A. The relationship of the divine essence to the divine attributes and of the attributes to each other.
With respect to this, there are two points to be noted on the basis of Scripture:
In God, essence and attributes are not parts, but one, because God is infinite, above space (1 Kings 8:27) and time (Ps. 90:2, 4). If we wanted to accept parts in God, we would make the infinite God infinite and thus abolish the difference between God and the creatures. The Augsburg Confession says in the first article "Of God" (De Deo): "without parts."
1346) Loci I, 22 sq.
525 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. pgs 428-429]
But we men have to distinguish in God essence and attributes and then also the attributes among themselves, because we cannot have any idea at all of a simple thing. And this distinction is taught in the doctrines themselves. Scripture distinguishes between God and God's attributes when it speaks of God's love (Rom. 5:8), God's wrath (Rom. 1:18), God's longsuffering (Rom. 2:4) and so on. When we hear of God's love, we think of God as existing and love as an attribute attached to God. If Scripture tells us of God's wrath, we think of God as existing and wrath as a God-attaching quality. With God having entered into human language, He has also entered into human thought connection (logic).1347) Next, Scripture also distinguishes among the divine attributes by motivating the individual divine actions by various divine attributes or "affectiones" in God. Scripture attributes the sending of the Son of God into the world to the love of God, John 3:16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son", the justification or forgiveness of sins to the grace of God through the redemption that happened through Jesus Christ without human merit (Rom. 3:24), the damnation of the ungodly on the Last Day of God's retributive punitive justice, "because it is right with God (εΐπερ δίκαιον παρά ϑεω) to repay tribulation to those who put tribulation on you" (2 Thess. 1:6). Daniel, in his prayer, distinguishes very sharply between the divine attributes when he says, "We lie before thee with our prayer, not upon our righteousness, but upon thy great mercy," Dan. 9:18. If, under the pretext that all the attributes of God form an indivisible unity, the divine attributes are interchanged, the whole theology is thereby falsified. The Scriptures teach this very emphatically in word and example. All who base the forgiveness of sins on the works of the law (their own morality) instead of on the grace of God,
1347) Our dogmatists say something like: Intelligitur nomine essentiae divinae illud, quod primo in Deo concipitur quodque nostro modo'concipiendi (according to our comprehension] principium et radix est omnium perfectionum, quae Deo per modum proprietatum (according to the way of properties) tribuuntur. [Google] Thus Baier II, 11.
526 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. pgs 429-430]
which is present through Christ's satisfactio vicaria, do not receive the forgiveness of sins but the curse, Gal. 3:10. By substituting grace for the righteousness of the law, carnal Israel deprived itself of membership in the kingdom of God,1348) and the Pharisee remained unjustified before God.1349) Because of the same substitution of the attributes of God, Paul twice pronounces the curse on teachers who had penetrated the Galatian congregations.1349a) Therefore, it is necessary to avoid with great care any interchange of the divine attributes, because this produces a false concept of God and eo ipso apostasy from the true God who has revealed Himself in His Word of God. To remain with the examples of the substitution of divine attributes given: there is no such God, who instead of justifying by grace alone for the sake of Christ's satisfactio vicaria on the basis of his justice under the law. All who deny Christ's satisfactio vicaria worship an idol like the heathen who know nothing of God. — The warning against substitution of the divine attributes includes the further warning that we men do not allow ourselves to say more and different things about the divine attributes than are actually said about the individual attributes in the Holy Scriptures. As is well known, Unitarians and modern theologians reject the Scriptural doctrines of eternal damnation and the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, claiming that both doctrines stand in contradiction with both the love and the righteousness of God. Against this it must be stated: To want to determine a priori, that is, apart from God's self-revelation in his Word, what God can or must do according to his love or according to his righteousness, or what is compatible or incompatible with his love or with his righteousness, is a foolish and blasphemous undertaking. It is based on the premise that we men could encompass God's love, God's righteousness, etc., with our thoughts, whereas it stands that, like God Himself, God's attributes are infinite and therefore beyond our human capacity to comprehend.
The Lutheran dogmatists hold both according to Scripture: 1. that objectively, or in God, essence and attributes absolutely are
1348) Rom. 9:31-33; 10:1-3 1349) Luke 18:9-14.
1349 a) Gal. 1:8-9.
