# "Every attribute of God is identical with His essence?"



## Pergamum (Jan 6, 2018)

What is the Biblical evidence of the phrase, "Every attribute of God is identical with His essence?" 

I have heard it said a lot, but never proven from Scripture. Where is this doctrine derived from (except reason)?

Many list wrath/hate and mercy as part of God's communicable attributes but these all stem from God's holiness and goodness. By saying "Every attribute of God is identical with His essence" we are making wrath and hatred as part of his essence, rather than mere holiness which is more basic.

But God only exercises wrath and hatred towards His creation whereas God's holiness has existed for eternity past.

Wrath is not identical to His essence, but comes about due to Creation, but many scholars list wrath as an attribute of God. There was a time when God did not exercise wrath(though God was always holy). If there was no time in which God did not exercise wrath towards pre-created sinners, then this makes Creation mandatory for God in order so that God might exercise His wrath. But God was free to create or not to create.

Any help?


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 6, 2018)

Dr. Sinclair Ferguson made a great statement on this along these lines; that strictly speaking, wrath is not an attribute of God. For something to be an attribute of God, it has to be something exercised before all worlds. Rather, wrath is the intersection of God's just judgment (His justice and righteousness) with unrighteousness (rebellion). Only then was wrath displayed.

I don't recall which Q&A this came from (Q&A 2 or 3), but I commend every lecture in this series as gold worth mining, especially the lectures from Dr's. Duncan, Sproul and Ferguson..........excellent!

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/orlando_2004_national_conference/


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 6, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Dr. Sinclair Ferguson made a great statement on this along these lines; that strictly speaking, wrath is not an attribute of God. For something to be an attribute of God, it has to be something exercised before all worlds. Rather, wrath is the intersection of God's just judgment (His justice and righteousness) intersecting with unrighteousness (rebellion). Only then was wrath displayed.
> 
> I don't recall which Q&A this came from (Q&A 2 or 3), but I commend every lecture in this series as gold worth mining, especially the lectures from Dr's. Duncan, Sproul and Ferguson..........excellent!
> 
> https://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/orlando_2004_national_conference/


Ok, great. That is also my conclusion...glad to know someone like Ferguson agrees.


----------



## KMK (Jan 6, 2018)

"That we may know what sort of a spirit God is, we must consider his attributes, which we gather from his word and works, and that two ways: 
*1.* By denying of, and removing from God, in our minds, all imperfection which is in the creatures, Acts 17:29. And thus we come to the knowledge of his incommunicable attributes, so called because there is no shadow or vestige of them in the creatures, such as infinity, eternity, unchangeableness. 
*2.* By attributing unto him, by way, of eminency, whatever is excellent in the creatures, seeing he is the fountain of all perfection in them, Psal. 94:9. And thus we have his communicable attributes, whereof there are some vestiges and small scantlings in the creature, as being, wisdom, power, &c. amongst which his spirituality is to be reckoned.


Now, *both these sorts of attributes in 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, 1 John 1:5. *Neither are these attributes so many different things in God; but they are each of them God himself:* for God swears by himself, Heb. 6:19; 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*."

Thomas Boston, "Of God and His Perfections", Works, Vol. I

Is that what your are looking for?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 6, 2018)

Ken,

Thanks, great quote. BUT....then wrath could not properly be called an attribute of God but only an attribute secondarily derived from His holiness, right? For God did not have wrath before all worlds but did have holiness before all worlds.

God is love because of the Trinity, but we cannot say God is wrath in the same manner, but only secondarily, due to His dealings with His rebellious creation.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 6, 2018)

The phrase was originally used to cut off the Platonic charge that if God is Good, then he must participate in the form of Goodness. But that means that Goodness is independent of, and prior to, God.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## earl40 (Jan 6, 2018)

I have said this in the past concerning God's immutability and how we ought to think God is not really an angry God who has emotions. Of course most recoil at that "heresy" I espouse.


----------



## KMK (Jan 6, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Ken,
> 
> Thanks, great quote. BUT....then wrath could not properly be called an attribute of God but only an attribute secondarily derived from His holiness, right? For God did not have wrath before all worlds but did have holiness before all worlds.
> 
> God is love because of the Trinity, but we cannot say God is wrath in the same manner, but only secondarily, due to His dealings with His rebellious creation.



I agree with Boston that wrath is best contemplated as a manifestation of the attribute of justice, not holiness.

"The justice of God is manifested and discovered, 
*1.* In the temporal judgments which he brings upon sinners even in this life. 
* 2.* In sentencing so many of Adam's posterity to everlasting pains and torments for sin, according to that dreadful sentence which shall be pronounced at the last day, Matth. 25:41. 
* 3.* In the death and sufferings of Christ. 
* 4.* The justice of God will be clearly manifested at the great day. 
* 5.* God's justice will shine for ever in the torments of the damned in hell."


