The Nature and Character Of God

Everything that we can perceive as existing has a ground of being. That is, it depends on something else for its being. It is not self-existent and it came into being at some point in time. Even the universe—the collection of all that is—had an origin and a point in time—the big bang—when it came into existence.

To avoid an infinite regress of “grounds of being” there must be some unique entity that had no ground of being and never came into existence, but is itself the ground of being for everything else. [–fn Otherwise it’s “turtles all the way down”! See Appendix 1. –fn] Since this entity never came into being, it must be eternal. In order for it to be the basis for the being of all things, it must have somehow had in itself the potentiality for all that exists. This is what Paul means when he talks about the eternal power and deity of the one who brought creation into being.

The fact that God is eternal implies that his being is apart from anything else. Before he created anything, he was fully what he was. Nothing was necessary for him to be complete in himself. He did not create the universe to fulfill or embody some incomplete aspect of himself, otherwise what he created would in effect be a part of his nature. That is, God is independent of creation and does not depend on it in any way. Creation reveals God but does not define God.

God’s independence implies that every essential aspect of God’s nature must be an eternal aspect. To the extent that it is possible to talk about any essential aspect of God, it must be possible to do so in terms that do not depend on creation or the existence of anything else. This has some surprising implications that will appear later.

Another implication of God’s independence is that God is free. He does not have to do anything to be what he is. Anything he does, he does out of his purely free will.

The idea that God is unchanging is not as straightforward as the above. Some have expressed this by saying that “God cannot change.” [–fn I am always immediately suspicious of any formulation that has “God” as the subject and “cannot” as part of the predicate in the same sentence, because this would seem to imply limitation on God. Similarly for when people say, “God cannot be in the presence of sin.” –fn] The idea that God does not change can best be related to his eternity by saying that no part of God’s being or essence ever passes out of being or comes into being. It does not imply that God cannot act, or that his actions are in any way constrained. The only “limitation” on God is that he always acts in accordance with his own nature. That this is not as tautologous as it might seem will become apparent later.

Some things that eternity does not imply are ideas such as impassiveness or apathy. The idea that God is not affected by anything outside himself would be a true limitation on God. It would imply that he is static as well as unchangeable. But such a negative formulation is foreign to the God of the Bible. The apparent [–fn Having been trained in symbolic logic, I have become convinced that true paradox is simply contradiction, a sign that our thinking is incorrect. –fn] paradox of God’s compassion and his unchangeability is used as a literary device, similar to an oxymoron, in the following passage from Lamentations 3:22-23: “The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases, his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is thy faithfulness.”

In this passage God’s faithfulness, an aspect of his unchangeability, is reflected in the daily newness of his mercy. God’s unchangeability is not a static deadness but a continual outpouring of an abundance of love and creativeness.

The second fundamental attribute of God is that God is a trinity of co-equal, co-eternal persons. This differs from the idea that God is eternal in that it cannot be deduced. There is no way to figure out that God is a trinity unless it is revealed. It is, however, a fundamental attribute of God’s nature. Understanding the trinity has a decisive impact on how one views almost every other attribute of God.

For example, it has been noted that impassiveness as an attribute of God means that God’s “blessedness” [–fn Or happiness, or joy –fn] cannot be affected by anything. This invites the question of what constitutes the blessedness of God. One answer is to say that God’s blessedness consists in the love and joy emerging from the relationship between the persons of the trinity. Because the love of the persons of the trinity for one another is unshakable, God’s blessedness can never be injured by anything outside himself.

Taking this view sheds an amazing light on the words “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” If at the cross the Father abandoned the Son, the very blessedness of the trinity is put at stake in the act of redemption. This shows that while nothing can force God to move or be moved, God in his power to do all things can bring about circumstances where he is in some sense acted upon and moved. The suffering of the Son was true suffering and the abandonment of the Son by the Father affected the Godhead at its very core.

God as trinity means that God exists as three distinct foci of consciousness. Each is self-aware and has a distinct will and purpose. Each focus of consciousness within the being of God is a true person.

