Creatio ex nihilo

[Benjamin Burch]

For most of my life I was like the large majority of Christianity in assuming that creatio ex nihilo was actually linked to Christianity in the form of "orthodoxy." That is, Orthodox Christianity necessarily affirms creation out of nothing. It was not until I read Tom Oord's doctoral dissertation almost two years ago that I began to seriously question this doctrine. In the last two years I have read many defenses and many critiques of the doctrine.

At this point I'm well inclined to find Catherine Keller's critique of the doctrine in Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming particularly insightful and crushing.

However, this is not necessarily my place to rehash or go over all of the arguments for or against. Instead, I'm genuinely just interested in the opinions of thinkers here on NazNet in regards to two thoughts.

(1) Is there anything actually Christian about this doctrine? That is, to be Christian is to affirm a particular story: God's Word became flesh, lived, taught, was crucified, and was resurrected again by God the Father. Now there is a lot in terms of what all of this means for other things. However, this is the heart of it.

This, to me, inherently cuts at the heart of creatio ex nihilo.

(a) God did not plant a baby in Mary's womb out of nothing. Instead, Mary conceived. Certainly there was no intercourse; but nevertheless God worked in Mary's body to create a baby out of Mary's body.

(b) God's "new creation" in the resurrection is birthed out of the old. It does not replace the old.... let me work this out and add some context...

My thoughts on this began in my Philosophy Class as we were going over Kierkegaard and my professor kept drilling in how important this doctrine of creation out of nothing is for Kierkegaard. That God creates out of nothing when God makes us new. This, to me, is deeply troubling...

We often speak of ourselves as "new creations" and we are certainly that. We have tended to speak of this in terms of "transformation." However, plenty of mixed metaphors and language are used. We are said to be transformed. However, we also say that the old self has "died." It's complicated. But the first image of God's redemption of our particular humanity (that is of me, Benjamin Burch) is found in God's redemption of all of humanity. That is not a redemption which discards the old. Instead, it redeems the old. It enters into the messy chaos of humanity and redeems it. What's more, this redemptive process which leads towards new creation culminates in the ultimate chaos of death and hades. God in Christ conquers this chaos by creating out of it. Out of the sin and evil of humanity which leads to Jesus' death, God brings new creation through the resurrection of that very same exact human body, bones, blood, flesh. This is a chaos-redeeming creation, not a creation that discards and starts over from scratch.

So we've receive a narrative which affirms God's affirming of the chaos of humanity and intent to redeem it, as well as God's redeeming of that chaos through creating "himself in flesh" through that chaos and then creating anew in resurrection out of the chaos of death, sin, and evil. Does our own narrative not follow the same? While we certainly are "new creations" and our old self has "died," is it not in the same manner as Christ was raised from death to life that we are as well? Is this not what we affirm in Baptism? Is this not what we give form to in Baptism?

So what place does creation out of nothing have in this narrative?

If we move backwards some, we find that God creates humanity from something (dirt), and creates humanity again from something (Noah and his family). God also creates Israel from something (Abraham), and then creates them anew out of something (a sinful group of wonderers in the chaos of the desert), and again (people wandering in the chaos of Babylonian exile), and again (twelve men who were a part of a "sinful generation").

The story of (re)creation of Israel out of the chaos and death of the old is told in the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37:1-14. Even the creation of the heavens and earth is told in terms of creation out of the chaotic Deep in Genesis 1.

So, it seems to me that the story which we affirm as Christians seems consistent with God's creative and redemptive activity throughout God's history with the world and humanity.

So, again, is there anything Christian about this? Does our own story not cut at the heart of creation out of nothing?

(2) What is gained by affirming creatio ex nihilo?

[Jon Bemis]

If we move backwards some, we find that God creates humanity from something (dirt)

Ben,

I'm far less philosophical and so my question is a lot simpler - "Where did the dirt that God used come from?"

[Billie Goodson]

I am curious as to whether your premise in 1a is accurate. If conception is viewed in the normal manner, it requires a sperm and a mature egg. In the case of Mary's conception, we hold that there was no normal presence of sperm. Why would there have to be a normal presence of the mature egg? Is God only able to wrought half of a miracle?

Regarding ex hilio creation, it follows the scientific evidence. I don't know if it is necessarily required for our faith, but it does seem required if you hold to a modern view of science. Doesn't science tell us that for everything there is a cause? Maybe my knowledge is limited in that area, but I thought even Hawking attested to that.

[Dale Cozby]

Just a few thoughts...

1. I see Mary more as a vessel of Jesus' birth rather than his biological mother.
Of course the cultural norm for the day was that a child was all because of the the male back then anyway. The term conceived even suggests a "taking in" rather than a making together.
I do not accept the Holy Spirit and Mary "conceived" together as in DNA from Mary and DNA from the Holy Spirit formed a new child in the usual way a baby is formed.
Did Jesus look like his mom or his dad? We don't know, but I think we can grasp the idea of surrogate parentage today fairly well. In the same way Adam was formed from the dust, so Jesus was formed. How that was done is always up for speculation I suppose.

2. The second thought is where this leads us and what conclusion we frame if we use the assumption that all creation has always existed in some form alongside the Creator.
I can only agree with this thought if we say the Creator formed from himself the creation at the beginning. Since nothing existed before Him it is rather a forgone conclusion that Creation either came from Him or came from nothing. This thought may run into trouble if we make God part of His creation in such a way as to assume He did not have any purpose for His existence before the creation. Just no way to know...but I don't see God as synonymous the Cosmos.

Either way, I don't see this as a critical doctrine to the faith.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben,

I'm far less philosophical and so my question is a lot simpler - "Where did the dirt that God used come from?"

Well, certainly the dirt doesn't seem to be the furthest point to move backwards...

So if we get to Genesis 1:1 we might ask where the "formless and void" Earth came from. But that's not really what I'm interested in, here.

That, to me, is nothing more than philosophical speculations about whether there has always been "something" or not and whether that makes sense philosophically and metaphysically. I"m not saying there is no merit in that conversation, but that is not the conversation I'm concerned with here. What I'm more concerned with is that the Bible seems to work consistently out of a redeeming, purposeful creation which always has in mind God's completing fulfilling God's purposes for and in God's creation out of the chaos which it is.

God creates a priestly nation and a "land" out of slaves in a wilderness.

So, what is theologically gained from creation ex nihilo?

My friend says:

"ex Nihilo perhaps the single most important christian doctrine. At least for how I approach things." And many others seem to approach things in such a way as well. I'm curious as to the "how so?" and "in what way?" This says it's the most important and assumes that it's at least mildly important. That means something is gained by it which is lost by starting somewhere else. What might this be (for those who feel such a way)?

That is:

What is lost by holding to a position that God is co-existent with [I]something? How is it lost?

What is gained by rejecting such a position? How is it gained?

Why is this loss/gain of theological significance?

