“I am that I am.”
Ex. 3:14
.
.
Subsections
.
.
Order of Contents
Early & Medieval Church 18
Post-Reformation 6+
Modern 14+
Quote 1
Encyclopedia Articles 2
Historical Theology 8
Simplicity & Trinity 2
God’s Essence & Existence: Same 4
Divine Persons: Really Distinguished, but not Person & Esssence 4
Manifold Attributes of God in Relation to his One Being & Will 3
Divine Knowledge 3
Latin 6+
.
.
Early Church
Melito – Fragment 14 in ed. Stuart G. Hall, Melito of Sardis on Pascha & Fragments in Texts & Translations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), p. 81
Melito of Sardis (d. 180)
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, bk. 2, ch. 13, sections 3-5 also see bk. 4, ch. 38, section 4 in ANF 1.373-4, 522
Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202)
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 4.25; 5.12 in ANF 2.438-9, 462-4
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215)
Origen, On First Principles, 1.1.6 in ANF 4.243-44
Origen of Alexandria (c. 184 – c. 253)
Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 1.9 in ANF 7.52-6
Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325)
Eusebius, The Theophaneia or Divine Manifestation of our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ trans. Samuel Lee (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1843), 1.27-29, pp. 17-19
Eusebius of Caesarea (260/265 – 339/340)
Athanasius
Against the Heathen, 28 in NPNF2 4.18-19
Athanasius (c. 296–298 – 373)
Defense of the Nicene Definition, 10-11 in NPNF2 4.156-7
To the Bishops of Egypt, 16 in NPNF2 4.231
Against the Arians, 4.1 in NPNF2 4.433
Gregory of Nyssa
Answer to Eunomius, 1.19 in NPNF2 5.56-8
Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395)
Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book, 2 in NPNF2 5.254-55
Great Catechism, ch. 1 in NPNF2 5.474-76
Basil the Great – Letter 234, to Amphilochius in NPNF2 8.274
Basil of Caesarea (330–379)
Augustine
City of God, 11.10
Augustine (354-430)
On the Trinity, 6.3-8; 15.5.8 in NPNF1 3.99-102, 203
Rufinus – On the Apostles’ Creed, 4 in NPNF2 3.543-4
Rufinus (344/345–411)
.
.
Medieval Church
Aquinas, Thomas
Summa, pt. 1, question 3, ‘On the Simplicity of God’ 8 articles
Contra the Gentiles, bk. 1, ‘God’
ch. 36, ‘How our intellect forms a proposition about God’
ch. 77, ‘That the Multitude of the Objects of the Will is Not Opposed to the Divine Simplicity’
Compendium of Theology, pt. 1
ch. 9, ‘Simplicity of God’
ch. 24, ‘God’s Simplicity Not Contradicted by the Multiplicity of Names Applied to Him’
.
.
Post-Reformation
Articles
1600’s
Becanus, Martin – ch. 2, ‘On Divine Simplicity’, pt. 1, 2 in Summa Theologiae Scolasticae (d. 1624; Leiden, 1683), tr. Michael Lynch
Becanus (1563-1624) was a Romanist Jesuit and professor of theology.
Walaeus, Antonius – ‘On the Simplicity of God’ (d. 1639)
Davenant, John – Question 24, ‘In the Divine Essence there is Neither Diversity of Parts, Nor Anything Contingent or Adventitious’ in The Determinations, or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions, Publicly Discussed in the University of Cambridge trans. Josiah Allport (1634; 1846), pp. 344-350 bound at the end of John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification, or the Disputatio de Justitia... trans. Josiah Allport (1631; London, 1846), vol. 2
Voet, Gisbert – ‘On the One & Most Simple Essence of God’, pp. 219-36 in Select Theological Disputations, vol. 1, pt. 1 tr. by AI by Onku (Utrecht: Johannes a Waesberg, 1648) Latin
Leigh, Edward – ch. 6. ‘That God is Great in his Nature, Works, Authority, a Necessary Essence, Independent & Wholly One’ in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 2, pp. 152-60
Le Blanc de Beaulieu, Louis – ‘On the Simplicity of God’ in Theological Theses Published at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica at Discord (1675; London, 1683), pp. 188-94 Latin
Le Blanc (1614-1675) was a French reformed professor of theology at Sedan.
