The doctrine of divine simplicity is thoroughly biblical and central to our worship and devotion to the one, true God of the Bible. An important voice from the past, teaching the necessity of this doctrine to our faith and practice is Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706), a Dutch theologian whose Theoretical-Practical Theology (TPT going forward) is considered one of the most comprehensive treatments of Christian doctrine within the Reformed and post-Reformed era.
For Mastricht, the doctrine of divine simplicity “discloses to us the foundation of every perfection in God and of every imperfection in the creatures” (TPT, 2:148). How so? First, where do we see simplicity taught in Scripture? Mastricht lays out the orthodox scriptural arguments, summarized below.
God is Spirit (John 4:24), which is immaterial, thus simple. “God is Spirit from himself, and is called Spirit univocally” (TPT, 2:143). Scripture teaches that God is the absolute first being (Rev 1:8; 22:13; Rom 11:35–36), which means there was nothing prior to God who would have composed his various parts. Scripture teaches that God is immutable (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17; Ps 102:26–27; Heb 1:11–12). However, what is composed can be changed—mutated. And God is incorruptible (Rom 1:23; 1 Tim 1:17); a composite being can be corrupted. God cannot be changed into something better, therefore, the only option would be a change for the worse, which cannot happen in God. God is infinite, filling the heavens and the earth (Jer 23:23–24), higher than the heavens and cannot be contained (Job 11:8; 1 Kings 8:27). That which is composite is finite, since parts are always finite, being less than the whole. And finite parts cannot make an infinite whole. God is most perfect (Job 11:8; Matt 5:48). A being that is simple is more perfect than a composite because it has been composed of imperfect parts (TPT, 2:147–8).[1] Mastricht writes, “if there is composition in God, then he is not the light in which there is no darkness, not pure deity; for parts, as they are doubtless diverse, could not constitute such pure deity” (TPT, 2:144).
Next, Mastricht addresses objections to simplicity, two of which we will look at. Mastricht holds that God’s actions are not distinct from his essence. So, to the charge that his attributes imply composition in God, Mastricht writes, “they do not differ from his essence, except in our manner of conceiving them. Nor do they differ among themselves except in our reason, which finds the foundation of distinguishing them in the variety of their operations and in the relations that arise from them” (TPT, 2:148). The attributes,[2] which we must conceive as divine perfections, Mastricht notes when we see an apparent conflict between the perfections, such as exhibited between mercy and avenging justice, “it is this perfection of God which the creatures undergo in different ways” (TPT, 2:118). And the last objection, which is quite common, is that the three persons in one essence demonstrate a composition in God. Mastricht carefully with precision diffuses this charge, writing, the persons “do not argue for composition, because persons do not differ from essence in God, but rather in us and in our conception. Nor do the persons differ between themselves except through their modes of subsisting, which, because they are not things or beings, but only modes of beings, do not compose, but only distinguish” (TPT, 2:148, emphasis added). Mastricht exposes the common mistake when it comes to the Trinity and simplicity: making real distinctions between the persons as if they were beings instead of relations.
Now we look at how Mastricht moves from the theoretical to the practical.
As mentioned in the beginning, Mastricht sees simplicity as the foundation of every perfection in God and every imperfection in the creature. What does he mean by that? By God’s simplicity “he is pure and sheer deity, in which nothing is or can be that is less than perfect than infinite deity itself. Each and every one of his attributes—wisdom, goodness, grace, truth, holiness, righteousness, power, and so forth—are the very deity itself” (TPT, 2:149). Mastricht notes that we do not, as when talking about creatures, amplify these attributes when talking of God. A wise man is never wisdom itself, as the infinite wise God is. It is because of his simplicity he is called the light in which there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5). And from this foundation we may glorify God “as it is the root of his every perfection” (TPT, 2:149), depend wholly on God as our light (Ps 27:1); love itself (1 John 4:8, 16); our salvation (Ps 27:1); eternal life (1 John 5:20) as the fount and source of all life (Ps 36:10). And from all these things we may glorify God as most simple goodness (Matt 19:17) (TPT, 2:149). In seeing the Scriptures teach simplicity as the foundation of every perfection in God, it also reveals the foundation of every imperfection in creatures. Creatures are composite, thus “we see a perpetual mixture of good and evil” (TPT, 2:149–50). And because creatures are “only mutably good,” we should “never attribute too much to any sort of creatures nor depend on them as upon God, who is most simple, most pure perfection and goodness” (TPT, 2:150).
Mastricht makes a connection between God’s simplicity and our worship as one that should be simple rest upon God. In a remarkable passage, he writes,
because God is most simple, and he thus gives simply (James 1:5), that is, he gives himself, all that he is, and all his attributes, which, by simplicity, are inseparable—his wisdom, power, goodness, and grace—devoting them to us, let us also then with a simple and whole heart rest in God alone, and because of his integrity and uprightness (which coincides with his simplicity), let us promise him all that is ours (Ps 25:21). (TPT, 2:150)
More on simple worship, Mastricht writes, “Since God is simple, we should, in all our worship, devote ourselves with a simple heart (Matt 10:16; Eph 6:5), with simplicity of heart, as to Christ, with the simplicity and sincerity of God (2 Cor 1:12) , . . with one simple heart, which is carried in one straight line to the one God” (TPT, 2:150). Mastricht applies simplicity to the believer’s life as the foundation of all stability (James 1:8) in that our hearts must be simple, being cleansed from every mixture of depraved desires (2 Cor 7:1; 1 John 3:3) that conflict with the desires of the Spirit. Believers must fight against these desires, so that their hearts would be free of contamination (Gal 5:17), fervently praying to God that he would create and give us one, clean heart (Ezek 11:19; Ps 51:10). This is sought so that we have sincerity in our manner of life, living “with simplicity of heart, fearing God” (Col 3:22).
And lastly, Mastricht writes, divine simplicity teaches us contentment. The more simple something is, the more constant it will be; the more composite, the more dissoluble and corruptible it is. So, if our lives are heavily composed of “wealth, honors, and friends, the more mutable and the more one is distracted by objects, thus more liable to the cares and anxieties (Luke 10:41)” of the world, and the more one can lose. Therefore, we would accustom our souls to “godly self-sufficiency,” for God is most sufficient for all things (Gen 17:1) and is the one thing necessary in our lives (Luke 10:42) (TPT, 2:152).
In the brief sampling above, we see the important connection Mastricht establishes between the doctrine of divine simplicity and the Christian life. He provided clear biblical arguments for the support of this doctrine and then paced through some objections, which brought out the important distinctions and precise nuances maintaining the orthodox doctrine of God and the Trinity. And then he elucidated the doctrinal application in various measure, showing the practical importance of it in our Christian faith and piety, in turn showing the realness of this doctrine as compared to the “speculative” label many have given it.
~ Romans 11:36
[1] Theoretically speaking, Mastricht notes that simplicity excludes composition of 1) quantitative, corporeal parts; 2) essential parts, matter and form; 3) substance and accident, since accidents are imperfect compared to substances and accidents perfect their substances; 4) essence and existence, because existence is the act of his essence, not something different, thus implying composition; 5) genus and difference, since God as being above all being cannot be categorized (TPT, 2:144–45).
[2] Mastricht ascribes to the ways of causality, negation, and eminence as the manner of investigation of the divine attributes (TPT, 2:119).
Comments