I disagree with Gavin on calvinism, but everyone out there needs to subscribe to his channel and learn from him. He is brilliant and a blessing to the body.
@@ri3m4nn agreed, I like him a lot but, but the reason I like him is also the reason I'm cautious with with him. He's very gentle, and I think too gentle with heresy. Kind of see it in his channel name, truth unites, but truth should divide. Truth is exclusive and separate from error.
@@ri3m4nn Gavin is mild mannered but he calls out very clearly the errors of Rome and the East as they are. He does not promote some sort of unity over truth ideal.
"Divine Simplicity doesnt allow for the Trinity, but rather Modalism." EXACTLY what I had been thinking throughout! So glad someone just said the obvious.
maybe but how do we know this? are you suggesting that the three persons of the godhead are separate parts thus refuting simplicity? don't get me wrong i am not arguing for simplicity. i think the question is itself blasphemous, stemming from an inordinate and ungodly curiosity; and I also hold it beyond our ken to answer either way
Everything that is intrinsic to God, is God. That's what Divine Simplicity says. Mercy and goodness are God, and are identical to each other. To make mercy and goodness truly different from each other within God, somehow that makes God have parts. No. No, I'm not saying the trinity are parts, but I also reject the implied categories of Divine Simplicity of how they argue about parts. Attributes are not parts, and DS has the wrong footing with even asking about parts in God when it comes to the trinity or attributes. The trinity is intrinsic to God. So then, by the same logic, The Father and the Son and the Spirit are God, and not truly distinct from each other. That destroys the trinity. Honestly, it sounds like you two didn't really watch the video or pay attention. Rather than explain this any further, I'm just going to say watch the video again. If you still don't see it, then sorry I can't help you any more than this. :/
@@lonelyguyofficial8335 How are the really distinct attributes not parts? If each attribute contributes to God, but none of them is fully God, then they are parts of God.
Factoring the Trinitarian relations into God's unity and simplicity: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part One, Question 28, Article 3 - Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each other? "I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (A[1]), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute---namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity---but according to that which is relative." [Sacred-Texts Com webpage /chr/aquinas/summa/sum032.htm] Or to be succinct: God is entirely simple EXCEPT for the opposition of the divine relations.
Platonic ideas have infected the church for too long. I look forward to the work of modern christian scholars who are working to provide a truly biblical view of God seperate from pagan platonic ideas.
The baffling thing here is how little Scripture plays into people's beliefs. Its a series of ad hoc decisions, band aids, and duct tapes made to answer objections from people beholden to non-biblical philosophies in the first place. We get ourselves in lots of trouble when we go beyond the Biblical data to project into other philosophical models and give answers. Also - love all your "Dr" monikers. :)
When I watched Gavin's video about Divine Simplicity I was thinking the whole time that wish Gavin would have discussion wth Mullins, so this is the next best thing! Thank you!
Thank you for the video. I have read part way through Dr. James D. Gifford book called "The Hexagon of Heresy". In which he argues in the first part of book that four of the six great christological heresies ("Arianism", Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism) "are the immediate christological conclusions of the attempt to map definitional [divine] simplicity onto the divine essence." In the second part Dr. Gifford expands on how the six heresies are christological subsets of larger cosmological models that arise from definitional divine simplicity as a first principle. I invite you to at least check out the introduction which you can read as a sample on apple books.
Agreed. I think it's an excellent book pointing out problematic outcomes from a doctrine of ' Definitional Divine Simplicity.' Dr Gifford contends that there are bad spiritual and societal consequences from the doctrine. There's an excellent interview with Dr Gifford on Dr Leighton Flowers' Soteriology 101 channel which persuaded me to buy & read the book.Others may wish to check that out.
Factoring the Trinitarian relations into God's unity and simplicity: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part One, Question 28, Article 3 - Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each other? "I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (A[1]), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute---namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity---but according to that which is relative." [Sacred-Texts Com webpage /chr/aquinas/summa/sum032.htm] Or to be succinct: God is entirely simple EXCEPT for the opposition of the divine relations.
I am so glad we have educated people pushing back on this divine simplicity stuff. I first heard about it at a Founders (Calvinist Baptist) conference when they gave James Dolezal the most lectures but he seemed to me the least biblical. Much of what he said seemed to directly contradict the Bible and all to uphold a few confessions of faith from the 1600s.
Factoring the Trinitarian relations into God's unity and simplicity: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part One, Question 28, Article 3 - Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each other? "I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (A[1]), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute---namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity---but according to that which is relative." [Sacred-Texts Com webpage /chr/aquinas/summa/sum032.htm] Or to be succinct: God is entirely simple EXCEPT for the opposition of the divine relations.
Abother great video Warren I love how Dr. Alan Rhoda was able to pin this down to ADS and didnt just squish it. You see this matter is not as "simple" as some would wish it to be. Both speakers were great and I think gave us plenty to think about being that the subject is so complex. I liked how they said God was not essentially contigent on outside things to himself. I think thats a good way to put it. To say that he is not in any way effected by us is to say that God has no relation of any kind to creation and that would just be false from logical reality and scripture.
Yes! Im so glad you're doing this. Gavin is AMAZING. I love his stuff, but he gets these little blind spots because of his calvinism and classical theism. But he's genuinely one of the most winsom guys out there.
Lovely stuff as usual Warren! Love it! (and Ryan!) Bradshaw's book "Aristotle East and West" is a brilliant read for anyone interested! - tracking the differing directions each tradition took with aristotelian simplicity within a Christian context. I personally appreciate the Orthodox East's Essence-Energy distinction, and, particularly, the formulations of the first six Ecumenical Councils - which are all interrelated. The East (as you know) hold to a form of simplicity, but they don't deny real distinctions "within" or "around" God. When thinking of freedom - divine and human - the end result of the ball that Augustine got rolling (exhaustive divine determinism... thanks John) is, for me, a no no. Molinism seems to work off too much of a deterministic premise. And Open theology is a fascinating possibility... but still unprovable. I like the Essence - energy distinction, for at least it "holds a balance" of Mystery and Revelation whilst not succumbing to either determinism or a crude anthropomorphism... but maybe going more in the direction that Richard Swinburn would with the Divine Being being far less "atemporal" than we suppose! (with our Greek presuppositions!) Keep up the good work!!! Greetings from the U.K ; ) ✌️🙏💚
@@the4gospelscommentary a form of determinism that was not known in previous Jewish religion, or in the Church up until that point (late 4th, early 5th cent)... a determinism that was borrowed from gnostic Manachein thought (of which Augustine was immersed in before he became a Christian) and superimposed over the text. Interestingly, originally Augustine held to the general view of the early church regarding Providence, Sovereignty, human will, sin, predestination, election etc up until the Pelagian controversy, then he brought his novel take into the Western Christian picture.
@@emilesturt3377 I see you bought into a lot of lies, spread by this and similar channels. Augustine didn't get his doctrine from any pagan philosophy, but he was deeply rooted in the teaching of Scripture and Church Fathers before him. Throughout his career, he was perfectly consistent in his teaching on original sin and human will. The one view that he did perhaps modify, was unconditional predestination, but even then, his later view is entirely biblical and does appear in some Fathers before him.
@@the4gospelscommentary I have said that he was in the stream of the thought of the Fathers before him. But he didn't "perhaps" modify one, he modified many. Why are the entirety of the Greek Fathers free from Augustinian thought regarding, for example, predestination? I would suggest that you have a particular view that you don't like being threatened because your whole system of doctrine and soteriology etc depends on it. Mine, consistently, does not depend on an Augustinian Calvinistic view of the nature of the relationship between God and man - as Coptics, Eastern Orthodox, many Catholics and Protestants alike do not need it or have never entertained it either.
@@emilesturt3377 As I said, Church Fathers before Augustine - including Greek Fathers - did teach predestination. That being said, I have no problem admitting that nobody taught this doctrine as clearly as Augustine did. I don't know how this fact is supposed to "threathen" me. Just stop lying that Augustine got this doctrine from manicheanism, when in fact it is perfectly biblical.
Sometimes I think that we Christians "think" just too much. We think ourselves out of relationship with God. We think ourselves out of relationship with each other. We think ourselves out of relevancy. We think ourselves out of unity with each other as believers. We think so much, that we begin to think that we think that we can understand everything about God, leaving no more mystery at all, and anyone that doesn't think what we think, is a heritic.
The problem is that scripture is very clear about some things. When God declares "I the Lord your God am a jealous God" (Exo 34:14), He says He is merciful (Psa 145:9, Eph 2:4), and his wrath burns against the ungodly (Rom 1:18), so to call this "anthropomorphism" or declare impossibility is denying scripture. We think about these things because they are important, and it's a horrible thing to speak falsely about our God. It's not because we believe we can understand everything about Him, but just because we can't understand everything doesn't mean we can't understand something. I understand God is loving, jealous, merciful, angry, but I don't understand the extent of that. "Heretic" is a word that gets thrown around way to often, but it sometimes must be used. How much will God stand? Imagine declaring about someone they are impassible after they have tried reaching out to you for years through emotions. When you reject the bible, the word heretic may become necessary.
well said. and IMO it comes from an inordinate curiosity that refuses to be content with what God reveals to us in His word. I am an intellectual type. there is no point in hiding it. and i have been brought to accept that the one simplicity that truly matters is the simplicity OF FAITH. this is not anti intellectualism but some measure of humility in accepting that our minds are fallen, our intellectual appetites are inordinate and some questions are irrelevant, being trivial at best or lead to rank heresy at worst
It was once said that, in defining God's immensity as distinct from his omnipresence: "God's center is everywhere; his circumference is nowhere." In other words, everything that God is is everywhere, and equally so. This is a sufficient definition of God not having parts. But there is no need to say from this that his attributes are not distinct while being equally present everywhere.
If God's attributes were really distinct, each being something less than God as a whole, while yet being God, then there would be as many "gods" as there are attributes in God. Monothheism demands divine simplicity.
Here's the problem: a finite mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality; infinity requires segmentation prior to human attempts at comprehension. But to deny the infinitude of God reduces God to an anthropomorphic “Sky Daddy.”
One large reason I was drawn (back) to Orthodoxy was the “Essence/Energies” distinction. I see it as the most consistent (and scriptural) way to reconcile God’s freedom as Creator and how we can “partake of the divine nature.” I don’t understand how people try to philosophically defend “Divine Simplicity.”
Actually, the palamites deny that we can ever (even in Heaven) partake of the divine nature. They apply this Scripture to the "energies" of God, which are supposedly something other than the divine nature, in direct contradiction to 2 Peter 1:4.
I think the question is about what St. Peter means by “nature” and “partake” because even in the Orthodox notion of “Theosis ,” we never merge with God’s essence or become God Himself. Only the essence/energy distinction allows for this.@@the4gospelscommentary
I think it is quite amazing, and frankly arrogant, for anyone to think that they can understand and explain the nature of God. I will just believe what God tells me about Himself in His Word.
I have a BA from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and I don’t recall ever hearing the concept of Divine Simplicity. The school has become more Calvinistic.
Devine simplicity or Devine complexity? Gavin depends heavily on the "great men of church history" when it comes to proving his argument (that seems to me is his idol), but he seems to be picking only what comes close to supporting his point as this video demonstrates. Could Devine simplicity one of the reasons he believes in Calvinism? Whether God loves or hates, whether His creation be in eternal torment or comfort there's no distinction, both don't matter, as both bring Him glory afterall according to that theology.
Is there any reason you guys didn't interact with Gavin's much longer video on the topic? It seems there's some level of talking past Gavin on this. Maybe engaging with the longer video where he clarifies things further would be more charitable and productive for all parties involved.
Warren, you're quite right to stick with the Monarchy of the Father, for not just Eunomianism, but Arianism is in fact a necessary by-product of absolute divine simplicity. But not the monarchy of the Father, for it is primarily Scriptural, and was formulated under the guidance of the Spirit of Truth within the Church (I'm not Orthodox but I can see how and why they've got the majority of things consistently right!)... the East clearly see that the Father is the Arche, but without resorting to a false Trinitarian subordinationism - and mainly of the Spirit in the West through the view that the Father and the Son are joint causes of Him - through a failure to see a distinction between ontology and economy, which itself is driven by an unnesessary view of simplicity, and necessity!... (The Father is eternally the Father because He Eternally Begets - is the cause of - the Eternal Son) Love the other doctor's contribution to this video too, very clear and knowledgeable and humble! I do think sometimes though that however bright a modern Christian philosopher might be (Ryan included), we would still do well to remember that the likelihood of us adding anything 'significantly' new to the 'problems' relating to, for instance, Theodicy, or the hierarchy within the Trinity... are pretty low. Just a quick couple of bullet points for anyone not familiar with "Monarchy" (forgive me! I won't make your habit of this!) Eastern Trinitarianism: God is One: Our Father God is Triune: Three Persons (Gk. Hypostasis) One in Essence (Ousia) The One Energy, Mind and Will proper to that Infinite, Eternal and Incorporeal Essence, is expressed and shared by the Three Divine Persons The Father Son and Holy Spirit are each fully God; One in Nature and Attributes; equal in all but causation. For the Father alone Eternally Begets and Spirates. He is the Fountainhead of the Trinity, the Source, the "Arche" The Son and Spirit alone are timelessly caused - but Not Created By reason of Begetting, the Son is eternally God, and with God By reason of Spiration, the Spirit is eternally God, and with God Ontologically, "Eternally", the Son alone is Begotten of the Father, and the Spirit Proceeds solely from the Father Economically, "Energetically", Providentially toward and within the Creation, the Spirit Proceeds (is sent) from the Father, by way of the Son on Whom He rests In the Spirit we see the Son in Whom we see the Father All things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit And in the Spirit, through the Son and to the Father, all things will find their fulfilment ✌️
How exactly is arianism supposed to follow necessrily from divine simplicity??? I don't think you explained that at all. Also, not a single Church Father taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Filioque was taught unanimously by the Church Fathers, just as divine simplicity.
