In a recent post, I tried to sketch out an argument that divine aseity is ultimately incompatible with the concept of divine temporality. I mentioned RT Mullins briefly within that post as a prominent contemporary critic of classical theism. Mullins is a gifted philosopher and theologian, and his arguments are always interesting. One such argument he makes in a recent paper critiquing classical impassibility is that there is a difference between divine aseity and self-sufficiency. What is intriguing about this argument is the distinction itself and how it is weaponized. In this post, I will explore the latter issue because it speaks to what I believe is a deeper problem in his recent criticism of classical attributes.
Mullins believes the classical theologian smuggles the
doctrine of divine simplicity into an identity claim that aseity and self-sufficiency
are not different. The difference in aseity and self-sufficiency carries some weight
in the conclusions Mullins draws regarding divine impassibility, so it bears
fruit to unpack. Yet, I am curious as to why Mullins thinks the classical theist
is doing the end-run. It seems he believes the classical theist has the burden
of proof in showing there is no difference between aseity and self-sufficiency.
But what compels the classical theist to yield this ground? It seems there
should at least be an equal burden on the opponent of the classical theist to
show good reasons why aseity and self-sufficiency are truly different. Perhaps toward
this end, Mullins offers the following definitions:
Aseity: A being exists a se if and
only if its existence is in no way dependent upon, nor derived from, anything
ad extra.
Divine Self-sufficiency: A being is
divinely self-sufficient if and only if that being’s perfect essential nature
is not dependent upon, nor derived from, anything ad extra.
He goes on to write “For the sake of clarity, it is worth
emphasizing the difference between aseity and self-sufficiency. Aseity is a
claim about the existence of God. Self-sufficiency is a claim about the nature
of God.”
Here Mullins presents something fundamentally objectionable
to the classical theist, which is a difference between the existence and nature
of God. The classical theist would argue that God’s essence (nature) is His
existence, and there is no real distinction in God. I therefore cannot see how Mullins’
definitions do not effectively beg the question against the classical theistic
defense of classical impassibility.
The classical theist would, as Mullins explains, argue God
is impassible (unable to undergo suffering or be subject to passions) because
He is immutable, simple, and eternal. One who argues that way, however, only does do because God is the
pure act of existence itself, transcending all categories of being because He
is Being itself. If Mullins presupposes by his definitions of aseity and
self-sufficiency that God is a being with a nature, then it is Mullins who is
smuggling in the conclusion. He assails the classical theistic defense of impassibility
based on premises the classical theist would not in principle agree with. Mullins
argues that the systematic connection of the classical attributes do not
entail impassibility, and then suppresses the very basis and reasoning behind
these connections - connections which related immediately to the classical defenses of impassiblity at issue within the paper. This move is like saying your opponent in a hockey game can
only show up with three players then disqualifying them for not being able
to field a full team.
Mullins puts forth the notion that God’s perfect essential
nature is different from His existence. He wants to say the classical theist
will deny this in virtue of a prior commitment to simplicity and making an
illicit imputation of it into a defense of impassibility. Mullins is probably right
in how the classical theist would respond, yet wrong in thinking something is
afoul. What really seems to be going on here is that Mullins demands the
classical theist abandon core principles and tenets in order to defend analytic,
piece-meal attacks on divine names or attributes that, as Mullins himself
concedes, are taken as a package deal.
It is almost as if Mullins is asking the classical theist what
would happen to divine impassibility if, hypothetically, the classical theist
threw out the metaphysical foundations of their position and abandon attributes
that are taken together as different outcomes from the same ultimate conclusion. Then, when the argument seems to work in this per
impossible scenario, it looks like there are major problems for the classical
theist. However, the defender of classical theism is under to compulsion to make
these concessions. Mullins strongly desires to pull out individual classical attributes
and subject them to criticism apart from the overall metaphysical construct
from which they are derived. He agrees that classical theists ‘bundle’ these
attributes together as mutually entailing and reinforcing and then insists they
be defended in an isolated manner, devoid of context. Such an approach amounts
to a very sophisticated “heads I win, tails you lose” scenario. This unfortunatelyamounts
to saying the classical theistic account of God is deficient because it does
not fare well under certain, very idiosyncratic, analytical methods.
Perhaps what Mullins sees is the classical theist describing properties of God in the way analytical philosophy does, whereas the classical theist sees the attributes as 'names' or simply ways of speaking about God. For the classical theist, saying God is impassible is just another true description of Him. We say God is impassible because He is. He is immutable because He is. He is simple because He is. And so forth. It is not necessarily the case in an absolute metaphysical sense that He is impassible because He is immutable, even though our way of discursive reasoning may draw conclusions about God and make sense of them in a certain order. He is not a certain way because of how we come to know Him.
Zooming out for a minute, what appears to happen quite often in contemporary dialogues on classical attributes is that one side of the debate operates from certain methodological and metaphysical presuppositions which are fundamentally disagreeable or not acknowledged as legitimate by the other. For example, it is unlikely that a scholar like Mullins would agree with someone like Thomas Weinandy on concepts like essences/natures, existence/being, and so forth. The starting point for Mullins’ critique is from an analytic (philosophical/theological) position, one that has historically recoiled a great deal at the base metaphysics undergirding classical theism. That said, I do believe the disputation over coherence in divine attributes would bear more fruit if the focus was at the more basic metaphysical level versus the downstream conversation on specific attributes.