I am an Evangelical pastor who has studied Aquinas for over 20 years, so I can appreciate this brilliant conversation. I personally believe the "battle for God" is the most important struggle of the 21st century--both inside the church (Catholic and Protestant) and outside the church. I agree with Dr. Peter Jones that Secularism has given way to religious Monism and this paganistic Monism is agressively attacking orthodox Christianity. Jones believes Modern Western Monism is epitomized in sexual perversion and transgenderism which denies the bifurcation of humanity into male and female. Hence, it must defeat Christian morality. However, inside the church there is a lack of understanding as to how a right understanding of God as Simple and having divine Aseity is critical to the Christian worldview and morality. He is utterly different, separate and transcendent from the creation. Thank you for this video.
Thank-you for this wonderfully informative video! Question: Is the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity considered to be derived from general revelation/natural theology?
I believe James said that it is not proper to say that God is "most absolute" (WCF2.1), because God ought not to be referred to in degrees (the "most" of a thing); He is ontologically set apart from all beings.
Thomist Scholasticism is in no way corrupting to Scripture; I think it enhances it. It doesn't matter if there is direct citation in Scripture that affirms this idea or what not; the Bible doesn't tell us everything. The Bible is not a philosophy textbook--it's a spiritual book. However, I think this idea does get affirmed in Scripture. God says, "I AM" so that affirms St. Thomas' way of viewing God.
the original Hebrew of that expression to Moses with the burning bush, it was just a popular form of phrase in Hebrew conversation, when Moses asked Him who he is, he answered that: I am who I am." It is like when the ancient Israeli asked: where did he go?" The person answered : he went to where he went", the implication of this form of phrase is "your question is useless" (at least in that particular situation).
Here is a video by Jay Dire which deals with Thomism and Divine Simplicity. You wont find a better teacher on this subject. Orthodox Critique of Aquinas' Divine Simplicity and Created Grace - Jay Dyer ua-cam.com/video/0IOO5k7X1pA/v-deo.html
I feel drawn to Maritain and reformed scholasticism, there is something to it. My question is - do we ignore thomas aquinas saying everything he wrote was straw?
Excellent. I've just started "All That is In God", and this was really helpful. I realize I need to read the book they came before the one that I just mentioned.
Dear Reformed Forum: If God is absolutely simple, then doesn't this mean that all of God's attributes, including his will, are identical to his essence? And if that is true, then was God truly free to create or not to create, since to *will* otherwise would mean to *be* otherwise?
Question answered at 59:53. At 1:05:53, James answers by demonstrating that the freedom of creatures is entirely different from the freedom of the Creator, ie. the Creator/creature distinction.
@@davidmoran4875 Not really. If God's attributes and will are identical to His Essence then God could not be free in any way. He must create by nature since essence is equal to existence.
@@ernestyoung9423 You're presupposing a definition of _free_ that your opponents may not affirm. The Bible says that God cannot lie. Does that mean God is not free? The Bible also says that God cannot deny Himself. Is He, therefore, really free? The perfection of His essence prevents Him from doing what comes naturally to us. Thus, our concept of freedom doesn't apply to God. In short, God's acts are infallible. Everything He does is infallible, by definition. So, our ascription of freedom to God must take that into account. God is not coerced by anything _ad extra_ to do other than what His infallible will decrees. There is nothing in creation, in itself, that necessitates its existence. We simply say that on the supposition that God wills to create, creation becomes necessary by supposition or condition. And since it is a conditioned necessity, there can be no modal collapse because God is an absolute necessity.
You're presupposing a definition of _free_ that your opponents may not affirm. The Bible says that God cannot lie. Does that mean God is not free? The Bible also says that God cannot deny Himself. Is He, therefore, really free? The perfection of His essence prevents Him from doing what comes naturally to us. Thus, our concept of freedom doesn't apply to God. In short, God's acts are infallible. Everything He does is infallible, by definition. So, our ascription of freedom to God must take that into account. God is not coerced by anything _ad extra_ to do other than what His infallible will decrees. There is nothing in creation, in itself, that necessitates its existence. We simply say that on the supposition that God wills to create, creation becomes necessary by supposition or condition. And since it is a conditioned necessity, there can be no modal collapse because God is an absolute necessity.
