http://www.ccel.org/ccel/berkhof/systematictheology.

txt

What exists for our consciousness as a time development, exists for the
divine consciousness only as an eternally complete whole. But this
theory is contradicted by Scripture just as much as the preceding one,
Gen. 1:1; Ps. 90:2; 102:25; John 1:3. Moreover, it changes objective
realities into subjective forms of consciousness, and reduces all
history to an illusion. After all, time-development is a reality; there
is a succession in our conscious life and in the life of nature round
about us. The things that happened yesterday are not the things that
are happening today. [61]

d.Direction in which the solution should be sought. In connection with

the problem under consideration, Dr. Orr correctly says, "The solution
must lie in getting a proper idea of the relation of eternity to time."
He adds that, as far as he can see, this has not yet been
satisfactorily accomplished. A great deal of the difficulty encountered
here is undoubtedly due to the fact that we think of eternity too much
as an indefinite extension of time, as, for instance, when we speak of
the ages of comparative inaction in God before the creation of the
world. God's eternity is no indefinitely extended time, but something
essentially different, of which we can form no conception. His is a
timeless existence, an eternal presence. The hoary past and the most
distant future are both present to Him. He acts in all His works, and
therefore also in creation, as the Eternal One, and we have no right to
draw creation as an act of God into the temporal sphere. In a certain
sense this can be called an eternal act, but only in the sense in which
all the acts of God are eternal. They are all as acts of God, works
that are done in eternity. However, it is not eternal in the same sense
as the generation of the Son, for this is an immanent act of God in the
absolute sense of the word, while creation results in a temporal
existence and thus terminates in time. [62] Theologians generally
distinguish between active and passive creation, the former denoting
creation as an act of God, and the latter, its result, the world's
being created. The former is not, but the latter is, marked by temporal
succession, and this temporal succession reflects the order determined
in the decree of God. As to the objection that a creation in time
implies a change in God, Wollebius remarks that "creation is not the
Creator's but the creature's passage from potentiality to actuality."
[63]

4. CREATION AS AN ACT BY WHICH SOMETHING IS BROUGHT FORTH OUT OF

NOTHING.

a. The doctrine of creation is absolutely unique. There has been a

great deal of speculation about the origin of the world, and several
theories have been proposed. Some declared the world to be eternal,
while others saw in it the product of an antagonistic spirit
(Gnostics). Some maintained that it was made out of pre-existing matter
which God worked up into form (Plato); others held that it originated
by emanation out of the divine substance (Syrian Gnostics, Swedenborg);
and still others regarded it as the phenomenal appearance of the
Absolute, the hidden ground of all things (Pantheism). In opposition to
all these vain speculations of men the doctrine of Scripture stands out
in grand sublimity: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth."

b. Scriptural terms for "to create." In the narrative of creation, as

was pointed out in the preceding, three verbs are used, namely, bara',
' asah, and yatsar, and they are used interchangeably in Scripture,
Gen. 1:26,27; 2:7. The first word is the most important. Its original
meaning is to split, to cut, to divide; but in addition to this it also
means to fashion, to create, and in a more derivative sense, to
produce, to generate, and to regenerate. The word itself does not
convey the idea of bringing forth something out of nothing, for it is
even used of works of providence, Isa. 45:7; Jer. 31:22; Amos 4:13. Yet
it has a distinctive character: it is always used of divine and never

87 de 556 9/9/2019 11:41 a. m.