DIVINE ASEITY: HOW DIVINE ASEITY DISTINGUISHES
CLASSICAL THEISM FROM RELATIONAL THEISM
By: Daniel McMillin
Abstract
This paper will examine the distinction between classical theism from relational theism by virtue of the doctrine of divine aseity. “Classical theism” is the historic position for the doctrine of God that affirms the doctrines of divine simplicity, eternality, immutability, impassibility, and aseity. “Relational theism” is a modern position that denies the previously mentioned classical doctrines in an effort to make God more relatable. Classical theism portrays God as the First Cause of the universe who acts on creation but is not affected by creation. Relational theism views God as the Creator who changes the world, and the world changes Him. Relational theism becomes problematic in light of the Creator-creature distinction since God appears to be more like a creature than a holy Creator. Classically, the doctrine of aseity has been taught by the Great Tradition to distinguish the Creator from His creation. This paper will offer a historical, theological, and exegetical case against relational theism while appealing to classical theism since it preserves the Creator-creature distinction advocated by the pro-Nicene fathers. “Divine aseity” defines God’s absoluteness or perfection. This doctrine concerns God’s essence of being (from-Himself-ness). God is life in and of Himself; that is, He is ontologically the fullness of life. God is independent or self-sufficient; He does not depend on exterior things for His essence or existence.
Competing Theologies: Classical Theism and Relational Theism
The doctrine of God (theology proper) is a controversial battleground in contemporary theology. There are two distinct and competing views of God among contemporary Christian theologians: (1) classical theism and (2) relational theism.[1]
The term “classical theism” is used to describe the historical, orthodox position for the doctrines of the divine attributes. The doctrines that concern the nature of God have remained virtually unchanged throughout church history. More recently, however, these attributes have been either disregarded, redefined, or rejected. The classical position entails that God is the fullness of life and, therefore, able to be the uncaused first cause of the entire universe. God supplies every good and perfect gift without any loss of His abundance simply because He is God. Classical theism holds to the doctrines of divine aseity, eternality, immutability, impassibility, and simplicity. Dolezal argues that “the underlying and inviable conviction” of classical theists “is that God does not derive any aspect of His being from outside Himself and is not in any way caused to be.”[2] In sum, God is of Himself.
On the other hand, “relational theism” is the view that God is dependent upon His creation for His own ontology. This ideology has been categorized with different terms. Brian Davies introduced the term “theistic personalism” to highlight the ideology’s pursuit of making God more personal by abandoning the classical doctrines.[3] Similarly, the term Craig A. Carter uses is “relational theism”[4] since they suggest that a God who relates to creation must be subject to change.[5] James Dolezal prefers the term “theistic mutualism” since it denotes a mutual give-and-take relationship between the Creator and creature.[6] David Bentley Hart uses the term “monopolytheism” and suggests that God appears to have more in common with the pagan deities of the past rather than the God of the Bible.[7] Vern Poythress, seeking to bridge the controversy, employs the term “Christian personalism” and views the tension as differences in theological emphases, expression, methodology, value, and the use of tradition.[8]
Relational theism is a rising issue that continues to grow in popularity in academic circles as well as on the popular level. Still, relational theism stands in admitted stark contrast with the historic Christian faith. Relational theists present a God who is dependent upon creation for his actualization and satisfaction. Classical theism maintains that God is fully God apart from his creation and supplies life out of his infinity. Relational theists continue to appeal to Scriptures that present God as learning, growing, and changing. Classical theologians continue to understand those Scriptures as anthropomorphic language describing the creature’s relationship to the unchanging, perfect God who exists in the sharing of perfect triune love. Classical theologians maintain the hard distinction between the creature and the Creator. Relational theists blur that distinction by making God as dependent upon creation as creation is upon God. In essence, relational theists present the Creator as no longer independent of creation but is now co-dependent with creation. Representatives of this position maintain that God is in a state of actualization, which requires creation, which is also in a state of actualization. In these paradigms, God and creation enjoy an interdependent ontology. God cannot be God without creation, and creation cannot exist without God.
Relational theists hold to open theism, mutability, and passibility in the divine life. Relational theists also must redefine the doctrine of aseity since neither God nor creation, in their interdependent relationship, are truly the necessary, uncaused first cause. Relational theists are also strongly committed to univocity, which forces them to conceive of God in a manner that is more human than divine. [9] Dolezal suggests that classical theism appears to be less appealing to most relational theists because “if God cannot change or be affected by the world in any way, then our relationship to Him seems overly one-sided and thus rather impersonal and nondynamic.”[10] To make God more personal, they interpret the divine nature in terms of human personal relations. “God has been reconceived as deriving some aspects of His being in correlation with the world, and this can be nothing less than a depredation of His fullness of life and existential absoluteness.”[11] Divine aseity, as a result, is threatened by the conflation of the Creator and the creature being indistinguishable. In order for God to be personal, He must become more like His creation. For God to relate to us, God would need to be temporal (time-bound), passible (emotional), and mutable (potent) to properly relate to humanity.
