God’s attribute: God is Simple Part 2

This is a series on the attributes of God.

 

Selected Scriptures

Review: Last week we defined what is Divine Simplicity, discussed how it is controversial today, presented summaries of some arguments in support of Divine Simplicity and also draw out implications for why Divine Simplicity is important.

Purpose: In this lesson we will look at three objections people have raised against Divine Simplicity.

Remember this simple definition: “There is nothing in God that is not God.”[1]

Some Objections Considered

Objection #1: Isn’t this too philosophical rather biblical?

1. Argument stated: “There is no verse that explicitly teaches that God is simple.”[2] And “For anyone committed to biblically based notion of God, the lack of biblical evidence for divine simplicity should be disconcerting at the last, and a good argument against it at most.”[3]
2. Response:
   1. Feinberg’s systematic theology has not dealt with the biblical verses given in the last sessions.
   2. Often people who oppose to Divine Simplicity simply dismiss it for being “philosophical.” But I think we must consider the philosophical arguments and also what biblical and theological support that has been attempted.
   3. Also there are times we use philosophical terms employed in theology such as the terms we use to define aspects of the Trinity such as Persons, Being, Substance, Essence, etc.

Objection #2: Doesn’t Divine Simplicity makes God impersonal?

1. Argument stated: According to Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, “If God is a property, then he isn’t a person but a mere abstract object; he has no knowledge, awareness, power, love or life. So taken, the simplicity doctrine seems to be an utter mistake.”[4] He’s also stated before this that “No property could have created the world; no property could be omniscient, or, indeed, know anything at all.”[5]
2. Response:
   1. It does not necessarily follow that just because God is His attributes/property and not just merely possessing attributes that it must mean that God is impersonal.
   2. This objection is rather ironic because the implication of Divine Simplicity is the opposite of what the objection states: Divine Simplicity makes all of God’s attribute personal.
      1. John Frame writes, “It seems to me, therefore, that there is a legitimate biblical motive in the doctrine of simplicity. We may be surprised to find that it is not an abstract, obscure, philosophical motive, but a very practical one…It is a biblical way of reminding us that God’s relationship with us is fully personal.”[6]
      2. For instance, when we are meditating on God’s goodness, we as Christians are “not devoted to some abstract philosophical goodness, but to the living Lord of heaven and earth.”[7]
   3. This objection also have things somewhat backwards; God is a Personal Being, having attributes that are clearly personal and if He is simple then He is those attributes.
   4. An a Biblical example of God being His attributes 1 John 4:8 states “The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love.”= Here God is Love, the verse doesn’t say “God has love” but He is Love!

Objection #3: Doesn’t the Trinity go against the idea of Divine Simplicity?

1. Argument stated: “If there are no distinctions within God, how do we explain the Trinity consisting of the Father, the Son and the Spirit?”
2. Response:
   1. First a definition of the Trinity. It summarizes three biblical truths about God[8]:
      1. There is one God.
      2. God consists of three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
      3. These three Persons are co-eternal and co-equal.
   2. Divine Simplicity never said there can’t be “distinctions,” being made within Him.
   3. Divine Simplicity states that God is without “parts” with parts being technically defined as components that is something less than, or being something “other” than God.
   4. Technically, the Trinity is about One God revealed in Three Persons and not three parts; so the Trinity is not an objection against Divine Simplicity.
   5. Actually the formulation of the Trinity presupposes Divine Simplicity.
      1. The Father, Son and Spirit are distinct from one another but they are not “parts” of God: That is, we don’t talk about the Father as 1/3 God, the Son is another 1/3, etc. Remember each Person of the Trinity is fully God, such as this statement about Jesus in Colossians 2:9= “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,”
      2. Thus Trinity denies Tritheism, the belief that there are three gods, since each person of the Trinity is fully God.
      3. The Trinity is actually compatible with the doctrine of Divine Simplicity; but the Trinity also presupposes Divine Simplicity to be true.
   6. When comes to the Father, Son and Spirit the question is: What kind of unity is the Trinity?
      1. Things that are united as one can be one by virtue of either simplicity or composition.[9]
      2. The Trinity we believe is unity of singularity and simplicity.[10]
   7. If we deny the Biblical doctrine of Divine Simplicity then we fall into heresy when trying to describe the Trinity without Divine Simplicity
      1. By overemphasizing the Oneness of God one can thereby downplay the Three Person in God as being co-eternal and co-equal, committing the heresy of Modalism. [11]
         1. This denies the passages that clearly identifies Father, Son and Spirit is God and these three are distinct from one another.
         2. With Divine Simplicity we can have the Three Person be One by means of being united as One through a Simple nature.
      2. By overemphasizing the Threeness within God one can thereby deny there is One God, committing the heresy of Tritheism. [12]
         1. This denies the passages that clearly identifies there is one God.
         2. With Divine Simplicity we can have one God since all three members of the Trinity don’t have different natures between them but instead they all have one Simple nature together.
      3. By overemphasizing the Oneness of God one can thereby downplay the Three Person in God is God or fully God, committing the heresy of Unitarianism or subordinationism. [13]
         1. This denies the passages that clearly identifies Father, Son and Spirit are Divine.
         2. With Divine Simplicity we don’t have to downplay the full divinity of the three members of the Trinity since if the Father is God He is fully God, if the Son is God He is fully God, etc.

 

Why is Divine Simplicity important?

1. It is the foundation for a fundamental doctrine of Christianity: The Trinity.
2. Recall last session’s implications that was discussed. We have more assurance of these impact given our defense against objections against Divine Simplicity.  Last week’s implications were:
   1. It shows that God is truly sufficient and does not need us. Instead as creatures we need Him.
   2. It shows that God is always personal; that every attribute is personal.
3. Even as we consider some objections against Divine Simplicity, we’re reminded that does not mean we understand everything there is about God, that there is a level of mystery and wonder. How much more so should this lead us to worship Him as God, rather than a god of our own imagination and fits our preconceived notions.

 

[1] James Dolezal, God Without Parts (Eugene, OR: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2011), 2.

[2] John Feinberg, No One Like Him (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2001), 327.

[3] Ibid, 329.

[4] Alvin Plantinga, Does God Have a Nature? (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1980), 47.  Note that throughout James Dolezal’s book he documents others who raises the same objection along Plantinga’s lines.

[5] Ibid.

[6] John Frame, Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002), 108.

[7] Ibid.

[8] James Dolezal, All that Is in God (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 108.

[9] James Dolezal, All that Is in God (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 106.

[10] James Dolezal, All that Is in God (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 106.

[11] James Dolezal, All that Is in God (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 108.

[12] James Dolezal, All that Is in God (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 108.

[13] James Dolezal, All that Is in God (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 108.