Divine simplicity and the Trinity

[Reformed Covenanter]

Is divine simplicity essential to maintaining an orthodox view of the Trinity? I can see why people would make that argument, but I need help joining the dots.

 

[py3ak]

I would think so.
First of all, it is essential to maintaining an orthodox doctrine of God's essence. Once composition is introduced, many absurdities follow.
Second, with simplicity it is possible to maintain that the persons of the Trinity are coequal, each one being perfect God; if the divine essence is not simple, it is at least harder to maintain that each of the divine persons possesses the entire, numerically one substance. Simplicity guarantees the full and proper meaning of homoousios.

 

[RamistThomist]

Also depends on whose flavor of divine simplicity. Simplicity at its most basic, whether of the soul or of God, simply means God isn't composed of parts. The trickier questions concern whether God's persons = God's essence = God's attributes = each other, etc. That's where the real debate is.

Mormons, for example, say God has sexual organs (well, they don't but push them in debate and see if they will admit it). That violates simplicity.

 

[MW]

Francis Cheynell: "In respect of number; the Persons are three, the Divine Nature most simply single, and singularly one."

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Francis Cheynell: "In respect of number; the Persons are three, the Divine Nature most simply single, and singularly one."

Thanks; I was planning to read Francis Cheynell later today. That gives me something concrete to go on.

Thanks also to Ruben and Jacob for their explanations.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Francis Cheynell: "In respect of number; the Persons are three, the Divine Nature most simply single, and singularly one."

The quote that the Revd Winzer supplies may be found on page 134 of the following link: The Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; Or the Blessed ... - Google Books