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.

"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."

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.

Thank you Dr. Ortlund, Truth Unites is quickly becoming my favorite apologetics channel on KZfaq. 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.

Great job!

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.

Watching this in anticipation of the full debate!

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

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

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.

Looking forward to the watch!

Very impressive, this is excellent

Thank you for this very good video. And thank you for modelling humility and wisdom.

One of the best discussions on DDS I've come across thus far.

Thanks for your studies and teachings on divine simplicity

Well done respect

Such a good video! Didn’t know I already thought about God with some ideas of divine simplicity! Looking forward to researching this more

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.

My son is studying theology and he is the one who first talked to me about divine simplicity. I was interested to find out more about it and this is my first visit to your site. I just wanted to thank you so much I followed it all so well, even though I don’t have any theological training, it is very clear and understandable and thought-provoking are really appreciate it. I will be watching other videos and I also sent this video to my son he’s going to get a real kick out of this. Thank you so much for all the work you’ve put into it.

Divine simplicity.That is beautifully said and absolutely true. Principles of creation and principles of love.They are fundamental and unchanging,yet we have the freedom to explore and discover them and then live them to the fullest. God gave us a creative heart to mind.

Fascinating video, Dr. Ortlund. I would love to see a video on impossibility as well

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).

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)!

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

This is great! Thank you Gavin. Your approach is quite unique; taking a historical contextual perspective, seeing what such and such doctrine meant to those who followed it and why it was important to them. I think it’s important to have this “historic humility” so to say, and not brazenly critique with just our purely modern lens, tacitly assuming that such lens is true. I guess another cousin of what CSL would call “chronological snobbery”.

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.

Thank you, this was very helpful as it added to some of the other resources that I have been looking into in regard to this doctrine. I also defend Divine simplicity and suspect that a lot of the objections arise because of a misunderstanding of premodern philosophy. Modern philosophies have tended to treat the world as first, a mechanism in which a deist God is the only one allowable. A recent trend is trend is to see the cosmos more as an organism that contains all there is, and to see God as one being within it, as you mentioned in your discussion. I do not fault the average person, since most people don’t know what’s at stake. However, I do fault the philosophers and theologians, at the very least for not doing their homework.

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

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

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.

All of a sudden I want to make some sort of a fancy plaque of all these incredible divine simplicity quotes on it because there is no way I'm remembering them off hand.

I just started reading your book about theological retrieval and you talk about divine simplicity a lot... And to be honest I don't really know what that is, so this video came at a good time 😅

I knew there was a reason I like you 😁. I love Classical Theism.

Good video. You can't make sense of Christian metaphysics without reading and understanding St. Dionysios. He's the most cited church father, east and west.

Thanks

I'm not convinced I can make sense of the doctrine without taking on board a whole philosophical framework I don't agree with. Yet, I'm very grateful for the video!

Great video Gavin! As always, your demeanor is inspiring. You should get in touch with RT Mullins. When it comes to models of God, he's the man.

Thanks for the video! I can't wait to watch it. This is especially interesting since I have seen a lot of Christian Philosophers reject divine simplicity. I was wondering. Would you ever consider making any videos responding to Jake the Muslim Metaphysician and his stuff on the logical problems of the Trinity and Incarnation?

A good read (for me) on the simplicity of God: “The Triumph of the Cross,” cheaper 8, by Girolamo Savonarola, circa 1492, Florence.

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

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

The essence energy distinction plays its whole in the Eucharist, something to look into .

New fan here, I am a life long Catholic but years ago started to see how dumb those divisions are. Love your work, you remind me of Karl Barth, Hans Kung and Karl Rahner among others, basically my theology heroes.

I have never quite understood the allergy to abstraction. It is one way of thinking that we do all the time. Whether we like it or not, there are abstract principles behind everything we say about God. Those abstractions that we don’t acknowledge can often be dangerous, so we need to look at them to make sure we are on the right track. I suspect with a lot of people the aversion to using abstract language is an emotional one. We want God to be cozy. Perhaps it is the rise of subjectivity in our culture that contributes to this.

With God's simplicity and transcendence of all reality, all sin and evil is within God and so is hell. Divine simplicity ramps up God's mysteriousness.

