Can Any Name Fully Describe God?: Lessons from the Summa, Part 3

By: Brian G. Chilton, Ph.D., M.Div. | November 19, 2023

Over the past several months, I have been reading through the Summa Theologica, the magnum opus of St. Thomas Aquinas. While I had previously referenced the Summa Theologica for its apologetic worth, I never realized the great theological depths that the Summa held. This series delves into some of the deep theological mines that Aquinas explored.

Can any name or title fully describe the nature and existence of God? This is a question that St. Thomas asked in Question 13 of Part 1. Thomas understands God to exist as pure actuality—in fact, God is the only being that could exist in that state. On that note, Aquinas writes, “Since therefore God has nothing in Him of potentiality, but is pure act, His intellect and its object are altogether the same.”[1] For Aquinas, God is so high and beyond human comprehension that the divine names can describe real characteristics of God, but even then, the divine names are only analogical to the real essence and might of God.

Let’s look at some of the issues related to this topic. Keep in mind that this article deals with some philosophical theology topics that are not always easy to traverse. If you want to extract the more practical implications of this discussion, see this article’s conclusion.

Can Any Name Be Given to God? (Q. 13, Article 1)

Dionysius contends that no name could be given to God.[2] From this, some would argue that divine names could only be concrete or abstract. Therefore, since God is beyond any concrete understanding, no name could be adequately given to God. However, the book of Exodus describes God as the Almighty (Exod. 15:3).

Aquinas answers that a name can be given to anything that could be at least partially understood.[3] Even though we may never fully comprehend certain aspects of God, the names of God can serve as qualifiers for certain divine attributes. With things that we do more fully comprehend, such as humankind, names and titles can be given, but even those terms do not fully encapsulate the full essence of the human being. With God, Aquinas argues, “[God] can be named by us from creatures, yet not so that the name which signifies Him expresses the divine essence in itself.”[4] Thus, no name can fully capture the full divine essence and nature of God. Even the term “God,” which speaks of a supreme being, does not and cannot speak to the totality of God’s being.

Can Any Name Be Applied to God Substantially or Literally? (Q. 13, Articles 2 and 3)

While Aquinas and all Christians understand God to be a substantial and literal being, believers also understand the mystery of God’s transcendent nature. Thus, no name could be given to God substantially, or at least it would seem. Damascene writes, “Everything said of God signifies not His substance, but rather shows forth what He is not; or expresses some relation, or something following His nature or operation.”[5] However, Augustine does not agree. Rather, he states that the “being of God is the being strong, or the being wise, or whatever else we may say of that simplicity whereby His substance is signified.”[6]

Aquinas takes a position between Damascene and Augustine. He contends that the names signify the substance (or essential aspects) of God’s nature. However, they cannot provide a full representation of God’s attributes. The goodness that we understand pre-exists in God and is found in its perfected form. Likewise, even our highest understandings of love pale in comparison to the pre-existent and perfected form of love found in God. Thus, even our literal understandings of these attributes are imperfect compared to the eminent excellence of God’s divine attributes as they exist in reality. As human beings, we are simply incapable of fully understanding God and his nature. Thus, the names of God are but shadows of the full luminescence of God’s eternal brilliant nature.

Does the Name “God” Speak to the Nature or Operational Nature of God? (Q. 13, Article 8)

Before we begin, let’s define a couple of terms. By nature, we mean the essence or characteristics of a person. In this case, nature would speak of the characteristics of God. By operation, we speak of the effects and working of a person or thing. In this case, we would speak of the effects, work, and outflow of God. Damascene argues that the name God—theos in Greek—speaks to the operations of God rather than God’s divine nature.

Aquinas partially agrees with Damascene in this sense. The name speaks of God’s universal providence over all things as far as it speaks to the source of the name’s meaning. Therefore, in this case, the name God is operational.[7] However, the name also speaks of God’s nature when the title is used to address God’s love, mercy, and grace.[8] Thus, whether the title “God” is used operationally or of the nature of the divine Being depends on the context by which the term is used. But it must be remembered, even in these cases, the definition is limited to the reality that exists in pure actuality.

