Is the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity Biblical?
Definitely.
The first time I heard someone mention the doctrine of divine simplicity, it threw me. “That can’t be right; the God of the Bible is too difficult to understand for someone to call him simple,” I thought. However, it didn’t take long for me to realize that God’s simplicity does not suggest that he is easily comprehended or understood. Rather it maintains that God’s essence is not composed of parts or attributes.
Of course, we as Christians often speak of God’s attributes, such as his love, goodness, and wisdom. But our mention of attributes should not be taken to mean that they comprise his essence, as if he is 35% loving, 20% good, 12% wise, and so on. Rather, as theologians have been telling us for centuries, God’s attributes are his essence and his essence his attributes.1
Here’s how Steven Duby defines divine simplicity:
[It is] the teaching that God is not composed of parts but rather is identical with his own essence, existence, and attributes, each of which is identical with the whole being of the triune God considered under some aspect.2
Another theologian named John Feinberg elaborates:
By simplicity, [theologians] mean that God is free from any division into parts; he is free from compositeness . . . it is impossible to divide God’s being into constituent parts. Thus we cannot divide God’s [substance] from his attributes. Nor can we say that God’s nature is composed of various attributes. Rather God’s essence is his attributes, and those attributes must be identical with one another and with him; otherwise we could distinguish various parts of God’s nature.3
If that’s what the doctrine of divine simplicity is, a question still remains: is it biblical? According to Protestant tradition, there are two senses in which a doctrine can be considered ‘biblical’—that is, justifiably believed by the church based on a sound interpretation of Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith so states,
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture. (WCF, 1:6)
The easiest way to get Christians to affirm a particular doctrine in good conscience is to demonstrate to them that it is directly revealed in the Scriptures, i.e. there’s a chapter and verse clearly substantiating that “X is true.” But that is not the only way.
For centuries, Protestants have also understood that a particular doctrine not being explicitly claimed in Scripture does not rule out the legitimacy of the doctrine itself. The question is: do claims that are made in Scripture, taken together, point us toward the doctrine being considered?
This distinction is important because the doctrine of divine simplicity has no proof text. There’s no chapter and verse that states, “God is a simple being and without parts.” Yet I believe this doctrine can and should be deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence.
For one thing, Scripture validates divine simplicity when it says things such as “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16). It’s not merely the case that God possesses incandescent or loving attributes. Rather inspired authors attest that the Lord’s essence and these attributes are indeed one and the same.
Consider also that one of Scripture’s most basic affirmations is God’s oneness—his uniqueness and singularity, which point to his simplicity. Israel’s Shema states, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deut. 6:4). Just like ancient Israel, the New Testament authors upheld and maintained the Lord’s oneness (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5), even as they confidently pointed to his triunity revealed in the incarnation of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14).
Scripture also maintains that the Lord is self-existent and thus dependent upon nothing outside himself. The triune God has life intrinsically (John 5:26). As Paul says to the Athenian philosophers in Acts 17:24–25,
The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.
God’s absolute self-sufficiency is essential to his simplicity. Were he composed of anything, he would be dependent upon constituent parts in order to make him who and what he is. But if his essence is simple, then he is utterly free and independent to be himself.
In that same vein, God does not have a physical body. He is a non-corporeal being. As Jesus tells the woman at the well, “God is spirit” (John 4:24). Our Lord is highlighting a major difference between God and his creatures. As creatures, we are composite beings. Our existence is constituted of soul and body, material and immaterial. Moreover, our bodies, in order to exist, are contingent upon functioning parts, i.e. heart, lungs, bones, joints, etc.
Yet there is no such contingency in God. If there were, the parts that comprise his being would be more fundamental than he is. Take one part away and you would de-god God. He would become something other than himself. But as Scripture makes clear, he is eternal (Job 36:26; Ps. 90:1-2, 102:27), self-existent (Ex. 3:14; John 5:26), uncreated (Isa. 43:10, 44:6; John 5:26, 17:5; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 1:8), and immutable (Mal. 3:6; Jas. 1:17)—all of which logically necessitate divine simplicity.
Of course, in order to talk about God’s action in the world and humanity’s relationship to him, the writers of Scripture employ linguistic patterns that are categorically anthropomorphic, such as when the Apostle Peter tells us to humble ourselves beneath God’s mighty hand (1 Pet. 5:6), or when the book of Genesis states that Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:8).
Yet such examples point us toward the ineffability and incomprehensibility of God, that he is beyond our ability to conceive of him and speak of him as he truly is (Isa. 55:8). Therefore he condescends to our level in order that we might truly know him and genuinely understand things about him, albeit in a limited way.4 But Scripture’s use of anthropomorphic language in reference to the Lord should not be in any way inferred as an attempt to delimit the divine essence itself.
As I have demonstrated, the doctrine of divine simplicity can be deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence. Its biblical validity is important, because divine simplicity has implications for how we worship, understand, think about, and talk about God.
For instance, knowing how the Lord is unlike us—he is simple and we are not—we can approach him in worship and prayer with a posture of reverence and awe. Or when we think of God’s revelation of himself to us, divine simplicity helps us to be confident that there are no contradictions in God’s words and ways. Moreover, divine simplicity may well be the doctrine that guards us from embracing deficient theological claims about God’s triunity, such as social trinitarianism5 and eternal functional subordinationism.6 If we have a strong sense of the triune God’s simplicity, then distinctions between persons of the Trinity are less likely to be inappropriately exaggerated.
All things considered, I believe Christians should gladly and confidently affirm the doctrine of divine simplicity. It is well supported by Scripture and will serve to strengthen our confession and practice of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part I, 3:4, 13:1, 39:1.
Steven J. Duby, Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account (T&T Clark, 2016), 2.
John S. Feinberg, None Like Him: The Doctrine of God (Crossway, 2001), 325.
Theologians often speak of this idea in terms of divine accommodation. For more, see Gregg R. Allison, Baker Compact Dictionary of Theological Terms (Baker, 2016).
See Craig A. Carter, “Why We Must Reject Social Trinitarianism,” https://credomag.com/2021/07/why-we-must-reject-social-trinitarianism-it-is-neither-nicene-nor-biblical/.
See Duncan Boyd, “Is the Son of God Eternally Subordinate to the Father?,” https://banneroftruth.org/uk/resources/articles/2018/son-god-eternally-subordinate-father/.