Does God have to create?

[Owen Jones]

I think it is worthy of notice that the hierarchical structure of Church governance reflects or symbolizes or embodies the Orthodox understanding of intellectual hierarchies. Summarized: Reality has an ordered structure. The created order is iconic of the nature of God and the structure of the Trinity. The nature of this structure is inherently hierarchical, based on first principles. God Himself is ruled by his own nature and structure. He does not and cannot act against that nature or else He would be at war with himself. He does not act arbitrarily or whimsically. He has created for a certain purpose and cannot veer from that purpose. While His purpose is mysterious and inscrutable from an absolute or objective perspective, it is understandable and conforms to the laws of an ordered Reason. The ordered, rational creation is structured according to a hierarchy, not a hierarchy of needs or values (i.e. Maslow) but according to lower and higher spiritual powers and lower and higher material and intellectual structures, with the Mind of God at the pinnacle of the hierarchy, followed by the noetic faculty in man, followed by his logical reasoning powers, followed by the passions, followed by the lower realms of anamalic and vegetative and organic and non-organic structures, with the apeiron at the bottom of the chain (an Aristotelian term to be sure -- it means a kind of chaotic formlessness).

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Owen

I have a problem with a little part of your interesting post.

You say,


God Himself is ruled by his own nature and structure. He does not and cannot act against that nature or else He would be at war with himself. He does not act arbitrarily or whimsically. He has created for a certain purpose and cannot veer from that purpose.

This sounds a lot like the idea proposed by Origen I believe that the nature of God is 'creator' and therefore that it is a natural necessity of the Divine nature that creation come into being, and therefore even that the creation is eternal since God as creator is eternal.

I am not suggesting that you are saying the same thing but I am a little anxious that you seem to be placing God under too great a natural determinism. Indeed I am not sure that I personally would feel happy describing what the Holy Trinity can and cannot do. I would want to say that if God chose not to create He could have done. If he chosen to destroy the creation He could have done. I would hesitate to suggest that we mere humans can say very much intelligible or worthwhile about God's nature and would, myself, wish to veil much of this in mystery.

Can you explain a little more what you mean? In what way can we say that God is ruled over by anything? Surely it is safest if we do not place God in any such categories or say that He is obliged to do anything?

Best wishes

Peter

[Bratislav]

Dear Owen

I have a problem with a little part of your interesting post.

You say,



This sounds a lot like the idea proposed by Origen I believe that the nature of God is 'creator' and therefore that it is a natural necessity of the Divine nature that creation come into being, and therefore even that the creation is eternal since God as creator is eternal.

I am not suggesting that you are saying the same thing but I am a little anxious that you seem to be placing God under too great a natural determinism. Indeed I am not sure that I personally would feel happy describing what the Holy Trinity can and cannot do. I would want to say that if God chose not to create He could have done. If he chosen to destroy the creation He could have done. I would hesitate to suggest that we mere humans can say very much intelligible or worthwhile about God's nature and would, myself, wish to veil much of this in mystery.

Can you explain a little more what you mean? In what way can we say that God is ruled over by anything? Surely it is safest if we do not place God in any such categories or say that He is obliged to do anything?

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Peter,

I had the same knee-jerk reaction. However, I do not think anything is meant but that God acts according to Who and What He is. God does not act unlovingly or unjustly, for example.
But I, of course, should leave it to Seraphim(Owen) to explain his own words.

In Christ,
Bratislav

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Bratislav

I agree with you entirely, but even in saying that God cannot be unjust or unloving we are restricted by our own vision of what those virtues mean in the context of God's nature.

God often appears to humans to be unjust and unloving, which seems to me to illustrate how we must be careful not to try to define God beyond what is revealed. God is just and merciful but if we describe Him only from our point of view, and worse, if we assume that our definition matches the reality in any comprehensive sense, then we are bound to find ourselves in trouble somewhere down the line.

Best wishes in Christ

Peter

[Bratislav]

Dear Bratislav

I agree with you entirely, but even in saying that God cannot be unjust or unloving we are restricted by our own vision of what those virtues mean in the context of God's nature.

God often appears to humans to be unjust and unloving, which seems to me to illustrate how we must be careful not to try to define God beyond what is revealed. God is just and merciful but if we describe Him only from our point of view, and worse, if we assume that our definition matches the reality in any comprehensive sense, then we are bound to find ourselves in trouble somewhere down the line.

Best wishes in Christ

Peter

Dear Peter,

I think we may be on an official tangent.:)

While what you caution is true, I think it also important that our apophaticism not become misshapen or overexaggerated. While the love and justice of God are things we cannot come to a full grasp of and it is therefore right to say that God is beyond what we call love and justice, we still may not say that God is unloving or unjust (unless we are making a point via hyperbole).

Anyway, I am probably beating a dead horse here. Talking to hear myself talk, as it were.

With love in Christ,
Bratislav

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Bratislav

No, not a dead horse.

I think you are exactly right. We can more easily say what God is not. He is not unloving and He is not unjust. These are rules or concepts which restrict how we can describe God's activities. They allow us to say that even if we do not understand what God is doing in this or that situation we know for sure that He is not unjust and He is not unloving. Indeed we CAN positively say that though we do not always understand God's ways and methods and purposes in our lives, even when things are hard or dark, we can still say, God is love and God is just.

What we can't do is say God is X therefore He must do Y and Z.

Peter

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Peter & Bratislav,

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying?

It seems to me that the notions that you are collectively conveying imply no rules, limitations or perhaps understandable order from a human perspective, i.e. we just don't understand God. These ideas are epitomized with the conclusion quoted below.


What we can't do is say God is X therefore He must do Y and Z.

Love must love and creators must create, so there are solidified relationships to essence even in fluid situations. Only by severing those relationships can the above referenced quote be written. As such it seems that we must say God is love therefore He must love, create and save.

To say that God has no limitations implicitly limits God.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Bratislav]

Dear Peter & Bratislav,

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying?

It seems to me that the notions that you are collectively conveying imply no rules, limitations or perhaps understandable order from a human perspective, i.e. we just don't understand God. These ideas are epitomized with the conclusion quoted below.



Love must love and creators must create, so there are solidified relationships to essence even in fluid situations. Only by severing those relationships can the above referenced quote be written. As such it seems that we must say God is love therefore He must love, create and save.

To say that God has no limitations implicitly limits God.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,
What Peter is conveying, as far as I can tell, is that while we can of course say that Love must love, we cannot (fully) say how Love must love.

God is free is the fullest sense of the word and is not constrained to act as you or I think He should based upon our feeble sense of morality and our less than radiant reasononings. For instance, you posit that since God is love He must create and save. He might have a thing or two to say about that. God chose to create and was free not to. As goes salvation, we can at least admit that God is free to save how he wishes.

The key to this complex issue is to remember the threefold distinction between God's Essence, God's Energies, and God's nature.

But before we continue this discussion perhaps we should ask Matthew Steenberg to move this thread to its own page so as to not be stepping on toes.

-In Christ

[Peter Farrington]

Love must love and creators must create, so there are solidified relationships to essence even in fluid situations. Only by severing those relationships can the above referenced quote be written. As such it seems that we must say God is love therefore He must love, create and save.


Dear Matthew

If God must create then it seems to me that we must then conclude that the creation is eternal, as I believe Origen did for the same reason. If it is part of God's nature that He must create then I don't see any other conclusion. There could not be any time (or any out of time) in which God could have failed to be a Creator.

Personally I would suggest that a confusion is being made between what God has freely chosen to do and what God is by His nature. The Creation is a free act of God, we may say a free act of His love. But I do not believe it is Orthodox to say that He must create.

I think we must even be careful, as I said, to insist on any determinism in such qualities we might consider as natural, such as love. God is Love, but I do not believe this allows me to thumb my nose at Him, as it were, like a naughty child, and say 'You can't punish me, you are Love'.

I believe that we have only the vaguest idea of what it means to say 'God is Love', and this certainly encompasses His wrath. 'God is a consuming fire' also, we should not forget.

It is best that we follow the Fathers in being hesitant to insist on much about God. Does the clay say to the potter, 'Hey, you are not supposed to act like that!'.

So again I will state that while we can say 'God is love' and understand that to an extent, especially in the sense that God is not spiteful or capricious, I do not believe that it allows to say that God must then act in any way at all.

I think that the idea that God is in any substantial sense comprehensible to reason almost always leads to error. Since it makes the nature of God subject to our understanding of God.

Best wishes

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

Can you make an absolute distinction between freedom and necesisity in God ? Maybe neither of the concepts are applicable to God in any manner that we can understand them. . Or maybe I dont understand whats being said here because its way out of my league and I'm just embarrassing myself. anyways..

As humans we are experiencing the flow of time and have only a finite power to act. We have a series experiences over time and react to them by choosing one possible course of action while rejecting all the others we could have taken at that time.

If God is immutable and above time however you cant look at God in the same way. God doesnt have a series of differnt thoughts and then in a certain stretch of time make a series of actions. He doesnt think one thing at one time and then another thing at another time. If this is true how can one even begin to ponder how this all works?

[Peter Farrington]

I don't think we can say very much about God in any definite sense.

I do not believe that there is an absolute distinction between freedom and necessity in God. Indeed I would not want to say that anything we say about God is absolute in human terms. That way lies deception.

For now we see in a glass darkly...

But even in the world to come we will not know all about God in any definitional sense. I mean we don't know our wives or husbands or children or friends in such a way.

We would not say 'I know my wife loves me so if I do X she must do Y' so I am surely not thinking it wise to apply any such logic to God. Indeed I see no difference between that approach and scholasticism.

Certainly in my own OO culture I do not sense that there is a tradition of needing to close down every mystery. There is just so much we cannot do other than approximate to. No more than in the area of describing God.

God cannot be creator by nature. This would require that the creation be eternal and was one of Origen's errors. He is creator by loving choice. To create is one of the possibilities that is within God's natural quality of being Love. But the possibility not to create is also a choice. And since the creation has come into being there is a time when it had not come into being and when God was not creator.

The Father is always and eternally Father because in eternity He begets the Son, the Son is always and eternally begotten because in eternity He is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is always proceeding from the Father.

But the Father is not always the creator and to be creator is a possibility of His nature not a necessity.

Anyhow this is off topic for Episcopacy and almost anything that is said is inadequate.

As for your point about God not changing His mind......well I take your point entirely but the Scriptures are filled with descriptions of His changing His mind. These can be accommodated but they provide a warning to me that we cannot easily make definite and dogmatic statements about God.

Your last statement is the best..

...how can one even begin to ponder how this all works

Certainly this requires an intellectual humility and an awareness that much of what we say about God is provisional. Not wrong, but not a complete description either.

Best wishes

Peter

[Bratislav]

If this is true how can one even begin to ponder how this all works?

Dear Scott,

It is precisely by pondering these things and not approaching them lightly that we can come to any type of knowledge. Archbishop Chrysostomos of the Holy Synod in Resistance wrote a great article a while back in "Orthodox Tradition" on the necessity of humility and a sense of wonder in a man in order for him to attain to true knowledge of even created things. If this is so when looking at the world, how much more is it the case when lifting our eyes to the Uncreated?

-In Christ

[Peter Farrington]

Indeed I agree Bratislav.

I wonder if there is an element of needing to 'become as little children' in this?

Peter

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Peter,



If God must create then it seems to me that we must then conclude that the creation is eternal,

I certainly did not mean to imply that the created is eternal, the world is a revelation of God. During Vespers at the very beginning a psalm is read which exalts the beauty of this mystery. Creation is the result of the communion and the relationship or cooperation of the Holy Trinity.

St. Basil the Great mentions the following;

"We should understand in the creation the original cause of the Father as a founding cause, the cause of the Son as a creative, and the cause of the Spirit as an implementing one." Thus the Father is the "Creator of all things", the Son is the one "through whom all things were made", and the Holy Spirit is the one "in whom are all things".



In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Matthew

I agree with your latter post of course.

But there is a difference between saying that God is the creator, which of course He is, and saying that there is a natural property of 'creator-hood' which places Him under a necessity of creating. If there is a necessity then creation must be co-eternal with the God who is by nature the creator.

Do you see the problem?

Peter

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Peter,

Yes, I see many problems if one creates them via scholasticism.

It seems to me that there is a 'creator-hood' but that would not place God under any necessity. It is a fruit of the common Trinitarian action that springs forth from the one essence.

I do have one question for you in reference to your last post, should one present the notion that man placed God under the necessity of salvation?

God's movements are life creating, salvific and in short loving.

To be very forward with you Peter, I'm not comfortable speaking of such things as if it is some sort of philosophical exercise which I fear I'm doing at least within my mind. As such it's time for me to get an adult cup of coffee.

Historically as you know such subject matter is best left to be addressed by those to whom it is given to speak of such things.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Matthew,

I would not be too concerned about using the mind that God gave you if you use it with humility and seek to be rooted in the Tradition.

God surely desires us to think. And since having become Orthodox I have thought longer and harder and with greater fruitfulness than ever before. But we do need humility.

Driving home today I have been thinking more about this interesting topic, which could perhaps be moved to its own thread. If creator-hood is of the ousia of the Divinity the we must attribute it to all the Persons of the Holy Trinity. But the Creed teaches us that,

'We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth'.

The attribute of being creator belongs to the Father alone. Therefore it is not natural but hypostatic or personal.

Certainly the Word and the Holy Spirit participate in the creative act according to their own hypostases, but the creator of heaven and earth is not the Son and not the Holy Spirit.

The Word was the agent of the creative will of the Father, but the Son is not called the Creator.

I do not believe that man places God under any necessity. Indeed it strikes me as rather a dissonant note to even think that the Word became flesh for our salvation under any compulsion at all. I do not believe that God can do other than love, but I cannot begin to say what it means for God to love. I can only describe what He has chosen to do out of that love. When the Tsunami killed tens of thousands last year did He cease to love? Or do we not really have any idea of what the love of God means for God?

I do not love my wife because I have to. I love her because I choose to. And it is a choice which I must make at every moment. If I 'had to' love my wife then it would not be any kind of love worth the name. Imagine if you could make that attractive woman over there 'love' you. Would it really be love, or a kind of slavery.

We must not forget that God is not only love, and indeed His love is not only directed towards us humans. Therefore it is not possible to only describe His love in regard to us.

What if there were 100,000,000,000 angelic beings and 100,000 humans? What if God loved both creations equally, because God is love? What if He could only choose to save one group? Would it be loving to allow all mankind to perish if the much greater community of angelic beings were saved? And does God not love all of His creation? Does He not have care even for the sparrow?

Therefore if God chose to exterminate mankind that need not be unloving because we are not in a position to know how and who God loves. It would be no more than the justice of God allowed and it could indeed be loving towards angelic beings and the natural world. How on earth could we know? We can only see dimly for our own perspective.

So I think any talk of necessity in God is dangerous. We can make general statements. God is Love. God is just. God is merciful. But we cannot insist that these general descriptions must be applied by God in any particular way.

But I am thinking at the moment that it is the personal act of will of the Father to choose to create and therefore it is not essential. If it were of the ousia then it would be a necessity and therefore again creation would have to be co-eternal. It would also be necessary to say that the Word is the Creator of heaven and earth, and that the Holy Spirit is the Creator of heaven and earth. The Creed does not say this.

Don't give up thinking. I am sure God has no pleasure in folk who give up on the mind that God gave them.

Best wishes

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

There are Icons in which Christ is portrayed as the Creator. In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth... I've read that some of the fathers considered "the beggining " in question to be Christ and therefore the text is saying that God created in or through Christ. And then the Spirit (the Holy Spirit) which hovers over the waters is also involved in creation.

[Scott Pierson]

peterfarrington,

oops, After re reading your post I think I responded without taking into consideration what you were really saying.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Peter,


At the risk of misunderstanding while trying to take into consideration what you were really saying I'll say a few words and think about it more latter. Perhaps being a co- oopser here with Scott is to be expected.

The mechanics of the workings of the Holy Trinity are not something that my mind is capable of thinking about with much confidence. Suffice it to say I'm rather limited by many distractions. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that every perfect gift comes from above the Father of lights.

Nevertheless I'm comfortable looking within the liturgical traditions of the Church, there are many references to Christ the Creator. In short, creation is a common action of the Trinity. As such I'm not sure how the creed is understood or creation within other traditions relative to commenting on such movements without transcending space and time. We would say creation is the result of the communion or cooperation of the Trinity. So the Trinity created the world out of nothing, the change is the result of God's word.



The following Holy Week hymns refer to our Lord as Creator with much emphasis for a reason. That central message is significant for redemption and the efficacy of the process of redemption it seems.

Thou who art the Lord of all and God the Creator, Thou to whom suffering is unknown, didst humble Thyself and unite Thyself with Thy creation (which undergoes suffering), and as the Passover (as the Paschal Lamb that was slain), Thou hast offered Thyself to those for whom Thou willed to die, saying, `Eat of My Body, and be established in faith.' (p.34)

"The violent throng of those who despised God and willed to kill Him in their rage surrounded Thee, 0 Christ; and brought Thee to death like a criminal, Thou who art the Creator of all." (p. 3?) Similarly a prayer on the theme, "0 Lord, I have cried unto Thee, hearken unto me exclaims in awe:

The Creator is struck by the hand of His creation,
The Judge of the living and the dead
Is himself condemned upon the Tree. (pp.38-39)
Christ is portrayed as comforting His mother on the eve of His Resurrection
with these words:
In willing to save my Creation I willed to die,
But as the God of heaven and earth
I shall rise again, and I shall raise thee too. (p.44)
The Orthodox liturgy on Holy Saturday, the day before the Resurrection,
contains these statements:
0 Son of God, the King of all, my God, my Creator, how didst Thou
submit to this Passion? (p.46)

"The blessed Tomb received the Creator as one who slept, and was revealed as the divine treasure-house of life, for the salvation of us who now sing: `Blessed art Thou, 0 God our Redeemer."'




In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Scott Pierson]

t is precisely by pondering these things and not approaching them lightly that we can come to any type of knowledge.

I didnt mean to imply that pondering such things is always off limits It was just an honest question. how can you even begin to ponder something like that? It makes my brain hurt just trying lol.

[Matthew Panchisin]

From the inevitable sayings of the Church Fathers;

"None of the mysteries of the most secret wisdom of God ought to appear alien or altogether transcendent to us, but in all humility we must apply our spirit to the contemplation of divine things'. To put it in another way, we must live the dogma expressing a revealed truth, which appears to us as an unfathomable mystery, in such a fashion that instead of assimilating the mystery to our mode of understanding, we should, on the contrary, look for a profound change, an inner transformation of spirit, enabling us to experience it mystically."

*Saint Philaret of Moscow

[Peter Farrington]

peterfarrington,

oops, After re reading your post I think I responded without taking into consideration what you were really saying.

Probably :-)

I agree entirely that the creative work of God is performed with the co-operation of the Word and the Holy Spirit. Indeed reading John 1 in my Morning Prayers this morning it says,

"All things came into being through Him".

So absolutely the Word is the agent of the Father in creation but that does not make Him the Creator. But I am just happier sticking to the creed which says,

"God the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth".

Best wishes

Peter

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Matthew

Those hymns raise some issues. Certainly they put your comments into perspective.

I do agree that the Word is the agent of creation, and I suppose this could be the reason why He is addressed as creator, but these later hymns do seem to go against the Creed which addresses God the Father personally as Creator, not the Son or the Holy Spirit.

There seems to me to be a real issue that if the Holy Trinity is Creator by nature then it is by necessity and therefore the creation must be co-eternal. Origen's position as far as I understand it.

And if the Word is also the source of Creation as well as the active agent then it seems to me that we have three sources of being in the Holy Trinity, instead of the Father being the source of all being.

I would probably want to explain my limited understanding of the Tradition in the sense that the Father is the source of all being and the Creator of all things visible and invisible. United in His creative activity is the Word who is the active agent of His creating and the Holy Spirit who is the sustaining power of His creation.

The Word is not the Creator in the same way that the Father is, though all things were made through Him. Neither is the Holy Spirit the Creator in the the same way that the Father is, though He is Life-Giver and Sustainer.

Hymns are always tricky to use as dogmatic sources since they are poetry as well as theology. The Word is undoubtedly 'Creator' in a sense. But evidently, it seems to me, not in the theological sense of the Creed.

I must always go back to the Creed as more authoritative and explicit than later Byzantine hymns, and that is not to dismiss the witness of the hymns which you presented, since they explain rather more where you are coming from.

But I remain pretty confident that the Tradition teaches that God is not under any creative necessity, and that therefore being Creator is not a natural quality of the Holy Trinity, which would place the Holy Trinity under such a necessity and make all three Persons of the Holy Trinity equally 'the Creator of all things visible and invisible'.

This is not what the Creed teaches.

Thanks for the further explanation of your position.

Best wishes

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

spirit to the contemplation of divine thingsI think its interesting to note that he didnt say " your logic (or reason) to the contemplation of divine things" but rather "spirit". I was Just reading a good book "On Spiritual Unity, A slavophile Reader" which has some of the works of Khomiakov and Kireevsky in English and I read the following that I thought might be applicable to this conversation (and if not totaly applicable I'm posting it now anyway because it gives me an excuse to and I want to see what the folks at Monoacho.net think of it ..) :

"As long as a thought is clear to ones reason or is able to be expressed, it cannont affect the soul and will. It reaches maturity only when it develops to an inxpressible state... the ultimate meaning of any philosophy lies not in individual logical or metaphysical truths, but in the relationship in which it places humanity with respect to the ultimate truth that is sought--in the inner imperative that dominates the mind imbued with philosophy."

Ivan Kireevsky- in a letter to Khomiakov.

[Scott Pierson]

Hymns are always tricky to use as dogmatic sources since they are poetry as well as theology

It might be tricky but arent they used that way (legitmatly) fairly often. Isnt the liturgical tradition at least one important place to look when trying to find out what it is the Church holds too. lex orandi, lex credendi - the law of prayer is the law of belief.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Scott

Thanks for that. Though I am not entirely sure I have understood what he is saying.

If he is saying that we only really understand something when it becomes completely part of us such that it is no longer an interesting question 'out there' but something which informs and even dominates our every spiritual and mental activity and is too close for us to 'disect', then I think I agree.

Do we really believe that 'God so loved the world'?, for instance. If we did then we might not live as we do. Is it just an interesting idea or is it something rooted in the very heart of our being?

Peter

[Ryan]

It might be tricky but arent they used that way (legitmatly) fairly often. Isnt the liturgical tradition at least one important place to look when trying to find out what it is the Church holds too. lex orandi, lex credendi - the law of prayer is the law of belief.

Alot of Orthodox hymn writers, without compromising the poetic qualities, do seem to take great pains to use theologically precise phrasing.

[Peter Farrington]

I agree, but a lot of hymn writers use poetry and are not meaning to be taken dogmatically.

If the Creed says that it is God the Father who the the Creator then it seems to me that this has to carry a great deal of weight compared to a later hymn.

Best wishes

Peter

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Peter,



I must always go back to the Creed as more authoritative and explicit than later Byzantine hymns, and that is not to dismiss the witness of the hymns which you presented, since they explain rather more where you are coming from.

Thank you for writing more as I think I see that your understandings are based upon authority and concepts of God's unconstrainedness as part of a westernized perfection idea and those additional developed mis-understandings.

There are many things that God can't do at least according to what I understand. That does not mean that those things are somehow equal to or subjecting God to them.

'God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son' is the supreme revelation of God's love. To say that God could have saved in some other way because He is the Lord God, the all powerful authority presents a way that would be different then the Orthodox understandings of the sacrifice of love. This can be seen within the collective traditions of the Orthodox Church that do not go against one another. That would be a misperception. In Orthodox Iconography on the cross can see Christ not brutalized but rather present in humility. Even in the Icons of the Resurrection or the Descent into Hades we can see Christ reaching for Adam, He always reaches for Adam. Paying attention to those eternal character revelations tells us that God could not create things any other way then he does. As such it's about how God relates to His creation.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Matthew

I am not sure why you mention any particular Western ideas since I am not influenced by them at all. Is that meant to devalue my argument?

I still find it hard to see how you can argue from what God HAS done to the view that God MUST have done it that way.

I do not see how you can argue that your view is Orthodox simply because our icons show God acting in various ways that are a matter of record and revelation. There is no logical connection. I can also make a post and then say that someone else is not Orthodox but that requires some evidence. You have not presented any.

You are wanting to say that God is under necessity therefore you are pointing to what He has done. But this only shows what He has done. It does not say that He must act in that way.

For me, the weakness of your argument is that you are taking our own human perspective as the measure of what God must do, and again I do not see that you have answered the charge that it is not in accord with the Creed to say that the Word and the Holy Spirit are also the Creator.

