We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded by your direct support for ReKnew and our vision. Please consider supporting this project.

What do you think of Thomas Aquinas’ view of God?

Question: You have written (in Trinity and Process) that the relational God of the Bible is the antithesis of the immutable God of Thomas Aquinas. Could you explain this?

Answer: Aquinas and much of the classical theological tradition borrowed heavily from Aristotle’s notion of God as an “unmoved mover.” God moves the world but remains unmoved himself. Among other things, this entails that God is not reciprocally related to the world. Indeed, for Aquinas, God relates to the world only by relating to himself as the cause of the world. He thus wrote that the relationship between God and the world is real to the world but not to God.

I don’t see how this view of God is at all compatible the central truth of the Christian faith that God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ. If we grant that Christ—rather than Aristotle—most decisively reveals who God is, it’s hard to see how we can justify the conclusion that God is not reciprocally related to his creation. God is so affected by the plight of humans and of all creation that he become a human to save us and creation from the devil’s oppression.

So far as I can see, this relational and vulnerable view of God is the most exalted and beautiful conception of God ever imagined. Though his intention was to articulate the greatness of God, I view Aquinas’ “unmoved mover” conception as being insulting to God.

Related Reading

How do you respond to Isaiah 14:24, 27?

The Lord of hosts has sworn: As I have designed, so shall it be; and as I have planned, so shall it come to pass… For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who will annul it? his hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? The fact that Scripture frequently speaks of…

Is it okay to masturbate?

When I as a new struggling Christian raised this topic with my pastor, I was told in no uncertain terms that God struck Onan dead for masturbating. At some point I read the passage for myself (Gen. 38:1-10) and discovered my pastor had mislead me. It’s true that Onan was punished by God because he…

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…

Last Minute Preparations

We’re all busy here at ReKnew making last minute preparations for the Open2013 conference here in St. Paul, MN. It’s our first ever event of this kind and there’s a nervous energy and anticipation. I wonder if you’ll hold this up in prayer if you weren’t able to join us? We have a last minute…

What is your perspective on the classical view that God is above time?

In a major strand of hellenistic (Greek) philosophy, change was seen as being an imperfection. This idea was adopted by many early Church fathers and eventually became almost an assumed dogma of the Church. It was thus assumed that, since God is perfect, he must be above all change. Not only does his character and…

How do you respond to Numbers 23:19?

The Lord tells Balak through Balaam “God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind.” This verse (as well as 1 Sam. 15:29, which quotes it) is often cited in refutation of the claim that God genuinely changes his mind. However, since Scripture explicitly states…