Why Does God Create?
August 16, 2012
Russell E. Saltzman
At my age you’d think sophomoric questions no longer matter. Likely they wouldn’t if I hadn’t slept through religion, logic, and philosophy when I was an actual sophomore (the real action was over at history, journalism, and political science). Besides, it is my age. These things take on a keener edge as time advances. What I need for this discussion, though, is about five other pastors and two six-packs, maybe three. But, you’ll do in a pinch.
Turning to the internet my search finds nothing about why God creates. The hits always connect to us. Google the question and the suggested links invariably return “Why did God create us?” I don’t care about us. I’m trying to wiggle myself inside God’s mind and Google isn’t helping. Admittedly, Google is hardly an authoritative source for answers to impossible questions, but the scant returns suggest my question is the sort of question nobody much bothers with. Hmm, if Google can’t answer in the first fifty hits, does the question even exist?
“What was God doing before creation?” is another stumper but here there are some answers—of a sort. Augustine flat declared it was impossible even to ask inasmuch as there never will be an answer, so there. I like Luther’s better. He ventured the opinion God was off cutting switches so he could flail us when we did ask. (Naturally, God would have had to first create the branches from which the switches were cut, indicating there was hardly a time when God was not creating, but maybe that’s something Luther meant to put across.)
I’m not asking “Why does God create” as some play on the physics question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” That is a different question, and the reply among some physicists is trending toward “spontaneous creation.” When certain laws of physics happen the universe happens, no sweat, and the result is something. That argues a complete absence of any intentionality about the cosmological enterprise but, then, that is the objective. Nor does a spontaneous creation get us anywhere near God, but that too is very much the point.
Nor is philosophy much help. “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is the title of Bede Rundle’s 2004 book. This, Rundle says, is “philosophy’s central, and most perplexing, question.” I can’t say Rundle eases the perplexity even a little but he does critique the responses of both theism and scientism. That’s a nice approach but it doesn’t leave him with much. From what I can tease out of it—the book demands very close reading—he appears to say “absolute nothing” makes no sense. Describe the qualities of absolute nothing and pretty soon we’ve edged over to a description of something. “We’re here because we’re here because we’re here,” like the old nonsense camp fire song says. But if that’s why there is something, I might have saved ninety-six dollars hardbound by just singing the song.
An Islamic site offers, moving to theology, “Creation is fundamentally the consequence of the divine attribute of being the Creator. A creator who does not create is something of a contradiction in terms.” It adds, though, this doesn’t indicate that God in any sense “needs” creation. “God is free from all needs. It is creation which needs Him.” Granted the latter, but if God does not need to create, why go to the bother?
An evangelical site offered a rather effusive answer to that. God creates because he’s an egoist. That’s not what it says but that’s how it strikes me. God “created the universe first and foremost to bring glory to himself.” That means, “everything was made because of God’s design in making His name BIG.” Everything made “was designed to scream out that our God is an awesome God!”
I find that progression rankling. God wanted a big name for himself? If God is free from all need, back to the Islamic site, why should he care? I’m sensing a hint of low divine self-esteem in here.
I cannot find clear answers theologically, philosophically, or scientifically. That doesn’t leave me without my own answer, though. The arena is open for speculation, far as I can see.
Certainly God has no “need” of creation, if that means divinity is somehow improved or enhanced by the existence of creation. Yet it is also the case that a creator who doesn’t create is a contradiction. That’s why God fusses with it. He creates not merely because he can but, in a certain sense, because he must. If it is within the character of God to create, he will create. God, as Christian scripture suggests, cannot deny himself.
Creation reveals something of God’s own instinctual love for order, design, and complexity. If humanity mirrors the imago dei, so then all creation too is a reflection of the creator.
We describe creation, measure it, and discover how it works right down to the Higgs boson. That seems to be something of our task in the second Genesis account. We also trim hedges, put up straight lines, construct vaulted arches; we design. We do all that to reflect something of ourselves, to say what we are like and who we are.
It seems to me, we will never understand any part of the cosmos at its heart by physics or philosophy or theology until we understand it first as God’s self-portrait.
Russell E. Saltzman is dean of the Great Plains Mission District of the North American Lutheran Church, an online homilist for the Christian Leadership Center at the University of Mary, and author of The Pastor’s Page and Other Small Essays. His previous On the Square articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
God’s big name
Islam
Bede Rundle, Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.16.2012 | 2:13am
Caestal says:
The obvious answer is that there is no way for a non-divine being to know... but if I were to venture a guess, I would say it is the same reason that we create music or paintings or sandwiches or mathematical equations. There is a joy to creation that is worthwhile for its own sake. There is no reason to believe God isn't a joyful being...
8.16.2012 | 2:49am
Rick says:
Of course it is a mystery, and Paul said something to the effect that the pot can never comprehend the potter. That being said, I think you missed a critical point about the nature of God that could be a key to the creation mystery. God is love. And so, what does love want? It naturally wants objects of its love. So, there we have it. God wanted to create beings that could be the objects of his love and who could be fulfilled only if they "would search for God, and perhaps grope for him, and find him..." (Acts 17:27) God's intrinsic nature of love could only be truly fulfilled by these creatures who are loved and who love Him in return. So, perhaps it isn't too far-fetched to say that God DOES need us. Of course, in the creation package, he included scorpions, mosquitoes, and diabolically clever viruses that can constantly mutate to evade antibiotics and kill us anyway. But who can ever understand all of that? Not this pot!
8.16.2012 | 3:39am
Jerry Beckett says:
My (admittedly simple) answer is that God is love, and as (as we learn) love kept to oneself and/or focused solely on oneself is nowhere near as wonderful as love shared, then He created so that He could share Himself....
8.16.2012 | 4:27am
edmond says:
The easiest answer to your question is, because He WANTS to create and does not need a reason to create!
8.16.2012 | 6:29am
Joe Bidwell says:
"So why did you come to be? The simplest answer is why not? But I suppose that won’t do. We needed to share ourselves. I’m not sure that answer is much better, but I will try to explain. You call it love. To us, it is simply our way of being. We do not know how to stop sharing ourselves. We must expand and give love. We cannot be any other way."
~ from "The Second Revelation" of "The Book of We Are"
~ from "The Second Revelation" of "The Book of We Are"
8.16.2012 | 8:02am
James R. Hughes says:
I am writing a series of meditations on Genesis 1-11. I extract part from a meditation I entitled "Why God Created the Universe":
"[I]t is possible to provide an answer from God’s own revelation. At least the following reasons can be given for why God created the heavens and the earth:
1. For his own glory. God demonstrates his infinite power to himself through his acts of creation and sustaining providence (Rom 11.36; Col 1.17). Even if there were no intelligent created beings (angels or men) to observe the created realm, God would still receive glory by observing what he had created as being an awesome display of intelligence, power and perfection (Ps 19.1; Gen 1.4).
