Which attribute is the first of them all?

Holy. Holy , Holy is the Lord God the Almighty...

 

The Shorter Catechism, "What is God," begins the answer with, "God is a Spirit."

I uploaded the above SCQ 4 from Fisher's Catechism. It has 170 sub-questions and answers.

 

If attribute = essence, can you even answer this question?

Augustine: To be is the same as to be wise.

 

I would not try to pick out an attribute first because you think it is more important. Perhaps a summary of all the attributes would be best, reminding them that the attributes are not various traits that God has, but rather what God is.

 

From memory I think Edward’s maintained that Holiness was the first attribute, without which all other attributes would be tainted and suspect. Omnipotence would be despotic and even love carnal. (My paraphrase) But I can’t remember where he states this.

 

Although holiness is often considered the first attribute of God, this doesn't mean it has to be the first thing you study. I probably would not begin with a moral attribute like holiness, but rather with an attribute of God's basic being (like how he is spirit) or one that is more of an umbrella attribute (like his perfection or his glory).

That said, I'm not sure it matters all that much where you start.

 

I would say perfection is the most important. Perfection defines all his other attributes. If he were not perfectly holy, then he could alway become more holy. If he were not perfectly immutable, he could always become more immutable etc.

 

Actually, it should be "God is spirit" - without the indefinite article. I realize, though, that they worded things differently back in the Olden Times.

 

Any distinctions as to which attribute is "most/prior/best" is a non-starter, since there aren't any real distinctions in God. Muller writes: "Plurality in God is secundum rationem, not secundum re (PRRD III:55).

 

I suppose. I don't see why not.

 

So far as one understands it is ectypal and not archetypal....like we can comprehend God as He is in the divine sense which we cannot.

 

Yeah, my point was, as Muller notes, is that you can't make any real distinctions--only logical ones. At least that's how the Western tradition says. We say "Goodness," or "Wise" but they aren't different from the divine essence (think of a big metaphysical = sign)

 

I would start with simplicity. This will introduce the idea that God's attributes are identical with his essence and perfectly consistent. It will help guard against the tendency to think of God as the sum of His attributes, or that they are parts of God.