Classical Theism: Trinity and Simplicity Roundtable

A live discussion about what is the proper way to think about the Trinity and Divine Simplicity between Tom McCall, Oliver Crisp, Scott Williams, and Tim Pawl. What has the Great Tradition thought about these doctrines? Are there only certain formulations allowed? Can we reject actus purus, the identity thesis for DDS, or affirm various "Social" Trinitarian models and remain within the bounds of the ecumenical creeds?

[@JohnDeRosa1990]

Very excited for this! Thanks, Jordan, for bringing this together. I'm glad to see Tim Pawl on the panel.

[@chrisctlr]

Can someone confirm if "Does God Change?" by Thomas Weinandy is a good book? I've had it on my shelf for quite some time now, but haven't quite busted it out yet.

[@DordtyHylemorph]

If you guys do another one of these, you should also get Ryan Hurd.

[@thelondonlyceum]

Ryan is definitely on our list for the future. In fact, I (Jordan) actually had him give a lecture to some MA students I'm teaching earlier today!

[@chrisctlr]

Can someone explain to me how I can actually find/access the article Scott mentioned, The Flexibility of Divine Simplicity by Mark Spencer... when I googled it, it brought up a lot of links, but none of them were the whole article--just the abstract and a snippet.

[@thelondonlyceum]

Mark has it available on his academia page: www.academia.edu/26922293/The_Flexibility_of_Divine_Simplicity_Aquinas_Scotus_Palamas_International_Philosophical_Quarterly_57_2_July_2017_123_139

[@chrisctlr]

@@thelondonlyceum Thanks! I actually stumbled upon that one, but the questions in the beginning threw me off. Thought I was going to need an account or something. But I got it now, thanks!

[@AdamRTNewman]

At one point, people were using a technical term, which sounded like “deisei knowledge”, but I don’t know what the correct spelling of the term is. I don’t know if someone might be able to help me out there. And is the question of “deisei knowledge” (however it should be correctly spelt) one where either side can be within the bounds of classical theism? Something else I’m also wondering about: one of the panelists suggested that we can make sense of divine simplicity with Trinity and incarnation by saying that the way simplicity applies to a divine person is that such person *has a nature which is simple*, even when beside this, there’s also personal distinctive, and in the case of the Son, a human nature. However, something I’ve heard of divine simplicity is that God is *identical to* the divine attributes and the divine attributes are identical to each other. I’m wondering how that would translate into the application of divine simplicity to divine persons.

[@AdamRTNewman]

(Sorry, the way KZbin rendered the conversion of asterisks to bold text is not in the manner I intended.)

[@thelondonlyceum]

Hey Adam! Thanks for watching. The technical term is de se knowledge. It indeed can become quite complex. A good place to start with some of this is this SEP article: plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop-attitude-reports/dere.html As far as your second question, that's a matter of considerable debate! :) Maybe we can organize something just on the identity thesis.

[@thelondonlyceum]

If you become very interested in tracking the knowledge question down, its probably good to read this Lewis essay as well: www.jstor.org/stable/2184843

[@AdamRTNewman]

@@thelondonlyceum Thanks for the replies. God bless.

[@CaseyCovenant]

Check the audio! No sound!

[@thelondonlyceum]

I think you mustve watched while youtube was approving the upload. Works for me. Can you double check again?

[@CaseyCovenant]

@@thelondonlyceum Works now!

[@JJHOMEY14]

Some good Bible verses that I think are helpful to remember within the context of this debate. :) See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. Col 2:8 O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” - 1 Tim 6:20 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. - 1 Corinthians 2:13 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, - 1 Corinthians 1:22 It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out. - Prov. 25:2 Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, - Col 3:12 Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. - 1 Peter 3:9

[@jesusdeity2010]

Trinity. God the Father is Spirit and manifested fully in Christ "the Son". EPIC!! Jesus healed all, raised the dead casted out demons, controlled nature and said: "If you see Me, you see the Father. The Father and I are one. You will understand that the Father is IN Me and I am in you". I understand. Hence the divine healing miracles and casting out of demons i experience. Just as His first disciples experienced. For you to understand too.

[@hudsontd7778]

Classical Theism- Divine Simplicity- contradict clear scripture of the Incarnation, so we should reject Greek philosophy and Trust the Bible. Great discussion guys

[@iteadthomam]

We should reject your composite and contingent sky daddy who is no different than a human and embrace the true God of Classical Theism, Glory to him, forever and ever.

[@AdamRTNewman]

​@@iteadthomam If I can clarify something please, where you used the word "him", is this singular personal pronoun intended to incorporate all three persons of the Trinity, and furthermore in respect of the Son, incorporate Him in both of His natures?

