Considering Alternate Terms for God's Simplicity

[Ed Walsh]

Greetings beloved of the Lord,

I don't think I've ever heard a minister describe God as simple without also defining the term because of the modern connotations of the word simple. I'm not suggesting that we amend the confessions or stop using the term amongst ourselves, but I have in mind evangelistic and apologetic purposes. One word that came to my mind was *monolithic. Of course, we'd have to explain that God isn't a solid as a monolith normally is. But we have to do that when we use the word simple also. God is a spirit.

Any thoughts?

I have a paid prescription for the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary. As you look at the definitions below keep in mind that a dictionary is not an etymological tool, but simply a report of how a word is in use. Here's the third definition of Monolithic:

*3. In extended use. Resembling a monolith; massive, immovable; homogeneous, characterless (esp. applied to a building). Also, of an organization, party, government, etc.: large, powerful or monopolistic; intractably indivisible and uniform.​

In looking up the word 'simple' you need to get all the way to the 12th meaning of the word to find anything that corresponds with what we mean when we say that God is simple. The definition will be below. The first 11 definitions in order of common usage all seem to have negative connotations as they refer to God. Here's a few of them:

Used as an adjective the first topic states:
I. Unsophisticated, humble, plain; of low or ordinary status.
1. Free from deceitfulness or duplicity; guileless, innocent; honest, open, sincere.
2. Characterized by humility; unpretentious, humble, modest, unassuming.
3.
a. Of low or humble birth or social status; lowly, common; poor.
b. Holding the lowest or ordinary rank or position associated with a particular title or office; not further distinguished by title or rank.
4.
a. Characterized by a lack of knowledge or education; not having or showing a high level of mental acuity; intellectually unsophisticated.
b. Stupid, foolish, feeble-minded. Also: having a cognitive impairment or mental disability.
6.
a. Of language, manner of expression, a narrative, etc.: lacking elegance or polish; (usually used positively) free from over-elaboration or ornateness; clear, straightforward.

II. Not composite or complicated; without addition or qualification.
11. Just or merely the thing specified, and nothing else; no more or less than; unqualified, absolute; basic, fundamental.

And on and on until we get to use 12, where we begin to see something like a definition.
12.
a. Consisting or composed of one substance, ingredient, or element; uncompounded; unmixed.
b. Of something immaterial, such as a quality, essence, feeling, etc.: having only a single constituent; consisting purely of one thing; unitary.

 

[RamistThomist]

It means God is without parts or passions. That's basically it. It is in part (sorry) a rejection of Platonism. God doesn't participate in the Form of goodness. He is Goodness, and so on.

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is how simplicity has been glossed in the Christian tradition

(1) all divine properties are possessed by the same self-identical God.
(2) God is not composite, in the sense that he is not made up of elements or forms more fundamental than he is.
(3) God’s essence is identical with his act of existing.
(4) All God’s essential properties are coextensive.
(5) All God’s perfections are identical.
(6) All God’s properties are coextensive
(7) God’s essential properties and essence are strictly identical with himself.
(8) All God’s properties are strictly identical with himself

Therefore,I accept (1)-(4), noting that “existence” today doesn’t have quite the same connotations as existence did for Thomas. (5) is tricky. (6) seems unproblematic. (7)-(8) are deeply problematic.

 

[jwright82]

Greetings beloved of the Lord,

I don't think I've ever heard a minister describe God as simple without also defining the term because of the modern connotations of the word simple. I'm not suggesting that we amend the confessions or stop using the term amongst ourselves, but I have in mind evangelistic and apologetic purposes. One word that came to my mind was *monolithic. Of course, we'd have to explain that God isn't a solid as a monolith normally is. But we have to do that when we use the word simple also. God is a spirit.

Any thoughts?

