The Creator-Creature Distinction in light of the DEU
Introduction
The creator-creature distinction is a profound theological and philosophical concept that recognizes the fundamental difference between God, the Creator, and the created order. This distinction is not merely an acknowledgment of God’s role as the creator but delves into the unique mode of existence that characterizes God’s being. The Divine Existential Unity (DEU) offers a fresh perspective on this, emphasizing the divine actions in the world, especially as manifested in Christ, which allow us to participate in the life of God without collapsing the Creator/creature distinction. The DEU posits a unity that is both transcendent in essence and immanent in action, serving as a model that makes sense of and strengthens this distinction.
Historically, the importance of this distinction was foundational for systematic theology, especially in the writings of church fathers like Athanasius. It is also very important to my own systematic theology here at RobertDryer.com if you haven’t noticed. 🙂 But, it-historically-provided the bedrock for understanding soteriology—the study of salvation—and the role of the Holy Spirit. By establishing a robust creator-creature distinction, theologians could articulate a coherent understanding of how humans, though finite and fallen, could participate in the divine life through Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This distinction was not just a theological abstraction; it was pivotal for communicating the nature of Christian salvation and the triune God’s relational engagement with humanity. For us today, nothing has changed, it remains just as important for connecting these ideas and doctrines. In a sense it is its own very important doctrine.
The Creator-Creature Distinction Elucidated
God’s role as the creator is undeniably fundamental, yet it doesn’t fully encapsulate the profound distinction between the divine and the created realms. The Divine Existential Unity (DEU) principle emerges as a pivotal concept to bridge this gap. It emphasizes that the foundational act of being is central to all existence. This quintessential act is vividly portrayed in the Trinitarian relations, showcasing the breadth and authority of divine power. God isn’t merely another entity in existence; He epitomizes “Being Itself.” The Trinity isn’t a static concept but a vibrant reality, underscoring not just the act of existence but also the intricate web of relationships within the Trinity and its active engagement with the world. Rooted in the DEU’s non-dual relational monism, this interconnectedness reflects the divine nature in human experiences, accentuating the essence of community, love, and selflessness.
Thus, the concept of the creator is enriched when understood in the light of God in Christ. It suggests that this God in Christ isn’t just the originator of all but represents the most general essence of existence. The DEU serves as a compact framework, encapsulating this profound idea just as “the creator” encapsulates its designated essence.
(For philosophers, while the attribute of ‘creator’ is necessary, it alone doesn’t suffice for the creator-creature distinction in critical realist terms. This is because the conventional understanding of this distinction also presupposes the attribute of being the ‘most general’, which isn’t inherently synonymous with the status of ‘creator’.)
Time and the Creator-Creature Distinction
Time serves as a poignant illustration of the creator-creature distinction. While time governs the created order, God exists in a timeless “eternal now.” This isn’t a denial of time but a transcendence of it. God’s relationship to time is not that of a subject to an object but that of a creator to creation. God encompasses and sustains time without being confined or defined by it. This understanding of time not only illuminates the depth of the distinction between God and creation but also reflects the inexhaustible richness and complexity of God’s nature.
(Again, for those well-versed in philosophy: time, being an empirical reality, cannot be extended as a metaphysically necessary attribute of an entity that is both the creator and the most general. Take Einstein’s theory, where time is intertwined with space as a dimension, and is not the most foundational element. Furthermore, in high-energy physics, time’s structure disintegrates, revealing even more fundamental entities, such as quarks, strings, or quantum fields, which operate in realms where our conventional understanding of time are probabilistic at best. God is not merely some obscure necessary metaphysical entity, but time beyond a merely empirical reality is.)
The Challenge of Language
Human language, tailored to our terrestrial experiences, often struggles to encapsulate the transcendent nature of the divine. While it adeptly captures our empirical world’s nuances, it falters when expressing realities beyond our immediate grasp. The Divine Existential Unity (DEU) introduces concepts that challenge linguistic boundaries, urging us towards deeper articulation of the Creator-creature relationship. Even mathematics, a language of universality, finds its boundaries when modeling divine intricacies. The DEU’s emphasis on both the transcendent essence and immanent actions of God accentuates the inherent limitations of our linguistic tools. Yet, within these constraints lies the profound mystery of the creator-creature distinction, inviting us into a deeper exploration of divine revelation.
For the Philosophers:
The intricacies of language and its limitations in capturing the essence of the divine resonate deeply within the philosophical realm. Historically, philosophers from Plato to Wittgenstein have grappled with the constraints of language, especially when it comes to articulating metaphysical truths. The DEU, in its attempt to bridge the gap between the transcendent and the immanent, echoes the age-old philosophical challenge of using finite linguistic constructs to describe the infinite. Philosophers might recognize this as reminiscent of the apophatic tradition, where the divine is described in terms of what it is not, rather than what it is. The DEU’s emphasis on non-dual relational monism and its intricate dance between essence and action pushes us to reconsider our linguistic paradigms. It invites a philosophical exploration that goes beyond mere semantics, urging a deeper engagement with the epistemological foundations of how we come to know, understand, and speak of the divine.