The unity of God is twofold. There is a unity of being, or of essence. That is, the persons of the trinity are ontologically one being. There is also a unity of relationship. The persons of God are one in their love for each other. This love is manifested in different ways depending on which person of the trinity is the one loving or being loved. The Father originates the being of the Son–”begets” the Son. The Son gives himself back to the Father in loving self-subordination. The Spirit is given being by the Father and the Son. [–fn While the direct biblical evidence is that “the Spirit proceeds from the Father,” there seems to be evidence that the Son is tied in with the origin of the Spirit as well. The Father sends the Spirit in the name of Jesus, and numerous times the Spirit is referred to as “the Spirit of Christ.” Also, it is difficult to understand the distinction between the Son and the Spirit unless both the Father and the Son are somehow involved in the being of the Spirit. –fn]

The ontological oneness of God is incommunicable. The relational oneness, on the other hand, is communicable. John 17 emphasizes this strongly, and Romans 8:29 implies that God’s intent from the beginning was that many beings bound together in this way should come into existence.

The notion of trinity means that relationship is fundamental to God’s nature. This makes sense of the idea that God is love. As noted above, every essential aspect of God’s nature must be eternal and must not depend on anything outside of God. Many have noted that eternal plurality in the very nature of God makes love meaningful as an eternal aspect of God. This aspect of trinity also sheds light on the idea of the image of God. The question of what that image consists of seems to be answered in Genesis 1:27 as the relational characteristic of mankind as male and female. This association of “image of God” with “male and female” is repeated in Genesis 5:1-2, indicating that it was not accidental. [–fn The passage in Romans 1:22ff describing how the loss of the glory of God was accompanied by a loss of the proper relationships between men and women is also evidence for this viewpoint. –fn]

The most basic derivative aspect of God is love. The Bible goes so far as to say that God is love. The oneness of the persons of the trinity is expressed relationally in John 17.

Love can be defined as “fully affirming the being of another.” When Christ says, “Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends,” this is what he means. His love moves him to affirm the being of his friends to the point of sacrificing his own life. This view of love is important as it shows that love is not exploitative nor casual in its commitment.

Love can only exist between distinct persons. For love to be a basic attribute of God rooted in eternity, God must be plural. The idea of the trinity, then, roots relationship at the very center of the meaning of reality. Our sense that relationships matter and are central to true happiness is validated in the idea of God as a trinity eternally in relationship. As noted above, the Bible seems to indicate that the intent of creation was to make possible many persons bound together with God in loving relationship.

If one argues that love is the most basic derivative aspect of God’s character, one takes on the obligation to show that every other aspect of God revealed in the Bible is consistent with love. This paper will attempt to take that into account in what follows.

One aspect of God that many argue is fundamental is his holiness. However, it is difficult to understand what holiness means as an eternal aspect of God. One example of this is the definition of holiness as “God’s separation from sin.” [–fn Professor Louie class lecture. –fn] Clearly this definition cannot be an eternal attribute of God, since it would imply that sin, or opposition to God’s will, is necessary for God to be who he is. [–fn 2020 I recently found that many reformed thinkers make this very point. For example, Jonathan Edwards says that sin is necessary to show the glory of God’s hatred for sin. I think this is based on a confused view of sin and evil. –fn] Similarly the idea of holiness as purity would seem to require something outside of God for him to be pure with regard to. Holiness as moral perfection would imply that there is a moral standard by which God could be measured, existing over against God in some fashion.

Holiness, to be a basic attribute of God, must somehow make sense in eternity. The only way holiness can be understood in that sense is to say that God is fully what he is. This is a tautology, but it is a biblical tautology. [–fn I.e. Exodus 3:14. –fn] It becomes fruitful when one considers it in relation to humanity. When God says, “You must be holy for I am holy,” he is saying that humanity has lost its connection with itself. This concept has become embedded in language in such words as “duplicitous” or “inhuman.” God, the holy one, is not at odds with himself, nor does he ever act contrary to himself. Properly understood, holiness in a person is when that person become fully what he is, fully what God intended.

The separation aspect of holiness can be seen clearly in that when someone is what he is, he is separate from everything that he is not. In a fallen universe where there are wills opposed to God, it becomes possible to have visions of other forms and purposes for one’s being. To affirm the will and purpose of God in making a person and in making that person the way he is, one must deny that which speaks of another purpose or another form that one could take. In fact, those other forms and purposes are purely parasitic [–fn That is, depending entirely on God for their existence in spite of their rejection of his will. –fn] cheats and deceptions leading to destruction, but they have the appearance of reality and even of freedom with respect to what seems to be the slavery of following God’s will.

