The Doctrine of Simplicity
First Published Feburary 14, 2008.
Page 1 of 2 
The Analysis
In trying to analyze this subject one must first come to a consensus to what it means for God to be simple. For John Frame the definition is stated this way:
To say that God is
simple in Scholastic philosophy, is to say that there is no composition in his being. Specifically, there is no composition of
physical parts, form and matter, actual and potential, genus and differentia, substance and accident, God and his essence, essence
and attributes, attributes and one another, or essence and esse. God is not, then, in any sense made up of parts.[1]
Dr. Frame
concludes from all this that God is not part of a godhood species or part of a class of gods nor is God accidental, that is, he did
not come into being by causation or accident, but God is essential to his being and is his essence without metaphysical parts.
Dr. Frame comes to this line of reasoning based on the following:
First, there can be nothing in him that is less,
or less noble, then himself. Second, nothing in him can be removed from him, for nothing in him can not be. Third, the fact that
he has many attributes in not something caused, for he is the first cause. Fourth, in God there can be no process of potentiality
becoming actuality, because he is pure act, with no passive potentiality.[2]
In the end Dr. Frame concludes that “God’s attributes are not parts or divisions within the Godhead.”[3] This idea of
God’s attributes classified as parts will be discussed later.
Dr. Morris defines the doctrine of divine simplicity this way:
… Doctrine of divine simplicity, the clam that, in his innermost
being, God must be without any sort of metaphysical complexity whatsoever. This is usually understood to involve a threefold denial:
(1) God is without any spatial parts (the thesis of spatial simplicity),
(2) God is without any temporal
parts (the thesis of temporal simplicity), and
(3) God is without the sort of metaphysical complexity which would be involved
in his exemplifying numerous different properties ontologically distinct from himself (the thesis of property simplicity).[4]
Dr.
Morris goes on to expound on the property of simplicity concluding that,
There is both necessity and
contingency with respect to God. And there seems to be no other good way to capture this truth then to say that God has both necessary
(essential) and contingent properties.[5]
Again we see that the concept of God having properties is essential to the debate and
will be discussed later.
Dr. Nash defines this doctrine this way:
The doctrine of simplicity is the belief
that God is identical with His nature or His properties. Another aspect of the theory teaches that God’s essence is indivisible in
the sense that God’s properties are not parts of God’s nature. Simplicity is therefore said to be unique to God; it marks off one
of the fundamental differences between God’s nature and human nature.[6]
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the article
published
According to the classical theism of Augustine,
Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, God is radically unlike creatures in that he is devoid of any complexity or composition, potency/act
composition, and existence/essence composition. There is also no real distinction between God as subject of his attributes and his
attributes. God is thus in a sense requiring clarification identical to each of his attributes, which implies that each attribute
is identical to every other one. …God is what he has. As identical to each of his attributes, God is identical to his nature. And
since his nature or essence is identical to his existence, God is identical to his existence. This is the doctrine of divine simplicity
(DDS).[7]
Drawing from each of these definitions it is certain that
we can agree on the following points as essential to the subject. One, God is spirit and has no physical parts to define. Two, God’s
properties if he has properties is equal to his nature and third, what ever we say about God, he is unified and one with himself and
his attributes or nature.
It is interesting to see from the four sources noted, that all come to this subject from a different perspective and draw different conclusions. This seems to be the nature of philosophy in general; your logic is not my logic. Because of this, it seems that there must be some stabilizing influence to guide us to what the truth is concerning this topic; so I will, from now on, reference my logic to the Scriptures, since it claims to be the source of all knowledge concerning God and truth.
The
Issue of Property
When we speak about the properties of matter, are minds usually divert to a scientific notion. For example: the properties of water, which are H2O or one part Hydrogen and two parts Oxygen. In this instance water is the sum of H2O, if you remove or add any part, it becomes something else and if we change its form, it becomes something else as well. Water heated is steam, water frozen is ice. In this analogy, properties really are a part of something tangible. In Merriam-Webster dictionary property is defined in the following manner:
A: a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing.
B: an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses. C: VIRTUE 3 D: an attribute common to all members of a class.[8]
This
term is said to originate from a Latin term “proprius” from the 14th century. In the Scriptures, “property” was always used to refer
to physical possessions and or land. Granted knowledge changes and so does the meaning of words, but could there be another solution
to understanding and defining God and His nature? Not for technicality sake but for the sake of understanding and the discovering
of God whom reveled Himself to man. To use the term “property” for the physical make up of a human being is acceptable because our
bodies do have parts that make it up and cause function. But to use this term for the spirit world of God seems inadequate because
there is no body, He has no moving parts and if He chooses to change his form and become Jesus the God man, He is still God. So what
are the appropriate terms to explain God?
The Scriptures speak of the spiritual side of man as being made up of soul and spirit. There are those that believe soul and spirit are one and the same but the Scriptures seem to make a distinction.
