Monday, May 20, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Summary of God's Metaphyiscal Attributes
Pure
Actuality
perfect existence, pure IS-ness
Exodus 3:14, Revelation 1:8
Aseity
needing nothing but sustaining all others
Isaiah 40:12-26, Acts 17:24-25
Unity
one God of one essence
Deuteronomy 6:4, John 10:30
Triunity
one essence, three Persons
Genesis 1:26, Matthew 3:13-17
Omnipotence
all power to do what is possible to do
Jeremiah 32:17, Revelation 19:6
Omnipresence
everywhere present
Psalm 139:7-12, John 3:13
Omniscience
unlimited knowledge
Psalm 147:5, Hebrews 4:13
Impassibility
God has no mood swings
Job 35:6-8, I Corinthians 13:4-8
Immateriality
God is invisible spirit
Deuteronomy 4:15-18, John 4:24
Partial Incomprehensibility
God is too big for your brain
Isaiah 55:8-9, Romans 11:33
Impeccability
God cannot sin, even if He wanted to
Psalm 5:4, I Peter 2:22
Immortality
unending Life within Himself
II Kings 19:16, I Tim 6:16
Immutability
perfection cannot change, better or worse
Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8
Infinity
without limit, within reason
Psalm 145:3, Revelation 10:6
Light
radiant glory, a Being similar to light
Genesis 1:3, I John 1:5
Eternality
every-when present, existing beyond time
Psalm 90, John 8:58
Simplicity
having no parts, material or essential
Isaiah 45:18, Mark 12:29
Necessity
if God exists, then He must exist
Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:16
perfect existence, pure IS-ness
Exodus 3:14, Revelation 1:8
Aseity
needing nothing but sustaining all others
Isaiah 40:12-26, Acts 17:24-25
Unity
one God of one essence
Deuteronomy 6:4, John 10:30
Triunity
one essence, three Persons
Genesis 1:26, Matthew 3:13-17
Omnipotence
all power to do what is possible to do
Jeremiah 32:17, Revelation 19:6
Omnipresence
everywhere present
Psalm 139:7-12, John 3:13
Omniscience
unlimited knowledge
Psalm 147:5, Hebrews 4:13
Impassibility
God has no mood swings
Job 35:6-8, I Corinthians 13:4-8
Immateriality
God is invisible spirit
Deuteronomy 4:15-18, John 4:24
Partial Incomprehensibility
God is too big for your brain
Isaiah 55:8-9, Romans 11:33
Impeccability
God cannot sin, even if He wanted to
Psalm 5:4, I Peter 2:22
Immortality
unending Life within Himself
II Kings 19:16, I Tim 6:16
Immutability
perfection cannot change, better or worse
Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8
Infinity
without limit, within reason
Psalm 145:3, Revelation 10:6
Light
radiant glory, a Being similar to light
Genesis 1:3, I John 1:5
Eternality
every-when present, existing beyond time
Psalm 90, John 8:58
Simplicity
having no parts, material or essential
Isaiah 45:18, Mark 12:29
Necessity
if God exists, then He must exist
Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:16
College Study #37: "God's Necessity"
‘Behold, the Lamb of God’
ide
o amnos tou theou
College Study
37th teaching
5.13.2013
“God’s Necessity”
College Study #30: "God's Immutability"
‘Behold, the Lamb of God’s
ide o amnos tou
theou
College Study
30th teaching
3.25.2013
The ‘Negative’ Doctrines:
“God’s Immutability”
College Study #28: "God's Impeccability"
‘Behold, the Lamb of God’
ide o amnos tou
theou
College Study
28th teaching
3.11.2013
The ‘Negative’ Doctrines:
“God’s Impeccability”
Turn to I Peter
2:11-25.
The Apostle Peter gave instruction on how we as Christians
ought to live and submit ourselves to authority and to our masters, but there
in v.22 is the topic of our focus
tonight. He writes that Christ our Moral Exemplar suffered patiently, and that
He “committed no sin”.
Our study has direct bearing, for the first time since we
started this section on theology proper, upon morality and ethics, specifically
as they relate to God. What are God’s morals and what are God’s ethics?
In our modern world, the morality of God is being called
into question. Critics have latched onto Old Testament examples of war and
“ethnic cleansing”, others have suggested that the Bible condones slavery,
still others incriminate God for frowning upon homosexuality, and even still,
others claim that God is angry and punishing when natural disasters occur. The
idea of God’s goodness, His morality, is more radically challenged today than
ever before.