Holiness is often associated with judgment and wrath. However, the Bible more than once associates holiness with mercy. Hosea 11:9 says, “I will not execute my fierce anger, I will not again destroy Ephraim, for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come to destroy.” In Luke 1:72 Zechariah sees the birth of John the Baptist, foreshadowing the Messiah, as the time where God has come “to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant . . . .” In this way God’s holiness is associated with faithfulness to his own character—a character with relationship and love at its very core—and to that which he has promised. God will be who he is.

In trying to answer the question of what it means to say that God is good, a problem similar to that which arises in considering holiness also arises here. What does it mean to say that God is good from eternity? Does God obey some standard of goodness? Then that standard would be in some sense superior to God. Where would such a standard come from in eternity?

Jacques Ellul says, “In the Bible the good is not prior to God. The good is not God. The good is the will of God. All that God wills is good, not because God is subject to the good, obedient to the good, but simply because God wills it.” [–fn Jacques Ellul, To Will & To Do, Pilgrim Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1969, p. 6. –fn] In other words, goodness is not a static concept that constrains God, but a dynamic quality that reflects God’s purposes. God is not at odds with goodness, as though he would do one thing but “goodness” forces him to do something else. Instead, goodness is simply the full expression of God’s will.

Thus goodness in some sense does not answer a question about God’s character, but instead simply refers back to that character. In a manner similar to holiness, the meaning and content of goodness must be explicated in terms of God’s nature.

In a footnote to the above passage, Ellul says, “…It could hardly be a matter of saying that the good is simply a label which God pastes to the outside of anything at all. His word is a creative word, and when he speaks the good exists as good. God is neither arbitrary or tyrannical. He is love, and when he expresses his will it is a will of love. Hence the good given by God is good for us.” [–fn ibid., p. 268. –fn]

Here God’s goodness is associated with his creativity. The biblical evidence shows this. God pronounces the various aspects of creation “good” (Genesis 1:4, 1.10, 1.12, 1.18, 1.21, 1.25) and finally “very good” (Genesis 1.31). To the extent that creation reflects God’s purposes it is good.

Because goodness is associated with creation, it is associated with being. God’s creative act brought into being a harmonious diversity of creatures. Every created thing is in accord with God’s will by simply being what he made it to be. Each created thing is most in God’s will when it is most fulfilled in being what it is.

God’s goodness, then, is his affirmation of being. Thus his goodness, as Ellul notes, reflects love. By understanding goodness and love in terms of being like this, other attributes of God’s nature will become more clear.

Justice can also be defined in terms of being. It is the principle that no one should fulfill his being at the expense of that of another. This ties justice in as an aspect or implication of love and goodness.

Injustice says that the fulfillment of the being of the perpetrator of the injustice is more important than that of the one being exploited. Injustice rejects the fact that God’s ends are to be fulfilled in all creatures and instead sees the fulfillment of the exploiter and the exploited in opposition to one another. This casts doubt on God’s wisdom and love, because it implies that God was unable or unwilling to arrange things so that all his creation could be fulfilled in its full glory together.

From this perspective justice is summed up in love. When the Bible says, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” it reflects this idea that one must see the being of one’s neighbor to be as precious as one’s own. Love is always just–it may surpass the strict requirements of justice and subordinate its own fulfillment to another, but it never fails to rise to the level of justice.

The Bible says that God is just. This means that everything he does is aimed at the full expression of being for all of creation. Of course this is sensible since he created everything; his desire is that all things be what he intended them to be.

What complicates the issue is that God has created wills other than his own. As long as these wills are in harmony with his, everything is fine. But when they oppose God’s will, issues of injustice and God’s response to injustice arise.

When God confronts a will opposed to his own, there would seem to be two options. God could interfere with that will and cause it to be conformed to his own, or he could allow it to continue in its opposition. Because God intends to affirm the being of his creatures, he has apparently chosen to allow wills opposed to his own to continue in their opposition.

