one supposes that necessity is to be explained by supremely rational divine activity, this
modal-logical result is not unwelcome.
Summing Up
We have examined conceptions of divine sovereignty that have become progressively
more ambitious. We began with the thesis of creation ex nihilo, according to which
matter has no independent, primordial existence. We then observed that the doctrine of
divine conservation extends creatures' dependence on God over moment-to-moment
continued existence. We noted briefly that on either an absolutist or relational theory of
space and time, these features too can be regarded as dependent on God. We raised the
issue of whether God is responsible for the truth-values of all contingent propositions.
Finally, we examined two versions of the thesis that God is responsible for the modal
status of all propositions. The Cartesian strategy makes all propositions contingent and
subject to God's omnipotence. The Augustinian strategy preserves the distinction between
contingent and necessary propositions while subsuming them all under God's rational
comprehension.
My guess is that thoughtful theists will converge on the doctrines of creation and
conservation and be willing to extend them to space and time. They may diverge on the
issue of whether God is responsible for the truth-values of all propositions, primarily
because different and controverted conceptions of human freedom are at stake. Finally,
many of them will regard the issue of God's relation to the modal economy with some
indifference, not feeling strongly partisan about the Cartesian or Augustinian strategies.
On all of these topics I suspect that theists will find no threat for God's status as personal.
Aseity
The impulse to ascribe some sort of aseity to the object of one's worship has an
understandable basis. Ordinary things and people can be distressingly fragile, vul
end p.47
nerable, inconstant, ephemeral. There are degrees: Everest is more stable and secure than
a mayfly. We know, nonetheless, that even Everest's life span is finite. We know that
because we know that our planet's life span is finite. We know our planet's life span is
finite because we know our sun's life span is finite. And so it goes.
Theists have insisted that a God worthy of worship be exempt from these sorts of
vicissitudes. God is “from everlasting to everlasting.” Nothing can prevail against him.
He is supposed to be equally stable and steadfast in his resolve, not subject to growth,
decay, alteration, whim, or change of plan. As Xenophanes put it, “Always he remains in
the same state, in no way changing.” The philosophical exploration of these sentiments
yields a doctrine whose main contours are captured by theses (C)–(E).
Historical Dependency and Contemporaneous Vulnerability
Let us consider (C) and (D) in tandem. Dependency relations can be historical or
contemporaneous. To take a historical example first: for species that reproduce by sexual
means, an offspring organism owes its being the organism it is to its parents. “Being the