Pints With Aquinas - 176: Divine Simplicity & William Lane Craig W/ Fr. Gregory Pine

Episode Date: October 22, 2019

Today I sit down with Fr. Gregory Pine to discuss the doctrine of divine simplicity. We also take a look at some of Dr. William Lane Craig's objections to the doctrine. SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

Hey, welcome to Pints with Aquinas. My name is Matt Fradd. Today we are joined around the bar table by Father Gregory Pine to discuss something that is not in any way, shape or form simple, namely divine simplicity. I share several things that evangelical apologist Dr. William Lane Craig has said against divine simplicity and let Father Gregory Pine respond. So, hope you enjoy the show. Here we go. Alright, welcome back to Pints with Aquinas, the show where you and I pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor to discuss theology and philosophy. Today we're going to be talking about divine simplicity. You'll learn what that means shortly if you're not familiar at all. We have done an episode on it in the past with Father Chris Pachashko. Maybe you've heard that. For me, I need to take several takes at this thing, even just to vaguely get what we're talking about.

At the end of the episode, we suggest a couple of other free talks you can go listen to online to fill out your understanding of this beautiful doctrine. In it, as I already said, we share a little bit about what Dr. William A. Craig has said against divine simplicity and let Fr. Gregory Pine respond. So I think you're going to really enjoy this episode today. I'm not sure if you know this or not, but Fr. Gregory Pine and I have been working hard on a new book on Marian consecration. And it'll be out hopefully by the end of the year, we're thinking, with St. Benedict Press or TAN. I know they're kind of the same thing, so I think it's Benedict Press. Marian Consecration with Aquinas, it's called. A nine-day path for growing closer to the Mother of God. So, pretty pumped. If you go to patreon.com slash mattfradd, you can see the brand new spanking

front cover that they came up with. It's always scary when you write a book and then give it to a publisher and they get to kind of label it and put their design on it, because you're so afraid it's going to be terrible. I've had that happen to me in the past. Not going to mention any names, but this one looks absolutely beautiful. This is really going to help you grow in your love and understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I think part of the reason I wanted to write this book was whenever I read Louis de Montfort, I find nuggets that I absolutely love and quote and memorize and tell other people about. But as a whole, I just can't get into the book. I just can't get into his writing style myself. Now, you might think that says more about me than his writing style,

and maybe that's true, but the fact is I think a lot of people are like that, and so we don't want anyone to feel like they can't consecrate or entrust their lives to the Blessed Virgin Mary. So this would be a really cool book for you to get. As I say, it'll be out by the end of the year, but maybe you want to lead nine days of prayer with your family as you go through this and read texts from Thomas Aquinas and me and Father Gregory explain them to you, what they mean.

Maybe you want to do it with your youth group, your men's group. But anyway, just want to let you know that that's something to look forward to. All right, here is the episode with Father Gregory Pine. Well, let's begin because we are recording. I should have told you that, but we're recording. This is part of the episode. What's up? Wow. So, we should begin by kind of explaining what we mean by divine simplicity and just kind of give people a little bit of background as to who Dr. Craig is and why he rejects it. So, what is divine simplicity and is a Catholic free to reject it?

Excellent question. So, what is divine simplicity? Divine simplicity means that God is not composed. So, the question on divine simplicity comes up in the Prima Pars, question three. So, the general division of the Prima Pars, I think it's helpful to do like the division of the text because it gives you a sense of where this consideration falls in the general shape of theology. So in the prima pars, the first part of the Summa, you begin with a question about methodology, and then you have an additional 42 questions about the nature of God. Recall that St. Thomas, he is exercised to show how all of creation goes forth from God and it returns to God. So he starts by describing God, and then he describes the act of

creation, material creation, angels, men, and then governance and providence. And then he describes the moral life, Christ, the sacraments as our way back to God. And then ultimately you come to the last things, which he himself never wrote in the Summa, but which his buddy Reginald collected from his articles in the Sentences Commentary. So, what we are dealing with here is in the long treatise on God, questions 2 through 43. That treatise itself is divided into questions 2 through 26, which is about the one God, and then questions 27 through 43, which is about the triune God. So, questions 2 through 26, which is about the one God, and then questions 27 through 43, which is about the triune God. So questions 2 through 26 are generally referred to as natural theology.

So in the last episode, we talked about when St. Thomas is doing philosophy or when he's doing theology. What he's doing here is principally philosophical. That was my text. Continue. Hey, nice. What's up? I'm texting you as you're talking. Open that. Keep talking. Sorry. my text continue hey nice what's up i'm texting you as you're talking open that keep talking sorry um so i love it um so so in questions 2 through 26 didn't expect it to bing

i'm glad it did i wouldn't have it either way um so what uh what saint thomas is doing in questions 2 through 26 is principally philosophical. Again, it's illumined by faith and it's healed and elevated by faith, the discourse itself, but he's not really bringing too much revelation into the mix. He's just kind of operating on the steam of reason. And a question two is about whether you can prove that God exists and then proves for God's existence. And then questions three through 11 are these, like the

beginning of this process of kind of teasing out the divine attributes. Okay. So sometimes the distinction driven, like derived between divine attributes and divine names, that's not especially important for our purposes, but questions three through 11 are about divine attributes. And then he'll get into like questions about how we can know God and how we name God. And then he'll have a much larger section devoted to God's knowledge, like his ideas, types, false or truth and falsity, God's will, love, power, justice, providence, predestination, things like that. So this is the very first question after having proved that God is in an Aristotelian science. You then go on to prove what God is. And at the beginning of this question, there's a super helpful prologue where St. Thomas shows himself to be pretty apophatic. And apophaticism is a tradition where in order to get to knowledge of God, you basically have to rule things out.

So St. Thomas says that we can't really so much know what god is as we can know how god is not um so we can't really know quid sit he says in latin but we can know quo modo non sit how he is not so we're like basically ruling things out so as to purify our understanding of god so that when we go to speak of him and when we go to worship him we'll have kind of circumscribed the mystery right we'll have a sense of where the mystery lies. So that way our words of commendation and praise actually end up at the right place. So yeah, so this is the very first question that he devotes in that project. So when we say that God is simple, we are saying that he is not composed. So too, when we say that God is perfect, which is the next question, we are saying that he is not lacking anything

proper to his nature. And you can go on when When you say that God is eternal, we're saying that he is not time-bound. When you say that God is immutable, we're saying that God does not change. When you're saying that God is infinite, we are saying that God is not delimited, right? So, in all of these things, the words sound like positive attributions, but what we're really doing is ruling things out of God. So, simplicity is a matter of ruling out composition because, and St. Thomas' principal consideration here is about ruling out potency. So, you know, potency gets talked about a lot when you talk about St. Thomas Aquinas, and basically what it is is a principle of coming to be or a principle

