The Creator/creature Distinction

[His clay]

Introduction

This is a topic that has been on the back burner for a while. Recently, a poster (@TMSO ) stated a few things that moved me to write; but the topic has been around for some time. I will link the original thread and quote the poster’s comments.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/consistent-hermeneutics-calvinism-vs-arminianism.1271/

“Very nice. I have a question (serious curiosity here). When you see people talking about this, do you also picture the two level existence of the universe? (There may be others, but I think of the most important ones to these questions) The two levels of God, then us? And, if you do, do you believe that most of the dissension from arminians (I can't say 100% for LFW, though perhaps them to) would be removed if everyone considered the differences between the two levels of existence? (In this case, Creator and I'll tag on Sovereign, to created/humanity.) Owner to property. Would understanding that dynamic remove most of the objections to understanding just where Calvin was coming from?

[So you understand the last question better, my thought process is how Calvin had to take the time to answer/rebut those who claimed he taught that God is the author of evil. (I think he did an amazing job, might I add.) I don't believe someone who understands the dynamic that exists between creator and created, and in this case God and us, has any ground to make such a statement. I do understand that there are some other contingencies, but, from what I have noticed over the years is that these questions and statements seem to come from not truly understanding God's position, and our position, which are not the same. We cannot judge God in human terms, and in fact, we shouldn't judge Him at all.]” (Post #57)

“That's fine. Remember, it is curiosity. I hope this is because you find the question interesting. I have a way of thinking that isn't something set in stone, other than, God is not us, and we are not God. I am interested in how you look at this, basically when considering God's sovereignty next to who we are. In my comment, just asking if this comes to mind when you see some of the comments non-calvinists make.” (Post #80)

Continuing with the introduction: The topic has been gradually formed over quite a few years. In high school and college, the topic was in the form of God’s holiness (His otherness as opposed to the normal moral perfection view). After college, I started interacting with atheists; and I needed a bit more ammo. I read some apologetics books. That’s where the book, Van Til: Readings and Analysis by Greg Bahnsen, really pushed the phrase “Creator/creature distinction.” The connection to God transcendence and imminence also came into view during that time and during seminary. Two books about Gnostic thought also came into view. Eric Voegelin’s Science, Politics, and Gnosticsm was extremely significant and insightful. The second book was noticed while working through some lectures by John Frame, I ran into an author he recommended: One or Two: Seeing a World of Difference by Peter Jones. I don’t wish to bore the reader, so I’ll stop with the listing. I’m just trying to communicate how the issue has been developing over the years.

This is post #1, and it is the introduction. The outline following adequately summarizes where the discussion is going. In post #2, I intend to interact with the poster’s comments, quoted above. In post #3, a brief theological case is made with respect to the Creator/creature distinction. After all, I wouldn’t want people believing stuff that wasn’t founded upon scripture. In post #4, the subject will turn toward Eric Voegelin’s work. Whether you believe it or not, I’m going to take great pains to condense and summarize. I’ll end this post with a basic outline.

• Introduction (p #1)
• Poster Interaction (p #2)
• Distinction Theologically Grounded (p #3)
• Gnostic Connection to Blurring the Distinction (p #4)

I’m breaking up the opening post into four parts to preemptively get around the size cap for each post.

 

[His clay]

Poster Interaction

The reader is encouraged to see the quoted words in blue in post #1. The first question concerned whether or not I take a two level view of existence of the universe. After the opening question the poster appears to ask a clarifying question. “The two levels of God, then us?” While I would not word it as a two level view of the universe, I definitely prefer the wording of the clarifying question. Yes, I do hold to God and creation (the universe) existing on two levels: the Creator and the created.

The next main question focused upon Arminians/libertarian free will advocates and their dissention with Calvinists. Would this dissension be dissolved in the LFW crew understood and adequately considered the distinction? In the interactions, reading, and thinking I’ve done on that subject, knowledge alone would only give the LFW advocate a target to aim at. It would probably not be persuasive, though I may be wrong. The LFW advocate necessarily possesses a different metaphysic; and by “metaphysic” I’m referring to the basic philosophical category dealing with the ultimate nature of reality. I will explain this in more detail in the next post.