I think I'm with Hugh McCann on this one. If we keep appealing to the non-univocity of our creaturely language, it's only intellectually honest to go all the way and say our modal concepts would be just as univocal. God exists in a higher realm with higher physics. This would bring us right back to appealing to scripture, whatever scripture says about God is true. God is omniscient, omnipotent, Good, loving, merciful, just. He has aseity, is Immutable, Triunal, and non-subordinate. That is his whatness, and like he said, the how question is not necessary.
It came to me that the absolute simplicity of God leads to a conclusion is that there only ever was God,only is God and only ever will be God.Anything else is just a seeming.
I love Dr. Dolezal! I was glad to hear that he thinks “possible worlds” talk is unhelpful too. But, I would go on and say that it is utterly nonsense and a fantasy.
Surprised you did not interact with the Orthodox and ancient distinction of essence and energies. If God is pure act, then he is absolutely and necessarily creator and redeemer and could not do otherwise. Also, as Peter says we are partakers of the Divine nature this could not be if God is absolutely simple. His uncreated energies shine forth from the divine essence. Christ's humanity is deified by the divine energies. The energies are God, not his essence but the manifestation of his essence.
You are talking about Cambridge properties. Define energies, since everyone I've interacted with are vague about it. Defend the metaphysical reality of change since you reject act/potency. Otherwise you're an Heliatic or Heraclitean. Energies as defended by some are easily attacked through rigorous use of the Law of Identity & PPC.
If we do not have some unequivocal knowledge of God, what do we worship? An analogy? And, if we have analogical knowledge it must have some unequivocal point to permits the application of the analogy. And a most obvious contradiction of thomism and simplicity -which is the theme of the video- is this: How can we apply our concepts of the beings that we know, the being of the creation, to God; if God's being and existence are totally different ?(and denied this, is accept unequivocal knowledge)
What are the implications of this doctrine for the problem of evil? Does it mean God contains (that which we call) evil within himself? I wish someone had asked this in the video
Boethius, Augustine and Aquinas all present evil as a privation of the "good." Hence, all things exist in God first as "Exemplars" and providentially fall out in time as willed by God. Those Exemplars are good and their being in time are good but there may exist a privation through the weakness of secondary causes--including man's will.
What is God to us,one more object amongst a myriad of objects.Are we objects among a myriad of objects to God.God surely is neither subject or object.This state of affairs does not obtain.
I wish there had been a discussion of the initial state of God.What I mean is God's initial state prior to any creation.Lets take it as a given that God is self existent.But that of course is taking a position.Allow me to start from there.Prior to any seeming creation,God is all that is.Space and time do not yet exist.So even to say that God exists outside of space or time makes no sense.Does it even make any sense to say that God extends infinitely in space or time.The best we can say is that God simply exists but in what manner we can never say.Is it sensible to ask if God is developing or progressing in some way.No,because God is complete,therefore unchanging.The creation to my mind is simply a seeming.Of course then that applies to ourselves,we are just a seeming.Just as the substance of a dream is ourselves.Our substance is God.This of course is nonsense.Our situation is incomprehensible.All we can say is that God is,and only God is.
But they work together, according to Andersen at grace on demand systematic theology is fed from 2 tributaries: historical theology and biblical theology.
Come.The existence of God in however feebly we conceive deity to be,and the existence of ourselves is totally incomprehensible.There is not God and other in any way at all.But crikey,here we jolly well are.We might as well discuss the number of angels that can fit on the head of pin.You do it as good as anyone could.:-).
Could we please have some scriptural proofs of this notion, not just the vague and insubstantial hints of Turretin or Berkhof? It carries considerable dangers to extrapolate speculatively without Divine validation. Col.2.8, 1 Cor.3.18-20, and 11-15 are apt warnings about the corrupting influences of Thomist scholasticism.
