# Centre of God's attributes



## steadfast7 (Feb 13, 2012)

Is there a central, or primary, attribute in God that can be named as the root or source of the others, or that encapsulates his essence?

I believe Sproul would say it is his holiness. What about his love?


----------



## Reformedfellow (Feb 14, 2012)

Interesting question!
I think I personally would agree with Sproul, that God's Holiness is his "centering" attribute. It's in regard to God's holiness that we are most clearly confronted with our SINFULNESS. (ie. Isaiah 6:2-5)
And though we read that when God made His promise and covenant with Abraham He swore "by Himself" (Genesis 22:16, Hebrews 6:13), the only ATTRIBUTE of Himself that God Himself has sworn by is His holiness. (Psalm 89:35, Amos 4:2)


----------



## MW (Feb 14, 2012)

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.


----------



## Reformedfellow (Feb 14, 2012)

Brother Matthew,
Excellent response. 
But, I don't think Dennis' question was asking what is God's "greatest" attribute. Wherefore the response you gave would be completely, and appropriately warranted. 
At least I hope that's not what our brother Dennis was implying.


----------



## MW (Feb 14, 2012)

Reformedfellow said:


> Brother Matthew,
> Excellent response.
> But, I don't think Dennis' question was asking what is God's "greatest" attribute. Wherefore the response you gave would be completely, and appropriately warranted.
> At least I hope that's not what our brother Dennis was implying.



There is no difference between greatest and centre. If something has a centre it has a circumference; if there is a central attribute there are peripheral ones. If something is primary it has subordinates; if there is a primary attribute there are lesser ones. What is not infinite and eternal has gradations. If there are gradations of divinity that which is central or primary is ipso facto more divine and the greatest. To us there is but one God -- the infinite and eternal One. He has no central or primary attribute.


----------



## Reformedfellow (Feb 14, 2012)

Thank-you for explaining further. It is very interesting.
To help us understand better, forgive me for probing further brother..
While I agree with what you say, God being "one". For example, God swore to Abraham, "by Himself" (Genesis, Hebrews)
But, are not His attributes "distinct" from one another? Can we not also say that God's holiness is eternal, His justice is eternal, His love is eternal, etc. Instead of just lumping them all together? Otherwise we cannot talk about any of His attributes without mentioning all of them without being guilty of said idolatry. 
God seems to, in the bible, make distinctions about His attributes when He swears by His holiness in Psalms and Amos. (Without feeling the need to swear by every other attribute) 
He seems to make distinctions when He speaks specifically about His specific attributes. 
Please forgive me if I have missed your point entirely. I do agree with what you say, just need clarification. 
However, I will disagree that saying God's holiness is His central attribute is much different that saying it's His greatest attribute. Holy, to my understanding, simply means "unique, set apart, unlike any other, etc" so in essence His love is HOLY. His justice is HOLY. There is no one and nothing like God. He is HOLY.
This is what I think I have been trying to communicate.

---------- Post added at 04:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ----------

*forgive me for my bad grammar brother. I hope you can understand what I mean*


----------



## steadfast7 (Feb 14, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Reformedfellow said:
> 
> 
> > Brother Matthew,
> ...



But are not his infinitude and eternality attributes, at least listed as such, in traditional theologies? Could it be said that his one-ness is his primary attribute?


----------



## Reformedfellow (Feb 14, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> But are not his infinitude and eternality attributes, at least listed as such, in traditional theologies? Could it be said that his one-ness is his primary attribute?



I think what has been established is that saying God has a "primary" attribute must also conclude that He has "secondary" attributes- which would ultimately nullify His "one-ness".

However, I still want to look at God's centering or overall attribute- as it relates to ALL of His attributes- ie, God's holiness. 
God is ONE. Yet He exists in three DISTINCT persons- Father, Son, Holy Spirit. All 3 are God, yet God is one.
God has distinct attributes. Yet all are one. God is eternal, infinite, perfect, in every attribute. Which is why I say they all are aspects of God's holiness.

I hope I explained that the way I wanted to.