Do a video on eternal security in the early church!

Hey Gavin! This was excellent. I was wondering if in a future video you might be able to dive into some modal collapse arguments? Does divine simplicity entail modal collapse and make everything necessary?

I have come to the idea of divine simplicity from purely philosophical grounds, starting with a form of the first mover argument. 1. Logic consists of rules of correct inference from assumed premises. 2. From 1, we can see that if we want to logically explain an assumed premise, we must assume at least one other premise. 3. From 2, we can see that it is not possible to come to an ultimate cause or explanation for anything by means of ordinary logic. 4. Here are the options you get if you try to come up with can ultimate cause(s): a. There is a necessary premise. This premise cannot be derived from anything, but can derive all other things. (this option obviously points to God) b. There is an infinite regression of causes with no beginning. c. There is a cause or causes that can cause themselves (circular reasoning) Also, if we take free will to mean that something acts without first being acted on, then option a, (a necessary premise) would seem by definition to have free will, and thus to be alive. Goedel's theorem (every consistent system has things which are true that can't be proven from the axioms) and the Entscheidungsproblem (the proof that it is not possible to come up with an algorithm which can prove any arbitrary mathematical statement to be true or false) also point to the direction that ultimate/complete understanding is not within human power. The nature of existence is beyond human understanding. I cannot prove this, but I like to imagine that there are 2 types of things: a thing which has the necessary premise (which by definition would make that thing God), and a thing which does not have the necessary premise (which makes that thing dependent on God). I like to imagine that God then is the totality of logic itself (the totality of logic being derivable from the necessary premise). Whenever we think of something that is true, we are contemplating the divine in an incomplete and imperfect sense. In this sense, we literally cannot think without God. God's mind contains not only everything that is, but everything that possibly could be. I like to imagine that God created the universe as a reflection of himself, or as much as could be accomplished by finite objects. I guess you could not actually get all the way to God from created things without doing an infinite calculation, so maybe that's why God made the universe very large and very old, so that it can constantly approach him (as much as is possible for things that are not God). I like to think that if God created the universe to be a reflection of him, then maybe things like biological evolution and cosmological evolution are things to be expected--would it not be more similar to God for a thing to approach him somewhat on its own power than for God to constantly have to babysit it? This would also explain why he does not always make everything clear; we are more like him when we struggle and exert ourselves to the limits of our power. Maybe you are more like God to struggle and make mistakes than to have an easy time by simply being given the truth. I like to also imagine that God would prefer that we act more like him, but in the case we rebel, that also honors him in a round-about way, since the logic/logos which causes a fool to destroy himself also comes from God. This conception makes it kind of pointless to rebel against God, since you cannot do or even think of anything which was not first in the mind of God.

You may want to check out Majesty of Reason's videos on classical theism. He recently released a video on arguments against classical theism.

Can you explain more how the father’s used divine simplicity to argue for the Trinity? Based on Matthew Barrett’s and James Dolezal’s books it was a starting point for how the one essence is communicated from the Father to the Son and the Spirit. Dolezal goes into this in his book “All that is in God” when he quotes Athanasius saying “Divine simplicity is clearly a controlling centerpiece of classical Christian grammar, shaping even the articulation of the Trinity”. This topic has fascinated me as of late, especially understanding classical theism as it was taught by the early church fathers. Thanks!

I’m no longer a Taoist, but I can’t help but see that some of the concepts talked about in this video (God’s simplicity, essence, energies, attributes, knowability, unknowability, etc.) were forecast as early as the 4th century B.C. in Lao-Tzu’s “Tao Te Ching,” especially chapter 1 - Tao called Tao is not Tao. Names can name no lasting name. Nameless: the origin of heaven and earth. Naming: the mother of ten thousand things. Empty of desire, perceive mystery. Filled with desire, perceive manifestations. These have the same source, but different names. Call them both deep - Deep and again deep: The gateway to all mystery. (Addiss & Lombard translation.) Note: The Tao character is used for the Chinese translation of Logos (“the Word”) in John 1:1.

