Another annoying moment was the exchange where Gavin said not to make the most radical form of simplicity equal to simplicity, to which Ryan says “but that form of simplicity is there in medieval thinkers” which completely misses the point
Mullins only goal is to try and make Simplicity look silly but never actually deals with any of the serious arguments. Its annoying but people fall for it
See, I thought this was steelmanning, because he was trying to make Gavin's argument even stronger, whereas all Gavin did was (accurately) summarize Mullins' arguments. I guess you could say that what Gavin did was a form of steelmanning (in that it was avoiding strawmen), but it wasn't what I was expecting during that section.
The entire debate was missed as they disagreed on the definitions on what was debated. I could have easily pictured a kind of compatibility between their view and render the distinction merely semantical. Gavin was clearly not arguing that God’s Simplicity entails all that Mullins was arguing it entailed. However Gavin never presents where he draws the line on the implication of God’s Simplicity. Similarly Mullins doesn’t address how the prevalence of the “God is Simple” language throughout Church history actually connects into his view outside of a few named cases of conspiracy against Roman Catholic authority. The history just doesn’t make sense on Mullins’ view as he say Divine Simplicity effectively just crumbles all the creeds and makes Christian pure nonsense yet the Church carried the doctrine in the minimalist form of nods to God being Simple throughout many major Church fathers. All of them would just have to be making sense of pure nonsense for the vast majority of church history. A re-articulation of God as simple as the Cappadocian Fathers articulated it, or how it was earliest interpreted with the Church would be the most fertile starting point. After that is address it just comes down to semantical preferences towards how to articulate it.
Dr Mullins’ first impression was not great when he spent his steel man time making Gavin’s arguments “better” but completely ignoring his actual argument. Gavin, of course, was ever gracious but the contrast was a little painful.
I think this could be easily seen as a frustrating debate by both sides, whether you agree or disagree, but it seems necessary to really lay a foundation for future discussions. At least we know there are disagreements on how DS should be defined and where we can put the boundary of this doctrine. At the end of the day, this is really helpful for laities like me. Thank you both, Dr. Ortlund and Dr. Mullins.
it's one of the essential Dogmas of The Faith in the historic church, everyone who rejects the teaching is done out of ignorance and compromisation, these people are out of the faith and aren't Christian
I was really excited for this, but very disappointed in Dr. Mullins. The entire discussion was him insisting that his descriptipn of Gavin's view on Divine Simplicity wasn't a caricature, instead of simply asking Gavin to define his view and then debate that. Felt very ungracious and cold to me from Dr. Mullins.
I agree with you in the way that he came off, seemed like he had a bone to pick which made the convo a bit awkward. However Dr. Mullins is right, Gavin’s assertion that his criticism is a caricature is just demonstrably false as Ryan showed. Gavin admitted that it was the dominant view amongst DS adherents that he was critiquing. Describing the dominant view of any theological position as a caricature is obviously silly. Gavin has the minority position so he was essentially arguing it’s a caricature of his personal view which he never adequately articulated. So Ryan’s criticism of DS as seen in scholarship were spot on. I again though have to agree with you that Ryan’s tone and delivery did seem to lack grace and was a bit off putting.
@@bilbobaggins9893 "Ryan’s criticism of DS as seen in scholarship were spot on" Maybe with analytic philosophers, but the fact that he can't even understand what scholastics mean by composite for non physical entities demonstrates he's not engaging with scholastic metaphysics. Just like most analytic philosophers out there
@@bilbobaggins9893 but Gavin's point was that when Ryan presents the strongest, most radical version of DS and makes it out like that's just what DS is, that is a caricature. Gavin didn't suggest that nobody held that kind of view or that it wasn't prominent, he just said that to behave like DS *as such* means the strongest version of it risks caricaturing DS. Ryan's responses totally missed the point of Gavin's criticism, because his responses merely showed that strong DS is a prominent view in the tradition, but Gavin wasn't disputing that, he was disputing that strong versions of the doctrine *just are* what the doctrine is. I don't believe in DS and I enjoy Ryan's stuff, but I do think in this instance he was a bit too sensitive about the charge of caricature and therefore ended up spending a huge chunk of the debate trying to defend himself against that rather than just engaging with weaker versions of simplicity.
I've enjoyed your videos recently. I am a student of Vedanta, or Advaita Vedanta. It's not Hinduism, but an aspect of Hinduism, largely described by Shankara. I was astonished a while ago, when I came across a RUclips video on Divine Simplicity, at how similar some of the ideas were to how Brahman is described to me in my tradition. My teacher had described at length that Brahman is non-dual, one without a second, and that Brahman has no parts. As the video listed other aspects of divine simplicity, timelessness, and another aspect name I forget right now but which held God did not have a changing emotional state, I was further surprised by the similarities. Now of course the ideas are not the same; Brahman in Vedanta seems to me to be very different than the Christian conception of God (which is why I was astonished when I heard about divine simplicity). I think Vedanta carries these ideas further (which I think you criticize in the video). Brahman, at least how I've been taught, is not a creator God for example (at the same time, Brahman is the ground of all that is). There is another term for the divine conceptualized with properties, which is Isvara. But I find the similarities interesting and surprising, especially as these two traditions seem to have been developed separately. Edit: "Impassibility" was the term I was looking for at the end of the first paragraph.
Ed Feser has a post how divine simplicity can be found in Taoism too. I think the difficulty of grasping divine simplicity in our times is a consequence of modern culture and the enlightenment
As a practitioner of Advaita Vedanta myself, I think you'd really enjoy David Bentley Harts “The Experience of God”. He's a Christian who utilizes Vedantic metaphysical mapping.
Finally someone talking about fun theology!! Yes!!! 😊👍.. the ontological issue is so central to this whole discussion .. a two circle ontology that maintains a creator creation distinction ontologically, speaking for me, undermines all modern critiques of simplicity -
Can hardly contain my excitement just to see this interaction between two of my favorite theologians. I was perfectly content with classical theism until I found Dr. Mullins work/podcast. Looking forward to this! Also - I am reading Bullies and Saints right now! My pastor recommended it. It is indeed riveting.
Love Gavin and Truth Unites, but I found this debate frustrating. It felt like there was an impasse between Ryan and Gavin over sources. Gavin claimed Ryan was caricaturing the doctrine of divine simplicity, Ryan pushed back saying his sources were legitimate and then Gavin seemed to argue that Ryan was cherry picking while pleading for his sources to be taken as representative despite Ryan’s critiques of them.
The problem was Ryan was treating a form of divine simplicity as divine simplicity itself and arguing against that form. Gavin didn’t try to make his sources representative of all divine simplicity, quite the opposite. He was bringing them up to show that Ryan’s definition was not fully representative of the whole tradition, but only one stream of it.
I'm still not sure what Mullins was getting at with his definition of simplicity. At face value, Palamas and Scotus certainly seem to affirm a version of divine simplicity!
Scotus definitely does. He's essentially doing the same analytic trick Unitarians like Dale Tuggy pull in trying to make things seem more different than they actually to make their position seem more palatable
Not sure about that, I think he’s got a valid concern. Scotus’ view is essentially the Sunni Islamic view about how God’s essence relates to the attributes, and Sunnis are unanimous in condemning Divine Simplicity.
@@dri-fit9712 Scotus wasn't a Muslim and Scotus didn't condemn divine simplicity. Mullins saying we should be more like Muslims isn't a very good argument. Plus there's also the fact that Scotus was one of the most brilliant theologians who ever lived compared to those Sunnis and Mullins so if he affirms divine simplicity then I am listening.
I’m aware that Scotus wasn’t a Muslim lol. That wasn’t the point. Also, Mullins didn’t argue that Christians should be more like Muslims (even though I’d be all for it). The point was that Scotus’s view allows someone to believe in non-identical Divine attributes, i.e., it’s an affirmation of attributionism. If you want to call that Divine simplicity, be my guest, but then there’s really little to debate here.
@@dri-fit9712 Scotus believed God was infinite in his attributes but because infinities all add up to infinity there is no real distinction so divine simplicity isn't violated. Byzantine-Scotus goes over this really well
Me, too. I'm wondering if this statement would be an example of DS: God is love, not that God HAS love. The latter makes love sound external--like a thing to be possessed. I'm not God so I can only have love.
@@HiHoSilvey I don't know. Most of the time the discussion just sounded like unnecessary semantics to me. Referring to God as simple does not seem like a necessity of theology to me. In contrast, trinitarian would be a necessity, because it's in contrast to Unitarian, binarian, tritheism, etc., so it expresses a clear contrast. God being simple to me does not express some clear contrast to a heresy; it's similar to describing marriage as a sacrament to me, it just depends on how an individual defines sacrament, so it's a semantics issue in some churches; for example, my church only recognizes two sacraments, because a physical element is required to be a sacrament for us, and marriage lacks that. However, the definition is different in different churches.
@@HiHoSilveyThat statement is a correct description of DS, and it must be true otherwise God would be dependent on something that is not God (the abstract of love).
I've watched it on Patreon already. I guess I lean more towards Dr. Mullins' position on this one, but this was a very profitable exchange nevertheless and I liked your perspective. Thanks!
Mullins just repeats the same misunderstandings. He’s been corrected time after time. Even if he disagrees I think he would benefit from acknowledging the counter argument.
I don't see it that way at all. Mullins is applying logic to the concept and its implications. Note that Ortlund ends with listing anticipated arguments against by only stating that DDS advocates don't deny accidental properties, true relation with God, and distinctions about God. All of these have to be redefined for the creature in reality and from Scripture because by definition DDS does not allow such qualities.
@@josephbielecki770 - Mullins is the one that confuses the terms here. Go watch his debate with Gaven Kerr, this has all been clearly explained to him and he just ignores it. He can disagree, just don’t present it like nobody has presented it to him.
Yeah the feeling I got was Mullins goal was to win, Where it felt Gavin wanted to have real dialogue and discussion. Before you can do that there needs to be clarity in what each side means and believes. It’s ok to disagree but I really didn’t get much out of the “debate”. Imo it would have been better if Mullins would have wanted/tried to understand as opposed to just win the argument. I could be wrong just the feeling I got.
@@King_of_Blades Aparently, Gavin was out of his depth. Most of the Church Fathers had the Monarchical view of the Trinity, with The Father as the archaea. His view of Divine Simplicity is closer to the aristotelian conclusions of Thomas Aquinas, not the Cappadocian view of the Monarchy. When Mullins tried to go there Gavin wasn't even aware of this issue.
Where in Scripture are we told to speculate upon the Nature of God's essence? Do we not risk engaging in some form of Mental Idolatry as we try and conform God to an Philosophical Image that we can accept/comprehend? Why must we feel the need to go beyond what is Written, and what God has revealed about Himself through His Word? What do we gain? and more importantly, what do we risk losing?
