A really bad argument about God and Simplicity

Because God is simple, nothing can give definiability to Him from the outside. So the Persons cannot be defined purely by their ad extra works in the economy of redemption. All we can know about Him He has to reveal or else it would be left in the infinite darkness of mystery. So all of our understanding about God must be qualified, since creation cannot give definability to God. If we conceive of God only in ad extra categories, then we are making God dependent and defined by the creation He made. [Peter Sammons, "When Distinction becomes Separation: The Doctrine of Inseparable Operations in the Contemporary Evangelical Church," TMSJ 33/1 (Spring 2022): 91]

There is the doctrine of inseparable operations (ISO), the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS), and then there are the many arguments theologians put forward for such doctrines. Obviously, not all arguments are created equal. But there are good arguments, and there are not so good arguments. And then there are the really horrible ones. For some reason however, really bad arguments have been recently flowing off the pens of the new Thomists, and here we have one really bad one.

In this argument in his article, Peter Sammons argued that God is simple means that nothing outside God can be considered definitional of Him. Sammons is not saying that we cannot predicate things of God ad extra, but rather that we cannot say that something ad extra is considered "definitional" of God. For if that were to be the case, then God would be dependent on creation. Of course, what does "definitional" means in this case is a major question. But let us backtrack a bit and ask ourselves whether DDS actually says anything of that sort, not whether Thomas Aquinas has said anything of that sort. We must remember that Sammons is asserting that DDS implies certain things to be true, not whether he believes other things in addition to DDS.

DDS states that God is without parts, without metaphysical parts. God is not a composite being and therefore He is his attributes. Therefore, one implication of DDS is that one cannot "add parts" to God, for that would make Him composite. DDS however states nothing about reception and perception from the outside and what that implies about descriptions of God. Even apart from a Platonic hierarchy of being, it is a triusm that the many cannot comprehend the one, and from a theistic perspective, one only approaches God analogically not univocally. Therefore, DDS canot imply aything about reception by the creature, who perceives and defines God through His works. Therefore, DDS as a via negativa position cannot exclude via eminantiae positions perceived through the works of God. Are such "definitional"? For example, can we claim that God is merciful in His being even though such being merciful is an ad extra predication, for God cannot be merciful on Himself? It woud seem so. Thus, DDS in itself therefore cannot exclude "definiability" from the outside, unlike what Sammons has argued.

In order for his argument to make sense, Sammons has to add in additional premises besides DDS. One possible premise for his argument to work is to state that true predication is not necessarily "definiability," such that a merciful God is not defined by "mercy" even though He IS merciful, but this will give rise to the strange spector of a God who has via eminantiae attributes that do not however define Him. Another possible premise along the same lines is to state that predication is considered "definiability" only if extended into eternity, but that also circumvents all discussions about the nature of time and eternity altogether. Or one could hold to some form of eternalism and therefore anything revaled ad extra that is "defintional" is true ad intra because God is present with creation in all times. Sammons of course did not provide any such additional premise, which is why his argument from simplicity is simply bad.