# Classification of the attributes of God.



## earl40 (Apr 24, 2015)

Thoughts?

Classification of the attributes of God

Classifying the attributes of God has been a topic of discussion for quite some time. Reformed theology has historically distinguished between "Incommunicable" and "Communicable" attributes of God. Incommunicable has been understood as attributes that only God has, while Communicable attributes are those that humans possess to a degree.

For example, God's attribute of love can be seen in humanity. Thus, "love" is considered a communicable attribute. Yet, God's eternity is not communicable as we are creatures who had a beginning and live in time and space.

Critique

Yet, some have been critical of these distinctions. Donald Macleod notes that,

None of these [classifications] has much to commend it and certainly none is to be regarded as authoritative. Scripture nowhere attempts a classification... All the suggested classifications are artificial and misleading, not least that which has been most favoured by Reformed theologians - the division into communicable and incommunicable attributes. The problem here is that these qualities we refer to as incommunicable adhere unalterably to those we refer to as communicable. For example, God is "infinite, eternal and unchangeable" (The Shorter Catechism, Answer 4) and these are deemed to be incommunicable properties: and God is merciful, which is deemed to be a communicable property. But the mercy itself is "infinite, eternal and unchangeable" and as such is incommunicable. The same is true of all the other so-called communicable attributes such as the love, righteousness and faithfulness of God. One the other hand, to speak of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence as incommunicable is equally unsatisfactory. If we remove the prefix omni we are left simply with power, knowledge and presence, all of which have analogies in our own human existence. (Behold Your God, p. 20-21) However, Louis Berkhof justified his use of these categories, saying that,

if we... remember that none of the attributes of God are incommunicable in the sense that there is no trace of them in man, and none of them are communicable in the sense that they are found in man as they are found in God, we see no reason why we should depart from the old division which has become so familiar in Reformed theology. (Systematic Theology, p. 55-56). This article is a stub. Please edit it to add information.
http://www.theopedia.com/Classification_of_the_attributes_of_God


----------



## MW (Apr 24, 2015)

In the sense in which Donald Macleod disregards the authority of this distinction he may as well disregard the authority of all theological distinctions which aim to classify revealed concepts. The Scriptures themselves do not make them, but they are necessary when seeking to systematise the teaching of Scripture as a whole. And this is fundamental to the idea that the revelatory process has ceased and we now look at revelation as a completed entity.

The point about the communicable attributes being incommunicable in one particular sense is somewhat irrelevant. He has used the distinction in order to make this point. So while he is writing it off he is making use of it. It is noteworthy that the reformed orthodox make the same same point from this distinction.

There is one who is good. God only wise. He alone is holy. These are biblical statements. But they only refer to a particular aspect of these attributes. They are essentially in God. He alone is good, wise, and holy, in and of Himself. The fact remains, however, that angels and men are said to be good, wise, and holy, in a communicative sense. And it is precisely in this sense that they are called communicable attributes.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 25, 2015)

MW said:


> There is one who is good. God only wise. He alone is holy. These are biblical statements. But they only refer to a particular aspect of these attributes. They are essentially in God. He alone is good, wise, and holy, in and of Himself. The fact remains, however, that angels and men are said to be good, wise, and holy, in a communicative sense. And it is precisely in this sense that they are called communicable attributes.



The thing that is difficult to get ones mind around is that the communicable attributes are not the same,in any way, as the essential attributes in God which include goodness, wisdom and holiness.

Did I overstate this in any way?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 25, 2015)

Barth’s (_Christian Dogmatics_ II, part I) outline of how the attributes may be classified is often used by theologians. According to Barth, the attributes of God may be classified using one of the following six different classification methods:

(1) positive and negative
(2) communicable and incommunicable (what God is and of Himself)
(3) quiescent and active
(4) relative (to creation) and absolute
(5) transitive and intransitive
(6) metaphysical and moral

Most examples we find use method (2).

Culver went in another direction along the lines of affirmations:

*(1) ‘God is spirit’ (John 4:24)*
- _personality_ (Genesis 3:9-23; Genesis 18:17; Exodus 3:3-6; Exodus 19:9-19)
- _self-consciousness_ (Exodus 3:14; 1 Corinthians 2:9, 10)
- _self-determination_ (Isaiah 40-66; Ephesians 1:5, 9, 11; Deuteronomy 29:29)
- _life_ (Deuteronomy 5:26; Jeremiah 10:10, 11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9)
- _activity_ (Psalms 84:1-2; Ecclesiastes 12:14; Mark 9:41)
- _intelligence_ (Psalms 104:24; 1 Samuel 1:3; Isaiah 11:2; Job 38-41)

*(2) ‘the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath, there is no other’ (Deuteronomy 4:39)*
- Biblical doctrines of monotheism (Deuteronomy 4:35; Deuteronomy 6:4-5; Isaiah 44:6-7; James 2:19)

