COMPARISM: CLASSICAL THEISM AND THEISTIC PERSONALISM CONCEPT OF

GOD

INTRODUCTION

One of many perennial issues of religion that philosophy of religion tries to solve from time

immemorial is that of the concept of God. This is one of the basic tenets of religion especially

that of monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Philosophy of religion

sets out to apply rationalistic view to religious claims in order to enhance its understanding.

This explanation is imperative because this work is done from the perspective of philosophy

of religion. Based on that fact, to enhance the understanding of the material presented here, it

is expedient to shed a little light on the word philosophy and more importantly philosophy of

religion. For a start, it is pertinent to state that it is virtually impossible to give one universally

acceptable definition of philosophy but at least for clarity sake, attempt is made to consider it

etymologically.

According to A.L. Herman the word philosophy is a combination of two Greek words:

“philien” (verb) meaning,” to love” and “sophos” (noun) meaning “wisdom”. In other words

philosophy means the love of wisdom and one can invariably says that philosophers are lovers

of wisdom. Herman further defined philosophy as a discipline that seeks to solve problem

relating to four fields: metaphysics that deals with nature of ultimate reality such as existence

of matter, mind and spirit; epistemology that concerns itself with problems associated with the

nature of knowledge like beliefs, truth and falsification; values which is the theory that deals

with problems of right and wrong of human behaviour; and aesthetics which involves the

problem of beauty and ugliness of the works of arts; and logic that deals with how to make

inference in terms of consistency and validity. Having stated that one cannot but consider

philosophy of religion.
Among philosophers of religion, God is typically taken to be the God of monotheism (or

theism, for short). And I shall now fall in with this line of thinking. From this point on I take

'God' to mean 'the God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity'. As I have said, however, this still

leaves us with a problem of understanding. So now I shall try to explain why. It is not easy to

do so, but to simplify matters.i

Philosophy of religion is the philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts

involved in religious traditions. It involves all the main areas of philosophy: metaphysics,

epistemology, logic, ethics and value theory, the philosophy of language, philosophy of

science, law, sociology, politics, history, and so on. Philosophy of religion also includes an

investigation into the religious significance of historical events (e.g., the Holocaust) and

general features of the cosmos, for example, laws of nature, the emergence of conscious life,

widespread testimony of religious significance, and so on. John Hick (1966) asserts that

philosophy of religion was taken to mean “religious philosophizing”. In other words, the role

of philosophy of religion is to defend religious convictions philosophically. Its scope is

limited to the rational demonstration of God’s existence, through philosophical thinking about

religion.

With these clarifications, it is essential to note that philosophy is in constant interaction with

other disciplines, hence, philosophy of religion. Religion and its conceptual articulation-

theology are grounded on a revealed truth whereas religion preaches certain beliefs that make

a claim to a privileged truth, but philosophy tries to makes this understandable and believable

by explaining rationally the content of the main tenets. One of the basic tenets of religion is

the concept of God. It is generally held by religion that God exists but the philosophers

demanded for the proof of the existence of God so as to authenticate its reality.

In an attempt to justify the claim of God’s existence, philosophy of religion focuses on the

topic of God. From time immemorial philosophers have asked whether there is reason to
assent to the belief held by the religious people about the existence of God, hence

philosophers of different shades and colours aired their views on the reality of the existence of

God. Some philosophers of religion express their opinions as they deem it fit in order proof

their points. For instance, it is vital to note that Davies Brian used two different seemingly

opposing views to designate his opinions about God as he considers the concept of God from

monotheistic perspective. He classifies his opinions about God into two: classical theism and

theistic personalism. These schools of thought emphasize different aspects of the same and

one God. It is fundamental to note the uniqueness of each school of thought. We now turn to

the distinctive characteristics of classical theism.

CLASSICAL THEISM ON THE CONCEPT OF GOD

The philosophers whose opinions fell under this nomenclature include, Moses Maimonides

(1135-1204), a Jewish author; Avicenna, an Islamic scholar (980- 1037), plus Christian

author, Thomas Aquinas (1224/6-74). Implying that the Jews, the Christian as well as

Muslims believed these postulations officially, since the time of St. Augustine of Hippo (354-

430) to the period of G.W. Leibniz (1646-1716).ii

In relation to the concept of God the classical theism considered the doctrine of creation, the

nature of God and God as an individual. Under the doctrine of creation, classical theism holds

tenaciously to the view that God is the Creator. This is an opposing view to the view of

Milesian school of philosophy that postulated that everything evolved from primordial stuffs

such as water, aperion, air, fire and number as opined by Thales, Anaxmander, Anexmenes,

Hieraclitus, and Pythagoras who were pre-Socratic philosophers. In the same vein, it

contradicts the view held in some quarters that all that we can see emanated from a big bang.

