Introduction to Divine Simplicity

Thanks for returning to this journey through theology proper. Today we consider the doctrine of God’s simplicity. To the uninitiated, it may seem odd or even demeaning to describe God as simple. After all, we typically use the term to indicate something that is easy to understand or do, or alternatively people who are not too quick on the uptake, e.g., “They’re simple folk.” In general, our use of the word simple indicates a lack of majesty, importance, difficulty, or intelligence. Perhaps this is why when I once asked my family, “Did you know God is simple?” they were either confused or openly objected.

Have no fear! I hope by the end of this article you will be able to understand and appreciate God’s simplicity, which is an historically important doctrine of the Church. Divine simplicity is the common confession of most Catholics and Protestants, medievals and moderns. While there have certainly been variations in how people understand the term and theologians who have rejected it, the principle of divine simplicity is embedded in the Reformation era confessions, and as such, it is important for us to explore.

What Do We Mean by Simplicity?

When theologians speak of God as simple, they intend a different meaning from the more everyday use of the term, and it can escape those who have not studied the doctrine of God in-depth. When we confess that God is simple, we are making a metaphysical statement—that is, a statement about the nature of God’s being. We deny that he is a composite being. He is not made up of this and that. There is nothing prior to or lesser than God out of which God is constructed. Consider the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

“God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them.”[1] (WCF 2.2)

The basic reason we confess that God is not a composite being is to stress the complete independence of God. See for instance this quote from the Puritan writer John Owen.

“Is he in dependence upon any thing without him? Is it not a most eminent contradiction to speak of God in dependence on any other thing? Must not that thing either be God or be reduced to some other without and besides him, who is God, as the causes of all our affections are? ‘God is in one mind, and who can turn him? what his soul desireth, that he doeth,’ Job 23:13.”[2]

This fact of God’s absolute existential independence is what theologians refer to as God’s aseity. (“self-existence”, coming from Latin a se)[3] In his Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, Richard A. Muller notes that simplicity does not require aseity, but aseity does require simplicity, for “to be self-existent or from one’s self should imply simplicity, given that a self-existent being, namely, one not originate from previously existing things, would not be a composite…”[4] In other words, a composite thing is created by bringing two previously existing things together, but if God is the original and first existence, then he could not have been composed of more than one thing.

Therefore, these two descriptions of God work hand-in-hand. It is because he has his existence from himself and nothing else that he must be simple, for no one constructed God, and he relies on nothing outside of himself to be what he is. Scripture confirms this principle for us in the very first verse when it says, “In the beginning God…” (Genesis 1:1) There is nothing prior to God. Before all existence, he exists. We are composite beings, but he is not: he is the one who composes and brings into existence, creating things from things. “In the beginning God created…” (Genesis 1:1)

Simplicity is Necessary for Immutability

God’s simplicity also links directly with his immutability: in fact, they necessitate one another. Philosophers in the tradition of Aristotle have often distinguished between the substance of a thing and its accidents. That language may be confusing, but what it means is this: the substance of a thing is what makes it what it is, or what is necessary for it to exist as the type of thing it is. For example, the substance of me as a human being includes the fact that I have a body and a soul, because those things are necessary aspects of my humanity. I cannot possibly be human without a body and a soul: they are essential to human existence. Even after we die, our bodies will eventually be resurrected.

The accidents of a thing, on the other hand, can be added or subtracted. They are not necessary to a thing’s basic existence, but they modify or change it. Again using myself as an example, I have brown hair, but recently my hair has become a bit more blonde. (I will claim this happened naturally as the result of sun exposure, but you can guess the truth.) Nevertheless, the fact that I once had brown hair and now have slightly less brown hair is accidental to my existence as a human. Even if I were to lose all my hair tomorrow (Perish the thought! I’m not a seminary professor!), it would not change my substance. It is only accidental to my humanity. I am still human, through and through, regardless of how much hair I have or what color it is.

If you understand this distinction between substance and accidents, perhaps you can see why theologians in the Reformed tradition have always insisted that God has no accidents. Accidents are changeable and transitory by nature. For God to have accidents as part of his being would mean that his being changes or mutates: he exists in a certain way one day, and in another way the next.[5] But we confess that God is immutable—that is, incapable of change or mutation in his being. The actions of God are certainly different in various situations, but he himself is no different.

• “God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM’; and He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you.”’” (Exodus 3:14)
• “For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” (Micah 3:6)
• “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” (James 1:17)

Simplicity also links in with other of God’s attributes, such as his infinity and eternity, but let this be enough by way of a basic introduction to the concept. Let us move on to consider the phrase that best summarizes God’s simplicity in the Reformed confessions: “There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, with out body, parts, or passions…” (WCF 2.1) Our understanding of God’s simplicity can be built upon those three principles: he is without body, parts, or passions.

Without Body

That the eternal God does not have a physical body has been the confession of all orthodox Christians throughout history. Though scripture uses anthropomorphic language to describe God, referring to him as if he had a body, this should be understood as a kind of analogy to aid human understanding. (Consult my previous article, “What Kind of Knowledge Can We Have about God?”) Jesus told the Samaritan woman that “God is spirit”. (John 4:24) Not that God has a spirit, but he is spirit, meaning he is not an embodied being.

This makes sense from the perspective of divine simplicity, for if God possessed both a body and soul like us, or perhaps a body in addition to his spiritual essence, then he would be a composite being: he would be made up of more than one thing. (Stay tuned for a later article on relations that will explain why the fact that God is Triune does not mean that he is a composite being.) Perhaps it seems a point of little contention now, given that all orthodox Christian denominations confess that God does not have a body, but this was a matter of greater contention in the early days when Christianity was competing with Greek and Roman mythologies for influence, among other things. Those religions believed that the gods had real bodies: they were composite beings. Christianity’s claim that God was spirit stood in stark contrast to popular notions of divinity.

The 17^th century Puritan writer Stephen Charnock provides one of the best explanations of how God’s lack of a body relates to his simplicity, aseity, and the like.

“If God had a body like a human body, and were compounded of body and soul, of substance and quality, he could not be the most perfect unity; he would be made up of distinct parts, and those of a distinct nature, as the members of a human body are. Where there is the greatest unity, there must be the greatest simplicity; but God is one. As he is free from any change, so he is void of any multitude (Deut. Vi. 4): ‘The Lord our God is one Lord.’”[6]

Charnock argues that God’s omnipresence, immutability, and role as Creator all depend upon him not having a body. He must be a pure essence without composition or parts, including bodily parts.

“If God had parts and bodily members as we have, or any composition, the essence of God would result from those parts, and those parts be supposed to be before God. For that which is a part, is before that whose part it is. As in artificial things you may conceive it: all the parts of a watch or clock are in time before that watch which is made by setting those parts together. In natural things you must suppose the members of a body framed before you can call it man; so that the parts of this body are before that which is constituted by them. We can conceive no other of God, if he were not a pure, entire, unmixed Spirit. If he had distinct parts, he would depend upon them; those parts would be before him; his essence would be the effect of those distinct parts, and so he would not be absolutely and entirely the first being; but he is so (Isa. xliv. 6): ‘I am the first, and I am the last.’ He is the first; nothing is before him. Whereas, if he had bodily parts, and those finite, it would follow, God is made up of those parts which are not God. And that which is not God, is in order of nature before that which is God. So that we see if God were not a Spirit he could not be independent.”[7]

This leads us naturally into our next consideration.

Without Parts

In addition to confessing that God is without a body, the Reformation era confessions also state that God is without parts.

• “there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts”[8] (Augsburg Confession, Article 1)
• “one only living and true God…without body, parts, or passions” (Westminster Confession of Faith and 1689 London Baptist Confession)

Historically, the fact that God is not composed of parts has meant not only that he has no body, but also that he has no accidents. Here I speak again in the technical, philosophical sense described earlier. There is nothing added to God’s being or taken away: he is pure, unchanging existence. To take away something from God—say, his holiness—would actually mean taking away God himself. He does not exist except as he is, and all that he is is what he is. As theologians have often proclaimed, “All that is in God is God,” or alternatively, “Nothing is in God, but God.”

Not tracking with me? That is understandable, for there is no other being like God. Everything else has been brought into existence. Nothing else exists purely and necessarily in the way God does. His essence cannot be truly comprehended by any but himself. That is why we struggle to express these concepts with our words: how can the finite give expression to the infinite?

Consider this quote from the Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck, which makes a valiant attempt to explain that which is ultimately incomprehensible.

“If God is composed of parts, like a body, or composed of genus (class) and differentiae (attributes of differing species belonging to the same genus), substance and accidents, matter and form, potentiality and actuality, essence and existence, then his perfection, oneness, independence, and immutability cannot be maintained. On that basis he is not the highest love, for then there is in him a subject who loves—which is one thing—as well as a love by which he loves—which is another. The same dualism would apply to all the other attributes. In that case God is not the One ‘than whom nothing better can be thought.’ Instead, God is uniquely his own, having nothing above him. Accordingly, he is completely identical with the attributes of wisdom, grace, and love, and so on. He is absolutely perfect, the One ‘than whom nothing higher can be thought.’”[9]

That’s a dense text, but what Bavinck means is that in order to maintain God’s essential unity, we must confess that he is without parts. You can see how Bavinck transitions into a statement that God’s attributes are just who he is: “he is completely identical with the attributes of wisdom, grace, and love, and so on.” How is it possible that God is identical with his love, you ask? It certainly sounds very odd to us, but this is actually a scriptural truth. The Apostle John taught that “God is love.” Not simply that God grants love or feels love, but that he is love. All love of human beings is merely an analogical expression of the love that is God. His being provides the definition of love. It is not something separate from him. It is not something that rises and falls in him. It is simply who he is. Louis Berkhof agreed with Bavinck on this point.

“From the simplicity of God it follows that God and His attributes are one. The attributes cannot be considered as so many parts that enter into the composition of God, for God is not, like men, composed of different parts. Neither can they be regarded as something added to the Being of God, though the name, derived from ad and tribuere, might seem to point in that direction, for no addition was ever made to the Being of God, who is eternally perfect. It is commonly said in theology that God’s attributes are God Himself, as He has revealed Himself to us.”[10]

Look for a future article examining the possible distinctions between God’s attributes. For now, let’s move on to our final phrase to consider.

Without Passions

As strange as it may seem to the modern person that God is simple and without parts, it may be stranger still to hear that he has no passions. In our age, passion is usually considered a virtue. It is associated with love, courage, and positive drive. However, that is not what passion meant to our forebears. Historically, the term “passions” was used by Reformed scholars somewhat interchangeably with “affections”, and the implication was that the being that possessed them was passive or affected. Both are situations where the being is acted on by something else in such a way that it produces a change in the being. Consider Muller’s description of how the terms were used in the realm of theology proper among Protestants during and just after the Reformation period.

“The terminology is itself interesting: the language of affections and passions is typically a language indicating the changeableness of a living being, specifically of the soul, in its sentiments or dispositions. Strictly, an affection or passion is an acquired quality. An affection is usually favorable or positive, whereas a passion is usually negative. Thus, an affection is a disposition of nature or an inclination of the will toward an object and, as such, it can indicate either a transient disposition (in contrast to a habitus) that is caused by an external object or a permanent disposition or virtue. It is the latter sense of the term, as a permanent disposition or virtue, that the orthodox accept. A passion, most strictly, is a form of suffering and would not have the connotation of a permanent disposition and certainly not of a disposition positively directed toward an object. Passions, moreover, indicate a declension from an original or natural condition that is at variance with the fundamental inclination of the individual—and, therefore, a loss of power or self-control.”[11]

The key phrase in that rather complicated explanation is, I believe, the last one: “a loss of power or self-control”. That is how we should think about passions in God, and it is the reason we must deny them. God certainly does have what some have historically called a “habitude” or “disposition”. He not only really feels loving and just: he is love and justice. That distinction is actually the reason that God’s affections or emotions, such as they are, cannot be directly compared with ours. They do not wax and wane, but are constantly true of him.

I like to think about passions according to the following imperfect metaphor. If you see an ant crawling across your desk and want it gone, you will smash it with your hand. Although in theory the ant’s body will provide some resistance to you, in reality you will feel almost nothing from it. For all intents and purposes, the ant will have no physical effect on you. Now, let’s say that you attempt to pound the ant into the desk, but it pushes back. You end up arm wrestling, with both you and the ant affecting each other evenly. Perhaps the ant has enough power to overcome you and throw you across the room. Were either of these things to happen, you would be affected. Something about you would change as a result of the ant’s actions.

Let’s apply this imperfect metaphor to our relationship with God. He is infinitely greater in power than we are, while we cannot even muster the strength of an ant against him. We are as nothing: a complete vacuum without any air resistance. Whatever happens between God and us and however he may be disposed, it is in no way brought about by our actions. This does not mean that our experience of God never changes in response to his actions in space-time. It does not mean that God cannot decree to act within time in sequence with things we do, such as when he answers prayer. The point is not that we have no relationship with God, but that he is so completely sovereign, so unchanging, and so utterly perfect in all his willing and actions, that there is simply nothing we can do to force a change in his attributes or disposition toward us. (A few Reformed theologians have posited that God sovereignly chooses to allow himself to be affected by us, but this is not the mainstream view.)

If we are in unrepentant sin, we experience God’s wrath, but that does not mean that he suddenly became wrathful. He is always wrathful against sin, because he is forever just. It is one of his eternal attributes arising from his unchanging being. The same is true of God’s love. If we are in Christ, he loved us before the foundation of the world, and that love remains constant into our eternal state. Neither do we by our good actions convince God to grant us grace, but he has eternally ordained those to whom grace is given. Our experience does change in space-time, even as we change. The eternal one acts at specific points in time, but that does not mean he truly has passions or is affected by us. A sequence of events that occurs in space-time does not imply a sequence of changes in the eternal God. (More to come in an article on God’s eternity.)

The Apostle Paul wrote that God “chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself…” (Ephesians 1:4-5) It is because this love is constant, unaffected, and unchanging that Paul can make the following promise.

“For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38)

Unlike the love of God, passions necessarily mean change. An affected God (in the sense defined earlier by Muller) is, I think, a less reliable God and one that could cause us considerable anxiety. “Affections are necessarily accompanied with change and mutability,” John Owen wrote in his famous response to the Socinian, John Biddle. “Yea he who is affected properly, is really changed: yea there is no more unworthy change or alteration, than that which is accompanied with passion, as is the change that is wrought by the affections ascribed to God.”[12] Owen furthermore concluded that, “To ascribe affections properly to God is to make him weak, imperfect, dependent, changeable, and impotent.”[13]

So there you have it: a whirlwind tour through the doctrine of divine simplicity and some related concepts. It is because God is simple that Christ could say, “I and the Father are one,” (John 10:30) and the ancients could declare, “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4) The simplicity of God is a scriptural truth that the Church confesses.

“We all believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths that there is a single and simple spiritual being, whom we call God—eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, unchangeable, infinite, almighty; completely wise, just, and good, and the overflowing source of all good.”[14] (Belgic Confession, Article 1)

I would like to thank Dr. Samuel Renihan for reviewing this article for me prior to publication.

All scripture quotations are from The New American Standard Bible, copyright The Lockman Foundation.

[1] The official version of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is used here. https://www.opc.org/CF_old/WCF_frames.html

[2] Owen, John. The Works of John Owen, Vol. 12, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1862), 110.

[3] Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, Second edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 41.

[4] Muller, Dictionary, 42.

[5] Different schools of philosophy and scholars in different eras have used the terms “substance”, “essence”, “existence”, and “being” with varying definitions. Some speak of “substance and accidents” while others speak of “essence and accidents”. For some, “existence” and “being” are the same thing, while others would differentiate between the two. I have attempted to use terms here that will be best understood by the layperson, while maintaining a certain degree of technicality. I apologize to any more astute readers who object to my nomenclature.

[6] Charnock, Stephen. The Existence and Attributes of God, Vintage Puritan Series, Kindle edition (Louisville, KY: GLH Publishing, year?), location 4097.

[7] Charnock, 4139-52.

[8] The English translation here is taken from the online Book of Concord. http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php

[9] Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2 – God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 176.

[10] Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology (Escondido, CA: Ephesians Four Group, 2017), 25.

[11] Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 3 – The Divine Essence and Attributes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 553.

[12] Owen, 110.

[13] Owen, 110.

[14] The English translation of the Christian Reformed Church of North America is used here. https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic-confession