[Billie Goodson]

Part of the problem seems to be our view of time. It seems difficult to imagine an infinite past even while we talk of an infinite future. If we think of the past, it seems to be almost like we are losing our sense of self if we can't admit that there is a definitive point where we can trace things back toward. The statement, "In the beginning" does that for us. It ties our thoughts to a point, regardless of how irrelevant that might seem. With that thought, we only have to think of "before" to arrive at the concept of an infinite God (which is problematic at some levels). If there was a time when there was nothing, and then God created, we arrive at the beginning of the concept of time. If we take the position that God created everything, then we can accept his sovereignty over all of his creation.

The concept of God being sovereign over all of creation is a release point for us. If God is sovereign and all of creation is subject to him, then we can have confidence that all that God promises can be fulfilled. If we hold that other things co-eternally existed with God, then it would cause us to wonder if there is yet another creative agent that is perhaps more powerful than God, but, who just decided for one reason or another to be the absent gardener. It would also seem to cause us to think that if there is a co-existent being with God, then God may not be outside of time, nor the universe (losing his transcendence).

Just some random thoughts on the topic. Will take some more thinking and not sure how tied I am to these, but they seem to be some ready "problems".

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm interested in those who claim that Mary's biological seed (egg, what have you) did not have to be a part of the process. If Mary was just an incubator, how can we claim that Jesus was the "son of man"? In what way would Jesus have had a human nature if he was not of genetic descent from any human being? It seems a bit dualistic (in the gnostic spirit-body sense) to try and take Mary's biological contribution out of it.

Also, for those who see Genesis 3 as the first Messianic prophecy, wouldn't Mary's Egg be what cause the seed of the woman to crush the seed of the serpent? Without the woman's seed, that prophecy becomes nullified.

[Craig Laughlin]

Part of the problem seems to be our view of time. It seems difficult to imagine an infinite past even while we talk of an infinite future. If we think of the past, it seems to be almost like we are losing our sense of self if we can't admit that there is a definitive point where we can trace things back toward. The statement, "In the beginning" does that for us. It ties our thoughts to a point, regardless of how irrelevant that might seem. With that thought, we only have to think of "before" to arrive at the concept of an infinite God (which is problematic at some levels). If there was a time when there was nothing, and then God created, we arrive at the beginning of the concept of time. If we take the position that God created everything, then we can accept his sovereignty over all of his creation.

The concept of God being sovereign over all of creation is a release point for us. If God is sovereign and all of creation is subject to him, then we can have confidence that all that God promises can be fulfilled. If we hold that other things co-eternally existed with God, then it would cause us to wonder if there is yet another creative agent that is perhaps more powerful than God, but, who just decided for one reason or another to be the absent gardener. It would also seem to cause us to think that if there is a co-existent being with God, then God may not be outside of time, nor the universe (losing his transcendence).

Just some random thoughts on the topic. Will take some more thinking and not sure how tied I am to these, but they seem to be some ready "problems".

I think this is well said and pretty much what I think. The issue of the nature of time has brought many of these kinds of discussion to a complete halt in my thinking. I would push past Billie to say that I'm not even sure we can meaningfully ask this anymore. The problem is we don't really know what time is.

I have yet to read anyone that can give a definitive understanding of time post Einstein. Time of course touches everything, including our definition of matter which is how it relates to this discussion. I think it interesting to speculate about the nature of God outside of time but no one I've heard of (which isn't saying much) has really nailed it yet or as far as I can tell even boxed it in much. I hear lots of theologians go on and on assuming linear time and find it a bit embarrassing. I know they do it because they have nothing else but I urge caution lest our great grandchildren look at us like we look at those who once believed the earth to be flat. Like us, they had no other point of reference so it made perfect sense, but it was wrong. We don't know what time is (Yes I know even saying that assumes time) but post Einstein we know it is mutable and requires mass to exist.

I look forward to seeing how the discussion progresses. I am hoping for new insight because I'm pretty stuck.

[Billie Goodson]

I'm interested in those who claim that Mary's biological seed (egg, what have you) did not have to be a part of the process. If Mary was just an incubator, how can we claim that Jesus was the "son of man"? In what way would Jesus have had a human nature if he was not of genetic descent from any human being? It seems a bit dualistic (in the gnostic spirit-body sense) to try and take Mary's biological contribution out of it.

Also, for those who see Genesis 3 as the first Messianic prophecy, wouldn't Mary's Egg be what cause the seed of the woman to crush the seed of the serpent? Without the woman's seed, that prophecy becomes nullified.

Good question! I will continue the side of the advocate (realizing that I am really speculatively speaking -- I don't know I am tied to this idea, but I enjoy the thinking).

Regarding the seed of Mary, I would tie back that if all of man is a creation of God, then it would seem that God would be exercising his creative authority in creating within Mary another instance of an Adam (being from nothing, ok dirt, but, I propose that he made that too). So, just as God created man (and woman), he could have exercised His will in creating Christ independent of any "help".

Regarding the Son of Man -- is this interpreted literally? Is there any other explanation outside of the "Son of Man" that would allow for Christ to exist? I am thinking that you are only pointing out the race of man (which was created by God) and not any type of explanation that Christ was "the son of a man" -- that would introduce difficulties we both probably readily see.

Genetic Dissent -- Not sure there needs to be a genetic dissent line. The question of Jesus' lineage to David would be traced through maternal lines, but then again, no one questions mothers as fathers can be. In the since that Mary bore the human, she would be considered the mother but Church history says she was never considered the mother of God (right?).

Gnostic-sense -- Actually, it seems a bit dualistic to insert Mary's biological contribution.

Genesis 3 -- Is that a literal reading? I know that in the Passion Of Christ, it showed it literally, but is that a good image?

I am going to refer back to Dale's comment:


Just a few thoughts...

1. I see Mary more as a vessel of Jesus' birth rather than his biological mother.
Of course the cultural norm for the day was that a child was all because of the the male back then anyway. The term conceived even suggests a "taking in" rather than a making together.

The phrase "thou shalt conceive" is a translation of the word

The outline of biblical usage at blueletterbible.com gives this on the word:syllambanō

1) to seize, take: one as prisoner

2) to conceive, of a woman

a) metaph. of lust whose impulses a man indulges

3) to seize for one's self

a) in a hostile sense, to make (one a permanent) prisoner

4) to take hold together with one, to assist, help, to succour


This seems to paint a picture that is somewhat different than the process that we extract from the word "conceive". If I look at what the outline of usage says, it seems to speak back to Dale's comment about the view of the act of the male in procreation. I am also going to invoke Is 9:6 here, where it reads, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given". In this verse, the Son is given. (Willing to admit reaching, but, I am not above that.)

BEN
Is this the discussion you sought or have I wondered off of the track, if off course, maybe we can move this to another thread. Just trying to get my head around your thoughts posted.