God cannot be named in the sense that he is beyond intellectual or philosophical comprehension. But despite this ineffablility, God has named himself for the purpose of revelation to his creatures. The pursuit of an intellectual conception of God, however, is vanity.

I recommend the book 'The Hexagon of Heresy' by James Gifford. There you will find why making Essense and Attribute (energy) equivalent has to do with proper Ordo Theologiae that the west (Latin, i.e. Augustine) has confused since Origen....

I think it's interesting that most simple things in reality do seem to have entirely different rules than the more complex things made up of them. Things at a subatomic level operate in a way that is totally counterintuitive when contrasted with Newtonian physics. Maybe it's the case that God made this world knowing that when we knew enough to find these oddities that they might humble us into recalling the 'scary theology' of divine simplicity. The fear of the Lord is indeed the beginning of wisdom.

The influence of Greek allergorical hermaneutincs.from the fallof Constantinople and the Greek philosophy that came from Alexandria to Syria then into church fathers and Aquinas Thomistic thought.

What Ockham says about divine wisdom(and all such divine qualities like love, Justice etc) and divine essence being identical makes a lot of sense. I think these attributes as we view them in their *distinctiveness* are derived/abstracted from God Himself. Love, Justice, mercy, wisdom, are all grounded in the concept of God. The aforementioned qualities are like human accommodative ways of understanding the true reality they point to. Like metaphors. This is of course not to say that Gods goodness is not at all like our goodness. There is a relation and a likeness between the metaphor and the object the metaphor is describing that the metaphor tries to describe. But the object itself is beyond this all. CSL touches on this in part IV of grief observed in the context of love and intelligence

Great topic. One bit of constructive criticism: you didn't start talking about simplicity until minute 8. A little less throat clearing may improve things.

I'm working on a thesis to present a positive defense of Divine Simplicity using a kaphatic approach.

If G-d is supra essential, then he is unknowable. Thus, we can only know him through the complexity of his energies.

I was hiking in the Smoky mountains last weekend I felt the stable and grounded God. I have not read all the sources, but God's wholeness and simplicity was all around me

Is there a significant difference beween Divine Simplicity & Abolute Divine Simplicity? Does the difference clarify how East & West view the concept - and its theological effect? Currently Catholic, returning . . . Bradshaw's "Aritotle East & West" has, for me, been clarifying. (Steve Golay)

Thank you for an interesting talk. I have never found that the idea of absolute divine simplicity ADS speaks to me. What is the difference between god as absolute simplicity and the monad of Pythagoras and the pre-Socratics? The image of the circled dot "God is an intelligible sphere, whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere." God as absolute simplicity is perhaps similar to the Thomist first cause and seem to lead to generic theism and to Deism. I am made in the image of God and participate in the divine nature so do I also have absolute simplicity? You also talk about divine impassibility. If there is aseity and impassibility then would it not follow that God is indifferent to events = Deism. Why then be a Christian and not a Deist or Muslim or believe in the demiurge? How does the Logos relate to ADS? If God feels no pain or pleasure does it matter if a sparrow falls to the ground or how many hairs are on my head ? (fewer hairs compared to when I was young!). Surely the incarnation make ADS a little meaningless, and the response of Jesus to the death of his friend Lazarus makes impassibility a strange idea. So the danger is that the god of ADS is not the personal God and father of Jesus. We get a god of philosophers and theologians. An intelligible sphere is not personal and a personal God is central to Jesus. We can end up with the god of “Honest to God” of JAT Robinson who is the ground of our being, and as that Bishop of Woolwich said - the traditional image of god had to go. However the baby Jesus was lost with the theological bathwater.

The divine simplicity has always been my intuition as well despite my favourite philosophers (like William Lane Craig). When someone says "God's compassion moved Him", I kind of interpret this metaphorically. There is nothing that can "move" God, God moves all...If His attributes are not in coincidence with His essence, then there is something beyond God that transcends God, namely His attributes that move Him... I find that utterly preposterous....