527 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> Doctrine of God. [English ed. pgs 429]
One, because God is infinite and above space and time.. 2. But because the finite human mind cannot take into its conception the infinite and absolute, God condescends to human weakness, dividing himself, as it were, into parts, by revealing himself in his Word in a series of attributes which we can grasp and hold on to in faith. Baier says:1350) Licet revera [perfectiones sive proprietates] non sint accidentia neque ab essentia divina realiter differant, distinguuntur autem ab essentia divina pariter et inter se propter infinitam Dei perfectionem et intellectus nostri imperfectionem. [Google] Gerhard:1351) Quamvis attributa Dei nec inter se nec ab essentia divina realiter sint in Deo distincta, tamen sigillatim de illis ut agatur, intellectus nostri imbecillitas requirit, Gerhard quotes from Augustine's De Spec., c. 112: "Condescendit nobis Deus, ut nos consurgamus", et cum homines simus, humano modo nobis loquitur.... Dorner cannot understand,1352) that Lutheran dogmatists on the one hand teach "the objective indistinction" of divine attributes, but on the other hand declare it necessary for us men "to distinguish, for example, righteousness and mercy." Dorner, as an Ego theologian who has bid farewell to Scripture as the source and norm of theology, may find it difficult to find himself in the manner of the ancient theologians. The ancient theologians were scriptural theologians. From the Scriptures they had learned that God, on the one hand, describes Himself as the infinite God, "without part", on the other hand, divides Himself, as it were, into parts or matters, describing Himself in His Word as the holy and righteous and gracious and long-suffering God, etc., for the purpose of conveying in this way to the finite human spirit a knowledge of God, admittedly not perfect, which does not belong in this life, but a true knowledge of God, sufficient for the attainment of salvation. This is the reason why dogmatists both teach the "objective indistinction" of the divine attributes and hold to the necessity of distinguishing the divine attributes, "e.g., righteousness and mercy." And all theologians, who want to be theologians of the Scriptures, do well, herein
1350) Comp. II, 11.
1351) Loci, L. De Natura Dei, § 51 (Ed. Frankf. u. Hamb. 1657 I, 59).
1352) Geschichte der prot. Theologie, p. 563 f.
528 ><w:t>The Doctrine of God. [English ed. pgs 430-431?]
to follow the dogmatists. For on the one hand, no theologian of Scripture will seriously accept parts in God. On the other hand, however, every scriptural theologian will want to remain in harmony with the apostle Paul, who explicitly describes the knowledge of God imparted in this life by God's Word as a "piecemeal" one, 1 Cor. 13:9: Έκ μέρους γινώοκομεν και έκ μέρους ηροφητεύομεν.
In describing the knowledge of God that comes to us men in this life on the basis of the divine attributes and works revealed in Word of God, one difficulty has been found in the fact that the same predicates are said of God and creatures. However, both being (existence) and a number of attributes and works are predicated of God and creatures in Scripture. Examples: God is (Is 48:12: "It is I, the first and the last"), and men are (Acts 17:28: ἐν αὐτῷ … ἐσμέν); God lives (Ezek. 14:16: "As I live, says the Lord"), and man lives (Gen. 3:20: Eve is a mother of all living); God loves (Jn. 3:16: "So God loved the world"), and man loves (1 Kings. 5:1: "Hiram loved David"); God is righteous (Rom. 3:26: "that He [God] might be righteous"), and men are righteous (Matt. 1:19: Joseph, the husband of Mary, was δίκαιος); God sees (Gen. 1:31: "God looked upon all that He had made"), and man sees (Deut. 32:52: Moses saw from Mount Nebo the land of Canaan), etc. Now here it has been asked in what way these predicates are ascribed to God and to themselves. The scriptural answer is: a. Not in the same sense (univoce), so that name and thing would be attributed to God and creatures in the same way; b. also not in a double sense (aequivoce), so that only the same expressions would be used by God and creatures, but in the thing there would be no relation or similarity at all, but c. according to similarity (analogice), so that being and attributes would really be attributed to God and creatures, but not in the same way and in the same degree. We ascend (consurgimus, says Augustine) from the imperfection found in creatures (imperfect being, living, loving, etc.) to the perfection in God (perfect being, living, loving, etc.). This analogical view is explicitly taught in the Scriptures, e.g. Is. 49:15: "Can also a woman forget her child
529 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. pgs 431-432]