Hi Dr. Ortlund, I think the question you really need to answer is: does God have thoughts? When he says in Genesis, "Let there be light" and "Let there be a firmament," does God have one thought about (or concept of) light, and another thought about the firmament? Is His thought about the animals ("Let the earth bring forth living creatures") intrinsically distinct from His thought about humanity ("Let us make man in our own image")? Is His thought about you intrinsically distinct from His thought about me? If you wish to say "Yes," then you've moved beyond saying that God has external (Cambridge) properties, and you're now saying that God has intrinsic properties - in this case, His thoughts about creatures. But if you say "No," then you're saying that even if God hadn't created a world at all, His thoughts, or the content of His Mind, would be exactly the same as it is now. God doesn't think anything different when He timelessly decides to create a world than what He would have thought had He decided not to create a world. And a God like that is not a personal God. Everything about Him is the same as it would be had He not created us. Such a God is appallingly aloof, and not the sort of God we can have a personal relationship with. Personally, I hope you'll say "Yes." I'd also like to comment on the adage, "Anything which is in God, is God." I find it unhelpful, because it fails to define "in." I have thoughts, but in what sense are my thoughts "in" me? I don't even know what that means. I believe God has a multitude of thoughts of His own, and those thoughts come from His Mind, but I don't know what it means to say that God's thoughts are "in" Him. So when someone tries to corner me by saying, "If God's thoughts about creatures are distinct from His essence, then are you saying they're not God?", then my answer is "Of course they're not God, but they're from God. They're not creatures either, because they're properties, and creatures are substances." I shall leave it there. Cheers.
@@VincentTorleyYKH I believe there’s a lot in scripture that gives us a knowable God. I think trying to assess or examine “how God thinks” is not a means to knowing him. If in any way we might be reducing God where He clearly says He’s above us- it doesn’t behoove us to go down that path. But I can understand some may feel differently.
Yeah I could be wrong, but the feeling I got was Dr. Mullins goal was just to win, (which can be ok in debates, but not at the detriment of understanding the other side) Where it felt Gavin wanted to have real dialogue and a discussion. Before you can do that though there needs to be clarity in what each side means and believes. It’s ok to disagree, but I really didn’t get much out of the “debate”. Imo it would have been better if Mullins would have wanted/tried to understand as opposed to just win the argument.
That threw me too honestly. I mean sure you can cite them as an evidence for your claim, but... that's probably the most untrustworthy group of scholars in the religious world.
Because Christianity developed its understanding of divine simplicity in part from Islam, in particular, Muslim commentators of Aristotle. The Muslims and Christians were all reading the same Greek philosophers. This is especially the case when Aristotle's philosophy became dominant in Christianity, and Thomas Aquinas calls the Muslim scholar Averroes, "The Commentator" when using that philosophy to argue for Christian theology.
Great book that will provide more historical background to why the church has flirted with the concept of DDS and understanding how it led to christological heresy.
Really loved the debate! I'm a fan of both Gavin and Ryan's work. I personally wish there was more discussion on whether or not God has parts and less on historical views though. Seems like there's a variety of levels of understanding divine simplicity throughout time, so I'd rather hear Gavin defend his personal view and Ryan defend his personal view. After watching this and other videos, I would reject a strong, Thomistic understanding of divine simplicity. I could maybe be convinced of a "weaker" position like Gavin's, but I think Ryan's case against divine simplicity is stronger philosophically.
How does Dr. Ortlunnd steel-man Dr. Mullins's position by merely summarizing it? I thought steel-manning meant presenting an opponent's opinion persuasively. Neither debater did what St. Thomas Aquinas does in his Summa Theologae. In the Summa, Thomas lists strong criticisms of the point he discusses before he says what he believes about it. He Stee-mans what his critics think before he answers them.
Ryan brought up a point in his "steelman the other side" section that I really wish they spent more time discussing. It seems like something like divine simplicity is entailed by contingency arguments for God's existence. Mullins articulated a kind of modal collapse argument in his opening statement, and I'm not exactly sure what his intellectual commitments are, but I'm really curious at what point in a contingency argument he'd want to get off. For a modal collapse argument to work, it seems like we should be able to point somewhere in the contingency argument preceding it to show "Yeah, here's where that argument fails."
I was hoping that devine simplicity would be simple. You are all out of my league theologically. I’m glad you enjoyed your discussion. I just want to learn to do better at following Jesus. Will this help with that?
If God isn't divinely simple, God isn't God. Everything else flows out from DS. It's the only way God is closer to us than ourselves, but also beyond us. God isn't just loving. God IS love. This means you can participate IN God when you love. This is the idea of theosis. Non-DS turns God into a limited, legalistic judge. DS makes God completely transcendental to reality.
I applaud Gavin for the patience he exercises with some these people he debates, because I couldn't take Mullins seriously after a few minutes into his opening statement.
I think Ryan is not a bad debater, I like him and an excellent scholar, even though I don't think I agree with a some of his core theological persuasions. Uniting in Christ on the essentials, which there is a lot of debate on what those essentials are makes fellowship much more difficult. I need to look more into divine simplicity through the Reformed confessions or even some books. Good to see a generally non-contentious debate among brothers in Christ. Praise God and blessings to all in the comments.
I advise you to discuss Muslim preachers who studied Islam in Salafist Islamic universities or schools with Muslim scholars. Never rely on a university professor in the Islamic Studies Department at a Western university, because I found many of them to have very weak knowledge, and an academic degree is not evidence of great knowledge and knowledge. I believe that if you host the Muslim Lantern, you will find what you are looking for in the depth of the attributes of the Creator and their differences between Islam and Christianity, as well as the contradictory attributes of Jesus between Islam and Christianity, and the danger of philosophy in using it to identify the attributes of the Creator, etc.
I am someone who rejects DS, what would be your top 3 book recommendations (intro, intermediate, academic level) to help get a better grasp on the topic?
Thanks for introducing me to the term "Cambridge properties." Previously id just been thinking of "the set of true statements about a thing." While I can see that there would be changes in God's Cambridge properties from our temporal perspective, isnt it only necessary/true from our temporal perspective, because God's eternity means he always stands in eternal relation to all moments instead of moving through the succession of them like we do? (Temporally he became my Savior when he granted me faith, but He hasnt left the past or moved into the future like I have...)
It seems to me the issue here is very much linked to the coherence of the concept of God that would indeed be applied to Christians, Muslims and Jews. One doesn't have to think that "all religions worship different revelations of the same God" to consider an argument made by somebody of a different religion valid if it otherwise applies. The issue of simplicity is an interest of all the proponents of classic theism. I think Gavin would grant that, he didn't seem to dispute this. Of course the concept of God would differ in other areas, but much there is overlap in the debate and a scholar would do well to consider it.
@@brunoarruda9916 appealing to their correctness is where the issue lies. We can look at it in scholarly curiosity but we must understand that theirs is a separate conception of God, that is ultimately in opposition to ours.
I mean we all live in the same world that points to the God of the Bible so we shouldn't be too intimidated that they would get some things right. That being said, divine simplicity was always something very fundamental to virtually all traditions that recognized one God whether that be Taoism, some forms of Hinduism, Greek philosophy, and some Jewish thinkers. Mullins is a confusing and strange guy
This is an important topic because Divine Simplicity provides the answer to the greatest argument against Theism, the Problem of Evil. Why did a perfect God go out of His way to create a universe where evil could exist? For God’s love to be perfect, He needed non-God entities to love. Since all of God’s attributes are identical to God, then being a non-God entity entails being non-all of God’s attributes, & the difference between God & His creatures is the same as the difference between Infinity (one of God’s attributes) & the finite.
Well said. Scotus was correct with his formal distinctions. Both God and our world exist. But God is infinite existence. We are finite existence. The relations between the two are different because we are looking at it from one side only - the finite side.
It doesn’t seem like it matters in isolation. But it does affect conclusions in many other theological topics. It matters in the same way it would matter if someone came up with the conclusion that God is a mammal. The debate around such a small focal point can end up seeming pointless. But the implications of a conclusion like that would be vast and very significant.
There is a variation of the first mover argument which I believe is rock-solid and which can partially address this issue: Logic is defined thus: "Logic consists of the rules of correct inference from assumed premises." From this definition, you can see that in order to prove anything, you must first assume something (the premise). So, by using ordinary human logic, we cannot arrive at an ultimate beginning. We have these choices: 1. Something exists without cause (this thing would not fit within the bounds of the definition of logic provided above). 2. Causality is infinite (in which case there is no beginning, the universe is infinitely old, and there is no true first cause of anything). 3. Causality is circular (circular reasoning is ordinarily considered a logical fallacy). We see from this that ordinary rules of logic cannot apply to ultimate beginnings. We can also see that option 1 fits very well with the monotheist conception of God. So, we can conclude that if there was an ultimate beginning, normal rules of logic do not apply to it, and its properties are similar to those described by theists as God. It seems to me then that being too concerned about the technical nature of God is a waste of time, since it is impossible in principle to understand God with logic. I think it would make sense to apply logic to things that God may or may not have done in the world (since matter appears to obey logic, or else science wouldn't work), but it makes no sense to be very particular about the nature of God in and of itself. Not only do we have no experience of God, and not only can we not do an experiment on him, but he is by his nature, incomprehensible. So then, why argue about something which we know is incomprehensible? Goedel's theorem says that a logical system cannot be both complete and consistent. If there was a beginning, then that thing must have had some kind of completeness in it, or else, how did all of existence come forth from it? But if it's complete, then it must be inconsistent, and we don't like to say that about God either. This line of reasoning shows that it ought not to be possible for scientific theories to ever become complete, or else they would be contradictory. I see the first mover argument and Goedel's theorem as proofs that something exists in the universe which is incomprehensible to humans. If I KNOW that something incomprehensible exists, why not something like the creator God as described by theists? The only other option is that existence is even more incomprehensible than the concept of God.
he did put statements without substantiation, Mullin gave me an average internet debater he said Bl. Scotus' view sounds comparable to the Maturidi view any substance? no, in fact he refuted himself, and proved he isn't at all in familiarity with the Maturidi Sunni view Maturidi Sunnis has a tendency with kiyaas in their understanding, however has it ever known that one of the kiyaas is a statement close to say the sifaat (attributes) of God are inherently identical? No, the Maturidi view amongst other Sunni madhab al aqeeda views God to be of 1. Wujd which is unity of the imputation of 2.the essence and attributes THIS IS NOWHERE near the view of Scotus, proving Mullin is just ignorant and shouldn't even have this platform
Does anyone agree or recognize that the concept of divine simplicity originates in Greek philosophy from Plotinus and Plato as the 'One' or 'Good' setting a dialectic to the 'many' or the cosmos? If so or not, please consider Gifford's work "The Hexagon of Heresy."
@@enshala6401 That's true. But that's not transubstantiation or a demand to believe it. The Orthodox, and all the early Protestants except Zwingli taught real presence.
@Phill0old Then how do you partake of Christ's Flesh without a transformation? Your imagination makes it so? By "early Protestants", you actually mean heretics like Pelagius, right?
@@Phill0old Wait a minute, I thought you followed the Bible? What do you mean it isn't a demand to believe Christ's own words in the Bible? That is a devil's lie.
Please can you comment on John 20:23? Catholics often use it as a Justification for confession to catholic priests. I’m hoping you’ll see this comment 🙏🙏
Catholic here. Yes, priests have the authority handed-down from the apostles to hear confessions. But I just want to point out that God forgives, NOT the priest. God also forgives outside of confession. God is God; God can (and does) forgive any time anywhere. Confession is for us to receive the absolution from God's forgiveness. Basically, confession is for US, not for God. I hope that helps.
gm,Gavin.. I watch/listen to u sometimes because I feel drawn to u, the way u r,ur interesting ideas,etc....however I am not one who likes complications; keep it simple, I say... I'm skipping this one,as I do many,of ur videos because of that...not saying that I'm shallow.. I just don't like "splitting hairs",so to speak.. the Holy Bible; I read only the King James version,says what it says.. I don't debate w others..my spiritual walk is just that..mine... when I seek understanding,a straight to the point lesson about Biblical teachings I turn to John MacArthur who has spent decades studying God's Word and listening to him sum things up I come away w understanding... I totally get that ur approach, interests,r a bit different and appreciate it... tho, I guess what I'm trying to get at is that w all the knowledge one can possess about God,His Word, I can not overlook or forget that the Bible tells us that God works in mysterious ways....the way I see it these debates u have w others makes me think of attempting of nail jello to a wall... it's, ultimately not going to work and I see no point in it...not to come across as closed minded;every one has their own walk...calling...and tho I admire the effort u put into what u do I,as a much more simple minded person,find it tiresome and pointless were I to listen... I just wanted to share my thoughts on this w u... I hope u have a real good day..God bless
Dr. Mullins begins with a long appeal to legitimate(?) authority. He merely lists various beliefs as if consensus implies that the majority is right. That reminds me of a restaurant where the waiter tells a guest about the evening's specials. A mere opinion list doesn't tell me whether any listed opinion is true. A list of specials doesn't suggest that the guest will want any of them. I wish either or both debaters had discussed whether an object with parts needs a cause. What about pantheism? Classical theists say God makes his creatures exist. We don't think his exitence is theirs.
