Is God essentially Creator?

[public hermit]

According to Duns Scotus God is not essentially Creator.

Frederick Copleston writes, "...the relation of the creature to God is a real relation, whereas the relation of God to the creature is a mental relation only (relation rationis), since God is not essentially Creator and cannot be called Creator in the same sense in which he is called wise or good. He is really Creator, but His relationship to the creature is not a real relation, since He is not Creator by essence, in which case he would create necessarily..." A History of Philosophy Volume 2: Mediaeval Philosophy Part II.48.11

The basic idea is clear enough. If God is essentially Creator, then God creates necessarily, and therefore creation is necessary. But, creation is not necessary, but contingent. So, God is not Creator essentially.

That strikes me as an odd conclusion. Thoughts?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

I'd agree with the thought that God didn't have to create something (and is therefore not Creator essentially) but what does Copleston mean when he says "the relation of God to the creature is a mental relation only"? God has a real relationship with us (his creatures), not mentally only. His relationship with us has practical consequences, and He interferes actively and visibly in our lives.

 

[public hermit]

I'd agree with the thought that God didn't have to create something (and is therefore not Creator essentially) but what does Copleston mean when he says "the relation of God to the creature is a mental relation only"? God has a real relationship with us (his creatures), not mentally only. His relationship with us has practical consequences, and He interferes actively and visibly in our lives.

That's a great question. It's a specific distinction common among medieval scholars, pace Aquinas:

"Reply to Objection 3: As the creature proceeds from God in diversity of nature, God is outside the order of the whole creation, nor does any relation to the creature arise from His nature; for He does not produce the creature by necessity of His nature, but by His intellect and will, as is above explained ([238]Q[14], AA[3],4; [239]Q[19], A[8]). Therefore there is no real relation in God to the creature; whereas in creatures there is a real relation to God; because creatures are contained under the divine order, and their very nature entails dependence on God. On the other hand, the divine processions are in one and the same nature. Hence no parallel exists."

Whether There are Real Relations in God?

Creatures have a "real relation" to the Creator because it is a relation upon which their nature depends. The Creator does not have such a relation because the divine nature in no way depends on the creature.

 

[public hermit]

I'd agree with the thought that God didn't have to create something

So, here's the thing that seems odd to me. When we talk about God's attributes they are never accidental, but always essential. God is not just good sometimes, but always.

There is nothing accidental to God. And yet, because of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, we can't say that God is essentially Creator. And yet, nothing is accidental to God, so what does it mean to say God is Creator? If God is not essentially Creator, nor accidentally Creator, then the phrase "God is Creator" becomes this unique "attribute" without a clear reference. Or something like that. I don't quite understand.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

According to Duns Scotus God is not essentially Creator.

Frederick Copleston writes, "...the relation of the creature to God is a real relation, whereas the relation of God to the creature is a mental relation only (relation rationis), since God is not essentially Creator and cannot be called Creator in the same sense in which he is called wise or good. He is really Creator, but His relationship to the creature is not a real relation, since He is not Creator by essence, in which case he would create necessarily..." A History of Philosophy Volume 2: Mediaeval Philosophy Part II.48.11

The basic idea is clear enough. If God is essentially Creator, then God creates necessarily, and therefore creation is necessary. But, creation is not necessary, but contingent. So, God is not Creator essentially.

That strikes me as an odd conclusion. Thoughts?

The short answer to the question “why did God create us?” is “for His pleasure.” Revelation 4:11 says, “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” Colossians 1:16 reiterates the point: “All things were created by him and for him.” Being created for God’s pleasure does not mean humanity was made to entertain God or provide Him with amusement. God is a creative Being, and it gives Him pleasure to create. God is a personal Being, and it gives Him pleasure to have other beings He can have a genuine relationship with.

Being made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27), human beings have the ability to know God and therefore love Him, worship Him, serve Him, and fellowship with Him. God did not create human beings because He needed them. As God, He needs nothing. In all eternity past, He felt no loneliness, so He was not looking for a “friend.” He loves us, but this is not the same as needing us. If we had never existed, God would still be God—the unchanging One (Malachi 3:6). The I AM (Exodus 3:14) was never dissatisfied with His own eternal existence. When He made the universe, He did what pleased Himself, and since God is perfect, His action was perfect. “It was very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Also, God did not create “peers” or beings equal to Himself. Logically, He could not do so. If God were to create another being of equal power, intelligence, and perfection, then He would cease to be the one true God for the simple reason that there would be two gods—and that would be an impossibility. “The LORD is God; besides him there is no other” (Deuteronomy 4:35). Anything that God creates must of necessity be lesser than He. The thing made can never be greater than, or as great as, the One who made it.

