View on GitHub

Warwick Allen's Essays

Theological essays and reflections

Reading preferences
100%

The Impossibility of Divine Loneliness

Aseity, Triunity, and the Grammar of Theological Predication

By Warwick Allen
August 2026
Abstract

The claim that God created the world because He was lonely enjoys some currency in devotional and popular theological writing. This essay subjects the claim to exegetical, dogmatic, and philosophical examination. It distinguishes the affective claim (that God, apart from creation, experiences or experienced loneliness) from the aetiological claim (that creation is God’s remedy for that state), and argues that the former is without exegetical support and metaphysically incoherent on any recognisably orthodox doctrine of God, so that the latter fails a fortiori. The argument proceeds from the canonical witness to divine self-sufficiency, through the doctrines of aseity, simplicity, and divine beatitude, to the trinitarian account of eternal relational fullness, with particular attention to Richard of St Victor’s doctrine of the condilectus, the exegesis of Colossians 1:15–20, and Karl Barth’s relational anthropology. A concluding survey of process, passibilist, and open theologies shows that even the tradition’s most determined internal revisionists decline the “lonely God” thesis, which is best classified as an instance of what Brian Davies has called theistic personalism.

1. Introduction

The suggestion that God created the world because He was lonely, or because He desired companionship that He otherwise lacked, appears with some regularity in devotional literature, in popular apologetics, and in informal theological discourse. It is rarely defended with argumentative precision, but it trades on genuinely biblical materials: the affirmation that God is love (1 John 4:8), the declaration that it is “not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18), the nuptial imagery of the prophets and of Ephesians 5, and the statement that all things were created “for him” (Colossians 1:16).1 The claim therefore deserves a more careful examination than it usually receives, both because its premisses are scriptural and because its conclusion, if accepted, would carry substantial doctrinal consequences.

The claim is best analysed as a conjunction of two distinguishable theses.

  1. The affective thesis (L1). God, considered apart from creation, experiences (or, prior to creation, experienced) loneliness, or a state relevantly similar to it.
  2. The aetiological thesis (L2). The act of creation is explained, wholly or in part, as God’s response to, and remedy for, that state.

L2 presupposes L1: creation cannot remedy a lack that does not exist. The argumentative burden of this essay accordingly falls on L1, though L2 will receive independent attention where the tradition’s own accounts of the end of creation bear upon it. The thesis defended here is that L1 is exegetically unsupported, since no biblical text attributes loneliness to God and many texts deny its presupposition, and that L1 is metaphysically incoherent on any doctrine of God recognisable within Nicene Christianity, so that L2 collapses with it. The essay further argues, in §8, that even the modern theological movements most willing to revise classical theism, namely process theology, Moltmannian passibilism, and open theism, do not affirm L1 or L2, so that the “lonely God” thesis is not a minority report within Christian doctrine but an outlier beyond even its revisionist boundary.

The method is that of a cumulative case. Exegesis, dogmatics, and philosophical theology are treated as mutually informing rather than as independent tribunals, in keeping with the classical conviction that Scripture read within the church’s rule of faith is the norma normans of doctrine. The essay works within trinitarian Christianity and does not attempt to adjudicate the wider dispute between classical and neo-classical theism; part of its argument (§4.3) is precisely that the rejection of L1 does not depend on the outcome of that dispute.

2. Terminological and Methodological Preliminaries

2.1 What loneliness is

Argumentative rigour requires that the predicate under examination be defined before it is affirmed or denied of God. The standard account in the social-psychological literature defines loneliness as the aversive experience that arises from a perceived discrepancy between a subject’s desired and achieved social relations.2 Three features of this definition matter for what follows. First, loneliness has an intentional object: it is a desire for companionship, fellowship, or intimacy of some kind. Second, it is constituted by privation: the desired good is not possessed, or is not possessed in the desired degree. Third, it is affectively aversive: it is a form of suffering, which is what distinguishes loneliness from mere solitude, the neutral or even welcome condition of being alone.

Translated into the metaphysical idiom of the classical tradition, a subject who is lonely at a given time has an unrealised potency ordered toward a good, together with a corresponding privation of beatitude. This translation is not tendentious; it simply restates the psychological definition in ontological terms, and it is the definition on which the “lonely God” thesis itself depends. If a defender of the thesis softens “loneliness” so that it names only God’s delight in fellowship, or His disposition to share His life, then L2 loses its explanatory force, since a being already delighting in fellowship requires no remedy, and the thesis dissolves into the orthodox doctrine of creation as the free overflow of divine goodness. The strict sense is therefore the sense this essay addresses.

