Divine Simplicity and the eternality of God's Decree

Brother-Mike · Dec 7, 2022

[this post is a new branch from here]

@Jonaitis,

To your point: "If I confused you, I apologize. Ryan Mullins, who is an open opponent of DS, came up with this conclusion in his denial of DS. However, if we must affirm DS as essential, then my suggestion is that we must face up to the music of what it ultimately implies: creation has its beginning in a beginningless decree. It sounds confusing, but it makes sense the more you think about it."

Well, Ephesians 3:11 seems to be the clearest comment regarding the Decree's eternality: "This was according to the eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, ..." And to me this doesn't contradict Genesis: the plan is eternal, the execution of the plan is temporal. If this jives with Divine Simplicity then more the merrier I say

cc @Pipp@

Brother-Mike · Dec 8, 2022

@Jonaitis - don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with DS in terms of the "not parts" bit, but rather with any application of DS that seems to contradict scripture. Or, if you prefer, why should I put any DS-to-scripture conflict in the "God works in mysterious ways" bucket when I can instead more naturally presume that that particular aspect of DS is instead in the wrong, or is being stretched too thin to favour systematic novelty over the Word of God?

[and if my thoughts accidentally overlap with a Cambridge Theologian then I'll happy take the point!]

atpollard · Dec 8, 2022

Boo, hiss!

How can you start out a new topic with an undefined abbreviation at the center of the discussion?
Is DS some sort of "apriori" knowledge that everyone is expected to be born with?

For THE REST OF US:

DS = Divine Simplicity

Divine simplicity is the concept that God does not exist in parts but is wholly unified, with no distinct attributes, and whose existence is synonymous with His essence. The doctrine of divine simplicity is related to the doctrines of divine aseity, transcendence, and unity. Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas all defined and promoted the doctrine.

What is divine simplicity? | GotQuestions.org

atpollard · Dec 8, 2022

"I believe God decreed all things before the world was." - Jonaitis

Not to start an argument, but just to start a friendly conversation on something that makes my head hurt if I try to completely understand it, but ...

What exactly do you mean when you say "God decreed"?

("All things" is something that I can understand ... it is the exact nature of "decreed" that I struggle with.)

Jonaitis · Dec 8, 2022

Brother-Mike said:
Well, Ephesians 3:11 seems to be the clearest comment regarding the Decree's eternality: "This was according to the eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, ..." And to me this doesn't contradict Genesis: the plan is eternal, the execution of the plan is temporal. If this jives with Divine Simplicity then more the merrier I say

Great passage.

Brother-Mike said:
don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with DS in terms of the "not parts" bit, but rather with any application of DS that seems to contradict scripture. Or, if you prefer, why should I put any DS-to-scripture conflict in the "God works in mysterious ways" bucket when I can instead more naturally presume that that particular aspect of DS is instead in the wrong, or is being stretched too thin to favour systematic novelty over the Word of God?

[and if my thoughts accidentally overlap with a Cambridge Theologian then I'll happy take the point!]

I don't see a contradiction either.

atpollard said:
What exactly do you mean when you say "God decreed"?

Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 3, Section 1 & 2:

"From all eternity God decreed everything that occurs, without reference to anything outside himself. He did this by the perfectly wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably. Yet God did this in such a way that he is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin. This decree does not violate the will of the creature or take away the free working or contingency of second causes. On the contrary, these are established by God’s decree. In this decree God’s wisdom is displayed in directing all things, and his power and faithfulness are demonstrated in accomplishing his decree."

Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3–5.

"God knows everything that could happen under any given conditions. However, his decree of anything is not based on foreseeing it in the future or foreseeing that it would occur under such conditions."

Acts 15:18. Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18.

atpollard · Dec 8, 2022

"From all eternity God decreed everything that occurs, without reference to anything outside himself. He did this by the perfectly wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably. Yet God did this in such a way that he is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin. This decree does not violate the will of the creature or take away the free working or contingency of second causes. On the contrary, these are established by God’s decree. In this decree God’s wisdom is displayed in directing all things, and his power and faithfulness are demonstrated in accomplishing his decree."