However, the biblical account corresponds to that of Classical theists who asserts that God

created all things from nothing – (creation exnihilo -Gen. 1:1)

On the concept of God, the classical theists are of the view that there is but one, and only,

living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible,

without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty,

most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of

His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious,

merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression,

and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in

His judgments hating all sins, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

Also on the creation, they further affirm that God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in

and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any

creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His

own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the lone fountain of all being, of whom, through

whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by

them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and

manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as

nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His

works, and in all His commands.

To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or

obedience, He is pleased to require of them. This view of classical theists emphasizes the

sovereignty as well as the transcendental nature of God who is far above all he had created,

visible and invisible. God is perceived of man as not being of the same essence with man but

human analogy is used to express their view about him. It is important to note that the main

issue here is not whether God is subject to a standard of goodness external to him. The

difference instead, concerns more of general differences in how classical theists on the one

hand and theistic personalists or neotheists on the other conceive of God. The classical theists
tend to start from the idea that whatever else God is, he is essentially that reality which is

absolutely ultimate or fundamental, and the source of all other reality. He not only does not

depend in any way on anything outside him, but could not even in principle have depended on

anything outside him. Nothing less than this would be God, so that is to say that there is no

being who is absolutely ultimate in this way is in effect to say that there is no God. Different

classical theists might spell this basic idea out in different ways.

Classical theism is what you can find endorsed in the writings of people like the Jewish author

Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), the Islamic author Avicenna (980-1037), and the Christian

author Thomas Aquinas (1224/6-74). Classical theism is what all Jews, Christians, and

Muslims believed in for many centuries (officially, at least). And numerous philosophers have

taken it for granted that God is as defenders of classical theism take him to be. From the time

of St Augustine of Hippo (354430) 2 to that of G. W. Leibniz (1646-1716) philosophers

almost always worked on the assumption that belief in God is belief in classical theism. And

their understanding has been shared by many theologians. The major tenets of classical theism

are part of the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. They were also taught by most

of the major sixteenth-century Protestant reformers and by heirs of theirs, such as Jonathan

Edwards, the famous eighteenth-century American Puritan divine.

(a). Classical theism and the doctrine of Creation: According to classical theism, God is

primarily the Creator. God is what accounts for there being any world at all. He is causally

responsible for the existence of everything other than himself. More specifically, God, for

classical theism, is the one (and the only one) who creates 'from nothing' (ex nihilo in the

traditional Latin phrase). The idea here is not that God works on something called 'Nothing' in

order to create. Classical theism's claim is that God makes things to be without there being

anything prior to his creative act save himself. He makes to be, but not out of anything.

According to classical theism, for God to create is for God to make it to be that something
simply exists. Artists make it to be that there is a work of art. Surgeons make it to be that

someone's insides get modified. Nuclear explosions make it to be that landscapes are

rearranged. According to classical theism, however, God makes it to be that things are just

there regardless of what they are like (although he is also responsible for that). He accounts

for there being something rather than nothing. Many people think that to say that God has

created is just to say that God brought it about that the universe began to exist.iii Although

classical theists typically agree that the universe began to exist, and although they hold that it

was God who brought this about, they also typically say that belief in God as Creator is not

just belief in God's past activity. For classical theists, God's creative work is just as much

present in the continued existence of you and me as it was in the origin of the universe.

You cannot intervene in what you are doing yourself. And, say classical theists, God cannot

literally intervene in his own created order. Sometimes they make this point by claiming that

for God to create is not for him to effect any change. Something can be changed only if it pre-

exists the activity of a modifier. But, asks the classical theist, what can pre-exist the activity of

God the Creator?

(b) Classical theism and the nature of God: The classical theist's answer to that last

question is, as you might now suspect, 'Nothing'. Or, as Aquinas writes: We must consider not

only the emanation of a particular being from a particular agent, but also the emanation of all

being from the universal cause, which is God; and this emanation we designate by the name

of creation. Now what proceeds by particular emanation is not presupposed to that emanation;

as when a man is generated, he was not before, but man is made from not-man, and white

from not-whiteiv. Hence, if the emanation of the whole universal being from the first principle

be considered. It is impossible that any being should be presupposed before this emanation.

