Comments on: God the Peacemaker: Some Brief Reflections

By: Brettongarcia

Brettongarcia — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:00:49 +0000

The idea that the Trinity is not really close to the essence of God would of course, be hard to defend in Biblical language – as a few critics of DS (Divine Simiplicity) famously note. Though, since I earlier defend the “one,” why don’t you begin by setting out your idea?

That is, I take it: how can there be atonement, in any useful sense, within a Divine Simplicity framework.

One simple objection that comes to my as-yet untutored mind (I never think much about this subject): how can it be said even, that Jesus “died”? Much less, gave his life for our sins. Since Jesus went to heaven, and therefore never died at all in any realistic – or essential – sense. If he did not die in any essential sense, then of what significance and reality, was his “death”? Was the “death” of Jesus ever more than a mere, superificial show?

By: Steve Duby

Steve Duby — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:48:47 +0000

One could begin with the atonement and infer that God is composed of parts or hold off on making conclusions about God’s being until more direct consideration of the divine essence. Or one can begin with the doctrine of God, posit that God is simple, and then work out an atonement theology (even a penal substitutionary atonement theology) that excludes anything implying a composite God.

At any rate, I’m far from convinced that the atonement points toward a composite God. The problems you mentioned emerge only if one departs from the traditional account of the doctrine of the Trinity wherein the persons are modes of subsistence within the one divine essence and don’t compose the essence. Someone inclined toward social trinitarianism will have more work to do in clarifying whether the atonement in some sense splits God apart, to put it crudely.

By: Brettongarcia

Brettongarcia — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:15:16 +0000

Divine simplicity – the idea that God is “one,” basically, and that he is not like a person with attributes like goodness, but is say, “Goodness” itself – has often been criticized on many grounds. But if we tentatively accept it for purposes of discussion?

Then it become difficult to present a coherent notion of many popular ideas of atonement. E.g.: if God is simply one, and has no “parts,” then how can Christ/God die, and yet leave God himself intact? If all parts of God are united in one, then wouldn’t the death of Christ also necessarily be … the death of God himself, too?

This might to be sure, make partial sense, theologically: God dies, oldtime theology dies, say. In order to make room for Man, the “son of Man.” Though many might find this conclusion hard to accept.