Turretin, Francis – Question 7, ‘The Simplicity of God’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James Dennison, Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1992-97), vol. 1, 3rd Topic, pp. 191-94
Heidegger, Johannes H. – ‘The Simplicity of God’ from The Marrow of Theology, 3.19-23 5 paragraphs
.
1700’s
De Moor, Bernard – Continuous Commentary, ch. 4, ‘On God’
23. Arguments for the Simplicity of God: A Priori
23. A Posteriori
23. Against Gentile Polytheism
23. Against Tritheism
23. Against Manichean Dualism
24. Against Socinian Unitarianism
24. Against Composition in God
24. Divine Simplicity Defended against Socinians & Vorstius
24. Divine Simplicity Defended against Remonstrants
25. Against Pantheism
25. Not Composition of God with the Creature
Venema, Herman – pp. 135-38 in Translation of Hermann Venema’s inedited Institutes of Theology tr. Alexander W. Brown (d. 1787; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850), ch. 5, God
.
.
Modern
Articles
2000’s
Barrett, Matthew – ‘Divine Simplicity’ (n.d.) 18 paragraphs at The Gospel Coalition
Rogers, Katherine – ‘The Traditional Doctrine of Divine Simplicity’ in Religious Studies, 32 (1996), pp. 165-86 Abstract
This article is not orthodox, but it will give you a view of the errors that unorthodox persons make on the issue.
Hurd, Ryan – ‘Simplicity & Trinity, Friends or Foes? An Introduction to Complementary & Misunderstood Doctrines’ in Credo Magazine, vol. 11, issue 1 (2021)
Wagner, Christian B. – ’15 Arguments for Divine Simplicity’ (2022) at Militant Thomist
This is a helpful, concise article summarizing the main metaphysical arguments of Aquinas for divine simplicity. Wagner used to run Apologia Anglicana, but converted to Romanism in 2021.
.
Books
1900’s
Immink, Frederik Gerrit – Divine Simplicity Ref (Kok, 1987) 197 pp.
.
2000’s
Muller, Richard – pt. 2, ch. 4.3, ‘Simplicity, Spirituality, Immutability & Related Attributes’ ToC in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: the Rise & Development of Reformed Theology, ca. 1520 – ca. 1725, vol. 3, The Divine Essence & Attributes 2nd ed. (Baker Books, 2003), pp. 271-325
Richards, J. Wesley – The Untamed God: a Philosophical Exploration of Divine Perfection, Immutability & Simplicity Pre (IVP Academic, 2003)
Sadler, Mark Davidson – Simply Divine: Simplicity as Fundamental to the Nature of God Ref (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004) 474 pp.
Gehring, Allen Stanley – Divine Simplicity as Actus Purus Ref (Texas A & M University, 2005)
“This thesis presents a case for the traditional doctrine of divine simplicity by construing it along the lines that God exists as actus purus. My formulation of divine simplicity draws upon the medieval insight that God is what He is in virtue of what He does in one, eternal act of will with which He is identical.
In chapter I, I survey the contemporary literature on divine simplicity. In chapter II, I critique Alvin Plantinga’s Platonic theory of the divine attributes… In chapter III, I provide rejoinders to all of Plantinga’s defeaters against divine simplicity… In chapter IV, I develop a viable theory of divine simplicity, given an actus purus conception of God, and I formulate a number of arguments supporting it… As such, I seek to demonstrate that the traditional understanding of the divine essence is something that is worthy for theists to embrace and to explore…”
Dolezal, James E. – God Without Parts: Divine Simplicity & the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness Pre Buy (Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2011) 225 pp.
