Abstract
Any plausible model of a personal God must present a compelling account of divine love for creation. Charles Hartshorne, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Clark Pinnock and other recent thinkers have claimed that the impassible model of God advocated by Thomism commits its adherents to a conception of an indifferent, uncaring deity. In contrast, these critics claim that a changing and passible portrayal of God better depicts a loving deity. This paper defends the Thomistic model of God from this charge and demonstrates the continuing attractiveness of the impassible model of God.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