2.2 The grammar of theological predication

The second preliminary concerns how creaturely predicates apply to God at all. Thomas Aquinas’s treatment of religious language distinguishes univocal predication (the same sense in both applications), equivocal predication (wholly unrelated senses), and analogical predication (related senses ordered by a proportion), and argues that terms common to God and creatures are predicated analogically: the perfection signified may be affirmed of God, but the creaturely mode of signifying it must be denied.3 The Reformed tradition received and elaborated this grammar; Richard Muller documents its centrality to the Reformed orthodox doctrine of the divine attributes, alongside the complementary ways of negation and eminence.4 Calvin’s doctrine of accommodation makes the same point exegetically: Scripture speaks of God as a nurse speaks to an infant, descending to our capacity, so that its creaturely forms of expression are not to be read as immediate transcripts of the divine psychology.5

Scripture itself supplies the control case. In 1 Samuel 15 the narrator twice states that the LORD “regretted” making Saul king (vv. 11, 35), while Samuel declares within the same chapter that the Glory of Israel “is not a man, that he should have regret” (v. 29; cf. Numbers 23:19). The juxtaposition is evidently deliberate: the canon teaches its readers, within a single pericope, that anthropopathic language is true without being univocal. This canonical instruction is directly relevant to the argument, examined in §7, that runs from Adam’s need of a companion to a corresponding need in God. That argument treats “need” univocally across the Creator–creature distinction, which is precisely the move the doctrine of analogy, the doctrine of accommodation, and the canon’s own usage forbid.

3. The Scriptural Witness

3.1 Direct assertions of divine self-sufficiency

The biblical text does not merely permit an inference to divine self-sufficiency; it asserts it. In the Areopagus address, Paul declares that God is not “served by human hands, as though he needed anything (prosdeomenos tinos), since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:24–25). The participle prosdeomenos denies need in terms, and the grounding clause reverses the direction of dependence: God is the universal giver, not a recipient. It is true that the denial of divine need was also a commonplace of Greek philosophy, and that Paul’s Epicurean and Stoic hearers (Acts 17:18) would have assented to this element of the speech.6 Far from weakening the point, this observation defeats in advance the objection, made famous in the Harnackian tradition and echoed by Moltmann, that divine self-sufficiency is a Hellenistic contaminant of biblical faith. Psalm 50:10–12, situated within a covenant-lawsuit against a mechanically sacrificial piety, makes the same assertion from wholly inner-Israelite premisses: God already owns “every beast of the forest” and “the world and its fullness”, and would not inform His creatures were He hungry. Paul Gavrilyuk has shown in detail that the patristic doctrine of divine impassibility was likewise no uncritical import from Greek metaphysics but a discriminating theological judgement; the same holds for the scriptural doctrine of divine sufficiency.7

Romans 11:34–36 closes Paul’s treatment of the mystery of God’s ways with a catena: verse 34 quotes Isaiah 40:13 (“who has known the mind of the Lord?”), and verse 35 (“who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?”) echoes Job 41:11 in its Hebrew form. The rhetorical questions presume negative answers and foreclose any account of creation as a transaction supplying God with something previously lacking, before the doxology of verse 36 gathers all things into the prepositional triad “from him and through him and to him”. To these should be added John 5:26, where the Father is said to have “life in himself” and to have granted the Son likewise to have “life in himself”. Whether the grant is read as the eternal generation of the Son or as an economic bestowal for the accomplishment of salvation, the verse locates underived life within the Godhead and nowhere makes it contingent upon creation.8

3.2 The eternal plenitude of intra-trinitarian love

Second, Scripture locates love and glory within the Godhead prior to and independent of the world. Jesus prays that the Father loved Him “before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24) and asks to be glorified with the glory He had with the Father “before the world existed” (John 17:5); the Word was “with God” (pros ton theon) in the beginning (John 1:1–2). These texts are not statements about God’s disposition consequent upon creation but about the eternal ad intra relation of Father and Son. They will bear the principal weight of the trinitarian argument of §5; here it suffices to note that the only biblical descriptions of God’s “life before creation” describe fullness of love and glory, never lack.

3.3 The freedom of creation

Third, Scripture characterises creation as an act of will rather than of necessity or compulsion. The heavenly liturgy ascribes creation to the divine will alone: “by your will (dia to thelēma sou) they existed and were created” (Revelation 4:11; cf. Ephesians 1:11; Psalm 115:3). The tradition drew the consequence with precision: Aquinas argues that God wills His own goodness necessarily but wills things other than Himself non-necessarily, since created goods add nothing to a goodness already infinite.9 The confessional and conciliar statements of the same point are gathered in §4.1.

