How is divine simplicity realized?
Q. 52: How is divine simplicity realized?
(5 min read)
Answer:
In the Trinity, divine simplicity is realized as the always-already fully actualized, self-standing relationality of the Father, Son, and Spirit, in which unity and distinction coinhere without composition or division. Traditionally, divine simplicity is presented as being resolved in the unity of divine substantiality, the perichoretic indwelling of the Persons, and the inseparable operation of the Trinity, ensuring that distinction does not introduce composition and that each Person fully possesses the one undivided essence. SSGO upholds this traditional resolution but clarifies that these are not merely safeguards against composition; rather, they are the fully actualized, self-standing relational modes in which divine simplicity is always-already realized. So, traditionally one says there are no other means to divine simplicity, but my approach gives one a way to say the same idea positively. That is, the divine persons are the very and only means of the one ultimate transmundane reality.
The SSGO Approach
Divine simplicity is traditionally understood as the absolute unity of God’s being, meaning that God is not composed of parts, does not have any internal distinctions, and is fully identical with His own essence. However, this doctrine has long appeared to be in tension with Trinitarian theology, which affirms real relational distinctions between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The challenge is how to reconcile these distinct personal relations with the claim that God is utterly simple, without composition or division. The Self‑Standing Givenness Ontology provides a resolution by demonstrating that divine simplicity is not a static, undifferentiated unity but a fully actualized relational fullness, wherein simplicity is realized as the always‑already given structure of divine being.
The term “always‑already” is employed here to capture the idea that divine relationality is not something that unfolds or develops gradually over time, but is eternally complete from the very beginning. In this sense, God’s self‑givenness and the relational distinctions within the Trinity-such as the Father’s begetting of the Son and the Spirit’s procession-are not sequential events or processes; they are eternally and completely actualized. This understanding avoids the paradox of something being simultaneously “in process” and “complete,” because it shows that in God, relationality is not contingent or partial but is the inherent, unchanging mode in which divine simplicity is expressed.
SSGO argues that divine relationality is the intrinsic way in which divine simplicity is fully actualized. Instead of treating relationality as something secondary or externally added to a simple divine essence, relationality itself is the mode of divine being. This means that the distinctions between the divine Persons-Father, Son, and Spirit-are not extrinsic to God’s simplicity, nor are they mere conceptual distinctions; rather, they are the very manner in which divine simplicity is real. The Father’s unbegottenness, the Son’s begottenness, and the Spirit’s procession are not processes or modifications but irreducible, self‑standing relational modes of the one divine essence. This structure avoids the classical paradox in which simplicity and relationality seem to be in competition by showing that relationality does not violate simplicity but instead perfectly expresses it.
In classical metaphysics, universals are often thought to require instantiation, meaning they are only realized when particular things embody them. However, SSGO’s framework suggests that divine relationality is not instantiated but fully actualized in itself, which has led to a natural connection with what we have called eminent universals-qualities that are fully real without requiring participation in particular instances. An analogy can be drawn from aesthetic qualities like beauty, which we recognize as a fully given reality that does not require instantiation in specific objects to be complete. Just as beauty is not an abstract generality waiting to be instantiated but something self‑standing that we immediately recognize, divine relationality in SSGO is not instantiated in the divine Persons but is the always‑already given reality of God’s being.
That said, SSGO does not require a commitment to a full-fledged theory of eminent universals to function. Instead, it aligns with the minimal standard of primitives as problem-solvers, as discussed in Jiri Benovsky’s work. From this perspective, divine relationality serves as an irreducible explanatory primitive that solves the theological problem of reconciling simplicity with relational distinction without requiring further ontological commitments. By grounding divine relationality in this minimal framework, SSGO preserves its coherence while allowing room for further exploration into whether a theory of eminent universals might offer additional explanatory power. This ensures that SSGO remains focused on its primary task-resolving the tension between divine simplicity and Trinitarian distinction-without becoming burdened by unnecessary metaphysical commitments.
In conclusion, divine simplicity is realized in SSGO through fully actualized, self‑standing relationality. The relational distinctions in the Trinity are not mere add-ons to an otherwise simple essence; they are the very way in which simplicity is expressed-the fullness of divine being as always‑already given, without division or composition. By showing that simplicity and relationality are not in opposition but rather mutually constitutive, SSGO provides a philosophically rigorous and theologically sound model that dissolves the classical paradox and allows for a coherent understanding of God’s unity and distinction.