This paper aims to retrieve classical theism in the Church since it is one of the most valuable gems of biblical exegesis as we contemplate the divine nature in light of divine revelation. Gavin Ortlund argues that contemporary theology “can be enriched and strengthened in her current task by going back to retrieve classic theological resources.”[12] For any hope of moving forward, we must look backward. To restore contemporary theology, we must retrieve historical theology. “We should engage in retrieval critically, with Scripture as our supreme authority at every moment.”[13] To achieve theological retrieval of classical theism, we must be willing to read history in light of Scripture, reevaluate our theological presuppositions, and respect the positions offered by the opposing side. Vern Poythress offers seven suggestions to appease both sides of the debate between classical and relational theologians:[14]
1. Explore the harmony of divine immanence and transcendence with zeal.
2. Consider God’s absoluteness in light of the Trinity.
3. Examine everything, including the divine attributes, in light of Christ.
4. Listen to both sides of the debate between classical and relational theism.
5. Carefully explain your position without misconstruing God as He is versus how He reveals Himself.
6. Resist making God more like the world than God.
7. Avoid arrogance and complacency in your own view.
Within the framework of this debate, we will argue that divine aseity preserves the Creator-creature distinction and best refutes the position of relational theism. George Joseph Lanier notes that “the classical exemplars have divine aseity as a sort of underpinning that consumes their theological projects. While the modern exemplars do not have divine aseity as an underpinning, or at least it is distorted, thereby negatively effecting their theological projects.”[15] Aseity is a doctrine that has been historically upheld and must be preserved to safeguard the Creator’s splendor.[16] It has been “central to the Judaeo-Christian concept of God.”[17] Hilary of Poitiers considered it “blasphemy” to minimize the glory of God, as the Arians did, by thinking that something could be “lacking in God.” In fact, to question whether “He is Himself full” or possibly to say that there “remains for Him to be fuller than his fullness” since anything less than God is not God.[18]
The Doctrine of Divine Aseity: God Is of Himself
The term “aseity” is derived from the Latin a se, which means “from himself.” Herman Bavinck defines this attribute by saying, “All that God is, he is of himself.”[19] God is the fullness or plenitude of life—He is the fountain and abundance of life. God is, ontologically speaking, life itself. He is the origin and giver of life. He is independent or free from all creation. John Webster suggests that “the concept of aseity tries to indicate God’s identity; it is not a definition of God but a gesture towards God’s objective and self-expressive being.”[20] According to Webster, divine aseity should not be defined in negative terms, as though the doctrine simply means that God is not from another. Instead, the doctrine must be defined positively to communicate that God is being in and of Himself.[21] Aseity may be affirmed positively in three ways: (1) God is independent, (2) God is pure actuality, and (3) God is the First cause.
Divine Independence: God Is Self-Sufficient and Self-Existent.
First, God’s aseity entails His independence and freedom. A Divine Being is, by necessity, an independent Being. God is self-existent and self-sufficient. He is, as Michael Horton said, “independent of all external dependence.”[22] God does not depend on any exterior beings for His essence or existence.[23] In other words, God is free from Creation. Hilary of Poitiers describes God as self-sufficient by means of His self-existence.[24] “He is the source of all. In contrast to all else, He is self-existent. He does not draw His being from without, but possesses it from Himself and in Himself.”[25]
According to the apostle Paul, God does not need mankind to make Him a dwelling place, like a temple, He does not need mankind’s service through worship, and He does not need mankind’s help with anything— “[God] does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything” (Acts 17:24-25). Since God is the Creator of all things— “God who made the world and everything in it” (Acts 17:24)—He is, therefore, not dependent upon those things which He has created. Furthermore, God does not need anything since He has created everything.
As the Creator of the universe, God must be distinct from His creation, so there may be an ontological distance. If God were not otherwise independent from creation, then God would be a part of the created order and, therefore, dependent upon the very things that He made. If God is not independent, then how can Paul say that God is “Lord of heaven and earth” (Acts 17:24)? As Matthew Barrett noted, “His independence entails his possession of (rather than his dependence on) all things.”[26] According to Paul, divine independence precedes divine sovereignty—“He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him” (Acts 17:26-27). As Bavinck noted, “God is independent in the sense that He is determined by nothing and everything else is determined by Him.” Additionally, he suggests that “if God is not held to be independent and unchangeable, eternal and omnipresent, simple and free from composition, He is pulled down to the level of the creature and is identified with the world in its totality or with one of its powers.”[27] If God’s independence is abandoned, then there is nothing unique about the God of the Bible and the gods of the world as well as all of creation. The Lord’s holiness is on the line when the Creator-creature distinction is unclear. God becomes more like a man without the incommunicable attributes.
