Diserner
Well-known member
Chaos really just means the wrong order.
A bomb blows things up.
An engineer builds things up.
Gods Innate Attributes
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
Chaos really just means the wrong order.
A bomb blows things up.
An engineer builds things up.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
No it doesn't. Destruction has order with God.
We are not talking about the limits of man. There is no building without a foundation. God starts with a foundation, then things FOLLOW. They always does. God is not absent the order of line by line and precept by precept.
Diserner
Well-known member
civic
Well-known member
ditto
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Joh 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come so that they may have life, and may have it abundantly.
civic
Well-known member
Indeed there is no chaos with God.
. We can see how all the false ideas about God lead into false doctrines. It all rolls downhill.
Logikos
Member
So given that opening sentence, it would seem that number 1 should have been "Triune". Not that the numbers matter but I'm going to take this one at a time and so....These are Gods Attributes apart from creation. Who God is within His own Being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Triune: True - usually! I say "usually" because there are some sects of the Christian faith that teach things concerning the triune nature of God that go beyond what the scripture can support and which are self-contradictory. Christianity is the ONLY rationally consistent worldview that exists in all the world, but that is only true so long as your particular brand of Christianity remains within the bounds of both the scripture AND sound reason. As such we aught not believe self-contradictory doctrines such as are sometimes taught in relation to the Trinity doctrine.
Scripturally, we know that there is one and only one SINGULAR God and that singular God exists as three persons, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit who are all co-equal members of what the bible calls "the godhead". What the bible does NOT teach is that God is BOTH singular and plural in the same way. That would be a contradiction and it is therefore definitely false. The bible teaches that there is a plurality within the singular Godhead and the details of how that works are not explained to us and so we should be careful not to extend ourselves beyond what the scripture can specifically support.
True! However, this is another one where many sects take this much further than the scripture will support and start teaching things that have more to do with Greek philosophy than anything taught in the bible and end up turning God into something so transcendent as to be unable to relate to anyone or anything outside of Himself.
False!
I take the term "eternal" to mean "timeless" as in existing outside of time, which is completely unbiblical as well as irrational. There is no verse anywhere that even suggests that God exists outside of time and there are several of God's attributes that would not be possible if He didn't experience time (e.g. patience, faithfulness, endurance, long suffering, etc.).
Further, the idea of existence outside of time commits a logical fallacy known as a stolen concept fallacy. The stolen concept fallacy happens when you employ one concept while undermining or outright denying the validity of a concept upon which the concept you're employing is logically based.
For example, the concept of theft presupposes the concept of private property. So, if you're ever on the campus of Harvard and come across some mindless college student holding up a flag with a red fist on it and yelling into a blow-horn that "All private property is theft!", you can know that she hasn't thought her comment through. Her attempt to undermine the concept of private property means that she is "stealing the concept" of theft because without private property, no theft is possible.
Timeless existence commits the same error because existence presupposes time. Time is not a thing. It is an idea. It's a convention of language used to communicate information related to the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. Existence without duration is a contradiction and if God experiences no sequence then how could He be that from which everything preceded, the first, the uncaused cause. Thus, the asiety and eternity (timelessness) of God cannot both be true.
This is a Greek idea and as normally taught is false.
Biblically, God can be everywhere He wants to be at once, but He is neither required nor can He be forced to be someplace where He doesn't wish to be and He is entirely incapable of being in a place that does not exist, like outside of time or in the past or the future.
Also a Greek idea and, as normally taught this is also false.
Biblically, God is the source of all power but He can and does delegate both power and the authority to use that power to others. God is capable of doing anything doable that He chooses to do but cannot do the undoable (i.e. the rationally absurd - lift and unliftable rock or make perfect spheres with sharp corners.)
Likewise a Greek idea that is false, as normally taught.
Biblically, God knows everything He wants to know of that information that is knowable. He is not required to be a first person witness to every event that has happened, is happening or will ever happen.
True. Full stop.
True. Full stop
False - mostly.
