Athanasius: Divine Simplicity as True Existence

Early Church Father, Athanasius (c. 296–373) Bishop of Alexandria (Egypt) was a giant figure in the advancement and preservation of orthodox Christianity. He labored more than anyone to bring about the triumph of the orthodox Nicene faith over Arianism, which promoted the view that Christ, though glorious and supreme, was a created being. Athanasius’ consistent tenacity in defending the full deity of Christ spanned forty-five years over which he was exiled five times. But his efforts kept the Orthodox faith from being eclipsed by Arian cohorts.

As I have been reading through his works, in preparation for a class on the essence and attributes of God, I have been paying close attention the doctrine of divine simplicity. And so, the body of this essay will be an exposition of Athanasius’ views on simplicity from his treatise Contra Gentes (Against the Heathens). In this treatise, Athanasius establishes Christian theism against the pantheistic philosophies that the heathens held. Pantheism asserts that all of creation is identical with God. But God is spiritual; the world is material, so the two cannot be one and identical.

Starting in chapter 28, Athanasius challenges the pagan notion that God is the cosmic organism. Reason being is that it would entail parts in God. He argues that God “stands in need of nothing, but is self-sufficient and self-contained, and that in Him all things have their being.”[1] His aim is to refute the error of creation worship, whereby the heathens worship a sun god and a moon god, among others. However, they combine all ‘gods’ together as one body, calling the whole as God. Athanasius shows the absurdity of such belief by contrasting the God of the Bible with their god of parts. He writes,

For if the combination of the parts makes up the whole, and the whole is combined out of the parts, then the whole consists of the parts, and each of them is a portion of the whole. But this is very far removed from the conception of God. For God is a whole and not a number of parts, and does not consist of diverse elements, but is Himself the Maker of the system of the universe. For see what impiety they utter against the Deity when they say this. For if He consists of parts, certainly it will follow that He is unlike Himself, and made up of unlike parts. For if He is sun, He is not moon, and if He is moon, He is not earth, and if He is earth, He cannot be sea: and so on, taking the parts one by one, one may discover the absurdity of this theory of theirs.[2]

His refutation is sound, especially where he says, “for if he consists of parts, certainly it will follow that he is unlike himself, and made up of unlike parts.” Athanasius retains the uniqueness and (a nascent) simplicity of God (though not expressly calling it that) in that for God to be who he is in his essence, he must be who he is through himself, not by parts because he would then be “unlike himself.” God must be pure in himself as “Maker” of all that exists. Athanasius began his argument in pointing out God’s aseity. And at the end of chapter 28, he makes another claim as to why God cannot be made up of parts: because that which has parts (i.e., all material beings) “are destined to be divided again, in accordance with the natural tendency of the parts to separation.”[3] So, Athanasius understands that to have parts is proper to that which is created (that which goes in and out of existence), not to that which is uncreated (and necessarily exists). Why is that? Because material beings are composite beings, having parts constitutes who/what they are. The parts make up what they are, which, Athanasius interestingly observes, will be divided again at some point.[4] To have parts is to be a material being, and all material beings will be divided again.

Jumping to chapter 41, he expounds further the notion of composition but directing his attention to the Word, who having no composition is fully present to creation as its Creator but also its sustainer. Using a play-on-words approach, he says as Christ is the Word, “he is not after the likeness of human words, composed of syllables.” The Word is one syllable. Humans are “composed of parts and made out of nothing,” being composite and divisible. It is interesting to notice the adjectival phrases in his statement, which seem to be opposed to each other: composed of parts yet made out of nothing. But that is easy to clear up. We must remember that to say God creates out of nothing, it means that God creates out of nothing apart from himself (Rom 11:36).[5] Athanasius makes another contrast, a simple/composite contrast. He says, “God possesses true existence and is not composite, wherefore His Word also has true Existence and is not composite.” For Athanasius, non-compositeness is true existence. And only God and his Word have true existence because God has life in himself, aseity. He is being; creatures are given being or have their being imparted to them. True existence only God can have because he is his existence. And that is what later formulations of simplicity arrive at (cf. Aquinas, ST, 1.3.3), in that God is necessary, uncreated Being. Therefore, his existence is necessary. And he cannot give himself existence or himself being, and he cannot be given essence and existence from some prior supreme being; therefore, the logic of simplicity entails that God is his own essence and is his own existence; his essence and existence are the same.[6] That is true existence. That which has being (essence) and has existence—creatures—are composite beings.

