"1. Trinity. This term does not occur in the Holy Scriptures, but summarizes everything which God has revealed in Scripture concerning Himself, namely that He is one (1 Cor. 8:4) and yet the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19)." (p. 408)

"2. The word person (persona, prosopon, hupostasis) has been and still is being employed by the Christian Church to disavow the Unitarian heresy which considers the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost only three manifestations and modes of operation or three powers and divine attributes. Luther points out that the term person was used by the Early Church to refute the folly of the Monarchian heretics as though the three names could denote one and the same Person in three successive manifestations (St. L. XIII:674). Like the ancient Unitarians, so also our modern Unitarians make fools of themselves when they reduce the three Persons to three powers, operations, and divine attributes. The term person, however, is employed not only antithetically, but also positively, for it clearly sets forth that in the one God there are three individual personal agents ('Ich'), or self-subsisting subjects ('Selbstaendige'). Luther: 'Because Christ is born of the Father, He must be a Person distinct from the Father. You may use whatever term you will, we use the term person. We realize, of course, that our terminology is inadequate and is really only a stammering. But we cannot do justice to this truth, for we have no better term.' (St. L. XIII:669.) The definition of the Augsburg Confession is fully satisfactory. 'And the term person they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.'"⁴⁵ (p. 409)

Footnote 45: "Dogmaticians have defined person also as suppositum intelligens (a thinking self-existing being), substantia individua intelligens incommunicabile."

"But while Luther and the dogmaticians with the ancient Church Fathers retain the term person—because they have no better term—they do not fail to point out the unique usus loquendi {literally, 'usage in speaking,' i.e. the way a word is used in a particular context that may not reflect its meaning in other contexts} of the word in this doctrine. Ordinarily three person have three essences, three wills, three distinct operations. But in the Trinity the three Persons have one and the same essence, not three; one set of divine attributes, not three; one operation in divine works (ad extra), not three. Three human persons are said to have one essence, but only in kind (secundum speciem); the three Persons in the Trinity have one essence in number (secundum numerum, eandem numero essentiam). For this reason the doctrine of the Trinity is an inscrutable mystery. Hence human reason also cannot comprehend how only the Second Person became man without the Father and the Holy Ghost at the same time becoming man. The fact is clearly stated in Holy Scripture (John 1:14; Gal. 4:4; Col. 2:9); the manner surpasses all human comprehension. Luther: 'I would preusume to be as sagacious as any heretic if I would interpret the words 'the Word was made flesh' to suit my whim and fancy' (St. L. VII:2161)." (p. 410)

"3. Essence. Essentia, ousia, phusis. The term essence, like person, has singular meaning when used in the doctrine of the Trinity. It denotes the one divine essence which in its totality and without any division is the property of each of the three Persons. We sometimes say that three persons have the same essence. This is correct if we use the term as a universal proposition, an intellectual abstraction, or a philosophical (nominalistic) concept, to denote a characteristic which is common to everyone in an entire class or genus. This definition, however, does not apply to the doctrine of the Trinity. The one divine essence of the three Persons is a true reality, because there is only one such essence which belongs to each person wholly and without division, in fine, is the true God." (p. 411)

"4. Homoousios to patri, consubstantial, or coessential, with the Father. The Nicene formula the Son is homoousios to patri, of the same essence with the Father, on the one hand condemns Arianism, which called Christ the first creature, ktisma ex ouk onton ('and made Him only a cosmic agent through whom God created the world'), and on the other hand expresses the Scriptural truth that the Son is of one essence, unius numero essentiae, with the Father." (p. 413)

"5. The term Filioque expresses the truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. It is generally accepted that this term was added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Synod of Toledso (589). But the term is later than the doctrine. Even though the Christians of the first centuries did not know the term, they believed the fact of the Filioque on the basis of Scripture, which called the Holy Spirit not only the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20), but also the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6). Scripture, furthermore, ascribes the sending of the Spirit to the Son (John 15:26; 16:7) as wel as to the Father (John 14:16). In fact, it adds the significant expression that the Holy Spirit would not speak of Himself, but shall receive His message from the Son (John 16:13-14), and is therefore called the 'breath of His [the Messiah's] lips' (Is. 11:4), and the 'Spirit of His mouth' [the Word] (2 Thess. 2:8). The procession of the Spirit from the Son is also clearly indicated in John 20:22, when Christ breathed on His disciples and said, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost.'" (pp. 414-415)

"6. Perichoresis, enuparxis, circumincessio, interpenetration, immanence. These terms express the fact that each Person has the one divine essence and that therefore the three Persons are in one another and reciprocally interpenetrate, interpermeate, each other.

"This is clearly taught in John 14:11 ('I am in the Father and the Father in me'); John 17:21. Nevertheless, according to Scripture, it does not follow from this mutual immanence that the Father and the Holy Spirit became man when the Son was made flesh. Only the 'would-be-wise heretic,' as Luther said, pretends to penetrate this mystery." (p. 415)

"7. Opera divina ad intra and opera divina ad extra. ...The term opera ad extra denotes the divine works which relate to the world, which have the universe as their object, such as creation, preservation, building of the Church. These works, as was shown above {pp. 385-386}, are common to all three persons, because there is only one divine essence, not three; only one set of divine attributes and works, not three. Opera divina ad extra sunt indivisa {'The external divine works are indivisible'}." (p. 416)

"Opera divina ad intra are those divine works which have no bearing upon the world, but take place within the Deity. Luther calls the opera ad intra works which 'remain in the Deity,' which do 'not extend beyond the Deity.' Such works are the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal spiration of the Holy Ghost. In designating the Son as the Only-Begotten of the Father (John 1:14), the Scriptures reveal an intertrinitarian act which emanates from the Father and affects the Son. Likewise the fact that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father (John 15:26; Matt. 10:20) and the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:9) is the revelation of an act within the Divine Majesty of which the Father and the Son are the subject and the Holy Spirit the object. By revealing these 'intertrinitarian' divine works, Scripture reveals in unmistakable terms that there are three distinct Persons in the one divine essence. The names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are personal propositions.