of further realization. So, St. Thomas will end up showing and wants to show that God is pure act. So God is fully realized. He lacks nothing proper to his nature, nor is there any coming to be in God. He's not getting better, nor can he get better, because he exhausts all that there is of being. He has whole and simultaneous possession of endless life. So when we talk about simplicity, that's basically what we're getting at. Lead others to truth and enrich your life in Christ by studying Catholic theology that is

faithful to scripture, tradition, and the magisterium. At Franciscan University of Steubenville, you'll challenge your mind and contemplate the mysteries of the faith while being guided by some of the most respected theologians in the church today. People like Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Michael Volstein, Dr. Mark Miravalle, and more. There's a reason so many of the leaders in the church and lay apostolates count Franciscan theology graduates among their staff, faculty, and clergy. Our faculty members are not only some of the most respected Catholic intellectuals, authors, speakers, and apologists in the world today, they're also committed to teaching the truth of the Catholic faith. All of them take an oath of fidelity to the magisterium,

pledging to live in a way that expresses full communion with the church. Our programs are available online or on campus. We offer several different graduate theology degrees suited to fit your interests and career goals. Concentrations are available in Mariology, Theology of the Body, Moral Theology, Sacred Scripture, Canon Law, Young and Young Adult Ministry, and more. Best of all, you don't need an undergraduate degree in theology or philosophy to enroll in these programs. So here's what I want you to do. I want you to go to franciscan.university.pints. Okay. Did you hear me? Good. Because I really want them to know that these adverts are bloody

well working. So franciscan.university.pints for more information about graduate theology and catechetics at Franciscan University of Steubenville. That's franciscan.university.pints, like of beer, franciscan.university.pints. And again, this is not something I want to make it clear that Catholics are free to reject. It's not like this is one interesting opinion among other opinions, and we can choose which one appeals to us the most. When it comes to divine simplicity, this is something taught infallibly by the church. most? When it comes to divine simplicity, this is something taught infallibly by the church. Yeah, so I think a good way to think about it is as, what do you get if he is not simple?

If God's not simple, then he is in some way composed. And St. Thomas goes from there to say, if he's composed, then there's act and potency. And then if there's act and potency, then God can get better. And if God can get better, then there is something better than God. Okay. And so either God is not God or God could be God. You know, it just kind of gets absurd pretty quickly. Now, one of the objections William Lane Craig has to that is that he says this fails to take into account that one can change horizontally if you want. So yeah, one can change and grow better or worse, but one can also change to something that is equally good. So St. Thomas actually has the conceptual framework that already takes account of that. So for St. Thomas, the big kind of category for change is motion. So he says there are four types of motion, three that are properly so-called, and then one that's only secundum quid or after her manner. So those are

first, change in place. Second, change in quantity. And third, change in quality. And then the fourth one, which isn't properly motioned in the same way, is change in substance or substantial change. So just speaking about these ones, like for instance, he thinks that the heavenly bodies are made of a fourth element that does not undergo generation or corruption, but yet they move in a kind of perfect way. And so he thinks that the heavenly spheres basically rotate on an axis. So they move, but they don't displace anything, nor do they recognize or realize any further potency. So St. Thomas already has a notion of like, quote unquote, horizontalness or horizontal change. And he still thinks, though, that it admits of a kind of imperfection, right? In as much as a thing is, it has to be embodied, right? It has to be material. And as

a result of which this type of change is attendant upon that fact. That's like, whatever, it's not too terribly important. And I can kind of get confusing. But the point is to say that there is no, in St. Thomas's conceptual framework, he's not scandalized by this revelation of potential horizontal change. He's already thought about it. He's accounted for it. And he still thinks that it denotes a kind of limitation or a kind of potency. Now, one of the objections I've heard raised, and I've even felt in the past is if there can be absolutely no change in God, then what does it – or no suffrage in God. Like what does it mean to say that God longs for us, that he wants a relationship with us? Because sometimes divine simplicity just sounds like frozen block of ice. That's how interesting it can sound to people.

I don't want to have a relationship with a frozen block of ice. I want a relationship with a father who's tender towards me, who responds to me. And it just doesn't feel like that can happen if God can't change in any way whatsoever. I'm going to be tempted to talk for too long, so you need to interrupt at a certain point. No, I promise I will, but I'm interested to hear what you have to say. And first of all, do you understand that objection? Do you see where that's coming from in people? Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah. Well, because I think that like, so like we consult our experience. We want to be loved by people who are involved with us, right? Even just think about like, if you get the sense that somebody is loving you because they feel the duty to love you or they're exhibiting some charity in your general direction. Yeah. It can feel awful. You know, you're like, oh man, I'm a charity case and I am not really that pleasant to be around. And they're doing this as a chore. You would just much rather be delighted in, you know, or you end up feeling like a number, like when Delta calls you a valued customer. You're like, well, you have to say that

you've chosen to say that you don't necessarily think that about me specifically. Yeah, no. And I think that like, basically what's at stake is that we want to be known and seen and delighted in, in a kind of spontaneous way. Um, so that it's not a chore and, and we expect a kind of reciprocity. We expect a mutuality. We expect a deep engagement on the side of someone else. a kind of reciprocity. We expect a mutuality. We expect a deep engagement on the side of someone else. And then if you say of God that like he's unchanging, it's just, it seems like a short distance from that to the loss of any kind of real rich and engaging type of relationship. So what we're going to get to though is how God's love is distinct from our love. That's going to be the end game. But in order to get there, just like a couple of things about like

why God doesn't change and why it's important that he doesn't change. Okay. Sure. So I think like when St. Thomas approaches this, so philosophically, you know, he has his considerations about act and potency, and he doesn't want to introduce any potency into his considerations of God. Because if you do that, right, things just, they just get very strange very quickly. But St. Thomas is also thinking too about salvation. So how is it that, right, things just, they just get very strange very quickly. But St. Thomas is also thinking, too, about salvation. So how is it that we are saved? Well, you can think about, like, Jesus Christ took human flesh, suffered and died, rose, ascended to the right hand of the Father, reigns gloriously forever in heaven. As a way of kind of, like, passing through what we ourselves need to pass through in him.

what we ourselves need to pass through in him. But what is important is that his human nature is united hypostatically to the Word, right, to the second of the Holy Trinity. The way that we can hope to enjoy salvation is to have our humanity united to the Godhead, okay? And so, it is super important that there is a Godhead from whom we can expect salvation, from whom we can expect divinization or deification. Because if God is just lost among us, then there's really no terminus. There's no end point. There's no horizon of our homing to which we can hope to be restored because everyone's just kind of together in this welter of conflicting causes.