I have a paid prescription for the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary. As you look at the definitions below keep in mind that a dictionary is not an etymological tool, but simply a report of how a word is in use. Here's the third definition of Monolithic:

*3. In extended use. Resembling a monolith; massive, immovable; homogeneous, characterless (esp. applied to a building). Also, of an organization, party, government, etc.: large, powerful or monopolistic; intractably indivisible and uniform.​

In looking up the word 'simple' you need to get all the way to the 12th meaning of the word to find anything that corresponds with what we mean when we say that God is simple. The definition will be below. The first 11 definitions in order of common usage all seem to have negative connotations as they refer to God. Here's a few of them:

Used as an adjective the first topic states:
I. Unsophisticated, humble, plain; of low or ordinary status.
1. Free from deceitfulness or duplicity; guileless, innocent; honest, open, sincere.
2. Characterized by humility; unpretentious, humble, modest, unassuming.
3.
a. Of low or humble birth or social status; lowly, common; poor.
b. Holding the lowest or ordinary rank or position associated with a particular title or office; not further distinguished by title or rank.
4.
a. Characterized by a lack of knowledge or education; not having or showing a high level of mental acuity; intellectually unsophisticated.
b. Stupid, foolish, feeble-minded. Also: having a cognitive impairment or mental disability.
6.
a. Of language, manner of expression, a narrative, etc.: lacking elegance or polish; (usually used positively) free from over-elaboration or ornateness; clear, straightforward.

II. Not composite or complicated; without addition or qualification.
11. Just or merely the thing specified, and nothing else; no more or less than; unqualified, absolute; basic, fundamental.

And on and on until we get to use 12, where we begin to see something like a definition.
12.
a. Consisting or composed of one substance, ingredient, or element; uncompounded; unmixed.
b. Of something immaterial, such as a quality, essence, feeling, etc.: having only a single constituent; consisting purely of one thing; unitary.

What would be the purpose of changing it?

 

[py3ak]

I think the best alternate term might be purity. "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." "I am that I am." God is unmixed and unadulterated; there is nothing in him that is not God.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Ed, I think defining the term precisely and clearly might be the best, as whatever the term used one would have to define it.

As Stephen Charnock in his book on God’s attributes (vol 1) says,

"God knows all things by one intuitive act. . . God knows all things from eternity, and, therefore, perpetually knows them; the reason is because the Divine Knowledge is infinite (Ps. 147:5 'His understanding is infinite') and therefore comprehends all knowable truths at once. An eternal knowledge comprehends in itself all time, and beholds past and present in the same manner, and therefore his knowledge is immutable. By one simple knowledge he considers the infinite spaces of past and future." (p 323)

You see how the word "simple" is used above, and is defined in its context.
_____

[Anyone know how I can indent a phrase with our new formatting?]

 

[earl40]

It means God is without parts or passions. That's basically it. It is in part (sorry) a rejection of Platonism. God doesn't participate in the Form of goodness. He is Goodness, and so on.

One change I would suggest is a simple change of the order of these words in the WCF...."without body, parts, or passions" to "without parts, passions, or body". I have heard the idea that "body" and "parts" are to be connected in so many teachings I shudder when these two are connected.

 

[RamistThomist]

One change I would suggest is a simple change of the order of these words in the WCF...."without body, parts, or passions" to "without parts, passions, or body". I have heard the idea that "body" and "parts" are to be connected in so many teachings I shudder when these two are connected.

Parts is simply a reference to part-whole relations, going back to Aristotle's Categories. True, most people today aren't aware of that, but the divines would have been

 

[RamistThomist]

One change I would suggest is a simple change of the order of these words in the WCF...."without body, parts, or passions" to "without parts, passions, or body". I have heard the idea that "body" and "parts" are to be connected in so many teachings I shudder when these two are connected.

Okay, I now figured out what you said. You meant people would hear that and think "bodyparts." I get it.

 

[greenbaggins]

I think the best alternate term might be purity. "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." "I am that I am." God is unmixed and unadulterated; there is nothing in him that is not God.

Ruben, while I like the idea, there is one major difficulty. There are plenty of things that can be pure, and yet are composite. Water can be pure, and yet the hydrogen and oxygen molecules can be separated. Something can be pure, and yet still be made up of parts. Indeed, the Christian himself will be completely pure of sin in the new heavens and new earth, and yet still be composite, body and soul. The term "purity" could be used, but it would need heavy qualification.

