Does Divine Simplicity Contradict the Trinity?

Dr. Craig discusses Divine Simplicity with Ryan Mullins and Cameron Bertuzzi.

#williamlanecraig #reasonablefaith #philosophy #divinesimplicty

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[czgiomn]

This, among other reasons, is why I think WLC has often done more harm than good for apologetics. Christians would be better served by actually reading the church fathers and Aquinas.

[extract]

Why doesn't Craig just come right out and say he despises the notion of Divine Simplicity?

[jfrontier]

Does Divine Simplicity Contradict the Trinity? No there is not. Thomists argue that their view of simplicity is consistent with the Trinity, because simplicity pertains not to the three persons, but to the divine nature that they all share. God’s essence is not composed of three persons. Rather, the uncompounded, undivided divine essence exists in each of the three persons. The various personal properties unique to each person are not things added to the divine essence but are only distinctions of personal subsistence.

[michaelg]

It's easy to reconcile: The persons only differ in their relation to one another. That is why you need the filioque. The son eternally proceeds form the father by being his image (makes the father known) and being the way through whom God creates. The Spirit proceeds from the father and the son (otherwiese there would be two sons which cannot be) to let US take part and have a relationship. This was planned from eternity and the world was created FOR the incarnation (not the incarnation was a response to the fall).
The procession is also the reason there cannot be more than 3 members of the perfect Trinity.

[davidcoleman]

Oh, the irony of the title _Does Divine Simplicity Contradict the Trinity?_ Craig specifically and directly calls God "a complex being" (1:06). The word _complex_ means "composite." And that means that God, who is supposed to the whole, is dependent on His parts in order to be what He is. All composites are logically posterior to their components and are thus in need of explanation, actuation and conservation by something other than what they are. This directly contradicts the aseity of God. So, if contradiction is what "drcraigvideos" seeks to avoid, then you need to jettison this idea that God is composite.

Now, Craig and Mullins may object that real personal distinctions do not entail partialism due to the persons' inseparability, but inseparability is irrelevant to complexity. A real substantial difference between the persons, separable or not, means that each person is, by definition, less than the whole and serves to explain the existence of the whole.

[realDonaldMcElvy]

Divine Simplicity is often and easily slipped into an Absolute Simplicity, even at the expense of logic. For example, the geometric Simplex actually has 4 versions, from a Vertex, to a Segment, to a Triangle, to a Tetrahedron. It even goes further for higher dimensions for the sake of Mathematics.

What is important to understand is that Essential Logic is lost when reducing from higher dimensions to lower ones. Thus Divine Simplicity must be understood in relation to the Transcendence of God, and the Essential Logic required to define this Transcendence in such a way that doesn't collapse into either Pantheism or Gnostic Deism.

Just because a Single Vertex is more Simple than a Line doesn't make it possible to create a Line from a bunch of Vertices. Rather, an infinite number of Vertices could fit within just a small Segment, requiring a higher dimension to create the Line itself. Thus, the Simplicity of God is yet a higher "dimension" of our understanding of simplicity, which can already grasp up to 3 Dimensions.

[IAmisMaster]

There’s nothing orthodox about believing the Trinity is the One God as Augustine invented, when the original doctrine of the Trinity by the Scriptures, ante-Nicene Christians, and the 325 Nicene Creed is that the One God is the Father, and the Son and Holy Spirit share the One God’s nature. The lost monarchical trinitarianism of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, etc. is the answer. Who has divine simplicity? The Father alone, the One God (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) and the only true God (John 17:3). The divine Son is obviously not simple having both a divine and human nature.

[JonahPleatherbooth]

The equilateral triangle is the simplest 2d object.

The tetrahedron is the simplest simplest 3d object

[黄文谦-gv]

The Nicene Creed says,
“God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.”

“begotten, not made”.
Literally, “begotten” and “made” are the same.
Doesn’t “begotten” imply “made”?
So literally this verse is contradictory. “begotten, not made”.

So there must be a profound meaning to this verse, that is:
At a certain point many lifetimes ago, the Christ was begotten of the Father.
Through practice in many lifetimes, He has eradicated all sins and sinful nature, and fully restored divinity and spirituality.
The full divinity and spirituality of the Christ were not made, so He was not made.
The reason why it can be explained in this way is because there are many lifetimes.
Without many lifetimes, there’s no way to explain “begotten, not made”.
Many lifetimes after being begotten, eventually the Christ was not made.
Without “many lifetimes”, “begotten” and “made” would be the same.
So this explanation is at least understandable in theory.

