God is Simple. Did you know that?

[Jonaitis]

Hi Jo-
I'll commit to watching the video. I'll get back with my comments when I can. Can you share why this doctrine is beneficial in your Christian practice and experience? No to be overly pragmatic, but I have a conviction that theology needs to be (for want of a better word) actionable. How has this understanding concretely transformed your life.

Our knowledge of God should not be just informal and theoretical, but personal and relational. An unknown God can neither be loved, trusted, or worshiped. We must come to learn more about him. And so with all that we learn about him, we should be better acquainted with him in our lives and how he works in it. It will comfort, encourage, and built up the believer to know that God is someone who we can truly rest and lean on, who is not a mere theological argument, but the very source of all goodness and wisdom.

I believe understanding the distant and distinction between God and creature will instill a sense of deep reverence and love toward him in our lives, as this video is intended to prove. If we do not know God, we will have wrong conceptions of God, and that spills over in everything else.

The more we know God, the more we will love him. Augustine, in my opinion, said it correctly. All doctrine should teach us to better relish and love our covenant God, and to love him in our neighbor. John Piper 'Christian hedonism' is very similar, if not under the same category, to this thought.

By the way, you can just call me Steven. I don't like Jo

I appreciate your comment, hope you enjoy the video.

 

[Monna]

" The Bible was written by roughly forty different people from a whole range of backgrounds. Authors include kings (Solomon), fishermen (Peter), doctors (Luke), military leaders (Joshua), tax collectors (Matthew), and even some who are unknown. Biblical writers include almost every type of person: wise and foolish, faithful and treacherous, rich and poor, innocent and guilty, and young and old."

not to mention murderers, at least one adulterer, very powerful bureaucrat/administrators, super-wealthy landowner-farmers, a Pharisee, poets and songwriters, historians, and possibly a priest and a judge.

 

[royal priest]

The more we know God, the more we will love him.

As the late, great R C Sproul used to say, theology is for doxology.

 

[His student]

Have you ever heard of Divine Simplicity?

Good video.

I say good because the speaker says in a different way some of the things I have stressed here in the forum many times particularly when debating people who deny or at least diminish the sovereignty of God.

As a "Reformed" believer - I'm sure you have noted the tendency of non-Reformed and anti-Calvinists to create their opinions on certain topics based on bits and pieces of biblical truth rather than bringing to bear on a question a comprehensive package of biblical truths (the way the Westminster divines were forced to do).

That is to say that they tend to ignore and set aside some rather basic doctrines in order to champion the idea of the free will of men supposedly juxtaposition with the idea of predestination (as a for instance).

I have often said that some people almost have to be worshiping a different God than the indivisible, infinite, omniscient, omnipresent creator and sustainer of all things.

The bottom line that allows them to do these things in order to have their own opinion is that they do not understand the simple and infinite nature of God.

I'll roll this up quickly by referring to the doctrine of the "immensity of God" (which is related to this doctrine of the simplicity of God).

When theologians say that God is immense - they are not just saying that He is quite large (even though He is). What they are saying is what God says about Himself. Namely that He "fills" Heaven and earth.

He is not only transcendent - he is immanent at the same time.

He is infinite and not finite. He does not fill Heaven and earth in the same way that, for instance, steam fills a room - a little here and a little there.

Because He is infinite and not finite (or simple and not divided) - He is everywhere present at all times "in His entirety and without division" as they teach in theology school.

All of His attributes are present in any given place. His attributes are not divisible.

For instance - if you've seen the Son - you've seen the Father. The Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. He is "generated' by both the Father and the Son.

His wrath is not in Hell while His mercy is in Heaven. His loving kindness is not in the Son while His vengeful side is in the Father.

This is a huge subject and it takes a lot of angles to do it justice. But it is necessary to see if one is to be able to comprehend advanced doctrines like Predestination, Hell, or even the incarnation.

Let me just throw this point out to get the juices flowing. One cannot possibly hold to an anti-Reformed theological position on the sovereignty of God without first jettisoning or at least ignoring some of the most basic concepts and doctrines in the scripture. I.e. - you almost have to worship a different God than the one pictured for us in the scriptures in order to hold some of the views I find myself debating in this forum.

There - that should at least make a start of things.

 

[disciple Clint]

I shouldn't have to watch an hour long video by someone I've never heard of to be able to reply to a post on a public discussion forum.
The title of your thread is a question; "Is God simple?" and there's no reason why we shouldn't give our opinion on that. If the title had been "video sermon; let's watch and discuss", that might have been different.

I don't believe God s simple. He's like a diamond - multifaceted.
He said in Scripture, "my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts". God is eternal, infinite, all powerful and Spirit; we are finite, mortal, have limited power, knowledge and minds and are human. Of course we're not going to be able to fully understand him - if we could, he wouldn't be God.

