|
|
|
The Doctrine of
Creation (comments
on Bloesch text) p25
CREATIO EX NIHILO – otherwise [1] something antedates God (What is its
origin?);
[2] this “something” is a limitation on God. God
wasn’t compelled to create:
[1] no external necessity;
[2] no internal necessity
(e.g., “He couldn’t help creating.”
“He needed to create to be God.”
“Since God is love, he needed something to love.”) Then
why did God create? Note
the difference between anthropomorphism (God, or some aspect of him, is a human
projection) and theomorphism (what we affirm and do as parents, for instance, is
modeled on God’s parenting us.) P25
GOD AS CREATOR AND LORD [1]
“essential goodness of creation”:
[a] creation’s goodness perdures despite the
Fall;
[b] were it not essentially good it couldn’t be restored;
[c]
“
“
“ then God’s action
upon it in Christ couldn’t recover
its true nature
but rather would change its nature;
[d]
“
“
“ then the concept of
sin would have no meaning. [2]
“meaningfulness of history”:
NB: the meaning of history can’t read off the
face of history.
Still, [a] history is the sphere of God’s
activity;
[b] history is the sphere of our activity (obedience)
The
inner significance of history and its outer outcome are the
[c] history doesn’t to be fled into the realm of the supra-material
(gnosticism) for us to be
truly
ourselves. The
goodness of the creation opposes all notions of Gnostic disavowal of the
material/bodily/fleshly with gnosticism’s twofold consequences: [a] extreme
asceticism
[b] extreme indulgence.
|