← Back to sermon library

We will read from chapter two, 
just paragraph one. I will read the paragraph and 
then we will get into a study specifically this morning on 
the doctrine of divine simplicity. A very important doctrine, a 
very foundational doctrine with regards to other things that 
we speak of concerning God, whether it is the fact of God being Of 
himself as the confession says whose subsistence is in and of 
himself as it speaks to his infinity his immensity is Immutability 
all of these things divine simplicity is the the ontological explanation 
and reason for all of these things So it is a very important and 
foundational doctrine. So let's read chapter 2 of God 
and of the Holy Trinity paragraph 1 The Lord our God is but one 
only living and true God, whose subsistence is in and of himself, 
infinite in being and perfection. whose essence cannot be comprehended 
by any but himself, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, 
parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in 
the light which no man can approach unto, who is immutable, immense, 
eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, 
most wise, most free, most absolute, working all things according 
to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his 
own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant 
in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and 
sin, the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and with 
all most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, 
and who will by no means clear the guilty. So as we've been 
studying the doctrine of God, we've had occasion to note some 
of those aids and helps in theology proper, interpretive aids and 
helps as we study the doctrine of God. And just a very quick 
minute and a half reintroduction to those things, because as we 
come now to a very difficult or complex subject called divine 
simplicity, we need to hunker down and have our minds engaged. that incomprehensibility is something 
that needs to be understood at the outset. The incomprehensibility 
of God. The Lord our God, His essence, 
cannot be comprehended by any but Himself, the Confession says. 
And we've noted that incomprehensible doesn't mean cannot know. It 
simply means that we cannot, in our finiteness, grasp within 
the full circumscription of our knowledge, the whole knowledge 
of God. God has revealed himself. We can know him by virtue of 
that revelation, but we cannot know him to exhaustion. We cannot 
know him to comprehensibility or comprehension fully. Though 
we cannot comprehend him as he is, Charnock says, we must be 
careful not to fancy him to be what he is not. At the outset 
of the theological enterprise, incomprehensibility must be affirmed. We need to commit to the exertion 
of mental energy. Remember, Deuteronomy 29.29 is 
not the escape hatch from growth in theological learning. We must 
commit to the exertion of mental energy. We need to understand 
and appreciate the use of negative theology. Remember what we were 
talking about a number of Sundays ago. Negative theology is simply 
that approach to theology where things are denied of God. He 
is invisible. That is, he is not visible. He 
is immense. He is immutable. He is incomprehensible. All of these rejections or denials 
of things in God to remove from him creaturely imperfection and 
anything that pertains to that which cannot be God. We need 
to understand the vast and unbridgeable ontological chasm between God 
and man. God is not on the same chain 
of being as man. He is not the superman or the 
superangel in a chain of being, but rather, as Dolezal says, 
God cannot be located on a single chain of being with non-divine 
things. He is wholly other. not of the 
same kind, not of the same, or not a constituent fellow, if 
you will, in the category of being as men and angels. We need to recognize the legitimacy 
of biblical speculation, that is, in paragraph six of chapter 
one, we recognize that truths are explicitly set down in scripture, 
or they are, secondly, necessarily contained by The logical, by 
the use of our logical and reasonable minds, we arrive at doctrines 
by two or more texts of scripture. Those things that aren't explicitly 
set down, but nevertheless are present by statement, by proposition, 
by precept, whatever. We, with our minds, put together 
those things that God is trying to say by the revelation of himself. 
