Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

I just read Theologia Germanica, and the author made an interesting case for why God created man - He needed creatures with self-will to express and act out His Eternal Will. It just got me thinking about why God would create at all (something I've wondered for years), so I thought I'd ask it here. Why do you think God created at all? Do you think that the author of Theologia Germanica is right, that the existence of creatures is necessary for the expression of His Love, Goodness, and Will?

Do we assume that God is alone out there?

If not, I take it the other beings are not cooperative in the Eternal Will God has in mind, so God created underlings whom he could coerce into cooperation?

But if God is alone, how did God learn to Love, with absolutely no other beings to relate to? Where did the concept of Goodness come from, with no other beings to show goodness toward?

It's all way beyond me, lol.

"Need" is a funny word. I haven't read Theologia Germanica specifically, so I don't know the thesis; nevertheless, it's fallacious to say that God created out of necessity, because by God's very ontological definition, He is self-existent, self-sustaining, and self-sacrificial in love (Trinitarianism).

Hence, it's not like God had some sort of innate sufficiency problem wherein He needed to create man insofar as He had a necessity to express certain lack that had been hitherto unexpressed. Even with that all being said, it should be understand that it was in fact God's eternal will to create man, but that doesn't warrant some sort of deficiency on God's part - to the contrary.

Anyway, great questions you're wrestling with. Brings us back to Leibniz's old questioning: "Why is there something rather than nothing." A lot of good philosophical answers can be found in his argument of sufficient reason in his "Discours de Métaphysique."

Funny to me how differently Brent and I answer; how many suppositions we assume about the nature of God before even speculating about the reason for creation.

To answer the question (why did God create), I'd guess the TG's speculation is pretty wild. If I were to put myself in the place of a creator (and this is the best speculation I can do, relating on human terms), I would say my reason for creating would be for the fun of creating something. We build because we can.

Isn't it just like ego-driven Man to think he is the last and best of God's creations?

Brent wrote: ""Need" is a funny word. I haven't read Theologia Germanica specifically, so I don't know the thesis; nevertheless, it's fallacious to say that God created out of necessity, because by God's very on..."

The "need" part is what gave me pause. Sure, man and the creation of man are expressions of God's Eternal Will (to use TG's language) simply because they are, but necessary? Seems to be adding an element that the author did not provide basis for adding. I could more easily imagine a defense of God creating out of desire, compulsion, boredom (ha!), etc., but even ascribing to Him those qualities may add more to God's essential character than I'm willing to add at this point. To say God "needs" something almost suggests a pantheistic theology, while to say God "desires" something anthropomorphises God a little too much for my tastes (at least, at this point in the discussion).

As does, Brent, the Trinitarian claim of "self-sacrificial." But that's a question for another thread. :-)

I've read much of Leibniz, actually. Mostly in graduate school; not a lot lately. My husband is a physicist so he appreciates Leibniz's development of calculus concurrent with Newton, and I, as is probably evident, appreciate his philosophical (and theologically-implicative) works. Anyone who comes up with something as crazy as the Monadology is worth reading, in my mind.

But anyway - as Lee pointed out, so much (all?) of our conceptions of Good or Love are dependent upon relationships or situations in which they are expressed, so I can see why someone would be tempted to extend that to how God is expressive of Goodness and Love (i.e., by creating creatures with whom to relate). But He is more the Source or the Being of Goodness and Love than expressive of them, so to say anthropomorphic expressions of those qualities are necessary, thus Creation, doesn't quite satisfy me. Humans aren't Love; we express love towards one another. Creation is an expression of God's Love and Goodness, but surely not necessary to Him being those qualities. So that leaves us with either God creating "because He created," or God creating somehow accidentally or unintentionally.

I realize this question probably can't be answered, temporally-speaking, but it's fun to play with.

Jana wrote: I could more easily imagine a defense of God creating out of desire, compulsion, boredom..."

Interesting points, Jana. I think it must be understood that God certainly creates out of a desire; namely, the overflow of his expression and very core of His being - but again, this must not be understood as need connoting a deficiency or lack in the ontology of God.

To say God "needs" something almost suggests a pantheistic theology...

It wouldn't be so much pantheism - God is in everything, or everything is God - as it would simply be a god that isn't the greatest ontological being. Think, for example, of many of the Ancient Near-Eastern deities, that required child sacrifice for anything optimally efficacious to occur. Another example would be the pantheon of Ancient Greek, properly satirized by Socrates in his 'Apology' (if my memory serves me correctly), namely, the nature of the 'gods' and their deficiency. I remember him quipping about sacrifices to the gods, joking about them 'feeding' the gods, haha.

to say God "desires" something anthropomorphises God a little too much for my tastes...

Not at all - to the contrary. The Scriptures are replete with God specifically desiring x or y. Obviously the Old Testament is also replete with anthropomorphic language (more so in the Hebrew than in the LXX), but to say God has no desires - whether eternal or not - diminishes any personal qualities form God, who is in fact a personal being; namely, an all powerful mind (that is, a Spirit).

