What is SSGO and how does it defend divine simplicity?

Question #38: What exactly is the Self-Standing Givenness Ontology (SSGO), and how does it defend divine simplicity?

Self-Standing Givenness Ontology (SSGO) is a theological and philosophical framework proposing that each divine Person—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—fully and indivisibly possesses the one divine essence in what it calls a “relational mode.” Rather than seeing Father, Son, and Spirit as partial shares of deity or as superficial “modes,” SSGO contends that each Person is the entire essence “from a distinct vantage” (unbegotten, begotten, proceeding). In that sense, a “mode” in SSGO is not an accidental property layered on top of God; it is an irreducible way the one divine being is fully lived in each Person. This concept draws on modern metaphysical thought—especially Jiri Benovsky’s idea of “primitives” as problem-solvers—while remaining faithful to the classical Church teaching on the Trinity and divine simplicity.

How does SSGO defend divine simplicity? First, it insists that God’s essence cannot be subdivided into parts or properties that aggregate together. Each Person’s “mode” is not an external addition but the fullness of the essence seen from a particular relational identity. The Father, for instance, is not “God plus fatherhood,” but simply God’s entire essence “in the stance of unbegotten.” The Son is God’s entire essence “in the stance of begotten,” and the Spirit is God’s entire essence “in the stance of proceeding.” Because these modes, or vantages, do not add composition, SSGO is preserving the core idea that God is absolutely one and noncomposite.

That approach also addresses the question of how there can be three irreducibly distinct Persons without making God multiple or fragmentary. SSGO’s key premise is that a “part” of God would necessarily be less than the whole, but a “mode” is precisely the whole expressed in a unique (yet noncompetitive) way. Hence, no Person is incomplete, and no combination of Persons yields “more God” than any single Person on His own. Thus, it satisfies the demand for real distinction (the Father is not the Son or the Spirit) while remaining faithful to the Church’s teaching that God is one, indivisible essence.

Additionally, SSGO incorporates Jean-Luc Marion’s theme of “givenness,” suggesting that God as Trinity is a fully self-given reality in each Person. The Father, Son, and Spirit each wholly give and receive the one essence without dividing it, highlighting a relational dynamism that never creates internal conflict or external dependence. Because the divine essence is purely actual—no unrealized potential, no parted-out composition—SSGO’s vantage-based reading resonates with Aquinas’s principle that God’s nature is simple, not reliant on external cause or internal composition.

In sum, SSGO offers a way to articulate how three distinct, co-equal Persons can each be all that God is, while not violating the unity and simplicity of the divine essence. It clarifies that “relation” in the Trinity need not slice up God’s being; rather, each Person is fully God but “from a different stance.” By locating personal distinctions in these irreducible relational modes, SSGO preserves the entire essence in every Person, defending the notion that God is one, simple, and noncomposite—even as He exists tri-personally in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Why SSGO?

The short answer is, SSGO allows us to be modern people and fully accept classical ideas honest about their potential flaws. In other words, one doesn’t have to be an apologist for Aquinas or the Cappadocian Fathers to have their classical theism, yet accept their consensus driven contributions in modern terms. For example, SSGO on divine simplicity probably goes one step deeper than Aquinas in the sense that it highlights the mechanism or rationale behind Aquinas’s basic statement “relations are the essence,” rather than merely restating it. It shows explicitly how each relation (Father, Son, Spirit) might be viewed as a self-standing vantage, preserving the entire essence in a distinct “mode.” Aquinas himself was content to say “the relations subsist in the essence and do not multiply or divide it,” but did not do a full “modern explanatory account.” SSGO tries to fill that explanatory gap—how this is so—without negating Aquinas, thereby bridging classical theology and contemporary metaphysical reflection. On the other hand in the case of the Capp Father’s it goes one step deeper too. SSGO’s view of the Christian God does NOT merely acknowledge tension or paradox and accept it and embrace it. Rather, SSGO systematically articulates how the Father’s monarchia can stand alongside a fully shared essence, giving each Person total deity without a “partial synergy.” In that sense, SSGO is not content to leave a compromise in unresolved paradox. Instead, it tries to show actual harmony—a vantage-based unity that respects the Father’s role as source while affirming the Son and Spirit’s full equality in the one Godhead. SSGO allows us to affirm both east and west, at least when it comes to Simplicity and harmonizing it with Trinity. This is an advantage in my opinion. Hopefully, it helps you too.

Introduction to defending divine simplicity and understanding SSGO