LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

AN ESSAY SUBMITTED TO
DR. MATT SANDERS
FOR
MASTER’S OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES PROGRAM

BY
MARCUS CAMPBELL

MAY 2013

I. Introduction 2
II. Categories of Attributes 2
III. Incommunicable Attributes of God 5 A. Sovereignty 5 B. Aseity 7 C. Immutability 7 D. E. Eternity (Eternality) 9 F. Omnipotence 10 G. Omnipresence 11 H. Infinity 11 I. J.
IV. Communicable Attributes of God 12 A. Holiness 13 B. Righteousness 14 C. Love 15 D. Grace 15
V. Conclusion 16

VI. Bibliography 17

Introduction

That which comes into our minds when we think about God is that which is most important about us. The history of mankind will invariably show that no people have ever risen above their religion, and that man’s spiritual history will positively demonstrate that no religion has ever been greater than its idea of God. Worship is pure or base as the worshiper entertains high or low thoughts of God. According to A.W. Tozer, if we were able to extract from any man a complete answer to the question, “What comes into your mind when you think about God?” we might be able to predict, with certainty, the spiritual future of that man. This indicates the importance of having a true knowledge of our God. What is God like? This question can only be answered by having a complete understanding of the attributes of God. We cannot truly know God unless we have a true understanding of the attributes of God. When we speak of the attributes of God, we are referring to those qualities of God that constitute what he is, the very characteristics of his nature. To put it in human terms, your reputation is what people think and say and say about you. Your attributes are, however, are who you are. The attributes of God gives people the right view of God. This paper will help bring people to the right view of God by classifying the attributes, identifying the attributes, and looking at those that favor and oppose some of the attributes of God.

Categories of Attributes In attempts to better understand God, various systems of classifying his attributes have been devised. One system found especially in the writings of Reformed theologians pertains to communicable and incommunicable attributes. The communicable attributes are those qualities of God which at least a partial counterpart can be found in his human creations. Here there are love, which, while infinite in God, is found at least in partial forms in humans, and even omnipotence, for humans have at least a degree of power. The incommunicable attributes, on the other hand, are those unique qualities for which no counterpart can be found in humans. One example of this is omnipresence: God is everywhere simultaneously. Even with a jet and rocket travel, no human can be everywhere simultaneously. A second pair of categories is the immanent or intransitive and the emanant or transitive qualities. The former remain within God’s own nature, such as spirituality. The latter go out from and operate outside the nature of God, affecting the creation. This category of attributes includes those such as mercy, which requires an object. A third category scheme distinguishes absolute and relative attributes of God. Absolute attributes belong to the divine nature considered in itself, whereas relative predicates speak of the divine nature as it relates to the created universe. In the former category are qualities such as self-existence, eternity, unity, and immutability, whereas mercy, love, omnipresence, and truth fall in the latter category. A fourth classification divides the divine attributes between natural or metaphysical predicates and moral characteristics. Natural attributes belong to God’s very constitutional nature apart from his actions. These include infinity, aseity, unity, and eternity. Moral attributes include the predicates that qualify God as a moral being and refer to qualities he displays as he acts in our universe. This group includes truth, goodness, mercy, and holiness.
Though we could debate which scheme is best, it is unnecessary to do so. A case can be made for and against each category scheme, but thankfully, no point of orthodoxy hinges on this issue.
For the purposes of this paper, we will use noncommunicable and communicable categories to discuss the some of the attributes of God.
Incommunicable Attributes of God The noncommunicable attributes of God are those characteristics that He alone has, and that no man can ever attain. These are the traits that He holds by His very nature. Man can barely describe these features; much less aspire to reach them. These include sovereignty, aseity, immutability, eternity, infinity, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.

