The Dispatch: More from CWR...

The Two Gods

If we think wrongly about God, most everything else goes wrong.

Detail from the Sistine Chapel Ceiling: "Creation of Adam" (1510) by Michelangelo []

In Scripture, the adversary of God is not depicted as another god. He is a powerful enough adversary, but he is not divine. He is not human either, but a pure spirit. His only fault can be the preferment of his self-centered world over that of God.

Among the pagans, to be sure, we found many gods, but even here one was more god-like than the others. Zeus himself displayed a few human foibles. Psalm 135 reads: “Our God is greater than all gods.” Whatever the other gods were, they were not the God of the Hebrews.

In 1932, Owen Francis Dudley wrote a novel with the unforgettable title: Will Men Be like Gods? Needless to say, some would like to be. But this question takes us back to the Fall, to the essence of the temptation of Adam and Eve. If they disobeyed God’s command, the Devil told them, they would be “like gods”. They would know or create by themselves the distinction between good and evil. The devil assured them that God lied to them by forbidding anything to them. It did not take them too long to find out who really lied to them.

The very idea of two identical gods with the exact same specifications, moreover, was rightly held to be contradictory. If they were both equally all-knowing and all-powerful, no grounds existed for distinguishing one from another. The result of this formulation meant that either there was only one God or there was no god.

Trinitarian theology, moreover, was careful not to propose three gods, even though many insist on reading this aberration into the Christian teaching. The distinction of persons within the Godhead is constantly presented as one God who is, in turn, the Yahweh of the Old Testament; that is, the one “God” who shall not have strange gods before Him.

The distinction within the Trinitarian life indicates what the one God is like in His inner life. The “otherness” within the Godhead does not constitute a second god. It implies the vibrant, complete inner life of one being. Christ constantly said “I and the Father are one.” The Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Spirit are one God, not three, while one person is not the other. St. Augustine was fond of saying that we are one person with intellect and will that reached to what is not ourselves. In knowing what is not ourselves, we do not cease to be one. We are rightly called God’s “image”.


Why does all of this thinking about God make any difference? In the first place, we are supposed to think about God. If we think wrongly about God, most everything else goes wrong. But do we really need some accurate, if not wholly sufficient, understanding of what God is?

Modern thought of the God that is—the God who can do all things possible, the God who freely revealed Himself—does, however, leave us with another god who is said to be even more powerful than the One God of revelation.

How so?

The god of Hobbes is called a “mortal” god. He can, it is claimed, when he is covenanted by the wills of men, do one thing that the God of revelation cannot do. The mortal god is more powerful than the revealed God because he is not limited by the distinction of good and evil.

Machiavelli had already postulated this curious “freedom” of the prince. Hobbes’ Leviathan had the same scope of power. The god who is free to do either good or evil seems to have a certain advantage over a god who is limited by the fact that he cannot do what is evil. The mortal god of Hobbes, the famous Leviathan, can do whatever he wishes because, by agreement, in him is concentrated all the civil power. “Whatever the prince wishes is the law”—to recall a famous principle of Roman Law, a principle with which all legal systems wrestle. While this Roman Law principle was understood to be a statement of man-made or positive law, it presumed no transcendent check or limit. All that could be said in the law was that it was the law.

Hobbes had originally set out to enhance and expand the “rights” of each individual to whatever he willed. He wanted to be free of fear of the gods. But it quickly became evident that in practice this would lead to the famous “war of all against all.” So it was necessary to postulate the mortal God who could decide by his own fiat, backed up by corporate power, what would be done. Whatever was done was right by definition.

Hobbes implicitly denied the Socratic principle that death was not the worst evil. His system “worked” because he assumed that death, especially violent death, was the worst evil. Knowing this, all that was necessary to establish civil order was to enforce the positive law, whatever it was. No one could prevail against it.

Strictly speaking, if a god is free to do, in its classical distinction, either what is good or what is evil, then there really is no difference between good and evil. The concept of evil is only possible if there are things that even God cannot do. So there is this second god, this mortal god, who vies with the God of faith and reason for supremacy over things human.


At first, we might wonder if it is an even match. Surely the Leviathan god cannot overcome the God who is. Why is it, we wonder, that God seems unable or unwilling to counteract the logic of the Leviathan god?

Put in Augustinian terms, why does the City of Man seem so capable of counteracting the City of God? Why are there two cities and not one? Why does God’s side always seem to be the losing side? Logically, the central feature of the Christian revelation clearly maintains that Christ, the Word, the Son of God, was crucified. Why is He not a loser?

God, as we implied, is not limited except by what He is. When He created us in His own image and likeness, in a certain ironic way, He limited Himself. His hypothesis was not that of the Leviathan god who postulated death as the worst evil. Speaking for subsequent generations, including those following the Christian dispensation, Socrates affirmed that it was never right to do wrong. God did not willfully and arbitrarily change good and bad into each other.

This meant that the God of what is good had to deal with what He Himself made possible, namely the ability and power of a being who was not God to reject Him. In dealing with this possible rejection, God was limited to the good. When Socrates said that it is better to suffer evil than to do it, he set down the whole agenda of the redemption.

In order to save men from their own choices of evil, while retaining their freedom, God’s response to evil was the Incarnation. Ultimately, the response meant that suffering and sacrifice would be the way to salvation for a fallen race.

Since it was still possible to reject God even in His Incarnation, God only had, as it were, two other options open to Him in the beginning. The first was to save men by allowing them to do evil and call it good. This option—that of the Leviathan, the modem secular state, and the Allah of the Muslims—was excluded by God’s very nature. The other option was not to create at all.

