 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Essential attributes of God | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
|  Posted 3/13/2005 2:30 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Here's my other question...
When talking with JW's and Mormons, I tried to come up with a very simple way of explaining the essential attributes of God since I would only have perhaps a couple minutes if that to explain this to them. These are in the simplest of terms that would clarify the main differences between what we believe and what they believe about who God is.
Now this does not include titles such as Creator, Savior, etc. because those titles are not *essential* to God's nature. He didn't HAVE TO create if He didn't want to, nor save if He chose not to... but this is about the essence of God.
Here's where I really need some of you great thinkers to help me out. Let me know how many holes you can punch through this idea-of-an-explanation I have. 
God is essentially this: all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, all-time (yes, even alphabetized! woo hoo!).
Within His all-goodness, this includes his being love, just, pure, holy, etc.
Within His all-knowingness, this includes the "God knows everything there is that is knowable"
Within His all-powerfulness, He is able to do anything that does not contradict His nature or contradict itself (creating a rock so big that He can't lift it)
Within His all-presence, He does not have a body as we humans do; that would limit His being all-present (Mormons and JW's believe He has a body, right?)
Within His all-time, He has no beginning or end, wasn't born and won't die. (Mormons believe our current God was born on some planet in a galaxy far, far away [Star Wars music starts here])
Ok, let the shooting range begin. Tell me the problems y'all see in this and what can be improved. 
(The all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present of course are the same as being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, but it's particularly the "all-good" and all-time" that I'm concerned about. But I'm not sure if "omni-benevolent" encompases everything that "good" does. Also, is there another area of His essence that I'm missing? Hope this makes sense.)
Post Edited (Violin for God) : 3/13/2005 11:34:43 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 3/15/2005 9:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey John, thanks for replying.
I guess the question comes down to what "essence" means. Are the "omnis" separable from who God is? Even further, are they "essential" to who He is?
Could God not be omnibenevolent and still be God? And that would go for the other "omnis" as well. Could He cease being omnipresent? Hmm... I'll have to think about that.
For the moral attributes, would they all be modifications of love?... or would they be results of His goodness: that His love, justice, righteousness, etc. stem from His goodness?
1 John 1:5 says that "God is Light and in Him there is no darkness at all." To me, this seems to be a clear reference to His being Good.
Also, we understand that "God is Love (agape)" (of course based off of 1 John 4), but though there is nothing in scripture that explicitly says "God is Goodness" or "God is Good", could we say that the "God is Love" stems from God being Good?
I hope this all doesn't seem like old potatoes, but I'm just trying to get this entire concept solidified in my head so I can clarify this to the JW's and LDS's.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 3/16/2005 1:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Violin for God said...
Hey John, thanks for replying.
No prob. I enjoy discussing things like this.
I guess the question comes down to what "essence" means. Are the "omnis" separable from who God is? Even further, are they "essential" to who He is?
If we draw an analogy from our own existence, it seems to me that our knowledge, presence, and power are not the same thing as our selves. True, it would be hard to imagine ourselves without these things, but we are more than what we can know, experience, and do. Personhood is what I'm getting at.
Could God not be omnibenevolent and still be God? And that would go for the other "omnis" as well.
To my understanding, "omnibenevolent" is not one of the classical attributes of God, though I certainly agree that He is perfectly loving towards all. I would classify omnibenevolent as a moral attribute as opposed to a physical one. The three main physical attributes of God are the classic "omni" characteristics; i.e., omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience.
In my theological paradigm (Moral Government Theology), God can not sin because He wills not to.
Could He cease being omnipresent? Hmm... I'll have to think about that.
I personally tend to think the classical definition of omnipresence, like the classical definition of omniscience, derives more from Greek philosophy than from the Bible. For instance, how can hell be the absence of the presence of God if God is everywhere?
For the moral attributes, would they all be modifications of love
If we keep in mind that we are talking about love as benevolence, then I would say yes, certainly. God's love defines his purpose in all that he does.
?... or would they be results of His goodness: that His love, justice, righteousness, etc. stem from His goodness?
If He were not loving, he would not be good. 1 Cor. 13 indicates that godly love is the highest moral attribute anyone can aspire to.
1 John 1:5 says that "God is Light and in Him there is no darkness at all." To me, this seems to be a clear reference to His being Good.
I certainly agree that He is perfectly good. That said, I find 1 John 1:5 to refer to moral light. I'm sure we would both agree that God isn't composed of the physical waves and beams that make up physical light.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 3/16/2005 8:22 PM (GMT -6) | | | The three main physical attributes of God are the classic "omni" characteristics; i.e., omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience.
Then the question I have is this, what about God's being "all-time"? It seems that would be a physical attribute as well since it is making a statement about His being. We understand that He's the first and last (and from my perspective and I guess from being a presentist, though I could certainly be wrong in this, He is within time), and exists in an eternal state of being. Thus since this is describing His state of being, it seems this would also be a physical attribute.
In my theological paradigm (Moral Government Theology), God can not sin because He wills not to.
Then it seems this is saying that it's not that God is good, but God simply chooses to be good; goodness is then not inseparable from God Himself. Also can you clarify what you mean in terms of "He wills"? There are different kinds of wills such as the moral ("desire or wishing for") will and the sovereign will. Are you saying "because He doesn't want to"?
(VFG prev. post):Could He cease being omnipresent? Hmm... I'll have to think about that.
I personally tend to think the classical definition of omnipresence, like the classical definition of omniscience, derives more from Greek philosophy than from the Bible. For instance, how can hell be the absence of the presence of God if God is everywhere?
That's a good point. This makes me wonder then about some discussions Alan and I have had about this. Sometimes I'm not so accurate with my word-choices and I say "God can be in two or more places at once" and Alan (as far as I accurately recall) clarifies that since God is omnipresent it's not a "can" but an "is (in two places at once)". This causes me to wonder if it really is a "can" and the omni's are inaccurate. I'm still figuring it out...
If He were not loving, he would not be good. 1 Cor. 13 indicates that godly love is the highest moral attribute anyone can aspire to.
The reverse seems to be true as well.... if He were not good, He could not be loving, because being loving is being one who desires the greatest good for the object of one's love.
Anyway, FYI, I probably won't be able to write much more until Saturday (Spring Break! woo hoo! It is sooo needed! This student teaching is very stressful!)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 3/19/2005 11:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | Just thinking about the aspect related to omni-benevolence... and I hope this makes sense ....
If God and goodness are possibly separable then this delves into the whole "Euthryphro Dilemma" (a Socrates thing. Alan and I talked about this of course. I couldn't come up with this on my own.) which states "Are things good because God wills it so or does God will them because they're good?"
The first states that basically God is above that which is good, but then in a different type of world He could simply say that murdering is good and we wouldn't know any differently; God decides what constitutes as being good.
The second part of the dilemma places that which is good above God. Goodness is something that even God aspires to. This is where God chooses to be good, or wills to be good, i.e., wills to not sin.
I'd say the only way to resolve this is to claim that God has no choice... He has to be good because He is good; it's essential attribute to Him because it is inseparable. Anyway, that's my take so far.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 3/19/2005 11:43 PM (GMT -6) | |
AtTheWell said...Hi Violin-- I really like your 1 John 1:5 reference, I think it was Dallas Willard that used this at a conference to answer the question: What is your definition of God? His point, I think, was this simple, basic truth about God describes what we can expect to know about God. Don't know if that really helps but I thought it might be of interest.
Hi ATW! Thanks for your reply! I'm not sure I follow all of what you said in your post. What do you mean by "what we can expect to know about God"? Could you be a bit more specific with that?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
AtTheWell
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 133
| Posted 3/21/2005 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | | Violin-
Better to write more closely to what was said, instead of how I translated it in my head!
Dallas Willard posed the question:
What do I tell myself is the Gospel? (which of course effects what I tell others is the Gospel)
or How do you finish this passage after the colon?
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you:
the answer in scripture is : God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
This translated as a type of definition for me.. anything I can expect to know about God can be summed up in this very simple truth- God is light= what is good, true, and holy in him there is no darkness=what is false and evil, at all.
I find it helpful in clearing my head of any "theology" about God-- coming back to a basic truth, that cannot be misconstrued-- sometimes any word I try to add to this to describe God only "fogs the lens" so to speak... and I thought it was interesting that it came up here, where you are dealing with much more complicated processing - and God bless you for doing so!
I admit this doesn't help much in making the attempt to describe the essence of God in a more complex terminology with LDS or JW followers, I think you are so wonderful for investing your time and your brain in this difficult task. As well as giving me great things to think about !  Not sure if that cleared it up for you  , but cheers anyway!  Have a marvelous day! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 3/21/2005 1:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Can't tell y'all how much I've missed being able to participate in these discussions!
(Waah, I don't want to go back to school next week!  )
ATW, I agree... it's important to always keep the basics in line. Last summer I spent about 2.5 months having discussions with two JW's and some Mormon missionaries every week... and finally at the end of the discussions I figured out what I have to clarify to them: It's not who Jesus is, but who God is.
I realized with the Mormons, you can't talk "logic" with them. You can't talk about correct, sound exegetical interpretation of scripture. They always resort to the burning in the bosom (Mormons) or think you're in line with the devil and they suddenly have a mental block that filters everything you say to them, and sometimes they become verbally aggressive (JW's).
Now I'm trying a new approach... if I can explain to them in 3 minutes or less the difference between their fundamental understanding of God and our understanding of God, I will have hopefully given them something to chew on. Hopefully they will realize that their religion is much more different from ours than they previously thought.
Just a quick last note:
I find it helpful in clearing my head of any "theology" about God-- coming back to a basic truth, that cannot be misconstrued--
That sounds like "theology" is a negative thing... but we all have a theological perspective, even when we bring it down to the basic truths, right?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
AtTheWell
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 133
| Posted 3/21/2005 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | | VFG:That sounds like "theology" is a negative thing... but we all have a theological perspective, even when we bring it down to the basic truths, right
ATW: You're right-- bad choice of words on my part!
Peace, ATW | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 3/21/2005 11:35 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Hi VFG,
Not to rain on your parade too much, but if it is true that God's actions are good because God does them (and not that God chooses to do that which is good), then morality really is arbitrary, and Calvinism could just as easily be true as free will theism could--for God could just force some to love Him and go to heaven and others to hate him and go to hell, and we would just have to accept that as God's "love." If the view you have espoused (rightarianism) is correct, then I submit that God could make up down, right left, and sinful acts holy simply by fiat.
How, I ask, could such a concept of God be in any way praiseworthy except by virtue of his raw power? God could in fact have no moral character whatsoever in such a view.
When God commands us to be holy for I am holy (1 Peter 1:14-16), if he is inevitably holy by nature, and we are not, then He has commanded us, on pain of eternal death, to do that which he knows to be perfectly impossible.
Blessings,
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 3/22/2005 1:57 AM (GMT -6) | | | John,
Don't worry about the rain. We always look forward to rain, snow, hail, etc. here in the desert! Just no wind. So nobody can blow hot air this way.
Anyway, about your post. That was actually the point I was making. To bring back the last thing I wrote in one of my posts:
I'd say the only way to resolve this is to claim that God has no choice... He has to be good because He is good; it's (an) essential attribute to Him because it is inseparable. (from post on 3/19/2005 8:39 PM )
I should have clarified my view on "good": it is fixed and cannot change. What is good in this world would still be good in all other possible worlds. In reality, God cannot change the definition of good. If what is good were subjugated to God's whims, then yes, it would be arbitrary. That's why I say it goes much deeper than that. God is good, just as He is love, He is spirit, He is light, etc. This is also why I don't believe it is possible for God to "will" Himself to do good or "will" Himself to not sin (referring to what you wrote: God can not sin because He wills not to.) He simply can't sin. There is no "will" involved.
I brought up the Euthryphro Dilemma because of my previous post, second paragraph (from post on 3/16/2005 5:22 PM)... if God chooses to be good, then all we have left is the Euthryphro Dilemma. If God is good, then we don't have the Dilemma on our hands. Your quote seems to lead to one side of the Dilemma: "God wills them (things that are good) because they're good" (also from post on 3/19/2005 8:39 PM). This seems to place "good" above God.
The thing that I am not saying is that God can change right into wrong and call it good. I just briefly found a website that explains "rightarianism", and I don't think I espouse that idea (ie, God changing right into wrong and calling it good). Since God essentially is good, he can't change right into wrong.
That's it for now. Let me know what feedback you have to this.
Post Edited (Violin for God) : 3/22/2005 1:01:40 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:13 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|