Proof of Divine Simplicity

[Ackbach]

So, I have a colleague, a good friend, who does not believe in the Trinity. He's sort of a unitarian, but with a lowercase 'u' there. I'm trying to convince him of the truth of the great Doctrine of the Trinity, and it seems to me that Divine Simplicity could be of help here - that is, God has no parts. Why might that be helpful? I'm thinking along the lines of the passage in John where Jesus says, "Assuredly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." And the Jews get the message, because they pick up stones to stone Him, thinking that He's blaspheming. Jesus is saying here, "I AM" or "YHWH". There really could be no clearer claim of His divinity than that. But if God is simple, then Jesus can't have just one part of God. Jesus must partake of the entire divine essence. Perhaps you see where I am going with this.

So, the question is this: do you know of any good resources on proving divine simplicity from the Scriptures? I've taken a quick overview-type look at God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God's Absoluteness, by James E. Dolezal, and, while it might well be a helpful book, does not look like it will serve my purposes. He appears to quote Scripture only rarely. One interesting quote is on page 68, where he writes, "Both critics and adherents of DDS [Doctrine of Divine Simplicity, Ackbach] have rightly noted the strong theological support divine simplicity derives from the doctrine of divine aseity." So that might be a fruitful line of inquiry: because God exists in and of Himself, with no dependence whatsoever on anyone or anything else, He must be simple. No doubt there are some missing premises here, but if aseity itself is a good plank on which to build divine simplicity, I would not object.

So, any ideas?

Thanks much for your time!

 

[Rens]

I like simplicity. A kid must be able to understand it.
Once there was this discussion on a Dutch forum between a reformed Trinitarian with zillions of Bible texts and I think he was a teacher or something or studied theology and there was this modalist who came with one text, did not read anything the other said and kept repeating that in Isaiah 9:6 Jesus is called eternal Father, how do you explain that? No that was only a title.
Come on now.
So I asked the Lord to show me really simple and I read those texts from John. I am in the Father. The Father is in Me. I send you another Comforter. He will be with you. I will come to you. We shall live in him.
Hey wait, they told me Jesus and the Father were in heaven and the Holy Spirit on earth, but the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit would live in me. Sorry but actually I never saw any difference Who is Who tbh when I talk to Him.
He is called I am, not We are, but it's also clear if you look closely to the texts that They work together and there are 3 Persons.
Then God said: look at Jesus. That is the perfect Example of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit performed the miracles, Jesus spoke, His Voice, the Word, but He only spoke and did what the Father told Him and the Father was in Him. Do you not know Me Philip?
So I can't blame Jewish believers and modalist they think He's One Person. One Person and 3 Persons at the same time. In Him the fullnes of the Godhead dwells bodily: Father Son and Spirit in one Body, so He was called Eternal Father, although the Son is not the Father. They have these 3 circles: Father, Son, HS but they should just draw those 3 over one another and you see only one circle.
Hmm lol maybe I only make it less simple but I can grasp it like this.

 

[Rens]

Lol I once explained it as 3 chinese puppets you put over each other. You see one, but there are 3.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

 

[MoreCoffee]

So, I have a colleague, a good friend, who does not believe in the Trinity. He's sort of a unitarian, but with a lowercase 'u' there. I'm trying to convince him of the truth of the great Doctrine of the Trinity, and it seems to me that Divine Simplicity could be of help here - that is, God has no parts. Why might that be helpful? I'm thinking along the lines of the passage in John where Jesus says, "Assuredly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." And the Jews get the message, because they pick up stones to stone Him, thinking that He's blaspheming. Jesus is saying here, "I AM" or "YHWH". There really could be no clearer claim of His divinity than that. But if God is simple, then Jesus can't have just one part of God. Jesus must partake of the entire divine essence. Perhaps you see where I am going with this.

So, the question is this: do you know of any good resources on proving divine simplicity from the Scriptures? I've taken a quick overview-type look at God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God's Absoluteness, by James E. Dolezal, and, while it might well be a helpful book, does not look like it will serve my purposes. He appears to quote Scripture only rarely. One interesting quote is on page 68, where he writes, "Both critics and adherents of DDS [Doctrine of Divine Simplicity, Ackbach] have rightly noted the strong theological support divine simplicity derives from the doctrine of divine aseity." So that might be a fruitful line of inquiry: because God exists in and of Himself, with no dependence whatsoever on anyone or anything else, He must be simple. No doubt there are some missing premises here, but if aseity itself is a good plank on which to build divine simplicity, I would not object.

So, any ideas?

Thanks much for your time!

Jehovah's witnesses - whose theology is a kind of revived Arianism - reply to the passages in John 10 with the observation that saint John says that it was the Jews who thought Jesus was making himself equal with God but that neither saint John nor the Lord Jesus Christ drew that conclusion because the Lord explained his words by referring to the rulers and elders of Israel as gods pointing to that example as the example he was following.

John 10:34-36 [34] Jesus responded to them: "Is it not written in your law, "I said: you are gods?" [35] If he called those to whom the word of God was given gods, and Scripture cannot be broken, [36] why do you say, about him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, "You have blasphemed," because I said, "I am the Son of God?"​

 

[Josiah]

Lol I once explained it as 3 chinese puppets you put over each other. You see one, but there are 3.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

LOVE the Lutheran Satire videos.....



We are called to be "stewards of the MYSTERIES of God." While I don't think it's at all wrong to TRY to warp our puny, limited, physical, fallen brains around the things of God, it's probably wrong to think I have (especially in the singular sense). In my long, long life I've learned sometimes the wisest thing to do is shut up. [ Having been married for over a year now, I've come to appreciate it applies to a whole lot more than just theology]



.

 

[onlyme]

So, I have a colleague, a good friend, who does not believe in the Trinity. He's sort of a unitarian, but with a lowercase 'u' there. I'm trying to convince him of the truth of the great Doctrine of the Trinity, and it seems to me that Divine Simplicity could be of help here - that is, God has no parts. Why might that be helpful? I'm thinking along the lines of the passage in John where Jesus says, "Assuredly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." And the Jews get the message, because they pick up stones to stone Him, thinking that He's blaspheming. Jesus is saying here, "I AM" or "YHWH". There really could be no clearer claim of His divinity than that. But if God is simple, then Jesus can't have just one part of God. Jesus must partake of the entire divine essence. Perhaps you see where I am going with this.

So, the question is this: do you know of any good resources on proving divine simplicity from the Scriptures? I've taken a quick overview-type look at God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God's Absoluteness, by James E. Dolezal, and, while it might well be a helpful book, does not look like it will serve my purposes. He appears to quote Scripture only rarely. One interesting quote is on page 68, where he writes, "Both critics and adherents of DDS [Doctrine of Divine Simplicity, Ackbach] have rightly noted the strong theological support divine simplicity derives from the doctrine of divine aseity." So that might be a fruitful line of inquiry: because God exists in and of Himself, with no dependence whatsoever on anyone or anything else, He must be simple. No doubt there are some missing premises here, but if aseity itself is a good plank on which to build divine simplicity, I would not object.

So, any ideas?

Thanks much for your time!

I think it's good to show that it's a Biblical doctrine. The end of Matthew 28, John chapters 13 thru 17 and John's First Epistle are particularly helpful passages where Father, Son and Holy Spirit are seen.