None Greater: The Undomesticated Attributes of God

Bought this book today via Amazon.

Looks good!
Is anybody interested in reading this through with me and posting comments on the Baptist Board?
Perhaps we might outline it.


None Greater: The Undomesticated Attributes of God [Amazon Link] [CBD Link]
by Matthew Barrett
Paperback: 304 pages
Publisher: Baker Books (March 5, 2019)

Endorsements:
From the Inside Flap

"Way back in 1973, J. I. Packer reminded us in his book Knowing God that the greatest need of the evangelical church was to think big thoughts about our Triune God and to know him in all of his perfection, glory, and majesty. Sadly, many in the evangelical church have not heeded Packer's cry to know God, as evangelicals seemingly have become consumed with everything but the glory of God, to the detriment of our spiritual life and health. However, Matthew Barrett has not forgotten Packer's cry to know God. In None Greater, Barrett has given us what the church in our day desperately needs more than anything else-to behold the beauty, glory, self-sufficiency, and sheer otherness of our Triune God, who alone is worthy of our worship, faith, obedience, and service. This book is must reading if the church is going to regain her way and put God first once again. It is a wonderful antidote to shallow theological thinking in our day, and it returns us to ponder anew our undomesticated Creator and Redeemer. In one of the most readable books on the attributes of God I have ever read, Barrett calls us to return to Scripture and to stand on the shoulders of previous theologians who thought deeply about the God of the gospel. If you want to stand firm for the gospel today and to avoid all the fads and errors of our age, take up this book and by it be led to what is life eternal: the knowledge of God in the face of our Lord Jesus Christ."
--STEPHEN WELLUM, professor of Christian theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; author of God the Son Incarnate​

"Perhaps not since R. C. Sproul has there been a treatment of such deep theology with such careful devotion and accessibility. Read this book. And stagger."
--Jared Wilson, director of content strategy, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; managing editor, For the Church; author of The Gospel-Driven Church​

 

“This is a book about the attributes of God. But it is probably unlike any book you’ve read before on the attributes of God. Most books on the subject address one attribute and then another and then another. But it is unclear how these attributes relate to one another and whether they all stem from a foundational belief about God.
This book is different. Not only do I believe each and every attribute is key to each and every other attribute in God, but I am convinced that we can only understand God’s attributes in all their glory if such attributes originate from one core conviction: God is someone than whom none greater can be conceived.” (page10)

 

This week my church begins a series on the attributes of God.
I passed on this book to my pastor who was quite excited to read it after viewing the quote in the post above this one.

I’ll be quoting passages of the book as sermons and discussion sessions begin this morning at my church.

I read quite a lot of fiction. Oddly when pondering a books I’ve read I find they often communicate biblical truths in a distinctly different manner.

From C. S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia

“”Is—is he a man?” asked Lucy. “Aslan a man!” said Mr. Beaver sternly. “Certainly not. I tell you he is the King of the wood and the son of the great Emperor-beyond-the-Sea. Don’t you know who is the King of Beasts? Aslan is a lion—the Lion, the great Lion.” “Ooh!” said Susan, “I’d thought he was a man. Is he—quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.” “That you will, dearie, and no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver; “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.” “Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy. “Safe?” said Mr. Beaver; “don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.””
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.​

Barrett echo’s the Beaver’s idea.

“...I must warn you at the start: I will not be interested in wasting your time with a God who is tame and domesticated, a God whose divinity is humanized. That may be the God of popular culture, but it is not the God of the Bible. The God of biblical revelation is the God Isaiah saw, the one who is high and lifted up (Isa. 6:1), possessing all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18), and yet one who is simultaneously with us and for us as our Savior (Matt. 1:21-23).
Let the pilgrimage begin.” ....page 14​

Rob

 

Chapter 1, concerning God’s Incomprehensibility

...[T]o claim God is incomprehensible, an adorable mystery, is already to say a whole lot about him, as we discovered in Isaiah 40. Incomprehensibility does not encourage but undermines agnosticism and mysticism.

At the same time, incomprehensibility guards the Christian from thinking that a mere mortal can know God’s very essence—know God per essentiam, “in terms of his essence.” It keeps us finite individuals from the theistic rationalism of the Enlightenment—that is, the aggressive belief that we mortals can, by our own unaided human reason, attain comprehensive knowledge of the divine.

...Instead, Christian humility requires us to receive with gratitude what he has spoken and to limit ourselves to what he has said and done, rather than pine after what he has not said in those works he has left unperformed. “We know”, observes John Calvin, “the most perfect way of seeking God and the most suitable order is not for us to attempt with bold curiosity to penetrate into the investigation of his essence, which we ought more to adore than meticulously to search out, but for us to contemplate him in his works thereby he renders himself near and familiar to us, and in some manner communicates himself.” Echoing Augustine, Calvin concludes: “Because, disheartened by his greatness, we cannot grasp him, we ought to gaze upon his works, that we may be restored by his goodness.” (pp 26,27)

 

So I’m following the order of the discussion sessions (occurring on FB @ 7 pm at Crossing Community Church, Newtown for those interested), The Sunday sermons will follow.
This weeks discussion in on God’s eternality.


Chapter 8

“Since God is everlasting, his perception of time is not like ours. For us, we see one moment followed by the next because that is how we experience time. To transcend time is impossible for us. We are bound in it, bound to it, and formed by it. But with God, time is perceived differently. As one who is not bound by time or limited by its count, he sees all time at once. While it may seem as if the Lord will never return, Peter reminds his readers not to count slowness as some do. With “the Lord one day is as thousand years, and thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8).

As in many theological debates, simply citing a biblical word does not necessarily subtle controversy. In the past, the illusions have debated the meaning of “everlasting”. Does it mean God is in time yet never had a beginning or an end? If so, then God is not strictly eternal but more appropriately everlasting. Or does it mean that God is outside of time altogether, unrestricted by the boundaries of time? If so, then forgot to be called an everlasting God means that he is timelessly eternal. Today, many are attracted to the first view. Yet to say that God is in time is to bind him to time with all his limitations. What are such limitations?

First to be in time is to be restricted by a succession of moments. ...

Second, you’ve got experience a succession of moments, it is hard to see how he is not one who can be measured. ...

Third, experience in one moment before the next also would mean that God is made up of parts and therefore changes. ...

(pp. 42-45)

 

This week’s attribute covered during the church’s Wednesday evening Zoom session was God’s Holiness.

The topic is mentioned in Chapter 11 of the book, titled,
Righteousness, Goodness and Love

“I AM WHO I AM.”. What does God‘s name mean?​

There is a sense of mystery to this name, “I AM,” but it does reveal at least two crucial aspects of God‘s nature. First, it means God is set apart. Unlike the Egyptian gods, gods that were identified with certain objects or places (the sun, the moon, the river, etc.). God is above his creation. For example, “He is not like Amun or Ptah,” two Egyptian gods; “he cannot be assigned a place and identity in the cosmos as one of the gods.” He is not just another god in the long list of gods, but he is unique, distinct from the created order. He is not a “contingent being”; his identity is not tied to a shrine cult, city, people or title.” Rather, he is the one who “exist independently of all things, and is the only being for whom existence is part of his essence.” In short, “everything else is contingent upon him…. He is the one, eternal, all-powerful, creator God….’I AM’ implies absolute existence without limitation either in time or contingency. He is not contingent upon anything and everything is contingent upon him. The title “I AM” conveys God’s absolute independence. He alone is the self-existence, self-sufficient Creator. He alone is life in and of himself. (p 212)​

Moses his encounter with God on Mount Sinai confirms that God’s holiness first and foremost means God is set apart. His asceity is what distinguishes him from all the other gods. Countless times when Scripture refers to God as the holy one, it is this fundamental meaning that it has in mind. Nonetheless, that does not exhaust the meaning of divine holiness. Such asceity has implications for God’s moral character. As the self-sufficient, self-existent God, he must also be the self-excellent God. His aseity applies not only to his existence but to his moral purity, a point we stressed in chapter 4. (p 213-214)​

Unlike Israel, who is dependent on God for her holiness—even her genesis as a holy nation is his doing—God is dependent on no one for his moral excellency. Putting into practice our doctrine of simplicity once more, if God is independently holy (self excellent), then it is fitting to say this God is holy. Holiness is not something someone gives to him, nor is it a quality he acquires over time (which would undermine his in immutability). He is holy in and of himself. His essence is, by definition, holy. It always has been, it always will be. Our God is eternally, immutably holy. (p.215)​

[ASCEITY, (definition) the quality or state of being self-derived or self-originated specifically : the absolute self-sufficiency, independence, and autonomy of God]

Rob

 

This week the attribute being discussed is immutability.

With [God] there is no variation or shadow due to change. James 1:17​

Quotes are taken from chapter 6 of the book, ‘None Greater, the Undomesticated Attributes of God’ by Matthew Barrett, (starting on page 89)

A Perfect Being Must Be Immutable
What would happen if God were subject to change, like a shadow? Variation in God would spell the death of his own perfection. No longer would he be someone than whom none greater could be conceived.

If you were to change for the better, that would imply that he was less than perfect before hand. There was some type of deficiency and imperfection to his being. If he were to change for the worse, that would imply that he was perfect but no longer is perfect. An imperfection has been added to him or a perfection in him has been lost. So, he must change either from better to worse or from worst to better. In either option God ceases to be eternally good. A God who is not eternally good is not eternally perfect either. And a God who is not eternally perfect cannot be God in the end. Immutability, we are impelled to conclude, is essential and necessary to God’s identity as the perfect, supreme being. (p. 94-95)​

The Glory and Enamel of all Attributes
Immutability is not only central to a correct understanding of a perfect, supreme being, but it also proves indispensable to all other attributes. Stephen Charnock calls immutability the “glory” that belongs to “all the attributes of God” because it is the “centre wherein they all unite.” Or we might compare it to the “enamel” because apart from immutability the rest would come undone to see why consider seven entailments of immutability.​

1. It is because God does not change that he is a God of aseity. ...
2. It is because God does not change that he remains simple. ...
3. It is because God does not change that he is all knowing and all wise. ...
4. It is because God does not change that he is not restricted by time and space. ...
5. It is because God does not change that he is omnipotent. ...
6. It is because God does not change that he remains holy and just. ...
7. It is because God does not change that he is love. ...
... It is critical to clarify, however, that God is an eternal fountain of love, but such love reflects the character of his own love for himself. It is because God loves himself without change that his love for us is a love that does not change. Should his love for himself fluctuate, there would be little assurance that his love for us would remain steadfast.... pp. 98-102​

Knowing he is an immutable holy God—one who does not change and therefore will not lie—the Christian has every reason to flee to God for refuge in an hour of great trial. And this side of the empty tomb, the soul’s “sure and steadfast anchor” is found in no one else but Jesus, the Christ, the one who is “the same yesterday today and forever” (Heb. 13:8). p. 109​

 

This may be my last post in this thread.
I hope I encouraged those of you interested in exploring God’s attributes to look over Barrett’s excellent book on the topic.

This weeks discussion topic was OMNIPOTENCE, God’s all-powerfulness.

“The full force of divine omnipotence resides in the infinite and eternal nature of God. Think about it: God‘s power is infinite; he is power in infinite measure. Plus, God‘s infinite power is eternal as well, meaning it will never wane. He can never stop being as omnipotent as he always has been and will be. To put it simply, what we mean when we say God is omnipotent that there are no limitations to his being. Omnipotence, notice, is another way of saying our God is infinite.​

“Hold on; no limitations, you say? Surely there are things God cannot do, right?” Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it? Can an omnipotent God tell a lie? Can God create another being who is equally unlimited in power? Can an all-powerful God make an unmade person? Can an eternal, infinite God die? These questions are meant to throw into doubt the infinite nature of God’s power, exposing the fact that there are some things God cannot do, and therefore he cannot be all-powerful.​

Unfortunately, we are looking at the picture upside down. We should be asking just the opposite: if God could do these things, would it be a display of impotence rather than omnipotence? Anselm corrects our misconception: “For he who can do these things can do what is not good for himself and what he ought not to do. And the more he can do these things, the more power adversary and perversity have over him and less he has against them. He, therefore, who can do these things can do them not by power but by impotence. By asking such questions we are so amused and impressed by our own cleverness that we fail to see just how contradictory our words have become. For God to do anything that would violate his other attributes does not complement his power but destroys it.​

In a world in which doing things (doing everything) has become a sign of authority, we struggle to understand that there are situations in which not doing something is a far greater signifier of power. Joseph does not commit adultery with Potiphar’s wife; Jesus does not command stones to turn into bread—these non-acts display the greatest degree of power. To have done any one of these would have been not powerful but weak, even sinful. Self-control is not a weakness but a sign that one is more powerful than those who cannot control themselves or their actions. ​

So It is with God. His power is just as powerfully manifested in what he cannot do as what he can do.” Barrett, pp. 190,191.​