I will post my comments
“ if any one of these models of composition applies to God, it follows that ultimately something otherthan God accounts for his existence. Like us, God would require a cause or a composer (in the metaphysical sense). A denial of DDS thus amounts to a denial of God’s absolute self-existence.”
I already touched on this issue in my dialogue with Steve Hays here.
“For you to say the one God is a concreted person implies that God is a property instance of an abstract divine nature that’s over and above God.”
[I replied ]”>>>You want me to mean that God-ness is something that all three persons participate in.
This is your fallacy. On my view God-ness is not the same thing as divinity. Only one person is God and that is the Father. God-ness is not something abstract as a divine attribute. God-ness is a hypostatic property of the Father alone. So your mistake is the way you are using the word “God”. You think it means divinity, or deity. I think, with the nicene creed that it means origo, auto-theos, source of operation.”
“As Dolezal puts it, “It is God’s simplicity that promotes these doctrines of aseity, unity, infinity, immutability, and eternity to their status as genuinely incommunicable divine attributes.” Once again, there’s a sense in which this argument will be appealing only to those who already hold to a certain conception of God.”
>>>Here we go again with the confusion between attributes and properties. Aseity is not a divine attribute. It is a personal property of the Father. If Aseity is an divine attribute then this denies the eternal generation of the Son, which requires derivation. Secondly, I agree with Clark that God is not infinite. That is Plotinus’ Monad with its infinite emanations dissolving out into a hierarchy of being with intermediaries. This system was integrated into Christianity very early which culminated into the mystical Anchoretic System and ultimately into the Papacy, thus Pseudo Dionysius (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yF8gYOG1p0).
“a being whose existence is not dependent on any other being. ”
>>>But hold on, isn’t essence the same thing as existence? If that is so, then is the Father’s, Fatherness not dependant on another being, namely, the Son, the Logos? If he denies it then he denies a fundamental principle of eternal generation, namely that eternal Sonship is requisite for Eternal Fathership. And if he replies by saying that the Son is the same being/subject as the Father, how
“Another correlative, which Dolezal emphasizes at a number of points throughout the book, is that the being of God is sui generis.”
>>>Here comes the Adoptionism. Humanity and Divinity are ontologically incompatible- ergo no hypostatic union-no realism- no participation in divine nature.
“It is not the same “order of being” as that of the creation. God’s being and the creation’s being relate analogically rather than univocally.”
>>>James should know better than this. Analogy is not contradictory to univocality. Analogy of proportion is perfectly agreeable to univocality. It is the Analogy of proportionality that is contradictory to univocality. http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/analogy-of-proportionality-refuted-univocal-predication-defended/
“But how could a property (such as the property of being all-powerful) be a person?”
>>>LOL! Tu quoque James. How could a relation be a person?
“On this view, it is argued, God can be identical to both his knowledge and his will; thus his absolute existence and independence from his creation are not jeopardized.”
>>>You see on this view nature=will, which means that the creation extends from nature, ergo the creation is consubstantial with God. Both the logos and the creation extend from the same “place” in God, ergo either the Logos is a creature or there are no such things as creatures there are only manifestations of the Monad in greater and lesser degrees of composition, i.e. pantheism.
“The problem is this: DDS seems to rule out both real distinctions within God and the possession of properties by God ”
>>>That is right and if essence=existence, nature=will, omniscience=omnipresence does “to be” equal “to be a person”? Is their really no meaningful distinction between nature and person on this construction? It appears not.