Duby, Steven J. – Divine Simplicity: a Dogmatic Account PhD diss. (Univ. of St. Andrews, 2014) 325 pp. Here is the pubilshed version of this dissertation: Divine Simplicity: a Dogmatic Account in T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology, vol. 30 (Bloomsbury, 2010) 260 pp.
“This thesis offers a constructive account of the doctrine of divine simplicity in Christian theology. In its methodology, the thesis aims to present this divine perfection as an implicate of the scriptural portrayal of God, to draw upon the insights and conceptual resources of Thomas Aquinas and various Reformed orthodox theologians, and to respond to some objections to divine simplicity…. The case for God’s simplicity is made by examining God’s singularity, aseity, immutability, infinity, and act of creation in Holy Scripture and then tracing the ways in which these descriptions of God imply that he is (negatively) not composed of parts. Rather, he is (positively) actus purus and really identical with his own essence, existence, and attributes, each of which is identical with the whole being of the triune God considered under some aspect.
In light of the constructive work, this study then addresses the three most pressing objections to divine simplicity: (1) that it denigrates God’s revelation of his many attributes in the economy; (2) that it eliminates God’s freedom in creating the world and acting in history; and (3) that it does not cohere with the doctrine of the Trinity.”
Smith, Barry D. – The Oneness & Simplicity of God Pre (Pickwick Publications, 2014)
Schubert, Aaron Matthew – The Importance of Divine Simplicity Ref (Dallas Theological Seminary, 2014) 76 pp.
“The argument of this thesis is that the explanatory power of the doctrine of divine simplicity has significant ramifications on our understanding of other doctrines of God. I argue that these ramifications can be seen in four distinct theological areas: the doctrine of divine aseity, the doctrine of divine immutability, God’s relationship with moral goodness, and in perfect being theology.”
Barrett, Jodan P. – Divine Simplicity: a Biblical & Trinitarian Account Pre Buy (Fortress Press, 2017)
“…engages the recent critics and addresses one of their major concerns: that the doctrine of divine simplicity is not a biblical teaching. By analyzing the use of Scripture by key theologians from the early church to Karl Barth, Barrett finds that divine simplicity developed in order to respond to theological errors (e.g., Eunomianism) and to avoid misreading Scripture. Through close attention to Scripture, the work also argues that divine simplicity has two biblical roots: the names of God and the indivisible operations of the Trinity ad extra [outside of Himself]… divine simplicity can be rearticulated by following a formal analogy from the doctrine of the Trinity–the analogia diversitatis (analogy of diversity)–in which the divine attributes are identical to the divine essence but are not identical to each other.”
eds. Joseph Minich & Onsi A. Kamel – The Lord is One: Reclaiming Divine Simplicity Ref Buy (Davenant Press, 2019) 294 pp.
Includes chapters by Steven Duby, Steven Wedgeworth, J. David Moser, David Haines, Joe Rigney et al.
“…this volume presents exegetical, historical, and theological treatments of divine simplicity. It argues the doctrine of divine simplicity is cogent and indispensable while also making space for historically marginalized or idiosyncratic articulations of it.”
Juliano, Chance – Divine Simplicity as a Necessary Condition for Affirming Creation Ex Nihilo Ref (Abilene Christian University, 2019) 83 pp.
“The heart of my argument will be to… deduce that from such a [historically informed] notion of creation ex nihilo, that a God who creates ex nihilo cannot be composite.”
Platter, Jonathan M. – Divine Simplicity & the Triune Identity: A Critical Dialogue with the Theological Metaphysics of Robert W. Jenson Pre Buy (De Gruyter, 2021)
“This book offers a theological defense of the doctrine of divine simplicity through careful reading of both exemplary historical theologians and Robert W. Jenson, an important American contributor to the trinitarian revival [in scholarly circles].”
.
.