For nothing is the same as not being. Therefore, as the generation of a man is from the not

being which is not-man, so creation, which is the emanation of all being. Is from the not-being
which is nothing. And this answer has further implications for those who subscribe to

classical theism. One is that nothing created can cause God to change or be modified in any

way. In terms of classical theism, there is no causality from creatures to God since creatures

are wholly God's effects. Parents can act causally on their children. And children can act

causally on their parents. But that is so because they belong to the same world as each other

and because neither parents nor children owe all that they are to each other. According to

classical theism, however, creatures constantly owe all that they are to God, and any causal

activity of theirs is, first and foremost, God's causal activity in them. Many classical theists

make this point by insisting that God is impassable.

In this context 'impassable' does not mean ‘blocked’, 'callous', 'heartless', or 'indifferent'. It

means 'not able to be causally modified by an external agent'. And for most classical theists

the claim that God is impassable goes hand in hand with the teaching that God is immutable.

The idea here is twofold: (I) God cannot be altered by anything a creature does and (2) God is

intrinsically unchangeable. Why intrinsically unchangeable? For classical theists, the answer

lies in their understanding of what is involved in God creating. On their account, all change is

the coming to be of something new. And yet, so they reason, all coming to be of something

new is God's doing, which means that God himself cannot change without being a creature,

something whose way of being at a given time is derived from another.

For many classical theists, this idea also suggests that God is outside time. Many philosophers

have thought that change and time go together, since (a) anything undergoing change is also

temporal, and (b) anything wholly changeless and unchangeable is distinct from time.

Classical theists frequently share this view and often, therefore, speak of God being timeless

(or eternal). According, for instance, to St Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109): All that is

enclosed in any way by place or time is less than that which no law of place or time

constrains. Since, then, nothing is greater that You (God), no place or time confines You but
You exist everywhere and always. You were not, therefore, yesterday, nor will You be

tomorrow, but yesterday and today and tomorrow You are. Indeed You exist neither

yesterday nor today nor tomorrow but are absolutely outside all time. For yesterday and today

and tomorrow are completely in time; however, You, though nothing can be without You, are

nevertheless not in place or time but all things are in You. For nothing contains You, but You

contain all things.v

Since classical theistic ideas are influenced by Greek philosophy and focus on God in the

abstract and metaphysical sense, they can be difficult to reconcile with the "near, caring, and

compassionate" view of God presented in the religious texts of the main monotheistic

religions, particularly the Bible. (Ponjmanand Rea, 3; Jansen, 2)

III. THEISTIC PERSONALISM’S VIEW OF GOD

Turning, however, to what I call theistic personalism, we get a very different picture. Take,

for instance, the contemporary Christian author Alvin Plantinga.vi According to him, the

teaching that God IS simple is false since God possesses different properties and is a person,

not 'a mere abstract object'.vii Then again, according to Richard Swinburne (also a

Christian),viii a theist is 'a man who believes that there is a God', and by 'God' the theist

'understands something like a "person without a body".ix 'That God is a person, yet one

without a body, seems', says Swinburne, 'the most elementary claim of theism: Both Plantinga

and Swinburne count as theistic personality on my understanding of the expression. And one

reason for saying so is that, unlike classical theists, they think it’s important to stress that is a

person.

(a). Persons and Bodies: What do Plantinga and Swinburne mean by 'person'? Their writings,

and writings of those who share their view of God, proceed from the assurnption that, if we

want to understand what persons are, we must begin with human beings. Yet Plantinga and

Swinburne, and those who broadly agree with them about God, do not want to suggest that
God is just like a human being. So they also think that there can somehow be a person who,

while being like human beings, is also decidedly different from what people are. In particular,

and as Swinburne’s phrase 'person without a body' indicates, they think that there can be a

disembodied person. Yet, what are we to understand by expressions like 'person without a

body' and 'disembodied person'?

Many philosophers hold that such expressions make little sense. They argue that persons are

essentially embodied because human beings are such. On their account, the word 'person' has

'embodied' built into its meaning so that phrases like 'person without a body' and 'disembodied

person' have an air of self-contradiction about them. Hence, for example, Aristotle (384-322

BC) holds that the persons we call people are essentially corporeal. For him, persons are as

necessarily bodily as cats are necessarily mammalian. This line of thinking can also be found

in writers such as Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) and Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). But

other philosophers take a different view. Consider, for instance, John Locke (1632-1704).

According to him, persons might swap bodies with each other.x A person says Locke, is a

thinking intelligent Being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the

same thinking thing in different times and places'.xi And, so Locke goes on to say, the person

of a prince could come to occupy the body of a cobbler.