I have never heard anyone say that wrath is an attribute of God. Is that a thing?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 6, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> What is the Biblical evidence of the phrase, "Every attribute of God is identical with His essence?"
> 
> I have heard it said a lot, but never proven from Scripture. Where is this doctrine derived from (except reason)?
> 
> ...


Would not the essence of God actually be His spiritual Being, while attributes would be those that would branch off from His Being itself? God is Holy, Loving, All Mighty et all, but at His core He is God the Being Himself?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Would not the essence of God actually be His spiritual Being, while attributes would be those that would branch off from His Being itself? God is Holy, Loving, All Mighty et all, but at His core He is God the Being Himself?


No. To the negation of assuming God has parts, we must say, God _is_ His attributes, all of which inhere one another. All God’s attributes are primary, none can be elevated above the other to claim that the other attributes are somehow subordinate to something else in God. The nature of the one divine being, God, is inclusive of all the attributes of His being. When we speak of these attributes in their totality, we say they are God’s _essence_.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 6, 2018)

It's been a while since I read it, but I remember that Turretin's treatment of this question was simply masterful. He is the one who completely convinced me that the attributes are not something different from the essence, but are rather different ways of looking at one and the same essence. The analogy has some flaws (pardon the pun), but one could consider that the attributes are like various facets of a diamond. They all provide a way of looking at the one essence, but you wouldn't say that the facets are different from the diamond.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 6, 2018)

See Turretin at:
THIRD TOPIC
THE ONE AND TRIUNE GOD

FIFTH QUESTION
_Can the divine attributes be really distinguished from the divine essence? We deny against the Socinians
_
A sample:


Spoiler



VII. The attributes of God cannot really differ from his essence or from one another (as one thing from another) because God is most simple and perfect. Now a real distinction presupposes things diverse in essence which the highest simplicity rejects. Things really diverse can become one only by aggregation (which is opposed to absolute perfection). Again, if they differed really, the essence would be made perfect by something really distinct from itself and so could not be in itself most perfect. Third, it would follow that God is not therefore immutable because he would have in himself passive potency (the root of mutability) by which the attributes might either be elicited from the essence or added to it. But since God is the first and independent being (which is whatever can be) nothing can be added to or taken away from him.



Turretin, Francis. I_nstitutes of Elenctic Theology_. Ed. James T. Dennison Jr. Trans. George Musgrave Giger. *Vol. 1*. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 6, 2018)

The line in question is trying to avoid claims like "God is made up of parts, where each attribute (love, goodness, justice) is a "part" of God). That would mean God is dependent on other properties for his existence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 6, 2018)

Yes, Jacob, and that precise point is where my analogy has its limitations. After all, the facets as an aggregate make up the diamond, whereas that is not true of God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 6, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Yes, Jacob, and that precise point is where my analogy has its limitations. After all, the facets as an aggregate make up the diamond, whereas that is not true of God.


Isn't though the Person of God at His core Spirit Being?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 6, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> No. To the negation of assuming God has parts, we must say, God _is_ His attributes, all of which inhere one another. All God’s attributes are primary, none can be elevated above the other to claim that the other attributes are somehow subordinate to something else in God. The nature of the one divine being, God, is inclusive of all the attributes of His being. When we speak of these attributes in their totality, we say they are God’s _essence_.


Humans have love and hate and feat emotions, but we are still at our core element humanity, correct?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 6, 2018)

David, yes, God is a Spirit. I am not sure why that is relevant to the point we are making about the attributes in their relation to the essence.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Would not the essence of God actually be His spiritual Being, while attributes would be those that would branch off from His Being itself? God is Holy, Loving, All Mighty et all, but at His core He is God the Being Himself?





Dachaser said:


> Humans have love and hate and feat emotions, but we are still at our core element humanity, correct?


David,

You appear to be trying to draw some analogy between God and humans, about some notion of "_core element_". You go so far as to state "_God is Holy, Loving, at all_, [sic]" then you quickly add, "_but_" as if there is something we are all overlooking in the discussion of the attributes of God and His essence.

If you are disagreeing with what has been posted, then make your disagreement plain. If not, please explain what you are trying to convey by "_at His core He is God the being Himself_". Are you trying to distinguish between _being_ and _essence_? Elaboration is needed. Don't force the reader to always have to unpack your stilted phrases, which usually results in your rejoinder beginning with "_What I meant to say..._".


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 7, 2018)

KMK said:


> I agree with Boston that wrath is best contemplated as a manifestation of the attribute of justice, not holiness.
> 
> "The justice of God is manifested and discovered,
> *1.* In the temporal judgments which he brings upon sinners even in this life.
> ...