So God isn't just like a cause like other causes. He is a universal cause which disposes particular causes in such a way that if a thing departs from him in one order, it returns to him in another. So like God is the type of being, you know, to speak somewhat improperly, who has accounted for all this, who has foreseen all this, who has providentially disposed all of this, and for whom none of this is shocking or surprising or scandalous. None of this departs from his whole and simultaneous embrace of being. Okay, so that's like super important because when we think about it in terms of salvation, I need God to be God. Otherwise, I can't be like God. God became man so that man might become God. Otherwise, I can't be like God, you know? God became man so that man might become God. God didn't become man so that he could be like lost with us and we could feel a sense of solidarity

with our fellow traveler. And as a result of which, just be reconciled to our state, which is ultimately one of irretrievable sadness. It's like, no! Okay? Like, I can... Why is the only option divine simplicity or lost among us like a fellow traveler? That feels like a false dichotomy? Excellent point. I have skipped some steps. So when you get divine simplicity, that's where you get pure act, right? And when you get pure act, you get a number of things in its wake.

So for St. Thomas, a lot of these claims in questions 3 through 11 and a lot of claims that follow actually are bound up with God's being pure act. So that's true of like perfection. And I think it's also true of his goodness. I don't want to speak improperly or over confidently, but like if God has potency to be realized, then we can't say of him that he is goodness to the utmost, that he is perfection to the utmost, that he is infinity to the utmost, that he is omnipresent to the utmost, because then you just lose a lot of things. Like, for instance, in his article, or excuse me, his question about divine simplicity, the third thing that he says is that God is not composed of essence and existence.

We've already seen this in the third way in the argument from contingency. So, like, if God is composed of essence and existence, then God is not his existence in the way that St. Thomas understands Exodus 3.14, I am who am. And as a result of which, then God needs some further principle to wed his essence and his existence or to account for the fact that they are conjoined. Either you are subsisting existence, like the way that St. Thomas refers to God as ipsum esse, to be, very to be itself, per se subsistence, subsisting through itself. So either one is like that or one needs something like that to account for the fact that one exists, right? Because it's not guaranteed, nor is it something that just follows from the essence of a thing. So like if you lose that, if you have that kind of composition, then things start to spiral. And as a result of which, then God ceases to look like God. And I realize, you know, this might sound a little bit dire. And like, certainly there are

other, you know, metaphysical traditions or there are other traditions within the Catholic Church that don't hold for divine simplicity with the same kind of rigor and vigor. And they manage to like worship God with upright hearts and to be pretty decent people. So I realize what I'm saying sounds like a little bit alarmist, but St. Thomas is very much wed to the logic that you need to hold fast to these yields or else things just kind of get crazy quick. Have you read that article that I sent you from Craig? I did, yes. I think what lay people like me find difficult is they see someone who's clearly very intelligent, brilliant, like Dr. William Lane Craig, who I and others have a lot of respect for.

And then they hear people like yourself and others speak about divine simplicity. And we wonder, we're not even sure if we're intelligent enough to go in and to assess the arguments for and against ad infinitum and come up with a solution. So from what you read in that article, how would you sort of steel man Craig's position? How would you put it in a way that you think he'd be happy with and then how would you respond to it? So a lot of his argument – well, maybe just to address your like first concern briefly and then, uh, and then to return to the subject at hand. Um, I think so. So on the one hand, it can be intimidating if one doesn't feel like he or she has the

intellectual chops to actually engage with these things profitably. If it's any consolation, I don't feel like I have the intellectual chops to engage with these things profitably. If it's any consolation, I don't feel like I have the intellectual chops to engage with these things profitably. So like when somebody sounds like they have all the answers, they probably don't. Like part of it's probably bluster. And then part of it is just describing the things that they do know that are related to the things that they don't know. And I mean, well, dot, dot, dot. When you think about this, too, in terms of apologetics. So I once had an encounter where I got out of the metro at Congress Heights and I was walking to my parish assignment, Assumption BVM on the corner of MLK and Malcolm X. And a gentleman stopped me and said, like, do you know Jesus? And, you know, it's like pretty evident that all of my eggs are in the Jesus basket.

So I was like, yes, this is a conversation which will be contentious within five seconds. And I said, I think so. And then we subsequently talked about the things that he thought were wrong with Catholicism. And he had a lot of good arguments because he had prepared specifically with this apologetic aim and purpose. And he had questions about grammar. He had questions about scripture. He had questions about scripture. He had questions about canon. He had questions about mediation. He had questions about Marian intercession. And I was like trying to give him good arguments, but I was doing it poorly for one. So rule number one is just pray with the guy first, because that sets a good tone. And if

he doesn't pray with you or if he refuses to pray with you, which is what I found to be the case, then you know that you can expect very little from the conversation. And then the other thing, too, is try to figure out what his premises are and to use them. Like I gave what I thought was just an awesome, awesome argument as to why Mary's maternal mediation is a very Christian thing. And at the end of it, he said, like, that's all good. You know, that's that's like a reasonable argument, I suppose. But like, where is the scriptural warrant? You know, and I was just like, oh, my gosh, bummer. That's the presupposition exactly that you're not working from, that he is, that everything a Christian ought to believe is taught explicitly in scripture.

Yeah. So I came to discover that I, yeah, I just wasn't arguing well. And also he just had like things that I couldn't, I just wasn't, I wasn't arguing well. And also he just had like things that I, that I couldn't, I just didn't know. Right. I didn't have the knowledge pertaining to this, that, or the other subject. Like he, um, like he was trying to say like, where do you get the term Catholic from? And I was like, I don't really know. Um, I remember that there were Christians were first called Christians at Antioch, but I don't remember when people first were called Catholic. And it was just like, he had a number of things like that, kind of proof arguments or proof texts

that I wasn't competent to contend with. And I am a prideful booger, right? So I left this conversation just very downtrodden and despondent because I felt like I had failed. I had failed because it's like, I am the one responsible for giving testimony to the faith and I had failed. But what I came, you know, like I had a good conversation with the pastor at the parish where I was going to. And, um, I don't think that it's not, so we don't save people by having all the answers. Okay. We save people by testifying to the grace of Jesus Christ operative within our lives. And I realized this is like a philosophy thing and I'm getting pretty preachy at this point, but deal. No, it's good. Aquinas was preachy. This is not about just, yeah, intellectual whatever.

Yeah. So like, I just don't, I don't think that it is a prerequisite to engaging with these types of people that, you know, their arguments inside and out and that you've memorized them and contended with them and can rehearse them, uh, with bewildering, you knowering degree of detail. I think what is important is that you believe, one, and two, that you seek understanding, okay? So, St. Thomas will say, for instance, that a little old lady knows more than the wisest of philosophers by virtue of the fact that she has faith. So, like, we know that God is uncomposed, that God is, you know, fully realized being. We know that, and we needn't doubt that. And that's a real kind of knowledge that God is, you know, fully realized being. We know that, and we needn't doubt that. And that's a real kind of knowledge. Mind you, it is a knowledge based

on testimony, but it's something to which we can reason if we have the leisure and if we have the mental chops, but maybe we don't. And that's fine because we can still know it. And as a result of which we can still act upon it and we can still worship in accord with it. And that's more than William Lane Craig knows. And that's not to say that he's dumb in any way, shape, or form, right? But it just means to say that part of the gift of faith given us in this setting in time is that we can actually know these things, and that's a huge boon. The other thing, too, is we can have the confidence that the church has the answers, even if we ourselves have not internalized them or learned them or are capable of actually, you know, giving them, but that the church has the answers and that we would

do well to study them. And again, like study is the type of thing where it pays to study even if you fail, okay? Because it's the kind of thing that gives you the habits of mind and heart, which lead you further up and further into the revelation of God, both in study and in prayer. They're both kind of two dimensions of the same contemplative gaze upon the Lord. So you may never understand these arguments, but it's still worthwhile to read them. It's still worthwhile to consider them, to weigh them, to engage with them, because they make us the type of people who are better contemplatives. And so we are better disposed to God's gift of himself in as much as there's a proportion between our predisposition and God's giving.