And then two more things. We recognize the revelatory condescension 
of God when we approach interpretation. Remember Calvin says it is as 
if God is lisping to us in his revelation. The infinite must 
lisp to the finite because we cannot comprehend God in his 
essence and as he subsists in himself. So he must reveal to 
man in a way that we can understand and in a way that we can comprehend. We must, lastly, divest ourselves 
of the tendency to let the text speak instead of letting the 
Bible speak. And that was the stuff of Chapter 
1, Paragraph 7 and 9. When a text says, God with an 
outstretched arm redeemed his people from bondage, we are not 
to take that text, rip it out of the Bible, and say, therefore, 
God has an arm. When we read that God's eyes 
are in every place beholding the good and the wicked, We're 
not to rip that out of the Bible and say, therefore, God has a 
multiplicity of eyes out there in the universe. We need to let 
the Bible speak, not let text speak. So remember that when 
we talked about divine or the unity of God in our very first 
session, some of you weren't here, some of you were, but when 
we talked about the unity of God, we talked about that that 
can be understood in the unity of singularity and in the unity 
of simplicity. The unity of singularity is that 
there is only one living and true God whose essence cannot 
be divided and whose essence cannot be multiplied. God is 
one in such a way that there can be no other. And that actually 
pertains to simplicity. Divine simplicity or the unity 
of simplicity is the ontological explanation for the fact that 
there can only be one God. And so the unity of simplicity, 
which we have not yet covered and which we'll be studying this 
morning, that God is, to put it negatively, incomplex or uncompounded. But we will define that here 
in a moment. So first off, the first thing 
we're going to consider is the confessional presentation of 
the doctrine of divine simplicity. The confessional presentation 
of the doctrine of divine simplicity. The doctrine is represented in 
the statement without parts. Confession reads, speaking of 
God, right in the first third, if you will, of paragraph one, 
that God is a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, 
or passions. So the statement without parts 
is where we see explicitly the doctrine of divine simplicity. 
God is without parts, and we'll talk about what that means in 
a moment. But we could ask, what does it 
mean to be a most pure spirit? As the confession says, a most 
pure spirit. The confession, in a sense, answers 
by saying, first, invisible. Secondly, that he is incorporeal 
or immaterial. He is without body. And then 
by saying he is incomplex or uncompounded or without parts, 
and then by saying he is impassable, or that he is without passions 
or without emotions. And that's what we'll look at 
next time. And that's not to say that God 
does not love. When we say without passions 
or without emotion, that's not to say that God does not love, 
but rather to say that God is pure love. he could never be 
more loving. We're not saying God is immobile, 
inert, a rock and the waves crash against him and he just doesn't 
care, but rather that he couldn't care more and he couldn't love 
more. So far from the impassolists being those that would ascribe 
to God a rock-like character in the manner of being inert 
and immobile, rather we are saying that he is purely all of those 
things that are predicated of him and he could not be more 
or less of those things. God is pure love. In fact, the 
confession goes on to say most holy, most wise, most free, most 
absolute, and we'll have time to spend on that in a moment. 
So, how is God a pure spirit? He is invisible, he is incorporeal, 
he is incomplex, and he is impassable. When we get to the statement 
without parts, we need to understand that that is not further explaining 
without body. In other words, as if the Confession 
is just sort of inserting, as Dolezal says, an epexegetical 
addendum to without body. That is, it's not just further 
explaining what it means to not have a body. You know what I'm 
saying? So, God is without body, that is to say as well, or to 
elaborate, that he is without parts. That's not what the Confession 
is doing, and we'll talk about what without parts means in a 
moment, but we've said what it means in a sense 
by saying that that means God is incomplex or not complex and 
that he is not compounded, that is he is not a composite of parts. So the doctrine is, the doctrine 
of divine simplicity is foundationally behind the statements first in 
paragraph one, whose subsistence is in and of himself. How can 
we say that God's subsistence is in and of himself? Well, we 
can only say that if God is an uncompounded, incomplex being 
who does not have parts. The doctrine is foundationally 
behind the statement, secondly, infinite in being and perfection. 
God could not be infinite in his being or infinite in his 
perfections if he was a composite of parts. If he was composed 
of things, God could not be perfect in any of those things that he 
is composed of, because there would be lack, if you will, in 
the constituent whole of God. Because God is love, justice, 
mercy, or that he is composed of these things, those things 
in and of themselves would not be wholly infinite and wholly 
perfect, or we would have more infinites than one. Rather than 
having God as infinite solely and alone, we would have an infinity 
of God, an infinity of his holiness, an infinity of his lovingness, 
etc. We cannot have multiple infinities because God is one. 