This concept is almost entirely false and was imported into Christianity, along with the omni doctrines by Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century after having learned from his mother's bishop (Ambrose of Millan) how to interpret the bible in light of the Classics (i.e. Aristotle and Plato).
The only sense in which God is immutable is in respect to His personality and righteous character.
The entire Christian faith is predicated on the most profound change that any being has every experienced in the whole history of history! God became a man and died and rose from the dead! I mean, the gospel itself is in direct contradiction to the idea that God cannot change in any way whatsoever, which is precisely what nearly everyone who believes in the doctrine of immutability means when they use the term.
This term is obscure in the extreme. There isn't 1% of Christians that have ever encountered it, much less know what it means. It is a term used to discuss the unity of the Trinity and the more or less ineffable relationships that exist between the Three members of it. Generally, the doctrine is true but the "high brow" nature of the term is a red flag that should warn anyone who encounters it that somone is likely taking things beyong what the scripture will support.
Okay, number 9 and 10 are more or less equivalent. At least the term Perichoresis includes the notion that the Three are One.
Again, true so long as it isn't taken to mean something that is a self-contradiction.
True!
God had no beginning and will undure forever.
True. God is the Creator of all things and, therefore transcends all things, by definition. However, one should be carefull not to use God's transcendence as an excuse to teach nonsensical doctrines. God's ways are higher than our ways, not lower! He is flatly incapable of being irrational.
True! I like this one! It's another attribute that cannot be so if God does not experience time.
True! God's righteousness is one of the foundational doctrines of all other doctrines. Get this one wrong and you're doomed to screw up almost everything else.
True! Therefore, we know that God does not predestine murder, rape, child molestatoin, adultery, etc.
Excellent start! There are others, of course.
The seven core attributes of God are as follows...
God is living.
God is personal.
God is rational.
God is relational.
God is loving.
God is righteous.
God is just.
The entirety of one's theology proper is derived in one way or another from these seven concepts. Get these wrong or place some other attribute in priority over any of these and you're doomed to mess stuff up all over the place.
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
The attributes I listed were who God is apart from and before creation. But I will talk through them one by one with you
Logikos
Member
Interesting!The attributes I listed were who God is apart from and before creation. But I will talk through them one by one with you
How would the above sentence not contradict the doctrine of immutability?
Do you believe that God's attributes have changed?
civic
Well-known member
No I look at them as Gods innate attributes which us who God is within His own being. Then there are those that have to do with His creation and the fall such as Sovereignty, Just, Wrath , Forgiveness, Mercy, Longsuffering etc
Logikos
Member
I think you missed my point.
How would that not mean that attributes such as "Sovereignty, Just, Wrath , Forgiveness, Mercy, Longsuffering etc" weren't always true of God (i.e. not until after the creation/fall)?
If they were always true of God then why wouldn't they be included as "innate attributes", to use your terminology?
If they weren't always true of God then how would that not contradict the doctrine of immutability?
Also, if they weren't always true of God it seems like that would violate most people's take on the doctrine of God's aseity as well.
Last edited:
Logikos
Member
In what way would God have been transcendent before He created anything? What would He have been transcendent of (or over - not sure which adverb to use there!)? Seems like transcendent might belong in your other category, yes?The attributes I listed were who God is apart from and before creation. But I will talk through them one by one with you
civic
Well-known member
I will give you an example with a couple of attributes. Since God is Holy, Perfect and Love for example within His own Being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit - there is no forgiveness, justice or mercy within God because those are relational aspects of God regarding the creation/fall. God cannot have justice, mercy, forgiveness with the Father to the Son or Holy Spirit and vice versa. God is always Love with Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is always good in the same way He is love. I have demonstrated that earlier in this thread and especially bring this out in this thread which this study of Gods attributes in relation to Father, Son and Holy Spirit ( innate attributes ) and those that have to do with creation and the fall led me out of Calvinism. See here
civic
Well-known member
God doesn’t act contrary to His nature. There is no justice with God apart from His other attributes. This is exactly what happens with an unbalanced theology.
Love and Sovereignty
What is knowable about God is based on what he has revealed about Himself in scripture. Any proposition or doctrine of Him being otherwise without becoming contrary to who He has revealed Himself to be is nothing but the evilest assault on the character and nature of God. It amounts to proposing that God can be contrary to Himself without changing. God is immutable and does not change.
God is sovereign and also love. Both sovereignty and love as they intersect in God have been revealed plainly to us by God. He has done this both through his word and his works. And he has sworn never to change.
God's sovereignty is never exercised in violation of his love. His love is very everlasting, for God is love. It has not the slightest shadow of variation, and it, not his sovereignty, is the basis upon which his moral standards rest. Any promotion of any doctrine that represents God as acting in a way that violates his love appealing to the fact that He is sovereign and so can do it is pure evil.
With God, might is not right. The fact that he can do something is not a justification for him doing it. The fact that God can damn everyone without a reason is not an argument for justifying teaching that he does as in the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination. All that he can do is restricted by the rule he values most - love.
If it will violate love, God will not and cannot do it for that would be contrary to His nature and character as a loving God. And if it will violate love then it is not right. God cannot make it right by doing it just because he is sovereign. If he does it just because he is sovereign then he would not be God again but something else.
God can do any and everything is what sovereignty stands for. God will only do what is loving is what righteousness stands for.
Righteousness is the foundation of his throne. In other words, righteousness is the constraint of his sovereign rule. Love is how God rules His creation. Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Mercy and all the other attributes of God fall under the umbrella of His love.
What if God’s essence, his spirit, is more like light, an orb radiating all his characteristics from a core of some type of energy, say love?
Not only does this configuration fit scripture declaring that God is spirit (John 4:24), that he is light (1 John 1:5), and that he is love (1 John 4:8), but it also fits the living out of God’s image in the body of Jesus Christ. In him, we do not witness a love regulated by sovereignty, but a sovereignty regulated by love.
Thinking and living in these terms does not in any way shelve the idea of God’s sovereignty, but it does place it within the heart of God’s love. From love, he rules.
Therefore, instead of asking how an all-sovereign God exercises his love, we might ask how an all-loving God exercises his sovereignty. This, I think, is the better conversation. l.meyers
1 John 4:7-5:4
God is love. The same construction is found in 1 John 1:5 ("God is light") and in 1 John 4:24 ("God is spirit"). The noun love, referring to a process, is the predicate of the sentence; it says something about God's quality, character, and activity. The translator must take care not to give a rendering that equates God and love. This would imply that the clause order is reversible and that God is love and "love is God" are both true propositions-which is certainly not what John meant to say.
After "love is of God" in v. 7a the present clause functions as a climax: God is not only the origin of love, but love itself. At first sight this construction might suggest that John intends to identify God with an abstract principle. That this is not the case becomes clear, however, when one looks at the context, where God is represented as the personal agent of the act of loving.
The proposition "God loves us" might stand alongside such statements as, "God creates," "God rules," "God judges." Accordingly, "God is love" does not mean to say that love is one of God's activities, but that all His activity is loving activity. Whether he creates, or rules, or judges, he does so in love. All that he does is the expression of his nature which is-to love. ‡
The Greek construction cannot be followed in several languages because a corresponding verbal noun simply does not exist in the language, or, if existing, cannot be thus construed, or, if thus construed, would not express the same meaning. Therefore, translators have tried to express the force of this construction otherwise, for example, 'God's character is to habitually-love,' 'all God's deeds are loving deeds,' 'God is one who continually and really loves,' 'God has-as-quality love.' (from the UBS New Testament Handbook Series. Copyright © 1961-1997, by United Bible Societies.)
God is love, God is light or God is spirit are what is known as an anarthrous predicate. John does not say that light is God, but only that God is light. The two phrases are not interchangeable. The word God in the Greek has the article, the word light does not so it means that the two words are not interchangeable. The absence of the article emphasizes ones character or nature. It literally would read: God as to His nature is light.The same is true with the phrase God is love. Love is not God. In other words He is a loving God. It is Gods nature or character to be loving.
1 John 4:8
God is love ho Theos agapee estin. Anarthrous predicate, not hee agapee. John does not say that love is God, but only that God is love. The two terms are not interchangeable. God is also light (1 John 1:5) and spirit (John 4:24). (from Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament)
conclusion: God is love and all His attributes ( including justice, righteousness, sovereignty )flow from His nature as a loving God. God cannot act contrary to His nature. A God that acts contrary to His nature is by definition is unloving, unjust and not righteous.
hope this helps !!!
Eleazar
Member
Welcome to The Forum @Logikos Looks like you're going to be a great asset. I can tell already you know what you're talking about. I just decided I wanted to do a study on God's attributes and the above posts should get me moving in the right direction. Although it looks like I have a lot of catching up to do.
Logikos
Member
I understand the point you are making. I am asking you how that point is consistent with some of the very "innate characteristics" you yourself list.
I ask again....
In what way would God have been transcendent before He created anything? What would He have been transcendent of (or over - not sure which adverb to use there!)? Seems like transcendent might belong in your other category, yes?
Also...
How would that not mean that attributes such as "Sovereignty, Just, Wrath , Forgiveness, Mercy, Longsuffering etc" weren't always true of God (i.e. not until after the creation/fall)? (There's a double negative in there! Sorry!)
If they were always true of God then why wouldn't they be included as "innate attributes"?
If they weren't always true of God then how would that not contradict the doctrine of immutability?
And, if they weren't always true of God it seems like that would violate most people's take on the doctrine of God's aseity as well.
Last edited:
Logikos
Member
This post sort of felt all over the place to me. Let's start by defining terms because I can't tell if we're even talking about the same things here.
Please tell me what you mean when you use the following terms....
- Sovereign
- Immutable
- Love
Also, nothing can act contrary to its nature. At least, not in the way you seem to mean it here. If God were to act unrighteously, it would mean that He was unrighteous, by nature (i.e. by definition). Indeed, this fact is the reason that "by definition" arguments work. This doesn't really effect your position all that much. It's just sort of a meaningless tautology, that all. To say that God cannot act contrary to His nature is the logical equivalent of stating that either the dog is brown or the dog is not brown. It's a true statement but not informative or actionable. It can't even be rightly used as a premise for an argument.
Logikos
Member
What an excellent endeavor to embark upon! It should be the first thing anyone does when starting a serious look into doctrine. Your beliefs about who God is form the basis of every other doctrine and what most do not realize until they get well into it is that you are forced to choose which of God's attributes take precedence over others. Calvinists in particular are very intellectually dishonest in this regard. They try to insist that all of God's attributes are absolutely equivalent and ignore it when they base their entire doctrinal system on the idea that God cannot change in any way whatsoever and have modified the meaning of every single English word that touches doctrine so as to conform it around that singular premise.
The fact is that everyone is forced to do such things. The question is whether one acknowledges this fact and then proceeds to do it with thoughtful intention that makes some semblance sense that can be clearly explained without begging the question.
Here's a good place for you to start. There are certain attributes of God that are quantitative, meaning that they refer to things like how much God knows, how much power He has, How big He is, how much can God change, etc. There are also qualitative attributes that have to do with the quality of God's character. These include the seven things I listed in my previous post - God is living, personal, rational, relational, loving, righteous and just. (Two things to note with that list. First of all God's existence is presupposed and second that while there is overlap between several of them, they do more or less follow a logical progression where one is, more or less, predicated on the previous ones.)
People tend to exaggerate the quantitative attributes beyond what the bible will support and they tend toward placing the quantitative attributes over and above God's qualitative attributes. An obvious error when put in those terms, right? Who cares how big someone's unrighteous god is? No one would rightly worship a god who knows everything if he is unjust.
And I say again, one is FORCED to make such choices. There will be some Calvinist who reads this who will jump up and down insisting that no such choices are necessary but he'll offer no evidence to back it up. It'll just be him making the claim, pounding the pulpit and hoping that his saying it will make it so.
Last edited:
Eleazar
Member
Thanks for steering me in the right direction I will definitely be looking into the "certain attributes of God that are quantitative".
civic
Well-known member
And those that are innate
