Do you believe God is pure actuality?

The basis of the classical view of God as pure actuality (actus purus) is the Aristotelian notion that potentiality is always potential for change and that something changes only because is lacks something else. So, a perfect being who lacks nothing must be devoid of potentiality, which means it must be pure actuality.

I think this perspective is misguided on a number of accounts.

First, if all our thinking about God is to be centered on Jesus Christ, the definitive revelation of God (Heb. 1:1-3), I don’t see how we could ever come to the conclusion that God is devoid of potentiality. In Christ, God became something he wasn’t previously – namely, a human being. This entails that God had the potential to become a human being. And this alone is enough to dismiss the “God as pure actuality” idea.

I would argue this insight is confirmed with every verb ascribed to God in the Bible. Whenever God acts in time, it implies that God first had the potential to do what he did and then he did it. Aristotle’s actus purus deity can engage in no such activities.

Beyond this, however, it seems to me the actus purus model of perfection is strongly counter-intuitive. We usually see potentiality as a positive thing. The more potential something has, the higher we value it, all other things being equal. For example, part of what makes us consider humans to have more value than (say) cattle is that humans have far more potential to do positive things than cattle do.

On the other hand, what analogy is there to help us understand the total absence of potentiality for positive things as being itself a positive thing? All of our understanding of God is rooted in analogies from our experience, since that about which we have no analogy is meaningless. So how are we to analogically understand God, the one who possesses all positive value, as being completely devoid of potentiality? I know of no way to do this. This suggests that not only is the concept of the supreme, perfect God being actus purus counter-intuitive: it arguably is also unintelligible.

Given our uniform experience of potentiality, it would rather seem we should conceive of God as possessing the maximal amount of potentiality for positive things.

Some classical theists object to attributing potentiality to God because they consider potentiality to be a consequence of contingency, and thus inapplicable to a necessary being. However, why must a necessary being be conceived of as being necessary in every respect? While lacking the potential to (say) cease to exist or to worsen one’s character may be considered virtues—hence God’s existence and character should be conceived of as being strictly necessary—this doesn’t entail that the actions God engages in to express his necessary character must themselves be necessary.

For God to lack the potentiality to act and experience in contingent ways would be for God to lack something praiseworthy and valuable. It would amount to God lacking freedom, and indeed lacking everything we ordinarily associate with living, personal beings.

Thus, for biblical as well as philosophical reasons, I conclude that the classical view of God as actus purus is misguided.

Related Reading

How Does God Hear All Our Prayers?

Q: At any given moment there are millions of people praying to God. How is it possible for God to pay attention to my little, silent prayer amidst all the chatter? The reason you or I can only effectively listen to one person at a time is because we only have a limited amount of…

How Calvinism Misses the Point About Salvation

Calvinists sometimes argue that various passages in John teach that the Father chooses and then “draws” certain people to Christ. Those who are “drawn” certainly come to Christ (John 6:37) while all who are not drawn remain in their sin. For example, John portrays Jesus as repeatedly teaching that “no one can come to me…

What is the right way to interpret Revelation?

Few biblical topics have captured the imagination of contemporary evangelicals like the book of Revelation. The recent unprecedented success of the Left Behind series is evidence of this popular fascination. Many evangelicals don’t realize that the futuristic interpretation of Revelation advocated in this popular series is only one of several interpretations evangelicals espouse. Here’s the…

In light of Einstein’s conclusion that time is relative, how can you believe that God is not above time?

Relatively Theory basically stipulates that whether an event is viewed as being in the past, present or future depends on where one is in relation to the event in question as well as how fast one is moving. Some people conclude from this that Relativity Theory lends support to the classical view of God in…

The Revelation of God in the Cross

The cross cannot be understood apart from the resurrection, just as the resurrection can never be understood apart from the cross. They are two sides of the same coin. If you consider the cross apart from the resurrection, then the crucified Christ becomes nothing more than one of the many thousands of people who were…

How do you respond to Genesis 3:15?

The Lord promises that he will “put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.” This is commonly considered the first messianic prophecy of the Bible. What a glorious and gracious picture of God we are given here!…