Samuel T. Cogley, Books, and Divine Simplicity

I am waiting for my copy of God Without Parts by James Dolezal to arrive in the mail. Hopefully it will come this afternoon. I already have a copy of the book on my Kindle, but I have learned that when it comes to serious titles I really do need to have an honest-to-God book in my hands. Electronic devices just don’t cut it. Samuel T. Cogley is my hero.

So while you are waiting (eagerly awaiting!) my next blog on the exciting doctrine of divine simplicity (perhaps I should have written “doctrines,” given that Western and Eastern formulations differ in significant ways), you may wish to watch this video-lecture by Dolezal. A warning: Dolezal is addressing a Calvinist audience. He quotes a number of Reformed theologians, as well as several Reformed confessions. My Orthodox and Catholic, as well as some of my Protestant, readers may find this a stumbling block. But persevere. Dr Dolezal is articulate and thoroughly conversant with the literature. Divine Simplicity is not an archaic doctrine that should be put into a museum. In one form or another it is necessary to the essential and inescapable Christian project of distinguishing Creator and creature.

Video | This entry was posted in Philosophical Theology. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Samuel T. Cogley, Books, and Divine Simplicity

  1. I’m working through volume 2 of Hilarion Alfeyev’s series on Orthodox Christianity right now and he made divine simplicity so easy that I think his exhaustive dogmatic theology section on the Orthodox Church will suffice for my wee little mind in the arena of divine simplicity 😀

    Liked by 1 person

  2. When reflecting on Philippians 2:7 – “ekénōsen” – Kenosis
    Doesn’t the emptying have to occur first as a prerequisite to the ‘Incarnation’ Or is the ‘Incarnation’ the act itself of ‘Kenosis’. I ask because Dolzales’s awesome presentation would seem to imply that “Divine Simplicity” would not allow for any genuine “Passivity” – (Pathos) to occur apart from the ‘anthropopathisms’ of the Old Testament? Or did Christ suffer ‘Impassibly’?

    I’m probably only grasping this on a lower level here, but thought it worth clarifying and for others to tease out more thoroughly. And can we equate ‘Divine Apatheia’ somewhat with ‘Divine Simplicity’ aka ‘Impassibility’?

    Gregory of Nazianzus – ‘the suffering of him who could not suffer’. Which usually means that the ‘Logos’, though aware of the sufferings of his human nature, is unaffected by them?



    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.