David Hutchings
God’s “hatred,” properly defined, is His “divine
aversion to all that opposes and who oppose His goodness, or holiness.”1
God's “wrath” is “the expression of this aversion in a consuming anger.”2
Rightly understood, this means that God’s “hatred” and “wrath” do not exist ‘independently’
of that which they are against or in relation to. They are manifestations of
His displeasure precisely TOWARDS “SIN.”
God is never “displeased” at merely “nothing”! His anger is not irrationally
directed towards thin air! He is never angry just for the sake of being angry!—such
a notion would make no sense whatsoever. Sin and wickedness are always in view
when we speak of His “wrath,” “hatred,” and “indignation.” These attitudes of
God are always in relation to wickedness, and to all that is in opposition to
Him.
One of God’s attributes is His “independence.” God’s “independence” means that He is “self-existent”: i.e. He doesn’t need anything “outside” of Him to be WHO HE IS (otherwise He wouldn’t be God!). The theological term for this is His aseity. God doesn’t need the creature in order to be a God of “love,” “beauty,” “holiness,” “righteousness,” “goodness,” “grace,” “mercy,” etc.). WHO HE IS is “independent” of anything apart from Himself.
Since God’s “wrath” and “hatred” don’t exist “independently”
of sin, and yet God in Himself is “independent” ... It constitutes a denial of
His “simplicity” to include wrath as one of His attributes. God’s “simplicity”
tells us that God IS His attributes—“God is
love” (I John 4:16), “God is light”
(I John 1:5), “God is spirit” (John
4:24), etc. God’s attributes, properly understood, are not “stick-ons,” “labels,”
or “appendages.” His simplicity or oneness teaches us that His being and
attributes are identical (one whole,
no separations). And among His attributes is His “independence.”3
Now, if one is to either brush aside or disregard
the above truths concerning God, and nevertheless insist on including “wrath”
and “hatred” as attributes of God
(i.e. to assert that He is “wrathful” and “hating” IN HIMSELF)—or perhaps claim we can hold “both” ideas! (paradox)—this
would necessitate, at the very least, a “segregation” or “compartmentalising”
within God into at least two parts: i.e. that “part/section” of Him which
exists “independently” (His love, mercy, grace, beauty, holiness, righteousness...),
and the other “part/section” of Him which is “not” independent (wrath, hatred).
And already you would have contradicted, denied, and destroyed the truth of His
perfect oneness (i.e. the truth that He is not composed of “parts”—Westminster
Confession 2:1),4 let alone contradicted the truth that all His
attributes are “identical”!—for how can attributes that are “independent” be
said to be “identical” with an attribute (so-called) that is not “independent”?
And to hold to such an idea expounded above, and at
the same time wear the badge labelled “One who strongly believes in the
Simplicity of God and Classical Theism,” would make one a “liar,” and “duplicitous.”
For one cannot say one proposition through one side of the mouth, and then say
the complete opposite through the other side of the mouth. One would be a “double-minded
man”—one whom James describes as “unstable in all his ways” (1:8).
(to
be continued, DV)
===========
FOOTNOTES:
1. Prof. David J.
Engelsma, Private Correspondence, April 9, 2018.
2. Ibid.
3. For a fine overview
of God’s “simplicity,” check out Herman Hoeksema’s Reformed Dogmatics (Grandville, MI: RFPA, 2005), vol. 1, 106-107.
4. “[God is] a most pure
spirit, invisible, without body, **parts**, or passions.” (WCF 2:1)
.
No comments:
Post a Comment