The prince's person, now in the cobbler's body, would not, Locke 'suggests, be the same man

as the prince. But it would, he argues, be the same person. Locke is asserting that persons can

be distinguished from particular bodies and are not, therefore, identical with them. And if he

is right to do so, then persons are not essentially corporeal. The view that persons are not

essentially corporeal is most often associated with Rene Descartes (1596-1650). In his

Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes looks for a truth which cannot be doubted. He hits

on 'I exist' as what he is searching for. One cannot doubt that one exists, he argues, since one

cannot even doubt if one does not exist. It is, says Descartes, absurd to doubt one's existence
as long as one is thinking. And he goes on to suggest that being a person (being able to refer

to oneself as '1') is inseparable from thinking. 'What am I?' Descartes asks. His answer is 'I am

a thing that thinks: that is, a thing that doubts, affirms, denies, understands a few things, is

ignorant of many things, is willing, is unwilling, and which also imagines and has sensory

perceptions.'xii And this thinking thing, Descartes adds, is not anything bodily.

However it is important to note that the anthropomorphism is not the crude sort operative in

traditional stories about the gods of the various pagan pantheons. The theistic personalist does

not think of God as having a corporeal nature, but instead, perhaps along the lines of

something like an infinite Cartesian res cogitans. Nor do classical theists deny that God is

personal in the sense of having the key personal attributes of intellect and will. Classical

theists seemed to deny that God stands alongside us in the genus “person.” He is not “a

person” alongside other persons any more than he is “a being” alongside other beings. He is

not an “instance” of any kind, the way we are instances of a kind. He does not “have” intellect

and will, as we do, but rather just as infinite in intellect and will. He is not “a person,” not

because he is less than a person but because he is more than merely a person.xiii

Theistic personalist emphasizes the fact that God identified with man. He shared his essence

with man; hence, man can understand him from his own perspective. Though God might

occupies his own distinguishable class all alone yet, man can have a glimpse of who he is by

understanding man and his attributes.

Davies asserts that the proponents of this school of thought are contemporary theologians

such as Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne. It must be noted that theists Personalism has

its roots in the university of Duns Scotus, but scholastic theology doesn’t usually grab modern

Christians so what they latch unto are the bits about God’s being without “passion”,

immutable”,xiv and so on. Also, they clock the Thomist conception that God’s emotions and

other properties are “analogous” rather than identical to ours, meaning that his mode of being
is fundamentally different from ours. It is vital to note if this true, no one would be attracted

to such a passionless God.xv

It must be noted that The Westminster Confession was written by the Puritans, who belief in a

God who relates to us personally. Such teaching also goes back to men like Augustine, to

whom God’s burning love meant all. It must be stated that on the doctrine of creation, theistic

personalism do agreed that God is the Creator and He caused all things to existence, but they

regarded God as standing as an onlooker and he is able to intervene in how things are. They

believed that some events are not so much caused by God but permitted by him. xvi This view

negates classical theism which holds that all history is God’s doing. This is in consonance

with John Calvin’s postulation on the sovereignty of God as he noted that God is in control of

both seemingly bad and good things that take place because he works in all things to fulfil his

purpose. They further opined that God’s knowledge of history may partly be acquired by him

as history unfolds. They questioned the exchangeability and impossibility of God. They

claimed that for God to be admired, he must be able to change. He must be affected by the

good and the bad occurrences in the world.xvii

IV. EVALUATION

Having stated the views of both classical theists and theist personalists on the concept of God,

and the creation, it is important to note that though their opinions seemed to be radically

different from each other; their ideas of God are just two faces of a coin. The classical theists

emphasized the transcendent nature of God as they presented their ideas in a lofty manner.

However, it must be noted that their view of God is one sided, because the transcendent

nature of God was emphasized and thus limited the possibility of created being relating to him

in any meaningful way. He is separated from and over above the world. In other words God’s

majesty was stressed. They fail to recognize the immanence and humility of God. They failed

to realize that the intellect demands a dialectical concept of God. This is because the religious
consciousness seeks a God with whom more affinity can be felt without diminution of his

Otherness as postulated by Paul Tillich.

Also, from their viewpoint, they presented an absentee entity and an object apart from the

universe. It is expedient to note that God does not exist in term of occurrence in a

spatiotemporal context but belongs to a mode of being different from the inner-worldly

existence of finite things. God supplies the context for finite existence but he has no context.