Ortlund is completely correct that the Christian theologians have always taught divine simplicity. Citing Palamas as a proof against that is similarly ridiculous as citing Luther in order to prove that the Church hasn't always taught justification by works.
EVEN WHEN ONE DAY WE ARE ABLE TO BEHOLD "HIM" FACE TO FACE FOR ALL ETERNITY, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE NEW GLORIOUS REVELATION REVEALED TO US THAT WILL CAUSE US TO BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP "HIM"
@@daltonbrasier5491, an "image" is like a picture. A picture isn't identical to the thing that it depicts, but in looking at it you can see a representation of that thing. In the case of God, who is spirit and cannot be seen, he can't be represented by a painting, but we are made in such a way that we represent his love, his justice, his creativity, his forgiveness. When Adam sinned, that image became flawed and we don't love like we should, we aren't just like we should be, we use creativity in the wrong way, we don't forgive as we should, etc. But the Bible says that the law is written on our hearts. There is an inherent pull for us to be more like God. But while we are an image of God, there are aspects of us that aren't like God. We are created and he is not. He is omnipotent and omnipresent, but we are not. We have a physical body and he does not. And these differences existed in Adam, prior to the fall, so being "in the image of God" cannot mean that we can look at what we are like and determine that what is true about us must also be true about God.
Mullin's made a great point @11:26 why should we consider attributes to be parts? Also, why should we consider persons to be parts? Also if someone is convinced by Descartes's argument for the mind based on the principle of indivisibilty then minds don't have parts. Maybe it is a quality of metaphysical objects to not have parts?
Persons are not parts, because each person is identical to the divine essence, while distinct from each other. But nobody makes that claim about the attributes. Every denier of divine simplicity would say that attributes are really distinct from the essence, which would make God composed of essence and attributes.
I’m not sure if I understand this whole concept properly, but if in the divine simplicity concept there is nothing external to God, yet we are a product of God and can be eternally separated from God then how did we manage to get away? Then again, maybe I’m missing something.
Well, I hung in there, all the way to the end. ( Nice ending BTW ). This is a little bit above my pay grade! All I know, is that I love my Lord, in all of His three persons!
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8-9 “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!” Romans 11:33 😮
The verse before Romans 11:32 For God has concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy on all. O the depth of the riches both of the Wisdom and knowledge of God. The two verses before Isaiah 55: 7-8 Isaiah 55:6 Seek the Lord while He may be found, call on Him while is near: let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts and let him return to the lord and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God who will freely pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts. Blessed 2024
@@kevinkleinhenz6511 I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. I Was placing your scripture in context. Both scriptures, read in context, say that all are able to come to Jesus for eternal life by meeting the Condition of faith in Christ, and forsaking our sin,and sinful thoughts
@@theresaread72 My point in posting those scriptures was simply to demonstrate how complex God is especially after listening to these three men that are way over my intelligence level! 😂
Since it wasn't addressed in the live chat I'll post it here: why can't we say God has parts? He's a person with a body, soul, and spirit, as per the Biblical data.
@@leenieledejo6849 so? Spiritual beings can have bodies. Like angels for example. Also see 1 Corinthians 15, in which Paul talks about the difference between earthly and spiritual flesh. Besides, the Bible explicitly states God has a body and even describes it. Furthermore, this doesn't address my question specifically. It doesn't follow that a spirit can't have parts. So not sure where you're going with that
God is a necessary being. Before anything exists, God is. If God is made up of parts, then there are possible worlds in which God is either less or greater than he is in the actual world. If he is made up of parts, he could have more parts or less parts than he has. Who or what would decide what parts God has? For there to be such a being, we would need something prior to God, but if there is something prior to God then that thing would be God.
Warren, good stuff. There was something that Rhoda mentioned briefly about "orders of divine essence, the Son is essence squared/reflected back and the Spirit is reflected on its own reflection..." This very premise was used by a Roman Catholic recently on Lila Rose's YT channel., but they modified it slightly to be related to "awareness" The video link, if any are interested is here: ua-cam.com/video/bBSS8nx8M68/v-deo.html. Divine Simplicity finds exactly zero Biblical proof. The idea of God being "complex" really disturbs so many, because they are trying to work out certain gnostic principles that are entrenched in their various theologies. At least Dr. White, as "reformed" as he is, pushes back... ;)
In the video I mentioned, listen to the RC's viewpoint. It is nearly incomprehensible, which is what Dr. Mullins has pointed out on several occasions. Thank you again for the input from Dr. Mullins and Dr. Rhodes on this one.
Factoring the Trinitarian relations into God's unity and simplicity: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part One, Question 28, Article 3 - Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each other? "I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (A[1]), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute---namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity---but according to that which is relative." [Sacred-Texts Com webpage /chr/aquinas/summa/sum032.htm] Or to be succinct: God is entirely simple EXCEPT for the opposition of the divine relations.
Is the basic struggle to parse out the Trinity: A Human is one What and one Who . YHWH is 1 what and 3 who’s. This is beyond our faculties to understand. Thoughts?
I don't see why people get triggered by the concept of divine simplicity - it's not radical or controversial or offensive to Christian doctrine - it's just asserting the fact that God is One in substance, and that ultimately all "qualities" or "attributes", that man uses to describe or talk about God, ultimately terminate in the same definition - God Himself, which is ineffable. This goes beyond Christianity and is just foundational to monotheism - even pagan philosophers, like Plato, found that when you attempt to define "Justice", "Temperence", "Love", etc., they all eventually are descriptions of one and the same thing, which Plato named "The Good", or "The ultimate form of the Good." It's actually a practice that anyone can try for themselves, and you don't have to rely on a philosopher or a theologian for - if you try to define absolutely any of God's attributes, like love, or charity, or goodness, or mercy, you'll ultimately discover that they are different expressions of one singular nameless attribute, or at the very least, the definitions bleed into one another, and there is massive overlapping among them, such as between charity, mercy, and love. Divine simplicity is obvious, and explains the trinity - how can God be three persons, yet One in substance, unless DS were true? It's like claiming that ice, steam, and liquid water are all different, distinct things or qualities that are dis-united in substance, or which have different essences. That, obviously, is not true - ice, steam, and liquid water are all One in essence or chemical composition - they're just water - the same is the case with the trinity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all have the same essence, and are all the same divine substance - they're all God. No difference in essence. That is only possible if divine simplicity is true. Whatever Dr. Mullins' opinions on the issue, you run into problems - big, major problems - when you DENY divine simplicity. When you deny divine simplicity, you can start affirming Calvinist doctrines like "The two wills of God", which conflict with and contradict one another, and all kinds of multiplicities which ultimately slide back into polytheism - what is polytheism apart from multiple Gods with multiple competing or conflicting wills? Throw out divine simplicity and what you're left with is divine multiplicity or complexity - which, if you're referring to God, leads to multiple essences, multiple Gods, multiple wills, which are all heresies - at the very, very least, you end up with one God with conflicting, competing wills, at odds with or at war with Himself, which is schizophrenia and chaos. Dr. Mullins appears to be educated beyond his intelligence, which almost always leads to sophistry, and almost never to truth. Nothing he shared was convincing, and the attempts to flex on DS just came across as confused and inconsistent. Gavin's wrong, but he's wrong about his Calvinism, not about divine simplicity, even if his reasons for affirming it or believing in it are inconsistent or wrong. Barking up the wrong tree and attacking the wrong doctrine here, guys - let's not add to the confusion that's already rampant out there.
My first thoughts are, no one makes the distinction between simplicity and ADS, I’ve listen to a lot of EO talk about both EE and monarchy of the the Father, I felt Dr Ryan didnt properly represent the EO position especially regarding to the Cappadocians
I didn't want this to be about my specific beliefs, so I intentionally didn't push back on those areas where my guests and I differed... instead noting I affirm tMotF. I was more interested in hearing their objections than defending my own opinion, if that makes sense. All that said I love & respect the Doctors Three
There is no distinction betweed divine simplicity and absolute divine simplicity. Both simply mean that God is not composed of parts. This view was also held by the Capadoccians.
Calvinism necessitates and pressupposes ADS, In ADS, God is understood as devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. His essential nature cannot be experienced directly by his creatures. Given the radical distinction between God and created being, the Western Christian spiritual tradition affirms that there are (then) essentially only two ways to know God: one, by the light of natural human reason and inference; and two, by God’s self-disclosure and revelation in the Bible. This is important to keep in mind: in the Western Christian Tradition, the seat of the image of God (imago Dei) is the reasoning part of man. Augustine and Aquinas adopted a framework of understanding God one following after the other, namely that of adopting a concept of God known as “Absolute Divine Simplicity” (ADS). According to ADS, God is identical with His essence. It follows that each of His attributes, such as His will, is equally identical with His essence. But this poses a serious problem to traditional Christian theology regarding the doctrine of God. On this tradition God has been thought of as free, for example, in the sense that God was free, before His act of creation, to choose not to create. This means that God could have willed differently than He in fact did. If, however, God’s will is identical to His essence, then it would seem to follow that for God to will differently, He must actually be different. If, on the other hand, we wish to affirm that God’s essence is necessary, then we must say that His will is necessary, and thus He cannot truly be free. The Eastern distinction between essence and energies seems to be the best response to this problem, and others like it. As an Eastern Orthodox revert, I have to side with the the eastern church’s understanding on the essence energies distinction. You may be wondering how is this relevant to Calvinism, well I will get to that briefly. However, there is another significant tension in Western theology that can only be resolved by the essence-energies distinction, namely the tension between man’s free will and the sovereignty of God. Eastern Orthodox Christianity asserts that because the Western Catholic/Reformed theology lacked a robust doctrine of the divine energies, they lacked the conceptual tools necessary to resolve this tension, which lead to a view of the interrelationship between God and man that was rather like a pie chart. On this “pie chart” model, the more God does, the less man does, and vice versa. This is what lead to the Pelagian controversy and Augistine’s “overreaction” in the form of double Predestination. This tension was never resolved, and carried over into the Protestant Reformation in the form of Calvinism versus Arminianism. The Eastern doctrine of the divine energies, on the other hand, allows for a view of synergy in which both God and man can be said to perform the same act, without one doing damage to the other. Martin Luther goes further by asserting that we cannot “know” God directly - even by means of reason and that we must essentially accept God by a “leap of faith” alone: “In God there is sheer Deity, and the essence of God is His transcendent wisdom and omnipotent power. [God’s] attributes are altogether beyond the grasp of reason…God did not want to give us an insight into it in this life.” John Calvin, consistent in this regard, writes, that God’s “essence is incomprehensible; hence, his divineness far escapes all human perception.” They are speaking about God in His essence and in the West there is no distinction made between God in essence and his attributes or what the East calls “energies”. In the Western Christian Tradition, both are beyond human experience and apprehension. Thus, in formal Western Christian thought there is really no theological ground for direct encounter with God in this life, except through (created) “intermediaries” or “entities” - like angelic beings, or through God’s revelation in Scripture. Catholics traditionally reject (with Protestantism following its lead) any direct epistemological possibility of a direct connection between God and man, whereby man might “behold” God directly.
