Aseity of God?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wonderkins

Puritan Board Freshman
Well I'm going to start a private study on God's attributes. I'm starting with the self-existance of God. I did a search on this site and there are no results.

So, where might some of you go to study the aseity of God?
 
Well I'm going to start a private study on God's attributes. I'm starting with the self-existance of God. I did a search on this site and there are no results.

So, where might some of you go to study the aseity of God?

Dolezal, All That is in God. It covers it, though it is more aimed at the simplicity of God.
 
Well I'm going to start a private study on God's attributes. I'm starting with the self-existance of God. I did a search on this site and there are no results.

So, where might some of you go to study the aseity of God?
What sort of level are you looking at? At a more academic level, the first thing that comes to mind is John Webster's God Without Measure, Volume I, particularly chapter two 'Life in and of Himself'. In my opinion Webster's work on divine aseity is the best to date, and his work is quite distinctive in that it formulates the doctrine in a thoroughly Trinitarian manner.
 
What sort of level are you looking at? At a more academic level, the first thing that comes to mind is John Webster's God Without Measure, Volume I, particularly chapter two 'Life in and of Himself'. In my opinion Webster's work on divine aseity is the best to date, and his work is quite distinctive in that it formulates the doctrine in a thoroughly Trinitarian manner.

Came here to suggest exactly this essay. You could also check out his short work Holiness in which it comes up. Aseity shows up recurrently throughout most of Webster's work that I've had the pleasure to read. He does require a general level of familiarity with systematic theology to understand and profitably read though.
 
Thank you. These should be great. I might start with All That Is In God first. God Without Measure is pretty spendy, even for ebook. Is "simplicity" a more accurate term rather than "aseity"?

Now when I look below the text box under similar threads, there are quite a few on this topic. There were zero when I used the search box. I noticed the thread on the search function. That must have been the problem.
 
Is "simplicity" a more accurate term rather than "aseity"?
Aseity and simplicity speak of different but inseparably related things. God's aseity is his self-existence—he came from nothing, stands in need of nothing, and eternally exists in and of himself. His simplicity speaks of his being free of any and all composition—material, spiritual, or otherwise. His aseity and simplicity support and entail one another. A being who is a se ("of himself") must necessarily be simple since composition entails dependence; similarly, a being who is simple must necessarily be a se.
 
Thank you. These should be great. I might start with All That Is In God first. God Without Measure is pretty spendy, even for ebook. Is "simplicity" a more accurate term rather than "aseity"?

Now when I look below the text box under similar threads, there are quite a few on this topic. There were zero when I used the search box. I noticed the thread on the search function. That must have been the problem.

I might be able to get a pdf of the chapter and email it to you. I'll have a look later.

Divine simplicity and divine aseity are two separate doctrines. In simple terms, divine aseity is the doctrine that God is self-existent, or as Webster would put it, God has life in and of himself. Divine simplicity is, at its most basic, the doctrine that God is simple and not made up of parts. God is not a composite being made up of separate properties that, if you added them all together, you get 'God'. A good way to understand this is in Dolezal's phrase all that is in God is God. This doctrine is controversial today, and you'll get a good look into the debate through Dolezal's book. Part of my own research is trying to defend it against contemporary Christian philosophers who reject the doctrine. Many theologians today, including conservatives such as James White, also reject it.

Another good resource here is Muller's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. There he states that the doctrine of simplicity logically follows from aseity, but not the other way round necessarily.
 
Aseity and simplicity speak of different but inseparably related things. God's aseity is his self-existence—he came from nothing, stands in need of nothing, and eternally exists in and of himself. His simplicity speaks of his being free of any and all composition—material, spiritual, or otherwise. His aseity and simplicity support and entail one another. A being who is a se ("of himself") must necessarily be simple since composition entails dependence; similarly, a being who is simple must necessarily be a se.
This isn't necessarily the case, as souls and angels can be said to be simple and yet created. Says Muller anyway, under the heading aseitas in his dictionary.
 
This isn't necessarily the case, as souls and angels can be said to be simple and yet created. Says Muller anyway, under the heading aseitas in his dictionary.
I'm not seeing this in his entry on aseitas or simplicitas. To what are you referring, exactly?

