Could God have decided not to create?

[Owen Jones]

Could God have decided not to create?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Could God have decided not to create?

No.

That was an enjoyable discussion, Owen.

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif INXC, Matthew

[James H.]

I'm going with MC on this one. From everything I've read, the Orthodox answer seems to be "no."

At first glance it seems like a useless, pointless question. But it reminds me that it is in God's very nature to create. Just as faith is never static, neither is God... He is Love and is therefore dynamic... creative. We call God "Creator" and it seems to me that this label represents a intricate quality of Who He is, not Who He became.

Maybe a more interesting question (although perhaps just as simple to answer) is if God knew that His creation would fall in the end. I think He did since He is omniscient. This brings us to an interesting, yet vital, distintion... While God did not create us TO fall (as Calvinists might say... correct me and forgive me if I've misspoken here), He created us knowing we would CHOOSE to fall (free will). He knew from the start this creation would mean Him having to enter that creation, suffer, die, and ressurect in order to save is. This all more than boggles my mind. So, in the end, it seems that God prefers there to be love in the midst of suffering than no love at all. I guess it makes sense since He is love.

Talk about stream of conscience! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

In Christ,

James

[Alex Haig]

Surely the answer is 'yes'? God doesn't need humanity, the angels or any of creation.

With love in Christ

Alex

[Pan. Tsiros]

the God(Father)'s will "immediatelly" happens or satisfied (i dont know the correct english word).
Perhaps is a blasfemy to say that God change mind.

Pan. Tsiros

[Daniel Jeandet]

Why not?

Did we exist in some way before we were created? (thats a separate question).

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Almost as soon as I pressed the 'Post this Message' button for my response, above, I realised that it would require a follow-up. As such:

My response to Mr Owen Jones' post on God and creation was in friendly jest (as will have been obvious to those who have been here a good long while). Those of you who are concerned that I short-shrifted our kind Aikin gentleman can rest assured that he will have taken my remarks in that message for all the seriousness in which they were made. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

However, without jest, 'no' is still the appropriate answer.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

I'm not sure that we can say God is creator by nature, James. I'd like a little more clarification on this from others more knowledgeable. However, I'm almost sure that we say God is creator by 'energy,' not by 'essence.' Otherwise, creation is eternal.

Aaron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Matthew,

I have just read your posts. All I can say is:

"No"
Why?
Because (?)

Fr R- Orthodox haiku master

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

I am afraid that I disagree with the consensus in this string. It is my understanding of the Patristics that God is totally free, and any hint that He has done anything out of necessity is incorrect understanding of His freedom. I will dig about a bit to see if I find references specifically to His work of creation. I think it is correct to say that it is within God's nature TO create, but not necessary that He MUST create - capability, not necessity. I will try to find Patristic quotes that deal with this.

So anyway, my vote is Yes, God could choose NOT to create.

[James H.]

I see your point Aaron (although I have always had trouble in grasping the whole "energies/essence" distiction). It just seems that it is in God's very nature to create. So I don't mean that He NEEDED us... but rather that it's just part of Who He is. I'm not stating this as fact and I am perfectly willing to conced that I am wrong. I guess in being part of His creation it is difficult (or even impossible) for me to imagine God as not being Creator. This of course doesn't prove anything but at least explains my hesitancy to except that God could have decided not to create. And I really don't feel it's my ego speaking either. In the end, either one can feed our ego if that's what we're looking for.

What do the Church Fathers say about this? I would be interested in reading about both positions. Is this even something we really can know for sure?

After talking with a friend about this, the question Owen presented doesn't seem so clear-cut as I first thought and while it's not very important to my faith, it is interesting.

James

[James H.]

Gilbert,

I think you made an excellent distiction which I failed to clarify in my first post. I don't think anyone in this thread is trying to say that God MUST create out of some obligation so some other force. Perhaps it is comparable (in part) to God being Love. It is illogical to say that God MUST love implying that He OWES us love. Rather, we would say that He Loves; He always loves. So now, I suppose I'm wondering if God creates nature (and therefore it was not a matter of choice or compulsion but rather of the Who is God). Is Creator something he always was in nature, or is it something He assumed.