They divide up the attributes into incommunicable attributes and communicable attributes and place wrath in the latter sometimes. Several systematic theologies list wrath and mercy as attributes of God, but these seem secondarily derived due to love and holiness responding to a fallen creation and not present from all eternity past within God Himself. God is love, of course, because of the nature of the Trinity forever loving one another. But God is merciful or wrathful only due to the Creation, and God was not obligated to create.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 7, 2018)

It appears then that wrath and mercy CANNOT be true attributes of God because prior to Creation there was no need or occasion to exercise wrath or mercy, but mercy and wrath are secondarily derived from the true attributes of love and justice, which were before all worlds.

How does that sound?


----------



## earl40 (Jan 7, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> It appears then that wrath and mercy CANNOT be true attributes of God because prior to Creation there was no need or occasion to exercise wrath or mercy, but mercy and wrath are secondarily derived from the true attributes of love and justice, which were before all worlds.
> 
> How does that sound?



Sounds EXELLENT!  Sweet music to our God this Lord's Day.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 7, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> But God is merciful or wrathful only due to the Creation, and God was not obligated to create.



You say God was not obligated to create, but then say He is obligated to demonstrate wrath because He created? Is that an accurate summary?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 7, 2018)

Side comment: taking into account Thomas Goodwin’s exegesis of Eph. 1, and him stating that God chose us “according to the good pleasure of his will, which he had purposed in himself”, how do you understand God’s love and hate? I think of Romans 9 as well. He did all these things before His creation and purely “to the good pleasure of his will”.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 7, 2018)

God is who He is in and of Himself, the One upon Whom all depends, and Who Himself depends upon none. This is what's in view when we speak of His aseity. 

In keeping with this, nothing in creation has the power to impact God (so that He is acted upon, instead of the Actor). This is what's in view when we speak of His impassibility. 

While creation may become the occasion for the expression of that which we would not otherwise see (the grace and mercy of God, on the one hand, and the wrath and retribution of God on the other), it cannot be the case that creation is either necessary (God is a perfect communion of persons, needing nothing outside His own triune Self) or that it adds anything to God, which would be a denial of his aseity, immutability, and impassibility.

This is all incomprehensible, and it cannot be otherwise, given that God the Creator cannot be fathomed by man the creature. As has been noted, Turretin and others (Bavinck, especially) have excellent treatments of this. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 7, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> You say God was not obligated to create, but then say He is obligated to demonstrate wrath because He created? Is that an accurate summary?



Yes, God is not obligated to create. Yet He has chosen to create in such a way to put His full being on display and exhibit both his wrath and His mercy. This was no obligation. 

God could have chosen to create a world where sin never entered into creation at all. Why He did or did not do so....well, I don't know, except that God did it this way.

My deeper questions which still linger are as follows:

If I were to say that God chose to create and allow the Fall in order to fully display His wrath and mercy, and that God chose this reality because it was the BEST way, than I have to ask if God is obligated to always follow the best way. Is He? Could God have created a reality that was sub-par or lacking in some way?

And if so, would this be a sort of obligation for God to create in order to fully display His wrath and mercy?

Was there a way for sin NOT to enter the world AND for God to fully display His wrath and mercy to the universe? And if there was, why didn't God choose it? Is God bound within this dilemma of, "Ugh.....I can either have one of two choices but not both....I can either allow sin and fully display my being in a maximal way, or else I can disallow sin and endure having my being not fully be expressed...."

This conjecture is interesting, and I do not know the answers, and I think perhaps we ought not to press it further.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 8, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> You appear to be trying to draw some analogy between God and humans, about some notion of "_core element_". You go so far as to state "_God is Holy, Loving, at all_, [sic]" then you quickly add, "_but_" as if there is something we are all overlooking in the discussion of the attributes of God and His essence.
> 
> If you are disagreeing with what has been posted, then make your disagreement plain. If not, please explain what you are trying to convey by "_at His core He is God the being Himself_". Are you trying to distinguish between _being_ and _essence_? Elaboration is needed. Don't force the reader to always have to unpack your stilted phrases, which usually results in your rejoinder beginning with "_What I meant to say..._".


I am not disagreeing, just trying to get for myself better understanding on this issue, as I still hve a hard time seeing the attributes of God same way as His very Being/nature.
God expresses Himself to us as One who has wrath/love/forgiveness, but he is also beyond that is eternal Being.
Are His emotions the same as His attributes?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I am not disagreeing, just trying to get for myself better understanding on this issue, as I still hve a hard time seeing the attributes of God same way as His very Being/nature.
> God expresses Himself to us as One who has wrath/love/forgiveness, but he is also beyond that is eternal Being.
> Are His emotions the same as His attributes?


David,
Rather than me just telling what you I think these terms mean, let's start with you distinguishing between _attributes of God_ and _being of God_ as you consider the two terms to be defined. As the Latin phrase in my sig below indicates, _he who distinguishes well, learns well_. 

