Is God essentially Creator?

[Mark Quayle]

I think that God wants every yod and tiddle of himself. If each person in the body of Christ is a cell then how small the hole God would have does not matter... if each spirit is unique and irreplaceable. Why would I exist unless God wanted me to be?

If I may be so bold to take "without me you can do nothing" a step further: Without Christ, we ARE nothing. We are incomplete beings apart from Christ. When we are IN HIM, finally without blemish, without this carcass we inhabit here, and we see him as he is, the Sons of God are finally Revealed, which thing the whole creation presently groans after..... He will not inhabit a place we do not. THERE is our rest, what we were made for.

Edit: Though I am sure about what I write there, I do not know how to say it, and I KNOW WELL that the truth of it is far more than I can imagine.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think that God wants every yod and tiddle of himself. If each person in the body of Christ is a cell then how small the hole God would have does not matter... if each spirit is unique and irreplaceable. Why would I exist unless God wanted me to be?

Hence my opinion that what remains of a person when God has withdrawn from him, and all redeeming qualities are gone, nothing remaining of any worth --a husk, a wraith, and in the same way we redeemed are going to be above the angels, perhaps those will be worse than demons, utterly unrecognizable as what they once were, not even worth calling human anymore.

Note the strange words of Scripture --that Christ became sin for us.

And here: For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain.

 

[Noxot]

Hence my opinion that what remains of a person when God has withdrawn from him, and all redeeming qualities are gone, nothing remaining of any worth --a husk, a wraith, and in the same way we redeemed are going to be above the angels, perhaps those will be worse than demons, utterly unrecognizable as what they once were, not even worth calling human anymore.

Note the strange words of Scripture --that Christ became sin for us.

And here: For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain.

I can only understand such things by the beauty of the Tree of Life.

 

[public hermit]

That helps, thanks.
But doesn't this assume that the only needs one is "dependent" on are physical needs? Did not God create us for fellowship? Which though it is not the fulfillment of a physical need, does fulfill a psychological need. (if we can claim God has psychological needs) If man, which was created in his image was seen as lonely. (in need of a mate)

Does he not also "need" us to be obedient to him? Otherwise he is obligated to deal with the disobedience. Something he would not need to do if we were always obedient.

The dependence is, in this context, primarily ontological, i.e. pertaining to being. The human nature is both physical and spiritual, so I would not limit it to just physical. Nonetheless, your questions about the reciprocity of need is interesting.

Does God need us? Would God be somehow less than God could be without us? That is precisely the kind of concern behind the claim that God is not essentially Creator. If God is essentially Creator, then God must create and to not create would mean a kind of lack in God.

Process theology makes the claim that God's very being is being fulfilled in creation (e.g. in fellowship with creatures, bringing about the obedience and fulfilment of creatures, etc.) so that without us God is less than God could be.

That line of thought would be wholly unacceptable from the perspective of thinkers like Thomas Aquinas or Duns Scotus. From their perspective God is not creating from a place of need or lack, but from a place of abundance and generosity.

But back to your concern about how God deals with disobedience, and the general possibility that creation doesn't go as it was intended. Let's assume that God creates, not out if necessity or need, but out of an abundance of love and generosity. Does God take a risk in doing that?

I would say that creation ex nihilo and redemption point to the divine ability not only to bring something out of nothing, but to bring back to right whatever could go wrong. And perhaps, that going wrong and making right again (redemption) is part of creation ex nihilo. If sin is a tendency towards non-being, then redemption is part and parcel of creating. Maybe creation isn't finished until things are exactly as God intended, i.e. God becomes all in all. I'll let you take it from there.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think WE need obedience. I don't think God needs it at all. If we do not obey, we harm ourselves. We can't harm God. At least not according to classical Christian theology where God is impassable.

But again, why punish sin if it is harmless to God? Why not just warn us of the natural consequences at let it go at that? Shouldn't the natural consequences be sufficient? That works in human parenting. Although we don't allow a child to walk out in front of an approaching car.

 

[Saint Steven]

Process theology makes the claim that God's very being is being fulfilled in creation (e.g. in fellowship with creatures, bringing about the obedience and fulfilment of creatures, etc.) so that without us God is less than God could be.

Right.
What is a king with no kingdom? No king at all.

 

[Saint Steven]

But back to your concern about how God deals with disobedience, and the general possibility that creation doesn't go as it was intended. Let's assume that God creates, not out if necessity or need, but out of an abundance of love and generosity. Does God take a risk in doing that?

I would say that creation ex nihilo and redemption point to the divine ability not only to bring something out of nothing, but to bring back to right whatever could go wrong. And perhaps, that going wrong and making right again (redemption) is part of creation ex nihilo. If sin is a tendency towards non-being, then redemption is part and parcel of creating. Maybe creation isn't finished until things are exactly as God intended, i.e. God becomes all in all. I'll let you take it from there.

LOL
As I read these two paragraphs, I was thinking... "This is why I am a Universalist."
I was also thinking about our word "recreation". When we take time off, we are re-creating. Setting things back to where they belong, as they should be, as they were created to be.

 

[public hermit]

Right.
What is a king with no kingdom? No king at all.

I'll go out on a limb and say the theologians in this context are going to also say that God is not essentially King, because (again) the kingdom is not necessary.

By the by, all of this came up in Duns Scotus's discussion on creation ex nihilo. The thinking is that creation ex nihilo entails that God created out of freedom and was free to not create.

But if God created out of necessity, then creation is necessary and God is essentially King and Creator. That is, there is a real relation between God and creation because God's nature depends on creating, which seems to be the position you are working with. Would that be accurate? If so, then would you say that creation is eternal?