But then someone could accuse us of question begging here when you say, you know, the Catholic church is the one true church. This church teaches divine simplicity, therefore it has to be true. I mean, if the church is wrong on this particular issue, if Aquinas is wrong, then we have to maybe abandon Catholicism and join Craig and whatever strand of Christianity he has, right? Sure. Yeah, yeah, then even though you encounter difficulties, they need not derail you entirely because you have a greater confidence in the church. It's sort of like, if I have come to believe wholeheartedly that God exists, and I do not have an adequate answer to the problem of evil, whatever the answer is, it cannot be atheism, since I know firmly that God does exist.

Does that make sense? No, I think that's great. And that's like super illuminative. And I think that kind of touches on what Newman means by the illative sense, right? We don't believe for one argument, or we don't believe because of one thing. Ultimately, we believe because God speaks, right? But he speaks through a variety of testimony, and we're able to kind of clue into this, that, or the other thing, such that we come to discover at a certain point that the preponderance of evidence lies in this corner. So, like, there may be something in the Church's teaching that we find discomforting or strange, but there's all of these other things

to which we assent, not just because they accord with our opinion, but because they've been revealed to us as such. And as a result of which we've come to sympathize with them, right? And we see how they illumine the human condition and we see how they, you know, they can be probed by reason and we see how they're supported by various testimony, you know, like signs of credibility and how some of them can even be proved, you know, by reason. So there's all of this kind of conjoined or congruent or confluence, that's not a word, testimony that, you know, it's all coming together. I have in my mind the confluence of the Allegheny and the Monongahela rivers, which pour out into the Ohio River at the Sweet Action Junction in Pittsburgh. We used to go to this like mountain, not really mountain, Mount Washington and go to the Sweet Church at the top and look down and you just like

felt, I don't know, like you were at the shifting sands of time to mix metaphors. But yeah, there's like, there's something about with like Christian testimony that it comes together and it builds in you a deepened sense that like, what is at stake here is really, really real. Like I sent to it, it's true, I already did by virtue of the fact that, you know, faith is thinking with a scent, but it's just, it's really working on me. And I have to humble myself before it. Now, I've been looking up some things on divine simplicity here by Craig, and I don't want to be unfair and throw some things at you that you haven't had time to sort

of like look at, digest and respond to. So would I be putting you on the spot by doing that? Worst case scenario, I look dumb. Okay. All right. So I'm looking at an article here on gotquestions.org and they show how Dr. William Lane Craig has dissected the four major claims of divine simplicity. And these are nice because they're about one or two sentences each. So let me just kind of read the first one. And you tell me if you want to take a stab at it, or if you want to go in a different direction. Because again, I'm definitely putting you on the spot here. We hadn't looked at these prior to the interview. God is not distinct from his

nature. Okay, so that's something that we believe. And Craig says, this claim can be accepted as true, can or cannot be accepted as true because it also describes angels. Heavenly beings are who they are without a sin nature and the qualities that follow that sin nature. That didn't really make sense to me. So right here he's distinguishing between a nature and a suppositum. You never have to think of that word again for a casual listener. You're like, sweet Christmas. Who cares?

So basically, like, in most things in the material world, well, everything in the material world, there is a nature and then there is the individual existent. Okay. So there's, like, dog nature. And then you have, like, Cindy the Chihuahua. And then you have Gregory the Great Dane. And then you have, like, Snuggles the Schnauzer. Okay. So, and then you have Gregory, the Great Dane, and then you have like Snuggles, the Schnauzer. Okay. So like you have different instances and in each of those instances, the nature subsists in a supposit. Okay. So like the nature is given concrete expression

in this, that, or the other thing, you know? And so there is actually a distinction. We can draw a distinction between the nature and the actual existent. And that's true of everything that has matter, everything that is embodied. Now, in the case of angels, St. Thomas says they don't have matter whereby to individuate. So each angel is its own species. So he talks about angels like they're integers. So you have angel one, angel two, angel three, angel four, but each is its own species. So he talks about angels like they're integers, okay? So you have angel one, angel two, angel three, angel four, but each is its own nature, and as a result of which,

they are distinct. Because if you had two instances of angel one, what would separate them, or how would they be distinguished? Because they have no matter, which is itself, in St. Thomas' understanding, the principle of individuation, okay? So, angels, there's no distinction between the nature and the supposit, okay? This is also true, St. Thomas says, of God, because God exhausts all that there is of deity, right? God is his deity. There's no distinction between this individually existent God whom we name in the tradition Yahweh or El Shaddai or Jesus Christ or whatever, right? There's no distinction between this individual existent God and the nature of deity because he literally plumbs it to its depths.

Which is why there cannot even in theory be more than one God. Right, right, right, right. So for Craig, it's no surprise that this claim wouldn't be especially scandalous, because it's kind of uninteresting for him, because it's not even particular to God. It's something that's also true of angels. So it's kind of like, yeah, sounds right, moving on. Well, I want to move to the second point, but just to touch upon that idea of monotheism and the idea of there not being able to be more than one god. You know, in Craig's debates, when people press him on whether there couldn't be a number of gods, he appeals to Occam's razor because he doesn't believe in divine simplicity.

Oh, fascinating. He says, one is enough to do the trick, which I'm always like, that's not satisfying. No, it's not. No, no, that's not. Yeah. Okay. All right. Here's the second claim. God's properties, he, that's, yeah, okay. All right, here's the second claim. God's properties, he wants to say, are not distinct from one another. Sorry, the reason I'm stumbling a bit here is I think some of these, they've got some of these words spelt incorrectly or wrong. But he says, this claim cannot be true because God is a person, though spirit, and as such expresses different characteristics in different situations. For example, rejection and acceptance cannot be present simultaneously. God rejects Eliab from

being king in 1 Samuel 16.7. He could not at the same time accept Eliab as king. Those properties are distinct from one another. Also, existence cannot be identical to omniscience since there are many things that exist and yet which are not omniscient. Yeah. So, I think this is one of his most powerful objections. This requires backstory, which is helpful. I'm going to talk too long, so interrupt me. Okay. Well, just before I let you loose, because I can't wait to hear what you have to say, just so people understand that. I mean, that's quite interesting. If you want to say that in God, existence and omniscience are identical, he's saying this can't

be the case because there are things which exist, namely you and me and plants and other things, that are not omniscient. Yeah. I think, I mean, to get directly to his concern, there is nothing that exists quite like God, okay? So St. Thomas says that, you know, to get directly to his concern, there is nothing that exists quite like God. Okay. So St. Thomas says that, you know, like certain properties, pure perfections are to be attributed to God and to creatures analogically. So the way that we exist and the way that God exists is partly alike and partly diverse. So it's alike in the sense that it exhibits like similar properties or we kind of come to a similar knowledge of it. But it's partly diverse because God's existence is not like our existence. It transcends our existence. It is like our existence, but in a super eminent way.