----------



## steadfast7 (Feb 14, 2012)

I think there can be higher and lower attributes, if you consider that scripture itself says implies that God's grace is super abundant over his justice or wrath. Also, consider that when God was alone in the Trinity, his wrathful disposition would have been altogether absent. As for the holiness of God a la Sproul, I would ask whether this is an attribute that is more related to between God and his creatures, than to God in himself. This is where I see the primacy of love within the Trinity. If there is such a thing as "primary" attributes, it would be those things which God is _in himself_, shared in the Trinity from all eternity. I think Love is that thing.


----------



## Douglas P. (Feb 14, 2012)

God is simple. He is not composed of parts (See WCF 2.1). To quote Bavinck;



> On the whole, its [the church] teaching has been that God is "simple," that is, sublimely free from all compositions, and that therefore one cannot make any real [i.e. ontological] distinction between his being and his attribute. Each attribute is identical with God's being: he _is what he possesses. (Reformed Dogmatics 2.118)_


_

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 may also be interested in listening to this discussion from the Reformed Forums: Christ the Center - God without Parts: The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity_


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 14, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> 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.



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?


----------



## Reformedfellow (Feb 14, 2012)

Douglas Padgett said:


> 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.



Good info. Thank-you. We are all learning and growing to know God more. I think these discussions are both healthy and edifying. If by my statements I seemed to "divide" God up, it was entirely inadvertently. I also want to clarify that I do not know if this is in fact exactly what Dr. Sproul espouses. Simply going by the original post that stated Dr. Sproul says God's holiness 


steadfast7 said:


> encapsulates his essence


 I gave my thoughts which can be seen above. 

Great thought from Bavinck!


----------



## J. Dean (Feb 14, 2012)

Douglas Padgett said:


> 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.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 14, 2012)

Heppe quotes Hottinger and Braun on this matter:



> ...HOTTINGER, p.44: "The attributes are distinguished neither from the essence nor from each other but only by our conceiving".—Hence, since every attribute is a manifestation of the same absolutely simple essentiality of God, it may justifiably be said (BRAUN, I, ii, 2, 19) that "God's righteousness is His goodness, is His knowledge, is His will; or His mercy is His righteousness, etc. But it would be wrong for me to say that the concept I have of the righteousness is the same concept which I have of the deity, mercy or eternity."



Dennis, your form of words attributes change to the immutable God: please reconsider, or be more precise.


----------



## louis_jp (Feb 14, 2012)

Gerald Bray, in his book "The Doctrine of God," pp. 103-4

"Classical theism has always tried to maintaint a balance between the individual attributes of God and the totality of His essence by saying that each single attribute is equal to the whole of His being. Omnipotence for example, is not a part of God which might theoretically be removed; it is a concept which describes God as He is in His fullness. The other attributes all co-inhere in his omnipotence, and the same can be said equally well of His... immutability, His impassibility and so on. 

"Yet it is also true that some of God's attributes are more fundamental than others. Omnipotence entails impassibility and possibly invisibility, but the same could not be said in reverse. God could easily be impassible and invisible without being all-powerful as well. Is there any way in which a hierarchy, or scale of attributes can be established?

"There is good reason for regarding omnipotence as God's most fundamental attribute.... In the bible, this attribute is not described as an adjective, or alluded to in some kind of metaphor, but is given to us as a name, which is a title of God. He is "El Shaddai," the Almighty.

"A hierarchy of attributes... would not mean that some of them would be less essential than others, or even optional to God's being. The divine simplicity assures us that there is no such thing as a non-essential attribute in God's being."


----------



## Reformedfellow (Feb 14, 2012)

Douglas Padgett said:


> You may also be interested in listening to this discussion from the Reformed Forums: Christ the Center - God without Parts: The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity



I listened to all of this discussion. I would concur that it is well worth listening to as it pertains to this thread. 




py3ak said:


> Dennis, your form of words attributes change to the immutable God: please reconsider, or be more precise.



I would have to agree. Dennis, the link that Douglas provided is an excellent resource pertaining to your question. I know I have just learned a lot in a short period of time. It is quite similar to the ideas Lous has brought to the discussion, but (obviously because of length) a lot more in-depth.

