Basic HTML Version
37
These qualities cannot be altered without altering the essential Being of God. And since they
are essential qualities, each one of them reveals to us some aspect of the Being of God.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY:
How can we distinguish between the being, the nature, and
the essence of God? How do the philosophical views of the essential Being of God generally
differ from the theological views? How about the tendency to find the essence of God in the
absolute, in love, or in personality? What does Otto mean when he characterizes it as “the
Holy” or “the Numinous”? Why is it impossible for man to comprehend God? Has sin in any way
affected man’s ability to know God? Is there any difference between Luther’s and Barth’s
conception of the “hidden God”? Does Calvin differ from them on this point? Did Luther share
the Nominalist views of Occam, by whom he was influenced in other respects? How did the
Reformers, in distinction from the Scholastics, consider the problem of the existence of God?
Could we have any knowledge of God, if He were pure attributeless being? What erroneous
views of the attributes should be avoided? What is the proper view?
LITERATURE:
Bavinck, Geref. Dogm. I, pp. 91-113,; Kuyper, Dict. Dogm., De Deo I, pp. 124-158;
Hodge, Syst. Theol. I, pp. 335-374; Shedd, Dogm. Theol. I, pp. 152-194; Thornwell, Collected
Works, I, pp. 104-172; Dorner, Syst. of Chr. Doct. I, pp. 187-212; Orr, Chr. View of God and the
World, pp. 75-93; Otten, Manual of the Hist. of Dogmas I, pp. 254-260; Clarke, The Chr. Doct. of
God, pp. 56-70; Steenstra, The Being of God as Unity and Trinity, pp. 1-88; Thomson, The
Christian Idea of God, pp. 117-159; Hendry, God the Creator (from the Barthian standpoint);
Warfield, Calvin and Calvinism, pp. 131-185 (Calvin’s Doctrine of God).