Does Any Divine Name Speak to the Nature of God the Most? (Q. 13, Article 11)

With the limitations of the divine names in comparison to the divine reality, is there any name that more closely encapsulates the nature of God more so than others? The answer to that is a resounding yes. For Aquinas, the most powerful name for God stems from the name given by God to Moses in Exodus 3:13–14—the name HE WHO IS, or more popularly known as Yahweh. Aquinas gives three reasons for why this is the best name for God.[9]

First, the name signification of Yahweh is of tremendous importance. The name does not signify form as such but rather existence itself. Yahweh describes God as pure actuality, or God’s pure eternal existence. No other divine name offers such significance.

Second, the universality of the name is unlike any other. Other divine names list an attribute that can be measured against imperfections. However, Yahweh describes the universal and eternal existence of the divine. Aquinas argues, “the less determinate the names are, and the more universal and absolute they are, the more properly they applied to God.”[10] Damascene concurs, arguing that “HE WHO IS, is the principal of all names applied to God; for comprehending all in itself, it contains existence itself as an infinite and indeterminate sea of substance.”[11]

Third, the connotative and contextual meaning of the name “Yahweh” is unlike any other as it speaks to current existence. The name “Yahweh” doesn’t just say that God used to exist or will exist. Rather, the name speaks over the eternal, ongoing existence of God. Augustine noted in De Trinity v, “God is the only unchangeable substance or essence, to whom certainly being itself, whence comes the name of essence, most especially and most truly belongs.”^[12]

Conclusion

What do we take from this study? Aquinas contends that no name can accurately describe the true nature and essence of God. Of all the divine names given, only the name “Yahweh” comes the closest to describing the fundamental essence of God’s existence, as it speaks to God’s existence in the past, present, and future. Since God is the only Being that exists as the pure act (i.e., pure existence), then it stands to reason that the “I AM WHO I AM” title most aptly applies to God.

This study should also bring a bit of humility to us all as we approach God. While God has revealed certain attributes of God’s nature through divine titles and names, we could never fully comprehend the perfect nature of God. Even our ideas of goodness and love pale in comparison to the actual perfected love and goodness that God possessed before the foundation of the world.

So, may we take time to consider the incredible, awesome being of God. Since we could never fully comprehend even one of God’s attributes, perhaps we would be a little more gracious and a lot more reserved before making any claim that we, a church, or denomination, could fully understand God and have complete mastery over God’s being and nature. Thus, our lesson from the Summa today should inspire us to step back and recognize the greatness and grandeur of even the ineffable name of the Almighty, while we should likewise be reminded of our vast limitations as human beings.

Notes

[1] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.q14.a2. We will speak more about the pure actuality of God and how that differs from the potentiality in other beings in the next article in the Lessons from the Summa series.

[2] Dionysius, Div. Nom. 1.

[3] Aquinas, ST 1.13.a1.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Damascene, De. Fid. Orth. 1.9.

[6] Augustine of Hippo, De Trinity, vi.

[7] Aquinas, ST 1.q13,a8.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 1.q13.a11, resp.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Damascene, De Fid. Orth. i.

^[12] Augustine of Hippo, On the Trinity 5.2.3., in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Arthur West Haddan, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 88.

The Nature of the Soul: Lessons from the Summa, Part 2

About the Author

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of Bellator Christi Ministries and the co-host of the Bellator Christi Podcast. Dr. Chilton earned a Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction), a M.Div. in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his B.S. in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and completed Unit 1 of Clinical Pastoral Education at Wake Forest University's School of Medicine. Dr. Chilton is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. In his spare time, he enjoys reading, working out in his home gym, and watching football. He has served in pastoral ministry for over 20 years and serves as a clinical chaplain.