Here is how simplicity has been glossed in the Christian tradition

(1) all divine properties are possessed by the same self-identical God.
(2) God is not composite, in the sense that he is not made up of elements or forms more fundamental than he is.
(3) God’s essence is identical with his act of existing.
(4) All God’s essential properties are coextensive.
(5) All God’s perfections are identical.
(6) All God’s properties are coextensive
(7) God’s essential properties and essence are strictly identical with himself.
(8) All God’s properties are strictly identical with himself

Therefore,I accept (1)-(4), noting that “existence” today doesn’t have quite the same connotations as existence did for Thomas. (5) is tricky. (6) seems unproblematic. (7)-(8) are deeply problematic.

While I am sure that these have been given as definitions before, only number 2 is what is historically meant by the church by the statement "God is simple."

The snag that discussions of simplicity always have to deal with is the essence and the Trinity. Here is where the doctrine of perichoresis (circumincession) becomes so vitally important, and the only way to safeguard the simplicity of God while affirming the Trinity. We will always have to qualify and explain what we are saying when we use any term to describe the non-composite essence of God. To me, "monolithic" seems to have more difficulties than "simplicity" even has. Monolithic seems to imply no distinctions, whereas simplicity implies no parts. I usually use a very simple (!) illustration of a pie, and say that God cannot be divided into pieces like a pie, and that's what simplicity means. I usually then have to explain what "mutual indwelling" means so that people don't get the idea that the Trinity breaks apart that indivisibility. If an alternate term were desirable, I would think "indivisible" comes closest to what simplicity has said in the past, without suggesting that there are zero distinctions among the persons.

 

[RamistThomist]

Ruben, while I like the idea, there is one major difficulty. There are plenty of things that can be pure, and yet are composite. Water can be pure, and yet the hydrogen and oxygen molecules can be separated. Something can be pure, and yet still be made up of parts. Indeed, the Christian himself will be completely pure of sin in the new heavens and new earth, and yet still be composite, body and soul. The term "purity" could be used, but it would need heavy qualification.



While I am sure that these have been given as definitions before, only number 2 is what is historically meant by the church by the statement "God is simple."

The snag that discussions of simplicity always have to deal with is the essence and the Trinity. Here is where the doctrine of perichoresis (circumincession) becomes so vitally important, and the only way to safeguard the simplicity of God while affirming the Trinity. We will always have to qualify and explain what we are saying when we use any term to describe the non-composite essence of God. To me, "monolithic" seems to have more difficulties than "simplicity" even has. Monolithic seems to imply no distinctions, whereas simplicity implies no parts. I usually use a very simple (!) illustration of a pie, and say that God cannot be divided into pieces like a pie, and that's what simplicity means. I usually then have to explain what "mutual indwelling" means so that people don't get the idea that the Trinity breaks apart that indivisibility. If an alternate term were desirable, I would think "indivisible" comes closest to what simplicity has said in the past, without suggesting that there are zero distinctions among the persons.

I see (2) as the lowest common denominator. Thomas certainly held to (3) and (7) as well.

 

[greenbaggins]

Jacob, he certainly did hold to those doctrines (as I do also). But did Thomas believe that those ideas were part of the doctrine of simplicity? If so, I would actually disagree with that, slightly, and say that they are consequences of the doctrine of simplicity, not the doctrine of simplicity itself.

 

[jwright82]

Ruben, while I like the idea, there is one major difficulty. There are plenty of things that can be pure, and yet are composite. Water can be pure, and yet the hydrogen and oxygen molecules can be separated. Something can be pure, and yet still be made up of parts. Indeed, the Christian himself will be completely pure of sin in the new heavens and new earth, and yet still be composite, body and soul. The term "purity" could be used, but it would need heavy qualification.



While I am sure that these have been given as definitions before, only number 2 is what is historically meant by the church by the statement "God is simple."

