I have recently been following and listening to Dr. Dolezal. He is a much needed breath of fresh air in Evangelicalism. He is correct in highlighting divine simplicity as an essential doctrine for Christianity. I personally came to this conclusion by studying Medieval Scholastic theology. It is my view that the initial problem in the Western Church began with Ockham and his subtle denial of essences or his Nominalism.
Wonderful lecture by Dr. Dolezal. I am happy to hear he gives clear credit, priority and due to the great Catholic theologians, philosophers, and Church Fathers who discerned and elucidated the Divine Attributes, and the continued development and drawing out of their implications up through the scholastic period. Classical Theism is once again enjoying a grand revival with contemporary, "Neo-scholastic/Thomistic" theologians and philosophers such as Etienne Gilson, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Elizabeth Anscombe, Ralph McInerny, Brain Davies, John Haldane, W. Norris Clarke, Eleonore Stump, Edward Feser, David S. Oderberg, etc. It is very encouraging that this absolutely foundational, systematic theology is also finding a renaissance within the protestant ecclesial communities. Well done, Dr. Dolezal.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Here is Athanasius: In his Ad Gentes, Athanasius states that God is not composite. “For men, composed of parts and made out of nothing, have their discourse composite and divisible. But God possesses true existence and is not composite,” (Ad Gentes 3.41). "If then any man conceives God to be compound, as accident is in essence, or to have any external envelopement, and to be encompassed, or as if there is aught about Him which completes the essence, so that when we say ‘God,’ or name ‘Father,’ we do not signify the invisible and incomprehensible essence, but something about it, then let them complain of the Council’s stating that the Son was from the essence of God; but let them reflect, that in thus considering they utter two blasphemies; for they make God corporeal, and they falsely say that the Lord is not Son of the very Father, but of what is about Him. But if God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying ‘God’ and naming ‘Father,’ we name nothing as if about Him, but signify his essence itself. For though to comprehend what the essence of God is be impossible, yet if we only understand that God is, and if Scripture indicates Him by means of these titles, we, with the intention of indicating Him and none else, call Him God and Father and Lord." (De Decretis 5.22)
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese The halfwit who screams ad hominem where there is no ad hominem engages in ad hominem 😁😁😂😂🤣🤣😁😁😂😂🤣🤣🤣 _This is why people refuse to talk Roman Catholics seriously and what has led to numerous progroms_ I an not a Roman Catholic, dumfork. But I am well aware that you an ORthodox Troll, from a while ago, which you now deny. _Keep thinking Muslims don't teach Allah is his essence_ I will keep knowing that. You attempt to claim that Islam taught that, but you failed to prove that from Islamic sources and you admitted it was not there. So you skip over to another thread and try to engage in the same debate you lost and fell flat on your face at.
@JL-CptAtom Read the first two. Not sure how you see denial of this doctrine there. But, he did write that the Blessed Spirit is "in essence simple, in powers various, wholly present in each and being wholly everywhere". See 'Book of the Spirit' IX
Everyone please listen up.. Divine Simplicity originally came from Platonism, a Greek philosophical worldview.. it comes from Plato's Republic and/or his other works.. it was never at any time in the Jewish or Christian bible. The God of the bible does indeed have parts and a physical body: - Genesis 3:8, "God walked in the garden in the cool of the day." (A physical body is required to walk) - 2 Samuel 22: 7, "In my distress I called upon the LORD; I cried out to my God. And from His temple He heard my voice, and my cry for help reached His ears; (God has a temple and ears) - 2 Samuel 22:9, "Smoke went up from his nostrils, and devouring fire from his mouth; glowing coals flamed forth from him." (God has nostrils and a mouth). Also these other attributes like Impassibility come from Plato also, which says God cannot have passions or be emotionally affected by what people do.. this is completely wrong, the bible has numerous instances of God getting angry and frustrated with man's actions. In Isaiah chapter 5 we read: "What more could I have done for My vineyard than I already did for it? Why, when I expected sweet grapes, did it bring forth sour fruit?" God is experiencing frustration with man's actions and things did not go as God expected. God expected sweet grapes, but he got sour fruit instead, meaning God expected people to be good, but they turned out to be evil instead. People affect God's emotions.
