Divine Simplicity

[Holy Athanasius]

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might"


Consider this verse my friends, and consider that it does not simply state that there is one God. But it especially emphasizes that The Lord is ONE

It has been the teaching of ancient Christianity since the very beginning that God is not contingent upon anything. He therefore lacks composition. This means he cannot have parts.

Human beings are composed of flesh, bone, blood, and they are even composed of a soul and a body. God cannot be composed in the same way that human beings are since he is infinite. Therefore, he has no material parts.

Consider these next verses my friends, and see how much further we must understand that God is purely one, with no parts whatsoever.


"I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed."

"God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?"


God by virtue of his eternal nature, is unchanging. God by virtue of his immaterial nature, lacks composition and has no parts.

Therefore, we can conclude that God does not have different thoughts and feelings as human beings do. He does not have different parts or things within himself. But he is purely one within himself, which we call his essence.



A common objection to what I have said come from those who quote the following verse....

"So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people."


They quote this verse to indicate to me that there must be a contradiction in the Bible. But we Christians know that Moses, who is the author of the Holy Law, did not make error when he wrote these things, although on a surface-level they seem to contradict.

But some will also quote this verse and try to say that God does change, and that Numbers 29 is only referring to his unchanging disposition towards goodness...

but we must understand that Moses is referring to the nature of God when he quotes Gods words saying, that he does not change his mind. Likewise the Prophet Malachi quotes Gods words by divine revelation, when he says that God does not change. God, by virtue of being eternal logically cannot change, everything about him is eternal, and he does not possess qualities within himself which change.

What follows from this is the understanding that our conception of God can only be understood through symbols and allegories. Analogies which will never be able to fully describe the indescribable, the incomprehensible and ineffable name of God which is known only to the spirit of God.


So when the Apostle John, who spoke by the hand of God, writes that "God is love", we know that this means God does not possess a quality separate from himself called "the property of love" but that God is perfect infinite love itself, and does not "have" love like you and I have love as a quality or a property.



I hope this helps many. Ask questions and I'll try to answer when I can.

 

[Jonaitis]

I do have a question, if you are willing to answer it honestly. I should first say that I completely agree with divine simplicity. However, some modern opponents of the doctrine, such as Ryan Mullins, have pointed out a few problems with it (if you see them as problems, that is).

If we affirm that all that is in God to be God, then we must articulate the following:

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.

Ryan Mullins further points out that this world is the only possible world precisely because it exists out of absolute necessity. He also argues that this removes any freedom from God, although I would argue that it is from God's freedom that there is even a universe.

I wanted to ask what were your thoughts about this? Does this doctrine logically imply that the universe exists out of absolute necessity?

 

[Holy Athanasius]

I do have a question, if you are willing to answer it honestly. I should first say that I completely agree with divine simplicity. However, some modern opponents of the doctrine, such as Ryan Mullins, have pointed out a few problems with it (if you see them as problems, that is).

If we affirm that all that is in God to be God, then we must articulate the following:

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.

Ryan Mullins further points out that this world is the only possible world precisely because it exists out of absolute necessity. He also argues that this removes any freedom from God, although I would argue that it is from God's freedom that there is even a universe.

I wanted to ask what were your thoughts about this? Does this doctrine logically imply that the universe exists out of absolute necessity?

The underlying assumption here I think, is that God has to change His action to produce an effect.

But that would be to deny God's omnipotence, and also be to say that God can change, and also be to deny God's perfection, i.e one of His actions is imperfect for producing a certain effect.

No, God has simple operation, that from this one operation, He can produce a multiplicity of effects.

Thus we must distinguish between the cause of the event, and the event (or effect) itself.

God's simple operation X, is sufficient for a multiplicity of effects.

We don't see all the effects produced, so God's causal action is not determined.

There must be something that explains why some effects are produced, and other's aren't. Which of course, is volition. God freely will's some effects, and does not freely will other effects.

 

[Diamond7]

The Lord is ONE

One means the first, He is the original. As a carpenter, you have to have a pattern. You can not copy a copy. Day one is unique from all the days that followed. They are a copy or duplicate of the pattern that was established on the first day. There is a book about this called paradigm. They say that History repeats itself. There is nothing new under the sun. Future events will play out based on past events. This is why all of the Bible is relevant to every person in every generation. Even though each person has their own perspective.