[Billie Goodson]

I think this is well said and pretty much what I think. The issue of the nature of time has brought many of these kinds of discussion to a complete halt in my thinking. I would push past Billie to say that I'm not even sure we can meaningfully ask this anymore. The problem is we don't really know what time is.

I have yet to read anyone that can give a definitive understanding of time post Einstein. Time of course touches everything, including our definition of matter which is how it relates to this discussion. I think it interesting to speculate about the nature of God outside of time but no one I've heard of (which isn't saying much) has really nailed it yet or as far as I can tell even boxed it in much. I hear lots of theologians go on and on assuming linear time and find it a bit embarrassing. I know they do it because they have nothing else but I urge caution lest our great grandchildren look at us like we look at those who once believed the earth to be flat. Like us, they had no other point of reference so it made perfect sense, but it was wrong. We don't know what time is (Yes I know even saying that assumes time) but post Einstein we know it is mutable and requires mass to exist.

I look forward to seeing how the discussion progresses. I am hoping for new insight because I'm pretty stuck.

Have you listened much to William Lane Craig and his discussions on time? I have, and I am clueless, but I appreciate his insights.

[John Brickley]

Regarding the seed of Mary, I would tie back that if all of man is a creation of God, then it would seem that God would be exercising his creative authority in creating within Mary another instance of an Adam (being from nothing, ok dirt, but, I propose that he made that too). So, just as God created man (and woman), he could have exercised His will in creating Christ independent of any "help".


But this gets back to Ben's point (which I also believe was an essential point for the Ante Nicene Fathers) it is our humanity that Christ came to redeem (in fact so important is this to the Fathers that it is often argued that the Fathers saw this redemption in a purely physical sense) not another. Thus redemption is not so much an instance of a new creation as it is the redemption of the existing one. In Christ that existing humanity was taken up through Mary (thus the actual assumption of Mary's flesh is essential in this) and redeemed in Him. If she were just the incubator (which by the way is a novel doctrine which I doubt would find much acceptance by orthodox Christianity) then we could not say that He had assumed our flesh in any meaningful way. So while I am not sure if the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is essential, the physical conception of Jesus in Mary (assuming her flesh) most certainly is.

[Shea Zellweger]

Good question! I will continue the side of the advocate (realizing that I am really speculatively speaking -- I don't know I am tied to this idea, but I enjoy the thinking).

Regarding the seed of Mary, I would tie back that if all of man is a creation of God, then it would seem that God would be exercising his creative authority in creating within Mary another instance of an Adam (being from nothing, ok dirt, but, I propose that he made that too). So, just as God created man (and woman), he could have exercised His will in creating Christ independent of any "help".

Ok, I'll preface the rest of the conversation by saying that I don't think anyone is debating God's capability to make something "out of nothing," but rather that this is the method God used.

Yes, God "could have" exercised will in creating Christ independent of help, but that's not what the text says. Luke consistently refers to Jesus as being a "Son of Man" (or "child of humanity," if you have a more PC translation). I think Jesus' genetic ties to an existing line of humanity- specifically, the line of David- are a necessary part of the story, and are attested to by the entire Messianic Corpus.



Regarding the Son of Man -- is this interpreted literally? Is there any other explanation outside of the "Son of Man" that would allow for Christ to exist? I am thinking that you are only pointing out the race of man (which was created by God) and not any type of explanation that Christ was "the son of a man" -- that would introduce difficulties we both probably readily see.

Son of man is not the same as son of a man. "Son of man" refers to being a child of the race of man- that is to say, humanity. You've presented logic for how Christ could have been a part of the race of humanity, but without being tied biologically to his mother, he is not a son of humanity.



Genetic Dissent -- Not sure there needs to be a genetic dissent line. The question of Jesus' lineage to David would be traced through maternal lines, but then again, no one questions mothers as fathers can be. In the since that Mary bore the human, she would be considered the mother but Church history says she was never considered the mother of God (right?).

When did church history say she was never considered the mother of God? So far as I can tell, 1200 years of church history has said the exact opposite. Protestants have shied away from that language, because it seems to suggest that Mary was the mother of the entire deity, which is not what the phrase is intended to communicate. Mary was the mother of Jesus, Jesus was/is God, so Mary was the mother of God.




Gnostic-sense -- Actually, it seems a bit dualistic to insert Mary's biological contribution.

How so? The Gnostic argument was that Jesus could not be the physical descendant of a human, because that would make him necessarily corrupt in his body. Their solution was to claim that Jesus didn't have a physical body, but this surrogate mother approach simply moves the point of departure to saying that Jesus wasn't actually biologically connected to Mary, and purifying him in that manner.




Genesis 3 -- Is that a literal reading? I know that in the Passion Of Christ, it showed it literally, but is that a good image?

It's a very common claim, that the "your seed, his seed" speech is a messianic prophecy, and it predates the Passion by several centuries at least.



I am going to refer back to Dale's comment:

Where is Dale's comment supported outside of some philosophical attempt to distance Jesus from the impurity of humanity? There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that Mary was simply a surrogate mother or incubator of some kind.



The phrase "thou shalt conceive" is a translation of the word

The outline of biblical usage at blueletterbible.com gives this on the word:syllambanō


This seems to paint a picture that is somewhat different than the process that we extract from the word "conceive". If I look at what the outline of usage says, it seems to speak back to Dale's comment about the view of the act of the male in procreation. I am also going to invoke Is 9:6 here, where it reads, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given". In this verse, the Son is given. (Willing to admit reaching, but, I am not above that.)


Okay, so that addresses the angel's message to Joseph. The texts I'm looking at say:

"Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
-Luke 1:30-35

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
-Matthew 1:18.

This "with child" business means pregnant. obviously, the process of conception was a bit confusing at the time, and I'm not looking to the Scriptures for a scientific explanation here, but other than an attempt to purify the body of Jesus from the stain of humanity, I don't understand why anybody would go to such great legths to claim that Jesus was not the biological child of Mary. There's just no basis for it.

[John Brickley]

When did church history say she was never considered the mother of God? So far as I can tell, 1200 years of church history has said the exact opposite. Protestants have shied away from that language, because it seems to suggest that Mary was the mother of the entire deity, which is not what the phrase is intended to communicate. Mary was the mother of Jesus, Jesus was/is God, so Mary was the mother of God.


You are exactly right Shea. She is usually referred to in Catholic piety as Mary the Mother of God. The council of Ephesus in 431 declared her Theotokos often translated as God Bearer. So the accepted belief by both Western and Eastern Catholic traditions is that she is the mother of God. Of course the whole point of that title and doctrine is what it says about the One she bore.

In regard to the lengths one would go to claim that Jesus was not the biological son of Mary it seems that the more things change the more they stay the same. The suggestion that Jesus' humanity (I am not sure how you can call it that independent of Mary) was somehow created independent of Mary and there was no physical transmission from Mary to her Son appears to be little more than a mild form of Docetism.

