The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity: Very non-exhaustive
Preface
My good friend, Sir Robin of Florida, asked me through Gmail, if I held to the theory of divine simplicity.
Outside of biblical doctrines, I tend to not subscribe to an historical or modern writer's theological/philosophical system. But of course I am influenced by writers as I develop my own theology and philosophy, submitting to the Bible as my final religious authority within the Reformed tradition. I admit that although I have heard of the theory of divine simplicity, very rarely mentioned, I had not studied it.
My MPhil/PhD degrees dealt with the nature of God and I have written on issues in regards to the infinite and the finite on my websites, especially this one.
Blackburn
British philosopher, Simon Blackburn has an entry under simplicity. In cosmology, where ordinary calculations break down because certain physical qualities become infinite.(352). Examples are listed of via the big bang theory and some additional theories within that the 'density of matter and the curvature of space-time is infinite'. (352).
I reject the idea of infinite, matter, time, space, theologically and philosophically (theistic philosophy of religion) as instead, only the first cause, primary cause, and that which is necessary, the eternal God, is infinite. Note, that the infinite cannot become finite and the finite cannot become infinite. The incarnation of God the Son (The Word, see Gospel of John, especially) does not classically and correctly does not mix finite and infinite natures. God is not limited by finity in nature or attributes, but by logic, God cannot for example, cease to be God, as God is necessary. If anything (or anyone) must exist, it is that of necessity.
Science
Philosophically to avoid a vicious regress (regress with no solution), a first cause exists, that is of absolute necessity in any possible world.
This God is infinite (where not logically contradictory), eternal, beyond finite, matter, time, space, and yet able to interact within creation.
Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas
Cited
ESSENCE: We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not. So to study Him, we study what He has not—such as composition and motion. His simplicity (3) or lack of composition. His perfection: and because everything in so far as it is perfect is called good...
Cited
Article 3.
Whether God is the same as His essence or nature?
Cited
I answer that, God is the same as His essence or nature.
I often do not cite Wikipedia, but in this case with few academic references on the subject, and even fewer that work for this article, I will use it as it cites legitimate academic sources. This is consistent with me not reading or hearing about the subject much in my academic career which mainly focused on philosophical theology, philosophy of religion and biblical studies.
Critics
Cited
In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea can be stated in this way: The being of God is identical to the "attributes" of God. Characteristics such as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc., are identical to God's being, not qualities that make up that being, nor abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance; in other words we can say that in God both essence and existence are one and the same.[1] " (1) SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The simplicity of God (Prima Pars, Q. 3)". newadvent.com. Retrieved 2019-10-09.
Cited
(According to Plantinga)
Metaphysical simplicity claims that there is no divine composition, meaning that there is no complexity of properties in God and that he is identical with his nature and each of his properties. There are two difficulties with this view. First, if God is identical with each of his properties, then each of his properties is identical with each of his other properties, so God has only one property. This flies in the face of the idea that God has both power and mercifulness, neither of which is identical with the other. Secondly, if God is identical with his properties, then, since each of God's properties is a property, it follows that God is a property as well. In this case, God has just one property: himself. The problem is that properties do not in and of themselves cause anything. No property could have created the world, and no property could know anything at all. If God is a property, then he isn't a person but a mere abstract object, having no power, life, love, or even awareness.[15] Plantinga, Alvin (2000). Does God have a nature? (Reprinted ed.). Milwaukee: Marquette Univ. Press. p. 47
I can agree that the attributes of God are not all identical within his nature, because it could then be reasonably stated that there is only one (infinite) attribute. Also, Plantinga is right that divine power is not identical to mercifulness. God is not a property, God has properties. A divine property does not create, a divine entity with properties creates.
As example, I state that in salvation, divine love allows punishment and justice to transfer to Jesus Christ. In that God the Son, actually pays for the sin (s) of humanity. In a strict sense, it could be stated that absolute justice for each fallen person would be to face his/her own penalty for sin (s). But there is indeed divine justice in the substitutionary atonement through the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ for believers. By his death on the cross and the resurrection within three days and by grace through faith for believers (Ephesians 2, as example).
Divine love takes priority over divine justice, in a sense. Yes, Christ justly died in our place, I very much agree, but it took God to willingly sacrifice the innocent, holy, Son of God. The triune God treated Jesus Christ, God the Son, unjustly within the perfect reasoning and will of God. Here it could be stated that for saved humanity, divine love is emphasized more than divine justice.
Again, I am not stating in any way however, that substitutionary atonement was not real divine justice.
Let us state here that the theological emphasis on the affective atoning work of Jesus Christ for believers is not cancelled out by a theological/philosophical parsing of the doctrine of divine simplicity.
In post-mortem, damnation (Revelation 20), justice it could be stated, is more divinely emphasized than love, in a strict sense. For the unchosen and unregenerate, God's love does not lead to force or coercion for belief in the triune God and the applied gospel, salvific, work. This is form of divine love. At the same time there is removal of common grace. God is not obligated to allow this fallen, sinful realm to continue to exist. This is just. Damnation is also just/justice based on the deeds of those not in the book of life (Revelation 20). In agreement with some forms of Reformed doctrine, I would state that this is less loving than how persons are treated in the culminated Kingdom of God.
John S. Feinberg
Cited
Quote
"These philosophical problems plus the biblical considerations raised earlier lead me to conclude that simplicity is not one of the divine attributes. This doesn't mean that God has physical parts, but that the implications of the doctrine of metaphysical simplicity are too problematic to maintain the doctrine."[17] John S. Feinberg; John S. Feinberg, general (2006). No one like Him : The doctrine of God ([Rev. ed.]. ed.). Wheaton. Ill.: Crossway Books. p. 335
Reasonable and agreed that God does not have parts and that simplicity is too problematic. This also does not mean that God has spiritual parts.
The properties of God as attributes are not always equally emphasized by God. This is more (a) the doctrine of divine complexity, than simplicity. So, I do not hold to the doctrine of divine simplicity. God's essence/nature as infinite remains unchangeable but this does not equal the use of infinite, divine, attributes which varies. Agreeing with the premises and conclusions from Plantinga and Feinberg (two of my key, MPhil/PhD exemplars), I will state that at the same time, to introduce any finite attributes to God, in my mind, is problematic and illogical. I have reasoned this for years, although never, prior to this article, formally dealing with this particular doctrine.
AQUINAS, THOMAS (1274)(1911) Summa Theologica, I, q. 3.
AQUINAS, THOMAS (1274) Ed. Kevin Knight. “Summa Theologica.” Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 1920. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ (Accessed June 11, 2007).
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.
ELWELL, WALTER A. (1996) ‘Atonement, Extent of the’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PLANTINGA, ALVIC C. (1980) Does God Have a Nature?, Milwaukee., Marquette University Press.
