Simplicity and Complexity in the Divine Nature

Status
Not open for further replies.

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
Augustus H. Strong writes:

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not self-contradictory.

This it would be, only if it declared God to be three in the same numerical sense in which he is said to be one. This we do not assert. We assert simply that the same God who is one with respect to his essence is three with respect to the internal distinctions of that essence, or with respect to the modes of his being. The possibility of this cannot be denied, except by assuming that the human mind is in all respects the measure of the divine.

The fact that the ascending scale of life is marked by increasing differentiation of faculty and function should rather lead us to expect in the highest of all beings a nature more complex than our own. In man many faculties are united in one intelligent being, and the more intelligent man is, the more distinct from each other these faculties become; until intellect and affection, conscience and will assume a relative independence, and there arises even the possibility of conflict between them. There is nothing irrational or self-contradictory in the doctrine that in God the leading functions are yet more markedly differentiated, so that they become personal, while at the same time these personalities are united by the fact that they each and equally manifest the one indivisible essence.

Does Strong's use of the idea of complexity in the nature of God preclude the doctrine of divine simplicity?
 
Does Strong's use of the idea of complexity in the nature of God preclude the doctrine of divine simplicity?

I think if man ascends by analogy from lower to higher in a chain of being, then he will never arrive at an infinite, eternal, and unchangeable Being, so complexity will be inevitable and simplicity impossible.

Besides, the idea of developing independent "faculties" is a spurious psychology even when applied to man.

To quote Hugh Binning, "If there were no more use of these deep mysteries of the holy Trinity, &c. but to silence all flesh, and restrain the unlimited spirits of men, and keep them within the bounds of sobriety and faith, it were enough. That great secret would teach as much by its silence and darkness, as the plainer truths do by speaking out clearly. O that this great mystery did compose our hearts to some reverend and awful apprehension of that God we have to do with; and did imprint in our soul a more feeling sense of our darkness and ignorance. This were more advantage than all the gain of light, or increase of knowledge that can come from the search of curiosity. If men would labour to walk in that light they have attained, rather than curiously inquire after what they cannot know by inquiry, they should sooner attain more true light. If men would set about the practice of what they know, without doubt they would more readily come to a resolution and clearness in doubtful things."
 
Similarly, "complexity" has a number of different connotations. It could mean contrived and abstruse, or it could mean rich and deep. I imagine Strong is using "complex" in the later sense when implying the infiniteness of God. He notes that we only become confused when we make the human mind the measure of all things.

I see an wrinkle in this passage in that Strong seems to be discussing two concepts at the same time and this could cause some confusion. He knows what he means to say better than he actually says it (in this case at least). One concept is a defense of the doctrine of the trinity. The other is a discussion of the aspects of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top