In his latest addition to the ongoing discussion, now focused mostly on the matter of Creation, Kristor writes:
In his latest contribution to this discussion, Francis Berger asks why a perfect God would go to the trouble of creating anything less than perfect; less than himself; other than himself. Not having read that contribution before I wrote the paragraph just above, I believe that in it I had answered this question.
The post that Kristor refers to can be found here.
Okay, so let’s see how Kristor answers why a perfect God would go through the trouble of creating anything less than perfect; less than himself; other than himself. Put another way, what is God’s motive for Creation?
Bruce goes on to suggest that “Nicene Christianity perhaps needs to posit a motive for creation – a motive for God creating rather than not.” Well, no.
Well, no?
I guess the first rule of God’s motive for Creation is you don’t talk about God’s motive for Creation.
Okay, but why?
To suppose that God is motivated to do this or that is to mistake him for the sort of being who can lack this or that, as we do; who wants, e.g., to move from a state prior to the fulfillment of his will to another state posterior to that fulfillment, as we can do. It doesn’t work that way for an eternal intelligence. Sub specie aeternitatis, God’s will is always already fulfilled. He lacks nothing; he possesses everything. So, he is not motivated to do anything. He has always already done – is always already doing – all that he would do.
God is an entirely different category of being. He was fulfilled before Creation and remains fulfilled after Creation. Creation did not alter his fulfillment one iota. If that is indeed the case, then my question remains—if God was so fulfilled before Creation, why did he bother with Creation at all?
The answer Kristor provides is basically a non-answer. Our puny hearts and minds can never begin to apprehend the eternal intelligence that is God. Evidence of this lies in the mere fact of supposing God is motivated to do anything at all.
I mean, who are we to suppose anything of God or Creation?
Besides, there is not much point to it because God is not motivated to do anything, at least not as far as our puny hearts and minds can conceive. He’s an eternal intelligence, man! You can’t even begin to understand God’s motives because to do so is to presume God even has motives we could comprehend. He was, is, and always will be and has always done and is already doing all that he would do. For goodness’ sake, isn’t that enough?
In the end, "because" appears to be the only answer Kristor can supply to the question of why God created anything at all.
Forgive me, but this is kindergarten-level argumentation.
To his credit, Kristor does go on to provide some explanation of why God created:
God creates because he is perfect, and the nature of perfection is such that it intends and does all the good that can be done.
If God is perfect and was perfect before Creation, then his intention to do all the good that can be done by creating everything out of nothing makes no sense because such an intention adds nothing good to the perfection that existed before Creation. Nor does it make anything better.
God could have enjoyed his perfection without engaging in Creation. Why didn’t he? Why did God engage in a project to do all the good that can be done knowing full well that such an intention or action makes absolutely no difference at all to his perfection?
His creation is but the outward aspect and effect – in the East, they call these his energies – of his act of simply being himself perfect.
So, Creation is a merely a side effect of the act of perfection? Is that it? Creating non-perfection is somehow a by-product of God being his perfect self?
And because he is perfect, necessary, and eternal, and therefore prior to all times, all ages and worlds, the source, forecondition, alpha and omega thereof, thus timeless, there is no point in the eternal duration of his life at which his will is not already eternally fulfilled, and all creaturely things have not already reached their intended fulfillment and perfection.
Motive for Creation? God is perfect, necessary, and eternally fulfilled—you’re not. ‘Nuff said.
Although I find it a bit presumptuous of Kristor to claim he has provided an answer to a post he had not read, I believe he has provided the only sort of answer he can or will provide concerning the motive/purpose for Creation.
Unfortunately, that sort of answer amounts to little more than a non-answer.
Christianity needs to discover a motive for Creation that extends beyond God and his perfection. Now more than ever.
In his latest contribution to this discussion, Francis Berger asks why a perfect God would go to the trouble of creating anything less than perfect; less than himself; other than himself. Not having read that contribution before I wrote the paragraph just above, I believe that in it I had answered this question.
The post that Kristor refers to can be found here.
Okay, so let’s see how Kristor answers why a perfect God would go through the trouble of creating anything less than perfect; less than himself; other than himself. Put another way, what is God’s motive for Creation?
Bruce goes on to suggest that “Nicene Christianity perhaps needs to posit a motive for creation – a motive for God creating rather than not.” Well, no.
Well, no?
I guess the first rule of God’s motive for Creation is you don’t talk about God’s motive for Creation.
Okay, but why?
To suppose that God is motivated to do this or that is to mistake him for the sort of being who can lack this or that, as we do; who wants, e.g., to move from a state prior to the fulfillment of his will to another state posterior to that fulfillment, as we can do. It doesn’t work that way for an eternal intelligence. Sub specie aeternitatis, God’s will is always already fulfilled. He lacks nothing; he possesses everything. So, he is not motivated to do anything. He has always already done – is always already doing – all that he would do.
God is an entirely different category of being. He was fulfilled before Creation and remains fulfilled after Creation. Creation did not alter his fulfillment one iota. If that is indeed the case, then my question remains—if God was so fulfilled before Creation, why did he bother with Creation at all?
The answer Kristor provides is basically a non-answer. Our puny hearts and minds can never begin to apprehend the eternal intelligence that is God. Evidence of this lies in the mere fact of supposing God is motivated to do anything at all.
I mean, who are we to suppose anything of God or Creation?
Besides, there is not much point to it because God is not motivated to do anything, at least not as far as our puny hearts and minds can conceive. He’s an eternal intelligence, man! You can’t even begin to understand God’s motives because to do so is to presume God even has motives we could comprehend. He was, is, and always will be and has always done and is already doing all that he would do. For goodness’ sake, isn’t that enough?
In the end, "because" appears to be the only answer Kristor can supply to the question of why God created anything at all.
Forgive me, but this is kindergarten-level argumentation.
To his credit, Kristor does go on to provide some explanation of why God created:
God creates because he is perfect, and the nature of perfection is such that it intends and does all the good that can be done.
If God is perfect and was perfect before Creation, then his intention to do all the good that can be done by creating everything out of nothing makes no sense because such an intention adds nothing good to the perfection that existed before Creation. Nor does it make anything better.
God could have enjoyed his perfection without engaging in Creation. Why didn’t he? Why did God engage in a project to do all the good that can be done knowing full well that such an intention or action makes absolutely no difference at all to his perfection?
His creation is but the outward aspect and effect – in the East, they call these his energies – of his act of simply being himself perfect.
So, Creation is a merely a side effect of the act of perfection? Is that it? Creating non-perfection is somehow a by-product of God being his perfect self?
And because he is perfect, necessary, and eternal, and therefore prior to all times, all ages and worlds, the source, forecondition, alpha and omega thereof, thus timeless, there is no point in the eternal duration of his life at which his will is not already eternally fulfilled, and all creaturely things have not already reached their intended fulfillment and perfection.
Motive for Creation? God is perfect, necessary, and eternally fulfilled—you’re not. ‘Nuff said.
Although I find it a bit presumptuous of Kristor to claim he has provided an answer to a post he had not read, I believe he has provided the only sort of answer he can or will provide concerning the motive/purpose for Creation.
Unfortunately, that sort of answer amounts to little more than a non-answer.
Christianity needs to discover a motive for Creation that extends beyond God and his perfection. Now more than ever.
RSS Feed