This denial undercuts not only the incarnation but all of salvation, for as the early church fathers so often would say "The unassumed is the unhealed." (a phrase that Wesley picked up on by the way).

[Billie Goodson]

But this gets back to Ben's point (which I also believe was an essential point for the Ante Nicene Fathers) it is our humanity that Christ came to redeem (in fact so important is this to the Fathers that it is often argued that the Fathers saw this redemption in a purely physical sense) not another. Thus redemption is not so much an instance of a new creation as it is the redemption of the existing one. In Christ that existing humanity was taken up through Mary (thus the actual assumption of Mary's flesh is essential in this) and redeemed in Him. If she were just the incubator (which by the way is a novel doctrine which I doubt would find much acceptance by orthodox Christianity) then we could not say that He had assumed our flesh in any meaningful way. *So while I am not sure if the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is essential, the physical conception of Jesus in Mary (assuming her flesh) most certainly is.

Good points. There does appear to be a little tension in church history on the Mother of God statement. I call to the witness stand Cyril to Nestorius, who wrote this in his third letter:




Therefore, because the holy virgin bore in the flesh God who was united hypostatically with the flesh, for that reason we call her mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh (for "the Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and the Word was with God", and he made the ages and is coeternal with the Father and craftsman of all things), but because, as we have said, he united to himself hypostatically the human and underwent a birth according to the flesh from her womb.


Thus:
In the same way as the woman who bore you is called your mother and not the mother of your body only, Mary is the mother of the whole person of Jesus Christ, who is God (cf. Colossians 2:9). The Church proclaimed this truth in the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.

The reference of Mary as an 'incubator' is uncomfortable, I would prefer 'vessel' if putting the concept into language.

[John Brickley]

The reference of Mary as an 'incubator' is uncomfortable, I would prefer 'vessel' is putting the concept into language.

What is wrong with just calling her mother? I would think that vessel is still inadequate. I guess the question ultimately becomes, "how human do we want Jesus to be?"

[Benjamin Burch]

Good points. There does appear to be a little tension in church history on the Mother of God statement. I call to the witness stand Cyril to Nestorius, who wrote this in his third letter:


Thus:
In the same way as the woman who bore you is called your mother and not the mother of your body only, Mary is the mother of the whole person of Jesus Christ, who is God (cf. Colossians 2:9). The Church proclaimed this truth in the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.

The reference of Mary as an 'incubator' is uncomfortable, I would prefer 'vessel' if putting the concept into language.

You appear to be misreading Cyril, here. Cyril is not saying that Jesus' human existence didn't begin in Mary, with Mary. Not at all. He's saying that the Word's existence pre-dates incarnation. Thus, it can be said that Jesus is the "Pre-existent Son."

[Shea Zellweger]

Good points. There does appear to be a little tension in church history on the Mother of God statement. I call to the witness stand Cyril to Nestorius, who wrote this in his third letter:


Thus:
In the same way as the woman who bore you is called your mother and not the mother of your body only, Mary is the mother of the whole person of Jesus Christ, who is God (cf. Colossians 2:9). The Church proclaimed this truth in the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.

The reference of Mary as an 'incubator' is uncomfortable, I would prefer 'vessel' if putting the concept into language.

How does Cyril's statement support your claim whatsoever? Hypostatic union refers to the dual nature (Divine and human) of Christ, and establishes that the divine nature of Christ pre-existed the birth of Jesus. If the statement from Cyril supports anything, it's that Mary was indeed the mother of Jesus- and that biologically.

[John Brickley]

Back to the original question, Colin Gunton (former professor of Theology at Kings College London, and one of my theological heroes) delivered an excellent lecture series at Nazarene Theological College Manchester that was later published under the title Christ and Creation. I think it would be a very helpful source in relation to this question. Its thesis is that redemption is inextricably tied to creation because it is creation that is taken up and redeemed in Jesus Christ.

[Billie Goodson]

How does Cyril's statement support your claim whatsoever? Hypostatic union refers to the dual nature (Divine and human) of Christ, and establishes that the divine nature of Christ pre-existed the birth of Jesus. If the statement from Cyril supports anything, it's that Mary was indeed the mother of Jesus- and that biologically.

I don't think I could dig up any better support for the argument so I am willing to abandon it. I think it has been fairly considered and we should move on to the points of Ben's original. I think I had to argue it, and I am satisfied that it seems untenable.

[Billie Goodson]

Back to the original question, Colin Gunton (former professor of Theology at Kings College London, and one of my theological heroes) delivered an excellent lecture series at Nazarene Theological College Manchester that was later published under the title Christ and Creation. I think it would be a very helpful source in relation to this question. Its thesis is that redemption is inextricably tied to creation because it is creation that is taken up and redeemed in Jesus Christ.

In Responsible Grace there seems to be a chapter on the Wesley's ideas concerning the redemption of all of creation. I don't have my copy handy to reference it.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Therefore, because the holy virgin bore in the flesh God who was united hypostatically with the flesh, for that reason we call her mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh (for "the Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and the Word was with God", and he made the ages and is coeternal with the Father and craftsman of all things), but because, as we have said, he united to himself hypostatically the human and underwent a birth according to the flesh from her womb.

What I am seeing here in the Cyril quote is that the eternal Word that was with God and was God, through whom all of creation comes into being does not arise from the flesh. Therefore Mary did not give birth to the divine nature of Jesus. But by his use of hypostatic, and please correct me if I am missing the definition here, indicates that Jesus has two full natures, divine and human. I do not see anything in Cyril's quote that seems to indicate anything other than a normal gestation and birth for the fully human nature of Jesus. For me to deny that Mary was anything other than Jesus biological mother kind of denies Jesus full humanity, which I think is strongly suggested by Philippians 2 and Hebrews 4, and leans to gnosticism. But I do think that for most people the full acceptance of Jesus full humanity is difficult.

[Billie Goodson]

What I am seeing here in the Cyril quote is that the eternal Word that was with God and was God, through whom all of creation comes into being does not arise from the flesh. Therefore Mary did not give birth to the divine nature of Jesus. But by his use of hypostatic, and please correct me if I am missing the definition here, indicates that Jesus has two full natures, divine and human. I do not see anything in Cyril's quote that seems to indicate anything other than a normal gestation and birth for the fully human nature of Jesus. For me to deny that Mary was anything other than Jesus biological mother kind of denies Jesus full humanity, which I think is strongly suggested by Philippians 2 and Hebrews 4, and leans to gnosticism. But I do think that for most people the full acceptance of Jesus full humanity is difficult.

I took the majority of the posts on this specific aspects to a new thread called "Hypostatic Union" if there is further discussion on this let's do it there.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I do not think that creatio ex nihilo is biblically supportable. I understand that philosophically we would like to go there as it seems to follow when we take the creation argument to its logical beginnings. I think that it gets to a point that we reach the end of what can be known and we enter into the realm of pure speculation. Kind of like what I read in one of Paul Davies books on quantum cosmology when we try to speak of what existed before the big bang.

