Page 1 of 5

God's attributes

PostPosted: January 18th, 2009, 11:25 pm
by Bluegoat

Re: God's attributes

PostPosted: January 19th, 2009, 4:55 am
by mitchellmckain

Re: God's attributes

PostPosted: January 19th, 2009, 1:21 pm
by Bluegoat

Re: God's attributes

PostPosted: January 19th, 2009, 4:58 pm
by mitchellmckain
To be a bridge between the thinking of different people is to be a peacemaker and such our Lord has said, "shall be called sons of God."


In other words, thanks for being such a bridge, Bluegoat.

Re: God's attributes

PostPosted: January 19th, 2009, 10:09 pm
by postodave

Re: God's attributes

PostPosted: January 20th, 2009, 4:50 pm
by Bluegoat
I said that I was going to try to present Aquinas' view of God's attributes. I have decided instead to try to present St. Anselm's. I am a lot more familiar with Anselm, and I can even take his stuff in the bath, unlike the Summa, which makes preparing this a lot easier :wink:

So Anselm tells us:


God is self- existent, that is he does not come into being from nothing, but rather has being through himself.

He is a perfect unity, radically one and simple.

God is everything that it is better to be than not to be. Thus he can be said to have certain perfections, or attributes; wisdom, mercy, justice. etc. These perfections are not parts of God, as we can see from his unity. God's being is identical with himself, so he is his wisdom, his justice, and so on. His attributes are also identical with each other.

God does not suffer accidents, such as colour, that is, he has no attributes which are not necessary to his being. Everything he is he is fully, so it is not possible for him to have accidents. However, Anselm does allow for accidents of relation, which he says are not truly accidents. So we can say that God is greater than creation, without implying that creation is necessary to God. Anselm says that accidents of relation do not effect a change in essence or imply mutability. For example, although I could be described as a wife and mother, those descriptions do not imply mutability in my essence. I am still myself if those "accidents" change. (Perhaps this is why there is no marraige in heaven?)

Anselm makes an important note to all of this though; he maintains that God is ineffable. All of the perfections that we attribute to God do not really constitute God's essence. They are pointers which direct us to God's essence because of their likeness to him. But his essence is itself ineffable.

As far as our relation to God and his attributes Anselm says:

Creation is dependent on God and has its being through him. All things are created by the Supreme Being and live through it.

Creation came into existence from nothing. However, it did have a kind of existance prior to creation in the mind of the Creator, that is the ideas of created things existed in the mind of God. These ideas expressions are the reality, the sole and first cause of all creation.

The expression of the Supreme Being IS the Supreme Being (based on his unity.) This being supports, surpasses, permeates, and includes all things.

This expression (which he later identifies with the Word) is the reality of all things, while creation is a likeness of the reality. The Word is a "true and simple essence" but creation is "an imperfect imitation of that essence."


In his article, as I understand it, Clouser makes the following argument about this way of thinking about God's attributes:


God's attributes, being identical with his being, must, in their essence, be uncreated. So justice, for example, in it's true and perfect form, is uncreated. I assume the same would apply for being itself.

Creation also has some of these attributes, such as wisdom or justice, even if in a lesser fashion than God. So these aspects of creation must, in their essence, be uncreated.

God does not have "control" over his own attributes. He cannot make himself unjust or unwise. He is what he is. He is changeless, for to change from perfection would be to become less perfect.

(So far Anselm would agree entirely.)

Clouser then goes on to say "it does indeed seem to follow that God could not take on the form of existence of the creature.... it would be impossible for God to be temporal in any way."

Now, I think he is saying that this is so because taking on the form of the creature would mean that God would have to change, that God's attributes would have to change. So that if creation contains within itself something uncreated, these attributes of God, even in a lesser form, then the essence of God is subject to change. But I am not sure of my interpretation here, I think he is pretty unclear. But it seems to me that he is also touching on the incarnation, even if that is not his intention.

I think that I will leave this here for now, and look at the second part of Clouser's argument later; this is getting awfully long.

Re: God's attributes

PostPosted: January 21st, 2009, 11:15 pm
by postodave

Re: God's attributes

PostPosted: January 22nd, 2009, 3:03 am
by mitchellmckain

Re: God's attributes

PostPosted: January 22nd, 2009, 11:06 pm
by postodave

Re: God's attributes

PostPosted: January 23rd, 2009, 1:44 am
by mitchellmckain

Re: God's attributes

PostPosted: January 23rd, 2009, 6:04 pm
by Bluegoat

Re: God's attributes

PostPosted: January 23rd, 2009, 11:45 pm
by mitchellmckain

Re: God's attributes

PostPosted: January 24th, 2009, 12:33 am
by Bluegoat

Re: God's attributes

PostPosted: January 24th, 2009, 11:11 am
by mitchellmckain

Re: God's attributes

PostPosted: January 25th, 2009, 12:51 pm
by Bluegoat