What if God were dependent upon creation? Then He would be just like all of the idols worshipped in Athens. God would no longer be distinct from creation but be a part of it. Additionally, God would no longer be superior to creation since He, like the idols crafted with human hands, would be dependent on the entire created order. A dependent deity is an inferior being. As Horton suggests, “a dependent deity would be involved with the world” since it is an object of the world, but since God is the creator of the world and all objects found within it, God must be independent of the world in order to be God. God is free from creation. This means that when He enters into a relationship with His creatures, He “relates creatures to himself but is not related to (i.e. dependent on) the world.”[28] This is a major distinction that can only be made in classical theism. Relational theism denies or redefines divine aseity in an attempt to make God more relational. God is lonely in eternity and created us to fill in the gap so He may be happy. If this is true, then God made us because He needed us just as much as we needed Him. Creations’ relationship with God is a mutual need, a give-and-take relationship. However, possibly the most troubling reality of divine aseity is the fact that God does not need humanity to be happy.[29]
God is ontologically sufficient with or without His creation. God is not fundamentally required to make anything, nor does divinity entail Creator. In other words, God is God with or without creation (Ps. 90:2). God does not have to be the Creator of the universe to be God; however, if there is creation ex nihilo, then the Creator must be divine. Creation ex nihilo requires a divine Creator, but a divine being is not obligated to be Creator. As Dolezal noted, “God is not obligated to man because God cannot receive anything from Him. God is not a little better or worse off because of us. We add nothing to him and deduct nothing from Him.”[30] God requires nothing from the world. In addition, God is not more relational because He is of the world rather than of Himself (independent). There is still a gap between God and creation in the Creator-creature relationship. “There is relatedness, but it is that of the world to God rather than of God to the world.”[31] God is not affected by creation, but creation is affected by God as the Creator-Sustainer. Divine aseity preserves the Creator-creature relationship since all of creation is dependent upon the Creator while the Creator is independent of creation. “As God is complete and full in Himself, He is the only being abundant in life and blessing and thus able to govern and sustain history. God is the self-existent being, or life itself, and therefore qualitatively different from creation.”[32] For that reason, “we,” as John Frame has noted, “depend utterly on him; he does not depend at all on us.”[33]
Actus Purus: God Is an Absolute Perfect Being
Secondly, God’s aseity is not only that He is self-sufficient, but it is that He is life in and of Himself. God is the source of life, and He is the giver of life. The doctrine of divine aseity concerns the Triune God’s absoluteness; that is, God is without relation. John Owen wrote that God “is absolutely perfect, inasmuch as no perfection is wanting to him, and comparatively above all that we can conceive or apprehend of perfection.”[34]
“God is in the most pure and absolute sense. He is the pure absolute being.”[35] Since God is of Himself, God is, according to Anselm of Canterbury, “something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought.”[36] God is the greatest conceivable Being. He is, to use Brian Leftow’s words, “the sole ultimate reality.”[37] God is, as David Bentley Hart wrote, “the fullness of Being itself, the absolute plenitude of reality upon which all else depends.”[38] He is, as Anselm suggested, “the plenitude of eternal blessedness.”[39] God is a necessary, divine Being, and aseity is necessary for a necessary Being. God is not the greatest conceivable Being if He is dependent on something else other than Himself, otherwise, that thing that God depends upon would be greater than Him. This divine attribute is vital to the inner life of God. If God were not self-sufficient, then He would no longer be God.[40] As Barrett has noted, “if he were dependent on someone/ something else, he would forfeit his perfection, giving it to another.”[41] God is no longer an absolute, perfect being if He is dependent on anything for His essence and existence. Additionally, if God is relying on imperfect parts of creation, then He is no longer simple and infinite in His being. God’s inner self falls apart if God is no longer a se since “the ground of his being is in himself.”[42]
Bavinck argues that the “aseity of God” is “conceived not only as having being from himself but also as the fullness of being, that all other divine perfections are included.”[43] The divine attributes are the perfections of God. All that is in God is God and is perfect. The divine attributes do not simply imply divine aseity but instead flow from God’s aseity. That is to say, since God is a se, God must be uniquely and independently immutable, eternal, infinite, and simple apart from creation. Divine aseity is fundament or key to understanding the divine attributes. Lanier suggests that “divine aseity gives logical basis for and possibly even explains the other perfections…It is the key that unlocks the other attributes.”[44]