Reflection: DEU, Action Theory, and Intrinsic Intentionality Principle
In essence, the divine actions in the world, especially as manifested in Christ, allow us to participate in the life of God without collapsing the Creator/creature distinction. The DEU, combined with my work on action theory and the Full Interval Trinity Theory, provides a deeper understanding of this distinction. The interconnectedness of all things in the Trinity and the Trinity’s active engagement with the world underscore this profound reality. The DEU, reflecting the Trinitarian revelation of Unity in trinity and trinity in Unity, serves as a metaphysical framework that integrates the transcendent essence and immanent actions of God. For a more in-depth exploration of this topic, especially as it relates to the Intrinsic Intentionality Principle and the Divine Confluent Identity Theory (DCIT), I invite readers to visit robertdryer.com.
Conclusion
The creator-creature distinction is a complex and nuanced recognition of the unique nature of God’s existence. Through the lens of time and the exploration of language’s limitations, we are invited into a humble recognition of our finite understanding. We are called to contemplative engagement with the infinite richness of God’s nature. It’s not a problem to be solved but a mystery to be explored, a reflection of the inexhaustible depth of God’s being, which always surpasses our grasp while drawing us into a deeper relationship with Him. This exploration goes beyond mere intellectual curiosity, acting as a cornerstone for grasping the broader systematic theology inherent in Classical Theism. Specifically, it sheds light on my unique interpretation presented on this website—Trinitarian existential relational monism—and elucidates the nature of salvation and the Holy Spirit’s role in a believer’s life.
The Creator-Creature Distinction in Practice
- Does confession of Christ’s pre-existence involve positing a Logos who, before Christ’s conception, remains not incarnate?
Within the profound mystery of the Incarnation, the eternal Word, always in communion with the Father and Spirit, takes on flesh. The Divine Existential Unity framework emphasizes this timeless communion, suggesting the incarnation as a manifestation within our realm, with the essence and identity of the Son, rooted in divine Ousia, enduring eternally. - In what sense exists a Logos asarkos? A pre-existent second identity of the Trinity not yet Jesus?
The term Logos asarkos highlights the Son’s eternal, unincarnate essence. The Incarnation represents a profound intersection of divinity and humanity, but the Son’s identity, deeply rooted in the divine Ousia and relationship with the Father and Spirit, transcends this act. - How would the Trinity exist if God creates no world?
The Trinity’s essence and relational dynamics remain intrinsic. Creation, as an expression of divine love, does not define the Trinitarian identity. The eternal relationships within the Trinity, grounded in divine Ousia, persist, irrespective of creation. - How to conceive the pre-existence of the Son known as Jesus?
The Son’s eternal begottenness from the Father remains foundational, emphasizing the Son’s consistent identity within the eternal dynamics of the Trinity. This eternal generation testifies to the Son’s unique identity, deeply rooted in divine Ousia. - How to unite these two sets of non-negotiables?
The doctrine of the hypostatic union offers a harmonious integration of the Son’s eternal divine Ousia with human nature. Both coexist, preserving their integrity without confusion or separation. - How does the confession of Christ’s pre-existence relate to the Logos asarkos concept?
Both concepts affirm the Son’s eternal identity. The Son’s eternal relationship with the Father and Spirit remains foundational, and the Logos asarkos concept emphasizes this unincarnate, eternal essence grounded in divine Ousia. - How does time impact understanding of the Trinity and Christ’s pre-existence?
The Trinity exists beyond linear conceptions of time, in an eternal present. This eternal perspective deepens understanding of the Son’s timeless identity within Trinitarian relationships, all rooted in divine Ousia. - What signifies the Son’s presence in old Israel concerning pre-existence?
The Son’s interactions in Old Testament times underscore an eternal role in God’s plan, signifying the continuity of God’s redemptive work with the Son eternally engaged in this divine mission, all grounded in the divine Ousia. - How to reconcile theological maxims about the Son’s nature and relationship with the Father?
The principle of perichoresis, emphasizing mutual indwelling and interrelation of Trinitarian persons, provides a framework for understanding the Son’s eternal identity and relationship with the Father, all deeply rooted in divine Ousia. - How aligns the traditional understanding of the Son’s divinity with insights from Romans 1:3–4?
Romans 1:3-4 highlights Christ’s dual nature. Traditional theology, aligned with the DEU approach, resonates with this insight, emphasizing the Son’s eternal divinity, grounded in divine Ousia, and genuine humanity.
In essence, the DEU approach emphasizes the Trinitarian God’s eternal, relational, and dynamic nature, ensuring the Son’s eternal identity and relationship within the Trinity remain central, while consistently highlighting the creator-creature distinction where it’s relevant. The Son, begotten not made, kind of creates the unique essence of an ontological subjective event structure that’s so beyond the pale that it sometimes carries with it meaning that goes well beyond the distinction. But, hopefully, this interplay with deep questions illustrates it from a DEU perspective that’s not typically how it’s presented. Thanks for your time!