Hills I die on? Infallibilyy is only God's & His Word. The nature of God. The nature of salvation. Marian Doctrines RC Ecclesiology, & what are essentials & what are non-essentials. Also if we ever might be able to To reach at least a partial unity of some branches of Christianity thru a consensus about essential doctrines O almost forgot to mention that I will probably be willing to die on Opposition to almost all of the Calvinistsl Tulip
Dr. Mullins: "if it is good enough for Thomas [Aquinas], it is good enough for me." No. This is why sola scriptura is critically important. Scripture must be the foundation we consistently rely upon.
It was hard for Dr Mullins to debate Dr Ortlund when Dr Ortlund's position was not well defined, and to every objection brought up by Mullins the answer from Ortlund was "well there is this group that defines simplicity another way". Sorry to say, but Dr Ortlund's divine simplicity and Calvinism make absolutely no sense in light of Scripture. Too bad Dr Ortlund'S position on Calvinism introduces so much confusion and contradiction in his other topics.
@@bradleymarshall5489 it is interestong to me that one could suggest one could infallibly get to divine simplicity but then scoff at another getting to the papacy infallibly. Since both could be bolstered by proof text
@@MrPeach1 well considering how front and center it was for Church fathers like Irenaeus and Athanasius and much clearer verses that point to divine simplicity (Exodus 3:14, Malachi 3:6, 1 John 4:16, Colossians 1:16) than an infallible papacy it doesn't seem like as much of a leap to me.
@@bradleymarshall5489 an appeal to tradition is nice to hear from you. If its the word of God then it only should take a single verse. Matthew 16:18 to Isaiah 22 seems to have enough clarity to me. Also Irenaus mappimg out the bishops of Rome to prove the church in against Heresies. I guess I got to the papacy infallibly defined the same way you get to divine simplicity infallibly.
I am not perfect and the internet brings out the worst in me. I do try, and apologize if I've been less than charitable with you. I tend to meet fire with fire, but am trying to bring water instead.
@@IdolKiller appreciated! Although no offense to you because I think you're filling an interesting role your following definitely felt like an echo chamber😅. Being raised Church of Christ though I can appreciate having a non-Calvinist/Augustinian perspective on things
I think I have to disagree. When I read comments in this thread like "Sorry Ryan. I’ve already depicted Gavin as the chad and you as the soyjack …" Then I am seeing low effort comments in both threads. As far as I can tell, both threads appreciated the great interaction between both men. Both threads respect both men. Both threads are responding in agreement or disagreement with either man. In all, I think both threads have some great back and forth, much like the debate (though, lets be real, Mullins and Ortlund are on a different intellectual level than most of us).
In the best of faith toward both parties here, I think Gavin is taking a more strictly "theological" approach and Ryan is much more on the "philosophical" side. Ryan is very sharp on these philosophical issues and is clearly knowledgeable on the particulars of the philosophical arguments and their problems but I think, and absolutely no offense to Gavin, Ryan was maybe expecting a more in-depth discussion but it ended up disconnecting from the get-go. It felt like it never really got off the ground, though I really appreciated Gavin's pushback on Ryan's argumentation and appreciated that he kind of cut through the avoidance of Thomas-name-dropping (which I also appreciated on Ryan's side because he really wanted to avoid that accusation and I think he put a lot of thought into the formulation of his argument for that reason) to simply point out that Thomist thought is Thomist thought, period. Would love to see a round 2 where we just agree to disagree on the backdrop a little and get more into the meat 😉 Even if it is all over my head.
So much of the church's attempt to define the nature of God based on the clues found in scripture arose because of outbreaks of heretical, anti-scriptural assertions. But all the orthodox attempts to define must be held humbly as we are entering a realm of mystery. God has revealed that which is sufficient for our good, not all that egotistical curiosity could desire.
I think pondering the mystery of the divine nature with a humble inquisitiveness is very worshipful and powerful. I feel like debates tend to take away from that, and it is the reason why I enjoy long-form content that mediates on the divine character. Truth Unites is definitely a great place for that!
Divine "simplicity" sounds very complicated too me. God has always been GOD; God was never a "nothing" who acquired attributes. He is the great "I am": WHO is He always has been and shall for ever be!
The Divine Simplicity article in St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology is really good. If the debate was done over "DDS as described in this particular article," I think that would have helped streamline the conversation a lot. It covers the patristic sources and Aquinas while interacting with Plantinga, Duns Scotus, Ockham, and Palamas. Perhaps it was not fully explained to Dr. Mullins what "steel manning" meant. It is not to reinforce the other argument, but simply to state the other side in a way that they would agree with. I think that skewed the whole debate into whether or not Dr. Mullins was straw-manning or caricaturizing DDS as defended by Dr. Ortlund. On the whole though, very amazing scholarly debate. Need to watch again to fully grasp all the arguments, but it was amazing seeing two very smart people conversing with passion.
Gavin, if you think that the Father causing the Son and the Spirit is a strange view, then do you think that the Father begetting the Son and spirating the Spirit is not a form of causation? Do you think that causation necessarily entails a contingent act of the will?
I believe my tendency is to take a more philosophical approach to these questions than a theological approach. I was, at first, somewhat skeptical to divine simplicity; even if it is historically accepted as a conclusion of Christianity, it seemed to me like an argument as logically stable as a fiddler on the roof. But, the more I have thought about the implications of an ontologically infinite Being on whom all things are contingent, the more I have grown to accept the necessity of His being simple. Maybe I, at times, feel I affirm a "Diet Divine Simplicity," but I have become more and more comfortable with it not merely as a perhaps nonsensical means to synthesize Christianity's oddness, but ultimately as a logical conclusion from God's quality of being infinite in all his attributes. My understanding is not perfect, though, so I sincerely appreciate this dialogue, especially considering how gentlemanlike and courteous it was. You gentlemen have given me a wealth of new philosophical rabbit trails to run down and for that I am, as always, quite grateful.
So you are supposed to steel man the other man's position and Mullins did not do that. Instead he repositioned the discusion. I'd be embarrased if I had done that.
Im halfway through this "debate" (I use the quotes lovingly), and all i have learned is that they dont agree on how many people agreed on divine simplicity, and that you cant pick someone with a strong view or it makes the debate hard.
Thank you for this debate and I love how you organized it. I found Gavin much too broad and unwilling to get specific. Simplicity turns out to be a moving target and if you get too specific it's considered a caricature. I understand the desire to want to defend this view for historical reasons but I can't make sense of the specifics. I hope to one day understand the "correct" view of divine simpliciy that can handle proper cross examination. I love everything both Gavin and Ryan do, I'll always be a fan and promote your platforms as much as I can!
So in this debate, Gavin says that those who hold to something other than Divine simplicity often have an errant Christology. He rejects their rejection of simplicity precisely because of those christological heresies. Now, when he argues against icons, the only people he can cite for this rejection of icons also have errant Christology. So which is it Gavin? You can't have it both ways. Either errant Christology leads to bad theology in other areas or it doesn't.
@@TruthUnites At 4:15 you begin by talking about exceptions that "are heterodox in other areas of their doctrine of God" and then begin talking at about 4:25 about Isaac Newton, who you read as an Arian (i.e. bad Christology). "Samuel Clark had an abhorrent doctrine of the Trinity", etc. I will amend my statement by broadening the claim that you make to "bad theology of God", not just bad Christology. Your citation of Newton's Arianism is why I originally wrote "errant Christology" which was, admittedly, a bit more narrow than your overall statement about the exceptions Dr. Mullins cites.
As an Avicennian & Muslim, respect to both Dr Mullins and Dr Ortlund - I thought I'd share some thoughts from my perspective: - The main issue I found with this debate is that Dr. Ortlund has taken such an ambiguous definition of dds such that positions as vastly different as the Avicennian, Thomist, Anselmian, Palamite & Scotist fall under it which is just false - The correct definition of simplicity would be that God is pure existence & his essence is = attributes. Under that definition, the Palamite essence-energy distinction & Scotist formal distinction (as distinctions that exist extramentally) would not qualify as simplicity under an Avicennian or Thomist scheme, so Ortlund cannot just assume that these also mean 'simplicity' just because Palamas & Scotus said God is 'non-composite' - Mullins refers to the Islamic tradition & that attributionism is the majority view but this is misleading, Sunni Falāsifa, Sūfīs & Shī'a universally accept divine simplicity (essence = attributes) & even some Ash'aris & Maturidis do like Al-Jurjani, Al-Ījī et al. - Mullins critiques of dds would not register against us because 1) We agree dds is incompatible with the Trinity, temporal creation & creation ex nihilo 2) We agree that the Universe necessarily proceeds from God, and therefore is eternal & modally necessary, otherwise God would be the subject of temporal accidents & would have unactualised potential, but it doesn't follow that God doesn't have will because God's will is not like creaturely modes of will (libertarian) that involve choosing between possible options, because he's absolutely necessary, God's will is necessitarian, & this is actually a perfection for God as unactualised potential would involve deficiency. Overall I think Dr. Mullins won because Dr. Ortlund's idea of 'simplicity' is too ambiguous to be meaningful. But Mullins did not prove dds is false because there are other models of dds that negate his critiques.
@@armour.2. creation ex nihilo seems false due to the PMC. So All concrete objects that have an originating or sustaining efficient cause also have an originating or sustaining material cause. And so, If classical theism is true, the universe is a concrete object that has an originating or sustaining efficient cause without a material cause.
Are we so bold to think we know the answer to the question of simplicity that ultimately will not be answered until we acknowledge that at this time, God is beyond any earthly understanding?