that she have not mercy on the son of her womb? Though she forget him, yet will I not forget thee, saith the Lord." Further Luke 11:13: "If you then, being bad, can give (οΐδατε) good gifts to your children [out of natural love], how much more will the Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" If we were to ascribe beings and attributes to God and creatures univoce, as Scotists and others have done, we would, strictly speaking, abolish the distinction between God and creatures. Creatures would be coordinated to God and thus made God. If we were to go to the other extreme and let the nature and attributes of God and the creatures be stated only aequivoce, we would thereby, strictly speaking, deny all knowledge of God. We would then not know, for example, if something and what is in God, when he assures us of his love in his word, 1 John 4:16: "God is love" and John 3:16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." But now, thank God, the great God has entered into our human language and has condescended to our human ideas and concepts in order to lift us up to Himself and to let us recognize how His heart stands against us. This knowledge is indeed only an inadequate, fragmentary knowledge (1 Cor. 13:9), but nevertheless a true and sure knowledge, so that we can know what has been given to us by God (1 Cor. 2:12). The Lutheran dogmatists dealt with this point in detail and rejected everything that could endanger the Christian knowledge of God on the basis of God's self-revelation in His Word.1353)
1353) Quenstedt I, 422 sq.: Essentia, substantia, spiritus et consequenter reliqua attributa, quae Deo et creaturis simul tribuuntur, de Deo et creaturis rationalibus non σννωννμως, univoce, nec δμωννμως, aequivoce, sed άναλόγως, analogice, praedicantur, ita ut Deo πρώτως et absolute, creaturis δεντερως et per dependentiam conveniant; quae analogia proprie dicitur attributionis intrinsecae. … Univoce, proprie et stricte loquendo, conveniunt, quae et nomen et rem, nomine illo denotatam, communem habent aequaliter, nulla ob dependentiam unius ab altero inaequalitate inter-veniente. Aequivoce conveniunt, quae nomen habent commune, sed non rem, nomine significatam. Analogice conveniunt, quae et nomen et rem, nomine designatam, communem habent, sed inaeqtiaUter, cum nomen et res alteri πρώτως et absolute, alteri δεντερως et per dependentiam conveniant. [Google] Dogma-historical has Quenstedt under the antithesis, p. 423: Antithesis: 1. Scoti
530 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. pgs 432-433]
Among the predicates which God attaches to Himself in His Word are, of course, the names of God. One has asked about the number of these names. Luther does not think much of the ten number of names, because it is not exhaustive. He says in his " Treatise on the Shem Hamphoras":1354) "I let go of the ten names, as this is not new, but also St. Jerome in Epistola ad Marcellam indicates, since he counts them thus: El, Elohim, Elohe, Zebaoth, Eljon, Ehje, Adonai, Jah, Jehovah, damage. Others do it differently. I don't think much of it. There are probably more names of God in Scripture than these, as: Ab, Bore, Or, Chai, etc., Father, Creator, Light, Life, Salvation, and the like. And what good can be called or be, which must not be assigned to God beforehand, as he has it in himself? as Christ speaks:
et Scotistarum atque quorundam Nominalium, statuentium, ens, essentiam, spiritum etc. de Deo et creaturis univoce praedicari. Ita Scotus, Occam, Gabriel Biel et al, quos inter se profitetur Slevogtus, Prof. Jen., Disput. Academ., § 46, p. 66, inquiens: "Cum itaque ens respectu inferiorum non sit analogum, quomodocunque etiam analogia explicetur, et vero iis non nomen tantum, sed ratio etiam entis vere competat, nihil est, cur, univocum istud esse, quisquam negare velit; nos inde Scotisticam scholam sequimur et quosdam Nominales." Haec ille. 2. quorundam scholasticorum aliorumque, qui essentiam, substantiam, spiritum etc. de Deo et creaturis intellectualibus nonnisi όμωνύμως seu aequivoce praedicari statuunt, ut Aureolus, Polanus (asserens, "spiritum de Deo, angelis et animabus hominum όμωνύμως seu aequivoce praedicari"), Keckermannus (spiritum existimans de Deo aequivoce dici). Eandem sententiam R. Mosi tribuit Thomas, quod scii, ens praedicetur de Deo et creaturis aequivoce. [Google] Dionysius Petavius, tom. V, Dogmat. Theol., 1. 1, c. 6, § 4. 5, p. 40 sq., ubi τό vere et proprie esse ac existere soli Deo convenire prolixe probat. … Thomas, Ps. I, q. 13, art. 5, ita colligit: "Si aequivoce ista praedicarentur de Deo et creaturis, nihil posset de Deo ex creaturis cognosci nec demonstrari, sed semper incideret fallacia aequivocationis. Et hoc est tam contra philosophum, qui multa demonstrative de Deo probat, quam etiam contra apostolum, Rom. 1, 17 sq." Conceptus aequivocus sequentia infert absurda: 1. Sic creaturae nudum entis nomen participarent et revera essent non-entia. Sed quis Deum nuda produxisse non-entia assereret ? 2. si creatura plane non-ens esset, ad Deum referri non posset ceu effectus et ens dependens. 3. Christus, assumens naturam humanam, assumpsisset non-ens.... [Google] Also some Calvinists have claimed that the attributes in God are non-entia. They did this in the interest of their false Christology, in order to be able to deny the communication of the divine attributes to the human nature of Christ: Quod quis non habet, illud alteri dare non potest; sed Deus attributa non habet, ergo alteri, scii, naturae humanae Christi, ea dare et communicare non potest. [“What one does not have, he cannot give to another; but God has no attributes, therefore he cannot give and communicate them to another, to the knowledge of the human nature of Christ.”] 93gl. Duenftebt I, 427.
