Introducing Christian Doctrine by Millard Erickson

[TCGreek]

Hi Paula, and we didn't mean to give Tim a hard time. It was his idea. :laugh:

 

[TCGreek]

As God existed in eternity past, before the creation, His Holiness was not changed by lack of creation or as creation began... since God is eternal and exists in and out of all time. In other words, as far as God is concerned, He is currently present in eternity past and eternity future.... right now. He still had less than holiness to *compare* if you will.... in the creatures He was going to create.

Would it be called holiness? And how then would it be defined in undefined time?

 

[TCGreek]

OK, I'm in with the big brains so I had to ask.

When I die, it would be discovered that I only used 1% of my brain. :laugh:

 

[reformedbeliever]

Would it be called holiness? And how then would it be defined in undefined time?

I don't think it would matter what we called it. It would still be God's absolute perfection. In order for God to be God by definition.... nothing he creates will equal His perfection. He could not be God if something created was His equal. So does it really matter what language says He is? Just thinking out loud.

 

[TCGreek]

I don't think it would matter what we called it. It would still be God's absolute perfection. In order for God to be God by definition.... nothing he creates will equal His perfection. He could not be God if something created was His equal. So does it really matter what language says He is? Just thinking out loud.

I concur that holiness is an outworking of God's absolute perfection. :thumbs:

 

[tinytim]

When I die, it would be discovered that I only used 1% of my brain. :laugh:

YOU and ME both!!! But I bet Bitsy uses over 50% of her brain...

Theology is a breeze compared to Algebra!

I have a serious headache tonight... I am going to bed soon

 

[TCGreek]

YOU and ME both!!! But I bet Bitsy uses over 50% of her brain...

Theology is a breeze compared to Algebra!

I have a serious headache tonight... I am going to bed soon

Since you're only using 1% of your brain, you'll need to go to bed right now. :laugh:

 

[reformedbeliever]

I have set here for the last 10 minutes trying to figure out what you are asking... To tell you the truth, I really feel like a nobody amongst these well qualified theologians.. So pardon me if I ask you to be more specific.

I would guess that the calvinistic side of me (from my youth) has shown through in the statement I made...
The only thing I meant was this...
Nothing happens that surprises God... He is in control of everything.
But when we look at our decisions, it appears we make decisions.. but in the grand scheme of things, God is in control, and already knew what that decision is.

The one thing that seperates me from most Calvinists I know is the way I see Salvation before the foundation of the world.
I believe that since God exists outside time, the very moment I accepted Christ was the very moment Christ died for me, and the very moment God elected me. When we move the time element out of the way, the issue clears up in my mind. I can fully grasp both truths that God elected me before he started creation, and the truth that I accepted his Salvation.

To tell you the truth, that is why I stay out of most C/A debates here on BB... I believe they both are true. I know it sounds weird, but in my mind, I have rationalized it to the point that I can fully grasp both Calvinism and Arminianism. Therefore I can fully say that God is sovereign and in control, while man appears to make choices.

So to try to answer your questions.. there is no cause and effect..

Most Calvinists say that God chose (cause) and I accepted (effect)
Most Arminians say that Man chose (cause) and God elected (effect)

I say that both God and Man chose at the very same point.. .since there is no time in eternity.

I hope I answered your question.

Tim, as you well know by now... I am definitely a predestinarian. I hold to pretty much high calvinism. Yet as I teach and preach, I like to explain that if one wants to be found as one who was predestined to pick up their cross and follow Jesus, then by all means, pick up your cross and follow Jesus.... and you will have been found to be predestined to do so. God will have decreed it to happen if you do it! If you don't do it.... then God never decreed it. That seems to harmonize God's sovereignty and the responsibility of man!

 

[Allan]

MY GOODNESS!

I'm gone for a day and this thread takes off like Baptists and noon sharp on Sunday morning! :laugh:

Now I will take some time to read and wade through it all.

 

[Jarthur001]

Thank you, I overlooked your previous post.
I realize that your list is not really exhaustive, but where would you fit infinity in that list... I would fit it in the category of "what makes God God"

I agree. I would place it in the same area.

I also notice that your list of Divine Attributes are the qualities that God shows mankind...
If he had never shown mercy to man, man would not have known He is merciful.
Same with Grace, truthfulness, faithfulness, etc...