As you construct your definitions of the two terms consider the following:


Spoiler



In seeking a definition of God we look to the attributes of God. What we are attempting to do by seeking to define anything is to individuate. When we talk about God, we are talking about something or someone that is ultimately _sui generis_ — that which is in a class by itself. God is supremely _sui generis_, making definition difficult.

*What does it mean to say that God is a being?*
1. Is there something out there called “beingness” in which God participates
and in which we participate?
2. We describe ourselves as human beings while God is popularly described as
the supreme being.
3. The danger is to think of some general category we call “being.”
4. The problem is that there is no being at all apart from God.
a. The Bible says that we live and move and have our being in God (Acts
17:28).
b. But we are not “little gods.”
c. Pantheism — Everything is some form, extension, mode, piece, or part
of God Himself.
d. Scripture demands that we make a clear distinction between the Creator
and the creature.​5. We do not want to make God one member of a big class of being in the
world.
6. When we think of “being” simply as a mental concept, then it makes perfect
sense and we are on safe ground.
7. When we say that God has beingness and we have beingness in this sense,
all we are saying is that God is real and we are real.

*The real difference between man and God isn’t the difference between human and supreme kinds of being.*
1. The real difference exists in the concept of being itself.
2. God is being in its absolute perfection.
3. The medieval theologians’ definition of “God” was _ens perfectissimum_—“_the most perfect being_.”
4. Anselm described God as the most perfect conceivable being.
5. We are imperfect creatures who must speak of the perfect.


Once you have provided your distinctions between _being_ and _attributes_, the discussion can proceed effectively. Take your time to carefully lay out your position.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 8, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> Rather than me just telling what you I think these terms mean, let's start with you distinguishing between _attributes of God_ and _being of God_ as you consider the two terms to be defined. As the Latin phrase in my sig below indicates, _he who distinguishes well, learns well_.
> 
> As you construct your definitions of the two terms consider the following:
> ...


The essense/Being of God is that which what makes Him to be God, His etrnal existence state, as Spirit.
His attributes to me are how God relates to His creation, as in he shows love/Grace/Mercy/wrath etc.
God is an eternal Being who has those divine attributes due to Him being God.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> His attributes to me are how God relates to His creation, as in he shows love/Grace/Mercy/wrath etc.



Are his attributes eternal?

Did God the Father *love* God the Son before creation?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 8, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Are his attributes eternal?
> 
> Did God the Father *love* God the Son before creation?


Yes, there never was a "time" when God was not all knowing, all powerful, all wise.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, there never was a "time" when God was not all knowing, all powerful, all wise.



So at least those properties would be eternal, correct? Here's the problem with your original statement:

****His attributes to me are how God relates to His creation, as in he shows love/Grace/Mercy/wrath etc.****

If God's attributes are how he relates to his creation, then creation must be eternal or those attributes are not eternal. Either one is wrong. The first one is the teaching of Origen.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The essense/Being of God is that which what makes Him to be God, His etrnal existence state, as Spirit.
> His attributes to me are how God relates to His creation, as in he shows love/Grace/Mercy/wrath etc.
> God is an eternal Being who has those divine attributes due to Him being God.


I would have hoped more than 39 minutes would have passed, including the time taken to read my post, before seeing your response, David.

The _essence_ of something is that something’s _being_. The word _essence_ has its root in the Latin, _to be_. When speaking of God, the question arises as to how God’s _essence_ makes its existence known, for _God is more than just having being or existence_. Indeed, God _is_ being, for He declared this to be so to Moses in Exodus 3:14-15. In the Exodus passage (see also John 5:26; Acts 17:24-25) God declares His self-existence (_aseity_), implying He is a boundless, ineffable, absolute, and transcendent being.

It seems to me you separate the attributes of God from His being, His essence. How is an uncompounded (simple) being, God, in possession of something outside of that being?

God is not made up of parts, composed of a _genus_ (class), differentiations of species by attributes within a genus, and so on. The _simplicity_ of God means God is not made up of goodness, mercy, justice, and power. He _is_ goodness, mercy, justice, and power. _Every attribute of God is identical with His essence_.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 8, 2018)

I highly recommend The Aseity of God by Dr. Sproul and the Simplicity of God by Dr. Ferguson. Most educational and edifying.

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/orlando_2004_national_conference/


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 8, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> So at least those properties would be eternal, correct? Here's the problem with your original statement:
> 
> ****His attributes to me are how God relates to His creation, as in he shows love/Grace/Mercy/wrath etc.****
> 
> If God's attributes are how he relates to his creation, then creation must be eternal or those attributes are not eternal. Either one is wrong. The first one is the teaching of Origen.


