Does Divine Simplicity Contradict the Trinity?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- For more information visit: www.reasonable...
Dr. Craig discusses Divine Simplicity with Ryan Mullins and Cameron Bertuzzi.
You can watch the entire interview here: • Discussing Divine Simp...
#williamlanecraig #reasonablefaith #philosophy #divinesimplicty
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablef...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains many full-length videos, debates, and lectures: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Page: / reasonablefaithorg
Why doesn't Craig just come right out and say he despises the notion of Divine Simplicity?
Does Craig despise Atheism, Physicalism or Orthodoxy? No, he simply disagrees because he is persuaded that those are incorrect models.
Now, I think he is right. The Thomistic model seems to be inconsistent: Thomas clearly stated that each person in the Trinity is identical to God's essence... but this will be inconsistent with Divine Simplicity.
Reference: Summa I, Q.39, A. 1
_For it was shown above (I:3:3) that the divine simplicity requires that in God essence is the same as "suppositum," which in intellectual substances is nothing else than person._
Well he outright rejects, has called it seemingly anti biblical, and considers it inconsistent with various Christian doctrines and the bíblica portrayal of God. Maybe he hasn’t used the word despise but he seems to show it no favor
Because he’s been teetering between affirming and rejecting it for a while. I’m pretty sure this discussion solidified his rejection for it afterwards.
@@Aidanrvb09 WLC has explicitly rejected divine simplicity for quite a while both in writing and interviews. He isn’t teetering, he outright rejects it.
He has said so multiple times. Indeed, you can find explicit expressions along that line in the symposium on divine simplicity, in which he interacts with classical theists in extended dialog. As a classical theist myself, I am unimpressed with Craig's arguments. I do, however, agree with him that divine simplicity is incompatible with the Trinity. Since I am not a trinitarian, I do not bear the burden of trying to make the Trinity work with it. I am a Oneness Pentecostal.
Does Divine Simplicity Contradict the Trinity? No there is not. Thomists argue that their view of simplicity is consistent with the Trinity, because simplicity pertains not to the three persons, but to the divine nature that they all share. God’s essence is not composed of three persons. Rather, the uncompounded, undivided divine essence exists in each of the three persons. The various personal properties unique to each person are not things added to the divine essence but are only distinctions of personal subsistence.
Incorrect, Thomas clearly stated that each person in the Trinity is identical to God's essence:
Summa I, Q.39, A. 1
_For it was shown above (I:3:3) that the divine simplicity requires that in God essence is the same as "suppositum," which in intellectual substances is nothing else than person._
So, Craig is right.
Mental gymnastics
@@thescoobymike I agree, Craig is performing mental gymnastics.
@@prime_time_youtube Before commenting, let me say that I have the greatest respect and admiration for Craig, who is, needless to say, one of the great Christian apologists of the age, a brilliant philosopher, and a fine scholar. but WLC is wrong here.
Please remember that doctrine of divine simplicity holds that God is in no way composed of parts. Not only is God incorporeal and immaterial, and thus not composed of form and matter, He is also not composed of essence and existence. Rather, His essence is His existence. He is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet He is different in each one. When we speak of His essence, goodness, power etc. we are just different ways of talking or conceiving of one and the very same thing. Though we distinguish between them in thought, there is no distinction at all between them in reality.
Remember that when Aquinas speaks of God, we are using the relevant terms, not in a univocal way, but in an analogous way. If that does not make sense, Eleonore Stump has a very useful chapter on the subject in her book Aquinas.
Good day and God Bless.
@@jfrontier1 *I agree, Craig is performing mental gymnastics*
a) Obviously he wasn't referring to Craig... also, not funny.
b) Craig is stating a common objection that serious critics give to Divine Simplicity. Saying it's mental gymnastics is arbitrary.
c) Mental gymnastics or not, you did not answer my objection. You only wrongly assumed that I do not understand Thomism... I do not understand why.
Again, your intial answer directly contradicts Thomas Aquinas' teachings.
You said:
_simplicity pertains not to the three persons [...] Rather, the uncompounded, undivided divine essence exists in each of the three persons_
But Thomas disagrees, he has stated:
_that in God essence is the same as "suppositum," which in intellectual substances is nothing else than person_
For Thomas, God's essence is IDENTICAL to each person. The relationship you describe is false for St. Thomas.
*Remember that when Aquinas speaks of God, we are using the relevant terms, not in a univocal way, but in an analogous way*
That does not change the fact that Thomas taught that each person in the Trinity is God's essence. Your initial comment is a direct contradiction to Q. 39 A. 1.
The contradiction still is a contradiction either if St. Thomas was using univocal or analogous statements (obviously, it's always analogy).
