the angel Gabriel foretold, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” The Holy Ghost and the Highest were not born of Mary, just the Son.

As you noted, the Holy Spirit called Mary the mother of Jesus. But He also called her “his mother” and made many references to how she conceived of and gave birth to a divine person and that this divine person was her Son. I will not repeat all these references here, but I will ask again:

Can you explain to me how Jesus can be separated from God with regard to His mother?

Mary is not the mother of His divinity.

His divinity pre-existed Mary, it did not come into existence when Mary conceived Jesus.

No woman is the mother of what comes from her child’s father. But what comes from the father is part of who the son or daughter is, and the woman is the mother of all that her son or daughter is. In the same way, Mary is the mother of all that Jesus was, though His divinity did not come from her. And what Jesus was included being God.

The following story may show you what I mean.

One day when Jesus was a child, he fell and scraped his knee. Mary came running to him, swooped him up and tended to his wound, saying, “That’s okay, honey, Mom will make it all better.”

One evening a little later, Mary cut her finger while fixing supper. Jesus said, “That’s okay, Mommy, I’ll make it all better.” Mary thought how cute it was that Jesus was imitating her until she saw the serious look on his face, and realized that he was speaking to her as her God.

Now, as far as I know, this never really happened, but it does illustrate the dual nature of Jesus.

He was speaking to her as God

Exactly, He was speaking to her as God when He rebuked her. Even so, He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

I would think that one of the things that His mother kept in her heart was that, more than anything else, her Son must be about His Father’s business. For Jesus, it was all about His Father.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.