Concerning the Attributes of God

[makesends]

Within any good list of God's attributes, there are a few that imply something astounding; as some put it: God is his Attributes.

Omnipotence, Aseity, Simplicity of God and Impassibility, and even Immanence imply this, though, particularly, Simplicity does.

Simplicity of God is defined/stated various ways. And it is important, as with all his true attributes, that we remember that these are things we find said or implied, or sometimes hinted at in different ways, IN SCRIPTURE.

(And not to say that good mental effort of philosophers is invalid, but it is important that we remember that when we draw any doctrine from scripture (or from reason) it is OUR way of putting things for the sake of our ignorant, weak and self-important minds. When we try to search a thing out, the fact that some notion 'checks all the boxes' doesn't mean the doctrine we derive is sound. Those are our boxes.)​

The human mind boggles at the immensity of God's mind. "HOW!?"—we ask, "can he invent all this, cause it to exist and perpetuate its existence, remaining aware of and maintaining the existence of every detail???" It amazes us that we need not beg his pardon for interrupting his thoughts and activities. "Why would he even notice us?" —we find ourselves wondering. Well, on the surface, the SIMPLICITY OF GOD seems to say just the opposite about him, but truth is, it does not disagree at all with his complexity.

This post is not intended to be a complete treatment of the attribute, 'Simplicity of God'. I only mean to point out one thing implied or included in a good definition of this attribute —This: That God is in full possession of all his attributes at all points, or as we humans would say, "all the time". There is no attribute that holds another at bay or counters it. The fact WE see, for example, mercy triumphing over justice, does not imply that justice is at all lessened by his loving mercy.

All of his attributes are what he is. He does not change. And there is another interesting, but logically available conclusion from the Simplicity of God, that God's attributes each are part of what define the rest of them.

Again, remember that his attributes are one whole; it is WE who must consider them separately in attempting to fit our understanding to God. It is WE who need handles on things we carry. Our understanding of each attribute, and of the whole of them, is necessarily at best stunted. All creation waits in eager anticipation for the day when we see him as he IS. (Yes, I know that isn't the words of that verse, but that day is also when the sons of God are revealed, and the day when we will 'begin' to know him as we are known.) That day we will see his simplicity and immensity.

 

[fastfredy0]

If God was composed of parts he would not be "eternal", and absolutely the first Being, since the composing parts would, at least, co-exist with him; besides, the composing parts, in our conception of them, would be prior to the compositum; as the body and soul of man, of which he is composed, are prior to his being a man: and, besides, there must be a composer, who puts the parts together, and therefore must be before what is composed of them: all which is inconsistent with the eternity of God: nor would he be "infinite" and "immense"; for either these parts are finite, or infinite; if finite, they can never compose an infinite Being; and if infinite, there must be more infinities than one, which implies a contradiction: nor would he be "independent"; for what is composed of parts, depends upon those parts, and the union of them, by which it is preserved: nor would he be "immutable", unalterable, and immortal; since what consists of parts, and depends upon the union of them, is liable to alteration, and to be resolved into those parts again, and so be dissolved and come to destruction. In short, he would not be the most perfect of Beings; for as the more spiritual a being is, the more perfect it is; and so it is, the more simple and uncompounded it is: as even all things in nature are more noble, and more pure, the more free they are from composition and mixture. John Gill – Body of Doctrinal Divinity

Aside: I have troubles assimilating this attribute

 

[makesends]

If God was composed of parts he would not be "eternal", and absolutely the first Being, since the composing parts would, at least, co-exist with him; besides, the composing parts, in our conception of them, would be prior to the compositum; as the body and soul of man, of which he is composed, are prior to his being a man: and, besides, there must be a composer, who puts the parts together, and therefore must be before what is composed of them: all which is inconsistent with the eternity of God: nor would he be "infinite" and "immense"; for either these parts are finite, or infinite; if finite, they can never compose an infinite Being; and if infinite, there must be more infinities than one, which implies a contradiction: nor would he be "independent"; for what is composed of parts, depends upon those parts, and the union of them, by which it is preserved: nor would he be "immutable", unalterable, and immortal; since what consists of parts, and depends upon the union of them, is liable to alteration, and to be resolved into those parts again, and so be dissolved and come to destruction. In short, he would not be the most perfect of Beings; for as the more spiritual a being is, the more perfect it is; and so it is, the more simple and uncompounded it is: as even all things in nature are more noble, and more pure, the more free they are from composition and mixture. John Gill – Body of Doctrinal Divinity

Aside: I have troubles assimilating this attribute

I agree with Gill there. I hope you didn't think me to say that God is composed of his attributes.