The poster mentioned an additionally filled out distinction where the sovereign owner is distinct from the created property. I again endorse this distinction because it is completely biblical. Since God is the Creator; He is also the owner of His creation, and so I find it perfectly understand His creation to be His property. This ownership includes His ownership of people.

“Would understanding that dynamic remove most of the objections to understanding just where Calvin was coming from?” It would definitely remove a great deal of objections. However, I would caution against an over exalted expectation of what the distinction accomplishes. For those who possess the Creator/creature distinction as their framework, the distinction eliminates many objections. For those who do not possess the distinction and seek to blur the distinction, then they typically ignore (I can easily point out at least two posters in this forum.) the ramifications of the distinction.

I agree that they don’t have any ground to make the objection, but this doesn’t begin to stop them from making straw men arguments. Sometimes, even though they know of the distinction, they simply resort to straw men to keep appearance of argument going. It is truly tragic. Since you bring up God and His relation to evil, I find it important to mention that I do not endorse the typical free will theodicy. In other words, I do not endorse the free will defense (utilizing LFW) in seeking to solve the problem of evil. The best book I can recommend that gives my view is R. K. McGregor Wright’s book, No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Free Will Theism. If you wish to discuss this (a Calvinistic theodicy not utilizing the LFW defense) further, I can definitely elaborate. But if I elaborate here, the already large post will become an absolute monster.

Regarding TMSO’s comment about not being able to judge: I ran into a sermon from Jonathan Edwards, which says much the same thing. The title is “The Sole Consideration, that God is God, Sufficient to Still All Objections to His Sovereignty.” He uses the verse from Psalms, “Be still and know that I am God,” as a springboard for the sermon. I agree to a large extent. As I stated previously, my screen name is His clay. The significance is that this points to my place as His clay, and as such this truth has surrounded my thinking about God and about other’s supposed objections toward Him (which ends up being a straw man, since they are over a very small figment of their imaginations, not the true Almighty, Infinitely wise God over all things).

With respect to not understanding our place in relation to God’s, this simply points to man’s fallen thinking and condition. The wicked are prideful and arrogant with respect to God. Little specks of dust raise their fists against the Sovereign from which heaven and earth will flee during the judgement. In Genesis 12, those who build the tower of Babel view their accomplishment with great grandeur, but God is pictured as stooping down to even begin to observe their pathetic attempt at self-exaltation. Though Nebuchadnessar’s relative (Daniel 5) knew how Neb was humbled by God; the arrogant blow hard exalted himself above the God of heaven and took the temple’s vessels to drink wine to idols. As Isaiah 40 points out, scarcely was he planted when (Is40:24) God blew on him to his utter ruin. (This concludes my interaction with post #57)

Post #80 will now be the focus of interaction. Regarding your last sentence, Yes, absolutely this distinction comes to mind when interacting with other posters. Once we remove the false idea of man’s finite, tiny mind over the ultimate God over all things, which position is an impossible position for man to possess. Once we realize that God is the measure of all things, and Protagorus’ “man-the-measure” view is discerned as wrong . . . Once one realizes that morality does not stand above God; rather, God’s character grounds the morality He places upon His creatures (which demolishes Euthyphro’s dilemma). Once we realize that we have zero autonomous realm, evidence, standard, or person upon which to appeal over and against God, then it becomes clear, then 90-95% of the objections fall flat on their face.

I hope and think that I’ve adequately responded to your two posts. I’ll now move toward a very brief theological demonstration of the Creator/creature distinction.

 

[His clay]

The Creator/creature Distinction Theologically Grounded

Again, the reader is reminded that this is a very brief statement of the grounding. I’ll try to be as succinct as possible. The opening verse of the Bible captures the basic meaning of the distinction. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” We have God the creator, and we have everything else. Paul utilizes this view of creation to position Christ as authoritatively above all.