What u teaching is completely blasphemy. No God being isn’t compound with physical body since his spirit John 4:24. He can take forms just like Holy Ghost took form of a dove 3:22. 2) if you say God has body that would contradict the biblical revelation since God several times claims he cannot be likened by creation Isaiah 40:18-and forbid to be likened like creation due 4:19 since God nothing like creation. If god has body therefore his not complex being but is able to be likened
No divine simplicity is the blasphemy since it redefines the nature of God. From one of the earliest depictions of God in Genesis 3 we see he walks in the garden in the cool of the day. The earliest biblical authors believed God had a body. This does not mean we are likening God to a created thing. God also has wings, nostrils, a back and other body parts, so clearly divine simplicity isn’t true.
@@austindavid7155 no you teaching blasphemy by very fact redefining Him by taking his divine attribute taking away his omnipresent and making him Necessarily have inhabitants since he has physical body so where was his dwelling place before creation since he has material body?. I already answer that u M.o.r.o.n since God is non material being he can take any shapes of forms to reveal himself to man such Holy Ghost taking form of dove luke 3:22. Or God revealing himself through bush should assume his actual fire. If u believe truly God can reveal his actual being it would contradict exodus 33:22 for if everyone sees God dies. 3) God describing through humans wAys doesn’t mean his truly human describe. God uses Human descriptions in order to communicate with finite creatures so his understood some sense since we cannot comprehend his infinite nature since it’s would be impossible Isaiah 55:8-9 job 11:7 psalm 139:-1-6 it something beyond comprehension so God communicate with us through our level. If you truly take those description literary then you guess you need believe Holy Ghost literary a water John 7:38-39 John 4 revelation 22:1 and that water speaks Ezekiel 2:1-2 can be grieved Ephesians 4:30 Isaiah 63:10 bear witness John 15:-25-27 having wrath Hebrews 3:7 see how this doctrine sounds like it sounds really stupid thats what u believe in. And believe Christ is literary a lamb revelation 5:6. And believe Israel literary had sex with Assyrian and Egyptian a sexual intercourse with Israel 23:20 and Israel having breast and Israel is literary a woman . Since you taking every thing literary. Ur doctrine is pure blasphemy who worship God how you want not how God wants to be worship the very Fact you worshipping him by liking as creation which God forbids due 6:4 due 4:19 since he cannot be compared with creation Isaiah 40:18. Therefore your pagan having false God creating ur own God just like pagans did by worshipping a creation Romans 1:25 And yes u do likening as creation wings body nostril are all creation which God created so you liken him by the creation and no ur wrong Incorporeality isnt just from divine simplicity eastern Christianity affirms even Jewish traditional affirms it
@@romeostojka7232 No Jewish tradition doesn't affirm God is "incorporeal," that comes from Platonic philosophy just like omnipresence and divine simplicity. If anyone is teaching paganism it's you, bud. God is not omnipresent - in the Tower of Babel story he has to come down from heaven to see the city the people are building. He can't just stay in heaven to observe it, he has to come down and see (Genesis 11:5). As for where God existed before creation, he existed in heaven in his spiritual body. My position is not that God has a material, flesh and blood body, but a spiritual body that has human characteristics. This is how we are able to be made in God's image. So repent of this conflation of Greek philosophy and the bible.
@@austindavid7155 no you repent you blasphemies d.0.g for preaching this paganism. Heavens are part creation you M.o.r.o.n nemeiah 9:6 9:6 col 1:16 Isaiah 44:24 psalm 33:6. So again where God dwelt before creation which includes also before heavens were created.
This is an awesome and extremely fascinating lecture! One question though.. Yes, it's true that i can't add a bunch of finite things and get infinity.... but 1+1+1+INFINITY=INFINITY, correct?
Er ... NO!!! Now, try and understand this, take an x of nondimensional nonspatial unit and add a quantity of y which has dimensional and spatial. x+y = x+y not infinity.
How can a mind be simple? To be utterly simple, God would have to be utterly mindless. You can't have both intelligence and simplicity. A mindless rock is simpler than a mind. A supreme mind cannot be simpler than a rock. This should be supremely simple to understand.
