Central to classical theism is the conception of God as the sole ultimate reality, the Creator of all things apart from Himself. This doctrine receives its most significant challenge from Platonism, the view that there are uncreated abstract objects, such as numbers, sets, propositions, and so forth. According to Platonism there is a host of objects, indeed, infinities of infinities of beings, which are just as eternal, necessary, and uncreated as God.
—  William L. Craig
Aseity: The Self-Sufficiency of God.

God does not need time, but He freely enters it; He does not need a home, but He builds one anyway. All of this for our benefit, out of God’s zeal to dwell together with finite, embodied creatures in covenant. That God freely does this in creation, without any inherent need, is a testimony to His unfathomable goodness. That He continues to do this even in relation to the unfaithful covenant partner is a measure of His unsearchable grace.

The Stoic sage is already related to the world but seeks to extricate himself even from allowing the world to have any relation to him. The reverse is true in the Christian doctrine of ASEITY. The God of Scripture is essentially independent yet freely chooses to bring creatures into fellowship and communion with Himself - even though He already knows that His friends will become enemies. Even before He creates the world that He does not need, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have covenanted in love for the salvation of sinners by the sacrifice of the incarnate Son. God’s decision to do that which is necessary for our salvation but not for his perfect self-existence is the most obvious revelation of “the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight” (Eph. 1:7-8)

(Michael Horton, ”The Christian Faith, p. 235)

What is Meant by the Aseity of God?

What is Meant by the Aseity of God?

The word aseity is an archaic English word that comes from the Latin words, “a” which means, “from” and, “se” which means, “one’s self.” The definition of the English word, “aseity” means, “Existence originating from and having no source other than itself.” Simply put when we ascribe this word to our theology we mean that God has no creator or other source for His being. We know that in God’s…

View On WordPress

podcast episode 58 - We can't prove the Trinity by reason alone

At least, not in the way tried by Professor Richard Swinburne. I briefly argue against such attempts in this episode, drawing on my forthcoming paper “On the Possibility of a Single Perfect Person.”

The jist of his argument is that a divine self wouldn’t be perfect unless he eternally brought about two other equals.

I argue that this hasn’t been shown. To the contrary, it seems possible that there be just one perfect being, one self who is all-knowing, all-powerful, completely good, and so on. Being perfectly loving, being happy, being generous – I argue that no such perfection, as best we can tell, would compel a perfect self to bring about another, or two others.

In the second half of this episode, I reason about divine aseity, and how I believe this creates difficulties for Professor Swinburne’s Trinity theory. It strikes me that there’s some inconsistency in his views here. I’m assuming, because the claims don’t appear in his 2008 treatment, that he no longer holds that each person of the Trinity permissively causes the other two, as I explain about his 1994 book here. If he holds that, then I think it would follow that it was impossible for any being to exist a se! But I argue here that he should say that the Father has that property, and not the Trinity, which exists because of the Father and Son, in his view.

You can also listen to this episode (and all others) on youtube (scroll down), stitcher, or itunes (please rate us there).  If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.

Links for this episode: