Is God essentially Creator?

[Bond-servant of Christ]

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?

Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth"

Only The Bible can answer such questions and not human philosophy! The above quote is complete rubbish!

 

[sparow]

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?

What this bloke is saying is that God is not an necessary element in creation and this is his foundational assumption, he then proceeds with circular logic; mumbo jumbo as an alternative to the creation story.

 

[public hermit]

Conclusion: Don't listen to Copleston; listen to Genesis 1.

Copleston (or better, Scotus) is not denying Genesis 1.

 

[public hermit]

I don't have a conclusive answer. But having read a bunch of Copleston and being more or less Thomist myself I appreciate a thoughtful and non-political theological puzzle. I'm going to ponder this one.

One possible approach would be to consider how we humans are made in the image and likeness of God, AND that we are creative. Might our creativity illustrate something of the nature of God's creativity? I donno. Just a thought.

Copleston thinks as a Thomist, which is to say a sort of Aristotelian. I would expect that a Thomist would say that God's nature is absolute simplicity, and so there would be no 'sometimes' Creator and sometimes not. Does God have accidents even? Thomas says no. Does that answer the question? Or maybe not. Again, I donno. Summa Theologica 1: 3: 6

These are helpful thoughts, thank you. Both Thomas and Duns Scotus hold that God is not essentially Creator, nor are there any accidents in God. An earlier poster suggested that "Creator" is a title. I can get on board with that, but it is a title that refers to something that God does.

Maybe what I want to understand is what is it about God essentially from which creation comes. I am inclined to say it is love. God is not essentially Creator, but God is essentially love, and it is from this essential attribute that creation comes? I don't know.

 

[public hermit]

Bleh, can't find my notes on this topic. An example of a relation of reason would be a Cambridge Property

As always your posts are so helpful. I forgot all about Cambridge properties/relations.

According to common sense I do not find it strange that God was sometimes Creator, and not at other times. Assuming we hold that the universe is not eternal I think we basically do say that, no?

I don't find it strange that God sometimes creates and sometimes doesn't, but it does seem odd that God might be something at one time and not at another.

What is it about God, essentially, that brings about creation? If it's not that God is Creator, could it be that God is love?

The key premise is that when God acts something in creation changes, but nothing in God changes. Thus the term of God's act has a real relation to God, but there is no real relation that arises within God. ...I'm bummed I can't find those notes

Agreed. I am on board with this. Great "spoiler" links, as well.

As an earlier poster mentioned, is "Creator" simply a title? I think what is throwing me off is how prevalent this title is in revelation, so that it's understandable if one got the impression that Creator is something essential to God. But Creator is significant mostly in relation to us, i.e. creatures who can understand that their existence is wholly dependant on God.

Nonetheless, there must be something essential to God's nature from which creation comes (since there are no accidents in God). Love, perhaps?

 

[public hermit]

I don't know that much about western medieval philosophy and theology other than some basic text book stuff I read decades ago. But from Hebrew and Classical Greek thought God by nature is self existent, and doesn't need anything. He is outside of time because that is a part of the created order (He is not subject to it, but can act inside and outside of it). So yes God is not a Creator as some necessity. But God is love by definition. And part of that love is the fact he did create, (while the other part is the nature of Trinity itself, where God the Father as the first cause of the Trinity continually generates the Son and Holy Ghost out of the love, which is expressed in a Communion of three beings in one essence).

Pavel, I think you've hit the nail on the head. So, it's not that God is essentially Creator, but that God is essentially Love, and it is that essential attribute of God from which creation comes. Great insight! Thank you!

 

[public hermit]

Christians become adopted children of God by receiving Jesus John 1:12. Galatians 4:5

And believers are married to Jesus spiritually. Romans 7:4

I’m pretty sure that being adopted by God, and being the bride of Christ, would be considered a close and personal relationship.

And it doesn’t take a PhD, or a course in philosophy, to figure that out.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree. But Duns Scotus is using a metaphysical intention of "relation."

 

[public hermit]

Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth"

Only The Bible can answer such questions and not human philosophy! The above quote is complete rubbish!

Duns Scotus is not disagreeing with the Bible. But, I can see why someone might get that impression.

 

[public hermit]

What this bloke is saying is that God is not an necessary element in creation and this is his foundational assumption, he then proceeds with circular logic; mumbo jumbo as an alternative to the creation story.

I can see why you say this, but Duns Scotus is actually saying the opposite. He is saying creation is not a necessary element of God. In fact, he is saying that creation is not necessary at all. God created freely and not under any necessity.

 

[public hermit]

What is necessary is whatever God Wills. God is not bounded by wisdom or love because he is wisdom and love itself. If I as a creature am not necessary then why do I exist? I exist because God is overflowing with love and wisdom and therefore I must exist and I must be. In the depths of God there is no final division of creator and created because all conceptions of reality exist for God's sake, not God for them. So the separation of Creator and creature exist because God wants it to. Trace yourself back far enough and the only place you could possibly Trace yourself to is God.

This is a fascinating way to put it and I think it's similar to what Duns Scotus is saying.

created lies and we as creatures are those lies. We as lies are a necessary part of God in relation to him since he is the truth. The truth emptied himself so that he could reveal himself. All of creation exists in God. How do you think that God could empty himself? He would have to lie because how could God be empty? for God there is no difference between truth and lies because what he says is. similarly on the fundamental reality of spirit when we "say" something is then it is Because spirit is the fundamental reality and saying and willing are the same thing. for instance when we fall then it is. or when God declares what the laws of physics of this material universe will be then it is. but God is Sovereign over the material universe, not over our spirit because our Spirits are freedom. We are images of God and so we have a likeness to him. the flesh is a secondary effect of our spirit. Spirit is the image of God and spirit is freedom. Freedom gives the possibility of it becoming the opposite of what it is because freedom is potential for becoming. So creatures can be an accident but what makes the creature possible is something divine. as unbegotten spirits we exist in God

This is also really interesting, but I'm not sure I follow. We are lies?

a division of Creator and creature has eternally existed in God as two sides of the same coin. That's why the Son of God is fully human and fully God. Simultaneously God has always existed and creatures have not always existed, but they existed as potential in the word and so in some way they existed not as creatures but as Divine creatures. The fall separates creatures from God, which is sin which means missing the mark. It means that the fall is a lie against the truth. You shall know the truth and the truth makes free

When you say we always existed potentially in the Word and as "divine creatures" do you mean we existed as "thoughts" in the divine mind, or?

 

[chevyontheriver]

These are helpful thoughts, thank you. Both Thomas and Duns Scotus hold that God is not essentially Creator, nor are there any accidents in God. An earlier poster suggested that "Creator" is a title. I can get on board with that, but it is a title that refers to something that God does.

Maybe what I want to understand is what is it about God essentially from which creation comes. I am inclined to say it is love. God is not essentially Creator, but God is essentially love, and it is from this essential attribute that creation comes? I don't know.

Perhaps creativity is of the essence of God but having to have created this particular creation is not. In other words, God did not HAVE TO create us. I am certain God did not have to create us and does not OWE us. I am less certain as to how or why that is so. God remains free. Which is, of course, a requirement for creativity to have at least some freedom.

God is three persons from all eternity. Three persons in relationship. Three persons in love, and as we know God is love. Perhaps it is that love which is creative. And thus the simplicity and the unchanging nature of God. I donno. I am hesitant to pontificate. This is one of the loftiest discussions I have seen on CF. The recent critics don't even know how to understand it, so they miss the mark entirely. Don't let them derail the discussion. Maybe they could comprehend with a lot of explanation, or maybe not.

 

[Hmm]

He is saying creation is not a necessary element of God. In fact, he is saying that creation is not necessary at all. God created freely and not under any necessity.

I agree that. I think the thing that is necessary is the set of all possible universes. That is necessarily what it is. These universes may exist in actuality as a kind of multiverse but I think it more plausible that they exist only as potentialities in God's mind. God is free to actualise specific universes from this necessary set and I think the ones he chooses to do, which is perhaps only this one, comes from your point that God is love. He would not therefore chose to create a universe where there is so much evil and suffering that goodness couldn't really survive. I believe He chose to create this one becuase this is a universe in which ultimately good triumphs.

 

[public hermit]

Perhaps creativity is of the essence of God but having to have created this particular creation is not. In other words, God did not HAVE TO create us. I am certain God did not have to create us and does not OWE us. I am less certain as to how or why that is so. God remains free. Which is, of course, a requirement for creativity to have at least some freedom.

Agreed. This issue came up in Copleston's discussion of Duns Scotus's understanding of divine freedom and creation ex nihilo, so you're intuition here is on the mark.

This is one of the loftiest discussions I have seen on CF

Perhaps we can blame Duns Scotus, the Subtle Doctor.

 

[public hermit]

I agree that. I think the thing that is necessary is the set of all possible universes. That is necessarily what it is. These universes may exist in actuality as a kind of multiverse but I think it more plausible that they exist only as potentialities in God's mind. God is free to actualize specific universes from this necessary set and I think the ones he chooses to do, which is perhaps only this one, comes from your point that God is love. He would not therefore chose to create a universe where there is so much evil and suffering that goodness couldn't really survive. I believe He chose to create this one because this is a universe in which ultimately good triumphs.

I'm really glad you brought this up. I am of the opinion that modal logic can be such a powerful tool, and is too often underutilized by theologians. In fact, it didn't even occur to me to try and employ it in the context of this question, haha.

So, if I'm tracking what you're saying, the set of all possible worlds are ersatz worlds in God's mind (David Lewis is one of the few philosophers that I'm aware of that holds that the set of all possible worlds are ontologically real). God is free to actualize any of these worlds, or perhaps none of them. I think the possibility that God is free to not create at all is important, otherwise we are back to the notion that God is essentially Creator and some created world must obtain.

If, for the sake of argument, we assume that it is God's essential nature of love that is the impetus for creation, then it makes sense that there will be some worlds that God would not freely choose to create. For instance, a world were evil was so predominate and redemption did not occur would be one such world. Of course, this begs the question as to why create a world with evil at all. But trying to address that would be out of the scope of this thread. We might eliminate other worlds, as well, but I don't think they would be very many. We might eliminate worlds where there are no intelligent creatures who come to know God's love (again assuming that love is the impetus). But, maybe that is assuming too much. I suppose God, out of love, might create a world where no one comes to know and worship God.

I am hesitant to assert that this is the best of all possible worlds, or that the actual world is the only one where ultimately good triumphs. For instance, there is a possible (ersatz) world sufficiently close to this one where everything is exactly the same, except I am wearing a red shirt instead of the grey shirt I am now wearing. In that world (where I am wearing a red shirt), redemption is also possible. That may seem like nitpicking, but it's important because it means that there are many, many worlds that God could have created where good ultimately triumphs. So, God is not constrained to create just one world, but free to create many, in spite of the fact that this is the one that God actually created.

 

[Hmm]

So, if I'm tracking what you're saying, the set of all possible worlds are ersatz worlds in God's mind (David Lewis is one of the few philosophers that I'm aware of that holds that the set of all possible worlds are ontologically real). God is free to actualize any of these worlds, or perhaps none of them. I think the possibility that God is free to not create at all is important, otherwise we are back to the notion that God is essentially Creator and some created world must obtain.

Yes, that's an accurate account of what I was saying and far better expressed!

If, for the sake of argument, we assume that it is God's essential nature of love that is the impetus for creation, then it makes sense that there will be some worlds that God would not freely choose to create. For instance, a world were evil was so predominate and redemption did not occur would be one such world.

Agreed.

Of course, this begs the question as to why create a world with evil at all.

A world such as this would nnot be created but it would by necessity exist as an element of the set of all possible worlds.

We might eliminate worlds where there are no intelligent creatures who come to know God's love (again assuming that love is the impetus). But, maybe that is assuming too much. I suppose God, out of love, might create a world where no one comes to know and worship God.

Agreed. God could conceivably create a world of outstanding beauty but where there were no creatures.

I am hesitant to assert that this is the best of all possible worlds, or that the actual world is the only one where ultimately good triumphs. For instance, there is a possible (ersatz) world sufficiently close to this one where everything is exactly the same, except I am wearing a red shirt instead of the grey shirt I am now wearing. In that world (where I am wearing a red shirt), redemption is also possible. That may seem like nitpicking, but it's important because it means that there are many, many worlds that God could have created where good ultimately triumphs. So, God is not constrained to create just one world, but free to create many, in spite of the fact that this is the one that God actually created.

I agree, but there is also no reason I can see why God couldn't create other worlds as well as this - worlds which would also need saving just as our own - so long as they were world's that God regards as worthwhile.

 

[public hermit]

I agree, but there is also no reason I can see why God couldn't create other worlds as well as this - worlds which would also need saving just as our own - so long as they were world's that God regards as worthwhile.

Do you mean God could actualize more than one world? Yeah, I see no reason why that couldn't be the case. Good point.

 

[Hmm]

Do you mean God could actualize more than one world? Yeah, I see no reason why that couldn't be the case. Good point.

Yes, that is what I meant. There's also no reason why it wouldn't be impossible for us to access such worlds so perhaps we'll never know if they exist or not.

 

[Albion]

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?

It's Duns Scotus. 'Nuff said.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Perhaps creativity is of the essence of God but having to have created this particular creation is not. In other words, God did not HAVE TO create us. I am certain God did not have to create us and does not OWE us. I am less certain as to how or why that is so. God remains free. Which is, of course, a requirement for creativity to have at least some freedom.

God is three persons from all eternity. Three persons in relationship. Three persons in love, and as we know God is love. Perhaps it is that love which is creative. And thus the simplicity and the unchanging nature of God. I donno. I am hesitant to pontificate. This is one of the loftiest discussions I have seen on CF. The recent critics don't even know how to understand it, so they miss the mark entirely. Don't let them derail the discussion. Maybe they could comprehend with a lot of explanation, or maybe not.

Yes it is the Complexity of the Trinity in Unity and Diversity. For someone to love there must be another to share in that love. God is love because He loves within His own nature. God could not love if He was only one person. God would be contradicting Himself if He was not self sufficient. God is Love means that He has this ability to love within Himself. This is only possible if the One God is a Tri-Personal God whom the scriptures declare to be The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

This Christian philosopher and theologian Richard Swinburne puts it like this:

"There is something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary divine individual. If such an individual is love, he must share, and sharing with finite beings such as humans is not sharing all of one's nature and so is imperfect sharing. A divine individual's love has to be manifested in a sharing with another divine individual, and that (to keep the divine unity) means (in some sense) within the Godhead, that is, in mutual dependence and support." (Swinburne, The Christian God [Oxford University Press, USA, November 24, 1994], p. 190)

This is why a unitarian god cannot be love- its impossible.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Mark Quayle]

According to common sense I do not find it strange that God was sometimes Creator, and not at other times. Assuming we hold that the universe is not eternal I think we basically do say that, no?

I would say that depends on how common that sense is, haha. We can say God is creator because he created, and nothing else did. But God himself is timeless, so to say he is sometimes creator is only talking from our common (temporal) point of view. As a matter of fact, all we can say about God is from out point of view, even when we use God's own words. We really don't know what we are talking about.

As CS Lewis says, from Til We Have Faces:

"Lightly men talk of saying what they mean. ... When the time comes to you at which you will be forced at last to utter the speech which has lain at the centre of your soul for years, which you have, all that time, idiot-like, been saying over and over, you'll not talk about joy of words."

and

"I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?”