Because, again, God affirms his creatures in their ability to act in creation, a will opposed to God’s will create injustice. Again it seems that there are two options in how God could respond. First, he could override the unjust actions. Second, he could allow these actions to have their effects and somehow deal with those effects. Apparently God has chosen the second of these two options, again affirming the being of even those in his creation who are opposed to him.

By doing this, and yet still claiming to be just, God assumes the onus of fulfilling the being of his creation in the midst of unjust actions. This takes on two forms.

First, for those who oppose God’s will, the consequences of their actions lead to destruction. This is inevitable because God’s will is the fullness of being for all creatures; to oppose that will is to will destruction of being. The Bible sums this up by saying “The wages of sin is death.” This does not mean that sin creates a debt that must be paid. Rather the contrary. Sin has consequences; those consequences are simply the logical outcome of the actions of wills opposed to God. Because God affirms those wills even in their opposition, he allows the consequences of their actions to fall upon them. To not do so would be to deny that the will or actions of his creatures matter.

Second, God acts to fulfill the being of those who conform to God’s will (even those who repent of their former opposition to his will). He does this, not by unwinding their actions, but by redeeming them. Redemption is an act of re-creation. God re-creates creation so that the actions that were formerly destructive of being now become the means whereby the being of those who conform to God’s will is fulfilled. “All things happen for good to those who love God and are called according to his purpose.” Or, as Joseph said, “As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.”

Redemption is God’s chosen means to deal with injustice. The ultimate example of this is the crucifixion, where the injustice of putting Christ to death became the means whereby many were saved from sin itself. This is more than just on God’s part, because he allowed the Son to be emptied and to lay down his life for those who opposed God.

Righteousness can be defined as right-standing in relationship to others. That right-standing is based on justice. One stands rightly in relation to another when one has treated another justly.

The ultimate in right-standing is obviously love. A person cannot stand more rightly in relation to another than when there is a relationship of love between the two. As Paul puts it, “Love does no harm to its neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10). That is, love will never treat another unjustly; it will always seek to fulfil the being of its object.

Because God is loving, he is righteous. He always acts in a way that is best for everyone concerned. In particular, God never “breaks eggs to make omelets.” He never treats anyone as a means to an end other than that person’s own fulfillment. This is implicit, for example, in the statement Paul makes in Galatians 5:1: “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not be bound again to a yoke of slavery.” Christ’s act of salvation, and the liberation it entails, had as one of its ends that a person should become free, not as a means to some other end, but simply so that he would be free. This freedom is unqualified; because it is true freedom it can even be misdirected into license (Galatians 5:13). But the answer is not to delete the freedom, but to direct the freedom toward loving service of one another. Yet this remains the free choice of the believer.

Since God’s righteousness is oriented toward the fulfillment of all people, it stands against injustice (that is, the involuntary subjection of one person to the good of another). God as the creator takes the part of everyone in his creation. If someone is unjust to another person, he is unjust to God. This is what David means when he says, hyperbolically, “Against you, and you only, have I sinned” (Psalm 51:4). This does not mean that David denied his injustice toward Uriah the Hittite. Instead, he was saying that his sin was not just a matter between him and Uriah, but it attacked God and God’s purpose for his creation.

If God is righteous, that means that he stands rightly toward everyone in creation. What does that mean in regard to those who oppose him?

First, it means that God has not mistreated them. Their opposition is not just; it is irrational.

Second, it means that God commits himself to treating even those who oppose him with justice. The Bible repeatedly reveals God as one who asks, “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” God remains righteous in his intention toward even the wicked. As Jesus says, “He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.”