---------- Post added at 11:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ----------

*(Louis, forgive me for misspelling your name brother)


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 14, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> I think there can be higher and lower attributes, if you consider that scripture itself says implies that God's grace is super abundant over his justice or wrath. Also, consider that when God was alone in the Trinity, his wrathful disposition would have been altogether absent. As for the holiness of God a la Sproul, I would ask whether this is an attribute that is more related to between God and his creatures, than to God in himself. This is where I see the primacy of love within the Trinity. If there is such a thing as "primary" attributes, it would be those things which God is _in himself_, shared in the Trinity from all eternity. I think Love is that thing.



If you look at py3ak's quote you'll notice a distinction made between God as He is in Himself and our "conception" of His nature via revelation. There can be no primary or secondary attributes in God, He is what He is, and so in our conception of His revelation we can speak of one attribute but never in complete isolation from the others. Hence the second quote py3ak gave. No attribute is given ontological primacy over the others. To even speak of attributes is only God's merciful condescension to our finite creaturly level.


----------



## KMK (Feb 14, 2012)

Thomas Boston:



> Now, both these sorts of attributes (communicable and incommunicable) of God are not qualities in him distinct from himself, but they are God himself. God's infinity is God himself, his wisdom is himself; he is wisdom, goodness. Neither are these attributes so many different things in God; but they are each of them God himself: for God swears by himself; yet he swears by his holiness (Amos 4:2). He creates by himself (Isa 44:24); yet he creates by his power (Rom 1:20). Therefore God's attributes are God himself. Neither are these attributes separable from one another; *for though we, through weakness, must think and speak of them separately, yet they are truly but the one infinite perfection of the divine nature, which cannot be separated therefrom, without denying that he is an infinitely perfect being.*



Hence Rev Winzer's warning. It is only through our own weakness that we have to conceive of God's attributes in distinction from one another. Let us not compound the problem by proceeding to ask even deeper questions as if the ground we stand on is firm.


----------



## Reformedfellow (Feb 14, 2012)

KMK said:


> Thomas Boston:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Thanks for sharing.


----------



## John Bunyan (Feb 14, 2012)

I would say aseity.

Also, there's a difference between immutability and changelessness (so say the philosophers).


----------



## jayce475 (Feb 14, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> I think there can be higher and lower attributes, if you consider that scripture itself says implies that God's grace is super abundant over his justice or wrath. Also, consider that when God was alone in the Trinity, his wrathful disposition would have been altogether absent.



I'm sorry but this sounds entirely foreign. What scriptures are you speaking of?


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 14, 2012)

John Bunyan said:


> I would say aseity.
> 
> Also, there's a difference between immutability and changelessness (so say the philosophers).



If by aseity we mean simply the name God gives Himself to Moses that "I AM WHO I AM", that is that God is God. But even God's self-exsistance cannot be made primary or foundational to all the other attributes. We cannot "absolutize" one attribute over another. Paul Tillich is the classic example of this when he describes God as the "ground of all being" including His own. This being the "ground of all being" is the foundation of all being and His attributes flow from this foundation. 

An interesting critique of Tillich comes from Karl Barth when in an intro to Tillich's theology by one of his students when he (Barth) suggests that Tillich is doing philosophy and not theology. This should help us to see the folly in attempting to use philosophy alone to understand God and not His self-disclosed revelation. We can and must at times bring philosophy into the service of theology but we should never make it the primary source of understanding God, as Tillich did.


----------



## CharlieJ (Feb 14, 2012)

James, how is Tillich's "ground of all being" materially different from Thomas' _esse ipse subsistans_, which is taken to be orthodox theology?


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 14, 2012)

CharlieJ said:


> James, how is Tillich's "ground of all being" materially different from Thomas' _esse ipse subsistans_, which is taken to be orthodox theology?



"The God who is being itself or the ground and power of being is superior to the supposedly finite God of traditional Christian theism who is thought of as a person and a being", _20TH Century Theology_ page 125, written by Stanley Grenz and Roger Olsen. He ultimatly was a panantheist, I know that Thomas was not. Just as a conrete foundation is part of the building God is as ground part of the very fabric of creation itself. His personality is almost completly dissolved to the point that many have pointed out that he was espousing something similar to atheism. So withen God are two poles His "being-itself" (or ground of being that is beyond personality) and His personality which is ultimatly grounded in His being.