God always has existed, and so He always has had same immutable/eternal attributes, but do not see His divine nature and attributes being exactly same thing.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 8, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I would have hoped more than 39 minutes would have passed, including the time taken to read my post, before seeing your response, David.
> 
> The _essence_ of something is that something’s _being_. The word _essence_ has its root in the Latin, _to be_. When speaking of God, the question arises as to how God’s _essence_ makes its existence known, for _God is more than just having being or existence_. Indeed, God _is_ being, for He declared this to be so to Moses in Exodus 3:14-15. In the Exodus passage (see also John 5:26; Acts 17:24-25) God declares His self-existence (_aseity_), implying He is a boundless, ineffable, absolute, and transcendent being.
> 
> ...


So when God revealed to Moses that He is who He is, I am that I Am, He was really stating that He is eternal Being, and also eternally all of His attributes?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God always has existed, and so He always has had same immutable/eternal attributes, but do not see His divine nature and attributes being exactly same thing.




This means we have something that isn't God existing alongside God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God always has existed, and so He always has had same immutable/eternal attributes, but do not see His divine nature and attributes being exactly same thing.





Dachaser said:


> So when God revealed to Moses that He is who He is, I am that I Am, He was really stating that He is eternal Being, and also eternally all of His attributes?



If God's essence is not identical with His attributes, then what exactly are the distinctions between them you are trying to make?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 8, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> If God's essence is not identical with His attributes, then what exactly are the distinctions between them you are trying to make?


I think that I am trying to see God as Being In His very nature as Spirit, who has all of those divine attributes also always.
He is eternal God, who is Spirit in nature/makeup, and who also is all of those attributes form eternity past.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 8, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> If God's essence is not identical with His attributes, then what exactly are the distinctions between them you are trying to make?





Dachaser said:


> I think that I am trying to see God as Being In His very nature as Spirit, who has all of those divine attributes also always.
> 
> He is eternal God, who is Spirit in nature/makeup, and who also is all of those attributes form eternity past.



Focusing upon _spirit _is not sufficient. What is the intent of your specific use of "who also is"?

I am still not seeing some clear distinctions being made between God's _essence_ and His _attributes_ by you. The _essence_ of something is what that something really _is_. Is God _omnipotent_, _omnipresent_, _omniscient_? Not all spirits possess these attributes. Remember my earlier comment that God is _sui generis_.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 8, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Focusing upon _spirit _is not sufficient. What is the intent of your specific use of "who also is"?
> 
> I am still not seeing some clear distinctions being made between God's _essence_ and His _attributes_ by you. The _essence_ of something is what that something really _is_. Is God _omnipotent_, _omnipresent_, _omniscient_? Not all spirits possess these attributes. Remember my earlier comment that God is _sui generis_.


Yes, God is eternal Spirit Being, self existent, who always manifested His divine attributes.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, God is eternal Spirit Being, self existent, who always manifested His divine attributes.


What has _manifested_ to do with this? Are you trying to continue to smuggle in your view that God's attributes are something other than the essence of God?

Let's not adopt these tactics. Speak plainly about your view.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> who always manifested His divine attributes



Manifested _to whom_? If it means manifested to his creation, and always so, then we are back at Origenism, which was condemned as a heresy at the 5th Ecumenical Council.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 9, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> What has _manifested_ to do with this? Are you trying to continue to smuggle in your view that God's attributes are something other than the essence of God?
> 
> Let's not adopt these tactics. Speak plainly about your view.


I am just having a really hard time trying to figure out how divine attributes are exactly the same thing as God essence. Or perhaps a better way to say this, is that I have a hard time seeing attributes that are His emotions such as love/hate/forgiveness as being in same category as Him being all all knowing/powerful/present everywhere etc.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 9, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Manifested _to whom_? If it means manifested to his creation, and always so, then we are back at Origenism, which was condemned as a heresy at the 5th Ecumenical Council.


Not manifested to Creation, as he always has had those attributes, even before the beginning, when it was just the Godhead period.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 9, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I am just having a really hard time trying to figure out how divine attributes are exactly the same thing as God essence. Or perhaps a better way to say this, is that I have a hard time seeing attributes that are His emotions such as love/hate/forgiveness as being in same category as Him being all all knowing/powerful/present everywhere etc.



David,
Check out the two videos linked in post 33. They are very, very good and may help you think through these issues. Dr. Ferguson's message may help with the idea of God having emotions in the same way as His creatures.
The WCF (and probably the LBCF) speak of God "without passions".


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 9, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> seeing attributes that are His emotions



They aren't emotions.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 9, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> They aren't emotions.


God does have emotions though, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 9, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God does have emotions though, correct?



The danger in saying God has emotions is that it connotes that he is given to mood swings.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 9, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God does have emotions though, correct?


Joy, anger, love, etc., when used of God are volitions, not emotions. God is impassible. His will. See Eph. 1:11.

Avail yourself of some study on the _impassibility_ of God. To be impassible is not to imply unconcern, impersonal detachment, or impassivity (_apathetic_). God is not insensitive, nor indifferent to the situation of distress of this fall world. Impassibility does not imply any unwillingness on God's part to be empathetic to pain and suffering of His creatures. But, God's empathy is an act of His volitional will, not some reaction to what is happening (as we creatures are prone to with our emotions). God's love before time for those He has chosen is something He willed. God has no unfulfilled desires or regrets.