Third, God opposes the wicked. While God intends good towards everyone, that intention does not mean he acquiesces in what evil people do. Rather the opposite. The problem is that because humanity is fallen, everyone is unrighteous before God. Everyone has set himself against God’s purposes in one way or another. [–fn I am not advancing a theory of total depravity here; I am claiming that the Bible asserts the fact that humanity as a whole is alienated from God –fn] There is nobody who can claim right standing before God because everyone is connected to the rest of humanity by bonds of upbringing, culture, biology, language and so on. These bonds shape people and socialize them into alienation from God. [–fn I am not claiming, as Calvin does, that children are guilty before they’ve done anything wrong (cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, volume one, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970, book II, chapter I, pp. 217-218.). I do claim, however, that apart from God’s intervention, they will inevitably participate in the predominating alienation from God. –fn] Thus in general there is no choosing between one wicked person and another. When nations go to war, both sides kill and destroy. There may be lesser evils, and God does seem to choose between them, allowing, for example, the lesser evil of the Allies (firebombing and using nuclear weapons against civilians as a military strategy) to triumph over the Nazis (deliberate large-scale genocide with no military value). Yet he also seems to allow human evil to fulfil itself. This is an aspect of his wrath.

Because God is relational, right-standing before God is relational. This is why God allows faith as the basis of right-standing before him (i.e. “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”). In taking this approach to dealing with sin, God shows the primacy of relationships over everything else. One can say that God bets that the power of the relationship with him will be greater than any alienation that sin can produce. God’s own presence is powerful enough to heal the brokenness of creation. Yet God respects the freedom he gave humanity so that he will not override it without permission. He will not intrude where he is not wanted. He must be welcomed and invited. This, again, is because he treats his creation with love.

The definitive biblical exposition of God’s wrath seems to be Romans 1:18-32. Verse 18 says, “The wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.” This revelation follows the revelation of God’s righteousness which is “through faith for faith,” thus ordering a precedence. Right standing before God through faith comes before wrath.

The wrath itself is manifested as abandonment. This happens three times: “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts . . . ” (verse 24), “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions . . . ” (verse 26) and “. . . God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct” (verse 28).

In this passage wrath takes on a relational character. As the wickedness of humanity progresses, God withdraws himself. He allows himself to be pushed out of relation to his creation. But that withdrawing is progressive in proportion; it is not all at once.

Romans 1 is not the only biblical evidence for this viewpoint. Isaiah 54:7 says,

For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called.

For the LORD has called you like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, like a wife of youth when she is cast off, says your God.

For a brief moment I forsook you, but with great compassion I will gather you. In overflowing wrath for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you, says the LORD, your Redeemer.

From this passage it is clear that wrath stands over against the relationship God has with someone, that the expression of “overflowing wrath” is for him to “hide his face.” Since God is ultimately relational, and since relationship is the blessedness of creation, then the withdrawal of relationship is the ultimate expression of wrath.

Wrath is clearly not an inherent attribute of God. The Bible repeatedly emphasizes that wrath is “for a moment”. The above passage says this, as does Psalm 73:19: “For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime.” In Deuteronomy 5:9-10 he says, “…I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Even in this passage, God speaks of his wrath as limited. God also “turns from his anger,” (Hosea 14:4, Joel 2:13, Jonah 3:9 etc.) Thus wrath cannot be an eternal attribute of God.

In fact, because wrath respects the decision of the wicked one to oppose God, wrath is actually an aspect of God’s love, affirming the being and choice of the one rejecting God. Wrath is the rejection of relationship, but that is because that relationship is unwelcome. Even in such circumstances God pursues and forgives, and only the ultimate hardness of the one pursued leaves that one in wrath.

Because relationship with God is life (John 17:3) then anyone out of relationship with God must experience death. Death is the disconnection from all things including one’s own being. The bible seems to speak in similar ways about the terms “death” and “destruction”. I do not know whether death is eternal in the sense of “eternally prolonged,” though there is biblical evidence for this viewpoint. It seems certain that this death is eternal in the sense of “eternally final.”

This view of wrath sheds an interesting light on the point where Jesus, on the cross, says, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Traditional Protestant theology has rightly seen this as the point where God’s wrath was expressed. However, it has wrongly seen God’s wrath as penal. That is, the “penal substitution” view takes the abandonment of Jesus on the cross as fulfilling a need God had to punish sin. This idea that “God had to punish sin” seems dubious for at least two reasons.

First, it implies lack of freedom on God’s part. What was it that forced God to punish sin? Answers like “God’s holiness” or “God is love, but he is also just” beg the question. To say “God is holy so he must punish sin,” is, as has been explained above, equivalent to saying, “God is God, so he must punish sin.” In the same way, to say “God is just so he must punish sin” would seem to obligate the person holding this view to say how punishing sin causes God’s purposes to be better fulfilled.

