Classical theism and Neo-Classical theism

In Classical theism, God is envisioned as pure actuality with no potency. His essence is His existence and His existence is His essence. God’s attributes are identical to His essence and His essence is identical to His attributes. Hence, God is a simple being with no parts, properties or passions. Consequently, God possesses no essential nor accidental properties since both would deny divine simplicity (e.g. mereology laden? presumption of univocal language?). Rather, God’s being itself is essentially and necessarily simple (i.e. without parts or properties). God lacks nothing ad intra thus not dependent upon anything ad extra.

In Neo-Classical theism, God is envisioned as the most perfect being or maximally great being.  His essence and existence are not identical. God’s attributes are distinct yet inseparable from His essence. God is a simple being, in that, His essence is not composed of separable parts. Nevertheless, God’s being essentially and necessarily possesses distinct yet inseparable parts, properties and/or passions. Thus God necessarily has essential properties; but He may will to have accidental properties (supervenience from essential properties?) that are neither for the better nor worse. God lacks nothing essentially and necessarily ad intra thus not dependent upon anything ad extra.

Classical theists takes Neo-Classical theism to entail some form of panentheism and Tritheism. Likewise, Neo-Classical theists takes Classical theism to be a corollary to panentheism, Unitarianism and/or deism.

Classical theists argues Neo-Classical theism’s revision of divine simplicity and denial of impassability makes God dependent upon creation in order for God to possess accidental properties (e.g. wrath, jealousy, ambivalence).  Classical theists think Neo-Classical theism unintentionally assumes in order for God to be God He must create to actualize His potential. In other words, God gets what He doesn’t have from creation. Moreover, Classical theists deny Neo-Classical theism’s subtle yet integral qualification that God’s whole being necessarily has parts that are inseparable or indivisible (which guarantees individuation without separation or partialism). Hence, Classical theists deduce Neo-Classical theism implies Tritheism or MonoPolytheism.

Neo-Classical theists argue Classical theism’s insistence of a robust divine simplicity entails God’s nature and will are identical; but if God’s nature and will are the same then God’s will to create shares the same necessity as God’s will to exist (i.e. God cannot fail to exist nor can God fail to create). Perhaps another way to articulate the same thought is to affirm the only possible world is the actual world. Why? In order for God to be God (pure actuality whom essentially, necessarily and immutably creates), He must create the actual world. God is dependent upon creation to be the eternal, immutable, creator.  Neo-Classical theists further argue that a robust divine simplicity precludes Trinitarian monotheism since Trinitarian monotheism requires distinctions between the divine essence and persons. In fact, any subsisting relations between the persons of the Trinity must also require ontological grounds for their sameness and difference. Furthermore, Neo-Classical theists would contend a robust divine simplicity entails the Trinity is illogical. For example, if each person of the Trinity is wholly and entirely God (i.e. all of what and who God is) then one person is the Trinity.  Neo-Classical theists assert God has emotions; God deliberately, willingly, willfully and purposefully chose to create and have a relationship with creatures (thus emotional interaction created and controlled by God). On Classical theism God has one single emotion, namely divine happiness thus it’s hard not to feel God as hidden or emotionally aloof or detached from His creation.