@@joshua_finch Antiquity is no indication of orthodoxy. I've read, but I still seek even the most threadbare scriptural defence of this Plotinian dogma.
always wonder, why dont scholar/theologian mention trinity/person while talking about God Being of Christianity, & not refer to any verse/bible explanation? 😇 it's all philosophical & man's logic?
All rightly reasoned logic is God's logic because logic is of the mind of God. There is nothing wrong with beginning with Biblical truths and then reasoning to necessary logical conclusions given these truths, which is what is being done here
When does God no longer become the lab rat to test deep ontological discussions? With God being so academic, is it hard for you guys to worship and be in awe of your daily simplistic lives with Him?
I like how in the beginning of the video you mention several protestant sects that uphold this doctrine, yet fail to mention the source: Catholicism. Lost me at that early stage.
Chris Potratz Uhh, he repeatedly appeals to Thomism throughout the video. In fact, he is saying that (1) Christian orthodoxy requires divine simplicity in order to be consistent with God's aseity, (2) Thomism is the best and most thorough delineation of divine simplicity, and (3) Protestant orthodoxy utilized Thomism in its defense of divine simplicity.
The fullness of divinity (pleroma theotes) is in Christ. Obviously the Father too has the fullness of divinity. So this is the same divinity. They are of one essence. The bible also says that the saints are called to partake of the divine nature. In the Greek of holy scripture it says that God has energy (energeia energeo, dynamis, etc) Scripture also says that his energy is in the believer energizing them and working in them. According to the doctrine of Divine simplicity God's essence is identical to God's energy because there are no distinctions in God. But if this true then when God's energy is infused in us it is the divine essence the fullness of divinity in us. In which case the saints are members of the Godhead and it's not a Trinity anymore because the Saints become equal to the Father Son and Holy Spirit. But the saints are not members of the Godhead and there is a Trinity. So Absolute Divine Simplicity is false.
@@leepretorius4869 Yes it does. We are fallen theomorphs. We are even called to partake of the divine nature. It's God's natural energies (energeia usually translated as workings or activities) that we participate in. Furthermore when we see Him we shall be like Him the scriptures say. Paul speaks of God energizing or working in us. We know natures by their causal properties or activities. Christ however does whatever He sees God His Father doing. We no matter how saintly and pious will never be able to do *everything* the Father does. If we were coessential with God we would be able to. So we are not co-essential with the Father. As an example say I have something the same color hardness and conductivity of copper but a different melting point. It's not copper then right? But it's something similar. Maybe you could argue homoisious for us normal humams.
@@leepretorius4869 I do hold to a version of divine simplicity. It's just not numerical identity or = between persons essence and energy in God's Trinity. It's more of an . An iff. The Father in every possible world entails His Logos/Thought and Spirit/Life. Which divine ideas he actualizes determines the starting point of our possible worlds. Our free willed decisions further split up the possible worlds. I differ from alot of people in this: i think God because He is good and sharing will actualize every possible world that's on average more good than evil. Evil being a privation of being. And I think the world we are in is on the lower rungs.
What? Did you miss the passages on God being unchanging? Or maybe you missed the passages on God being incomprehensible or that God claims there is none besides Him?
I am an Evangelical pastor who has studied Aquinas for over 20 years, so I can appreciate this brilliant conversation. I personally believe the "battle for God" is the most important struggle of the 21st century--both inside the church (Catholic and Protestant) and outside the church. I agree with Dr. Peter Jones that Secularism has given way to religious Monism and this paganistic Monism is agressively attacking orthodox Christianity. Jones believes Modern Western Monism is epitomized in sexual perversion and transgenderism which denies the bifurcation of humanity into male and female. Hence, it must defeat Christian morality. However, inside the church there is a lack of understanding as to how a right understanding of God as Simple and having divine Aseity is critical to the Christian worldview and morality. He is utterly different, separate and transcendent from the creation. Thank you for this video.
Thank-you for this wonderfully informative video! Question: Is the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity considered to be derived from general revelation/natural theology?
I believe James said that it is not proper to say that God is "most absolute" (WCF2.1), because God ought not to be referred to in degrees (the "most" of a thing); He is ontologically set apart from all beings.
