A (0:05)

Hello, I'm Kevin DeYoung, pastor at Christ.

B (0:07)

Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina. And you are listening to Doctrine Matters. Each week on Doctrine Matters, we explore the rich doctrine of the Christian faith. We'll pull from the church's long history, complex debates, and over the course of the year, the hope is that we'll begin to frame out what is a clear, accessible, systematic theology, be looking at different Christian doctrines and their relationship to each other.

A (0:35)

And the hope, Lord willing, is we.

B (0:36)

Will grasp more and more the riches and the beauty of God's word. Thanks for listening. Let's turn to this week's Doctrine Matters.

A (0:46)

Last week we were beginning to look at theology proper, that is the doctrine of God. And we. We tried to lay out some important and maybe new theological distinctions, talking about the very language we use to speak of God, that it is not univocal. We don't mean the same thing by goodness related to a dog as we mean goodness related to God, but it's not equivocal. Our human words are not completely removed from reality. They're not completely different, but analogical. So there's a relationship. Though we cannot know God exhaustively, we can know God truly as he reveals himself to us. And then we talked about the spirituality of God, what it means that God is spirit. Now we're moving into the attributes of God. The divine attributes are qualities or characteristics that can be predicated of God. Some people refer to these as perfections or virtues or excellencies. Others use the word property because we are speaking about what is proper to God. In Eastern Orthodoxy, they sometimes speak of God's essence and God's energies. Just as we cannot land on the sun, the essence, but can experience the rays of the sun, its energy, so we are capable of knowing true things about God, even if we cannot plumb the depths of. Of the very godness of God. So that's one helpful way we're talking about what are those rays of the sun? Even if we cannot land on the sun and plumb the depths of the essence of God. So there are lots of different terms we can use, but most typically, people have spoken of the attributes of God. We should not imagine that in attributing qualities to God, we are assigning something outside of God to God or adding something to his essence. God's attributes are not things that exist apart from himself, nor are they things that come together to form God. What God is cannot be separated from what God has. While there's no authoritative list of divine attributes, there's lots of good Summaries. The Belgic Confession says God is a single and simple spiritual being, eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, unchangeable, infinite, almighty, completely wise, just and good, and the overflowing source of all good. I like that definition. Or the Westminster Confession more exhaustively says God is a most pure Spirit, invisible, without body parts or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long suffering, abundant in goodness and truth. And if you can have the patience for one other definition. One of the most famous definitions of God's attributes comes from John of Damascus, an Eastern theologian who was known for his apophatic theology. That word means we understand God by what he is not. It is true in theology, especially in the doctrine of God, it's often easier to say what he God is not, or to explain certain terms by saying here's what we don't mean. So here's a paragraph from John of Damascus. So then we both know and confess that God is without beginning. So notice all the negative language. Apophatic theology. He is without beginning, without end, eternal and everlasting, uncreated, immutable, unchangeable, simple, non composite, incorporeal. That means he doesn't have a body. Invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed, limitless, ungraspable, incognizable, unfathomable, good, just, almighty, the Creator of all created things, sovereign over all, overseeing all, exercising foresight, overall, having supreme power over all and judge of all. It's a great description from John of Damascus. And it's also helpful to remember because sometimes people will get to say the Westminster Confession of faith from the 1640s and say, well, look at what they've done to God and they've put him in a box and they've just reduced to him to a list of attributes. Well, no one there thought you could reduce God to a list of attributes or that you didn't have to have a personal relationship with God. But Christian theologians have been doing this for hundreds and over a thousand years. So a thousand years earlier, give or take, you had this paragraph from John of Damascus, who is also giving. So don't say, well, it's Western versus Eastern or it's Greek versus Hebrew. No, this has always been an area of Christian reflection to think about. How do we describe what is proper to God? Typically, theologians have divided the attributes of God between his incommunicable and his communicable attributes. Now, that's not the only way to talk about them. Some people talk about his absolute attributes or relative attributes, or his constitutional attributes and his attributes of personality, or his attributes of greatness, those things that highlight the grandeur of God, and then his attributes of goodness that highlight the excellency of what he does. Now, all of those are really getting at the same kinds of things. And most typically and usefully, theologians have fallen back on this distinction between the incommunicable and the communicable attributes of God. And that's helpful because we don't want to think that some attributes are essential and others are relative, or some are just about what is