"The opera ad intra are not common to all three Persons, as are the opera ad extra, but are ascribed only to one or two Persons. The generation of the Son is ascribed only to the Father, the spiration of the Holy Ghost only to the the Father and the Son, and thereby the Father is revealed as a Person distinct from the Son, and the Holy Spirit as distinct from the Father and the Son. Each of these intertrinitarian acts belongs only to one Person (opera ad intra divisa sunt {'the internal works are divisible'}), and these acts are, therefore, very properly designated as personal acts within the Divine Majesty (actus personales). This additional terminology became necessary to defend and uphold the distinction of the three Persons against Unitarianism and to condemn any and every confusion of the three Persons. Because personal acts are predicated of each of the three Persons, we must also ascribe to each a specific personal attribute: to the Father, paternity; to the Son, filiation; and to the Holy Spirit, passive spiration or procession. The term 'personal properties' serves the purpose of maintaining the distinction of the Persons and prevents the confusion of them. From the personal properties flow the 'personal notations,' which amount to negative or passive attributes and are, in the case of the Father, the incapability of being born or proceeding, innascibilitas et improcessibilitas {'not begotten and not proceeding'}; in the case of the Son, nascibilitas, sive generatio passive talis {beggoten, thereby possessing generation - Scaer (loosely)}, and in the case of the Holy Spirit, processio sive spiratio passiva {proceeding by passive spiration (?)}. These terms express the same truth which is confessed in the Athanasian Creed, ‘The Father is made of none; neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor beggotten, but proceeding.’" (pp. 416-417)

"On the basis of Scripture, two points must be maintained:

"1. In God, essence and attributes are not separate, but the divine essence and the divine attributes are absolutely identical, because God is infinite and above space (1 Kings 8:27) and time (Ps. 90:2-4). Were we to assume that there are parts in God, we would ascribe finitude to the infinite God and thereby erase the difference between God and man...

"2. Since finite human reason cannot comprehend the infinite and absolute simplex, God condescends to our weakness and in His Word divides Himself, as it were, into a number of attributes which our faith can grasp and to which it can cling. Scripture itself teaches us to distinguish between God's essence and His attributes when it speaks of God's love (Rom. 5:8), God's wrath (Rom. 1:18), God's long-suffering (Rom. 2:4). It is only natural that when we hear of God's love or wrath, our mind thinks, first, of God's being and, secondly, of love or wrath as an attribute and characteristic of God. Because God employs our human language, He has also adopted our way of thinking and accomodated Himself to the laws of human thought processes or logic.⁵⁹ Scripture distinguishes not only between God's essence and attributes, but also between the various divine attributes in their relation to one another. Scripture ascribes the motives for particular divine acts to particular divine attributes or dispositions (affectiones). For example: Scripture ascribes the sending of God's Son to God's love (John 3:16); the sinner's justification to God's grace, through the redemption in Christ, without human merit (Rom. 3:24); the condemnation of the wicked to God's punitive justice (2 Thess. 1:6). In his prayer, Daniel distinguishes sharply between the attributes of God when he says: 'We do not present our supplications before Thee for our righteousness, but for Thy great mercies' (Dan. 9:18)." (pp. 428-429)

Footnote 59, p. 429: "Our dogmaticians express it thus: 'By the term "divine essence" that is understood which is conceived as being the first in God and which according to our mode of conception is the principum and radix of all perfections which are ascribed to God after the manner of attributes' (Baier, II, 11)."

"The doctrine that God's attributes, viewed 'objectively,' are indivisible has been misused, and two cautions are in order.

"a. Under the pretense that all divine attributes constitute an indivisible unit, the distinction between the attributes has been ignored, and one attribute has been substituted for another. This procedure corrupts all theology, as Scripture teaches clearly by word and example. All who base the forgiveness of sin on God's temunerative righteousness which rewards civil righteousness, in other words, on the works of the Law and not upon God's grace through Christ's vicarious satisfaction, will recieve not the forgiveness of sin, but God's curse (Gal. 3:10)...