The simple we are talking about here is not simple. Simple has a different meaning in Theology than what we commonly apply to it

 

[disciple Clint]

Good video.

I say good because the speaker says in a different way some of the things I have stressed here in the forum many times particularly when debating people who deny or at least diminish the sovereignty of God.

As a "Reformed" believer - I'm sure you have noted the tendency of non-Reformed and anti-Calvinists to create their opinions on certain topics based on bits and pieces of biblical truth rather than bringing to bear on a question a comprehensive package of biblical truths (the way the Westminster divines were forced to do).

That is to say that they tend to ignore and set aside some rather basic doctrines in order to champion the idea of the free will of men supposedly juxtaposition with the idea of predestination (as a for instance).

I have often said that some people almost have to be worshiping a different God than the indivisible, infinite, omniscient, omnipresent creator and sustainer of all things.

The bottom line that allows them to do these things in order to have their own opinion is that they do not understand the simple and infinite nature of God.

I'll roll this up quickly by referring to the doctrine of the "immensity of God" (which is related to this doctrine of the simplicity of God).

When theologians say that God is immense - they are not just saying that He is quite large (even though He is). What they are saying is what God says about Himself. Namely that He "fills" Heaven and earth.

He is not only transcendent - he is immanent at the same time.

He is infinite and not finite. He does not fill Heaven and earth in the same way that, for instance, steam fills a room - a little here and a little there.

Because He is infinite and not finite (or simple and not divided) - He is everywhere present at all times "in His entirety and without division" as they teach in theology school.

All of His attributes are present in any given place. His attributes are not divisible.

For instance - if you've seen the Son - you've seen the Father. The Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. He is "generated' by both the Father and the Son.

His wrath is not in Hell while His mercy is in Heaven. His loving kindness is not in the Son while His vengeful side is in the Father.

This is a huge subject and it takes a lot of angles to do it justice. But it is necessary to see if one is to be able to comprehend advanced doctrines like Predestination, Hell, or even the incarnation.

Let me just throw this point out to get the juices flowing. One cannot possibly hold to an anti-Reformed theological position on the sovereignty of God without first jettisoning or at least ignoring some of the most basic concepts and doctrines in the scripture. I.e. - you almost have to worship a different God than the one pictured for us in the scriptures in order to hold some of the views I find myself debating in this forum.

There - that should at least make a start of things.

I am with you right up to your last paragraph. Then I have to ask for specific examples and to also remind you that Aquinas was a Catholic. I am not defending Catholics but fair is fair

 

[Radagast]

and to also remind you that Aquinas was a Catholic.

Ironically, one with a very high view of the sovereignty of God. In fact, it's kind of hard to spell out the differences between Thomism and Calvinism (on grace and sovereignty) if you haven't got an advanced degree in theology.

And divine simplicity is held by both Catholic and Reformed theologians. To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical. ... We say of a contingent being that it has a certain nature or essence, but of the self-existent we say that it is its own nature or essence. ... God cannot be classified or defined, as contingent beings are classified and defined ... From this it follows that we cannot know God adequately in the way in which He knows Himself, but not, as the Agnostic contends, that our inadequate knowledge is not true as far as it goes."

For the Reformed view, I quote Berkhof's Systematic Theology:

"When we speak of the simplicity of God, we use the term to describe the state or quality of being simple, the condition of being free from division into parts, and therefore from compositeness. It means that God is not composite and is not susceptible of division in any sense of the word. This implies among other things that the three Persons in the Godhead are not so many parts of which the Divine essence is composed, that God’s essence and perfections are not distinct, and that the attributes are not superadded to His essence. Since the two are one, the Bible can speak of God as light and life, as righteousness and love, thus identifying Him with His perfections. ... This perfection was disputed during the Middle Ages, and was denied by Socinians and Arminians. ..."

 

[His student]

I am with you right up to your last paragraph. Then I have to ask for specific examples and to also remind you that Aquinas was a Catholic. I am not defending Catholics but fair is fair

My last paragraph follows:

One cannot possibly hold to an anti-Reformed theological position on the sovereignty of God without first jettisoning or at least ignoring some of the most basic concepts and doctrines in the scripture. I.e. - you almost have to worship a different God than the one pictured for us in the scriptures in order to hold some of the views I find myself debating in this forum.

Specifically - I would cite as an example the idea of some here ostensibly believing in the complete omniscience of God and yet denying that everything in history was and is predestined to happen just as it does.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fair is fair" But I am aware that Thomas Aquinas was a Catholic. I make it a point to try not to enter into debates on Catholic doctrine in the forum.