2. To receive honour from his intelligent creation. The greatness of God is perceived through his creative works (Ps 8.3). Both the angels and men are called upon to praise God for his person and creative acts (Ps 148; Rev 4.11). There can be no better way to give him praise than by singing the Psalms which are full of the glory of his creative power.
3. For his enjoyment. God designed his creation for his own enjoyment. For example, he walked in the pleasant garden which he had created (3.8). God, in both his divine nature and human nature through Christ, desires to have fellowship with his rational creatures—this is one reason that the Lord’s Supper was instituted, it is also a reason for why we are called to pray to God.
4. For our enjoyment. The Westminster Shorter Catechism, in its opening question, reminds us that we are to glorify God—our primary purpose for existence—and to enjoy him forever. Enjoying God means to delight and share in his person and works and in the gifts he has given to mankind. For example, he gave Adam and Eve a perfect garden in which to dwell in happiness (2.8), and he gave them responsibilities (1.26) to act as rulers over his creation."
"[I]t is possible to provide an answer from God’s own revelation. At least the following reasons can be given for why God created the heavens and the earth:
1. For his own glory. God demonstrates his infinite power to himself through his acts of creation and sustaining providence (Rom 11.36; Col 1.17). Even if there were no intelligent created beings (angels or men) to observe the created realm, God would still receive glory by observing what he had created as being an awesome display of intelligence, power and perfection (Ps 19.1; Gen 1.4).
2. To receive honour from his intelligent creation. The greatness of God is perceived through his creative works (Ps 8.3). Both the angels and men are called upon to praise God for his person and creative acts (Ps 148; Rev 4.11). There can be no better way to give him praise than by singing the Psalms which are full of the glory of his creative power.
3. For his enjoyment. God designed his creation for his own enjoyment. For example, he walked in the pleasant garden which he had created (3.8). God, in both his divine nature and human nature through Christ, desires to have fellowship with his rational creatures—this is one reason that the Lord’s Supper was instituted, it is also a reason for why we are called to pray to God.
4. For our enjoyment. The Westminster Shorter Catechism, in its opening question, reminds us that we are to glorify God—our primary purpose for existence—and to enjoy him forever. Enjoying God means to delight and share in his person and works and in the gifts he has given to mankind. For example, he gave Adam and Eve a perfect garden in which to dwell in happiness (2.8), and he gave them responsibilities (1.26) to act as rulers over his creation."
8.16.2012 | 8:05am
patricksarsfield says:
With all due respect, this is a fruitless task. As He has said: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways....For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9.
The Baltimore Catechism had good advice that I committed to memory when I was just seven in the answer to the question the author spurns: "Why did God make me? God made me to know, love and serve Him in this World and to be happy with Him in the next." It's all the answer I need to get on with the purpose of my life rather than spending it in fruitlessly trying to divine the thoughts of God on such a cosmic subject so long ago.
The Baltimore Catechism had good advice that I committed to memory when I was just seven in the answer to the question the author spurns: "Why did God make me? God made me to know, love and serve Him in this World and to be happy with Him in the next." It's all the answer I need to get on with the purpose of my life rather than spending it in fruitlessly trying to divine the thoughts of God on such a cosmic subject so long ago.
8.16.2012 | 9:19am
harry says:
Why does God create? The answer to that is in 1 John 4:8: God is love.
Love shares its riches with others. God created us so He could share His divine life with us. The rest of creation was God's way of revealing Himself to us: "Ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and His everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind's understanding of created things ..." (Rom 1:20)
Love shares its riches with others. God created us so He could share His divine life with us. The rest of creation was God's way of revealing Himself to us: "Ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and His everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind's understanding of created things ..." (Rom 1:20)
8.16.2012 | 10:18am
Mark says:
Wonderful! Let me try.
God is perfection. He is Love. Love flourishes within the Trinity, but it is not yet perfected because the love within the Trinity is still self-love. Perfect love requires an object that is not itself.
Creation!
God is perfection. He is Love. Love flourishes within the Trinity, but it is not yet perfected because the love within the Trinity is still self-love. Perfect love requires an object that is not itself.
Creation!
8.16.2012 | 10:39am
Dean from Ohio says:
"I cannot find clear answers theologically...."
I respectfully suggest that the cloudiness in this question is in the eye of the and not in the One being observed. As you must know, the phrase that God "created the universe first and foremost to bring glory to himself" is straight from Scripture, as in Ephesians 1:3-14 (NIV84):
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment —to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory."
The great three themes here are his holiness, his will, and the praise of his glory.
The first great singularity in our universe, out of which his character blazes, is his moral holiness. That is the source of all. Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty.
The second great singularity accessible from our universe is his will. Every fiber of creation, contra the child's play of spontaneous creation, demonstrates the will of God. We have two arms and two legs and a working digestive system not because it is inevitable, but because he willed it. So too from bosons to binary star systems. There is a will out there, one of titanic scale.
The glory of God, then, is the rainbow that blazes from one to the other. In electromagnetic terms, what the source of holiness emits and the sink of his will receives, and what the environment of our universe diffracts, refracts and reflects to show us what is inside that unapproachable light where God lives, is the glory of God. It is the center stage of everything that is or ever was or ever will be. But unlike the light in our world, the light of his glory has another dimension, that of weight. The glory (Hebrew, kavod, weight) of God is his consequence, his significance, what makes him matter.
If we saw even a tiny but true glimpse of him, we would feel the weight of the ages pressing on us, and yet we would not be able to stop talking about his indescribable beauty to everyone we met. We do not worship God because he is an egoist, but because it is the most appropriate and compelling thing in all the universe. He truly is worthy of praise, because he is so beautiful.
Driving to work today listening to Christian pop radio, I heard the host mention, "the lovely Jamie Grace" (a Christian contemporary singer). I wanted to see what he was talking about and found her photo gallery online. She is as advertised. But however lovely she may be, God is uncountable orders of magnitude more so; earthly beauty is but a tiny and transient flash of God's eternal and immeasurable desirability.
We yawn at his glory only to the extent that we are spiritually dull, and spiritually blind. With what hearing we have left, let us listen to the words of Jesus in Matt 6:19-24 (NIV84):
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
“The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
Whom do we serve, and with whose way of thinking, that we so dimly see the God of glory?
I respectfully suggest that the cloudiness in this question is in the eye of the and not in the One being observed. As you must know, the phrase that God "created the universe first and foremost to bring glory to himself" is straight from Scripture, as in Ephesians 1:3-14 (NIV84):
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment —to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory."
The great three themes here are his holiness, his will, and the praise of his glory.
The first great singularity in our universe, out of which his character blazes, is his moral holiness. That is the source of all. Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty.
The second great singularity accessible from our universe is his will. Every fiber of creation, contra the child's play of spontaneous creation, demonstrates the will of God. We have two arms and two legs and a working digestive system not because it is inevitable, but because he willed it. So too from bosons to binary star systems. There is a will out there, one of titanic scale.
The glory of God, then, is the rainbow that blazes from one to the other. In electromagnetic terms, what the source of holiness emits and the sink of his will receives, and what the environment of our universe diffracts, refracts and reflects to show us what is inside that unapproachable light where God lives, is the glory of God. It is the center stage of everything that is or ever was or ever will be. But unlike the light in our world, the light of his glory has another dimension, that of weight. The glory (Hebrew, kavod, weight) of God is his consequence, his significance, what makes him matter.
If we saw even a tiny but true glimpse of him, we would feel the weight of the ages pressing on us, and yet we would not be able to stop talking about his indescribable beauty to everyone we met. We do not worship God because he is an egoist, but because it is the most appropriate and compelling thing in all the universe. He truly is worthy of praise, because he is so beautiful.
Driving to work today listening to Christian pop radio, I heard the host mention, "the lovely Jamie Grace" (a Christian contemporary singer). I wanted to see what he was talking about and found her photo gallery online. She is as advertised. But however lovely she may be, God is uncountable orders of magnitude more so; earthly beauty is but a tiny and transient flash of God's eternal and immeasurable desirability.
We yawn at his glory only to the extent that we are spiritually dull, and spiritually blind. With what hearing we have left, let us listen to the words of Jesus in Matt 6:19-24 (NIV84):
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
“The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
Whom do we serve, and with whose way of thinking, that we so dimly see the God of glory?
8.16.2012 | 10:41am
Stephen M. Barr says:
Hi, Russ,
I know you meant it in a humorous way, but you misrepresent what St. Augustine said in a way that is unjust to him. Even in jest, I think that's out of bounds. St. Augustine did not say that there will never be an answer to the question of what God was doing before creation. Rather, he said said that the question is utterly meaningless --- and he was right about that. Profoundly right, in fact. As he pointed out, talking about a "time before creation" is a contradiction in terms. Incidentally, modern physics says something quite similar, namely that a "time before the beginning of the universe" is a contradiction in terms. The answer that you attribute to Luther, on the other hand, is actually rather shameful --- as St. Augustine himself pointed out. Apparently, in St. Augustine's time there were Christians who gave an answer similar to the one you attribute to Luther. They said that "God was preparing Hell for those who ask such questions". St. Augustine treated that answer with deserved contempt, saying that it invited ridicule of people who were asking questions in the pursuit of truth.
Steve
I know you meant it in a humorous way, but you misrepresent what St. Augustine said in a way that is unjust to him. Even in jest, I think that's out of bounds. St. Augustine did not say that there will never be an answer to the question of what God was doing before creation. Rather, he said said that the question is utterly meaningless --- and he was right about that. Profoundly right, in fact. As he pointed out, talking about a "time before creation" is a contradiction in terms. Incidentally, modern physics says something quite similar, namely that a "time before the beginning of the universe" is a contradiction in terms. The answer that you attribute to Luther, on the other hand, is actually rather shameful --- as St. Augustine himself pointed out. Apparently, in St. Augustine's time there were Christians who gave an answer similar to the one you attribute to Luther. They said that "God was preparing Hell for those who ask such questions". St. Augustine treated that answer with deserved contempt, saying that it invited ridicule of people who were asking questions in the pursuit of truth.
Steve
8.16.2012 | 11:44am
Brent says:
Pastor Russ, this is one of my favorite articles that you have written. I have often wondered the same thing and I enjoy the discussion on this matter. As always, your friend. Brent
8.16.2012 | 12:11pm
Nancy D. says:
We know that nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could because nothing is the abscence of something. We know The Laws of Physics are something, so in order for The Laws of Physics to exist, a Creator that can exist outside Time and Space had to create Time and Space to begin with. As to how a Creator can exist outside Time and Space, that is a Great Mystery. We can only know that it is logical to assume that a Creator exists Who must have desired that we exist, or we would not be here, to begin with.
8.16.2012 | 12:20pm
Alex says:
Mr. Barr:
How can the quetion be meaningless? God precedes the creation, doesn't he? He existed before the creation. So, theoretically speaking, it is possible that he did something before creation. HOw can time start with creation? Doesn't Aquinas say that the world is not everlasting? So, the world did not always exist. Or am I mistaken? Could you please clarify?
How can the quetion be meaningless? God precedes the creation, doesn't he? He existed before the creation. So, theoretically speaking, it is possible that he did something before creation. HOw can time start with creation? Doesn't Aquinas say that the world is not everlasting? So, the world did not always exist. Or am I mistaken? Could you please clarify?
8.16.2012 | 12:35pm
Bill Tammeus says:
Russ:
Good piece. Into this mystery I would toss this: The triune God creates because God's nature requires relationship. This includes not only the relationships of the internal community of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit but also external relationships. It's also why we humans create, which is to say, have children. Love must go somewhere or it shrivels like a raisin in the sun. Cheers, Bill.
Good piece. Into this mystery I would toss this: The triune God creates because God's nature requires relationship. This includes not only the relationships of the internal community of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit but also external relationships. It's also why we humans create, which is to say, have children. Love must go somewhere or it shrivels like a raisin in the sun. Cheers, Bill.
8.16.2012 | 1:06pm
G.R. Mead says:
That's easy to answer.
God creates from nothing.
Nothing is dull with God.
Therefore, God creates because it is not in His nature to be dull, and with creation, nothing is dull.
God creates from nothing.
Nothing is dull with God.
Therefore, God creates because it is not in His nature to be dull, and with creation, nothing is dull.
8.16.2012 | 1:29pm
JDD says:
Patricksarsfield, with all due respect, why do you say this is a fruitless task?
It's about as fruitless as it is when I ask my wife in all sincerity why she loves me, or she asks me the same. We increase the bond of our Covenant by asking the question and delving into the answers. And, trust me, with my wife also, her ways are not my ways and her thoughts are not my thoughts...
It's about as fruitless as it is when I ask my wife in all sincerity why she loves me, or she asks me the same. We increase the bond of our Covenant by asking the question and delving into the answers. And, trust me, with my wife also, her ways are not my ways and her thoughts are not my thoughts...