Following his assertion of the non-compositeness (i.e., the simplicity) of the Word, as “the one and only begotten God, who proceeds in his goodness from the Father as from a good fountain,”[7] Athanasius expresses the “truly wonderful” act by the Word in uniting himself to his creation. God’s eternal Word, Athanasius writes, has given “substantial existence to Creation,” having its “being out of nothing.” The creation is by nature weak and mortal, “subject to dissolution,” but in “desiring all to exist, as objects of his loving-kindness,” and so that it does not fall out of existence, the Word “guides and settles the whole Creation.” Athanasius makes the distinction between the Creator and the creature, in that the creation coming into existence from nothing, it is, by nature, weak, mortal, and composite. And so, the contrast he is making between that which is being and that which has being is intended to demonstrate the Word’s astounding love for a creation, which is “at risk of dropping out of existence.” And the Word sustains Creation by way of participation. Athanasius writes, “for it partakes of the Word Who derives true existence from the Father.” While it seems that Athanasius is insinuating that the Word is given his being, we have to take note of the distinction he maintains in that the Word “derives true existence,” whereas Creation has existence by participation. If you recall a few paragraphs ago, we defined what Athanasius means by true existence, which is to have existence in himself and from himself as only God does have, which the Word, though said to be from the Father, is “Himself also God.”

Athanasius grounds his understanding about the Word in Colossians 1:15–16, where the Word is the manifestation of the invisible God, the express image of the Divine nature. For the Word to be divine, he must fully possess what is proper to divinity. We hold to a monotheistic view of God, so then do we have two Gods? We do not. Scripture ascribes the fullness of divinity to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. While I did not expound on the role of simplicity as it pertains to the Triunity of God, the doctrine of simplicity functions as a safeguard to keep us wandering off into tritheism. Simplicity is the divinity of God. If you would like to learn more about the doctrine of divine simplicity, see my recent lecture on it.

But one thing has been confirmed in my survey of the Early Church Fathers, through which I am still trekking, is the assertion by Richard Muller, who states: “The doctrine of divine simplicity is among the normative assumptions of theology from the time of the church fathers, to the age of the great medieval scholastic systems, to the era of Reformation and post-Reformation theology, and indeed, on into the succeeding era of late orthodoxy and rationalism.”[8] While I have much more to read through, it is fascinating to see the consistency of this doctrine through the Christian tradition.

~ Romans 11:36

___________________________________
[1] Athanasius, Contra Gentes, 28.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] See my post on Anselm’s view of creation.
[6] Aquinas writes, “God is not only His own essence , . . but also His own existence.” ST, 1.3.4. For a modern treatment on this topic see, James E. Dolezal, God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2011).
[7] Athanasius, C. Gent., 41.1.
[8] Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 3:39.

Comments

Gregory of Nyssa: Trinity–Not Tri-deity

Gregory, a bishop of Nyssa in 371, was part of the Cappadocian trio, and was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His theological prowess proved vital in response to the Arian and Sabellian heresies. Key to Gregory’s theology we find “an emergence of a pro-Nicene ‘grammar’ of divinity through his developed account of divine power,” [1] conceived through a nature-power-activity formulation revealed in the created order and articulated in Scripture. Understanding the Triune God in this manner afforded a conception of the Trinity that was logical and thoroughly biblical. And this letter is paradigmatic on Gregory’s account of the divine nature. (* This article was later published with Credo Magazine, titled, “ The Grammar of Divinity (On Theology). ” See link below) To Ablabius, though short, is a polemical address whereby Gregory lays out a complex argument in response to the claim that three Divine Persons equal three gods. Basically put, Ablabius (his opponent,

St. John Chrysostom — for God is simple

Below is part of the introductory section to my exposition of John Chrysostom’s doctrine of God. I posted it because I thought it was fascinating to find such an important theologian known for avoiding (even having a disdain of) speculative theology refer to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity as common place in his thoroughly biblical doctrine of God. Toward the end I include a link to my full exposition. John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople. Being the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers, he fought against the ecclesiastical and political leaders for their abuse of authority. He was called Chrysostom (meaning “golden-mouthed”) for his eloquent sermons. [1] This most distinguished of Greek patristic preachers excelled in spiritual and moral application in the Antiochene tradition of literal exegesis, largely disinterested, even untutored in speculative and controversial theology. [2] On the Incomprehensible Nature of G

John 17:3 – Eternal Life is Knowing God and Christ–the One, True God

John 17:1–5. “ Jesus spoke these things, looked up to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent—Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with that glory I had with you before the world existed .”

A Brief Exposition of Augustine's Doctrine of Divine Immutability

To much of the Western world, Augustine has no rival. He is the preeminent—uninspired—theologian of the Christian faith. When reading the titans of the church—i.e., Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin—Augustine’s theology and ideas are voluminously parroted all throughout their writings. His influence is unparalleled. Even the secular world sees Augustine as a mammoth figure in the shaping of human history. And its Augustine’s doctrine of God we will divert our attention to, looking specifically at his articulation of divine immutability Augustine’s doctrine of God is classical, through and through. He writes, “There is One invisible, from whom, as the Creator and First Cause, all things seen by us derive their being: He is supreme, eternal, unchangeable, and comprehensible by none save Himself alone” ( Ep . 232.5).[1] When reading his works, the doctrine of immutability is paramount, coming forth repeatedly. For Augustine, immutability, or God’s unchangeableness, is consequential

