Is God essentially Creator?

[Saint Steven]

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.

Back to our king analogy.
Was God a king before he had a throne in heaven? (I suppose not)
On what authority did he create the universe then? (since there was no rule but his own)
It seems authority was part of the creation as well. (do you have a headache yet?)

And if heaven (the spiritual realm) was created before earth, then earth could have been created from heaven.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Back to our king analogy.
Was God a king before he had a throne in heaven? (I suppose not)
On what authority did he create the universe then? (since there was no rule but his own)
It seems authority was part of the creation as well. (do you have a headache yet?)

And if heaven (the spiritual realm) was created before earth, then earth could have been created from heaven.

Yes we seem to think in time whereas God is Eternal- outside of time and its constraints, not confined by it.

 

[public hermit]

Was God a king before he had a throne in heaven? (I suppose not

Too anthropomorphic. Does God have a bottom upon which to sit? Is God 6'3"? Shorter or taller?

On what authority did he create the universe then?

Must God's power or authority be conferred on God? This goes back to creation ex nihilo and God's sovereign freedom. Did God have to create?

It seems authority was part of the creation as well

I see no reason why authority, which is simply power, needs to be creation dependent.

if heaven (the spiritual realm) was created before earth, then earth could have been created from heaven

I suppose, but I'm not sure how it relates.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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)

The analogy is not perfect. The 'punishment' is being hit by the car. If one is punished for walking in the street, without, of course the car impact, it is educational so as to avoid future high speed contact with cars. Much of the punishment for sin IS natural consequence, based on natural law. For example, gravity is a law. Violate it, or try to anyway, at your own peril.

 

[Noxot]

Let's not forget that one of God's qualities is jealousy. We speak much of the qualities of God but we do not speak much of the qualities we have. How much of a say do each of us have in reality? To even know that there is a God is such a high privilege. That the Son of God would die for us is incomprehensible.

As a saint said - we are what God is not in eternity. I probably fudged that quote pretty bad. We are the hands and feet of Christ, Would be another expression.


Some people have thought that perhaps God is lacking something due to being perfect. One must question what Perfection is. Some people's conceptions of God is that of one very distant and alien from us. Of course he is both Transcendent and near. But in Christianity we see God is capable of sympathizing and understanding our weaknesses because he himself shared in all of them.

I was spewing out of the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world.

Whitehead who was the main influencer of process theology concluded that God is the world just as much as the world is god. But this is in that completed and saved form, not in the systematic theology which only speaks for the most part of a separation between God and the world.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes we seem to think in time whereas God is Eternal- outside of time and its constraints, not confined by it.

As I understand it, the speed of time is not constant in the universe. Even on earth, a clock's relation to sea level can make it run faster or slower.

It's like a phonograph record. There is a long distance around the outside rim but the inside moves much faster. Even though the whole thing is rotating at the same RPM.

Everything has already happened for God. We just haven't caught up yet.

 

[Saint Steven]

Does God have a bottom upon which to sit?

Yes.
We were created in his image, his likeness.
How else would he sit on a throne?

The stuff that John saw in heaven, I think he was actually there. It wasn't a vision in his mind. He was transported. He describes being taken here and there. Some of the things he saw were symbolic, where obvious.

 

[Saint Steven]

Did God have to create?

A motive for every act. Perhaps he didn't NEED to, but he was motivated to for some reason. Love? Does love NEED an object to apply it too? No king without a kingdom. No love without a recipient?

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes.
We were created in his image, his likeness.
How else would he sit on a throne?

The stuff that John saw in heaven, I think he was actually there. It wasn't a vision in his mind. He was transported. He describes being taken here and there. Some of the things he saw were symbolic, where obvious.

You seem to imply that God has a body. Does the Father have a body, as the LDS maintain? Classical Christian theology would deny that is so. Jesus does have a body but God is otherwise maintained to be incorporeal.

 

[Saint Steven]

The analogy is not perfect. The 'punishment' is being hit by the car. If one is punished for walking in the street, without, of course the car impact, it is educational so as to avoid future high speed contact with cars. Much of the punishment for sin IS natural consequence, based on natural law. For example, gravity is a law. Violate it, or try to anyway, at your own peril.

Right. The analogy is not perfect.
Let's analyze the Fall of humankind.

God put a tree in the center of the garden where it couldn't be missed.
Then he made a rule. Don't eat from that tree or you will die.
As if Adam had any idea what that meant. (to die)

Amazingly, Adam and Eve did as God commanded and didn't eat from the tree. They had to be deceived by the serpent to do it. And we have been suffering the consequences ever since.

It seems to me that God wanted humankind to fall. And he was already prepared with a plan of redemption in Genesis three. (the seed of the woman)

 

[chevyontheriver]

A motive for every act. Perhaps he didn't NEED to, but he was motivated to for some reason. Love? Does love NEED an object to apply it too? No king without a kingdom. No love without a recipient?

The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. Their Holy Spirit as well. God is lover and beloved all in one. This would not be true if God were a monad.

 

[Saint Steven]

You seem to imply that God has a body. Does the Father have a body, as the LDS maintain? Classical Christian theology would deny that is so. Jesus does have a body but God is otherwise maintained to be incorporeal.

I side with the Mormons on this one. - lol
We look the way we do because we were created in the image of God, in his likeness.

 

[Saint Steven]

The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. Their Holy Spirit as well. God is lover and beloved all in one. This would not be true if God were a monad.

What do you think God's motivation was for creation?

 

[public hermit]

Does love NEED an object to apply it too?

The love of God has an Object, i.e. the three Persons of the Trinity. It is that love that overflows and in generosity creates us. God doesn't need us for relationship because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in an eternal relationship. It is out of love that God creates us and draws us into that relationship.

Remember your first question in this thread that the dependence seemed isolated to the physical and didn't take into account fellowship? That same critical eye is appropriate for our understanding of the image of God. Instead of thinking of the image of God in terms of corruptible flesh, think of it in terms of those things that last, i.e. intelligence, wisdom, relationship, love...

 

[Saint Steven]

Instead of thinking of the image of God in terms of corruptible flesh, think of it in terms of those things that last, i.e. intelligence, wisdom, relationship, love...

Nice segue.
I was just going to mention our heavenly incorruptible bodies.
Which I see as the same form as our current bodies, but forever young and healthy.
I see God as having that kind of a body too.

But I feel that I have crossed some theological border here into the land of heresy. - lol
(not my first rodeo on that ranch)

 

[Saint Steven]

Did God have to create?

If it's not an occupation, it must be a hobby. (an expensive hobby)

 

[Saint Steven]

Here's an interesting comparison. Notice the word "likeness".

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Genesis 5:1
This is the written account of Adam’s family line. When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God.

Genesis 5:3
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

Philippians 2:7
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

James 3:9
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What do you think God's motivation was for creation?

Something profound. At the same time, nothing that would fulfill a need on God's part.

 

[Saint Steven]

Something profound. At the same time, nothing that would fulfill a need on God's part.

So, he didn't "have" to, he "wanted" to.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So, he didn't "have" to, he "wanted" to.

I'm not at all willing to say God 'had to'. That would not respect the freedom of God. I would only say God 'wanted to' in an analogous sense because I want to respect the simplicity and impassibility of God. I might say God loved to do it.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. Their Holy Spirit as well. God is lover and beloved all in one. This would not be true if God were a monad.

A unitarian god cannot love and God is love would be untrue with a unitarian god. 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 He is a Tri-Personal God, Triune or a Trinity which the scriptures declare to be The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

hope this helps !!!