3.4 Anthropopathic language and its canonical controls

A defender of L1 might appeal, finally, to the Bible’s anthropopathisms: God grieves (Genesis 6:6), burns with jealousy (Exodus 34:14), and recoils in compassion (Hosea 11:8). Two observations dispose of this appeal. First, even a maximal reading of biblical anthropopathism yields grief, jealousy, wrath, and compassion, each of them a covenantal response to an already-existing creation; the canon nowhere attributes loneliness to God, whether before creation or after it. The argument from anthropopathism therefore cannot even cite an anthropopathism in its favour: it must first invent the datum it proposes to interpret. Second, as §2.2 showed from 1 Samuel 15, the canon itself instructs readers to construe such language non-univocally. The exegetical basis for L1 is accordingly not thin but absent.

The covenantal responses catalogued above do, however, raise a further question, which lies beyond the ante-creational brief of this essay: whether, given creation, the turning away of creatures can render God lonely. That question faces a different evidential and dogmatic situation, and it receives a separate treatment, and a negative answer, in the companion essay “Grieved but Not Bereft: Creaturely Apostasy and the Impossibility of Post-Creational Divine Loneliness”, whose theses (L3 and L4) continue the numbering established in §1 above.

4. Aseity, Perfection, and the End of Creation

4.1 The doctrine of divine aseity

The doctrine that gathers the scriptural pattern of §3 into a single formula is divine aseity: God exists a se, from Himself, and depends on nothing outside Himself for His being, His attributes, or His beatitude. Herman Bavinck treats aseity, under the name of independence, as the fountainhead attribute from which the others flow.10 The doctrine’s traditional anchor is Exodus 3:14, “I AM WHO I AM”, rendered by the Septuagint as egō eimi ho ōn and received by the Fathers and medievals as a self-grounding formula; Gilson famously spoke of the “metaphysics of Exodus”.11 Exegetical candour requires the acknowledgement that the Hebrew ʾehyeh ʾăšer ʾehyeh is an idem per idem construction whose force may be promissory (“I will be who I will be”) rather than ontological, and that the metaphysical reading cannot be extracted from the etymology alone.12 The acknowledgement costs the doctrine nothing, because aseity does not rest on one verse: it rests on the canonical pattern assembled above (Acts 17:25; Psalm 50; Romans 11:35–36; John 5:26), a point John Webster has pressed in arguing that aseity is first a description of the perfection of God’s triune life and only derivatively a piece of natural theology.13

The doctrine’s classical development can be briefly charted. Augustine locates restlessness in the creature, never in God: the celebrated opening of the Confessions describes the human heart as restless until it rests in God, a restlessness expressly indexed to creatureliness.14 Aquinas systematises the metaphysics: God is simple, without composition of act and potency (Summa Theologiae I, q. 3); God is perfect, possessing the perfections of all things supereminently (q. 4); God is immutable, since there is in Him no potency awaiting actualisation (q. 9); and, decisively for the present question, God is beatitude itself, His perfect happiness consisting in His own self-knowledge and self-love and in no way constituted by creatures (q. 26).15 Anselm’s perfect-being reasoning supplies the complementary modal point: God is “whatever it is better to be than not to be”, and self-sufficiency is, on any defensible ranking of great-making properties, better than dependency.16

The Reformation churches confessionalised the doctrine. The Westminster Confession states that God is “alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made”, nor deriving glory from them, “but only manifesting” His own glory in and upon them.17 Nor is this a peculiarity of the Reformed churches: the First Vatican Council defined that God created “by a counsel most free”, not to increase His beatitude nor to acquire it, but to manifest His perfection through the goods bestowed on creatures.18 The confessional consensus across the Reformation divide is therefore explicit on exactly the point L2 denies: the end of creation is manifestation, not acquisition. Jonathan Edwards’s dissertation on the end of creation gives the classic Protestant elaboration: God’s aim in creating is the communication ad extra of an internal fullness, and Edwards expressly answers the objection that God’s seeking His own glory would imply deficiency, arguing that emanation from fullness is the contrary of acquisition from want.19

4.2 Why loneliness is precluded

With the definitions of §2.1 in hand, the central metaphysical argument can be stated formally.

  1. Loneliness entails an unfulfilled desire for a relational good that the subject does not possess (§2.1).
  2. An unfulfilled desire for an unpossessed good is an unrealised potency in the subject, and a privation of the subject’s beatitude.
  3. God is pure act, in whom there is no unrealised potency (Summa Theologiae I, q. 3, aa. 1–2; q. 4), and God is essentially and perfectly beatified in Himself (q. 26).
  4. Therefore, God cannot be lonely.