Here's another question that may add to the discussion (and if not, just ignore). Has God always been creating? Was there a "time" when He wasn't? Is it possible that there has always been creation, even before time? Does that question even make sense or does creation necessitate time. I'm getting in over my head here. lol. Anyhow, I am VERY interested in seeing what others have to say about this.

God bless,

James

[matt]

I would like to hear Matthew’s thoughts on this whole issue, since he is quite confident that God could not have chosen not to create. (Is this the apophatic way of saying that God had to create by necessity?) Regarding James’ post, I would disagree almost entirely, and I’ll explain below. And as always I am open for doing a 180 on this topic.

I have read only a little, but it seems to me that I have always read the opposite of God’s necessity to create the cosmos. Of course I may be mixing apples and oranges since there are many issues here, but I thought that I would throw a few thoughts in about what I think were problems in the past, especially with Arius and Origen. Maybe they are irrelevant for this discussion, but maybe not… It has been a while sine I’ve read about this, but here it goes (I know that in some book Fr Meyendorff or Lossky talked about this issue and somehow tied in St Maximus as well. Microcosm and Mediator, by Lars Thunberg goes into detail on this issue of creation and the thoughts, nature and will of God. The Triune Creator by Gunton is also one to read. I may be confusing him with Meyendorff. I need to get the old memory chip firing again and reread them all!)

If I am correct, Origen had accepted the Hellenic of time and creation as always existing. I can’t remember if Origen is totally monistic, but I am pretty sure both he and Arius confused the nature with the will of God (which seems to me to be the flaw in James’ position). For Origen the eternal nature/will of God was unchanging, so He must have always been creating, thus the eternal nature of the cosmos. The Logos, as the unifying principle of the cosmos, was also always being willed by the Father. In Origen’s system of thought, the cosmos and the Logos were one (I forget how he supported this). That the Logos and the cosmos were one and eternal was something that Arius rejected, although he continued to accept Origen’s identification of the will of God with His nature. For him there was a time when the cosmos was not. This by extension led him to deny the eternal nature of the Logos. There too was a time when Christ was not. The logic of the argument is solid IF there is no distinction bwn the will and nature. But St Athanasius’ argument was that there was indeed a distinction to be made. (I think the Cappadocians helped refine his terms and implications for theology. Is that correct?) That Jesus Christ has two natures is a further expression of this distinction between God’s nature and the created nature. Our Eucharistic theology seems to follow this distinction was well. Christ and the Eucharist would have only one nature in both Arianism and Origenism, either created or uncreated.

St Athanasius argued that the Father was a creator by will, not nature. (Florovsky wrote about this in his essay, “The Concept of creation in St Athanasius” which is, I think, in his collected works.) Creation had no ontological necessity in God the Father as creator. But the Father was FATHER by nature, which is why he always was the Father of the Son who is of one essence with the Father. There was never a time when He was not Father to the Son. (As an aside, this is one reason why the name of the Father is not up for grabs for Orthodox Christians. Alvin Kimel, who contributes to monachos from time to time, has edited two VERY useful books on this topic that I think should be standard reading on the “pronouns of deity” and our interaction with feminism of all varieties.)
But the incarnation of Christ into time, history, and matter ties the nature and will of God together most intimately. Christ, who is eternally generated in the love of the Father, is now united to the created order by the will of the Father, as Chalcedonian Christology affirms. All creation is therefore viewed christologically and the incarnation is even, in the thought of some of the Fathers of the church, inevitable regardless of the Fall. All matter, even dung, is now to be viewed through the lens of the Incarnation. This is also why our Christology as Orthodox should be helpful and liberating to so many Protestant groups still obsessed with the Anselmian dichotomies between the love and wrath of God, and the answer to cur deus homo which looks in some circles to be the ultimate form of child abuse with God acting the part of Nebacanezzer (I can never spell his name), stoking the fire just waiting to torment everyone who isn’t predestined to show how just He is. Ok, that was quite an aside!

