What is Divine Simplicity?

Divine Simplicity is to say that God is without out parts, has no ability to undergo change, is subsistent being itself and what it means to be. He is pure act [actus purus]. The DDS also says that God is wholly immutable and is pure actuality. That is to say, without any potential to acquire something new, say, a new attribute, as he is to be and is existence itself, which cannot be seperated from his essence. If God was not pure actuality (that which already exists), then he would have the potential to become composite, thus, being wholly mutable.

Gods existence being wholly inseparable from his essence can only be understood by way of the distinction between act and potency. That which can exist but does not is said to exist in potency, and that which already exists is said to exist in actuality. If God had the ability to exist in potency then he would undergo change. As whatever begins to exist is created. Therefore not of God, as God cannot be composed of parts because he is absolutely simple and pure actuality itself in his superessential transcendence and essence. This would mean that he would have parts, meaning that they would have to be ontologically prior to him since if God were composed of them, he would be dependent on them.

Here in his book ‘God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the metaphysics of Gods absoluteness’ relating to the above point, Dr. James E. Doelzal, Reformed Scholastic Scholar says very wisely:

“if God were not ontologically identical with all that is in him, then something other than God himself would be needed to account for his existence, essence, and attributes. But nothing that is not God can sufficiently account for God. He exists in all his perfection entirely in and through himself. At the heart of the classical DDS is the concern to uphold God’s absolute self-sufficiency as well as his ultimate sufficiency for the existence of the created universe.” - p. 16

This is basically the foundation of Aquinas’ whole metaphysical structure. Namely, act and potency, existence and essence, hylermorphism and the four causes.

However, don’t get confused, Gods divinity doesn’t change just because he is capable of acting within time. If something begins to exist then that means it was once not the thing it acquired, meaning, not of God, but a created part. That which does not exist cannot possibly bring itself into existence either. God cannot be inferior to himself, as whatever is brought to be is subject to something else.

Elijah Yasi
Part 1: Answering Ubi Petrus on Papal Infallibility

https://youtu.be/MH6HexjLlJ0

Ybarra already answered him on St. Leo’s tome, but after this... consider him done.

In order for the identity of essence and existence in God to make sense, essence and existence must be really distinct in created things. Because they are really distinct in created things, essence stands to existence as potency does to act. And because of this, if in God essence and existence were not identical, then there would be passive potency in Him.

« Dear son, if you happen to become the King, take care that you possess those qualities befitting of Kings. »
— Saint Louis IX of France

This comment section is extremely one sided. First of all, he did not post the full debate. Second of all, he did not address the points I made about Peter clearly having a position of primacy and that none of the fathers affirm that the Roman church was merely some Presbyterian ecclesiological system with no sense of Petrine primacy. Thirdly, he failed to respond to the claims I made about Eusebius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hermas of Rome, Clement, the Clementine homilies, etc.

Oh, and let’s not forget him totally ignoring everything else I said scripturally but instead only decided to respond to Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22. His “rebuttal” to my claims in relation to these verses are totally irrelevant and deserved no response, since the rest of what I said clearly affirms the papacy and links to the verses. Now, I say, go listen to my closing statement again to see where he objectively lost. These are clearly not just “nice things said about Peter.” Also, apparently since the word Pope or bishop is used means there was no Pope or bishop who had primacy over the faithful? That is fallacious nonsense.

Another point is that, the reason why I only stuck to certain Fathers was simply because he would not accept anything after the second century for definitive evidence. Thus, not letting me move on to further back up my point, despite me presenting clear evidence; in which he ignored.

You want even see the Orthodox espousing such nonsense that Peter was not the Bishop of Rome and that the Roman episcopate was Presbyterian in nature. Proves how nonsense it is. They don’t even deny Apostolic Secession either, they just have a problem with the claims of Vatican I.

https://youtu.be/5FHkUS6Mvr0

Jay Dyer and his cult of convertodox upon seeing this

#0207

#0206

Some clarifications on « Identitarianism » and personal opinions ⬇️