My Defense of Divine Simplicity

In recent years there has been a retrieval of classical theism, including such doctrines as divine simplicity, divine aseity, and divine impassibility. But many evangelicals are still wary of these doctrines. Here I offer a defense of divine simplicity and explain why it is important, with special focus on its historical articulation.

Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.

Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.

My books:

[DDCrp]

And after contemplating the sheer incomprehensibility of God's unique relationship to creation, our conceptions, and our experience of reality itself- by God's own revelation, we may call him Abba. Thats good news.

[garyboulton]

"God is not within Reality, Reality is within God." I love when this happens, someone i respect says the same things that I say. It makes me feel like I'm on the right track. The way i normally say it is "God does not dwell within existence, existence dwells within God. God does not dwell in a realm called eternity, eternity dwells within God."

[Nighthawkinlight]

Trying to nail down how God's essence relates to his attributes to me falls squarely into job 42:3 and psalm 131:1 territory. I can see how certain conclusions make sense by deduction, but I also believe it's a question for which there is an infinite amount of hidden information that I could never comprehend.

[alanrhoda]

You're right that the West and East part ways wrt divine simplicity, but the divide is not just one of emphasis or degree. The Eastern essence/energies distinction entails a *denial* of the Western identity thesis (i.e., that God is what He has). The two conceptions of divine simplicity are thus irreconcilable. The Western tradition followed Augustine in affirming *absolute* simplicity (i.e., God = God's essence = God's existence = God's actions = God's attributes). The Eastern tradition affirmed divine simplicity in the sense that God has no proper or separable parts. God is fundamentally a unity. But they didn't take that to imply absolute simplicity. The essence/energies distinction allows God to have *contingent* properties/acts (i.e., energies), something absolute simplicity does not allow.

[stephanieblenkhorn]

I am no theologian by any means but I just love this teaching 🤗
Saved to watch at least 3 times.
Thank you 🕊🤍

[danielaherrera]

Thank you Dr. Ortlund, Truth Unites is quickly becoming my favorite apologetics channel on YouTube. Our inability to fully understand God but still reason at some level His existence is to me the epitome of being in awe and to worship Him incessantly.

[ryanward]

I think it's interesting to note re: the more "relaxed" approach to simplicity in the Greek fathers vs. the stricter approach in the Latin fathers that there's a parallel in Islamic theology. The Muslim philosophers and the Shia tradition tend toward the strict "identity thesis", whereas Sunni orthodoxy allows for a certain distinction between God and his attributes. It seems like when you take a more purely philosophical approach, it's natural to espouse a very strict view of simplicity, but when you're dealing with a God who reveals himself, the question naturally arises whether this strictness remains tenable.

[JJHOMEY]

Right now, many Classical Theists are painting the doctrine of Identical Attributes as the sole definition of Divine Simplicity—to deny a thomistic and western understanding of identical attributes is to deny classical orthodox Christian doctrine point blank. You point out though that the western fathers, though in seeming agreement on identical attributes with Aquinas, aren’t as explicitly comfortable on this point in particular as contemporary classical theists are. The fathers have a deep grasp of the true mystery and transcendence of God which helps guard their theology whenever it reaches logical conclusions that seem to stretch and trouble our feeble minds—a mystery that sometimes comes across as being conquered by contemporary classical theologians who have figured it out with the variously established categories in place. You even point out how the East has a little different tone about them and seem to not carry the doctrine of Divine Simplicity as strongly as the West. I agree. Duns Scotus too took a less strong view of Simplicity over against Aquinas in his day. Some make the Classical Position to be very rigid like everyone very explicitly has the same view and are of one accord on this all throughout history regarding identical attributes, and that just isn’t the case.

I wish more people were as balanced as you in this discussion.

Not-composite and indivisible—yes. All attributes are equally identical—ehhh. This view should not be attacked as heresy and out of accord with orthodox Christian. As you say, this view is “perfectly reasonable.” Well said. More people should be talking about this issue like this.

