Exactly! I’m a freshman in college and so when I explained to my ethics/”critical thinking” professor about why Euthyphro’s Dilemma does NOT apply to the Christian God incorporating many aspects of DDS, he seemed surprise and could offer no argument! It was as if he has never heard anyone explain God’s being in contrast to the Greek gods using DDS! Much less from a freshman 😉

I thoroughly enjoyed your book a lot. I have really begun to see the majesty of the very God of Scripture and it is so amazing to learn doctrine such as DDS.

Just wanted to ask, have you ever interacted with philosopher Ryan Mullins? He wrote an article (I think that’s what it’s called or something) where he treated DDS. He was arguing against it and so I’m not sure if you have interacted with him. If so, can you please give me the link. If not, then you should! 😉

Since God is self-existent he is his own context.

The universe has its being in God rather than vice versa.

God is to us approximately as we are to fictional characters.

As far as I can tell it never works. They never seem to accept the idea that there could be a more fundamental level of reality than our own.

I recently read, and greatly benefited from, your book: thank you. In this program you gave a qualified but high recommendation of Weinandy’s Does God Suffer?; I’m wondering if you have read, and if so, if you would recommend as highly, his Does God Change?. I read the former, and am now reading the latter. I ask because in his dealing with the kenosis theory(ies) he barely mentions Phil. 2 and I’d like to see it dealt with exegetically with this question in mind.

I would appreciate any help you can offer.

Thank you,
Aron G.

Dave,
Thank you for your kind remarks. I whole-heartedly concur with your thoughts here about needing to present an awe-inspiring God who is radically other than his creation and who alone supplies the reason for our existence. Only such a God is worthy of our worship. Some, no doubt, will think Feser and Piper to be strange bedfellows, but both have done fine work in helping us see the wonder and absolute sufficiency of our Triune God.
All the best,
James

Hi Dave,
You raise an important point with respect to whether or not the simple “One” is actually a personal agent (by which I assume you mean a volitional and intelligent agent). Feser is probably correct to point out the many formal similarities between the Neoplatonic and Thomistic arguments for God’s simplicity. But there are also numerous dissimilarities (though I fear that when Feser speaks of God as the “first member” of being, he unwittingly diminishes the sharp distinction between Thomas and Plotinus). Probably most important is that for Neoplatonists the world is not properly regarded as a creation, but rather an emanation. On this scheme the simple “One” spontaneously produces the world by an absolute necessity. Thus, there is no freedom of will involved (and perhaps no volitional act at all) and so no reason to suppose that Plotinus’ “One” is a personal agent. It seems to me, though, that emanationism actually undermines the very simplicity and pure actuality in which it is supposedly grounded. If the being of the One naturally requires the being of another, then the being of the One is correlative to another and so not purely actual after all (since there must be some real differentia by which they are distinguished). In other words, by denying that the One is a (freely) willing agent and that the world is a creation (rather than an emanation) it seems that Neoplatonism can no longer uphold God’s pure actuality. Neoplatonists plainly locate God within the same order of being as the world (i.e., as the top of the great chain of being) and thus are committed to a univocal account of God’s being (their many good arguments for the simplicity of the First Cause notwithstanding). Only a creation ex nihilo brought about by God’s free will can satisfy the demands for a simple First Cause (specifically, the demand that the First Cause not be existentially correlative to other beings, even those lower on a so-called “chain of being”). All Neoplatonists end up making God correlative to the world and to that extent diminishing his pure actuality. This is why I would insist that God’s pure actuality requires that we regard him as a personal agent. No agent that naturally emanates the world could be purely actual.
By the way, I would say that the Thomistic God is both a personal agent and purely actual inasmuch as Thomas recognized that only a God who creates the world freely and ex nihilo could satisfy the requirements for absolute simplicity. Aristotle never achieved this since he lacked a doctrine of creation and held that God is eternally correlative to matter. Aristotle’s god is not truly pure act since he is differentiated from matter precisely by his lack of the actuality exhibited by eternal matter.
Anyhow, I hope these thoughts are helpful is some way.
Sincerely,
James

https://wipfandstock.com/store/God_without_Parts_Divine_Simplicity_and_the_Metaphysics_of_Gods_Absoluteness

David,
I’m glad to hear of someone else who appreciates Brower like I do. Many of his arguments seem tailor-made for the Reformed perspective (though I’m sure we were not on his radar when he was writing his articles). Unfortunately, the scope of my book did not allow me to wade into the Trinitarian waters; I focus almost entirely on the existence/essence side of things. It seemed necessary to get clear on these matters before entering into the question of how to relate divine simplicity to God’s three-personed manner of subsistence. I hope to treat that knotty question in a future article or two. Briefly though, it seems to me that many of the difficulties that the Trinity raises for simplicity nowadays can be tied to the modern tendency to treat divine three-personed subsistence as if it were just another essential divine attribute. Historically, God’s existence and essence have been formally distinguished from his manner of subsistence, even if acknowledged to be really identical in actuality. Absent this formal distinction, modern Christian theologians are bound to have serious difficulties with the DDS. Anyhow, one the best works on the Trinity that avoids the pitfalls (by my lights) is Gilles Emery’s “The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas.”
Yes, I have read Anderson’s book and found it to be immensely sophisticated and useful. I did not interact much with his material, though I’m sure my work would have been greatly improved if I had. To give you a feel for my general orientation, I depend heavily on John Wippel for my Thomistic metaphysics and on David Oderberg, Jeffrey Brower, and Barry Miller for more general philosophical matters. From the Reformed side of things I interact quite a bit with Francis Turretin, Stephen Charnock, Herman Bavinck, and Richard Muller.
Warmly,

So the will of God has parts? I agree but doesn’t that deny ADS?

I have a question for the Reformed Forum. Is “to be” the same thing as “to be a person” to God?

Drake

James,

Great, I will make sure the librarian at Greenville Seminary knows about this so we can order a copy for our library.

Blessings,
Jeff Downs

Hi Jeff,
I appreciate your interest in my work on divine simplicity. I am happy to report that it is under contract with Pickwick Publications and is presently being edited for publication either sometime later this year or early next year.

Thanks for the mention and the kind words.

I reviewed this podcast over at Gentle Reformation, if you’re interested. I also plan on reviewing the Dr.Tipton podcast on hermeneutics. Good stuff! Thanks for all the hard work.

http://genref.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/christ-the-center-%e2%80%93-dr-james-dolezal/