What is Creation as Essential Doctrine?

[gluadys]

We've discussed this before. Remember the bicycle? We differ on agency.

To create and to procreate is not the same thing. Neither would happen without God, but God is the agent for creating, and parents are the agent for procreating. Further, there can be active and passive agents. In procreation the parents are active agents (they have a will), and in the claims of evolution natural law is the agent (it has no will).

In your version of creation, you invoke both the active agency of procreation and the passive agency of evolution. I invoke neither. In my version, only God is the agent.

I think you misunderstand my "version". God may act directly and immediately, through another active agent or through a passive agent. But in all cases God is the agent; the others would have no power to create/procreate without the agency of God.

Nor do I hold that God merely delegates power to others and stands back as a passive spectator.

So are you saying you would only call it "creating/creation" where God acts directly, with no use of a subordinate agent whatsoever?

I don't like the hairs you're splitting. To me this is like two starving men who come across a tree with one apple and begin to argue about who will eat it. Then one of them steps back and says, "We're not arguing about the apple. The cause of the argument is starvation."

And yet, if there were no apple, there would be no argument. Starvation may be part of it, but the argument can't be separated from the apple.

Indeed, if there were no scriptural text about creation, there would be no argument about what it means and how it relates to the observed creation.

Mmm. And yet you said the following:



If you mean cherry-picking verses, I would agree. But if this is really your position, we are in a very, very different place.

Let's put it this way. We both read the same bible. We may have certain biases toward certain English translations, but it is essentially the same bible. In any case, it is always possible to go back to the original languages.

So there is no argument about what the bible says. The argument is about what the text means. Hence just putting up a text really says nothing much, until one explains the relevance of the text in this context.

So I generally don't put up a text just to put up a text.

On the main issues, neither do you. Because the main issues are not a matter of what is in the text, but of how your mind (and mine) interpret the text. The text itself does not tell you that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was an actual fruit-bearing tree with wood and roots and leaves. That comes from a certain predisposition to read the text as a literal historical event. So what would be the point of citing the text to support your position? The issue is meta-textual.

 

[Resha Caner]

So are you saying you would only call it "creating/creation" where God acts directly, with no use of a subordinate agent whatsoever?

Yes, basically I would only say God is creating under that type of circumstance.

It is a spectrum. At one end, God has set certain physical laws. It sort of means He has agreed to limit His will within certain rules. Even though I believe God is the ultimate cause for a ball to fall to earth, He has set the law of gravitation to determine how it falls. He does not willy-nilly decide one day balls fall to earth and the next day they float. He may want the KC Royals to win the World Series (as I do), but He won't make the law of gravitation different for KC than for the Cardinals just so they can win. By His own choice, He sometimes restrains Himself.

God has also created beings with wills of their own. If someone decides to procreate outside of marriage, it happens in spite of God's will.

God could decide to make balls float or prevent procreation, but that is the exception.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, basically I would only say God is creating under that type of circumstance.

It is a spectrum. At one end, God has set certain physical laws. It sort of means He has agreed to limit His will within certain rules.

This is one place where we have a different perspective. You say he is limiting his will within certain rules. I say he is expressing his will through these rules. I would also say these rules are ineffective without his will--not just in establishing them, but in sustaining them constantly, at every moment. I do not see them as a limitation on God at all.

 

[Resha Caner]

This is one place where we have a different perspective. You say he is limiting his will within certain rules. I say he is expressing his will through these rules. I would also say these rules are ineffective without his will--not just in establishing them, but in sustaining them constantly, at every moment. I do not see them as a limitation on God at all.

The point was to address when God is the agent and when He is not. If one does not recognize such distinctions, one is a pantheist ... or maybe a believer in puppetry.

 

[mark kennedy]

The point was to address when God is the agent and when He is not. If one does not recognize such distinctions, one is a pantheist ... or maybe a believer in puppetry.

There is more then one reason we need a prime mover, in order for God to be that he has to be independent of creation. God is the ultimate paradox, at the same time he must transcend all of time and space, that separation can also be expressed sanctified or holy, they mean the same thing basically.

Pantheism seems like another materialist philosophy to me. God's presence is one of those issues that inextricably linked to sanctification, of course I'm thinking about the Tabernacle and the Temple here.

The question of creation comes down to, what did God actually do? Genesis 1 uses absolute creation 'bara', to emphasis that this was the point of origin. The original creation (including the sun), aka the 'heavens and the earth'. It's used again at the creation of life (1:21) and Man (used 3X).

When the Hebrew uses a parallelism it's a repetition used to emphasis something. In other words, this phrase is repeated for the sake of emphasis with a verb that is a term used only of God. Not the elemental earth or some nebulous natural selection. God at the point of origin, creator of the heavens and the earth (1:1), life (Gen. 1:21) and Man.

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:27)​

There's a reason the strongest possible word for creation is used here, three times, it's for the sake of emphasis. I'm honestly embarrassed that Christians think it has something to do with astronomy or cosmology, we are talking about life at it's point of origin. The heart of the emphasis is the creation of Adam. The New Testament witness is 100% unanimous on this as well.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

The point was to address when God is the agent and when He is not. If one does not recognize such distinctions, one is a pantheist ... or maybe a believer in puppetry.