Quote
1500’s
Theodore Beza & Anthony Faius
Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva… (Edinburgh, 1591), disputation 6, ‘Concerning the Attributes of God in General’, p. 10
“1. Although there be no composition in God, nor yet any accidental quality, seeing He is a substance most single and every way one, yet to the end that according unto our capacity we might understand what a God He is, He Himself in the Scriptures is accustomed to attribute unto Himself many things, as qualities.
…
3. These things are so attributed unto Him that notwithstanding they place nothing in Him that is compound, or diverse from his substance, but look whatsoever they point Him out to be the very same He is in his own most simple substance.
4. For, both these proprieties and also their actions do in very deed, differ no whit from the substance of the Godhead: but only in some consideration we are to hold them diverse both from the divine substance and also the one from the other.
5. Now these things are attributed unto the Deity, sometimes substantively, and sometimes adjectively as they speak, that we may thereby know Him to be a being that subsists indeed, and that He is such a one, not by participation and imperfectly, but of Himself, and that most perfectly.
6. Of attributes we make two kinds: the one is, of them which are so proper unto the Deity that they can be in no sort communicated unto creatures, neither have they any other respect unto creatures, save that by them the Deity is distinguished from creatures; of this kind are eternity, simpleness, unmeasurableness, omnipotency.”
.
Encyclopedia Articles
Contemporary
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – ‘Divine Simplicity’ 82 paragraphs with a bibliography
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Peter Weigel – ‘Divine Simplicity’ 52 paragraphs with a bibliography
.
Historical Theology
On the Early Church
Articles
Hill, W.J. – ‘Simplicity of God’ in New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 13 (1967), pp. 229-32
Osborne, Eric – pp. 31-78 of The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981)
Stead, Christopher – ‘Divine Simplicity as a Problem for Orthodoxy’ in ed. Rowan D. Williams, The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honor of Henry Chadwick (Cambridge Univ. Pres, 1989), pp. 255-69
Krivocheine, Basil – ‘Simplicity of the Divine Nature & the Distinctions in God, According to St. Gregory of Nyssa’ in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 21/2 (1977), pp. 76-104
.
Books
Radde-Gallwitz, Andrew – Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa & the Transformation of Divine Simplicity in Oxford Early Christian Studies Pre (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009)
.
On the Medieval Church & the Post-Reformation
Muller, Richard – ‘antepraedicamenta’ in Dictionary of Latin & Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology 1st ed. (Baker, 1985)
.
On Anselm
Sadler, Gregory B. – ‘A Perfectly Simple God & Our Complicated Lives’ in The Saint Anselm Journal 6.1 (Fall, 2008)
“The first section of the paper presents five short Anselmian lessons about the divine attribute of simplicity. The second section then frames and explores the problem. The third and final section provides an Anselmian resolution to the problem.”
.
On Aquinas
Twetten, Walter S. – The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity in Thomas Aquinas & a Contemporary Defense Ref (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1987) 182 pp.
Hughes, Christopher – On a Complex Theory of a Simple God: an Investigation in Aquinas’ Philosophical Theology Pre in Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion (Cornell Univ. Press, 1989)
Davies, Brian – ‘The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity: Preliminaries’ in The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), pp. 44-57
Dever, Vincent Michael – Divine Simplicity: Aquinas & the Current Debate Ref (Marquette University, 1994)
Weigel, Peter
Aquinas on Divine Simplicity: No Simple Matter Ref (Yale Univ., 1999) 488 pp.
Aquinas on Simplicity: an Investigation into the Foundations of his Philosophical Theology Pre (Peter Lang, 2008)
.
On the 1800’s
Parker, Jr., Gregory W. – Bavinckian Rhapsody: Herman Bavinck’s Doctrine of Divine Simplicity ThM thesis (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2018) 96 pp.
.
On Simplicity & the Trinity
Articles
Aquinas, Thomas
Compendium of Theology, pt. 1
ch. 51, ‘A Seeming Contradiction in the Trinity’
ch. 52, ‘Solution of the Difficulty: Distinction in God According to Relations’
ch. 53, ‘Nature of the Relations whereby the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit are Distinguished’
.