*(3) ‘our God is greater than all gods’ (2 Chronicles 2:5)*
- _self-existence_ (Exodus 3:14; John 5:26; Jeremiah 2:13; Psalms 36:9)
- _eternity_ (Psalms 90:2; Isaiah 57:15; Hebrews 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:17)
- _immensity_ (1 Kings 8:27; Romans 8:38, 39)
- _omnipresence_ (Psalms 139:7-10; Jeremiah 23:23-24)
- _omniscience_ (Hebrews 4:13; 2 Chronicles 16:9; Isaiah 46:9-11)
- _omnipotence_ (Matthew 19:26; Genesis 17:1; Jeremiah 32:17; Isaiah 40:28; Ephesians 1:11; Revelations 19:6)
- _incomprehensibility_ (Psalms 36:5-6; Romans 11:33, cf. 34-35; Job 11:7)
- _absoluteness_ (1 Timothy 6:15; Romans 1:25)
- _infinity_ (Ephesians 1:23; Jeremiah 23:23-24; Psalms 139:7-12; Psalms 147:5; Job 11:7-9)
- _transcendence_ and _immanence_ (Isaiah 57:15; Psalms 139:7-10; John 8:23)
- _time and space_, _time-space_ (Psalms 90:1-2; 1 Corinthians 2:7; Romans 8:39; 1 Kings 8:27)

*(4) ‘Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good’ (Psalms 107:1)*
- _holiness_ (Psalms 99:9; Psalms 51:11; Isaiah 57:15; Psalms 105:42; Psalms 89:35)
- _righteousness_ (Psalms 11:7; Titus 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:13; Psalms 89:14; Psalms 119:137; Romans 3:21; Revelations 16:4-7)
- _truth_ (John 17:3; Jeremiah 33:6; 2 Samuel 2:6; Exodus 34:6; John 1:17; Romans 3:4)
- _faithfulness_ (Deuteronomy 7:9-11; Deuteronomy 32:4; Jeremiah 16:19; Psalms 89:18; Psalms 19:7; Deuteronomy 6:26)
- _love_ (1 John 4:19; 1 John 4:12; John 4:8)
- _mercy_ (Psalms 145:15-16; Psalms 106:1; Psalms 136:11; Acts 14:17)

*(5) ‘the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ (Matthew 28:19)*
- one simple essence/substance, three modes of subsistence (not modes as in the sense used by Unitarianism), which are often called “persons”, which do not divide the essence of God. Instead God’s essence is common to the three Persons in God, not communicated from one to another; they each of them partake of the essence, and possess it as one undivided nature—‘as all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ’, so in the Holy Spirit; and of the Father. _One God who eternally exists in three different persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are fully God, all of whom are equal_. (Romans 16:26; Revelations 1:17; Matthew 28:20; Acts 17:28-29; John 14-16)


----------



## earl40 (Apr 25, 2015)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Barth’s (_Christian Dogmatics_ II, part I) outline of how the attributes may be classified is often used by theologians. According to Barth, the attributes of God may be classified using one of the following six different classification methods:
> 
> (1) positive and negative
> (2) communicable and incommunicable (what God is and of Himself)



Concerning #1 who other than Barth uses this? I can see the advantages of it because who can see God other than what is communicated by Him. In other words, the communicated are not God in se, right?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 25, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Concerning #1 who other than Barth uses this?


A decent survey:

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The method has its place in my mind for dealing with error. As in...

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

The hypostatic union is not:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (*Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians*);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (_anomoios_) with the Father (*semi-Arianism*);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (*Apollinarians*);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (*Dynamic Monarchianism*);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (*Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church*);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (*Eutychianism/Monophysitism*);
7. two distinct persons (*Nestorianism*);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (*docetism*);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (*kenoticism*);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (*Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper*); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (*Adoptionism*).


----------



## earl40 (Apr 26, 2015)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Concerning #1 who other than Barth uses this?
> ...



Indeed, an area protestants used to excel. As Rev. Winzer pointed out the conclusions of Donald Macleod are correct though the way he thought he came to them is misguided.


----------



## MW (Apr 26, 2015)

earl40 said:


> The thing that is difficult to get ones mind around is that the communicable attributes are not the same,in any way, as the essential attributes in God which include goodness, wisdom and holiness.



It should be the rejoicing of our soul that we are permitted to have so much of God as our small capacities can bear. We know what happens if we blow too much air into a balloon.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 26, 2015)

MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > The thing that is difficult to get ones mind around is that the communicable attributes are not the same,in any way, as the essential attributes in God which include goodness, wisdom and holiness.
> ...



This I also know...that when God told Moses that no man can see Him and live stands true as much today as it did then. Also my mind pops when I think of this subject.


----------