Rather, impassibility of God means the experiences of God do not come up upon Him as do ours. Why? All that happens is foreknown to God, willed by God. God is never surprised by what is taking place. We cannot inflict upon God pain or distress. God's joy is permanent, unclouded by involuntary pain.

We should not assume that because we have some emotional reactions to events around us that God must also behave the same way. God need not be emotional to be immanent.

For example, the _wrath of God_ is but His choice to destroy and oppose what is contrary to His own principles. God's _jealousy _is His volitional will to inflict harm for in return (to _avenge_) His own honor.

Do not take the bait of the anti-Calvinist, especially open theists, who raise the canard that the impassibility of God is something out of Greek philosophy. The _unmoved Mover_ of the Greek philosopher, bears no resemblance to what the Reformed have held concerning God's impassibility.

When we encounter Scripture accounts that seem to imply emotions on the part of God (God _repents_, God is _sorrowful_, etc.), we must not fall for the assumption that these describe the way God _is_, but rather, we must assume that these accounts describe God's volitional will to act in this manner towards His creatures. The proposition, often erroneously mounted from the "_image of God_" argument, which states _since man is X, therefore God is X_, is fallacious. For starters, the direction of the argument is reversed, further the _Creator-creature_ distinction is abolished.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 9, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Joy, anger, love, etc., when used of God are volitions, not emotions. God is impassible. His will. See Eph. 1:11.
> 
> Avail yourself of some study on the _impassibility_ of God. To be impassible is not to imply unconcern, impersonal detachment, or impassivity (_apathetic_). God is not insensitive, nor indifferent to the situation of distress of this fall world. Impassibility does not imply any unwillingness on God's part to be empathetic to pain and suffering of His creatures. But, God's empathy is an act of His volitional will, not some reaction to what is happening (as we creatures are prone to with our emotions). God's love before time for those He has chosen is something He willed. God has no unfulfilled desires or regrets.
> 
> ...


I will do earnest study on this area, and this is why we can have confidence in the Lord and His promises, as there is no shifting or changing In Him based upon circumstances and situations going on around me at any given point in time.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 9, 2018)

Brother, I'd like to challenge you a bit on your post. I can appreciate the fact that you are trying to defend the impassibility of God; however, throughout your second paragraph, you deny that God has passions, and then immediately ascribe passions to him. I'd like to critique you on this a bit if I may, and then allow you to clarify your meaning.

I'll give my comments bracketed and emboldened.


Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Joy, anger, love, etc., when used of God are volitions, not emotions. God is impassible. His will. See Eph. 1:11.
> 
> Avail yourself of some study on the _impassibility_ of God. To be impassible is not to imply unconcern, impersonal detachment, or impassivity (_apathetic_) *[this is the first occasion of your attributing passions to God. Note that impassivity has as its root "passion," and that apathetic has as its root "pathos." In the proper sense, God is impassive and apathetic, i.e., he is without passions, or pathoi]*. God is not insensitive *[this implies that he is respondent to external stimuli, i.e., he his acted upon]*, nor indifferent *[this implies that external forces make a difference to God's estate]* to the situation of distress of this fall world. Impassibility does not imply any unwillingness on God's part to be empathetic *[note the pathos language again; if he is empathetic, he has passions]* to pain and suffering of His creatures. But, God's empathy *[again, pathos]* is an act of His volitional will, not some reaction to what is happening (as we creatures are prone to with our emotions). God's love before time for those He has chosen is something He willed. God has no unfulfilled desires or regrets.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God does have emotions though, correct?



If God has emotions, then he is not immutable. If he is not immutable, then he is not eternal. If he is not eternal and immutable, then he is not God. The denial of divine impassibility thus destroys orthodox theology proper.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 10, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> If God has emotions, then he is not immutable. If he is not immutable, then he is not eternal. If he is not eternal and immutable, then he is not God. The denial of divine impassibility thus destroys orthodox theology proper.


When God states to us that He loves His own people, that He hates sin, that He is the One that sustains us in tough times, are those not expressions of Him have emotions to us, or is it human terminology ascribing those to Him then?


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> When God states to us that He loves His own people, that He hates sin, that He is the One that sustains us in tough times, are those not expressions of Him have emotions to us, or is it human terminology ascribing those to Him then?


The second. It's called anthropopathic language.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 10, 2018)

Yet He really does love His people, and He really is angry at sin. It is not as if God is putting us on or playing a charade for our own benefit. 

He does not just SEEM to love us. He really loves us.

We cannot minimize the impact of how God chooses to reveal Himself in Scripture (it is His Word, after all, and He has chosen how He portrays Himself to us) by invoking this term anthropopathism.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 10, 2018)

To ascribe any emotions such as anger and joy to God simply is not proper, and diminishes the proper view of the two natures of Jesus. This subject is just too important to dismiss as some type of craziness held by old catholic theologians.