Premiss 1 is definitional; premiss 2 is an analytic restatement of premiss 1 in ontological vocabulary; premiss 3 is the classical doctrine of God. Loneliness is not merely something God happens to lack; it is a state whose very structure, potency awaiting actualisation joined to privation of happiness, contradicts what God is on the classical account. The immutability corollary should also be noted: the narrative form of L1 joined to L2 (God lacked, then created, and the lack was thereby relieved) predicates of God a real transition from privation to satisfaction, that is, a real change and a passive potency actualised by creatures, which q. 9 excludes. The doctrine of divine simplicity adds that a God whose life is ordered by a lack and its subsequent remedy would have accidents and a compositional history, which q. 3 excludes.

4.3 A minimal argument, independent of the full classical package

Intellectual honesty requires the acknowledgement that the classical package invoked in premiss 3 is contested. Alvin Plantinga’s critique of divine simplicity opened a debate that continues, with able defences mounted by Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann and, more recently, by James Dolezal.20 The argument against L1, however, does not require the full classical package, and it is worth stating the minimal premisses on which it succeeds.

First, the perfect-being route: if self-sufficiency is a great-making property and neediness its privation, then a maximally perfect being is not lonely; this requires Anselmian method but no commitment to simplicity or pure actuality. Second, the beatitude route: virtually every Christian tradition, including the open theists surveyed in §8, affirms that God’s life apart from creation is one of fullness and blessedness; loneliness, being an aversive privation, is inconsistent with blessedness; hence L1 fails on premisses that even the revisionists grant. Third, the trinitarian route developed in the next section, which requires only Nicene orthodoxy. A reader unpersuaded by actus purus therefore still possesses two independent and sufficient grounds for rejecting the “lonely God” thesis. This over-determination is itself a datum: the thesis does not fail on a technicality of Thomist metaphysics but on every construal of divine perfection in serious circulation.

5. The Triune Ground of Relational Fullness

A more sophisticated defender of L1 might concede everything in §4 and press a further question: is relationality not essential to a God who is love (1 John 4:8)? Love, the argument runs, requires an object; a solitary God would therefore either not be love or be lonely for want of a beloved. The question is legitimate, and the trinitarian tradition answers it affirmatively, but in a manner that removes any need for creation rather than supplying one.

The Nicene tradition holds that the relations constitutive of God’s life are eternal. Athanasius argues at length that the Father was never without His Word and Wisdom, so that there is no divine “before” in which the Father subsisted unaccompanied; Gregory of Nazianzus insists that the generation of the Son is above every “when”.21 The mutual indwelling of the persons was eventually given the technical name perichōrēsis; terminological precision requires the note that the word’s trinitarian use is a later development, receiving its settled technical form in John of Damascus, so that its retrojection onto the fourth-century Fathers is verbally anachronistic even though materially continuous with their teaching.22 Augustine’s psychological analogy renders the same reality in the vocabulary of love: in the Trinity there are “the lover, the beloved, and the love” itself, an analogy expressly framed for relations wholly internal to the Godhead.23

Richard of St Victor pursues the logic of love to its most striking conclusion. In Book III of his De Trinitate he argues that supreme charity cannot be self-enclosed, since charity is love directed toward another; and further, that love between two alone remains short of consummate charity until each wills the beloved to be loved by a third, the condilectus or co-beloved, in whom the shared love of the two is perfected.24 The decisive point for the present argument is where Richard’s reasoning terminates. The “other” whom perfect love requires is the eternal Son; the “third” whom consummate love requires is the eternal Spirit. Richard thereby converts the very intuition on which the “lonely God” thesis trades, that love requires an object, into an argument for the Trinity, not into an argument for the necessity of creation. The tradition’s own resources, in other words, show that whatever “requirement” love involves is eternally and intrinsically satisfied within the Godhead, and neither awaited nor could in principle be met by the world.

The twentieth century restated this inheritance in the idiom of relational ontology, most influentially in John Zizioulas’s claim that personhood as such is constituted by communion.25 Zizioulas’s historical claims about the Cappadocians have been contested: Lucian Turcescu has argued that Zizioulas misreads Gregory of Nyssa through a modern personalist lens, and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz’s study of Cappadocian accounts of divine simplicity complicates any tidy opposition between “substance” and “relation” in their thought.26 The qualification should be registered, but it does not affect the present argument, for even on the most fully relational ontology the constitutive relations are the eternal relations of Father, Son, and Spirit, entirely ad intra and entirely prior to creation. Indeed the trinitarian shape of Christian doctrine is precisely what dissolves the loneliness objection: a strictly unitarian monotheism would confront the “love requires an object” argument with far fewer resources, whereas for Nicene faith relationality is essential to God and eternally complete in Him. Far from being a liability for divine self-sufficiency, the doctrine of the Trinity is its most powerful support.