Quote
Samuel Rutherford
A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist… (London, 1648), pt. 1, ch. 32, pp. 275-6
“But in that chapter: 1. He [John Saltmarsh, an antinomian] denies the Trinity and makes the three Persons (as Mr. Beacon does, in his Catechisme also pp. 47-51) but manifestations of God. Thus God being infinitely one, yet in a threefold manifestation (says he) to us of Father, Son and Spirit, etc. a person is not a manifestation, but has need to be manifested to us…”
.
That God’s Essence & Existence are the Same, & are Only Distinguished Rationally
Articles
Muller, Richard
Dictionary of Latin & Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology 1st ed. (Baker, 1985)
pt. 2, ch. 4.1, ‘The Essence, Independence & Unity of God’ ToC in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: the Rise & Development of Reformed Theology, ca. 1520 – ca. 1725, vol. 3, The Divine Essence & Attributes 2nd ed. (Baker Books, 2003), pp. 227-46
See especially section B., p. 238.
Wanless, Brandon L. – pp. 72-80 & 84 of ch. 9, ‘Communicability & Incommunicability’ in Universality & the Divine Essence: St. Thomas Aquinas on the Unity Characteristic of the Trinitarian Persons a Masters thesis (University of St. Thomas, 2015)
.
Quote on Why the Divine Essence, which Subsists by Itself, is Not a Person
Geddes, L.W. & W.A. Wallace, “Person (in Philosophy)” in New Catholic Encyclopedia
“The terms in which St. Thomas explained it [the definition of “person”], however, practically constitute a new definition [from that of Boethius]. “Individual substance” becomes, for him, a substance that is complete, subsists by itself, and is separated from others (Summa theologiae 3a, 16.12 ad 2). When the remainder of Boethius’s definition is added to this, there are five notes that go to make up a person:
(1) substance—this excludes accident;
(2) complete—the person must have a complete nature, and thus that which is but part of a nature, either actually or aptitudinally, does not satisfy the definition;
(3) subsistent by itself—the person exists in himself and for himself, being the ultimate possessor of his nature and all its acts, and therefore is the ultimate subject of predication of all his attributes;
(4) separated from others—this excludes the universal notion of second substance, which can have no existence apart from the individual; and
(5) of a rational nature—this excludes all supposits that lack rationality.
To the person, therefore, there properly belongs a threefold incommunicability expressed in notes (2), (3), and (4)… Lastly, the divine essence, though subsisting by itself, is so communicated to the three Persons that it does not exist apart from Them [contra (3) & (4) above]; it is therefore not a person.”
.
.
That the Persons of the Trinity are Really (Realiter) Distinguished, but Person & Esssence are Not (They being Distinguished, rather, Modally & Virtually)
Articles
1600’s
Turretin, Francis – 27. ‘Can the divine persons be distinguished from the essence, and from each other, and how?’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 3rd Topic, pp. 278-82
.
2000’s
Muller, Richard – pt. 2, ch. 3.2, B, ‘Trinitarian Distinctions in the Godhead: Between Essence & Persons–Among the Persons’ in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: the Rise & Development of Reformed Theology, ca. 1520 – ca. 1725, vol. 4, The Triunity of God 2nd ed. (Baker Books, 2003), pp. 189-96
1. ‘The Distinction Between Essence & Person–Rational or Modal?’, pp. 189-91
Note that terms are sometimes being used in different senses and ways. Some of the reformed affirmed that the distinction is both modal and rational, which essentially equates to a virtual distinction.
2. ‘The Distinctions Between the Persons–Modal or Real?’, pp. 191-96
The difference between the distinctions here, modal and real, in their context, are nearly equivelent. Some of the reformed affirmed modal so that the difference would not be real. The term ‘mode’ though, does not seem not fully sufficient to describe the Persons of the Trinity.
