Is Relationality itself A Form of Divine Simplicity?
Warning, this post uses the newest model of ChatGPT, ChatGPT 4o, the newest model published on 05/13/2024, to propose a speculative theology that subsistent relations modeled as a primitive in Trinitarian ontology can account for relationality as a form of divine simplicity. If you do not want to see AI doing theology, even if highly speculative and guided well by a human, then do not read this piece.
Introduction
In my ongoing work on Trinitarian theology and ontology, I have been exploring the concept of ‘subsistent relation.’ I am toying with the idea that such a concept could potentially serve as a candidate for an account of the divine relations, as well as an account of divine simplicity, if one were to elevate the concept to a primitive. In other words, Aquinas’ concept of subsistent relations can be expanded and emphasized as an excellent starting point for a relational ontology that also supports a robust systematic theology specifically aimed at this claim. This concept is masterfully presented by Aquinas, and I by no means think that this approach supersedes Aquinas. Rather, the piece below is my exploration of systematic and speculative theology, with the help of AI, for my own theological growth. For a proper work of a master, and to understand the truth, please refer to Aquinas, not my musings here.
However, as of writing this, an interesting technology has been released that maybe able to expound these ideas into a coherent framework. This new tech is called ChatGPT 4o. Below is a paper that utilizes this AI to frame and propose subsistent relations as a foundation for a specific relational model of the divine Persons and their relations of origin. This AI will be leveraged to propose that a subsistent relation can act as the fundamental structure for articulating a coherent account of the Divine Nature within a relational context. These relations are not just attributes or external links between the Divine Persons; they define their very existence and identity. This understanding suggests that these relations are primitives—irreducible and foundational elements of a relational ontology describing God’s inner life and His interactions with the universe. Thus, it’s “Relation All the Way Down.” Continue reading if you want to see AI leveraged for the use in expounding Aquinas into a facinating speculative theology. Don’t read if that’s not your thing.
Enjoy!
Defining Subsistent Relations as a Primitive
A subsistent relation as a primitive is understood as a fundamental, irreducible concept essential for expressing and understanding the nature of the Divine, especially within Trinitarian theology. This concept stems from the idea that the relations within the Trinity—between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—are not mere attributes or incidental properties but are essential and constitutive of the Divine Persons themselves. Each Person of the Trinity is defined and distinguished by their relations to each other: the Father’s begetting of the Son and spiration of the Holy Spirit, the Son’s being begotten by the Father, and the Spirit’s procession from the Father and the Son. These relations are considered “subsistent” in that they exist in a way that is ontologically real and foundational, rather than abstract or metaphorical.
Defined negatively, a primitive subsistent relation in Trinitarian theology is not an accidental attribute nor a mere external linkage between the Divine Persons. Furthermore, it is not derived from nor contingent upon anything external to the Divine Essence, nor is it reducible to simpler or more fundamental elements. We’re truly starting with the relations as such.
Subsistent Relations Avoiding Composite Parts in God
Understanding subsistent relations as primitives harmonizes with divine simplicity by arguing that these relations are not additions to God’s nature but are identical to God’s essence. Each relation fully expresses God’s simple essence from different relational standpoints, avoiding any implication of composite parts in God. The Divine Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) exist because of and within the framework of their eternal relations to one another—paternity, filiation, and procession. Viewing relations as primitives emphasizes that this eternal Perichoretic relationality (or consubstantiality) is inherently relational. The distinct Persons do not just share the same essence; their shared essence is manifest precisely through their eternal, intrinsic relations. Each Person is who they are only in their eternal relation to the others, reflecting a profound interdependence and unity.
Subsistent Relations and Divine Impassibility
A potential counterargument to this model concerns the implications for the doctrine of divine impassibility—the belief that God does not experience emotional changes or suffer. Critics might argue that emphasizing relationality implies that God is subject to change or external influence. However, the model of subsistent relations maintains that these relations are eternal and immutable, fully integrated within the divine essence. The relations between the Divine Persons do not imply change or passivity but reflect an eternal and perfect act of self-giving and mutual love. The relational nature of God does not undermine divine impassibility; rather, it enriches it by illustrating that God’s relationality is a dynamic expression of His unchanging and perfect nature.
The relational nature of God involves the eternal relations between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These relations are not subject to change; they are perpetual and immutable. For instance, the Father’s begetting of the Son and the spiration of the Holy Spirit are not temporal processes but eternal acts that are always perfectly fulfilled. This eternal relational dynamic underscores that God’s relationality is inherently unchanging, thus harmonizing with divine impassibility. As such, there is an inherent self-sufficiency in these relations—they are in act. That is, God is love in an unchanging and perfect manner, which makes perfect sense when you think about it. If the most fundamental constituent of an ontological expression of the triune God is relational, then it’s safe to say God has always fully been Himself such that the expression of Him is Him in full, which is what this relation is trying to claim. This would go for love, will, or any other traditional attribute. If the dynamism is already baked in, then we don’t get the need for passibility nor encounter it.