No, I am not suggesting pantheism. I do not identify God as a synonym of universe. I agree with your descriptions and distinctions on agency.

But where you describe the situation of physical laws as a limitation on God (even if self-imposed) I do not. Why should we think of natural laws as a limitation on God's will rather than as an expression of God's will?

To put it another way, when it comes to physical laws (not speaking of human free agency), you speak of identifying "when God is the agent and when He is not". I have a great deal of difficulty accepting the idea that in nature there is ever a situation in which God is not the agent. Gravity works because God is the agent who makes it work. That is not, IMO, a limitation on God.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, I am not suggesting pantheism.

Maybe panentheism then.

To put it another way, when it comes to physical laws (not speaking of human free agency), you speak of identifying "when God is the agent and when He is not". I have a great deal of difficulty accepting the idea that in nature there is ever a situation in which God is not the agent. Gravity works because God is the agent who makes it work. That is not, IMO, a limitation on God.

Who knows for sure. I considered such things for a time, but as I hinted in the previous post, I don't like how it makes God a puppet. To say gravity works because God is the agent, is to make Him an accessory. When Cain throws Abel off a cliff in order to murder him, God is chained (limited) to Cain as a partner in the crime because he is the agent of the gravitational action that pulls Abel to the ground.

In the same way, Abner Doubleday, as (mythic) inventor of baseball would be running around every baseball field determining the outcome of every game. I don't see it that way. Abner set the parameters of the game - the rules. So, yes, there is a sense in which he is party to every game that is ever played, but he is not the agent. In "expressing" his view of sports through the game of baseball, Abner also limited himself in that he can't now change the rules to favor one team over another.

God limited himself. He doesn't save Abel by suspending the law of gravity to prevent his fall. He could, but he doesn't. Now, he could send a great wind or a bird or something within the rules to save Abel, but he doesn't suspend gravity. Neither do I see Him as the one slamming Abel's body into the ground to kill him because Cain desired it.

 

[Alive_Again]

I think being established in the creation story reflects on your revelation on God's Word on the whole. Once you're well established in that, you can receive in your spirit without having to be slowed down by your mental understanding. It will come along, but your brain won't have to "filter it" first.

I do believe there are places where the translation into English isn't perfectly reflecting the original language, so there are some allowances for that. But you can't impose that over an entire story.

I would just suggest for anyone struggling with the creation story and God's Word in general to just remain open and willing to be taught on the inside. Don't make any rash judgments that might obscure revelation into your spirit. Keep seeking and believe you have understanding after you ask (even before it comes along). Some things seem to come a piece at a time, but rest assured God's not going to leave His children 'in the dark".

Here's a link to Kat Kerr's account of what she saw in God's place where His kids can see key events in the Bible (including creation). She saw the dinosaurs and she describes what the earth looked like back in that time (different!).

 

[gluadys]

Who knows for sure. I considered such things for a time, but as I hinted in the previous post, I don't like how it makes God a puppet.

To say gravity works because God is the agent, is to make Him an accessory. When Cain throws Abel off a cliff in order to murder him, God is chained (limited) to Cain as a partner in the crime because he is the agent of the gravitational action that pulls Abel to the ground.

No way. God being the agent of gravity doesn't impel Cain's action.

In the same way, Abner Doubleday, as (mythic) inventor of baseball would be running around every baseball field determining the outcome of every game. I don't see it that way. Abner set the parameters of the game - the rules. So, yes, there is a sense in which he is party to every game that is ever played, but he is not the agent. In "expressing" his view of sports through the game of baseball, Abner also limited himself in that he can't now change the rules to favor one team over another.

God limited himself. He doesn't save Abel by suspending the law of gravity to prevent his fall. He could, but he doesn't. Now, he could send a great wind or a bird or something within the rules to save Abel, but he doesn't suspend gravity. Neither do I see Him as the one slamming Abel's body into the ground to kill him because Cain desired it.

First, God did not limit himself. As you say, he could save Abel, but he doesn't. If he didn't save Abel, it is not because he was unable to, or limited in some way. In fact, as you pointed out, he didn't even have to suspend gravity, as he could have used a method that did not depend on doing so. So if you want to charge God with complicity on the basis that he did not do what he could do (including suspending gravity), well I guess that is up to you. But it is not a limitation. And God is not a puppet.

There is a commonality and a difference between these scenarios. The commonality is that if you break the established rules, what you created ceases to be. Abner breaking the rules of baseball on a whim of favouritism means the rules of baseball (hence the game of baseball) no longer exist. God choosing to intervene in the natural outcomes of gravity means gravity (and hence the physical creation) no longer exists.

The difference between the two scenarios is that Abner Doubleday is wholly outside the game whose rules he drew up. The game goes on with or without him; in fact, he couldn't put a stop to it if he wanted to. But God is never wholly outside his creation. There is a continual and constant interaction between God and what God has made and the very existence of the creation at any moment depends on God choosing that it continue to be.

