What Is Classical Theism?

By Jordan L. Steffaniak

Classical theism, given its storied tradition, has many robust definitions throughout the ages. They are worth re-reading and slowly unpacking. Consider the below two examples as entryways into understanding it. First, John of Damascus (675/76–749) says:

So then, we both know and confess that God is without beginning, without end, eternal and everlasting, uncreated, immutable, unchangeable, simple, non-composite, incorporeal, invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed, limitless, ungraspable, incognizable, unfathomable, good, just, almighty, the creator of all created things, sovereign over all, overseeing all, exercising foresight over all, having supreme power over all, and judge of all.

Similarly, Augustine explains:

Thus we should understand God, if we can and as far as we can, to be good without quality, great without quantity, creative without need or necessity, presiding without position, holding all things together without possession, wholly everywhere without place, everlasting without time, without any change in himself making changeable things, and undergoing nothing.

These descriptions are quite similar. Both stack up terminology about what God is. God is without need, beginning, or end. He is perfect, omniscient, ​omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. Such a description of classical theism as a model is a fair starting point. But other models also want to say that God is perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. Therefore, to understand classical theism, we need to know what makes it unique. Traditionally, what has set classical theism apart is that it also claims that God is simple, immutable, impassible, and eternal. It is these four attributes that comprise the uniqueness of classical theism and mark it off as a distinct model of God.

. . . Classical theism was the primary model of God for most of Christian history. Isolating classical theism from orthodox Christian doctrines of the incarnation, atonement, and the like into a generic theism would allow for Platonic, Neoplatonic, and Aristotelian philosophy and for many Jewish and Muslim thinkers to be categorized as “classical theists” as well. But since I am defining classical theism within a Christian context that requires other classical doctrines like those found in the Apostles’ Creed, pagan Platonists or Muslims are not categorized as classical theists. They may hold some classical doctrines, but they reject others.

Despite widespread agreement among classical theists, there is room to question and provide alternative explanations for a simple, immutable, impassible, and eternal God. By this I mean that there is no uniform explanation for what divine simplicity or what divine impassibility must exhaustively mean within the classical tradition. While there are guardrails and views that are decidedly nonclassical, there are various strands and textures throughout the tradition.

. . . Classical theism is also unbound by the technical scholastic distinctions and their meanings as found in Thomism—actuality, potentiality, matter, form, substantial form, and the like. This doesn’t mean these terms are irrelevant or should be cast aside. They can be, and often are, of great service to classical theism. Their vocabulary and “grammar” are ubiquitous. But the doctrinal formulations of these terms as found in orthodox Thomism are not all necessary conditions for classical theism. For example, it is not necessary to follow the Thomist maxim that all physical bodies have only one substantial form. Pluralism about substantial forms is not inconsistent with classical theism. But even more, Thomism can be quite variegated itself! So, even if Thomism were flexible enough to be used interchangeably with classical theism, if one is really dedicated to getting into the weeds of Thomism, one will find further bewildering complexity. But this is true of any school of thought within the classical tradition. The point is this: Classical theism is a family of views that by its very nature is broad enough to include various theological “schools.” Classical theists should feel free to inhabit Thomism, Scotism, or other variegated traditions without immediate worry that they are no longer inhabiting the classical Christian tradition.

Neo-Classical Theism

Neo-classical theism is a model or family of views about God wherein God is independent and self-sufficient (this is the doctrine of aseity, being a se, from nothing but himself), omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. He is perfect and possesses every possible perfection. On these general descriptions, classical theism and neo-classical theism overlap in large measure, and process theism would be at odds. Yet in this model, God is not simple, immutable, impassible, and/or eternal like he is for classical theism. God remains omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and so on, while also suffering, going “back and forth” with ​his creation, grieving, and the like. God remains unchangeable in his essential nature and existence but engages in genuine “give-and-take” relationships where he is vulnerable and changeable. But there are various ways to be a neo-classical theist, and the boundaries can be somewhat vague because of this. One could reject all four of the so-called classical attributes, or one could reject or modify only one or two of them. Thus, a clear description of the family of views is rather difficult to provide except by way of various examples.

As a beginning example, consider someone who claims that instead of God being simple, he is unified. This is a weaker claim than divine simplicity, though it is similarly affirmed by classical theists. Therefore, someone who rejects divine simplicity but affirms divine unity could say that God is complex in the sense that he has distinct attributes, though they are coextensive and necessary. And instead of modifying any of the other attributes, someone with this view only modifies simplicity. Properly speaking, such a view is best understood as neo-classical theism, even though it overlaps with classical theism in nearly every other way. The reason it is neo-classical theism in this instance is because it rejects a necessary tenant of classical theism. But most often, a neo-classical theist will either modify or reject all four hallmarks of classical theism.

