Divine Simplicity | James Dolezal

The depravity of the human race has been blatantly displayed in every place throughout all of history. The Apostle Paul was clearly right when he said, “None is righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10).

This truth is illustrated every day. We see riots in the streets, corruption in government, perversion in marriage, and then, of course, there is plenty of sin remaining in our very own flesh. The Reformer, John Calvin, taught that such things should turn our gaze to God. He wrote, “Indeed, our very poverty better discloses the infinitude of benefits reposing in God. The miserable ruin, into which the rebellion of the first man cast us, especially compels us to look upward.”

We have all sorts of trouble down here because we have neglected to look up there. We are made in the image of God. But many have forgotten God, leaving the phrase “image of God” meaningless. Now is a time to know God and worship Him. Calvin also said, “Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.” Man no longer knows himself. But there is no way to rediscover the truth about man without first coming to a true knowledge of God.

This presentation was given by Dr. James Dolezal on January 21, 2021 at the Founders "The Only God" national conference in Southwest Florida.

All Founders Ministries resources are copyrighted and any use and distribution must be approved by Founders Ministries.

Follow Founders Ministries:

[TheExastrologer]

I am just finishing up Dr. Dolezal's "God Without Parts, " which was quite challenging to read but as I got into it, I began to understand more and learned a lot. Prior to that, I read Dr. Dolezal' "All That Is In God" which I recommend to any Christian who wants to understand how we can think of God that is compatible with his revelation. It was fascinating and I could hardly put it down until I finished it. Glad Dr. Dolezal is out there defending the classic Divine Simplicity which is being redefined or denied by many theologians.

[philipcapo]

Fantastic Message. So, simple. But you may need to listen several times.

[ThisDoctorKnows]

This is very, very good. One of the best explanations of divine simplicity I have ever heard.

[ronxxf]

I just started reading Vos's Dogmatics and it made me think of Mr Dolezal and here he is.

[mdona]

Seems like you guys either didn't listen or didn't understand the talk. This is about the nature of God's being or divine metaphysics.

[Kenneth-nVA]

I’ve heard that there’s some in the reformed camp that would disagree with this position… I find that difficult since this message is crystal clear and biblically sound

[carld]

We could just say that there is no conflict within God. That would be a simple explanation of simplicity.

[viaini.niaivi]

He is Jesus Christ.. that's simple 😇🙏

[Mrm]

19:54: Exodus 3:14 is best translated, 'I WILL BE what I WILL BE' not 'I AM what I AM'. He's retroactively reading back Platonism and Divine Simplicity into what is really a statement about God's faithfulness into the future and God's ability to act in way we can't expect.

[theresaread]

This video was made 6 months ago so I apologize if my comment is too late. There was no scripture used to support divine simplicity. God In Genesis 2 said let us make man in our image. He wanted to have a relationship with mankind. The god of simplicity is not the God of the Bible. Jesus would rather come to the earth, and die in your place, than for you to go to hell. It takes your response of faith and repentance. Then God the Father becomes your Father, because Jesus became a human being, still truly God and then the Holy Spirit comes into you and you become regenerate
and a temple of the Holy Spirit. Sounds like a lot of change to me! Because it is. Divine Simplicity is not Biblical. God is love. Jesus the Word became a human. Jesus walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the day with legs and body parts. He encouraged Cain to bring a right sacrifice. Jesus talked to Joshua and told he was Lord of Armies. Jesus wrestled with Jacob in a preincarnate body. He spoke to Samson’s mother, and came back to talk to both of Samson’s parents.. He was the Angel of the Lord, though not an Angel but a preincarnate theophany in Gideon’s fight of 300, He strengthened Elijah after his battle with Jezebel and her false prophets! Though no longer coming in a body anymore but came to save you from the wrath to come.This is false doctrine, come to Jesus who loves you, Jesus, the truth.

[barbarachandler]

Goid sermon. The people in Jesus' day would have been completely lost in the words. In talking to others about God KISS. Keep it so simple, even a child can understand.

[claumeister]

This all sounds great, because we are the inheritors of Western Civilization which began with the pagan Greek philosophers like Plato, and then was mixed into orthodox Christianity by early Gentile converts in the Greco-Roman world. But it’s NOT taught by the Bible. It’s has NOTHING to do with the ancient Jewish conception of Yahweh.