I like Tom Oord's statement: creatio ex creatione a natura amoris (God creates out of creation through a nature of love.) God has always created out of that which God had already created. I think I agree with Tom that the problems with this lay in our limitedness, our finitude.

[Billie Goodson]

I like Tom Oord's statement: creatio ex creatione a natura amoris (God creates out of creation through a nature of love.) God has always created out of that which God had already created. I think I agree with Tom that the problems with this lay in our limitedness, our finitude.

But the phrase that "God created out of that which God had already created" does not really do any more than the argument that humans may have been planted here by aliens explains the origin of the species. All that has been done in the alien argument is expressing a geographical origin, not biological or even ontological. The response to your statement would be what did he create first, and from what? Even science theorizes that nothing existed prior to the big bang, right? It has even been hypothesized that time did not exist and some postulate imaginary time to fill that void.

[Paul DeBaufer]

But the phrase that "God created out of that which God had already created" does not really do any more than the argument that humans may have been planted here by aliens explains the origin of the species. All that has been done in the alien argument is expressing a geographical origin, not biological or even ontological. The response to your statement would be what did he create first, and from what? Even science theorizes that nothing existed prior to the big bang, right? It has even been hypothesized that time did not exist and some postulate imaginary time to fill that void.

I don't get how you got the geographical thing, but.... What my main point is/was is that we cannot biblically support creatio ex nihilo. As I read the Bible I get a creation out of chaos and creation out of what was already there, the formless void, the chaos. To go further leaves biblical theology and goes right for philosophy. And as I stated that seems to be where our minds want to go. And the question then becomes is that natural tendency a product of our finitude and our limitations?

[Billie Goodson]

What my main point is/was is that we cannot biblically support creatio ex nihilo. As I read the Bible I get a creation out of chaos and creation out of what was already there, the formless void, the chaos.




I like Tom Oord's statement: creatio ex creatione a natura amoris (God creates out of creation through a nature of love.) God has always created out of that which God had already created.

Help me here, did God create out of chaos or creation?

[Billie Goodson]

My thoughts on this began in my Philosophy Class as we were going over Kierkegaard and my professor kept drilling in how important this doctrine of creation out of nothing is for Kierkegaard. That God creates out of nothing when God makes us new. This, to me, is deeply troubling...




Re-reading this section made me think of the differences between Reformed and Wesleyan theology in regards to the Imago Dei. If the Imago Dei was destroyed and irrecoverable as Reformed theology asserts it would almost seem to require a new creation. Wesley didn't see that damage as being of that severity.

[Steven Martinez]

I don't get how you got the geographical thing, but.... What my main point is/was is that we cannot biblically support creatio ex nihilo. As I read the Bible I get a creation out of chaos and creation out of what was already there, the formless void, the chaos. To go further leaves biblical theology and goes right for philosophy. And as I stated that seems to be where our minds want to go. And the question then becomes is that natural tendency a product of our finitude and our limitations?

Now here is an idea that I have great difficulty with. Why do we assume formless is chaotic? What form does the Holy Spirit have? Is the Spirit therefore chaotic? Several theologians often express this romantic view of God calming the chaos of the waters as God's ability to bring the ultimate order out of chaos. However, this is extremely Platonic to say the least and I often find it interesting that those who wish to avoid Platonic concepts of God often desire to throw away the idea of Creatio ex Nihilo which specifically counters the dualistic understanding of both Gnosticism and Hellenistic philosophy which clearly states that God is only the former of God while the early Church countered that God creates nothing but good but humanity's sin is what brought evil into the world and so God is not the creator of evil. How to reject creatio ex nihilo would reject this fundamental claim and make God simply a mover of creation and not the Creator Himself.
Going back to Athanasius and the other Fathers, the idea of God as creator and humanity as the defiler is the very hart of their atonement. This is why God became flesh in order to re-establish the Image of God in humanity. Jesus brings fallen humanity to into its proper place as the Image of God. However, this is all hinged on the idea of God creating out of nothing. The question is not where did the dirt come from per se. Rather the issue is where did good and evil come from and who is the Creator and Sustainer of this creation? To me, to reject this doctrine is essentially to reject the very theological idea behind the creeds therefore making this doctrine crucial for orthodoxy if we believe that the Fathers were correct. They worked within this understanding of God and Athanasius is particular would reject any notion that God created out of something already created because if that were true then God could not save and redeem the creation. God cannot save what God did not assume and logically, I think Athanasius and the other Fathers would conclude that God could not fully assume what God did not fully create. This is not to say that God created the Son. God did not assume the Son but is the Son and so the only thing assumed is the flesh. Athanasius clear makes his argument for creatio ex nihilo in chapter 1 part 2 of On the Incarnation.

[Rich Schmidt]

The following verse keeps coming to mind:

Hebrews 11:3 (NIV) - "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

[Paul DeBaufer]

Help me here, did God create out of chaos or creation?

I guess I think that chaos implies that something unordered exists. In my mind if that something is not God then it is creation, because I think we affirm that nothing is coeval with God. I think that God is the only thing that IS without having been created, unless I have this wrong. [Edited to add:] I also affirm that God IS THE Creator, "3All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being." Seemingly when we think about it we just push creatio ex nihilo back deeper into the past, but I'm not sure that this is necessarily so, it could well be a confound of our limited minds and reasoning: "The major obstacles to affirming that God creates out of creation through a nature of love do not arise out from the theory itself. They arise from our intellectual limitations and habits. We cannot fathom what it would be like to have no beginning and to exist forever. While this creation theory denies that creatures are beginning-less, it affirms that God is beginning-less," Tom Oord, The Nature of Love page 137. Do I struggle with the seeming contradiction? Yes, but I am at a place where I can now say that pure logic and reason (which would seem to dictate creatio ex nihilo IF nothing exists before or coeval with God and God IS The Creator) may be limited in this area. I tried to come to faith through reason, but one cannot and if reason is limited in that it sure could be limited in this as well.

[Paul DeBaufer]

But the phrase that "God created out of that which God had already created" does not really do any more than the argument that humans may have been planted here by aliens explains the origin of the species. All that has been done in the alien argument is expressing a geographical origin, not biological or even ontological. The response to your statement would be what did he create first, and from what? Even science theorizes that nothing existed prior to the big bang, right? It has even been hypothesized that time did not exist and some postulate imaginary time to fill that void.


I don't get how you got the geographical thing, but....


I apologise, I didn't read carefully enough.must've been asleep

[Hans Deventer]

What is lost by holding to a position that God is co-existent with something? How is it lost?

What is gained by rejecting such a position? How is it gained?

Why is this loss/gain of theological significance?

I'd say the heart of it was the confirmation of God being omnipotent. God doesn't depend on creation but rather the other way around. I agree the idea of creation ex nihilo is once again more a Hellenistic philosophical construct than a Biblical doctrine.