Thirdly, the doctrine is foundationally behind the statements, every 
way infinite. He is also behind the statement, 
fourthly, most holy, or the doctrine of divine simplicity is foundationally 
behind the statement, fourthly, most holy, most wise, most free, 
most absolute, and then later in the confession, most loving. 
If God was comprised of love and then also comprised of justice, 
mercy, and these sorts of things, he could not be most loving because 
a constituent part of his whole would be taken up by another 
attribute or perfection. So for God to be most holy, most 
wise, most free, most absolute, most loving, he cannot be comprised 
of holiness, wisdom, freedom, absoluteness, and lovingness. 
But rather, all of these things must be identical to his essence 
and being, which we will get to later. And then lastly, the 
doctrine is foundationally behind the statement in paragraph two, 
God having all life, glory, goodness, blessedness in and of himself 
is alone in and unto himself all sufficient. not standing 
in need of any creature which he hath made, nor deriving any 
glory from them." We'll get to that when we get to the idea 
that God is not conceptually to be conceived of as having 
act and passive potency. In other words, if God had potentiality 
in him, he would be dependent either upon himself or upon others 
outside of himself in order to act and respond. We must understand 
that God is not self-created or self-dependent. God isn't 
even self-controlled. Because God is pure act, because 
God is simple, we must reject this notion that he then is, 
of course, dependent or has some sort of potentiality in him that 
is dependent upon either himself to act upon himself or others, 
if you will, to arouse a response or an operation in him. The doctrine is present in all 
of the Reformed creeds, and even appeared in the 39 articles of 
the Anglican Church. In the Anglican 39 articles, 
which preceded the Westminster, the Savoy, and the Baptist, we 
have this statement, there is but one living and true God, 
everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, of infinite power, 
wisdom, and goodness. So in 1563, the Anglicans upheld 
this idea, this truth of God without parts, divine simplicity. It's present in the Westminster. 
It's present in the Savoy. It's present in, of course, our 
Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. It's also present, 
though stated differently, in the Belgic Confession, where 
we read, and this would precede the Anglican 39 Articles, the 
revision, though, would come afterwards in 1618, but in the 
Belgic Confession we read, we all believe with the heart and 
confess with the mouth that there is one only simple and spiritual 
being which we call God and that he is eternal, incomprehensible, 
invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, 
good, and the overflowing fountain of all good. So we have a consistency 
with regards to the Reformed Confession. So then, The confessional 
presentation of the doctrine of divine simplicity. Secondly, 
the definition of the doctrine of divine simplicity. We've already 
stated, of course, in general, if we were to give a two-word 
definition, it is without parts. But we do need to elaborate because, 
again, some people might just read that and think that it's 
further explaining what it means to be without body. divine simplicity 
of mean very quickly. It does not mean that God is 
comprehensible, that is, that his essence is easy to grasp. 
So we need to eliminate that. When we talk about divine simplicity, 
we're not just as, oh, God's easy to comprehend. We can fully 
enclose within the grasp of our comprehension the divine and 
infinite being that is God. That's not what we mean by divine 
simplicity. Again, though, we can know God. We do know God 
as Christians, but we do not know the fullness of his being 
and his essence as the confession opens up. It also does not mean 
that God is ordinary or unadorned and not the object of praise 
and worship. When we say divine simplicity, 
we're not to understand simple or simplicity there as meaning 
ordinary or unadorned. And of course, speaking as a 
man, We are not, of course, to understand that God is ignorant 
or dumb or gullible when we speak with regards to divine simplicity. 