Divine simplicity does not mean what you think it does. It means God is not composite, I.e., not made up of parts. Another way of saying this is that whatever is in God is God. God is not divisible. God IS his attributes.
@@marilynmelzian7370 Here is an interesting video which critically examines the view you mentioned: Problems with Divine Simplicity? Yes! th-cam.com/video/5FerkMF8jAQ/w-d-xo.html
Corwin Tompson It follows from the nature of God eluciated by all of Scripture, informed by general revelation. Starting with general revelation would be the Thomistic way.
Always fascinating to watch someone run up against an obviously incoherent aspect of their dogma and then just move on like it makes sense. The human brain is truly beautiful.
@@gfujigo it's been a few months since I've seen this and I don't think I was impressed enough to invest another 30 minutes into watching it again so this might not be something he talked about. But, for example, a divinely simple god can't be a creator god, the two concepts are directly contradictory. A divinely simple god is completely incapable of bestowing grace. A divinely simple god is completely incapable of incarnating. I don't even remember if this guy was a Christian, sorry, the answer is different depending on theology.
I have recently been following and listening to Dr. Dolezal. He is a much needed breath of fresh air in Evangelicalism. He is correct in highlighting divine simplicity as an essential doctrine for Christianity. I personally came to this conclusion by studying Medieval Scholastic theology.
It is my view that the initial problem in the Western Church began with Ockham and his subtle denial of essences or his Nominalism.
From this lecture, it seems like Marsilius of Padua paved the path for Ockham th-cam.com/video/CTMX4C169bg/w-d-xo.html
Wonderful lecture by Dr. Dolezal. I am happy to hear he gives clear credit, priority and due to the great Catholic theologians, philosophers, and Church Fathers who discerned and elucidated the Divine Attributes, and the continued development and drawing out of their implications up through the scholastic period. Classical Theism is once again enjoying a grand revival with contemporary, "Neo-scholastic/Thomistic" theologians and philosophers such as Etienne Gilson, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Elizabeth Anscombe, Ralph McInerny, Brain Davies, John Haldane, W. Norris Clarke, Eleonore Stump, Edward Feser, David S. Oderberg, etc. It is very encouraging that this absolutely foundational, systematic theology is also finding a renaissance within the protestant ecclesial communities. Well done, Dr. Dolezal.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Dr. Dolezal made the claim that Athanasius did teach divine simplicity. Aquinas would say that God's simplicity cannot not be.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Divine simplicity and the divine Persons are not contradictory.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Here is Athanasius:
In his Ad Gentes, Athanasius states that God is not composite. “For men, composed of parts and made out of nothing, have their discourse composite and divisible. But God possesses true existence and is not composite,” (Ad Gentes 3.41).
"If then any man conceives God to be compound, as accident is in essence, or to have any external envelopement, and to be encompassed, or as if there is aught about Him which completes the essence, so that when we say ‘God,’ or name ‘Father,’ we do not signify the invisible and incomprehensible essence, but something about it, then let them complain of the Council’s stating that the Son was from the essence of God; but let them reflect, that in thus considering they utter two blasphemies; for they make God corporeal, and they falsely say that the Lord is not Son of the very Father, but of what is about Him. But if God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying ‘God’ and naming ‘Father,’ we name nothing as if about Him, but signify his essence itself. For though to comprehend what the essence of God is be impossible, yet if we only understand that God is, and if Scripture indicates Him by means of these titles, we, with the intention of indicating Him and none else, call Him God and Father and Lord." (De Decretis 5.22)
@@bestpossibleworld2091 JL-XXX whatever he calls himself today (he uses several aliases) is a troll. It is like arguing with a flat earther
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese The halfwit who screams ad hominem where there is no ad hominem engages in ad hominem 😁😁😂😂🤣🤣😁😁😂😂🤣🤣🤣
_This is why people refuse to talk Roman Catholics seriously and what has led to numerous progroms_
I an not a Roman Catholic, dumfork. But I am well aware that you an ORthodox Troll, from a while ago, which you now deny.
_Keep thinking Muslims don't teach Allah is his essence_ I will keep knowing that. You attempt to claim that Islam taught that, but you failed to prove that from Islamic sources and you admitted it was not there. So you skip over to another thread and try to engage in the same debate you lost and fell flat on your face at.
