In ‘n artikel op die web, The Mystery of Creaturely Otherness deur John M. Frame (afgelaai 15 Aug 2007 vanaf http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Mystery.htm) maak die skrywer die volgende opmerkings:
4. Why did God create the world? He did not do it because he was unhappy or lonely or needy; he did not do it to remedy any lack in himself, for he lacked nothing.
Thomas Aquinas teaches that love is “diffusive of itself.” That is, love seeks opportunities for self-giving. And since God is love, he therefore supremely desires to give of himself to someone else. He creates the world in fulfilment of this desire. But to say that God creates the world because his nature is “diffusive” is to say that the world is not a free creation but a necessary one. It is to say that God’s nature constrains him to create. And if so, before he created, he would not have been fully God.
The traditional Reformed answer is that God created the world for his own glory, which is certainly true. But do we really want to say that God would have been less glorious without the world, that without the world he would have somehow been lacking in glory? I believe the reply to that is that whatsoever God does, he does for his glory. Indeed, he was glorified in the creation and government of the world. But he would have been glorified also had he decided not to create the world. All of his decisions manifest his glory and deserve perfect praise.
But then the question remains open: what did God accomplish in the creation of the world that he would not have accomplished otherwise? Why did God, after all, create the world?
We may never know the answer to this question. We can say with confidence that God had a reason, because all his works are done in wisdom, according to his wise plan. But it must not be a reason that somehow constrains or requires him to create. And that reason may never be known to us.
Van Til calls this the “full-bucket” problem. God is all-glorious, self-sufficient; yet he creates a world to glorify himself. He does not create to meet a need; but if there is no need, his decision to create seems irrational. Van Til thinks that at this point we meet the invincible barrier between God’s thoughts and the thoughts of men. This problem, he thinks, is insoluble to a human mind. I am less certain of this point. I could not prove that no human mind will ever find an answer to this question; such negatives are indeed hard to prove. But certainly I do not presently have an answer to it. God has a reason for creation, a reason which does not involve meeting some divine “need.” But I don’t know what it is.
Sonder om rasionalisme te negeer as onbelangrik, wonder ek dikwels of dit sinvol is om sulke vrae te vra soos hoekom God die aarde geskep het?
Ek dink die fout wat ons maak is dat ons God wil “verklaar”; ‘n antwoord wil gee op elke ding wat God gedoen het of doen. Ek sê altyd, as ons God volledig kan verklaar met ons menslike verstand, is God te klein om ‘n God te wees. Al het ons geweldige verstandelike vermoëens (genadiglik deur God aan ons gegee, dink ook aan die toring van Babel), is ons nogtans beperk wanneer ons onsself probeer vergelyk met God of probeer om Hom volledig te verduidelik en te verklaar. So ‘n vraag soos hierbo, en om dan rasioneel en met logika die opeenvolgende vrae te probeer beantwoord met al die “maar’s” en “as’se”, is eenvoudig te groot vir ons verstand. God kan nie in ons rasionele boksies geplaas word nie.
Dus, stem ek saam met van Till:
Van Til thinks that at this point we meet the invincible barrier between God’s thoughts and the thoughts of men. This problem, he thinks, is insoluble to a human mind.
Verlustig jou daarin dat God die skepping en alles daarin (jy inkluis) vir Sy behae geskep het. Hoekom? Wel, deels omdat Hy liefde is! Vir my is dit wonderlik genoeg!