Of course we have icons of the Incarnate Word on the cross, because that is what God freely choose to do to accomplish our salvation. But this cannot be used as an argument that God must have done things the way He did. How could we have an icon of some other way of salvation? We couldn't. But that doesn't mean there was no other way.

There are indeed many things God cannot do, but it is not for mere man to tell God what they are. You still seem to be saying that because God is love He must do things in accordance with your understanding of Love. Far from it. We have very little idea of what Love means in God, only our own human experience to go on.

I think I must stick with the Nicene Creed, which tells us of God the Father, the Creator, and describes what God HAS done, not what He MUST do.

The passage in the Scriptures about the Potter and clay seem relevant here. How dare we tell God what He MUST do.

Best wishes

Peter

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Peter,

It seems it depends on how one understands the Creed.

I was always taught that Christ gathers together and unites all things heavenly and earthly and that He is the Creator and Co-Creator. That seems correct to me.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the Body, the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the pre-eminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of his cross." [Colossians 1:15-20]

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Owen Jones]

I don't know if God "had" to create or "has" to create. My comment was directed at the way in which Protestantism has evolved -- wherein the only manifestation of God is in terms of will. There is no communion with God, no sharing or partaking of the Divine Nature. There is only will. The term for this is voluntarism and is a heresy.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Peter,

As far as your comments about what God must do, of course I do not mean to articulate a notion as if man is or should be dictating to God. I'm sorry it was understood that way via my wording.

Do keep in mind that it appears within the OO communion you have a liturgical tradition in place and understandings conveyed by Bishops in various states that seem to be at odds with what you are advancing here relative to God the Father alone being the Creator. Here are some examples;

Prayers at the Burial of a Bishop

O Master, Lord Jesus Christ, Co-Creator of all creation, Who, according to the multitude of Thy goodness suffered ( or endured) to be a highpriest. Who hast adorned Thine holy church with graces and diverse dogmas. This, which Thou hast acquired with Thy precious blood for the confirmation of Thy people.


A Psali Batos for St. Shenouda

Jesus Christ the Creator; He told you about the mystery; in the end of time; O the great one in his struggle.


Even if you go back before the Nicene Creed you can read OO Patriarchal letters with things like;

"Our worship is offered to the Lord Christ, Creator of heaven and earth"


As such I'm not sure if you are relying upon only your own understandings or perhaps I'm misunderstanding much of what you are saying. It seems to me that perhaps you have stumbled upon something and are sticking to it. I tend to think I'm misunderstanding you and you are misunderstanding me, so that's good.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Matthew Panchisin]

I'm with Owen on this, I don't know if God "had" to create or "has" to create.


I think I must stick with the Nicene Creed, which tells us of God the Father, the Creator, and describes what God HAS done, not what He MUST do.

I hope we can agree that Creed is not a historical document just describing what God HAS done, but rather it is seen as an Icon/ symbol of faith, I believe.

There is much that is said therein as you know with references to the present, thanks be to God.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;

And we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

We look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Mina Soliman]

I think what Subdeacon Peter is saying that all three persons of the Trinity have a role in Creation, which is what being the "Creator" means in hymns, but when it comes to Biblical/Nicene Creed descriptions, it is specifically the Father who is Pantocrator, the Son who is "through Whom" created all things, and the Holy Spirit "in Whom" created all things. Earlier, this is what St. Basil was saying.

On a poetic level, things may become a bit interesting, and takes a while to digest and understand what is being said. When we ask the Theotokos to "save us" or describe her as "the salvation of Adam" for example, we do not place her in an equal status to Christ, who is truly our Savior and God, whom along with the Father and the Holy Spirit alone we worship and glorify.

Also, he makes a good point that God did not have any necessary need to create. We just know that He created, but it wasn't necessary for Him. Likewise, it wasn't necessary for Christ to save us. In our liturgy we pray,

"You have no need of our servitude, but we have need of Your Lordship."

I think above all things, this teaches us to learn to give thanks to God that we exist, since our existence to Him is not needed, but we need Him.

God bless.

Mina

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Mina,

There is much that has been said in this thread that could be commented on, the notions of God being able to save in some other way other than Christ that have been expressed by our OO friends are foremost on my mind.

Peter had mentioned;


How could we have an icon of some other way of salvation? We couldn't. But that doesn't mean there was no other way.

and you have mentioned;


We just know that He created, but it wasn't necessary for Him. Likewise, it wasn't necessary for Christ to save us.

It is interesting to note in Holy writ we can read;

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Among those words and there are many we may read Christ saying;

John 14:6

I am the way and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

It seems wise not to potentially dismiss much for the sake of a philosophical argument that doesn't know what it is doing or saying.

As far as the poetic level goes, it is good for us to try to know the place those expressions originate from. Clearly from what I've read there are many Saint's that struggled with prayer and thought that they dare not even think in the ways they sometimes do. Hence they would be more comfortable asking the Theotokas and the Saint's to interceed for them or save them.

Perhaps they had in mind;

"And make us worthy, Master, with confidence and without fear of condemnation, to dare call You, the heavenly God, Father, and to say:

The Lord's prayer, a prayer to the Father that Christ created to teach us how to pray.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Antonios]

Dear friends,

The best answer a created being can supply for the question of whether God has to create is 'I don't know'. Anything else is uncertain.

From my understanding, the question of whether God had to create is implicitly answered by the fact that God did create. As far as we know, yes, He needed to create simply because he chose to create. Not to say that God would be any less without creation, but rather that from His Divine Wisdom, it is so. Why? The Saints tell us out of love. St. John revealed that God is love. Put another way, the Trinity is the structure of love. The relation of the Father, to the Son, in the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the relation of God, to the created, in creation. From our perspective (the only one we have), in this is Life. Apart from this is Death. He is God of the living...

Now, if the Lord told me He didn't need to create, my answer should be "Glory to God for all things!!!" :)

[Owen Jones]

But I don't think it is simply answered by saying that "He chose to create." The implication is that God can and does do whatever He wills. Which is a problematic concept.

[Antonios]

Dear Owen,

I think I understand what you are saying. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that God's will to create is driven by His love to share His creation. His love being in a sense His necessity to create.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi all

I am on holiday in Scotland but still online of course.

The problem I have with attributing such necessity to God is that it was Origen's position and logically led him to conclude that the creation was doubly eternal.

If God MUST create, for whatever reason, then Creation must be co-eternal.

I am also not happy with the idea of necessity since it seems to me to diminish God's love. It would be like my wife opening an expensive present from me on her birthday and then saying 'well it's nice but you had to buy me it didn't you because you love me'.

If the creation is a necessity then it seems to me it is not of love because love involves an exercise of will.

There is also the same issue that has not been answered as far as I can see. The Creed speaks of the Father as the Creator, and therefore that the Creative source of all things is in the person of the Father. If the necessity of Creation is found in the Divine nature then the Word and the Spirit are also the Creator in the same way. This is not what the Creed says. And if the necessity of creation is found in the divine nature then Creation must be co-eternal as Origen stated for exactly the same reason, because he also taught that God was Creator by nature.

So I am still not able to agree with others who take the different view. It seems to me to be Origenist and counter to the Creed.

Posting the text of a later hymn does not answer the clear witness of the Creed.

This is an interesting thread, but from a personal view I take much more comfort from the thought of creation as the willed desire of God to share His love without necessity, than for a compulsive creation out of a natural necessity.

Best wishes

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

I am on holiday in Scotland but still online of course.

Hope you have a good vacation. Sounds like a wonderful place to visit.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

There is also the same issue that has not been answered as far as I can see. The Creed speaks of the Father as the Creator, and therefore that the Creative source of all things is in the person of the Father. If the necessity of Creation is found in the Divine nature then the Word and the Spirit are also the Creator in the same way. This is not what the Creed says. And if the necessity of creation is found in the divine nature then Creation must be co-eternal as Origen stated for exactly the same reason, because he also taught that God was Creator by nature.

So I am still not able to agree with others who take the different view. It seems to me to be Origenist and counter to the Creed.


My sense of it is that Origen did not understand the crucial distinctions that the Cappadocians described concerning the Holy Trinity.

In the Cappadocians' struggle with Eunomius they always stressed how God's attributes- good, wise, creating- are not identical to the Divine essence. Good, wise, creating, etc describe God's activity but not what He actually IS.

Here is one of Origen's major weaknesses for when he speaks theologically he tends to identify God's essence and activities. Which is what gets him into trouble since this results in a kind of divine necessity to create. One can only guess the problems that arise in trying to account for how creation is distinct from God Himself!