[@claudiozanella256]

As regards the doctrine of the trinity Jesus is very clear: He states to be ALWAYS in a PERMANENT EXTREMELY CLOSE UNION WITH THE FATHER "I am in the Father and the Father is in me". PERIOD! This is REITERATED by Jesus FOUR GOSPELS OF TIMES. You can see from Jesus' statements that He is ONLY WITH THE FATHER, this is even clearly SPECIFIED more times by Him (" I am not ALONE because..."). In other words JESUS - who is "WELL INFORMED" on this matter - IS NOT TRINITARIAN! We must trust Him! The trinity doctrine comes from a poor understanding of the four gospels: it isn't understood that they disclose three divine NAMES, not three divine PERSONS! This means that those THREE names must map onto TWO divine persons. Indeed 1. God and 2. the Spirit of God (God who is a spirit) are just TWO different PERSPECTIVES of the same ONE almighty God.

[@AdamRTNewman]

You're saying that union nullifies personal distinction??

[@claudiozanella256]

@@AdamRTNewman The bishops of the council of Constantinople (381 AD) made a big blunder. The "Spirit of God" (Holy Spirit) is just an EXTENSION of the almighty God. This means that in "God" and "Spirit of God" there exists ONLY ONE God's MIND! For ex. in this verse the "spirit of Elias" is of course NOT a person DISTINCT from Elias! "He shall go in the SPIRIT and POWER of Elias to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children..." In a similar way, the "Spirit of God" (Holy Spirit) is not a Person DISTINCT from "God". "The Holy SPIRIT shall come upon thee, and the POWER of the HIGHEST shall overshadow thee so...". In other words the Holy Spirit is the EXTENSION of God who is responsible for Mary's pregnancy. No " Lord who gives life" - who is supposed to be almighty, but uses the "power of the Highest" instead - exists. Thus, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the same as blasphemy against the Father. Since A. "God" and B. the "Spirit of God" share the same ONE God's mind, of course Jesus can only have ONE relationship with the Father (see the gospels). I.e. it's impossible for Jesus to have TWO relationships, only the Father is on the other side. As reiterated many times by Jesus, He is only with the Father ("I am not ALONE because the Father is with me") i.e. just Father and Son, no third divine person exists.

[@AdamRTNewman]

@@claudiozanella256 Thanks for the clarification. But how do you square your view with John 16:13?

[@claudiozanella256]

@@AdamRTNewman Do you maintain that the Comforter is a third divine PERSON? Well the Comforter is NOT with Jesus, either on Earth or in heaven, see the relevant verses in the Gospels. According to the trinity doctrine Jesus is supposed to state to be ALWAYS with the Comforter and with the Father, but on the contrary He reiterates many times to be ONLY with the Father. Further, the Comforter should be almighty but the opposite is true: he does not know the future ("...the Father ONLY knows.") and he doesn't even talk on his own, he just REPEATS !! "...because He will NOT SPEAK ON HIS OWN, but...". REPEATING, something which is far away from the power of an almighty divine PERSON. If the Comforter is the Holy Spirit (not sure) then he is just an EXTENSION of God and repeats his words, not a third person. The Father "giving someone the spirit" means that the Father's extension will be in that person. There is no doubt that no third divine person exists: Jesus has only ONE relationship with the Father.

[@AdamRTNewman]

@@claudiozanella256 In John 12:49, Jesus says that His words are not His own, but that He speaks as the Father tells Him. Nevertheless, I still believe that Jesus is a divine person. And I believe similarly regarding the Holy Spirit. When Jesus speaks so often of His relationship with the Father, this doesn’t rule out that He could be in relationship with another divine person as well. In my view, the Trinity is not three Identical Triplets, such that wherever you see the relationship between two members discussed, you should also see the relationship with the third discussed as well. It is within reason that many places in scripture should discuss the relationship between the Father and the Son. But we can still also believe in a Spirit of the Father and the Son, who even though He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, nevertheless also has the characteristics of distinct personhood from the Father and the Son. Another thing to say: I don’t believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different persons from each other to an absolute full extent. Rather, I think it’s right to maintain a conception of God as someone who *personally uniquely* exists as the core of the entire realm of reality. Nevertheless He exists in a kind of threefold whereby the three members have genuine qualities of distinct personhood, in such a real way that we can speak of them as distinct persons, yet not cutting so deep as to negate the fundamental conception of God as Him who uniquely exists as the core of the entire realm of reality. Just to say, I don’t claim all my views here to be in step with classical theism. I’m willing to question classical theism (which goes beyond merely the most basic Trinitarian tenets). Also, I’m responding on the spot here, so I’m not presuming the style of my response to be of highest quality. Hopefully there’s some sense in what I’ve said.