Modal Collapse & Classical Simplicity Revisited

Question #31: On “Modal Collapse” Directly (revisiting this question from another angle)… So, the question from this angle goes, In light of the ‘modal collapse’ argument, how do we preserve God’s real freedom and the contingency of creation and redemption, while simultaneously affirming the classical doctrine of divine simplicity?

The “modal collapse” argument posits that if God is utterly simple–having no composition or unrealized potential–then every action or effect God wills must be necessary rather than contingent, effectively eliminating the distinction between necessity and possibility. In other words, if God’s act is one and identical to His essence, and God exists necessarily, then the world (or any divine act) also appears to exist necessarily, undercutting God’s free choice and creation’s contingency. Yet classical Catholic theology (e.g., Aquinas, the later scholastics, and contemporary Thomists) insists that we can affirm real contingency in creation while preserving divine simplicity.

1. Eternal, Simple Act vs. Temporal Contingency

The first key is distinguishing where any “change” or contingency is located. From God’s viewpoint, He performs no sequential steps or internal deliberations; He is simple act (actus purus), with a single, indivisible act of willing. But on the creature’s side, real contingency obtains: the universe does not have to exist, and its existence is fully reliant on God’s sovereign choice. Because there is no “before and after” in God, the difference between “God creating” and “God not creating” pertains to creation’s dependence, not an unrealized potential inside God.

2. No Internal Necessity to God’s Creative Decree (no internal or external antecedents)

God’s timeless decree to create (or redeem) does not arise from any inner compulsion. If God had willed otherwise, there would be no contradiction in God’s essence–He would still be ipse actus, fully actualized, and lacking nothing. That the world exists at all is thus a free consequence of His single, eternal will. The “necessity” is purely internal to God’s essence (He must be God, and no external cause can force Him), while the specific content of creation flows from an uncoerced decision.

3. Distinguishing Necessity-of-Being vs. Contingency-of-Effect

Classical theologians make a careful distinction between God’s necessary existence and the contingent order He originates. God exists necessarily–He cannot not exist–but what He wills is freely chosen. Creation is not an extension of God’s essence but rather a free effect; it reflects God’s limitless omnipotence, not a “part” or “emanation” from God. Hence, no “modal collapse” ensues.

4. Affirmation of Contingent History

The Church also teaches that salvation history–Incarnation, redemption, covenants–is contingent. Christ came “in the fullness of time” (Gal 4:4), showing that God’s plan is freely given, not mandatory. None of these events “had” to occur to complete God; they arise from His love.

By placing necessity in the domain of God’s immutable being and contingency in the realm of created outcomes, Catholic theology avoids equating God’s simple nature with a necessity that invalidates divine freedom. The world’s contingency underscores God’s boundless freedom rather than threatening divine simplicity. Thus, no genuine “modal collapse” occurs: God remains purely actual and free, while creation and redemption remain contingent, unforced gifts of His sovereign will.


(see #18, #23)