If Aquinas says "God is good"... that does not give you the right to say "God is evil" because the "God is good" statement is an analogy.
That same explanation goes for the persons of the Trinity.
You'll have to choose: Either go with St. Thomas or not.
This, among other reasons, is why I think WLC has often done more harm than good for apologetics. Christians would be better served by actually reading the church fathers and Aquinas.
Did Dr. Craig suggest that we shouldn't read them? - RF Admin
Yeah this is just heresy
Oh, the irony of the title _Does Divine Simplicity Contradict the Trinity?_ Craig specifically and directly calls God "a complex being" (1:06). The word _complex_ means "composite." And that means that God, who is supposed to the whole, is dependent on His parts in order to be what He is. All composites are logically posterior to their components and are thus in need of explanation, actuation and conservation by something other than what they are. This directly contradicts the aseity of God. So, if contradiction is what "drcraigvideos" seeks to avoid, then you need to jettison this idea that God is composite.
Now, Craig and Mullins may object that real personal distinctions do not entail partialism due to the persons' inseparability, but inseparability is irrelevant to complexity. A real substantial difference between the persons, separable or not, means that each person is, by definition, less than the whole and serves to explain the existence of the whole.
//Craig specifically and directly calls God "a complex being" (1:06).//
Yes, complex in the sense that without the ability to posit any complexity in the Godhead whatsoever (as Thomas asserts), one simply cannot have an orthodox view of the Trinity. Not complex in the sense that God has proper parts, which Dr. Craig denies. Thomas' own model, which casts the persons as subsisting relations, doubly fails in that it contradicts his claim that there are no real relations in God, as well as falls woefully short of actually having distinct persons at all.
For more on Dr. Craig's denial of divine proper parts and how this relates to the Thomistic view of divine simplicity, see this Question of the Week article: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/proof-of-divine-simplicity.
- RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos First, “orthodox” is in the eye of the beholder, no? The significant majority of Christians (Catholics, several Protestant, Reformed and Evangelical groups) affirm divine simplicity. So, who's orthodox appears to be a home team bias.
Second, metaphysical parts are not merely concepts. Since there are real metaphysical beings (e.g., God, angels and demons), if there are real distinctions in their beings, then they constitute real parts. These are not merely logical distinctions, as Craig alleges. Since the essences of angels and demons are not self-explanatory, another principle of being must be added in order for them to exist. This is what is meant by a metaphysical part. Moreover, he commits the equivocation fallacy with respect to Dottie and Dottie*. If one is defined as having two kidneys and the other is defined as having one kidney, then the first is not the second by definition. If we, however, consider the personality of the first and the personality of the second, then they are identical. There is no paradox or tension in the law of transitive identity whatsoever.
Third, you cannot claim that God is complex (composed of parts) and then deny that God is composed of parts on pain of contradiction. I guess in this woke generation, it's fashionable to redefine terms, but in theology, you still need to be precise.
Fourth, on the social trinitarian model, each person in this “robust” Trinity is _actually_ different from the other persons. Since they cannot differ in that which they are alike, and if they are alike via the divine essence, what is the principle of distinction between them? Craig disavows Aquinas' relation of origin, so what in addition to the essence is added to each person to individuate them? And when you come up with that answer, you'll have parts all around.
First, “orthodox” is in the eye of the beholder, no? The significant majority of Christians (Catholics, several Protestant, Reformed and Evangelical groups) affirm divine simplicity. So, who's orthodox appears to be a home team bias.
Second, metaphysical parts are not merely concepts. Since there are real metaphysical beings (e.g., God, angels and demons), if there are real distinctions in their beings, then they constitute real parts. These are not merely logical distinctions, as Craig alleges. Since the essences of angels and demons are not self-explanatory, another principle of being must be added in order for them to exist. This is what is meant by a metaphysical part. Moreover, he commits the equivocation fallacy with respect to Dottie and Dottie*. If one is defined as having two kidneys and the other is defined as having one kidney, then the first is not the second by definition. If we, however, consider the personality of the first and the personality of the second, then they are identical. There is no paradox or tension in the law of transitive identity whatsoever.
Third, you cannot claim that God is complex (composed of parts) and then deny that God is composed of parts on pain of contradiction. I guess in this woke generation, it's fashionable to redefine terms, but in theology, you still need to be precise.
Fourth, on the social trinitarian model, each person in this “robust” Trinity is _actually_ different from the other persons. Since they cannot differ in that which they are alike, and if they are alike via the divine essence, what is the principle of distinction between them? Craig disavows Aquinas' relation of origin, so what in addition to the essence is added to each person to individuate them? And when you come up with that answer, you'll have parts all around.