The snag that discussions of simplicity always have to deal with is the essence and the Trinity. Here is where the doctrine of perichoresis (circumincession) becomes so vitally important, and the only way to safeguard the simplicity of God while affirming the Trinity. We will always have to qualify and explain what we are saying when we use any term to describe the non-composite essence of God. To me, "monolithic" seems to have more difficulties than "simplicity" even has. Monolithic seems to imply no distinctions, whereas simplicity implies no parts. I usually use a very simple (!) illustration of a pie, and say that God cannot be divided into pieces like a pie, and that's what simplicity means. I usually then have to explain what "mutual indwelling" means so that people don't get the idea that the Trinity breaks apart that indivisibility. If an alternate term were desirable, I would think "indivisible" comes closest to what simplicity has said in the past, without suggesting that there are zero distinctions among the persons.

That's why I love the Athanasian creed. Its method is simple like "God the Father is holy, God the Son is holy, God the Holy Spirit is holy but its not three holies but one Holy", or something like that. It really gets at the "three in persons and one in essence" of the other creeds.
I may have my quibbles with substance metaphysics but I can't think of a better vocabulary, nor would I want to, for expressing these mysteries. "Tread lightly where demons fear to go" or something like that.

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob, he certainly did hold to those doctrines (as I do also). But did Thomas believe that those ideas were part of the doctrine of simplicity? If so, I would actually disagree with that, slightly, and say that they are consequences of the doctrine of simplicity, not the doctrine of simplicity itself.

Given his very strong emphasis on divine unity, I am almost certain he did. His disciples today certainly read him that way, which is why guys like Dolezal regularly accuse Plantinga and Ronald Nash of denying divine simplicity, which, of course, they do not.

 

[py3ak]

Ruben, while I like the idea, there is one major difficulty. There are plenty of things that can be pure, and yet are composite. Water can be pure, and yet the hydrogen and oxygen molecules can be separated. Something can be pure, and yet still be made up of parts. Indeed, the Christian himself will be completely pure of sin in the new heavens and new earth, and yet still be composite, body and soul. The term "purity" could be used, but it would need heavy qualification.

Yes, I'm not seriously proposing that we replace one term with the other. Just that "purity" is one of the ways that we can help people understand the denotation of simplicity in this theological context.

 

[greenbaggins]

Jacob,

I think it is dangerous ground to include too much in the doctrine of simplicity, for the reason you already hinted at: if we include too much in it, then it will become too easy to accuse others of denying it. It is my firm belief that we should stick to number 2 on that list of yours as the definition of simplicity. It seems right to keep simplicity simple, after all.

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob,

I think it is dangerous ground to include too much in the doctrine of simplicity, for the reason you already hinted at: if we include too much in it, then it will become too easy to accuse others of denying it. It is my firm belief that we should stick to number 2 on that list of yours as the definition of simplicity. It seems right to keep simplicity simple, after all.

I agree. Reformed Thomists do not agree, though.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I read the following comment on simplicity in John Newton's sermons on The Messiah earlier: "The divine perfections being infinite, are not distinct in them in themselves, though the Scripture, in condescension to our weakness, authorises us to speak of them as distinguishable. God is one." (Works, 4: 561)

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is the confusion with phrases like "real distinctions." When the Reformed (and medievals) spoke that, they knew the background of Platonic realism. A real distinction meant a different entity, which, of course, cannot apply in the divine essence. That's why they would speak of "virtual" or "formal" distinctions. So Muller notes:

Notes on Muller, PRRD 3

Simplicity in pre-Reformation

The scholastic understanding of “identity” assumes various levels of identity (essential and formal), so the term “identity” does not indicate radical equation in every sense posssible (40 n. 63).

The goal is “to argue a certain manner of distinction (for the sake of manifesting the three) while at the very same time denying other kinds of distinction (for the sake of confessing the one)” (41).

Normally speaking essence and existence are not identified. The essence “humanity” is not synonymous with any one human (52).

Simplicity and Predication

Many critique absolute divine simplicity as eliminating the possibility of any real predication (on our part) of the divine essence. But when medievals used this term, all they meant was that God is not composite (54-55)

Plurality in God is secundum rationem, not secundum re (55).

Development and Decline of late orthodoxy

Interestingly, the medievals viewed “space” and time,” not as things but as relations (148).