I cannot recommend this enough.

http://www.freechurchcontinuing.org/publications/sermons/item/god-without-passions


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 10, 2018)

The Bible: 
*“The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness."*

Some theologians: * "Just anthropopathisms. God doesn't really mean it. *


----------



## earl40 (Jan 10, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> The Bible:
> *“The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness."*
> 
> Some theologians: * "Just anthropopathisms. God doesn't really mean it. *



Our Lord really means it that we ought to understand "as if" God really has passions.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 10, 2018)

The Bible is God's self-revelation. God chose how He would reveal Himself. Even if it is analogical, it is still true.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 10, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> The Bible:
> *“The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness."*
> 
> Some theologians: * "Just anthropopathisms. God doesn't really mean it. *



Perg,
What "this side" is trying to communicate (if I may so say) is that God and His being and behavior is not like ours. That anthropomorphic (physical) and anthropopathic (behavioral) language is used does not diminish God's love, for example, to His people. This is manifest in Christ. _God, most certainly, loves us! _What greater love is this? What we understand in the very idea of such categories, is to keep us from making God in our image, which both our confessions have grave warnings about. What we can say with certainty and with joy, is that God's love for us is not subject to the fickle-ness of human love...and praise Him for that. If God were to "love" me in the same way that humans do, I would be forever damned. 

There is enough communicated in the language for us to understand His intent, but we can't import our limited and poor understanding of these things to God, lest we see Him as a glorified human.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 13, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> The Bible:
> *“The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness."*
> 
> Some theologians: * "Just anthropopathisms. God doesn't really mean it. *


God really does love and have anger and those emotions are what he created in Us when we were made in his image, as we cannot share at all with His divine nature/attributes, but can know and feel and think like he can and does, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 13, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Perg,
> What "this side" is trying to communicate (if I may so say) is that God and His being and behavior is not like ours. That anthropomorphic (physical) and anthropopathic (behavioral) language is used does not diminish God's love, for example, to His people. This is manifest in Christ. _God, most certainly, loves us! _What greater love is this? What we understand in the very idea of such categories, is to keep us from making God in our image, which both our confessions have grave warnings about. What we can say with certainty and with joy, is that God's love for us is not subject to the fickle-ness of human love...and praise Him for that. If God were to "love" me in the same way that humans do, I would be forever damned.
> 
> There is enough communicated in the language for us to understand His intent, but we can't import our limited and poor understanding of these things to God, lest we see Him as a glorified human.


God, if He indeed has all of the emotions that he created us to have, would possess them to an absolute and perfect non alterable degree, so His jealously for his people is rooted in Him knowing that he alone must be our God, and His anger towards sin is in perfect accord with his Holiness.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God, if He indeed has all of the emotions that he created us to have, would possess them to an absolute and perfect non alterable degree, so His jealously for his people is rooted in Him knowing that he alone must be our God, and His anger towards sin is in perfect accord with his Holiness.



It seems you have not read any of the above posts. God is a different type of being than we. To attribute a one-for-one relationship between our contingent being and His immutable aseity is to make God in our image, which is idolatry.....


----------



## Cymro (Jan 13, 2018)

It is fanciful to equate our irregular and fitful emotions with the serene, complacent and immutable nature of holy Deity. Affections as wrath, anger and repentance according to Owen, are incomplete, imperfect acts of the will or volition. And are tumultuary, and accompanied with change and mutability, which obviously deprives God of His blessedness and perfectness. Whereas of course He is the Lord and changes not, and in Him is no shadow of turning.
When scripture speaks of the anger, fury,and wrath of God it cannot be parallel with our experience. For such emotions express “perturbation of mind, commotion of spirit, corporeal mutation of the parts of the body, and distempers acting under the power of passions.”
Anger with God denotes His vindictive justice which would arise I think from the righteousness and holiness of His nature. And Owen makes the point that these emotions denote the EFFECTS of His judgments. ie the day of judgment is called “the day of wrath.”
A point to remember is that Is27:4 expressly states “that fury is not in Him.” Therefore all other uses must be subject to another meaning when it is used. Similarly respecting God repenting, 1Sam15:29 affirms, He ”knoweth no repentance.” So when scripture speaks of Him repenting, it speaks of the things that He does, and not of His nature. In assigning wrath, and anger to God we speak metaphorically of His outward works and dispensations.
Respecting love, mercy and grace they essentially denote His goodness and kindness and are eminent amongst His infinite perfections. If anyone would want to consult Owen, on his treatment of The Attribution of Passions and Affections to God, it is found in Volume 12 of the Banner production of his works.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 13, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> It seems you have not read any of the above posts. God is a different type of being than we. To attribute a one-for-one relationship between our contingent being and His immutable aseity is to make God in our image, which is idolatry.....