So then what does it mean? God without parts, divine simplicity, 
what does it mean? This is Dolezal giving two definitions 
in two different places. Divine simplicity is articulated 
apophatically, that means by rejection or denial, by a negative 
statement. Divine simplicity is articulated 
apophatically as God's lack of parts and denies that he is physically, 
logically, or metaphysically composite. Aquinas says, every 
composite is posterior to its components after its components. Since the simpler exists in itself 
before anything is added to it for the composition of a third, 
but nothing is prior to the first, Therefore, since God is the first 
principle, he is not composite. Another definition would be the 
classical doctrine of simplicity holds forth the maxim that there 
is nothing in God that is not God. There is nothing in God 
that is not God. Or to positively state that, 
all that is in God is God. And we'll get to that, open that 
up in a little bit. This is a quote by Muller citing 
Perkins, the key issue is that God must never be conceived as 
if there should be in God diverse things and one more perfect than 
another. Rather God is understood as always 
and necessarily who and what he is with the result that whatsoever 
is in God is his essence and all that he is, he is by essence. So again, Very briefly, what 
does divine simplicity mean? God's lack of parts, and it denies 
that he is physically, logically, or metaphysically composite. 
And the classical doctrine of simplicity holds forth the maxim 
that there is nothing in God that is not God. Those are both 
quotes by James Dolezal. And you've heard us refer to 
him on a number of occasions. Very recently, within the last 
three years, I think, got his PhD. And this was his dissertation 
that is now published. God without parts, divine simplicity, 
and the metaphysics of God's absoluteness. He's a Reformed 
Baptist fellow, a brilliant mind, a younger fellow whose specialty, 
again, in his PhD dissertation is this doctrine of divine simplicity. I wouldn't recommend it. Well, 
anybody, buy it and read it. It's a very heavy philosophical 
but important topic to grasp because there are those who oppose 
this doctrine historically and presently. And again, it is a 
very foundational doctrine to our consistent upholding of God 
as the most absolute being, the only absolute being. So very important. But a plug 
in a lot of this stuff that I'm saying this morning comes packaged 
by reading Dalzell and his book, God Without Parts. So thirdly, 
let's look at the historical witness to the doctrine of divine 
simplicity because you see, There is a consistency with regards 
to this doctrine. From the outset of the church 
through to the present day, we have a consistent and perpetual 
stream of Christian theologians upholding this doctrine and its 
necessity and importance. The historical witness to the 
doctrine of divine simplicity. This is Muller. 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. So in every era of the Christian 
church, we have this doctrine set forth and upheld. First, with the early church, 
this is Irenaeus. Speaking of God, he is a simple, 
uncompounded being, without diverse members, and altogether like 
and equal to himself, since he is holy understanding and holy 
spirit. This is W-H-O-L-L-Y, by the way. Since he is holy understanding 
and holy spirit, and holy thought, and holy intelligence, and holy 
reason, and holy hearing, and holy seeing, and holy light, 
and the whole source of all that is good. Simplicity was also 
used to establish, and this is where we see its importance introduced 
practically. The doctrine of divine simplicity 
was vital to defending the full deity of the sun in the early 
church. So with all these Christological controversies that came up in 
the early church, the foundational doctrine, one of the foundational 
doctrines, that served to bolster the apologetic and the polemic 
was divine simplicity. How is it that we can uphold 
the full deity of the sun? It is because of the doctrine 
of divine simplicity. Simplicity was used to establish 
the full deity of the sun and spirit. For example, with Gregory 
of Nysa in combating the heretic Eunomius, and this is Gregory 
of Nysa in combating the heresy of Eunomius, which was sort of 
an extreme Arianism, that Christ was a created being. But let 
us still scrutinize his words. He declares each of these beings, 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, whom he has shadowed forth in 
his exposition, to be single and absolutely one. We believe 
that the most boorish and simple-minded would not deny that, the divine 
nature, blessed and transcendent as it is, was single. That which 
is viewless, formless, and sizeless cannot be conceived of as multi-form 
and composite. But it will be clear upon the 
very slightest reflection that this view of the Supreme Being 
as simple, however finely they may talk of it, is quite inconsistent 
with the system which they have elaborated." What he's saying 
is their conception, the heretics' conception of simplicity. They uphold this oneness or simplicity 
in one breath, but then in the next rejected by their doctrine 
of Christ and the Holy Spirit. For who does not know that, to 
be exact, simplicity in the case of the Holy Trinity admits of 
no degrees. In this case there is no mixture 
or conflux of qualities to think of. We comprehend a potency without 
parts and composition. How then and on what grounds 
could anyone perceive there any differences of less and more? 