----------



## peter_piper (Feb 14, 2012)

A very interesting discussion.
I am not the most versed with all these theological fellows mentioned here, and I am not going to delve into their arguments and counter arguments.
But it is noteworthy, as Sproul mentions in his book, "Holiness of God" that the angels cry out "_Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty". It never says they cry out the Lord is love love love or mercy mercy mercy. That may be the creature p As mentioned briefly above...God is one and thus we cannot compartmentalize God. I would argue though that his Holiness permeates all his other 'attributes'. He is holy in wrath, justice, righteousness, love, etc. It may also be argued that holiness need not neccessarily be an 'attribute' as are love wrath, justice, mercy, truth, etc., as it means seperateness-his uniqueness. Open to comment or critique._


----------



## MW (Feb 14, 2012)

Reformedfellow said:


> However, I will disagree that saying God's holiness is His central attribute is much different that saying it's His greatest attribute. Holy, to my understanding, simply means "unique, set apart, unlike any other, etc" so in essence His love is HOLY. His justice is HOLY. There is no one and nothing like God. He is HOLY.
> This is what I think I have been trying to communicate.



I can appreciate what you are contending for. God's holiness runs through every other attribute. An important point. God's holiness is made most prominent in Scripture by virtue of the fact that it is a revelation to fallen and sinful man. Another important point. But note, God's wisdom, power, etc., also run through all the other attributes. It is wise and powerful as well as holy providence. It is wise and powerful as well as holy redemption. Whatever one contends for with respect to holiness will be shown to be equally true of all the perfections of God. And they are "perfections." I.e., things above which there can be no higher. On the second point -- that the holiness of God is prominent before sinful men -- it is not so prominent that it is lifted up above the other attributes. If it were, all the claims of mercy, wisdom, and truth would be subservient to His holiness. The eternal decree would have looked very different from what it has manifested itself to be. As it stands, God's decree has so ordered things that all His attributes are displayed in "harmony" in the plan of salvation. Hence not only is holiness honoured in God's separation from sin, but justice is satisfied in His vindication, power is exerted in the work as His, love is demonstrated in a way that excels all others, wisdom is magnified in contriving the way, and truth shines forth in the faithfulness and integrity which God has maintained. Glory be to God in the highest!


----------



## baron (Feb 14, 2012)

peter_piper said:


> I am not the most versed with all these theological fellows mentioned here, and I am not going to delve into their arguments and counter arguments.
> But it is noteworthy, as Sproul mentions in his book, "Holiness of God" that the angels cry out "_Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty". It never says they cry out the Lord is love love love or mercy mercy mercy._


_

Iknow what you mean, I thought I understood the attributes of God, but the more I read the more confused I become.

Jerry Bridges in his book The Transforming Power of the Gospel: basicaly says the same thing as RC Sproul. He says, But it is only His holiness that is given the threefold ascription "holy, holy, holy." We never read of God's being "wise, wise, wise" or "powerful, powerful, powerful," though He is infinite in all His attributes.

But as I said, I'm not educated enough to speak on this subject. Hope to understand the OP better._


----------



## py3ak (Feb 14, 2012)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> 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._

As for this quote from Bray:


> There is good reason for regarding omnipotence as God's most fundamental attribute.... In the bible, this attribute is not described as an adjective, or alluded to in some kind of metaphor, but is given to us as a name, which is a title of God. He is "El Shaddai," the Almighty.


Other names are claimed by God, including I AM THAT I AM, with its implications of aseity, eternity, and immutability.


----------



## louis_jp (Feb 14, 2012)

py3ak said:


> As for this quote from Bray:
> There is good reason for regarding omnipotence as God's most fundamental attribute.... In the bible, this attribute is not described as an adjective, or alluded to in some kind of metaphor, but is given to us as a name, which is a title of God. He is "El Shaddai," the Almighty.
> Other names are claimed by God, including I AM THAT I AM, with its implications of aseity, eternity, and immutability.