8.16.2012 | 1:55pm
Amateur Theologian says:
I think Jonathan Edwards has some profound thoughts about "God doing all things for the sake of his glory". He wrote a book entitled, "The End For Which God Created the World". And yes, God can be an egoist, unlike us. Scripture is filled with phrases like, "to the praise of His glory" or "for my own Name I did this". It is really about the pursuit of Joy. What greater thing can God give us to enjoy besides himself? And what greater thing beside himself would He delight in the most? When a human says "look at me, look at me" it is pathetic. And tragic when reflected in dictators like Chairman Mao. Unlike God, it reflects arrogance, pride and esteem issues. And delighting most in something other than God is idolatry. But when God does this, He is pointing you to the only thing that will satisfy. And that is what proves His love for us. He will not let us settle for
something other than Himself. And it is not always a bad thing to defend one's honor, especially when you are actually the most Honorable Being in the Universe. Egotists that we are, we want a God who needs us. A God we can obligate. The God who has no needs is the God who eliminates all boasting on our part. He owes us
nothing. We are recipients of His unconstrained love and grace. So, when God points me to Himself, it is an act of love in a way that it is not when a Hollywood Star would have my praise. And as C.S. Lewis pointed out in his great essay "The Weight of Glory" we automatically praise what we enjoy.
something other than Himself. And it is not always a bad thing to defend one's honor, especially when you are actually the most Honorable Being in the Universe. Egotists that we are, we want a God who needs us. A God we can obligate. The God who has no needs is the God who eliminates all boasting on our part. He owes us
nothing. We are recipients of His unconstrained love and grace. So, when God points me to Himself, it is an act of love in a way that it is not when a Hollywood Star would have my praise. And as C.S. Lewis pointed out in his great essay "The Weight of Glory" we automatically praise what we enjoy.
8.16.2012 | 2:09pm
michael Currie says:
In one my several attempts to read St. Thomas' "Summa Theologica" I remember reading the question; can God act? It may have said does, regardless, I don't remember what the answer was but I remember the question and I found it intriuging then and ever since. Your article brings it to mind again. In thinking about it I wonder if the answer is/was related to time, Gods time which is a misnomer if it is true what i have heard said that God exists outside of time. Any notion of creation that we can think of involves time, our sense of it and even our sense of it is vaguely understood so I cannot begin to imagine what outside of time means other than to wonder if it is our natural home. Just some thoughts.
Further we say that God is eternal and infinite, always was, always is and always will be. Further yet God is within whom we live and breath and have our being. There seems to be an implication of an inexplicable, irreducible oneness of existence in which only through a trick of the mind or a falling can we fail to see. So maybe God does not create, God is so we are, not equal but bound in a relationship of Love so profound that we here in this vale of tears and brokenness can only approximate in our words and thoughts and dreams.
The standard question; why is there something rather than nothing seems to me to miss an even more substanative question; why does anything relate to anything since to be something is to be in relationship. Everything that is, everything that we can think of is the result of relationship. It would seem that the underlying principle of existence is relationship and we Christians have an understanding par excellence in the Trinity. The trinity is existence, uncreated and eternal.
Further we say that God is eternal and infinite, always was, always is and always will be. Further yet God is within whom we live and breath and have our being. There seems to be an implication of an inexplicable, irreducible oneness of existence in which only through a trick of the mind or a falling can we fail to see. So maybe God does not create, God is so we are, not equal but bound in a relationship of Love so profound that we here in this vale of tears and brokenness can only approximate in our words and thoughts and dreams.
The standard question; why is there something rather than nothing seems to me to miss an even more substanative question; why does anything relate to anything since to be something is to be in relationship. Everything that is, everything that we can think of is the result of relationship. It would seem that the underlying principle of existence is relationship and we Christians have an understanding par excellence in the Trinity. The trinity is existence, uncreated and eternal.
8.16.2012 | 2:48pm
Mary says:
sigh
Augustine said that before Creation, there was no time, so it is meaningless to speak of what happened before it, which requires there to have been time before. Indeed, he noted that Genesis describes the creation of unchanging things, and then the separation of light and darkness with the advent of change, and it was the later, not the former, that was described as the first day -- not the first day of Creation, the first day.
God is, of course, eternal, not merely perpetual. He is outside time, such that to him a million years are as a day, and one day is as a million years. It only makes sense to talk of what God does before and after when he deals with temporal beings such as ourselves.
Augustine said that before Creation, there was no time, so it is meaningless to speak of what happened before it, which requires there to have been time before. Indeed, he noted that Genesis describes the creation of unchanging things, and then the separation of light and darkness with the advent of change, and it was the later, not the former, that was described as the first day -- not the first day of Creation, the first day.
God is, of course, eternal, not merely perpetual. He is outside time, such that to him a million years are as a day, and one day is as a million years. It only makes sense to talk of what God does before and after when he deals with temporal beings such as ourselves.
8.16.2012 | 3:29pm
jim says:
God is love. Love is creative.
The next question is, why create in time as opposed to creating eternally? The answer is that smart creation is better than dumb creation. There is a plan.
So, what is the plan?
See your local Bible.
The next question is, why create in time as opposed to creating eternally? The answer is that smart creation is better than dumb creation. There is a plan.
So, what is the plan?
See your local Bible.
8.16.2012 | 3:30pm
martin gomez says:
I imagine it this way: God is a trinity of loving persons, one of whom has a material nature (Jesus). The love between them is powerful beyond our comprehension. But if the Father loves the Son, could not this be expressed to him through sharing a project together to ultimately produce creatures in the image of the Son? One that would never end in showing through action how they love each other? I think they use creation as a way to show and share their love of each other.
8.16.2012 | 4:08pm
Bob says:
Russ,
It is the job of the church to raise such questions. Bravo! Human questions are inherently contextual to the universe. God as Creator is not bound to the physical context. Perhaps we would do well to imagine a multi-dimensional existence beyond the universe, with God beyond it all. I'm content to answer the creative question: a wonderful mystery.
It is the job of the church to raise such questions. Bravo! Human questions are inherently contextual to the universe. God as Creator is not bound to the physical context. Perhaps we would do well to imagine a multi-dimensional existence beyond the universe, with God beyond it all. I'm content to answer the creative question: a wonderful mystery.
8.16.2012 | 5:08pm
Stephen M. Barr says:
Dear Alex, here are my answers to your questions:
Alex: "How can the question be meaningless?"
SMB: It is meaningless because it uses a self-contradictory concept. There is no such time period as "the time before creation", so asking what God was doing then is absolutely meaningless. As St. Augustine put it in his Confessions. "Why do they ask what [God] was doing 'then'? There was no 'then' where there was no time." As he also said "There was no time 'before' you created those times."
Alex: "God precedes the creation, doesn't he?"
SMB: Only in a causal sense, not in a temporal sense. He did not "precede" the universe in the sense that there was a period of time in which God existed and the universe did not exist. God is outside of time. Time does not pertain to him at all. he does not exist at this time or at that time. In case you think I am saying something unorthodox, let me assure you that I am saying only what St. Augustine said.
Time is a feature of the physical universe. Unless there is a physical universe, time has no meaning.