Recognizing the complete sovereignty and holiness of God, we are amazed that He would take man and crown him “with glory and honor” (Psalm 8:5) and that He would condescend to call us “friends” (John 15:14-15). Why did God create us? God created us for His pleasure and so that we, as His creation, would have the pleasure of knowing Him.got?

hope this helps !!!

 

[zippy2006]

Thoughts?

Sounds right to me. I don't think Duns Scotus was alone in holding this opinion. It is quite common.

 

[public hermit]

The short answer to the question “why did God create us?” is “for His pleasure.” Revelation 4:11 says, “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” Colossians 1:16 reiterates the point: “All things were created by him and for him.” Being created for God’s pleasure does not mean humanity was made to entertain God or provide Him with amusement. God is a creative Being, and it gives Him pleasure to create. God is a personal Being, and it gives Him pleasure to have other beings He can have a genuine relationship with.

Being made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27), human beings have the ability to know God and therefore love Him, worship Him, serve Him, and fellowship with Him. God did not create human beings because He needed them. As God, He needs nothing. In all eternity past, He felt no loneliness, so He was not looking for a “friend.” He loves us, but this is not the same as needing us. If we had never existed, God would still be God—the unchanging One (Malachi 3:6). The I AM (Exodus 3:14) was never dissatisfied with His own eternal existence. When He made the universe, He did what pleased Himself, and since God is perfect, His action was perfect. “It was very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Also, God did not create “peers” or beings equal to Himself. Logically, He could not do so. If God were to create another being of equal power, intelligence, and perfection, then He would cease to be the one true God for the simple reason that there would be two gods—and that would be an impossibility. “The LORD is God; besides him there is no other” (Deuteronomy 4:35). Anything that God creates must of necessity be lesser than He. The thing made can never be greater than, or as great as, the One who made it.

Recognizing the complete sovereignty and holiness of God, we are amazed that He would take man and crown him “with glory and honor” (Psalm 8:5) and that He would condescend to call us “friends” (John 15:14-15). Why did God create us? God created us for His pleasure and so that we, as His creation, would have the pleasure of knowing Him.got?

hope this helps !!!

I agree with all of this. Very well put, by the way. So, is God Creator sometimes, and not at other times?

 

[public hermit]

Sounds right to me. I don't think Duns Scotus was alone in holding this opinion. It is quite common.

So, was being Creator accidental to God? God was sometimes Creator, and not at other times? Doesn't that strike you as an odd conclusion (for an "attribute " so prevalent in theology)?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

That's a great question. It's a specific distinction common among medieval scholars, pace Aquinas:

"Reply to Objection 3: As the creature proceeds from God in diversity of nature, God is outside the order of the whole creation, nor does any relation to the creature arise from His nature; for He does not produce the creature by necessity of His nature, but by His intellect and will, as is above explained ([238]Q[14], AA[3],4; [239]Q[19], A[8]). Therefore there is no real relation in God to the creature; whereas in creatures there is a real relation to God; because creatures are contained under the divine order, and their very nature entails dependence on God. On the other hand, the divine processions are in one and the same nature. Hence no parallel exists."

Whether There are Real Relations in God?

Creatures have a "real relation" to the Creator because it is a relation upon which their nature depends. The Creator does not have such a relation because the divine nature in no way depends on the creature.

Alright, I think I get that. In this context "real relation" describes some kind of dependence then (which is one-way only). Even more noteworthy then that the Creator loves his creatures more than those love Him.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

So, here's the thing that seems odd to me. When we talk about God's attributes they are never accidental, but always essential. God is not just good sometimes, but always.

There is nothing accidental to God. And yet, because of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, we can't say that God is essentially Creator. And yet, nothing is accidental to God, so what does it mean to say God is Creator? If God is not essentially Creator, nor accidentally Creator, then the phrase "God is Creator" becomes this unique "attribute" without a clear reference. Or something like that. I don't quite understand.

Well, that Creation was not essential does not mean that it was accidental I'd rather say it was God's plan that He always had. To be fair, eternity is difficult to understand and we might have trouble imagining a plan that has existed forever until God actually acted.