I think we need to keep in mind though how necessity itself is only a relative word for describing God. If by it we mean Origen's tendency to identify God's attributes and essence so that in a sense He is contingent on a set of qualities like 'good, wise, creative, etc' then this is a serious problem. In this sense the problem is that the divine necessity means that God MUST create because of contingent attributes which in themselves are eternal values.

On the other hand though there may be a kind of necessity in which God 'has to' create simply because this is Who He Is. Call it the necessity of love if you want but the analogy would be humans who if not creating would not be human.

Humans have to create. The choice not to create would make us not human.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

Father Raphael

I think that your distinction is useful, but I don't sense it is being made by some other posters who are clearly saying that God is under a necessity to create. If He is under a necessity then creation must be co-eternal as Origen states.

Best wishes

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

If He is under a necessity then creation must be co-eternal as Origen states


I'm not sure if this is the proper way to think of things but I was just speculating (about nature being "co-eternal" and such) and was wondering what you think.... I might be forming a new heresy here so just slap me through the computer if that’s the case. .

Necessity and freedom more then likely don’t apply to God any more than height, weight and age. Sure it might be useful to use the term "freedom" or say that God is "free" in the same way we say "Gods Hand" or " The mouth of God" and such for certain purposes.....

If it is correct to say that creation was some sort of internal necessity in God however, I don’t think that would necessarily make creation co-eternal with God.

If time is an aspect of creation you cant really speak of a "before" (in a temporal sense) or a time in which creation was not... Creation = time , no creation= no time . Did God create creation in one second, 50 years, or for an infinite number of years? In reality neither because Gods creative act took place outside of time. The x number of years that creation has / will exist must be eternally present before God without a beginning (in terms of temporality or sequence) but only a beginning in terms of owing its existence to and having its source in the eternal creative act of God. You could call creation everlasting if by that you mean enduring for all of time. That wouldn’t make creation "eternal" though because creation owes its existence to God and has a principle superior to it. and at least as I understand the term, eternity means more then simply everlasting time. Is creation as old as God or did it exist along side God for as long as God has been around ? I don’t think that question makes sense because it requires applying time to God. It would be like saying " is a mountain bigger than God ? ". But obviously God can not be measured , "big" and "little" are attributes or descriptions of things in creation. Just as “older” and “ younger” or “everlasting” etc……

If creation was necessary for God he could have "always*" been creating it even though it may not have existed for an infinite number of years in terms of time within creation (which of course is the only place time exists).

*Though the word “always” would be falsely attributing time to God and his actions too I guess. I'm just not sure what word to use.

[Matthew Panchisin]

No reasonable person could ever argue that creation is or even ever could be pre-eternal.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Just taking two snippets from representative comments above:


Here is one of Origen's major weaknesses for when he speaks theologically he tends to identify God's essence and activities. Which is what gets him into trouble since this results in a kind of divine necessity to create.


If [God] is under a necessity then creation must be co-eternal as Origen states.

I do wonder which passages from Origen are being referred to? I cannot, off hand, think of any place in which Origen argues for God having by necessity to create. I would be very grateful to see some quotations, or references, to the passages in Origen that are being used to argue this point.

Peter's comment, about creation being co-eternal, is more along the lines of what Origen deliberates - though with qualification. But let's keep in mind that an argument for the 'eternity' of creation, and an argument for God being required (by his nature or otherwise) to create, are two very distinct things. As I say, I am not off-hand aware of any text in which Origen argues the latter. As to the former, his basic thoughts on the matter are spelt out in the Peri Archon I.4, in speaking of the Trinity:


Peri Archon I.4.3: "This is the good God and kindly Father of all, (a) at once beneficent power and creative power, that is, the power that does good and creates and providentially sustains. And it is absurd and impious to suppose that these powers of God have been at any time in abeyance for a single moment. (b) Indeed, it is unlawful even to entertain the least suspicion that these powers, through which chiefly we gain a worthy notion of God, should at any time have ceased from performing works worthy of themselves and have become inactive. (c) For we can neither suppose that these powers which are in God, nay, which are God, could have been thwarted from without; nor on the other hand, when nothing stood in their way, can we believe that they were reluctant to act and perform works worthy of themselves or that they feigned impotence. (d) We can therefore imagine no moment whatever when that power was not engaged in acts of well-doing. (e) Whence it follows that there always existed objects for this well-doing, namely, God's works or creatures, and that God, in the power of his providence, was always dispensing his blessings among them by doing them good in accordance with their condition and deserts. It follows plainly from this that at no time whatever was God not Creator, nor Benefactor, nor Providence."

The boldface letters in brackets are my own additions, in order to make reference to certain points. It is clear, for example, that Origen starts in (a) from the point of confession of God as good, creative, sustaining, etc. (points he's drawn out of the scriptures earlier in the book), and that thinking of these activities as temporal aspects of God's 'behaviour' is inappropriate. This is his point in (b): if God is truly eternal (recall 'Thou art ever existing and eternally the same', spoken in the services), then his title as Beneficent is always his title -- else he is 'eternally existing and different from day to day'.

The point that concerns Fr Raphael (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=37753&postcount=43) is brought out in (c), where Origen speaks of 'these powers which are in God, nay, which are God' - a conflation of attribute and essence that, as Fr Raphael mentions, was addressed (at rather daunting length) by the Cappadocians in response to individuals like Eunomius and Aetius (the latter, suggesting that since God is called 'ingenerate' therefore that is what he is by nature plain and simple, thus concluded 'God does not know more about his nature than I do'). This is certainly a problematic phrase in Origen's text. Nonetheless, the main thrust of his argument in the paragraph stands without it: even if one does maintain the later Cappadocian distinction between who God is and what God does, descriptions of the latter must still be eternal descriptions, unless God himself is mutable and changes throughout history. Thus Origen's text at (d), that a God who is 'Beneficent' is never not-beneficent. A good God is always good. A creative God is always creative. A provident God is always providential.

And it is this reflection that leads Origen to his conclusions in (e): that since God is always beneficent, and beneficence is an other-orientated characteristic, there must always be an 'other'. So, again in his own words: 'It follows plainly from this that at no time whatever was God not Creator, nor Benefactor, nor Providence.' Or, as he says later in the same chapter:


"It is clear that God did not begin to create after spending a period in idleness" (I.4.5, Gr. version)

"The fact is made clear that God did not begin at a certain time to be Creator, when he had not been such before" (same passage, Latin version)

These are the kinds of comments that lie behind characterisations of Origen as declaring an 'eternal' creation - though it's worth nothing that he never in fact says that. He is careful to link creation to time, and to the whole of time; but the whole of time is not a synonym for eternity.

But that distinction aside, Origen qualifies these comments in several ways. Peri Archon I.4.4 contains a whole paragraph of qualifications on the mystery this poses to the human mind, which cannot quite comprehend how such a situation is possible. But Origen also refers to this ever-existence of creation in specific reference to the Son, the Wisdom of the Father, in whom 'the creation was always present in form and outline, and there was never a time when the prefiguration of those things which hereafter were to be did not exist in Wisdom'. Keep in mind, this comment - in which Origen clearly delineates between an eternal prefiguration or 'outline' of creation in God's Wisdom, and the actual existence of creation - comes directly between the two comments above on creation 'always existing'.

He then qualifies things further at I.4.5:


"It is probably in this way that, so far as our weakness allows, we shall maintain a reverent belief about God, neither asserting that his creatures were unbegotten and coeternal with him, nor on the other hand that he turned to the work of creation to do good when he had done nothing good before. For the saying that is written, 'In wisdom has thou made all things' (Psalm 103.4) is a true one. And certainly if 'all things have been made in wisdom', then since wisdom has always existed, there have always existed in wisdom, by a prefiguration and a pre-formation, those things which afterwards have received substantial existence."

Here Origen makes an absolute distinction between the eternal existence of the 'prefiguration' or 'pre-formation' of creation in Wisdom (his favoured title for the Son, the second person of the Trinity, in these chapters), and creation 'which afterwards received substantial existence'. It is clear that he does not mean that substantive creation is co-eternal with God (see again the beginning of that paragraph, where he outright says that creation 'is not coeternal with him').

The scriptural passage Origen cites in support of this is from Ecclesiastes:


"What is it that has been made? The same that is to be. And what is it that has been created? The same that is destined to be created. And there is nothing new under the son. If one should speak of anything and say, 'Behold, this is new', it has already been, in the ages that were before us" (Ecclesiastes 1.9-10)

Ecclesiastes speaks of things ever 'destined to be created', which is the idea Origen catches onto as related to his comments. This is hardly a co-eternity of creation!

