ABSTRACT
In the previous chapters there have been several references to ‘classical’ theism, in contrast with ‘non-classical’ theism, which include panentheism. This is a very crude distinction because there are a number of very different issues within the debate between classical and non-classical views, and many people who hold a ‘classical’ position on one issue may hold a more radical, non-classical view on another. Among the issues that relate to the adequacy of classical theism is the question of ‘passibility’, which refers to the debate concerning whether God can be said to experience change or suffering, and if he can, in what way.1 Another issue concerns the nature of omnipotence, and (for example) the claim that God’s power can and does allow for the ‘miraculous’, in Aquinas’ strict sense of the term. ‘Classical’ theism allows for such miracles while some forms of theism either reject their possibility, or their occurrence, or are generally much more cautious about them. Among the other issues are questions relating to omniscience and predestination. Also, while all theists are likely to use the terms ‘immanence’ and ‘transcendence’, the way in which they are described as essential characteristics of God varies considerably, and this has major implications for matters such as an analogical knowledge of God that goes beyond a pure via negativa. Behind all of these issues lies a general debate as to the extent to which older, ‘monarchical’ and ‘patriarchal’ pictures of God needs to be modified or rejected. There are also many other issues that are not discussed in this book.