I do not think that explanation survives challenge by the "Problem of Evil" ... not as a 'Philosophical Argument' but as an empirical reality and the unavoidable logical consequences, thereof. God claims to control everything (God decreed everything that occurs), but not control EVERYTHING (he is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin). :scratch:

Jonaitis · Dec 8, 2022

atpollard said:
"From all eternity God decreed everything that occurs, without reference to anything outside himself. He did this by the perfectly wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably. Yet God did this in such a way that he is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin. This decree does not violate the will of the creature or take away the free working or contingency of second causes. On the contrary, these are established by God’s decree. In this decree God’s wisdom is displayed in directing all things, and his power and faithfulness are demonstrated in accomplishing his decree."

I do not think that explanation survives challenge by the "Problem of Evil" ... not as a 'Philosophical Argument' but as an empirical reality and the unavoidable logical consequences, thereof. God claims to control everything (God decreed everything that occurs), but not control EVERYTHING (he is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin).

Are we discussing theodicy?

Jonaitis · Dec 8, 2022

The general question that sparked this thread is:

If God, from all eternity, decreed everything that occurs, without reference to anything outside Himself, then does creation exist by necessity of who God is? The answer seems straightforward, but not immediately accepted given its direct implication—creation is absolutely necessary. However, the implication is there regardless if agree with it or not, unless we modify the meaning of God's Cambridge attributes. If we don't modify those attributes, then God cannot be, for example, simple (DDS).

James Dolezal, a modern proponent of DDS (Divine Simplicity), states:

"The doctrine of divine simplicity is thus the teaching that God, unlike his creation, is not composed of parts. God isn’t 'made up' of entities that are more fundamental or ultimate than he is. Rather, God is an absolutely unified, indivisible, spiritual being. In short, there’s nothing in God that isn’t identical to God."

In relation to the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS), if all that is in God is God, then His eternality is equal to His decree, which, most classical theologians place that decree ad intra (that is, intrinsic to God). If His decree is ad intra, that is, intrinsic to God, then creation exist by necessity of that decree, which is intrinsic to God. In short, creation is the necessary consequence of who God is. We must conclude, then, that as long as God is, creation is. This is not saying that creation is eternal intrinsically, that is, by nature, but eternal in the sense and relation to who God is. The Sun's light, for example, is a necessary consequence of the nature of the Sun. This does not mean that the Sun depends upon, or must be co-equal with its own light, but that the light must necessarily flow out of what the Sun is. God is the only eternal being, but creation (whether ordered or not) exists a beginningless and endless existence.

"Creation," then, must be a point in time when God formed what was already there into order, not bringing something out of nothing. Ex-nihilo does not fit with the classical doctrine of God held by most Christians. Besides this, we find no passage for ex-nihilo in Scripture.

atpollard · Dec 8, 2022

Jonaitis said:
Are we discussing theodicy?

Maybe ... that depends on what "theodicy" means.

[Grabs dictionary: theodicy = "the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil."]

Only indirectly.
Given:

God exists.
Evil exists (ie. bad stuff happens).

Therefore:

EITHER God is in absolute control of EVERYTHING - and therefore the "buck stops with God".
OR God "is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin" - the "sin buck did not stop with God".

When my baby brother was murdered, was God in control or not?
It is not the "goodness" of God that I question, but the "only sort-of" in control of everything contained in that definition of "decreed" (from the London Confession).

Jonaitis · Dec 8, 2022

atpollard said:
Maybe ... that depends on what "theodicy" means.
[Grabs dictionary: theodicy = "the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil."]

Only indirectly.
Given:

God exists.

Evil exists (ie. bad stuff happens).

Therefore:

EITHER God is in absolute control of EVERYTHING - and therefore the "buck stops with God".