“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things were created through him and for him.
17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Col 1:16-17 ESV) Not only were all things created by Him, but by Him all things hold together as well. There is no realm for autonomy other than that of God’s own self-existence.

“The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.”
(Acts 17:24-25 ESV) Once again, God has made the world and everything in it. And then Paul specifically targets people. They cannot serve God as if giving anything to Him, for God is the one who ultimately is back of their living existence. We have the self-sufficient God contrasted with dependent man.

“I will not accept a bull from your house or goats from your folds.
10 For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.
11 I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine.
12 "If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and its fullness are mine.” (Psa 50:9-12 ESV) The context is sacrifices God accepts. God corrects their view of worship by pointing out that He owns it all, and a proper view of worship to God recognizes this.

Romans 9:19-23 points to God’s rights as the Potter to do as He wishes with His clay. God’s superiority, creative power, and ownership are stressed in light of the objections to responsibility. God has the sovereign right to do what He wants with His clay. The contrast is of God the potter and people the clay.

(1) The creative power of God establishes the categories of Creator and creature. God and all that He has made. (2) The eternality of God stands in stark contrast with all that He has made, which has a beginning. (3) The self-sufficiency of God stands in stark contrast with a creation that began by God’s power, and the creation continues by God’s sustaining hand. (4) The holiness of God is often viewed as His moral perfection, and this is not wrong. But the holiness also has the nuance of His otherness. (5) God points to His actions of creation to still the objections of Job. God essentially put him in his place. (6) The exalted status of God is on full display in Isaiah 40 where God twice asks the rhetorical question of who God can be compared to. God’s infinite wisdom is on display, His sovereignty over the greatest of men is on display, God’s intimate knowledge of the stars of the heavens is on display. The point is that God is incomparably great and knows all things, thus, the struggle of the Israelite of thinking that God has overlooked their terrible condition is unfounded. (7) The contrast between the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God highlights the distinction.

A great deal more could be mentioned, but I’ll stop here. Regarding the fourth section, I’m getting a bit tired right now; so I’m going to postpone writing the fourth installment of the opening post. I hope that I’ve given a good enough spread to engage the thinking of others.

In my haste, I almost missed the (8) transcendence and imminence of God.

 

[His clay]

Gnostic Connection to Blurring the Distinction

In this post I intend to briefly outline Eric Voegelin's description of Gnostic reductionism. In the second portion, I'll seek to briefly address the imago dei (image of God). Both are attempts at blurring the Creator/creature distinction. The biblical solution should be obvious, given the previous post.

Science, Politics, & Gnosticism
The book may be 87 pages long, but the level of depth it entails betrays its small size. It is a profoundly deep book. It is not for the philosophically faint of heart. The author examines Marx, Neitzsche, Hegel, and others as they demonstrate a mentality derived from Gnostic thought. I will take a very painfully brief summary from the book and present it to the reader. To begin, I'm going to present a quote from the book. If you decide to read it, then put on your thinking cap; you are about to wade into the deep end of the pool.

Philosophy springs from the love of being; it is man's loving endeavor to perceive the order of being and attune himself to it. Gnosis desires dominion over being; in order to seize control of being the gnostic constructs his system. The building of systems is a gnostic form of reasoning, not a philosophical one.
But the thinker can seize control of being with his system only if being really lies within his grasp. As long as the origin of being lies beyond the being of this world; as long as eternal being cannot be completely penetrated with the instrument of world-imminent, finite cognition; as long as divine being can be conceived of only in the form of the analogia entis, the construction of a system will be impossible. If this venture is to be seriously launched at all, the thinker must first eliminate these inconveniences: he must so interpret being that on principle it lies within the grasp of his construct. [1]

I'll take some time to unpack this for the reader. "Analogia entis" refers to "analogy of being". A mirror may adequately describe the idea. A mirror reflects reality; it is not the reality but rather a reflection. The mirror is an anological depiction of reality.

Voegelin points out in the opening the contrast between (1) the examination of reality and reshaping man's mind in keeping with it and (2) the gnostic mentality of seizing control over reality through system construction. However, a key assumption is the way of seizing control over reality. Ultimate reality and the system of the mind must be on the same level.

