a reply to:
Layaly
This is what I normally post when someone asks for a definition;
The Creator.
That which is not the Universe, but the originator of the Universe.
Let's make it a really trinitarian one;
God is a Creator
God is one who Communicates
God is one who becomes Incarnate
God is a Creator
I see this view as distinct from both Monism and Dualism.
As I understand the difference;
Monism resolves everything to
one point of origin.
Dualism resolves everything to
two points of origin, distinct and independent.
Creation theory falls short of being genuine Monism, because the created universe is understood as
distinct from God.
Creation theory falls short of being genuine Dualism, because the created universe is understood as
dependent upon God.
My private theory is that Creation teaching ought to be called "One-and-a-half-ism", but I don't suppose it will catch on.
As far as I can see, this involves the traditional teaching of "ex nihilo" ("out of nothing") Creation.
Because if God is "creating" using pre-existing raw material, then the material is not genuinely dependent upon him- this has become Dualism.
Or if God is producing the material of the universe "out of himself", then the material is not genuinely distinct- this has become Monism.
"Ex nihilo" is the only logical alternative, which is presumably why the teaching was developed in the first place.
God is one who Communicates
This assumption is built into Biblical religion.
In the first place, the Bible is believed to contain
examples of communication (as reported, for example, by the prophets).
Furthermore, the Bible is believed to reflect a
policy of communication.
It is said that God is using the Bible to "reveal himself", and so Biblical religion used to be described as "revealed religion".
The belief that "God is one who Communicates" links back with the belief that "God is one who Creates".
In the first place, some of the
content of the communication points to God as Creator.
The proper Biblical answer to the question "Why do you believe your God made the universe?" is not really "Becasue that's the only way to account for
the universe."
The truly Biblical answer is "Because he says he did, and I believe him."
But I think the very
act of communication also points to God as a Creator.
Any act of communication necessarily implies a distinction between the communicator and the other party.
I've already said the Biblical understanding of Creation involves a distinction between God and the universe.
An act of communication implies the existence of a "will" in the communicator, or at least some sort of analogy of one.
But the same could be said, surely, of an act of "Creation".
Finally, a God who creates a universe thereby sets up a relationship between himself and the universe.
The effect of communication is to set up a relationship between himself and individuals (or even a group of individuals) within the same universe.
I assume that a purely monistic deity would not be communicating with, or setting up a relationship with, parts of itself.
My point is that
The
idea of the God who Creates
and the
idea of the God who Communicates
are very akin to one another.
The
kind of God who would Create would also be the
kind of God who could Communicate.
God is one who becomes Incarnate
I could hardly, really, leave this out of a definition of the Christian God.
The understanding is that the Incarnation is a more direct presence of God
within the created universe.
If this is true, it's the ultimate form of Communication, as the author of Hebrews points out;
"God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets
but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son".
But it's also the ultimate form of "establishing a relationship";
Because the doctrine of the Incarnation is that the Creator and his creation, divinity and humanity, are bound together
within the person of
the Son.
The bond is understood to be irrevocable.
It's impossible for a relationship to get any closer than that.
Anyone who tries to understand the church's teaching about the Incarnation will discover that it's all about finding the right "balance".
On the one hand, the distinction between the divinity and the humanity must not be exaggerated, to the point that the unity disappears.
O the other hand, the unity between them must not be exaggerated, to the point that the distinction disappears.
The correct position is somewhere halfway between the two extremes.
But this is exactly what I said, at the beginning of this piece, about Creation;
That it occupied a halfway position between Monism and Dualism.
So it seems to me that the "balancing act" which Jehovah's Witnesses love to mock, when it comes in the teaching about the Incarnation, is also
inherent in the very doctrine of the Creation itself.
The
kind of God who would Create is also the
kind of God who could become Incarnate.
I began by naming the Christian God as
The one who Creates
The one who Communicates
The one who becomes Incarnate.
I now suggest that these three ideas are akin to one another.
They belong together, naturally.
Whether you can believe them or not, they all belong to the same
kind of God.