While spirits may be said to be simple in one respect, I cannot imagine their simplicity is the same as God's. Spirits are free from physical composition, but are they free of logical or rational composition? I cannot imagine saying of the angel Gabriel, for example, "All that is in Gabriel is Gabriel."

Louis Berkhof actually seems to criticize Robert Dabney for this very thing:

In recent works on theology the simplicity of God is seldom mentioned. Many theologians positively deny it, either because it is regarded as a purely metaphysical abstraction, or because, in their estimation, it conflicts with the doctrine of the Trinity. Dabney believes that there is no composition in the substance of God, but denies that in Him substance and attributes are one and the same. He claims that God is no more simple in that respect than finite spirits.
—Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1938), 62; underline added.​
 
Last edited:
His simplicity speaks of his being free of any and all composition—material, spiritual, or otherwise.

John 4:24 - Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός

I imagine you have some distinction in mind here, can you elaborate?
 
John 4:24 - Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός

I imagine you have some distinction in mind here, can you elaborate?
I merely mean that God is free of composition—physical (obviously) or spiritual. I am not saying God is not a spirit. God is a spirit and, as such, is free of composition.
 
I merely mean that God is free of composition—physical (obviously) or spiritual.

Although God the Son incarnate does have a glorified physical body... which is a whole other kind and category, I know... But something that never fails to amaze and dumbfound me.
 
Although God the Son incarnate does have a glorified physical body... which is a whole other kind and category, I know...
Yes, we are talking about the nature of God, not the assumed human nature of the God-Man.
 
I'm not seeing this in his entry on aseitas or simplicitas. To what are you referring, exactly?

While spirits may be said to be simple in one respect, I cannot imagine their simplicity is the same as God's. Spirits are free from physical composition, but are they free of logical or rational composition? I cannot imagine saying of the angel Gabriel, for example, "All that is in Gabriel is Gabriel."

Louis Berkhof actually seems to criticize Robert Dabney for this very thing:

In recent works on theology the simplicity of God is seldom mentioned. Many theologians positively deny it, either because it is regarded as a purely metaphysical abstraction, or because, in their estimation, it conflicts with the doctrine of the Trinity. Dabney believes that there is no composition in the substance of God, but denies that in Him substance and attributes are one and the same. He claims that God is no more simple in that respect than finite spirits.
—Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1938), 62; underline added.​
Final paragraph under aseitas, page 42 of the second edition which reads:

'Note that aseity is to be distinguished from simplicity: to be self-existent or from one's self should imply simplicity, given that a self-existent being, namely, one not originated from previously existing things, would not be composite; but simplicity does not imply aseity, inasmuch as simple or noncomposite entities, such as angels and souls, are created'.

I take your point, though, and under the heading of simplicitas Muller himself distinguishes between simplicity pertaining to God and simplicity in the case of noncomposite creatures such as souls or angels. For the record I also take the strong view of divine simplicity, against Dabney and most contemporary evangelical philosophers/theologians.
 
Ah, that's the problem. I have the first edition. That would explain my confusion. :)
No problem. Though I must say you have raised a good point; metaphysically it is true that simplicity, in the second sense pertaining to creatures such as souls and angels, would not imply aseity, though this does not really apply if we are talking about divine simplicity.

I'll have to check my notes at some stage as I believe Webster also claims that aseity is logically prior or something in the chapter alluded to above. He certainly makes it his starting point.
 
What sort of level are you looking at? At a more academic level, the first thing that comes to mind is John Webster's God Without Measure, Volume I, particularly chapter two 'Life in and of Himself'. In my opinion Webster's work on divine aseity is the best to date, and his work is quite distinctive in that it formulates the doctrine in a thoroughly Trinitarian manner.

The Lord knows what's best, of course, but it's a shame that Webster died before he could write his multi-volume systematic theology.
 
It might be more accurate to say that angels are comparatively simple beings in comparison to human beings. Strictly speaking, they are not simple beings, as they have the potentiality to sin. Also, given that the divine attributes of aseity and simplicity are identical to one another, being identical with the divine essence, then it is fair to say that one attribute implies the other. Especially as only a simple being could be of himself. Hence, *shock horror* Richard Muller is wrong about something.
 
I merely mean that God is free of composition—physical (obviously) or spiritual. I am not saying God is not a spirit. God is a spirit and, as such, is free of composition.

Exactly. Angels are spiritual, but they are composed of essence and existence. God has no such composition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top