[toddvoss]

Good work to cover such a difficult subject in 39 minutes. Ed Feser's philosophy blog has many entries on the subject. I liked how you didn't just focus on Thomist approach but looked back at many Fathers (and Jewish/Islamic sources) for a historical theology lens as well. Love the quote from St. Bonaventure (who you taught me was quoting Alain of Lille)!

[jrhemmerich]

I’ve thought about this a lot, and it seems to me that strong simplicity is the ultimate result of the metaphysical quest for necessary being along with the principle of sufficient reason. The result is a ground of being who is the singular, uncaused, cause of all, who has no peer. The singularity of the conclusion meshes so well with monotheism that to ignore it seems foolhardy.

The great difficulty, in my mind is to square the true parts of this classical theism (CT). with its shortcomings. CT might be compared to a net that only catches one kind of thing. But the critique from a biblical perspective is that such a net might result in the exclusion of contingency or will from our understanding of God. If the negations of distinctions in God is pressed to the point that will and intellect become not just aspects of one ultimate being, but become identical, then contingency gives way to necessity all the way down. This conflicts with the Christian doctrine of creation, that the world is contingent, or that there is contingency of any kind.

Indeed, in such a system God himself has no free will, because to have unactualized contingency is outside of the divine by definition. This is the rub withe CT. By placing the creator/creature distinction at the point of contingency (necessary/contingent) one appears to make the distinction secure. But in fact, in the words of C. Van Til, what one ends up with is an eternal correlation between God and the world. Pantheism is supposedly denied with the assertion that God is logically, but not temporally prior to creation. But is this sufficient to save monotheism? If not, if God must be prior temporally in his creative act, then it seems that God must have a choice to create, but that introduces a distinction between will and intellect. And this will has at least one contingency, to crate or not to create. If we can affirm this distinction of intellect and will along with the simplicity of God’s singular identity, then it seems to me that we would be on the right track.

I would like to be able to coherently say that God is Spirit and light and in him there is no darkness, and he transcends all creaturely categories because he is the source of all things, but he has will and intellect, and there is contingency under his sovereign control. Call it a substantial simplicity—God is one substance (Spirit/Nous), but three relations, and he has aspects of intellect and will, in which there are essential perfections like goodness and aseity, along with perfect contingencies like being a creator. This is what would get my vote.

The difficulty is, strong simplicity, per Aquinas and Paul Helm, is used to deny any sort of contingency in God, and this denies the doctrine of creation, however much one protests. That is the rub—Aristotle’s eternal world looms in the background.

Lol, we all wish this was simple!!! But it reminds me, I can’t save even my own mind…maybe there is value in that.

That’s my thought that overstayed it’s welcome. Thanks so much, love your videos.

[NESHYBeast]

Watching this in anticipation of the full debate!

[izrippin]

James Dolezal’s book All that is in God delivers a great treatment and defense on divine simplicity. A recommended read for sure.

[changjsc]

I would love to see you debate Dr. William Lane Craig about this.

[truthovertea]

Dude you never disappoint! Except on your views on YEC, but other than that spot on brother!

[JohnDeRosa]

This is an outstanding video, and I very much resonate with your defense of this doctrine. I'd love to get you on my podcast to discuss this topic (and your book on God's existence).

[YuDynasty]

Ooooo!!! Looking forward to this!

Will you ever have a podcast?!?!? I’d love to just download this and just listen as a podcast!

[josephcandito]

What a clear and concise presentation of Divine Simplicity. I really enjoyed this video. The “Godness of God”

[unexpectedTrajectory]

Fabulous, accessible intro to the doctrine. I've listened to a lot from Dr. James Dolezal along with his All That Is In God, and others, but this is probably a better resource for me to share to introduce someone to this. Thank you.

[SacrumImperiumRomanum]

Astonishing. Remarkable. How could we support you in producing a video of the essence/energies distinction?

[garyboulton]

Love the work. Would you consider doing a video on the essence-energy distinction and whether you see it as biblical. Thanks