Keep It Simple! (Or, what exactly is "divine simplicity")

[Ignatius21]

Here's a philosophically complex question for those among us who've either read about this, or have been through seminary, or just really feel compelled to answer it

Someone shared this link with me: Dr. Scott Oliphint - ST113 Doctrine of God - YouTube

So...if anyone could spare about 2.5 minutes and listen to this professor from 2:50 to 5:30 in the clip, and put down some thoughts...

It's an overview of a systematic theology class at a major (probably THE major) Reformed seminary, Westminster. This professor very briefly gets into the reasons why it's critical to teach that God, in his essence, is immutable and simple. But when he moves into discussing basically what he means by "simple," he basically says that God is self-existent, independent, and unchanging. He acts in the world, in time and in space, but he himself does not change.

If that is what is meant by "simple" then I have a hard time seeing what is objectionable. Now, I suspect much more than that is meant. I know Augustine is cited often as promoting a view of God as "simple in his essence," and Aquinas is definitely cited as pretty much enshrining that doctrine in the West. So far as I can tell, that western/Catholic view carried over into Protestantism pretty much unchallenged...I base this on the relative lack of conflict between Protestants and Catholics (and later, among Protestant sects) over the doctrine of the Trinity. At least, as compared to everything else that was fought over.

I've read that Orthodoxy rejects this belief in "divine simplicity." Yet Orthodoxy does not believe that God changes, or that God depends on anything outside of himself for existence, or that he is contingent upon anything. I always hear about this topic in conjunction with the essence/energies, Barlaam/Palamas controversy...but from my meager understanding of that, the difference was about how God can be experienced by the person (i.e. are God's actions/energies/attributes created manifestations, or are they really God himself)--but both agreed that God is unknowable and unchangeable in his essence.

What DOES Catholicism mean when it says "God is simple in his essence."

What DOES Orthodoxy mean when it denies this? And why?

 

[Kristos]

Sorry I don't have time right now to listen, but when ever I hear the words God and Simplicity in the same sentence, I always think Platonism...

Union with God is not absorption - we can literally participate in the divine uncreated energies or grace of God without losing our unique personhood.

I don't know much about western theology, but it seems like in order to maintain the simplicity of God's essence, and our individuality in union, they came to the conclusion that grace is created. Therefore, we participate in God's grace, which is not his essence, and therefore remain unique but are still in communion with God.

Anyway - that's just my off the cuff remarks.

 

[Knee V]

I can't watch videos at home (I have to go somewhere with better internet that won't charge me an arm and a leg. I like being out in the middle of nowhere, but there are a few technological drawbacks), so I can't comment on what he said.

However, having talked with some Catholics about the issue of "created grace", that, according to them, is not what they believe. They, like us, believe that grace is uncreated. But they'll make a distinction between God's grace and how that grace is manifest in the life of a person. They'll call those instances "graces", and they'll loosely call those graces "created", as they are points in time. At least that is what some Catholics have explained to me.

 

[Ignatius21]

I can't watch videos at home (I have to go somewhere with better internet that won't charge me an arm and a leg. I like being out in the middle of nowhere, but there are a few technological drawbacks), so I can't comment on what he said.

However, having talked with some Catholics about the issue of "created grace", that, according to them, is not what they believe. They, like us, believe that grace is uncreated. But they'll make a distinction between God's grace and how that grace is manifest in the life of a person. They'll call those instances "graces", and they'll loosely call those graces "created", as they are points in time. At least that is what some Catholics have explained to me.

I've heard something that sounds similar...an "uncreated grace" causing a "created effect of grace." An analogy given as "If I push on a door, it isn't my essence applying the force, but the force really is still me--the opening of the door is how I'm working in the world...but the opening of the door is a created effect of my energy." I've also read a few critiques of this by Catholics who bemoan compromise on the issue and say "no, if you put it in those terms you've been unfaithful to the metaphysics of Aquinas."

My idiot's understanding of the matter is that simplicity means that all of God's attributes or energies are really the same as his essence, so his love IS his wrath IS his justice IS his faithfulness...etc. The opposing view is that no, those energies are actually distinct, and while not God's essence, are still really God. Yet it would not hold that God is equal to the sum of his energies, such that he is composite in some way.

Each side appears to accuse the other of being too platonic

 

[ProScribe]

Divine Simplicity = A simple understanding of God's attributes explained.

 

[ArmyMatt]

if you go on AFR, Fr Damick offers an explaination on the Catholicism part of his Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy podcast

Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy - Ancient Faith Radio

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Oddly enough, it seems that divine simplicity, when followed to its logical conclusion and in a Calvinist framework, leads to Hinduism:

'A major problem with Scholasticism is the innate desire that all men have to participate directly and ontologically in their God. We all want that real connection. (Michael) Sudduth explains, “I pondered this experience for several minutes, while at the same time continuing to experience a most blissful serenity and feeling of oneness with God”.

The fact is Van Tilism and Scholasticism, its Grandfather, can never give man real and ontological connection because like the fools they were, they tried to take the Ultimate Principle of Plotinus and the Pagans and somehow get a Christian worldview out of it with their theory of Absolute Divine Simplicity. This leaves only a pagan ecstatic trance state for Christian men to seek in their attempts to connect to their creator. Thus Sudduth, was in my opinion, simply following his monad back to its Pagan source. He is being consistent. Sudduth says, “I had gone so far in my Christian faith, but it was now necessary for me to relate to God as Lord Krishna.” Notice he doesn’t say, “through Lord Krishna” but “as” Lord Krishna. In Plotinus’ construction hierarchies of being emanated from the One which represent levels of composition , and at each hierarchy was an intermediary. In different versions of this metaphysical construction, the gods are intermediaries on this chain of being. As one move up the chain of being one becomes ontologically identified with the intermediary. Sudduth says, “Since this time I have experienced Krishna’s presence in the air, mountains, ocean, trees, cows, and equally within myself. I experience Him in the outer and inner worlds, and my heart is regularly filled with serenity and bliss.” You see on his view, God is in the state of mind not the proposition.

In conclusion, I commend Sudduth for his logical consistency. When will the rest of the Scholastic Reformed have the courage to do the same? My Scholastic reader, Sudduth is taking Absolute Divine Simplicity to its logical end. I have two options for you.

1. Follow Sudduth

2. Leave Scholastic Neoplatonism for Gordon Clark’s Scripturalism: An absolute Triad: Three ontologically distinct persons; three distinct complex-non-simple eternal divine minds who find their hypostatic origin in the person of the Father.'


Maverick Philosopher: Sudduth, Simplicity, and the Plotinian One