"b. An earnest warning must also be sounded against men's presumptuous attempt to describe the divine attributes according to their preconceived 'theological' opinions and not according to God's Word.... It is indeed a foolish and blasphemouse undertaking when we men on an a priori basis (i.e., independent of God's self-revelation in His Word) presume to determine what God accoring to His love or righteousness can or ought to do, or what is or is not compatible with God's love or justice. This attempt rests on the false premise that finite man can comprehend the infinite God. The fact is that as God is infinite, so also His attributes are infinite and are therefore beyond our comprehension." (pp. 430-431)

"The names of God (because they describe God) must also be listed among God's predicates. Some have counted ten such descriptive names of God. Luther disapproves of this number as not being sufficiently exhaustive. In his Treatise on Shem Hamphoras Luther refers to the Jewish custom of ascribing ten names to God, a custom which Jerome followed in his Epistola ad Marcellum, where he lists the following: El, Elohim, Eloha, Tsebhaoth, Elyon, Ehye, Adonai, Yah, Yehovah [Yahwe], Shaddai. Luther continues: 'I do not think much of this. There certainly are more divine names in Scriptures, e. g., Ab, Bore, Or, Chai, etc., Father, Creator, Light, Life, Salvation, and many others. And can you think of anything good which must not be ascribed to God first of all, who is the Author and Source of good, as Christ says: 'God alone is good' (Luke 18:19), from whom we have received all that we have received, are, and possess'? (St. L. XX:2057.) Immediately following this quotation is Luther's masterful exposition on the uniqueness of the name Jehovah, the nomen Dei essentiale sive incommunicabile {'the real or incommunicable name of God'—Scaer}, meaning 'Pure Being' (Ex. 3:14)." (pp. 432-433)

"...Among Lutheran theologians the following two categorizations have principally been used: 1) quiescent and operative attributes; 2) negative and postive attributes.

"Those who have employed the first classification define as qiescent those attributes in which no effect upon, and no relation to, the world is implied, but which are conceived as remaining within the Godhead and being apart from the world, such as eternity, simplicity, infinity. They are called, nore or less appropriately, attributa immanentia {'those divine attributes which concern only God' - Scaer}, quiescentia {'those divine attributes which are not active in regard to the created world' - Scaer}, anenergeta {Grk}. The words 'absolute' and 'remote' may also be employed. 'Operative attributes' is the term for all those divine attributes which denote an operation on, or a relation to, this world, such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, justice, mercy. These attributes are also known as attributa relativa {'those divine attributes which are related to the created world' - Scaer}, operativa {'those divine attributes which function in regard to the created world' - Scaer}, transeuntia {'those divine attributes which pass from His essence to the created world' - Scaer}, energetixa {Grk}.

"Those who classify the divine attributes as negative and positive designate as negative such attributes as unity, simplicity, immutability, infinity, immensity, eternity; in other words, the imperfections of creatures cannot be ascribed to God. All those attributes which are found in man, but which are ascribed to God in a higher degree or in an absolute sense are known as positive attributes, such as life, knowledge, wisdom, holiness, righteousness, truth, power, love, goodness, grace, mercy." (pp. 434-435)

"There is a great diversity among modern {i.e., liberal} theologians in classifying the divine attributes. But they are agreed that the divisions of the old dogmaticians are in the pattern of Scholastic dialectics, lack religious value, and are contrary to the findings of modern psychology and religious experience. This judgment need not surprise us, for modern theology is in disagreement with the theological method of the old theologians who describe the divine attributes on the basis of, and according to, Scripture. Modern theologians believe that God can be discerned only in a 'religious experience' of God in nature and in history." (p. 435)

"..In spite of differences in the classifications the old theologians were agreed that all divine attributes are identical with the divine essence. There can be nothing accidental {'not essential'} or adventitious {'not inherent but added extrinsically'}, or mutable, or amissible {'capable of being lost'} in God—in Deum non cadit accidens {'nothing happens by chance with God; God is not subject to chance or fate' - Scaer}—for in God the attributes are not distinct from the essence. Life, wisdom, grace, are God's very substance and cannot undergo change, as in man. Modern kenotics, such as Thomasius, teach amissible attributes. They say that the relative attributes, such as omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, are not essential, but accidental, properties of God and can therefore be separated from God. But they maintain this view in the interest of their false Christology, claiming that only by divesting Himself completely of omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, could the Son of God become man." (p. 436)

"We shall follow the division into negative and positive attributes, through we have no special preference for this classification. But in this division, because it is based essentially on a comparison of God and His creatures, we have occassion to ascend from the level of human imperfection to the divine perfection, or, better still, to adore the divine perfection, which transcends all human comprehension. In making this comparison (between human and divine attributes) we dare never go beyond Scripture nor forget the infinite chasm between God and man, for all attributes, regardless of the division, belong to God in a unique manner (modo singulari)." (p. 436)

"Before discussing the separate divine attributes we must make one more general observation. All divine attributes revealed in Scripture, such as unity, infinity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, could only fill our hearts with terror if Scripture had not also revealed God's free grace toward all sinful mankind for the sake of Christ's vicarious atonement. This attribute of God’s grace is the center of the entire Scriptures, for the scope of all Scripture is Christ, the Savior of sinners, 'who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time' (1 Tim. 2:6). The attribute of God's grace, which is provided through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, is also the God-intended center of all human history, for the only purpose of the world's existence is the proclamation of God's grace through the redemption in Christ (Matt. 24:14)." (pp. 436-437)

1. The Unity of God (Unitas Dei)

"God is in a class by Himself. Every creature has at least something in common with other creatures and exists in duplicate, triplicate, or multiple form. There can be no other God besides God. God is not unus genere {'one in regard to genus, general kind'}, nor unus specie {'one in regard to species, specific kind'}, but unus numero {'one in regard to number'}. Viewed in His entirety, He cannot be divided into several such entities as He is Himself. God is the absolute monad. The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testament, point to the unity of God as evidence of the divine majesty." Quoted: Is. 43:10, Is. 45:5, 1 Cor. 8:4, Deut. 6:4. (p. 437)

