In this entry in the Theology Video Encyclopedia, I discuss the disagreements between the two rival positions: Theistic Personalism, and Classical Theism.
This is an excellent, easy to grasp summary of the debate between Classical Theism and Theistic Personalism. I just came across your Vlog. It was probably fed to me by TH-cam because I have been following Edward Feser and James Dolezal in their advocacy of Classical Theism. I am an Evangelical pastor with an education in historical theology with a concentration in Medieval Scholastic theology. I am actually a member of a nation-wide Thomas Aquinas study group that uses Zoom on a weekly basis to pour over and discuss the Summa. My wife and I are the only Protestants in the group. At any rate, we too are advocates of the rich classical tradition of theology.
Have you read A Reformed Catholic by William Perkins? I would also suggest Cramner's Defense of the Sacrament. And John Cousin's History of Papal Transubstantiation. The book Anatomy of the Mass is also quite helpful.
Jordan, thanks for the great overview. I might add one more to your list of three metaphysical attributes: divine atemporality, i.e. eternal timelessness. As I'm sure you know, this attribute is widely disparaged by analytic philosophers now. And it's kinda a package deal with the other classical attributes: since God is simple, he lacks all metaphysical parts, including past and future time designations; since God is immutable, he must transcend time because time just is (normally) defined as the measurement of change. Anyway, thanks again!
There have been a few philosophers in the past couple centuries that would support the outside time view. Evola would place God in the realm of “being” while humanity is in the realm of “becoming” (inherently bound by time because our life experience is determined by measuring change ie things becoming other things). There’s also Heidegger, Guenon, and Jung. Unfortunately they all deeply misunderstood Christianity. But in my experience the ideas they cover serve as a useful segue sometimes to get more creative type thinkers to approach Christianity, some who otherwise wouldn’t because of bad life experiences.
Hi, Dr. Cooper! Thank you very much for this video; I'm an autistic with a theology obsession (especially comparative religion and soteriology), and really appreciated your neutral, more educational than apologetic approach to this subject. I just discovered your channel, and I wanted to ask what the name of your dissertation is, and where I am might be able to read it? I'm in school, so I should be able to request access to it through that. I'm Catholic, and remember being confused as a kid by family members of a more Pentecostal persuasion persuasion talking about prayer literally influencing God or changing His mind; it's not like I had a particularly thorough grasp of classical theism back then, but I did understand God as eternally unchanging and found their particular conception of the sort of role of prayer odd. I only very recently found out theistic personalism is a term that's used to describe this more anthropomorphized comprehension of God, especially in contrast to classical theism, and I want to learn more about it to better understand where people who have different beliefs than mine are coming from (and also just because I find it all really interesting), but it's been a little difficult for me to find more scholarly resources on the subject. Thank you very much in advance, and take care!
There are also a lot of contemporary analitic philosophers whom are classical theists. For example Alexander Pruss, Robert Koons, Edward Feser, Christopher Tomaszewski (et cetera). They are very influential in philosophy of religion.
I mean they're kind of classical thinkers as well though. Pruss, Koons, and Feser are all for the most part fine with being labled as Thomists in a way an analytic philosopher like Craig never would. Sometimes the titles can be a little misleading
I am definitely on the side of classical theism. I suspect that theistic personalism comes in the wake of Immanuel Kant’s turn to the subjective-defining everything from a human-centric point of view.
Sorry Jordan, I thought you were a theistic personalist hence the broadside, my apologies. My sought to defend classical theism. However, there are some corrections that should be made in the video.
What is not Christocentric or a witness to the salvific work of the Christ is little more than grown men playing in a sand box and thinking they were building something lasting. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." [John 17:3]
Nope, classical theism is simply how Christians have historically understood God's nature. Knowledge of God revealed in scripture elaborated most beautifully in classical theism's categories. Good to see evangelical hacks coming out the woodworks to fear and resent basic theology, LOL
It is beyond my capability to understand how a purely actual being with no potentialities can DO anything. Such a being has no potential to create or sustain a universe, answer prayers, perform miracles, etc. Such a being would be completely inert. Indeed, Feser argues that God is immutable. But how can an immutable (i.e., changeless) being be the cause (i.e., actualizer) of anything? I would be grateful if someone could help me comprehend this seemingly incomprehensible mystery.
I'm no expert, but I think this might be where an understanding of the Trinity can help. God is one, but He is also three, and within the immanent life of the Trinity, the Father loves and eternally generates the Son, the Son and the Spirit love the Father and each other, etc. So there are relations within the Trinity, and the Father has inherently a generative nature, and the love and self-gift within the Trinity spills out into Creation.
@@MyName42 Not sure how this answers my question. A changeless being cannot be the cause of change, because, according to the so-called 'principle of proportionate causality', what is in the effect (change) must also be in the cause (God). An immutable, atemporal God thus cannot create changing, temporal things. How does invoking the love-relations within the trinity resolve this?