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Regarding talking about God's attributes and characteristics, which has been an important part of this thread, two comments caught my attention:


God often appears to humans to be unjust and unloving, which seems to me to illustrate how we must be careful not to try to define God beyond what is revealed. God is just and merciful but if we describe Him only from our point of view, and worse, if we assume that our definition matches the reality in any comprehensive sense, then we are bound to find ourselves in trouble somewhere down the line.


While what you caution is true, I think it also important that our apophaticism not become misshapen or overexaggerated. While the love and justice of God are things we cannot come to a full grasp of and it is therefore right to say that God is beyond what we call love and justice, we still may not say that God is unloving or unjust (unless we are making a point via hyperbole).

The apophatic counterpart to 'God is love' is not 'God is not love', but 'God is not bound by the concept of love'. Or 'my concept of love is not what God is'. Put in different terms, the kataphatic 'loving' is not met with an apophatic 'unloving', but 'beyond-loving'. Apophaticism is not simply a negative reversal of positive statements!

This was an issue talked about as an aside in an older thread on God as 'personal'. Some may recognise it as an issue which tends to concern me. As I wrote in that thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=19226&postcount=16):


The fathers of the Church have realised this from the very beginnings, and have as such demanded that confessions of God eventually be met with transcendence of the same. Scholars like to call this 'apophatic theology', 'negative theology', which expands on 'positive' (kataphatic) claims with what appear outwardly to be their opposites. So the 'positive' claim that 'God is love' is met with the 'negative' claim that 'God is not love, he is beyond love'. What seems to me to be commonly misunderstood is that 'positive' and 'negative' here are not value judgements, and no father suggests that one should only speak of and know God one way or the other (e.g. that one should start out kataphatically but eventually end up apophatically). The two manners of confession must work together, must be held in tandem, for the whole point is to show that God is ultimately beyond everything said of him. Everything. No exceptions. As Gregory of Nyssa makes very clear, all that we say of God, all that we call him, is ultimately an appellation. The only definitive, unqualified statement, is his own: 'I am the one who is'. When we speak of God, we describe the encountered mystery of the one beyond description.

The point of all this is that Orthodox theology does not allow us to reify God based on our confession of him. Our tendency is to be black-and-white about descriptions, polarising and dividing the realms of apophatic and kataphatic theology. Thus it is said that 'God is love', and this is right theology; but 'God is not love' is heresy. Within a very limited apologetic context this is a useful statement. As higher theology, it is simply wrong, since fundamentally it tries to confine God's being to what we say about it, rather than realise that our confessions relate truth to us of him who transcends those confessions.

Which was put much more succinctly by Fr David, quoted by Alec (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=19224&postcount=14).

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Matthew Steenberg asked:



I do wonder which passages from Origen are being referred to? I cannot, off hand, think of any place in which Origen argues for God having by necessity to create. I would be very grateful to see some quotations, or references, to the passages in Origen that are being used to argue this point.


Here is a representative quote:


Origen could only have formulated his problematic on the basis of a definition of the simplicity of the divine essence, where the being, activity, and the will of God were all wholly identical.

Thus, for Origen,

"We can therefore imagine no moment whatever when that power was not engaged in acts of well-doing. Whence it follows that there always existed objects for this well-doing, namely, God's works or creatures, and that God, in the power of his providence, was always dispensing his blessings among them by doing them good in accordance with their condition and deserts. It follows plainly from this that at no time whatever was God not Creator, nor Benefactor, nor Providence."


Thus, there is no distinction between God's faculty of will, in other words, that natural property of His essence which allows Him to be the creator, and the object of that will, the creatures themselves. The faculty of will and the object of will are the same identical thing in God on account of the simplicity.

From J P Farrell, The Disputation with Pyrrhus, p xxvi

Fr John Meyendorff in his Christ in Eastern Christian Thought also writes:


The ambiguity of Origen's trinitarian system resulted, in any case, largely from philosophical presuppositions and from his doctrine of creation, which was considered as co-eternal with God and excluded the distinction, established by post-Nicene theology, between the eternal generation of the Son and the creation of the world in time. Cosmology and anthropology, the most vulnerable points of Origen's system were the council's [ie 5th] main targets, togerther with Evagrius Ponticus' strange Christology, which was derived from Origen's philosophy.

p. 52

There is no need for more quotes as these would be unnecessarily repetitious.
Suffice it to say that this is the most common interpretation most often taught in our seminaries.

Of course there could be nuances to Origen's thought. It could very well be that in places he tried to qualify certain expressions that he makes elsewhere. But at the end of the day an assessment must be made in terms of the overall context of the way and manner in which he thinks.

Granted that much of this relies on an interpretation of his writings.

But unless we come across some unknown writing of his which is like St Augustine's Retractions I believe that his thought deserves in a general sense the condemnation it received from the Church & which sets up the overall context for the problems referred to here. In the particular discussion here, for myself at least, I would need much stronger evidence, to feel confident that Origen's cosmology is not deeply flawed.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

The apophatic counterpart to 'God is love' is not 'God is not love', but 'God is not bound by the concept of love'. Or 'my concept of love is not what God is'.


Or to put it another way: "God is Love" means that God defines Love, Love does not define God. Thus if our definition of Love falls short of Who God is, then our definition of Love is deficient. The statement here does not imply a logical equivalence (=) but rather that one term is the standard by which the other dervives its meaning. Therefore when we say that God is Love, we are speaking by way of definition, not equivalence and so none of the logical dervitives of equivalence can apply (if God is Love, that does not mean that "not Love" is "not God" because God as the definition of Love is not necessarily fully contained by Love, or fully defined by Love)

OK, now I really have a headache so I'll quit here.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

Father Raphael

I agree entirely with your presentation of the basics of Origen's thought. As you say, there may well be nuances, but your presentation seems to me to express what he says.

Also I think it a mistake to say that because creation is in time it is not co-eternal. The co-eternal nature lies in the necessity not in the temporality. If we say that God is Creator then He must always create, not in a temporal sense but in an ontological sense. Therefore as long as God IS then creation must IS also.

I would be happy to say that God is Love and out of His love He chose to create the world. But I am still not happy saying that the creator-ness of God is of the Divine essence and is therefore predicated of all the Divine persons and is eternal.

I come back to the Creed, and I am rather surprised that those EO who seem to disagree with me seem to discount the Creed,

"We believe in .... God the Father, the Creator..."

Peter

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Peter,

There is much more in full context to the Creed. Not reflecting upon it fully would seem to represent a discounting mode, at least as I see it. So we may also read therein more; Light of Light True God of True God.

Below we may read some comments by the EO Blessed Theophylact on Pascha.


In the Beginning Was the Word

John 1: 1-17


"Learn from an example in the material world. The brightness of the sun is from the sun, is it not? Most certainly."