Alex: "He existed before the creation."
SMB: Not in a temporal sense of "before".
Alex: "So, theoretically speaking, it is possible that he did something before creation."
SMB: Again, not in a temporal sense.
Alex: "How can time start with creation?"
SMB: Because space-time is simply an aspect of the physical universe. If there is time passing, then a physical world exists.
Alex: "Doesn't Aquinas say that the world is not everlasting?"
SMB: Yes. He believed that to be a truth that we can know only by revelation, not by reason alone.
Alex: "So, the world did not always exist. Or am I mistaken?"
SMB: If you mean that the world has a finite age, you are not mistaken. If you mean that time stretches farther into the past than the history of the physical universe does, then you are mistaken.
Alex: "Could you please clarify?"
SMB: Consider an analogy: Latitude on the earth is finite. One can only travel North a finite distance, namely to latitude 90, at which point one reaches the North Pole, and latitude stops or runs out. In a similar way, traveling into the past, one would reach at some finite time in the past "t=0", which is the beginning of the universe, at which point time runs out. Just as there is no latitude 91 degrees or 100 degrees, so there are no points of time with t less than 0, i.e. there is no point of time that is longer ago than the age of the universe.
Time is a feature of the physical universe: no universe, no time. On this, modern physics and traditional Catholic theology (and in particular, St. Augustine) are in complete agreement.
Alex: "How can the question be meaningless?"
SMB: It is meaningless because it uses a self-contradictory concept. There is no such time period as "the time before creation", so asking what God was doing then is absolutely meaningless. As St. Augustine put it in his Confessions. "Why do they ask what [God] was doing 'then'? There was no 'then' where there was no time." As he also said "There was no time 'before' you created those times."
Alex: "God precedes the creation, doesn't he?"
SMB: Only in a causal sense, not in a temporal sense. He did not "precede" the universe in the sense that there was a period of time in which God existed and the universe did not exist. God is outside of time. Time does not pertain to him at all. he does not exist at this time or at that time. In case you think I am saying something unorthodox, let me assure you that I am saying only what St. Augustine said.
Time is a feature of the physical universe. Unless there is a physical universe, time has no meaning.
Alex: "He existed before the creation."
SMB: Not in a temporal sense of "before".
Alex: "So, theoretically speaking, it is possible that he did something before creation."
SMB: Again, not in a temporal sense.
Alex: "How can time start with creation?"
SMB: Because space-time is simply an aspect of the physical universe. If there is time passing, then a physical world exists.
Alex: "Doesn't Aquinas say that the world is not everlasting?"
SMB: Yes. He believed that to be a truth that we can know only by revelation, not by reason alone.
Alex: "So, the world did not always exist. Or am I mistaken?"
SMB: If you mean that the world has a finite age, you are not mistaken. If you mean that time stretches farther into the past than the history of the physical universe does, then you are mistaken.
Alex: "Could you please clarify?"
SMB: Consider an analogy: Latitude on the earth is finite. One can only travel North a finite distance, namely to latitude 90, at which point one reaches the North Pole, and latitude stops or runs out. In a similar way, traveling into the past, one would reach at some finite time in the past "t=0", which is the beginning of the universe, at which point time runs out. Just as there is no latitude 91 degrees or 100 degrees, so there are no points of time with t less than 0, i.e. there is no point of time that is longer ago than the age of the universe.
Time is a feature of the physical universe: no universe, no time. On this, modern physics and traditional Catholic theology (and in particular, St. Augustine) are in complete agreement.
8.16.2012 | 8:03pm
Alex says:
Dear Stephen:
Thank you for your answers to my questions. I know what your are saying is completely orthodox. I guess the problem is that in our experience of causality, what causes something to be always precedes the thing caused. Here our poor human language makes things even worse: the prefix "pre" in the wod I used (precede) refers to time and space, which don't apply to the Almighty. That's why it's so difficult to fathom this problem. Aquinas said that even if the world had been everlasting it would still have been created by God and would still depend on Him for its existence. I must admit I find this very hard to understand.
Thank you for your answers to my questions. I know what your are saying is completely orthodox. I guess the problem is that in our experience of causality, what causes something to be always precedes the thing caused. Here our poor human language makes things even worse: the prefix "pre" in the wod I used (precede) refers to time and space, which don't apply to the Almighty. That's why it's so difficult to fathom this problem. Aquinas said that even if the world had been everlasting it would still have been created by God and would still depend on Him for its existence. I must admit I find this very hard to understand.
8.16.2012 | 8:07pm
patricksarsfield says:
JDD challenges my point that this is a fruitless task arguing:
"It's about as fruitless as it is when I ask my wife in all sincerity why she loves me, or she asks me the same. We increase the bond of our Covenant by asking the question and delving into the answers...."
But God doesn't supply an answer. As I already noted, He has already responded to such questions with the flat and veritable objection that His thoughts are as far above our thoughts as the heavens are above the Earth. Moreover, He so loved the World that He sent us His only Begotten Son, Who died on the Cross for our sins. The Covenant can't get any closer than it did on that awesome Friday (as Protestants like to say: the once for all sacrifice...telestai). If I want to increase the Bond of the Covenant on my side of things, I would do better contemplating Christ's broken Body rather than trying to divine the Unknowable Mind of God.
"It's about as fruitless as it is when I ask my wife in all sincerity why she loves me, or she asks me the same. We increase the bond of our Covenant by asking the question and delving into the answers...."
But God doesn't supply an answer. As I already noted, He has already responded to such questions with the flat and veritable objection that His thoughts are as far above our thoughts as the heavens are above the Earth. Moreover, He so loved the World that He sent us His only Begotten Son, Who died on the Cross for our sins. The Covenant can't get any closer than it did on that awesome Friday (as Protestants like to say: the once for all sacrifice...telestai). If I want to increase the Bond of the Covenant on my side of things, I would do better contemplating Christ's broken Body rather than trying to divine the Unknowable Mind of God.
8.16.2012 | 8:38pm
A.M. says:
Just like God did not 'create ' the ugly spirits but they chose to become so ,
Bl.Emmerich mentions how in the original creation, there were not such ugly , vicious creatures either ; we read as much, in that verse in Genesis , where it says ' nature rebellled ' , when Adam handed over dominion, to the enemy ..and into that world , The Father still wanted to come and does so, in His Spirit , in The Son !
Bl.Emmerich mentions how in the original creation, there were not such ugly , vicious creatures either ; we read as much, in that verse in Genesis , where it says ' nature rebellled ' , when Adam handed over dominion, to the enemy ..and into that world , The Father still wanted to come and does so, in His Spirit , in The Son !
