One of the hot topics among Reformed theologians over the past couple of years has been the subject of Divine Simplicity. Simplicity, in its…well…simplest form posits that God is not composed of parts. That is to say, God’s love is not somehow distinct from His justice, mercy, aseity, omniscience, and so forth. One could not isolate just the sovereignty of God in such a way as to separate it from His infinity, goodness, and all the rest. The famous distillations of simplicity are “All that is in God is God,” or “God is his attributes.” Westminster’s phrasing is “…without body, parts, or passions…” (WCF 2.1). Of course, Westminster is also addressing God as being spirit and impassible in that phrase, but we still see the language of “without parts.”
Now, people hearing about simplicity for the first time often have a negative reaction. Seeing as we can list God’s attributes, simplicity seems to deny that these distinctions have any real meaning. It butts against people’s sensibilities and seems to make God into a sort of abstract, nebulous force.
In an attempt to make the doctrine more understandable to the average person, I’d like to present an implication of denying simplicity. By doing so, hopefully, it makes the concept more intuitive, and one that people first interacting with more academic and formal terminology will have an easier time digesting.
We all (hopefully) affirm that God is perfect in each of His attributes. God’s love is perfect love, God’s knowledge is perfect knowledge, etc. Therefore, if we deny simplicity, we imply that there can be such a thing as perfect love that is not identical with God himself. Saying that a part of God is not identical with God means that, theoretically, perfect knowledge could exist without it being God. In denying simplicity, the implication is that there could be a being with omnipotence that is not God.
Simplicity should make complete sense for those who affirm the creator/creature distinction. Since God is perfect in all of His attributes, perfect love, perfect power, perfect knowledge, perfect [insert attribute here] are all things that belong on the “creator” side. And insofar as no creature can attain perfection in any attribute, we can treat perfection in any attribute as being identical with the creator.
One common objection to simplicity is that love is not identical with power, for example. Simplicity, objectors say, treats these attributes as if they are identical. In response to that, we should recall that often our language for God is accommodated language. We speak of God’s mercy, justice, and love as if they are separate things, but really God’s character manifests itself as justice for the unbeliever and mercy towards the believer. They are different experiences of the same God.
Mark Jones, in God Is, embraces the objection wholeheartedly:
[W]hen we speak of his attributes, we must keep in mind that because his essence remains undivided, his goodness is his power. Or, God’s love is his power is his eternity is his immutability is his omniscience is his goodness, and so forth. In other words, there is technically no such thing as attributes (plural) but only God’s simple, undivided essence,
Mark Jones, God Is, 32-33 (emphasis mine)
Let us give thanks that no one else but God can offer us perfect love, perfect wisdom, perfect justice, and consequently perfect salvation.