And finally I want to mention something that either Lossky or Florovsky wrote, that in God there is a distinction between two types of eternity. In God’s essence is the Trinitarian eternity and in God’s will there is the eternal contingency towards creation and creating. Not a necessary eventuality, but a contingency to some extent. Also, can we talk here now of the essence and energies of God as He relates to what is created rather to what God is in God’s Trinitarian life? I’m rusty on all of this. I believe it is true to say that creation is created via the energies of God in Christ and the Holy Spirit, dangling off the mouth of the Father, so to speak, contingent on His will. And maybe others can comment on just how the Western tradition explains deification without the concept of the energies of God’s deifying and uncreated grace without some sort of pantheism. (If any of you are interested, I really suggest getting a copy of Energies of the Spirit by Duncan Reid and “The Ground of Union” by Williams. I know that when I read them they really shaped my thinkning strongly on these issues, but unfortunately I can’t remember what it was that they said! Go figure. At least the bucket that carries the water is cleaner for it!)

I used to be up on this stuff, and maybe I have framed the issues wrongly, but I hope we have stuck a vein that will lead to learning and edification. All right, I don’t know if any of that was even clear. I read what I just wrote and was confused myself, but for what it is worth, there you go.

Happily created and redeemed in the Risen Christ and with much reading for the evening,
Matt

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Gilbert,

Yes I agree with your question. I also wonder how it does not imply necessity in God. But perhaps there is a good answer we do not see- ?

In Christ- Fr R
Matthew- what did your no mean?

[matt]

James,

read my post above. It may not answer to question that Owen originally posted, but it will address yours.

In the Lord,
\matt

[matt]

Not that I am fixated or anything, but I went back to Florovsky for some guidance on the question(s) of whether or not God had to create and if He could have chosen to not create. Is there a difference in these two questions? Matthew, I understand that you are busy, but if you get a moment, would you please explain you statement? I assume you are Eastern Orthodox and therefore hold the creeds as your own. So I am also assuming that I am missing some distinction in your premise that others may be aware of behind your statement that God could not have chosen not to create. Is that what you are saying? And would it also follow from your statement that The Logos could not have chosen not to become incarnate of the Theotokos? And if that is true, what does it mean for the distinction between the economic and essential aspects of the Trinity? And what does it mean then to speak of God’s freedom, much less our own? Also, for time’s sake please feel free to just reference some primary or secondary works on it for me to read if you are too busy otherwise. I honestly think that you probably agree with what I have written before and what is below and that I am actually missing something in the discussion, owing to my lack of familiarity with both philosophy and theology. Either way, here goes.

For Florovsky, I went to “St Athanasius’ Concept of Creation” which is reprinted in his Aspects of Church History. Here he writes, “[T]he creation of the world was conceived [in the biblical vision] as a sovereign and ‘free’ act of God, and not as something which was ‘necessarily’ implied or inherent in God’s own Being. Thus, there was actually a double contingency: on the one side of the Cosmos which could ‘not have existed at all’, and on the other side of the Creator- who could ‘not have created’ anything at all…The very existence of the world was regarded by the Christians as a mystery and miracle of Divine Freedom” (40-41). He goes on to talk about the Origenal idea of the eternal cosmos and the lack of distinction bwn will and nature, which I covered a few posts ago. He shows how Arius made a similar mistake and how St Athanasius responded. God’s will still maintains the Cosmos beyond the initial fiat of creation when time began. He also notes that “God’s ‘Being’ has an ontological priority over His action and will”. ‘Father’ is God’s name proper and ontologically, while ‘Creator’ is not.

The second essay of Florovsky’s is from his “Creation and Redemption”, the chapter entitled, “Creation and Creaturehood”. He writes, “God creates imperfect freedom.” Quoting Duns Scotus, “The creation oof things is executed by God not out of any necessity, whether of essence or knowledge or of will, but out of a sheer freedom which is not moved- much less constrained- by anything external that is should have to be a cause.” Later he writes, “And He thinks it up in perfect freedom; and it is only by virtue of this wholly free ‘thinking up’ and good pleasure of His that He as it were ‘becomes’ Creator, even though from everlasting…Thus by way of opposites we can come close to an understanding of God’s creative freedom. In a sense, it would be ‘indifferent’ to God whether the world exists or not- herein consists the absolute “all-sufficiency’ of God, the Divine autarchy…The might of God and the freedom of God must be defined not only as the power to create and to produce but also the absolute freedom not to create” (56-57).