Love this dude
Well the spirit world says no principles are going to add up but love your lecture
I wonder how many folks sitting there realized that they are hearing a unique genius?
🤔 divine simplicity has more holes than the essence of metaphysical Swiss cheese. Nothing but a priori assumptions and claim assertions.
JL-CptAtom 🤔 where can I find this information please.
JL-CptAtom 🤔 not a problem, thank you
JL-CptAtom 🤔 I will keep that in mind
@JL-CptAtom Read the first two. Not sure how you see denial of this doctrine there. But, he did write that the Blessed Spirit is "in essence simple, in powers various, wholly present in each and being wholly everywhere". See 'Book of the Spirit' IX
Everyone please listen up.. Divine Simplicity originally came from Platonism, a Greek philosophical worldview.. it comes from Plato's Republic and/or his other works.. it was never at any time in the Jewish or Christian bible. The God of the bible does indeed have parts and a physical body:
- Genesis 3:8, "God walked in the garden in the cool of the day." (A physical body is required to walk)
- 2 Samuel 22: 7, "In my distress I called upon the LORD; I cried out to my God. And from His temple He heard my voice, and my cry for help reached His ears; (God has a temple and ears)
- 2 Samuel 22:9, "Smoke went up from his nostrils, and devouring fire from his mouth; glowing coals flamed forth from him." (God has nostrils and a mouth).
Also these other attributes like Impassibility come from Plato also, which says God cannot have passions or be emotionally affected by what people do.. this is completely wrong, the bible has numerous instances of God getting angry and frustrated with man's actions. In Isaiah chapter 5 we read:
"What more could I have done for My vineyard
than I already did for it?
Why, when I expected sweet grapes,
did it bring forth sour fruit?"
God is experiencing frustration with man's actions and things did not go as God expected. God expected sweet grapes, but he got sour fruit instead, meaning God expected people to be good, but they turned out to be evil instead. People affect God's emotions.
What u teaching is completely blasphemy. No God being isn’t compound with physical body since his spirit John 4:24. He can take forms just like Holy Ghost took form of a dove 3:22. 2) if you say God has body that would contradict the biblical revelation since God several times claims he cannot be likened by creation Isaiah 40:18-and forbid to be likened like creation due 4:19 since God nothing like creation. If god has body therefore his not complex being but is able to be likened
No divine simplicity is the blasphemy since it redefines the nature of God.
From one of the earliest depictions of God in Genesis 3 we see he walks in the garden in the cool of the day.
The earliest biblical authors believed God had a body.
This does not mean we are likening God to a created thing.
God also has wings, nostrils, a back and other body parts, so clearly divine simplicity isn’t true.
@@austindavid7155 no you teaching blasphemy by very fact redefining Him by taking his divine attribute taking away his omnipresent and making him Necessarily have inhabitants since he has physical body so where was his dwelling place before creation since he has material body?.
I already answer that u M.o.r.o.n since God is non material being he can take any shapes of forms to reveal himself to man such Holy Ghost taking form of dove luke 3:22. Or God revealing himself through bush should assume his actual fire. If u believe truly God can reveal his actual being it would contradict exodus 33:22 for if everyone sees God dies. 3) God describing through humans wAys doesn’t mean his truly human describe. God uses Human descriptions in order to communicate with finite creatures so his understood some sense since we cannot comprehend his infinite nature since it’s would be impossible Isaiah 55:8-9 job 11:7 psalm 139:-1-6 it something beyond comprehension so God communicate with us through our level. If you truly take those description literary then you guess you need believe Holy Ghost literary a water John 7:38-39 John 4 revelation 22:1 and that water speaks Ezekiel 2:1-2 can be grieved Ephesians 4:30 Isaiah 63:10 bear witness John 15:-25-27 having wrath Hebrews 3:7 see how this doctrine sounds like it sounds really stupid thats what u believe in. And believe Christ is literary a lamb revelation 5:6. And believe Israel literary had sex with Assyrian and Egyptian a sexual intercourse with Israel 23:20 and Israel having breast and Israel is literary a woman . Since you taking every thing literary.
