That depends. A transcendent God that is both omniscient and omnipotent *knows* everything. He probably designed the Universe in such a way that life forms (such a human beings) were intended to emmerge eventually in His Creation. Perhaps that is the whole purpose. That is a strong connection, I think.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
*Theists* Classical Theism or Theistic Personalism? And why?
- Thread starter RedDragon94
- Start date
Reflex
Active Member
I tend to agree with this. The predominance of Personalism, however, is a recent phenomenon, an aberration, really. Classical Theism is called Classical because it was highly developed centuries ago. Today there are some big-name theologians who would vehemently disagree with me on this, but despite its predominance, in my view, Theistic Personalism amounts to what I call "bubblegum theology." This generates problems in this forum for Classical Theists because the distinction is not recognized by most atheists. Personalism has no real answer for the problem of evil, for instance, and it's vulnerable to parodies like the flying spaghetti monster and atheists here are all too happy to extend that vulnerability to Classical Theism, where those kind of arguments simply don't apply.
God in Classical Theism is transcendent and immanent.
In deism, God arranges the parts, winds up the clock and kicks back as things take care of themselves; in Classical Theism, creation is an ongoing process that is continually sustained by God -- and that's radically different than deism. Another way to put is is that Creatorship is the aggregate of God's acting nature rather than an attribute (divine simplicity).
So... Classical Theism is panentheism?
Reflex
Active Member
I'd say so, though some might object to the label for reasons I don't understand.
If that is the case (which I am skeptical of, because it contradicts what I've studied elsewhere), it is certainly not immanent in the same manner in which polytheistic gods are. Classical monotheism is famous (or infamous) for putting a wedge between "creator" and "creation." It's why they don't worship the same gods we do - why they don't worship the sea, the sky, the land.
Reflex
Active Member
Correct. Polytheistic gods are beings alongside other beings. That is clearly not the case for classical theism.
God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident; but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately, and touch it by its virtue … therefore as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally inherent in all things since it is formal in respect of everything found in a thing … Hence it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly.
… Although corporeal things are said to be in another as in that which contains them, nevertheless, spiritual things contain those things in which they are; as the soul contains the body. Hence also God is in things containing them; nevertheless, by a certain similitude to corporeal things, it is said that all things are in God; inasmuch as they are contained by Him.
– Summa Theologica 1.8.1
Does that sound like putting a wedge between Crator and creation?… Although corporeal things are said to be in another as in that which contains them, nevertheless, spiritual things contain those things in which they are; as the soul contains the body. Hence also God is in things containing them; nevertheless, by a certain similitude to corporeal things, it is said that all things are in God; inasmuch as they are contained by Him.
– Summa Theologica 1.8.1
Yes, because saying "god is in all things" is not the same as saying "god is all things." The first implies separation and dualism, while the second does not. The paragraph describes "god" as some puppeteer or controlling force behind/within things, rather than the thing itself. That, as far as I'm aware, makes the "immanence" of classical monotheism a misnomer. True divine immanence doesn't imply any dualism between gods and other things. The things are quite literally gods, and god isn't some force behind it. Make sense? It's the difference between worshiping some god-force behind the sun and actually worshiping the sun itself as a god, proper.
Reflex
Active Member
I honestly don't understand your reasoning, Quintessence. First you say classical theism drives a "wedge" between Creator and created and now, based on a few lines from a massive (and unfinished) work, you seem to be saying that not only is there no wedge, but classical theism describes God as a Master Puppeteer (pantheism?).
This isn't the time or place to get too deep into this matter (plus I'm still trying to get through Feser's Scholastic Metaphysics). In the end (to paraphrase), literalism gets really silly when applied too broadly. However, I would advise watching the whole series of videos posted in the OP (there are seven, if I remember correctly) and Ed Feser's The Last Superstition, mentioned in post #4.
Note: Outhouse started a thread calling Feser a "fraud," so he (Feser) must know the subject too well for outhouse's liking.
This isn't the time or place to get too deep into this matter (plus I'm still trying to get through Feser's Scholastic Metaphysics). In the end (to paraphrase), literalism gets really silly when applied too broadly. However, I would advise watching the whole series of videos posted in the OP (there are seven, if I remember correctly) and Ed Feser's The Last Superstition, mentioned in post #4.
Note: Outhouse started a thread calling Feser a "fraud," so he (Feser) must know the subject too well for outhouse's liking.
Orbit
I'm a planet
I think the point being made here is that traditional xtianity is dualistic (the creation is separate from the creator hence the need for reconciliation through faith/Jesus), though there are branches of mystic xtianity that are more panentheistic.
You presented these few lines, implying that anything else in this massive work wasn't as relevent to the topic at hand. The statement, "[God] as an agent is present to that upon which it works", very much does sound like it's describing a "Master Puppeteer" of sorts. Puppetteers, after all, are the agents present to puppets, upon which they work.
@Quintessence didn't say anything contradictory. They quite clearly described the distinction between "god in the object", which is what classical theism seems to be about, and "god as the object". The former states a very clear distinction (i.e., wedge) between the object and the God (and therefore the worshiper), while the latter does not.
Therefore, using the Master Puppetter description, one way of describing the difference difference is: Pinnochio the puppet, and Pinnochio the real boy. Do you see the distinction?
Or if that's not good enough, consider Sun. Sun is a Goddess (or a God, depending on your personal idea of what gender the inherently genderless Sun is). Now, I am obviously a distinct entity from Sun. However, both me and Sun, as well as everything in the Solar System, is made of the same stuff as a progenitor star that went nova. (I don't know if astronomers have officially named that star, so let's just call her Ymir for now, look up the story if you don't know why). A significant part of me, therefore, is the same as Sun, as well as Earth and all Her children, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Pluto, Ceres, Moon, etc... all through now-dead Ymir. But because Ymir is now dead, she can hardly be described as an "agent" working upon us.
Ymir is not in us, because that implies there are parts of us that aren't Ymir's body. Rather, we are Ymir, because there is not a single part of us that isn't part of her body.
Do you understand the distinction?
Then try this.
Thor is not the "God of Thunder." That is to say, Thor does not cause Thunder.
The name for Thor in Old English was Thunor. This word remained in English's vocabulary even long after the God stopped being commonly worshiped. In fact, the word still exists today: long story short, it is the word Thunder.
Thunder IS the Son of Earth. When you're in a thunder storm, you are literally in the presence of Thunder Earthson. You literally see His body with every flash, and literally hear His voice with every THUN. Or rather, I do, because that's my relationship with the phenomenon and the character from Lore.
Last edited: