Ep. #64 – Absolute Divine Simplicity w/ Dr. Dolezal
Summary
Why is absolute divine simplicity an important doctrine for Christians? What are his primary arguments from philosophy? How does Scripture support the position? What are the best objections to the doctrine? Dr. James Dolezal joins us to answer those questions as we examine his book God Without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness.
Guest Bio
James Dolezal serves as an assistant professor of theology in the School of Divinity at Cairn University in Langhorne, PA. He is the author of two books: God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness and All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism. Also, he’s a recent contributor to a volume on Divine Impassibility. He and his wife live in Pennsylvania with their three children.
Show Outline
In the first segment, Dr. Dolezale provides an overview of absolute divine simplicity. He explains why it is an important doctrine for Christians. Additionally, he elaborates on the idea that critics of divine simplicity often betray a strong commitment to univocism.
In the next segment, he gives a primary argument from his book for why God must be absolutely simple. He supports the argument with philosophical and scriptural reasoning.
In the final segment, Dr. Dolezal tackles objections to divine simplicity. He considers Alvin Plantinga’s famous critique and briefly mentions the “modal collapse” issue. We close with a discussion of divine impassibility and his contribution to a recent volume on the topic.
BONUS APPENDIX
To get early access to the Bonus Appendix with exegetical support for Classical Theism from Revelation 4, Acts 14 & 17, and John 1, click here.
Resources Mentioned
God Without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness by Dr. James Dolezal
All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism by Dr. James Dolezal
Divine Impassibility with a major contribution from Dr. James Dolezal
Fr. Lawrence Dewan O.P. responds to Alvin Plantinga
Post-reformation Reformed Dogmatics by Richard Mueller (4 Volumes)
Dr. Paul Helm and his books
Dr. Scott Swain and his books
Related Episodes
Ep. #37 – Classical Theism & Simplicity with Dr. Stump
Ep. #25 – Divine Simplicity with Paul Chutikorn [Interview]
Ep. #56 – The Doctrine of Analogy w/ Dr. Delfino
Excellent interview, excellent video. Some REALLY great stuff here! one thing that concerns me though–my understanding is that toward the end of his life, T. Aquinas basically renounced all of his ‘philosophy,’ so to speak, due to some kind of a theophany. if that is correct, it seems to cast doubt on the entire enterprise of contemplative theology–at least in terms of simplicity, actus purus, aseity, etc. Does anybody have a response to this? Also, does Dr. Dolezal have anything to day about the essence-energies distinction and how that relates to Aquinas’ actus purus language? Thank you, and God bless you.
Thanks, Todd, for the comment. We do not know too many specifics of what St. Thomas experienced at the end of his life, but I definitely don’t think it casts doubt on his philosophy or contemplative theology. In other words, St. Thomas coming to see that all of the philosophy and theology was like “straw” compared to his experience is consistent with all of his philosophy and theology being correct and the divine experience being that much greater than knowing true stuff through hard work and contemplation.
We have not addressed the essence-energies distinction on this show yet: I mentioned it briefly in one episode: http://www.classicaltheism.com/brown — However, I recommend the Reason and Theology podcast (and youtube channel) as they’ve had many scholars on to discuss this!
Peace,
John
Thanks, John. I appreciate the reply. I’m a fan of Michael Horton, who seems to have been heavily influenced by K. Vanhoover. I’m also a fan of RC Sproul. I would be interested in knowing if Dr. Dolezal considers them to be theistic mutualists. They seem to argue from both Aquinas and Palamas (embracing both the “actus purus” and the “energies-essence” language). But I’ve seen that some theologians argue that these two positions are basically mutually exclusive. Do you have an opinion on this? Thanks again for everything. You have a really great site here.
Re: “But I’ve seen that some theologians argue that these two positions are basically mutually exclusive. Do you have an opinion on this?”
I personally think the Thomistic position can stand on its own. But, I must admit to not having a very good grasp of the essence-energies position. There’s a dissertation by a Dominican, Peter Totleben, that I link to here which will give you all of the gory details and analysis you’re probably looking for: http://www.classicaltheism.com/brown