For he who marks differences there must perforce think of 
an incidence of certain qualities in the subject. He must in fact 
have perceived differences in largeness and smallness therein. 
to have introduced this conception of quantity into the question, 
or he who must posit abundance or diminution in the matter of 
goodness, strength, wisdom, or of anything else that can with 
reverence be associated with God. The early church fathers 
at Nicaea had simplicity at the heart of rejecting tritheism 
of any sort and upholding divine singularity and Trinitarian theology. Augustine as well contributed 
well to the doctrine as he would write it is for this reason then 
that the nature of the Trinity is called simple because it has 
not anything which it can lose and because it is not one thing 
and its contents another as a cup and the liquor, or a body and 
its color, or the air and the light or heat of it, or a mind 
and its wisdom, for none of these is what it has. But it is impious 
to say that God is not his goodness, but it is in him as an underlying 
subject." So to say that goodness in God is an underlying subject 
that is not identical to his essence in being, Augustine says 
that that is impious because all that is in God is God. In the medieval era, the medieval 
era of Christianity, we have Boethius in defending immutability 
and independence used simplicity as the foundation. One of those 
doctrines that you're probably more familiar with, the immutability 
of God, that God cannot and does not change, that he does not 
because he cannot. God cannot change. Underlying 
ontological reason for that is because God is without parts. 
He is incomplex. He is uncomposed. All that is 
in God is God. Anselm, self-sufficiency and 
independence were those things that were built upon the foundation 
of divine simplicity. For he writes, for whatever is 
composed of parts is not altogether one, but is in some sort plural. and diverse from itself, and 
either in fact or in concept is capable of dissolution. But 
these things are alien to thee, than whom nothing better can 
be conceived of. Hence there are no parts in thee, 
Lord, nor art thou more than one. But thou art so truly a 
unitary being, and so identical with thyself, that in no respect 
art thou unlike thyself. Rather, thou art unity itself, 
indivisible by any conception. Therefore, life and wisdom and 
the rest are not parts of thee, but all are one. And each of 
these is the whole which thou art and which all the rest are." 
Probably the most vocal or the largest contributor, if you will, 
to the doctrine in that particular medieval era, and that the reformed 
after them and the reformed scholastics very often appealed to and quoted 
was Thomas Aquinas. He had simplicity as the centerpiece 
of the creator-creature distinction. So remember how we've talked, 
that God is not being on the same ontological chain of being 
as men and angels. He is wholly other, transcendently 
removed of a of another type of being. Thomas Aquinas has 
simplicity as the centerpiece of that creator and creature 
distinction. A composite being, Thomas would 
write, and this is just summing up his ideas, a composite being 
entails or assumes or requires a composer. When we talk about 
a being that is composed of something, we must understand that a being 
that is composed of something must have a composer. Either 
that or the being himself somehow super adds to himself abstract 
universals of love and wisdom and justice and mercy and then 
therefore is somehow, if you will, self-composed. We cannot, 
God doesn't compose himself of those things outside of himself 
that are somehow determined to be abstract universals of love 
and wisdom and justice, but rather he is identical with those things 
in his essence and being. Thomas would write, every composite 
is subsequent to its components. That's why we must say God is 
simple, because if he was the composite of components, those 
components must necessarily precede that which is composed. Therefore, 
love, would be an eternally existing universal abstract outside of 
God or existing alongside of God that he appropriates or participates 
in. Every composite is subsequent 
to its components, God being the first principle, he cannot 
be posterior to components. The Reformed era comes along 
and we find William Perkins Writing, whatsoever is in God is his essence, 
and all that he is, he is by essence. Melanchthon, the attributes 
of God are not to be distinguished or separated from his essence, 
nor is the attribute one thing and the essence another. Muller 
on John Calvin. For Calvin, divine simplicity 
functions not as a philosophical ground for discussion of the 
divine essence and attributes, but as a biblically revealed 
divine attribute and as a basic rule of God language, identifying 
God as non-composite, particularly for the sake of a right understanding 
of the doctrine of the Trinity and of the unity and consistency 
of the divine power and justice. You see, when we come to the 
doctrine of the Trinity, it doesn't rub against or rail against the 
doctrine of divine simplicity. Why? Because in this divine and 
infinite being, there are three subsistences, the Father, the 
Word or Son, and the Holy Spirit. And these three are the same 
in substance, the same in power, and have that same essence, the 
essence undivided and not multiplied. And so it doesn't rub against 
the Trinity, this doctrine of divine simplicity, but rather 
it is foundationally necessary in our apologetic for the doctrine 
of the Trinity, where we do find not a ontological subordination, 
but rather that all have the whole divine essence, yet the 
essence undivided. John Owen writes, were he composed 
of parts, accidents, manner of being, he could not be first. All of these are before that 
which is of them, and therefore his essence is absolutely simple. 
