Short Response to the Divine Simplicity Controversy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Sorry for those who aren’t overly excited about internal Reformed Baptist issues, but I said a few weeks ago that I would engage Dr. Dolezal’s biblical evidence for the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) and today I did so. Hope that the discussion was useful.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudi... for more of A&O ministry's content.
When God punishes those who ought to be punished, He is therein mercying those who ought to be mercied ("ought" meaning it is God's will to do so, and God is right). "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?". When our legal system holds captive a violent criminal for a while, then releases him to victimize someone else, the system fails to be merciful to the future victims by failing to properly punish the convicted victimizer.
God's simplicity is very deep, and is therefore plenty ineffable (impossible to convey well in words), but I do think that in heart every Christian agrees that every aspect of God is in absolute harmony with every other aspect of God, being that God is Truth and Truth always agrees with itself. I do suspect that a heart, which does not agree at least that far, is a heart which does not yet know God.
I am very dissapointed in White's scholarship. But not only the scholarship, the uncharitable amount of sacracism. He only comes across as rude nowadays and I don't believe he is any longer a good example of a Christian apologist/evangalist
What about Sam Shamoun??
@raphaelfeneje486
If that’s the guy who usually partners with David Wood then he is another example of an obnoxious “apologist”
@@andrewdavidson8167 That's not Sam Shamoun. You don't know Sam Shamoun then
I guess I don’t. Do you have a point?
@raphaelfeneje486
Actually your wrong. Sam Shamoun is the guy who will work with David Wood on his program on occasion. I know who he is and yes he is a bad apologist
Very helpful brother. Were they connecting simplicity with the idea of divided passions? This would link to the idea that the Lord might change his mind about the salvation he had previously chosen.
In all due respect, I think Dr. White has mischaracterized classical theism. I recommend searching the following article to understand a little bit of what classical theists are actually saying: “A Friendly Response to James White on Divine Simplicity”.
Grace and peace
The problem of evil, It´s an argument against an all good/benevolent God. the problem of evil and justice is a problem of a characteristic of God. Have you ever consider that the God (not talking of any particular definition of god) but the characteristics of God you thought was the true one is false and the real God maybe just created the universe and opted to not interfere or maybe he actually is ok that evil exist or even so he is fine with torture and pain on innocents creatures. And if you thought your God was all good/benevolent then the evidence maybe be pointing that is not the right characteristics of "god".
Can’t find the video . Where is the mischaracterization ??
Where is the original video?
ruclips.net/video/o0O0dyGR8RU/видео.html
James: "God is simple, so there is no diversity in Him"
also James: "The attributes in God are obviously really distinct"
Then when someone points out the logical contradiction here, simply tell them that, "you're trying to press into deep mystery that God has not revealed. Stick to the Bible and stop trying to impose philosophy on it".
Honestly this is just word games. Attributes/characteristics are not objects or parts. They are facets of the same gemstone. This whole "controversy" appears very fringe.
Attributes are not parts.
It's only a contradiction if one conflates "distinct" with "separate," and "attributes" with "parts." Like the folks below said: these are facets of the same gem, not components of a machine.
Persons and relations within the Trinity are distinct yet there's no contradiction in saying God is one on three persons or parts.
I'm not an expert but I haven't yet seen anyone to explain why attributes have to be considered parts.
@@Luiz__Silva Think of it like this, if God has the attributes of love, justice, and goodness, then no one attribute in God would be all that God is. He would be 33% love, 33% justice, and 33% goodness. But in God, there are no diverse things (all that is in God is God), so He is only 100% God.
God does not possess the attribute of love, justice, goodness, etc. Rather, God is love, justice, mercy, etc. It is God who defines these things, not these things which define God.
Bro, you're not just in the company of the "philosophers", all of the Apostle Pauls STUDENTS said Divine Simplicity is doctrine, which logically follows from God being unchanging.
This video is about sthe difference between simplicity and hypersimplicity. He's not denying simplicity bit the extended assertion that all attributes of God are actually one.
He is redefining simplicity, what he is calling hyper simplicity, is the historic doctrine of divine simplicity. Unfortunately, on this topic, he seems to have no idea what he is talking about.
He read the portion of a book in his program that was explaining simplicity and he commented on it point by point.
There was no proof from the Bible that could lead one to say all attributes are one. So it doesn't matter if theologians believed it for a thousand years, it's still tradition and human-derived conclusions about something that looks into what God is, which is absolutely above our capacity.
