Holiness and Absolute

In his Systematic Theology , Charles Hodge quotes the following from DF Strauss’s Dogmatik : “The ideas of the absolute and of the holy are incompatible. He who holds to the former must give up the latter, since holiness implies relation; and, on the other hand, he who holds fast the idea of God as holy, must renounce the idea of his being absolute; for the idea of absolute is inconsistent with the slightest possibility of its being other than it is.”

Hodge cites this as an example of what happens when “the philosophical notion of the absolute and infinite is to decide every question concerning the divine nature.” But it also reveals the conundrums that appear when we attempt to unravel the attributes of God outside a Trinitarian context.

Strauss is quite correct to say that holiness implies relation, and the attempt to formulate an idea of God’s holiness outside a Trinitarian framework is doomed to incoherence.

In much recent systematic theology, “holiness” is referred to the Hebrew roots that mean “separation.” If holiness means separation, then there must be something to be separated from. One could say that God is separated from creation, but then His holiness will come into play only after He has created; He cannot be eternally and necessarily holy. One could say that God is separated from sin, but that is only true once sin has come into the world. One could say that God is separated from all sorts of imperfection, but that would suggest, strangely, that there is some negative, some nothingness or non-being, that stands over against God from which He separates Himself. Holiness is often defined in terms of moral perfection; that creates problems in itself, not least of them being that this definition loses contact with the original intention to root the attribute of holiness in the Hebrew concept of QDSH.

On these common constructions, holiness defines God in relation to His creation. Yet, it has also been common for theologians to suggest that holiness is the attribute that most centrally describes the very essence of God. These two things cannot coexist, of course, and the solution is to accept Strauss’s challenge, admit that holiness implies relation, and work out a Trinitarian theology of holiness.

On the other hand, Strauss is not correct to say that relation undermines absoluteness – the whole of patristic Trinitarian theology was formulated to deny this and to affirm the possibility of absolute relation, absolute relatedness.