The God of the Bible is an omnipotent (all-powerful) Being that has created all things through the power of His word. If this omnipotent God were dependent upon creation, then He would cease to be supreme. Notice how Paul chooses to say that God “gives” (διδοὺς) life (Acts 17:25). This verb is a present participle which means that He continually does this action of giving life. God gives everything creation requires to have life. He made all of creation (Gen. 1-2; John 1:1-3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), He sustains all of creation (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3). All living things are connected to the Lord of life since all living things exist by and through Him. “In God, essence and existence are inseparable; the life of God belongs intimately and irreducibly to what God is and that God is.”[45]
Horton has emphasized that this “life” is “predicated properly of God; only analogically can we say that God lives, and we live. In other words, there is no such thing as life that can be predicated of God and humans univocally. God is life; he gives us life.”[46] Furthermore, to distinguish the Creator from creation, he notes that “Creatures live, but God is life – and he has this life in himself. God is always the donor’ creatures the beneficiaries.”[47] God gives life, not to gain something out of it, but out of generosity. God’s aseity preserves His divine freedom. “Our world is the result of God’s freedom, not necessity.”[48] Since God does not have to give life, then when He creates, He does so freely. God does not need creation, but creation needs Him. “If God needs nothing, but gives life, breath, and all things to everything else, the implication is clear: God does not need to be given life, breath, or anything else…because he is self-existent and has life in himself.”[49]
In John’s prologue, he describes Jesus as one who existed before “the beginning” as the divine Logos (“Word”). He portrays the Logos as the Creator, the ultimate Life-giver of the universe, that has an intimate relation “with” God since He is God (John 1:1-3). After identifying Jesus as the Creator, it follows that “in him was life” [50] since He can only give what He Himself has (John 1:4). [51] As Andreas Köstenberger has rightly noted, “God is life and as the life is the Life-Giver.”[52] John is saying, in essence, that Jesus is life since He gives life, and He gives life because He is life.[53] That is why Jesus will later say in John 14:6, Ἐγώ εἰμι (“I am”) ἡ ζωή (“the life”).
In John 5, Jesus claims to be coequal with the Father as He works inseparably from God the Father and additionally claims to have an intimate relationship with Him. In verses 1-14, Jesus heals a lame man at the pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath. In response to the Jewish mob’s outrage for Jesus “breaking the Sabbath” and “calling God his own father” (John 5:18), Jesus informed the people what it means to be “Son” in verses 19-47. [54] Jesus suggests that the Son does not act apart from the Father, He does what the Father does (John 5:19-23). Further, Jesus suggests that the Father has “sent” the Son and all who believe in Him will have “eternal life” (John 5:24). “Jesus shares what he has; he gives what he is. Jesus’s words give eternal life because he himself possesses limitless, unbounded life.”[55] The only reason that the Son of God can grant life to others is because He has “life in himself” (John 5:26).[56] The Son has life because the Father has life, and the Father gives life to His Son. The Son’s life is imparted or “granted” (CSB, ESV, NIV) to Him by the Father.[57] In other words, the Son only has life because the Father has communicated life to Him. The Son receives “life” from the Father since He is from the Father.[58]
The Unmoved Mover: God Is the First Cause
Finally, God is the necessary First Cause. As the First Cause of the cosmos, there can be no causation prior to God. Likewise, there can be no effect that implements reverse causation upon God as the First Cause. God, as the First Cause, must therefore be the fullness of existence or the fullness of life.
Relational theism obscures the distinction between God’s absoluteness and creation’s dependence. Divine ontology is then intertwined with creation to the degree that God is in a state of becoming—a state of actualization—alongside his creation which is also becoming as it too is in a state of actualization. God is dependent upon the world for his actualization, which he has not yet achieved. In this way, God is not fully God, and the universe has no sufficient cause. These relational theologies should be seen in stark contrast to the historic Christian view of God as the fully actualized First Cause who creates out of abundant love rather than out of need for self-actualization.
Divine aseity is required if contingent reality is to exist since there must be a first uncaused cause that causes everything. As the First cause of the universe, God therefore makes all things that are not Himself out of nothing (creation ex nihilo).[59] When John identified the Word as the First cause of the universe, he suggested that “all things came into being through Him,” the Word, “and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (John 1:3). As the First cause, God creates space, time, and matter from nothing He must be uncaused. He is the unbegotten origin of all causes. Two Medieval theologians, Anselm and Aquinas, are two chief contributors to God as the First cause of the universe.