1354) St. L. XX, 2057.
531 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. pgs 433]
God alone is good, but we receive from him all that we are and have." This is followed by Luther's powerful statement (already communicated on p. 463) about the uniqueness of the name יְ֭הוָה, [HEBREW], which according to Ex. 3:14 means " Pure Being" (nomen Dei essentiale sive incommunicabile). 1355) Rightly Zöckler1356) points out the games which Rome, heathens and Turks play with the number of God's names: "That that accumulation of God's names or predicates up to the number 100 or beyond — see Raym. Lull: De centum nominibus Dei; the 150 names with which St. Rosa of Lima used to address God in her devotions [Görres, Christi. Mystik I, 472] —, also the "100 biblical names of H. J. Christ" (edited with the relevant biblical passages by J. Blüher, Dresden, 1870) as well as Luis de Leon's three 'Books of the Name of Christ' (Spanish, Salamanka, 1583) as an older mystical-ascetic execution of the same thought — are equally devoid of theological-scientific concern as of Christian-religious value, show the analogous gimmicks in the battological prayer practice already of the older paganism as well as of Buddhism and Islam. About the 550 names under which Allah occurs in the Koran, and of which 99 are said to be the sweetest and most beautiful when praying the 99 rosary beads, cf. the work of Edwin Arnold: Pearls of the Faith, or Islams Rosary, being the 99 beautiful names of Allah. London 1882." This battology, which is practiced with the names of God by Rome, heathens, Turks, etc., has its factual reason in the fact that they all do not know the name of Jesus Christ, in whom we have the redemption through his blood, namely the forgiveness of our sins. Consequently, the "opinio legis" rules in them and they also want to make themselves a gracious God by parroting many names of God. That also the modern "theological science" in relation to the correct description of the
1355) We almost forgot to mention that no agreement has yet been reached among recent theologians about the vocalization of יְ֭הוָה [HEBREW]. Quite generally יְ֭הוָה [HEBREW] is rejected (exceptions: Stier, Hölemann). However, whether XXXX [HEBREW] or יְ֭הוָה [HEBREW] or something else should be used for this, the proceedings find not yet concluded. Strack: "probably" Iahve. Kahnis: "As has been pronounced, is still not certain." What the name means, namely "Pure Being", as Luther expresses it, we know from Ex. 3:14, where God Himself declares this name etymologically and factually.
1356) Handbuch der theol. Wissenschaften III, 85 f.
532 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. pgs 433-434]
names and attributes of God, as we have already seen and will continue to see, comes from the fact that it does not consider the Holy Scriptures to be God's own Word. For indeed the whole Holy Scriptures are "a spread out name of God." Inasmuch as we deny that Scripture is the infallible self-revelation of God, we exclude ourselves in principle from knowledge of the name of God. Here belong Luther's recurring reminders that by right doctrine taken from Scripture alone God's name is honored and the church built up; by false doctrine derived from one's own thoughts God's name is profaned and the church destroyed. For example, he says in the exposition of the second commandment:1357) "So, in this commandment, the name of God is rightly conducted when the Word of God is rightly preached, and is rightly received by the hearers. And again, the name of God is blasphemed when pastors do not preach rightly, but deceive the people, yet under the appearance of divine Word and name." Therefore, right teachers and doctrines are a blessing, but wrong teachers and pastors are a curse for the world and the individual countries. At the same time, Luther reminds us of the "danger" that is bound up with the right doctrines of the name, that is, the Word of God. He says: "But this is the greatest and most difficult work of this commandment, that one should esteem the holy name of God against all who spiritually misuse it, and for this purpose spread it among all men. For it is not enough that I praise and call upon the divine name for myself and in myself in happiness and in misfortune, I must also go out and for the sake of God's honor and name invite upon myself the enmity of all men, as Christ says to his disciples: 'All men will be enemies to you for my name's sake.' Here we must enrage father and mother and best friends. … Here also we must have the name to strive against the authorities spiritually and worldly and be scolded disobediently. Here we must arouse against us the learned, the saints, the rich, the powerful, and all that is anything in the world; that is called 'God's friend and the enemy of all the world’. And although those who are commanded to preach the Word of God are especially obliged to do so, every Christian is also bound to do so where time and need require it. Now when a man accepts the Word of God, the gospel, then
— - — - — - — - — --
1357) St. L. III, 1078 ff.
533 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. pgs 434-435]
he must not think otherwise than that in the same hour he will be in danger of all his goods, house, farm, fields and meadows, wife, children, father and mother, even his own life. If danger and misfortune come to him at home, it is all the easier for him and he thinks, I knew it well before that [it] would be like this. That is where the passages Matt. 10: 'The disciple is not above the master.'"