Talk:Attributes of God

From Theopedia

If you need to structure the order of attributes, go for it. -Aaronshaf 12:45, 28 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Contents 1 Incommunicable and Communicable 2 Final cry 3 Proposal 4 Recent removal 5 Nouns vs Adjectives 6 Presence of God 7 Holy 8 The list 9 Future additions 10 "in the divine economy"

Incommunicable and Communicable

If you have access to it, read what Robert Reymond says about dividing the attributes in his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. I'll give the page references tonight if you can't find it (and I'll post it for those who can't get to it). I tend to agree with him that dividing up the attributes, even though the Reformed tradition has done it this way, is not a good idea. Thoughts? (I have a weird hunch this was described somewhere else a few months back) JordanBarrett 17:09, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)

Reymond first quotes Donald Macleod,

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)

Reymond goes on to say that even Berkhof, employing the incommunicable/communicable classifications himself writes that "it was felt from the very beginning, however, that the distinction was untenable without further qualification." Berkhof goes on to say in order to justify his use of the distinctions,

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. (Berkhof, Systematic theology, p. 55-56).

Reymond then says, "but these very words give the reason for not using this classification and illustrate the qualifications that have to be introduced into every classification the theologian might select." (Reymond, pp. 163-164)

Thoughts? JordanBarrett 02:59, 3 Nov 2005 (EST)

I believe it is quite valuable to contemplate the nature of God by studying his attributes. This may often involve contrasting or comparing to our finite semblances. But I too question the helpfulness of the somewhat arbitary distinction of communicable vs. incommunicable. I would just as sonn eliminate the distinction in this article. My 0.02 Gomarus 12:02, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)

I'd like to say more about this issue, but for now let me offer a condensed comment: We can't escape the classification of attributes, and might as well use the best and most historically Reformed way of doing it. -Aaronshaf 12:16, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)

Any more to say on this subject? I believe we can escape the classifications, and in turn can define the attributes more clearly by explaining which attributes are seen in humanity, yet acknowledging that none will be fully realized in our human nature. I know this classification is Reformed, and maybe that nullifies my comments since Theopedia is reformed. However, and this is just me, I would rather take clarity and simplicity over tradition if it helps the situation, which I believe this would. Lets continue to hash this out. JordanBarrett 15:03, 16 November 2005 (EST)

Some more that Charles Hodge has to say...

"But we are not to give up the conviction that God is really in Himself what He reveals Himself to be, to satisfy any metaphysical speculations as to the difference between essence and attribute in an infinite Being. The attributes of God, therefore, are not merely different conceptions in our minds, but different modes in which God reveals Himself to his creatures (or to Himself); just as our several faculties are different modes in which the inscrutable substance self reveals itself in our consciousness and acts." - Systematic Theology Chapter 5, section 2.Larryjf

Final cry

I have heard little reply that says we shouldn't shed these classifications. Just a heads up, if I don't hear anything more then I'm going to try and reformat this article and remove the classifications. JordanBarrett 18:15, 28 November 2005 (EST)

Proposal

I read this and I vote for following this line of "classification" of God's attributes.

It is proposed in what follows to accept the guidance of the answer given in the "Westminster Catechism," to the question, What is God? It is assumed in that answer that God is a self-existent and necessary Being; and it is affirmed of Him, I. That He is a Spirit. II. That as such He is infinite, eternal, and immutable. III. That He is infinite, eternal, and immutable, (1.) In his being. (2.) In all that belongs to his intelligence, namely, in his knowledge and wisdom. (3.) In all that belongs to his will, namely, his power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Whatever speculative objections may be made to this plan, it has the advantage of being simple and familiar. (Systematic Theology, by Charles Hodge) [1] - scroll down to "Classification of the Divine Attributes", and see last paragraph

JordanBarrett 15:19, 9 December 2005 (EST)

Recent removal

I removed the following:

What are The Attributes of God?

When we talk about the attributes of God, we’re referring to those characteristics that describe God’s being. He is one. He is holy. He is omniscient. He’s omnipresent. He’s omnipotent.

Those are some of the different words that we use to describe the nature and character of God; these are characteristics we attribute to God’s being. When we describe someone’s attributes, we usually make a distinction between a person and his attributes. For instance, you may say your mother is patient, but you wouldn’t say that your mother is patience. And you would say that your mother is more than a mere list of traits. In the same way, God is not just a list of attributes. But God is different from your mother in that it was God’s being that defined attributes in the first place. By gaining a better understanding of God, we can learn more about what true kindness is, what truth, beauty, patience, strength are. In this sense, God is his attributes. It’s not that he’s a composite being--three pounds of omniscience and three pounds of omnipresence, and three pounds of self-existence, etc.--added together to give us a concept of God. Rather, God in his essence, in his very being, is holy, and that holiness is immutable. All of God is immutable and all of God is holy. These attributes cannot be heaped up like sand in a sandpile to give us a composite portrait of God.