Anselm noted that “nothing exists that is not made by the supreme essence.”[60] That is to say, that “where God does not exist, nothing exists.”[61] As the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, “God is responsible not only for the initial existence of things, but for their continued existence.”[62] Anselm further notes that “all things which exist are what they are through the supreme nature, and thus the supreme nature exists through itself while other things exist through it. It follows, then, that in exactly the same way, all things which exist, exist out of the supreme nature, and thus that the supreme nature exists ‘out of’ itself, whereas the other natures exist ‘out of’ something other than themselves.”[63]
Aquinas, in his five ways for the essence and existence of God argues (1) Motion implies a mover. This sequence cannot extend ad infinitum. Therefore, there must be an unmoved Mover, (2) Nothing exists prior to itself, therefore there must be an efficient cause of all things which is itself the singular uncaused Cause, (3) If every being is contingent, it is possible that there was a time when nothing existed. If there was a time when nothing existed, then nothing would be caused to exist. This implies that there must be a Being which is uncaused and the necessary ground for contingent existence, (4) The reality that some things are better and some things are worse implies that there is an utmost by which all things are compared. This utmost thing must be the greatest of all possible beings without weakness. This being, then, must be every perfection, and (5) The physical world manifests design and purpose. Since the world manifests design and purpose there must be an ultimate being who designed and purposed all things.[64]
The apostle Paul argues that God is the (1) source, (2) sustainer, and (3) subject of all things. In Romans 11:36, Paul wrote, “For from Him [ἐξ αὐτοῦ] and through Him [διʼ αὐτοῦ] and to Him [εἰς αὐτὸν] are all things. To Him be the glory forever.” Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul argues that “there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” In Colossians 1:16-17, “For by Him [ἐν αὐτῷ] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him [διʼ αὐτοῦ] and for Him [εἰς αὐτὸν]. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” God is, as James D.G. Dunn writes, “the beginning, middle, and end of all that is.”[65]
First, God is the source of all things since everything is made “from Him.” God is the origin of all creation. He is the Almighty Giver of all life. He is, as Colin Kruse notes, “the primary cause and sole source of all things.”[66] The act of creation belongs to God alone.
Second, God is the sustainer of all things since everything exists “through Him.” God is the agent of or the instrument by which all creation continues to live. He is the controller of all creation who supports and sustains all living things. Everything was made by means of or through the medium of God, who continues to preserve all of creation.
Thirdly, God is the subject of all things since everything exists “for Him.” God is worthy of all adoration since all things are “from,” “through,” and, especially, “for” Him. God is the goal or end of all creation. All things exist for Him since He is the purpose of all things. Since God creates and sustains all things, then all things belong to God. All living things are led to praise the Creator and Sustainer of all things. God works all things to accomplish His divine purposes that ultimately lead to His glory. “God has arranged redemptive history to bring the maximum glory to himself. He has arranged it so that it is clear that all things are from him, through him, and to him.”[67] God has revealed Himself through creation so that all creation may praise Him (Rom. 1:18-25). God’s creative and sustaining power ought to move all creatures to glorify God. “Our being,” as Calvin said, “should be employed for his glory.”[68]
All of creation exists because God is existence itself. Thus, God’s relation with creation as the Creator and Sustainer is founded upon God’s aseity. Bernard of Clairvaux says, “God is what he is, that is, the being of himself and of all other things: he exists for himself, he exists for all things, and through this, in a certain way he alone exists”[69] It is for that reason that we may affirm the words Ireanaus who said, “In all things God has the pre-eminence, who alone is uncreated, the first of all things, and the primary cause of the existence of all.”[70]
The Doxological Significance of the Doctrine of Divine Aseity
Bavinck wrote, “Theology is about God and should reflect a doxological tone that glorifies him.”[71] The aim of theology ultimately leads to doxology. Otherwise, the pursuit of God is in vain. Stephen Charnock notes that “it is impossible to honor God as we ought unless we know him as he is.”[72] The worshiper must know the nature of God since He is to be worshiped “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). The only distinction between the God of the Bible and an idol is whether that being possesses the nature of a divine being and is therefore ontologically transcendent (Is. 40-48). As Carter suggests, “Just because a person worships a god does not mean that the god being worshiped is the one true living God of the Bible.”[73] We argue that classical theism offers a Biblical account of the divine attributes and the only safeguard for the Godness of God that allows us to properly worship the God of the Bible, who alone is a se.
