 |
| 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 9/10/2002 1:05 PM (GMT -6) |   | I've been interested in Writerdad's ongoing discussions of Geisler's recent book and thought I would introduce a related topic for discussion: Does receptivity in God compromise God's status as the most perfect being?
From the stuff by Geisler that I have read it is clear that he is a convinced Thomist, which means that he conceives of God as Pure Act, impassible, unchangeable, timeless, etc. On the standard Thomistic view it is absolutely impossible for God to be conditioned in any way by his creation--otherwise he would be passive in some respects and thus neither purely actual nor impassible nor unchangeable nor timeless. The lynchpin of the classical theism that Geisler defends is the idea that any sort of dependency or contingency in God would not be befitting the most perfect being that God is. If God changes in any way, so the argument goes, it must be for the worse because, as most perfect, God can't get any better. But if God changed for the worse then he would no longer be the most perfect being and thus would no longer be God.
The logic of this reasoning has, I think, been successfully challenged by Doc, Hasker, Sanders, et al. but Geisler seems to find himself unable to question his Thomistic theism. On the one hand he wants to affirm libertarian freedom; on the other, he wants to affirm the whole package of Thomistic theism. He wants to have his cake and eat it and doesn't realize that he is trying to square the proverbial circle.
Not all Thomists agree with Geisler, however. Norris Clarke, for example, has argued that God can be really receptive to his creation without compromising God's pure actuality. His idea is that receptivity can be active (like when we "welcome" someone) and need not imply passivity in God--think of the mutual receptivity and dependence within the Triune Godhead. I think this is an interesting view and much more plausible than the standard Thomism that Geisler defends.
Any thoughts, folks?
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/10/2002 5:26 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm going to say in very small letters that I've always been seeing the attention placed on God and what God can or can't do, so as to be fair. I'm becoming of a mind to consider strongly that this attention is actually rooted in a defective and unbiblical anthropology. More another time.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 09/10/2002 10:27:39 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 9/10/2002 7:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan,
You deserve a better response than what I'm about to offer. I'm only visiting the boards occasionally and briefly.
The whole Geisler/classical notion of God as pure act is nonsense. It's an old blanket that needs to be thrown out because it smells and has huge holes in it. But it's comfortable so people like Geisler cling to it.
Clarke's take has a serious problem in that he's still thinking in a broken terminology (receptivity, pure actuality). Ugh. It would be nice if people would learn to think with and about their terms, not just through them.
Better still: study psychologists and communication scholars who are experts on relationships. They have one million (give or take) better ways to think about the God/human relationship than the Pure-Act-philosophy-nonsense that is keeping people bound to a barely workable theology.
Vitriol aside, I do think Clarke's general thrust is correct. Yes, God the father is always/already in relationship. In some way, we participate in and mirror God's nature as being-in-relationship. Given that relationships are predicated on communication (broadly conceived), how can there be not be give-and-take, as well as mututal (and simulatneous) interactions as "sender" and "receiver"?
Why someone would go down that road, and still view "passivity" as a negative notion is beyond me. Being loved (the object of a lover) is not a fault or weakness. Responding to a lover in love is not a fault (in the sense of "being conditioned", etc.).
While I applaud those who want to damage parts of the classical/Thomistic conception, trying to shoehorn a more accurate view of being-in-relationship inside notions of "pure actuality" is like putting makeup on a pig. It's more palatable, but still weird and unsettling.
Terry
Be God's
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/11/2002 12:20 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:27 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|