6. Colossians 1:15–20 and the Semantics of eis auton

Colossians 1:16 states that all things were created “through him and for him” (di’ autou kai eis auton ektistai), and the final phrase is sometimes pressed into the service of L1, as though Christ derived from creation a relational benefit He otherwise lacked. The verse belongs to the unit Colossians 1:15–20, widely analysed since Norden and Käsemann as a pre-formed hymn taken up by the author, though the pre-Pauline hypothesis has been vigorously contested, notably by N. T. Wright, who argues for careful Pauline composition, and the designation “hymn” itself has been questioned in more recent scholarship.27 Nothing in the present argument turns on the genre debate; what matters, and what is not in dispute, is the unit’s internal coherence, together with its acknowledged debt to the Jewish Wisdom tradition (Proverbs 8:22–31; Wisdom of Solomon 7), whose categories it redirects to Christ.

The grammatical question concerns the preposition. Eis with the accusative of a person in constructions of this kind marks direction toward a goal, and hence purpose or telos, rather than benefit in the sense of a supplied need.28 Paul’s own parallel usage confirms the telic sense: Romans 11:36 concludes its doxology with “to him (eis auton) are all things”, and 1 Corinthians 8:6 confesses “one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist (hēmeis eis auton)”, where the phrase describes believers as existing for the Father as their end. (The subject of eis auton in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is “we”, a detail worth stating precisely, since the verse is often cited loosely.) The commentary tradition across a wide range of theological positions, from Lightfoot through Bruce, O’Brien, and Dunn to Moo, converges on the teleological reading: creation exists for Christ’s glory and finds its end in Him.29 The English preposition “for” is systematically ambiguous between teleology and need, as a comparison of “the kingdom exists for the king” with “food exists for the hungry man” makes plain; the Greek construction, its Pauline parallels, and the commentary consensus all locate Colossians 1:16 on the first side of that distinction.

The immediate context does not merely permit this reading but enforces it. Verse 17 asserts that Christ is “before all things” (pro pantōn) and that “in him all things hold together” (synestēken): ontological priority and continuous sustenance, with the dependence running from creation to Christ and not conversely. Verse 19 asserts that “all the fullness” (pan to plērōma) was pleased to dwell in Him, an emphatic predication of plenitude reiterated at 2:9 (“the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”). An exegesis that finds in verse 16 a deficiency in Christ must read against verses 17 and 19 within the same short unit, an intolerable exegetical cost. And even were the telic reading somehow set aside, an inferential gap would remain: “all things exist for Christ’s glory and purposes” is a claim of cosmic lordship and teleology, not of relational companionship, and nothing in the grammar of eis auton bridges the distance from “creation serves Christ’s ends” to “Christ was lonely and required companionship”. A wholly independent premise would be needed, and none has been supplied.

7. The Imago Dei, Genesis 2:18, and the Direction of Predication

A further family of arguments for L1 runs from theological anthropology: human beings are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27); it was “not good” for the man to be alone (Genesis 2:18); therefore aloneness must likewise be “not good” for God, whose image man bears; and the nuptial imagery of Scripture shows a God who desires a bride. Each step deserves scrutiny.

The image relation is asymmetrical: the ectype reflects the archetype, and the tradition’s doctrine of the communicable attributes specifies which perfections are reflected and under what analogical qualifications. The inference from a feature of the copy to a corresponding feature in the original is invalid in general (a portrait’s being two-dimensional entails nothing about its subject) and is doubly invalid where the feature in question, need, belongs to the creaturely mode of existence as such. Genesis 2:18, read in context, ties the man’s solitude to specifically creaturely conditions: the narrative pronounces “not good” a situation in which the mandate of 1:28, with its requirements of procreation, task-sharing, and embodied complementarity, cannot yet be fulfilled; the verdict concerns an unfinished stage of the creation week, not a window into divine psychology.30 None of the conditions that make Adam’s solitude “not good” (embodiment, sexual differentiation, finitude, mortality, a mandate requiring a co-worker) describes God.