Frame notes that “a being worthy of worship must have a nature worthy of worship.”[74] Idols are unworthy of worship since they are dependent upon the worshiper. Thus, divine aseity is an attribute that demonstrates the God of the Bible is truly worthy of worship. Divine aseity leads us to be in awe and worship Him (Rev. 4:11). After studying the doctrine of divine aseity, we may conclude that classical theism is a far superior theology that preserves the Creator-creature distinction than relational theism. We have seen that God is ontologically independent, an absolute being, and the First cause of the universe. As Bavinck wrote, “All being is contained in him” as “a boundless ocean of being.”[75] Therefore, we may affirm that “God is from and through Himself.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Barrett, Matthew. None Greater: The Undomesticated Attributes of God. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books, 2019.
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena. Vol. 1. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.
God and Creation. Vol. 2. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.
The Wonderful Works of God. Glenside, PA: Westminster Seminary Press, 2019.
Calvin, John. Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010.
Carson, D.A. “John 5:26: Crux Interpretum for Eternal Generation.” Pages 79-97 in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.
The Gospel according to John, PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991.
Carter, Craig A. Contemplating God with the Great Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021.
Charnock, Stephen. Discourses Upon the Existence and Attributes of God. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Book House, 1979.
Craig, William Lane. God Over All: Divine Aseity and the Challenge of Platonism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Davies, Brian. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Dolezal, James E. All That Is In God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism. Grand Rapids, MI. Reformation Heritage Books, 2017.
Duby, Steven J. Jesus and the God of Classical Theism: Biblical Christology in Light of the Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022.
Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9–16, Vol. 38B, WBC. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1988.
Feinberg, John S. No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.
Frame, James M. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Phillipsburg, NJ. P & R Publishing, 2013.
Gregory of Nyssa. On the Six Days of Creation. Trans. Robin Orton. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2021.
Hart, David Bently. The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.
Horton, Michael. “God.” Pages 343-348. in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Daniel J. Treier and Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017.
The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology For Pilgrims On The Way. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 2011.
Irenaeus. On Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Saga of Redemption. Boston: Brill, 2008.
Jamieson, R.B. and Tyler R. Wittman, Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022.
Kruse, Colin G. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, PTNC. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2012.
Köstenberger, Andreas. A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.
Lanier, George Joseph. “Life, Light, and Love: Divine Aseity in Theological, Historical, and Hermeneutical Perspective.” PhD diss., Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2022.
Leftow, Brian. God and Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Ortlund, Gavin. Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019.
Owen, John. Works of John Owen, Vol. XVI. Edited by William Goold. Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1968.
Poythress, Vern S. The Mystery of the Trinity: A Trinitarian Approach to the Attributes of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2020.
Schleiermacher, Fredrick. The Christian Faith. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans, BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018.
Shedd, William G.J. Dogmatic Theology. Vol. 1. Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock, 1889.
Visser, Sandra, and Thomas Williams. Anselm. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Webster, John. God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology. Vol. 1, God and the Works of God. London: T & T Clark, 2016.
“Life in and of Himself,” in Engaging the Doctrine of God: Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives. Edited by Bruce McCormack. Baker Academic, 2008.
Wellum, Stephen. God Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ. Wheaton, IL. Crossway, 2016.
END NOTES:
[1] There is no consensus among these scholars on the majority of theological issues, but there are common features in regard to their doctrine of God. These terms are offered in an attempt to categorize each party and respectfully clarify each position offered so they may be distinguished. The labels used for each party are not intended to be perceived in a derogatory or discriminatory fashion but are used for the sake of systematizing the entire position.
[2] James E. Dolezal, All That Is In God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism (Grand Rapids, MI. Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 1.
[3] Brian Davies, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 2-16. “Theistic personalists say: God is not simple, God is a being among beings, God might not know all that will be, God sometimes stands back and permits things to happen, God does undergo change, God is not outside time, God is causally affected by creatures, and God is seriously comprehensible.” (18)
[4] For the remainder of this paper, we will use the term “relational theism” since it accurately portrays the conflict between the two ideologies.
[5] Craig A. Carter, Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021), 16. “Relational theism is a term that we can apply to a number of different doctrines of God, all of which affirm that God changes the world and the world changes God.” Carter argues for a pro-Nicene account of the divine attributes against the unorthodox view held by relational theists.