OR God "is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin" - the "sin buck did not stop with God".

When my baby brother was murdered, was God in control or not?
It is not the "goodness" of God that I question, but the "only sort-of" in control of everything contained in that definition of "decreed" (from the London Confession).

I agree, this is a flaw in the confession, I only quoted it as a definition to your question of "What is Decree?"

I affirm, and have affirmed before in the past, that evil is not intrinsically evil if God's providence underlies it. It is only evil morally to us.

All evil has been predetermined by God for His purpose, if that is so, evil exists by necessity of His goodness. Therefore, evil is necessary as much as good, because it is directed toward God's good end.

atpollard · Dec 8, 2022

Jonaitis said:
The Sun's light, for example, is a necessary consequence of the nature of the Sun. This does not mean that the Sun depends upon, or must be co-equal with its own light, but that the light must necessary flow out of what the Sun is.

The sun-light is a bad analogy for precisely the reason that a sun that sheds no light is not a sun (it would be Jupiter or a black hole).
However, to argue that God is not God except when creation exists (shines) is to mistakenly think that we are "all that and a bag of chips".
God is complete in His GODNESS without us.

I need to chew on Divine Simplicity some more to decide how I feel about it.

Jonaitis · Dec 8, 2022

atpollard said:
The sun-light is a bad analogy for precisely the reason that a sun that sheds no light is not a sun (it would be Jupiter or a black hole).
However, to argue that God is not God except when creation exists (shines) is to mistakenly think that we are "all that and a bag of chips".
God is complete in His GODNESS without us.

I need to chew on Divine Simplicity some more to decide how I feel about it.

Well, that was not what I was saying, please re-read my post.

As with all analogies and parables, as you should know, they should not be taken too far. It is simply an aid to help the reader understand.

atpollard · Dec 8, 2022

Jonaitis said:
All evil has been predetermined by God for His purpose, if that is so, evil exists by necessity of His goodness. Therefore, evil is necessary as much as good, because it is directed toward God's good end.

I agree. It is a hard thing to wrap the mind around that God decrees evil (as much as God decrees good) and yet, God compels no one to perform any acts of evil. As Romans 1 puts it: "Therefore, God gave them over ..."

Jonaitis · Dec 8, 2022

atpollard said:
I agree. It is a hard thing to wrap the mind around that God decrees evil (as much as God decrees good) and yet, God compels no one to perform any acts of evil. As Romans 1 pits it: "Therefore, God gave them over ..."

It is a baffling mystery that still confuses me, but is the truth regardless.

The problem of evil is that it is problem for us before God's judgement, not His overall purpose in creation.

Jonaitis · Dec 8, 2022

Here's a related question:

If the Son was eternally begotten, but never began to be the Son, then does His role exist only in relation to the Father? If there is the Father, then there necessarily is the begetting of the Son. This does not mean that the Son depends on the Father to be, but at the same time, cannot be the "Son" without reference to the Father.

Jonaitis · Dec 8, 2022

This will give some more context for this discussion for those interested.

Episode 78 Divine Simplicity and Modal Collapse, Still Valid, Always Has Been (Ryan Mullins)

This thread touches only one aspect of the modal collapse of DDS, and I quote directly from Mullin's points in this podcast below:

Premise 1: God’s existence is absolutely necessary.
Premise 2: Anything that is identical to God’s existence must be absolutely necessary.
Premise 3: All of God’s intentional actions are identical to each other such that there is only one divine act.
Premise 4: God’s one divine act is identical to God’s existence.
Premise 5: Therefore, God’s one divine act is absolutely necessary.
Premise 6: God’s intentional act to create the universe is identical to God’s one divine act.
Premise 7: If God’s one divine act is absolutely necessary, then God’s intentional act to create the universe is absolutely necessary.
Premise 8: Therefore, God’s intentional act to create the universe is absolutely necessary.
Premise 9: Therefore, the universe exists of absolute necessity.