great and others are about what is good. The word incommunicable refers to those attributes that cannot be communicated to us, that we may have something akin to them, but really they cannot be communicated to us. Immensity, eternity, infinity are incommunicable because nothing analogous to these attributes can be found in God's creatures. We may be able to give eternal life, to live forever, but we are not eternal being beings without a beginning. And then love, mercy, goodness are deemed communicable. Think about if you say that's a communicable disease, you mean you can catch that disease. It can be communicated from one person to another. So those attributes are communicable because we also, though never in the same way God is entirely. We also can be loving and merciful and good and just. When we speak then of communicable attributes, we're thinking of something that can be caught by God's creatures in a way that incommunicable attributes cannot. God's attributes are describing then what is proper to him. And we're going to look at some of those attributes. We're not going to look at all of them in the weeks ahead, but some communicable and some incommunicable. One last distinction that's going to help us in particular, as we think about some of the incommunicable attributes. And that's an important Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents. You may say, well, why are we dealing with something that Aristotle taught? Well, it's true we don't want Aristotle or any philosopher to be more important than the Scriptures, of course. And yet the Greek philosophical tradition is so ubiquitous in Western thought. Even if we said we want to get rid of Aristotle, you couldn't. Anytime you talk about the soul or form and matter, or genus and species, or potential and actual, or the difference between an efficient cause, a material cause, a formal cause, a final cause. These are all indebted to Aristotle. So you try to say, I'm not going to think along with Aristotle, you're not going to be able to do it. And in fact, so much of what Aristotle put words on are the sort of things that intuitively we understand that there's, there's an essence of the thing and then there's the things that are considered non essential to the thing. Some, some of the Aristotelian categories are simply putting words upon human ways of thinking. And also remember that the New Testament, quite a bit more than we think, has some of these philosophical categories. Philippians 2 Christ is in the form of God. Morphe Hebrews 1:3 uses the word hypostasis to refer to God's nature. Romans 1:20, God's divine nature. 1 Timothy 1:17. The king of glory is immortal, invisible, the only God. So there are these kinds of categories, logos. So it's not like the New Testament tried to flush Greek philosophy down the toilet. They understand that's the world they live in. So all of that is just some preface to come back here, just real briefly, to this important distinction between substance and accident. So in Aristotle's logic, there's a basic distinction between the thing itself, the substance, and what may be said about the thing. Accidents. Our word accident sounds like a crash or an oops. So it's better to think of the word incidental. What is the substance of a thing and what is incidental to a thing? Theologians were keen to use this distinction. Now, some of you may know that this comes up later in talking about the Lord's Supper. And Protestant theologians will reject it because it was part of the theory of transubstantiation. So their Reformed theologians are going to say, well, that's in irrationality. So they didn't think that that was a good rationale for transubstantiation. But that doesn't mean they rejected the idea in total. An accident adds a quality to the substance of a thing without changing the kind of thing the substance is. So take a dog, for example. A dog has dogginess, you might say, that's its substance. But a dog can be brown or fluffy or have spots, or be small or all sorts of other things. Those are its accidents. And I understand talking about dogs and accidents is probably a bit confusing. So those are the incidentals. It's still a dog, it still has the same doggy ness. No matter its color or size. You take away those accidents, those incidentals, it's still a dog. The accidents change. What sort of dog are we talking about? In simple terms, an accident in Aristotelian thinking gives to a substance its quality or its quantity. So when we talk about God, he does not have substance and accidents. There is nothing incidental to God. There is nothing that you can say, we'll take this away from God and he's still God. Or there is a class of beings we call God, and just like there's a class of things we call dogs. And some are big or short and some are brown and some are white, but they're all dogs. So God is not like that. Here's what Turretin says, that no accident can be granted in God. We're talking about this Aristotelian category because of God's simplicity, because accidents imply he's composed of parts. Because of God's infinity, because accidents would add to the substance some new quality, a different kind of God. And because of God's immutability, accidents always allow for change. If you have something that is incidental to your substance, you could be that same substance in another way, which means you are open to to change. God is the great I am the one who is that. He is the one whose essence and existence cannot be augmented by any further properties. That's what we mean. And that's why this distinction between substance and accidents has been important throughout the history of the church. Here's the bottom line. Everything about God is essential to God, and nothing, not one of his attributes, is incidental to God.