Second, it seems to run counter to the way God has asked us to forgive. Jesus says to forgive as we have been forgiven. He does not say, “Make sure offenses against you are paid for, then forgive.” In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the servant is forgiven the debt. There is no question of the debt being repaid somehow by someone else. The idea that God freely forgives sin makes his desire that we forgive those who sin against us more compelling.

Given the above, two questions arise. First, why did Christ die? And second, why did God abandon him?

I have added an appendix to this paper giving a relational view of the atonement to answer the first question. [–fn See Appendix 2 –fn]

Given the necessity of Christ’s death, the discussion above makes it clear why God abandoned Christ on the cross: it was the means whereby death became possible for the Son of God. It was noted that relationship with God is life. This is not just spiritual hot air. To be in relational connection with God is to have life in all its eternal power and effectiveness. The Son of God could not die without being disconnected from life; it would not make sense. Thus the abandonment of Christ on the cross was instrumental and not punitive. It was the means whereby God claimed death as his own and for his own purposes. It was the means whereby Christ conquered death and stripped it of its power.

This view reconciles the seemingly contrasting ideas that God’s wrath was poured out on Christ and that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself;” “God commended his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us;” and “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son.” Christ’s death was an act of love; “wrath”–relational abandonment–was the counterintuitive means whereby God accomplished his desire to redeem the world.

One current strand of teaching is the idea that everything exists for God’s glory. The idea that this is “the best of all possible worlds” uses God’s glory as the metric for making that determination. This idea is in tension with the “other-centeredness” of God, the idea that in the act of creation God willed that other beings come into a fullness of expression.

To resolve this tension, it is helpful to look carefully at the meaning of the word “glory”. Both the Greek and Hebrew words have an implication of visibility. One of the primary meanings of doxa is “radiance”. This is also an aspect of the Hebrew word for glory. In other words, an important aspect of the idea of glory is that of visibility. Glory, then, is worth made visible.

This of course means that glory is relational. There must be that which is glorious and that which perceives the glory. Again the idea of the trinity comes to the rescue here to explain how a relational concept could apply to God from eternity. In particular, in John 17:5 Jesus asks that he be glorified in the presence of the Father “with the glory which I had with you before the world was made.” So in eternity the persons of the trinity perceived the glory of one another.

The fact that the persons of the trinity glorified one another from eternity implies that the fullness of God’s glory was already manifest. However, the idea that glory is revealed worth means that there is enjoyment in the perception of glory. When Jesus prays that those that the Father has given to him might see his glory, he is asking to be allowed to give a gift to them.

Human examples might help make this clear. In a sporting event, spectators usually identify with “their” team. If it wins, they bask in the reflected glory of their team. It is not their glory; they did not perform the athletic feats that allowed the team to win. But they nevertheless have a strong sense of joy and feel as if they were part of the accomplishment.

Similarly, a parent basks in the reflected glory of his child’s success. In fact, any relational identification allows one to feel joy in the glory of another. This is one aspect of the Father’s intention in creating “many brethren” for his Son–the idea that through the sharing of glory the universe should be filled with joy. There is a foreshadowing of this in Job 38:1-8: “. . . when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy.”

One of the consequences of the fall is that everyone “came short of the glory of God.” One of the promises believers are given is “the hope of glory;” the moment when the Father says, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” Creation waits in “eager longing” for the revealing of the glory that will be revealed in the sons of God. God is eager to share his glory and to glorify those that love him. As creator he is the source of all glory; as the giver of all things he gives his glory away with a free hand, and that is a major part of the joy of knowing him.

There are those who argue that sovereignty is the primary attribute of God. Again this runs afoul of the idea that any fundamental attribute of God must be eternal and must not depend on creation. What is God sovereign over if there is no creation?

Given that God has created, he is indeed sovereign over all creation, since he is the ground of being for all creation. It depends on him and is created for his purposes. However, the form the sovereignty takes can be subtle and counterintuitive.

On the one extreme some teach the idea that everything that happens is directly caused by God. This claim is based on the idea that if it were not so, God would not be sovereign, since there would be things happening that he did not do, and possibly even things he did not will.