Hour 1:24:14 Gavin Ortlund said: "if by monarchical Trinitarianism it means that God the Father causes the Son and the Spirit then I am not sure." This denial is not good because a denial of God causes the Son and the Spirit is a denial of monarchical Trinitarianism that all Church fathers profess. For context at Westminster Assembly when they wrote the Westminster Confession they had a debate on why Calvinists profess Trinity as covenantal union of three people each has Aseity. Luther condemned Calvin for Aseity of the Son as polytheism. In further expounding upon the mystery of the Holy Trinity, St Basil the Great taught that the Father is the point of origin άρχή, cause αἰτία, life-giving source πηγή, and root ρίζα of the Son and the Spirit. All Church fathers profess Tawhid only the Father alone has Aseity. The Father is God by identity. The Son and the Spirit are consubstantial by participation not by Aseity. This is why historic Christianity profess monarchical Trinitarianism not covenantal Trinitarianism ala James White. Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades are consubstantial. Three who's one what is polytheism. Ryan Mullins view is basically what Byzantine Catholic, Franciscans, and Eastern Orthodox profess. Not a denial of divine simplicity because God has no internal composition but rather denial of absolute divine simplicity where actions are identical to essence. The reason why Muslims, Byzantine Catholics, Franciscans, and Eastern Orthodox rejected absolute divine simplicity is because it makes accidental attributes such as creator and judge as identical with the divine essence. Which necessitate God to create and to judge without freewill. Bl Duns Scotus and St Palamas avoided this by distinguishing essence and energies. Aristotle did distinguish this too with first actuality and second actuality. Jay Dyer has been nailing this accurately. St Aquinas himself cautiously distanced himself from absolute divine simplicity. I recommend Tikhon Pino's dissertation on St Gregory of Palamas essence and energies real distinction. If attributes are identical with essence then God by necessity is creator without freewill. How Byzantine Catholic resolved this? Pantokrator is God's essence. He is the Almighty God. Because He is free and all-powerful He can choose to create or not to create. Creator is not identical to His essence but rather a subset a member under the premise that He is all-powerful by essence. Here we distinguish all-powerful as identical with essence and make real distinction that creator is an accidental attribute not identical with essence but exercised by God freely as He chooses. I am a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic Church. I hope one day to be able to discuss this at length with Gavin Ortlund and other Protestants how St Basil distinguished essence and energies. Divine simplicity is compatible with Trinity. Ryan Mullins confused divine simplicity with absolute divine simplicity. It's the later that's rejected by Muslims, Byzantine Catholics, Franciscans, and Eastern Orthodox not divine simplicity which everyone profess. Including some Jews like Kabbalah who profess the ten Sephiroths
on his talks on idol killer he actually tries to appeal to unitarians like Clarke and Newton in his attack on divine simplicity. I'm not really sure why he feels the need to do what he's doing I think you're right that you are identifying some nuance in regards to simplicity that still falls under classical theism which Mullins still feels the need to attack as a whole and Gavin is correctly defending
@@bradleymarshall5489 while I affirm Monarchy of the Father (Nicene Trinitarianism) and the East's Essence / Energy distinction, I found myself still thoroughly enjoying the lively debate. I like both Gavin and Ryan immensely.
@@IdolKiller those things conflicting with divine simplicity though has been exaggerated in recent times. Scotus took seriously the essence energy distinction but still affirmed divine simplicity and falls under the classical theism umbrella (see Byzantine-Scotist for more). Recent Monarchia stuff I think is more rooted in a social Trinitarian trend somewhat started by Zizioulas. As Craig Carter has argued the patristic scholars (Lewis Ayres, John Behr, Robert Wilken, and Frances Young) don't seem to be in agreement with the social Trinitarianism Zizioulas was arguing for and affirm that divine simplicity is Orthodox/Nicene
Watching through the debate, it doesn't appear that Ryan Mullins actually denies simplicity, but that certain predications should be classified as "parts". So he affirms divine simplicity but must now show why a particular predication is not a "part", i.e. doesn't identify any composition in God.
God brings forth whatever he brings forth but he remains in the same place, his spirit does not move from this to that, but in man there are many spirits so there is the spirit of fear the spirit of anger the spirit of compassion the spirit of pride the spirit of arrogance the spirit of jealousy the spirit of envy because his spirit waivers from this to that, yet, when God brings forth compassion or brings forth wrath his spirit does not waiver it does not move from this to that it remains in the same place, so that all things are brought forth out of love, and he remains in the one spirit🎉 the one light, in this world all things are separated in god they are one, so when we are full of the Holy Spirit we do the same, we can bring forth compassion or we can bring forth rebuke and our heart remains in the same place, because it is full of light and out of the light comes the all, but it remains in the light, it is written, a spiritual man will judge all things but not be subject to man's judgement, meaning, the spiritual man judge's all things by the power of the truth but his spirit remains in the same place, the light, but a man of the world will judge by the power of his heart and in this, his spirit changes from this to that, it moves from one place to another, so when a spiritual man judges he judge's by the power of the truth therefore, it is the truth which rejects it is the truth which excepts, it is the truth which raises it is the truth that lowers, but his heart remains in love, but if a man of the world judges he judge's by his flesh so when he rejects he rejects in his heart, when he accepts he accepts in his heart, when he raises he raises in his heart, and when he lowers he lowers in his heart, his spirit waivers from this to that it moves from this to that, therefore, God is simplicity he cannot be divided, he is the one spirit that remains in the same place always, no matter what he does.
Interesting debate. One of the very few issues that I disagree with Gavin on. On Gavin's view, it seems to me that it's true that I move from becoming a child of wrath to a child of God, but God does not move from becoming "not my Father," to "my Father." There is no real change in relationship on God's part. This seems contrary to Scripture.
They deal with this in the middle of the discussion, there’s no problem with God having relational attributes external to himself like being our father or Lord. One does not change internally when one’s relationship to another changes.
@@TheRoark yes, the explanation is that the change from being not a Father, to being a Father, is grounded in the created being rather than in God. That is part of the problem though, because that is precisely the opposite of what the Bible teaches -- God does not ad extra become my Father because, on the basis of, as an effect of my being his son, but rather I become his son because he voluntarily adopts me. With the act of creation, the problem is worse -- for if God is a creator as a result of creation coming into being, then the relationship between creature and creator is reversed, such that God's being creator is posterior to the external fact of creation happening to exist. External / ad extra accidents of God such as being a Father and being a Creator, therefore do not describe qualities of God, but the relationship God has by virtue of qualities in creation.
These are problems from incorrect reading of Scripture. God never stops loving you. God's relationship to you never changes. The only thing that changes is your relationship to God. God loves everyone equally. You don't receive any special love for having "faith."
Get a good primer on Aquinas. But basically, God cannot be separate from anything at all, because a separation means that God is not all-powerful. For instance, if God is separate from love, who created love? How does God have properties that exist outside of himself? DS says that everything that exists, exists in God. Including us. We aren't separate beings. We exist within God, and God is within us. To put it in practical terms, God is infinite mind. Reality is an idea in God's mind.
One inconsistency that I saw from Ryan is that he blames Christians for taking from Plato and Aristotle but at the same time draws from other religions. Seems inconsistent.
Why do we (Christians) want to limit God to the human flaw of free will? What is free will but the option of being other than perfect? God is perfect & He is One, so there is only one perfection & it is God. How can He have the potential to be otherwise? God’s perfection is self affirming, it holds Him to His own standard. So He denies Himself the freedom of willing anything that He could “later” change for a better will. But God is timeless, so there is no “later”.
It was frustrating that Gavin kept accusing/cautioning against caricature. Aside from continuing to site scholars, Ryan pointed out that if we took Gavin’s definition of DS, then everyone would agree on the subject and there would be no need for this discussion! It unfortunately prevented a more interesting discussion on the arguments for and against DS.
And I should add that I really appreciate Gavin on how he communicates and his theological triage, but this just isn’t his area of expertise. I would love for him to continue interacting with Dr. Mullins on neo-classical theism and timelessness, immutability, impassability, and DS.
Oh, it’s definitely a caricature to claim that divine simplicity requires that God has no contingent properties, disallows all conceptual distinctions in God, etc. That doesn’t even apply to all of the Thomists, let alone the entire Scottish and Palamite traditions!
@@TruthUnites "Broadly construed, ‘part’ covers not only spatial and temporal parts (if any) but also metaphysical ‘parts’ or ontological constituents. To say that God lacks metaphysical parts is to say inter alia that God is free of matter-form composition, potency-act composition, and existence-essence composition." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Being Lord or Creator seems to be a metaphysical part, no? But back to Dr. Mullins' point, why would Mullins, Craig, et al disagree with you if your definition was so general and not as strong. In other words, where do you and Ryan actually disagree (aside from definitionally)?
@@piracy22 I think "Creator" is a better example, at least conceptually. "Creator" is a contingent property, i.e. God had freedom whether to create or not, and as a contingent property it is, by definition, a metaphysical part.
Christians since Constantine think that they are the new Judaism but one cannot alter all the foundational tenets of Judaism and trademark it as a new Judaism. If Jesus was a Rabbi he in no way would have taught the Trinity doctrine (One exp. of many I could give). It’s no surprise then that Christians cannot grasp divine attributes as fundamental reality.
Me listening to this debate:
Hmm yes interesting (I have no idea they're saying)
Thanks again Gavin. It was great having you on and I look forward to you coming back.
Also... your thumbnail is way better than mine... I may redo it now! lol
Thanks again and great job hosting!
Good job moderating.
@@brentonstanfield5198 thanks! They made it easy!
Isn’t Gavin reformed and Warren is very anti-Calvinist? I’m surprised you two would be so cordial.
It seems like Dr. Mullins used his steelmanning section to develop arguments Gavin COULD make, but not actually repeat Gavin’s argument back to him.
The when Gavin brought it up, Dr Mullins again refused to steel man him and brought up problems in Gavin’s opening. Very frustrating!
this really rubbed me the wrong way
Another annoying moment was the exchange where Gavin said not to make the most radical form of simplicity equal to simplicity, to which Ryan says “but that form of simplicity is there in medieval thinkers” which completely misses the point
Mullins only goal is to try and make Simplicity look silly but never actually deals with any of the serious arguments. Its annoying but people fall for it
See, I thought this was steelmanning, because he was trying to make Gavin's argument even stronger, whereas all Gavin did was (accurately) summarize Mullins' arguments.
I guess you could say that what Gavin did was a form of steelmanning (in that it was avoiding strawmen), but it wasn't what I was expecting during that section.
Impressed by Gavin Ortlund taking on this dialogue! Really well done.
The entire debate was missed as they disagreed on the definitions on what was debated.
I could have easily pictured a kind of compatibility between their view and render the distinction merely semantical. Gavin was clearly not arguing that God’s Simplicity entails all that Mullins was arguing it entailed.
However Gavin never presents where he draws the line on the implication of God’s Simplicity. Similarly Mullins doesn’t address how the prevalence of the “God is Simple” language throughout Church history actually connects into his view outside of a few named cases of conspiracy against Roman Catholic authority.
The history just doesn’t make sense on Mullins’ view as he say Divine Simplicity effectively just crumbles all the creeds and makes Christian pure nonsense yet the Church carried the doctrine in the minimalist form of nods to God being Simple throughout many major Church fathers. All of them would just have to be making sense of pure nonsense for the vast majority of church history.
A re-articulation of God as simple as the Cappadocian Fathers articulated it, or how it was earliest interpreted with the Church would be the most fertile starting point. After that is address it just comes down to semantical preferences towards how to articulate it.
Dr Mullins’ first impression was not great when he spent his steel man time making Gavin’s arguments “better” but completely ignoring his actual argument. Gavin, of course, was ever gracious but the contrast was a little painful.
That was so condescending and painful. "Let me expand on the arguments that you should have made..."
I think this could be easily seen as a frustrating debate by both sides, whether you agree or disagree, but it seems necessary to really lay a foundation for future discussions. At least we know there are disagreements on how DS should be defined and where we can put the boundary of this doctrine. At the end of the day, this is really helpful for laities like me. Thank you both, Dr. Ortlund and Dr. Mullins.
the rejection of Divine Simplicity PUTS you out of Christianity
it's one of the essential Dogmas of The Faith in the historic church, everyone who rejects the teaching is done out of ignorance and compromisation, these people are out of the faith and aren't Christian
I was really excited for this, but very disappointed in Dr. Mullins. The entire discussion was him insisting that his descriptipn of Gavin's view on Divine Simplicity wasn't a caricature, instead of simply asking Gavin to define his view and then debate that. Felt very ungracious and cold to me from Dr. Mullins.