His being is remotely analogous to the being of finite entities, but more active, original and

ultimate.xviii

The theistic personalists showcased the immanence of God as they hold tenaciously to the

resemblance of God in human nature through the employment of anthropomorphic language

to describe the “Ground of Being” as noted by Paul Tillich. It must be stressed that the theistic

personalists could be interpreted to present God in human form as in incarnated Christ in

historical Jesus of Nazareth, who came in human flesh. He passed through all kinds of

inhuman treatments yet without sin. He condescended to identify with man.

The difference between classical theism and theistic personalism shows up in their respective

attitudes toward some of the traditional divine attributes. Classical theists insist that God is

absolutely simple or without parts; theistic personalists tend to reject the doctrine of divine

simplicity. Classical theists also insist that God is immutable, impassable, and eternal in the

sense of outside time altogether, while theistic personalists tend to reject these claims as well.

These differences also affect how the two views interpret claims about God’s omniscience,

will, goodness, and sovereignty, with theistic personalists tending to interpret these in a more

anthropomorphic way.

CONCLUSION

It is essential to note that both the classical theists and theistic personalists based their view on

biblical teachings and philosophical reasoning, yet, these different submissions evolved. In
effect, it implied that there are substantial difference of opinions among theists based on their

understanding of scriptural passages and philosophical perspectives. This is to be aware the

fact that philosophy is a relevant tool for probing religious claims, therefore, religious people

should not feel threatened because of thinkers and their views but be informed and develop

how to provide explanation to the various questions being asked about God. God made man a

complete being who can reason, therefore the reasoning ability of man must also be employed

to establish undeniable facts about existence, especially that of God to the thinkers who may

not be engaging their endowment correctly. The fact still remains that both classical theistic

and theistic personalists are just two faces of one coin, implying that both views are relevant

and necessary to the understanding of the concept of God. Therefore philosophy of religion is

a rewarding exercise which must embraced and utilized in order to add flavour every

discourse that germane to human existence such as the concept of God!

In distinguishing between classical theism and theistic personalism, I have been trying to

paint a picture using rather broad strokes. My aim has been to give you an impression of some

substantial differences to be found among theists. But one should not assume that those who

side with some of the tenets of classical theism as it has been outlined also agree with all of

them. One should also not suppose that there is a solid body of thinkers calling themselves

'theistic personalists' and all saying exactly the same thing when it comes to God's nature.

'Classical theism' and 'theistic personalism' are just labels has it has been used in order to draw

your attention to some significant diversity which often goes unnoticed. But the diversity is

notable. And those approaching the philosophy of religion for the first time should be aware

of it. Much philosophy of religion centres on questions about God. So it is important at the

start to realize that 'God' is a word which has been understood differently.
Endnote

i
Henry, Jansen (1995). Relationality and the concept of God. Rodopi.
ii
Leibniz was born in Leipzig, where he later studied. Generally regarded as one of the
greatest seventeenth-century 'rationalist' philosophers, he wrote on physics, mathematics,
metaphysics, and theology.
iii
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la, 8.
iv
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la, 45, 1. I quote from the translation of the English
Dominican Fathers (London, 1911).
v
Anselm, Proslogion, chs. 13 and 19. I quote from Brian Davies and G. R. Evans (eds.),
Anselm ofCanterbury: The Major Works (Oxford, 1998). Anselm was at one time abbot of
Bec, in Normandy. He died as Archbishop of Canterbury. His best-known writings include his
Monologion, Proslogion, and Cur Deus Homo.
vi
Alvin Plantinga, Does God Have A Nature (Milwaukee, WI, 1980), p. 47.
vii
Ibid
viii
Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism (rev. edn., Oxford, 1993), p. 1.
ix
Ibid. P. 101
x
John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, edited with an introduction by
Peter H. Nidditch (Oxford, 1975), Book II, ch. XXVII, p. 335.
xi
ibid., p. 340.
xii
I quote from The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vo!. II, trans. John Cottingham,
Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch (Cambridge, 1984), p. 24.
xiii
Evan, C.Stephen (1985), Philosophy Of Religion, Intervarsity Press, Leicester
xiv
Brian Davies, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford, 1992).
xv
Davies, Brian (2004), An Introduction To The Philosophy Of Religion, Oxford University
Press, New York.
xvi
Hick, John (1973), Philosophy Of Religion Prentice-Hall, Englewood
xvii
Edward, Craig, ed. (1998). "God, concepts of". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Taylor & Francis.
xviii
Davies, Brian (2004), An Introduction To The Philosophy Of Religion, Oxford University
Press, New York