Near the beginning of the Summa Theologica, Aquinas affirms the absolute transcendence of God. Man’s finite and imperfect thought cannot grasp God; his language cannot describe God.
Now we cannot know what God is, but only what he is not; we must therefore consider the ways in which God does not exist, rather than the ways in which he does. (S.T. 1.3)
God is not like anything in creation; the creation, however, is like God.
Any creature in so far as it possesses any perfection represents God and is like him, for he, being simply and universally perfect, has pre-existing in him the perfections of all his creatures . . . what we call goodness in creatures pre-exists in God in a higher way. Thus God is not good because he causes goodness, but rather goodness flows from him because he is good. (S.T. 1.13.2).
We cannot infer God’s goodness by contemplating good things and extrapolating from them. Rather, things are good to the extent that they “participate” God’s nature, which is perfect goodness. God isn’t just the cause of goodness in things; he is its continual source. It’s not even adequate to say that goodness in the world is an imperfect version of God’s goodness. To say something is “good” is to use an analogy. For Aquinas, language describes not things as they objectively are but as they exist in human knowledge, which is only analogical to God’s truth. God’s goodness doesn’t just exceed finite goodness: it is qualitatively different, totally other. Things are good by analogy to God’s goodness; or, to use Aquinas’s language, good things “participate” God’s goodness.
Aquinas is trying to find a middle ground here. If only God is good, then nothing in the world can be good unless it is an emanation from God himself — this is Greek and pagan thinking. On the other hand, if things in the world really can be good in and of themselves, then there may be no need to invoke a transendent cause of their goodness outside of the world, which potentially renders God unnecessary. So Aquinas says this:
Things are good inasmuch as they exist. Now things are said to exist, not by divine existence, but by their own. So things are good, not by God’s goodness, but by their own. (1.6.4).
But then he also says this:
One may therefore call things good and existent by reference to this first thing, existent and good by nature, inasmuch as they somehow participate and resemble it, even if distantly and deficiently . . . And in this sense all things are said to be good by divine goodness, which is the pattern, source and goal of all goodness. Nevertheless the resemblance to divine goodness which leads us to call the thing good is inherent in the thing itself, belonging to it as a form and therefore naming it. And so there is one goodness in all things, and yet many. (1.6.4).
So God can be spoken of, but only by analogy, He can be known, but only by participation:
God is known from the perfections that flow from him and are to be found in creatures, yet which exist in him in a transcendent way. (1.1.3)
Perhaps Aquinas’s is as good an interpretation as any of Paul’s remark:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made… (Romans 1:20)
Aquinas and Paul walk the line between creation as an emanation of its creator and creation as wholly other than its creator.
Ktismatics 
Have you seen “Walk the Line” about Johnny Cash?
Inspired by the film “Walk the Line”, about Johnny Cash
JH:
These eyes are crying inside
I walk gently so I don’t disturb
Those quiet sounds of breathing life
These tired eyes are open wide
The weight of life it shines from where
Those treasures hide in chests of shade
JC:
These eyes are burning inside
Savagely loving I speak to the world
These quiet sounds of breathing life
These open eyes silently long
The light of Life I speak to where
Those treasures hide in chests of shade
My blood flows through prison’s hearts.
JH:
This heart sings in thanks abound
A gift penned from undeserving hand
In your love I’m lost Beyond’s the place
As I sit found dumb in softest Silence
JC:
This heart sings in loves abound
This child’s walk it tickles my hands
You’re my treasure, the world’s your chest.
Sing now, or forever hold your peace.
—————–
And if you’re wondering, I haven’t really come to terms with Aquinas. He’s almost like a Nephelim to me. Either that or just a master theologian, which I am not. I do feel like Aquinas was a bit too Romanized for my blood. But as I come to understand him more and more…through reading McLuhan on the ear and Lindbeck’s comment that Aquinas in reality reads like a labyrinth…I realized I just don’t really understand Aquinas. That would take like a dissertation or 2, I feel.
