The deepest difference between the infra and supra positions can be seen by what they understand the original and final purpose of creation to be. The infra position sees the purpose of creation to be creation itself, thus Tillich can say: ``Creation has no purpose beyond itself. From the point of view of the creature, the purpose of creation is the creature itself and the actualization of its potentialities. From the point of view of the Creator, the purpose of creation is the exercise of his creativity, which has no purpose beyond itself because the divine life is essentially creative.''2.79 And Van Ruler can say: ``the redemptive work in Jesus Christ only happened in order that creation would again be able to exist before the countenance of God; it is thus only a moment, an emergency measure in the one counsel and the one work of God.''2.80
The supra position on the other hand, understands the purpose of creation to something other than creation, namely salvation in Christ. Barth, for instance, understands creation as only setting the stage for the execution of the history of God's covenant of grace with man. The fulfillment of this covenant is the eternal will of God and the creation of the universe and of man has no other purpose than to serve this end. In other words ``creation is the external basis of God's covenant of grace with man and this covenant is the internal basis of creation.''2.81 In support of this thesis Barth refers to Heb. 1:2; John 1:1-5 and Col. 1. Following his idea that Jesus Christ is God's first and dominant thought in his plan of creation he understands these verses to mean that the ``world was created and sustained by the little child that was born in Bethlehem, by the Man who died on the Cross of Golgotha, and the third day rose again. That is the Word of Creation, by which all things were brought into being.''2.82
The New Testament certainly does assert that Jesus Christ had and has an original relationship to creation and to all things. This relationship is expressed in such passages as John 1:1-5; 1 Cor. 8:6; 15:44-49; Eph. 1:10,22f; Col. 1:15-20; Heb. 1:1-4; Rev. 3:14. In the following pages we will look at this original relationship.2.83 The problem facing us now is how to interpret the above mentioned references to Scripture. According to H. Berkhof (following K. Barth) these passages do not refer to a trinitarian dwelling of the Son with the Father, but to a co-operating of the historical Jesus with God in the work of creation. ``If the man Jesus was from eternity in the mind of God, it follows that as a covenant partner he was also from eternity over against the Father.''2.84Berkhof also states: ``Traditional dogmatics heard in these passages information about the role which the second person of the Trinity, who later became man, already had in the work of creation. But these statements have nothing to do with the Trinity problematic. They do, however, make a close connection between creation and the work of the historical Jesus Christ. Without a distinct transition the four passages speak of the one Christ who created the world and brought about redemption.''2.85Berkhof goes on to say that since Barth's thesis of `creation as the external basis of the covenant and the covenant as the internal basis of creation' we can see that nearly two thousand years of tradition is completely wrong in its dogmatic interpretation of the above mentioned Scripture!2.86 He dismisses the traditional interpretation by his idea that it has generally based itself on a reading of Genesis 1 and 2 which regards these chapters as containing divine information about a past which is inaccessible to us and thus supports the idea that creation was a closed event, one which produced a static and perfect result. In his original perfect state man could earn eternal life through the covenant of works, but because of the fall God had to open up an entirely different way to eternal life. Berkhof then contrasts this with the idea that Adam was not the perfect man, but the novice who by making the right choice is to attain to a higher degree of fellowship with God.2.87
It seems to me that Berkhof has misrepresented - or at least one-sidedly represented - the traditional theologoumenon of the covenant of works and the idea of the state of creation before the fall. Even if we go as far back as Augustine who understands man's original state in terms of the posse non peccare;2.88 this means that he understood the original state of man as open possibility and not `static perfection'. What could the theologoumenon of the covenant of works signify, other than the idea that `Adam is not the perfect man, but the novice who by making the right choice is to attain to a higher degree of fellowship with God'? Anyway, this is Van Ruler's, as well as the traditional reformed understanding of the covenant of works.2.89