And Francis Turretin, the Orthodox, have constantly taught that the 
essence of God is perfectly simple and free from all composition. 
One of our patron saints of Reformed Baptist theology, John Gill, 
writes with regards to divine simplicity, God being a spirit, 
we learn that he is simple and uncompounded being. and does 
not consist of parts as a body does. His spirituality involves 
his simplicity. Some indeed consider this as 
an attribute of God and his spirituality also, and indeed every attribute 
of God is God himself, is his nature, and are only so many 
ways of considering it or are so many displays of it. However, 
it is certain God is not composed of parts in any sense, not in 
a physical sense, of essential parts as matter and form, of 
which bodies consist, nor of integral parts as soul and body, 
of which men consist, nor in a metaphysical sense as of essence 
and existence, of act and power, nor in a logical sense as of 
kind and difference, substance and accident, all which would 
argue imperfection, weakness, and mutability. You see, this 
is where it cuts to the quick or where the rubber meets the 
road. If God, every compounded, pardon me about that, sorry Trinity 
Hymnal. Every compounded being has dependence 
and finitude necessarily. If God was composed, he would 
be dependent. If God was composed, he would 
ultimately be finite. Everything with parts is a creature. God being, of course, not a creature 
cannot be composed of parts. And Gill is exactly right to 
say, if God were not simple as we've been defining it, this 
would argue imperfection, weakness, and mutability. We get to the 
19th and 20th centuries, and we do have men like Spurgeon, 
though not in necessarily the same stream of some of those 
reform scholastics and that sort of thing where he's theologically 
dealing extensively with these categories of theology proper. 
But nevertheless, we do have Spurgeon speaking with regards 
to things and to this issue. Again, Spurgeon says, there is 
the fact of God's infinity, which puts change out of the question. 
God is an infinite being. What do you mean by that? There 
is no man who can tell you what he means by an infinite being. 
There cannot be two infinities. If one thing is infinite, there 
is no room for anything else. For infinite means all. It means 
not bounded, not finite, having no end. Well, there cannot be 
two infinities. If God is infinite today and 
then should change and be infinite tomorrow, there would be two 
infinities. But that cannot be. Suppose he is infinite and then 
he changes. He must become finite and could not be God. Either 
he is finite today and finite tomorrow or infinite today and 
finite tomorrow or finite today and infinite tomorrow. All of 
which suppositions are equally absurd. The fact of his being 
an infinite being at once squashes the thought of his being a changeable 
being. Infinity has written on its very brow the word immutability. 
