A. THE RELATION OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE TO THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES AND OF THE ATTRIBUTES TO ONE ANOTHER
On the basis of Scripture, two points must be maintained:
1. In God, essence and attributes are not separate, but the divine essence and the divine attributes are absolutely identical, because God is infinite and above space (1 Kings 8:27) and time (Ps. 90:2, 4). Were we to assume that there are parts in God, we would ascribe finitude to the infinite God and thereby erase the difference between God and man. Therefore the Augsburg Confession says: God is “without parts” (Trigl. 43, I, 3). On the basis of Scripture the Lutheran dogmaticians have maintained that objectively, that is, in God, essence and attributes are absolutely identical.
2. Since finite human reason cannot comprehend the infinite and absolute simplex, God condescends to our weakness and in His Word divides Himself, as it were, into a number of attributes which our faith can grasp and to which it can cling. Scripture itself teaches us to distinguish between God’s essence and His attributes when it speaks of God’s love (Rom. 5:8), God’s wrath (Rom. 1:18), God’s long-suffering (Rom. 2:4). It is only natural that when we hear of God’s love or wrath, our mind thinks, first, of God’s being and, secondly, of love or wrath as an attribute and characteristic of God. Because God employs our human language, He has also adopted our way of thinking and accommodated Himself to the laws of human thought processes, or logic.59 Scripture distinguishes not only between God’s essence and attributes, but also between the various divine attributes in their relation to one another. Scripture ascribes the motives for particular divine acts to particular divine attributes or dispositions (affectiones). For example: Scripture ascribes the sending of God’s Son to God’s love (John 3:16); the sinner’s justification to God’s grace, through the redemption in Christ, without human merit (Rom. 3:24); the condemnation of the wicked to God’s punitive justice (2 Thess. 1:6). In his prayer, Daniel distinguishes sharply between the attributes of God when he says: “We do not present our supplications before Thee for our righteousnesses, but for Thy great mercies” (Dan. 9:18).
The Lutheran dogmaticians follow Scripture also in this point. Baier: “Though in reality these perfections, or attributes, are not accidents nor in reality different from the divine essence, they are nevertheless distinguished from the divine essence and likewise from one another, because our finite and imperfect reason cannot comprehend the infinite perfection of God” (Compend. II, 11). Gerhard: “Although within God Himself the divine attributes are in reality not distinct one from the other nor from the divine essence, nevertheless the weakness of our mind requires that we deal with them one by one. ‘God descends to us,’ says Augustine, ‘that we might mount upward,’ and since we are men, He speaks to us after the manner of men.” 60
Dorner, of course, cannot understand how the old dogmaticians can teach both the objective oneness (Ununterschiedenheit) of the divine attributes and the distinction between the divine attributes.61 But Dorner, as an empiricist and “Ichtheologe,” has discarded Scripture as the source and norm of truth and therefore cannot follow the old dogmaticians, for they were Scripture theologians. They had learned from Scriptures that, on the one hand, God designates Himself as the infinite, indivisible God (Deus impartibilis, ohne Stuecke [Augsb. Conf. I]), and that, on the other hand, the indivisible God divides Himself, as it were, into parts. By describing Himself as the holy and the righteous and the gracious God, etc., He mediates to us a knowledge of Himself which, though not perfect, is sufficient for our salvation. And this is the reason why the dogmaticians maintain both the indivisibility of God and the distinction of the divine attributes, e. g., justice and mercy. And all theologians who claim to be Scripture theologians will follow the dogmaticians. For surely no Scripture theologian will seriously assume parts in God. On the other hand, every Scripture theologian desires to remain in agreement with St. Paul, who expressly describes the knowledge of God in Scripture as partial, fragmentary, piecemeal (1 Cor. 13:9: “We know in part, and we prophesy in part”).