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame
at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.[9]
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than
any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts
and intentions of the heart.[10]
The phrase, “division of soul and spirit” is a very interesting concept since they function
as a single unit. You say function, what are their functions? If you study the word soul and spirit in the Scriptures you will discover
that soul is always used in reference to personhood that part of us that demonstrates intellect, emotion, and will. But spirit is
much more elusive, it is difficult to decipher and comprehend because the Scriptures use the same word for spirit in reference to
multiple usages. The Scripture speak of the spirit of man, the Holy Spirit, evil spirits, the spirit of attitude, and the spirit of
God not to be confused with the person of the Holy Spirit, for God is spirit, is he not? So the bottom line is, depending on what
spirit we are referring too depends on what property or attributes we should contribute to it. When we are talking about the spirit
of man it is my opinion, base on over 450 hours of biblical research on soul and spirit, that we are talking about our old nature
or that part of us that formulates or reflects attitudes.
If we reflect on our soul and spirit, can we say that this part of our personhood has parts? What parts make up our soul and spirit? I would contend that when we are speaking of the spiritual world there is no such thing as parts only attributes. The question becomes if we eliminate the term parts from the understanding of properties can we then use this term in reference to attributes? I say no, because the term “properties” carries to many negative connotations or biases tainting our ability to comprehend the nature of God. So what’s the answer to our dilemma? It is my suggestion that we stick to the first dictionary meaning of the word “attribute” which is, “an inherent characteristic or quality”.[11] This definition seems to be more in harmony with the understanding of Scriptures. God has characteristics and qualities, not
parts or elements like H2O has that can be added or subtracted from. God is a whole entity with attributes or characteristics.
God’s Characteristics
The Scriptures tell us who and what God is and the characteristics He takes on. The Scriptures tells us that God is spirit, singular, and that this spirit contains three persons. The Scriptures also tell us that God made man in his image. It is my contention that, that means we are in the mirror image of God, that is, man is a soul (personhood) with a spirit inside it acting as our old nature, and God is a spirit (His nature) with three souls inside it, (3 persons) all sharing a single divine nature, thus God is one essence and three persons just as the orthodox church has taught for 2000 years. God’s spirit has attributes and the individual persons of the Godhead have attributes not parts or properties. God can change form and still be God because Gods spirit or nature never changes just as the Scriptures proclaim. God the Father can be in heaven as a person, while Jesus can be on earth as a person, and the Holy Spirit can indwell others as a person, all at the same time and all the while God’s nature has not changed, and because God is free to do what he pleases He can limit his presents, power, or knowledge as He so chooses without the violation of changing his nature.
So the question is, what is his nature? God’s spirit is his nature just as our spirit is our nature. God spirit is Omnipotent,
Omnipresence, and is that part of God that communicates, formulates attitude and position in creation as we understand it. All the
other attributes of God belong to the persons of the Godhead. For example, God is love; love is an attribute of God’s spirit because
it is an attitude. God’s omniscience is an attribute of God the Father. Why do I say this? Two reasons, one Jesus said only my Father
in heaven knows when I will return to earth after my ascension. Some have concluded this to be so because in His human form His knowledge
was limited. It is my suggestion that God the Father kept this from our Lord for a purpose and that purpose was, so Jesus would not
have to answer that question when asked by the disciples or for us in history. The second reason I believe that God the Father has
this attribute is because He has been the only person in the Godhead that has made that claim. The question now becomes does that
make the other two persons of the Godhead less then God? The answer is no. Why? Because God is God because of his nature not his abilities.
God as a triune being is holy, righteous, good, love, power, and present everywhere. The Scriptures seem to teach that within the
Godhead there are shared responsibilities and submission to one another. None of this makes God any less God. This is why weather
God is in or out of time or weather one of the persons takes on another form or responsibility, God’s nature never changes. The key
to this debate all lies within how you understand the nature of God and reconcile his attributes. More will be said on this in my
conclusion.
Man can never be God because of the metaphysical differences between us, as designed by God. By nature we can not
be present everywhere or have all knowledge or be all powerful or since the fall be holy as He is holy.
The model presented here is unique and my own but perhaps in another time, in a much larger work these arguments and model will be developed into a much more coherent work for understanding all that I am trying to say, but for now it is time to move on to some observations concerning simplicity as presented by others.
[1] Frame John, The Doctrine
of God (
[2] Ibid, 226.
[3] Ibid, 226
[4] Morris Thomas, Our Idea of God (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1991), 113.
[5] Ibid, 117.
[6] Nash Ronald, The Concept of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 85.
[7] “Divine Simplicity”,
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
available from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/ ;
internet; accessed
[8] Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., s. v. “property” [CD-ROM] (Merriam-Webster Incorporated, 2003).
[9] 1 Thess.
[10] Heb.
[11] Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., s. v. “attribute”