Thomist Scholasticism is in no way corrupting to Scripture; I think it enhances it. It doesn't matter if there is direct citation in Scripture that affirms this idea or what not; the Bible doesn't tell us everything. The Bible is not a philosophy textbook--it's a spiritual book. However, I think this idea does get affirmed in Scripture. God says, "I AM" so that affirms St. Thomas' way of viewing God.
the original Hebrew of that expression to Moses with the burning bush, it was just a popular form of phrase in Hebrew conversation, when Moses asked Him who he is, he answered that: I am who I am." It is like when the ancient Israeli asked: where did he go?" The person answered : he went to where he went", the implication of this form of phrase is "your question is useless" (at least in that particular situation).
Here is a video by Jay Dire which deals with Thomism and Divine Simplicity. You wont find a better teacher on this subject. Orthodox Critique of Aquinas' Divine Simplicity and Created Grace - Jay Dyer
ua-cam.com/video/0IOO5k7X1pA/v-deo.html
I feel drawn to Maritain and reformed scholasticism, there is something to it. My question is - do we ignore thomas aquinas saying everything he wrote was straw?
Excellent. I've just started "All That is In God", and this was really helpful. I realize I need to read the book they came before the one that I just mentioned.
Dear Reformed Forum: If God is absolutely simple, then doesn't this mean that all of God's attributes, including his will, are identical to his essence? And if that is true, then was God truly free to create or not to create, since to *will* otherwise would mean to *be* otherwise?
Question answered at 59:53. At 1:05:53, James answers by demonstrating that the freedom of creatures is entirely different from the freedom of the Creator, ie. the Creator/creature distinction.
@@davidmoran4875 Not really. If God's attributes and will are identical to His Essence then God could not be free in any way. He must create by nature since essence is equal to existence.
@@ernestyoung9423 You're presupposing a definition of _free_ that your opponents may not affirm. The Bible says that God cannot lie. Does that mean God is not free? The Bible also says that God cannot deny Himself. Is He, therefore, really free? The perfection of His essence prevents Him from doing what comes naturally to us. Thus, our concept of freedom doesn't apply to God. In short, God's acts are infallible. Everything He does is infallible, by definition. So, our ascription of freedom to God must take that into account. God is not coerced by anything _ad extra_ to do other than what His infallible will decrees. There is nothing in creation, in itself, that necessitates its existence. We simply say that on the supposition that God wills to create, creation becomes necessary by supposition or condition. And since it is a conditioned necessity, there can be no modal collapse because God is an absolute necessity.
You're presupposing a definition of _free_ that your opponents may not affirm. The Bible says that God cannot lie. Does that mean God is not free? The Bible also says that God cannot deny Himself. Is He, therefore, really free? The perfection of His essence prevents Him from doing what comes naturally to us. Thus, our concept of freedom doesn't apply to God. In short, God's acts are infallible. Everything He does is infallible, by definition. So, our ascription of freedom to God must take that into account. God is not coerced by anything _ad extra_ to do other than what His infallible will decrees. There is nothing in creation, in itself, that necessitates its existence. We simply say that on the supposition that God wills to create, creation becomes necessary by supposition or condition. And since it is a conditioned necessity, there can be no modal collapse because God is an absolute necessity.
I think I'm with Hugh McCann on this one. If we keep appealing to the non-univocity of our creaturely language, it's only intellectually honest to go all the way and say our modal concepts would be just as univocal. God exists in a higher realm with higher physics. This would bring us right back to appealing to scripture, whatever scripture says about God is true. God is omniscient, omnipotent, Good, loving, merciful, just. He has aseity, is Immutable, Triunal, and non-subordinate. That is his whatness, and like he said, the how question is not necessary.
I am hoping to see one day a theologist suggest that with regard to God ,that despite the seeming otherwise, nothing ever happened 🙏
It came to me that the absolute simplicity of God leads to a conclusion is that there only ever was God,only is God and only ever will be God.Anything else is just a seeming.
My head is exploding.
I love Dr. Dolezal!
I was glad to hear that he thinks “possible worlds” talk is unhelpful too. But, I would go on and say that it is utterly nonsense and a fantasy.