[6] Dolezal, All That Is In God, 1. Dolezal argues that there are two versions of theistic mutualism, a “soft: and “hard” version, that need to be distinguished. The hard version of theistic mutualism “regards God as a person who allows other beings to function as first causes or absolute originators of actions, events, or objects and who Himself stands as an onlooker within creation, susceptible to an increase in knowledge. Hard theistic mutualism also tends to regard God as needing the world in some respect; thus, He is compelled to create and sustain it.” The soft version of theistic mutualism “tends to hold that God does not create the world by dint of absolute necessity; neither does He need the world in any significant sense. Moreover, many theistic mutualists do not believe that God is intellectually open in process of development. Indeed, many who subscribe to the softer variety of mutualism have stood firmly against intellectual and volitional ‘becoming’ in God. They maintain that God neither learns nor depends on creation for His knowledge and that His will is not changed by the actions of creatures. Nevertheless, they do allow for a measure of ontological becoming and process in God. This is to the extent that they…insist that God undergoes changes in relation and in those alleged intellectual and emotive states of His that are thought to correlate to His changing relations with creatures. This ontological openness to being changed by creatures, whether initiated by God or by creatures themselves, is the common denominator in all forms of theistic mutualism.” (3-4)
[7] David Bently Hart, The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 127. “It seems to involve a view of God not conspicuously different from the polytheistic picture of the gods as merely very powerful discrete entities who possess a variety of distinct attributes that lesser entities also possess, if in smaller measure; it differs from polytheism…solely in that it posits the existence of only one such being. It is a way of thinking that suggests that God, since he is only a particular insanitation of various concepts and properties, is logically dependent on some more comprehensive reality embracing both him and other beings.” (127-128)
[8] Vern S. Poythress, The Mystery of the Trinity: A Trinitarian Approach to the Attributes of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2020), 599-609.
[9] “Theistic mutualism is committed to univocal thinking and speaking with regard to God and the world and thus conceives God as interacting with the world in some way like humans do, even if on much grander scale.” (Dolezal, All That Is In God, 2)
[10] Dolezal, All That Is In God, 4.
[11] Dolezal, All That Is In God, 6.
[12] Gavin Ortlund, Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 45.
[13] Ortlund, Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals, 85.
[14] Poythress, The Mystery of the Trinity, 607-609.
[15] George Joseph. Lanier, “Life, Light, and Love: Divine Aseity in Theological, Historical, and Hermeneutical Perspective.” (PhD diss., Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2022), 57.
[16] Fredrick Schleiermacher attempts to preserve the Creator-creature distinction in his writings but includes “the independence of God” in the postscript of The Christian Faith (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956). He considers this attribute, as it has been classically articulated, as “a speculative formula which, in the dogmatic sphere, we can only convert into the rule that there is nothing in God for which a determining cause is to be posited outside God.” (218)
[17] William Lane Craig, God Over All: Divine Aseity and the Challenge of Platonism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 1. Craig argues for the classical position of divine aseity while offering a critique of Platonism as he argues for the Nominalist position. This paper will not give a response to Craig’s methodology due to a lack of space. Refer to, Scott Smith, “Craig’s Nominalism and the High Cost of Preserving Divine Aseity,” EJPR 9/1 (2017), 63-85.
[18] Hilary, De Trinitate, 11.44.
[19] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, Vol. 2. Ed. John Bolt. Tran. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 151.
[20] John Webster, God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology. Vol. 1, God and the Works of God
(London: T & T Clark, 2016), 13.
[21] John Webster. “Life in and of Himself,” in Engaging the Doctrine of God: Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives, ed. Bruce McCormack (Baker Academic, 2008), 114. “Aseity is not to be defined merely in negative terms, as the mere absence of origination or dependence upon an external cause. If this is allowed to happen, then a subordinate characteristic of aseity (God’s ‘not being from another’) comes to eclipse its primary meaning (God’s ‘being in and from himself’) … Aseity is not merely the quality of being (in contrast to contingent reality) underived: it is the eternal lively plenitude of the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten, and the Spirit who proceeds from both… In this perfect circle of paternity, filiation, and spiration, God is who he is.” (114-115).
[22] Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology For Pilgrims On The Way (Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 2011), 230. See also, “God” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Ed. Daniel J. Treier and Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 343-348.
[23] “God is in no sense correlative to or dependent upon anything besides his own being.” (Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith. Ed. K. Scott Oliphint (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008), 11.
[24] Lanier notes that “the life of God encapsulates Hilary’s work: ascribing worth and defending the glory of the most holy and blessed Trinity, three Persons subsisting in the one essence.” (“Life, Light, and Love,” 67)
[25] Hiliary, De Trinitate, 2.6
[26] Matthew Barrett, None Greater: The Undomesticated Attributes of God (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic, 2019), 60.
[27] Herman Bavinck, The Wonderful Works of God (Glenside, PA: Westminster Seminary Press, 2019), 119.
[28] Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, 230.
[29] “Of all the things that exist, there is one nature that is supreme. It alone is self-sufficient in its eternal happiness, yet through its all-powerful goodness, it creates and gives to all other things their very existence and their goodness.” (Anselm, Major Works, 11)
[30] Dolezal, All That Is In God, 12.
[31] Horton, The Christian Faith, 233.
[32] Lanier, “Life, Light, and Love,” 5.
[33] James M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ. P & R Publishing, 2013), 410.