Forgive me in advance for any imprecise language. I'm not a scholar or theologian. That said, I have a note about your comment on the different nature of God's goodness: My simple understanding is that God is not good in a different way than we are. He is good in precisely the ways that we are; however, his goodness is not limited to the ways in which we are good. Every good thing comes from God because God embodies maximal goodness. So, all of our goodness is a shadow or reflection of God. Because His goodness is complete and essential, and the world can only exhibit fragmented versions of it. Another way I think about it is that each time you see "good" in the world, it's akin to looking through a tiny pinprick in the fabric of reality through which God's goodness is shining. You could say the same things about something like wisdom. Wisdom can only be wise insomuch as it reflects (or maybe reveals) God's nature. So, each time you see wisdom in the world, you get a tiny glimpse of God's essence.

Basil the Great's Letter VIII, An Apology to the Caesareans for his Withdrawal, and a Treatise on Faith says, "In reply to those who slander us as being Tritheists, let it be said that we confess one God, not in number but in nature. For not everything that is called one in number is one in reality nor simple in nature; but God is universally admitted to be simple and uncompounded." He goes on to say that numberability, which he sees as basically partiblity, belongs to things material (limited in physical scope) and/or created (compassed and therefore circumscribed by the comprehension and foreknowledge of God), and God is infinite and without parts.

Wow that book is so expensive, but I want it 😓

The simplicity of God as you explained it seems like a working out of God’s holiness or separateness from His creation. He is separated from sin of course, but also so unique and outside of creation that we cannot completely comprehend Him. That’s why idolatry or images are so bad. Nothing can fully image God except Christ Himself.

Ps. I could see great benefit in a debate between you and William Lane Craig on the subject.

This goes somewhat with metaphysical idealism.

Infinity is not a number, but it is a mathematical concept which is an extension of number systems. Even though the concept of infinity is an extension of numbers, working with infinities results in all manner of paradoxes and oddities that never occur when dealing with the finite. If God is infinite, then His infinitude could be like that, i.e. an extension but in such a way that unimaginable properties result.

What are some Biblical texts to look at for defending the doctrine of divine simplicity?

0:10 - as far as I can tell : one of William Lane Craig's claims are that the simplicity of God as eventually defined by Aquinas is not universal at all and that the claims of the earlier church father's are much more modest and open to a softer view of divine simplicity (edit : of course I have no way of verifying this but I watched his Q&A on Capturing Christianity with Ryan Mullins)

If we view God as making decisions having patterns of thought than he does have parts.

Thanks again for this video Gavin. What do you think of the idea that God is identical to his actions? That has never made sense to me

Gavin, have you read much with regard to RT Mullins criticisms? I remember asking you about the topic at Immanuel when you visited in 2019. At any rate, analogical language gets me. I simply, as it were, cannot get on board with it. Univocal language can work given a specific construct, for lack of a better term. But univocal seems to be the only way I can make sense of it. Mullins has a podcast with Thomas Williams that helped me make the jump to univocal language. Love to hear your thoughts if you see this. Grace and peace.

I very much enjoy your content Gavin, and the nature in which you deliver it! But I can't help thinking that you are sometimes trying to equivocate that which is actually incompatible: i.e., many aspects of Augustinianism and eastern Christianity... the Reformed "lense" that you inevitably - consciously or not so - see and judge things by, strongly influences your view of the faith (but yes, you are also at times very honest about the possible incompatibilities too) I know that we have Christ in common as Trinity affirmng, Jesus worshippers, no matter what stream of Christianity we belong to, and in this - in His self revealing and saving grace - we rejoice! But "encouraging caution" with regards to this particular topic, is really just trying to squeeze the very legitimate (and quite possibly right and superior view) into an Augustinian framework. For the Eastern view is crystal clear: that although God is not composed of parts, He contains real distinctions: between person and essence; between person and will; between will and operations. Yes we should ever "urge caution" whenever thinking or speaking of the Creator, but here, it seems, you are just wanting the essence-energy "Greek" Patristic consensus to conform to Platonic and Aristotelian "Latin" foundations... the absolute divine simplicity favoured in the West (and therefore its inseparable presuppositions and necessary conclusions) Yes of course He transcends every category that we can imagine, but that doesn't preclude that we can say something basic about Him... like, as you would agree, He is Triune, or, like you don't agree, the Essence-Energy distinction is necessary - a conclusion / consensus derived from both Scripture and Patristic tradition. There is simply no good reason why the absolute define simplicity adopted by Augustine should trump all else, and be obvious nearer to the divine reality (and its predestinarian doctrinal inevitable offspring that is rejected in the East) ✌️

I believe in divine simplicity. How do we speak of it/teach on it without leading to the image of an impersonal God? Jesus and the Father and the HS are persons to me in prayer....but how are they persons and relational as divinely simple?

