Journal article concepts and scope

¶ … Absolute and Ordained Power of God was written by Francis Oakley, and published in July, 1998. The main focus of the text in question is placed on the development of the idea of "the absolute and ordained power of God" from the fifteenth, through to the eighteenth century. Oakley argues that while philosophers have tackled this topic from a variety of perspectives, historians have focused on the "quintessentially scholastic" distinction which took the shape of "a 'yes' and 'no' answer to the question whether God is able to do or arrange things other than he did in creating the orders of nature and grace." In other words, the article covers the history of a philosophical idea from a historical perspective; in addition, Oakley argues that while much attention was paid to the usage and meaning of this concept during the period between the twelfth and fifteen centuries, our knowledge of its direction and history in the subsequent centuries is rather limited.

Oakley then focuses on the medieval phase of the concept; he claims that in order to understand the development of the notion, one must go back to its beginnings. To this aim, Oakley turns to its initial meanings, as well as the people who employed it, and its role in the intellectual history of the era. Oakley refers to Lawrence Moonan's identification of one of the earliest recognizable uses of the power distinction in Geoffrey of Poitiers' "Summa theologiae," written in early thirteenth century. Also, Moonan talks about how his distinction entered the thinking of Dominican and Franciscan theologians alike via the works of friars such as Roland of Cremona or Alexander of Hales. However the distinction received its first clear formulation towards the middle of the thirteenth century thanks to Aquinas and Albertus Magnus. Aquinas' influence was immense; by the fourteenth century, this distinction had made its way into matters belonging to epistemology, philosophical theology, and even ethics and civil law to name only a few realms of knowledge. The "potential dei absolute" was used to assert the possibility of "our having institutions of non-existing objects" but it was also invoked during the scientific pursuit of notions such as the void, infinity, and the plurality of worlds.

In early sixteenth century, Erasmus and Sir Thomas More introduced the "potential dei absoluta" as an active power, a perception which was transmitted to Protestant Reformers such as Gabriel Biel. In fact, it was Biel's ideas that circulated in German university circles of the time, ideas which exerted great influence over Luther. Luther himself emphasizes the significance of this distinction by insisting that God "no longer wishes to act through his extraordinary or... absolute power," that by it, he "does not command us to do anything," and that it is, instead, "in accordance with the ordained power that he wishes us to act."

In the seventeenth century however, Calvin tackled the issue of the "potential dei absoluta" from a different standpoint arguing that this notion had been exploited in the late middle ages as a means of exploring hypothetical possibilities which aimed at suggesting a different salvation than the one revealed in the Scriptures. He also believed that God's power could be identified with his will and justice which determined Calvin to reject the distinction between the 'absolute power', and the 'ordinary power. '

Oakley concludes that although terminology was subject to change throughout the centuries, the distinction of 'potential dei absoluta-ordinata' continued to exert great influence over Lutheran, Reformed and Catholic theologians alike. Also, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries it continued to be understood from several points-of-view; in this sense, the distinction was tackled both in a classical sense, i.e. derived from its original context, as well as in a more juridical sense which involved an operationalization of the absolute power. However, the most important idea which resulted from the interaction of these two points-of-view was a reformulation of the distinction as one between the ordinary and the extraordinary providence of God which ensured its propagation up to the eighteenth century.

The article addresses History and Philosophy students and professors alike. Considering the intended audience, the technical terms used by Oakley are aimed not only at summarizing the history of an idea, but also at presenting a rather innovative claim, namely in recent years that the preoccupation of historians and philosophers with the attributes of typically ascribed to God in the Christian tradition was focused on the issue of omnipotence. Oakley explores the history of "the absolute and ordained power of God," and traces its origins back to the thirteenth century. The article is coherent, and abundant in examples which allow the reader to make historical connection, and to draw conclusions on his/her own.

Although informative, the article might prove hard to follow at times due to its abundance of terms which have their origins in the History of Ideas, and History of Religions. In addition, the author does not clearly outline methodology; as far as the thesis of the article, the perspective from which the arguments are put forth remains rather unclear because in respect to terminology, the article is clearly tributary to Philosophy. Although the author states his intention to build a historical review of the idea in question, he does not refer to religious and political circumstances which were clearly reflected in the writings of scholars such as Aquinas, or Luther.

In his article, "The Absolute and Ordained Power of God and King" which was published only a couple of months after "The Absolute and Ordained Power of God," Oakley aims at demonstrating that the currency of the distinction in the later centuries was no more restricted to theological circles than it had been during medieval times. Oakley concludes that theological arguments were often the first to lead to the development of the power distinction, and later to its revision and reformulation, followed by its spread to other areas of discourse.

Oakley discusses the example of Mersenne who approached power from a very traditionalist standpoint. His commentary on the Book of Genesis was focused on building an opposition between the 'potentia absoluta' (or extraordinaria) and 'potentia ordinaria' (rather than 'ordinata'). In addition, Mersenne commented on Aquinas's classical distinction as it was formulated in the Summa theologiae arguing that "while we say that what God has actually willed to do he does by his ordinary power, we must also acknowledge the contingency of that willed course of events."

Oakley also discusses Descartes who viewed the laws of nature as dictated on the physical world by God, just as "a king establishes laws in his kingdom." However, unlike Mersenne to whom he addressed two famous letters in 1630, Descartes argues that God's supreme power extends even to the realm of mathematics which is no more than a concretization of God's will. Descartes' view was based on the idea that everything in the world depends on God, and that mathematics makes no exception. It is important to note here that Descartes is considered the 'father' of mathematics. Walter Charleton was another scholar who shared Mersenne's view that a presently-active absolute power was ascribed to God. He was an Anglican and a royalist who had spent time in Paris and had embraced mechanical philosophy. He argued in favor of the omnipotence of God, who, according to Charleton, knows no impossibility; in this sense, he claimed that God could have created a plurality of worlds had he wished it. Oakley also refers to Hobbes. Hobbes does not invoke the traditional distinction. However, in the third part of his Leviathan, Hobbes talks about the miracles created "by the immediate hand of God," and their opposition with those things that "proceed from nature" which he calls "the ordinary work of God." Although the exact terminology is not used, Hobbes evokes the distinction between the extraordinary, and ordinary providence of God.

Oakley also refers to the application of this distinction to the realm of politics and law. In fact, by the beginning of the sixteenth century, this distinction had become "current among canonists and civilians alike," and was transmitted to sixteenth and seventeenth century jurists who explored the limits of the prerogatives of the kings of France, Hungary, England and Spain.

Oakley argues that Aquinas provides the first clear picture of the distinction. Aquinas believes that the existence of God can be known without relying on faith, or the Scripture; furthermore, he argues that his existence is not self-evident, and in fact requires argumentation which he undertakes because according to Aquinas, the existence of God can be proved by reason. In his article, Aquinas on God's Omnipresence and Timelessness, author La Croix discusses the doctrine of God's omnipotence and eternality in relation to Aquinas' writings. This article provides valuable insight into Aquinas' philosophy and theology, and allows the reader to get a more profound understanding of his distinction as discussed in Oakley's articles.