 

[public hermit]

I guess my question, to put it concisely: How does the doctrine of God as Creator fit in with the doctrine of divine simplicity?

 

[zippy2006]

So, here's the thing that seems odd to me. When we talk about God's attributes they are never accidental, but always essential. God is not just good sometimes, but always.

There is nothing accidental to God. And yet, because of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, we can't say that God is essentially Creator. And yet, nothing is accidental to God, so what does it mean to say God is Creator? If God is not essentially Creator, nor accidentally Creator, then the phrase "God is Creator" becomes this unique "attribute" without a clear reference. Or something like that. I don't quite understand.

Off the top of my head I would say it means that there are things in existence which have the real relation of, "Being created by God," and that it is fine to attribute creation to God as long as you realize it is not necessary (and not part of his essence). (We covered this in some detail in my philosophy courses so I will have to look back)

 

[public hermit]

Well, that Creation was not essential does not mean that it was accidental I'd rather say it was God's plan that He always had. To be fair, eternity is difficult to understand and we might have trouble imagining a plan that has existed forever until God actually acted.

That makes sense.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I agree with all of this. Very well put, by the way. So, is God Creator sometimes, and not at other times?

No its who He is since Genesis 1.

I would even say God is the Creator prior to creation. I say this because the Son is referred to as the " Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world "

And Gods plan in Creation was Redemption. It kind of boggles the mind to think through this process about God and His nature, character and attributes.

Sometimes it is like looking at a diamond and seeing all the different facets. When we contemplate the Glory and Majesty of God as Triune and the 2 natures in Christ that He is fully God and fully man is takes us to great places at the same time revealing how inadequate we are compared to Him. Nothing is better than seeking to know God and that pursuit is a lifelong one that always satisfies our souls. We keep coming back for more and more each and every day.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I agree with all of this. Very well put, by the way. So, is God Creator sometimes, and not at other times?

BTW- great thread !!!

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

I guess my question, to put it concisely: How does the doctrine of God as Creator fit in with the doctrine of divine simplicity?

The doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea can be stated in this way: The being of God is identical to the "attributes" of God.
As far as I know "Creator" is not an attribute, it's a titel.

Or maybe I am just too blind to find it in the list?

 

[public hermit]

The doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea can be stated in this way: The being of God is identical to the "attributes" of God.
As far as I know "Creator" is not an attribute, it's a titel.

Or maybe I am just too blind to find it in the list?
View attachment 287788

Yeah, I guess that's right. It's just a title. But, of course, the act of creating seems so essential to us, hahaha.

I think part of what's throwing me off is how prevalent that title is in revelation. God as Creator, ex nihilo, is unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition. And yet, none of it has to be. Amazing.

 

[SkyWriting]

According to Duns Scotus God is not essentially Creator.

Frederick Copleston writes, "...the relation of the creature to God is a real relation, whereas the relation of God to the creature is a mental relation only (relation rationis), since God is not essentially Creator and cannot be called Creator in the same sense in which he is called wise or good. He is really Creator, but His relationship to the creature is not a real relation, since He is not Creator by essence, in which case he would create necessarily..." A History of Philosophy Volume 2: Mediaeval Philosophy Part II.48.11

The basic idea is clear enough. If God is essentially Creator, then God creates necessarily, and therefore creation is necessary. But, creation is not necessary, but contingent. So, God is not Creator essentially.

That strikes me as an odd conclusion. Thoughts?

Without God he would have no Creation or his own thoughts. So John Duns is essentially, ungrateful.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Yeah, I guess that's right. It's just a title. But, of course, the act of creating seems so essential to us, hahaha.

I think part of what's throwing me off is how prevalent that title is in revelation. God as Creator, ex nihilo, is unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition. And yet, none of it has to be. Amazing.

That's true. God didn't have to create anything but because He did it is important to recognize Him as the Creator. I think God's role as Creator is so important in Revelation because many people don't give God the credits and the honor for creating the universe, for giving them LIFE. When Jesus returns for judgement day he'll come as the Creator and ask the people "I made you! Why did you not honor me?"

 

[public hermit]

I think creation ex nihilo is one of the most majestic concepts we have been given and yet one of the most difficult to reconcile with our understanding of God. Why would a perfect God create? It is such a generous and inexplicable event. That God created out of love, and not out of necessity, will surely be one of the reasons for our ceaseless praise. Couple that with redemption, and it completely boggles the mind. There is simply no end to the depth and beauty of God.