While he is an opponent of DDS for this reason (among others), for me, it made me realize that he is right about his analysis, but wrong about his conclusion that it is to be rejected. DDS is too important for Christianity to throw out.

atpollard · Dec 8, 2022

Jonaitis said:
Here's a related question:

If the Son was eternally begotten, but never began to be the Son, then does His role exist only in relation to the Father? If there is the Father, then there necessarily is the begetting of the Son. This does not mean that the Son depends on the Father to be, but at the same time, cannot be the "Son" without reference to the Father.

I think the “Father-Son” is an anthropomorphism to help humans understand a relationship that transcends our experiential frame of reference. When Jesus said he longed to gather Jerusalem under His wings as a hen gathers her chicks, God was not revealing some ultimate truth that God has wings. The goal was to communicate an emotion of desire to love and protect in language and a relationship (hen and chicks) that human beings could comprehend.

In the same way, I think the relationship between “the Father” and “the Son” when God is one and unchanging is too complex for language, but the human relationship between a father and a son serves as a metaphorical illustration for people to attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible.

Jonaitis · Dec 8, 2022

atpollard said:
I think the “Father-Son” is an anthropomorphism to help humans understand a relationship that transcends our experiential frame of reference. When Jesus said he longed to gather Jerusalem under His wings as a hen gathers her chicks, God was not revealing some ultimate truth that God has wings. The goal was to communicate an emotion of desire to love and protect in language and a relationship (hen and chicks) that human beings could comprehend.

In the same way, I think the relationship between “the Father” and “the Son” when God is one and unchanging is too complex for language, but the human relationship between a father and a son serves as a metaphorical illustration for people to attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible.

I wouldn't use anthropomorphism in this sense, though. It speaks of their relationship's role.

Begotten, Word, Glory, Image, Radiance, Light, etc., are illustrations, no doubt, but refer to who the Son is in the Godhead. He is the revelation that proceeds from God to show forth God. This is what it means for Him to be the "Son" or "Word." He comes as the example or showing forth of God Himself. He is the one in God who approaches creation. One could say it is anthropomorphic, but that is an unusual way to put it.

atpollard · Dec 8, 2022

Jonaitis said:
I wouldn't use anthropomorphism in this sense, though. It speaks of their relationship's role.

What “relationship role”? Can you see that as a human being, we cannot help but cast God into human-centric forms. When we speak of “persons” with “roles” we are ultimately talking nonsense … as if we worshiped a pantheistic family of three very intimate beings. There is only one GOD. The FATHER is GOD and the SON is GOD and the SPIRIT is GOD … and there is only ONE GOD.

Do I comprehend it?
HECK NO!
But GOD said it, so it must be true. The terms we use lend themselves to human understanding, but in gaining understanding we actually make the mirror a little LESS CLEAR and the image a little MORE DISTORTED. Thus we must be careful when using terms like “The Father” and “The Son” not to think GOD too much like us. They are not two Gods that agree about everything … a “chip off the old block”.

Jonaitis · Dec 8, 2022

atpollard said:
What “relationship role”? Can you see that as a human being, we cannot help but cast God into human-centric forms. When we speak of “persons” with “roles” we are ultimately talking nonsense … as if we worshiped a pantheistic family of three very intimate beings. There is only one GOD. The FATHER is GOD and the SON is GOD and the SPIRIT is GOD … and there is only ONE GOD.

Modalism is heresy, is it not?

Divine Simplicity and the eternality of God's Decree

Predetermined to freely believe

Predetermined to freely believe

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

What exactly do you mean when you say "God decreed"?​

Soli Deo Gloria

What exactly do you mean when you say "God decreed"?​

Well-Known Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Soli Deo Gloria

Well-Known Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Well-Known Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Well-Known Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Soli Deo Gloria

Soli Deo Gloria

Well-Known Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Well-Known Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Similar threads

What exactly do you mean when you say "God decreed"?

What exactly do you mean when you say "God decreed"?