Centre of God's attributes

[MW]

Rev. Matthew Winzer,
may I ask what the practical differences are between God having and God being something? Do we, as mere creatures, only have some of God's attributes, or can it also be said of us that we are love, righteousness, wisdom, etc. (although in a limited measure)? Again, what's the difference between having and being something?

Samuel, if I may venture an answer, it is not proper to speak of God as having, e.g., wisdom, instead of being wisdom, because wisdom is not separable from God. With God to be, and to be wise, or powerful, or holy, are not different things. In other words, there are no accidents in God. Now for creatures it is possible to have many accidental qualities that are separable from us without affecting our essence. To take a ludicrous example, a tattooed person and a non-tattooed person are equally human: the quality of having tattoos is accidental - it is separable from the essence. But God has no such separable qualities. As Polanus said, Though essence and existence differ in creatures, they do not do so in God.

Sorry for missing your question, Samuel. Thanks to Ruben for picking it up. Ruben answers why we must affirm having and being are one in God. The analogy in us helps to clarify the difference. Take "goodness." Imagine if one were to say, "Samuel is goodness." That would convey the idea that Samuel is the sum, substance, and standard of all goodness. It is unbecoming. Instead one says, Samuel is a good man. Goodness is a quality that attaches to what Samuel is. Goodness cannot be a quality that attaches to Godhood. There is none good but one, that is God. He is essentially good, and good in a way that none other can be. This means He is the sum, substance, and standard of all goodness. It is impossible to liken anything to God for goodness -- He is its sum. It is impossible to suppose that He can be other than good -- He is its substance. And it is impossible to subject Him to goodness -- He is its standard.

 

[steadfast7]

Sorry for missing your question, Samuel. Thanks to Ruben for picking it up. Ruben answers why we must affirm having and being are one in God. The analogy in us helps to clarify the difference. Take "goodness." Imagine if one were to say, "Samuel is goodness." That would convey the idea that Samuel is the sum, substance, and standard of all goodness. It is unbecoming. Instead one says, Samuel is a good man. Goodness is a quality that attaches to what Samuel is. Goodness cannot be a quality that attaches to Godhood. There is none good but one, that is God. He is essentially good, and good in a way that none other can be. This means He is the sum, substance, and standard of all goodness. It is impossible to liken anything to God for goodness -- He is its sum. It is impossible to suppose that He can be other than good -- He is its substance. And it is impossible to subject Him to goodness -- He is its standard.

This clarifies a lot for me. Now, does Scripture suggest an emphasis among the attributes of God, if not an idea of a "centre" or "well spring"?

 

[MW]

Now, does Scripture suggest an emphasis among the attributes of God, if not an idea of a "centre" or "well spring"?

Yes; Scripture emphasises His being to the unbelieving, His wisdom to the fool, His power to the weak, His holiness to the sinful, His justice to the presumptuous, His goodness to the needy, and His truth to the wavering. These perfections are also emphasised in different ways in other contexts, but in each case the context makes it clear that the emphasis in the covenant-revelation is fitted to address and to answer the condition of its recipient.

 

[Reformedfellow]

This thread is awesome. I am so happy for the amount I have learned, in such a short period. My understanding, appreciation and reverence of God has multiplied drastically. Incredibly edifying and humbling. Thanks to the poster, and to those who commented. Bless you guys.

 

[J. Dean]

Now, does Scripture suggest an emphasis among the attributes of God, if not an idea of a "centre" or "well spring"?

Yes; Scripture emphasises His being to the unbelieving, His wisdom to the fool, His power to the weak, His holiness to the sinful, His justice to the presumptuous, His goodness to the needy, and His truth to the wavering. These perfections are also emphasised in different ways in other contexts, but in each case the context makes it clear that the emphasis in the covenant-revelation is fitted to address and to answer the condition of its recipient.

Well crafted answer, sir!

 

[louis_jp]

Now, does Scripture suggest an emphasis among the attributes of God, if not an idea of a "centre" or "well spring"?

Yes; Scripture emphasises His being to the unbelieving, His wisdom to the fool, His power to the weak, His holiness to the sinful, His justice to the presumptuous, His goodness to the needy, and His truth to the wavering. These perfections are also emphasised in different ways in other contexts, but in each case the context makes it clear that the emphasis in the covenant-revelation is fitted to address and to answer the condition of its recipient.

This article from Paul Helm may help as well: Divine Impassibility: Why Is It Suffering?