Consider the titles of these books, books written upon the
battlefield of God’s morality: Is God a Moral
Monster? by Paul Copan. God Behaving
Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist? By David
Lamb. And these are actually books written by apologists of the Christian
faith.
Famous atheist Richard Dawkins, writes in his book, The God Delusion: “The God of the Old
Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and
proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive,
bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal,
genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic,
capriciously malevolent bully.” That’s quite an accusation.
But this is quite obviously the opposite of what the Bible
claims. God, through His own self-revelation, claims of Himself that He is
holy, righteous, pure, good and loving. He claims that He is without sin and
that He does not and cannot sin. Evil
does not dwell in God (Psalm 5:4).
And every action of God, every outpouring of His wrath, every enactment of His
justice, is tethered to His love and undying affection of the human creatures
which reject and despise Him, but which creatures for whom He suffered and
died. If any proof exists for the goodness of God toward man, it exists in the
cross of Christ, in the Son who died for each sex, for every race, for every
person, indeed for the whole of the world.
If God is a pestilential megalomaniac and an immoral
monster, then we should, as the atheists, want nothing of Him. But if God is
good and the source of morality and the only pure Being in all existence, then
we should crave His presence and affection.
So tonight we wish to touch on one aspect of God’s
goodness: the doctrine of God’s Impeccability.
We
will hit THREE points:
1.
The Definition of Impeccability
2.
The Biblical Basis for
Impeccability
3.
The Distinction of
Impeccability
1.
The Definition of Impeccability
What does impeccable mean? We might say someone has
impeccable timing, for example. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines impeccable as meaning “not capable of
sinning or liable to sin; free from fault or blame; flawless”.
The word impeccable
comes to our English language from 16th Latin. In Latin the original
words were in- meaning “not” and pecare meaning “to sin”, forming the
Latin word impeccabilis, “not to
sin”.
Impeccable then means “incapable of sinning”. When applied
to God, impeccability is a strong statement of God’s moral character. It is a
stronger statement than simply saying God does not sin, rather God cannot sin. Even if God wanted to lie,
which He never has desired, He cannot lie. Numbers
23:19, “God is not a man, that He
should lie…” Even if God wanted to be perverse or slanderous or
cruel or addicted or abhorrent, He could not be.
So God in fact cannot
sin. But why? God certainly has free will. God can make choices. So why cannot
God choose to sin?
Let’s think about this… with logic.
The answer shows us that Impeccability is a metaphysical
attribute. Impeccability has to do with what God actually is.
The reason why God cannot
sin is because it is not in His nature to sin. To sin would be to go against
His own nature.
The English writer, William Law, said “It is much more
possible for the sun to give out darkness than for God to do or be, or give out
anything but blessing and goodness”.
What is perfect cannot be imperfect. It’s either-or. If God
is purely actual, pure unchanging existence as we discussed weeks ago, then He
cannot change His essential nature by becoming imperfect. If God is perfectly
holy and perfectly just, then what is perfect cannot become imperfect, what is
God cannot become not-God. He that is holy cannot become unholy. God is purely
unchanging. That means God is pure unchanging purity. God has no potential for
change and no potential for sin.
Therefore, impeccability, the incapability of God to sin,
lies within His metaphysical Being. God cannot sin because of who He is. He
cannot change who He is, therefore He cannot sin. God is totally free from sin.
And this makes sense. If we consider God to be the source
of morality, then surely the Source must live up to His own morals. Nothing can
give anything which it does not have. A hateful person cannot give love unless
he becomes loving. Clouds cannot give rain unless there is moisture. God cannot
give moral standards, unless He is perfectly moral.
Surprisingly, even a quote from Voltaire seems to agree.
“All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere
the same, because it comes from God.”
Morals haven’t changed all that much, and societies largely
agree upon the same morals. Oh sure, one society may frown upon specifics or
smile upon specifics, but no one wants to be lied to; no one ever enjoyed
adultery when they found out it was their spouse committing it; no sane person
was ever so entertained by murder that they welcomed others to murder those
they would not have murdered.
C.S. Lewis, in his excellent book Mere Christianity, writes on this subject of universal morals.
Indulge me a longish quote:
“ Every one has
heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds
merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very
important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like
this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?"-"That's
my seat, I was there first"-"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any
harm"- "Why should you shove in first?"-"Give me a bit of
your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"-"Come on, you promised."