@@doctorstrangiato3218 It's the opposite, everything that happens, happens by the will and knowledge of the pure act of being itself. God doesn't "perform" discrete acts in succession but it's instead the simultaneous actualization of everything that is.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj A timeless cause (the god of classical theism) cannot generate a temporal effect- like creating a universe or sustaining it over time. The concept seems nonsensical to me.
@@doctorstrangiato3218 WLC believes God is timeless and he rejects divine simplicity, what you're positing is that God is contingent on time which means creation isn't ex nihilo. Maybe that's orthodox in a different religion but not in Christianity
NO DIVINE SIMPLICITY IS NOT ESSENCE AND ATTRIBUTES... IT IS THE PERFECT UNION OF ESSENCE AND EXISTENCE (you might have misspoken perhaps, you should correct). ATTRIBUTES ARE A MANIFESTATION OF ESSENCE!!! *facepalm* no wonder you are talking out of your rear end. Stop confusing people out there with this lunacy. The universals are abstracted as attributes from the essence!!!
You should give more respect to this man. He wrote a dissertation on this very topic. Divine simplicity is to say that God is simple which is to say that his essence is not composed of parts including what he said and what you said about the distinction between essence and existence. Existence is not just a part of God. It is the essence of God.
@@sageseraph5035 No stupid dumbass I know MUCH more than that this man MUCH MORE. Divine Simplicity is the idea that the essence of God is to existence itself, G-d does not have an essence other than existence where they are identical. For this reason G-d has not potentiality and absolutely actualized. Without potentiality which is corelated to the essence, G-d is immutable. Existence is not a part of Gd he has no parts. HE IS EXISTENCE ITSELF. In fact you can say G-d has no essence but wholely existence, pure actuality
@@sageseraph5035 Sorry should not have called you a dumbass, my apologies. Yes, Existence IS the essence of G-d. That is correct. However, the correct way to say it is the essence of G-d is existence as existence precedes essence.
Thank you Dr. Cooper. God bless you!
These videos are super helpful, thanks for making them.
This is an excellent, easy to grasp summary of the debate between Classical Theism and Theistic Personalism.
I just came across your Vlog. It was probably fed to me by TH-cam because I have been following Edward Feser and James Dolezal in their advocacy of Classical Theism.
I am an Evangelical pastor with an education in historical theology with a concentration in Medieval Scholastic theology. I am actually a member of a nation-wide Thomas Aquinas study group that uses Zoom on a weekly basis to pour over and discuss the Summa. My wife and I are the only Protestants in the group. At any rate, we too are advocates of the rich classical tradition of theology.
BW, late request, but can you provide information on the Aquinas Zoom group? Is it still available?
Have you read A Reformed Catholic by William Perkins? I would also suggest Cramner's Defense of the Sacrament. And John Cousin's History of Papal Transubstantiation. The book Anatomy of the Mass is also quite helpful.
Jordan, thanks for the great overview. I might add one more to your list of three metaphysical attributes: divine atemporality, i.e. eternal timelessness. As I'm sure you know, this attribute is widely disparaged by analytic philosophers now. And it's kinda a package deal with the other classical attributes: since God is simple, he lacks all metaphysical parts, including past and future time designations; since God is immutable, he must transcend time because time just is (normally) defined as the measurement of change. Anyway, thanks again!
Yes, good point. That is another divine attribute which has been challenged extensively within the last century.
There have been a few philosophers in the past couple centuries that would support the outside time view.
Evola would place God in the realm of “being” while humanity is in the realm of “becoming” (inherently bound by time because our life experience is determined by measuring change ie things becoming other things). There’s also Heidegger, Guenon, and Jung.
Unfortunately they all deeply misunderstood Christianity. But in my experience the ideas they cover serve as a useful segue sometimes to get more creative type thinkers to approach Christianity, some who otherwise wouldn’t because of bad life experiences.
Hi, Dr. Cooper! Thank you very much for this video; I'm an autistic with a theology obsession (especially comparative religion and soteriology), and really appreciated your neutral, more educational than apologetic approach to this subject. I just discovered your channel, and I wanted to ask what the name of your dissertation is, and where I am might be able to read it? I'm in school, so I should be able to request access to it through that. I'm Catholic, and remember being confused as a kid by family members of a more Pentecostal persuasion persuasion talking about prayer literally influencing God or changing His mind; it's not like I had a particularly thorough grasp of classical theism back then, but I did understand God as eternally unchanging and found their particular conception of the sort of role of prayer odd. I only very recently found out theistic personalism is a term that's used to describe this more anthropomorphized comprehension of God, especially in contrast to classical theism, and I want to learn more about it to better understand where people who have different beliefs than mine are coming from (and also just because I find it all really interesting), but it's been a little difficult for me to find more scholarly resources on the subject. Thank you very much in advance, and take care!
How do these differing views impact upon our daily spiritual walk? What are the practical outcomes?
None
So would the “A” theory of time imply theistic personalism while the “B” theory of time imply classical theism?
Very brief.