``Sin consists inter alia of the fact that we no longer understand ourselves and the world in our createdness in and through the Word. We do not want to know it. Therefore we do not know it.''2.90Van Ruler would certainly agree with Berkhof that Genesis 1 or 2 does not contain divine information about a past which is inaccessible to us. We have seen that revelation is redemption and therefore that all revelation bears the character of redemption. We only know of the Word through whom we and the world were created because he came to us in the incarnation. Gnoseologically the mediation of redemption precedes the mediation of creation.2.91 The question now is whether this gnoseologic order is identical to the ontological order. If we follow K. Barth and H. Berkhof in answering this question affirmatively we would have to say that Christ's mediation of redemption refers to his essence. This is unavoidable if we understand God's first decree to be salvation in Christ. However this implies that Christ's mediation of creation also refers to his essence. This is obvious because his mediation of creation is a moment in his mediation of redemption. This means that the essence of creation is to be found in God! Christianly speaking is this an acceptable idea? Must we not rather say ``dat er een grens is tussen de werkelijkheid en God? En ligt dat niet daaraan, dat we de grond van de werkelijkheid niet zo onvervaard moeten zoeken in God, maar enerzijds in zijn vrijmachtige welbehagen, dus in zijn decreet, zijn raad, waarin het willen vooropgaat en het denken begeleidend aanwezig is, en anderzijds in zijn daad van de schepping? De raad en de daad staan ertussen, tussen de geschapen werkelijkheid en God. Zij zijn de onophefbare en onoverschrijdbare grens.''2.92
These theses contain the notions of transcendence and the `theistic' autonomy of God. If they are ignored the world can no longer be experienced in its reality and earthliness and an individual cannot experience his individuality and humanness (except perhaps as `maya').2.93
We are still faced with the problem of how to interpret the Scripture quotations referred to above. We have rejected the idea that the ontological order is identical to the gnoseologic order. The idea that ontologically the mediation of creation precedes the mediation of redemption seems to provide a better solution. Traditionally the opera ad extra of the Trinity are one and therefore the Son of God (who later became the mediator of redemption) is to be understood as mediator of creation in this sense. The Scripture references are to be understood in this context. According to Berkhof they (the biblical references) make such a close connection between the work of the historical Jesus and creation that they have nothing to do with the Trinity.2.94 O. Noordmans writes that the dogma of the Trinity was introduced by the Church to keep the confession of Christ pure.2.95 The doctrine of the two natures of Christ is also of decisive importance and no doubt also keeps the confession of Christ pure. Thus E. Stauffer states: ``Das ist das Zwiefache Bekenntnis, das Johannes ablegt und fordert, das Bekenntnis zum wahrhaftiger Gottheit und zum wahrhaftigen Menschentum Jesu Christi. Wer an dieses Zwiefache Bekenntnis ruhrt, hier oder dort, der hat der Geist der Luge. Denn er tastet die paradoxe Herrlichkeit des Menschensohns an und ruttelt an den Fundamenten unseres ewigen Heils.''2.96Can we, therefore, so easily ignore the dogmas of the trinity and of the two natures, as Berkhof seems to, when referring to any biblical witness regarding Christ?2.97 A close connection is certainly made between the historical work of Christ and creation in the New Testament witness but could this not merely be an emphasis on the idea that He who was incarnated for our sake was He through whom the world was created? ``The evangelists and apostles get somewhat lyrical in their tone when they speak about these things. A theologian is a bit calmer. At times he has the feeling that things blend too much in this lyricism. Especially when he reads Colossians 1. He thinks that he can say it with more precision than the apostle does here. He naturally holds that the apostle would agree with him on this. Must one not, asks the theologian, carefully respect the necessary distinction between the trinitarian and the christological way of speaking and eventually also between the ontological or cosmological and soteriological manner of speaking? Is everything that is said here about Jesus the Christ at the same time said about God the Son in human flesh?''2.98 In other words we cannot simply ignore the dogmas of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ as expressed in the Creeds of the Church. When we keep these dogmas in mind the meaning of the Scripture references to Christ's original relation to creation become clear. There is a difference between the mediation of creation and the mediation of redemption and neither of these refer to the essence of God. On the basis of his free counsel and good pleasure God decreed to create man. This decree was followed by the act of creation. As part of the eternal Trinity the Son of God was involved in this creation. He was the mediator of creation. Therefore this creation is precious to Him. With the fall sin, death and destruction entered this creation. But this creation is precious to Him, therefore He came to save it. His incarnation was motivated purely by sin. Sin is rebellion against God. The fall did not occur so that Christ could be incarnated, rather God the Son took on human flesh in order to undo the effects of the fall. The incarnation is a reaction to sin. In this sense the incarnation is an emergency measure. This does not mean that the fall and the incarnation are not included in God's eternal decree. What it does mean is that they are included as moments in the eternal decree. Salvation in Christ is not the be-all and end-all of all reality. There is also sanctification - the working out of this salvation in history by the Holy Spirit. There is also the eschaton which will be a new act of God.