Basic HTML Version
32
III. Relation of the Being and Attributes of God
Some dogmaticians devote a separate chapter or chapters to the Being of God, before taking up
the discussion of His attributes. This is done, for instance, in the works of Mastricht, Ebrard,
Kuyper, and Shedd. Others prefer to consider the Being of God in connection with His attributes
in view of the fact that it is in these that He has revealed Himself. This is the more common
method, which is followed in the Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, and in the works of Turretin, à
Marck, Brakel, Bavinck, Hodge, and Honig. This difference of treatment is not indicative of any
serious fundamental disagreement between them. They are all agreed that the attributes are
not mere names to which no reality corresponds, nor separate parts of a composite God, but
essential qualities in which the Being of God is revealed and with which it can be identified. The
only difference would seem to be that some seek to distinguish between the Being and the
attributes of God more than others do.
A. The Being of God.
It is quite evident that the Being of God does not admit of any scientific definition. In order to
give a logical definition of God, we would have to begin by going in search of some higher
concept, under which God could be co-ordinated with other concepts; and would then have to
point out the characteristics that would be applicable to God only. Such a genetic-synthetic
definition cannot be given of God, since God is not one of several species of gods, which can be
subsumed under a single genus. At most only an analytical-descriptive definition is possible.
This merely names the characteristics of a person or thing, but leaves the essential being
unexplained. And even such a definition cannot be complete but only partial, because it is
impossible to give an exhaustive positive (as opposed to negative) description of God. It would
consist in an enumeration of all the known attributes of God, and these are to a great extent
negative in character.
The Bible never operates with an abstract concept of God, but always describes Him as the
Living God, who enters into various relations with His creatures, relations which are indicative
of several different attributes. In Kuyper’s Dictaten Dogmatiek[De Deo I, p. 28.] we are told that
God, personified as Wisdom, speaks of His essence in Prov. 8:14, when He ascribes to Himself
tushiyyach, a Hebrew word rendered “wezen” in the Holland translation. But this rendering is
very doubtful, and the English rendering “counsel” deserves preference. It has also been
pointed out that the Bible speaks of the nature of God in II Pet. 1:4, but this can hardly refer to
the essential Being of God, for we are not made partakers of the divine essence. An indication
of the very essence of God has been found in the name Jehovah, as interpreted by God Himself,
“I am that I am.” On the basis of this passage the essence of God was found in being itself,
abstract being. And this has been interpreted to mean self-existence or self-contained