Beyond that, in itself this claim saying that all attributes are one because God is one, is the same of saying there are no attributes are all. Everything is just external perceptions. But as I have pointed out in other places, if it's possible that the one being of God have distinctive persons and relations within itself, it's also possible that his attributes, as described in the Bible can be differentiated ad intra as well.
The problem of evil, It´s an argument against an all good/benevolent God. the problem of evil and justice is a problem of a characteristic of God. Have you ever consider that the God (not talking of any particular definition of god) but the characteristics of God you thought was the true one is false and the real God maybe just created the universe and opted to not interfere or maybe he actually is ok that evil exist or even so he is fine with torture and pain on innocents creatures. And if you thought your God was all good/benevolent then the evidence maybe be pointing that is not the right characteristics of "god".
This kinda reminds me of dungeons and dragons.
I'm not White's biggest fan, at all... but this is a very strong argument. It's circumspect, modest and solid.
Why would you add the first part to that comment when it has nothing to do with your point. Who cares of you are a fan or not if you appreciate his points. Too many of you "holy rollers" do this and it makes you look terrible as a person.
@@joshhigdon4951 if anything it strengthens the point because it shows agreement despite how actively disagreeable he can be toward other Christians who he fails to see as allies in these larger cultural issues.
A good alliance isn't homogenous.
My sentiments exactly.
I often disagree with White - so I hope no one can accuse me of being some devoted fanboy or otherwise biased in his favor - but I think he's taking a sensible, conservative, and Pastor-like approach in this clip.
Dolezal's analysis ends up in irrationalism. Is 2+2=4 the same thing as mercy, justice, wrath and love in God's mind? God thinks in logical propositions. Is Dolezal really saying that everything God knows is all the same?
Dolezal substantively addresses that point in his book _God Without Parts._ No classical theist affirms the absurdity you describe. You've been listening to caricatures of classical theism instead of its proponents. I would explain it to you, and you would discover what a foolish statement you made, but since you didn't bother to research the matter before offering an opinion, I suggest you read the aforesaid book.
This is a false dichotomy. Reformers hate Thomas Aquinas because he cast logical dispersions on infant baptism, and on the presumptions of Augustine's deterministic (gnostic) philosophy that he imposed on Christianity, with infant baptism as its lynchpin. It's obvious JW has no idea what he is talking about here, as he is simply trying to give a standard Reformed defense, without understanding its Orthodox origins. He is lying if he is saying that Calvinism is aloof from this.
The doctrine of immutabilty is a lie. It takes God's statement, "I do not change," and converts it to "God cannot change," thus subjecting God to fate. It's entirely rooted in the Stoic "Nous" who cannot change, feel, or interact with its creatures, except to control them like puppets. It's a different god altogether.
Um, believe it or not, the classical Calvinists agree with Thomas Aquinas on basically everything on the sovereignty of God and the gift of predestination, we do acknowledge, that Thomas Aquinas doesn’t agree with us on many things, but we agree with Thomas Aquinas on many things, so classical Calvinist hold Thomism view on predestination, just letting you know, Dr. James White is not the final authority in reformers tradition,
So yiu agree with the doctrine but think it’s unnecessary?
...unnecessary for Salvation. That was my takeaway.
I like White's take here. He carefully tows the line between traditionalism / confessionalism, and Biblical fidelity.
What does White mean when he says “meaningful?” It seems like what he means by that is whatever agrees with his definition
Divine simplicity is one of those doctrines that is not necessary for salvation. It can be embraced, or it can be shunned, or it can be ignored - none of these three options will detract from an individual's ability to respond to the calling of God, nor will they affect anyone's salvation. Most Christian laypeople are just not interested or even intelligent enough to comprehend enigmatical doctrines like divine simplicity. Anyone who says otherwise is nothing more than a boastful obscurantist who is not rightly dividing the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15).
the key is Trinity=Living God=Complete!
hypersimplicity is tawhed=nothing/none! 😂😂
Trinity is not imagination/guessing about unrealistic figure. don't let philosophy takeover, it's danger, too far from revelation in bible. can we back to bible & not tomas? Trinity is in Bible, not somewhere outhere! 😉✌
God is not only about What, but Who&How! if you only talk about What, how can we know it refer to the right Who & explain the exact How of TheWho? 😉✌
is it Jesus Himself define TheGod is.. or is it god idea/concept define Jesus? hmm..😶
Trinity = Mysterious Nonsense