God

God (in Act-Relational Ontology)

Introduction

In ordinary English, the word “God” often functions like a generic label for a divine nature, as though it were naming a highest kind of thing. Even when someone intends orthodox theology, that surface grammar easily leaves an afterimage of “a thing behind the Persons,” a substrate that has divinity and then happens to have relations. In Trinitarian logic, however, there is no fourth reality called “God” standing apart from Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The one God simply is the one divine reality subsisting personally.

Act-Relational Ontology therefore treats “God” as a name whose meaning must be disciplined by Trinitarian grammar. “God” is not a genus-term, not a common nature instantiated by three individuals, and not a concealed subject underneath attributes. It is the name we give to the one simple, necessary, eternal reality that Christian confession identifies as triune. In this sense, “God” functions as a term of entailment, not because language creates the Trinity, but because the revealed names already carry relational intelligibility. “Father” is not a static entity that possesses paternity as a feature. It names a subsisting personal reality whose identity is constituted by relation of origin to the Son. Likewise, “God” is not a bare object first and relational second. It names the one simple act that subsists as relations of origin and therefore is relational in its very manner of being.

This is also the point of the system’s aspect grammar. When Act-Relational Ontology stacks the notes “Act, Relation, Gift,” it is not narrating a temporal process and it is not adding ingredients to God. It is naming one and the same simple, eternal reality under interlocking aspects that are irreducible in our discourse while remaining numerically identical in God. The aim is to keep divine simplicity strict while allowing genuinely informative God-talk.

Definition of God in Act-Relational Ontology

Within a deeply informed Catholic metaphysics, God is defined not as a supreme object or a highest substance among substances, but as the simple, necessary, and eternal subsisting act of being, identical with the triune relations of origin. In this ontology, “God” functions neither as a genus (a class-term) nor as a substrate (a hidden bearer of properties), but as the proper name for the Act-Relational Primitive: the single, indivisible reality in which the act of existing is numerically identical with the subsistent relations by which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are personally distinct.

Accordingly, divine identity is not explained as the static possession of a set of properties. It is explained by the one simple act subsisting personally through relations of origin. The Father is unoriginated source, the Son is begotten reception-and-return, and the Spirit is proceeding communion. These are not parts and not additions. They are the personal form of the one act. To confess God is therefore to confess the eternal act of generating, receiving, and breathing forth Love, without loss, division, or composition.

Pure Act and the Rejection of “Thinghood”

The definition begins by negating the creaturely mode of “thinghood,” where a subject has existence as a received feature and is composed of metaphysical principles. Following the Aristotelian tradition, God is identified as Pure Actuality (actus purus), devoid of potency, composition, and generic classification. Aristotle argues that the first principle must be one “whose very essence is actuality” (Metaphysics XII.6), which prevents the first principle from being a thing that waits to become what it is. Avicenna sharpens the point by denying that God has a “whatness” distinct from his “thatness,” insisting that “The First has no quiddity other than His individual existence” (The Metaphysics of The Healing, VIII.4). The term “God,” on this footing, does not refer to a generic substance that has divinity, but to subsistent To Be (ipsum esse subsistens). Because this act is not in a genus (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 3, a. 5), it implies no common measure with creation and therefore establishes the metaphysical firewall between the unconditioned source and the conditioned world.

This firewall also governs how “relation” is used. In creatures, relations are received, finite, and typically accidental, and relationality is analogical. In God, relation is not accidental. It is subsistent and identical with essence. The same word is therefore used by analogy, not univocally.

Subsistent Relations and the Triune Life

Christian confession does not modify divine simplicity by adding a further feature called “relationality.” It clarifies that the one simple act is not a solitary instance of a generic nature in the first place, but the triune life. The distinction of persons is located solely in relations of origin. Gregory of Nazianzus teaches that terms like “Father” do not denote a separate essence or an action added to essence, but a relation (schesis): “‘Father’ is not a name of either an essence or an action, but a relation, and of how the Father stands with reference to the Son” (Oration 29, xvi). Aquinas synthesizes this with the doctrine of simplicity by defining the divine persons as subsistent relations (relatio subsistens), arguing that “a relation in God is not as an accident in a subject, but is the Divine Essence itself; and so it is subsistent” (Summa Theologiae I, q. 29, a. 4).