People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated,
and children as well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these
remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other
man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of
standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the
other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly
always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go
against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He
pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person
who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different
when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets
him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties
had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or
morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And
they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they
could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to
show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying
to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and
Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had
committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football…
“I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or
decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations
and different ages have had quite different moralities.
“But this is not true. There have been
differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything
like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral
teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks
and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each
other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the
appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present
purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality
would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in
battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had
been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two
and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be
unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or
everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first.
Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should
have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply
have any woman you liked.”
The unchanging, universal moral standards throughout
societies point to a Moral Source in God, and not just any God but a God who
lives up to His own standards: the God who is Impeccable.
*Now obviously, this impeccability extends to Jesus Christ.
Though the Son of God took on flesh, He took on human nature in addition to His divine nature. So Jesus
could suffer and be tempted but because He is Divine, He cannot sin.
In fact, the Bible says that Jesus knew no sin. II Corinthians 5:21, “For [God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the
righteousness of God in Him” speaking of Christ’s substitutionary death
upon the cross.
Hebrews 4:14-15,
“Seeing then that we have a great High
Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold
fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize
with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.”
Do we have a practical example of this in the gospel
accounts? Do we see any scene in which the Christ resisted evil and did not
sin? Certainly.
Turn to Matthew 4.
Three times Satan tempted Christ to sin. Three times Jesus
shuts Him down. The devil enticed Him to use His power to satisfy Himself, to
test His Father’s words and to deny God glory for the sake of worldly gain.
Each time, Jesus did not sin because
He could not sin. Like His Father,
there is a total absence of sin in Christ.
So whereas doctrines such as Immateriality and
Impassibility were suspended because of the Incarnation, Christ taking on
flesh, the doctrine of Impeccability still fully applied. Impeccability, then,
extends to Christ even in the flesh.
*Before we move on to the next point, let me illustrate two
ways in which the Bible describes God’s impeccability.
Earlier today, I typed the words impeccable and impeccability
into Bible search engines. Guess how many times either of those words are used
in the Bible? Zero. The Bible never uses the word impeccable or impeccability
to describe God’s incapability to sin. The words are never used in any
translation that I know of.
Impeccability describes a classic doctrine clearly taught
in Scripture, though the word is never used.
However, here are two ways in which the Bible describes
God’s inability to sin:
A.
Perfection
The Greek word for perfection is teleios. It means complete and finished, something perfect that
needs nothing else. And certainly all throughout Scripture, the Lord is called
perfect. Matthew 5:48, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly
Father is perfect.”
B.
Light and darkness
Another way in which the Bible
describes the absence of sin in God, is through the imagery of light and
darkness. Light often metaphorically pictures goodness and darkness evil.
John’s gospel contains several references to the Light of God. John 8:12, “Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, ‘I am the light of the world.
He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” I John 1:5, “This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you,
that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.” Interestingly, this seems to imply that Light
is a metaphysical attribute of God. We’ll have to consider that for further
study one of these Monday nights: the light-attribute of God.
2. The
Biblical Basis for Impeccability
Now is the time to provide the verses which you may have
discovered. What verses did you find on the subject of God’s Impeccability?
3. The
Distinction of Impeccability
Remember the concept of kindred-doctrines? Some doctrines
are closely related, with meanings that very similar. An example we studied
recently: Immateriality and Incorporeality. Immateriality says God is not made
of materials. Incorporeality says that God has no body. Both of them are saying
in effect that God is a spiritual and intangible Being. They have very similar meanings
with only slight differences, therefore we can call them kindred-doctrines.
Now Impeccability has its own kindred-doctrines: Holiness
and Righteousness. These words are a little more familiar to our ears. But we
throw around words like holy and righteousness all the time, and they’re
very religious-sounding words, so what do they actually mean? Here are some
very simplified definitions:
We know that Impeccability means “cannot sin”.
Holiness means something is sacred, apart, separate, clean
or pure. Holiness is a broad term. But very simply, another way you might think
of Holiness, is that it means something “does not sin”. Impeccable is what God is, Holiness is how He acts.
Righteousness has to do with “right-ness”, something that
is justifiable. Righteousness is linked to the concept of justice.
Righteousness has to do with meeting a right standard. Thus righteousness has
to do also with God’s actions, specifically with actions that are related to
justice.
Now while these three are related in their ideas, they have
slight differences.
Impeccability is a metaphysical doctrine which states that
God is unable to sin because of His nature. But holiness, meaning something
does not sin, is different. Holiness is both a metaphysical and a moral attribute.
Incapable of sinning and not sinning are two different things.
