Classical Theism vs. Theistic Personalism: What Is God?
This is an essay from a my Philosophy of Religion course uploaded on September 29th, 2026
There are at least two different ways in which monotheists (or simply theists in our case) conceive of God in the Western sense. The term Western is used as reference to the God of Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and similar sects. These two theories are unofficial titles that were created by Brian Davies. The first and more traditional theory is classical theism. In classical theism, God is believed to be the Creator of the universe and he created it ex nihilo, or out of nothing, and is existence. The second is theistic personalism (or “neo-theism”). Theistic personalism is a more contemporary theory of God. Here we see God as a bodiless person, in a sense. Many philosophers and theologians have made valid arguments to defend each theory. Such thinkers include Maimonides, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, G.W. Leibniz, Alven Plantinga, and Richard Swineburne. Each thinker has a different theory, but each can be included under the umbrella of either classical theism or that of theistic personalism. The main difference in comprehension of God lies in the different interpretations that one can make when trying to understand theological language. Philosophers also disagree when it comes to making sense of words used to describe God. All of which is stated above sets the foundation for the question, “What is God?” A question I will attempt to answer in terms of each theory and its defenders.
Classical theism is the stand taken by Maimonides, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Leibniz, among others. The central theme is that God is thought of as Creator and Sustainer of the world. Without God, everything would not exist and would also cease to exist. He is creation in the simplest form. He does not observe from any distance, but actively is the world. When saying that God is the world, it should not be confused with the belief that God is present in all things (the theme found in pantheism). What it is saying is that He creates the world in the same respect that an artist creates art. Art would never have existed had an artist never created it. Because artists continue to exist, art continues to exist. This is the concept to be thought of when thinking of classical theism. While God is the Creator, it is impossible for him to intervene with His work. One cannot intervene with that which they are doing, which is another key point to classical theism. For God to intervene, it would make him independent of the world and not the world as being.
Classical theists perceive God as impassible, immutable, eternal, and simple. God cannot be altered by any creature in the world because He is the world. At the same time, it must be clear that God is distinct from the creatures in the world. Through this reasoning it is seen that God lacks the potential for change (or just potency). Aquinas further defends this argument in the Summa Theologiae when he states “ Since God is altogether outside the order of creatures, since they are ordered to him but not he to them, it is clear that being related to God is a reality to creatures, but being related to creatures is not a reality in God.” God is eternal because He transcends time and space. Time is a measure of change and because God cannot change, He cannot be held within the confines of time. Also, without space there would be nothing. Nothing is that which God created the world out of (meaning not made of anything), so therefore he cannot be confined within space either. He is simple in the sense that He is all. Above all the claims stated, all classical theists agree that God is ultimately beyond human comprehension.
Theistic personalism, the more modern theory of God, is defended by philosophers such as Plantinga and Swineburne. This is the belief that God is a “person without a body,” as stated by Swineburne. Person is used to refer to the immaterial substance found in humans as defined by Rene Descartes. The term person is often controversial. Aristotle describes person as being essentially bodily, while John Locke argues that a person can transfer bodies and is distinct from man. Locke defines a person as “a thinking intelligent Being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places.” Here we see persons as being essentially corporeal and not necessarily corporeal. Descartes defines person as being “a thing that thinks: that is a thing that doubts, affirms, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things, is willing, is unwilling, and which also imagines and has sensory perceptions” after asking himself “What am I?” Now we see person as being something absolutely incorporeal. Because God is a person we can view Him as an observer of the world who has the power to intervene.
In theistic personalism, God can modify his creation and permits the actualization of events rather than simply willing them. John Lucas makes reference to this belief when he makes the statement “Although He knows how many hairs I have on my head, He has not decided how many there shall be.” The claim that God watches time unfold and acts as a moral agent is also a key theme. He watches the world from the bird’s eye view of a bird’s eye view so to speak, and can make predictions. Richard Creel describes God as a “privileged observer.” When people think to the likes of Creel, it is impossible to perceive of God as being impassible and immutable, solely on the grounds that if He was, then He would not be a person and therefore lifeless. Being that God is a person here and capable of change, He must be admirable because people cannot admire something without morals. Charles Hartshorne is a defender of the idea that God develops and improves and implies that God is not timeless. This idea of God being within the bounds of time is an idea shared by all theistic personalists to some degree. Because God is confined by time and is capable of change, He is no longer simple either. While they claim that God is a person who is somewhat knowable, all theistic personalists agree that God is mysterious and cannot be truly known, though He can be known enough to predict His actions.
Both views have some grounds in the teachings of the Bible. There are many different conclusions that one may come to when trying to interpret the teachings of the Bible and how it references to God. There are four different manners in which God is spoke of: through metaphor, negation, causation, and analogy. Not one specific manner is used at all times. When referred to in metaphor, words are applied to God in a positive regard in reference to the positive aspects that word has in the material world. For example, the statement “God is a mighty fortress” (used in class lecture and the Davies textbook) refers to God being strong and unyielding like a fortress, but he is not literally a reinforced defensive stone structure. Through this metaphor one can imagine God as having the positive properties of a fortress, without having to be an actual fortress that one would see in a society. Through negation, God is spoken of in terms of which He is not. Maimonides is the greatest defender of this theory and claims that God can only be spoken of in terms of all which He is not, because He is beyond comprehension. We know his stand is invalid because we will never learn exactly what God is if only spoke of in negation. He could be anything in the world outside of what is being described. If it is said that something is unwet it does not automatically make it a car, though cars are unwet things at most times. The causation approach suggests that words can be used because they are ultimately of God, as He is the cause for them. It is based on the ideology of God being the perfect of what He created. It is not right to conceive of God only in such ways because of how God is not dependent of the world. God could have chosen not to create anything, yet would still be God without a cause to be referred to. Analogical speech of God is one where words to describe God are done so as being in between univocal and equivocal. This view was made famous by St. Thomas Aquinas. The best way to think of this approach is to consider how many ways something can be good. It can be close to perfect and therefore good, or it can be admirable and therefore good. God is then said to be the goodness that people see in all that is good.
There are many different approaches one can make when thinking of God and when using words to describe Him. Most of the differences stem from the philosophical stances made through time. Classical theists use writings of the Bible and philosophical reasoning, while theistic personalists too use the Bible as well as the flaws they found in classical theism. All theists think of God in different ways, but can be placed under one of the two umbrellas made by Davies in his book. As stated in the said book, neither of these groups are organizations of people claiming to be classical theists or theistic personalists, but rather labels made by others to differentiate separate schools of thought. The question “What is God?” is something that a theist needs to ask themselves and strongly consider the answers in order to decide which side of the issue they stand.