I agree with you in the way that he came off, seemed like he had a bone to pick which made the convo a bit awkward. However Dr. Mullins is right, Gavin’s assertion that his criticism is a caricature is just demonstrably false as Ryan showed. Gavin admitted that it was the dominant view amongst DS adherents that he was critiquing. Describing the dominant view of any theological position as a caricature is obviously silly. Gavin has the minority position so he was essentially arguing it’s a caricature of his personal view which he never adequately articulated. So Ryan’s criticism of DS as seen in scholarship were spot on. I again though have to agree with you that Ryan’s tone and delivery did seem to lack grace and was a bit off putting.
@@bilbobaggins9893 "Ryan’s criticism of DS as seen in scholarship were spot on"
Maybe with analytic philosophers, but the fact that he can't even understand what scholastics mean by composite for non physical entities demonstrates he's not engaging with scholastic metaphysics. Just like most analytic philosophers out there
I think your observation is spot on about the reality of the conversation…
@@bilbobaggins9893 but Gavin's point was that when Ryan presents the strongest, most radical version of DS and makes it out like that's just what DS is, that is a caricature. Gavin didn't suggest that nobody held that kind of view or that it wasn't prominent, he just said that to behave like DS *as such* means the strongest version of it risks caricaturing DS. Ryan's responses totally missed the point of Gavin's criticism, because his responses merely showed that strong DS is a prominent view in the tradition, but Gavin wasn't disputing that, he was disputing that strong versions of the doctrine *just are* what the doctrine is. I don't believe in DS and I enjoy Ryan's stuff, but I do think in this instance he was a bit too sensitive about the charge of caricature and therefore ended up spending a huge chunk of the debate trying to defend himself against that rather than just engaging with weaker versions of simplicity.
@@bradleymarshall5489- exactly. Ryan doesn’t actually attempt to understand the metaphysics because he only wants to misrepresent.
I've enjoyed your videos recently. I am a student of Vedanta, or Advaita Vedanta. It's not Hinduism, but an aspect of Hinduism, largely described by Shankara. I was astonished a while ago, when I came across a RUclips video on Divine Simplicity, at how similar some of the ideas were to how Brahman is described to me in my tradition. My teacher had described at length that Brahman is non-dual, one without a second, and that Brahman has no parts. As the video listed other aspects of divine simplicity, timelessness, and another aspect name I forget right now but which held God did not have a changing emotional state, I was further surprised by the similarities.
Now of course the ideas are not the same; Brahman in Vedanta seems to me to be very different than the Christian conception of God (which is why I was astonished when I heard about divine simplicity). I think Vedanta carries these ideas further (which I think you criticize in the video). Brahman, at least how I've been taught, is not a creator God for example (at the same time, Brahman is the ground of all that is). There is another term for the divine conceptualized with properties, which is Isvara.
But I find the similarities interesting and surprising, especially as these two traditions seem to have been developed separately.
Edit: "Impassibility" was the term I was looking for at the end of the first paragraph.
Ed Feser has a post how divine simplicity can be found in Taoism too. I think the difficulty of grasping divine simplicity in our times is a consequence of modern culture and the enlightenment
As a practitioner of Advaita Vedanta myself, I think you'd really enjoy David Bentley Harts “The Experience of God”. He's a Christian who utilizes Vedantic metaphysical mapping.
Wow! This was very interesting, thank you for sharing.
Finally someone talking about fun theology!! Yes!!! 😊👍.. the ontological issue is so central to this whole discussion .. a two circle ontology that maintains a creator creation distinction ontologically, speaking for me, undermines all modern critiques of simplicity -
Thanks for this Gavin.
Can hardly contain my excitement just to see this interaction between two of my favorite theologians. I was perfectly content with classical theism until I found Dr. Mullins work/podcast. Looking forward to this! Also - I am reading Bullies and Saints right now! My pastor recommended it. It is indeed riveting.
Love Gavin and Truth Unites, but I found this debate frustrating. It felt like there was an impasse between Ryan and Gavin over sources.
Gavin claimed Ryan was caricaturing the doctrine of divine simplicity, Ryan pushed back saying his sources were legitimate and then Gavin seemed to argue that Ryan was cherry picking while pleading for his sources to be taken as representative despite Ryan’s critiques of them.
The problem was Ryan was treating a form of divine simplicity as divine simplicity itself and arguing against that form. Gavin didn’t try to make his sources representative of all divine simplicity, quite the opposite. He was bringing them up to show that Ryan’s definition was not fully representative of the whole tradition, but only one stream of it.
The problem is that Ryan is either ignorant of what DS really means, or he is deliberately obtuse.
I'm still not sure what Mullins was getting at with his definition of simplicity. At face value, Palamas and Scotus certainly seem to affirm a version of divine simplicity!
Scotus definitely does. He's essentially doing the same analytic trick Unitarians like Dale Tuggy pull in trying to make things seem more different than they actually to make their position seem more palatable
Not sure about that, I think he’s got a valid concern. Scotus’ view is essentially the Sunni Islamic view about how God’s essence relates to the attributes, and Sunnis are unanimous in condemning Divine Simplicity.
@@dri-fit9712 Scotus wasn't a Muslim and Scotus didn't condemn divine simplicity. Mullins saying we should be more like Muslims isn't a very good argument. Plus there's also the fact that Scotus was one of the most brilliant theologians who ever lived compared to those Sunnis and Mullins so if he affirms divine simplicity then I am listening.
I’m aware that Scotus wasn’t a Muslim lol. That wasn’t the point. Also, Mullins didn’t argue that Christians should be more like Muslims (even though I’d be all for it).
The point was that Scotus’s view allows someone to believe in non-identical Divine attributes, i.e., it’s an affirmation of attributionism. If you want to call that Divine simplicity, be my guest, but then there’s really little to debate here.
@@dri-fit9712 Scotus believed God was infinite in his attributes but because infinities all add up to infinity there is no real distinction so divine simplicity isn't violated. Byzantine-Scotus goes over this really well
This whole discussion is beyond my understanding. God is one, God has attributes, and there are three divine persons. That's enough for me.
Me, too. I'm wondering if this statement would be an example of DS: God is love, not that God HAS love. The latter makes love sound external--like a thing to be possessed. I'm not God so I can only have love.
@@HiHoSilvey I don't know. Most of the time the discussion just sounded like unnecessary semantics to me. Referring to God as simple does not seem like a necessity of theology to me. In contrast, trinitarian would be a necessity, because it's in contrast to Unitarian, binarian, tritheism, etc., so it expresses a clear contrast. God being simple to me does not express some clear contrast to a heresy; it's similar to describing marriage as a sacrament to me, it just depends on how an individual defines sacrament, so it's a semantics issue in some churches; for example, my church only recognizes two sacraments, because a physical element is required to be a sacrament for us, and marriage lacks that. However, the definition is different in different churches.
@@HiHoSilveyThat statement is a correct description of DS, and it must be true otherwise God would be dependent on something that is not God (the abstract of love).
Only known you Gavin since Feb. My grey matter
Staring over again…
Thanks to you both
I've watched it on Patreon already. I guess I lean more towards Dr. Mullins' position on this one, but this was a very profitable exchange nevertheless and I liked your perspective. Thanks!
Mullins just repeats the same misunderstandings. He’s been corrected time after time. Even if he disagrees I think he would benefit from acknowledging the counter argument.
I don't see it that way at all. Mullins is applying logic to the concept and its implications. Note that Ortlund ends with listing anticipated arguments against by only stating that DDS advocates don't deny accidental properties, true relation with God, and distinctions about God. All of these have to be redefined for the creature in reality and from Scripture because by definition DDS does not allow such qualities.
@@josephbielecki770 - Mullins is the one that confuses the terms here. Go watch his debate with Gaven Kerr, this has all been clearly explained to him and he just ignores it. He can disagree, just don’t present it like nobody has presented it to him.
Yeah the feeling I got was Mullins goal was to win, Where it felt Gavin wanted to have real dialogue and discussion. Before you can do that there needs to be clarity in what each side means and believes. It’s ok to disagree but I really didn’t get much out of the “debate”. Imo it would have been better if Mullins would have wanted/tried to understand as opposed to just win the argument. I could be wrong just the feeling I got.
@@King_of_Blades BAD BOY MULLINS
@@King_of_Blades Aparently, Gavin was out of his depth. Most of the Church Fathers had the Monarchical view of the Trinity, with The Father as the archaea. His view of Divine Simplicity is closer to the aristotelian conclusions of Thomas Aquinas, not the Cappadocian view of the Monarchy. When Mullins tried to go there Gavin wasn't even aware of this issue.
I really like all three of these guys. Smart, saved, interesting, and kind. 👍🏽 If only i could know them oersonally!
Is Mullins a Christian?
@@ElvisI97 yes
Where in Scripture are we told to speculate upon the Nature of God's essence? Do we not risk engaging in some form of Mental Idolatry as we try and conform God to an Philosophical Image that we can accept/comprehend? Why must we feel the need to go beyond what is Written, and what God has revealed about Himself through His Word? What do we gain? and more importantly, what do we risk losing?
Hi Dr. Ortlund,
I think the question you really need to answer is: does God have thoughts? When he says in Genesis, "Let there be light" and "Let there be a firmament," does God have one thought about (or concept of) light, and another thought about the firmament? Is His thought about the animals ("Let the earth bring forth living creatures") intrinsically distinct from His thought about humanity ("Let us make man in our own image")? Is His thought about you intrinsically distinct from His thought about me?
If you wish to say "Yes," then you've moved beyond saying that God has external (Cambridge) properties, and you're now saying that God has intrinsic properties - in this case, His thoughts about creatures. But if you say "No," then you're saying that even if God hadn't created a world at all, His thoughts, or the content of His Mind, would be exactly the same as it is now. God doesn't think anything different when He timelessly decides to create a world than what He would have thought had He decided not to create a world. And a God like that is not a personal God. Everything about Him is the same as it would be had He not created us. Such a God is appallingly aloof, and not the sort of God we can have a personal relationship with.
Personally, I hope you'll say "Yes."
I'd also like to comment on the adage, "Anything which is in God, is God." I find it unhelpful, because it fails to define "in." I have thoughts, but in what sense are my thoughts "in" me? I don't even know what that means. I believe God has a multitude of thoughts of His own, and those thoughts come from His Mind, but I don't know what it means to say that God's thoughts are "in" Him. So when someone tries to corner me by saying, "If God's thoughts about creatures are distinct from His essence, then are you saying they're not God?", then my answer is "Of course they're not God, but they're from God. They're not creatures either, because they're properties, and creatures are substances."
I shall leave it there. Cheers.
Isaiah 55:8-9
A good answer. So according to Scripture, God does indeed have thoughts, albeit infinitely exalted above our own. Glad to hear that.
@@VincentTorleyYKH I believe there’s a lot in scripture that gives us a knowable God. I think trying to assess or examine “how God thinks” is not a means to knowing him. If in any way we might be reducing God where He clearly says He’s above us- it doesn’t behoove us to go down that path. But I can understand some may feel differently.
Yeah I could be wrong, but the feeling I got was Dr. Mullins goal was just to win, (which can be ok in debates, but not at the detriment of understanding the other side) Where it felt Gavin wanted to have real dialogue and a discussion. Before you can do that though there needs to be clarity in what each side means and believes. It’s ok to disagree, but I really didn’t get much out of the “debate”. Imo it would have been better if Mullins would have wanted/tried to understand as opposed to just win the argument.