 

[Diamond7]

God has to change

God does not change. He declares the end from the beginning Isaiah 46:10. He watches over his word to perform what He says He is going to do. He writes the book of our life at or before conception. Psalm 139 16. He gives us all of our gifts, talents, and abilities and we are to use what we have to bring Him praise, honor, and glory.
We wait on God, but He is the one waiting on us because He is not going to change, we are.

 

[Holy Athanasius]

God does not change. He declares the end from the beginning Isaiah 46:10. He watches over his word to perform what He says He is going to do. He writes the book of our life at or before conception. Psalm 139 16. He gives us all of our gifts, talents, and abilities and we are to use what we have to bring Him praise, honor, and glory.
We wait on God, but He is the one waiting on us because He is not going to change, we are.

Right. We agree. I'm not sure if you understood what I was saying but I hold that God does not change.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We don't see all the effects produced, so God's causal action is not determined.

Excuse me??? We don't see, therefore something? How does that make sense? What does our ability to see, have anything to do with God's determining or not determining anything???

I'm hoping I merely read this wrong.

 

[Holy Athanasius]

Excuse me??? We don't see, therefore something? How does that make sense? What does our ability to see, have anything to do with God's determining or not determining anything???

I'm hoping I merely read this wrong.

When I say 'see' , I am not referring to the sense of sight.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I don't think that this universe "exists out of absolute necessity", God would have thought about it before He made it, possibly for quite a long "time" (although He doesn't live in time). It was His free choice to make it.

But having made it, He committed Himself to it which binds Him to it in a sense. He even turned up in human form for about 30 years to take part in it.

Conceivably He could say tomorrow "I'm bored with this universe. I think I'll make something a bit less empty next time", pull up stumps and close it down.

But He's committed Himself to the creatures in it, so He won't until it has served His purpose. Then He'll pull up stumps.

As for having "no parts", I can't see how God could focus all His being on a one particular human being for example (if He was reading my thoughts for example) and leave the rest of His mind unoccupied. So I think even God has what might be called intellectual or spiritual segments. As it is He's monitoring the thoughts, words and actions of 8 billion people similtaneously so He must be subdividing His attention into parts so to speak.

He's not "simple". I think He would be incredibly complex.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When I say 'see' , I am not referring to the sense of sight.

Yes, I understood that. But you were referring to perception, no? Our perception carries no authority.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't think that this universe "exists out of absolute necessity", God would have thought about it before He made it, possibly for quite a long "time" (although He doesn't live in time). It was His free choice to make it.

But having made it, He committed Himself to it which binds Him to it in a sense. He even turned up in human form for about 30 years to take part in it.

Conceivably He could say tomorrow "I'm bored with this universe. I think I'll make something a bit less empty next time", pull up stumps and close it down.

But He's committed Himself to the creatures in it, so He won't until it has served His purpose. Then He'll pull up stumps.

As for having "no parts", I can't see how God could focus all His being on a one particular human being for example (if He was reading my thoughts for example) and leave the rest of His mind unoccupied. So I think even God has what might be called intellectual or spiritual segments. As it is He's monitoring the thoughts, words and actions of 8 billion people similtaneously so He must be subdividing His attention into parts so to speak.

He's not "simple". I think He would be incredibly complex.

All this, if you notice, you describe from a human POV. For eg, you say he won't put his whole mind on just you, as if you have some way to know his mind works like yours does. You even reference his mind as if it was its own part separate from the rest of him.

If I was to take your representation here to the extreme, it is not 8 billion people to manage, but numbers beyond imagination of subatomic particles he must 'manage'. It is your application of concepts that complicates things. Divine Simplicity shows that God need not 'focus on' anything in the sense that we do.

Googolplexes of googolplexes of items are no more difficult or complicated to him than one is.

 

[GodsGrace101]

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might"


Consider this verse my friends, and consider that it does not simply state that there is one God. But it especially emphasizes that The Lord is ONE

It has been the teaching of ancient Christianity since the very beginning that God is not contingent upon anything. He therefore lacks composition. This means he cannot have parts.