"But are not creatures also called gods in Scripture? Yes, for rulers and governors are called gods according to a real and true analogy, because under God they exercise divine functions. (Cp. Ps. 82:6; John 10:35.) Also the idols are called gods, but according to a false analogy, because men erroneously ascribe existence and divine activity to idols (Deut. 4:28). At the same time Scripture distinguishes sharply between these so-called gods (legomenoi theoi, 1 Cor. 8:5) and the one God, who is in a class by Himself, besides whom there is none. He is the monos dunastes, the only Potentate, the ho monos erchon athanasian, the only one who hath immortality (1 Tim. 6:15-16). God is the ens summum, the Absolute Reality, and therefore He cannot share being activity, authority, glory, with anyone or anything." (pp. 437-438)

"...the term 'Spirit' in Christ's statement 'God is a Spirit' (John 4:24) cannot be applied to God in the same sense as to angels (univoce), but only in a highly unique manner, because an infinite and a finite essence, an uncreated and a created spirit, differ in every respect plus quam toto genere {'more than in the entire kind' - Scaer}." (p. 438)

"Strictly speaking, then, a defintion of God is impossible. But we can and should formulate a description of God. In accord with the attributes which God ascribes to Himself in His Word, we can and should describe Him as the one, simple, immutable, almighty, omnipresent, just, gracious God, etc. In reality the entire Scriptures are a description of God. We subscribe to this maxim: Deus non definiri, sed ex verbo suo revelato describi potest {'God is not capable of definition, but He can be described by His own revealed Word' - Scaer}. Would to God that we would at all times make diligent use of this description!" (p. 438)

2. The Simplicity of God (Simpicitas Dei)

"We can describe God's simplicity only in negative terms. It is that attribute according to which God exists entirely uncompounded and without parts. The infinitude of God permits of no parts." (p. 439)

"Ancient and modern Unitarians charge that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the triad of Persons and the unity and simplicity of God. Scripture answers this objection by stating that the essence of God is not divided among the three Persons, but that the essence of God is not divided among the three Persons, but that the entire divine essence is without any division, or multiplication, or distinction in the Father, in the Son (Col. 2:9), and in the Holy Ghost (Acts 5:3-4). But the Unitarians contend that a real, and not only a notional, distinction between the Persons must lead to tritheism, and they therefore do away with the unity and simplicity of God. Our answer is: Here we are confronted with the mystery of the Holy Trinity. On the basis of Scripture we believe both the unity of God and the trinity of Persons (1 Cor. 8:4-6; Matt. 28:19). Subordinationists, indeed, by subordinating the Son to the Father and the Holy Ghost to the Father and the Son, deny the unity and simplicity of God and become polytheists." (pp. 440)

3. The Immutability of God (Immutabilitas Dei)

"God is unchangeable in His essence. He is immutable also in all His attributes..." Cited: Ps. 102:26-27; Is. 54:10; John 3:36; Prov. 19:21; Mark 9:44. (p. 440)

"Scripture speaks of God in a twofold manner: 1) In His majesty as being above time and space (cp. especially Ps. 90:4: 'A thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday'); 2) in accordance with our human views as being in time and space. only in the latter manner is God comprehensible to us. We must so think of God that God, who in His being is immutable, is angry or merciful according to the difference in the object of His affection. We must so conceive of God that in spite of the immutability in His essence He is a gracious God to the humble, poor and contrite sinners, but a jealous God to the proud and self-righteous (1 Pet. 5:5; Luke 18:9-14; Luke 1:52-53). God remains immutable, but there is mutability in the objects of His affection." (pp. 440-441)

"Two objections are frequently raised against God's immutability. It has been said that the creation of the world and the incarnation of the Son imply a change in God. The first objection can be raised only by theosophical pantheists, who view the world as an emanation from God and a part of God's being and deny the creatio ex nihilo. Indeed, the creation of the world implies a change, a change, however, not in God, but in relation to the creature. And the second objection can be made only by the kenotics. Scripture teaches that the Son of God without any change in His deity has assumed into His Person the human nature from the Virgin Mary." (p. 441)

4. The Infinity of God (Infinitas Dei)

"All creatures are finite, that is, they are subject to the limits and boundaries of their being and activity. God is infinite. The term infinity expresses the idea that God in His being and activity is in no way bound by the limitations of time and space. Scripture very emphatically ascribes infinity to God both according to His essence (Ps. 145:3: 'His greatness is unsearchable') and according to his various attributes (Ps. 147:5: 'His understanding is infinite'). Being and attributes in God are one; therefore as God's being is infinite, so are also all His attributes infinite, as will be seen in the discussion of omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

"In so far as God cannot be measured according to human standards, the infinity of God is also called His immensity. By ascribing immensity to God, Scripture expressly reminds us that we dare not make our puny reason and intellect the yardstick to measure God's being and activity. Scripture syas that God dwells 'in the light which no man can approach unto' (1 Tim. 6:16) and that 'His greatness is unsearchable' (Ps. 145:3), and our Confessions, in accord with Scripture, say: 'God is of infinite power.' But Unitarians simply ignore these passages and take the liberty to claim that reason cannot possibly accept three distinct Persons in the one indivisible God. It is very necessary that we constantly heed the Scriptural emphasis on God's immensity and infinity, lest we ignore the absolute difference between God and man, for we are only too prone to forget our limitations. Man is impreesed with his own importance. But God's word (Is. 40:15-17): 'Nations are as a drop of a bucket...as the small dust of the balance...as nothing,' reduces us to our proper size. Finally, by ascribing infinity and immensity to God, Scripture precludes the notion that God may be confined within a given space in the universe. God is always above space, as Solomon confessed at the dedication of the Temple: 'Will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house!' (1 Kings 8:27). Accordingly, the axiom is correct and Scriptural: God enters into space and time and still always remains above space and time." (pp. 441-442)