Surprised you did not interact with the Orthodox and ancient distinction of essence and energies. If God is pure act, then he is absolutely and necessarily creator and redeemer and could not do otherwise.
Also, as Peter says we are partakers of the Divine nature this could not be if God is absolutely simple. His uncreated energies shine forth from the divine essence. Christ's humanity is deified by the divine energies. The energies are God, not his essence but the manifestation of his essence.
You are talking about Cambridge properties.
Define energies, since everyone I've interacted with are vague about it.
Defend the metaphysical reality of change since you reject act/potency. Otherwise you're an Heliatic or Heraclitean.
Energies as defended by some are easily attacked through rigorous use of the Law of Identity & PPC.
God can be simple and we can also be partakers because we are already in God’s image. Am I wrong?
If we do not have some unequivocal knowledge of God, what do we worship? An analogy? And, if we have analogical knowledge it must have some unequivocal point to permits the application of the analogy. And a most obvious contradiction of thomism and simplicity -which is the theme of the video- is this: How can we apply our concepts of the beings that we know, the being of the creation, to God; if God's being and existence are totally different ?(and denied this, is accept unequivocal knowledge)
Perdure - remain in existence throughout a substantial period of time; endure.
Any chance we could download this dissertation anywhere?
thank you greetings from Austria Blessed me very much !
What are the implications of this doctrine for the problem of evil? Does it mean God contains (that which we call) evil within himself? I wish someone had asked this in the video
Boethius, Augustine and Aquinas all present evil as a privation of the "good." Hence, all things exist in God first as "Exemplars" and providentially fall out in time as willed by God. Those Exemplars are good and their being in time are good but there may exist a privation through the weakness of secondary causes--including man's will.
@@bestpossibleworld2091 Thats a great answer, thank you!
I recommend Charles Hodge's discourse on in his systematic.
What is God to us,one more object amongst a myriad of objects.Are we objects among a myriad of objects to God.God surely is neither subject or object.This state of affairs does not obtain.
I am not a smart man...
I wish there had been a discussion of the initial state of God.What I mean is God's initial state prior to any creation.Lets take it as a given that God is self existent.But that of course is taking a position.Allow me to start from there.Prior to any seeming creation,God is all that is.Space and time do not yet exist.So even to say that God exists outside of space or time makes no sense.Does it even make any sense to say that God extends infinitely in space or time.The best we can say is that God simply exists but in what manner we can never say.Is it sensible to ask if God is developing or progressing in some way.No,because God is complete,therefore unchanging.The creation to my mind is simply a seeming.Of course then that applies to ourselves,we are just a seeming.Just as the substance of a dream is ourselves.Our substance is God.This of course is nonsense.Our situation is incomprehensible.All we can say is that God is,and only God is.
Excellent!
So it seems to me that synchronic contingency seems to be in tension with this doctrine.
Don't know if you're still around, but how so?
Amazing how distant this way of speaking is from biblical theology...
But they work together, according to Andersen at grace on demand systematic theology is fed from 2 tributaries: historical theology and biblical theology.
What about the criticism that this theology owes much more to Plotinus and nothing to Scripture (for example see strateias . org slash simplicitas)?
Can God ever be subject and object ?.
Love this
Come.The existence of God in however feebly we conceive deity to be,and the existence of ourselves is totally incomprehensible.There is not God and other in any way at all.But crikey,here we jolly well are.We might as well discuss the number of angels that can fit on the head of pin.You do it as good as anyone could.:-).
Could we please have some scriptural proofs of this notion, not just the vague and insubstantial hints of Turretin or Berkhof?
It carries considerable dangers to extrapolate speculatively without Divine validation.