We don't need to hold it, there is nothing in Article I that demands it:





I. The Triune God
1. We believe in one eternally existent, infinite God, Sovereign Creator and Sustainer of the universe; that He only is God, holy in nature, attributes, and purpose. The God who is holy love and light is Triune in essential being, revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

For me, I'm not so interested in the discussion around HOW God created in the past. I'm far more interested in what He's able to do in the future, since I do not believe in people but in God.

[Steven Martinez]

I'd say the heart of it was the confirmation of God being omnipotent. God doesn't depend on creation but rather the other way around. I agree the idea of creation ex nihilo is once again more a Hellenistic philosophical construct than a Biblical doctrine.
This is simply not true. creation out of nothing is the exact opposite of Hellenistic philosophy. It is also the opposite of Gnostic thought. While it might not be directly referred to in Scripture, that does not disqualify itself from being true. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that a doctrine does not have to be literally expressed for it to be truly biblical.

[Hans Deventer]

This is simply not true. creation out of nothing is the exact opposite of Hellenistic philosophy. It is also the opposite of Gnostic thought.

This is simply not true. The first to come up with this idea actually was a Gnostic.


While it might not be directly referred to in Scripture, that does not disqualify itself from being true. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that a doctrine does not have to be literally expressed for it to be truly biblical.

Steven, it's not in the Manual, it's not in the ecumenical creeds. How is this a doctrine anyway?

[Steven Martinez]

This is simply not true. The first to come up with this idea actually was a Gnostic.
I know that Dr. Oord makes this claim but a further reading into the persons he claims created the doctrine actual fall into the Platonic dualism or pantheism which is why they were branded heretics by Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Justin Martyr. At the same time I question his historical data on the subject because there is clearly Jewish development of creatio ex nihilo well before the 2nd century. Even Greathouse and Lyons' commentary on Romans reflects this as they point out writings in 2 Baruch that show a postexilic formulation of this belief. The main problem I have with Dr. Oords views on the subject is I have yet to find away to justify it without fully adopting process theology which I do not subscribe too. Read Athanasius again and note his study on the subject. I know how much you respect Athanasius in general so take his word on the matter.


Steven, it's not in the Manual, it's not in the ecumenical creeds. How is this a doctrine anyway?

I would beg to differ. It is not specifically stated in the Manual or the Creeds but any study on the creeds would lead one down the path that the Church Father's believed in this doctrine and believed it to be vital. In stead of saying Creation out of nothing they simply refer to god as the Creator which implies something much different than Plato's demiurge. I think the reality of the doctrine is that it is taken for granted in so much underling theology especially in the areas of the doctrines of God, Creation and Atonement. Our Manual does not explicitly condemn Penal Substitution nor does our agreed statement of belief. Yet we can say we reject these teachings and we even go so far to say that such teaching is contrary to Scripture and the revealed nature of God throughout the tradition of the Church, human reason and human experience. In fact the Wesleyan quadrilateral is not an Article of Faith and yet we use it to either affirm or reject teachings as orthodox belief in the Church of the Nazarene. I would argue that going against creatio ex nihilo is going against the teachings of the Fathers and the Creeds they wrote with this teaching in mind, the Scriptures (how do you read Romans 4:17 and Hebrews 11:3 and the Hebrew word bara in Genesis 1:2 which Dunning, Dr. Colson (NTS) and others view as an implication of creation out of nothing rather than asah which implies something made out of something else?) and the theological teachings of Wesley, Wiley and Dunning.

[Hans Deventer]

I would beg to differ. It is not specifically stated in the Manual or the Creeds but any study on the creeds would lead one down the path that the Church Father's believed in this doctrine and believed it to be vital.

Now this is getting a little dangerous. It almost sounds like I'm talking to a concerned Nazarene, while you are not. I'm sorry Steven, but I'm not going there. The church fathers are to be taken seriously, but they are not the last authority exactly because they rightly attempted to speak about the faith in a very different culture than from where it originated. I'm not going to define orthodoxy beyond Manual and Creeds.

I believe God is the creator. I could not care less about HOW He did it. I'm quite sure He can create out of nothing. Tom's reason behind this seems to be the problem of theodicy. I'm not reading my Bible like that. I just want to read what it says. I'm fine with Romans 4:17, which isn't about creation. Fine with Hebrews 11:3 too. Surely you don't mean to imply that what isn't visible, is therefore not existing?

To me what is underlying our doctrines is the fact that God is creator. Not HOW He created.

As to penal substitution, that's a theory one can hold, but I reject it. Both our Articles of Faith and the ecumenical creeds allow for both holding and rejecting it.

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is not an Article of Faith, that's right. But it is used to explain how we arrived at the AoF's that we do have. That's legitimate, isn't it?

Regarding bara, I haven't read all that much but I've learned that Hebrew words are rarely so cut and dried as you make it sound here. If I only take into consideration that what was created was ha-eretz, and that did NOT mean the planet as we know it, merely a piece of land underneath the dome, I don't see much room for a creation ex nihilo in Genesis 1 anymore. Still does not mean that cannot create ex nihilo or that there hasn't been one. It only means to me you can't build it on Genesis 1.

Bottom line, for me, it changes nothing in my doctrine of God. It does change some in creation, but that doesn't bother me. I see no consequences for the Atonement. Again, God is still creator. Now do mind, I'm NOT a process theologian just because I tend to reject creation ex nihilo.

But more importantly, what's the link with the Atonement? That's something I'm missing.

[John Brickley]

While I am not a physicist and therefore cannot speak authoritatively on this, I believe that science has demonstrated that the universe is not infinite in either direction, thus it would demand a time when there was not, or a time when there was nothing. If that is the case, then there had to be a moment when we went from nothing to something (and that by definition would be a creative event). Now moving from that logic, (which if what I said was true about the finiteness of the universe) which is as I understand it unassailable, that leads us to the logic of Athanasius (and I would add Ireaneus here as well) in relation to the atonement. Athanasius in his logic actually works backward from the Christ event and views creation in light of Christ. His point (and Ireaneus had already made this basic point much earlier) is that if the God who came to us in Jesus Christ were not God almighty then our redemption would not be secure. Conversely if God had not truly united Himself to that creation (hence the earlier discussion on the full humanity of Christ) then that creation would still be separated from Him (these are just very broad brush strokes but I think it is faithful to the fathers and gets the point across). Athanasius goes on to state that if there were some other creator and God were merely an fashioner then not only would you have the problem of polytheism, but God who came to us in Christ would be a lesser god and hence our salvation would not be secure. If this God were the fashioner only and not creator then (if I understand Athanasius correctly) you have the corresponding problem that God in Christ had come to redeem what was not properly His to redeem, in that He was only the fashioner and not the source. He seems to be operating from the assumption that creation was ex nihilo, or more properly stated out of God, that He is the source of all that is and that from Him all things live and move and have their being. From this assumption (and from the logic of the argument based on the finiteness of the universe) it would seem that creatio ex nihilo is unavoidable. However, I still contend that the better way to talk about it is creation out of God as opposed to out of nothing. It would follow the logic of the fathers (and I believe scripture as well) to state that God is the source of all that is.