"Divine impassibility is not impassivity, but constant goodness, variously expressed (according to God's will and to the specifics of human history) as (for example) love, or wrath, or mercy. Such expressions are rooted in the immutability of the divine nature, the fact that God is unchangeable in goodness and perfection, and cannot be deterred or deflected by outside forces. Of course God’s immutable relation to his creation is not perceived as such by it, but what is perceived is a function of the situation or condition of the creaturely recipient. Just as (we say) the Sun is now setting, now rising, so God is now wise, now just, now loving etc. depending on the human circumstances in which he is “encountered” and on God's purposes in these circumstances."

 

[hammondjones]

Originally Posted by Douglas Padgett
If in fact Dr. Sproul is attempting to make such a distinction, he is most regrettably allowing the same rationalism slip into his Doctrine of God as he does into his apologetic.
You'll have to pardon my ignorance on this, but never once have I heard Dr. Sproul espouse any favorable leanings toward humanistic rationalism.

He may be referring to Sproul's rejection of presuppositional apologetics

 

[J. Dean]

He may be referring to Sproul's rejection of presuppositional apologetics

Ah. I admit to not being familiar with the details of presup vs. classical apologetics, so I need to look into that one.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Rev. Matthew Winzer,
may I ask what the practical differences are between God having and God being something? Do we, as mere creatures, only have some of God's attributes, or can it also be said of us that we are love, righteousness, wisdom, etc. (although in a limited measure)? Again, what's the difference between having and being something?

Samuel, if I may venture an answer, it is not proper to speak of God as having, e.g., wisdom, instead of being wisdom, because wisdom is not separable from God. With God to be, and to be wise, or powerful, or holy, are not different things. In other words, there are no accidents in God. Now for creatures it is possible to have many accidental qualities that are separable from us without affecting our essence. To take a ludicrous example, a tattooed person and a non-tattooed person are equally human: the quality of having tattoos is accidental - it is separable from the essence. But God has no such separable qualities. As Polanus said, Though essence and existence differ in creatures, they do not do so in God.

Sorry for missing your question, Samuel. Thanks to Ruben for picking it up. Ruben answers why we must affirm having and being are one in God. The analogy in us helps to clarify the difference. Take "goodness." Imagine if one were to say, "Samuel is goodness." That would convey the idea that Samuel is the sum, substance, and standard of all goodness. It is unbecoming. Instead one says, Samuel is a good man. Goodness is a quality that attaches to what Samuel is. Goodness cannot be a quality that attaches to Godhood. There is none good but one, that is God. He is essentially good, and good in a way that none other can be. This means He is the sum, substance, and standard of all goodness. It is impossible to liken anything to God for goodness -- He is its sum. It is impossible to suppose that He can be other than good -- He is its substance. And it is impossible to subject Him to goodness -- He is its standard.

Thanks to both Ruben and Rev. Winzer. Your responses were very enlightening!

 

[jwright82]

Here is Dr. Oliphint's "Doctrine of God" class which is amazing. To hear it you have to sighn up for the media center, it is easy and free.
Westminster Theological Seminary - Media Center.

He makes dinstinctions between God's essential properties, or attributes, and His covenantal properties. Well worth the time. Here is a discussion on The Reformed Forum on Dr. Oliphint's book, from these lectuers, on this subject.
God… With Us - Reformed Forum.
I find Dr. Oliphint's views very helpful not only here but in Apologetics as well. He understands quite well the philosophical issues involved in a consideration of the doctrine.

 

[jwithnell]

The Westminster divines promote God's existence as a spirit and apply the characteristics of infinitude, eternality, and unchangeableness to the remaining descriptors (not the best word): being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

Does it not appear that God's being infinite, eternal and unchangeable has some preeminence?

 

[MW]

Does it not appear that God's being infinite, eternal and unchangeable has some preeminence?

Let's see. Is it wise to be infinite, eternal and unchangeable? Or, is it good? It is impossible to discuss pre-eminent attributes because our preconditions for discussing those attributes always depend upon other "perfections" which then appear to be pre-eminent.

 

[py3ak]

I have occasionally wondered if the way the attributes spill over into and imply one another couldn't be used as one evidence of the doctrine of divine simplicity.

Jean, what you say is true with regard to the shorter catechism, as far as how things are organized:

WSC 4

God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

But that is not the only statement made:

WLC 7

God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.