:)
LikeLike
I don’t know Aquinas well either. How much is he formalizing existing medieval theory/praxis, how much is he creating something new and transitional? Hard to say.
So, Johnny Cash. I know Zizek isn’t a Southern man, but you perhaps are a good old boy? I see you went to Virginia Tech. My wife is from Virginia, and her daddy is from the hills of Tennessee (accent first syllable please). He loves Johnny and the Carter Family. He walks gently. His mama could play piano, zither, guitar, practically anything.
LikeLike
Where does the interest in Aquinas come from?
LikeLike
Brief line of inquiry: In Romans 1:20 Paul says that God’s nature is revealed through the creation. But Genesis 1 says that the creation is an entirely separate thing from God. So why/how would a creation reveal anything about its creator? So I’d been looking at Owen Barfield’s Saving the Appearances, in which he discusses premodern ways of seeing things. Barfield talks about Aquinas as an exemplar of the Medieval mindset in which things aren’t exactly an emanation of Spirit but aren’t completely separate either. Barfield’s is a pretty strange book, by the way. I understand CS Lewis regarded him as a kind of hero.
LikeLike
I am in fact a “good ‘ol boy” :) The don’t even know what sweet tea is here in S. Cali!
And Barfield’s book is now on my amazon wishlist, as is Crosby’s.
LikeLike
A brief exegetical note on Romans 1:
Here is the NASB translation of verse 19
“because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.”
The NIV does not translate verse 19a as “evident within them” rather they translate as “evident to them” to be consistent with 19b. However, the NASB translation follows Calvin’s thinking on the sensus divinitatis. The SD is a sense of divinity. It is something within man that gives rise to an awareness of the existence of God.
Recently Alvin Plantinga has developed this idea as a central staple of his epistemology of religious experience. A properly functioning human being under various circumstances will react with various beliefs and awarenesses of God. For example, if we stand on a mountain top and view the majesty of creation we are struck with a sense of awe that lifts the spirit into a sense of God’s power. Similarly there is a feeling of accountability when one does something wrong. And so forth and so on.
So, rather than look to our doctrine of God to solve the question of how we know about God, Calvin/Plantinga center the question on man. Human beings are designed in such a way as to instinctively understand the Creator when they encounter the creation.
LikeLike
This is good. I just got back from a walk on which I found myself thinking about this passage. Today I was going to post about the Hebrews’ sense of divine participation, but maybe I’ll hold that until tomorrow. Today it’s Romans 1:19-20.
LikeLike
Okay, I’ve posted, but I’ll make a couple of further points on your comment here. This passage talks about an awareness not of God’s existence but of his nature. Also, “evident within them” can also be translated “evident among them.” This is like Jesus’s saying that the kingdom of God is “within you.” In that passage the “you” is plural; here in Romans the subject is “them” — a plural noun. Syntax suggests that perhaps “among” makes more sense in both of these passages. Also, that which is “evident” in v. 19 Paul attributes to the external revelation of nature in v. 20. It doesn’t seem like a particularly introspective, individualistic point that Paul is making. The evidence is available to everyone by looking out toward the Creation. It’s “common knowledge,” as the saying goes.
LikeLike
All of these points still follow from SD.
First, SD is not solely a move to establish God’s existence, it is existence of God and paritcular aspects of God’s nature. Hence, the scenic mountain does not strictly point to existence but the existence of an omnipotent creator.
Second, I think your particular take on interpreting Romans 1:19, 20 still fits well with SD.
The reason I bring us SD is simply because it is a way of connecting transcendent creator with immanent creation. It seems like one route that we could go – perhaps one of several.
LikeLike
Agreed. I recall we once had a brief exchange about the relationship between Calvin’s SD located in the perceiver and Aquinas’s natural revelation located in the world. All our understandings of the world are mediated by our perception systems, so the two viewpoints are complementary.
LikeLike