Skip to main content

Petrus van Mastricht: The Necessity of Divine Simplicity for Simple Worship

The doctrine of divine simplicity is thoroughly biblical and central to our worship and devotion to the one, true God of the Bible. An important voice from the past, teaching the necessity of this doctrine to our faith and practice is Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706), a Dutch theologian whose Theoretical-Practical Theology (TPT going forward) is considered one of the most comprehensive treatments of Christian doctrine within the Reformed and post-Reformed era.

 

For Mastricht, the doctrine of divine simplicity “discloses to us the foundation of every perfection in God and of every imperfection in the creatures” (TPT, 2:148). How so? First, where do we see simplicity taught in Scripture? Mastricht lays out the orthodox scriptural arguments, summarized below.

 

God is Spirit (John 4:24), which is immaterial, thus simple. “God is Spirit from himself, and is called Spirit univocally” (TPT, 2:143). Scripture teaches that God is the absolute first being (Rev 1:8; 22:13; Rom 11:35–36), which means there was nothing prior to God who would have composed his various parts. Scripture teaches that God is immutable (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17; Ps 102:26–27; Heb 1:11–12). However, what is composed can be changed—mutated. And God is incorruptible (Rom 1:23; 1 Tim 1:17); a composite being can be corrupted. God cannot be changed into something better, therefore, the only option would be a change for the worse, which cannot happen in God. God is infinite, filling the heavens and the earth (Jer 23:23–24), higher than the heavens and cannot be contained (Job 11:8; 1 Kings 8:27). That which is composite is finite, since parts are always finite, being less than the whole. And finite parts cannot make an infinite whole. God is most perfect (Job 11:8; Matt 5:48). A being that is simple is more perfect than a composite because it has been composed of imperfect parts (TPT, 2:147–8).[1] Mastricht writes, “if there is composition in God, then he is not the light in which there is no darkness, not pure deity; for parts, as they are doubtless diverse, could not constitute such pure deity” (TPT, 2:144).

 

Next, Mastricht addresses objections to simplicity, two of which we will look at. Mastricht holds that God’s actions are not distinct from his essence. So, to the charge that his attributes imply composition in God, Mastricht writes, “they do not differ from his essence, except in our manner of conceiving them. Nor do they differ among themselves except in our reason, which finds the foundation of distinguishing them in the variety of their operations and in the relations that arise from them” (TPT, 2:148). The attributes,[2] which we must conceive as divine perfections, Mastricht notes when we see an apparent conflict between the perfections, such as exhibited between mercy and avenging justice, “it is this perfection of God which the creatures undergo in different ways” (TPT, 2:118). And the last objection, which is quite common, is that the three persons in one essence demonstrate a composition in God. Mastricht carefully with precision diffuses this charge, writing, the persons “do not argue for composition, because persons do not differ from essence in God, but rather in us and in our conception. Nor do the persons differ between themselves except through their modes of subsisting, which, because they are not things or beings, but only modes of beings, do not compose, but only distinguish” (TPT, 2:148, emphasis added). Mastricht exposes the common mistake when it comes to the Trinity and simplicity: making real distinctions between the persons as if they were beings instead of relations. 

 

Now we look at how Mastricht moves from the theoretical to the practical.  

 

As mentioned in the beginning, Mastricht sees simplicity as the foundation of every perfection in God and every imperfection in the creature. What does he mean by that? By God’s simplicity “he is pure and sheer deity, in which nothing is or can be that is less than perfect than infinite deity itself. Each and every one of his attributes—wisdom, goodness, grace, truth, holiness, righteousness, power, and so forth—are the very deity itself” (TPT, 2:149). Mastricht notes that we do not, as when talking about creatures, amplify these attributes when talking of God. A wise man is never wisdom itself, as the infinite wise God is. It is because of his simplicity he is called the light in which there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5). And from this foundation we may glorify God “as it is the root of his every perfection” (TPT, 2:149), depend wholly on God as our light (Ps 27:1); love itself (1 John 4:8, 16); our salvation (Ps 27:1); eternal life (1 John 5:20) as the fount and source of all life (Ps 36:10). And from all these things we may glorify God as most simple goodness (Matt 19:17) (TPT, 2:149). In seeing the Scriptures teach simplicity as the foundation of every perfection in God, it also reveals the foundation of every imperfection in creatures. Creatures are composite, thus “we see a perpetual mixture of good and evil” (TPT, 2:149–50). And because creatures are “only mutably good,” we should “never attribute too much to any sort of creatures nor depend on them as upon God, who is most simple, most pure perfection and goodness” (TPT, 2:150).

 

Mastricht makes a connection between God’s simplicity and our worship as one that should be simple rest upon God. In a remarkable passage, he writes,

 

because God is most simple, and he thus gives simply (James 1:5), that is, he gives himself, all that he is, and all his attributes, which, by simplicity, are inseparable—his wisdom, power, goodness, and grace—devoting them to us, let us also then with a simple and whole heart rest in God alone, and because of his integrity and uprightness (which coincides with his simplicity), let us promise him all that is ours (Ps 25:21). (TPT, 2:150)

 

More on simple worship, Mastricht writes, “Since God is simple, we should, in all our worship, devote ourselves with a simple heart (Matt 10:16; Eph 6:5), with simplicity of heart, as to Christ, with the simplicity and sincerity of God (2 Cor 1:12) , . . with one simple heart, which is carried in one straight line to the one God” (TPT, 2:150). Mastricht applies simplicity to the believer’s life as the foundation of all stability (James 1:8) in that our hearts must be simple, being cleansed from every mixture of depraved desires (2 Cor 7:1; 1 John 3:3) that conflict with the desires of the Spirit. Believers must fight against these desires, so that their hearts would be free of contamination (Gal 5:17), fervently praying to God that he would create and give us one, clean heart (Ezek 11:19; Ps 51:10). This is sought so that we have sincerity in our manner of life, living “with simplicity of heart, fearing God” (Col 3:22). 

 

And lastly, Mastricht writes, divine simplicity teaches us contentment. The more simple something is, the more constant it will be; the more composite, the more dissoluble and corruptible it is. So, if our lives are heavily composed of “wealth, honors, and friends, the more mutable and the more one is distracted by objects, thus more liable to the cares and anxieties (Luke 10:41)” of the world, and the more one can lose. Therefore, we would accustom our souls to “godly self-sufficiency,” for God is most sufficient for all things (Gen 17:1) and is the one thing necessary in our lives (Luke 10:42) (TPT, 2:152).

 

In the brief sampling above, we see the important connection Mastricht establishes between the doctrine of divine simplicity and the Christian life. He provided clear biblical arguments for the support of this doctrine and then paced through some objections, which brought out the important distinctions and precise nuances maintaining the orthodox doctrine of God and the Trinity. And then he elucidated the doctrinal application in various measure, showing the practical importance of it in our Christian faith and piety, in turn showing the realness of this doctrine as compared to the “speculative” label many have given it.

 

~ Romans 11:36


[1] Theoretically speaking, Mastricht notes that simplicity excludes composition of 1) quantitative, corporeal parts; 2) essential parts, matter and form; 3) substance and accident, since accidents are imperfect compared to substances and accidents perfect their substances; 4) essence and existence, because existence is the act of his essence, not something different, thus implying composition; 5) genus and difference, since God as being above all being cannot be categorized (TPT, 2:144–45).

[2] Mastricht ascribes to the ways of causality, negation, and eminence as the manner of investigation of the divine attributes (TPT, 2:119).


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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,
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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 .”
1 comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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) .
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more