Why I Do Not Think of God as “Infinite”

Last updated on: October 22, 2020 at 8:29 am by Roger E. Olson

Why I Do Not Think of God as “Infinite” 2020-10-22T08:29:15-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Many people, many Christians included, think that God must be, by definition, infinite. There are, however, many different meanings of “infinite.” The word itself implies to most people, educated and uneducated alike, some idea of limitlessness. It leads the mind onto a path of “perfect being ontology”—a big, fat, scholarly concept that more or less means God must be incapable of change of any kind (immutable, impassible, “actus purus”).

If one merely means by “infinite” that God is everlasting, without beginning and without end, then I have no objection to it except there is a better way to say that—viz., that God is eternal. Also, if all one means by “infinite” is that God is not limited by anything outside himself, I have no objection to it. But there is a better way to say that—viz., that God is not limited by anything outside of himself.

Perfect being ontology, which is really what “God is infinite means,” may be defined as belief that God, ultimate reality, includes within himself the finite. At least that’s what it has meant since Hegel’s philosophy of religion. Going back further, to Plato and especially neo-Platonism, it means that the creation has no autonomy over against God, not even a limited and relative autonomy granted by God. It also means that God cannot change in any way since there can be no change within perfection. All these notions are now implied in the concept of God as infinite.

But what do we read about God in God’s own revelation, the Bible? And what do we “see” in God-in-person Jesus Christ? We see a self-limiting God who grants creation a degree of autonomy, freedom to go against and resist his will. We see a self-limiting God who enters into time and history and goes on a “journey” with creation and especially with his covenant people. We see a God who can be deeply affected, grieved, made angry or blessed, by what his creatures do. We see a God who, although omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, is not the “All” or the “Everything,” but is a being rather than Being Itself.

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

Philosophical theology could not be satisfied with this. No, “God” had to be “the being greater than which none can be conceived” with “greater” meaning both “perfect being,” incapable of any change, and “infinite,” not limited in any way. Anselm of Canterbury is a perfect example of “perfect being ontology” within Christian theology. Anselm believed that God, being perfect, cannot feel compassion because to feel compassion is to be finite, less than metaphysically perfect. How so? Because to feel compassion is to be moved to compassion by something outside oneself and that would be inappropriate for the being greater than which none can be conceived, the most (metaphysically) perfect being imaginable.

At his best, Luther rejected this ancient Greek-inspired notion of God and its medieval scholastic versions in, for example, Thomas Aquinas. He had no use for philosophical notions of God, except when he did. (Luther was often inconsistent.) I believe one of the biggest changes in Christian thought in the 20th century was a move away from perfect being ontology and away from the ideas associated with it—for example that God is “infinite,” “immutable,” “impassible,” etc.

There have been two “sides” to this revolution in Christian thinking about God. One is that God is essentially limited (e.g., process theology) and the other is that God is self-limiting (e.g., Jürgen Moltmann). But I would argue that even the second approach implies that there is that in God eternally that inclines God toward limitation out of love. Before there was a creation, God was not limited, but self-limitation was potential within God.

Two rather long but very impressive treatises on God inclined me more than ever away from perfect being ontology and any idea of God as metaphysically infinite. Both were published in an edited volume entitled God and the Good edited by Lewis Smedes and published by Eerdmans in 1975. One was entitled “Can a Man Bless God?” and was written by then Fuller Seminary professor of theology James Daane. The second was entitled “God Everlasting” and was written by Christian philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff. Both, together, convinced me that “infinite” is not a good description of the God of the Bible who, as Scottish Barthian theologian T. F. Torrance said in Space, Time and Incarnation (Oxford University Press, 1969), freely enters into time with us. It was there, in that book by Torrance, that I first found the phrase “openness of God,” long before I saw it in Clark Pinnock’s writings.

It seems to me that “infinity” attributed to God is an unnecessary and even dangerous metaphysical compliment—insofar as one wants to think about God biblically. That attribute inclines one toward the God of the philosophers rather than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Furthermore, thought out to its logical conclusion, “infinity” attributed to God would lead to pantheism. It is not a biblical concept and, in my opinion, even leads away from the God of the Bible toward, if not into, an in ideational (not physical) idol.

We Christians must begin our thinking about God with Jesus Christ and work our way out from there. Sure, philosophy can sometimes help fill in some gaps left open by the Bible, but we must be careful not to allow philosophy to overtake our thinking about God such that the God of the Bible is a mere symbol for something “more real” who is not really like the passionate, personal, historical, suffering, intervening, resistible God of the Bible.

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 18, 2020

How I Tried on Fundamentalist Christianity and Found It Didn't Fit

Next Post

October 27, 2020 Does Theology Even Matter Anymore?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I wanted a vineyard so badly that my wife arranged the owner's death through false witnesses. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Ahab Jezebel Naboth