Sovereignty The sovereignty of God is fully detailed in Scripture. Sovereignty is a regal term of lordship, illustrating the fact that God is the Supreme Head, Lord, and Ruler over all creation. Every living thing is subject to Him completely, and the extent of His rule is infinite. As creator, God is over creation as a potter is over the clay (Isaiah 64:8). The potter may do with the clay whatever He desires, and the clay does not have a voice in the decision-making process. Various passages teach that God controls all things. In Eph. 1:11 Paul writes of Christ, “In Him also we have obtained inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.” Paul says that the one who predestines us to salvation also does all other things according to his will and purposes. In Psalm 115:3 (NIV) the psalmist writes that “Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.” After his “audience” with God, Job confesses (Job 42:2, NIV), “I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted” (see also Dan 4:35). Scripture also portrays God’s sovereign control in creating and preserving all things. He rules and controls the forces of nature as well as the activities of human beings. In Job 10:9 and 33:6 we see that God has made us. In Romans 9, in answer to those who think it unfair that the God who controls everything holds us accountable for the evil we do, Paul uses this image to show that God, as the potter, has the right to do as he pleases with the clay. In contrast, the clay has no right to complain and accuse God of wrongdoing (Rom 9:19-21). Psalm 50:10 (KJV) sums up God’s sovereign control over creation. As creator of everything, he also owns it all: “For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.” Many thinkers outside the evangelical camp deny that God has this attribute altogether. Proponents of process theism, for example, deny not only divine sovereignty but also divine omnipotence. What has typically led them to object to sovereignty is their commitment to libertarian free will; the kind of free will espoused by traditional Arminians and the open view of God. Some hold that because God gave humans libertarian free will, he only maintains only a general control over all things, and that this control normally does not interfere with our freedom. However, this view insists that he still maintains the right to intervene in our world in order to correct or overturn our mistakes and to ensure that his general goals and purposes are not frustrated. Proponents of this view usually deny that God has detailed purposes or goals for everything and everyone that cover even the minutia of life. Instead, this view declares that he has general purposes that he wants to and will achieve, and that within those general goals there are various possible avenues to their achievement. God, not wanting to abridge human freedom, is more than happy to leave open the exact route for accomplishing his purposes. Others in the Arminian tradition agree with Calvinists that biblical data on divine sovereignty teach that, in principle, God has all the power and authority Calvinists claim he has. However, they believe that in order to make room for human free will, God decided not to exercise all of it. On the basis that this was his own unforced decision, he remains fully sovereign.

Aseity Aseity is a technical term that means “self-existent.” God does not have needs as we do. Aseity can be understood in one of two ways (or both). The first is that the foundation of God’s being is within himself; he is self-existent. Hence, no force, being, or act brought him into existence nor does anyone or anything but himself sustain his existence. Some theologians express this idea by saying that God is his own cause, but many dislike such language, because they believe God is uncaused. To say that he is caused (even by himself) might somehow give the impression he had to be brought into being, which is, of course, not the case. Further, though God is uncaused, he is simultaneously the cause of all other existing things. The second interpretation of God depending on himself alone for existence means that there are not properties independent of God upon which he depends in order to have the constitutional attributes he possesses. Some theologians have thought that if God did depend on such universals, he would not control them and hence would lack aseity and sovereignty. Most Christian theologians consistently maintain that God is self-reliant along the lines of the first interpretation above, whereas many reject this second interpretation of self-dependence. A second notion also attaches to aseity: It is the idea that God is independent of all things. This means that his choices and purposes are independent of influences from anyone and anything other than himself. As we shall see, this sense of asiety is very close to the notion of God’s sovereign will according to which God has the faculty of absolute self-determination. Absolute self-determination means that God’s choices depend on his desires and purposes alone and that he has the power to actualize those choices. This, the second aspect of aseity (independent of purposes, choices, etc.), is that over which many theologians (even evangelicals) disagree. Those of a Calvinistic stripe would concur, but beyond Calvinistic circles, there is rejection of this aspect of aseity. Proponents of the open view of God staunchly protest that such a God is aloof from his creation, dominates it, and in no way is responsive to it or vulnerable before it. This God is the ruling monarch who always gets his way no matter what. Both process and open view proponents reject this notion, claiming that it cannot be borne out by Scripture. In fact, process theology rejects aseity in any sense, and open view defenders are very suspicious of it.

Immutability God is also immutable. This term means that he is unchanging. Some theologians have using the term ‘impassable’ in reference to this attribute, but that term is often misunderstood. ‘Impassable’ does not mean that God does not have emotions, but that God is completely self-controlled: He is never overwhelmed. Scripture has no specific term for “divine immutability,” but the concept is taught in one way or another. For example, a writer may say that God will endure, or that there is no change in God, or that God is the same from one day to the next. In comparing the heavens and the earth to God, the psalmist says (Psalm 102:26-quoted in Hebrews 1:11-12), “They will perish, but Thou remainest; and they all will become old as a garment, and as a mantle Thou wilt roll them up; as a garment they will also be changed. But Thou art the same, and Thy years will not come to an end.” In Malachi 3:6 we read, “For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” And in the NT, James writes (1:17), “Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.” What is true of God is generally true of Jesus Christ as well: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever” (Heb 13:8). Such verses teach that God does not change. Divine immutability is an encouragement to every believer, but in recent years it has also become a matter of much theological and philosophical controversy. Process theists have led the attack against this doctrine. In addition, the open view of God rejects the traditional understanding of this divine attribute, and others within the bounds of evangelicalism have clamored that the immutable God of Anslem and Aquinas is not the God of Scripture. The strong conception of immutability associated with the classical theism of Anselm and Aquinas says that God is utterly incapable of any change whatsoever. Theologians holding this view reason that if anything changes, including God, it must change either for better or for worse. Since God is already perfect, he could not become more perfect, so any change in God would be for the worse. Since that would mean that he would stop being perfect, there would be no point in such change. There is, therefore, no reason for God to change and plenty of reasons not to change. Hence, he must be absolutely changeless; and if absolutely immutable, he must also be impassible, for change in emotions and being affected by his creatures’ thoughts and actions are changes.

Eternity (Eternality) God is eternal, but man is not. Eternality means that God does have a beginning. Man has a beginning, but does not have an end. In the technical sense, God is eternal, but man is only everlasting. Due to the fact that man is completely dependent upon God for his existence, man is neither eternal, immutable nor aseitic. Psalm 90:2 states, “Before the mountains were born, or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” The question that most often arises concerning the eternity of God is whether God is temporal or atemporal. This question cannot be answered by the Bible alone. Omnipotence In Romans 1:20 the apostle Paul writes, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.” Of all the divine attributes revealed in creation, Paul names only power and then refers to the rest by the more general word theiotes, “divine nature.” Since God’s power is so clearly revealed in creation, it is no wonder that when people think of God, they think of power! In spite of the biblical evidence that God is omnipotent, much controversy surrounds this divine attribute. The most specific problem is how to define and understand it. I can easily illustrate the problem of definition. Often, discussions of divine omnipotence begin by defining it as God’s ability to perform actions or enact effects. Immediately, the question arises about whether this means God can do things like make round squares and married bachelors. Confronted with such challenges, theists usually retreat by saying that omnipotence is the capacity to do whatever is logically possible. But this is not entirely satisfactory, for there is nothing contradictory in the very notions of committing a sin, scratching an ear, kicking a football, learning something that one never knew before, or forgetting something one did know. These are actions that mere humans, with limited power, perform all the time. Therefore, it appears that an omnipotent being should be able to do them as well. However, a morally perfect and omniscient God cannot learn or forget anything, and an incorporeal being has no ear to scratch or foot for kicking. Subsequently, there appearto be many things that involve no contradiction but which god cannot do.

Omnipresence The word ‘present’, of course, means here, close to, or next to, and the prefix ‘omni’ gives it universality. God is everywhere here, close to everything, next to everyone. Few other truths are taught in the Scriptures with as much clarity as the doctrine of the divine omnipresence. The passages supporting this truth are so plain that it would take considerable effort to misunderstand them. They declare that God is immanent in all His creation, that there is no place in heaven or earth or hell where men may hide from His presence. Although this truth is taught with much clarity, there still remains some confusion on the subject. For example, if God is present everywhere, does that mean he is in hell? And if God is present everywhere, why does the Scripture portray him as somewhat absent from the wicked? Another example, the Scripture says Christ and the Holy Spirit indwell believers, but if God is everywhere, doesn’t he indwell nonbelievers as well? Questions like these often move atheists and agnostics to question whether the very notion of omnipresence is logically coherent. As the infiniteness of God is a denial of limitation of being, so immensity or omnipresence is a denial of limitation of place.

Infinity God is infinite. This means not only that God is unlimited, but that he is unlimitable. In this respect, God is unlike anything we experience. Even those things that common sense once told us are infinite or boundless are now seen to have limits. Energy, at an earlier time, appeared inexhaustible. We have, in recent years, become aware that the types of energy with which we are particularly familiar have rather sharp limitations, and we are approaching those limits considerably more rapidly than we previously imagined. Further, the ocean once seemed to be an endless source of food, and a dumping place so vast that it could not be contaminated. Yet we are becoming aware that its resources and its ability to absorb pollution are both finite. The infinity of God, however, speaks of a limitless being. The infinity of God may be thought of in several respects. We think first in terms of space. Here, we have what has traditionally been referred to as immensity and omnipresence. God is not subject to limitations of space. By this, we do not mean merely the limitation of being in a particular place- that if an object is in one place, it cannot simultaneously be in another. Rather, it is improper to think of God as confined to space at all. All finite objects have a location: They are somewhere. This necessarily prevents their being somewhere else. The greatness of finite objects is measured by how much space they occupy. With God, however, the question of whereness or location is not applicable. God is the one who brought space (and time) into being. He was, therefore, before space. He cannot be localized at a particular point, location, range, or volum: There can be no plotting of his location on a set of grid coordinates.

Communicable Attributes of God The second category of God’s attributes contains those traits that are communicable-the traits that God calls man to attain. These are the characteristics of God that the believer must imitate, even though he knows that he is incapable of fully achieving them. The communicable attributes that we are going to discuss are holiness, righteousness, love and grace.

Holiness As we approach the subject of the holiness of God, let us be mindful of the importance of this divine attribute. R. C. Sproul makes this insightful observation from Isaiah 6:
“The Bible says that God is holy, holy, holy. Not that He is merely holy, or even holy, holy. He is holy, holy, holy. The Bible never says that God is love, love, love, or mercy, mercy, mercy, or wrath, wrath, wrath, or justice, justice, justice. It does say that He is holy, holy, holy, the whole earth is full of His glory.” There are two basic aspects to God’s holiness. The first is his uniqueness. He is totally separate from all of creation. This is what Louis Berkhof called the “majesty-holiness” of God. The uniqueness of God is affirmed in Exodus 15:11: “Who among the gods is like you, O Lord? Who is like you-majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?”
The other aspect of God’s holiness is his absolute purity or goodness. This means that he is untouched and unstained by the evil in the world. He does not, in any sense, participate in it. Habakkuk 1:13 addresses God: “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong.” James 1:13 says that God cannot be tempted with evil. In this respect, God is totally unlike the gods of other religions. Those gods frequently engaged in the same type of sinful acts as did their followers. Jehovah, however, is free from such acts. Job 34:12 says, “It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the Almighty would pervert justice. Some have suggested that holiness is the most important single attribute of God. Whether or not this is a legitimate or desirable deduction, holiness is, at least, a very important attribute of God.

Righteousness

The righteousness of God means, first of all, that the law of God, being a true expression of his nature, is as perfect, as he is. Psalm 19:7-9 puts it this way: “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the Lord are sure and altogether righteous.” In other words, God commands only what is right, and what will therefore have a positive effect on the believer who obeys. A question that has been a topic of debate down through the history of Christian thought is, “What makes certain actions right and others wrong?” In the medieval times one school of thought, the realists, maintained that God chooses the right because it is right. What he calls ‘good’ could not have been designated otherwise, for there is an intrinsic good in kindness and an inherent evil in cruelty. In another school of thought, the nominalists asserted that it is God’s choice that makes an action right. He could have chosen otherwise; if he had done so, the good would be quite different from what it is. In actuality, the biblical proposition falls between realism and nominalism. Righteousness is not something arbitrary, such that cruelty and murder would have been good if God had so declared. In making decisions, God does follow an objective standard of right and wrong: This standard is part of the very structure of reality. But that standard to which God adheres is not external to God-it is His own nature.

Love God’s love is one of the grandest themes in all of Scripture. In fact, the Bible is a love story in many ways; it is a story of God’s love for all creatures. The New Testaments’s terms for divine love have a very special meaning. Greek has three terms for love, each with its own meaning. Eros is the term for sensual love, and phile refers to the love of friends. The love which God extends to us is represented by the verb agapao and the noun agape. This kind of love is a love that loves even the unlovely and unlovable. It is a self-sacrificing, self-giving love. It is given not because of the need of the recipient, but because of the giver’s choice. It is love that seeks the benefit of the recipient vice the giver. God loves us very deeply, and as a result he has paid for our sins himself through the sacrifice of Christ so that we need not pay the penalty demanded by his holy and just law. When people refuse to repent sin refuse to accept Christ’s provision for sin, God hates to judge, and so he is longsuffering with sinners. However, when sinners continue in sin, God, as morally pure and as a righteous moral governor, eventually must punish their sin. Nonetheless, God takes no delight in punishing them, for though he hates sin, he never stops loving the sinner.

Grace The concept of grace can be best understood as unmerited favor. That means that something good happens to you even though you have done nothing to merit or earn it. Scripture portrays God as of abounding grace. It is important to understand that God owes grace to no one. This is not just because God is not prima facie obligated to any of us, and also not just because none of us have done anything that merits such favor: It is so by the very nature of grace as unmerited favor. If God or anyone else were obligated to give grace, it would no longer be grace-blessing would simply be a matter of justice. The very nature of grace, however, is that it is never owed or earned. When we understand this fact about grace, we see how benevolent and loving our God is to grant us grace.
Conclusion
In conclusion, in order for us to have a correct view of God, we must know Him. The only way to know Him intimately is to know His attributes. We must know Him completely by understanding the incommunicable attributes, which are possessed by God alone. We must also become acquainted with communicable attributes, which we should display every day for the world to see. This will, in turn, bring glory to God.

Bibliography
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdsmans, 1953.
Caner, Ed Hindson and Ergun. The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Eugene: Harvest House, 2008.
Charnock, Stephen. The Existence and Attributes of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.
Feinberg, John S. No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2001.
Sproul, R.C. The Holiness of God. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1985.
Strong, Augustus H. Systematic Theology. Westwood N.J.: Revell, 1907.
Tozer, A.W. Knowledge of the Holy. New York: HarperCollins, 1961.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (New York: HarperCollins, 1961), 1.
[ 2 ]. A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, 1.
[ 3 ]. Louis Berhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdsmans, 1953), 55.
[ 4 ]. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 293.
[ 5 ]. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Westwood, N.J.: Revell, 1907), 247-249.
[ 6 ]. Ed Hindson and Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Eugene: Harvest House, 2008), 253.
[ 7 ]. Ed Hinson and Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, 253.
[ 8 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), 6721.
[ 9 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him, 6721.
[ 10 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him, 6693.
[ 11 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him, 6706.
[ 12 ]. Ed Hindson and Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, 5535.
[ 13 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him, 5335.
[ 14 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him, 5348.
[ 15 ]. Ed Hindson, and Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, 253.
[ 16 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him, 5980.
[ 17 ]. Ibid.
[ 18 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him, 5952.
[ 19 ]. Ibid.
[ 20 ]. Ed Hindson, and Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, 253.
[ 21 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him, 5946.
[ 22 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him, 6269.
[ 23 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him, 6285.
[ 24 ]. A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (New York: HaperCollins, 1961), 74.
[ 25 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him, 5576.
[ 26 ]. Stephen Charnock, The Existence and the Attributes of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 7490.
[ 27 ]. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 298.
[ 28 ]. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 299.
[ 29 ]. Ibid.
[ 30 ]. Ed Hindson and Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, 254.
[ 31 ]. R. C. Sproul, The Holiness of God (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1985), p. 40.
[ 32 ]. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 311.
[ 33 ]. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 311-312.
[ 34 ]. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 313.
[ 35 ]. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 313-314
[ 36 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him, 7982.
[ 37 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him, 7999.
[ 38 ]. Ibid.
[ 39 ]. John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him, 8111.