Existence and knowledge of God

The orthodox followed three ways of approach to the problem of the knowledge of God (166):

1. via causationes (a cause can be known in some manner from its effects)
2. via emimentiae(we attribute to God all the perfections known to creataures)
3. via negationis (we remove from God the imperfections known to creatures)

Rules of predication

“Predication is the logical act of attribution by which a subject is united with a predicate” (197).

Disproportionality between finite and infinite.

How does natura apply to God? Some qualities are considered “natural” in him (208).

The attributes of God are his perfections (213).

attribute: a characteristic or quality attributed to or predicated of an object, where as a property is a characteristic that belongs to an object (215). God can only have essential properties.

The Divine Essence

ens a se: self-grounded essence (237)

numerical unity: threeness of person does not contradict numerical unity of essence—there is no class of beings (whether genus or species) identifiable as “god” to which the divine persons belong and the divine unity is not a composite unity such as belongs to the several members of a genus or species (242).

genus: a universal or form, incompletely expressing essence, that can be predicated of specifically distinct subjects in species.
Species: a universal or form completely expressing essence, that can be predicated of a series of subjects distinct in number

Divine Names

The Reformed interest in the divine names is primarily exegetical and not nominalist (246).

see the note on Gillespie in PRRD II, 7.3B

Back to Simplicity

The point is to deny in God only those distinctions that imply composition and to point toward the proper distinctions that do subsist among the attributes and between the attributes and essence (278).

Persons are not distinct in essence, degree, condition, or dignity but they are distinct in order, number, manner of working, etc (281).

“three persons applied to the Godhead indicate the communicability of the sole, infinite, individual and singular divine essence to these three without division (283).”

transcendentals: the properties of being can be identified as “transcendentals.” These are properties which must be predicated of all and, therefore, also of each and every being. Being is transcendent: it is the ultimate principle and/or category of all beings. Being is not a “thing” and so there cannot be a “real” distinction between being and things (284-285).

• ens
• res
• aliud; other
• aliquid; being something
• unum; a being is one in itself
• verum; it is true in that it corresponds with its goal
• bonum; it is good because it moves toward its goal

This allows the Reformed to work through the problem of realiter predication: all of these “transcendentals” reduce to one another without becoming synonymous with one another. Yet they do allow distinctions—a being is other than not-being; a being is other than not-itself.

A realiter distinction is a distinction between two things. Being, though, is not a thing and so is not reduced to realiter distinctions. A virtualiter distinction …

Epistemology, Distinctions, and the Divine Decree
(The Reformed structure this discussion) “Around the epistemological problem of the finitum no capax infiniti and its resolution in the explication of the eternal decree and its execution of the sovereign will of God in and for the temporal economy. Here we see both a statement of the non capax and an approach to the divine relatedness: the mind cannot conceive of the way in which the attributes belong to the utter simplicity of the divine essence; nonetheless, the distinct attributes are coorectly distinguished by reason in the effects and operations of God in the world—and these effects and operations rightly and genuinely reveal the identity of God, indeed, the invisible essence of the utterly simple Godhead. The effect of this distinction, like the effet of the distinction between the decree and the execution, is to direct attention away from the divine essence toward the divine economy” (298).

 

[Steve Curtis]

I have a paid prescription for the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary.

Does insurance cover that?

 

[Ed Walsh]

I read the following comment on simplicity in John Newton's sermons on The Messiah earlier: "The divine perfections being infinite, are not distinct in them in themselves, though the Scripture, in condescension to our weakness, authorises us to speak of them as distinguishable. God is one."

First - I want to say to everyone who has taken any of your valuable time to respond to my dumb post. The term 'simplicity,' as it refers to God, is fine. My thought was due to how wrong our progressively paganizing culture thinks when they first hear the term. To them, it sounds like we are saying that God doesn't have 'reins'. Then we have to explain that reins mean kidneys. And on and on and on.

Sometimes, it seems to me, if we are not careful, that speaking in our weakness of the divine perfections can be like dissecting a frog. We might better understand the "parts" but we still have a dead frog.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to answer. But I wish I had never started the thread.