To be fair, Bray wasn't really arguing the point. His comment was part of a larger context. I only included the lines that seemed most responsive to the OP.


----------



## steadfast7 (Feb 14, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Dennis, your form of words attributes change to the immutable God: please reconsider, or be more precise.


 I retract the idea that there is an attribute or attributes from which other attributes "flow." This would put his immutability into question. Granted.



jayce475 said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > I think there can be higher and lower attributes, if you consider that scripture itself says implies that God's grace is super abundant over his justice or wrath. Also, consider that when God was alone in the Trinity, his wrathful disposition would have been altogether absent.
> ...


 Psalm 103:10, "He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities." This suggests to me that God's grace is more fundamental than his justice, for if humanity were to receive the just punishment for our sin, we would all have perished long ago. 



louis_jp said:


> "Yet it is also true that some of God's attributes are more fundamental than others. Omnipotence entails impassibility and possibly invisibility, but the same could not be said in reverse. God could easily be impassible and invisible without being all-powerful as well. Is there any way in which a hierarchy, or scale of attributes can be established?
> 
> "There is good reason for regarding omnipotence as God's most fundamental attribute.... In the bible, this attribute is not described as an adjective, or alluded to in some kind of metaphor, but is given to us as a name, which is a title of God. He is "El Shaddai," the Almighty.
> 
> "A hierarchy of attributes... would not mean that some of them would be less essential than others, or even optional to God's being. The divine simplicity assures us that there is no such thing as a non-essential attribute in God's being."


 Thanks Louis for this helpful quote. It seems that Dr. Bray here is espousing the idea that some attributes of God can be more "fundamental" than others, which is the point that I'm getting at (without using the spatial terminology of "center" or the dynamic terminology of "flowing"). 

It's new to me that each attribute be equal to whole essence of God. Are we confessionally bound to this assertion? Initially, it seems odd to me that this be the case in order to safeguard the simplicity of God. Some questions I have are: 

Why are distinctions in God permissible in reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, but not in discussions of God's attributes? 
Is it really wrong to say that God HAS attributes? The LBC uses the language that God "_hath _immortality," "_hath _most sovereign dominion," and "_having _all, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself" etc.
Doesn't the doctrine of divine simplicity speak more to the category of space and substance, than of our attributions of his character using language? I think there may be a category confusion here, but I'm not sure.
Even if we were to say that God IS something (love, for example), and that each attribute IS his entire essence, this creates more problems, in my mind, because it leaves out the plethora of other attributes which he is.

at any rate, I see some divergent opinions on this thread so far. Looking forward to seeing where this goes. Thanks for the interaction!


----------



## MW (Feb 14, 2012)

py3ak said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Rev. Matthew Winzer,
> ...



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 (Feb 14, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> 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 (Feb 14, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> 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 (Feb 15, 2012)

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 (Feb 15, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > Now, does Scripture suggest an _emphasis_ among the attributes of God, if not an idea of a "centre" or "well spring"?
> ...


Well crafted answer, sir!


----------



## louis_jp (Feb 15, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > Now, does Scripture suggest an _emphasis_ among the attributes of God, if not an idea of a "centre" or "well spring"?
> ...



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 (Feb 15, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> 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 (Feb 15, 2012)

hammondjones said:


> 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 (Feb 15, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > InSlaveryToChrist said:
> ...



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


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 15, 2012)

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 (Feb 15, 2012)

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 (Feb 15, 2012)

jwithnell said:


> 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 (Feb 15, 2012)

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 (Feb 15, 2012)

py3ak said:


> 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:
> 
> ...



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 (Feb 15, 2012)

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 (Feb 15, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> > Does it not appear that God's being infinite, eternal and unchangeable has some preeminence?
> ...



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 (Feb 16, 2012)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2012)

py3ak said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > Could not the occasion call on us to make a particuler attribute more prominant than the others?
> ...



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 (Feb 16, 2012)

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 (Feb 16, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2012)

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 (Feb 16, 2012)

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 (Feb 16, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2012)

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 (Feb 17, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> 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 ----------




steadfast7 said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2012)

Zork said:


> 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.


----------