I am not suggesting here that God and us have identical emotions, but that God indeed has real emotions, and that He has every one of them at a perfect level. Hewill never get angry without a just cause, will never cease to love His own, will never have jealous feelings like we do being sinners, but due to Him having a loviong and holy regard for those under his own affections.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 13, 2018)

Cymro said:


> It is fanciful to equate our irregular and fitful emotions with the serene, complacent and immutable nature of holy Deity. Affections as wrath, anger and repentance according to Owen, are incomplete, imperfect acts of the will or volition. And are tumultuary, and accompanied with change and mutability, which obviously deprives God of His blessedness and perfectness. Whereas of course He is the Lord and changes not, and in Him is no shadow of turning.
> When scripture speaks of the anger, fury,and wrath of God it cannot be parallel with our experience. For such emotions express “perturbation of mind, commotion of spirit, corporeal mutation of the parts of the body, and distempers acting under the power of passions.”
> Anger with God denotes His vindictive justice which would arise I think from the righteousness and holiness of His nature. And Owen makes the point that these emotions denote the EFFECTS of His judgments. ie the day of judgment is called “the day of wrath.”
> A point to remember is that Is27:4 expressly states “that fury is not in Him.” Therefore all other uses must be subject to another meaning when it is used. Similarly respecting God repenting, 1Sam15:29 affirms, He ”knoweth no repentance.” So when scripture speaks of Him repenting, it speaks of the things that He does, and not of His nature. In assigning wrath, and anger to God we speak metaphorically of His outward works and dispensations.
> Respecting love, mercy and grace they essentially denote His goodness and kindness and are eminent amongst His infinite perfections. If anyone would want to consult Owen, on his treatment of The Attribution of Passions and Affections to God, it is found in Volume 12 of the Banner production of his works.


God never changes how He is towards sins and evil, and towards His own people, so that stays forever the same, but He can actually feels and loves and hates. correct?


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I am not suggesting here that God and us have identical emotions, but that God indeed has real emotions, and that He has every one of them at a perfect level. Hewill never get angry without a just cause, will never cease to love His own, will never have jealous feelings like we do being sinners, but due to Him having a loviong and holy regard for those under his own affections.



My Confession (and I believe yours) State otherwise......


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 13, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> My Confession (and I believe yours) State otherwise......


I believe that both state to us that God never changes,but does that also mean that He cannot have real emotions though?


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I believe that both state to us that God never changes,but does that also mean that He cannot have real emotions though?



WCF 2.1 talks about God being without passions. It is more than "God never changes". Someone posted a link to a sermon titled "God Without Passions", I think....probably worth a look-see.


----------



## Cymro (Jan 13, 2018)

David, when scripture tells us that “God is love,” it is not God has love, but He is love that is His nature his Being. Similarly with mercy and grace. This is what He is in Himself. But with fury ,anger and wrath, they are not in him but rather they are the outworking of His justice and judgment. If you reread, my previous post it is impossible that he can have these passions. They cannot be part of His ever blessed nature, otherwise He is imperfect by having arousals of fitful passions. Although God is called a jealous God, surely it must mean something else as He is self sufficient and complete in Himself, and has no competitors to be jealous of! There is an eternal equilibrium in His Being, nature and essence which cannot be disturb by any commotions that corresponds to ours.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 13, 2018)

Cymro said:


> David, when scripture tells us that “God is love,” it is not God has love, but He is love that is His nature his Being. Similarly with mercy and grace. This is what He is in Himself. But with fury ,anger and wrath, they are not in him but rather they are the outworking of His justice and judgment. If you reread, my previous post it is impossible that he can have these passions. They cannot be part of His ever blessed nature, otherwise He is imperfect by having arousals of fitful passions. Although God is called a jealous God, surely it must mean something else as He is self sufficient and complete in Himself, and has no competitors to be jealous of! There is an eternal equilibrium in His Being, nature and essence which cannot be disturb by any commotions that corresponds to ours.





> But with fury ,anger and wrath, they are not in him but rather they are the outworking of His justice and judgment



This part of your reply really spoke to me, as I now suddenly realized just how I was just assuming that God had to feel the same way that we do on all things, but this point of Him dealing with sin and sinful activitires due to Him being God was not what I had been thinking until now.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> This part of your reply really spoke to me, as I now suddenly realized just how I was just assuming that God had to feel the same way that we do on all things, but this point of Him dealing with sin and sinful activitires due to Him being God was not what I had been thinking until now.



I understand why you might have been reticent to grasp this. There are crude ways of framing divine simplicity:

essence = attribute = property; God is identical with his essence; ergo, God is a property!

That just seems intuitively wrong. I understand the difficulty with it. Some Western phrasings of divine simplicity almost made me go Eastern Orthodox.


----------