You say you have troubles assimilating which attribute —simplicity? What do you mean by assimilating —understanding?

 

[Arial]

If God was composed of parts he would not be "eternal", and absolutely the first Being, since the composing parts would, at least, co-exist with him; besides, the composing parts, in our conception of them, would be prior to the compositum; as the body and soul of man, of which he is composed, are prior to his being a man: and, besides, there must be a composer, who puts the parts together, and therefore must be before what is composed of them: all which is inconsistent with the eternity of God: nor would he be "infinite" and "immense"; for either these parts are finite, or infinite; if finite, they can never compose an infinite Being; and if infinite, there must be more infinities than one, which implies a contradiction: nor would he be "independent"; for what is composed of parts, depends upon those parts, and the union of them, by which it is preserved: nor would he be "immutable", unalterable, and immortal; since what consists of parts, and depends upon the union of them, is liable to alteration, and to be resolved into those parts again, and so be dissolved and come to destruction. In short, he would not be the most perfect of Beings; for as the more spiritual a being is, the more perfect it is; and so it is, the more simple and uncompounded it is: as even all things in nature are more noble, and more pure, the more free they are from composition and mixture. John Gill – Body of Doctrinal Divinity

Aside: I have troubles assimilating this attribute

It is easy to even get lost in what Gill wrote. Imagine if one heard it just spoken in a lecture!I can see much head scratching and inward "Huhs?Could you repeat that more slowly?" It is profound and one must slow down to stay on the trail. Or at least that is the case with me! So I amend my statement "For me it is easy to get lost----"

 

[Arial]

I agree with Gill there. I hope you didn't think me to say that God is composed of his attributes.

You say you have troubles assimilating which attribute —simplicity? What do you mean by assimilating —understanding?

For me it would be holding it consistently in my mind on all occasions and all discussions on the attributes in a separate context. I.e. speakin of in any single attribute.

For instance it is difficult (and so often is avoided) to speak of God's love and as him being love, when we speak of his judgement. The two are separated. It is common in theology or interpretation ( in the modern church and Arminianism in particular)of the scriptures to focus on God as love and then define love for him. Leaving out all the judgment we see in the OT and the promise of a future judgement and the horror of it. The unity of love and judgement is missed. But when it comes to God, you can't have one without the other.

 

[makesends]

It is easy to even get lost in what Gill wrote. Imagine if one heard it just spoken in a lecture!I can see much head scratching and inward "Huhs?Could you repeat that more slowly?" It is profound and one must slow down to stay on the trail. Or at least that is the case with me! So I amend my statement "For me it is easy to get lost----"

And I have the problem of 24 hrs a day forming words and sentences in my head, while trying to listen! When I read Gill saying whatever he says, and I think, "well, not exactly", and my brain runs off into a better way to say it, or into a refutation, it is only after I realize that where my mind and my eyes are going is two different paths, that I realize I have stopped following his train of thought. Very amusing, that! (Not)

And I don't agree with his every bit of reasoning there, but I do agree with his conclusion at which he arrives by way of his reasoning.

 

[makesends]

For me it would be holding it consistently in my mind on all occasions and all discussions on the attributes in a separate context. I.e. speakin of in any single attribute.

For instance it is difficult (and so often is avoided) to speak of God's love and as him being love, when we speak of his judgement. The two are separated. It is common in theology or interpretation ( in the modern church and Arminianism in particular)of the scriptures to focus on God as love and then define love for him. Leaving out all the judgment we see in the OT and the promise of a future judgement and the horror of it. The unity of love and judgement is missed. But when it comes to God, you can't have one without the other.

Boy! Isn't that the truth!

I just finished dancing on the skeleton of a post on another site, hoping to break as many bones as I can do without getting banned, when someone discarded my whole pretext concerning what God does/does not do because I referred to the Old Testament to make my point!

 

[fastfredy0]

You say you have troubles assimilating which attribute —simplicity? What do you mean by assimilating —understanding?

I get the Simplicity means God is not made up of parts. I don't understand the application writers make when talking about God's simplicity. I don't recall an example.
I know God's simplicity is not found in the bible and that some pundits deny the idea.

 

[makesends]

I get the Simplicity means God is not made up of parts. I don't understand the application writers make when talking about God's simplicity. I don't recall an example.
I know God's simplicity is not found in the bible and that some pundits deny the idea.

It is found in the Bible, but not stated as "simplicity". Even monotheism implies it. For example: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.."