——Light of Wisdom Church《The Trinity ｜God from God, Light from Light｜Reincarnation | I Am the way, the truth and the life 08》

[onserfdez]

If we unpack this backwards: as we are created in HIS image; we have a physical body, a soul and spirit, yet we are one being. JESUS was GOD on earth and the Holy Spirit moved and touched people and gave people wisdom and more. I assume GOD was on the throne in Heaven. So, there is the Trinity for me. It is fine and well to think about it and discuss it with others, but I believe it is more important to PRAY for the people we know who are suffering right now. We can talk about the Holy Trinity at the banquet.

[Krillian]

What if love is the prime reality of the universe though. I'm a novice at the argument for Divine Simplicity- I do understand that its simplicity is grounded in there being no parts or complexity in the prime mover's (God) essence, but if love, like the Bible suggests, is the ground from which life and the universe were created, then couldn't God in the relational unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be the prime reality for existence?

Also, by WLC's logic, how is the Trinity not destroyed by claims of God's oneness? I understand how the argument dissects God's nature and personhood to make the argument, but I'm curious as to how WLC's logic wouldn't discredit God's biblical oneness. I'm sure there is a good answer to this, so I'm not really making an argument. Just asking the question.

[AdamRTNewman]

I think another potential concern with divine simplicity is that it can lend itself to the view, and I believe highly erroneous view, that Jesus, while one person, is both God and not God - God in His divine nature, not God in His human nature. A correct view is that inasmuch as Jesus is one person, this one person is God (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit also being God), and the simultaneous possession of a divine nature and a human nature doesn't break this up. Rather, when Jesus possesses a human nature, it is God as the person of the Son possessing this human nature.

[Misouriredneck]

Dr. Craig clearly doesnt understand divine simplicity....

[NickSandt]

I’m not trinitarian, and not unitarian, and not anti either of those stances. There’s good arguments for both sides

[paulinho_eletron]

Perfect, the notion of absolute divine simplicite is a pagan ideia, the God of the Bible is in fact simple, but not absolute simple, and the most important and ancient church fathers agree with you Dr. Craig.

[claudiozanella]

The trinity is just a CONVENTIONAL DOCTRINE invented in the fourth century, Jesus Himself had no idea of what a trinity is supposed to be! The doctrine is EXCEEDINGLY nonsensical and is nowhere in the bible (Jesus is NEVER with Father and Holy Spirit). For example, here "NO MAN KNOWS, no, not the angels in heaven or THE SON, BUT THE FATHER ONLY knows." you can see that - contrary to the doctrine - neither the Son, nor the alleged (non-existing) THIRD person of the trinity is CO-EQUAL and ALMIGHTY. They don't know the future, the doctrine is thus FALSE. The Truth simply is that JESUS IS ONLY WITH THE FATHER, WHO IS A SPIRIT ("God [the Father] is a spirit"). He is called "the Holy Spirit" (or "the Holy Father") by Jesus. He is a kind of "REFLECTION" of the "normal" Father who is ABSENT: "No man has seen God at any time" "the world has not known you". Only Jesus DID it (only in the past). A "Reflection" means that NOBODY is actually here (or in heaven) this is why Jesus is the ONLY KING OF HEAVEN, not God. Thus, the Son does NOT sit next to God. Jesus sits next to the "POWER of God" because He hasn't got any OWN power, He is like a normal man.

[eltonron]

If the holy spirit, were the only holy spirit, the trinity doctrine wouldn't be that of demons. In the name of the holy spirit, what is the name of the holy spirit?
How can a person be poured out?
God is a family of holy spirits, not a trinity.
Ephesians 3:15
If the bible said God is 3 distinct persons, ok. It doesn't. Devine simplicity.
Consider the source.
Men in robes, concerned about job security, concoct a mystery to insure they will be sought to explain, And they do/ did, with layers of mystery, and cherry picked scripture to be the arbiters of truth.
Bottom line, bless WLCs heart,
The trinity doctrine destroys the first command of ten, just as that other Sunday doctrine destroys the 4th command of ten.
Doctrines of demons, whatever it takes to make the vast majority of Christianity the subject of
1John 2:3-4.

[euston]

God is a unipersonal Spirit, and his name is JESUS.

[profgamer]

This Is true. BTW, given the Sola Scriptura principle, and being The Oficial Trinity Doctrine something speculative, It should not be a basic belief for being a christian

[oioi]

Craig continuously fails to understand that even all persons are ultimately persons of God, or none is. And of course, the first premise is true, that's a Divine simplicity.