The reformed who affirmed a real distinction (minor as opposed to major) between the Persons of the Trinity qualified this by asserting that it was not essentialiter, with a difference of essence. Others defined the distinction as personal, which may be more accurate, but, without further elaboration, seems less informative.
Wanless, Brandon L. – ‘The Identity of the Persons & the Essence in God’, pp. 27-8 in Universality & the Divine Essence: St. Thomas Aquinas on the Unity Characteristic of the Trinitarian Persons a Masters thesis (University of St. Thomas, 2015)
.
Quote
1600’s
Andreas Essenius
‘Theological Disputation on the Image of God in Man’ Download tr. Jonathan Tomes (Utrecht: Johannes Waesberg, 1653), Appendix Latin
“V. Divine relations, as such, are not true entities distinct from the simplest essence of God.”
.
On the Manifold Attributes of God in Relation to his One, Simple, Being & Will
Article
1600’s
Owen, John – pp. 90 (#16) – 91 in Exercitation 28 in An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews… vol. 2 ed. W.H. Goold in Works (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1862), vol. 19, Preliminary Exercitations
.
Quotes
1500’s
Theodore Beza & Anthony Faius
Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva… (Edinburgh, 1591), disputation 1, ‘Concerning God’, p. 3
“5. …And here it is to be observed, that those things which are attributed unto God by the former epithets and attributes are not to betaken as qualities inherent in Him: for we are to know that there is nothing in God which is not God Himself.
6. As where it is said that God is just, good, merciful, etc., that is so to be understood as if He were said to be justice, goodness and mercy itself.”
.
2000’s
Allan B. Wolter
Little Summary of Metaphysics (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1958), pt. 1, article 2, pp. 17-18 Wolter was a Scotus scholar and writes from that perspective.
“For it is commonly conceded today that a composition in concepts does not argue to a real composition in the thing. For if the formal notion of one perfection (for example knowing, even if the knowing is omniscient) does not include the formal notion of another perfection (for example loving, even if the loving is altogether perfect), then to be sure this fact does not necessarily imply that both perfections have, in respect of the thing (e.g. God), the idea of parts and so the idea of being mutually perfectible. But this condition would be required for having composition on the part of the thing.
If we were able to conclude anything from the conceptual separability of one perfection from another, then some non-identity on the part of the thing would be proved (as a virtual or so-called formal non-identity, which we will deal with in the treatment of the formal distinction). But such a non-identity implies neither composition nor imperfection in the being that has those perfections.
At most, indeed, a reason is to be sought why one such perfection is found in the same thing along with another perfection not included in the formal concept of the first, but I do not know why the only adequate assignable reason for explaining it must be found in a mutual perfectability (a perfectibility after the manner of parts) that those perfections have on the side of the thing. But if anyone wishes to dispute this question, let him do so.”
.
How Divine Knowledge of Many (Infinite) Things is Consistent with Simplicity
Quotes
2000’s
Edward Feser
Five Proofs of the Existence of God (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017)
ch. 3, ‘The Augustinian Proof’
“…Grim’s objection also seems to assume a model of divine knowledge which would be rejected by those who hold (as, again, Scholastic realists do) that God is absolutely simple or noncomposite. In particular, it seems to assume that the truths God knows correspond to discrete ideas in the divine intellect, which together form a set.
But given divine simplicity, what we describe in terms of such discrete ideas is really one and the same thing in God. There is in God something analogous to what we call, in the case of our own intellects, a grasp of the proposition that all men are mortal, something analogous to what we call a grasp of the proposition that Socrates is a man, and so forth.
But these are different ways of describing what, in God, is really one and the same thing.”
.
‘The Divine Attributes’, ‘Omniscience’
“The analogical use of terms is crucial to understanding God’s knowledge properly in another respect. I have spoken of various concepts and propositions existing in the divine intellect, but they cannot exist there in exactly the same sense in which they exist in our intellects. For in our intellects they exist as distinct thoughts, and there cannot be any such distinctions in God consistent with his simplicity. To a first approximation, we might think instead in terms of a conjunction of all propositions, and say that there is in the divine intellect something like a single thought with this one gigantic conjunctive proposition as its content. But even that cannot be quite right, because this single conjunctive proposition will itself have component parts.