@@drcraigvideos Why are you blocking me from replying?
Divine Simplicity is often and easily slipped into an Absolute Simplicity, even at the expense of logic. For example, the geometric Simplex actually has 4 versions, from a Vertex, to a Segment, to a Triangle, to a Tetrahedron. It even goes further for higher dimensions for the sake of Mathematics.
What is important to understand is that Essential Logic is lost when reducing from higher dimensions to lower ones. Thus Divine Simplicity must be understood in relation to the Transcendence of God, and the Essential Logic required to define this Transcendence in such a way that doesn't collapse into either Pantheism or Gnostic Deism.
Just because a Single Vertex is more Simple than a Line doesn't make it possible to create a Line from a bunch of Vertices. Rather, an infinite number of Vertices could fit within just a small Segment, requiring a higher dimension to create the Line itself. Thus, the Simplicity of God is yet a higher "dimension" of our understanding of simplicity, which can already grasp up to 3 Dimensions.
Craig is a tritheist
The Trinity isn't tritheism. Craig's views on it are perfectly orthodox.
@@whosweptmymines3956 neoapollonicianism and denying divine simplicity as a concept are heterodox
@@whosweptmymines3956 The orthodox view of the Trinity isn't tritheism. Craig's is.
@@johndavisonrockefeller7263
There’s nothing orthodox about believing the Trinity is the One God as Augustine invented, when the original doctrine of the Trinity by the Scriptures, ante-Nicene Christians, and the 325 Nicene Creed is that the One God is the Father, and the Son and Holy Spirit share the One God’s nature. Who has divine simplicity? The Father alone, the One God (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) and the only true God (John 17:3). The divine Son is obviously not simple having both a divine and human nature.
There’s nothing orthodox about believing the Trinity is the One God as Augustine invented, when the original doctrine of the Trinity by the Scriptures, ante-Nicene Christians, and the 325 Nicene Creed is that the One God is the Father, and the Son and Holy Spirit share the One God’s nature. The lost monarchical trinitarianism of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, etc. is the answer. Who has divine simplicity? The Father alone, the One God (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) and the only true God (John 17:3). The divine Son is obviously not simple having both a divine and human nature.
Thanks Doc
If we unpack this backwards: as we are created in HIS image; we have a physical body, a soul and spirit, yet we are one being. JESUS was GOD on earth and the Holy Spirit moved and touched people and gave people wisdom and more. I assume GOD was on the throne in Heaven. So, there is the Trinity for me. It is fine and well to think about it and discuss it with others, but I believe it is more important to PRAY for the people we know who are suffering right now. We can talk about the Holy Trinity at the banquet.
Great example…another would be, the Atom. Neutron, Proton and Electron. The Neutron and Proton are fused as the nucleus and the electron (s) are completely unpredictable in there location orbiting the nucleus like the Holy Spirit. Yet one Atom, the primary building block of matter.
The equilateral triangle is the simplest 2d object.
The tetrahedron is the simplest simplest 3d object
What if love is the prime reality of the universe though. I'm a novice at the argument for Divine Simplicity- I do understand that its simplicity is grounded in there being no parts or complexity in the prime mover's (God) essence, but if love, like the Bible suggests, is the ground from which life and the universe were created, then couldn't God in the relational unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be the prime reality for existence?
Also, by WLC's logic, how is the Trinity not destroyed by claims of God's oneness? I understand how the argument dissects God's nature and personhood to make the argument, but I'm curious as to how WLC's logic wouldn't discredit God's biblical oneness. I'm sure there is a good answer to this, so I'm not really making an argument. Just asking the question.
Although Craig here appears to distance himself from a God-is-composed-of-parts position, referring to God as a complex unity is an explicit affirmation of composition (an aggregation of parts). A “part,” defined, is anything in a subject which is less than the whole, in the absence of which the whole would be different from what it is. Craig elsewhere explains that a “part” is separable from other parts, whereas something inseparable, though distinct, is not a part. Classical theists consider Craig's arguments incoherent and unsustainable by metaphysical argument.
As a classical theist myself, I agree with the criticisms of my fellow classical theists that a real distinction in being is composition, and that's what sets creation off from the creator. God is Being Simpliciter (unqualified existence-Pure Actuality), whereas all created beings have qualified existences. And it is precisely those qualifications, which are real features of being, which serve to explain, actuate and conserve the whole. And since they must be conjoined with other qualifications of being (e.g., actuality and potentiality, form and matter, etc.), they must be considered “parts” as metaphysical principles. God is not an assemblage of existence qualifiers because such qualifiers, being less than the whole, serve to explain, actuate and conserve the whole. That of course would mean that God is dependent on something less than Himself in order to be Himself. And that of course contradicts the doctrine of divine aseity.
