{"id":18557,"date":"2016-12-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-12-07T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/leithart.level2d.com\/?p=291"},"modified":"2016-12-07T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2016-12-07T00:00:00","slug":"de-deo-uno-et-trino","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/","title":{"rendered":"De Deo Uno et Trino"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

D.<\/span> Stephen Long (The Perfectly Simple Triune God<\/em><\/a>) claims that the doctrine of divine simplicity is designed to answer a question of Trinitarian theology, specifically, \u201cHow do we speak well of the mystery of the Holy Trinity?\u201d Simplicity has been used to answer other questions: \u201cWhat can be known of God by reason independent of faith or nature independent of grace?\u201d and \u201cHow does God predestine all things to God\u2019s own glory?\u201d Those questions displace simplicity from its proper locus and, Long thinks, create more problems than they solve. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

One implication of this overall argument is that simplicity isn\u2019t a piece of natural theology that can be established without recourse to Scripture. Long devotes a long early section to the first 43 questions of the Summa theologiae<\/em>, in an effort to follow Thomas on his \u201cjourney\u201d toward the knowledge of God, a journey marked by Thomas\u2019s declaration \u201cThis one is God\u201d (ST<\/em> 11, 3). Long denies that Thomas begins with rational theology, proofs accessible to all, or a theology that is extra-revelational. It is a single<\/em> journey, and Thomas depends on revelation from the outset.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Thomas does not say <\/span><\/span>that \u201chuman reason can investigate de deo uno<\/em> but not de deo trino<\/em>, nor that faith provides knowledge of de deo trino<\/em> but not de deo uno<\/em>. Nor has he divided his treatise into two: de deo uno<\/em> and de deo trino<\/em>. He refers to the entire treatise as de Deo<\/em> and has explicitly stated that even that aspect of de Deo<\/em> that human reason can investigate will require \u2018divine revelation.\u2019 . . . Thomas not only denies any sharp distinction between de deo uno<\/em> and de deo trino<\/em> based on reason and faith, but he tells us that knowledge of God\u2019s essence requires revelation as much as knowledge of God\u2019s persons will.\u201d For Thomas, and certainly for Long, \u201cthe Triune persons reveal what simplicity means so that it can be applied to God, who is known to have real distinctions, which at first glance appears to deny simplicity.\u201d<\/p>\n

Long acknowledges that Rahner identified a serious problem when he complained about the division of the treatise de deo uno<\/em> from that de deo trino<\/em>. That division can make it seem that everything that matters about God is said in the treatise on the One God, before we ever talk about the trinity; it can make metaphysical properties \u201cmore determinative for the doctrine of God than \u2018salvation history\u2019\u201d; and the metaphysical properties can misname God. All very real and damaging errors, but they don\u2019t apply to Thomas: \u201c<\/span>We do not need to read divine simplicity, perfection, eternity, etc. as \u2018metaphysical properties\u2019 if we understand the treatise de Deo<\/em> as integrated.\u201d<\/p>\n

On Long\u2019s reading, then, Thomas is not the prince of ontotheologians, or a sign of the fall of Trinitarian theology. His Trinitarian theology is part of what Robert Jenson calls the \u201cevangelization of metaphysics,\u201d the internal transformation of the inherited metaphysical tradition by the gospel. Long provides a number of illustrations of this phenomenon, but one will suffice. <\/p>\n

When Thomas begins to discuss Trinitarian theology directly, he focuses on the processions of the Son and Spirit. Procession, he says \u201csignifies motion without (extra<\/em>).\u201d But that raises an obvious objection, and Thomas poses it: How can that which does not move (immutability) and does not contain an end (infinity) be signified by motion toward something? Internal processions in God also seem to violate simplicity, since a procession would suggest that there is diversity within God, on the assumption that \u201cproceeding is diverse from that which it proceeds\u201d (Long\u2019s wording). In short, it seem that \u201cEverything [Thomas has] accomplished to this point moves in the direction of rejecting divine processions.\u201d<\/p>\n

In fact, though, Thomas has been preparing for precisely this discussion of processions, and has laid out a framework within which processions within God do not undermine the confession that God is one. Thomas notes that divine processions are to be rejected if they refer to a movement ad aliquid extra<\/em>. But they don\u2019t; we can speak well of divine processions if we speak of them if we observe the grammar of simplicity, unity, and eternity. As Long summarizes, \u201cOnly if God is perfectly simple is it intelligible to posit procession \u2018in\u2019 God without mixing error with the use of such a term. The \u2018movement\u2019 internal to God is not from one place to another. God is infinite. It is not from one substance to a different one; God is simple. It is not from something lesser to something more, or vice versa; God is perfect. It is not from a beginning to an end; God is eternal. It is an immutable movement of \u2018internal\u2019 processions, which he will, o on to argue, are only two \u2013 the processions of the Son and the Spirit.\u201d <\/p>\n

When used to describe Trinitarian persons within one God, \u201csimplicity\u201d doesn\u2019t exclude processions; it doesn\u2019t imply a blank and static divine essence. Simplicity ensures that the processions do not constitute a splitting-up of divine essence. Simplicity is not \u201can \u2018attribute\u2019 or \u2018property\u2019 of God known by reason alone; it is what allows theologians to identify the persons as the essence of God without positing four essences, or making creation a fourth divine hypostasis.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/span>Long\u2019s treatment of Thomas is compelling and presents an attractive Thomistic Trinitarianism similar (as Long acknowledges) to that found in Gilles Emery\u2019s Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas<\/a>. Yet I\u2019m left with the suspicion that there\u2019s a great deal more work to do here. <\/p>\n

For example, Long writes: \u201cGod\u2019s essence as simple, perfect, immutable, infinite, and eternal is one, and that one essence is revealed in three persons. Each person is the essence. The Father is the essence. The Son is the essence, and the Spirit is the essence. The Father, Son, and Spirit are also the essence.\u201d Agreed. But it would seem that on the premise of simplicity each of these statements implies, conversely, that the essence is identical to the Person. When you say, \u201cGod is just,\u201d by the principle of simplicity you\u2019re identifying the essence of God with the perfection of justice, because God simply is His perfections. <\/span>If the Father is the essence and God is simple, then it would seem to follow in saying \u201cthe Father is God\u201d you\u2019re identifying the essence of God as Fatherhood. But that\u2019s an error, since the essence isn\u2019t the Father alone but the Father of the Son whom He eternally begets by the Spirit. That may suggest that simplicity is being stretched even further than Long suggests. On the other hand, perhaps it\u2019s a mistake to apply simplicity to the essence-Person relation as opposed to the essence-perfection relation. If that\u2019s the case, then much of Long\u2019s argument (or Thomas\u2019s) is off-kilter, because Long says that simplicity applies especially to Trinitarian processions.<\/p>\n

Another example: Long rejects the later Reformed use of simplicity as an argument for predestination and the divine decree. Long acknowledges that Thomas mounts an analogous argument: \u201cEt sicut suum intelligere est suum esse, ita suum velle<\/em> (\u2018Just as his understanding is his esse<\/em>, so also is his will\u2019) (ST I 19.1). God\u2019s knowledge and will are God\u2019s esse<\/em>; they do not divide up into composite parts, even if knowledge and will are not the same operation. For this reason, God wills who God is necessarily, but God wills all other things only with a conditional necessity that does not deny God\u2019s freedom.\u201d He thinks that Thomas goes too far in teasing out the import of this claim, locating predestination in God and using simplicity to describe the God-world relation rather than the essence of God Himself. But it\u2019s hard to see how Thomas could have avoided this shift. Even granting the distinction that Thomas makes between necessary and conditional will, it cannot be the case that there is any temporal interval between them. God didn\u2019t decide to create or to create this particular world at some point in eternity past; He didn\u2019t come<\/em> to will or know this. Or, this: He knew all that He would do in the world, and even when we distinguish knowledge and will we cannot separate them: God wills to know all that will come to pass. <\/span><\/p>\n

Now, that\u2019s all unobjectionable, until we say that will and knowledge are identical to essence. Saying that God\u2019s will concerning created things has a \u201cconditional necessity\u201d is a verbal dodge, and it doesn\u2019t seem to avoid what Long wants to avoid. We seem to be left with the implication that the conditional will is identical to the essence of God. It\u2019s not clear that the absolute\/conditional distinction is enough to protect God\u2019s freedom in creating. <\/span><\/p>\n

Long\u2019s book is rich and rewarding, a careful and judicious contribution to contemporary Trinitarian theology. But even those who affirm simplicity (as I do) may well conclude that things are not so, well, simple.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

D. Stephen Long (The Perfectly Simple Triune God) claims that the doctrine of divine simplicity is designed to answer a question of Trinitarian theology, specifically, \u201cHow do we speak well of the mystery of the Holy Trinity?\u201d Simplicity has been used to answer other questions: \u201cWhat can be known of God by reason independent of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1430,139],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18557","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-thomas-aquinas","category-trinity"],"yoast_head":"\nDe Deo Uno et Trino<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"D. Stephen Long (The Perfectly Simple Triune God) claims that the doctrine of divine simplicity is designed to answer a question of Trinitarian theology,\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"De Deo Uno et Trino\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"D. Stephen Long (The Perfectly Simple Triune God) claims that the doctrine of divine simplicity is designed to answer a question of Trinitarian theology,\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Leithart\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-12-07T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Peter Leithart\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@PLeithart\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Peter Leithart\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/\",\"name\":\"De Deo Uno et Trino\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-12-07T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-07T00:00:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d\"},\"description\":\"D. Stephen Long (The Perfectly Simple Triune God) claims that the doctrine of divine simplicity is designed to answer a question of Trinitarian theology,\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"De Deo Uno et Trino\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/\",\"name\":\"Leithart\",\"description\":\"My blog is a public notebook, featuring essays, notes, and explorations on Scripture, theology, literature, politics, culture.\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d\",\"name\":\"Peter Leithart\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"Peter Leithart\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/PLeithart\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/author\/pleithart\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"De Deo Uno et Trino","description":"D. Stephen Long (The Perfectly Simple Triune God) claims that the doctrine of divine simplicity is designed to answer a question of Trinitarian theology,","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"De Deo Uno et Trino","og_description":"D. Stephen Long (The Perfectly Simple Triune God) claims that the doctrine of divine simplicity is designed to answer a question of Trinitarian theology,","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/","og_site_name":"Leithart","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/","article_published_time":"2016-12-07T00:00:00+00:00","author":"Peter Leithart","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@PLeithart","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Peter Leithart","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/","name":"De Deo Uno et Trino","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-12-07T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-07T00:00:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d"},"description":"D. Stephen Long (The Perfectly Simple Triune God) claims that the doctrine of divine simplicity is designed to answer a question of Trinitarian theology,","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/12\/de-deo-uno-et-trino\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"De Deo Uno et Trino"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/","name":"Leithart","description":"My blog is a public notebook, featuring essays, notes, and explorations on Scripture, theology, literature, politics, culture.","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d","name":"Peter Leithart","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg","caption":"Peter Leithart"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/","https:\/\/twitter.com\/PLeithart"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/author\/pleithart\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18557","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3021"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18557"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18557\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}