1. Previous attempts

The Bible tells us that God has many attributes —love, mercy, patience, omnipotence, etc.— and throughout the centuries, Christians have attempted to group them together in ways that make sense. Although there have been many different ways of doing so, many theologians have opted for a basic duality in God’s attributes, which distinguish between his transcendence and immanence (ex., communicable and incommunicable, natural and moral, goodness and greatness) [1]. These attempts generally have two things in common.

First, they are divided into dyads (groups of two) and placed in opposition to one another. Second, the reason this is so is because they are grouped according to how they relate to us: one group of attributes is proper to God, and the other is shared between God and humans.

However, as John Frame has noted, there are at least two drawbacks to dividing God’s attributes in this way: 1) none of God’s incommunicable (i.e., transcendent) attributes are entirely incommunicable, and none of his communicable (i.e., immanent) ones are entirely communicable, and 2) Scripture does not emphasize the contrast between transcendent and immanent attributes. [2]

Thus, it seems that the standard division of God’s attributes into two basic groups gives the impression that God’s attributes do not have an internal logic that exists independently of his creation. After all, how can God have communicable attributes without creatures to whom he can communicate them? Ironically, when we divide God’s attributes in this way, we find out more about ourselves than we do about God: here is what we have in common with God, and here is what we don’t. It doesn’t actually tell us much about God himself.

Therefore, what I would like to suggest in this article —and the word “suggest” cannot be overly emphasized— is a grouping that is based on an internal logic of who God is, regardless of his creation. It will become apparent that this grouping is based on a specifically Christian understanding of who God is, and that it has particular benefits to offer that other groupings do not. First, I will briefly describe this “novel” way of grouping God’s attributes, and then explain some of its potential benefits.

2. A proposal

In essence, I would like to propose that God’s attributes be divided into three groups according to God’s unity and tri-unity: God is, he knows himself, and he loves himself. To state things in a more overtly Trinitarian fashion, God is, and the Father knows himself in the Son and loves himself in the Spirit. The first group of God’s attributes is based on God’s essence (ousia) and the second and third groups on God’s intra-Trinitarian relationships (hypostases).

Although this division may sound novel at first, it has both biblical justification and historical precedent [3]. As for the biblical evidence, God describes himself as the one who “is” (Ex 3:14), the Son is called God’s Wisdom, Word, and Image (ex., Prov 8:22; Jn 1:1; 1 Cor 1:24, 30; Col 1:15; Heb 1:2), and the Spirit is called God’s love and communion (ex., Rom 5:5; 2 Cor 13:14). As for historical precedence, one of Augustine’s “psychological” illustrations for the Trinity was the internal distinction between being, knowing, and loving (On the Trinity, 8–9), and this triad —slightly modified into power, wisdom, and goodness— was revived in the second half of the Middle Ages and became the dominant view during the 12th–13th centuries (ex., school of Laon, Peter Abelard, school of St. Victor) [4]. Therefore, although it is difficult to identify precisely the central element of each component of the triad, the way that has been chosen here is the following: God’s existence, God’s self-knowledge, and God’s self-love [5].

God’s existence. The first major category includes attributes which speak of the one God who is. Here, there is no emphasis on God as Father, Son, and Spirit, but rather on attributes that coincide with the picture of God that one might have based on texts such as Psalm 19:1–6 or Romans 1:19–20. Here we would include attributes such as God’s aseity, eternality, immutability, omniscience [6], omnipotence, omnipresence, spirituality, glory, simplicity, freedom, immensity, beauty, and perfection.

God’s self-knowledge. These attributes flow from the Father’s knowledge of himself in the Son. Here we would include attributes such as God’s truthfulness, wisdom, orderliness, and fairness.

God’s self-love. These attributes flow from the Father’s love of himself (i.e., the Son) in the Spirit. This is what is truly distinctive about Christianity: God is love. Here we would include attributes such as God’s love, goodness, graciousness, holiness, justice, righteousness, joy, and jealousness [7].

In summary, God’s attributes can be organized and categorized in a way that is independent of his creation and coherent with his being and intra-Trinitarian relationships.

3. Benefits to this grouping of God’s attributes

This grouping of God’s attributes is helpful for at least four reasons.

First, as was said above, this division organizes God’s attributes in a way that is internally coherent and does not depend on us humans (or angels) to justify its divisions. Unlike dividing God’s attributes into communicable and incommunicable, transcendent and immanent, etc., these divisions really do tell us something about God: that he is, that he knows himself, and that he loves himself.

Second, a case can be made that Scripture indirectly supports this grouping based on some recurring dyads. In the Old Testament there is the repeated dyad of God’s hesed and emet (loving kindness and truth, respectively) [8] and in the New Testament, John 1:14 says that Jesus was full of charis and aletheia (grace and truth, respectively; cf. v. 17). I would like to suggest that God’s nature is being disclosed: since God knows and loves himself, he reveals himself in ways that are basically logical and relational.

Third, I think this helps explain human experience. Whether it is in theology, society, or politics, there is much debate between conservative vs. liberal, right vs. left, traditional vs. progressive, etc., and it is thought that only one view can be correct. One group typically bases itself on structure, logic, and order, and the other on community, empathy, and freedom. However, if what I have said above is correct, then both left and right are true expressions of God’s nature, but only partially so. One side tends to reflect God’s self-knowledge and truth, and the other tends to reflect God’s self-love and community. Thus, we cannot see the “other side” as competition, but rather as a complement to our true —but only partial— perspective. This would provide a way beyond the stalemate that so often paralyzes theology, society, and politics, and it would do so based on a Trinitarian understanding of God.

Fourth, this helps us analyze other religions and worldviews. There exists a tendency either to completely accept or completely reject other religions, but I think that both options are wrong. Since all people are created in God’s image, we should expect other religions to reflect certain truths about God. However, since all people are sinners, we should expect other religions to distort certain truths about God. There seems to be a progression in revelation as we move from God’s existence to his self-knowledge to his self-love. For example, some religions and worldviews argue that God exists, but that he is unknowable. Others argue that God exists and is knowable, but that he is like a distant king. Only Christianity argues that God exists, is knowable, and is relational. This helps us analyze other religions in a new way, and again, it does so along Trinitarian lines.

Notes