The strongest form of the anthropological argument invokes Karl Barth, and it should be engaged in that form. Barth grounds the imago Dei not in a solitary rational faculty but in relation: to be human is to be in the encounter of I and Thou, paradigmatically as male and female, and this co-humanity is an analogia relationis, a created correspondence to relationship within God Himself.31 Might Barth’s account not make relationality, and thereby something like a need for another, constitutive of the image and of its divine archetype? Barth’s own answer is instructive, for he grounds the correspondence at both ends in freedom rather than in lack. Within God, the relation imaged is the eternal fellowship of the triune life; toward the world, it is God’s free covenantal self-determination not to be God without His people, an election of grace. Barth is emphatic in his doctrine of God that God’s loving is free: God would be no less the One who loves were there no world to love, since His love is eternally actual in the fellowship of Father, Son, and Spirit.32 The most relationally maximal anthropology in the mainstream tradition therefore grounds human relationality in a positive divine analogue, freely willed covenant faithfulness, and not in a negative one, deficiency requiring completion. It may be added that Barth’s exegetical identification of the image with the male–female relation in Genesis 1:27 has itself been sharply criticised, most notably by James Barr; if that criticism stands, the anthropological argument for L1 loses its strongest exegetical footing, though the reply given here does not depend on it.33

The nuptial imagery, finally, points in exactly the opposite direction to the one the argument requires. In Hosea 1–3 and Ezekiel 16 the divine husband is uniformly the supplier of a destitute and faithless partner, never the needy party; the marriage is constituted by His initiative, purchase, and covenant. Ephesians 5:31–32 fixes the direction of the metaphor explicitly: the “mystery” is that human marriage refers to Christ and the church, so that the creaturely institution is the sign and the divine covenant the archetype, not the reverse. Covenantal desire in the economy of grace expresses electing love, which Deuteronomy 7:7–8 expressly refuses to ground in any quality or supply on the human side; to read it as evidence of antecedent divine lack is to invert the logic of every text in which the imagery occurs.

8. The Boundary Test: Process, Passibilist, and Open Theologies

It remains to ask whether any recognised theological tradition affirms something like L1 or L2, since if even the movements that have gone furthest in revising classical theism decline the thesis, its isolation is thereby measured with some precision.

Process theology departs from classical aseity deliberately. Whitehead ascribes to God a “consequent nature” genuinely enriched by the world’s unfolding experience, and closes Process and Reality with the image of God as “the fellow-sufferer who understands”; Hartshorne’s dipolar theism systematises the position.34 Yet, and the point is sharper than a mere failure to affirm, the lonely-God aetiology is strictly unstatable in process terms: for Whitehead, God and the world are everlastingly correlative, so that there is no pre-creational solitude to be remedied, and no punctual act of creation ex nihilo that could serve as the remedy. The one modern theology that makes God genuinely dependent on the world cannot even formulate L2.

Jürgen Moltmann represents the nearest approach within trinitarian theology. He mounts a sustained critique of impassibility as an unwarranted Hellenistic import, argues in The Trinity and the Kingdom that the dichotomy of necessity and freedom is inadequate to a God whose love cannot but communicate itself, and, drawing on the kabbalistic figure of zimzum, describes creation as involving a divine self-limitation that makes room for a genuine other.35 Critics such as John Cooper have pressed the charge that Moltmann thereby renders the world quasi-necessary to God.36 The criticism has force, and a rigorous treatment should concede that Moltmann strains the classical position at exactly this joint. But even Moltmann grounds creation in the overflow of intra-trinitarian love, not in privation; his God suffers with and for the world He loves, and nowhere from a pre-creational loneliness that the world was summoned to cure. The open theists complete the survey: Pinnock, Sanders, and Boyd qualify exhaustive definite foreknowledge and impassibility in order to secure genuine divine responsiveness within history, but they do so while affirming the fullness of the triune life and the gratuity of creation.37 Their revisions concern providence and theodicy, not the motive of creation.

The upshot is that the “lonely God” thesis is not a minority position within Christian theology; it lies beyond the boundary that even the tradition’s most determined internal revisionists refuse to cross. The diagnostic category that best captures the thesis is the one Brian Davies has called theistic personalism, and David Bentley Hart has attacked under the same description: the tendency to conceive of God as a very large person among persons, subject to the psychological states and privations of creatures, rather than as the transcendent plenitude of being confessed by classical theism.38 James Dolezal’s parallel category of “theistic mutualism” names the same tendency from within evangelical theology.39 The lonely-God thesis is a limiting case of this tendency: it predicates of God a specifically creaturely privation, without the analogical control described in §2.2 and without the trinitarian resources described in §5, and it does so on the basis of texts (§§3, 6, 7) that assert the contrary.