The first view sees man as perceiving reality by reference to God. God's transcendent creator of the universe is the ultimate ground of the reality of which man is a part and of which he perceives. Man's existence as well as the universe in which he lives is only a secondary reality next to the mind of God. Ultimate reality is God and His mind. Creation is an anology or a reflection of God mind and design.

The second view is not submissive to God's ultimacy. Control must be attained, and the reduction of reality to the imminent level of creation allows such control to be possible. "[H]e must so interpret being that on principle it lies within the grasp of his construct."

Now, I'll try to summarize three steps that Voegelin points out that make this reductionist view of reality possible.

1. The assumption of autonomy.
2. The construction of systems.
3. The murder of God.

Some of this has already been explained. The first refers to a person's identity. He must first be seen as autonomous; he cannot owe his existence to another. Hence, he is now the creator of ultimate reality. Second, he constructs his system under that framework. Third, the idea of God must be reinterpreted as man's creation. In this third step, the role reversal is clear. Man is not the creation of God; rather, god is the creation of man.

Where have I seen this mentality? Here is where the rubber hits the road. Autonomy and free will (libertarian freedom) have a strong semantic overlap with respect to the idea of personal self-sufficiency. The murder of God is accomplished by means of making God dependent upon man's actions. Most specifically this refers to God's mind, as it is logically dependent upon man's ultimate decision-making process (libertarian freedom). An entire system is constructed with human autonomy in place, where reality is assumed to exist within the framework of libertarian freedom. Love, if it is to be considered as love, must be so interpreted within the framework of autonomy. Choices must be interpreted within the system. The list can go on . . .

Oddly enough, this is exactly the system of atheism. According to Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, god is merely a construct created by human beings that previously helped people get by. But now, after becoming more evolved and capable of explaining things via science, man can leave children's fairy tales and toss the delusions to the side. Man and the universe itself are self-sufficient entities, and God is just a delusional idea created by man. The gnostic mentality is raging and blatant in modern new atheist dogma.

I will remind the reader of the clear contrast between the system of autonomy just mentioned and post #3 where a theological case is made for the Creator/creature distinction. In post #3, the biblical metaphysic (ultimate nature of reality) if first based upon God who is the Creator and sustainer of creation. God is primary, and creation is secondary.

@TMSO
(Continued in post #5)

 

[His clay]

(Continued from post 4)

The Imago Dei (The Image of God)
Probably the most common way in which Christians integrate libertarian freedom into theology is by means of the Image of God. The main idea is that God is an ultimate decision maker, and He made man to be that way too by creating man in His image. Human beings now possess libertarian freedom, and the key verses are Genesis 1:26-27.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Gen 1:26-27 ESV)

In particular, the main appeal comes from the wording "let them have dominion." This dominion is assumed to entail libertarian freedom.

While I will avoid a lengthy treatment, I'll simply point out a few simple things. This passage has been treated in a plethora of ways. The image of God has consisted, not just in terms of libertarian freedom, but also in vastly diverse ways. A particular journal article comes to mind that outlines the multitude of ways in which the doctrine has taken. While it may be a good discussion, I have to move on past this important but huge diversion.

The main point I wish to convey concerns the approach one takes toward this passage. Rather than seeking to mold this passage to miriads of different views, why don't we take the passage to outline for us a better approach. In short, I hope to outline an approch that seeks to acquire the author's understanding of the image of God through the text itself. I'll take a moment to outline my view, and then I'll briefly explain the connections to the passage.

The image of God consists in

1. Unity amidst plurality
2. Submissive dominion over creation
3. Possibly the idea of procreation

The first two are rather easy to place in the passage. The last one I mention because of a past Hebrew teacher of mine. In his dissertation he argues for these three points, but I find that the final one is a bit more stretched than the previous two.