So St. Thomas always employs what he calls the triplex via the threefold way, which he takes from Pseudo-Dionysius. So, whenever you predicate something of both creatures and God, you have to draw the connection that God, one, is the cause of this good thing, or, you know, this existing thing, or whatever this property is, you know, in creation, but also that God is not like it, right? So, that God is to be distinguished from it, especially its limitations. And thirdly, that God is like it, but only in a super eminent way. So, far exceeding it, especially its limitations. And thirdly, that God is like it, but only in a super eminent way. So, far exceeding it, purifying it of all of its limitations. So, like, for instance, St. Thomas will talk about you need to purify our speech about God from our manner of speaking, the limitations of our manner of speaking. So, whenever you say something of God, there's the very thing which you denote, but then there's also the way that you denote it. So, like, when you say something of God, there's the very thing which you denote, but then there's also the way that you denote it. So, like when you say God is, you know, you're combining a subject and a verb,

and that seems to denote a kind of composition. Because when we say that I am, it's like you get the sense in saying that that there's this I considered, you know, like Father Gregory Pine, and then there's this thing existence. And we're saying that existence is conjoined to Father Gregory Pine. But in the case of God, he says you need to purify your speech of any of those kind of creaturely limitations. So we're doing the same thing when we attribute existence to creatures and to God, when we attribute omniscience, you know, whatever you get. So it may be the case that there are existing things in our experience of reality that are not omniscient. And so given the creaturely limitations and circumscriptions of being as expressed in our life and experience, then we wouldn't expect to see omniscience immediately attendant upon existence. But when existence is purified of all of its defects, when it is raised above all of its limitations, when it exists in its super eminent and rarefied form in God,

there it is identical with omniscience because, you know, embodiment or even just created existence is itself a kind of limitation of being. It's a kind of limited way of participating in the Godhead. And so it should become as no surprise. Yeah, it should come as no surprise that we don't see all of God's perfections expressed in created reality, because when being, you know, is circumscribed in this way, or when it's limited in this way, then it loses some of its coherence, right? Or it loses some of its like pluripotency that it has in God. Okay, let's jump to number three, because I find this objection pretty good too. Actually, number four, the claim that God has no properties distinct from his nature, because that's a claim of divine simplicity, that God is his omnipotency, is his mercy, etc.

Craig wants to say, this claim appears to be the most troublesome as it implies that God's qualities, including the choices he makes, exist unrelated to outside elements. For example, God willed that the Son die for sin. But the question arises, what if God had not created the world? Would the Son's death still be part of God's will? He says, and I don't see why he makes this claim, but divine simplicity says yes, because his nature would be unchanged. Right. Okay. So a couple of considerations. Well, I think it's helpful. Okay. Just to back up two seconds about the identification of properties in God. So this is a big claim when we say that God's existence is his goodness, is his love, is his justice.

So in God, there is no formal distinction between or among his different properties because they all subsist in him after the manner of deity. They all subsist in him after the manner of the Godhead. manner of the Godhead. And again, this, like, you know, to use the logic from the last point, what we're basically saying is that in our creaturely experience, there are different faculties of the human soul, there are different virtues whereby those things are expressed, which posit different acts, all of which are distinct. And so, there are legitimate distinctions to be drawn between love and mercy, for instance, or excuse me, between love and justice, or justice and mercy, for instance. Whereas in God, again love and justice or justice and mercy, for instance. Whereas in God, again, when we think about it, like think about how being is limited or how being is made concrete and instantiated in material creation.

And then think of being kind of being freed. This makes it sound like we're like trapped in like flesh cages or something like that. And I don't want it to sound like that. But when we talk about God, we're talking about being that's wholly uncircumscribed, that's wholly unlimited, that's infinite, that admits of like no material instantiation, da da da. So like at that point, when you get to like these rarefied properties, it's not as crazy or scandalous of a claim to say that those properties can be identified because they all subsist in God after the manner of deity. And so, the distinctions that we encounter in this life are a fruit or a product of the limitations of the material order or just of the created order. And then when you kind of get to the point, you know, when you've transcended that material order, the fact that they cohere so tightly is a mystery, you know, exceeding our comprehension,

but something that we can have a kind of insight into. And St. Thomas will actually say that in heaven, our principal joy will be in, you know, knowing God with his own knowledge and loving God with his own love and seeing all things in the beatific vision through the incarnate word. But there will be like secondary delights, and one of which will be seeing how God's properties cohere. We'll be able to see how justice and mercy embrace, right? We'll be able to see how God's goodness coheres with the

dispensation of, you know, evil choice in the world. So that's just, okay, that's just one thing on the side. But then, yeah. And then Aquinas, and this goes to your point there, right? Aquinas says, like, in our mind, these different attributes are distinct, but they're not distinct in God. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. And we speak about them in a complex way. You said think. I said speak.

Thinking and speaking, they're similar things. Yes. But to get to, like, okay, so the third point that you said, which concerns, so, like concerns the dispensation of the incarnation, right? Yeah. If he hadn't created the world, then it wouldn't be necessary for the Son of God to take you in flesh, suffer, and die. So is that right? Is God blah, blah, blah? So here I think a very helpful doctrine from St. Thomas is the doctrine of mixed relation.

Okay, this will initially sound confusing, but it actually doesn't need to be confusing. So St. Thomas thinks that God is not related to creation the way that creation is related to God. So, creation is just a relation of dependence, okay? Relation is one of Aristotle's nine accidents, and what relation denotes in its core sense is being towards, okay? Just being towards, that's it. Which is one of the reasons that St. Thomas uses relation to describe things in the Holy Trinity, right? Because it's such a very thin form of accident. It's not the type of thing that necessarily entails composition. So, in the case of creation, creation is created in a relation of dependence on God from whom it receives all

that it is. So, each thing has its own act of existence. It subsists by virtue of a kind of borrowed being. So, all things participate in the being of God. All things exist to the extent that God gives them being. And that creates in them a relation, a relation of dependence. So, just like when a father begets a son, the son is related to the father after the manner of filiation, so too when creation is begotten by God in time, then it's related to him after the manner of creation. It has this being towards. But God is not being towards creation in the way that creation is being towards God, right? Because none of these things prior to their creation were alien to God or foreign to God. So, God, in knowing himself, he knows all

of the ways in which his being can be shared in by created being. So, he knows unicorns, and he knows dodo birds, and he knows, you know, bottlenose dolphins. He knows things that could be and never shall be. He knows things that, you know, once were and no longer. He knows things that are and will be ever and on. God knows all of the ways in which being can participate, God knows all of the ways in which being can participate, he can be participated, or his life, his being can be shared in. Okay? And to some of those things, God conjoins his will, and that will entails the dispensation of their unfolding in time. So God is eternal, which is to say that he holds all these things, all creation, together in himself.