8.17.2012 | 12:10am
MacGabhann says:
Well if God needed a reason he wouldn't be God. So if God did create, his action cannot have been anything other than a free expression of what he is. The real wonder is that God might NOT have created and still his being, his life of love, would not have been diminished by the fact. And that's a depressing thought. If you're a creature that is.
Still, I don't believe it. God may not have needed to create us, but he must have wanted to create us. And this want cannot have come from outside God. So the essence of God includes a want of us. Now I feel better. As a creature, that is.
Still, I don't believe it. God may not have needed to create us, but he must have wanted to create us. And this want cannot have come from outside God. So the essence of God includes a want of us. Now I feel better. As a creature, that is.
8.17.2012 | 6:03am
Russell Belding says:
Hello Stephen Barr
"No universe no time" is a conclusion I suggest we are not capable of reaching easily. I do agree that if we do not have the objects we know in this world we do not have the clocks (things producing measurable cyclic events) we know so we do not have the measures of time we know. I invite you to consider these items.
Please hold off any comment about Augustine and "God is outside time" for a little while. Might there be some kind of time within God?
In John's Gospel Jesus speaks of "the father who sent me" (12:49) He also speaks of the shared love and glory the Father and Son had "before the foundation of the world..." (17:24) If these words were about us we would say the sharing was in events and would say it was done in time. It could be there is some kind of time in the life of God. Of course such a notion brings with it difficulties. The notion God is outside of time also brings difficulties.
In Augustine's period Platonic thinking about any God must be above or outside time was promoted by Plotinus. I wonder if Augustine accepted this and baptised it. There is no suggestion is Scripture that God is outside time or that He is omniscient. He knows things before they happen, but that is not omniscience. The disctinction is "some" vs "all". As far as I am able to determine no "major" creedal statement includes omniscience.
Back to an earlier question "What was God doing before the creation of our cosmos?" Events included love and communistion between Father Son and Spirit.
"No universe no time" is a conclusion I suggest we are not capable of reaching easily. I do agree that if we do not have the objects we know in this world we do not have the clocks (things producing measurable cyclic events) we know so we do not have the measures of time we know. I invite you to consider these items.
Please hold off any comment about Augustine and "God is outside time" for a little while. Might there be some kind of time within God?
In John's Gospel Jesus speaks of "the father who sent me" (12:49) He also speaks of the shared love and glory the Father and Son had "before the foundation of the world..." (17:24) If these words were about us we would say the sharing was in events and would say it was done in time. It could be there is some kind of time in the life of God. Of course such a notion brings with it difficulties. The notion God is outside of time also brings difficulties.
In Augustine's period Platonic thinking about any God must be above or outside time was promoted by Plotinus. I wonder if Augustine accepted this and baptised it. There is no suggestion is Scripture that God is outside time or that He is omniscient. He knows things before they happen, but that is not omniscience. The disctinction is "some" vs "all". As far as I am able to determine no "major" creedal statement includes omniscience.
Back to an earlier question "What was God doing before the creation of our cosmos?" Events included love and communistion between Father Son and Spirit.
8.17.2012 | 7:26am
Juneau Alaska says:
One might also ask this of Native Americans: Why did Raven (in the North), or Coyote (in the South) create? In Tlingit tradition, Raven discovered/created the first men when a giant clamshell was opened. I'm confident every person reading this comment rejects the claim that the first man crawled out of a shell somewhere in the Pacific Northwest.
This article asks, why does God (Yahweh) create? Scrupulously honest inquiry demands that the question itself be examined for soundness. I don't see this happening here. Pity.
This article asks, why does God (Yahweh) create? Scrupulously honest inquiry demands that the question itself be examined for soundness. I don't see this happening here. Pity.
8.17.2012 | 11:06am
MacGabhann says:
J. Alaska,
I'm not sure you're correct in suggesting that the myth claims that the first man emerged from a shell. More likely, the myth's "claim" is that man emerged from an already existing and comprehending reality.
And why are you so sure that questions of epistemology should precede those of ontology? It's like saying that a man should not drive a car until he first understands how an internal combustion engine works, or whatever it is that makes a car run. Most of us are quite capable of asking questions in English even if we are unable to give a theoretical account of its grammar.
I'm not sure you're correct in suggesting that the myth claims that the first man emerged from a shell. More likely, the myth's "claim" is that man emerged from an already existing and comprehending reality.
And why are you so sure that questions of epistemology should precede those of ontology? It's like saying that a man should not drive a car until he first understands how an internal combustion engine works, or whatever it is that makes a car run. Most of us are quite capable of asking questions in English even if we are unable to give a theoretical account of its grammar.
8.17.2012 | 11:11am
MacGabhann says:
R. Belding,
". As far as I am able to determine no "major" creedal statement includes omniscience."
I wonder how you would determine the meaning of almighty?
". As far as I am able to determine no "major" creedal statement includes omniscience."
I wonder how you would determine the meaning of almighty?
8.17.2012 | 4:02pm
Juneau Alaska says:
MacGabhann,
Well, what I am sure about is the plausibility of nonsensical questions. Men, cars and engines don't fit the null hypothesis criterion but Yahweh does. As such, I see no difference between the questions "why does Yahweh create" and why does Yahweh go vegan on Mondays" and neither should you.
The way to help change this observation of mine is to offer positive evidence that the question, "why does Yahweh create" is fundamentally different than the occasional Shakespearean question that could be typed out by lemurs. In other words, just because something can be done (form questions), doesn't necessarily indicate that the action has other epistemological components.
Well, what I am sure about is the plausibility of nonsensical questions. Men, cars and engines don't fit the null hypothesis criterion but Yahweh does. As such, I see no difference between the questions "why does Yahweh create" and why does Yahweh go vegan on Mondays" and neither should you.
The way to help change this observation of mine is to offer positive evidence that the question, "why does Yahweh create" is fundamentally different than the occasional Shakespearean question that could be typed out by lemurs. In other words, just because something can be done (form questions), doesn't necessarily indicate that the action has other epistemological components.
8.17.2012 | 6:34pm
MacGabhann says:
J. Alaska
You agree that there is in fact something rather than nothing? And that there might well have been nothing rather than something? And you further agree that as far as the world of "positive evidence" goes there is always a reason why what is the case is the case? So, it's not meaningless to ask after the reason of something when you know there is a reason, you"ll agree?
Now we know that things like cars, men and engines possess phenomenal thinghood, and that phenomenal thinghood ultimately cannot account for its own being. I mean, as far as the "positive evidence" goes, right? So these phenomenal things came ultimately either from nothing (magic) or from the sort of thing that a) can account for its own thinghood and b) can account for the thinghood of phenomenal things. Now this latter thing has been traditionally given its own name, Yahweh. So all the "positive evidence" points to Yahweh creating phenomenal things. So why again is it meaningless to ask why he did it?