But I do doubt very much that Aquinas and I would have knocked heads over the sovereignty of God. Further - I doubt very much that he would have been "anti" Reformed had he lived to see the Reformation.

Also if he participated in debates in this forum on the subject of the supposed absolute free will of men --- I doubt that he would be unaware of or fail to consider the scriptures concerning omnipresence and showing a concurrency of God and men in their actions and words.

 

[disciple Clint]

My last paragraph follows:


Specifically - I would cite as an example the idea of some here ostensibly believing in the complete omniscience of God and yet denying that everything in history was and is predestined to happen just as it does.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fair is fair" But I am aware that Thomas Aquinas was a Catholic. I make it a point to try not to enter into debates on Catholic doctrine in the forum.

But I do doubt very much that Aquinas and I would have knocked heads over the sovereignty of God. Further - I doubt very much that he would have been "anti" Reformed had he lived to see the Reformation.

Also if he participated in debates in this forum on the subject of the supposed absolute free will of men --- I doubt that he would be unaware of or fail to consider the scriptures concerning omnipresence and showing a concurrency of God and men in their actions and words.

OK I am still not certain that I completely understand exactly what Reformed positions you believe are comparable with Catholic Theology. I try to avoid debating Theology but I am always interested in the differences and I try to be fair in comparing those differences and the reasons behind those differences without being judgmental. There can be no doubt that Aquinas would have serious differences with Reformed Theology. He would have to be willing to compromise a great deal to agree with the Reformed Theology. He was not known to be willing to compromise on anything.

 

[Rescued One]

Have you ever heard of Divine Simplicity? No? Here is a lecture I heard years ago by Dr. James Dolezal, he gives a brief overview I would say of what this doctrine teaches us in Scripture about who God is. Please don't respond until you have watched this video.

THANK YOU!

 

[Rescued One]

The entire Bible included? That's a lot of wrong.

" The Bible was written by roughly forty different people from a whole range of backgrounds. Authors include kings (Solomon), fishermen (Peter), doctors (Luke), military leaders (Joshua), tax collectors (Matthew), and even some who are unknown. Biblical writers include almost every type of person: wise and foolish, faithful and treacherous, rich and poor, innocent and guilty, and young and old."
7 Fascinating Facts that Make the Bible Unique - Josh.org

I would call them scribes. God is the Author.

 

[NBB]

I don't think God is simple at all, there is a lot of spiritual 'things' like for example we humans have a mind a soul, reasoning feelings, and much more, a lot more, that is not simple at all, i don't agree with 'Gods simplicity' as desribed in here.

This sounds like something said because we do not know anything about how God is.

 

[His student]

......He was not known to be willing to compromise on anything.

You probably know more about Aquinas than I do.

There can be no doubt that Aquinas would have serious differences with Reformed Theology. He would have to be willing to compromise a great deal to agree with the Reformed Theology.

Some undoubtedly yes and some no (at least at first). Luther had differences with salvation by grace as well until getting into the swing of studying the scriptures for himself).

OK I am still not certain that I completely understand exactly what Reformed positions you believe are comparable with Catholic Theology. I try to avoid debating Theology but I am always interested in the differences and I try to be fair in comparing those differences and the reasons behind those differences without being judgmental.

I didn't say that any were. I am not comparing Reformed theology with "Catholic" theology (certainly where it touches on salvation by grace or even the authority of the scripture cannon as accepted by the reformers).

I'm saying that Aquinas and the Reformed theologians would agree on the simplicity of God.

I'm not sure how or why you saw anything I said in my original post or even later as having anything to do with Catholicism. I'm not even sure why you want to talk about Thomas Aquinas here (except that he happened to teach about the simplicity of God just as did the guy in the video). Aquinas isn't the subject of this thread. The simplicity of God is.

But - since you brought it up - Thomas Aquinas would likely have no trouble with the doctrine of predestination or even the concept of the actions and words of men (both evil and good) being concurrent with God's actions and words. He most certainly would stress that God means those actions and words always for good even while certain men mean them for evil - just as do Reformed teachers.

I try to avoid debating Theology

I don't. That's why I participate in the Christian forums.

But I am also quite blunt at times when dealing with the basics of salvation by grace with those who teach otherwise. It gets me in trouble here at times. For that reason I avoid litigating the Reformation again in the forum.

...I am always interested in the differences and I try to be fair in comparing those differences and the reasons behind those differences without being judgmental.

Me too - except the last part gives me trouble. Not so much with those who have been raised in the Catholic or Orthodox position (or even Islam or one of the cults) - but with primarily with liberal Protestants and anti-Calvinists who insist on teaching a form of works salvation amounting to another gospel.