Abstract
It is obvious from the title that neo-classical models of the divine nature are described as such in reference to their departure from classical theism. But, as often happens with similar terms such as neo-conservative or neo-orthodox, it’s not always completely obvious exactly what is supposed to be new about such views, as the Greek prefix suggests. I begin thus, as this volume as a whole does, with classical theism. I’ll show how a number of models which get labeled neo-classical are attempts to be continuous, in at least one sense, with classical theism while introducing new ways of conceiving the divine nature which warrant calling them neo-classical models.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This is, in one sense, loose speak; for as Thomas Williams indicates in his introduction to the previous section, classical theism has also traditionally embraced divine simplicity, according to which “God does not have a variety of features or attributes [including properties] that are distinct from God’s nature and from each other” (page ??, this volume). For ease of explication, however, I ignore this complication. For similar reasons, it is technically incorrect to speak of divine attributes, insofar as simplicity entails, for example, that God’s perfect power is identical with His perfect goodness. I ignore this complication as well.
- 2.
Rogers (2000), 2 (concluding italics added).
- 3.
Ibid., 4.
- 4.
For examples of such arguments and references to others, see Nagasawa (2008), 581f.
- 5.
Rogers (2000), 5.
- 6.
Alston (1989), 115.
- 7.
Of course, the two cases are not parallel in all ways.
- 8.
There are numerous other examples. To mention just one other, the theologians Bernard of Clairvaux, Alexander of Hales, and Bonaventure (among others) were not heterodox despite rejecting the immaculate conception of Mary for the simple reason that the immaculate conception was not dogmatized until 8 December, 1854 by Pope Pius IX. For an insightful discussion of these issues, see Adams (2010).
- 9.
Williams (2001), 1.
- 10.
Ibid., 22.
- 11.
Ibid., 24. As Lewis Ayres and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz similarly write, “the emergence of orthodoxy after the second century involved not the fighting off of ‘heresies’ that threatened the apostolic faith, but in many significant cases the overturning and labeling as heresy of previously accepted beliefs,” Ayres and Radde-Gallwitz (2008), 865.
- 12.
Williams (2001), 90. See also 234ff.
- 13.
My general point is reinforced even more by remembering fourth-century Arian emperor Valens, who decreed that Arian theology was orthodoxy and the Nicean theology was heretical. Arian was again declared heterodox at the First Council of Constantinople in 381.
- 14.
The term ‘neo-classical theism’ is often affiliated with the work of Charles Hartshorne, who once said that “Classical theism is for me false a priori, a tragic error” (1982, 17). My use of the term ‘neo-classical’ differs from Hartshorne’s for reasons spelled out in the above paragraph.
- 15.
Another similar discussion can be found in Oppy (2011). The reader should note, however, that Oppy criticizes Nagasawa’s neo-classical model in the final section of his paper.
- 16.
Nagasawa (2008), 578f.
- 17.
Ibid., 579. He continues: “the thesis does not imply that these are God’s only attributes or even that they are all of his main attributes. Indeed, most proponents of the omniGod thesis think that God has many other important attributes, such as independence, timelessness, incorporeality, immutability, omnipresence, and so on. In this paper I set aside these attributes for the sake of simplicity” (ibid.).
- 18.
Ibid., 586.
- 19.
Ibid., 587.
- 20.
See, most fully, Rowe (2004).
- 21.
Technically, the argument does not need the ‘No Best World’ assumption to be actually true, but only possibly true to refute the classical Anselmian model of God which it targets. However, this need not concern us at present.
- 22.
I have benefited from helpful comments from Yujin Nagasawa, Diane Leclerc, Jeanine Diller, and Asa Kasher. Thomas William’s contribution to the present volume also helped me avoid making a number of mistakes in presenting classical theism.
References
Adams, Marilyn Mc.Cord. 2010. The immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary: A thought-experiment in medieval philosophical theology. Harvard Theological Review 103: 133–159.
Alston, William. 1989. Divine nature and human language. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ayres, Lewis, and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz. 2008. Doctrine of God. In The Oxford handbook of early Christian studies, ed. Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter, 864–885. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hartshorne, Charles. 1982. Grounds for believing in God’s existence. In Meaning, truth, and God, ed. Leroy Rouner, 17–33. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Nagasawa, Yujin. 2008. A new defense of Anselmian theism. The Philosophical Quarterly 58(233): 577–596.
Oppy, Graham. 2011. Perfection, near-perfection, maximality, and Anselmian theism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69: 119–138.
Rogers, Katherin A. 2000. Perfect being theology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Rowe, William. 2004. Can God be free? New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Rowan. 2001. Arius, 2nd ed. London: SCM Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Timpe, K. (2013). Introduction to Neo-classical Theism. In: Diller, J., Kasher, A. (eds) Models of God and Alternative Ultimate Realities. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5219-1_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5219-1_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5218-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5219-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)