None of it escapes from his gaze and grasp of an eternal now. But some of those things have their own kind of temporal dispensation, and God wills that they take place according to their proper principles. So, for time-bound things, he wills that they take place or that they unfold in time, and he wills them conjoinedly or interrelatedly. He has one notion of how all of those things work together, one simple notion, and that very simple notion we call providence. And so, all of these things are included within God's self-understanding, and their dispensation is included within his will. So, to say like, you know, hypothetically and possibly, if this had not happened, would this have happened, hypothetically and possibly, if this had not

happened, would this have happened, is an absurd claim because it fails to account for the scope of providence and the scope of divine will, divine volition, all of which has been foreseen. I think I might have mentioned, I don't know if I was talking to you or talking to somebody else, but I think here it's really helpful to consult the parable of the wheat and the tares, right? So, like the Lord, he plants seed, and then the enemy comes and plants, you know, like tares or weeds, and then they grow up together, and then the attendants are like, hey, what's the deal? And then he says, an enemy has done this, and then like, you want us to root him out? And he says, no, wait till the end of the age, and then bundle them together and burn them with unquenchable fire. So there are a number of things about that parable which are cool.

One of which is that all of it takes place within the field, okay? So all of it happens within the scope of God's providence. Two, evil happens by God's permission, but not by his agency, okay? And God is not naive or he's not surprised by evil. It actually says in the text that at the time when men are accustomed to sleep, an enemy came and sowed seed. So, it's not that God himself is sleeping on the job and that Satan kind of comes in and takes advantage of the Lord. No, he knows that this is going to happen. And also, when it said, like, who has done this? He doesn't say, like, I infer or I suppose or I guess that an enemy has done this. He just says an enemy has done this because he knows it, because it's, you know, it's something that he has foreseen and

it's something that he has permitted, right? But that also there is a dispensation that accounts for all of these factors. And when St. Augustine reads this parable, he says, you know, God permits them to grow up together because his grace is such that he can make tares into wheat. So it's not like God despairs of the situation, right, but that he actually incorporates it into a more beautiful providence than would otherwise have been. So, yeah, in this—go ahead. Is it sort of like God knowing things from all eternity need not have a plan B? Mm-hmm. Sort of like how he knows what I'm about to do after this interview, and my doing it doesn't

affect his knowing it. He knows it because I will do it, because he knows all things now. Yeah, and he knows it causally. He knows it as giving it to be as a free contingent act. So he's not forcing your hand, right? But he's willing you to be and to exercise agency. He's willing the being of that posited act all simultaneously in his vision of an eternal now. But he does it in such a way that you are truly free. And for you, it can be a matter of, you know, agonizing difficulty or relative ease, you know, so. Two things I kind of want to wrap up, just kind of get a solid answer on. I figure if I'm having these questions, other people might as well. The first is, can you just kind of help us understand in a few sentences how we can have this dynamic relationship with a heavenly Father who doesn't change?

Oh, yeah. A lot of these kind of meditations we read are about the Father, you know, who sees us from a distance and runs to us. And it's like, we don't even have a God who thinks, let alone moves in the sense of, you know, in space to run to us. So how do we relate to a father as a father and not, as I said in the beginning, a block of ice? Right. So I think a helpful thing here, I meant to mention this earlier, but I forgot, alas and alack, is to think about the difference between our love and God's love, okay? So, our love is such that when we see something lovable, we are inclined to it, and then we desire it, and then we assimilate it. So, I'm walking along right down Michigan Avenue, and I see the Bush School of Business across the street at CUA,

and I look, and you know, it's like a recently renovated building with a nice chapel. And I'm like, ooh, delightful. I saw that chapel while I was there. It was beautiful. It is, yeah. I cross the street. I go in the chapel. You know, I make a little visit.

I leave. Right. But that thing, that good thing pre-exists my taking note of it, my desiring it, and my resting in it. It's something that calls forth a response from me, okay? So, in our ordinary reactions with other people, you know, when you make a friend, you're like, oh, I am in second grade, and I am in the same group of five desks as like Samantha, Brittany, Kelly, and Justin, right? And you're like, these people are interesting. She has a side ponytail. She is wearing leg warmers. He is wearing an ocean Pacific matching shirt and short combo. And the shirt is tucked into the shorts like I like all of these people.

parties and you give them delightful party favors, which hopefully include shark bites because they are the best fruit snack available and maybe Dunkaroos. So that way you can stick your finger into like the little sprinkle vanilla cream frosting and then just eat it all in one bite. So, but like that's, that's all to say like we see things and then we love them and then we desire them and then we enjoy them. Right. But with God's love, such is not the case. Okay.

So in the ordinary dispensation, we love something because it is lovable. But in the dispensation of God's generosity, he loves because he loves. So he makes the thing to be lovable. His love goes before our being lovable. So God creates in an act of cosmic generosity. cosmic generosity. And while there was nothing there previously, you know, ex nihilo, he makes things to be and to be one, to be true, to be good, to be beautiful. And as a result of which he goes on creating them, or excuse me, not as a result of which, but he goes on creating those things to be and in no wise is he responsive to them in the kind of classic way that we have come to experience in our ordinary day-to-day lives. Now, for us, it seems like, oh, no, God is not responding to me. God is not reciprocal. God is

not mutual. God is not a friend. No, this is far better than anything for which we could ask or imagine, because His love goes before us. And as a result of which, we don't need to be lovable in order for God to love us. We have the assurance of God's love. We know that God has chosen to create us. He has willed us from all of time. He has given us agency. All things are transparent to his gaze precisely because he is good. So like our relationship with him hinges upon something more significant, like more substantial than our lovableness. It hinges upon his loveliness. And so we know that God goes out towards us. We know that God wants a relationship with us. We know that God is generous on our behalf because he has proved himself such

from the very dawn of time. And we have the assurance that he will never cease to be so because nothing that I can do can distance myself from that. I do not hang like a sinner in the hand of an angry God. I am not somehow caught in the balance between cosmic forces over which God or I have no control. I need not never fear that I'll move away from God and that our love will grow cold. Rather, He is always present, always generous, always loving, and always giving Himself dynamically to us in creation, in agency, in grace, whereby He dwells in each as in a temple. So yeah, I mean, it's far better than the alternative. It's far more dynamic and far more rich. I think another way of getting to the same question, and we did a whole episode on this