Accordingly, “God” does not name an essence first and then attach relations as a secondary layer. “God” names the one reality in which the essence is subsistent in the personal manner of relations of origin. To be God is not to be a solitary “I” that later communicates. It is to be the eternal From-Whom and To-Whom and With-Whom of triune life, without composition and without any “God-behind-God.”

Entailment, Gift, and the Identity of Being and Love

In this light, the name “God” functions as a term of entailment. This entailment is not a linguistic trick, and it is not a deduction that generates the Trinity from a concept. It is the disciplined recognition that the revealed names already carry a determinate logic. “Father” implies “Son” because paternity is not a free-floating label but a relation of origin. Likewise, “God” implies triune life because the one divine reality is not an inert substrate but subsistent relations identical with the one act. There is no thing behind the relations. The reality is the relational act itself.

Anselm codifies this logic of distinction with the rule of opposition: “In God, all things are one, except where there is the opposition of a relation” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti, i). Augustine identifies the Spirit as “a certain ineffable communion of Father and Son” (ineffabilis quaedam Patris Filiique communio) in De Trinitate V, and Bonaventure articulates the classical axiom that the highest good is self-diffusive (bonum diffusivum sui) in his Trinitarian reflection on the Good (Itinerarium Mentis in Deum VI.2). The definition of God therefore culminates in the identity of Being and Love. God is not a composite being who possesses love as an attribute. God is Love by nature because the one simple act subsists personally as eternal self-gift.

This also governs how the system speaks about divine perfections. All perfections are really identical with God, and there is no plurality of constituents in Him. Yet our discourse can remain non-trivial because the one reality can be named under distinct aspects and explanatory roles. The plurality belongs to our mode of signifying and to the creaturely contexts in which God is known and confessed, while the reality signified remains one.

Notes on Sources

The Aristotelian claim that there must be a first principle “whose very essence is actuality” appears in Metaphysics XII.6 (Lambda 6) in standard English translations, including W. D. Ross. Avicenna’s assertion that “The First has no quiddity other than His individual existence” is found in The Metaphysics of The Healing (Ilāhiyyāt) VIII.4 in Michael Marmura’s translation tradition, and is widely cited as the key “no added quiddity” line for the Necessary Existent. Aquinas’s argument that God is not in a genus is in Summa Theologiae I, q.3, a.5, and his account of the divine persons as subsistent relations is articulated in I, q.29, a.4. (New Advent) Gregory of Nazianzus’ characterization of “Father” as the name of a relation occurs in Oration 29, section 16. (New Advent) Anselm states the “all is one in God except where relation is opposed” rule in De Processione Spiritus Sancti, chapter 1, a formulation later echoed in conciliar tradition. (American Cusa Nuss Society) Augustine’s description of the Holy Spirit as an ineffable communion of Father and Son appears in De Trinitate V, in the locus with the phrase ineffabilis quaedam Patris Filiique communio. (An und für sich) Bonaventure applies the “self-diffusive good” axiom programmatically in Itinerarium Mentis in Deum VI.2, where the highest good is said to be “diffusive of itself” and this is used to motivate Trinitarian procession-language.

On the Holy Spirit as God

Bibliography

Aristotle. 1984. Metaphysics. In The Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. 2, edited by Jonathan Barnes, translated by W. D. Ross. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Book XII, chapter 6.)

Avicenna. 2005. The Metaphysics of The Healing. Translated by Michael E. Marmura. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press. (Book VIII, chapter 4.)

Augustine of Hippo. 1991. The Trinity (De Trinitate). Translated by Edmund Hill, O.P. The Works of Saint Augustine I/5. Brooklyn, NY: New City Press. (See especially book V, sections 11–12.)

Anselm of Canterbury. 1998. “On the Procession of the Holy Spirit” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti). In Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, edited by Brian Davies and G. R. Evans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Aquinas, Thomas. 1964–1976. Summa Theologiae. Latin text and English translation. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode / Blackfriars. (Prima Pars, questions 3 and 29.)

Bonaventure. 1993. Journey of the Mind into God (Itinerarium Mentis in Deum). Translated by Philotheus Boehner. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

Gregory of Nazianzus. 2002. On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius. Translated by Frederick Williams and Lionel Wickham. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press. (Oration 29, section 16.)

If you want the primitive worked out ontologically you can go here for more: The Primitive – RobertDryer

Back to the Dictionary of Theology