A better, though still imperfect, way to understand the nature of God’s knowledge would be to think in terms of analogies like the following. From a beam of white light, various beams of colored light can be derived by passing it through a prism. Though the colors are not separated out until the beam reaches the prism, they are still in the white light in a unified way. From a lump of dough, cookies of various shapes can be derived by means of cookie cutters. Though the various cookies with their particular shapes are not separated out until the cutters are applied to the dough, they are still in the uncut dough virtually.
Now, God is pure actuality, whereas each kind of created thing represents a different way in which actuality might be limited by potentiality. That is to say, each created thing is comparable to one of the different specific colors that might be derived from the white light that contains all of them, or is like one of the many cookie shapes which might be derived from the dough which contains all of them.
God’s creation of the world is thus like the passing of white light through a prism or the application of the cutters to the dough. The prism draws out, from the color spectrum which is contained in a unified way in the white light, a particular beam of this color and a particular beam of that color; and the cutters draw out, from the variety of possible cookies contained in a unified way in the lump of dough, a cookie of this particular shape and a cookie of that particular shape…
Now, just as if you knew the white light perfectly, you would know all the colors which could be derived from it, and if you knew the lump of dough perfectly, you would know all the shapes which might be carved out of it, so too, perfectly to know that which is pure actuality would entail knowing all the various limited ways of being actual which might be derived from it. And that is how God knows all the various kinds of finitely actual things which exist or might exist—by virtue of perfectly knowing himself as that which is pure or unlimited actuality.
That is not to say that his knowledge is exactly like that of someone who grasps the nature of white light or of dough, but it is analogous to that. And even if the analogy is imperfect, that is, as I have said, only to be expected given how very far beyond its ordinary sphere of operation reason has to push itself when seeking ultimate explanations.”
.
Article
2000’s
Doolan, Gregory T. – ch. 11, ‘Divine Ideas & Divine Simplicity’ in eds. Jonathan Fuqua & Robert C. Koons, Classical Theism: New Essays on the Metaphysics of God (Routledge: 2023), pp. 211-32
Doolan explains Aquinas’s account of the divine ideas and gives his solution to the issue with divine simplicity in the chapter’s last sentence.
.
Latin Articles
Medieval
Lombard – Sententiae in IV libris… 1, d. 8, chs. 5-8
Alexander Hales – Summa Theologica, part 1, inq. 1, tract 1, question 3, chs. 1-3
Bonaventure – In Sentent… 1, question 8 in Opera Omnia (Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1882-1902), vol. 1
Duns Scotus, Ordinatio, 1, d. 8, q. 1
Ockham – In Sent… 1, d. 8, question 1 in Opera Philosophica et Theologica
.
1500’s
Zanchi, Jerome – Of the Nature of God, or of the Divine Attributes, in 5 Books (Heidelberg, 1577)
Bk. 1, 8. ‘Whether so many various names which are spoken of God, may so far conflict with his unity & simplicity?’
Book 2, 2. ‘Of the Simplicity of God’
Zanchi (1516-1590) was an Italian, protestant Reformation clergyman and educator who influenced the development of Reformed theology during the years following John Calvin’s death.
.
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht: Waesberg, 1648), vol. 1
vol. 1, 13. ‘Of the One & Most Simple Essence of God’, pp. 226-46
vol. 4, p. 749 in 50. ‘A Disputation: Some Miscellaneous Positions’
.
1700’s
Holtzfus, Barthold – 4. ‘Of the Unity, Simplicity, Spirituality, Invisibility & Ineffigability of God’ in A Theological Tract on God, Attributes & the Divine Decrees, Three Academic Dissertations (1707), p. 30 ff.
Holtzfus (1659-1717) was a reformed professor of philosophy and theology at Frankfurt.
.
.
.
Related Pages