Ron Nash on Doctrine of God?

[RamistThomist]

In one of his lectures Ronald Nash said his The Concept of God was an easier summary of Plantinga's Does God Have a Nature? I've read Plantinga's book and while it's problematic in some areas, I didn't see him actually denying the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS).

Does Nash deny DDS in Concept of God?

 

[Justified]

Does Plantinga believe that God has a nature or that he is his nature?

 

[RamistThomist]

Does Plantinga believe that God has a nature or that he is his nature?

I don't know. I need to reread it. I know Plantinga doesn't want to reduce nature to attribute to property, thus saying "God is a property." He is trying to avoid that conclusion.

 

[MW]

Does Nash deny DDS in Concept of God?

It has been many years since I read it, but my memory is that (1) he at least cast doubts on it, (2) misunderstood it from his rational perspective, and (3) gave reasons for believing otherwise. That would constitutes a "denial" in most people's book.

The basic problem for those who maintain that man's knowledge and God's knowledge is univocal is that divine simplicity would entail unknowability. These thinkers would be better situated to appreciate the doctrine if they could accept the archetype-ectype distinction.

 

[RamistThomist]

Does Nash deny DDS in Concept of God?

It has been many years since I read it, but my memory is that (1) he at least cast doubts on it, (2) misunderstood it from his rational perspective, and (3) gave reasons for believing otherwise. That would constitutes a "denial" in most people's book.

The basic problem for those who maintain that man's knowledge and God's knowledge is univocal is that divine simplicity would entail unknowability. These thinkers would be better situated to appreciate the doctrine if they could accept the archetype-ectype distinction.

That's what I thought. I really enjoy Dr Nash's lectures but the archetype-ectype distinction is too important and I think Clarkians, even gentle ones like Nash, err on that point.

 

[MW]

That's what I thought. I really enjoy Dr Nash's lectures but the archetype-ectype distinction is too important and I think Clarkians, even gentle ones like Nash, err on that point.

A gentle Clarkian would be an apt description. I respect his philosophical work overall, but there are small points like this which require a watchful eye.