Aristotle's entire system is marked by the limitations of antiquity. First of all, it does not contain the creation and createdness of the world and therefore the doctrine of God the Creator (together with the corresponding problematic). Second, Aristotle's system is essentially impersonalistic, since the absence of the idea of the person generally characterizes Hellenism in its entirety: The Prime Mover, God, is not a Person. The Prime Mover is a kind of it, to erōmenon, to agathon. It is true that life, to zōon, is attributed to it, but this definition does not lead thought to personalism.

… The world continues into God, so to speak, and God descends to the world, is immanent in it, as its (impersonal) foundation. Aristotle's doctrine of the eternity of the world in space and time corresponds to this duality. This eternity can simultaneously and with equal justice be understood both as bad infinity, or indeterminate and in this sense unlimited spatiality and temporality, and as the supratemporality and supraspatiality of the Absolute.

In general, as a doctrine of God, Aristotle's system cannot be translated into the language of Christian theology and expressed in the terms of this theology. (This was attempted in the system of Thomism, though not to the great benefit of Christian theology.)

Enormously important for us is the fact that the angelic world is given as full and finished in the instantaneous creation of this world. The creation of this world does not go beyond this, and we just conclude that the number of angels is finite, determinate, limited. But this finiteness is not connected with any external boundary or limit, beyond which God's omnipotence, wisdom, and love grow weak and are nullified. Clearly, there can be no such weakening. Rather, this boundary expresses the fact that this world is internally finished or full, which in no wise requires bad infinity or unlimitedness. Otherwise, the angelic world would run the risk of lacking fullness or of being unfinished. And if our faith teaches us the contrary this means that not only a negative ("bad") finitude but also an actual, positive finitude is possible, at least in the angelic world.

Such a positive, finite infinitude is, in general, revealed to us through the creation of the world, in which the divine all is implanted. But this all is realized in a definite, limited period of time («the six days of creation»), and is implanted in definite, limited forms, or modes, of being. Otherwise, the world could not have been fully created, fully finished. And the divine sabbath could not have come, just as it would not have been said: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made” (Gen. 2:1-2). The divine fullness is therefore combined not with an infinity that is powerless to exhaust itself and in this sense is genuinely bad, but with a determinate completeness, which is nevertheless characterized by an inexhaustible depth of eternity, by an eternal life realized in creaturely temporality. By virtue of this combination, every atom of being, however small it might be, potentially contains its entire actual infinity, which is manifested not only in the static profile of its being but also in its dynamic, energetic realization.

… fullness belongs to the nature of the hypostatic spirit, and this fullness is experienced as infinite, inexhaustible depth, creaturely eternity, aeviternitas. In its hypostatic multi-unity, this fullness presupposes the diversity and therefore the multiplicity of individual modes, but by no means is this multiplicity a bad infinity, incapable of ending, of exhausting itself. Such a bad infinity would be precisely lack of fullness. Bad infinity is by no means synonymous with self-enclosed, self-sufficient eternity, with which it is sometimes equated (e.g., in eschatological discussions of "eternal" bliss and "eternal" torments, although it is obvious that two different modes of "eternity" are distinguished and opposed here; see below). Bad infinity would indicate only that creaturely being cannot encompass fullness.

But, to be sure, this continuing Pentecost of our aeon is not a bad infinity, which has neither completion nor fullness. On the contrary, it strives to accomplish itself to the end, to the point where "God will be all in all." And in this sense the Pentecost leads to the eschatological culmination and to a new aeon; it merges with the parousia. At the same time, the life of grace in the Holy Spirit leads us beyond the limits of earthly, empirical life, insofar as it unites us with the world on the other side, with the kingdom of saints and angels, with the glorified church.

The Trinity is not a simple juxtaposition of three, distinct but united externally (by analogy with three lights that merge into one another). Such a trinity is, first of all, not self-enclosed; rather, it is open for continuation: the juxtaposition presupposes a series continuing into (bad) infinity, although it can be broken off at any number of terms, in particular at three. It is solely as such a juxtaposition that trinitarity was conceived by early patristic theology, which thus found itself in a state of perplexity and helplessness before the fact of the Third hypostasis as the end of the series. But the Holy Trinity is not three, but a triunity; and It is not a series but an enclosed whole, which has the fullness of Its being, Its power, precisely in trinitarity. It is necessary to understand the necessity of this trinitarity — not more and not less — of the hypostases. And one must take as one's starting point this necessity when considering the Holy Trinity-Unity, as well as the separate hypostases, and in particular when considering the Third hypostasis and His place in the Holy Trinity.