Gregory of Nazianzus: The Trinity - Not a Collection of Elements

Gregory of Nazianzus One of the Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330–389), given the title, “The Theologian,” was instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically the distinct terms to describe the Persons of the Godhead (Unbegotten, eternally begotten, and procession). Gregory’s main contribution to the development of Christology was in his opposition to Apollinarius. He argued that when Adam fell, all of humanity fell in him; therefore, that fallen nature must be fully united to the Son—body, soul, and mind; ‘for the unassumed is the unhealed’. Gregory’s Doctrine of the Trinity His clearest statement on the Trinity is found in his Oration 25.15–18. Oration 25 is part of a series of sermons delivered in 380. As a gesture of gratitude, Gregory dedicates Oration 25 to Christian philosopher Maximus the Cynic, as a sort of ‘charge’ for him to push forward and remain strong in the orthodox teachings of the faith. And these sections are that or

First Timothy 2:12 - On Women in the Pastorate - A Critical Response to Nijay Gupta

Does 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibit women from leading and preaching over men in the church? I recently posted an article examining an approach to this question, specifically evaluating interpretive consistency. In the article, I looked at two passages that appealed to the Old Testament to support the claim being made in the text. The point of the blog post was to shed light on an inconsistency of interpretation by looking at one common argument from the Bible in favor of women in the pastorate and another biblical argument supporting the view of monogamous marriage, between one man and one woman. My general observation is that many Christians who advance this particular argument, allowing for women in the pastorate, also affirm the particular argument for the biblical view of marriage. They both have the same methodological starting point; however, both arrive at their conclusions in completely different ways, demonstrating interpretive inconsistency, which I conclude ste

Ambrose: A Nicene Defense of Jesus Not Knowing the Day or the Hour ~ Mark 13:32

Ambrose (c. 339–397), was Bishop of Milan (northern Italy). His name is familiar to many because of Augustine, in that it was through Ambrose’s preaching that Augustine was saved by the gospel. Ambrose was a rigorous exponent of Nicene orthodoxy, and as with his other contemporaries, he was an ardent opponent against Arianism. His works, therefore, were aimed at refuting Arian heresy, paying special attention to the exposition and defense of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. In his most prominent work, The Exposition of the Christian Faith (abbr. De fide ), Ambrose makes a lucid, scripturally saturated articulation of the Christian faith couched in Nicene orthodoxy. De fide is devoted to proving the full divinity of Christ, co-equal in substance, wisdom, power, and glory as God the Father, derived through elucidating the plain sense of the text. Ambrose’s aim is polemical and apologetic, addressing and refuting objections from the Arians. This post will ex

Isaiah 45:7 - “ . . . I make peace, and create evil.” — Does God create evil?

My daughter watched a video this morning where a deconstructionist, an ex vangelical, was attempting to profane the goodness of God, by pointing out that Isaiah 45:7 says God creates evil. She was referring to the KJV version of this passage which says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” So, what do we do with that? Below is a brief response. Proper biblical interpretation considers context when seeking the meaning of a passage. Furthermore, when it comes to difficult or obscure passages, a helpful rule of interpretation is to look to the plainer passages of the Bible and draw examples from them to shed light on the more obscure passages ( thanks Augustine ). We let Scripture interpret Scripture. The point is to remove all hesitation on doubtful passages. So, in this passage, on the face it seems to imply that God creates evil, thus making God evil. But is that what the Bible teaches about God? The plainer passages te

Boethius: The Logic of Unity and Plurality in One God

In the “Introduction” to a standard English translation of Boethius’ Theological Tractates and the Consolation of Philosophy , it is stated that “Boethius was the last of the Roman philosophers, and the first of the scholastic theologians” (X). Philosophy is aimed at explaining the nature of the world ( the natural ). Theology’s aim is to understand and explain doctrines delivered by divine revelation ( the supernatural ). Boethius was the seminal figure in preparing the way for the synthesis of these two disciplines, with philosophy serving the task of theology (i.e., the handmaiden to the King of sciences) .

Piper vs. Calvin: The Role of Good Works in Salvation

In his book Future Grace , John Piper writes, “Faith alone is the instrument that unites us to Christ who is our righteousness and the ground of our justification. But the purity of life that confirms faith’s reality is also essential for final salvation , not as the ground of our right standing, but as the fruit and evidence that we are vitally united by faith to Christ who alone is the ground of our acceptance with God.” [1] His purpose in writing that statement is to “explode the great error that says . . . [y]ou get your justification by faith, and you get your sanctification by works. You start the Christian life in the power of the Spirit, you press on in the efforts of the flesh.” [2] The emphasized portion above (and other such statements) has raised critical concerns over Piper’s Reformed theology in that his words seem to veer away from orthodox Reformed teaching. These critics contend Piper teaches a two-stage justification where one is “ initially justified by grace alon

Read. Reflect. Write.

Search This Blog