5. Omnipresence of God (Omnipraesentia Dei)

"God alone is omnipresent. Man and all creatures are always limited to a specific locality. Not even the angels are omnipresent, for, as Chemnitz says on the basis of Dan. 10:13, one angel is in Persia, another in Greece (Loci I, 39). Over against the many erroneous views the Scriptural teaching on God's omnipresence may be summarized in three points.

"1. God is omnipresent according to His essence, not only according to His operation (immanentia Dei). He is essentially, not only dynamically, omnipresent. In the interest of their false Christology some Reformed theologians have denied, and some modern theologians still deny, the essential omnipresence. Wherever God works, He is present. God never works in absentia...

"2. But God's omnipresence is of such a nature that while He is present in all creatures, He is at the same time outside the creature and never becomes the creature or even a part of the creature (transcendentia Dei)...

"3. God is present everywhere without local extension, contraction, multiplication, or division. These concepts would be applicable to God only if He were subject to the laws of space. According to Scripture, God, though present and active in the world, transcends all space. The transcendence of God is clearly taught in 1 Kings 8:27; Is. 66:1. We would hardly expect that within the Christian Church anyone would ascribe local and corporeal extension to God. And yet Zwingli, Calvin, and modern Reformed theologians have actually done this. How else can we account for their apprehension that the human nature of the body of Christ would not be sufficiently large as to serve as the body for the fullness of the Godhead (Col. 2:9)?" (pp. 442-444)

6. The Eternity of God (Aeternitas Dei)

"Scripture uses the term eternity in a modified sense and in an absolute sense. In a modified sense it denotes a long, indefinite period of time, e.g., the period of the Old Testament. The Children of Israel were to observe the Passover "forever" (Ex. 12:24), and circumcision was called an everlasting covenant. Circumcision and the Passover were to be in force throughout the Old Testament, but to be abolished with the institution of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The term eternal is used in a modified sense also to denote an existence which, though it has no end, has a beginning. Men and angels are creatures and therefore have a beginning, but by the power of God they have no end, and all men and all angels will enter either eternal life or eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46).

"In its strict and absolute sense the word eternity denotes infinite, unlimited duration without beginning, without end, without succession. In this sense, eternity can be predicated only of God." Cited: Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:27; Gen. 21:33; Is. 40:28; Rom. 16:26; 1 Tim. 1:17; Ps. 90:4. (pp. 445-446)

1. Life (Vita)

"God alone has life in an absolute sense. Creatures also have life, but it is a derived life, a life in God (Acts 17:28). God, however, has life in himself (John 5:26). The Scriptures call God the 'living God' to set forth the majesty of the one true God, in contrast to the pagan idols, who are only vanities (Joshua 3:10; Jer. 10:10; Acts 14:15), and in contrast to all created life, which has its origin in God, for He giveth to all life and breath (Acts 17:25).

"...The covenant people of the Old Testament, standing on the brink of Jordan, witnessed that God is indeed a living God (Josh. 3:10), and the New Testament Church as 'the Church of the living God' (1 Tim. 3:15) places its trust in the living God (1 Tim. 4:10)." (p. 447)

2. The Knowledge of God (Scientia Dei)

"The knowledge of creatures is relative, imperfect. God's knowledge is absolute, perfect. The knowledge of God differs from that of creatures in two points: in its extent and in its manner.

"a. God's knowledge is omniscience (John 21:17; 1 John 3:20) and comprises all things. It includes all future events, which are hidden to creatures and known only to God (praescientia) (Is. 41:22-23), and even the contingent events, as whether the people of Keilah would deliver David to Saul if he remained there (1 Sam. 23:12)...

"b. Man's knowledge is acquired. He progresses from the known to the unknown and from one known fact to another. God's knowledge is not acquired, for He knows all things in one, simple, all-comprehensive act.... The old dogmaticians put it thus: 'God discerns objects not by means of comprehensible characteristics (per species intelligibiles), but in their very nature and being. Man looks at things (adspicit); God sees through them (perspicit).'" (p. 448)

"A number of problems confront the philosopher who attempts to analyze the omniscience of God. The most vexing problem is: What is the relation of the infallible prescience of God to human freedom and responsibility?...

"In answering this problem, Scripture teaches to observe three things:

"1. God's prescience extends over all things and is infallible. Everything happens as God has foreknown it. The opposite assumption would abolish the true conception of God.

"2. Though the omniscience of God extends over all things without exception, it is not the efficient cause of the things which it knows....