What does anyone else think? I know that I probably just wasted time typing what everyone already knew to be true and that it might not address Matthew or Owen’s initial posts, but hey, I had to put of schoolwork somehow!

Matt

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Matt,

In your post #26, 2nd paragraph, "He goes on to talk about the Origenal idea of the eternal cosmos..." Yes but who origenally came up with the Origenal idea of Origenal Sin? (!?)
Forgive me, I'm just being silly.

Fr R

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

I am in complete agreement with Matt; he is referring principally to secondary works I've not read, but they are all pointing to the same Patristic sources that I have read. The Fathers are very consistent on this topic, esp. in the "apophatic" sense of what is WRONG thinking. They consistently say that God was totally free to create; nothing in His nature drove Him to the act of creation. Also, creation is not eternal, and has not been an ongoing process. The procession of the Holy Spirit, and the begetting of the Son are eternal, as Matt made very clear the distinction between these eternal processes, and the creation of our world.

Now saying this does not mean that creation for God is inconsistent with His nature, and I agree James that this causes our minds to boggle - we experience God as Creator, and see how this flows from His nature, and it "feels right" to think that this is a defining characteristic of His nature and is illogical that He could ever have been anything but Creator.

As a side note to one of Matt's enjoyable digressions, the Protestant theologians do not generally think in terms of God's nature and energies distinctions that we would make in the Orthodox world. They do though have what I think is essentially (pun intended) the same concept, but call it God's "communicable" and "incommunicable" attributes. That is, some of the attributes of God are shared with His creation, and some cannot be shared. His omnipotence, for example, cannot be shared with finite creatures, but love can. Now I personally prefer the Orthodox distinctions, and stand in awe at how St. Gregory Palamas expressed all of this in his Triads, but I feel this is one common point of agreement between Orthodox & Protestants. I do not know how the Roman Catholics would handle these issues.

I think it is important that we realize in our discussions that much of our language is analogical, meaning that our words approximate the reality, both of God and the created world, but ultimately "break down" and cannot express the inexpressible. This is humility of our nature, not our personal abilities. The limits of being human, finite, and sinful.

Hope this helps!

[James H.]

Hmmm... After reading these posts and talking to a well-read friend of mine regarding the subject at hand, it seems that my posts in this thread would make fantastic additions to "Dummy's Guide to Origin" or some beginner's text of the like. With the said, taking into account that I have basically been a heretic up until all of three days ago, does that mean I just "got saved"? I mean, this will probably give at least an extra 5% on Heaven's entrance exam. ;) Anyhow, in the end, I concede my old position and will continue to follow this thread in the interest of learning.

James

PS: Are there make-ups for those exams.... are they at least graded on a curve?

[matt]

Fr.R,
I am all for silliness but just wanted to make sure that everyone knew that I was trying to refer to Origen's cosmogogical/cosmological ideas and that it wasn't a typo (which I abviously have tons of), since that was the crux of the argument.

Gilbert, if you are intersted in how RC theology interacts with St Gregory Palamas, read "Energies of the Spirit" by Duncan Reid and "THe Ground of Union" by Williams. Both are incredible books taht I can hardly get my mind around (like Lossky's Myst. THeo.) but they are the best books I have found on the topic. St Vlad and Holy Cross also have journals which address the topic. From my readings, pretty much everyone says that the two models (essense energies and the RC) are not compatible, and further work needs to be done in this field. THis goes back to your point that theology is a footnote to reality. SOmetimes how we develope explinations and definitions, even apophatically, can limit what is actually the fullness of truth, especially if we see dogma as a ceiling that we cannot go past rather than as a floor upon which we stand.

And James, how wonderful that we are not saved through knowing any of this. GLory to Jesus Christ!

matt

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear All,

Could it be that when Matthew was saying 'no' he was not referring to God being free or not free to create? When you go back to the question Owen asked it says, "Could God HAVE DECIDED[my emphasis]not to create?"

Now I am & always was VERY POOR in this part of Patrisitcs, etc. But the word DECIDED I don't think can be applied to God or Christ strictly speaking since it implies some sort of imperfect manner of knowing in God. God's manner of knowing is not finite as is man's.

Thus perhaps the only thing we can say is that God is free to create.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

[Daniel Jeandet]

What about - Is the God who can decide not to create the real God?