The Nicene Creed says,
“God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.”
“begotten, not made”.
Literally, “begotten” and “made” are the same.
Doesn’t “begotten” imply “made”?
So literally this verse is contradictory. “begotten, not made”.
So there must be a profound meaning to this verse, that is:
At a certain point many lifetimes ago, the Christ was begotten of the Father.
Through practice in many lifetimes, He has eradicated all sins and sinful nature, and fully restored divinity and spirituality.
The full divinity and spirituality of the Christ were not made, so He was not made.
The reason why it can be explained in this way is because there are many lifetimes.
Without many lifetimes, there’s no way to explain “begotten, not made”.
Many lifetimes after being begotten, eventually the Christ was not made.
Without “many lifetimes”, “begotten” and “made” would be the same.
So this explanation is at least understandable in theory.
--Light of Wisdom Church《The Trinity ｜God from God, Light from Light｜Reincarnation | I Am the way, the truth and the life 08》
Begotten does not mean made, humans do not “make” other humans, we beget other humans. Furthermore it’s clear you’re not very familiar with the Greek word translated “begotten”.
I think another potential concern with divine simplicity is that it can lend itself to the view, and I believe highly erroneous view, that Jesus, while one person, is both God and not God - God in His divine nature, not God in His human nature. A correct view is that inasmuch as Jesus is one person, this one person is God (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit also being God), and the simultaneous possession of a divine nature and a human nature doesn't break this up. Rather, when Jesus possesses a human nature, it is God as the person of the Son possessing this human nature.
I’m not trinitarian, and not unitarian, and not anti either of those stances. There’s good arguments for both sides
The Trinity is the basis of the New Testament and the entire Christian faith.
May I know what do you believe then?
Fencesitter
@@hugofernandes8545
It’s not, actually. The NT can be (and is) fully understood without the later notion of the Trinity.
@@Eben_Haezer I believe Jesus is the only begotten son of God, the Christ, the messiah who took away all the sins of the world with his death and resurrection
Trinity nonsense.
Dr. Craig clearly doesnt understand divine simplicity....
What doesn't he understand about it? Have you seen his panel discussion on the topic with Brian Huffling and Richard Howe? th-cam.com/video/tWGhWHbvvsk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=aHEKvssm4IxRj3lr - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos divine simplicity actually explains the Trinity.....
th-cam.com/video/Jcafuc_zoQU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=465EjZeJ-00NU1lr
Perfect, the notion of absolute divine simplicite is a pagan ideia, the God of the Bible is in fact simple, but not absolute simple, and the most important and ancient church fathers agree with you Dr. Craig.
No it doesn't
The trinity is just a CONVENTIONAL DOCTRINE invented in the fourth century, Jesus Himself had no idea of what a trinity is supposed to be! The doctrine is EXCEEDINGLY nonsensical and is nowhere in the bible (Jesus is NEVER with Father and Holy Spirit). For example, here "NO MAN KNOWS, no, not the angels in heaven or THE SON, BUT THE FATHER ONLY knows." you can see that - contrary to the doctrine - neither the Son, nor the alleged (non-existing) THIRD person of the trinity is CO-EQUAL and ALMIGHTY. They don't know the future, the doctrine is thus FALSE. The Truth simply is that JESUS IS ONLY WITH THE FATHER, WHO IS A SPIRIT ("God [the Father] is a spirit"). He is called "the Holy Spirit" (or "the Holy Father") by Jesus. He is a kind of "REFLECTION" of the "normal" Father who is ABSENT: "No man has seen God at any time" "the world has not known you". Only Jesus DID it (only in the past). A "Reflection" means that NOBODY is actually here (or in heaven) this is why Jesus is the ONLY KING OF HEAVEN, not God. Thus, the Son does NOT sit next to God. Jesus sits next to the "POWER of God" because He hasn't got any OWN power, He is like a normal man.
This Is true. BTW, given the Sola Scriptura principle, and being The Oficial Trinity Doctrine something speculative, It should not be a basic belief for being a christian
Craig continuously fails to understand that even all persons are ultimately persons of God, or none is. And of course, the first premise is true, that's a Divine simplicity.
Sorry what??