"3. There seems to be an irreconcilable contradiction between the first and the second statement, even when we define 'God's foreknowledge as nothing else than that God knows all things before they occur.' Can we maintain God's infallible foreknowledge and also human freedom and responsibility? Reason argues, if it is true—as indeed it is true—that all things must happen as God has foreseen them, then we must either join Cicero, the Socinians, et alii and sacrifice the infallible and absolute omniscience or become Stoics and deny the freedom of human action and man's responsibility for his sin. But on the basis of Scripture we must maintain both, even though in this life we cannot harmonize the apparent contradictions. The Formula of Concord suggests the only possible mode of procedure: 1) We must firmly believe that everything must happen as God has foreknown it; 2) We dare not trouble ourselves with what God may have foreknown concerning ourselves and others, because we would then enter the realm of the unrevealed and inscrutable mysteries of God. 3) We must use the means of grace to which God has directed us...." (pp. 449-451)

Quoting from the Formula of Concord (Trigl. 1081, 54 f.): "...since God has reserved this mystery for His wisdom, and has revealed nothing concerning it to us in His Word, much less commanded us to investigate it with our thought, but has earnestly discouraged us therefrom, Rom. 11:33 ff., we should not reason in our thoughts, draw conclusions, nor inquire curiously into these matters, but should adhere to His revealed Word, to which He points us." (p. 451)

3. The Wisdom of God (Sapientia Dei)

"...In Scripture the term wisdom—sapientia, sophia—denotes a practical knowledge, the ability to discern correctly the best ends and choose the best means for attaining these ends. And in this sense, Scripture ascribes wisdom to God. God reveals this wisdom not only in the realm of nature by the acts of creation and preservation (Ps. 104:24), but also in the realm of grace by His counsel and acts concerning our salvation. The Gospel of Christ Crucified is expressly called sophia theou, the 'wisdom of God,' the 'hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory.' (1 Cor. 2:6 ff.)" (pp. 452-453)

"Since God is the 'only wise God' (1 Tim. 1:17; Rom. 16:27) and since man is totally unable to fathom the depths of his unsearchable wisdom (Rom. 11:33), we dare never criticize God's wisdom, but stand before it in adoration and praise.... Because of the old Adam even the Christian at times criticizes the ways of God. But in spite of the Modernist and the old Adam in the Christian, the Scriptural truth cannot be challenged that not only in a general way, but in every detail everything in this world is taking the right course. It cannot be otherwise, for all things are controlled by the expert hand of the all-wise God.... This includes also all the punishments, e.g., famines, wars, depressions, earthquakes, floods, with which God allows mankind to be afflicted (Gen. 3:16ff; Matt. 24:1ff.). They must serve God's gracious purpose and will to bring men to repentance and faith, as Christ expressly teaches on the basis of concrete examples in Luke 13:1 ff." (p. 453)

4. The Attributes of the Divine Will

"The Scriptures ascribe to God not only mind (Rom. 11:34: 'Who hath known the mind of the Lord'), but also will (1 Tim. 2:4: 'who will have all men to be saved'; John 6:40; 1 Thess. 4:3: the will of God concerning our salvation and sanctification). The remaining positive attributes may be viewed as being related to God's will and include his holiness, justice, truth, power, benevolence, mercy, love, grace, and long-suffering.

"Before we discuss the various attributes of God's will, two questions must be answered: 1) Do causes influence God's will? 2) Is a classification of the divine will permissible?

"1. The first question must be answered as follows: a) Scripture, on the one hand, describes God in His majesty. As the God of majesty He is independent of all things, is absolute and unconditioned (Rom. 11:36: 'Of Him and through Him and to Him are all things'). It is therefore impossible to ascribe to God in His majesty cause and effect as two separate and distinct concepts. Non sunt in Deo causae formliter causantes {'In God the causes are not really the effects; Ref. to God as he is in Himself' - Scaer}. b) Scripture, on the other hand, compels us to make a distinction between cause and effect in God, because we are unable to comprehend the absolute God. Scripture therefore teaches us to view God's wrath as being caused by man's sin (Ps. 90:7-8; Jer. 2:19) and God's grace as resting upon Christ's merit (Rom. 3:24: 'through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus'). In Deo sunt causae virtualiter causantes {'In God the causes have the actual effects. Ref. to God as He is revealed' - Scaer}.⁹¹" (pp. 453-454)

Footnote 91, page 454: "The dogmatical statements, though inadequate, express the Scriptural truths that in God cause and effect are not two essentially (formaliter) different things, because there is nothing outside God which can cause something in the absolute God. But since we must progress in our thinking from cause to effect, Scripture permits us to view the effect as actually caused (virtualiter) by a preceding cause. Many theologians insist that we must not speak of a 'change in the mind and disposition of God.' See Vol II, p. 367, Note 69."

"2. There can be no division and classification of God's will as far as God's essence is concerned. In Him there is only one will, and this is identical with His essence. But because of our finite comprehension Scripture itself teaches us to observe the following classification and divisions.

"a. We distinguish between God's first, or antecedent, and second, or consequent, will (voluntas prima, sive antecedens, et voluntas secunda, sive consequens). According to John 3:17 we must first think of God as not willing to condemn a single person, but that He earnestly wills the salvation of everyone. Then we must secondly think of God that He wills the condemnation of all who reject Christ, for in v. 18 we read: 'He that believeth not is condemned already.'...