Sorry Ryan. I’ve already depicted Gavin as the chad and you as the soyjack 🤷♂️…
Congrats on 60k🎉
Why does Ryan include Muslim scholars?
That threw me too honestly. I mean sure you can cite them as an evidence for your claim, but... that's probably the most untrustworthy group of scholars in the religious world.
Because Christianity developed its understanding of divine simplicity in part from Islam, in particular, Muslim commentators of Aristotle. The Muslims and Christians were all reading the same Greek philosophers.
This is especially the case when Aristotle's philosophy became dominant in Christianity, and Thomas Aquinas calls the Muslim scholar Averroes, "The Commentator" when using that philosophy to argue for Christian theology.
@@TheologiaEvangelica Yes. And this view was radically different from that of the Cappadocian Fathers.
I recommend Jim Gifford's book: The Hexagon of Heresy: A Historical and Theological Study of Definitional Divine Simplicity.
Great book that will provide more historical background to why the church has flirted with the concept of DDS and understanding how it led to christological heresy.
Really loved the debate! I'm a fan of both Gavin and Ryan's work. I personally wish there was more discussion on whether or not God has parts and less on historical views though. Seems like there's a variety of levels of understanding divine simplicity throughout time, so I'd rather hear Gavin defend his personal view and Ryan defend his personal view. After watching this and other videos, I would reject a strong, Thomistic understanding of divine simplicity. I could maybe be convinced of a "weaker" position like Gavin's, but I think Ryan's case against divine simplicity is stronger philosophically.
How does Dr. Ortlunnd steel-man Dr. Mullins's position by merely summarizing it? I thought steel-manning meant presenting an opponent's opinion persuasively. Neither debater did what St. Thomas Aquinas does in his Summa Theologae. In the Summa, Thomas lists strong criticisms of the point he discusses before he says what he believes about it. He Stee-mans what his critics think before he answers them.
Ryan brought up a point in his "steelman the other side" section that I really wish they spent more time discussing. It seems like something like divine simplicity is entailed by contingency arguments for God's existence. Mullins articulated a kind of modal collapse argument in his opening statement, and I'm not exactly sure what his intellectual commitments are, but I'm really curious at what point in a contingency argument he'd want to get off. For a modal collapse argument to work, it seems like we should be able to point somewhere in the contingency argument preceding it to show "Yeah, here's where that argument fails."
I was hoping that devine simplicity would be simple. You are all out of my league theologically. I’m glad you enjoyed your discussion. I just want to learn to do better at following Jesus. Will this help with that?
If God isn't divinely simple, God isn't God. Everything else flows out from DS. It's the only way God is closer to us than ourselves, but also beyond us. God isn't just loving. God IS love. This means you can participate IN God when you love. This is the idea of theosis.
Non-DS turns God into a limited, legalistic judge. DS makes God completely transcendental to reality.
At 38:30 - I agree w/ Gavin that Ryan did not steel-man Gavin's whereas Gavin did steel-man Ryan's.
I can already tell from Mullin's opening statement that he's missing the mark. Opponents of divine simplicity just don't get it.
I applaud Gavin for the patience he exercises with some these people he debates, because I couldn't take Mullins seriously after a few minutes into his opening statement.
Yeah after the second failure to restate Gavin’s opening statement I had real trouble taking Ryan seriously.
I think Ryan is not a bad debater, I like him and an excellent scholar, even though I don't think I agree with a some of his core theological persuasions. Uniting in Christ on the essentials, which there is a lot of debate on what those essentials are makes fellowship much more difficult. I need to look more into divine simplicity through the Reformed confessions or even some books. Good to see a generally non-contentious debate among brothers in Christ. Praise God and blessings to all in the comments.
“Quote” is interchangeable with “mis-characterization” for Mullins
Such as?
Thanks a lot. It seems Ryan is indeed well vested in the topic.
I hope you have a discussion/debate with him again.
I advise you to discuss Muslim preachers who studied Islam in Salafist Islamic universities or schools with Muslim scholars. Never rely on a university professor in the Islamic Studies Department at a Western university, because I found many of them to have very weak knowledge, and an academic degree is not evidence of great knowledge and knowledge.
I believe that if you host the Muslim Lantern, you will find what you are looking for in the depth of the attributes of the Creator and their differences between Islam and Christianity, as well as the contradictory attributes of Jesus between Islam and Christianity, and the danger of philosophy in using it to identify the attributes of the Creator, etc.
I am someone who rejects DS, what would be your top 3 book recommendations (intro, intermediate, academic level) to help get a better grasp on the topic?
Thanks for introducing me to the term "Cambridge properties." Previously id just been thinking of "the set of true statements about a thing." While I can see that there would be changes in God's Cambridge properties from our temporal perspective, isnt it only necessary/true from our temporal perspective, because God's eternity means he always stands in eternal relation to all moments instead of moving through the succession of them like we do? (Temporally he became my Savior when he granted me faith, but He hasnt left the past or moved into the future like I have...)
Seems Ryan Mullins has the misconseption that all religions worship different revelations of same "God”.
Yeah, appealing to the Muslim or Jewish conception of God is definitely bad theology.
Why was he appealing to Muslim concept of God as if that has any relevance or authority
It seems to me the issue here is very much linked to the coherence of the concept of
God that would indeed be applied to Christians, Muslims and Jews. One doesn't have to think that "all religions worship different revelations of the same God" to consider an argument made by somebody of a different religion valid if it otherwise applies. The issue of simplicity is an interest of all the proponents of classic theism. I think Gavin would grant that, he didn't seem to dispute this. Of course the concept of God would differ in other areas, but much there is overlap in the debate and a scholar would do well to consider it.
@@brunoarruda9916 appealing to their correctness is where the issue lies. We can look at it in scholarly curiosity but we must understand that theirs is a separate conception of God, that is ultimately in opposition to ours.
I mean we all live in the same world that points to the God of the Bible so we shouldn't be too intimidated that they would get some things right. That being said, divine simplicity was always something very fundamental to virtually all traditions that recognized one God whether that be Taoism, some forms of Hinduism, Greek philosophy, and some Jewish thinkers. Mullins is a confusing and strange guy
Will need to listen a few more times :)
This is an important topic because Divine Simplicity provides the answer to the greatest argument against Theism, the Problem of Evil. Why did a perfect God go out of His way to create a universe where evil could exist?
For God’s love to be perfect, He needed non-God entities to love. Since all of God’s attributes are identical to God, then being a non-God entity entails being non-all of God’s attributes, & the difference between God & His creatures is the same as the difference between Infinity (one of God’s attributes) & the finite.
Well said. Scotus was correct with his formal distinctions. Both God and our world exist. But God is infinite existence. We are finite existence. The relations between the two are different because we are looking at it from one side only - the finite side.
I've gotten through the steelmanning sections, and i still don't know how any of this matters.
It doesn’t seem like it matters in isolation. But it does affect conclusions in many other theological topics.
It matters in the same way it would matter if someone came up with the conclusion that God is a mammal. The debate around such a small focal point can end up seeming pointless. But the implications of a conclusion like that would be vast and very significant.
There is a variation of the first mover argument which I believe is rock-solid and which can partially address this issue:
Logic is defined thus: "Logic consists of the rules of correct inference from assumed premises." From this definition, you can see that in order to prove anything, you must first assume something (the premise). So, by using ordinary human logic, we cannot arrive at an ultimate beginning. We have these choices:
1. Something exists without cause (this thing would not fit within the bounds of the definition of logic provided above).
2. Causality is infinite (in which case there is no beginning, the universe is infinitely old, and there is no true first cause of anything).
3. Causality is circular (circular reasoning is ordinarily considered a logical fallacy).
We see from this that ordinary rules of logic cannot apply to ultimate beginnings. We can also see that option 1 fits very well with the monotheist conception of God. So, we can conclude that if there was an ultimate beginning, normal rules of logic do not apply to it, and its properties are similar to those described by theists as God.
It seems to me then that being too concerned about the technical nature of God is a waste of time, since it is impossible in principle to understand God with logic. I think it would make sense to apply logic to things that God may or may not have done in the world (since matter appears to obey logic, or else science wouldn't work), but it makes no sense to be very particular about the nature of God in and of itself. Not only do we have no experience of God, and not only can we not do an experiment on him, but he is by his nature, incomprehensible. So then, why argue about something which we know is incomprehensible?
Goedel's theorem says that a logical system cannot be both complete and consistent. If there was a beginning, then that thing must have had some kind of completeness in it, or else, how did all of existence come forth from it? But if it's complete, then it must be inconsistent, and we don't like to say that about God either. This line of reasoning shows that it ought not to be possible for scientific theories to ever become complete, or else they would be contradictory.
I see the first mover argument and Goedel's theorem as proofs that something exists in the universe which is incomprehensible to humans. If I KNOW that something incomprehensible exists, why not something like the creator God as described by theists? The only other option is that existence is even more incomprehensible than the concept of God.
he did put statements without substantiation, Mullin gave me an average internet debater
he said Bl. Scotus' view sounds comparable to the Maturidi view
any substance? no, in fact he refuted himself, and proved he isn't at all in familiarity with the Maturidi Sunni view
Maturidi Sunnis has a tendency with kiyaas in their understanding, however has it ever known that one of the kiyaas is a statement close to say the sifaat (attributes) of God are inherently identical? No, the Maturidi view amongst other Sunni madhab al aqeeda views God to be of
1. Wujd which is unity of the imputation of
2.the essence and attributes
THIS IS NOWHERE near the view of Scotus, proving Mullin is just ignorant and shouldn't even have this platform
Mullins is quite immature.
Does anyone agree or recognize that the concept of divine simplicity originates in Greek philosophy from Plotinus and Plato as the 'One' or 'Good' setting a dialectic to the 'many' or the cosmos? If so or not, please consider Gifford's work "The Hexagon of Heresy."
Doesn't look like anyone is agreeing.
How arrogant do you have to be to assert that all those folks in the past were lying or cowardly when they affirmed divine simplicity repeatedly?
If you do not eat of Christ's Flesh and drink His Blood, then you have no life within you. John 6. Very simple.
@@enshala6401 That's true. But that's not transubstantiation or a demand to believe it. The Orthodox, and all the early Protestants except Zwingli taught real presence.
@Phill0old Then how do you partake of Christ's Flesh without a transformation? Your imagination makes it so?
By "early Protestants", you actually mean heretics like Pelagius, right?
@@Phill0old Wait a minute, I thought you followed the Bible? What do you mean it isn't a demand to believe Christ's own words in the Bible? That is a devil's lie.
@@enshala6401 Are you on drugs you keep claiming things are true that I haven't said.
Please can you comment on John 20:23? Catholics often use it as a Justification for confession to catholic priests. I’m hoping you’ll see this comment 🙏🙏
Catholic here. Yes, priests have the authority handed-down from the apostles to hear confessions. But I just want to point out that God forgives, NOT the priest. God also forgives outside of confession. God is God; God can (and does) forgive any time anywhere.
Confession is for us to receive the absolution from God's forgiveness. Basically, confession is for US, not for God.
I hope that helps.
@@aisthpaoitht thank you. Can you give any historical evidence about this handing down of authority?
@@somemedic8482 hm, my comment was deleted. Search for "Catholic succession of authority."
To me, parts are just the internal natures of God.
gm,Gavin.. I watch/listen to u sometimes because I feel drawn to u, the way u r,ur interesting ideas,etc....however I am not one who likes complications; keep it simple, I say...