@@AdamRTNewman Don't be a boring twat!! I said that Craig dodges theological implications of having immaterial, individual, non-human, spiritual persons, namely souls, that are by definition a spiritual essence of being. Having souls as spiritual persons, and having God as spirit, makes each soul an unequivocal person of God. Now, that being said, the simplicity of this seemingly complex view, lies in unifying universal spirit with particular persons which gives us freedom to postulate and account for many inconsistencies imposed by the view of Classical Theism. It also removes dumb, paradoxical God of the Bible as exclusive candidate to a position of ultimate being, which means we have a tyrannt essentially, since ultimate being is not a single entity or an individual person, but all persons are ultimate beings.
How can God be simple when only God the Son has a divine nature and a human nature?
@@FloydFpthat wouldn’t make sense, if Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit, then your claim that only Jesus has those 2 natures is false……
@@cjuice2943 The Protestant Christian view is Jesus is God but not the Holy Spirit and that Jesus has 2 natures where he is 100% God and 100% human. Jesus is the only member of this Trinity that possesses this "hypostatic union".
God is a unipersonal Spirit, and his name is JESUS.
Even though Jesus said He came not to do His own will, but the will of the one who sent Him? He also, if I remember rightly, said He came not in His own name but the name of His Father. I think I also remember in a place in scripture, He counted His Father as a distinct witness from Himself.
(I admit that in the things I’m saying here, I’m partly going by memory.)
@@AdamRTNewman
It's natural to assume the Father and the Son are two different persons. But the mystery - the _revealed_ mystery - is that the Father "came down from heaven" _without leaving heaven,_ and manifested _himself_ on earth in genuine human form, as _his own_ Son, so that he could lay down _his own_ life for us.
That's how much the Father (who revealed his name to be JESUS) loves us. He sacrificed _himself,_ not some other person.
@@euston2216 I do grant that contrary to the popular "1 What, 3 Whos" formula of the Trinity, I think there is a rightful concept of the one God as a unique Who. But this sense of oneness of Who isn't as covering all properties that a Who can possess. Rather, in His threefold Trinitarian manifestation, the three members do have genuine characteristics of mutually distinct Whos, though not going so far as to cut through the fundamental sense of unity of Who that characterises the oneness of this God. Nevertheless, this characteristic of mutually distinct Whos is still sufficiently robust that we can rightly speak the language of "3 distinct persons". To deny all sense of personal distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit just doesn't square with what scripture presents us with.
(I don't know whether or not your own position is one of denial of all sense of personal distinction between the three.)
@@AdamRTNewman
I don't believe in a distinction of persons, but I used to, and I understand why others do. I now believe God is unipersonal and the distinction of "Father" and "Son" is one of "levels of existence".
I believe the one true God is God the Father, an omnipotent, unipersonal Spirit being who, in his eternal level of existence far beyond our space-time continuum, has never been seen by man nor will ever be seen by man (1 Tim.6:16). I believe this same Father, while remaining unchanged in his eternal level of existence, manifested himself on earth, as his own Son, in the incomprehensibly inferior level of existence of humanity.
So the one true unipersonal God was dwelling "simultaneously" in two different levels of existence: one _far beyond_ our space-time continuum, where "the beginning" is no different from "the end", and one _within_ our space-time continuum. So the communications between Father and Son are not *inTERpersonal* within space and time, but rather *inTRApersonal* across incomprehensibly different levels of existence.
Foundational to my belief is the Father's self-sacrificial love for us. If the Father and the Son are two distinct persons, then the Father's sacrifice of the Son is not the sacrifice of self (which is love) but rather the sacrifice of another (which is evil).
_"Greater _*_love_*_ hath no man than this, that a man lay down _*_his_*_ life_ [not some other person's life] _for his friends."_ (John 15:13)
@@euston2216 Does your model take account of when Jesus said, “the glory which I had with you before the world began”? This suggests to me that the I-You distinction between the Father and the Son was already in effect prior to the incarnation.
Also, the plan of sacrifice was a united agreement between the Father and the Son, who furthermore, are the same God. We can hold a personal distinction between the Father and the Son, without necessitating that the sacrifice was an evil act involving an abuser and a victim.
If the holy spirit, were the only holy spirit, the trinity doctrine wouldn't be that of demons. In the name of the holy spirit, what is the name of the holy spirit?
How can a person be poured out?
God is a family of holy spirits, not a trinity.
Ephesians 3:15
If the bible said God is 3 distinct persons, ok. It doesn't. Devine simplicity.
Consider the source.
Men in robes, concerned about job security, concoct a mystery to insure they will be sought to explain, And they do/ did, with layers of mystery, and cherry picked scripture to be the arbiters of truth.
Bottom line, bless WLCs heart,
The trinity doctrine destroys the first command of ten, just as that other Sunday doctrine destroys the 4th command of ten.
Doctrines of demons, whatever it takes to make the vast majority of Christianity the subject of
1John 2:3-4.