You agree that there is in fact something rather than nothing? And that there might well have been nothing rather than something? And you further agree that as far as the world of "positive evidence" goes there is always a reason why what is the case is the case? So, it's not meaningless to ask after the reason of something when you know there is a reason, you"ll agree?
Now we know that things like cars, men and engines possess phenomenal thinghood, and that phenomenal thinghood ultimately cannot account for its own being. I mean, as far as the "positive evidence" goes, right? So these phenomenal things came ultimately either from nothing (magic) or from the sort of thing that a) can account for its own thinghood and b) can account for the thinghood of phenomenal things. Now this latter thing has been traditionally given its own name, Yahweh. So all the "positive evidence" points to Yahweh creating phenomenal things. So why again is it meaningless to ask why he did it?
8.18.2012 | 12:53am
Juneau Alaska says:
MacGabhann,
I need to work backwards through your reply (and thank you for it). Your last question is a nuanced view of my concern. Let me say that I do not object to asking questions. One can categorize any question in a way as to give it meaning, if only for the valued human capability for asking anything at all. But that is a different beast, the capability to ask, and I certainly don't consider that meaningless. As I tried to say, what we ask about is what I am concerned with.
There are a few ways to respond to the rest of your second paragraph and I will take the easy out you gave me whether that was inadvertent or not: you haven't allotted skepticism into your thing-hood premise and consequently set up false dichotomies and post ergo hoc fallacies such as "magic or nothing," and "Yahweh because of accounting ignorance."
As for your first paragraph, it is true that I accept that there is something rather than nothing, but I cannot agree, nor should you, that there may well have been nothing rather than something. Lastly, your first sentences, by happy economy, are now already answered.
The problem remains, and it seems to me that here's the answer: one must accept, a priori, that the Yahweh hypothesis is factual for the question, "why does God create" to have meaning apart from the "mere" human capacity to inquire. So, tell me, why does Yahweh go vegan on Mondays?
I need to work backwards through your reply (and thank you for it). Your last question is a nuanced view of my concern. Let me say that I do not object to asking questions. One can categorize any question in a way as to give it meaning, if only for the valued human capability for asking anything at all. But that is a different beast, the capability to ask, and I certainly don't consider that meaningless. As I tried to say, what we ask about is what I am concerned with.
There are a few ways to respond to the rest of your second paragraph and I will take the easy out you gave me whether that was inadvertent or not: you haven't allotted skepticism into your thing-hood premise and consequently set up false dichotomies and post ergo hoc fallacies such as "magic or nothing," and "Yahweh because of accounting ignorance."
As for your first paragraph, it is true that I accept that there is something rather than nothing, but I cannot agree, nor should you, that there may well have been nothing rather than something. Lastly, your first sentences, by happy economy, are now already answered.
The problem remains, and it seems to me that here's the answer: one must accept, a priori, that the Yahweh hypothesis is factual for the question, "why does God create" to have meaning apart from the "mere" human capacity to inquire. So, tell me, why does Yahweh go vegan on Mondays?
8.18.2012 | 12:59pm
Joshua Tilghman says:
Russell,
Loved this post. This question used to haunt me in the late hours of the night, and I'm glad there are others who are willing to at least be open for a discussion on it. I recently wrote a blog post on Genesis chapter 1. In my final quest, I believe Genesis 1 makes it clear that it's all about consciousness. If we are limited conscious extensions of God, everything begins to make sense. Consciousness cannot be created for it just is. Within consciousness is infinite potential which MUST generate a creation. We are the byproduct. Genesis seems to make this clear when we take our religiously trained egos out of our interpretations and learn to see the scripture from the heart.
http://www.spiritofthescripture.com/id596-an-esoteric-interpretation-of-genesis-chapter-1.html
Loved this post. This question used to haunt me in the late hours of the night, and I'm glad there are others who are willing to at least be open for a discussion on it. I recently wrote a blog post on Genesis chapter 1. In my final quest, I believe Genesis 1 makes it clear that it's all about consciousness. If we are limited conscious extensions of God, everything begins to make sense. Consciousness cannot be created for it just is. Within consciousness is infinite potential which MUST generate a creation. We are the byproduct. Genesis seems to make this clear when we take our religiously trained egos out of our interpretations and learn to see the scripture from the heart.
http://www.spiritofthescripture.com/id596-an-esoteric-interpretation-of-genesis-chapter-1.html
8.18.2012 | 5:16pm
Russell Belding says:
Hello MacGabhann
I suppose the question you are asking is this "If God is not omniscient can He be almighty?". Above I indicated a preferenece to say "God is not omniscient", as least as I understand because this notion entails God knows every event before it happens and that brings us into conflict with Scripture. You seem to be suggesting that almighty entails omniscience. I am not sure as you were brief. One argument is God is perfect and if He lacked knowledge of a future event He would not be perfect. So He knows every future event. There are variations of this.
A technical discussion is called for here. Omniscience is I suspect, easier to define than almighty. I will pose a question for you. When we think of Almighty God can He create us with freedom sufficient to do something He did not know of at the start of His universe-creating acts?
I suppose the question you are asking is this "If God is not omniscient can He be almighty?". Above I indicated a preferenece to say "God is not omniscient", as least as I understand because this notion entails God knows every event before it happens and that brings us into conflict with Scripture. You seem to be suggesting that almighty entails omniscience. I am not sure as you were brief. One argument is God is perfect and if He lacked knowledge of a future event He would not be perfect. So He knows every future event. There are variations of this.
A technical discussion is called for here. Omniscience is I suspect, easier to define than almighty. I will pose a question for you. When we think of Almighty God can He create us with freedom sufficient to do something He did not know of at the start of His universe-creating acts?
8.20.2012 | 11:48am
Rabbi Jonathan Berger says:
My favorite answer to this question comes from the very end of Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men. If I understand it correctly, it seems to mean that God creates to demonstrate God's power.
“The creation of Man whom God in His foreknowledge knew doomed to sin was the awful index of God's omnipotence. For it would have been a thing of trifling and contemptible ease for Perfection to create mere perfection. To do so would, to speak truth, be not creation but extension. Separateness is identity and the only way for God to create, truly create, man was to make him separate from God Himself, and to be separate from God is to be sinful. The creation of evil is therefore the index of God's glory and His power. That had to be so that the creation of good might be the index of man's glory and power. But by God's help. By His help and in His wisdom.”
“The creation of Man whom God in His foreknowledge knew doomed to sin was the awful index of God's omnipotence. For it would have been a thing of trifling and contemptible ease for Perfection to create mere perfection. To do so would, to speak truth, be not creation but extension. Separateness is identity and the only way for God to create, truly create, man was to make him separate from God Himself, and to be separate from God is to be sinful. The creation of evil is therefore the index of God's glory and His power. That had to be so that the creation of good might be the index of man's glory and power. But by God's help. By His help and in His wisdom.”