On the other extreme there are those who teach that creation is actually in some sense independent with respect to God–that it is outside of his control. This idea actually denies sovereignty and is very difficult to reconcile with the biblical evidence.

“Sovereignty” implies that God can do anything he wants that is not logically contradictory. So if God chooses to allow his creation freedom in the sense that he does not cause everything that happens in creation, he can do so. This does not contradict sovereignty; it is sovereignty. The one caveat is that creation never escapes God; he is always the ground of being for creation.

The idea that creation can be free with respect to God in the sense that he allows it to originate actions that he did not himself will or bring about allows the possibility that there could be things that happen that oppose his purposes. At that point it would seem that there are two alternatives. God could permit those things to occur or he could suppress them.

If he suppressed them, he would seem to be defeating his own purposes, since it was his will that creation should be free. But if he allowed them, he would seem to be allowing creation to thwart his purposes.

The greatest glory of God’s sovereignty is that he can indeed allow creation to be free and even to oppose him and still somehow fulfill his purposes. He does this by a mighty creative (that is, re-creative) act called “redemption”. Redemption is God interacting with creation in such a way that creation in its full freedom is led to fulfill God’s purposes, even when there are wills present in creation that are opposed to his.

The clearest statement of the dynamic of redemption is Joseph’s statement to his brothers: “As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” The idea here is that evil is still evil, but God claims the right to merge the stream of evil actions into his own purposes so that they end up doing the good that he intends.

The most powerful example of redemption is, of course, the cross and resurrection. One can say that at that point God confronted the most powerful attempt by his creation to escape him. He allowed it to happen in full foreknowledge that it would happen, and by the very means of that attempt he worked the salvation and reconciliation of creation to himself.

This view of redemption and sovereignty glorifies God because it shows that he can come to grips with wills outside and his own and still fulfill his purposes. This is more amazing than if he simply controlled everything, and it is more compatible with the view that God is loving toward his creation than if he brought about rebellion “for his own glory.”

Grace is often defined as “God’s unmerited favor.” This definition poses the question of what the primary aspect of grace is. Is the main idea of grace that the favor is unmerited, or is the main thing that it is favor? In other words, is grace primarily an aspect of God’s sovereignty or of his love?

The first alternative says that the main thing is that God chooses to have favor toward someone. This choice is not motivated by anything in its object. In fact, in some views it is not even explicable to humans. Taking this idea one step further, some speak of “irresistible grace”, grace that when given cannot be refused by the recipient. In this view, grace is God getting what he wants. It is simply a certain view of sovereignty, recast.

Paul Zahl has offered an alternative definition of grace: “one-way love” [–fn Paul F. M. Zahl, Grace in Practice, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2007, pp. 35-37. –fn]

He says, “Grace is a love that has nothing to do with you, the beloved. It has everything and only to do with the lover.” [–fn ibid., p. 36. –fn] While there is a lot to be said for this view, it still seems inapt. A human love of that sort would be very odd and quite likely pathological. While God’s love is not identical with human love, it is clear that God intends his love to be at least understood by analogy with human love, so a view of love that is too repugnant to human love must be viewed with suspicion.

Taking Zahl’s view as a point of departure, a more apt definition of grace might be “initiating love.” God’s grace is distinct from human love in that God always takes the initiative. He never holds back waiting for the other party to initiate; he always invites and prepares the way for a response.

Grace centers on the two main aspects of God’s character. It reflects his love, his relational nature and his desire to enter into relationship with the people he creates. And it is creative in that takes that which has lost value and re-creates value in it. [–fn Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, Harper & Row, Publishers, Incorporated, New York, New York, 1969, p. 78 –fn] The grace of God does not love that which is already lovable; rather, it creates loveliness in that which it loves. It does not love that which is perfect but perfects that which it loves.

The fact that grace is an aspect of love as opposed to sovereignty ensures the relational character of grace. Relationship implies response. God offers relationship and invites response, but the biblical evidence is that he does not force that response. It is possible for God’s love to be rejected, as with Christ and the rich young ruler in Mark 10:21-22. Nygren speaks of “lost love,” [–fn ibid. pp. 731-733. –fn] love that is poured out even where it is rejected. “It is `a divine, free, unceasing, yea indeed a lost love,’ which is prepared freely to find its kindness thrown away and lost, as also Christ has found.” [–fn ibid., pp. 732-733. –fn] The idea that God allows his love to be rejected shows how far he is willing to go to preserve the preciousness of the free response to his love.