Ur doctrine is pure blasphemy who worship God how you want not how God wants to be worship the very Fact you worshipping him by liking as creation which God forbids due 6:4 due 4:19 since he cannot be compared with creation Isaiah 40:18. Therefore your pagan having false God creating ur own God just like pagans did by worshipping a creation Romans 1:25
And yes u do likening as creation wings body nostril are all creation which God created so you liken him by the creation and no ur wrong Incorporeality isnt just from divine simplicity eastern Christianity affirms even Jewish traditional affirms it
@@romeostojka7232 No Jewish tradition doesn't affirm God is "incorporeal," that comes from Platonic philosophy just like omnipresence and divine simplicity. If anyone is teaching paganism it's you, bud.
God is not omnipresent - in the Tower of Babel story he has to come down from heaven to see the city the people are building. He can't just stay in heaven to observe it, he has to come down and see (Genesis 11:5).
As for where God existed before creation, he existed in heaven in his spiritual body. My position is not that God has a material, flesh and blood body, but a spiritual body that has human characteristics. This is how we are able to be made in God's image.
So repent of this conflation of Greek philosophy and the bible.
@@austindavid7155 no you repent you blasphemies d.0.g for preaching this paganism. Heavens are part creation you M.o.r.o.n nemeiah 9:6
9:6 col 1:16 Isaiah 44:24 psalm 33:6. So again where God dwelt before creation which includes also before heavens were created.
Where is for example "love" a part? Who says that?
DNA 🧬 is prescriptive, the biological essence of Josh. But Josh is the descriptive essence of DNA 🧬
A lot confuse divine simplicity with absolute divine simplicity. They are not the same!
This is an awesome and extremely fascinating lecture! One question though..
Yes, it's true that i can't add a bunch of finite things and get infinity.... but 1+1+1+INFINITY=INFINITY, correct?
Correct. God + the universe = God.
@@Lerian_V NO
Er ... NO!!!
Now, try and understand this, take an x of nondimensional nonspatial unit and add a quantity of y which has dimensional and spatial. x+y = x+y not infinity.
@@deusimperator X denotes an unknown variable. God is not variable.
@@Lerian_V I told you what it denotes already. ... don't be a dunce. What is 12 inches + 50 lbs???
How can a mind be simple? To be utterly simple, God would have to be utterly mindless. You can't have both intelligence and simplicity. A mindless rock is simpler than a mind. A supreme mind cannot be simpler than a rock. This should be supremely simple to understand.
Divine simplicity does not mean what you think it does. It means God is not composite, I.e., not made up of parts. Another way of saying this is that whatever is in God is God. God is not divisible. God IS his attributes.
@@marilynmelzian7370 Here is an interesting video which critically examines the view you mentioned: Problems with Divine Simplicity? Yes! th-cam.com/video/5FerkMF8jAQ/w-d-xo.html
Thank-you for providing this very informative video! Question: Is the doctrine of divine simplicity derived from general revelation?
Corwin Tompson
It follows from the nature of God eluciated by all of Scripture, informed by general revelation. Starting with general revelation would be the Thomistic way.
@JL-CptAtom how so?
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese
Where does it say that Moses saw the *FATHER'S* backside?
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese
I don't see the word "father" there..
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese
How do you know it's not the Angel of the Lord?
I am not sure that the "Great-and-Powerful-Oz" look is working for him.
Can you speak of god’s love and god’s hate? That too is in the Bible.
Always fascinating to watch someone run up against an obviously incoherent aspect of their dogma and then just move on like it makes sense. The human brain is truly beautiful.
What is incoherent here?
@@gfujigo divine simplicity
@@bouncycastle955 I see. What do you find incoherent about Divine Simplicity? I am curious. Thanks.
@@gfujigo it's been a few months since I've seen this and I don't think I was impressed enough to invest another 30 minutes into watching it again so this might not be something he talked about. But, for example, a divinely simple god can't be a creator god, the two concepts are directly contradictory. A divinely simple god is completely incapable of bestowing grace. A divinely simple god is completely incapable of incarnating. I don't even remember if this guy was a Christian, sorry, the answer is different depending on theology.
@@bouncycastle955 No problem. Thanks. I appreciate your response.