Incidently, Divine Simplicity kind of puts all statements of God's attributes as anthropomorphisms, right? But, since God inspired those anthropomorphisms, he would want us to understand him a certain way? What does Divine Simplicity have to say to the notion that God willed that we would understand his person in a descriptive way?

Emperor and the image of the emperor aren’t two centers of “I.” What it’s like to be the son isn’t the same “what it’s like” to be the father.

I just completed my philosophy dissertation on this topic (William Lane Craig Against the Platonist: Divine Aseity and Abstract Objects) at SBTS, in case you would care to see it.

I think one of the main challenges to divine simplicity (from a popular perspective) is biblicism. People expect one Bible verse saying "God is simple" instead of meditating on all the implications of the revelation of God. The same with the Trinity. Thanks for the video!

I'm still trying to understand this concept. I don't fully grasp what would be lost in denying the doctrine. I have seen critics of the doctrine claim it is a result of early church and medieval church incorporating platonic ideas into their theology. I don't know if that is true. I just don't grasp the Biblical basis for this idea. Aseity i understand. Divine Passlessness i can at least explain it. This doctrine is just too far out there for me.

What’s wild is, Dane’s book, in some ways, undermines Divine Simplicity.

Trouble with the Catholic Church…too many philosophers and mystics that the Church decides to adopt as authentic because they suit it’s needs. I’m still Catholic but I’m learning.

Are they any primary or secondary works that you would recommend on this subject?

Re: divine simplicity and the Trinity, I *highly* recommend Jordan Barrett’s book, Divine Simplicity: A Biblical and Trinitarian Account (Fortress Press, 2017) - he constructs a fascinating analogy between the distinction of the persons and distinctions between attributes. (Also, the kindle version is currently $8, which is preferable to the $80 hardback...)

God is completely unique from everything else that we know. Therefore we are completely dependant on his revelation to understand him. True. But what about general revelation (Rom1:20; Ps 19:1)? Can't people draw inferences from created things (even without the Bible) and truly know God? Not being contentious. I agree with the statement, and I believe in sola scriptura, but these are questions I still wrestle with sometimes.

Really, the sexiest part of the man is his brain)

Aseity is the key

You’re meeting my pastor soon on a zoom call. Please get him to realize how important this doctrine is! ;)

Divine Simplicity as a concept is the parent of miletant relativism.

Would you say that Gods attributes are identical with each other?

Does eliminating divine simplicity Eliminate trinity ?

How much do you bench?

Divine simplicity seems a bit obscurantist. If I were to accept this doctrine in its strongest form I would have to conclude that I now know less about God than I thought I did and proponents would say that is by design. It almost makes a mockery of the concept of revelation, because it means we can know so preciously little about God despite what He says about Himself, but then if that is a necessary limitation of our finite minds trying to comprehend an infinite God, then I guess we should adjust our expectations of what revelation is able to provide us with. However, it does leave me with a conundrum of how any sense of personhood can be maintained with this conception of God. Getting from personhood to 3 persons is relatively easy (even thought that is already difficult) but finding any room for personhood is the real challenge...

8:18, 8:39

Thanks for this. Do you think it is correct or incorrect to say that there are three centers of consciousness in God?

The more I study theology the more I think we need to be reading the church fathers.

In jewish thought, God is the essential reality, and contracted himself to permit something else to exist, into which he filled the heavens and the earth.

From what I have gathered the idea of Plato's the One, and Platanus is really where the YHWH picked up the characteristic of divince simplicity. I cant reconcile scripture with a being that isnt effected by anything outside of Him. He has too many conversations with people, and makes compromises with man. These things are dont seem to work with a divinely simple being.