[Actuality belongs to the category of secondness. Secondness always contains at least two elements. One can think of secondness as “pairs of cause and effect”, where “one element is distinct and (somehow) determines the other”.

For “God Recognizing Himself”, the two elements in actuality must be “the One Who Recognizes” and “the One Who Is Recognized”.

In addition, “the One Who Recognizes” cannot be identical to “the One Who Is Recognized”. Why? That would be a monad.   Identity belongs to firstness. Actuality requires two elements that we (humans) perceive as distinct, separable, yet contiguous.

“The nature of the divine” dictates that “both these actualities must be divine”.

Otherwise, God would not be omniscient (literally, all knowing, corresponding to The One Who Recognizes) as well as omnipresent (literally, all there, corresponding to The One Who Is Recognized).

Both actualities in this dyad are capable of generating their own normal contexts.

They are experienced as Persons belonging to “the actuality of God Recognizing Himself”.]

[The idea that “God is ‘God the One'” points to the monadic category of firstness, the realm of possibility.   This realm contains the “Capacity of God to Recognize Himself”. After all, if God were to recognize anything, then it would be Himself.

If God could not recognize Himself, then God would not be omnipotent (literally, total potential). The One God must be omnipotent according to the logic of the Greeks.

Yet, the triadic recognition itself holds the actual in relation. The actual is subject to the laws of noncontradiction.]

Summary of text [comment] page 67

[Possibility cannot bring itself into actuality. Potential (firstness) requires a triadic relation (thirdness) in bring it into relation with actuality (secondness).

IF “humans in the image of God” mirrors “the One God of Three Persons”,

THEN sin comes from something else that has entered into the mirror.]

Summary of text [comment] page 67

[Does sin affect God?

Why does the notion that “sin is its own punishment” appear correct but insufficient?

So I turn to the question, not directly asked by Schoonenberg, but clearly implicit: Does sin distort the sinner as “an image of God”?

The first implication of this question comes from the last blog. What is this symbol ‘God’? Is the One God “the God of One” or “the God of Three”?

“God the One” is Pure Potential. Pure Potential defines the category of firstness. The realm of possibility is monadic. Despite its apparent complexity, it contains only one element. Even though various features of this element may be distinguished, they cannot be separated.

A good example is the possibility underlying any spoken word. The potentials for meaning, guarantee, and message may be distinguished, but they cannot be separated. They also may contradict one another, but they cannot be separated.]

[Some sinners live in the past. Some sinners may live in the future. Do some live in the present?]

[Sin comes in many discourses.

“The object that brings us all into relation” shares the features of all triadic relations. It is like a covenant. It is like a promise. It is like an oath. It is like a gift. It is like a vision of eternity in the ever present now.

God freely gives each person his own existence and expects only one item in return: The person recognizes the covenant, the promise, the oath, and the gift of ‘his’ moment, here and now, in the Presence of the Father and the Son.

In mortal sin, the sinner loses this sense of recognition. ‘He’ breaks the covenant. ‘He’ loses the promise of sanctifying grace of God. ‘His’ oath is mere wind. ‘He’ no longer is in the moment.

This leads to an odd conclusion:

The sinner is not in the present.]

[Another way to say that is:

Each “God the One” cannot recognize Itself in Relation to any other “God the One”.

Does that mean that “God the One” cannot recognize Himself?

Does the law of noncontradiction apply?

“The Father cannot Recognize Himself as Father” except “in regards to the Son”.

If “recognition” contains every category of existence, then logic decrees that, at a minimum, any True God must also belong to every category of existence.

Recognition is a triadic relation. Triadic relations cannot be heard, seen, touched, tasted or smelled. Instead, triadic relations bring actuality into relation with potential.

So it seems the following must be concluded:

“God is God the One” is incapable of Recognizing Himself. One (without qualification) cannot form a relation with Itself.

“God is God the Three” encompasses Recognition.]

[The term “one” designates the realm of possibility. One is purely monadic. Firstness is a category of existence. Firstness is inclusive and allows contradiction.

Any resolution of the inherent contradictions in “God the One”, immediately brings “God the One” into the realm of actuality.

Yet, one party’s resolution may not agree with another party’s.

Consequently, two or more “God the One” (plural) may be manifest at any moment. Each manifestation has its own advocates.

The immediate solution may be to attack and murder the opposing resolutions (or parties). This solution does not mitigate the potential for further independent resolutions. All manifestations of “God the One” are heretical to all other manifestations of “God the One”.]

Summary of text [comment] page 67

[In another venue, when people call God, “God the One”, it seems that they refer to “the potential that underlies God Recognizing Himself”.

Why?

“God the One” must be monadic, belonging to firstness, the realm of possibility. This explains why “God the One” may be full of contradictions. Contradictions are allowed in the realm of possibility.]

Summary of text [comment] page 67

[Is it not odd that Progressives substituted “the possibilities of liberty, equality and fraternity (or, perhaps, entitlement, fairness and community organization)” for the Christian “possibility of God Recognizing Himself (or, perhaps, all creation)”?

It is as if the theological horizon has contracted.

It no longer contains the cosmos.

The cosmos has no say.

It merely votes “present”.

What does that imply?]