8.20.2012 | 12:05pm
eliezer sokolka says:
is the idea developed here, a jewish one?
and if not,why is it presented at "jewish ideas daily"?
and if not,why is it presented at "jewish ideas daily"?
8.20.2012 | 1:44pm
JDD says:
[patricksarsfield] "But God doesn't supply an answer. As I already noted, He has already responded to such questions with the flat and veritable objection that His thoughts are as far above our thoughts as the heavens are above the Earth."
This is not the only Scripture on the subject. How do you square this with Ephesians 3:10 ?
And I don't understand this: "If I want to increase the Bond of the Covenant on my side of things, I would do better contemplating Christ's broken Body rather than trying to divine the Unknowable Mind of God."
Why are things on this site always coached in terms of either/or. How about we do both?
This is not the only Scripture on the subject. How do you square this with Ephesians 3:10 ?
And I don't understand this: "If I want to increase the Bond of the Covenant on my side of things, I would do better contemplating Christ's broken Body rather than trying to divine the Unknowable Mind of God."
Why are things on this site always coached in terms of either/or. How about we do both?
8.20.2012 | 8:45pm
patricksarsfield says:
JDD cites to Ephesians 3:10 as somehow in opposition to my points about God's clear statement that His thoughts are so far above our thoughts. I don't see any conflict, but if JDD sees a conflict, he needs to explicate it less cryptically.
As to JDD's second response to me: the reason why it is an either/or thing is because we don't need to speculate about Christ's once for all sacrifice; it is the central event in History and the Good News of Christianity, albeit a scandal and folly to some. By contrast, trying to divine the Mind of God is speculation of the most futile sort: speculation about the operations of a Mind we cannot comprehend.
As to JDD's second response to me: the reason why it is an either/or thing is because we don't need to speculate about Christ's once for all sacrifice; it is the central event in History and the Good News of Christianity, albeit a scandal and folly to some. By contrast, trying to divine the Mind of God is speculation of the most futile sort: speculation about the operations of a Mind we cannot comprehend.
8.21.2012 | 12:10pm
JDD says:
[patricksarsfield] "trying to divine the Mind of God is speculation of the most futile sort: speculation about the operations of a Mind we cannot comprehend."
What in the world is bothering you so much about my comments. I don't ever expect to understand God fully - by my own efforts. But you say I'm foolish to even ask, to even begin to ask? What about if, God, by his will and certainly through the teaching of the Church, wants us to know him and purposely does reveal to us His character and purposes - albeit incompletely? We see through a glass, yes, darkly, but still we do see some image. Is that imperfect image not more valuable than none at all?
I know some things about my wife. I will never know or understand all things about her, significantly because she, too, is infinitely complex and unknowable - to an infinitely lesser degree than God, but, since she is made in his Image, somehow to a *similar* degree. But I can still ask her questions about herself and each time get a little closer to understanding. Isn't that valuable?
Sir, there is knowledge of God which we couldn't possibly know on our own, but which God wants to reveal to us. One of the *most important*, and quietly humbling, questions we can ask of God is, *Why* did you create me?
[patricksarsfield] JDD cites to Ephesians 3:10 as somehow in opposition to my points about God's clear statement that His thoughts are so far above our thoughts. I don't see any conflict, but if JDD sees a conflict, he needs to explicate it less cryptically.
I ask you for an opinion on a Scripture and I'm speaking cryptically? I think you see antagonism where there is none intended. The Scriptures, taken together, are in tension and a part of the whole body of teaching. Both Isaiah and Ephesians are 'clear statements' from God, if you like. The Scripture I cited was in opposition to *your* insistence to stand on Isaiah alone. But here's the Scripture and let the reader decide if I'm being 'cryptic':
"To me, [Saint Paul] the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord..."
What in the world is bothering you so much about my comments. I don't ever expect to understand God fully - by my own efforts. But you say I'm foolish to even ask, to even begin to ask? What about if, God, by his will and certainly through the teaching of the Church, wants us to know him and purposely does reveal to us His character and purposes - albeit incompletely? We see through a glass, yes, darkly, but still we do see some image. Is that imperfect image not more valuable than none at all?
I know some things about my wife. I will never know or understand all things about her, significantly because she, too, is infinitely complex and unknowable - to an infinitely lesser degree than God, but, since she is made in his Image, somehow to a *similar* degree. But I can still ask her questions about herself and each time get a little closer to understanding. Isn't that valuable?
Sir, there is knowledge of God which we couldn't possibly know on our own, but which God wants to reveal to us. One of the *most important*, and quietly humbling, questions we can ask of God is, *Why* did you create me?
[patricksarsfield] JDD cites to Ephesians 3:10 as somehow in opposition to my points about God's clear statement that His thoughts are so far above our thoughts. I don't see any conflict, but if JDD sees a conflict, he needs to explicate it less cryptically.
I ask you for an opinion on a Scripture and I'm speaking cryptically? I think you see antagonism where there is none intended. The Scriptures, taken together, are in tension and a part of the whole body of teaching. Both Isaiah and Ephesians are 'clear statements' from God, if you like. The Scripture I cited was in opposition to *your* insistence to stand on Isaiah alone. But here's the Scripture and let the reader decide if I'm being 'cryptic':
"To me, [Saint Paul] the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord..."
8.24.2012 | 5:17am
Jared Thomas Bergmann says:
I don't agree with you JDD. People on this earth who reject God's offer of eternal life through Jesus Christ make a choice to spend eternity in hell.
For their entire lives they tell God - "not Your will, but mine be done" and finally, God responds - "very well, your will be done - spend eternity apart from me" (2 Thesselonians 1:8-9). This is actually an act of mercy on God's part, because it is a far worse fate for people who do not have a relationship with God to be in His constant and Holy presence, than to be in hell itself.
For their entire lives they tell God - "not Your will, but mine be done" and finally, God responds - "very well, your will be done - spend eternity apart from me" (2 Thesselonians 1:8-9). This is actually an act of mercy on God's part, because it is a far worse fate for people who do not have a relationship with God to be in His constant and Holy presence, than to be in hell itself.
8.24.2012 | 11:34pm
JDD says:
Jared,
You don't agree with me... about what? I'm completely puzzled and don't know what you're responding to in my post.
I happen to agree with everything you've posted.
You don't agree with me... about what? I'm completely puzzled and don't know what you're responding to in my post.
I happen to agree with everything you've posted.
4.20.2013 | 10:37am
ARM says:
It is His "WILL"...
It is same free will which exists in every living being.
Hence we are called "imago dei" - image of God, having the same replica in us "WILL".
It is same free will which exists in every living being.
Hence we are called "imago dei" - image of God, having the same replica in us "WILL".