In both catechisms the spirituality of God is set first. And if God were not a spirit, of course, many other terms would not apply. But look at the Confession:

WCF II.1

There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.

Here it is God's life that is first in order. And of course if God were not living and real, all of these points would be nothing but word games. But there is nothing accidental in God. God is eternal in his holiness - and he is wise in his eternity - and he is immutable in his wisdom - and he is holy in his immutability. I think it would be true to say that every attribute applies to every other attribute, because ultimately these are divided and composite descriptions of the most perfect and simple and singular God.

 

[jwright82]

I have occasionally wondered if the way the attributes spill over into and imply one another couldn't be used as one evidence of the doctrine of divine simplicity.

Jean, what you say is true with regard to the shorter catechism, as far as how things are organized:

WSC 4

God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

But that is not the only statement made:

WLC 7

God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.

In both catechisms the spirituality of God is set first. And if God were not a spirit, of course, many other terms would not apply. But look at the Confession:

WCF II.1

There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.

Here it is God's life that is first in order. And of course if God were not living and real, all of these points would be nothing but word games. But there is nothing accidental in God. God is eternal in his holiness - and he is wise in his eternity - and he is immutable in his wisdom - and he is holy in his immutability. I think it would be true to say that every attribute applies to every other attribute, because ultimately these are divided and composite descriptions of the most perfect and simple and singular God.

Could not the occasion call on us to make a particuler attribute more prominant than the others? So that the occasion or context of the catechism lead God as spirit to be emphasized over the others without it becoming more important? I mean Frame has written a paper on the importance of God's aseity to apologetics, but the only reason he makes this prominant is because of the aim of the paper. So that each "perspective" from which we view the divine being as best we can may cause us to emphasize a particuler attribute ove rthe others.

 

[jwithnell]

True enough about the remainder of the Westminster Standards. I just always thought the order in the Shorter Catechism was interesting. And I have to agree, that any descriptions of God are given for our oh-so-finite minds. God is. That is enough.

 

[py3ak]

Could not the occasion call on us to make a particuler attribute more prominant than the others?

If I'm writing about immensity presumably I say more about that than about omniscience - but hopefully no one would take that to imply that I therefore think that immensity is somehow superior or foundational to omniscience. However, I don't think that the catechism does give especial emphasis. It is an excellent statement - but obviously the Westminster divines didn't think it was the only statement. While "infinite, eternal, and unchangeable" are applied to "being, etc." in the definition of the shorter catechism, in the larger "eternal" and "unchangeable" are applied to God directly. Which again goes to show the same thing. If God is eternal, so is his power - because God is his attributes, being a most pure spirit with no accidental qualities.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Does it not appear that God's being infinite, eternal and unchangeable has some preeminence?

Let's see. Is it wise to be infinite, eternal and unchangeable? Or, is it good? It is impossible to discuss pre-eminent attributes because our preconditions for discussing those attributes always depend upon other "perfections" which then appear to be pre-eminent.

Rev. Winzer,
does this inseparability of God's "attributes" mean that God's love, for example, is love because it is wise, good, infinite, eternal, unchangeable, etc.?

 

[MW]

does this inseparability of God's "attributes" mean that God's love, for example, is love because it is wise, good, infinite, eternal, unchangeable, etc.?

"Because" could be taken in different ways. If it means that God's love would not be love unless it was wise, good, etc., then yes. If it means that His being wise, good, etc., causes love, then no. A better word might be "since." God's love is love since it is wise, good, etc. That takes away all notion of causality.

 

[jwright82]

Could not the occasion call on us to make a particuler attribute more prominant than the others?

If I'm writing about immensity presumably I say more about that than about omniscience - but hopefully no one would take that to imply that I therefore think that immensity is somehow superior or foundational to omniscience. However, I don't think that the catechism does give especial emphasis. It is an excellent statement - but obviously the Westminster divines didn't think it was the only statement. While "infinite, eternal, and unchangeable" are applied to "being, etc." in the definition of the shorter catechism, in the larger "eternal" and "unchangeable" are applied to God directly. Which again goes to show the same thing. If God is eternal, so is his power - because God is his attributes, being a most pure spirit with no accidental qualities.

Yeah that is what I thought as well. Emphasis should be properly dishtinguished by qualifications about all the attributes being equal, like Frame does in that article I mentioned.

 

[steadfast7]

So, no attribute is to be brought in hierarchical relationship to any other to safeguard the simplicity or oneness of God. Doesn't this imply that his simplicity is the chief of attributes? I would ask, then, why his simplicity trumps his manifold-ness.