 

[Resha Caner]

First, God did not limit himself. As you say, he could save Abel, but he doesn't.

I don't know what else you would call it, so this seems like semantics to me.

So if you want to charge God with complicity on the basis that he did not do what he could do (including suspending gravity), well I guess that is up to you.

I'm not charging God with complicity. I don't think He is complicit. I'm explaining where your ideas seem to go. I realize that several times now you haven't liked the direction I went with with your ideas, but I don't see how they could go anywhere else.

 

[gluadys]

I don't know what else you would call it, so this seems like semantics to me.

A limitation would mean God could not do what God wanted to do. Since that is not the case, his choice to save or not to save Abel from death by gravity is not a limitation.

I'm not charging God with complicity. I don't think He is complicit. I'm explaining where your ideas seem to go. I realize that several times now you haven't liked the direction I went with with your ideas, but I don't see how they could go anywhere else.

I think you are not understanding me.

 

[Resha Caner]

A limitation would mean God could not do what God wanted to do. Since that is not the case, his choice to save or not to save Abel from death by gravity is not a limitation.

So God wanted to kill Abel? I don't see how that makes it better.

I think you are not understanding me.

I'm trying.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Genesis 1.1 is as vital as John 1.1.

 

[Papias]

farouk-

Of course. No one is disputing Gen 1.1 - that God is the one who did the creating - no matter how He did it. This is a Christians only forum, afterall.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Genesis 1.1 is as vital as John 1.1.

They are strongly related, the Nicene Creed echoes both in it's opening verses. John just goes on to say that the Word 'Logos' is Creator, from the beginning:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1: 12-14)​

Because he is Creator he had the power to become 'sons of God'. The two are inextricably linked.

farouk-

Of course. No one is disputing Gen 1.1 - that God is the one who did the creating - no matter how He did it. This is a Christians only forum, afterall.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

But I always want to ask you guys, then what happened? The narrative continues beyond 1:1. What are we disputing here exactly?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

But I always want to ask you guys, then what happened? The narrative continues beyond 1:1. What are we disputing here exactly?

The debate is whether what continues beyond 1:1 is even 'narrative' at all, in the sense of historical chronicle, rather than poetry or allegory.

 

[mark kennedy]

The debate is whether what continues beyond 1:1 is even 'narrative' at all, in the sense of historical chronicle, rather than poetry or allegory.

It's actually prose, but it is clearly narrative. It's especially significant that the creation of man is described in such dramatic terms. Genesis is historical narrative, the 'begats' are a key indicator of that. How are you supposed to call the first chapter an allegory and not diminish what follows?

So I vote historical narrative, there is no good reason not to.

 

[gluadys]

So God wanted to kill Abel? I don't see how that makes it better.

No, Cain wanted to kill Abel. God's choice is whether to let him or not.

I'm trying.

Historically, Christians have always affirmed that God's relationship to nature is both transcendent and immanent. It seems to me that, especially since the rise of the mechanical model of the universe in early science with the concomitant rise of the theology of deism, that some segments of Christianity have moved (as Islam did) to a view of God that is wholly transcendent and forgotten about the concept of God's immanence (even confusing it with pantheism or panentheism).

I wonder if that is at play here. I am trying to speak of God immanent within creation and acting not so much on nature as in nature or through nature. But if you are trying to fit that into the concept of a transcendent relationship to nature, it just doesn't work very well.

God does transcend nature. "God" is not a synonym for "the whole of nature".
But God is also intimate with nature because God also dwells within (is immanent in) nature. Every single thing that is exists at each moment because the being of God sustains its being. Lightning exists because God sustains it in existence. A forest exists because God sustains it in existence. It does not follow that God wants lighting to burn down the forest. It is simply part of the being of lightning that it will do so, from time to time.

The cosmos is not a machine that, once made, can exist independently of its Maker. For as long as it exists, it exists because at every moment, God enables it to be.

 

[gluadys]

It's actually prose, but it is clearly narrative. It's especially significant that the creation of man is described in such dramatic terms. Genesis is historical narrative, the 'begats' are a key indicator of that. How are you supposed to call the first chapter an allegory and not diminish what follows?

So I vote historical narrative, there is no good reason not to.

It is clearly narrative, but not so clearly prose. After all, it is not necessary that historical narrative (or narrative of any kind) be written in prose. In fact, IIRC, you made the case once that the Song of Solomon (clearly poetry) is also historical narrative.

Allegories are also narratives and may be either in poetry (like the Roman de la Rose) or in prose (like The Pilgrim's Progress).

How does it diminish any other part of scripture if the history of creation is narrated as an allegory? It is still narrative, it is still history, and it may even be prose, despite several poetic elements.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, Cain wanted to kill Abel. God's choice is whether to let him or not.

It seems as if you make it more than that. God is the agent of all gravitational events.

The cosmos is not a machine that, once made, can exist independently of its Maker. For as long as it exists, it exists because at every moment, God enables it to be.

For a time I thought our views very similar, with only subtle differences. Statements like these are the reason I thought that. I agree with it. But the devil is in the details, so it doesn't get us anywhere, when those details emerge, to back off to generalizations.