Is the begetting of the Son an act of God’s will or nature. Barth, with the tradition, says that it is not an act of God’s will if will means the freedom to be thus or not to be thus. “God cannot not be God,” and Barth is correct that this is identical to the statement “He cannot not be Father and cannot be without the Son. His freedom or aseity in respect of Himself consists in His freedom, not determined by anything but Himself, to be God, and that means to be the Father of the Son.” Yet, God would still be God if He had not willed to create.
Yet, Barth, following a comment from Aquinas (ST 1, 41, 2), says that there is a sense in which the begetting of the Son is an act of God’s will: This is true “only of will in which Deus vult se esse Deum, as the act of will in which God, in freedom of course, wills Himself and in virtue of this will of His is Himself. In this sense, identically indeed with God’s being Himself, the begetting of the Son is also an ERGON THELESEOS [work of will] for her THELESIS and PHUSIS are one and the same.” For God to will to be God is for God to be God, and since being God means being Father and Son, for God to be God is for the Father to will the begetting of the Son.
This identification of will and nature is essential at this point. Errors lie in either direction: If they are not identical, then (it would seem) either God’s will determines His nature or His nature determines His will. To take the first possibility: God wills to be Father and Son in such a way that this is NOT identical to His being Father and Son, which makes the Father-Son a result of a “secondary” decision of the will, which in turn suggests modalism (of a voluntarist variety). On the other hand, God’s will to be Father and Son might be a will to conform to some prior nature, then God has an “unwilled” nature to which he must conform His will. This second error is not necessarily modalist, but it is intellectualist. Identifying will and nature is essential to avoid dizzying pendulum swings between volunarist and intellectualist poles.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