In the East, by contrast, the theological spirit takes a decidedly different approach. The seat of the Image of God is NOT thought to be in the reasoning or intellective faculty of the human being, but rather in the “Nous”, sometimes translated incorrectly as “Mind”, but in the East understood as “heart.” This is not necessarily the physical “heart” but at the center of man’s being. Unlike the West’s dogmatic over reliance upon rationalism and the scholasticism within reformed metaphysics, Orthodox spirituality is built - NOT upon theological speculation or philosophy - but upon the experiences of those who have known God, and the purpose of Eastern Christian spirituality is to lead each baptized soul to such experience for him or herself. In the Orthodox…tradition, genuine spiritual experience is the foundation of dogmatic formulations, Christian doctrine developed in response to spiritual experience. One of the biblical texts which has powerfully shaped Eastern Christian spirituality (and, interestingly, is rarely quoted in the West) is 2 Peter 1:3: “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.” The Greek fathers agree that God is transcendent and indivisible. So how then can humans in fact experience the divine nature directly? First, a “participation in the divine nature” does not represent a relapse into pagan pantheism or “absorption” of the creature in the Creator, as some critics of Eastern Christianity have charged. To avoid this pantheistic heresy, the Greek fathers offer the well-known distinction between the “essence” and “energies” of God. God’s “essence” is indivisible and entirely beyond us (i.e. unknowable). We do not have in Eastern Christianity a “mysticism” of the divine essence; but God’s energies - as we pray to the Holy Spirit - are “everywhere present and fill all things.” Greek/Eastern Church Father Saint Basil writes: “The energies are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know…God from His energies, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His energies come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.” The metaphor often used to describe the distinction between “essence” and “energies” is the sun (Essence) and its rays (Energies). They are one and the same; the sun’s rays are not derivative, not a symbol, nor are they distinct from the sun. When you experience the sun’s rays as heat, you experience the sun directly. Likewise the whole of God is present in each of his energies and those who participate in them participate in the whole of God. In ADS, God is understood as devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. His essential nature cannot be experienced directly by his creatures. Given the radical distinction between God and created being, the Western Christian spiritual tradition affirms that there are (then) essentially only two ways to know God: one, by the light of natural human reason and inference; and two, by God’s self-disclosure and revelation in the Bible. This is important to keep in mind: in the Western Christian Tradition, the seat of the image of God (imago Dei) is the reasoning part of man. Martin Luther goes further by asserting that we cannot “know” God directly - even by means of reason and that we must essentially accept God by a “leap of faith” alone: “In God there is sheer Deity, and the essence of God is His transcendent wisdom and omnipotent power. [God’s] attributes are altogether beyond the grasp of reason…God did not want to give us an insight into it in this life.”2 John Calvin, consistent in this regard, writes, that God’s “essence is incomprehensible; hence, his divineness far escapes all human perception.”3 They are speaking about God in His essence and in the West there is no distinction made between God in essence and his attributes or what the East calls “energies”. In the Western Christian Tradition, both are beyond human experience and apprehension. Thus, in formal Western Christian thought there is really no theological ground for direct encounter with God in this life, except through (created) “intermediaries” or “entities” - like angelic beings, or through God’s revelation in Scripture. Catholics traditionally reject (with Protestantism following its lead) any direct epistemological possibility of a direct connection between God and man, whereby man might “behold” God directly. In the East, by contrast, the theological spirit takes a decidedly different approach. The seat of the Image of God is NOT thought to be in the reasoning or intellective faculty of the human being, but rather in the “Nous”, sometimes translated incorrectly as “Mind”, but in the East understood as “heart.” This is not necessarily the physical “heart” but at the center of man’s being. Unlike the West’s dogmatic over reliance upon rationalism and the scholasticism within reformed metaphysics, Orthodox spirituality is built - NOT upon theological speculation or philosophy - but upon the experiences of those who have known God, and the purpose of Eastern Christian spirituality is to lead each baptized soul to such experience for him or herself. In the Orthodox…tradition, genuine spiritual experience is the foundation of dogmatic formulations, Christian doctrine developed in response to spiritual experience. One of the biblical texts which has powerfully shaped Eastern Christian spirituality (and, interestingly, is rarely quoted in the West) is 2 Peter 1:3: “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.” The Greek fathers agree that God is transcendent and indivisible. So how then can humans in fact experience the divine nature directly? First, a “participation in the divine nature” does not represent a relapse into pagan pantheism or “absorption” of the creature in the Creator, as some critics of Eastern Christianity have charged. To avoid this pantheistic heresy, the Greek fathers offer the well-known distinction between the “essence” and “energies” of God. God’s “essence” is indivisible and entirely beyond us (i.e. unknowable). We do not have in Eastern Christianity a “mysticism” of the divine essence; but God’s energies - as we pray to the Holy Spirit - are “everywhere present and fill all things.” Greek/Eastern Church Father Saint Basil writes: “The energies are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know…God from His energies, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His energies come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.” The metaphor often used to describe the distinction between “essence” and “energies” is the sun (Essence) and its rays (Energies). They are one and the same; the sun’s rays are not derivative, not a symbol, nor are they distinct from the sun. When you experience the sun’s rays as heat, you experience the sun directly. Likewise the whole of God is present in each of his energies and those who participate in them participate in the whole of God.
The "encounter" with God in this life is made from the moment the Holy Spirit indwells (John 14:16-17, Romans 8:9, 1 Corinthians 3:16 etc). To be conformed into the image of the son of God (Romans 8:29) through the Holy Spirit and to be PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE (2 Peter 1:4) is a mind-blowing miracle which is a huge part of the Good News and not regarded enough for the awesomeness it is. As Jesus himself says in John 7:39, it only became possible after his ascension into Heaven (Acts 1). [The only reason that a preacher would have for not discussing it is that he hasn't experienced it. I can't think of any other reason...]
Posit/question. Isn’t this issue complicated by our brains being little. That is we observe the attributes in a distinct manner, and we observe the trinity as distinct persons. But behind the scenes is Gods unity. Like it’s a “fourth dimension” property. A worldly example would be we walk in a three dimensional world and we observe gravity but we don’t observe with our eyes Einstein space curvature which is the real gravity rather than our immediate perception.
Just spit-ballin' here, but maybe it's more an issue of too many peeps thinking their brains are too big. As in, left brain-hemisphere-dominated spergs feel compelled to systematize and "explain" things that do not follow clearly from Scripture. Of course this means that they get to spend years and years, and 1,000s and 1,000s of pages living in sperg world instead of turning to Titus 2--3 and working on the list of virtues/practices befitting sound doctrine. I don't think this is a false dichotomy because I don't you can do both; i.e. live in a sperg spiral AND live out Titus 2--3, especially when it says to avoid foolish controversies. Ok, maybe I just busted myself for watching a video on what some might consider to be a "foolish controversy", LoL. But I hope that watching a video falls somewhere short of being obsessed.
@33:40 - - God omniscient (Pro.15:3, Ps. 44:21, Ps. 139, Rom. 11:33...) and omnipresent (Ps. 139, Jer. 23:23)... Of course, He relates with His creation... 😉
You should do a video with Redeemed Zoomer about reformed theology, he has become a recent voice on christianity on the internet, but his beliefs are the same that led to modern mass anti-theism, and he doesn't see it Also I wanted to ask, I don't know if you've read it, but if you did, what do you think of Fr Josiah Trenham's book on the reformation 'Rock and Sand'?
His talk with Jay Dyer was actually what exposed me to reformed theology properly, honestly I had only known its concepts from when I was an atheist and just assumed Christianity was these absurd beliefs Then I found your channel lol
I like that... no way to decompose parts and who distinguishes what properties God is made up of? One might say, I like omniscient, creator, holy and powerful but don't like other intrinsic attributes like love, gracious and compassionate?
DDS is a preamble to the faith and is demonstrated via reason alone and assumed in Holy Writ. Trinitarian Christians have grounded monotheism in DDS, so a denial of DDS is extremely problematic if one seeks to be Trinitarian.
In the Bible we see it written that God is Love. Is Love not an attribute? And (according to you) aren’t attributes parts of something? And, by this verse, isn’t God love? If you’re going to follow the Bible then you have to say God is love, according to your reasoning that means God is made of parts. So either you believe God is composit or you don’t believe the Bible. (Reduction ad absurdum)
@@manueljardimfernandes9456 That's a false dilemma. God being Love isn't an attribute. It means that God causes Love and it means that in God, Love and existence aren't different. God being Himself means He is Love.
God was impassable... Until he chose to make creatures in his image and carry out a plan of redemption where he voluntarily limited himself. So both are true. He is transcendent... And immanent in relation to his beloved creation.
It's crazy how man tries to figure God out to satisfy his box of what he wants God to be. Just believe scriptures about God's absolute sovereignty. His plans and counsels WILL not be thrwarted by man's thoughts and ideas 😅
If God doesn't really relate to the universe then there's no real need to reconcile the world to Himself, is there? I mean, we need salvation because the world is messed up, so God might act on our behalf, but that doesn't necessitate reconciliation with God, there's no reconciliation to be had if there's no relationship to restore.
God is related to the universe as its cause, but a real relation only exists in us, not in him. We are depended on God, he is in no way depended or changed, on the basis of what we do.
@@the4gospelscommentary So your God is not relational? Then he can abide in us but we cannot abide in him. He does not respond to prayers, and much of scripture is a farce where it talks about God changing His mind in response to people praying to Him, etc . If this relationship is only in you, then you cannot have a relationship WITH God. That says something strange about humanity that we can have something good God cannot.
@@bugslayerprime7674 The fact that you think that God can "change his mind" shows everything one needs to know about your non-christian and non-biblical idea of "god". The God of the Bible and the Christian Church is timeless and all-knowing, which makes it impossible for him to "change his mind". He is eternally the same and does not change - Psalm 102:27, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, James 1:17
@@the4gospelscommentarynone of those verses contradict what I said about the Bible showing God changing His mind. A change in God's responses to our prayers is based on conditions God sets, and His freewill to do what He wants given those circumstances. A change in God's mind is not a change in God's nature or intent to keep His promises. If you conflate those things then you have contradictions in scripture that require janky human reasoning to smooth over in order to protect your Platonic theology that's seeped into your Christianity. Also, need is not the only basis for relationships, there's also love. God doesn't need us, but He is Love. His relationships with us are not based on His need, but fulfilling our needs because He first loved us.
@@bugslayerprime7674 "God is love". 1 John 4:8 You literally quote this, and you can't see that this verse teaches divine simplicity?? Your position is supposed to be that God HAS love, but not that he IS love, remember? About prayers, God has from all eternity foreknown every prayer we will ever make, and has from all eternity foreordained every reward or punishment for our prayers and other actions. Thus, his created effects are changing in relation to our actions (and this is why the Bible speaks about "God changing"), but he in hiself is eternally the same, just as the verses I quoted clearly teach.
Most of Western Christianity adheres to classical Theism which entails DS. The East however approach it with an essence energies distinction. It's more "Classical Theism" versus X
Fantastic as usual! I would love to hear more about the rise of open theism post scientific revolution that Dr. Mullins mentioned!!! Any dumbed down resources on that?
Creator GOD YHVH self-identifies as an actual single individual Person. Creator GOD YHVH lives consubstantially in HIS own universe; called Heaven. In HIS own autobiography, i.e. the Bible, Creator GOD YHVH tells us we are made in HIS image and that HE has eyes, ears, a nose, a mouth, legs, arms, hands and feet. Heaven is a material Place; Heaven is composed of its own material *”SPIRITUAL”* substance. In HIS own autobiography, i.e. the Bible, Creator GOD YHVH tells us Heaven is populated with animals, angels, persons and other Gods. [Read your Bible] Creator GOD YHVH created our universe out of a physical material substance alien to the physical *”SPIRITUAL”* material substance Heaven is composed of. The physical material *”SPIRITUAL”* substance Heaven is composed of can interact with the physical material nonspiritual substance our universe is composed of but the reverse is not true. Heaven is a civilization of bustling activity. [Read you Bibles]
If all of God's attributes are the same, then God being a creator means that God is a hater who hates everything he created, which isn't too far off the mark with Calvinism.
Why is it they don’t see God as He is in ……,Ex.24: 9Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. 11And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank…….? It’s simple…😊
So now we have to understand the trinity in order to understand if God is simple or not? given that every attempt to understand this ineffable mystery has ended up in heresy i think that is as impossible as being able to pronounce on God's simplicity. did any of these learned divines actually ask God about the matter? of course not. but they are full of questions. as was Job when he encountered the Almighty. Job was flat on his face and his questions died on his lips call me a mystic but i and more convinced after actually sitting through this whole video that such questions are presumptuous, voyeuristic and irrelevant. They are pursued by fallen minds that refuse to accept their own fallenness and refuse to accept paradox. paradoxes that are mostly BEYOND OUR KEN. but this vid was useful as i did learn something of the pointless debates of today's schoolmen that still appeal to the inordinate curiosities of some types highly intelligent minds of today
Factoring the Trinitarian relations into God's unity and simplicity: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part One, Question 28, Article 3 - Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each other? "I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (A[1]), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute---namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity---but according to that which is relative." [Sacred-Texts Com webpage /chr/aquinas/summa/sum032.htm] Or to be succinct: God is entirely simple EXCEPT for the opposition of the divine relations.
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!
To say God is absolutely simple is to say He is not composed of parts. And to say He is simple is exactly to say He is transcendent to this reality because everything here is composed of parts. You simply don’t understand Divine Simplicity, go read some Aquinas!
I thought I’ve seen you before Dr Mullins. It was on Blogging Theology and the tile of session was: “Debating God's Temporality in Islamic Thought: Insights from Dr Ramon Harvey & Dr Ryan Mullins.” It was a great discussion.
Correct, the Trinity of Divine Simplicity is Modalism, but they deny its Modalism. So you “non-Divine Simplicity” Trinitarians are going to have to come up with a definition of Trinitarianism; *”IF”* you can make your definition compatible with the original *”Apostles Creed”* and drop the delusional presupposition that the Holy Spirit is a separate Person, *”THEN”* I’ll agree to it.
Factoring the Trinitarian relations into God's unity and simplicity: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part One, Question 28, Article 3 - Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each other? "I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (A[1]), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute---namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity---but according to that which is relative." [Sacred-Texts Com webpage /chr/aquinas/summa/sum032.htm] Or to be succinct: God is entirely simple EXCEPT for the opposition of the divine relations.
@@annakimborahpa --- Apparently "Divine Simplicity" believers don't realize that is a contradiction and contradictions are false; a "Divinely Simple" being absent attributes and parts *cannot* have opposition and distinction within its being; unless you want to admit you suffer from the AMHA's recognized mental condition of "cognitive dissonance".
My apologies Ryan you're warranted to be angry. With the world we're in I hope you can see how one can arrive at this conclusion. Not an excuse just a weak attempt at an explanation. I'll be more circumspect in the future.@@TheReluctantTheologian
"impassibility" is the god of the philosophers, not the Bible God. and it seems to me that the Arian heresy arose when Arius the Elder tried to harmonize the two - the god of plato and the god of the Bible, so christ had to be a lesser created being
The way the simplicity people can get around all this is, God is out of time and unchanging so there are no attributes except in our minds and God needs to use anthropomorphism in the Bible so we can comprehend him. Even when he seems to be interacting with people, he created the universe with his interactions already in place. He imbued us with free will knowing every outcome in place. He wrote the book of our universe and existence, therefore, he is unaffected by it. It seems to me you can justify almost ANYTHING with a tri-omni God. About the only thing you cannot justify is logical contradictions. If God were to send every human to everlasting hell, that could be justified.
It seems that divine simplicity only makes any sense if you presuppose that "attributes" are or could be real objects that exist, and if you believe that composites exist. If attributes aren't real, but composition is, then God wouldn't need to be composite to have distinct attributes. If composition isn't real, God cannot be composite in any case. The common sense position seems to be that neither attributes nor composites exist as real objects. Also, in case it's helpful: my initial reaction is that this video format feels strange. It seems like it should either be a long video with all the participants on the screen at once interacting together, or a compressed 5 minute thing with bits of talking cut up like this.
Due to scheduling we were unable to have Ryan and Alan on simultaneously, so we had to splice things together. Ideally, we'd have both on simultaneously, but then again that would likely devolve into a discussion among my guests rather than a straightforward response. I'd like to have them back for such a conversation
Hey @IdolKiller, do you have a video about God as pure act? I've had the concept explained to me twice, both times it made sense, both times after further reflection it made no sense. I may really misunderstand God as pure act, but it makes it sound as if God must act in order to satisfy his qualities, which means God is not perfect and complete until he has acted, such as saying god is creative, but if God is pure act, he must create in order to satisfy his creativity. If that's the case then God needs us to exist in order for him to be perfect and complete. This is also a hit against God's free will to not act. Why did God create the world? Because he had to by impulse. Why does God love? Because he has two by impulse. Why does God give grace? Because he has to. None of this has anything to do with his freedom of choice in the matter, but because God is pure act he must do these things. He is always doing these things. It makes it sound like he can't not do them. Hey, there's a difference between saying that God loves and is just and creates because these things are good and God knows them to be good and they got is the definition of good, so he does them because he wants to increase good, and saying that God does things always because he is pure act. Is no rationality in that. It's like saying a rabbit procreates because rabbits always procreate. Please pardon my lack of proper capitalization, I'm using speech to text.
An Essence or nature is not what makes God to be God, since God is already and always a Who, a person. A nature is simply a concept, a list of characteristics (attributes) derived from having examined the person. Many theologians talk as if the person (the who) is an appendage, an extension of its nature! In short, a divine nature is extracted, derived, from the one true God and converted from being an inert concept into becoming an active entity which can independently do things. This imagined nature is now capable of actively making choices, attaching itself to another different nature, and manipulating, governing, and regulating the person. But a nature is merely a list of attributes to describe an existing object or person. The nature does not make the object to be what it is, rather, the object already is what it is, regardless of whether or not we list its attributes or put a “nature” label on it. In other words, a nature is descriptive of its object, not prescriptive for that object. In contrast, if an object does not yet exist, then a list of attributes for an intended object can be made by a designer and the object can be manufactured to match those attributes, and then we can list those existing attributes as being the nature of the now-existing object. But even in this instance, the nature does not do anything. The nature of the object to be manufactured was imagined by the designer, an intelligent party. Then the same or another intelligent party must manufacture the object in order to impart that nature to the object. In no instance does the nature do anything of its own accord! This is why manufacturing God based on a What (a nature) instead of recognizing the Who will lead to confusion. In fact, we read that, idols are “…an image formed by the art and imagination of man” Acts 17:29. Making a false god would entail listing the divine nature characteristics we want our god to have and then engaging in a formation process. This is why saying that the nature is “that which “makes God, God”” is a very bad idea. The biblical God has attributes which we can say are His nature, but He identifies Himself based on WHO He is and what He does, often contrasting Himself with false gods who in truth do nothing at all. The one true God is a Who, and we must accept Him as He is, and not engage in reverse-engineering Him to fit our ideas. Summary: An essence (nature) is not a living entity with an independent conscience existence. The existence of a nature is only in our minds as a concept. A nature cannot live, think, do, or die because it is not alive to begin with.
@@IdolKiller especially in today's state of mind that's saying something other than that. I dunno bro but that is suspect to me. Appreciate you telling me though but still, dodgy as a man.
I think it's a straw man to say that the monarchical view of the Trinity is practically indistinguishable from arianism. The Son and the Spirit obtain their divine essence from the Father . To say that because of this the son is somehow less divine than the father is to me the same as saying my children are less human than I am. Full disclosure, Dr. Branson was one of the main influences in my conversion to Orthodoxy.
I affirm the Monarchy of the Father and disagree with my friend Ryan on this... but as he was a guest and is a friend, I wanted to hear his views on this and didn't want him to feel restrained. I hope to bring on Joshua Sijuwade and some EO priests to discuss the MotF soon.
@@IdolKiller that would be awesome! Also, I would think there's a good chance you could get Dr Branson to come on. He has done quite a bit of content online the last few years and this is kind of his thing.
I'm not exactly clear on whether Divine Simplicity even matters, but your definition of divine simplicity seems to be different than I thought it was. I thought it was was just the view that God isn't made up of parts. It seems like your guests are just redefining divine simplicity as saying that it means all aspects of God are identical and then showing that they aren't. That's just the strawman fallacy.
@@IdolKiller, admittedly, my understanding of Divine Simplicity comes primarily from Dr. William Lane Craig. He seems to say that there is disagreement over what Divine Simplicity is but it can range anywhere from "there are no material parts in God" to the Thomas Aquinas claim that in God there is not even a distinction between essence and existence. But WLC holds to the basic definition being "there is no composition or complexity in God."
it seems to me that no one can POSSIBLY KNOW whether God is simple or not. do we know His mind that we are His counsellors do we understand the intrinsic essence of the Godhead sufficiently to be able to pronounce either way? Like filioque i neither know nor care but even more than filioque i seriously think that the very question itself is presumptuous he is HOLY AND TERRIBLE HE IS SOVEREIGN and I call him DREAD LORD ( an old styling for Tudor kings of England) he is absolutely NOT a specimen on the slide to be dissected as if we would even recognize the bits we sliced up i would no more enquire this about God than i would enquire as to my earthly father's ( now deceased) sex life. it is lewd, voyeuristic and relies on knowledge we CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE
Dr. Rhoda's comment from Bavinck at about minute 34:15, that God only properly loves Himself, is illustrative of how Divine Simplicity actually helps explain the Biblical account. I know the modern mind finds these concepts so difficult to understand. I get it. But there is a reason the Scriptures describe the end state of this world as God being "all in all" (see 1 Corinthians 15:28). There is a reason why the end state of redeemed man is "the FULLNESS OF GOD" dwelling in us (see Ephesians 3:14-19, 1 Corinthians 15:42-49). Bavinck is right. God is always and only the proper object of love. That is why He hates UN-GODLINESS. That is why He makes men GOD-LY by giving them His Spirit. That is why He loved Christ, because IN HIM the fullness of deity dwells bodily. That is why He will end the world by FILLING IT completely. That is why the Great Commandment is to Love God with all heart soul and mind. Only then can we move on to the second commandment to love anything else. All love of contingent things is derivative of a love for God.
@OneBriteStar its God's self-revelation. Why object to how He describes and reveals Himself, dismissing it as anthropomorphic language? By what means did He reveal to you the Bible is unreliable and He is something else entirely?
In Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas enter Lystra and after performing miracles a crowd gathers that says: “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” Paul and Barnabus rebut those claims by saying: "We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them." The phrase "like nature" is the greek word "ὁμοιοπαθεῖς (homoiopatheis)" which includes the greek words "homoio" (like) and "patheis" from "pascho", which is where we get our english word "passion" and is the root word of "impassable". These men make the point to these Greeks who are calling them "gods" that they are not "gods" because they are "passable" like them. They then point them to true God who is the creator of all things which would not be "passable" like men. Why would they say this unless they were affirming God's impassability as the creator of all things?
@@bobbyfischersays1262 - I don’t think it is. It was a Greek town, Greek philosophical concepts would have been understandable. Modern translations usually render it “like nature”. What is that nature? We have passable nature… which makes us unlike that God who create everything.
@@brentonstanfield5198 the Greeks in that town thought Paul and Barnabas were manifestations of their Greek Olympian gods, not the god of Platonism/Classical Theism.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 - Yes, but in response to the claim that they are divine, it is Paul and Barnabas who intentionally correct them by noting their passability… and then identify the God who made heaven and earth as different. Paul and Barnabas know what REAL divinity is, and it isn’t the passable gods like Zeus or Hermes… who are just like men. It is the impassable God who is creator of heaven and earth.
@@brentonstanfield5198 impassiblity doesn't enter the conversation at any point. You're committing the etymological fallacy and eisegeting that into the text. The Greek gods were considered to be of a different nature than mortals.
I disagree with Gavin on calvinism, but everyone out there needs to subscribe to his channel and learn from him. He is brilliant and a blessing to the body.
I like Gavin. Everyone go subscribe and tell him Idol Killer sent you
Definitely not. His ecumenicism is deceptive
@@ri3m4nn I agree. I'm not a fan of ecumenism.
@@ri3m4nn agreed, I like him a lot but, but the reason I like him is also the reason I'm cautious with with him. He's very gentle, and I think too gentle with heresy. Kind of see it in his channel name, truth unites, but truth should divide. Truth is exclusive and separate from error.
@@ri3m4nn Gavin is mild mannered but he calls out very clearly the errors of Rome and the East as they are. He does not promote some sort of unity over truth ideal.
"Divine Simplicity doesnt allow for the Trinity, but rather Modalism."
EXACTLY what I had been thinking throughout! So glad someone just said the obvious.
maybe but how do we know this? are you suggesting that the three persons of the godhead are separate parts thus refuting simplicity?
don't get me wrong i am not arguing for simplicity. i think the question is itself blasphemous, stemming from an inordinate and ungodly curiosity; and I also hold it beyond our ken to answer either way
Each of the three persons is identical to the divine essence, but they are distinct from each other. How is that modalism??
Everything that is intrinsic to God, is God. That's what Divine Simplicity says. Mercy and goodness are God, and are identical to each other. To make mercy and goodness truly different from each other within God, somehow that makes God have parts. No.
No, I'm not saying the trinity are parts, but I also reject the implied categories of Divine Simplicity of how they argue about parts. Attributes are not parts, and DS has the wrong footing with even asking about parts in God when it comes to the trinity or attributes.
The trinity is intrinsic to God. So then, by the same logic, The Father and the Son and the Spirit are God, and not truly distinct from each other. That destroys the trinity.
Honestly, it sounds like you two didn't really watch the video or pay attention. Rather than explain this any further, I'm just going to say watch the video again. If you still don't see it, then sorry I can't help you any more than this. :/
@@lonelyguyofficial8335 How are the really distinct attributes not parts? If each attribute contributes to God, but none of them is fully God, then they are parts of God.
Factoring the Trinitarian relations into God's unity and simplicity:
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part One, Question 28, Article 3 - Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each other?
"I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (A[1]), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute---namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity---but according to that which is relative."
[Sacred-Texts Com webpage /chr/aquinas/summa/sum032.htm]
Or to be succinct: God is entirely simple EXCEPT for the opposition of the divine relations.
Platonic ideas have infected the church for too long. I look forward to the work of modern christian scholars who are working to provide a truly biblical view of God seperate from pagan platonic ideas.
Get ready to ditch Nicene trinitarianism then- for better or worse.
The baffling thing here is how little Scripture plays into people's beliefs. Its a series of ad hoc decisions, band aids, and duct tapes made to answer objections from people beholden to non-biblical philosophies in the first place.
We get ourselves in lots of trouble when we go beyond the Biblical data to project into other philosophical models and give answers.
Also - love all your "Dr" monikers. :)
When I watched Gavin's video about Divine Simplicity I was thinking the whole time that wish Gavin would have discussion wth Mullins, so this is the next best thing! Thank you!
Thank you for the video.
I have read part way through Dr. James D. Gifford book called "The Hexagon of Heresy". In which he argues in the first part of book that four of the six great christological heresies ("Arianism", Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism) "are the immediate christological conclusions of the attempt to map definitional [divine] simplicity onto the divine essence." In the second part Dr. Gifford expands on how the six heresies are christological subsets of larger cosmological models that arise from definitional divine simplicity as a first principle.
I invite you to at least check out the introduction which you can read as a sample on apple books.
Agreed. I think it's an excellent book pointing out problematic outcomes from a doctrine of ' Definitional Divine Simplicity.' Dr Gifford contends that there are bad spiritual and societal consequences from the doctrine. There's an excellent interview with Dr Gifford on Dr Leighton Flowers' Soteriology 101 channel which persuaded me to buy & read the book.Others may wish to check that out.
Factoring the Trinitarian relations into God's unity and simplicity:
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part One, Question 28, Article 3 - Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each other?
"I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (A[1]), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute---namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity---but according to that which is relative."
[Sacred-Texts Com webpage /chr/aquinas/summa/sum032.htm]
Or to be succinct: God is entirely simple EXCEPT for the opposition of the divine relations.
I am so glad we have educated people pushing back on this divine simplicity stuff. I first heard about it at a Founders (Calvinist Baptist) conference when they gave James Dolezal the most lectures but he seemed to me the least biblical. Much of what he said seemed to directly contradict the Bible and all to uphold a few confessions of faith from the 1600s.
Factoring the Trinitarian relations into God's unity and simplicity:
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part One, Question 28, Article 3 - Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each other?
"I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (A[1]), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute---namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity---but according to that which is relative."
[Sacred-Texts Com webpage /chr/aquinas/summa/sum032.htm]
Or to be succinct: God is entirely simple EXCEPT for the opposition of the divine relations.
Dude, loved the Dr reference at the end.
Abother great video Warren I love how Dr. Alan Rhoda was able to pin this down to ADS and didnt just squish it. You see this matter is not as "simple" as some would wish it to be. Both speakers were great and I think gave us plenty to think about being that the subject is so complex. I liked how they said God was not essentially contigent on outside things to himself. I think thats a good way to put it. To say that he is not in any way effected by us is to say that God has no relation of any kind to creation and that would just be false from logical reality and scripture.
Good video. For the record, I'm a great admirer of Gavin Ortlund. Reading one of his books right now.
What is the Gavin book that your are reading?
Thank you for doing this! I was going to contact Ryan to see if he would respond to Gavin’s video. So glad you put this together!
Yes! Im so glad you're doing this.
Gavin is AMAZING. I love his stuff, but he gets these little blind spots because of his calvinism and classical theism.
But he's genuinely one of the most winsom guys out there.
Capadocians gaslighting 😂.. my favorite part.
Excellent video all! Thank you, very helpful.
Great show Dr. Feelgood. This Divine Simplicity doesn't seem so simple!
It's a bit strange that Mullins has his nails painted
Ryan painting his fingernails is very strange, but not as strange as Alan painting his toenails. I think it's a philosopher thing.
@@IdolKiller it's feminine
It's a bit strange to be so obsessed with another man's appearance.
@TheReluctantTheologian James White wouldn't approve of you painting your nails
@@Philip3 I don't approve of James White's sweaters.
Please release episodes in podcast form. Way easier for those of us that commute :)
I need a volunteer to edit these into audio format for me. It's something I hope to do soon!
Lovely stuff as usual Warren! Love it! (and Ryan!) Bradshaw's book "Aristotle East and West" is a brilliant read for anyone interested! - tracking the differing directions each tradition took with aristotelian simplicity within a Christian context.
I personally appreciate the Orthodox East's Essence-Energy distinction, and, particularly, the formulations of the first six Ecumenical Councils - which are all interrelated. The East (as you know) hold to a form of simplicity, but they don't deny real distinctions "within" or "around" God.
When thinking of freedom - divine and human - the end result of the ball that Augustine got rolling (exhaustive divine determinism... thanks John) is, for me, a no no.
Molinism seems to work off too much of a deterministic premise.
And Open theology is a fascinating possibility... but still unprovable.
I like the Essence - energy distinction, for at least it "holds a balance" of Mystery and Revelation whilst not succumbing to either determinism or a crude anthropomorphism... but maybe going more in the direction that Richard Swinburn would with the Divine Being being far less "atemporal" than we suppose! (with our Greek presuppositions!)
Keep up the good work!!!
Greetings from the U.K ; ) ✌️🙏💚
Wait, what "ball did Augustine start rolling"?
@@the4gospelscommentary a form of determinism that was not known in previous Jewish religion, or in the Church up until that point (late 4th, early 5th cent)... a determinism that was borrowed from gnostic Manachein thought (of which Augustine was immersed in before he became a Christian) and superimposed over the text. Interestingly, originally Augustine held to the general view of the early church regarding Providence, Sovereignty, human will, sin, predestination, election etc up until the Pelagian controversy, then he brought his novel take into the Western Christian picture.
@@emilesturt3377 I see you bought into a lot of lies, spread by this and similar channels. Augustine didn't get his doctrine from any pagan philosophy, but he was deeply rooted in the teaching of Scripture and Church Fathers before him. Throughout his career, he was perfectly consistent in his teaching on original sin and human will. The one view that he did perhaps modify, was unconditional predestination, but even then, his later view is entirely biblical and does appear in some Fathers before him.
@@the4gospelscommentary
I have said that he was in the stream of the thought of the Fathers before him. But he didn't "perhaps" modify one, he modified many.
Why are the entirety of the Greek Fathers free from Augustinian thought regarding, for example, predestination?
I would suggest that you have a particular view that you don't like being threatened because your whole system of doctrine and soteriology etc depends on it.
Mine, consistently, does not depend on an Augustinian Calvinistic view of the nature of the relationship between God and man - as Coptics, Eastern Orthodox, many Catholics and Protestants alike do not need it or have never entertained it either.
@@emilesturt3377 As I said, Church Fathers before Augustine - including Greek Fathers - did teach predestination. That being said, I have no problem admitting that nobody taught this doctrine as clearly as Augustine did. I don't know how this fact is supposed to "threathen" me. Just stop lying that Augustine got this doctrine from manicheanism, when in fact it is perfectly biblical.
Sometimes I think that we Christians "think" just too much.
We think ourselves out of relationship with God.
We think ourselves out of relationship with each other.
We think ourselves out of relevancy.
We think ourselves out of unity with each other as believers.
We think so much, that we begin to think that we think that we can understand everything about God, leaving no more mystery at all, and anyone that doesn't think what we think, is a heritic.
The problem is that scripture is very clear about some things. When God declares "I the Lord your God am a jealous God" (Exo 34:14), He says He is merciful (Psa 145:9, Eph 2:4), and his wrath burns against the ungodly (Rom 1:18), so to call this "anthropomorphism" or declare impossibility is denying scripture. We think about these things because they are important, and it's a horrible thing to speak falsely about our God. It's not because we believe we can understand everything about Him, but just because we can't understand everything doesn't mean we can't understand something. I understand God is loving, jealous, merciful, angry, but I don't understand the extent of that. "Heretic" is a word that gets thrown around way to often, but it sometimes must be used. How much will God stand? Imagine declaring about someone they are impassible after they have tried reaching out to you for years through emotions. When you reject the bible, the word heretic may become necessary.
well said. and IMO it comes from an inordinate curiosity that refuses to be content with what God reveals to us in His word.
I am an intellectual type. there is no point in hiding it. and i have been brought to accept that the one simplicity that truly matters is the simplicity OF FAITH. this is not anti intellectualism but some measure of humility in accepting that our minds are fallen, our intellectual appetites are inordinate and some questions are irrelevant, being trivial at best or lead to rank heresy at worst
It was once said that, in defining God's immensity as distinct from his omnipresence: "God's center is everywhere; his circumference is nowhere." In other words, everything that God is is everywhere, and equally so.
This is a sufficient definition of God not having parts. But there is no need to say from this that his attributes are not distinct while being equally present everywhere.
If God's attributes were really distinct, each being something less than God as a whole, while yet being God, then there would be as many "gods" as there are attributes in God. Monothheism demands divine simplicity.
Here's the problem: a finite mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality; infinity requires segmentation prior to human attempts at comprehension. But to deny the infinitude of God reduces God to an anthropomorphic “Sky Daddy.”
One large reason I was drawn (back) to Orthodoxy was the “Essence/Energies” distinction. I see it as the most consistent (and scriptural) way to reconcile God’s freedom as Creator and how we can “partake of the divine nature.” I don’t understand how people try to philosophically defend “Divine Simplicity.”
the EO don't have the vocabulary embedded in thomism to articulate classical theism, but what they believe certainly doesn't deny it either.
I can see where that can be true because many things aren’t philosophically developed.@@Qwerty-jy9mj
Actually, the palamites deny that we can ever (even in Heaven) partake of the divine nature. They apply this Scripture to the "energies" of God, which are supposedly something other than the divine nature, in direct contradiction to 2 Peter 1:4.
I think the question is about what St. Peter means by “nature” and “partake” because even in the Orthodox notion of “Theosis ,” we never merge with God’s essence or become God Himself. Only the essence/energy distinction allows for this.@@the4gospelscommentary
I think it is quite amazing, and frankly arrogant, for anyone to think that they can understand and explain the nature of God. I will just believe what God tells me about Himself in His Word.
I have a BA from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and I don’t recall ever hearing the concept of Divine Simplicity. The school has become more Calvinistic.
Devine simplicity or Devine complexity? Gavin depends heavily on the "great men of church history" when it comes to proving his argument (that seems to me is his idol), but he seems to be picking only what comes close to supporting his point as this video demonstrates.
Could Devine simplicity one of the reasons he believes in Calvinism? Whether God loves or hates, whether His creation be in eternal torment or comfort there's no distinction, both don't matter, as both bring Him glory afterall according to that theology.
Agree! Argument seems to be his idol‼️
Ive gotta agree with Alvin Platinga on this one.
Is there any reason you guys didn't interact with Gavin's much longer video on the topic?
It seems there's some level of talking past Gavin on this. Maybe engaging with the longer video where he clarifies things further would be more charitable and productive for all parties involved.
Warren, you're quite right to stick with the Monarchy of the Father, for not just Eunomianism, but Arianism is in fact a necessary by-product of absolute divine simplicity. But not the monarchy of the Father, for it is primarily Scriptural, and was formulated under the guidance of the Spirit of Truth within the Church (I'm not Orthodox but I can see how and why they've got the majority of things consistently right!)... the East clearly see that the Father is the Arche, but without resorting to a false Trinitarian subordinationism - and mainly of the Spirit in the West through the view that the Father and the Son are joint causes of Him - through a failure to see a distinction between ontology and economy, which itself is driven by an unnesessary view of simplicity, and necessity!... (The Father is eternally the Father because He Eternally Begets - is the cause of - the Eternal Son)
Love the other doctor's contribution to this video too, very clear and knowledgeable and humble!
I do think sometimes though that however bright a modern Christian philosopher might be (Ryan included), we would still do well to remember that the likelihood of us adding anything 'significantly' new to the 'problems' relating to, for instance, Theodicy, or the hierarchy within the Trinity...
are pretty low.
Just a quick couple of bullet points for anyone not familiar with "Monarchy" (forgive me! I won't make your habit of this!)
Eastern Trinitarianism:
God is One:
Our Father
God is Triune:
Three Persons (Gk. Hypostasis)
One in Essence (Ousia)
The One Energy, Mind and Will proper to that Infinite, Eternal and Incorporeal Essence, is expressed and shared by the Three Divine Persons
The Father Son and Holy Spirit are each fully God; One in Nature and Attributes; equal in all but causation. For the Father alone Eternally Begets and Spirates. He is the Fountainhead of the Trinity, the Source, the "Arche"
The Son and Spirit alone are timelessly caused - but Not Created
By reason of Begetting, the Son is eternally God, and with God
By reason of Spiration, the Spirit is eternally God, and with God
Ontologically, "Eternally", the Son alone is Begotten of the Father, and the Spirit Proceeds solely from the Father
Economically, "Energetically", Providentially toward and within the Creation, the Spirit Proceeds (is sent) from the Father, by way of the Son on Whom He rests
In the Spirit we see the Son in Whom we see the Father
All things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit
And in the Spirit, through the Son and to the Father, all things will find their fulfilment
✌️
How exactly is arianism supposed to follow necessrily from divine simplicity??? I don't think you explained that at all. Also, not a single Church Father taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Filioque was taught unanimously by the Church Fathers, just as divine simplicity.
Ortlund is completely correct that the Christian theologians have always taught divine simplicity. Citing Palamas as a proof against that is similarly ridiculous as citing Luther in order to prove that the Church hasn't always taught justification by works.
EVEN WHEN ONE DAY WE ARE ABLE TO BEHOLD "HIM" FACE TO FACE FOR ALL ETERNITY, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE NEW GLORIOUS REVELATION REVEALED TO US THAT WILL CAUSE US TO BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP "HIM"
As an ex catholic convert to Eastern Orthodoxy I was glad to know that Orthodoxy goes against divine simplicity
You should also know that all Church Fathers, including the eastern ones, taught divine simplicity.
Scripture says mankind is made in God's image (Imago Dei). We all have distinct, *integrated* attributes, so why wouldn't God reversely?
Being in God's image doesn't mean that we are identical to God.
@@TimothyFish I hear this a lot, but that's not what any of us are saying. What do you mean when you say that we are made in the image of God?
@@daltonbrasier5491, an "image" is like a picture. A picture isn't identical to the thing that it depicts, but in looking at it you can see a representation of that thing. In the case of God, who is spirit and cannot be seen, he can't be represented by a painting, but we are made in such a way that we represent his love, his justice, his creativity, his forgiveness. When Adam sinned, that image became flawed and we don't love like we should, we aren't just like we should be, we use creativity in the wrong way, we don't forgive as we should, etc. But the Bible says that the law is written on our hearts. There is an inherent pull for us to be more like God. But while we are an image of God, there are aspects of us that aren't like God. We are created and he is not. He is omnipotent and omnipresent, but we are not. We have a physical body and he does not. And these differences existed in Adam, prior to the fall, so being "in the image of God" cannot mean that we can look at what we are like and determine that what is true about us must also be true about God.
Mullin's made a great point @11:26 why should we consider attributes to be parts? Also, why should we consider persons to be parts? Also if someone is convinced by Descartes's argument for the mind based on the principle of indivisibilty then minds don't have parts. Maybe it is a quality of metaphysical objects to not have parts?
Persons are not parts, because each person is identical to the divine essence, while distinct from each other. But nobody makes that claim about the attributes. Every denier of divine simplicity would say that attributes are really distinct from the essence, which would make God composed of essence and attributes.
I’m not sure if I understand this whole concept properly, but if in the divine simplicity concept there is nothing external to God, yet we are a product of God and can be eternally separated from God then how did we manage to get away?
Then again, maybe I’m missing something.
I don't think you're missing anything. Maybe an appeal to mystery will help the medicine go down, lol.
There is nothing external to God IN GOD. Whatever is external to God is not God, but rather his creation.
Doesn't matter if the guy have a PHD.. he lost me when I saw his black nails. Like what being book smart doesn't always relate in real life 😅
Who
@@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737 "Dr." Ryan Mullins, the Emo guy at the beginning
Dang, 6 likes and no one has seen it yet
Those are rookie numbers. I gotta pump those numbers up! We need at least 50 likes before a video premieres. Gotta feed that algorithm!
If the thumbnail was nothing but a black screen I would like it. I’m that confident it’s going to be good. Lol!
Thanks @@JohnK557
me too@@JohnK557
Well, I hung in there, all the way to the end. ( Nice ending BTW ). This is a little bit above my pay grade! All I know, is that I love my Lord, in all of His three persons!
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.”
Isaiah 55:8-9
“Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!”
Romans 11:33 😮
The verse before Romans 11:32 For God has concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy on all. O the depth of the riches both of the Wisdom and knowledge of God. The two verses before Isaiah 55: 7-8
Isaiah 55:6 Seek the Lord while He may be found, call on Him while is near: let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts and let him return to the lord and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God who will freely pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts. Blessed 2024
@@theresaread72 Not exactly sure what point you were trying to make. 🙄
@@kevinkleinhenz6511 I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. I Was placing your scripture in context. Both scriptures, read in context, say that all are able to come to Jesus for eternal life by meeting the Condition of faith in Christ, and forsaking our sin,and sinful thoughts
@@theresaread72 My point in posting those scriptures was simply to demonstrate how complex God is especially after listening to these three men that are way over my intelligence level! 😂
Since it wasn't addressed in the live chat I'll post it here: why can't we say God has parts? He's a person with a body, soul, and spirit, as per the Biblical data.
According to Jesus in John 4, "God is SPIRIT"
@@leenieledejo6849 so? Spiritual beings can have bodies. Like angels for example. Also see 1 Corinthians 15, in which Paul talks about the difference between earthly and spiritual flesh. Besides, the Bible explicitly states God has a body and even describes it. Furthermore, this doesn't address my question specifically. It doesn't follow that a spirit can't have parts. So not sure where you're going with that
God is a necessary being. Before anything exists, God is. If God is made up of parts, then there are possible worlds in which God is either less or greater than he is in the actual world. If he is made up of parts, he could have more parts or less parts than he has. Who or what would decide what parts God has? For there to be such a being, we would need something prior to God, but if there is something prior to God then that thing would be God.
@@bobbyfischersays1262GOD is different from the angels. GOD is pure spirit . Angels are not pure spiritual beings
@@bobbyfischersays1262the bible never said GOD has body parts. That's pagan garbage.
Divine Simplicity is very much true and doesn’t lead to modalism👍
Warren, good stuff. There was something that Rhoda mentioned briefly about "orders of divine essence, the Son is essence squared/reflected back and the Spirit is reflected on its own reflection..." This very premise was used by a Roman Catholic recently on Lila Rose's YT channel., but they modified it slightly to be related to "awareness" The video link, if any are interested is here: ua-cam.com/video/bBSS8nx8M68/v-deo.html. Divine Simplicity finds exactly zero Biblical proof. The idea of God being "complex" really disturbs so many, because they are trying to work out certain gnostic principles that are entrenched in their various theologies. At least Dr. White, as "reformed" as he is, pushes back... ;)
In the video I mentioned, listen to the RC's viewpoint. It is nearly incomprehensible, which is what Dr. Mullins has pointed out on several occasions. Thank you again for the input from Dr. Mullins and Dr. Rhodes on this one.
Factoring the Trinitarian relations into God's unity and simplicity:
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part One, Question 28, Article 3 - Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each other?
"I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (A[1]), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute---namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity---but according to that which is relative."
[Sacred-Texts Com webpage /chr/aquinas/summa/sum032.htm]
Or to be succinct: God is entirely simple EXCEPT for the opposition of the divine relations.
Is the basic struggle to parse out the Trinity: A Human is one What and one Who .
YHWH is 1 what and 3 who’s. This is beyond our faculties to understand. Thoughts?
2:01 does he paint his toenails as well?
I don't see why people get triggered by the concept of divine simplicity - it's not radical or controversial or offensive to Christian doctrine - it's just asserting the fact that God is One in substance, and that ultimately all "qualities" or "attributes", that man uses to describe or talk about God, ultimately terminate in the same definition - God Himself, which is ineffable. This goes beyond Christianity and is just foundational to monotheism - even pagan philosophers, like Plato, found that when you attempt to define "Justice", "Temperence", "Love", etc., they all eventually are descriptions of one and the same thing, which Plato named "The Good", or "The ultimate form of the Good." It's actually a practice that anyone can try for themselves, and you don't have to rely on a philosopher or a theologian for - if you try to define absolutely any of God's attributes, like love, or charity, or goodness, or mercy, you'll ultimately discover that they are different expressions of one singular nameless attribute, or at the very least, the definitions bleed into one another, and there is massive overlapping among them, such as between charity, mercy, and love. Divine simplicity is obvious, and explains the trinity - how can God be three persons, yet One in substance, unless DS were true? It's like claiming that ice, steam, and liquid water are all different, distinct things or qualities that are dis-united in substance, or which have different essences. That, obviously, is not true - ice, steam, and liquid water are all One in essence or chemical composition - they're just water - the same is the case with the trinity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all have the same essence, and are all the same divine substance - they're all God. No difference in essence. That is only possible if divine simplicity is true.
Whatever Dr. Mullins' opinions on the issue, you run into problems - big, major problems - when you DENY divine simplicity. When you deny divine simplicity, you can start affirming Calvinist doctrines like "The two wills of God", which conflict with and contradict one another, and all kinds of multiplicities which ultimately slide back into polytheism - what is polytheism apart from multiple Gods with multiple competing or conflicting wills? Throw out divine simplicity and what you're left with is divine multiplicity or complexity - which, if you're referring to God, leads to multiple essences, multiple Gods, multiple wills, which are all heresies - at the very, very least, you end up with one God with conflicting, competing wills, at odds with or at war with Himself, which is schizophrenia and chaos.
Dr. Mullins appears to be educated beyond his intelligence, which almost always leads to sophistry, and almost never to truth. Nothing he shared was convincing, and the attempts to flex on DS just came across as confused and inconsistent. Gavin's wrong, but he's wrong about his Calvinism, not about divine simplicity, even if his reasons for affirming it or believing in it are inconsistent or wrong. Barking up the wrong tree and attacking the wrong doctrine here, guys - let's not add to the confusion that's already rampant out there.
My first thoughts are, no one makes the distinction between simplicity and ADS, I’ve listen to a lot of EO talk about both EE and monarchy of the the Father, I felt Dr Ryan didnt properly represent the EO position especially regarding to the Cappadocians
I didn't want this to be about my specific beliefs, so I intentionally didn't push back on those areas where my guests and I differed... instead noting I affirm tMotF.
I was more interested in hearing their objections than defending my own opinion, if that makes sense.
All that said I love & respect the Doctors Three
@@IdolKiller ps loved the JW intro/ outro
There is no distinction betweed divine simplicity and absolute divine simplicity. Both simply mean that God is not composed of parts. This view was also held by the Capadoccians.
Calvinism necessitates and pressupposes ADS,
In ADS, God is understood as devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. His essential nature cannot be experienced directly by his creatures.
Given the radical distinction between God and created being, the Western Christian spiritual tradition affirms that there are (then) essentially only two ways to know God: one, by the light of natural human reason and inference; and two, by God’s self-disclosure and revelation in the Bible. This is important to keep in mind: in the Western Christian Tradition, the seat of the image of God (imago Dei) is the reasoning part of man.
Augustine and Aquinas adopted a framework of understanding God one following after the other, namely that of adopting a concept of God known as “Absolute Divine Simplicity” (ADS).
According to ADS, God is identical with His essence. It follows that each of His attributes, such as His will, is equally identical with His essence. But this poses a serious problem to traditional Christian theology regarding the doctrine of God. On this tradition God has been thought of as free, for example, in the sense that God was free, before His act of creation, to choose not to create.
This means that God could have willed differently than He in fact did. If, however, God’s will is identical to His essence, then it would seem to follow that for God to will differently, He must actually be different.
If, on the other hand, we wish to affirm that God’s essence is necessary, then we must say that His will is necessary, and thus He cannot truly be free.
The Eastern distinction between essence and energies seems to be the best response to this problem, and others like it.
As an Eastern Orthodox revert, I have to side with the the eastern church’s understanding on the essence energies distinction.
You may be wondering how is this relevant to Calvinism, well I will get to that briefly.
However, there is another significant tension in Western theology that can only be resolved by the essence-energies distinction, namely the tension between man’s free will and the sovereignty of God.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity asserts that because the Western Catholic/Reformed theology lacked a robust doctrine of the divine energies, they lacked the conceptual tools necessary to resolve this tension, which lead to a view of the interrelationship between God and man that was rather like a pie chart.
On this “pie chart” model, the more God does, the less man does, and vice versa. This is what lead to the Pelagian controversy and Augistine’s “overreaction” in the form of double Predestination.
This tension was never resolved, and carried over into the Protestant Reformation in the form of Calvinism versus Arminianism.
The Eastern doctrine of the divine energies, on the other hand, allows for a view of synergy in which both God and man can be said to perform the same act, without one doing damage to the other.
Martin Luther goes further by asserting that we cannot “know” God directly - even by means of reason and that we must essentially accept God by a “leap of faith” alone: “In God there is sheer Deity, and the essence of God is His transcendent wisdom and omnipotent power. [God’s] attributes are altogether beyond the grasp of reason…God did not want to give us an insight into it in this life.”
John Calvin, consistent in this regard, writes, that God’s “essence is incomprehensible; hence, his divineness far escapes all human perception.”
They are speaking about God in His essence and in the West there is no distinction made between God in essence and his attributes or what the East calls “energies”. In the Western Christian Tradition, both are beyond human experience and apprehension.
Thus, in formal Western Christian thought there is really no theological ground for direct encounter with God in this life, except through (created) “intermediaries” or “entities” - like angelic beings, or through God’s revelation in Scripture. Catholics traditionally reject (with Protestantism following its lead) any direct epistemological possibility of a direct connection between God and man, whereby man might “behold” God directly.
In the East, by contrast, the theological spirit takes a decidedly different approach. The seat of the Image of God is NOT thought to be in the reasoning or intellective faculty of the human being, but rather in the “Nous”, sometimes translated incorrectly as “Mind”, but in the East understood as “heart.” This is not necessarily the physical “heart” but at the center of man’s being.
Unlike the West’s dogmatic over reliance upon rationalism and the scholasticism within reformed metaphysics, Orthodox spirituality is built - NOT upon theological speculation or philosophy - but upon the experiences of those who have known God, and the purpose of Eastern Christian spirituality is to lead each baptized soul to such experience for him or herself.
In the Orthodox…tradition, genuine spiritual experience is the foundation of dogmatic formulations, Christian doctrine developed in response to spiritual experience. One of the biblical texts which has powerfully shaped Eastern Christian spirituality (and, interestingly, is rarely quoted in the West) is 2 Peter 1:3:
“His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”
The Greek fathers agree that God is transcendent and indivisible. So how then can humans in fact experience the divine nature directly? First, a “participation in the divine nature” does not represent a relapse into pagan pantheism or “absorption” of the creature in the Creator, as some critics of Eastern Christianity have charged. To avoid this pantheistic heresy, the Greek fathers offer the well-known distinction between the “essence” and “energies” of God. God’s “essence” is indivisible and entirely beyond us (i.e. unknowable). We do not have in Eastern Christianity a “mysticism” of the divine essence; but God’s energies - as we pray to the Holy Spirit - are “everywhere present and fill all things.”
Greek/Eastern Church Father Saint Basil writes:
“The energies are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know…God from His energies, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His energies come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.” The metaphor often used to describe the distinction between “essence” and “energies” is the sun (Essence) and its rays (Energies). They are one and the same; the sun’s rays are not derivative, not a symbol, nor are they distinct from the sun. When you experience the sun’s rays as heat, you experience the sun directly. Likewise the whole of God is present in each of his energies and those who participate in them participate in the whole of God.
In ADS, God is understood as devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. His essential nature cannot be experienced directly by his creatures.
Given the radical distinction between God and created being, the Western Christian spiritual tradition affirms that there are (then) essentially only two ways to know God: one, by the light of natural human reason and inference; and two, by God’s self-disclosure and revelation in the Bible. This is important to keep in mind: in the Western Christian Tradition, the seat of the image of God (imago Dei) is the reasoning part of man.
Martin Luther goes further by asserting that we cannot “know” God directly - even by means of reason and that we must essentially accept God by a “leap of faith” alone: “In God there is sheer Deity, and the essence of God is His transcendent wisdom and omnipotent power. [God’s] attributes are altogether beyond the grasp of reason…God did not want to give us an insight into it in this life.”2
John Calvin, consistent in this regard, writes, that God’s “essence is incomprehensible; hence, his divineness far escapes all human perception.”3
They are speaking about God in His essence and in the West there is no distinction made between God in essence and his attributes or what the East calls “energies”. In the Western Christian Tradition, both are beyond human experience and apprehension.
Thus, in formal Western Christian thought there is really no theological ground for direct encounter with God in this life, except through (created) “intermediaries” or “entities” - like angelic beings, or through God’s revelation in Scripture. Catholics traditionally reject (with Protestantism following its lead) any direct epistemological possibility of a direct connection between God and man, whereby man might “behold” God directly.
In the East, by contrast, the theological spirit takes a decidedly different approach. The seat of the Image of God is NOT thought to be in the reasoning or intellective faculty of the human being, but rather in the “Nous”, sometimes translated incorrectly as “Mind”, but in the East understood as “heart.” This is not necessarily the physical “heart” but at the center of man’s being.
Unlike the West’s dogmatic over reliance upon rationalism and the scholasticism within reformed metaphysics, Orthodox spirituality is built - NOT upon theological speculation or philosophy - but upon the experiences of those who have known God, and the purpose of Eastern Christian spirituality is to lead each baptized soul to such experience for him or herself.
In the Orthodox…tradition, genuine spiritual experience is the foundation of dogmatic formulations, Christian doctrine developed in response to spiritual experience. One of the biblical texts which has powerfully shaped Eastern Christian spirituality (and, interestingly, is rarely quoted in the West) is 2 Peter 1:3:
“His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”
The Greek fathers agree that God is transcendent and indivisible. So how then can humans in fact experience the divine nature directly? First, a “participation in the divine nature” does not represent a relapse into pagan pantheism or “absorption” of the creature in the Creator, as some critics of Eastern Christianity have charged. To avoid this pantheistic heresy, the Greek fathers offer the well-known distinction between the “essence” and “energies” of God. God’s “essence” is indivisible and entirely beyond us (i.e. unknowable). We do not have in Eastern Christianity a “mysticism” of the divine essence; but God’s energies - as we pray to the Holy Spirit - are “everywhere present and fill all things.”
Greek/Eastern Church Father Saint Basil writes:
“The energies are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know…God from His energies, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His energies come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.” The metaphor often used to describe the distinction between “essence” and “energies” is the sun (Essence) and its rays (Energies). They are one and the same; the sun’s rays are not derivative, not a symbol, nor are they distinct from the sun. When you experience the sun’s rays as heat, you experience the sun directly. Likewise the whole of God is present in each of his energies and those who participate in them participate in the whole of God.
Eastern theology is vastly superior to Western theology
The "encounter" with God in this life is made from the moment the Holy Spirit indwells (John 14:16-17, Romans 8:9, 1 Corinthians 3:16 etc).
To be conformed into the image of the son of God (Romans 8:29) through the Holy Spirit and to be PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE (2 Peter 1:4) is a mind-blowing miracle which is a huge part of the Good News and not regarded enough for the awesomeness it is.
As Jesus himself says in John 7:39, it only became possible after his ascension into Heaven (Acts 1).
[The only reason that a preacher would have for not discussing it is that he hasn't experienced it. I can't think of any other reason...]
Posit/question. Isn’t this issue complicated by our brains being little. That is we observe the attributes in a distinct manner, and we observe the trinity as distinct persons. But behind the scenes is Gods unity. Like it’s a “fourth dimension” property. A worldly example would be we walk in a three dimensional world and we observe gravity but we don’t observe with our eyes Einstein space curvature which is the real gravity rather than our immediate perception.
Just spit-ballin' here, but maybe it's more an issue of too many peeps thinking their brains are too big. As in, left brain-hemisphere-dominated spergs feel compelled to systematize and "explain" things that do not follow clearly from Scripture. Of course this means that they get to spend years and years, and 1,000s and 1,000s of pages living in sperg world instead of turning to Titus 2--3 and working on the list of virtues/practices befitting sound doctrine. I don't think this is a false dichotomy because I don't you can do both; i.e. live in a sperg spiral AND live out Titus 2--3, especially when it says to avoid foolish controversies. Ok, maybe I just busted myself for watching a video on what some might consider to be a "foolish controversy", LoL. But I hope that watching a video falls somewhere short of being obsessed.
Hard to take that guy seriously with his emo haircut and painted nails.
I took him seriously but the nails did my ‘ead in
I want to talk again with you but about the Reformation and all that.
Sounds good to me
Do it!
@33:40 - - God omniscient (Pro.15:3, Ps. 44:21, Ps. 139, Rom. 11:33...) and omnipresent (Ps. 139, Jer. 23:23)... Of course, He relates with His creation... 😉
You should do a video with Redeemed Zoomer about reformed theology, he has become a recent voice on christianity on the internet, but his beliefs are the same that led to modern mass anti-theism, and he doesn't see it
Also I wanted to ask, I don't know if you've read it, but if you did, what do you think of Fr Josiah Trenham's book on the reformation 'Rock and Sand'?
His talk with Jay Dyer was actually what exposed me to reformed theology properly, honestly I had only known its concepts from when I was an atheist and just assumed Christianity was these absurd beliefs
Then I found your channel lol
@@HeinrichCruxOrthodox UA-camrs dismantled his positions
I like that... no way to decompose parts and who distinguishes what properties God is made up of? One might say, I like omniscient, creator, holy and powerful but don't like other intrinsic attributes like love, gracious and compassionate?
This’ll be great!
DDS is a preamble to the faith and is demonstrated via reason alone and assumed in Holy Writ. Trinitarian Christians have grounded monotheism in DDS, so a denial of DDS is extremely problematic if one seeks to be Trinitarian.
Attributes are parts, because they imply multiplication and composition.
In the Bible we see it written that God is Love. Is Love not an attribute? And (according to you) aren’t attributes parts of something? And, by this verse, isn’t God love? If you’re going to follow the Bible then you have to say God is love, according to your reasoning that means God is made of parts. So either you believe God is composit or you don’t believe the Bible. (Reduction ad absurdum)
@@manueljardimfernandes9456 That's a false dilemma. God being Love isn't an attribute. It means that God causes Love and it means that in God, Love and existence aren't different. God being Himself means He is Love.
God was impassable... Until he chose to make creatures in his image and carry out a plan of redemption where he voluntarily limited himself. So both are true. He is transcendent... And immanent in relation to his beloved creation.
It's crazy how man tries to figure God out to satisfy his box of what he wants God to be. Just believe scriptures about God's absolute sovereignty. His plans and counsels WILL not be thrwarted by man's thoughts and ideas 😅
If God doesn't really relate to the universe then there's no real need to reconcile the world to Himself, is there?
I mean, we need salvation because the world is messed up, so God might act on our behalf, but that doesn't necessitate reconciliation with God, there's no reconciliation to be had if there's no relationship to restore.
God is related to the universe as its cause, but a real relation only exists in us, not in him. We are depended on God, he is in no way depended or changed, on the basis of what we do.
@@the4gospelscommentary So your God is not relational? Then he can abide in us but we cannot abide in him. He does not respond to prayers, and much of scripture is a farce where it talks about God changing His mind in response to people praying to Him, etc .
If this relationship is only in you, then you cannot have a relationship WITH God. That says something strange about humanity that we can have something good God cannot.
@@bugslayerprime7674 The fact that you think that God can "change his mind" shows everything one needs to know about your non-christian and non-biblical idea of "god". The God of the Bible and the Christian Church is timeless and all-knowing, which makes it impossible for him to "change his mind". He is eternally the same and does not change - Psalm 102:27, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, James 1:17
@@the4gospelscommentarynone of those verses contradict what I said about the Bible showing God changing His mind. A change in God's responses to our prayers is based on conditions God sets, and His freewill to do what He wants given those circumstances. A change in God's mind is not a change in God's nature or intent to keep His promises. If you conflate those things then you have contradictions in scripture that require janky human reasoning to smooth over in order to protect your Platonic theology that's seeped into your Christianity.
Also, need is not the only basis for relationships, there's also love. God doesn't need us, but He is Love. His relationships with us are not based on His need, but fulfilling our needs because He first loved us.
@@bugslayerprime7674 "God is love". 1 John 4:8 You literally quote this, and you can't see that this verse teaches divine simplicity?? Your position is supposed to be that God HAS love, but not that he IS love, remember?
About prayers, God has from all eternity foreknown every prayer we will ever make, and has from all eternity foreordained every reward or punishment for our prayers and other actions. Thus, his created effects are changing in relation to our actions (and this is why the Bible speaks about "God changing"), but he in hiself is eternally the same, just as the verses I quoted clearly teach.
Are all Reform simple divinity? Does it make TULIP fit better?
Most of Western Christianity adheres to classical Theism which entails DS. The East however approach it with an essence energies distinction. It's more "Classical Theism" versus X
@@IdolKiller classical theism is rooted in Greek, yes, Is there clarity from the ancient Hebrew philosophical underpinnings?
I love the subtle way in which you make fun of the whole PhD thing. 😂
Fantastic as usual! I would love to hear more about the rise of open theism post scientific revolution that Dr. Mullins mentioned!!! Any dumbed down resources on that?
I'll ask him!
Creator GOD YHVH self-identifies as an actual single individual Person.
Creator GOD YHVH lives consubstantially in HIS own universe; called Heaven.
In HIS own autobiography, i.e. the Bible, Creator GOD YHVH tells us we are made in HIS image and that HE has eyes, ears, a nose, a mouth, legs, arms, hands and feet.
Heaven is a material Place; Heaven is composed of its own material *”SPIRITUAL”* substance.
In HIS own autobiography, i.e. the Bible, Creator GOD YHVH tells us Heaven is populated with animals, angels, persons and other Gods. [Read your Bible]
Creator GOD YHVH created our universe out of a physical material substance alien to the physical *”SPIRITUAL”* material substance Heaven is composed of.
The physical material *”SPIRITUAL”* substance Heaven is composed of can interact with the physical material nonspiritual substance our universe is composed of but the reverse is not true.
Heaven is a civilization of bustling activity. [Read you Bibles]
If all of God's attributes are the same, then God being a creator means that God is a hater who hates everything he created, which isn't too far off the mark with Calvinism.
bad reasoning, correct conclusion.
Why is it they don’t see God as He is in ……,Ex.24: 9Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. 11And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank…….? It’s simple…😊
So now we have to understand the trinity in order to understand if God is simple or not?
given that every attempt to understand this ineffable mystery has ended up in heresy i think that is as impossible as being able to pronounce on God's simplicity.
did any of these learned divines actually ask God about the matter?
of course not. but they are full of questions.
as was Job when he encountered the Almighty.
Job was flat on his face and his questions died on his lips
call me a mystic but i and more convinced after actually sitting through this whole video that such questions are presumptuous, voyeuristic and irrelevant.
They are pursued by fallen minds that refuse to accept their own fallenness and refuse to accept paradox.
paradoxes that are mostly BEYOND OUR KEN.
but this vid was useful as i did learn something of the pointless debates of today's schoolmen that still appeal to the inordinate curiosities of some types highly intelligent minds of today
Factoring the Trinitarian relations into God's unity and simplicity:
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part One, Question 28, Article 3 - Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each other?
"I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (A[1]), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute---namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity---but according to that which is relative."
[Sacred-Texts Com webpage /chr/aquinas/summa/sum032.htm]
Or to be succinct: God is entirely simple EXCEPT for the opposition of the divine relations.
God says multiple times in the bible: "Behold, I will do something new"
Divine simplicity debunked straight away
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!
To say God is absolutely simple is to say He is not composed of parts. And to say He is simple is exactly to say He is transcendent to this reality because everything here is composed of parts. You simply don’t understand Divine Simplicity, go read some Aquinas!
I avoided this video because the thumbnail made me think it was Dr. Ortlund’s video … (not that I avoid him, just wasn’t interested).
Hopefully it was worth the watch!
It’s hard to take a guy seriously as I have to imagine him painting his nails like my daughters do. It’s really off putting.
Nice fingernails bro
I thought I’ve seen you before Dr Mullins. It was on Blogging Theology and the tile of session was:
“Debating God's Temporality in Islamic Thought: Insights from Dr Ramon Harvey & Dr Ryan Mullins.”
It was a great discussion.
Sorry Divine Simplicity
Correct, the Trinity of Divine Simplicity is Modalism, but they deny its Modalism. So you “non-Divine Simplicity” Trinitarians are going to have to come up with a definition of Trinitarianism; *”IF”* you can make your definition compatible with the original *”Apostles Creed”* and drop the delusional presupposition that the Holy Spirit is a separate Person, *”THEN”* I’ll agree to it.
Factoring the Trinitarian relations into God's unity and simplicity:
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part One, Question 28, Article 3 - Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each other?
"I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (A[1]), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute---namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity---but according to that which is relative."
[Sacred-Texts Com webpage /chr/aquinas/summa/sum032.htm]
Or to be succinct: God is entirely simple EXCEPT for the opposition of the divine relations.
@@annakimborahpa --- Apparently "Divine Simplicity" believers don't realize that is a contradiction and contradictions are false; a "Divinely Simple" being absent attributes and parts *cannot* have opposition and distinction within its being; unless you want to admit you suffer from the AMHA's recognized mental condition of "cognitive dissonance".
Can someone please explain why a Biblical scholar has his nails painted.
Who has his nails painted
Ryan Mullins
I don't have my nails painted. I have a medical condition on my hands. Thank you for making me feel very self-conscious about it.
My apologies Ryan you're warranted to be angry. With the world we're in I hope you can see how one can arrive at this conclusion. Not an excuse just a weak attempt at an explanation. I'll be more circumspect in the future.@@TheReluctantTheologian
@@Woodman1976 I'm joking. My nails are painted.
"impassibility" is the god of the philosophers, not the Bible God.
and it seems to me that the Arian heresy arose when Arius the Elder tried to harmonize the two - the god of plato and the god of the Bible, so christ had to be a lesser created being
The way the simplicity people can get around all this is, God is out of time and unchanging so there are no attributes except in our
minds and God needs to use anthropomorphism in the Bible so we can comprehend him. Even when he seems to be interacting with people, he created the universe with his interactions already in place. He imbued us with free will knowing every outcome in place. He wrote the book of our universe and existence, therefore, he is unaffected by it.
It seems to me you can justify almost ANYTHING with a tri-omni God. About the only thing you cannot justify is logical contradictions. If God were to send every human to everlasting hell, that could be justified.
why does the one guy have painted nails?
It seems that divine simplicity only makes any sense if you presuppose that "attributes" are or could be real objects that exist, and if you believe that composites exist. If attributes aren't real, but composition is, then God wouldn't need to be composite to have distinct attributes. If composition isn't real, God cannot be composite in any case. The common sense position seems to be that neither attributes nor composites exist as real objects.
Also, in case it's helpful: my initial reaction is that this video format feels strange. It seems like it should either be a long video with all the participants on the screen at once interacting together, or a compressed 5 minute thing with bits of talking cut up like this.
Due to scheduling we were unable to have Ryan and Alan on simultaneously, so we had to splice things together. Ideally, we'd have both on simultaneously, but then again that would likely devolve into a discussion among my guests rather than a straightforward response. I'd like to have them back for such a conversation
Hey @IdolKiller, do you have a video about God as pure act? I've had the concept explained to me twice, both times it made sense, both times after further reflection it made no sense.
I may really misunderstand God as pure act, but it makes it sound as if God must act in order to satisfy his qualities, which means God is not perfect and complete until he has acted, such as saying god is creative, but if God is pure act, he must create in order to satisfy his creativity. If that's the case then God needs us to exist in order for him to be perfect and complete. This is also a hit against God's free will to not act. Why did God create the world? Because he had to by impulse. Why does God love? Because he has two by impulse. Why does God give grace? Because he has to. None of this has anything to do with his freedom of choice in the matter, but because God is pure act he must do these things. He is always doing these things. It makes it sound like he can't not do them.
Hey, there's a difference between saying that God loves and is just and creates because these things are good and God knows them to be good and they got is the definition of good, so he does them because he wants to increase good, and saying that God does things always because he is pure act. Is no rationality in that. It's like saying a rabbit procreates because rabbits always procreate.
Please pardon my lack of proper capitalization, I'm using speech to text.
I need to do a video on actus purus!
An Essence or nature is not what makes God to be God, since God is already and always a Who, a person. A nature is simply a concept, a list of characteristics (attributes) derived from having examined the person.
Many theologians talk as if the person (the who) is an appendage, an extension of its nature! In short, a divine nature is extracted, derived, from the one true God and converted from being an inert concept into becoming an active entity which can independently do things. This imagined nature is now capable of actively making choices, attaching itself to another different nature, and manipulating, governing, and regulating the person.
But a nature is merely a list of attributes to describe an existing object or person. The nature does not make the object to be what it is, rather, the object already is what it is, regardless of whether or not we list its attributes or put a “nature” label on it. In other words, a nature is descriptive of its object, not prescriptive for that object.
In contrast, if an object does not yet exist, then a list of attributes for an intended object can be made by a designer and the object can be manufactured to match those attributes, and then we can list those existing attributes as being the nature of the now-existing object. But even in this instance, the nature does not do anything. The nature of the object to be manufactured was imagined by the designer, an intelligent party. Then the same or another intelligent party must manufacture the object in order to impart that nature to the object. In no instance does the nature do anything of its own accord! This is why manufacturing God based on a What (a nature) instead of recognizing the Who will lead to confusion. In fact, we read that, idols are “…an image formed by the art and imagination of man” Acts 17:29. Making a false god would entail listing the divine nature characteristics we want our god to have and then engaging in a formation process. This is why saying that the nature is “that which “makes God, God”” is a very bad idea.
The biblical God has attributes which we can say are His nature, but He identifies Himself based on WHO He is and what He does, often contrasting Himself with false gods who in truth do nothing at all. The one true God is a Who, and we must accept Him as He is, and not engage in reverse-engineering Him to fit our ideas.
Summary: An essence (nature) is not a living entity with an independent conscience existence. The existence of a nature is only in our minds as a concept. A nature cannot live, think, do, or die because it is not alive to begin with.
I've found that "God is a person" clears up a surprising amount of theological confusion
I like a lot of Dr. Mullins' material, but those painted nails are legitimately concerning. That doesn't speak to anything good.
Every time he drowns a kitten, he paints a nail.
@@IdolKiller lol, many such cases. Sad!
Nail polish? What's that about?
Ryan paints a nail for every argument he has against divine simplicity.
@@IdolKiller especially in today's state of mind that's saying something other than that. I dunno bro but that is suspect to me. Appreciate you telling me though but still, dodgy as a man.
@@slaplintern3509 Ryan is married and into metal.
IN GOD'S COMPLEXITY THERE IS DEVINE SIMPLICITY
AND IN IS "HIS" SIMPLICITY THERE IS UNFANTABLE COMPLEXITY
4:42 ah, I see you're not going to try to represent the classical position with integrity...
I think it's a straw man to say that the monarchical view of the Trinity is practically indistinguishable from arianism. The Son and the Spirit obtain their divine essence from the Father . To say that because of this the son is somehow less divine than the father is to me the same as saying my children are less human than I am. Full disclosure, Dr. Branson was one of the main influences in my conversion to Orthodoxy.
I affirm the Monarchy of the Father and disagree with my friend Ryan on this... but as he was a guest and is a friend, I wanted to hear his views on this and didn't want him to feel restrained.
I hope to bring on Joshua Sijuwade and some EO priests to discuss the MotF soon.
@@IdolKiller that would be awesome! Also, I would think there's a good chance you could get Dr Branson to come on. He has done quite a bit of content online the last few years and this is kind of his thing.
I'm not exactly clear on whether Divine Simplicity even matters, but your definition of divine simplicity seems to be different than I thought it was. I thought it was was just the view that God isn't made up of parts. It seems like your guests are just redefining divine simplicity as saying that it means all aspects of God are identical and then showing that they aren't. That's just the strawman fallacy.
No, that's divine simplicity.
@@IdolKiller, admittedly, my understanding of Divine Simplicity comes primarily from Dr. William Lane Craig. He seems to say that there is disagreement over what Divine Simplicity is but it can range anywhere from "there are no material parts in God" to the Thomas Aquinas claim that in God there is not even a distinction between essence and existence. But WLC holds to the basic definition being "there is no composition or complexity in God."
What’s the deal w Black finger nails?
Ryan paints a nail for each man he killed in prison. All ten fingers and three toes are painted black.
Dr. Dre ? I thought you are Warren G 😁
Regulaters!
it seems to me that no one can POSSIBLY KNOW whether God is simple or not.
do we know His mind that we are His counsellors
do we understand the intrinsic essence of the Godhead sufficiently to be able to pronounce either way?
Like filioque i neither know nor care but even more than filioque i seriously think that the very question itself is presumptuous
he is HOLY AND TERRIBLE
HE IS SOVEREIGN and I call him DREAD LORD ( an old styling for Tudor kings of England)
he is absolutely NOT a specimen on the slide to be dissected as if we would even recognize the bits we sliced up
i would no more enquire this about God than i would enquire as to my earthly father's ( now deceased) sex life.
it is lewd, voyeuristic and relies on knowledge we CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE
Dr. Rhoda's comment from Bavinck at about minute 34:15, that God only properly loves Himself, is illustrative of how Divine Simplicity actually helps explain the Biblical account. I know the modern mind finds these concepts so difficult to understand. I get it. But there is a reason the Scriptures describe the end state of this world as God being "all in all" (see 1 Corinthians 15:28). There is a reason why the end state of redeemed man is "the FULLNESS OF GOD" dwelling in us (see Ephesians 3:14-19, 1 Corinthians 15:42-49). Bavinck is right. God is always and only the proper object of love. That is why He hates UN-GODLINESS. That is why He makes men GOD-LY by giving them His Spirit. That is why He loved Christ, because IN HIM the fullness of deity dwells bodily. That is why He will end the world by FILLING IT completely. That is why the Great Commandment is to Love God with all heart soul and mind. Only then can we move on to the second commandment to love anything else. All love of contingent things is derivative of a love for God.
I appreciate but do not idolized the Bible. Your “experts” apparently do and anthropomorphize God.
@OneBriteStar its God's self-revelation. Why object to how He describes and reveals Himself, dismissing it as anthropomorphic language? By what means did He reveal to you the Bible is unreliable and He is something else entirely?
Drop the nonsense, utter nonsense of a Christian trinity and all of this nonsense will disappear.
In Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas enter Lystra and after performing miracles a crowd gathers that says: “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” Paul and Barnabus rebut those claims by saying: "We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them." The phrase "like nature" is the greek word "ὁμοιοπαθεῖς (homoiopatheis)" which includes the greek words "homoio" (like) and "patheis" from "pascho", which is where we get our english word "passion" and is the root word of "impassable". These men make the point to these Greeks who are calling them "gods" that they are not "gods" because they are "passable" like them. They then point them to true God who is the creator of all things which would not be "passable" like men. Why would they say this unless they were affirming God's impassability as the creator of all things?
That's quite the stretch. Always good to stretch before a prooftext!
@@bobbyfischersays1262 - I don’t think it is. It was a Greek town, Greek philosophical concepts would have been understandable. Modern translations usually render it “like nature”. What is that nature? We have passable nature… which makes us unlike that God who create everything.
@@brentonstanfield5198 the Greeks in that town thought Paul and Barnabas were manifestations of their Greek Olympian gods, not the god of Platonism/Classical Theism.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 - Yes, but in response to the claim that they are divine, it is Paul and Barnabas who intentionally correct them by noting their passability… and then identify the God who made heaven and earth as different. Paul and Barnabas know what REAL divinity is, and it isn’t the passable gods like Zeus or Hermes… who are just like men. It is the impassable God who is creator of heaven and earth.
@@brentonstanfield5198 impassiblity doesn't enter the conversation at any point. You're committing the etymological fallacy and eisegeting that into the text. The Greek gods were considered to be of a different nature than mortals.
SPYS LIKE US! chefskiss.gif
I love that movie!