Human beings are composed of flesh, bone, blood, and they are even composed of a soul and a body. God cannot be composed in the same way that human beings are since he is infinite. Therefore, he has no material parts.

Consider these next verses my friends, and see how much further we must understand that God is purely one, with no parts whatsoever.


"I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed."

"God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?"


God by virtue of his eternal nature, is unchanging. God by virtue of his immaterial nature, lacks composition and has no parts.

Therefore, we can conclude that God does not have different thoughts and feelings as human beings do. He does not have different parts or things within himself. But he is purely one within himself, which we call his essence.



A common objection to what I have said come from those who quote the following verse....

"So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people."


They quote this verse to indicate to me that there must be a contradiction in the Bible. But we Christians know that Moses, who is the author of the Holy Law, did not make error when he wrote these things, although on a surface-level they seem to contradict.

But some will also quote this verse and try to say that God does change, and that Numbers 29 is only referring to his unchanging disposition towards goodness...

but we must understand that Moses is referring to the nature of God when he quotes Gods words saying, that he does not change his mind. Likewise the Prophet Malachi quotes Gods words by divine revelation, when he says that God does not change. God, by virtue of being eternal logically cannot change, everything about him is eternal, and he does not possess qualities within himself which change.

What follows from this is the understanding that our conception of God can only be understood through symbols and allegories. Analogies which will never be able to fully describe the indescribable, the incomprehensible and ineffable name of God which is known only to the spirit of God.


So when the Apostle John, who spoke by the hand of God, writes that "God is love", we know that this means God does not possess a quality separate from himself called "the property of love" but that God is perfect infinite love itself, and does not "have" love like you and I have love as a quality or a property.



I hope this helps many. Ask questions and I'll try to answer when I can.

I don't understand Divine Simplicity very well, but I do understand your last sentence and I think it's very important to understand.

Yes, God IS love. He does not possess love, He IS love. When He created us His attributes were imparted to us because of the simple reason that He is what He IS. I AM that I AM.

Of course, in infinitesimal amounts.
We only possess love as a quality but our essence, or form, in not love.

Therefore, if any doctrine does not mirror that GOD IS LOVE, we can be sure that the doctrine is not correct.

Ditto for mercy and justice.

These are the qualities that have a direct impact on God's creatures, us.

I believe His other attributes have already impacted us...for instance, creation, family, etc.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't understand Divine Simplicity very well, but I do understand your last sentence and I think it's very important to understand.

Yes, God IS love. He does not possess love, He IS love. When He created us His attributes were imparted to us because of the simple reason that He is what He IS. I AM that I AM.

Of course, in infinitesimal amounts.
We only possess love as a quality but our essence, or form, in not love.

Therefore, if any doctrine does not mirror that GOD IS LOVE, we can be sure that the doctrine is not correct.

Ditto for mercy and justice.

These are the qualities that have a direct impact on God's creatures, us.

I believe His other attributes have already impacted us...for instance, creation, family, etc.

Yet, as mere humans, do we have a correct and true knowledge of what love is? Is our judgement good enough to dump doctrines that WE think do not "mirror that GOD IS LOVE"?

The truth does not depend on us, nor certainly on what we think we know about love.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Yet, as mere humans, do we have a correct and true knowledge of what love is? Is our judgement good enough to dump doctrines that WE think do not "mirror that GOD IS LOVE"?

The truth does not depend on us, nor certainly on what we think we know about love.

We understand love enough to know when it's not present.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Yet, as mere humans, do we have a correct and true knowledge of what love is? Is our judgement good enough to dump doctrines that WE think do not "mirror that GOD IS LOVE"?

The truth does not depend on us, nor certainly on what we think we know about love.

PS
Yes. IF we understand that GOD IS LOVE, we can dump some doctrine just based on that alone.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We understand love enough to know when it's not present.

Hardly.

 

[Mark Quayle]

PS
Yes. IF we understand that GOD IS LOVE, we can dump some doctrine just based on that alone.

YOU can, and that of your own authority, for all it is worth.