As another example, many neo-classical theists reject a strong account of divine immutability. Instead, God is immutable in his essential properties but can change in his nonessential properties. He can change from not Creator of the world to Creator. He can change from not Redeemer to Redeemer. He can change from hating sinners to loving them. He can change from not hearing our prayers to hearing them. Likewise, instead of God being eternal in the sense of experiencing no temporal succession, God is eternal in the sense of having infinite duration. Therefore, God has no beginning and no end. He will exist forever. But he experiences a succession of moments. Finally, instead of God being impassible in the ​sense of being unaffected by outside action, he can be affected by others and experiences emotions besides infinite beatitude. However, he is never controlled by external stimuli that would impact his emotional state and always willingly receives them. He intimately relates to creation and feels all that’s “feelable.”

Open Theism

Open theism, while less popular now, was all the rage in decades past. It is like neo-classical theism (and even classical theism in some respects!), typically affirming God as a necessary being who possesses the maximal set of perfections essentially. Some open theists even suggest their model is a “relatively conservative modification or correction of the classical tradition.” So, open theists are in some agreement (or at least are attempting some agreement) with classical theism and neo-classical theism, yet their account of God’s perfections in relation to God’s knowledge and the future are quite distinct. For open theism, God lacks exhaustive foreknowledge. The future, in many respects, is both causally and epistemically open. It is yet to be determined. Not even God has control over it. While there remain patterns and regularities in the progress of history, it remains uncertain where the future will lead. God, like creation, experiences time and progress, as the future doesn’t yet exist. So, while the possibilities aren’t endless for God, they are certainly open. God cannot predestine, predetermine, or even know the future. The future simply doesn’t exist yet. The reasons given for such claims are partly philosophical and partly biblical. Suffice it to say, there is a strong intuition in open theism that only such a model can call God truly personal and interactive.

But limiting God’s knowledge in such ways impacts other divine attributes besides omniscience. In open theism, God is also temporal, or eternal, like he is for many neo-classical theists. His knowledge changes over time as he learns new things and as the future comes to pass. He is also passible, since God’s knowledge depends on the choices that free creatures make. Furthermore, he is mutable, since his knowledge, will, and actions are always changing. But open theism remains distinct from neo-classical theism, given the latter’s account of omniscience as including exhaustive foreknowledge.

Process Theism

Process theism is often identified with thinkers like Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) and Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), who were the intellectual giants of its modern promulgation. Three main ideas can distinguish process theism. First, one of God’s essential attributes is being involved in and affected by temporal processes. In other words, God is necessarily related to his creation. While neo-classical theism and open theism may affirm that God is involved in these ways, he’s not necessarily involved. He could choose to do otherwise. Therefore, instead of a radical distinction between God and creation, process theism (usually in the form of pantheism) collapses the distinction and says God and creation are either identical or necessarily related. Process panentheism is something in between the identity found in pantheism and the necessary relation in generic process theism. For process pantheism the universe is in God, but somehow God is more than the universe. What exactly this means is mysterious, at least to me.

Second, process theism is usually intent on denying the omnipotence of God. He is not all-powerful. The reason is that an omnipotent God would be either coercive or entirely responsible for evil. Process theism ​seeks to reject such entailments by suggesting that God is limited in power. Instead, he is persuasive.

Generally, this culminates in a third distinction: a rejection of the traditional doctrine of creation out of nothing. In process theism, God has quite literally always and necessarily been relating to creation. The reason for this is not because God “needs” creation but because the entire structure of reality is social. While God does not require any particular universe to exist, he does require a universe, given the necessity of love, giving, and receiving.

— Jordan L. Steffaniak (PhD, University of Birmingham) is president of the London Lyceum and publisher for Hanover Press.

image: The Ancient of Days by William Blake

---

Excerpted from Classical Theism: A Christian Introduction by Jordan L. Steffaniak (Lexham Academic, 2026). Used by permission.

In Classical Theism: A Christian Introduction, Jordan L. Steffaniak retrieves the rich, historical doctrine of God that has guided the church throughout the ages. Classical theism fuels the life and worship of the church. But sometimes it is misunderstood as abstract and unwelcome―owing more to pagan philosophy than the words of the Bible. Steffaniak grounds classical theism in Scripture as guided by creeds and tradition. Steffaniak writes with a pastoral goal―understanding the God we worship.

“This book is an insightful, weighty, and well-written study of the Christian doctrine of God, with attention both to the great tradition of faithful believing and also some of the debates carried on by today’s theologians. Doxology is always near the surface—a sense of the wonder and awe and contemplation of what St. Paul called ‘the deep things of God’ (1 Cor 2:10). Recommended highly!”

— Timothy George, distinguished professor, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

“[Steffaniak] argues that recovering the vision of God found in the great tradition is essential for the church’s faith and practice today, especially as it navigates new philosophical and moral challenges. This book is a readable and reliable guide to the attributes of God, certain to encourage and edify any Christian leader seeking to deepen their love for God.”

— Stephen O. Presley, senior fellow for religion and public life, Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy; associate professor of church history, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Find Classical Theism: A Christian Introduction at Baker, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, and Walmart.

*sponsored