I'm skipping this one,as I do many,of ur videos because of that...not saying that I'm shallow.. I just don't like "splitting hairs",so to speak..
the Holy Bible; I read only the King James version,says what it says.. I don't debate w others..my spiritual walk is just that..mine...
when I seek understanding,a straight to the point lesson about Biblical teachings I turn to John MacArthur who has spent decades studying God's Word and listening to him sum things up I come away w understanding...
I totally get that ur approach, interests,r a bit different and appreciate it...
tho, I guess what I'm trying to get at is that w all the knowledge one can possess about God,His Word, I can not overlook or forget that the Bible tells us that God works in mysterious ways....the way I see it these debates u have w others makes me think of attempting of nail jello to a wall... it's, ultimately not going to work and I see no point in it...not to come across as closed minded;every one has their own walk...calling...and tho I admire the effort u put into what u do I,as a much more simple minded person,find it tiresome and pointless were I to listen... I just wanted to share my thoughts on this w u... I hope u have a real good day..God bless
Dr. Mullins begins with a long appeal to legitimate(?) authority. He merely lists various beliefs as if consensus implies that the majority is right. That reminds me of a restaurant where the waiter tells a guest about the evening's specials. A mere opinion list doesn't tell me whether any listed opinion is true. A list of specials doesn't suggest that the guest will want any of them.
I wish either or both debaters had discussed whether an object with parts needs a cause.
What about pantheism? Classical theists say God makes his creatures exist. We don't think his exitence is theirs.
I feel too much time was spent discussing the history of DS, and not it's implications.
Hills I die on? Infallibilyy is only God's & His Word. The nature of God.
The nature of salvation. Marian Doctrines RC Ecclesiology, & what
are essentials & what are non-essentials. Also if we ever might be able to
To reach at least a partial unity of some branches of Christianity thru
a consensus about essential doctrines
O almost forgot to mention that I will probably be willing to die on
Opposition to almost all of the Calvinistsl Tulip
Could God have a dependency on/of nothing(ness)?
Dr. Mullins: "if it is good enough for Thomas [Aquinas], it is good enough for me." No. This is why sola scriptura is critically important. Scripture must be the foundation we consistently rely upon.
It was hard for Dr Mullins to debate Dr Ortlund when Dr Ortlund's position was not well defined, and to every objection brought up by Mullins the answer from Ortlund was "well there is this group that defines simplicity another way". Sorry to say, but Dr Ortlund's divine simplicity and Calvinism make absolutely no sense in light of Scripture. Too bad Dr Ortlund'S position on Calvinism introduces so much confusion and contradiction in his other topics.
😂😂😂😂😂bro Ortlund's position was well defined. You must be a Mullins fan
I feel bad that Dr Gavin will never be able to know divine simplicity infallibly.
it's in scripture and scripture is infallible so he kind of does 🤷🏻♂
@@bradleymarshall5489 unless he deciphered it incorrectly.
@@bradleymarshall5489 it is interestong to me that one could suggest one could infallibly get to divine simplicity but then scoff at another getting to the papacy infallibly. Since both could be bolstered by proof text
@@MrPeach1 well considering how front and center it was for Church fathers like Irenaeus and Athanasius and much clearer verses that point to divine simplicity (Exodus 3:14, Malachi 3:6, 1 John 4:16, Colossians 1:16) than an infallible papacy it doesn't seem like as much of a leap to me.
@@bradleymarshall5489 an appeal to tradition is nice to hear from you. If its the word of God then it only should take a single verse. Matthew 16:18 to Isaiah 22 seems to have enough clarity to me. Also Irenaus mappimg out the bishops of Rome to prove the church in against Heresies. I guess I got to the papacy infallibly defined the same way you get to divine simplicity infallibly.
You had McGrew on the channel 😔 terribly unkind individual.
I am not perfect and the internet brings out the worst in me. I do try, and apologize if I've been less than charitable with you. I tend to meet fire with fire, but am trying to bring water instead.
I really appreciate the format of this debate. I'd like to see more debates done this way.
I hope to do more soon!
Wow the comment thread on this one as opposed to the one on idolkiller is way better!!! Great job Gavin!!!
Then go leave a comment! Balance it out
@@IdolKiller I did. And have been interacting with some of the people there for the past couple days.
@@bradleymarshall5489 thank you! While I'm opinionated on various topics, I do NOT want IK to be an echo-chamber.
@@IdolKiller appreciated! Although no offense to you because I think you're filling an interesting role your following definitely felt like an echo chamber😅. Being raised Church of Christ though I can appreciate having a non-Calvinist/Augustinian perspective on things
I think I have to disagree. When I read comments in this thread like "Sorry Ryan. I’ve already depicted Gavin as the chad and you as the soyjack …" Then I am seeing low effort comments in both threads. As far as I can tell, both threads appreciated the great interaction between both men. Both threads respect both men. Both threads are responding in agreement or disagreement with either man.
In all, I think both threads have some great back and forth, much like the debate (though, lets be real, Mullins and Ortlund are on a different intellectual level than most of us).
In the best of faith toward both parties here, I think Gavin is taking a more strictly "theological" approach and Ryan is much more on the "philosophical" side. Ryan is very sharp on these philosophical issues and is clearly knowledgeable on the particulars of the philosophical arguments and their problems but I think, and absolutely no offense to Gavin, Ryan was maybe expecting a more in-depth discussion but it ended up disconnecting from the get-go. It felt like it never really got off the ground, though I really appreciated Gavin's pushback on Ryan's argumentation and appreciated that he kind of cut through the avoidance of Thomas-name-dropping (which I also appreciated on Ryan's side because he really wanted to avoid that accusation and I think he put a lot of thought into the formulation of his argument for that reason) to simply point out that Thomist thought is Thomist thought, period. Would love to see a round 2 where we just agree to disagree on the backdrop a little and get more into the meat 😉 Even if it is all over my head.
Dr Gavin I’m curious to hear your comments on the recent debate that Jimmy Akin vs. James White just had.Would love your take on it. Blessings
So much of the church's attempt to define the nature of God based on the clues found in scripture arose because of outbreaks of heretical, anti-scriptural assertions.
But all the orthodox attempts to define must be held humbly as we are entering a realm of mystery. God has revealed that which is sufficient for our good, not all that egotistical curiosity could desire.
I think pondering the mystery of the divine nature with a humble inquisitiveness is very worshipful and powerful. I feel like debates tend to take away from that, and it is the reason why I enjoy long-form content that mediates on the divine character. Truth Unites is definitely a great place for that!
Divine "simplicity" sounds very complicated too me. God has always been GOD; God was never a "nothing" who acquired attributes. He is the great "I am": WHO is He always has been and shall for ever be!
The Divine Simplicity article in St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology is really good. If the debate was done over "DDS as described in this particular article," I think that would have helped streamline the conversation a lot. It covers the patristic sources and Aquinas while interacting with Plantinga, Duns Scotus, Ockham, and Palamas.
Perhaps it was not fully explained to Dr. Mullins what "steel manning" meant. It is not to reinforce the other argument, but simply to state the other side in a way that they would agree with. I think that skewed the whole debate into whether or not Dr. Mullins was straw-manning or caricaturizing DDS as defended by Dr. Ortlund.
On the whole though, very amazing scholarly debate. Need to watch again to fully grasp all the arguments, but it was amazing seeing two very smart people conversing with passion.
You should get on John Dickson's podcast It's called Undeceptions and it has a very similar tone to your own work! It's excellent!
Gavin, if you think that the Father causing the Son and the Spirit is a strange view, then do you think that the Father begetting the Son and spirating the Spirit is not a form of causation? Do you think that causation necessarily entails a contingent act of the will?
Is Ryan Christian? Or just studies world religion and philosophy?
Very informative thanks!
I believe my tendency is to take a more philosophical approach to these questions than a theological approach. I was, at first, somewhat skeptical to divine simplicity; even if it is historically accepted as a conclusion of Christianity, it seemed to me like an argument as logically stable as a fiddler on the roof. But, the more I have thought about the implications of an ontologically infinite Being on whom all things are contingent, the more I have grown to accept the necessity of His being simple. Maybe I, at times, feel I affirm a "Diet Divine Simplicity," but I have become more and more comfortable with it not merely as a perhaps nonsensical means to synthesize Christianity's oddness, but ultimately as a logical conclusion from God's quality of being infinite in all his attributes. My understanding is not perfect, though, so I sincerely appreciate this dialogue, especially considering how gentlemanlike and courteous it was. You gentlemen have given me a wealth of new philosophical rabbit trails to run down and for that I am, as always, quite grateful.
So you are supposed to steel man the other man's position and Mullins did not do that. Instead he repositioned the discusion. I'd be embarrased if I had done that.
So Ryan’s steel man of Gavin’s argument is to add on 3 arguments that Gavin didn’t make 😂😂 make it make sense!
I know! Haha, then when Gavin asks him to try again he just brings up problems he has with Gavin's arguments. Real classy 😂
Mullins is a clown
Im halfway through this "debate" (I use the quotes lovingly), and all i have learned is that they dont agree on how many people agreed on divine simplicity, and that you cant pick someone with a strong view or it makes the debate hard.
Thank you for this debate and I love how you organized it. I found Gavin much too broad and unwilling to get specific. Simplicity turns out to be a moving target and if you get too specific it's considered a caricature. I understand the desire to want to defend this view for historical reasons but I can't make sense of the specifics. I hope to one day understand the "correct" view of divine simpliciy that can handle proper cross examination. I love everything both Gavin and Ryan do, I'll always be a fan and promote your platforms as much as I can!
So in this debate, Gavin says that those who hold to something other than Divine simplicity often have an errant Christology. He rejects their rejection of simplicity precisely because of those christological heresies.
Now, when he argues against icons, the only people he can cite for this rejection of icons also have errant Christology.
So which is it Gavin? You can't have it both ways. Either errant Christology leads to bad theology in other areas or it doesn't.
"Gavin says that those who hold to something other than Divine simplicity often have an errant Christology" -- when did I say that?
@@TruthUnites At 4:15 you begin by talking about exceptions that "are heterodox in other areas of their doctrine of God" and then begin talking at about 4:25 about Isaac Newton, who you read as an Arian (i.e. bad Christology). "Samuel Clark had an abhorrent doctrine of the Trinity", etc.
I will amend my statement by broadening the claim that you make to "bad theology of God", not just bad Christology. Your citation of Newton's Arianism is why I originally wrote "errant Christology" which was, admittedly, a bit more narrow than your overall statement about the exceptions Dr. Mullins cites.
As an Avicennian & Muslim, respect to both Dr Mullins and Dr Ortlund - I thought I'd share some thoughts from my perspective:
- The main issue I found with this debate is that Dr. Ortlund has taken such an ambiguous definition of dds such that positions as vastly different as the Avicennian, Thomist, Anselmian, Palamite & Scotist fall under it which is just false
- The correct definition of simplicity would be that God is pure existence & his essence is = attributes. Under that definition, the Palamite essence-energy distinction & Scotist formal distinction (as distinctions that exist extramentally) would not qualify as simplicity under an Avicennian or Thomist scheme, so Ortlund cannot just assume that these also mean 'simplicity' just because Palamas & Scotus said God is 'non-composite'
- Mullins refers to the Islamic tradition & that attributionism is the majority view but this is misleading, Sunni Falāsifa, Sūfīs & Shī'a universally accept divine simplicity (essence = attributes) & even some Ash'aris & Maturidis do like Al-Jurjani, Al-Ījī et al.
