For the past several weeks I have been preaching a series on Sunday mornings called “Jesus,” and we are currently considering portions of the sermon in the mount. This morning we looked at the opening lines of the Lord’s Prayer, and I was reminded of something I have been thinking about lately.Jesus instructs us to open our prayers with the address, “Our Father.” It has been hitting me more and more that God, eternally speaking, is not a Creator but a Father. As far as we know, this is the only universe God has created, which means that before the events of Genesis 1:1 took place, God was not yet a Creator (since he had yet to create anything). But if God has always existed but has only recently existed as a Creator, then as what did God exist before he created anything?
The answer is that God has existed eternally as a Father. The reason he is a Father is that he eternally generates a Son with whom, along with the Holy Spirit, he has shared communion and fellowship for all eternity.
The more I think about it (and I admit my thinking on this is still really cursory), the more the idea that God is a Trinity seems to affect pretty much everything. One example that comes to mind is the doctrine of the Creator/creature distinction and how it often functions within our theology (for example, to deny the idea that the human and divine can ever overlap). Is it proper to think of God primarily as a Creator when that is not what he is by nature? If viewing God that way is improper or inadequate, then I can’t help but wonder how viewing him instead as primarily a Father could alter or tweak the various theological formulations we hold.
If you’ve got any thoughts or can make a good book recommend, let’s hear them....
Well, just some cursory thoughts on your cursory thoughts, but do we not speak of God revealing Himself to man in natural revelation as Creator and Judge (power & condemnation, as in Romans 1:18ff.), but as Father and Redeemer in special revelation? Does that provide a way for you to approach this question?
ReplyDeleteYes, but at the same time I remember Horton talking in our Doctrine of God class about how that Yahweh is not simply a species of the genus of god, but that there is no other God than the one who is triune and has revealed himself in Christ.
ReplyDeleteThis would necessitate a pretty strong hesitation on our part never to speak of him (or interpret his speech about himself) in such a way as to give the impression that he is some kind of solitary monad like the god of Islam or something. He is always a Father, and thus he always wants to communicate his own life to his children since that is what fathers are for.
But to whom is God Father, other than the eternally generated Son? "Our Father" is not only possessive, but exclusive. So, while He is the eternal Father to His Son, He is not the Father of any until they are united to the Son thru faith, correct? For we are not His children until adopted, given the right to be called Sons of God. So, while we can say, "Yes, God is eternally Father," we cannot say He is eternally "Father" of all, in the sense of the Lord's Prayer.
ReplyDeleteIn that case, isn't He merely the same God revealed differently unto various ends? Does God reveal Himself as the eternal Father in creation, even though it is the relational Son revealing thru creation (since the Son is always the mediator of knowledge/revelation of the Father even in natural revelation), since adoption unto sonship is not revealed in creation? Does the Son reveal the Father as anything other than Creator & Judge in natural revelation? But maybe I'm diverted on a trivial trail of rabbits, distracting your main point needing redirection toward your impetus?
But I also wonder, does not eternal purpose, or more accurately, "potential," to create necessitate possessing the attributes of the nature of Creator? God, having the potential to create, is by nature Creator, even if He does not create, isn't He? Or must God actualize in space in time various powers He possesses in order to be attributed certain qualities to His nature? If, for instance, "grace" or "wrath" being attributes of His nature, are never exercised upon personal objects outside Himself, is He still not gracious & wrathful by nature (i.e. "prior" to creation when sinful objects were not present upon which to show grace or wrath)?
It seems to me that it may be inadequate but not improper since as creatures we never relate to him as Father while not also as Creator while Christ eternally relates to him as Father but not as Creator.
ReplyDeleteIn Smeaton's "Doctrine of the Holy Spirit" he writes, "And as to the divine WORKS, the Father is the source FROM WHICH every operation emanates, the Son is the medium THROUGH WHICH it is performed, and the Holy Spirit is the executive BY WHICH it is carried into effect." pg 4
ReplyDeleteI believe this quote helps us to understand the Trinity prior to creation and the equality and duties of each person as it has always existed.