 

[MW]

Doesn't this imply that his simplicity is the chief of attributes?

No; it simply states that simplicity is another consideration with which to view an infinite God.

 

[py3ak]

Several points could be made, Dennis.

1. What manifoldness? We confess that God is one. The distinction of the Persons is not in view.
2. How could a refusal to organize attributes hierarchically turn into making one superior to the rest? It's a rejection of the very thing being safeguarded.
3. No, simplicity is not the chief attribute. We also state that God is eternal in all his attributes: does that make eternity the chief? Woe is us, then, because we also confess that God is unchangeable in all his attributes, and that he is infinite in all his attributes. Well, now that we've come to have four chief attributes, perhaps we can discard the hierarchical ranking as a bad idea?

 

[steadfast7]

By manifoldness I simply mean that God has many attributes which can be said to be distinct from one another.

Are all of God's attributes equally eternal? How about God's wrath against evil? It could only have been expressed after evil entered into reality, not prior. What about the apparent distinction between his wrath vs. his grace, as in Ps 30:5, "For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime"? What I see here is not a sense of equal distribution and non-distinction, but one having a more fundamental quality than the other.

 

[MW]

Are all of God's attributes equally eternal? How about God's wrath against evil? It could only have been expressed after evil entered into reality, not prior. What about the apparent distinction between his wrath vs. his grace, as in Ps 30:5, "For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime"? What I see here is not a sense of equal distribution and non-distinction, but one having a more fundamental quality than the other.

If you choose to confine your examination of attributes to their historical manifestation then you will not only have temporary attributes but changeable ones. God condescends to act towards His creation in its present condition. In that action He repents, shows weakness and vulnerability, makes His choice to depend upon the action of the creature, allows Himself to be defeated by wickedness, etc., etc. Such condescension is not intended to show us God as He is in His glory, but as He is pleased to humble Himself to become our Saviour. He shows to us an human weakness which would ultimately be expressed in the humiliation of Jesus. But this is not God as He is in His own underived, undisturbed, and undiminished glory.

 

[steadfast7]

That is a helpful distinction, his acts of condescension and his being. Thanks.

James Dolezal, in the Reformed forum podcast on Divine simplicity says this (I'll write in list form):
1. All that is in God is God.
2. Does that mean that God is identical to all that we attribute to him? Yes.
3. Does it mean that all that we attribute to him is identical with each other? Yes.
4. Everything that is in God is the Godhead himself.

Is this catholic and Reformed dogma? or, is there room for flexibility in this area and remain confessional?

thanks.

 

[jwright82]

So, no attribute is to be brought in hierarchical relationship to any other to safeguard the simplicity or oneness of God. Doesn't this imply that his simplicity is the chief of attributes? I would ask, then, why his simplicity trumps his manifold-ness.

I never said that we should attribute no "hierarchical relationship" to any attribute to "safeguard" God's "simplicitly". What I said, and I think this is the right viewpoint, was that we shouldn't elevate any attribute above any other to safeguard God Himself. It is His being as He has revealed Himself to us that is being protected. It is the totality of His being, and not one attribute, that is in view here. This is just my opinion but I think that it is correct.

---------- Post added at 10:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 AM ----------

Is this catholic and Reformed dogma? or, is there room for flexibility in this area and remain confessional?

thanks.

I think it is the orthodox view. Not much room.

 

[Zork]

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. God does not have attributes; He cannot be divided. He is His attributes; He is One. God does not have wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth; He is wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. God is infinite; thus God is infinitely wise, powerful, holy, just, good, and true. Infinitude has no circumference; therefore it can have no centre. God is eternal; therefore He is eternally wise, powerful, holy, just, good, and true. Eternity has no beginning or end; therefore it can have no mid point. If God can have a centre then there is some part of God that is more divine than other parts. This is the Gnostic idea of hierarchy. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. If one follows the Gnostic path to enlightenment he must forsake the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

WOW, I agree with this.
Awesome statement.
I am Speechless.
I am busy with AW Pink, Attributes of GOD.(Have you read it?)

 

[MW]

I am busy with AW Pink, Attributes of GOD.(Have you read it?)

Yes, it is well worth reading and has a devotional quality to it. But I wouldn't turn to it as a systematic treatment of the subject. If I remember correctly it has been extracted out of the author's magazine.