3. All things were made by Him. And without Him was not anything made which was made. Do not think, the Evangelist is saying, that the Word is like a spoken word which is uttered and then dies away in the air. The Word is the Maker of everything, both that which is perceived by the mind and that perceived by the senses. Again the Arians leap to the attack, saying, "We may also say that a door was made by a saw, that is, by a tool, yet the craftsman who moves the tool differs greatly from the tool itself. Therefore, where it is written that all things were made by the Son, it does not mean that the Son is the Maker, but that he is an instrument, just like the saw. God the Father is the Maker Who uses the Son as His tool. Therefore the Son is something which was created for the very purpose of making all other things, just as a saw is made as the tool by which crafted items are produced." This is how the wicked band of Arians speaks. How do we answer? Simply and directly, that if, as they claim, the Father created the Son to be the instrument whereby He fashioned the world, then the Son would be held in less honor than the created world. The things made by a saw are more precious than the saw itself, which is only a tool. The saw was made for the sake of the things which it will produce; the crafted objects were not made for the sake of the saw. In the same vein, creation would be honored more highly than the Only-begotten Son, since the Father made the Son, they say, for the sake of creation, and if He had not intended to make the universe, neither would He have formed the Only-begotten Son. What could be more foolish than these words? "But," protests the Arian, "why did the Evangelist not say directly, 'The Word Himself made all things,' but instead that the Father made all things by [dia] the Son?" Why? So that you would not think that the Word, because He was uncreated and without beginning, was also an enemy and rival of God. Imagine a king intending to build a new city, who entrusts the work to his son. If one said, The city was founded by the son of the king, this would not mean that the son of the king is a servant. It would show, instead, that the son has a father and that he is not acting alone. So it is here, that when the Evangelist says that all things were made by the Son, he shows that the Father used Him, as it were, as an intermediary in the creating, not as someone inferior to Himself, but, on the contrary, as One of equal power, able to carry out such a great command. I will add this: if you are still troubled by the preposition by, and want to find in Scripture some expression that says that the Word Himself made all things, listen to the words of David. In the beginning, O Lord, Thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands. [Ps. 101:25] You see that he did not say, "By Thee were the heavens made and the foundation of the earth was laid," but, Thou didst lay the foundation, and "these things are the work of Thy hands." That David said this concerning the Only-begotten Son and not the Father, you may learn from the Apostle Paul himself, who used these lines in his Letter to the Hebrews. [Heb. 1:8-10] It is also clear in the very same Psalm. For when it says that the Lord hath looked upon the earth, to hear the groaning of them that be in fetters, to loose the sons of the slain, to declare in Sion the name of the Lord [Ps. 101:20-21], to whom else can it refer except the Son of God? For it is He who looked upon the earth, meaning either this earth on which we move, or our nature which became earthly, or our flesh of which it was said, Earth thou art. [Gen. 3:20] This earthly flesh He took upon Himself and loosed us who were bound by the bonds of our own sins, and freed us, the sons of the slain, Adam and Eve, and declared in Sion the name of the Lord. For He stood in the temple and taught concerning His Father, as He Himself says, I have manifested Thy name unto the men which Thou gavest Me. [Jn. 17:6] To Whom do these things apply, to the Father or to the Son? Certainly, they apply to the Son. For the Son declared the name of the Father as He taught. After saying these things, the blessed David then adds the words, In the beginning, O Lord, Thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands. Does not David clearly present the Son as the Maker, and not as an instrument? But if the preposition dia still seems to you to indicate something lesser and inferior, what will you say when Paul uses this same preposition to refer to the Father? For he writes, God is faithful, by [dia] Whom ye were called into the communion of His Son. [I Cor. 1:9] Surely Paul here does not suggest that the Father is an instrument. And again, Paul, . . . an apostle . . . by [dia] the will of God. [I Cor. 1:1] But enough said: let us return to where we began. All things were made by Him. Moses described the visible creation and revealed nothing to us concerning the creation of the noetic world. But the Evangelist with one word includes all. All things were made by Him, both the visible and the noetic. And without Him was not any thing made that was made. The Evangelist first says that all things were made by the Son. Then, to dispel any idea that the Son also created the Holy Spirit, he carefully defines the words, all things. Every thing which is by its nature created was made by the Word. But the Spirit is not part of created nature, and therefore It was not made by the Son. Without the power of the Word was not any thing made that was of a created nature.

4. In Him was Life; and the Life was the Light of men. The Pneumatomachoi (2) read this verse and the previous as follows: "And without Him was not anything made." Here they punctuate, and read the next words as the beginning of a new sentence: "[That] which was made was life in Him." They interpret the passage according to their own understanding, claiming that here the Evangelist is describing the Holy Spirit and saying that the Holy Spirit was life. The followers of Macedonius give this interpretation in their eagerness to show that the Holy Spirit is a created thing and to categorize Him among the things that have been made. We do not give the text such an interpretation, but place a period after the words, which were made, and read the words, In Him was life, as the beginning of a new sentence. Because he had spoken of the creating of things, that all things were made by Him, now he speaks of the providence and care which the Word has for His creation. He says that the Word did not simply create the world and then withdraw from it, but that it is He Himself Who sustains the life of all that has been created. For he says, In Him was life. I know that one of the saints has read this passage as follows, And without Him was not anything made that was made in Him. Here he punctuates and begins again, "He was life." I consider that this reading is not in error, and that it contains the same Orthodox understanding. This saint thought in Orthodox manner that without the Word there was not anything made that was made in Him. For I say that every thing that was made and created in Him, the Word, was not made without Him. Then in the new sentence, He was Life, and the Life was the Light of men. (3) The Evangelist names the Lord Life, because it is He Who sustains the life of every living thing, and Who gives spiritual life to all reason endowedcreatures. He is Light, not light perceivable by the senses, but noetic light which enlightens the soul itself. He does not say that the Lord is the light of the Jews only, but of all men. For we can say that all men have been enlightened by Him, inasmuch as we all have received mind and reason [logos] from the Word [Logos] Who created us. For the reason bestowed upon us, by which we are called rational [logikoi] creatures, is a light to guide us into what we ought, and ought not, to do.


In context:
http://www.chrysostompress.org/explanation/pascha_1?CPSESSION=897fc5e35f613

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Bratislav]

The point that concerns Fr Raphael (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=37753&postcount=43) is brought out in (c), where Origen speaks of 'these powers which are in God, nay, which are God' - a conflation of attribute and essence that, as Fr Raphael mentions, was addressed (at rather daunting length) by the Cappadocians in response to individuals like Eunomius and Aetius (the latter, suggesting that since God is called 'ingenerate' therefore that is what he is by nature plain and simple, thus concluded 'God does not know more about his nature than I do'). This is certainly a problematic phrase in Origen's text. Nonetheless, the main thrust of his argument in the paragraph stands without it: even if one does maintain the later Cappadocian distinction between who God is and what God does, descriptions of the latter must still be eternal descriptions, unless God himself is mutable and changes throughout history. Thus Origen's text at (d), that a God who is 'Beneficent' is never not-beneficent. A good God is always good. A creative God is always creative. A provident God is always providential.

And it is this reflection that leads Origen to his conclusions in (e): that since God is always beneficent, and beneficence is an other-orientated characteristic, there must always be an 'other'. So, again in his own words: 'It follows plainly from this that at no time whatever was God not Creator, nor Benefactor, nor Providence.' Or, as he says later in the same chapter:


"It is clear that God did not begin to create after spending a period in idleness" (I.4.5, Gr. version)

"The fact is made clear that God did not begin at a certain time to be Creator, when he had not been such before" (same passage, Latin version)

These are the kinds of comments that lie behind characterisations of Origen as declaring an 'eternal' creation - though it's worth nothing that he never in fact says that. He is careful to link creation to time, and to the whole of time; but the whole of time is not a synonym for eternity.

But that distinction aside, Origen qualifies these comments in several ways. Peri Archon I.4.4 contains a whole paragraph of qualifications on the mystery this poses to the human mind, which cannot quite comprehend how such a situation is possible. But Origen also refers to this ever-existence of creation in specific reference to the Son, the Wisdom of the Father, in whom 'the creation was always present in form and outline, and there was never a time when the prefiguration of those things which hereafter were to be did not exist in Wisdom'. Keep in mind, this comment - in which Origen clearly delineates between an eternal prefiguration or 'outline' of creation in God's Wisdom, and the actual existence of creation - comes directly between the two comments above on creation 'always existing'.


Here Origen makes an absolute distinction between the eternal existence of the 'prefiguration' or 'pre-formation' of creation in Wisdom (his favoured title for the Son, the second person of the Trinity, in these chapters), and creation 'which afterwards received substantial existence'. It is clear that he does not mean that substantive creation is co-eternal with God (see again the beginning of that paragraph, where he outright says that creation 'is not coeternal with him').

Matthew

I have a lot of thoughts floating about regarding the ideas written about above and I doubt I will be able to express them very well. But either way...

I have always been uncomfortable with the amount of stress laid by some on the notion of creation ex nihilo. While it is true, I think it equally true and, spiritually speaking, of equal importance to keep in mind, that creation is also "out of the Eternal". It is the Uncreated creating Energy of God from which we have existence. All men, every creature and creation as a whole has its ground in God Himself. The way I think of it, man and nature itself stands with one foot in the Divine and one foot in the abyss of nothingness. The trick is to lean the right way.

On a related note I would like to post a small quote from Dumitru Staniloae:


"According to the Christian faith, God created the world from a particular motive and for a particular purpose. This gives meaning to the world. The fathers emphasized the goodness of God as the motive behind creation in order to oppose the idea that God created the world out of an inner necessity, an idea that itself leads to pantheism. St Gregory of Nyssa declared,' This, then, whether it be God, or Word, or Skill, or Power, has been shown by inference to be the Maker of the nature of man, not urged to make him by any necessity, but in the superabundance of love energizing the production of such a creature. For needful it was that neither His light should be unseen, nor His glory without witness, nor His goodness unenjoyed, nor that any other quality observed in the Divine nature should in any case lie idle with none to share it or enjoy it.'"

