, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 247–261 | Cite as

Thomas Aquinas on Logic, Being, and Power, and Contemporary Problems for Divine Omnipotence

  • Errin D. ClarkEmail author


I discuss Thomas Aquinas’ views on being, power, and logic, and show how together they provide rebuttals against certain principal objections to the notion of divine omnipotence. The objections I have in mind can be divided into the two classes. One says that the notion of omnipotence ends up in self-contradiction. The other says that it ends up contradicting certain doctrines of traditional theism. Thomas’ account is frequently misunderstood to be a version of what I call a ‘consistent description’ account of omnipotence, which is a standard contemporary account. That account of omnipotence, however, succumbs to certain contemporary objections. Thomas’ account withstands those objections because of his view of logic and, specifically self-contradiction. Moreover, a certain thesis found in Thomas’ understanding of God, but almost entirely absent from contemporary debates about omnipotence, is that God is not just a being, but the source of being. This thesis, I argue, puts Thomas’ account in a position that differs greatly from many contemporary accounts since the scope of possibility, and specifically the scope of what possible powers there are, is ultimately grounded in God’s being. Further still, many contemporary accounts of omnipotence do not seek to establish substantive account of power itself. Thomas, by contrast, has a robust and independent account of what power is. And that account informs his account of what it is to have all powers, or to be omnipotent, in a way that makes his account resistant to contemporary objections. Against contemporary objections, Thomas’ account of omnipotence can sustain the claim that God can do all things.


Omnipotence Thomas Aquinas Being Power Logic Contradiction 


  1. Anonymous (2012). The penny catechism: a catechism of christian doctrine. Charlotte, NC: TAN Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bird, A. (2007). Nature’s metaphysics: laws and properties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chisholm, R. (1966). Theory of knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc..Google Scholar
  4. Conee, E. (1991). The possibility of power beyond possibility. Philosophical Perspectives, 5, 447–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Ente. — (1968). On being and essence, Armand Maurer (trans.), Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2 revised edition.Google Scholar
  6. DGen. — (1964) Exposition of Aristotle’s treatise on generation and corruption, Book I, cc. 1–5, Pierre Conway and R.F. Larcher, trans. (Columbus, Ohio: College of St. Mary of the Springs).Google Scholar
  7. DPN — (2014). “On the principles of nature,” Eleonore Stump and Stephen Chanderbhan (trans.) in Jeffrey Hause and Robert Pasnau (eds.), Thomas Aquinas, Basic Works (Indianapolis: Hackett), pp. 2–13.Google Scholar
  8. Drange, T. M. (2003). Gale on omnipotence. Philo, 6(1), 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gale, R. M. (1991). The nature and existence of God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Glannon, W. (1994). Omnipotence and the transfer of power. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 36(2), 81–103.Google Scholar
  11. Geach, P. (1973). Omnipotence. Philosophy, 8(183), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoffman, J., & Rozenkrantz, G. S. (2008). The divine attributes. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. In Met. — (1995). Commentary on Aristotle’s metaphysics, John P. Rowan (trans.) (Notre Dame: Dumb Ox Books).Google Scholar
  14. In Phys. — (1995). Commentary on Aristotle’s physics, Richard J. Blackwell, Richard J. Spath, and W. Edmund Thirlkel, (trans.) (Notre Dame: Dumb Ox Books).Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. K. (1973). Counterfactuals. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  16. McKitrick, J. (2010). Manifestations as effects. In A. Marmodoro (Ed.), The metaphysics of powers: their grounding and their manifestations (pp. 73–83). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Metcalf, T. (2004). Omniscience and maximal power. Religious Studies, 40(3), 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Molnar, G. (2003). Powers: a study in metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Morriston, W. (2001). Omnipotence and the Anselmian God. Philo: A Journal Of Philosophy, 4(1), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pierce, K., & Pruss, A. (2012). Understanding omnipotence. Religious Studies, 48, 403–414.Google Scholar
  21. Plantinga, A. (1974). The nature of necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. QDP — (2004). Quaestiones desputatae de potentia dei, English Dominican fathers, (trans.), Repr. (Eugene: Wipf and Stock).Google Scholar
  23. Quine, W. V. O. (1953). From a logical point of view. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Savage Wade, C. (1967). The paradox of the stone. The Philosophical Review, 76(1), 74–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. SCG — (1975). Summa contra gentiles, Book I, Anton C. Pegis (trans.) and Book II, James Anderson (trans.) (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press).Google Scholar
  26. ST — (1948). Summa theologiae, Fathers of the English Dominican Province (trans.), Repr. (New York: Benziger Bros.).Google Scholar
  27. Williams, J. (1981). Inconsistency and contradiction. Mind, 90, 600–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williamson, T. (2013). Modal logic as metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OconomowocUSA

Personalised recommendations