#hypostatic aseity

[oddinthetruth]

Essential Aseity and the Eastern Fathers

Scholar Nathan Jacobs argues that the Eastern fathers do not hold to a view of essential aseity. Now, given the predominance of essential aseity in much Western trinitarian thought, such a view might seem rather scandalous.

Jacob’s, on the other hand, sees it as simply an entailment of the Eastern fathers moderate realism. He supports his claim by way of contrast with the Eunomian view of natures.

The Eunomian case places the principle of existence in nature rather than subject. In other words, the Eunomian instinct is that existence...is essential to the divine nature. Hence, any subject having the divine nature has existence by virtue of being divine.

On the Eunomian view, the Son who is begotten and originate, cannot be of and identical with the divine nature, which is itself the principle of existence. Aseity is proper to natures and the Son, who is begotten, is not a se. He must be of a different nature than the having-no-cause-whatsoever (a se) Father. 

More than that, the Father must be “of a nature that is ontologically superior to that of the Son and the Holy Spirit--the Father being unoriginate (or a se), while the Son and the Spirit are originate (not a se).”

The Eastern fathers, on the other hand:

...being moderate realists, reject the point. Existence is never a property, accidental or essential, of natures. Existence is only ever located in subjects that give concrete reality to natures – hence their use of hypostasis, or that which exists underneath a nature.

He explains further:

...the Eastern fathers make clear that natures are mere abstractions that lack stability (stasis, playing on the term hypostasis) and thus require a hypostasis to supply concrete existence. This is why they also insist that the hypostasis is logically anterior to the nature. That is to say, the nature stands upon the individual, not vice versa. Put otherwise, individuals exist; natures subsist in individuals. And to be clear, the Eastern fathers do not make an exception for things divine.

This approach of the Eastern fathers has a startling implication:

Applied to the Trinity, this means that the Father exists a se (in himself); the divine nature subsists in the Father. Thus, there is no "essential aseity," since the divine nature does not (and cannot) exist in itself...Since aseity implies having no cause whatsoever, the term is applicable to the Father only, according to Eastern patristic thought.

This Eastern fathers’ view of natures and its application to the Trinity is what counters the Eunomian position that only the Father can be of the divine nature.

On the Eastern fathers’ view, because aseity is an incommunicable idiomata of the Father’s hypostasis, the begotten Son and spirated Spirit can both be of the divine nature.

In other words, the Son and Spirit can be both fully divine--fully identical to the divine nature--and yet remain begotten and spirated, respectively, while the Father alone is a se--”having no cause whatsoever.”

Using the logic that arises from their view of natures, Jacobs says the Eastern fathers push further into their disagreement with the Eunomian position:

The Cappadocians point out that the Eunomians commit a category error in this claim [the Father is ontologically superior because he is a se], confusing efficient cause (how a thing is) with formal cause (what a thing is). All three have the same nature but the Father has it from no one, while the Son has it by begetting and the Spirit by spiration. Just as Adam, Eve, and Abel have three different efficient causes (unbegotten of man, proceeding from Adam, and begotten of Adam) but share a common nature, and are thus ontological equals, so the divine hypostases differ in efficient cause (unbegotten, begotten, and procession) but share a common nature, being ontological equals [in other words, not subordinate].

Thoughts

If Jacob’s reading of the Eastern fathers is correct, it has important historical and theological significance for pro-Nicene logic and trinitarianism. 

Importantly, for my interests, this view also accords beautifully with the strong Monarchy of the Father view of the Trinity. The one God is the Father, the a se hypostasis. He is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit (with all the appropriate qualifications, of course).

Additionally, because the Father is the principle of existence, not the divine nature, it is he that communicates his nature to the Son and the Spirit. They are identical to his divine nature. They are homoousios with him. The Father then is both the source of unity and distinction in the Trinity.

An important question is how might Jacob’s observation be understood in light of Western or Latin views that argue for the essential aseity of the Son? I’d love to hear from others on that question.

My only caution, as I’ve written about before, is that as this question is addressed that we not flatten or bend pro-Nicene trinitarianism so as to remake it in the image of current in-favor idioms.