[Fr John Wehling]

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...."

:>)>+

fj

[M. Rallis]

“Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that He is neither soul nor intellect; nor has He imagination, opinion, reason or understanding; nor can He be expressed or conceived, since He is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is He standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has He power nor is power, nor is light; neither does He live nor is He life; neither is He essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is He subject to intelligible contact; nor is He science nor truth, nor kingship, nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is He spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know Him as He is; nor does He know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to Him, nor name Him, nor know Him; neither is He darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to Him, for although we may affirm or deny the things below Him, we can neither affirm nor deny Him inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of His absolute nature is outside of every negation, free from every limitation and beyond them all.”

....Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, "Mystical Theology", Chapter 5

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

Fr R, I very much agree, that using the term "decided" when referring to God is inappropriate. The Greek word we translate as "willed" would be more appropriate. God willed that He create the world. He was free to not will this, also. He does not violate His nature in His willing, and His creation certainly is an icon that expresses, even in its current fallen state, the glory & power of God.

James, in regards to being a heretic, there are two types of heretics: (1) "material" heretic, which is what you were, which means a person holds an opinion that is contrary to the Nicene creed & the clear teaching of the Church - not secondary issues that are not of the essence of the Nicene faith but critical issues - and they abandon these opinions when they realize that they were in error; and (2) "formal" heretics, such as Arius, who know the faith of the Church and have made a decision to hold a different belief in distinction to the Church, and teach others to also hold these idolatrous beliefs. The critical difference between the two types of heretics is the evil will and intent of the formal heretic, versus the quick repentance of the material heretic. The reality, in my opinion, is we are all probably material heretics to one degree or another.

And as much as I enjoy theology, I am glad that the reality we are trying to understand is Someone who loves us beyond belief! Easter joy must always be the center of our theology; anything less is vain and empty words, for which I will be judged! The angels stand on tip-toe, trying to understand this great salvation that we have been given as a free gift! Incredible!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

I on occasion wonder if some of my students ever hear a word I say. However, this is not a concern that carries over to this discussion community! For all the times in the past that lengthy posts have been required to get conversations started and rolling, I should have gone with the single-word-sparks-a-riot motif that has inadvertantly worked so well here. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Thank you to all for the posts in this thread over the past week, which I have found very enjoyable and interesting. Special thanks to Mr Haghenschlapfter, 'Matt', Fr Raphael, and most recently Mr Daniel Jeandet for some extremely thoughtful questions and considerations.

The original question in this thread was, 'Could God have decided not to create?' To this I rather proddishly teased a simple 'No' to Owen, who has posted ten thousand messages to this forum over the years, at least a few of which have been well-placed one word retorts to long-winded messages of my own. But my 'no' has spawned a wide-ranging discussion, so perhaps I can add a few extra words to it.

Firstly, questions over what God 'can' or 'cannot' do (or in the past, 'could' or 'could not' have done) are always a touch fuzzy. Best to recollect right from the start the words of St Irenaeus: 'God can, since He is eternal and unchanging, do or not do whatever He wishes' (paraphrased from Against Heresies 4.38.1). When speaking of God, we are speaking of an ultimately free, self-determining and all-capable God; or, to use the words of Denys the Areopagite, already quoted by Mr Rallis, He is 'all-perfect and unique Cause of all things [...] transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of His absolute nature is outside of every negation, free from every limitation and beyond them all' (Mystagogia 5).

Thus there is a real sense in which 'God can do whatever God wants' is a proper and real declaration of reality. But it is also a truism. Keep in mind that, for his part, Irenaeus makes the comment I have quoted above as a 'safety statement' in preamble to a discussion in which his point will be that God 'could not' have created humanity 'perfect from the beginning'. Obviously this cannot be true at the level of God's deepest being, of His own 'self-hood' as God, which as Denys says goes beyond all proclamations of 'can' and 'can not'. But Irenaeus is not speaking of this. He is speaking of who God is as God has made Himself known in the universe, which is ultimately the only true way we can know God. To phrase the matter with post-Palamite terminology, that which is of God's ousia is known only by encounter with His energeia, His energies. Those energies are what are 'at work' in the universe, and it is in what we understand by and through those energies that reveals to us the being of God.

