This paper will examine the impact of divine aseity in the discussion between classical theists and theistic personalists. For the purposes of this study, “classical theism” refers to those who affirm the doctrines of divine simplicity, eternality, immutability, impassibility, and aseity. “Theistic personalists” refers to those who redefine or reject the previously mentioned doctrinal positions, emphasizing a more relational understanding of God. One’s understanding of divine aseity is an essential component to this discussion. If divine aseity is understood as merely God’s independence from a prior cause, relational theism may seem more plausible. However, if aseity entails God’s eternal fullness of life and pure actuality, as posited by Webster and Bavinck, classical theism appears more compelling. This is because in classical theism, God is eternally characterized by pure actuality, rather than engaging in a dynamic “give and take” relationship with creation.
This paper will begin with an examination and categorization of various perspectives on divine aseity, then there will be an exegetical analysis of pertinent Scriptures. Subsequently, there will be an evaluation of significant viewpoints on aseity and divine blessedness among theologians from both historical and contemporary contexts. Finally, there will be an exploration of how these findings influence the discussions between classical theists and theistic personalists