This was pointed out to me a year ago. There maybe something to it, I have not taken the time to check into it. But maybe, just maybe this leads to your relational point below. This is why it is good to study the story line of the Bible as well. What is the over all point of the Bible? Is it good vs evil? Is it God saving man? If you ask 1000 people you will get 1000 answers. But the answers I favor the most is something that shows that God indeed loves His people. I'm not trying to put an election spin on this. Calvinist and no-Calvinist should agree that all the glories of heaven and blessings found in salvation is for those that are saved. God wants to have a relationship with His people and desires to train them, bless them and bring them home. And this shows over and over in His attributes and actions toward the saints.

Where would you put the fact that he is relational? Is that more an essence than a attribute?

attribute...wouldn't you say?

 

[Allan]

I'm not sure that there is a difference, per se. I think they are two sides of the same coin.

First, the scripture describes God as both absolutely sovereign and absolutely omnipotent. The Isaiah 46 passage I have been quoting says as much.

I think, though, these two concepts cannot be discussed as theoretical and I think they must be discussed only in relation to God, since that is how the Bible relates the concepts.

Rhetoricians will have a field day with this quote, but here goes: God is sovereign because He is omnipotent and He is omnipotent because He is sovereign.

Both attributes are His because He is those things (as revealed in the Bible) by nature.

If I had to choose a "head's up" or primary side of the coin, it would be God's sovereignty. He is absolutely sovereign and does whatever He pleases and, because He is omnipotent, He has every and all power to actually accomplish that which He desires to do.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

I'm not so sure I agree with you, except maybe in principle here.

The primary is not God's sovereingty (IMO) for a couple of reasons.

1. God's attributes are ascribed in relation to His creation.
ex. God is Omnipotent and therefore the entirty of His being is abosolute power personified. It is who He is (His essense)

Now with that in mind, God was omnipotent before creation because it is not defined through it's interaction with creation as His attributes are. However, Soveriengty is a different issue since it is specific to that which is created and therefore has a defintate relationship with God's and toward His creation. God, through His omnipotence will be sovereign over that which He creates but if it is (as it was in the beginning) just God and God alone, to what was He sovereign or sovereign over?

However, God being omnipotent is so even before His creation becuase it is the essense of who and what He is.

Therefore (IMO) the primary is not God's soveriegnty but His omnipotence from which flows His soveriegnty.

2. Sovereignty flows from ones power.
ex. A king is only soveriegn if he has the power to maintain it.

Therefore, we must ascribe God's omnipotence to be the defining factor for God's claim of soveriengnty. He is not soveriegn because He says so (ok He is but .. ) He is because He has the absolute power to prove His claim.

 

[John of Japan]

This thread has gone so far so fast, and over the weekend, and when I've been asleep here in Japan, that I haven't been able to contribute much. But I want to say just one thing about the attributes of God.

I haven't seen where His love has been listed as an attribute on this thread, but "God is love." That is another thing He essentially is. He loves because He is love. I believe His love and holiness should counterbalance each other in our lives.

If we emphasize love at the expense of holiness, we become liberal: Good Lord, good devil, everybody's good and God would never send anyone to Hell. If we emphasize holiness at the expense of love, then we become heartless and legalistic, emphasizing our narrow view over the salvation of souls and loving our neighbors and enemies.

There, I got a word in edgewise!

 

[tinytim]

OK, couldn't sleep.. for some reason, I had a dream about algebra equations!!! THANKS BITSY!!!

So Allan, would you say:
Omnipotence goes in the Essence category while
Sovereignity goes in the Attributes category

 

[jne1611]

Great Study Guys & Gals. Very good food for thought.

 

[TCGreek]

This thread has gone so far so fast, and over the weekend, and when I've been asleep here in Japan, that I haven't been able to contribute much. But I want to say just one thing about the attributes of God.

I haven't seen where His love has been listed as an attribute on this thread, but "God is love." That is another thing He essentially is. He loves because He is love. I believe His love and holiness should counterbalance each other in our lives.

If we emphasize love at the expense of holiness, we become liberal: Good Lord, good devil, everybody's good and God would never send anyone to Hell. If we emphasize holiness at the expense of love, then we become heartless and legalistic, emphasizing our narrow view over the salvation of souls and loving our neighbors and enemies.

There, I got a word in edgewise!

John,

Way back on this fast moving thread I pointed out that in Erickson's Christian Theology, he lists love as a subset of the goodness of God.

 

[Allan]

This thread has gone so far so fast, and over the weekend, and when I've been asleep here in Japan, that I haven't been able to contribute much. But I want to say just one thing about the attributes of God.

I haven't seen where His love has been listed as an attribute on this thread, but "God is love." That is another thing He essentially is. He loves because He is love. I believe His love and holiness should counterbalance each other in our lives.

If we emphasize love at the expense of holiness, we become liberal: Good Lord, good devil, everybody's good and God would never send anyone to Hell. If we emphasize holiness at the expense of love, then we become heartless and legalistic, emphasizing our narrow view over the salvation of souls and loving our neighbors and enemies.

There, I got a word in edgewise!

deleted by me

 

[Jarthur001]

This thread has gone so far so fast, and over the weekend, and when I've been asleep here in Japan, that I haven't been able to contribute much. But I want to say just one thing about the attributes of God.

I haven't seen where His love has been listed as an attribute on this thread, but "God is love." That is another thing He essentially is. He loves because He is love. I believe His love and holiness should counterbalance each other in our lives.

If we emphasize love at the expense of holiness, we become liberal: Good Lord, good devil, everybody's good and God would never send anyone to Hell. If we emphasize holiness at the expense of love, then we become heartless and legalistic, emphasizing our narrow view over the salvation of souls and loving our neighbors and enemies.

There, I got a word in edgewise!

John,

I did list love in my little list. Other things could be added to that list for sure. I want to build on something you said. Sometimes the word "perfections" is used in place of attributes. I kinda like this idea. Maybe one should use both words here. But here is why I like the word perfections.

God is not just love. Just as God has divine essence that make Him God, love has the very essence that all love comes from. That of course is God.

We would not know of love if it were not God that shared love to mankind. Any love that we have and know about, comes from God who is not just loving, but is love itself. This is why I think perfections is a good word to use with attributes. God is not just love, but is perfect love which all love flows from.

 

[Allan]

OK, couldn't sleep.. for some reason, I had a dream about algebra equations!!! THANKS BITSY!!!

So Allan, would you say:
Omnipotence goes in the Essence category while
Sovereignity goes in the Attributes category

I would say so, yes. The reason is because soveriegnty flows from His omnipotence.

Now technically, and I think Jauthur (James) already touched on this, there is no real biblical classification of Gods attributes as specific sets and subsets.

However, we can note that many attributes are manifested only through their interaction with creation and others that are without the need for creation to manifest it.

So in one sense they are all truly there but some can only be seen through God's interaction with His creation.

 

[Allan]

This thread has gone so far so fast, and over the weekend, and when I've been asleep here in Japan, that I haven't been able to contribute much. But I want to say just one thing about the attributes of God.

I haven't seen where His love has been listed as an attribute on this thread, but "God is love." That is another thing He essentially is. He loves because He is love. I believe His love and holiness should counterbalance each other in our lives.

If we emphasize love at the expense of holiness, we become liberal: Good Lord, good devil, everybody's good and God would never send anyone to Hell. If we emphasize holiness at the expense of love, then we become heartless and legalistic, emphasizing our narrow view over the salvation of souls and loving our neighbors and enemies.

There, I got a word in edgewise!

AMEN!
Love is one of the Omni's of God. Some classify it as omnibenevlent and some as God's goodness. I personally think Omnibelevolence better exemplifies the personinfication God intened to be understood.

 

[Allan]

John,

I did list love in my little list. Other things could be added to that list for sure. I want to build on something you said. Sometimes the word "perfections" is used in place of attributes. I kinda like this idea. Maybe one should use both words here. But here is why I like the word perfections.

God is not just love. Just as God has divine essence that make Him God, love has the very essence that all love comes from. That of course is God.

We would not know of love if it were not God that shared love to mankind. Any love that we have and know about, comes from God who is not just loving, but is love itself. This is why I think perfections is a good word to use with attributes. God is not just love, but is perfect love which all love flows from.

I used to not like the word 'perfections' in place of attributes because it would kinda fuzzy my grasp of it. But I agree with you now, because it wasn't the word per sey that made it fuzzy but understanding of what it was conveying.

I agree with you also that both should be used as they are explained that the grasp of the student learning them be more complete. Good point!