We can state the last paragraph in terms of simplicity, which may help clarify why this potential criticism wouldn’t work. The relational nature of God does not introduce complexity or division within the divine essence. Instead, it highlights that God’s relationality is an intrinsic aspect of His simple and undivided nature. This relational simplicity underscores that God is impassible because His relational attributes are not separate from His essence but are expressions of His simple, unchanging nature.
Circularity as an Essential Feature of Divine Ontology
Since subsistent relations as a primitive is being promoted here, we’re essentially saying this concept is irreducible. Often an irreducibility condition can infer circularity. However, in this case the circularity in the definition of the Divine Persons within the Trinity is not a flaw but a necessary feature of divine ontology. In this framework, each Person of the Trinity is defined through their eternal relations with the others:
– The Father: Characterized by His relation of begetting the Son and spirating the Holy Spirit.
– The Son: Defined through His being begotten by the Father and His relation to the Spirit.
– The Holy Spirit: Understood through His procession from the Father and the Son.
This mutual definition ensures that the Persons and their defining relations are co-constitutive and inherently interconnected. This interdependence creates a circular structure, which is not vicious but reflects a coherent and self-sustaining divine ontology.
The Necessity of Circularity in Trinitarian Thought
The circularity inherent in these subsistent relations is essential for several theological and philosophical reasons:
1. Divine Simplicity: God is fundamentally simple, meaning He has no parts distinct from His essence. The subsistent relations among the Divine Persons are thus not extrinsic but embedded within God’s very nature. The circularity emerges because these relations are not accidental but essential attributes of God’s simplicity.
2. Eternal and Immutable Nature: God’s eternal and unchangeable nature reinforces the necessity of circularity. The eternal and immutable relations among the Divine Persons foster a state of continuous self-definition, where each relation is eternally present and actively defining the nature of the Persons involved. This perpetual interplay ensures that cause and effect in the divine life are co-existent and co-eternal.
3. Ontological Completeness: This circularity also articulates the theological conviction that God is ontologically complete and perfect. The divine life is a perfect expression of communion, characterized by love and reciprocity. The perfection of these relations, both as cause and effect, is a testament to divine completeness.
4. Logical Coherence in Divine Economy: The circular structure of subsistent relations provides coherence in the divine economy of salvation. The economic operations of creation, redemption, and sanctification reflect the eternal relations of the Trinity, with each Person engaging in these acts according to their relational identity.
Philosophical and Theological Implications
The circularity in the Trinity’s subsistent relations reveals a deeper truth about ultimate reality in Catholic thought: it is relational, self-sustaining, and unified. This framework prevents an infinite regress in divine explanations, offering a self-contained, self-explanatory model that highlights the independence and sufficiency of the divine nature.
Ontological Primacy of Relations
The primitive approach places relationality at the core of divine ontology. It challenges the notion that God’s absoluteness is a solitary attribute, instead portraying God as inherently relational at the ontological level. This does not diminish God’s absoluteness but enriches it, showing that the divine absolute includes relationality as an aspect of its perfection.
Metaphysical Coherence
From a metaphysical standpoint, treating subsistent relations as primitives enhances the coherence of Trinitarian doctrine. It resolves the seeming paradox between God’s unity and the real distinction among the Persons. By affirming that these relations are God’s way of being, it provides a deeper understanding of how God can be both one and three without division or composition.
Perichoretic Unity
The perichoretic nature of the relations—that is, each Person fully containing and being contained in the others—highlights a model of unity that is profoundly intimate and mutual. This model of perichoresis, supported by the primitive approach, illustrates a unity that is not mere sameness but a rich, interpenetrative communion.
Conclusion 1
While the circularity of subsistent relations in Trinitarian theology might initially appear merely primitive, it is also a vital aspect of maintaining the unity, simplicity, and completeness of God’s nature. This structure illustrates a harmonious interplay between relational identity and divine essence, fundamental to a coherent Christian understanding of God.
In terms of essence, the divine nature is formally contained within God’s undivided and simple essence, where the Father eternally generates the Son through a perfect and complete act of self-knowing His own essence. Together with the Son, He spirates the Holy Spirit as the bond of love. This continuously presents, represents, and manifests the Trinity’s dynamic, consubstantial unity and perichoretic interrelation—distinct in personhood yet seamlessly one in essence. The divine can thus be dynamically triangulated in simplicity, Actus Purus, and Perichoresis. Through this lens, the Trinity exemplifies that at the heart of all existence and divinity, it truly is “Relation All the Way Down.”
