I alluded to an internal debate I’ve had over the past few weeks a while back. I’m still stuck.
Here’s the thought-flow process:
1. G-d’s essence is eternal, lacking nothing, and cannot be added to or subtracted from.
2. What does this say of His Wrath and Mercy? Both are clearly unnecessary in the relationship of the godhead.
3. His Wrath we can attribute to His Righteousness; it is an outpouring of His Righteous character. We would not say “G-d is Wrath,” though we understand that it is part of His natural response to sin.
4. What of Mercy? If His essence is eternal and cannot be changed, and there is no need for Him to display Mercy to Himself, what is this an outpouring of? And, can we not say “G-d is Mercy”?
5. Dr. Griffith’s answer was to suggest that while G-d does not change, in His wisdom and foreknowledge, He plans for change, and thus planned to be merciful.
6. I can’t buy it. This implies that Mercy resided in His character from eternity for He planned it to be that way. And, in my mind, that comes dangerously close to suggesting that He needed to create us to display His Mercy.
7. (I’m picking on Mercy here, but I think the same argument could be said for Grace.)
8. Does it lessen G-d to say that He is not Mercy, (but merciful) i.e., that it is not part of His eternal essence? I think it does.
9. Thus, my standstill. I cannot reconcile His eternal essence with His unchangeablity and His lack of need for us.
About Me
- Ryann
- United States
- Studying Islam and Mid East politics from liberal academic institutions led to my quest for moderation. Currently pursuing an M.A.R. from Reformed Theological Seminary, studying Hebrew and Greek, and wishing I had more time to read.
3 comments:
Hmmm. Why would it diminish Him to say that He is merely merciful when He is also perfect Love and Holiness?
We miss you on Wednesday night. Our Calvinism quotient has fallen appreciably. ;-)
Best wishes,
Rob.
Hi Rob,
Good to hear from you!
More than likely, I'm making a bigger deal of this than I aught.
I’d like to base my claim (confusion?) on Ex 34:6, where the Lord reveals his name. Where some translate “compassionate and gracious” others use “merciful.” I realize this does little for my argument since it is in the adjective form here… but I feel that the context in which it is used weighs heavier than the part of speech being employed. This is the holy name of the Most High. The sense I get is that all the adjectives used in this verse are part of who G-d is at His core – his essence. Better yet, what some theologians term esse – the very “substances” that make Him G-d.
In all honesty, this will lead to a discourse of essence and attributes. I’ll get there some day… for now, I must sleep.
I cannot reconcile His eternal essence with His unchangeablity and His lack of need for us.
When you limit your understanding of God to what can be discerned through a system of man-made theology (such as reformed, covenant, dispensational, whatever), human logic, and English (or Greek, or Hebrew, or Latin, or French, especially French), then when you encounter something that is outside of that system, you will not be able to understand it.
And even if you are able to get outside of that system, there will still be some things about God that you will never understand, not in 10,000 years. You should be glad for that. Who wants to worship a God Who can be completely understood? I cannot even completely understand my close friends. Read the last 2 chapters of Job.
Next time you read a passage where God's wrath is displayed, approach it with the question, "is this possibly a part (you use the term 'outpouring') of God's love?"
Post a Comment