Justified
Puritan Board Sophomore
I am finding Berkhof a little unclear about divine simplicity and wanted your input in understanding him. He confesses some form of it here: From the simplicity of God it follows that God and His attributes are one. The attributes cannot be considered as so many parts that enter into the composition of God, for God is not, like men, composed of different parts" (Systematic Theology, pp.44-45)
But then he states this: "It was further asserted by the Scholastics that the whole essence of God is identical with each one of the attributes, so that God's knowing is God, God's willing is God, and so on. Some even went so far as to say that each attribute is identical with every other attribute, and that there are no logical distinctions in God. This is a very dangerous extreme" (Ibid., p. 45).
What is the exact difference between the former (Berkhof's position and the latter). While knowing and understanding that the understanding of divine simplicity has not been necessarily monolithic in the Christian tradition, I thought that most positions confessed the latter (i.e., God's attributes are identical to his essence, and thus his attributes, absolutely considered, are identical).
But then he states this: "It was further asserted by the Scholastics that the whole essence of God is identical with each one of the attributes, so that God's knowing is God, God's willing is God, and so on. Some even went so far as to say that each attribute is identical with every other attribute, and that there are no logical distinctions in God. This is a very dangerous extreme" (Ibid., p. 45).
What is the exact difference between the former (Berkhof's position and the latter). While knowing and understanding that the understanding of divine simplicity has not been necessarily monolithic in the Christian tradition, I thought that most positions confessed the latter (i.e., God's attributes are identical to his essence, and thus his attributes, absolutely considered, are identical).