What we do know is that the God who is chose to create—but not to do evil or identify it with what is good. What follows is that our redemption includes suffering and embraces what is true and reasonable. That is, it includes affirming that what is created is good and that it is better to suffer evil than to do it.

This conclusion also means in logic that there is a history of (and a city for) those who reject the order in things, whether this knowledge of this order comes from reason or revelation. We generally call this latter city, in its ultimate reaches, hell.

Augustine said that God would not allow some evil to exist unless something good could be drawn from it. The good that can be drawn from a knowledge of the possibility of a final rejection of what is good is the eternal life of those who live by the truth.

In the end, there are not two gods. There is only the one God who creates beings who are invited to be deified and enter into His inner, Trinitarian life. No one can have this communion with the Godhead who does not want it. The suffering God, the revealed God, was the final divine effort to save the finite, rational being by suffering the consequences of mankind’s sins. At that point, God could have decided not to create anything lest some fail. What we know is that He decided to create and eventually to redeem man both by reason and by suffering.

In short, the saga of the “two gods” is that there is only one true God. There is a pseudo-god who makes the world in his own image. The true God is the one who has also come to dwell amongst us.

How we think on the one God tells us who we are and, no doubt, is the major factor in our final standing before the God who is a Trinity of persons but only one God—a God who created the universe. He created it in order that we, each of us, might receive the gift of His eternal life.

(Editor’s note: This “Sojourns with Schall” column was post originally on September 15, 2018.)

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About James V. Schall, S.J. 180 Articles
James V. Schall, S.J. (1928-2019) taught political philosophy at Georgetown University for many years until retiring in 2012. He was the author of over thirty books and countless essays on philosophy, theology, education, morality, and other topics. His of his last books included On Islam: A Chronological Record, 2002-2018 (Ignatius Press, 2018) and The Politics of Heaven and Hell: Christian Themes from Classical, Medieval, and Modern Political Philosophy (Ignatius, 2020).



    The notion of God as Creator is the central axis of Unification Thought. At the age of sixteen, Reverend Moon experienced a dramatic encounter with God and Jesus. In that revelation, God disclosed to him his suffering heart caused by the sufferings of humankind. It is the heart of God that moved Reverend Moon to take on a Messianic role to save humankind and led him to his lifelong journey of restoring the world back to the original world of Creation. At the core of Reverend Moon’s discourse lies his understanding of God’s love, passion, compassion, and heart for humanity.

    From the perspective of Unification Thought, harmony, peace, reconciliation, happiness, and unity are achieved only when God’s heart and love are embodied by human beings and the principles of true love are practiced and applied by us. Unification culture, built on an intimate relationship God’s heart, is thus called a culture of heart.

  2. A typical (Tradition) …nonsense in the light of divine (mathematical) logic (see. J.M.Bochenski OP, Logic of Religion, NY 1965; already in AD 1938, article on VArsoviensa Theologia) and Scripture (e.g., Mk 10:18) as e.g., the author cites only one verse of John 1010:30 but not another one John 14:28(“Father is more powerful than me”) and all the Synoptic Gospels and Paul Letters; the author of John Gospel was not good in Greek like other NT authors (accord. to R.E.Brown, a biblical scholar). To the point: the term “Son of God” never has the meaning in the Bible as that of “God”. The (divine) logic and the definition of description by B.Russell in Principia Mathematica #14.02 (already in Mind14,479-493, AD 1905: On Denoting) resolves the ancient theological controversies as the term “Trinity” is not a name (any: individual, general, and relational:’father” and “‘son”.”daughter” are such and St.Athanasius used it, contra Arius) but a description; hence the term “Godhead” is a total poetic fiction (emphasized by J.M.Bochenski OP)

    • If you actually believe what you just wrote, why are you even posting on a Catholic website? Why are you posting a rejection of trinitarian theology on a Catholic website? Are you being paid to troll?

  3. “But this question takes us back to the Fall, to the essence of the temptation of Adam and Eve.”

    What is the essence of the Fall?

    All they have to do in the story is eat allowed fruit that is not fruit from the tree of life that is not a tree. But instead, they choose to eat forbidden fruit that is also not fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that is also not a tree, the nontree of life’s next-door neighbor nontree in the center of the Garden that is not a garden. So what do they eat?

    They disobey the commandment–their first commandment–to “be fruitful and multiply [in the Garden]” when they become one flesh incorrectly by eating allegorical fruit from the allegorical wrong tree in the allegorical Garden’s center.

    • According to Dr. Brant Pitre it is Jewish tradition that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was the fig tree, and that the Tree of Life was the olive tree. This is covered in his video presentation “The Jewish Roots of Holy Week.” The presentation is for sale on the Catholic Productions website. They have a free downloadable PDF outline of the presentation that contains the Jewish traditions references. The fig tree on Holy Monday and the olive tree on Holy Thursday. If you carefully read the second creation story Eden was established and planted by God. He was also the One who made the trees bear fruit. God’s garden, God’s rules. Adam and Eve didn’t have any valid claim to the forbidden fruit. They took the things that are God’s without His permission. Theft pure and simple. They acted like the garden was their own personal private property that they could do with as they pleased.

  4. Rev. Moon?



    Poor Fr. Schall. He deserves so much better than these rather raffish outbursts, humorous though they may be.

    This most provocative piece reminds me of how much I miss his always cogent, often unique perspectives.

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. The Two Gods -
  2. The Two Gods | Franciscan Sisters of St Joseph (FSJ) , Asumbi Sisters Kenya

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.