for those interested, episode 94. It was entitled, What's the Point of Praying If You Can't Change God's Mind? But I think this is also what I'm asking when I say, how do we relate in a dynamic way with the Father who is unchanging? What's your sort of short answer to those who say, well, do my prayers affect God's mind? And if God can't change His mind, why pray at all? I think the first reason for which we pray is because prayer is the converse of friends. Because what we hope to enjoy with God is a deepened, like, intensity to love, a deepened extent to our love, a deepened intimacy to our love. And, you know, Aristotle says of friends that they have a shared life. And our shared

life with God is premised on the fact that he has made his life available to us in grace. And by grace, we can hope to enjoy a kind of communion. And that communion is expressed in friendship with, you know, friendship with Christ and, you know, like ultimately in the end, you know, like Trinitarian communion. So, like, prayer is just the converse of friends. It's how we express our mutuality. It's how we express our common life. So, the reason for which we pray, like, you know, adoration, thanksgiving, supplication, is to be with God. Because in being with God, we become like God. That's true of all friends. Like, friends pick up each other's quips and cracks. They pick up each other's idiosyncrasies and, like, hilarious

gestures, whatever. You know, like, friends become like each other. And so, the reason for which we pray is to be like God. Before we ever consider, like, how we want to change the world or how we want God to change the world through the ministry of our prayers, we pray to be with and to be like God. The next thing then is, like, do our prayers actually have an effect? The answer is yes, okay? But it's not because we're changing God's mind or because we're changing God's nature. It's because God wants for these things to come about through mediators, through instruments, okay? And so in his dispensation, he has it such that what he could do directly, he does through our prayers, not because he's patronizing, right? But because it's good for us that that be the case, you know? It's good for us, not only that we become like God

in receiving his grace, but that we become like God in actually being ministers of his grace, in giving his grace, in mediating his grace to others, so that this whole web of interrelated persons, which is the world and the church, might become more and more so solidified in solidarity in a way that makes us more and more so the body of Christ. It makes us more and more so the communion of saints. So, God wills that things come about through the ministration of our prayers. He makes His will, in a certain sense, that things come about through the ministration of our prayers. He makes his will, in a certain sense, to depend upon us so that we can become more like him and that we can be drawn together in bonds of charity

so that the enjoyment that we have of him in heaven is more glorious and more uproarious. Okay, so our prayers do affect things. God wills that they do. But in saying that, we're not saying God had one plan in mind, which he planned on executing, and then we prayed, and then God changed his mind. Rather, it was from all eternity, God knew, say, that you prayed for this certain thing and willed for you to have a causal relation in this state of affairs. And so from all eternity, willed to bring X about.

Yep, exactly. And I mean, the fear that comes with that is people think like, oh, if God willed from all eternity, then I'm not free to do otherwise. Nope. He wills that it happens according to the proper principles of the secondary causes. That sounds jumbly and garble-ish. But basically what we're saying is God wills that free things happen freely, that contingent things happen contingently. And so he wills that you participate in the saving work precisely as a free person. So you come to it as a fruit of discovery, you know, prompted by grace, but something that you're really engaged with as a thinking and choosing person. So he's not forcing your hand, right? He's actually giving you the very freedom whereby you can sweetly and strongly assent to the good and participate in it.

Okay, final question, which I think really has to do with divine simplicity and everything we've been talking about. So, we talk about that the act of creation was a free decision by God, that God didn't have to create the world. But how is that true in light of divine simplicity? but how is that true in light of divine simplicity? God at no point could have chose for or against, it doesn't feel like, since there was no either time for him to make that decision nor does he deliberate like we deliberate nor does he think the way we think. He doesn't think, what do you say, sequentially. He just is and knows.

So how can we say that the creation of the world was done freely if, given divine simplicity, it can sound like it really isn't free? God doesn't have any other choice to make. Does that make sense? Yeah. So the way that St. Thomas goes about this is he'll like, you know, he shows that God has an intellect, right? So for him, it's just a matter of, like, God is immaterial and immaterial things have intellectuality because that's how immateriality is expressed. And then if God has an intellect, then God has a will because will is the appetite that comes with intellection. And then he goes on to clarify that God doesn't, like, God doesn't have an appetite in the way

that we have an appetite because usually having an appetite means that you have a nature that is somehow proportioned to certain goods in the world that you need, okay? So, like, you go out to things that you lack. So, he says God doesn't have an appetite in that way, but he does have a kind of faculty of choice. Now, mind you, it's not composed, it's not distinct from his intellect, right? But that God is a choosing agent. And here he wants to distinguish the waters of divine transcendence, right? Because God is then more like implicated in creation because it's something that comes immediately with him. So what St. Thomas wants up, like what he ends up saying is that God has like a faculty

of choice or God has a power of choosing and his hand is not forced by virtue of what he is on account of the fact that God knows all kinds of possibilities. He knows all of the different ways in which he can be participated in. Some of those ways are conflictual. Right. So like it would be very difficult to imagine in which a world in which, you know, like Tyrannosaurus Rex is and Dominus Rex is and Indoraptors all existed simultaneously with like human beings. existed simultaneously with like human beings, right? Unless like Chris Pratt were there to marshal a team of like weaponized velociraptors to corral them when the time comes necessary. You know, so like, so God's, the dispensation of God's creative wisdom also accounts for like unfolding in time. That's one of the arguments that people who argue for theistic evolution

advances that like there are however many species right now, but there are like 25,000 times as many species that have existed over the course of the past, like 4.3 billion years. Um, and so God is filling creation, not just at the same time, synchronically, but also through time diachronically with evidence of his love and, and testimony of his greatness. Um, so like God, I mean, God has all kinds of ideas. They're not complex in him. They're simple, but he has all kinds of ideas, ideas as to how his, his, you know, he can be, uh, participated. And the dispensation of creation is something that, uh, includes change, but doesn't entail change on God's part.

So like you can, for instance, make a plan that involves a lot of changes, but you can stick to that plan over the course of many days, weeks or months. So you can say like, OK, kids, we are going to form a basketball team. Your mother is exempt, but, you know, the four of us and I will form a basketball team and we're going to compete in the FIBA World Championships for the United Federation of Funtopia. You know, we're going to incorporate our own country and we're going to like train and then we're going to get sweet uniforms and then we're going to like train, and then we're going to get sweet uniforms. And then we're going to book travel with Expedia.com. And then we're going to lose to a bunch of other teams. We're going to do it together because we can't be a family band because we lack the musical skill. Um, so you, you just told me like a bunch

of changes that are going to take place in your family's life over the course of the next two months, but your mind might not deflect from that purpose at any point in the next two months, but your mind might not deflect from that purpose at any point in the next two months. So God's choice to create in a dispensation of change is like that. The kind of like singularity is the fact that at a certain point you go from there not being created time to being created time. And so like to kind of wrap our heads around that moment is mind boggling. But I think it's more helpful to think about time and space as properties of creation than as, you know, like thinking about them as a succession of points that includes God existing and then our existing. Just think about like time and space are just

something that kind of pops up at a certain point with creation, right? There was a point and then there was time and space. You know, it's like, so there's no before that. It's not helpful to think about temporal succession before that. It's just God possesses his life. And then a certain point he gives expression to that life in a way that accounts for change such that now there is created time and created space that follows in the wake or in the train of created things. That's not entirely helpful, but it's the best I can do. No, no, that's very good. I'm actually looking forward to going back and listening to this episode again, because you've said a lot and it's going to take me thick as I

am a while to receive it down into my gizzards. Okay, so wrapping up here, I want to apologize. I've actually got a lot from this episode. I think a lot of people will as well. But I know I sent you one copy of what I wanted to respond to and then halfway through texted you another. And so whatever sloppiness was my fault. But then how would you like to kind of wrap this up, just kind of divine simplicity as a whole? What thought do you want to leave people with? Yeah, I think, what do I want to leave people with? That there's a kind of fruit to thinking within the tradition. If we choose to think something about God because it corresponds with our sensibilities on the matter, then we risk error if we're departing from the tradition.