- Mullins critiques of dds would not register against us because 1) We agree dds is incompatible with the Trinity, temporal creation & creation ex nihilo 2) We agree that the Universe necessarily proceeds from God, and therefore is eternal & modally necessary, otherwise God would be the subject of temporal accidents & would have unactualised potential, but it doesn't follow that God doesn't have will because God's will is not like creaturely modes of will (libertarian) that involve choosing between possible options, because he's absolutely necessary, God's will is necessitarian, & this is actually a perfection for God as unactualised potential would involve deficiency.
Overall I think Dr. Mullins won because Dr. Ortlund's idea of 'simplicity' is too ambiguous to be meaningful. But Mullins did not prove dds is false because there are other models of dds that negate his critiques.
But as a Christian I find creation ex nihilo wanting
@@asta3457 Creation ex nihilo is impossible unless you accept a temporal mutable God like Ryan and I find that idea highly problematic
@@armour.2. creation ex nihilo seems false due to the PMC. So All concrete objects that have an originating or sustaining efficient cause also have an originating or sustaining material cause. And so, If classical theism is true, the universe is a concrete object that has an originating or sustaining efficient cause without a material cause.
Vocal cord vibration is not made to describe the ultimate reality of God.
Is this a debate about Divine Simplicity and Absolute Divine Simplicity with both sides don't realizing that?
Are we so bold to think we know the answer to the question of simplicity that ultimately will not be answered until we acknowledge that at this time, God is beyond any earthly understanding?
I’m 1:34 in, and this is awesome. Thanks, Gavin and Ryan!!
I don’t even know what we’re debating 🤷🏻♂️
10:11 " reality exists within God"= Chrisentheism
Way over my head, but interesting to engage with!
22:29 "Let's set aside the choreography and the desire for wealth" and Ryan loses on the spot
Why?
Hour 1:24:14 Gavin Ortlund said: "if by monarchical Trinitarianism it means that God the Father causes the Son and the Spirit then I am not sure." This denial is not good because a denial of God causes the Son and the Spirit is a denial of monarchical Trinitarianism that all Church fathers profess. For context at Westminster Assembly when they wrote the Westminster Confession they had a debate on why Calvinists profess Trinity as covenantal union of three people each has Aseity. Luther condemned Calvin for Aseity of the Son as polytheism. In further expounding upon the mystery of the Holy Trinity, St Basil the Great taught that the Father is the point of origin άρχή, cause αἰτία, life-giving source πηγή, and root ρίζα of the Son and the Spirit. All Church fathers profess Tawhid only the Father alone has Aseity. The Father is God by identity. The Son and the Spirit are consubstantial by participation not by Aseity. This is why historic Christianity profess monarchical Trinitarianism not covenantal Trinitarianism ala James White. Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades are consubstantial. Three who's one what is polytheism.
Ryan Mullins view is basically what Byzantine Catholic, Franciscans, and Eastern Orthodox profess. Not a denial of divine simplicity because God has no internal composition but rather denial of absolute divine simplicity where actions are identical to essence. The reason why Muslims, Byzantine Catholics, Franciscans, and Eastern Orthodox rejected absolute divine simplicity is because it makes accidental attributes such as creator and judge as identical with the divine essence. Which necessitate God to create and to judge without freewill. Bl Duns Scotus and St Palamas avoided this by distinguishing essence and energies. Aristotle did distinguish this too with first actuality and second actuality. Jay Dyer has been nailing this accurately. St Aquinas himself cautiously distanced himself from absolute divine simplicity. I recommend Tikhon Pino's dissertation on St Gregory of Palamas essence and energies real distinction. If attributes are identical with essence then God by necessity is creator without freewill. How Byzantine Catholic resolved this? Pantokrator is God's essence. He is the Almighty God. Because He is free and all-powerful He can choose to create or not to create. Creator is not identical to His essence but rather a subset a member under the premise that He is all-powerful by essence. Here we distinguish all-powerful as identical with essence and make real distinction that creator is an accidental attribute not identical with essence but exercised by God freely as He chooses. I am a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic Church. I hope one day to be able to discuss this at length with Gavin Ortlund and other Protestants how St Basil distinguished essence and energies. Divine simplicity is compatible with Trinity. Ryan Mullins confused divine simplicity with absolute divine simplicity. It's the later that's rejected by Muslims, Byzantine Catholics, Franciscans, and Eastern Orthodox not divine simplicity which everyone profess. Including some Jews like Kabbalah who profess the ten Sephiroths
on his talks on idol killer he actually tries to appeal to unitarians like Clarke and Newton in his attack on divine simplicity. I'm not really sure why he feels the need to do what he's doing I think you're right that you are identifying some nuance in regards to simplicity that still falls under classical theism which Mullins still feels the need to attack as a whole and Gavin is correctly defending
@@bradleymarshall5489 while I affirm Monarchy of the Father (Nicene Trinitarianism) and the East's Essence / Energy distinction, I found myself still thoroughly enjoying the lively debate. I like both Gavin and Ryan immensely.
@@IdolKiller those things conflicting with divine simplicity though has been exaggerated in recent times. Scotus took seriously the essence energy distinction but still affirmed divine simplicity and falls under the classical theism umbrella (see Byzantine-Scotist for more). Recent Monarchia stuff I think is more rooted in a social Trinitarian trend somewhat started by Zizioulas. As Craig Carter has argued the patristic scholars (Lewis Ayres, John Behr, Robert Wilken, and Frances Young) don't seem to be in agreement with the social Trinitarianism Zizioulas was arguing for and affirm that divine simplicity is Orthodox/Nicene
Watching through the debate, it doesn't appear that Ryan Mullins actually denies simplicity, but that certain predications should be classified as "parts". So he affirms divine simplicity but must now show why a particular predication is not a "part", i.e. doesn't identify any composition in God.
God brings forth whatever he brings forth but he remains in the same place, his spirit does not move from this to that, but in man there are many spirits so there is the spirit of fear the spirit of anger the spirit of compassion the spirit of pride the spirit of arrogance the spirit of jealousy the spirit of envy because his spirit waivers from this to that, yet, when God brings forth compassion or brings forth wrath his spirit does not waiver it does not move from this to that it remains in the same place, so that all things are brought forth out of love, and he remains in the one spirit🎉 the one light, in this world all things are separated in god they are one, so when we are full of the Holy Spirit we do the same, we can bring forth compassion or we can bring forth rebuke and our heart remains in the same place, because it is full of light and out of the light comes the all, but it remains in the light, it is written, a spiritual man will judge all things but not be subject to man's judgement, meaning, the spiritual man judge's all things by the power of the truth but his spirit remains in the same place, the light, but a man of the world will judge by the power of his heart and in this, his spirit changes from this to that, it moves from one place to another, so when a spiritual man judges he judge's by the power of the truth therefore, it is the truth which rejects it is the truth which excepts, it is the truth which raises it is the truth that lowers, but his heart remains in love, but if a man of the world judges he judge's by his flesh so when he rejects he rejects in his heart, when he accepts he accepts in his heart, when he raises he raises in his heart, and when he lowers he lowers in his heart, his spirit waivers from this to that it moves from this to that, therefore, God is simplicity he cannot be divided, he is the one spirit that remains in the same place always, no matter what he does.
Interesting debate. One of the very few issues that I disagree with Gavin on. On Gavin's view, it seems to me that it's true that I move from becoming a child of wrath to a child of God, but God does not move from becoming "not my Father," to "my Father." There is no real change in relationship on God's part. This seems contrary to Scripture.
They deal with this in the middle of the discussion, there’s no problem with God having relational attributes external to himself like being our father or Lord. One does not change internally when one’s relationship to another changes.
This was already addressed when Gavin spoke of God’s extrinsic properties with relation to creation aka Cambridge properties.
@@TheRoark yes, the explanation is that the change from being not a Father, to being a Father, is grounded in the created being rather than in God. That is part of the problem though, because that is precisely the opposite of what the Bible teaches -- God does not ad extra become my Father because, on the basis of, as an effect of my being his son, but rather I become his son because he voluntarily adopts me. With the act of creation, the problem is worse -- for if God is a creator as a result of creation coming into being, then the relationship between creature and creator is reversed, such that God's being creator is posterior to the external fact of creation happening to exist.
External / ad extra accidents of God such as being a Father and being a Creator, therefore do not describe qualities of God, but the relationship God has by virtue of qualities in creation.
These are problems from incorrect reading of Scripture. God never stops loving you. God's relationship to you never changes. The only thing that changes is your relationship to God.
God loves everyone equally. You don't receive any special love for having "faith."
Could someone explain Divine Simplicity to me again? I'm having trouble understanding what it is and also like articulating it.
Get a good primer on Aquinas. But basically, God cannot be separate from anything at all, because a separation means that God is not all-powerful. For instance, if God is separate from love, who created love? How does God have properties that exist outside of himself?
DS says that everything that exists, exists in God. Including us. We aren't separate beings. We exist within God, and God is within us.
To put it in practical terms, God is infinite mind. Reality is an idea in God's mind.
I wonder if I should also check with Muslims, Jews, and Hindus to see if its okay to confess that God is Triune 🤔
One inconsistency that I saw from Ryan is that he blames Christians for taking from Plato and Aristotle but at the same time draws from other religions. Seems inconsistent.
Why do we (Christians) want to limit God to the human flaw of free will? What is free will but the option of being other than perfect? God is perfect & He is One, so there is only one perfection & it is God. How can He have the potential to be otherwise?
God’s perfection is self affirming, it holds Him to His own standard. So He denies Himself the freedom of willing anything that He could “later” change for a better will. But God is timeless, so there is no “later”.
Which denomination do you belong to?
@@arts-humanities The one with the arguments & interpretations of scripture that are the most consistent & convincing to me.
It was frustrating that Gavin kept accusing/cautioning against caricature. Aside from continuing to site scholars, Ryan pointed out that if we took Gavin’s definition of DS, then everyone would agree on the subject and there would be no need for this discussion!
It unfortunately prevented a more interesting discussion on the arguments for and against DS.
And I should add that I really appreciate Gavin on how he communicates and his theological triage, but this just isn’t his area of expertise. I would love for him to continue interacting with Dr. Mullins on neo-classical theism and timelessness, immutability, impassability, and DS.
Oh, it’s definitely a caricature to claim that divine simplicity requires that God has no contingent properties, disallows all conceptual distinctions in God, etc. That doesn’t even apply to all of the Thomists, let alone the entire Scottish and Palamite traditions!
@@TruthUnites "Broadly construed, ‘part’ covers not only spatial and temporal parts (if any) but also metaphysical ‘parts’ or ontological constituents. To say that God lacks metaphysical parts is to say inter alia that God is free of matter-form composition, potency-act composition, and existence-essence composition." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Being Lord or Creator seems to be a metaphysical part, no? But back to Dr. Mullins' point, why would Mullins, Craig, et al disagree with you if your definition was so general and not as strong. In other words, where do you and Ryan actually disagree (aside from definitionally)?
@@ericpowell8563 according to the definition you just gave; “Lord” is not a metaphysical part that would make God composite.
@@piracy22 I think "Creator" is a better example, at least conceptually. "Creator" is a contingent property, i.e. God had freedom whether to create or not, and as a contingent property it is, by definition, a metaphysical part.
When Gavin's not defending slavery, he's such a swell guy! 🤣😂🤮
He doesn't defend slavery, and nor does the Bible.
Christians since Constantine think that they are the new Judaism but one cannot alter all the foundational tenets of Judaism and trademark it as a new Judaism. If Jesus was a Rabbi he in no way would have taught the Trinity doctrine (One exp. of many I could give). It’s no surprise then that Christians cannot grasp divine attributes as fundamental reality.