By studying the individual attributes of God, however, we’re not dissecting God into composite parts. We’re simply focusing our attention for a moment on one dimension or one aspect of God because the only way we are able to know God is through his attributes. The more we understand them, the more we understand his being and his character, and the more we are motivated to worship and obey him.

For more information on God’s attributes, I’d like to suggest a book I’ve written on that very subject, The Character of God (Servant, 1995), in which I discuss the attributes of God for study by the layperson. Pages 6-7 "Now, That’s a Good Question", by R. C. Sproul

I think this needs to be rewritten without using "I" and "we". Further, because of size, I vote that it should not be placed at the beginning of the article, but that's just me. Lastly, the references are not complete, and before we post a long quote of this sort we need to have the full reference. Thoughts? JordanBarrett 19:38, 12 December 2005 (EST)

I also removed this for similar reasons:

Why Does God Love Us So Much?

That’s one of the most difficult questions to answer if we think of it from God’s perspective.

Here we are, his creatures who have been made in his image with the responsibility of mirroring and reflecting his glory and his righteousness to the whole world. We have disobeyed him countless times in every place and in every way. In so doing we have misrepresented his character to the whole universe. The Bible tells us that nature itself groans in travail, waiting for the day of the redemption of mankind, because nature suffers under our unrighteousness (Rom. 8:22).When we think of how disobedient and hostile we’ve been toward God, we wonder what it is that would provoke him to love us so much. In Romans 5:7, when Paul is astonished by the love of Christ that was manifested in his death, he says, “Scarcely for a righteous man will one lay down his life, but imagine one who is perfect laying down his life for those who are not perfect and praying for those who are in the very act of killing him.” That’s the kind of love that transcends anything we have been able to experience in this world. I guess the only thing I can conclude is that it is the nature of God to be loving. This is part of his internal and external character.The New Testament says that God is love. That can be one of the most misunderstood verses in the Scripture. We remember a few years ago when it was fashionable to say that “happiness is a warm puppy.” We had these brief definitions of what happiness was, and the same thing was applied to love--“Loves means never having to say you’re sorry,” etc.--and we’re all very interested in what is involved in the whole act of loving. But when the Bible says God is love, that statement is not what we would call an analytical statement whereby we can reverse the subject and predicate, and say that therefore love is God. That’s not what the Bible means. Rather, what the Jewish form of expression says here is that God is so loving and his love is so consistent, so profound, so deep, so transcendent, and such an integral part of his character that to express it in the maximum way possible, we say that he is love. That is simply saying that God is the ultimate standard of love. Pages 5-6 "Now, That’s a Good Question" By R. C. Sproul JordanBarrett 19:41, 12 December 2005 (EST)

Nouns vs Adjectives

Can we change the noun-attributes to adjectives? That way, some of them can be simplified, in keeping with Theopedia's vision to be accessible to the laymen. Examples: omnipresence->everywhere-present. omnipotence: all-powerful. Etc. Tell me what you think! Grace and peace! -Aaronshaf 23:15, 23 February 2006 (EST)

Also, making them adjectival makes them more personal, and not so abstract. -Aaronshaf 23:15, 23 February 2006 (EST)

I think that's a good call. If memory serves, we chatted about this earlier and I'm pretty sure everyone was on board. As long as you don't find any odd adjectives ;) it should be cool.

Presence of God

Is this an appropriate attribute to add? It seems different. But deserving of an article nonetheless. -Aaronshaf 17:11, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Holy

Is there a reference for this new quote?

"To say that God is holy is to say that He is eternally separate and distinct from all impurity. The term holiness in Hebrew, qodesh, has the notion of separation, of uniqueness, of one-of-kindness as it were." -Bruce Ware

JordanBarrett (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2006 (EST)

The list

How do we want to work the list we have going? It seems it could go on forever. As it has been said, God is infinite, and thus his attributes are infinte and we could list lots of things or what we consider essential things (attributes). Personally, I'd like to slim the list down and pay attention to a core of articles rather than stretching ourselves thin with a ton of articles. Thoughts? JordanBarrett (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Future additions

I'd like the opportunity to work on this subject, but I haven't the time to commit to it at this point. May I submit something in say 4-5 weeks for general review and see if it doesn't match the vision and spirit of Theopedia? HokieRNB 12:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If it's a large edit I would leave it on the discussion page at first. JordanBarrett (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that would be my intent.HokieRNB 17:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"in the divine economy"

This language might not be helpful without either an internal link explaining it or a bracketed explanation. - Aaron Shafovaloff 02:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)