"b. We must distinguish between an irresistible and a resistible will in God (voluntas irresistibilis et voluntas resistibilis). God in His majesty cannot be resisted. No man can resist Christ's will which will summon all men before the Judgment throne. There is a divine 'must' (dei) behind this will (John 5:28; Matt. 25:31 ff.; 2 Cor. 5:10: 'We must (dei) appear') But Christ's will to bring men to faith through the preaching of the Gospel can be resisted (Matt. 23:37: 'Ye would not'). This distinction has been misused by ancient and modern synegists, who argue that the ability to resist implies the ability to assist and who therefore ascribe to the natural man facultas se applicandi ad gratiam {'the ability of applying yourself to grace' - Scaer}, self-determination.

"c. God wills immediately and mediately (voluntas absoluta et voluntas ordinata)...In exceptional cases, so-called reserved cases, God works immediately even in the Kingdom of Grace, as is evident from the fact that John was endowed with the Holy Ghost in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15, 41). But God's usual order is that He works faith, preservation of faith, sanctification, etc., only through the means of grace which He has appointed and to which He has bound us (Rom. 10:17; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:23 ff.; Mark 16:15; Matt. 28:19-20)....

"d. God's will is unconditioned by any human effort as well as conditioned by human efforts (voluntas gratiae et voluntas conditionata). In the realm of grace, God's will is not contingent upon man's good works, for man is saved by grace without the deeds of the Law (Rom. 3:28) by grace alone (Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 11:6). All who endeavor to supplement the will of grace by human effort will receive the curse (Gal. 3:10). In the realm of the Law, however, God's will is conditioned by man's work. 'This do, and thou shalt live' (Luke 10:28; Gal. 3:12). But let no one who hopes to be saved in this way forget that the will of God is conditioned by nothing less that a perfect fulfillment of the entire Law, for 'cursed in everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them.' (Gal. 3:10).

"e. Scripture distinguishes between God's revealed and His hidden will (voluntas revelata, voluntas signi, and voluntas abscondita, voluntas beneplaciti). On the one hand, Christians know God's will; they know 'the things that are freely given us of God,' 'they judge all things' and 'know the mind of Christ' (1 Cor. 2:12, 15-16). On the other hand, it is also true that no man 'knows the mind of the Lord' (Rom. 11:33-34). In all matters of their salvation men are directed solely to the gracious will of God, which is revealed in Christ and clearly taught in all those passages which tell us that God can and will be known only in Christ (John 1:18; Matt. 17:5; John 6:40) and that salvation can be found only in Christ (Matt. 11:28)...."

"We are now ready to discuss the positive attributes of God that may be viewed as relating to God's will." (pp. 454-456)

"The holiness of God denotes 1) God's supreme majesty and absolute transcendence. The basic meaning of qadosh {Hebr.} in the Trisagion (Is. 6:3) is separate, removed, exalted. God is the Holy One (Is. 43:3, 14, etc.), the absolutely Remote. Though He permeates and fills all things, He is exalted above all creatures, sits upon a throne, high and lifted up, before whom the seraphim cover their face and feet. The New Testament equivalent of qadosh is doxa theou (John 12:41). In its first meaning the holiness of God describes God in His essence and therefore includes all His attributes. The 'Holy One of Israel' and 'the God of Israel' are unequivocal synonyms (Ps. 71:22). 2) The term holiness denotes also the absolute ethical purity of God. As the holy God He is separate from sin, and His holiness includes His contrast and opposition to man's sin. 'Be ye holy, for I am holy' (1 Pet. 1:16; cp. Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7). Isaiah was fully conscious of the fact that the revelation of God's holiness brought God's absolute purity into sharp contrast with his own and his people's sin. (v. 5: 'Woe is me! for I am undone,' etc.)...

"The revelation of God's holiness teaches us two important lessons. In the first place, we must enter into His presence with deep awe and great reverence. Jehovah's throne is an awe-full throne, before which we are, as Abraham said, nothing but dust and ashes. (Gen. 18:27 ff.) But, secondly, we can come into His presence with confidence and joy, because the holiness of God has been perfectly appeased through Christ's vicarious atonement (Rom. 5:1, 10; Eph. 3:11-12)." (pp. 456-457)

"The Scriptures ascribe justice to God and thereby exclude all unrighteousness from God's being, Ps 92:15 ..., and especially Deut 32:4, which abounds in predicates denoting justice..." (p. 457)

"In its relation to man God's justice is 1) iustitia legalis, the divine righteousness revealed in the Law, and 2) iustitia evangelica, the righteousness revealed in the Gospel. The former is legislative, inasmuch as it is the standard for man's moral being and actions and demands absolute conformity with this norm (Matt. 22:37); it is renumerativa, inasmuch as it rewards the good; and it is vindicativa (punitiva, ultrix), inasmuch as it punishes the evil (2 Thess. 1:4-10). The iustitia evangelica is the very opposite. It consists in God's setting aside His iustitia legalis (choris nomon), declaring the sinner righteous, forgiving his sin by grace for the sake of Christ's righteousness (Rom 3:21-22). Man's salvation rests solely on the iustitia evangelica, and faith in this 'evangelical justice' constitutes the essence of Christianity.—Here we have the answer to the question whether God punishes sin adequately. According to Gal. 3:13; John 3:36, etc., Christ bore the adequate punishment of sin in our place, and whoever rejects this full and complete payment must pay it himself eternally." (pp. 457-458)