Starting with God as Creator truncates His self-revelation to us.
Dean B
Bradford,
ReplyDeleteBut to whom is God Father, other than the eternally generated Son? "Our Father" is not only possessive, but exclusive. So, while He is the eternal Father to His Son, He is not the Father of any until they are united to the Son thru faith, correct? For we are not His children until adopted, given the right to be called Sons of God. So, while we can say, "Yes, God is eternally Father," we cannot say He is eternally "Father" of all, in the sense of the Lord's Prayer.
What do you make of this passage:
“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:4-6).
Obviously God is a Father to the elect in some special way, but here Paul seems to be saying that he is Father to all (and if we take the first “all” as limited, then we would need to do the same with the next three usages).
Does God reveal Himself as the eternal Father in creation, even though it is the relational Son revealing thru creation (since the Son is always the mediator of knowledge/revelation of the Father even in natural revelation), since adoption unto sonship is not revealed in creation?
Well, Luke traces Jesus’ genealogy back to “Adam, the son of God.” So God was a Father to Adam, and even though that sonship was forfeited by sin, it doesn’t change the fact that fatherhood was God’s initial relation to his creatures, something to which we are RE-stored.
But I also wonder, does not eternal purpose, or more accurately, "potential," to create necessitate possessing the attributes of the nature of Creator? God, having the potential to create, is by nature Creator, even if He does not create, isn't He?
Sy (my associate pastor) has been talking to some JWs, and that’s exactly what they say. They say that God’s potential to love is enough for him to “be” love, he doesn’t need the Son and Spirit as eternal objects of that love. But that just seems to open God up to being anything. Plus, if God is by nature a Creator, then that would mean his non-creation of our universe would make him less than God, right?
I don't think I'd mind limiting "all" to pertaining to the members of the Kingdom in Ephesians 4:4-6, since he seems to be extrapolating application from his previous teaching on the jew-gentile unity in the body. In other words, there is one Lord, faith, and Baptism over all the body (jew and gentile), who is over all (jew & gentile), through all (jew and gentile), and in all (jew and gentile).
ReplyDeleteFor instance, Calvin says of this passage, "Although God by his power upholds, and maintains, and rules, all things, yet Paul is not now speaking of the universal, but of the spiritual government which belongs to the church. By the Spirit of sanctification, God spreads himself through all the members of the church, embraces all in his government, and dwells in all; but God is not inconsistent with himself, and therefore we cannot but be united to him into one body... This is true indeed, in a general sense, not only of all men but of all creatures. “In him we live, and move, and have our being.” (Acts 17:28.) And again, “Do not I fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord?” (Jeremiah 23:24.) But we must attend to the connection in which this passage stands. Paul is now illustrating the mutual relation of believers, which has nothing in common either with wicked men or with inferior animals. To this relation we must limit what is said about God’s government and presence. It is for this reason, also, that the apostle uses the word Father, which applies only to the members of Christ."
However, I find Paul's use of "Father" in Ephesians 3:14, 15, "For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named," much more curious in this conversation. Maybe even more to your point? But even then can we justifiably & exegetically restrict "every family in heaven and on earth is named" to the elect?
And I agree, we can view God as Father of all in relation to Adam, the son of God, in whom we are represented as the very same sons & daughters of God. But in relation to the Lord's Prayer, as mentioned in your post, the sense of "Our Father" is definitely peculiar to the elect, is it not? And in that sense of Adam (and all mankind in Adam), is "Father" and "Creator" actually distinct in relation to God's Fatherhood & creation of Adam and all mankind in Adam? Or in the case of Adam does Fatherhood necessitate creation, and creation necessitate Fatherhood?
I guess the question is, can those outside the Kingdom (the Church) properly and rightfully claim God as their Father? Since the creational relation is not RE-stored to all, is God the Father of all?
Let me think about your objections to potentiality, which shouldn't be ruled out just because a JW uses it. ;)