Here is a very short description of the Simplicity of God, that may help you think of Biblical references. Theological Primer: The Simplicity of God

I'm thinking the notions that some have denying the Simplicity of God are usually the same reason you are having trouble with it. The descriptions often seem to deny other attributes that we are confident about.

If, for example, we try to 'figure God out' or describe God, it is never simple. I like to think of this, concerning his simplicity. God is infinite in all his ways. The easiest way to understand that is his simplicity.

When God created, we see in the Genesis account, 6 basic statements. A sequence. But even if we were to divide any one of them into its component parts it would take reams of data to begin to describe what he did. Yet, he spoke it into existence. I like to think he, being outside time, spoke it all —to include the finished product— into existence with a word. The fact we don't know the meaning of that word is irrelevant. That word encompasses all fact. That is one way to put what I mean by simplicity. To God, the details are the whole thing.

But again, bear in mind, 'simplicity', like the others, is OUR designation for a concept.

 

[Arial]

It is found in the Bible, but not stated as "simplicity". Even monotheism implies it. For example: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.."

Here is a very short description of the Simplicity of God, that may help you think of Biblical references. Theological Primer: The Simplicity of God

I'm thinking the notions that some have denying the Simplicity of God are usually the same reason you are having trouble with it. The descriptions often seem to deny other attributes that we are confident about.

If, for example, we try to 'figure God out' or describe God, it is never simple. I like to think of this, concerning his simplicity. God is infinite in all his ways. The easiest way to understand that is his simplicity.

When God created, we see in the Genesis account, 6 basic statements. A sequence. But even if we were to divide any one of them into its component parts it would take reams of data to begin to describe what he did. Yet, he spoke it into existence. I like to think he, being outside time, spoke it all —to include the finished product— into existence with a word. The fact we don't know the meaning of that word is irrelevant. That word encompasses all fact. That is one way to put what I mean by simplicity. To God, the details are the whole thing.

But again, bear in mind, 'simplicity', like the others, is OUR designation for a concept.

I guess that is why when Moses asked what God's name was, who shall I say sent me, God answered "Tell them I AM has sent you." Why Jesus is not just righteous, but is righteousness, is life, is truth. Why justice must be satisfied before mercy can be given for redemption.

 

[fastfredy0]

It [God's simplicity] is found in the Bible, but not stated as "simplicity". Even monotheism implies it. For example: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.."

The verse you quote come up wanting in my opinion as a proof of God's simplicity.

What is divine simplicity? | GotQuestions.org speaks about the subject, finds it controversial, has no verses to support the claim and seems to give yet another definition I had not heard of.

Again, the subject confuses me. If you got it figured out that you have my admiration. I've about given up understanding it.

 

[makesends]

The verse you quote come up wanting in my opinion as a proof of God's simplicity.

What is divine simplicity? | GotQuestions.org speaks about the subject, finds it controversial, has no verses to support the claim and seems to give yet another definition I had not heard of.

Again, the subject confuses me. If you got it figured out that you have my admiration. I've about given up understanding it.

Lolol. When I first heard it stated, it seemed a secular statement, if I remember, but even then, I got a feel of, "OH YES!" because it fits (besides the misstatements) something I believe that I didn't know how to put in words. God is infinite. There is nothing complicated for him. He thought of what would delight him, to share his love and to bring him glory, and he spoke it into being. Done. Our view is irrelevant to his simplicity.

I don't know if the link I gave you would help you or not. I mentioned it because it is simple. Theological Primer: The Simplicity of God

 

[Mr GLee]

I get the Simplicity means God is not made up of parts. I don't understand the application writers make when talking about God's simplicity. I don't recall an example.
I know God's simplicity is not found in the bible and that some pundits deny the idea.

I would offer.

Its easy for Him if we search out the spiritual understanding hid in parables. Which without He spoke not .

He can make a rock cry out the good news (gospel) .Or glorify a bush .

He can use a unbeliever (no faith) to preach his word .Like with a Ass used to represent the unredeemed . And if not redeemed with a lamb in that parable break its neck . To be used in another parable .

Christ putting his words in the mouth of the Ass as a apostle sent with prohecy its powerful word silenced the false apostle Balaam.

Numbers 22:28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

The many in Mathew 7 as those who did wonderful works preached the gospel but were not sent. Revealing themselves as false prophets (oral tradition) sent as false apostles .You could say like Balaam as one of the many in Mathew 7 .

God is not served with the hands as a will of dying mankind .As if he needed something from the clay. . Taking away the understanding or faith of the Potter . . ..turning things upside down. . earthly inspired.