How does the act of creation not imply a change in God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AtraMors
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bishop Barron and Venerable Fulton Sheen have some very good youtubes on just what who God is. I suggest watching them.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Vico:
The human nature of Christ did not begin until the incarnation
Click to expand...
The question of the OP concerns a change.
In the year 500 BC God did not have a human nature.
Five hundred years later, God became man and did have a human nature.
Is that not a change?
Click to expand...
No. There is no mixing of natures.
 
AtraMors said:
40.png
Wesrock:
God never went from not creating to creating.
Click to expand...
How can that be if creation is not eternal? Was God keeping the universe in existence before creation?
Click to expand...
There was no before creation, and creatures have existed for a finite period of time. Go had no beginning, but God has no been around for an infinite period of time, as time itself only existed at creation.
 
Last edited:
Because in God the act of creating is inherently and inextricably a part of the act of loving, and God has never not loved. That’s why the Son was born of the Father before all ages, because there was never a time before God loved.
 
Last edited:
Augustine, in The Confessions, answers how God did this when you read the discussion of the first phrases of the Book of Genesis:
“In the beginning” is a location, it is not a Time.
“Let there be…” is a contemplative knowing by a contingent creature coming to understand in a temporal knowing matching the Eternal knowing of God and when the two know together, the contingent creature (Angel of the LORD) and God, then material creation happens in temporal stream - all that God does temporarily is done in co-operation with a temporal creature (that is why we pray and ask things from God, to KNOW his knowing. He knows nothing alone except his Son. Everything else he knows is a ‘together knowing’. Otherwise it does not happen.)

John Martin
 
Creation is not God. God is radically “other”. The fact that God pours out in love does not mean God “changes”.
Why do you assume that is a change?
 
AtraMors said:
God is said to be pure actuality, absolutely simple and unchangeable as in there is no movement from potentiality to actuality in him.

However how can this be the case when we look at God before and after creation took place?

Before creation God is not keeping the creation in existence whereas after creation he is, this implies that there was a potentiality in God before said act that was actualized at the moment of creation meaning a change ocurred in God then.
Click to expand...
No… re: speculative opinion(s). … . GOD IS LOVE

Before? After? Time?

Time-Space as we know it came to be - At Creation…
 
AtraMors said:
…
Before creation God is not keeping the creation in existence whereas after creation he is, this implies that there was a potentiality in God before said act that was actualized at the moment of creation meaning a change ocurred in God then.

…
Click to expand...
There is no “before” or after for God. God is aeternal, or outside time. Time is a created thing.
And this should cause you to question your assumptions.
 
AtraMors said:
Yeah I know God exists outside of time but creation came into being or was created a fixed number of years ago and is not eternal so there was a state of affairs where God had not created and another where he created.
Click to expand...
It’s going to bend your brain a little, but… no. There was no “before creation” or “after creation” in the context of God in eternity. The notion of “before” and “after” only works inside the context of the universe (which, in its own framework, contains the notion of a temporal dimension).

In a sense, that means that the universe – from God’s perspective, not from the perspective of time inside the universe – always was.
AlNg said:
But the act of coming down from heaven and being made man was done in time about 2000 years ago?
Click to expand...
The Incarnation of Christ is an event that happened inside the framework of this universe, so it does have a time that we can assign to it.
AlNg said:
But was it not done in time 2000 years ago. In the year 500 B.C., God did not have a human nature? Whereas 500 or so years later, God became man?
Click to expand...
Inside the framework of the universe, not outside of it.
 
And this is the awesomeness of Christianity.
In the incarnation God bridges the Gap between divinity and creation, reuniting the two.
That’s what love does: it pursues the beloved to wherever the the beloved has wandered, even to the point of “debasing” one’s self to become like the other. Or “condescending” as it is commonly put.
 
STT said:
40.png
AtraMors:
Seems like there would either be no creation or creation is eternal like God as Greeks like Aristotle believed.
Click to expand...
The act of creation becomes meaningless if the later was true.
Click to expand...
@AtraMors: I just saw this part of your OP when @STT responded to it.

The Aristotelian view, IIRC, is more like “no creation” than “eternal creation.” (Unless, if by “creation is eternal” you mean “the created universe is eternal” – which, it would seem, is what “no creation” means.) They were trying to say that the universe always existed, even within its own frame of reference. Christians would assert that, inside its own frame of reference, there’s a point of ‘creation’, but in the frame of reference of God, it’s eternally created and sustained.
 
So there was no act of creation from God’s perspective?
 
Last edited:
Not like human action, no.
God is the perfect act of being. God shares through love, without constraint of time. Human beings act “in time”.
 
There was no “time” before Creation, because time itself is a part of Creation. Therefore, it is futile to try and suggest a time before Creation, as you would be describing nothing.

You also forget that God, being the Creator of all (including time), is outside of time, and therefore cannot be defined by it.
 
How does the act of creation not imply a change in God?

? What was meant by ‘change’ ?

And then, “in God”?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top