The first way in which man images God is with respect to unity amidst plurality. This is demonstrated by the use of repetition and pronouns in the current passage, and one can point to the unity of Adam and Eve in chapter two. God (Elohim) speaks in terms of "us" and "our," singular verbs, and connects the image directly to male and female. The repetition of image and likeness makes this connection secure. The unity amidst plurality is later evidenced during the naming of animals, Adam's aloneness, the creation of Eve, Adam's pronouncement, and their unity while being naked.

The second way in which man images God is with respect to being God's subordinate authority over creation. God has appointed man to be over the various other forms of life on earth. So the similarity is with respect to man's authority, though to a significantly lesser degree. This dominion does not ential ultimate metaphysical wills. The passage says nothing of that. Rather, God later points out His authority over the man and woman by giving them commands. God forbade Adam from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He put Adam in the garden and made him observe the male and female of other creatures to point out his aloneness. In short, the passage itself demonstrates the subordinate status of Adam's dominion. It is only in chapter three, with the subterfuge of the serpent, that we view an idea of the image that seeks to assert itself over or on par with God.

The third way in which man images God concerns the realm of procreation. The points here connect to God as creator and the giver of life, and Adam and Eve are told to "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." While my past teacher views this as part of the image of God because of its close connection within the key passage, I find a few problems with it. Other creatures also have the ability to procreate, but their ability to generate life is not connected to God's image.

Conclusion: I have found that the gnostic mentality is very prevelent in atheistic and Arminian (broadly defined) thought. It is opposed to the biblical reality of man's constant dependence upon God for moment-by-moment existence. Further, I find that the attempt to force libertarian freedom into the image of God to be at odds with the passage itself and other passages that explicitly refute the attempt. As a positive way forward, I tried to present a few arguments that point to the passages' contextual way of defining for us what the image of God actually entails.
@TMSO
======================
[1] Voegelin, Eric, and Ellis Sandoz. Science, Politics, And Gnosticism. Wilmington, DE: Isi Books, 2005. p. 32.

 

[His clay]

Since I have completed the previous installments, I do invite others to consider the arguments made. In particular, @Arial has posted some material that assumes the Creator/creature distinction. I consider my posts to be supplementary to those made by the other poster.

 

[makesends]

Since I have completed the previous installments, I do invite others to consider the arguments made. In particular, @Arial has posted some material that assumes the Creator/creature distinction. I consider my posts to be supplementary to those made by the other poster.

What I say below is an attempt to describe some of what I believe concerning the way of reality. I add it to this, to give a little background to my agreement that the blurring of the reality of the difference between God and his creation is a serious flaw in the thinking of Libertarian Free Will.

Philosophically --i.e. logically-- I find no comprehensive reasoning in any 'view', but the most closely completed reasoning belongs to those who assume God to be creator, and therefore, creator of all reality, all fact, all matter and energy, and all systems of being, or 'levels' (or 'economies', as I call them.)

Simplistically, I consider two to be 'spiritual', but only in that God says that he is spirit. 1.) God is of his own economy, and from there he operates*. 2.) There is the spiritual economy, or 'realm', in which the angels and demons operate. I consider what most people call 'metaphysical' to be perhaps an overlap of the 3.) physical, and the 2.) spiritual.**
*Under what I have designated 1.) God's economy, I find it necessary to note that God is, in fact, his own 'economy'; it is for the comfort of our weak minds that I use the notion, 'economy', to compare with the other two, and to help us see him as separate from all else in his doings.
**Also, it is important to note that the spiritual is not subject to the physical, nor, in fact, the physical to the spiritual in the same sense as both are subject to God.

These "economies" can be seen other ways, no doubt, but to my thinking, to divide them into, for example, the temporal and the eternal, does not accurately show where angels and God deal with us. The Bible uses the term "swallow up" concerning death and life, and I find it intuitive, at least, to say that this temporal is swallowed up into the eternal. The temporal is subject to the eternal, and not the other way around.

Thus I think, the physical is swallowed up into the spiritual, and both the physical and the spiritual is comprehended by ("within"? --but we have to be careful here) God. God and angels don't just insert themselves into our reality, nor God into the angels' reality. Instead, it is a matter of us 'looking through a glass darkly'.

But the whole matter is of God, by God, and for God.