God’s Power

No less a philosopher than Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) acknowledged difficulty in comprehending God’s power.  Thomas wrote that, while “all confess that God is omnipotent…it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists.”  British philosopher Anthony Kenny concurs: “It is, by no means, easy to state concisely and coherently what is meant by ‘omnipotence’.”

Some people believe that any limitations, logical or otherwise, upon the power of God seriously undermind the historic Christian belief that God is omnipotent.  This explains why many people think that divine omnipotence means God can do absolutely anything.  But, if there is anything to be learned from the classical Christian discussions of omnipotence, it is that omnipotence was always understood to be compatible with certain limitations on God’s power.  There are certain things that even an omnipotent God cannot do.

Medieval theologians drew attention to some fairly trivial examples of restrictions upon the power of God.  How could God be called omnipotent, for example, when He could not do some things that His creatures could do, such as walk, sit, or swim?  The standard scholastic answer suggested that such creaturely acts did not mean that humans possessed powers not possessed by God.  Rather, human acts, such as walking and sitting, were possible because of a defect in human power.  The ability to sin, for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity.  As the discussion of omnipotence progressed through the Middle Ages, Christian philosophers came to qualify the statement “God can do anything” by adding “that implies the perfection of true power.”  As Aquinas phrased it, “God is said to be omnipotent in respect to active power, not to passive power.”

From: Life’s Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy by Ronald H. Nash (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), pp. 306-307.

At the time of this books publication, Ronald H. Nash was Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida.

 

Augustine’s View of History

Augustine is one of the earliest thinkers to give history the kind of reflection necessary to make it an acceptable part of a worldview.  Augustine’s philosophy of history is spelled out in his monumental work The City of God (written between 413 and 426).  The immediate occasion for Augustine’s writing the book was the sack of Rome in 410.  Non-Christians throughout the Roman Empire charged that Rome’s catastrophe was a result of the city’s turning from its pagan deities to Christianity.  Augustine began his book for the express purpose of answering these charges.  Before he finished, however, he found himself involved in discussions of numerous other topics, including what turned into a Christian philosophy of history.  The first ten books of The City of God contain Augustine’s answers to the pagan accusations, as well as much important information about the late Roman Empire.  The most interesting passages occur in the last half of the work (books 11-22) where he turns to the major theme of his study, the existence within the world of two cities or societies – the City of God and the City of Man.  The two cities will co-exist throughout human history.  Only at the final judgment and the end of human history will the two cities finally be separated so that they may share their appropriate destinies – heaven and hell.

From: Life’s Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy by Ronald H. Nash (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), p. 163.

 

A Critique of Thomas Aquinas

At least three accomplishments of Aquinas are worthy of note.

(1) Aquinas provided wisdom and inspiration to numerous philosophers, theologians, and representatives of other disciplines who applied what they learned from him to the new problems and challenges of their own time.  Many of these contributions can be useful to many people who study and use them with discernment.

(2) Thomas sought to develop a comprehensive world-and-life view.  While some may disagree with features of his system, no one before him and few since him have developed a worldview as complete as his.

(3) Aquinas met the major intellectual challenges to the Christianity of his age on their own ground.  Differences will arise over the exact way in which he answered those challenges, but contemporary Christians can applaud his refusal to take refuge in pietism, fideism, or irrationalism.

But Thomas’s worldview has its weaknesses, many of which carry over from Aristotelianism.  One collection of difficulties can be tied to attempts to utilize Aristotle’s primary matter in a Christian worldview.  As I noted earlier, many of Aristotle’s contemporaries, and others who followed in later centuries, sought an account of individuation in something other than primary matter.  While Thomas’s treatment of the body-soul relationship offers distinct advantages over Platonism, it still leaves us wanting more in the way of an account of human survival after death, if philosophy can provide such an account.

Thomas’s attempts to prove God’s existence have led many admirers to expand them in new ways.  His account of the Five Ways in Summa Theologiae needs amplification.  Many critics find Thomas’s empiricism to be a source of other difficulties.  For one thing, can empiricism really account for our understanding of God’s nature?  Compare Thomas’s troubled theories of analogy and the negative way.  Can empiricism successfully ground a knowledge of God’s existence?  Aquinas denied the presence of any innate ideas in the human mind.  Thus, if humans are to know God, this knowledge must be built up from a patient analysis of sense data.  Many who reject Thomas’s position doubt that God’s existence can be demonstrated from sense experience alone.  One can no sooner know God from nature without some a priori idea of God than one can know anything apart from some innate categorical structure of rationality.

Nonetheless, it would be churlish to leave the impression that Thomas’s system is anything short of impressive.  Perhaps a mysterious event in Thomas’s life is a good point on which to end our examination of our six worldviews.  Aquinas, near the end of his life, suddenly stopped writing.  Some accounts suggest that he had a special experience with God that helped him realize the most important thing in life was not his books.  We are told that he not only stopped writing but refused to look at the intellectual accomplishments of his life.  He told one friend that all of his books seemed, to him, as but straw.  My mention of this fact should not be interpreted as denigrating philosophy.  As interesting as the questions of philosophy can be (and they are), as exciting as philosophical debate can be (and it is), it would be a shame if any of us miss life’s greatest happiness.  If you do not know what that happiness is, then, perhaps, you should spend more time looking for it.

From: Life’s Ultimate Answers: An Introduction to Philosophy by Ronald H. Nash (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), pp. 187-188.

At the time of publication, Dr. Nash was Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida.