God’s revelation of His perfect self provides a foundation for our knowledge about the Divine.
Third of a series: (1) “Bavinck in Brief: Method as Model“, (2) “Bavinck in Brief: A Presbyterian Lifestyle”
Dutch theology professor Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) represents the historic, conservative Reformed tradition. He avoids focusing on narrow concerns of older Reformed preoccupations such as decretal theology as well as more modern interests such as sphere sovereignty. The Bible and the ancient and Reformed creeds, confessions and catechisms are the basis of his dogmatics — theology in the service of the Church community.
“A good knowledge of the divine attributes is the foundation of much of Christian spirituality.”
Bavinck’s discussion of God’s attributes (characteristics or qualities such as unity, infinity, and love) illustrates his approach (Reformed Dogmatics 2, chs. 3-5). However, it must be said that his views render Bavinck, in the eyes of some, as merely an example of a brilliant proponent of an outdated perspective that does not serve our modern context well. He gives priority to an inadequate view that cannot do justice to what is seen as the reality of who God is and is doing in the world.
Even among conservative theologians, talk of the attributes of God is not popular. Anthony Thiselton notes in the entry for this topic in his dictionary of theology that a growing number of modern theologians think that assigning characteristics to the divine “reduces God’s transcendence” and “may also seem to imply that God is a static object” (Thiselton Companion to Christian Theology, p. 90). Thiselton concludes his entry on attributes by asserting: “In general, the term is not downright ‘wrong’ but is ill-advised, and not the happiest term to use of God.”
Discussing divine attributes is far from easy. There is no agreement about the number of attributes. Some even claim that certain of God’s actions constitute attributes. The recent missional claim that “sentness” is a fundamental characteristic of God’s nature and not just one of His loving activities is one such contention. In addition, attributes have been organized by Christian churches and thinkers into many different categories and sub-categories.
“Far from objectifying God, the scripturally-based divine attributes show us what He is truly like.”
Yet a good knowledge of the divine attributes is the foundation of much of Christian spirituality. Lewis Bayly, a Church of England bishop (ca. 1575-1613), outlined them and their importance at the beginning of his wildly popular and influential devotional book The Practice of Piety. More recently, A.W. Tozer (1897-1963), whose final pastorate was at Toronto’s Avenue Road church (now a Hare Krishna temple) in the 1960’s, gave us an inspiring exposition of the attributes in his much-loved book The Knowledge of the Holy.
Both Bayly and Bavinck justify the importance of the attributes by pointing to the Bible’s names for and descriptions of the divine. In their treatments of the subject, they both first outline the traits of the living God as derived from His names as found in the Bible, such as Elohim, Yahweh, Adonai, El Shaddai and Abba. (Bayly terms these ‘nominal’ attributes, from the Latin for ‘name.’) And Bavinck notes that the Bible has no problem with applying certain attributes directly to God, as John did when he wrote that He is love and light (1 John 1:4; 4:8; Reformed Dogmatics 2, p. 173). He emphasizes that these are not just descriptive adjectives such as loving and truthful, but real substantives (nouns).
As Tozer asserts in the opening chapters of The Knowledge of the Holy, and Bavinck does in all his writing, the biblical revelation must be preeminent basis on which Christians found their ongoing relationship with God. Far from objectifying God, the scripturally-based divine attributes show us what He is truly like. Writes Tozer: “While the name of God is secret and His essential nature incomprehensible, He in condescending love has by revelation declared certain things to be true of Himself. These we call attributes” (ch. 2).
“God reveals his nature in our language and in ways that are familiar to us, his creatures.”
Bavinck, like Tozer and John Calvin, stresses that divine revelation itself is due to the condescension, or accommodation, of God. God reveals his nature in our language and in ways that are familiar to us, his creatures, preeminently in the Bible. In his view, God made humans in His own image, so that what we see in humanity and call love, wisdom or justice, reflect what God is like. It is not exhaustive truth, but it is truth nevertheless.
Bavinck further contends that this language about God, although couched in images that are familiar to us as humans, is not merely symbolic. It reflects, albeit dimly, the reality of the divine. Bavinck summarized his view in one of the key passages in all of his work, which outlines five fundamental principles of theology. He states: “… this knowledge is only a finite image, a faint likeness and creaturely impression of the perfect knowledge that God has of himself.” And yet “…our knowledge of God is nevertheless true, pure, and trustworthy because it has for its foundation God’s self-consciousness, its archetype, and his self-revelation in the cosmos” (Reformed Dogmatics 2, p. 110).
When talking about God’s attributes, Bavinck follows the common Reformed pattern of dividing them into those that are incommunicable and those that are communicable. (The first footnote in the article “Attributes of God in Christianity” on the Wikipedia.org website cites Bavinck’s view on this.) He is well aware of the limitations and dangers of this format, and outlines his specific meaning for it (Reformed Dogmatics 2, 135-137). In his opinion, this twofold division allows for orderly discussion and “has the advantage in that it safeguards Christian theism against both the error of pantheism and of Deism” (p. 136).
“This language about God, although couched in images that are familiar to us as humans, is not merely symbolic. It reflects, albeit dimly, the reality of the divine.”
Incommunicable attributes are the characteristics of God that He does not have in common with or share with humans. He lists them as independence (self-sufficiency, aseity), immutability (changeless in who He is), infinity (eternity, omnipresence), and oneness (unity and simplicity) (Reformed Dogmatics 2, pp. 136, ch 4).
Communicable attributes are those shared with creation and humanity, which is made in the image of God. Bavinck discusses them in five traditional categories: spiritual nature (such as invisibility); intellectual attributes (knowledge, trustworthiness, wisdom); moral attributes (goodness, holiness, justice); attributes of sovereignty; and lastly, perfection, blessedness and glory (Reformed Dogmatics 2, ch. 5). More strongly than Bavinck, J.I Packer (1926-2020) highlighted the action of God communicating, or imbuing, humans with His own attributes: “…God is at work in Christian believers to repair his ruined image by communicating these qualities to them afresh” (Knowing God, ch. 10). Bavinck, however, does affirm that God shares His nature with humanity.
As important as they are in themselves, the way in which attributes are studied is equally consequential. In this regard, the incommunicable attribute of simplicity (sometimes viewed as a sub-category of unity) illumines the proper path to follow. God, while described in terms of his many characteristics, is one — He is simple. Bayly, for example, in the opening sections of The Practice of Piety, begins his outline of the “real” attributes with Simpleness, meaning that God is not a composite of various different traits. We are certainly permitted to talk of God’s attributes, as do the Scriptures, but they must not be seen as component parts of the divine.
“This knowledge is only a finite image, a faint likeness and creaturely impression of the perfect knowledge that God has of himself.”
Another error that can occur is noted by J.I. Packer, who asserts that God’s simplicity means that He “cannot be torn different ways by divergent thoughts and desires” (Knowing God, ch. 10). That is, there is no contradiction in God. Prioritizing or playing one attribute off against another is a temptation if God’s attributes are considered as separate virtues and not as one.
As for Tozer, early on in his discussion of God he underlines the significance of God being simple. Tozer is particularly insistent that God be conceived of as unique, going so far as to contend that we should not use “such words as trait, characteristic, quality” when talking of Him. God is “simple, uncomplex, one with Himself,” and “does not divide himself to perform a work, but works in the total unity of His being” (The Knowledge of the Holy, ch. 3).
Bavinck summarizes the situation succinctly, writing that “on account of its absolute perfection, every attribute of God is identical with his essence” (Reformed Dogmatics 2, p. 173). He declares in strong terms that “all his attributes are divine, hence infinite and one with his being” (p. 176). They are not mere descriptive terms of an independent, unknowable Being. God’s existence (being) and his essence (attributes) are one. God is simple in this regard as well as with respect to the unity of his communicable attributes.
“God’s existence (being) and his essence (attributes) are one. God is simple in this regard . . .”
Of course, declaring that all the communicable attributes are identical with God appears to make them identical to one another (p. 135). That does not seem to make sense. But this is a problem for our human language, and not for the reality of God. The doctrine of the Trinity, the “three in one,” is described in similar terms. Bavinck notes with respect to the Trinity that “the uncompounded (simple) being exists in three persons” yet they can be distinguished (p. 177).
For Bavinck in particular, the attribute of simplicity guards against the dualism of pantheistic philosophy (God is the world, with Absolute Being, Supreme Being, or Substance participating in it). In historic Christian theology, there is no dualism in the sense of Absolute Being that is separate from, and the basis of, his attributes. God is personal, not an unknowable abstraction. We can describe Him in keeping with what He has revealed to us (pp. 176-177). The fact that we have many names for God does not require us to abstract from them a single factor. Instead, they declare His richness. “Every name refers to the same full divine being, but each time from a particular angle, the angle from which it reveals itself to us in his works. God is therefore simple in multiplicity and manifold in his simplicity (Augustine)” (p.177).
Conclusion
Knowledge of and appreciation for the divine attributes are of utmost importance in our ongoing relationship to God. The devotional writings of respected leaders such as Lewis Bayly, A.W. Tozer and J.I. Packer witness to the need to base our Christian spirituality upon the bedrock of God’s character as revealed in Scripture. The second chapter of the Westminster Confession and the companion catechisms’ questions about God in the Westminster Shorter (Q.4) and Larger (Q.7) attest to their significance for Reformed doctrine. And how many great hymns extol the attributes in song?
“To stray from the foundation of what the Bible says about God and His attributes by ignoring them, by prioritizing one attribute over another, or by treating them apart from Him is to do Him a disservice.”
As for Herman Bavinck, he has devoted three full chapters to the attributes in the second volume of his 4-volume Reformed Dogmatics. He provides a detailed overview of the issues with respect to them, citing countless Bible passages and engaging with numerous philosophical and theological points of view that run counter to Reformed tradition on this subject. The attributes are not a minor matter.
In addition, Bavinck takes time to explain the significance of the concept of simplicity in some detail. The attributes themselves should not be the primary focus of our study, as if they were virtues that had an existence of their own. The communicable attributes of justice, wisdom and love cannot be separated from each other nor from God, who is all of those things. His attributes are equal to each other and His existence is identical to his essence. God is Love and God is Light.
To stray from the foundation of what the Bible says about God and His attributes by ignoring them, by prioritizing one attribute over another, or by treating them apart from Him is to do Him a disservice. God, simply, in the fulness that He has revealed Himself to us, should be our focus, challenging as that may be.
_____________________
See accompanying article “Reformed Dogmatics—a suggested guide”