Now, what does that have to do with simplicity? Well, we've 
already said that simplicity is the ontological reason for 
immutability. But also, if you read that from 
Spurgeon, you can hear echoes of Gil, John Gil, who preceded 
him by 100 years, in his sections on simplicity, on the nature 
of God, and immutability, in which Gil uses simplicity to 
argue for. It is as if Spurgeon is echoing 
Gil, who in a way is echoing Thomas Aquinas and the reform 
scholastics before him. And so we have Spurgeon upholding 
these aspects of our enterprise in theology proper, divine simplicity. We have Bovinck and Burkoff as 
well. Bovinck and his reform dogmatics, 
Burkoff and his systematic theology in short sections, but nevertheless 
very clearly and very explicitly upholding this doctrine and its 
necessity that God is without parts. So fourthly then, an opening 
up of the doctrine of divine simplicity, an opening up of 
this doctrine. If we cannot finish by 20 after 
10, we'll stop and we'll have a time for discussion. I know 
Pastor Butler would probably want to add some things here 
because he's been in this topic, maybe more specifically impassibility. 
But if there's any questions, by all means, you can ask it 
at that point and we can discuss this. So an opening up of the 
doctrine of divine simplicity. That God is without parts would 
certainly include that he is without physical parts, but again, 
it does not mean or it is not an elaboration upon God without 
body. that is subsumed, the fact that 
God would be without physical parts, is subsumed under without 
body. While the truth that God is without 
parts includes physical parts, no doubt, it has more to do with, 
or everything to do with, the denial that God has any composition 
whatsoever. And you've probably got that 
already by what we've talked about, by these quotes. But very 
simply, that God is without parts or composition whatsoever, the 
central claim is that God is what he is in virtue of his Godhead 
and not by virtue of properties inhering in him. Those things 
that are somehow an inseparable part, permanently and inseparably 
a quality or an attribute or an element of. God is what he 
is in virtue of his Godhead and not by virtue of properties in 
him that somehow describe him or somehow compose him. So he 
is not, as we've had occasion to note, he's not comprised of 
form and matter as bodies are. He's not comprised of being and 
essence. This is a necessary distinction 
that theologians draw in their comparison of creator and creatures. Everything created, every man 
created, let's use men as an example, has essence and being, 
and these are separate things, but in God they must be identical. If essence is the whatness of 
thing, the what of a thing, and being is the principle by which 
it is anything at all, God's principle by which He is cannot 
be different than that which He is, because one would necessarily 
precede the other. We could say it with regards 
to creation. Men receive the principle by what they are or 
the principle of isness by virtue of receiving it from God. They 
derive it by virtue of creation ex nihilo and creation by God. Whereas God does not receive 
and cannot receive his own principle of being because he is being 
itself. He is the first principle. He 
is a God alone. So his essence and his being 
are identical, and this is Charnock on this, Stephen Charnock, an 
old boy from the beginning to the mid of the 17th century. 
God is the most simple being, for that which is first in nature, 
having nothing beyond it, cannot by any means be thought to be 
compounded, for whatsoever is so depends upon the parts whereof 
it is compounded. And so is not the first being. 
Now God, being infinitely simple, hath nothing in himself which 
is not himself, and therefore cannot will any change in himself, 
he being his own essence and existence. These things are identical 
in God. God is not composed of intellect, 
will, and heart or emotion. Faculty psychology comes along 
in, whenever that was, the late 19th century, beginning of the 
20th century. And we have theologians after 
this attributing that sort of faculty psychology to God, that 
he is composed, if you will, of intellect, will, and heart, 
or emotion. We must, of course, reject that 
because of and for the sake of the doctrine of divine simplicity. 
God is not composed of substance and accidents. Accidents would 
be those things that are not essentially necessary for a thing 
to be what it is. For example, the color of my 
hair. If I had hair, the color of my 
hair would be an accident. Removing the color of my hair 
doesn't remove calmness. Well, it might remove, well, 
no, I'm still calm. But it doesn't remove who I am 
or what I am. It doesn't remove my essential 
humanity. If I put a hat on, that doesn't 
add to my, essence or my essential nature. God is not composed of 
those things which are his substance and those things which either 
can be super added to him or taken away. God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today 
and forever. He does not take on things. He 
does not take upon himself attributes and he does not divest himself 
of anything that is himself.