For ultimately it is two-way love that constitutes the blessedness of all creation.

Traditional theology often talks about the attributes of God with terms like “omnitpotence,” “omnipresence,” “omniscience,” and the like. These attributes are consequences of the fact that he is the ground of being for all things. This naturally means that nothing in creation escapes him in any way. Nothing for which he is the ground of being is outside his knowledge. All things are subject to his power. He is present everywhere in creation in whatever mode he chooses. While these aspects are not central to God’s nature and character (since they are relative to creation) they are crucial to our experience of God.

It is important that we understand these aspects of God operationally. That is, they are not philosophical constructs; they speak of the way God interacts with creation.

For example, there is following conundrum regarding God’s omnipotence: “Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?” This is supposed to pose an insoluble dilemma, like the question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Either answer, “Yes” or “No,” would seem to deny God’s omnipotence. Thus, the argument is made that omnipotence is logically contradictory.

If we take an operational view of God’s omnipotence, then this conundrum evaporates. One can simply say, “No, God cannot make a rock too heavy for him to lift.” In respect to creation this does not limit God in any way. He can lift a rock having any given set of properties. He can also create a rock with any given set of properties (weight, volume, constitution etc.). That is because, logically speaking, “being too heavy to lift” is a relation, not a property. As such it is not essential for the being of anything.

Imagine there was a rock that was too heavy for a certain person to lift. Then that person went on a weight-training program and became strong enough to lift the rock. This would not cause the rock to disappear (in a fit of pique?) nor would it change the rock in any way. That is because “being too heavy for some entity to lift” is not a quality necessary for the existence of anything. In fact, “being too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift” is actually contradictory, because the definition of “omnipotent” would imply the ability to lift anything. Therefore the relation itself is logically meaningless, like asking “Can God make a square circle,” and the conundrum loses its force.

The point of this little exercise in logic, apart from its entertainment value, is to argue that God’s “omni-” qualities must be understood in relation to creation and real things that exist. God interacts with creation in certain ways that are consequences of the fact that he is the ground of being for all creation. But he does not do this in a mechanical way. He enters into relationship with what he has made, and this moves him to limit the liberties he takes with what he has made. This relational aspect of God’s interaction with creation is perhaps the most amazing thing about him.

[–fn 2020 I no longer would put things like this; instead I now believe God experiences the passage of time. –fn]

The Bible speaks of God knowing what will come. Some have argued that this means the future is fixed and therefore free will is excluded. This section is a brief technical note on this view as reflecting the modal fallacy.

The modal fallacy is an argument of the form: if a person P knows fact F, then fact F must be true. Person P knows fact F. Therefore fact F must be true.

The problem with this is that it is an incorrect characterization of knowledge. The correct characterization would take the following form: It must be true that if person P knows fact F, then fact F is true. Person P knows fact F. Therefore fact F is true.

To clarify by an example, take the following statement: “If I know my wife married me, it must be true that my wife married me.” I know that my wife married me. But it is not the case that it must be true that she married me. She could have married someone else, or I could have married someone else, or any number of other things could have happened.

Instead it is correct to say, “It must be true that if I know my wife married me, then she married me.” Since I know my wife married me, it is true that she married me.

Human knowledge generally operates in regard to the past. God has a mode of knowing called “foreknowledge” that operates in the future. However, it is clear from the way the bible talks about it that it is still knowledge. Continuing the example, a correct statement looks like this: “It must be true that if God knows someone will repent, that person will repent.” But it is not the case that “If God knows someone will repent, that person must repent.” That is, God’s foreknowledge is not predestination. Romans 8:29 says, “For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined . . . .” Similarly Acts 2:23 speaks of the “definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” While they are closely associated, they are not identical (otherwise there would be no need for two words here). God does decree or predestine some things, but he foreknows all things, even things that he did not predestine.

The point of this is to argue that God’s knowledge of the future, like human knowledge of the past, depends on the events known rather than causing them.