Rebuttals to Criticisms of Eternal Generation
The concept of subsistent relations as a primitive provides a robust framework to address potential criticisms of eternal generation. Here, we present four criticisms and responses within the relational ontology that defines the Trinity.
Criticism 1: The Son’s Generation and Eternal Co-Existence
Some critics may argue that if the Son is “generated” by the Father, it might imply that the Son had a beginning or was derived from the Father, conflicting with the doctrine of the eternal co-existence of the Trinity.
Response: The term “generation” does not imply a temporal beginning but an eternal relationship that defines the Son’s distinct identity. The Son is begotten eternally, meaning that the relationship exists beyond the constraints of time. The generation of the Son is a subsistent relation, eternal and immutable, which does not signify derivation or a temporal starting point but a co-eternal, co-equal distinction in the divine essence. Hence, the Son’s generation is not a temporal event but an eternal reality that underscores the co-existence of the Trinity.
Criticism 2: Subordination of the Son
Some may worry that eternal generation could imply that the Son is subordinate to the Father, not just relationally but in essence or ontology.
Response: The concept of subsistent relations maintains that the relations between the Persons define their unique identities without implying subordination. The Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, yet all three Persons share the same undivided divine essence. The relational distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit does not imply subordination because these relations are subsistent and co-constitutive, not hierarchical or derivative. The Father’s begetting of the Son is an eternal and essential act that does not diminish the Son’s divinity or equality but affirms the perfect unity and co-equality of the Trinity.
Criticism 3: Necessity and Freedom in the Generation of the Son
There is a philosophical debate about whether the Father’s generation of the Son is a necessary action or a free one. If it’s necessary, it might undermine the freedom of God; if it’s free, it could imply the Son’s contingent existence.
Response: Within the subsistent relations model, the generation of the Son is both free (as it is not compelled by any external force) and necessary (as it is part of God’s unchanging nature). It is necessary because it is intrinsic to God’s nature as a perfectly self-knowing and self-loving being. The Father can only be Father by eternally generating the Son, as this relation is essential to His identity. However, this necessity does not undermine freedom because it is an expression of God’s perfect and free self-knowledge. Thus, the Son’s existence is not contingent but eternally grounded in the Father’s necessary self-knowledge in simplicity and act without potential.
Criticism 4: Metaphorical Language and Philosophical Clarity
Some argue that the traditional language used to describe eternal generation is metaphorical or analogical and lacks precise philosophical clarity, leading to misunderstandings or misrepresentations.
Response: While traditional language may seem metaphorical, the concept of subsistent relations provides a precise philosophical grounding. The term ‘generation’ is used analogically but points to a real, intrinsic, and subsistent relation within the divine essence. It is not merely metaphorical but describes the Son’s eternal and ontological distinction as begotten of the Father. This analogical language is necessary because human language cannot fully capture the mystery of the divine. However, the relational ontology clarifies that this generation is a real, subsistent, and co-eternal relationship that defines the Son’s identity within the undivided essence of God.
If all else fails, there is a place for the “analogia entis” as Erich Przywara presents it so well in his book with that title. He posits a proportionality to our similarities with the divine, even as there is an essential difference, as God’s unity is ever perfect and ours a participation. All that is, the whole universe even, is relationally unified because its entire multiplicity refers back to, and depends on, the unity of God. Even our language has a dependence so that analogy can be proportionally precise in balancing transference and immanence.
Conclusion 2
The model of subsistent relations as a primitive offers a coherent and philosophically robust framework to address criticisms of eternal generation. By emphasizing the eternal, immutable, and co-constitutive nature of the divine relations, this model safeguards the doctrine’s integrity and provides systematic responses to each critique. Ultimately, these subsistent relations reveal that the Trinity is relational at its core, affirming that it is “Relation All the Way Down.”
The traditional view of God as an absolute, uncaused being often emphasizes God’s immutability and timelessness, sometimes at the expense of relational dynamics. While God’s essence is indeed absolute and unchanging, the primitive approach to subsistent relations underscores that God’s internal life is a living, eternal act of relation, not static but perpetually active within the divine nature itself. It suggests that God’s very being as tri-personal involves a perpetual act of relational exchange (e.g., the Son’s generation from the Father, and the Spirit’s procession from both). God is love.
Ultimately, this approach presents relationality itself as a form of simplicity, not of complexity. The relations are so fundamental that they do not fragment God’s nature but instead are exactly what it means for God to be one. Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity, as the creed says. The Trinity’s relations reveal the self-disclosure of the ultimate transmundane reality, stating that God’s relations are as eternal and unchanging as God’s essence itself. Thus, divine simplicity and relational primitivism coexist without contradiction, enriching our understanding of the divine mystery and demonstrating that the triune God is indeed pure communion, perpetually dynamic yet fundamentally one.