What I find interesting is that St Gregory first states that God was not "urged by any necessity" to create and then goes on to that is was "needful" for God to have His goodness enjoyed and His light seen, etc. Perhaps it is the English translation of the text that is throwing me off but I admit to feeling a little intellectually dizzy.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Following on with the discussion on the necessity of creation / eternity of creation question in Origen; Fr Raphael wrote in response to my post #47 in this thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=37783&postcount=47), in which I asked which quotations were being referred to:


Here is a representative quote:


Origen could only have formulated his problematic on the basis of a definition of the simplicity of the divine essence, where the being, activity, and the will of God were all wholly identical.

Thus, for Origen,

"We can therefore imagine no moment whatever when that power was not engaged in acts of well-doing. Whence it follows that there always existed objects for this well-doing, namely, God's works or creatures, and that God, in the power of his providence, was always dispensing his blessings among them by doing them good in accordance with their condition and deserts. It follows plainly from this that at no time whatever was God not Creator, nor Benefactor, nor Providence."


Thus, there is no distinction between God's faculty of will, in other words, that natural property of His essence which allows Him to be the creator, and the object of that will, the creatures themselves. The faculty of will and the object of will are the same identical thing in God on account of the simplicity.

From J P Farrell, The Disputation with Pyrrhus, p xxvi

This was followed by another example:


Fr John Meyendorff in his Christ in Eastern Christian Thought also writes:


The ambiguity of Origen's trinitarian system resulted, in any case, largely from philosophical presuppositions and from his doctrine of creation, which was considered as co-eternal with God and excluded the distinction, established by post-Nicene theology, between the eternal generation of the Son and the creation of the world in time. Cosmology and anthropology, the most vulnerable points of Origen's system were the council's [ie 5th] main targets, togerther with Evagrius Ponticus' strange Christology, which was derived from Origen's philosophy.

There is no need for more quotes as these would be unnecessarily repetitious.
Suffice it to say that this is the most common interpretation most often taught in our seminaries.

Not to harp on a point, but the second quotation, from Fr Meyendorff, contains no material from Origen at all. The first quotation, from Farrell's book, is actually of precisely the same passage I quoted above more fully (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=37783&postcount=47), namely the Peri Archon ('On First Principles') book I, chapter 4 -- a chapter in the course of which Origen explicitly and emphatically denies that creation is eternal. Once again, his most blatant comments to this effect are found only a few paragraphs later:


"It is probably in this way that, so far as our weakness allows, we shall maintain a reverent belief about God, neither asserting that his creatures were unbegotten and coeternal with him, nor on the other hand that he turned to the work of creation to do good when he had done nothing good before" (PA I.4.5).

I would add to this that Dr Farrell's comments on I.4.3 seem a bit disingenuous:


Thus, there is no distinction between God's faculty of will, in other words, that natural property of His essence which allows Him to be the creator, and the object of that will, the creatures themselves. The faculty of will and the object of will are the same identical thing in God on account of the simplicity.

Origen in fact spends considerable space in the chapter defining precisely such a distinction, largely through the language of 'pre-figuration', 'pre-formation', etc.

I should point out that I am not an apologist for Origen: I do indeed consider much of his thought to be deeply problematic and in error. But on this specific issue, which so many take as a 'given' in his thought, I see little support in Origen's own words and thoughts. As before, I would like to see quotations (of Origen!) that people refer to when they say 'Origen teaches an eternal creation'. Thus far the only text (in the singular) that has been produced here has been Peri Archon I.4.3, in which Origen in fact takes pains to deny precisely the kind of reading that we are now charging him with! If we are to accuse Origen of things, let us at least deal with things he actually said.


Of course there could be nuances to Origen's thought. It could very well be that in places he tried to qualify certain expressions that he makes elsewhere. But at the end of the day an assessment must be made in terms of the overall context of the way and manner in which he thinks.

I agree whole-heartedly with this. Yet again, this statement makes reference to the fact that Origen qualifies here what he says there, etc.; but where is the 'there'?

Just because it's taught in our seminaries, doesn't meant it's necessarily so. :)


Granted that much of this relies on an interpretation of his writings.

This is rather more at the heart of the matter. I can with some surety say that, given my own study of Origen over the past years, I do not believe he taught the eternity of creation (in fact, I think the very idea lays waste to much of the system he tries to articulate). But comments he made have been interpreted by others in this way -- ancient as well as modern; and this is problematic. Origenists and modern-day neo-Origenists may conceive of an eternal creation and a God driven by necessity. Origen did not. He had his great many flaws; but at least from my exposure to his writings, this was not one of them.

INXC, Matthew

[Peter Farrington]

"It is probably in this way that, so far as our weakness allows, we shall maintain a reverent belief about God, neither asserting that his creatures were unbegotten and coeternal with him, nor on the other hand that he turned to the work of creation to do good when he had done nothing good before" (PA I.4.5).


Dear Matthew

I am not an expert on Origen at all but I think that you misintepret this passage.

It seems to me, and other authors I have read the past week or so, that Origen is saying here that:

a) The creation is not unbegotten and therefore self-existent in eternity.

b) But it is not possible to conceive of God without His creation.

This seems to me to evidently require a co-eternal creation but not a self-existent creation.

Indeed the writers I found all suggested that what Origen was combating was the idea of a self-existent creation alongside God and independently existing in eternity.

I agree that he rejects this idea. But he seems to me to very clearly state that it is not possible to think of God without His creation, therefore His creation must be co-eternal, even while not unbegotten and therefore self-existent.

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

My dear Matthew:

You wrote:


I should point out that I am not an apologist for Origen: I do indeed consider much of his thought to be deeply problematic and in error. But on this specific issue, which so many take as a 'given' in his thought, I see little support in Origen's own words and thoughts. As before, I would like to see quotations (of Origen!) that people refer to when they say 'Origen teaches an eternal creation'. Thus far the only text (in the singular) that has been produced here has been Peri Archon I.4.3, in which Origen in fact takes pains to deny precisely the kind of reading that we are now charging him with! If we are to accuse Origen of things, let us at least deal with things he actually said.


But isn't this exactly the point we have spoken about so many times here at Monachos? Ultimately much of this comes down to interpretation according to context & not just certain words.

For example, Nestorius is deemed by the Church to be a Nestorian although he himself would ask 'where in my writings did I ever deny Christ's divinity?' And many words of his can be found where he precisely claims that his theological method is to protect the divinity of the Word.

But the Church deems his thought to be of a certain nature and heretical because it sees a certain logic or tendency in it.

I think this is also at work with Origen. Let him claim that this was not his intent or that in some passages he explicitly denies things he is accused of. But still the Church discerns according to the overall context.

Undoubtedly this is also the context in which Origen is most often accused of a problematic cosmology. Note that the details of interpretation are not always the same - they vary from person to person. Thus J Farrell often concentrates on the problem of philosophical simplicity & the tendency of transfering this into a theological category. Fr John is more concerned with Origenism in general which he feels knocks the feet out of the message of the Incarnation.

We could go on with this from person to person. But the point is that each in his own way is trying to fill out the picture of how & why Origen is so problematic that he was condemned as a heretic by the Church. This is obviously the context of this particular negative interpretation of his cosmology.



Just because it's taught in our seminaries, doesn't meant it's necessarily so. :)


Hey, except in the seminary I went to of course. :)

But seriously, our seminaries do express a consensus & a way in which the Church is moving at a particular time. Flesh & blood people do teach there with their own weaknesses but a spirit of prayer is prevalent so that those who are taught may in turn teach the people of God within our parishes.

So we're not talking about academic institutions which teach religion but places which in an important sense reflect the Church.

Not to say that no man may disagree with what the seminaries teach-:) since seminary teachers and seminarians disagree even among themselves.

But I think there is a something within the seminary that is well worth respecting in terms of how it speaks of the particularly drift of the Church at a particular point in time.

So it could be that after our particular search along a particular path, we find that a common charge against let's say Origen, is questionable. But the significance of what we discover is I think found within the larger context of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kusanagi]

I only noticed the God does not act against nature part as that is all I understood.
But He does act against nature. As saint's bodies are not corrupted. Also holy people not dying but having eternal life is in itself against nature.