 

[Saint Steven]

I'll go out on a limb and say the theologians in this context are going to also say that God is not essentially King, because (again) the kingdom is not necessary.

By the by, all of this came up in Duns Scotus's discussion on creation ex nihilo. The thinking is that creation ex nihilo entails that God created out of freedom and was free to not create.

But if God created out of necessity, then creation is necessary and God is essentially King and Creator. That is, there is a real relation between God and creation because God's nature depends on creating, which seems to be the position you are working with. Would that be accurate? If so, then would you say that creation is eternal?

Whether God or human, I would say there is a motivation for every act. A need to be addressed. I pour a glass of water because I am thirsty.

 

[public hermit]

LOL
As I read these two paragraphs, I was thinking... "This is why I am a Universalist."
I was also thinking about our word "recreation". When we take time off, we are re-creating. Setting things back to where they belong, as they should be, as they were created to be.

I thought that last paragraph might ring some bells for you.

I do think it's a very interesting question as to if God took a risk at creating. Or, did God know that God would bring it all around to God's initial intention?

 

[public hermit]

Whether God or human, I would say there is a motivation for every act. A need to be addressed. I pour a glass of water because I am thirsty.

Great insight, because this was basically my question in creating this thread. Why did God create if God is not essentially Creator? Or that's how my thinking has developed as this thread has gone on.

My settled position at this point is that the motivation was love and generosity, which are (I would say) essential attributes of the Trinity.

 

[Saint Steven]

I thought that last paragraph might ring some bells for you.

I do think it's a very interesting question as to if God took a risk at creating. Or, did God know that God would bring it all around to God's initial intention?

Right.
I don't think we derailed God's plan by being deceived to sin. (as if he didn't see that coming) We even see the plan of redemption mentioned in the consequences given to Eve. The Savior is revealed. (this has the fingerprints of pre-planning all over it)

 

[Saint Steven]

Great insight, because this was basically my question in creating this thread. Why did God create if God is not essentially Creator? Or that's how my thinking has developed as this thread has gone on.

My settled position at this point is that the motivation was love and generosity, which are (I would say) essential attributes of the Trinity.

Do you think heaven was part of the creation of the universe, or did it pre-exist?
Where was God when he created the universe?

 

[public hermit]

Do you think heaven was part of the creation of the universe, or did it pre-exist?
Where was God when he created the universe?

Ouch, you're going to hurt my pea brain!

I tend to think of heaven (spiritual space) as created. Time and space are also creatures. So, the question of where God was before creation doesn't make much sense to me.

That being said, I have to admit I am very much influenced by Augustine on this point. Could there be a spiritual space in which God eternally abides? Perhaps, but that notion brings up the possibility that there is something greater than God, i.e. the space in which God abides. So, although it hurts my head to try to think outside the created order, I hold the God is wholly distinct from any space, time, heaven, etc.

Of course, if creation is eternal (i.e. somehow is God) then some of those issues of distinguishing between God and creation disappear...and other issues take their place.

 

[chevyontheriver]

But again, why punish sin if it is harmless to God? Why not just warn us of the natural consequences at let it go at that? Shouldn't the natural consequences be sufficient? That works in human parenting. Although we don't allow a child to walk out in front of an approaching car.

I think sin IS walking in front of an approaching car. God tries to train us about streets and cars. It's for our good. It is not because God is too demanding.

 

[Saint Steven]

Right.
I don't think we derailed God's plan by being deceived to sin. (as if he didn't see that coming) We even see the plan of redemption mentioned in the consequences given to Eve. The Savior is revealed. (this has the fingerprints of pre-planning all over it)

I think we see a God in the Bible who loves a good story. Especially with a happy ending. Tragedy is averted by his miracles. (created events) The Israelites were trapped at the Red Sea with an angry army bearing down on them. Then the unthinkable happened.

This is why I never pray for God to grant me the solution I thought of. I want his solution to my problem.

 

[Saint Steven]

Ouch, you're going to hurt my pea brain!

I tend to think of heaven (spiritual space) as created. Time and space are also creatures. So, the question of where God was before creation doesn't make much sense to me.

That being said, I have to admit I am very much influenced by Augustine on this point. Could there be a spiritual space in which God eternally abides? Perhaps, but that notion brings up the possibility that there is something greater than God, i.e. the space in which God abides. So, although it hurts my head to try to think outside the created order, I hold the God is wholly distinct from any space, time, heaven, etc.

Of course, if creation is eternal (i.e. somehow is God) then some of those issues of distinguishing between God and creation disappear...and other issues take their place.

I think Job missed a rare opportunity to reverse the question. - lol

Job 38:4
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

 

[Saint Steven]

I tend to think of heaven (spiritual space) as created. Time and space are also creatures. So, the question of where God was before creation doesn't make much sense to me.

Do we find the creation of heaven in the creation week? (I don't see it)
Some questions about the meaning of the term "the heavens".

And I see the physical realm and the spiritual realm as different places that overlap.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think sin IS walking in front of an approaching car. God tries to train us about streets and cars. It's for our good. It is not because God is too demanding.

But why punish someone for walking in front of a car when the natural consequence is enough. We take accident victims to the hospital, not to jail. (we need a spiritual application here, of course)

 

[public hermit]

Do we find the creation of heaven in the creation week? (I don't see it)
Some questions about the meaning of the term "the heavens".

And I see the physical realm and the spiritual realm as different places that overlap.

I wondered about this when you asked me. There is the question about "the heavens." Also, there is no mention of the creation of angels, but we consider them creatures.

I really don't know. As you know, I don't take a strictly literal reading of the creation account, so I'm open to various possible interpretations.

I am not opposed to spiritual space and physical space overlapping. I would say both spaces are creatures. But, again, I'm open to correction if it seems reasonable.