Zizioulas offers a thoughtful defense of the Cappadocian notion that there is “causality” in the relations within the immanent Trinity.  He notes that “the issue of causality was introduced as a response to the Platonists, who believed that the procession from one to another, particularly in Plotinus’ system of emanations, was a natural evolution outwards from the One, in a process of degeneration or disintegration.”  The Cappadocians insisted that there was no leakage or degeneration of deity from the Father to Son.

Just as importantly, they wanted to deny that the begetting of the Son was a “natural” emanation, a kind of involuntary oozing of the Father’s essence.  ”Cause” thus pointed to the voluntary and personal character of the begetting of the Son.  It highlighted the fact that the begetting was from “a person, the Father” and also highlighted the fact that, while the Son is begotten from the generative substance and not merely from the will of the Father, He is not unwilled.  ”Cause” was a way of filling out Athanasius’ claim that “the Son is wanted and loved by the Father . . . freely desire by the Father,” so that “God’s being is voluntary and willed.”  God is the way He is; God wills to be the way that He is.

“Cause” conjures up the threat of mechanistic, impersonal processes in the Trinity.  Zizioulas shows that the Cappadocian intention was precisely the opposite.