There are also a lot of contemporary analitic philosophers whom are classical theists. For example Alexander Pruss, Robert Koons, Edward Feser, Christopher Tomaszewski (et cetera). They are very influential in philosophy of religion.
I mean they're kind of classical thinkers as well though. Pruss, Koons, and Feser are all for the most part fine with being labled as Thomists in a way an analytic philosopher like Craig never would. Sometimes the titles can be a little misleading
Is Feser an analytic philosopher? He seems much more Thomistic to me.
I love John Frame. Great guy, great thinker. :)
Frame is a theistic mutualist. Read James Dolezal's All That Is In God
@@glenclary3231 I find Dolezal to be very distasteful in his view of God. I agree with Frame's critique of him.
@@thrownness52 where does he critique him?
Yes because Charles hodge “clearly doesn’t understand” Thomism. How so?
I am definitely on the side of classical theism. I suspect that theistic personalism comes in the wake of Immanuel Kant’s turn to the subjective-defining everything from a human-centric point of view.
Sorry Jordan, I thought you were a theistic personalist hence the broadside, my apologies. My sought to defend classical theism. However, there are some corrections that should be made in the video.
What are the corrections
5:23 bookmark
Is this something Lutheran's agree with Reformed theology on or are Lutherans wrong?
What is not Christocentric or a witness to the salvific work of the Christ is little more than grown men playing in a sand box and thinking they were building something lasting. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." [John 17:3]
I enjoyed the video. I would have liked it better if the time spent on both perspectives had been close to equal.
#JustMoreBS We were warned against precepts of men (manufactured theology). SMH
Nope, classical theism is simply how Christians have historically understood God's nature. Knowledge of God revealed in scripture elaborated most beautifully in classical theism's categories.
Good to see evangelical hacks coming out the woodworks to fear and resent basic theology, LOL
It is beyond my capability to understand how a purely actual being with no potentialities can DO anything. Such a being has no potential to create or sustain a universe, answer prayers, perform miracles, etc. Such a being would be completely inert. Indeed, Feser argues that God is immutable. But how can an immutable (i.e., changeless) being be the cause (i.e., actualizer) of anything? I would be grateful if someone could help me comprehend this seemingly incomprehensible mystery.
I'm no expert, but I think this might be where an understanding of the Trinity can help. God is one, but He is also three, and within the immanent life of the Trinity, the Father loves and eternally generates the Son, the Son and the Spirit love the Father and each other, etc. So there are relations within the Trinity, and the Father has inherently a generative nature, and the love and self-gift within the Trinity spills out into Creation.
@@MyName42 Not sure how this answers my question. A changeless being cannot be the cause of change, because, according to the so-called 'principle of proportionate causality', what is in the effect (change) must also be in the cause (God). An immutable, atemporal God thus cannot create changing, temporal things. How does invoking the love-relations within the trinity resolve this?
@@doctorstrangiato3218
It's the opposite, everything that happens, happens by the will and knowledge of the pure act of being itself. God doesn't "perform" discrete acts in succession but it's instead the simultaneous actualization of everything that is.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj A timeless cause (the god of classical theism) cannot generate a temporal effect- like creating a universe or sustaining it over time. The concept seems nonsensical to me.
@@doctorstrangiato3218
WLC believes God is timeless and he rejects divine simplicity, what you're positing is that God is contingent on time which means creation isn't ex nihilo. Maybe that's orthodox in a different religion but not in Christianity
NO DIVINE SIMPLICITY IS NOT ESSENCE AND ATTRIBUTES... IT IS THE PERFECT UNION OF ESSENCE AND EXISTENCE (you might have misspoken perhaps, you should correct). ATTRIBUTES ARE A MANIFESTATION OF ESSENCE!!! *facepalm* no wonder you are talking out of your rear end. Stop confusing people out there with this lunacy. The universals are abstracted as attributes from the essence!!!
You should give more respect to this man. He wrote a dissertation on this very topic. Divine simplicity is to say that God is simple which is to say that his essence is not composed of parts including what he said and what you said about the distinction between essence and existence. Existence is not just a part of God. It is the essence of God.
@@sageseraph5035 No stupid dumbass I know MUCH more than that this man MUCH MORE. Divine Simplicity is the idea that the essence of God is to existence itself, G-d does not have an essence other than existence where they are identical. For this reason G-d has not potentiality and absolutely actualized. Without potentiality which is corelated to the essence, G-d is immutable. Existence is not a part of Gd he has no parts. HE IS EXISTENCE ITSELF. In fact you can say G-d has no essence but wholely existence, pure actuality
@@sageseraph5035 Read Moses Maimonides on the Attributes since from you name I presume you are a Jew like me.
@@sageseraph5035 Sorry should not have called you a dumbass, my apologies. Yes, Existence IS the essence of G-d. That is correct. However, the correct way to say it is the essence of G-d is existence as existence precedes essence.
@@deusimperator
So you know MUCH MUCH more than a doctor in theology whose expertise is on the church fathers... okay