Col.2.8, 1 Cor.3.18-20, and 11-15 are apt warnings about the corrupting influences of Thomist scholasticism.
prob316 Not everyone's gonna hold your hand. This is a milennia old doctrine. Try reading.
prob316 as if speakers should address every audience concern possible in an interview not about that
@@joshua_finch Antiquity is no indication of orthodoxy. I've read, but I still seek even the most threadbare scriptural defence of this Plotinian dogma.
prob316 I’m in awe at how you waited 4 yrs, 360 days to make a response lol....And you don’t have to respond to this bro.....
prob316 Sorry bro I got you mixed up with the other guy who actually waited 6 yrs to respond to you. I’m way off
53:22
51:08
Do you stand in observation of these facts or in submission and awe to these realizations?
always wonder, why dont scholar/theologian mention trinity/person while talking about God Being of Christianity, & not refer to any verse/bible explanation? 😇
it's all philosophical & man's logic?
All rightly reasoned logic is God's logic because logic is of the mind of God. There is nothing wrong with beginning with Biblical truths and then reasoning to necessary logical conclusions given these truths, which is what is being done here
@@MaD-hp9hq that's how western different from eastern. i wish they will talk about that too & ask james about that 😇🙏
When does God no longer become the lab rat to test deep ontological discussions? With God being so academic, is it hard for you guys to worship and be in awe of your daily simplistic lives with Him?
On the contrary the Simplicity and Absoluteness of God are the matter of the highest reverence and worship
Mark Sellers the lab rat is our own mind's and model of imago dei. We journey to find. No need to be afraid of those smarter than you.
Also it is only in this tradition the incomprehensibility and mystery of God is properly formulated. This by way of analogy of being not univocity.
I like how in the beginning of the video you mention several protestant sects that uphold this doctrine, yet fail to mention the source: Catholicism. Lost me at that early stage.
Chris Potratz Uhh, he repeatedly appeals to Thomism throughout the video. In fact, he is saying that (1) Christian orthodoxy requires divine simplicity in order to be consistent with God's aseity, (2) Thomism is the best and most thorough delineation of divine simplicity, and (3) Protestant orthodoxy utilized Thomism in its defense of divine simplicity.
The fullness of divinity (pleroma theotes) is in Christ. Obviously the Father too has the fullness of divinity. So this is the same divinity. They are of one essence.
The bible also says that the saints are called to partake of the divine nature. In the Greek of holy scripture it says that God has energy (energeia energeo, dynamis, etc) Scripture also says that his energy is in the believer energizing them and working in them.
According to the doctrine of Divine simplicity God's essence is identical to God's energy because there are no distinctions in God.
But if this true then when God's energy is infused in us it is the divine essence the fullness of divinity in us. In which case the saints are members of the Godhead and it's not a Trinity anymore because the Saints become equal to the Father Son and Holy Spirit.
But the saints are not members of the Godhead and there is a Trinity.
So Absolute Divine Simplicity is false.
Doesn’t the doctrine of imago dei show that we are somehow partakers of the divine nature?
@@leepretorius4869 Yes it does. We are fallen theomorphs. We are even called to partake of the divine nature. It's God's natural energies (energeia usually translated as workings or activities) that we participate in. Furthermore when we see Him we shall be like Him the scriptures say. Paul speaks of God energizing or working in us.
We know natures by their causal properties or activities. Christ however does whatever He sees God His Father doing. We no matter how saintly and pious will never be able to do *everything* the Father does. If we were coessential with God we would be able to. So we are not co-essential with the Father. As an example say I have something the same color hardness and conductivity of copper but a different melting point. It's not copper then right? But it's something similar.
Maybe you could argue homoisious for us normal humams.
@@theodore8178 have you read Aristotle east and west
@@leepretorius4869 Yes
@@leepretorius4869 I do hold to a version of divine simplicity. It's just not numerical identity or = between persons essence and energy in God's Trinity. It's more of an . An iff. The Father in every possible world entails His Logos/Thought and Spirit/Life. Which divine ideas he actualizes determines the starting point of our possible worlds. Our free willed decisions further split up the possible worlds.
I differ from alot of people in this: i think God because He is good and sharing will actualize every possible world that's on average more good than evil. Evil being a privation of being. And I think the world we are in is on the lower rungs.
Scriptures denies the doctrine of divine simplicity.
What? Did you miss the passages on God being unchanging? Or maybe you missed the passages on God being incomprehensible or that God claims there is none besides Him?
51:13