[34] John Owen, Works of John Owen, Vol. XVI. Ed. William Goold (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1968), 95.
[35] Lanier, “Life, Light, and Love,” 73.
[36] Anselm, Major Works, 15. “There is therefore some nature which is of all that exists, supreme. But this is
possible only if it is what it is through itself.”
“Anselm sees as the reason why God is the most perfect being. For Anselm, the being which nothing greater can be thought is so because he does not draw his existence or essence from outside of himself, but his essence and existence are one. Indeed, the self-existent being is one.” (Lanier, “Life, Light, and Love,” 73)
[37] Brian Leftow, God and Necessity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 3-5.
[38] Hart, The Experience of God, 122.
[39] Anselm, Epistola 112 (Opera III): 246.
[40] “But as is evident from the word “aseity,” God is exclusively from himself, not in the sense of being self-caused but being from eternity to eternity who he is, being not becoming. God is absolute being, the fullness of being, and therefore also eternally and absolutely independent in his existence, in his perfections, in all his works, the first and the last, the sole cause and final goal of all things. In this aseity of God, conceived not only as having being from himself but also as the fullness of being, all the other perfections are included. They are given with the aseity itself and are the rich and multifaceted development of it.” (Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, II:152)
[41] Barrett, None Greater, 66-67.
[42] William G.J. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1 (Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock, 1889), 276.
[43] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, II:148.
[44] Lanier, “Life, Light, and Love,” 74.
[45] Lanier, “Life, Light, and Love,” 74.
[46] Horton, The Christian Faith, 231.
[47] Horton, The Christian Faith, 234.
[48] Horton, The Christian Faith, 233.
[49] John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), 242.
[50] John uses the term “life” (ζωή) forty-seven times in his gospel (1:4; 3:15, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:21, 24, 26, 29, 39, 40; 6:27, 33, 35, 40, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54, 63, 68; 8:12; 10:10, 28; 11:25; 12:25, 50; 14:6; 17:2, 3; 20:31). When John employs this life motif, he emphasizes two major points: (1) Jesus is life, and (2) Jesus gives life.
[51] “The relationship between God and the Word in the Prologue is identical with the relationship between the Father and the Son in the rest of the Gospel. Both 1:4 and 5:26 insist the Word/Son shares in the self-existing life of God.” (D.A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 118.
[52] Andreas Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 284.
[53] Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 22.8.2.
[54] “Jesus not only calls God his own Father in intimate terms; he also makes himself equal with God by claiming the same authority as God to work on the Sabbath…the validity of his Sabbath work is based on the divine nature of all his works, the divine worship warranted by these works, and the divine aseity of the one who performs these works.” (Stephen Wellum, God Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ. Wheaton, IL. Crossway, 2016), 160.
[55] R.B. Jamieson and Tyler R. Wittman, Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022), 220.
[56] “This claim to divine aseity must refer to the Son’s eternal ontology, not to a function of his incarnation.” (Wellum, God Incarnate, 162)
[57] “The Son receives from the Father the fullness of the divine life, a life that pertains to what God is as God.” (Steven J. Duby, Jesus and the God of Classical Theism: Biblical Christology in Light of the Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022) 55.
[58] This is what is called the doctrine of eternal generation. The Father eternally begets the Son and the Son eternally proceeds from the Father. John Webster has defined “eternal generation” as “the personal and eternal act of God the Father whereby he is the origin of the personal subsistence of God the Son, so communicating to the Son the one undivided essence.” (Webster, God Without Measure, 30). See, D.A. Carson, “John 5:26: Crux Interpretum for Eternal Generation” in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Ed. Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 79-97.
[59] See, Gregory of Nyssa, On the Six Days of Creation (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2021); Irenaeus, On Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Saga of Redemption (Boston: Brill, 2008).
[60] Anselm, Major Works, 15.
[61] Anselm, Monologion 14 (Major Works 1.27)
[62] Sandra Visser and Thomas Williams, Anselm (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 96.
[63] Anselm, Major Works, 16.
[64] Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I:2.3.
[65] James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Vol. 38B, WBC (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1988), 701–702.
[66] Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, PTNC (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2012), 459.
[67] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018. 620
[68] John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 448.
[69] Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, to Eugenius, 5.
[70] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:38.3.
[71] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena, Vol. 1. Ed. John Bolt. Trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 61.
[72] Stephen Charnock, Discourses Upon the Existence and Attributes of God, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Book House, 1979), 314.
[73] Carter, Contemplating God, 269.
[74] Frame, Systematic Theology, 411.
[75] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, II:151.
Daniel McMillin's presentation on Divine Aseity at Freed-Hardeman University in 2023 on Scholars Day.
Related Posts