So just because something boggles our mind or it doesn't seem to square with how we envision Christ and his salvation, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong, especially if wise, holy, learned Christians before us have assented to that. So there's a real discipline to thinking within the tradition, to humbling our minds and hearts and saying like, okay, these people thought this, these people are, you know, they are my betters, right? I don't judge them, they judge me. And to occupying a tradition in that sense. And once you've like wrestled with it for 40 years, then you can think like, OK, there are parts of this that I still don't agree with. And maybe they merit consideration and maybe I'll publish an article as to why I disagree. And I'm not saying anything about the subjective pride of William Lane Craig in any way, shape or form. But I am saying that like there's the part of being in the church is standing within the current of tradition and inheriting all the riches that come to us downstream.

And we step outside of the river and we judge the river from the bank, we really risk just kind of shriveling up like ugly prunes. You know, it's just like there's so much life to be had in there that can really, you know, I mean, make our life immeasurably better and more delightful. So, yeah, like simplicity is the kind of thing that, I mean, at the outset, it just sounds strange and weird and creepy. But then you're exactly right, though. I mean, so does the Trinity. Do you know what I mean? Like, just because the Trinity is confusing and leads Muslims to think we worship three gods, it doesn't mean we do away with it.

Yeah, yeah. So it's just, there's a real fruit to standing within the tradition, to clinging to it, to cleaving to it, to, yeah, not seeding it just because it doesn't seem to fit with what we have opined on the matter. Because truth be told, we're not that smart and we're not that wise. And we'll spend the rest of our lives learning. And please, God, it issues in the vision of heaven. But until such time, we just got to sit at the feet of masters. and, you know, the vision of heaven. But until such time, we just got to sit at the feet of masters. You know, speaking of the feet of masters, Michael Dodds, one of your Dominican brothers,

Father Michael Dodds has written on divine simplicity and God's love. Would you recommend they start there if they want to delve into divine simplicity a little more? Edward Faisal? Yeah, what would I say? What have I read about this that I've liked a lot? So I read Father Michael Dodds' book, The Unchanging God of Love. That's mostly about immutability, but it also gets into related questions on simplicity and perfection and goodness. That is good. It's clear. It's like 220 pages, CUA Press.

I would say that's like if you're already pretty invested, you're a decent-sized nerd, then you're going to want to do something like that. Ed Fazer's book, Aquinas, that's what I point people to. That's my favorite go-to text. I refer everyone to it as much as I can. And he has two big sections on metaphysics and natural theology. And if you read, I mean, you can read the whole thing. It's only 200 pages. But if you read those sections, it gives you a sense of the kind of arguments that are used to defend this doctrine. Because it's like, you have to adopt a kind of metaphysical perspective on the whole of the matter. Father Lawrence Dewan would often talk about it in this way. Like you have to be able to, like being in a certain sense becomes transparent to your gaze, but it takes time. It takes discipline. It takes

study to kind of get to that point and then it begins to cohere. So yeah, there are very few arguments that are just going to convince you by their sheer force at the outset. But if you know, like you take the time to kind of work through metaphysics and natural theology, and again, this is just like 100 pages of a delightful book that he wrote, I think that you'll find it more, yeah, more palatable. And if people want to listen to something, I just listened to this from the Thomistic Institute. The title of the talk is The Divine Attributes. God is Perfectly Simple and Perfectly Good by Professor Edward Fazer.

Y'all don't number your podcast, so I can't give them a number. But as of now, it's about 20th kind of down on the list of podcasts. So if people start scrolling, they'll find that by Edward Fazer. That was a very good episode, I thought. Yeah, he gave that at the, we had a student leadership conference here in DC over the summer, and he gave a couple of talks, and Father James Brent gave a couple of talks, and Father Dominic Legge gave a couple of talks. So those six are all awesome. Father James Brent is outstanding. What he had to say, you know, regarding the matrix of beliefs that undergird modern atheism. And Lloyd Gerstner's work was just really... I listened to that episode three times, that talk.

Yeah. It's like big tentomism and then arguments. Yeah. Or big tent Platonism. Sorry. Yeah. Well, he's wise. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, hey, thank you so much for being on the show and appreciate it. Look forward to talking to you next time. It is my pleasure. Thanks for having me. Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Pints with Aquinas. You know, all the stuff that we're doing here really does rely on your support.

The Matt Fradd Show videos, Pints with Aquinas, the traveling that we plan on doing next year to these developing countries to bring materials to people to help them understand the Word of God and defend the Catholic faith. So if you want to support all the work that we're doing, the way you can do that right now is by going to patreon.com slash mattfrad and giving whatever you want monthly. Like it can be a dollar a month or five bucks a month or a hundred bucks a month, and we would really appreciate it. We give you a bunch of free things in return like signed books, beer steins, audio books. You get book studies on Dante and one coming soon on Flannery O'Connor. There's just a lot that we have on offer for you. We do those Matt Fradd show

clips once a month, sometimes twice a month. And then we do these post-show wrap-up videos that are only available to patrons. So you'd get access to that right away. A ton of stuff. And just for a measly 10 bucks a month, you would be significantly blessing all the work that we're doing. So if Pints with Aquinas or the Matt Fradd Show

has been a blessing to you, would you please consider giving back by going to patreon.com slash mattfradd and helping support the work that we are doing. If you don't like Patreon, you can always go to pintswithaquinas.com slash donate to give directly. A big thanks to all of you who would decide to start supporting the work that we're doing today.

Also, if you've got no money but you still want to support the show, you could go to iTunes and leave a review for us. We really, really recommend these for Pints with Aquinas and the Matt Fradd Show. It does help get the word out about the work that we are doing. It'll only take a few seconds for you, but it would mean a lot to us. So on iTunes, go review Pints with Aquinas and or The Matt Fradd Show.

Thank you so much. Chat with you next week. Bye. My whole life to carry you, to carry you. And I would give my whole life to carry you and I would give my whole life to carry you to carry you and I would give my whole life