I think there are implications for both soteriology and Christology in the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, and I also think the logic of it is undeniable. Now to Hans' point I do agree that the how is not the primary issue in theology, having said that as I understand it the point of creatio ex nihilo is not the how anyway, but goes to the question of Who and that was Athanasius' point as well.

[Craig Laughlin]

While I am not a physicist and therefore cannot speak authoritatively on this, I believe that science has demonstrated that the universe is not infinite in either direction, thus it would demand a time when there was not, or a time when there was nothing. If that is the case, then there had to be a moment when we went from nothing to something

This is where we bump into Einstein. He defines time in terms of matter in motion. The problem is, no matter, no time. It is EXTREMELY hard to even talk about this without naturally referencing assumptions about time as liner, immutable and eternal.

Even the phrase
thus it would demand a time assumes that time is liner and would continue even if there was no matter. It is the assumptions that kill us on this. Basically, to say “a time before matter” is a self contradicting statement.

It also raises some very interesting questions about the Holy Spirit who does not seem to have a material body. According to Einstein then he must exist outside of time. (I don't even really understand what that means)

[John Brickley]

Even the phrase assumes that time is liner and would continue even if there was no matter. It is the assumptions that kill us on this. Basically, to say “a time before matter” is a self contradicting statement.

It also raises some very interesting questions about the Holy Spirit who does not seem to have a material body. According to Einstein then he must exist outside of time. (I don't even really understand what that means)

I understand (I guess???) the point you are making, and I agree that Einstein tied time to matter (convincingly so), but I am not sure that that upends the logic of what I said. If the universe is finite in both directions (thereby affirming that there was a time in which the universe was not) then there must be a time (I know I just don't know what other word to use) in which it came to be creatively, the logic of that to me seems unavoidable. Now note I am not saying anything about what that original created stuff looked like nor what the process was to get us from there to here, just that the very fact that we are now here seems to demand creatio ex nihilo (though I still prefer creation out of God).

Now in relation to the linear nature of time I understand that in physics it is not linear (I am no expert on Einstein but I believe he did talk about the bending of time) but in Christian theology time is linear. This is in stark contrast to many eastern religions that view time as cyclical. We do look back to a defined beginning and an ultimate consummation (it is a better word than ending, as we don't really talk about an ending). Thus while according to physics to talk of time in a linear sense is antiquated at best, it does seem to be entirely consistent with Christian theology.

[Billie Goodson]

Now this is getting a little dangerous. It almost sounds like I'm talking to a concerned Nazarene, while you are not.

While not a fan of the group mentioned, I don't think that they are always wrong.

I think it is always interesting to wake up theologically and realize who our bed partners are...

A "famous" opponent of creation ex nihilo is Joseph Smith. Most often recognized as the founder of the Mormon Church. Here is a quote from Smith given at the funeral of fellow Mormon King Follett::


Now I ask all who hear me why the learned men who are preaching salvation say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. The reason is they are unlearned...God had materials to organize the world out of chaos, chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles that can never be destroyed, they may be organized and reorganized but not destroyed.

On another track, is creation ex nihilo really viable? One is left to ponder what nothing is. I have heard Ravi Zacharias quote Plato(?) in saying that "nothing is that which rocks think about". Seems to somewhat describe my sentiment.

The thought I would develop in opposition to creation ex nihilo is that prior to the first creative event (I like John's term) which was taken by the creative agent (either God or some other causative agent) what existed? Was it God and nothing? Or simply God? Paul Copan developed this theme in "Is Creatio Ex Nihilo A Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination of Gerhard May's Proposal," Trinity Journal 17 (1996): 77-93.


Nothingness has not co-existed from eternity with God. "Before" the creation, God was all that there was -- there was no empty space or a dark void or non-existence...

This would seem to bolster statements attributed to Dr. Oord in saying, "creatio ex creatione a natura amoris (God creates out of creation through a nature of love.) God has always created out of that which God had already created." If we say that only God existed, then He (as creative agent) caused something to exist (creative act), it would be something like creation from God (not nothing).

On creation ex nihilo, I am thinking a good biblical support for it would be John 1:3


All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

If all things came into being through Him, then what could we argue came into being otherwise?

On theories of time -- to put an analogy (which I love to do) with my earlier statement about being clueless even after listening to Dr. Craig a some length on this topic -- I feel like a blind man who has been given a flashlight to walk down a dark road....

[Craig Laughlin]

I understand (I guess???) the point you are making, and I agree that Einstein tied time to matter (convincingly so), but I am not sure that that upends the logic of what I said. If the universe is finite in both directions (thereby affirming that there was a time in which the universe was not) then there must be a time (I know I just don't know what other word to use) in which it came to be creatively, the logic of that to me seems unavoidable. Now note I am not saying anything about what that original created stuff looked like nor what the process was to get us from there to here, just that the very fact that we are now here seems to demand creatio ex nihilo (though I still prefer creation out of God).

Now in relation to the linear nature of time I understand that in physics it is not linear (I am no expert on Einstein but I believe he did talk about the bending of time) but in Christian theology time is linear. This is in stark contrast to many eastern religions that view time as cyclical. We do look back to a defined beginning and an ultimate consummation (it is a better word than ending, as we don't really talk about an ending). Thus while according to physics to talk of time in a linear sense is antiquated at best, it does seem to be entirely consistent with Christian theology.

Not to push the point to far but logically any sentence that speaks of something before matter is false. Its like saying before there was matter, there was matter.

I think my larger point is that post Einstein we can't even really answer this question in a Ontological sense. We have no reference or way of understanding, even in the slightest what it means to talk outside of Time/Space. The whole Biblical narrative assumes time as liner. Alpha and Omega. Maybe to put a finer point on it, asking any question similar to what was before creation is essentially begging the question. (Philosophical Logic Fallacy not the common use of the phrase)

[Dennis Bratcher]

Now here is an idea that I have great difficulty with. Why do we assume formless is chaotic?

Part of the difficulty here is that we are trying to mix biblical metaphors with philosophical and ontological arguments.

The idea of "chaos" is a biblical concept whose opposite is order/creation. In the ancient world, disorder/chaos was anything that threatened human existence. Deity was conceptualized in terms of bringing order, that is, of providing what was necessary for stable human existence. In the ancient Near East, that usually meant rain and fertility of the ground and livestock, as well as lack of war. So, they ended up with fertility gods, and order established in terms of cosmic battles between the forces of chaos and the creative forces of order, which in the myths were actually personifications of the positive aspects of the natural world.