This Platonic conception of God as the One infected early Christianity thru Augustine and many of the early “church fathers” like Justin Martyr who openly admitted that they were imposing Plato and Plotinus on the Bible. Augustine said the Bible was absurd to him until he was taught to read it in light of Platonism.

This is all abstract philosophical reasoning, coming from the human intellect. You don’t need any revelation from outside the mind for this. The Scriptures he references just say that God is the source of all things. They DON’T say that God CANNOT receive anything from us — the OT says over and over that Yahweh desires, and delights in, the worship and holiness of His people, and is grieved by their idolatry. Yahweh can CHOOSE to be affected by man; Dolezal’s Platonic impersonal detached deistic One thingy CANNOT.

If you’re a Calvinist, or a classical Arminian, THIS is your metaphysics — Plato via Augustine to Calvin. Yes, it’s classical. That doesn’t mean right. It means derived from the ancient pagan Greeks and Romans.

[travissharon]

1700 years, false. Strong divine simplicity was non-existent until the 4th century.

[GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. —John 3:16

Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19

.
.

[danoctavian]

31:06 Untill now, the logic is sound, but this thing is not a good argument and is false from a mathematical perspective. We work with “infinite parts” all the time, they are even different types of infinite with some being “bigger” then others.

[JackMitchell-liiw]

With respect this teaching must be at least questioned. There is little reference to the Bible. The few verses quoted do not point towards such simplicity. The Biblical evidence points to a ETERNALLY COMPLEX God. The various ways God is described throughout the Bible all speak of this complexity. Thus God is not composed. And he is not divisible. Of course He cannot be reduced to a collection of parts but we do not have to go down the road of simplicity. In one of his lectures Mr Dolezal uses the idea of white light being refracted into different colours (yes I am European) to get across the idea that the simple God is revealed as complex but is not such in himself. Yet this would mean the complexity of nature and especially the complexity of humans made in the image of God becomes arbitrary. Surely it must be more than arbitrary. We are made in God's image. He keeps saying that "all that is in God is God". Yet to be eternally complex actually does no violence to that understanding. God is. The Bible points towards eternal complexity. Do not start defining the parts and then look to see what God is like! Just look at God. His character thus defines and gives absolute (rather than arbitrary) meaning to the complexity of the universe. The arguments will go on as to why theologians have pushed this doctrine so much. My own view is that Aristotle casts a long shadow. To say that God is eternally complex also does no violence to the Westminster Confession. This is because he is indivisible. Once again I stress we do not define "parts" and then look at God. Just look at God. Start quoting the Bible. Just go and read Psalm 145 with this in mind rather than Aristotle! Listen to the way Mr Dolezal struggles at minute 34 with the very words of the Bible. Of course our minds cannot take in all of who he is yet his revelation is not so arbitrary that the complexity we see has no real and meaningful reference point. The Bible points to his irreducible nature yet it also points us to an eternally complex God. Thank you.

[copernicus]

How can a mind be simple? If God is a supreme intellect then he must be supremely complex. To be utterly simple he would have to be utterly mindless. You can't have both intelligence and simplicity. Make up your mind!

[HJM]

Well: he doesn’t understand light, so I’m not sure he understands God.

[wstaylor]

You can only teach that business from a podium where you wont be interrupted. Free discourse you'll get eaten alive by simple biblically based right reason, the kind that Jesus employed every where . The truth is Divine simplicity is antithetical to Christ's own teaching of the Father and therefore just wrong. Word puzzle theology where you assemble the puzzle pieces and then take them apart is more an advertisement for "Hobby Lobby" at best and another re-articulation of neo-platonist syncretism.

[markmusatau]

Interesting yet unconvincing. Is Jesus part or whole? Is the spirit part or whole. Is God simple without Jesus or without spirit? Is Jesus God alone without father or spirit? Is Jesus lesser than the other two and vise versa? Per Professor’s definition. Is Jesus identical person to person of Father? Further what does Son’s ultimate submission in 1 Corinthians 15 speak about parts and whole? Does whole submit to himself? Then how does temporality affect this submission. What about Philippians 2:5-11? This framework is a dim glass that confuses everything scripture reveals. Plus, what is the value of metaphysics of Aristotle in 21st century? Would it be better to use Biblical bipart or tripart approach rather than Ancient Greek philosophical counterpart.