9. Conclusion

The claim that God experiences loneliness, and that creation answers to it, fails on convergent and mutually independent grounds. Exegetically, no biblical text attributes loneliness to God, while Scripture asserts divine self-sufficiency directly (Acts 17:25; Psalm 50:10–12; Romans 11:35), locates love and glory within the Godhead before the foundation of the world (John 17:5, 24), characterises creation as free (Revelation 4:11), and supplies canonical controls on the univocal reading of anthropopathic language (1 Samuel 15). Metaphysically, loneliness is by definition an unrealised potency joined to a privation of beatitude, and is therefore excluded by the doctrines of pure actuality, immutability, and divine blessedness; and, as §4.3 showed, its exclusion survives even on the weaker premisses of perfect-being method or bare divine beatitude, so that the argument does not hang on contested Thomist theses. Trinitarianly, the intuition that love requires an object is satisfied eternally within the Godhead, and Richard of St Victor’s doctrine of the condilectus converts that very intuition into an argument for the Trinity rather than for the necessity of the world. Exegetically once more, Colossians 1:16 within its own unit yields a telic, not a compensatory, reading of eis auton, bracketed as it is by the assertions of priority (v. 17) and plenitude (v. 19). Anthropologically, even Barth’s maximally relational account of the image grounds human relationality in God’s free covenantal grace and expressly refuses the predication of need. And at the boundary, process, passibilist, and open theologies, which have revised classical aseity and impassibility as far as any recognised tradition has been willing to go, decline the thesis, which process thought cannot even formulate.

The “lonely God” thesis is therefore best classified not as a live option within any recognised stream of catholic Christian doctrine, but as a devotional extrapolation exhibiting the structure of theistic personalism: the projection of a creaturely privation onto the divine nature without analogical control. The denial of the thesis, it should finally be said, is not a cold conclusion but a gain for the doctrine of grace. A God who created because He was lonely would love the world as a remedy loves a disease, instrumentally and for His own relief. The God confessed by the tradition, who is eternally replete in the fellowship of Father, Son, and Spirit, creates and redeems out of fullness, so that creation is gift rather than acquisition and redemption is grace rather than transaction. It is precisely because God does not need the world that His love for it is gratuitous; and gratuity, not compensation, is the logic of the gospel.

Bibliography

Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogion.

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Prima Pars, qq. 3, 4, 9, 13, 19, 26.

Athanasius. Orationes contra Arianos.

Augustine. Confessions.

Augustine. De Trinitate.

Barr, James. “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis: A Study of Terminology.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 51 (1968–69).

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956–75. Volumes II/1, II/2, III/1, III/2.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 2, God and Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

Boyd, Gregory A. God of the Possible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Leicester: Apollos; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1974.

Cooper, John W. Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Davies, Brian. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Dolezal, James E. All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017.

Dolezal, James E. God Without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness. Eugene: Pickwick, 2011.

Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Edwards, Jonathan. “Concerning the End for Which God Created the World.” In Ethical Writings, edited by Paul Ramsey. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 8. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

First Vatican Council. Dei Filius (1870).

Gavrilyuk, Paul L. The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Gilson, Étienne. The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy. Translated by A. H. C. Downes. London: Sheed & Ward, 1936.

Gregory of Nazianzus. Orations 29–31 (Theological Orations).

Hart, David Bentley. The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.

Hartshorne, Charles. The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948.

John of Damascus. Expositio fidei (De fide orthodoxa).

Käsemann, Ernst. “A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy.” In Essays on New Testament Themes, translated by W. J. Montague. London: SCM, 1964.

Lightfoot, J. B. Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. London: Macmillan, 1875.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God. Translated by R. A. Wilson and John Bowden. London: SCM, 1974.

Moltmann, Jürgen. God in Creation. Translated by Margaret Kohl. London: SCM, 1985.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom. Translated by Margaret Kohl. London: SCM, 1981.

Moo, Douglas J. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 3, The Divine Essence and Attributes. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.

Norden, Eduard. Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede. Leipzig: Teubner, 1913.

O’Brien, Peter T. Colossians, Philemon. Word Biblical Commentary 44. Waco: Word, 1982.

Peplau, Letitia Anne, and Daniel Perlman, eds. Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1982.

Pinnock, Clark, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. The Openness of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

Plantinga, Alvin. Does God Have a Nature? Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1980.

Radde-Gallwitz, Andrew. Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Richard of St Victor. De Trinitate. Book III.

Sanders, John. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Stump, Eleonore, and Norman Kretzmann. “Absolute Simplicity.” Faith and Philosophy 2 (1985).

Turcescu, Lucian. “‘Person’ versus ‘Individual’, and Other Modern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa.” Modern Theology 18, no. 4 (2002).

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Webster, John. “Life in and of Himself: Reflections on God’s Aseity.” In Engaging the Doctrine of God: Contemporary Protestant Perspectives, edited by Bruce L. McCormack. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Reprinted in God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology, vol. 1. London: T&T Clark, 2016.

Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary 1. Waco: Word, 1987.

Westminster Confession of Faith (1647).

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. Corrected edition. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: Free Press, 1978.

Witherington, Ben, III. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Wright, N. T. “Poetry and Theology in Colossians 1.15–20.” New Testament Studies 36 (1990).

Zizioulas, John D. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.

View Source on GitHub

  1. Biblical quotations follow the English Standard Version unless otherwise indicated. Transliterations of Greek and Hebrew follow general-purpose academic conventions. ↩

  2. Letitia Anne Peplau and Daniel Perlman, “Perspectives on Loneliness”, in Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy, ed. Letitia Anne Peplau and Daniel Perlman (New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1982). The discrepancy model has remained the standard point of departure in the subsequent literature. ↩

  3. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 13, aa. 5–6. ↩

  4. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3, The Divine Essence and Attributes (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003). ↩

  5. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion I.13.1; on repentance ascribed to God, I.17.12–14. ↩

  6. See Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), on the speech’s points of contact with, and subversion of, its philosophical setting. ↩

  7. Paul L. Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). ↩

  8. On the exegetical options for John 5:26, see D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester: Apollos; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), ad loc. The classical reading, revived in recent systematic theology, takes the verse as the Johannine ground of eternal generation. ↩

  9. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 19, a. 3. ↩

  10. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), on the incommunicable attributes. ↩

  11. Étienne Gilson, The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, trans. A. H. C. Downes (London: Sheed & Ward, 1936). ↩

  12. See Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1974), on Exodus 3:13–15. ↩

  13. John Webster, “Life in and of Himself: Reflections on God’s Aseity”, in Engaging the Doctrine of God: Contemporary Protestant Perspectives, ed. Bruce L. McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008); reprinted in Webster, God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology, vol. 1 (London: T&T Clark, 2016). ↩

  14. Augustine, Confessions I.1.1. ↩

  15. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, qq. 3, 4, 9, 26. ↩

  16. Anselm, Proslogion 5; cf. 2–3. ↩

  17. Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), 2.2. ↩

  18. First Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Dei Filius (1870), ch. 1. ↩

  19. Jonathan Edwards, “Concerning the End for Which God Created the World”, in Ethical Writings, ed. Paul Ramsey, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 8 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). ↩

  20. Alvin Plantinga, Does God Have a Nature? (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1980); Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann, “Absolute Simplicity”, Faith and Philosophy 2 (1985); James E. Dolezal, God Without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness (Eugene: Pickwick, 2011). ↩

  21. Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos I; Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 29 (Third Theological Oration). ↩

  22. John of Damascus, Expositio fidei (De fide orthodoxa) I.8. The term’s earlier career is Christological. ↩

  23. Augustine, De Trinitate VIII.10.14; developed in Book IX. ↩

  24. Richard of St Victor, De Trinitate III, especially cc. 2, 11, 14–15, and 19. ↩

  25. John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985). ↩

  26. Lucian Turcescu, “‘Person’ versus ‘Individual’, and Other Modern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa”, Modern Theology 18, no. 4 (2002); Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). ↩

  27. Ernst Käsemann, “A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy”, in Essays on New Testament Themes, trans. W. J. Montague (London: SCM, 1964); N. T. Wright, “Poetry and Theology in Colossians 1.15–20”, New Testament Studies 36 (1990). For the state of the question see the surveys in the commentaries cited below. ↩

  28. See BDAG, s.v. eis, on the goal-marking senses; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), on the semantics of eis. ↩

  29. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London: Macmillan, 1875); F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984); Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary 44 (Waco: Word, 1982); James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). ↩

  30. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary 1 (Waco: Word, 1987), on 2:18. ↩

  31. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics III/1, §41 (on Genesis 1:26–27), and III/2, §45; trans. G. W. Bromiley et al., ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956–75). ↩

  32. Barth, Church Dogmatics II/1, §28 (“The Being of God as the One Who Loves in Freedom”); cf. the doctrine of election in II/2. ↩

  33. James Barr, “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis: A Study of Terminology”, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 51 (1968–69); cf. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, on 1:26–27. ↩

  34. Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, corrected edition, ed. David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne (New York: Free Press, 1978), Part V; Charles Hartshorne, The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948). ↩

  35. Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden (London: SCM, 1974); The Trinity and the Kingdom, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM, 1981); God in Creation, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM, 1985). ↩

  36. John W. Cooper, Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006). ↩

  37. Clark Pinnock et al., The Openness of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994); John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998); Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000). ↩

  38. Brian Davies, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), ch. 1; David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013). ↩

  39. James E. Dolezal, All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017). ↩