"For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice" (Hos 6:6)

Clearly God has wills, whether they come to pass as an eternal decree (decretive will), or whether they are disobeyed (prescriptive will); suffice it to say that it's correct in saying that God desires for us to follow His commandments, to seek after Him, to do justice and love mercy, &c. &c. In short, I don't see how attributing desires to God - which the Scriptures do - anthropomorphizes God in any way. God is a personal being; hence, He has desires and wills as well.

So that leaves us with either God creating "because He created," or God creating somehow accidentally or unintentionally...

Clearly these both are missteps. God creates - certainty; but it's not, as the clause implies, for 'no reason.' God, in His eternal wisdom, willed eternally that He should create a redeemed people that would share in His love and know His goodness. This pleased God to do so; hence, it was His eternal decretive will.

The latter two - namely, accidentally or unintentionally - are also untenable because if God were to create accidentally, He could not be omnipotent or omniscient. The very word, accident, implies something happening that is beyond someones scope of power of knowledge that they didn't know, or want, was going to happen. For a god to create accidentally, would imply the aforesaid, and thereby diminish from the ontological reality of the greatest conceivable being, and thereby cease to be God. Unintentionally, also, implies an ontological deficiency in God; namely, that God does not have full control of His states of intentionality, but this would again lead to the aforementioned conclusions.

"God created the world to exhibit the fullness of His glory in the God-centered joy of His people."
-Dr. John Piper

Loving this discussion! Great job everyone (-:

Maybe just plain boredom is the answer: consider that God created a being 1) capable of obedience, or not; 2) capable of adoration for his maker, or not; 3) capable of good works or not; 4) loving or not; 5) peaceful or not. Should keep the old boy busy just keeping up with our machinations!

We have built a theology, like a building reaching skyward, that eventually describes God as omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, defeating anthropomorphic description, etc.

Where I always get confused in these discussions is how much of the building we are allowed to tear down before providing a reasonable answer. Some questions simply strive against this building--why is there evil, why did God create, why does God pretend not to be all-knowing in the OT, and so on--and, in my opinion, must be avoided once we've decided upon a theology of an omni-everything God. Asking these questions is akin to being untrue to our preferred theology.

Lee wrote: "We have built a theology, like a building reaching skyward, that eventually describes God as omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, defeating anthropomorphic description, etc.

Where I always get con..."

Lee, that's kind of what I just realized. I probably should have asked my question in a "Theology" forum, rather than the "Christian Apologetics" forum because I think I'm questioning assumptions that are foundational to discussions in this thread - it is about the specifically Christian theology, after all! I actually tend to believe some of those assumptions (I'm a Christian), but I do like to question them from time to time. But in the right place, of course!

Brent, I think we're coming at this question from different perspectives and angles. As a Christian, I have, many times, considered your arguments and even accepted them wholesale at times. I'm actually questioning the grounds of these biblical statements you use as rationale for your conclusions, rather than using them as the grounds for my (eventual) conclusions. I'm asking a question that is, I think, a bit larger than a specific theology, and I think I should have asked my question in a Theology forum rather than a Christian Apologetics forum. In this forum, with its specific purpose, your assumptions are appropriate and applicable. For my question, they are not. But I should have asked in a forum more appropriate and applicable for my intent. :-) These discussions are interesting, regardless of the appropriateness of the forum, however!

I'm at work and on my phone - so I haven't read it all.

Simple answer:
We are a wonderful gift from the Father to the Son. It's all about Jesus. :D

Hey, I like that answer, Rod!

We are the Bride of Christ.

Yes. Of course, Revelation holds a different opinion. There, the bride of Christ is the New Jerusalem, and Revelation apparently thinks of it as a physical city, not a worldwide people. We'll get to that in my book, lol.

The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths. Psalm 135:6

"...everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." Isaiah 43:7

Lee it is interesting that Revelation 21:2 says:
"And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared AS A bride adorned for her husband."

Is New Jerusalem actually a bride prepared for her husband? Possibly NO. But AS A bride symbolically. That indeed leaves room for Us to be a similar AS A bride people for Christ.

Revelation is NOT a different opinion. but an extended one. Don't be so quick to close off Biblical thoughts. :D

2 Corinthians 11:2 - For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ.


Ephesians 5:25 - Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

A city with no people would be useless.

Oh, it's not a city without people. Indeed, the righteousness of the saints within the city is its adornment.

You have quoted the only two places in the Bible that speak of the bride as the people. That is strictly Paul's interpretation, because Paul wanted to spread the word beyond Judea, beyond the Jews. In all other references, God's people are merely called to the wedding as invited guests or bridesmaids.

You should join us in the discussion of Revelation!

AS soon as I get more time I'll catch up on the Revelation chatter. But it's usually a waste of time giving my opinion.

Thanks for that insight about the Bride being Paul's interpretation. I'll look into that. But I also fully embrace and trust Paul's opinion. So that settles it in my mind. :D