The doctrine that God’s attributes, viewed “objectively,” are indivisible has been misused, and two cautions are in order.
a. Under the pretense that all divine attributes constitute an indivisible unit, the distinction between the attributes has been ignored, and one attribute has been substituted for another. This procedure corrupts all theology, as Scripture teaches clearly by word and example. All who base the forgiveness of sin on God’s remunerative righteousness which rewards civil righteousness, in other words, on the works of the Law and not upon God’s grace through Christ’s vicarious satisfaction, will receive not the forgiveness of sin, but God’s curse (Gal. 3:10). Israel after the flesh forfeited its membership in the Kingdom of God because it substituted the righteousness of the Law (iustitia Dei legalis) for grace (Rom. 9:31-33; 10:1-3), and for the same reason the Pharisee remained unjustified before God (Luke 18:9-14). Twice the Apostle Paul pronounces a curse upon the Judaizing teachers in Galatia because they insisted on this substitution of divine attributes (Gal. 1:8-9). Therefore we must very carefully avoid substituting one divine attribute for another, for this leads to a false concept of God and eo ipso to apostasy from the God who is revealed in Scripture. To use only one illustration: A god who justifies sinners not by grace, but on the basis of His remunerative righteousness does not exist. All who deny Christ’s vicarious atonement have painted a caricature of God and, like the heathen, who know not God, worship an idol.
b. An earnest warning must also be sounded against men’s presumptuous attempt to describe the divine attributes according to their preconceived “theological” opinions and not according to God’s Word. We have in mind especially Unitarians and Modernists, who deny the doctrines of eternal damnation and the vicarious atonement because in their opinion these doctrines are in direct conflict with God’s justice and love. It is indeed a foolish and blasphemous undertaking when we men on an a priori basis (i. e., independent of God’s self-revelation in His Word) presume to determine what God according to His love or righteousness can or ought to do, or what is or is not compatible with God’s love or justice. This attempt rests on the false premise that finite man can comprehend the infinite God. The fact is that as God is infinite, so also His attributes are infinite and are therefore beyond our comprehension.
In our study of God’s being on the basis of Scripture we find that the same attributes are predicated of both God and man. This seems to involve us in a difficulty, since God and His attributes are infinite, while human attributes are finite. It is true, Scripture ascribes to both God and man being (esse, existence) as well as a series of properties and works. Examples: Being (God is, Is. 48:12; men are, Acts 17:28); life (God lives, Ezek. 14:16; man lives, Gen. 3:20); love (God loves, John 3:16; man loves, 1 Kings 5:1); justice (God is just, Rom. 3:26; man is just, Matt. 1:19); sight (God sees, Gen. 1:31; man sees, Deut. 32:52); etc. This raises the question: In what manner can the same properties be ascribed both to God and to His creatures? Scripture supplies the answer: a) Not univocally, in the identical sense, as though the term and the matter apply to God and the creature in the same manner and degree (univoce); b) not equivocally, as though the terms when applied to God and to the creatures had no more in common than the sound, but in such case have an entirely different meaning (aequivoce); but c) analogically, similarly, because both being and attributes belong to God and the creatures, though not in the same manner or degree (analogice). We ascend (consurgimus, as Augustine says) from the imperfections of the creature (imperfect being, life, love, etc.) to the absolute perfection in God (absolute being, life, love, etc.). This analogous view is clearly taught in Scripture, e.g., Is. 49:15 (“Can a woman forget her sucking child … yet will I not forget thee”); Luke 11:13 (“If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children [from natural love], how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?”).
If we were to follow the Scotists, the later Nominalists, and others who ascribe being and attributes to God and the creatures in the same manner (univoce), then, strictly speaking, we would remove the essential difference between God and man. This would be tantamount to the deification of man. If, however, we were to go to the other extreme and ascribe being and attributes to God and man only “equivocally,” we would practically destroy all knowledge of God. It would be impossible for us to know whether anything at all is in God, or what is in God, or what God’s attributes actually mean, for example. His love, of which He assures us in John 3:16; 1 John 4:16. But, thanks be to God, the fact is that the majestic and transcendent God has adopted human language and condescended to our thought patterns in order thus to lift us up to Him and to reveal His loving affection for us. True, this knowledge is imperfect and fragmentary (1 Cor. 13:9); nevertheless it is true and reliable, so that we are able to know the things that are given us by God (1 Cor. 2:12). The Lutheran dogmaticians have discussed this point in considerable detail and have refuted every error which might endanger the Christian knowledge of God.62
The names of God (because they describe God) must also be listed among God’s predicates. Some have counted ten such descriptive names of God. Luther disapproves of this number as not being sufficiently exhaustive. In his Treatise on Shem Hamphoras Luther refers to the Jewish custom of ascribing ten names to God, a custom which Jerome followed in his Epistola ad Marcellum, where he lists the following: El, Elohim, Eloha, Tsebhaoth, Elyon, Ehye, Adonai, Yah, Yehovah [Yahwe], Shaddai. Luther continues: “I do not think much of this. There certainly are more divine names in Scriptures, e. g., Ab, Bore, Or, Chai, etc., Father, Creator, Light, Life, Salvation, and many others. And can you think of anything good which must not be ascribed to God first of all, who is the Author and Source of good, as Christ says: ‘God alone is good’ (Luke 18:19), from whom we have received all that we have received, are, and possess”? (St. L. XX: 2057.) Immediately following this quotation is Luther’s masterful exposition on the uniqueness of the name Jehovah, the nomen Dei essentiale sive incommunicabile, meaning “Pure Being” (Ex. 3:14).63 Zoeckler justly condemns the childish manner in which the Papists, Jews, and Turks play with the number of divine names. He places the battology practiced in the Roman Catholic Church on the same level with the vain practice of pagan Buddhism and Islam and says that it is of no importance whatsoever for scientific theology and utterly devoid of any Christian value.64 The reason for this vain babbling of the names of God as practiced by the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches, the Moslems, the heathen, is the fact that they do not know the name of Jesus, in whom we have the redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. Steeped in work-righteousness (opinio legis), they hope to win God’s favor by the mere recitation of God’s names. — Though liberal theology claims to have studied scientifically and historically the meaning of the names of God, it has failed to understand the meaning of God’s names and attributes. And how can they arrive at a correct definition of these since they do not accept the Scriptures as God’s Word? The entire Scriptures are in reality nothing else than an elaboration of God’s name (“ein ausgebreiteter Name Gottes”). By denying that Scripture is God’s Word, men reject the only principle or source from which they can derive an understanding of God’s name. This fact prompted Luther to remind us again and again that only the true Scripture doctrine honors God’s name and builds His Church, while false doctrine, springing from the heart of men, profanes God’s name and destroys His Church. In his commentary on Ex. 20:7 Luther says of the Second Commandment: “In this Commandment the name of God is used correctly when the Word of God is rightly preached and rightly believed. And, again, God’s name is blasphemed when preachers under the cloak of God’s Word and name mislead the people.” (St. L. III:1076.) For this reason faithful preachers are a blessing, while false teachers are a curse to their country and to the world. Of course, in teaching God’s Word in its truth and purity, teachers run the risk of incurring opposition. Luther points to this: “The greatest and most difficult part of this Commandment is to defend this name against those who not only misuse it in spiritual matters, but also spread it [their false definition of God’s name] among men. It is not enough that I praise the divine name in prosperity and call upon it in adversity for myself and in my own heart. I must also step into the open and for the sake of God’s honor and name incur the enmity of all men according to Christ’s word: ‘Ye shall be hated of all men for My name’s sake’ (Matt. 10:22). Here we must provoke to anger even father, mother, and our best friends… . Here we must bear the charge of resisting the spiritual and civil government and of being disobedient. Here we must incense the learned, the saints, the wealthy, the mighty, and all who count for something in the world. That is what it means to be ‘God’s friend and all the world’s enemy.’ Though this is primarily the duty of preachers, every Christian is in duty bound to do this as time and occasion demand. When a person accepts God’s Word, the Gospel, he must by all means keep in mind that he is running the risk of losing all his goods, home, real estate, business, farm, wife, children, father, mother, yes, his very life. Should danger and misfortune overtake him, he can bear it more readily, realizing from the outset that matters would take this course. Here such passages apply as Matt. 10:24: ‘The disciple is not above his Master.’ ” (St. L. III:1078 ff.)