The Westminster Shorter Catechism question 4 asks, "What is God?'' Answer: "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth." When I first read through this list of God's attributes, I was struck by the exclusion of love. I'm not one of those evangelicals who elevates love above the other attributes of God, but I don't understand why it wouldn't be included in the catechism's answer. After all, the Word tells us:
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." I John 4: 7 - 11
Clearly, these verses (and others) indicate that God demonstrated his love toward us by sending Jesus into the world to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins. We could also look at the whole unfolding redemptive story as the demonstration of perfect love among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, as God's children, his love should be an identifying characteristic of our faith to a lost world. It just seems that because love is such a integral part of God, it should be included any time we try to define his character.
wouldn't love be included under "goodness"? I think our understanding of "love" is so subjective and misunderstood that it is "safer" if you will to use the more objective term 'good.' Because everything God does is good-- even towards unbelievers-- but not everything He does is "loving" in the same way that He loves His children. (see DA Carson's "The Dangerous Doctrine of the Love of God") Maybe that's why the old wise dudes left it out of the list?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughts, Christina. I agree that "love" can be subjective, but I would argue that "good" can be also. Even believers sometime struggle seeing hardships through Romans 8...that God is working all things together for our good, in that he is conforming us to the image of his Son through those circumstances. The world would not begin to understand that as "good."
ReplyDeleteYou might be right about good encompassing love though. If it were me, I would have love encompassing goodness.
Anyone else want to jump in?
Jeannette,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eowyn's Hair - it could be subsumed under His goodness. There is a couple of other explanations:
1) The WSC is chiefly concerned with God's incommunicable attributes.
2) You are quoting from the Westminster Shorter Catechism (emphasis on shorter). You cannot include everything in a summary of the faith.
In comparison the Westminster Larger Catechism Q 7 has a more complete definition: "God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most host, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth." Love could be found in 'merciful, gracious and long-suffering.'
WCF 2.1 is even more explicit "There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth..."
There you have it.
Ok, here are some thoughts. I tend to disagree that love would fall under goodness, and here is why. Throughout Scripture, there is a constant balancing of God's steadfast love and his faithfulness/truth. It is his love that prompts him to do good to his people.
ReplyDeleteIt would also be incorrect to say that the WSC is primarily concerned with the incommunicable attributes since his wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth are all in some ways communicable. We do not possess these fully, but we, as creatures made in God's image do reflect these qualities, whether badly or well (by grace of course).
We understand, first, that we primarily categorize God's attributes (even the distinction of attributes plural reveals our limitations) because of our own frail understanding of God's being and that who He is, what He thinks, and what He does are always completely consistent with each other, are in complete union at all times. His speech is act. But these distinctions are helpful - a dictionary of sorts to aid us in understanding the story, the first words in a vocabulary that will expand with eternity as we know God better and better.
So why does it matter that love is present in this short little theological definition? Why do I dare disagree with the wise men who wrote it? Because it seems that love is fundamental to our understanding of all of Scripture - and not just the content of Scripture, but the fact that Scripture exists. We can imagine a that God would be just and never reveal himself to us, that he would be powerful and never reveal himself to us, that he would be wise, etc. But the existence of Scripture is mercy, and its content is grace. These point to love, steadfast love and patience, as the Old Testament writers say over and over again. Yes, it is also a warning of wrath to those who reject him, but again, wrath to those who reject his love. And it is conceivable that the wrath could be wrought without warning.
God is always good, this is so very true. But does goodness require the insane act of wooing a whore who would have nothing to do with her lawful, generous husband?
When we turn to the New Testament, can we not see that it is the love of God that motivates us, spurs us on, prompts us, gives us hope, and sets our example? It would seem hard to believe that something so prominent in the Bible would not be included in a definition of God, no matter how short that definition.
Well Jeannette, I think I would have to agree with you that God's love should be included. If it wasn't for God's fierce love for us, where would we be?
ReplyDelete"We love Him because He first loved us." -1 John 4:19