Daniel hit on this in his most recent post, which I re-quote here with my own added emphasis: 'Is the God who can decide not to create the real God?' To offer my own expansion: If we were to envisage a God who did not create, would we envisage thus the God who is, that is, the God who has revealed Himself to us?

To answer this after the manner of the Fathers, we must actually separate it from the 'ontological' questions of what God in the transcendent supremacy of His own potency 'could' and 'could not' do as per His power. Here we must always end with Irenaeus' safeguard that 'God can do whatever He wants'. It is in this same vein that we must always, with the Fathers of the Church, profess the absolute freedom of God from necessity -- again as pertains to His power and capability. God is not forced to do anything, including create. This is a necessary (for us!) reminder to be flagged up again and again when considering God as sovereign being. Forget it, and in two winks you can be an Arian, or a Gnostic, etc.

But that category of proclamation of God's infinite capability, needed as a safeguard against views which would force God by necessity into certain actions or functions, can also be dangerous if it scientifically separates the 'God of infinity' from the God of this economy -- God the Father of Jesus Christ, God who is Jesus Christ, God the Holy Spirit. Could the Father not have sent the Son to be incarnate (or equally, could He have decided not so to do)? God is ultimately free and powerful; as pertains to His ultimate authority and power, He could have done what He wanted. But is a God who as Father did not send His Son to be incarnate in the world the same God that is proclaimed and worshipped in the Church on Pascha?

The Fathers of the Church take as a starting point the revelation that God Himself has made to humanity. Eminently, this revelation shows that 'our God is a creator-God, maker of heaven and earth and all the things therein'. Could He not have done so? God can do anything. But is a God who has not done them still the God of our revelation? Absolutely not. As Irenaeus says to his opponants, 'You make up your God. We believe in Him who is, as He really is'. Everything God has shared with humanity about His self is demonstrative of His creative character. Even as the very nature of God as Trinity indicates the eternal sharing, the timeless pouring-out of love between Father, Son and Spirit, so the Trinity pours the love outside itself in creation. The first word of revelation we have of this Trinity is 'In the beginning, God created...' When God becomes incarnate, when He comes to save man, He does so by becoming part of creation -- not by a fiat of divine power or external force. The uncreated becomes created. God's very nature as Saviour is a nature of creating, of being renewing Creator. Everything we 'have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears' about God tells us that He is Creator.

Could God have decided not to create? 'Ontologically', we must always concede that God can do anything. But could our God have decided not to create? No. Not if He genuinely is the God of our revelation, of our economy and history, of our salvation as revealed by Christ.

With best wishes to all, and looking forward to reading further thoughts.

INXC, Matthew

[matt]

Matthew,
Thank you so much. This is simply fantastic.

Glory to the God Who is for us!

Matt

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for your explanation.
Without this I do not think I would have seen the point.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rebecca]

Michael,

What a wonderful one-sentence quote.

Rebecca

[Melissa]

Matthew -

Your gift for explaining the complex in relatively straightforward terms is wonderful. Thanks to you and all who participated in this thread. I've learned so much.

In Christ,
Melissa

[John Curtis Dunn]

Matthew wrote:

The Fathers of the Church take as a starting point the revelation that God Himself has made to humanity. Eminently, this revelation shows
that 'our God is a creator-God, maker of heaven and earth and all the things therein'. Could He not have done so? God can do anything. But is a God who has not done them still the God of our revelation?
Absolutely not. As Irenaeus says to his opponants, 'You make up your God. We believe in Him who is, as He really is'. Everything God has
shared with humanity about His self is demonstrative of His creative character.

-----
And so, as Moses declared to the Children of Israel: "The secret things belong unto the LORD our GOD: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. Deut. 29:29

john dunn

[M.C. Steenberg]

In his recent post, Mr John Curtis Dunn quoted the following text from Deuteronomy as a response to part of my above message:


And so, as Moses declared to the Children of Israel: "The secret things belong unto the LORD our GOD: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. Deut. 29:29

Dear John - I'm not entirely sure in what vein this passage is offered! Perhaps it is to disagree with my comments? Or agree?

Forgive the density on this end of the computer.

INXC, Matthew