"...Christ declares that the whole human race is inherently dishonest, deceitful, mendacious. Out of the heart, the inner being, proceed false witnesses and blasphemies (Matt. 15:19). And David states: 'All men are liars (Ps. 116:11). Over against this universal dishonesty of man, Scripture repeatedly places the absolute truthfulness of God into the sharpest possible antithesis (Titus 1:2; John 3:33; Heb. 6:18; 1 Sam. 15:29; Num. 23:19).—God's words can therefore never pass away (Matt. 24:35); John 10:35: 'The Scripture cannot be broken.'" (p. 458)

"...Scripture teaches us to say that God effects His works by an act of the will. God creates by His will, by His fiat (Gen. 1:3). God's will is God's power; what He wills He does (Ps. 115:3)." (p. 459)

"Whatever God wills He accomplishes in one of two ways: either by His appointed means (causae secundae, potentia ordinata) or without them (potentia absoluta, immediata). In either case, however, the one and selfsame divine power is operative. The same divine omnipotence is at work when God according to His established order sustains life by food and drink or immediately, as He sustained Moses for forty days without meat or drink (Ex. 34:28).... All those works which God performs without employing the usual means (causae secundae) are defined in Scripture as miracles (John 2:11: semeia; Acts 2:43: terata kai semeia). Two points must be observed in considering miracles: 1) God is not bound to observe the distinction between potentia absoluta and ordinata; in other words, He can do without means what He ordinarily does through means (Ex. 34:28). God is above the laws of nature and can therefore dispense with them at will, as Christ teaches: 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God' (Matt. 4:4). Strictly speaking, there are no immutably fixed laws of nature. They exist only in the foolish minds of mechanistic philosophers and evolutionistic theorizers. In reality the laws of nature are nothing more than the will of God as applied to the creature. 2) God has bound us to the appointed means. We shall leave the performance of miracles to God. Of course, there is a miracle-working faith (Wunderglaube, fides heroica, Matt. 17:20; 21:21; 1 Cor. 12:1, 10) which is not bound to rules. He that has this gift knows when to use it." (pp. 459-460)

"The close relation of these attributes makes it advisable to treat them under one heading.

"On the basis of Scriptures the dogmaticians distinguish between the objective and subjective goodness of God. Viewed objectively, goodness is that quality in God whereby He is the absolute Good, the unconditioned and essential Perfection.... God alone is good of Himself and in Himself (to autoagathon), and in this sense 'there is none good but One, that is God' (Matt. 19:17). God's goodness and absolute perfection are the same....

"God's goodness is not only 'remote,' 'objective,' an attribute within the divine essence, but it is also 'subjective,' 'relative,' an attribute which describes God's benevolence and beneficence toward His creatures. Scripture contains many references concerning God's goodness toward all creatures, rational and irrational: The Lord is good to all (Ps. 145:9), has pity even on animals (Jonah 4:11), helps both man and beast (Ps. 36:6); and especially Psalm 136, with its refrain: 'For His mercy endureth forever.' For this reason the Psalmist calls on all creatures to praise God (Ps. 148).

"But Scripture focuses our attention in particular on God's goodness toward man, more specifically, toward man as sinner. It does so by using the terms mercy, love, grace, patience, long-suffering. These terms are, of course, synonyms, inasmuch as they all describe God's goodness. But from our viewpoint they present various aspects of God's goodness, and these synonymous terms bring God's goodness into full view, just as the various facets refract and reflect the brilliance of the diamond." (pp. 460-461)

"The mercy of God is goodness as compassion upon man, whose sin has brought him untold misery. 'Through the tender mercy of God [dia splagchna eleous theou]...the Dayspring [Christ] hath visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death (Luke 1:78-79). The love of God shows us that facet of Go's goodness which reveals Him as being deeply attached to sinful mankind and anxious to restore men to communion with God, John 3:16. God is the Philanthropist, whose love toward man (philanthropia) has appeared, Titus 3:4. The grace of God is goodness in so far as man in no wise has deserved it, but God is good toward the sinner only for the sake of Christ's vicarious satisfaction (Titus 3:5: 'Not by works of righteousness which we have done'; Rom. 3:24: 'freely, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus'). The terms patience and long-suffering reveal that phase of God's goodness which prompts Him not to punish immediately, but to wait for the sinner's repentance.... God characterizes Himself as 'the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth' (Ex. 34:6)." (pp. 461-462)

"Among all the attributes of God, Scripture asigns a unique place to God's goodness as grace in Christ. We must always keep in mind that the true scope of the Bible is none other than to reveal God's grace. For Scripture reveals Christ the Savior of sinners, and in Christ's redemptive work God turns His gracious conuntenance toward sinners. 'For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved' (John 3:17). Also the Old Testament has no other scope than to reveal the forgiveness of sins in Christ, i.e., God's grace, as St. Peter testfies: 'To Him give all the Prophets witness that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins' (Acts 10:43). If Scripture had revealed all the divine attributes except God's grace, then Scripture would be of no value to us. Our knowledge of God would fill our hearts with terror if Scripture had not revealed that the one, indivisible, immutable, infinite, omnipresent, eternal, living, all-knowing, all-wise, omnipotent, holy, just, truthful God is also the gracious God—gracious in Christ and for Christ's sake. 'All sins Thou borest for us, Else had despair reigned o'er us.' This is God's true countenance." (pp. 462-463)

"...even Christians who clearly understand the doctrine of God's grace and are also able to state it correctly, deface God's gracious countenance. This occurs when they attempt to determine God's gracious attitude toward themselves on the basis of their subjective feelings and emotions and not on the basis of the objective Word of God." (p. 463)