Someone who is incapable of swimming is different from
someone who simply never takes a swim. God is incapable of sinning, but He also
does not sin. He is impeccable and He is also holy.
As far as righteousness goes, righteousness is a moral
attribute, while impeccability is a metaphysical one.
At this point, I should introduce another classification
for doctrines. We know about kindred-doctrines, doctrines which are very
similar to each other. But now we need to learn about what are called
communicable and non-communicable doctrines.
What is a communicable doctrine? What I mean be
communicable is an attribute of God which He shares with, or communicates to,
His creatures. Holiness and righteousness are communicable attributes. God can
give you holiness and righteousness. Human beings who lived during biblical
times were sometimes referred to as holy men and holy women. Communicable
doctrines are usually God’s moral attributes. God is loving. We can be loving.
God is just. We can be just. God is merciful. We can be merciful. God is
gracious. We can be gracious.
On the flip side, non-communicable means an attribute
cannot be shared with or communicated to creatures. Most of the non-communicable
attributes are also metaphysical. For example, God is Purely Actual, pure
unchanging existence. Certainly, our human lives are anything but pure or
unchanging. God is also impassible, unable to suffer. We suffer all the time.
God is also Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent, metaphysical attributes
which no normal human has ever enjoyed. God does not say “Be infinite as I am
infinite”. Infinity is a non-communicable attribute! He does say “Be holy as I
am holy”.
Now which do you think Impeccability is: communicable or
non-communicable? It is non-communicable.
Man does sin which means he can sin. God does not sin and
He in fact cannot sin. Man has flaws. God is flawless. Man can attempt to be
holy. God alone is impeccable, perfectly and totally free from any sin.
We may be able to sometimes resist sinning, but we are
surely capable of sinning. God alone is incapable of sin until we get to heaven
and experience sinless bliss, and the non-communicable becomes communicable.
So what do we do until then? If you have been an
introspective human being for any length of time, you may have realized that
you make mistakes. In fact, it seems like we’re prone to making mistakes. We
may be totally unable to reach impeccability, but it seems nearly as impossible
to reach holiness! So what do we do then?
The surrealist painter, Salvador Dali, isn’t someone we
often quote from, a man who said “I don’t do drugs. I am drugs” or “Each
morning when I awake, I experience again a supreme pleasure: that of being Salvador
Dali”. But he also said “Have no fear of perfection – you’ll never reach it”.
Are we to have this lackadaisical, indifferent idea about
perfection and holiness when God says in His Word, Leviticus 11:44, “For I am
the LORD you God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be
holy; for I am holy”?
Unfortunately, I think most of us consider holiness to be a
mountain that can never be scaled. And so instead of aiming for righteousness
and aiming to please God with our lives, we’d rather aim at nothing. But as has
been said: “aim at nothing and you’ll hit it every time”.
We can agree that we shall never be perfect in this life.
You cannot reach impeccability. Any group of Christian thought which maintains
that we can be sinless in our humanity is sorely mistaken. Experience proves
that. But holiness is not an illusion. Perfection may be a goal we’ll never
reach until heaven. But holiness is something we ought to strive for. We, like
the biblical saints, should press toward our goal, not losing sight of it, not
aiming for nothing instead.
Consider the words of the Apostle Paul in Philippians 3:12-14. The Apostle
pressed toward the goal.
Imagine if the Apostles had chosen not to aim for
righteousness because it was a goal that seemed too far away. Imagine if
instead of doing what God called them to do, instead of doing greatness for the
glory of Deity, they wasted their lives aiming for nothing in particular… maybe
to talk to one or two people about Jesus, maybe. Maybe to pastor a church or so,
or to go on a mission trip here and there, maybe, y’know if they felt like it.
Imagine if they aimed for nothing.
We would have no New Testament writings. There would have
been no dramatic catalyst for the Early Church to begin. Christianity would be radically
different if the twelve men from two millennia ago chose to forsake their goal
in Christ for the easy route instead.
And their choices would have effected generations of believers to come.
What does God want to do with you life? What goals do you
imagine He has set for you? And if you chose the easy way, aiming for nothing
rather than aiming for usefulness in holiness to God, how will you effect or not effect the lives of those to come
after you?
The time has come to be what God has called us to be. “Be
holy, because I am holy” saith the LORD. You may not reach it, but you must not
give up.
In summary, the timely words of Romans 13:11-14, “And do
this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now
our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent,
the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us
put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry
and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. But put on
the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its
lusts.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)