In Israelite theologizing, God was described as the one who defeated the forces of chaos that threatened human existence and brought order into the world. Which is it easier for ancient Israelites to say, that God created out of nothing by means of the big bang, or to say that God defeated the dragon of chaos and brings rain to enable human life is a arid land? It is far from the cosmic dualism of later Greek philosophy, but is a very "earthy" portrayal of human existence and the role of God as Creator and Sustainer of the world.

In that sense, Genesis 1 is not so much about ultimate origins, but rather about the nature of God as Creator. Note how often in the biblical narratives, the emphasis is on the stability of the world, and the threat that things like famine and drought bring. If we take that aspect seriously, it would cast a different light on most of our discussion about Genesis 1.

So yes, "formless and void" is a typical description of "chaos" into which God brings order (creates). It is interesting, and important that creation language and imagery is also used in Genesis 6-8, by the Isaiah traditions in talking about both the threat of the exile and return from it, by various psalms and epiphany accounts to talk about restoration from crises (Hab 3, Psa 18, Job 26, etc.), and metaphorically to talk about restoration in Christ.


In fact, the Hebrew word translated here "formless" is translated in other places as "chaos" (Isa 24:10, 34:11, both passages referring to judgment; cf. 4 Ezra 5:8). [Creation 1, God and Boundaries (http://www.crivoice.org/biblestudy/bbgen3.html); see also Speaking the Language of Canaan (http://www.crivoice.org/langcaan.html)]


Several theologians often express this romantic view of God calming the chaos of the waters as God's ability to bring the ultimate order out of chaos.

Since I am one of those (biblical) theologians, I would strongly affirm two things. 1) It has nothing to do with any romantic notions. It is a fact of historical context. 2) It is quite plainly what the biblical text portrays in dozens of passages scattered throughout Scripture.


However, this is extremely Platonic to say the least . . . .

Nope. It is the historical context of the ancient Near East. And that was a millennium and a half before Plato.


and I often find it interesting that those who wish to avoid Platonic concepts of God often desire to throw away the idea of Creatio ex Nihilo which specifically counters the dualistic understanding of both Gnosticism and Hellenistic philosophy which clearly states that God is only the former of God while the early Church countered that God creates nothing but good but humanity's sin is what brought evil into the world and so God is not the creator of evil.

Nope. Creatio ex nihilo is a purely logical syllogism that arises from questions of ultimate origin and ultimate reality, neither of which are questions that concerned the ancient Israelites (thus Scripture). It is not that creatio ex nihilo is dualistic, it is that it is premised on the assumption that we must logically explain how God can be eternal and the "first cause" if physical matter existed at the beginning of creation.

That sets up a necessary logical sequence. If God is infinite (which is already assumed as a logical premise) then he is also eternal. If he is infinite and eternal, then he is the genuine First Cause of all things. As the First Cause, there can be nothing that is co-eternal with God. If there can be nothing co-eternal with God, then when God began to create nothing else could have existed.

So, if there existed physical matter along with God, then matter is co-eternal with God, which would make God something less than God since he has already been defined as eternal. If matter is co-eternal with God, then God cannot be the First cause. But since he is the First Cause by assumption, therefore as a logical necessity God must have created out of nothing.

As in all logical syllogisms, the truth of the syllogism depends on the validity of the initial premises, the frame of reference in which the syllogism is cast (what question it intends to address), and the way the syllogism is used to assert an answer. I would contend that this particular syllogism is flawed, not only in its premise, but in the way it flows logically by appealing to hidden assumptions. (I don't have time to flesh this out further.)


How to reject creatio ex nihilo would reject this fundamental claim and make God simply a mover of creation and not the Creator Himself.

No. it only rejects the logical construction as ontology. I would rather let Stephen Hawking deal with cosmic origins and stick with the admittedly limited biblical confession about the nature of God as Creator and Sustainer of human existence.


Going back to Athanasius and the other Fathers, the idea of God as creator and humanity as the defiler is the very hart of their atonement. This is why God became flesh in order to re-establish the Image of God in humanity. Jesus brings fallen humanity to into its proper place as the Image of God. However, this is all hinged on the idea of God creating out of nothing.

Two problems here. 1) This is appealing to a particular theological formulation about how God deals with humanity in order to support a logical construction about the origin of the cosmos. 2) This neglects the fact that the early Church fathers were working within that very same platonic conception of reality. That does not make them wrong. It only makes them as culturally conditioned, and limited, as the ancient Israelites.


Rather the issue is where did good and evil come from and who is the Creator and Sustainer of this creation?

And Scripture answers these quite well. Human beings make a choice for evil. God.

But this is an entirely different question than particular questions about creation. Here we must, we must deal with what we know about the nature of the cosmos. Admittedly, sometimes that is very little. But it is vastly more than ancient people. (There are lots of examples here ranging from subatomic particles to astrophysics.)


To me, to reject this doctrine is essentially to reject the very theological idea behind the creeds therefore making this doctrine crucial for orthodoxy if we believe that the Fathers were correct.

I believe the Fathers were correct when they talked about God and salvation. But to assume they were correct in their conventions of language, thought forms, and conceptions when they expressed those things is to accept culture and philosophy as ultimate rather than God as ultimate. It replaces God as Truth to which our testimony bears witness with our own ideas and forms of expression as the truth. That is why Paul could say that we see through a glass darkly. How we talk about God (theology) is not the truth. It may be true, but it is not truth.

I believe the Fathers just like I believe the Israelites. That is the truth, validity, and authority of tradition and Scripture. But I don't believe the Fathers when they talked about ex nihilo creation any more than I believe that God killed a great dragon Rahab or Levithan or Tiamat in order to create the world. To force that as a test of orthodoxy would be to demand that we live in the tenth century BC or in the third century AD. We don't and can't.

One could choose to accept the Church fathers over Scripture. That would mean either rejecting the Old Testament as Scripture, either actually or functionally (which more than one theologian enamored with Tradition as the primary authority has done). Or it would mean making Scripture conform to later ideologies, for example by so allegorizing the Old Testament that it means something quite different than it says (which more than one Church Father did). I am not willing to do either.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Paul DeBaufer]

The cosmological model that Dr. Oord seems to hold is akin to Steady State theory or Quasi-steady State, introduced in 1948 by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Herman Bondi (I forget which won the Nobel Prize in the 1950s for it, but Hoyle was left out and it was he who coined the term Big Band as a derisive term for the ex nihilo theory). Any way the short version of Steady State is that the universe exploded into existence following the collapse of an universe that existed before and that this "cycle" has always happened. If true then we get creation from what had been already created with a life cycle kind of like a Bach fugue, ends where it begins. With each succeeding universe time is recreated. I cannot speak for Tom, but this is the cosmologicaL theory I tend to see in his theology. Now Steady State fell out of favor in the 1960s, but in the 1990s Fred Hoyle revised it to Quasi-steady State-I don't know much about this version because all I learned was as asides to my interests in quantum theory and panspermia.

However, I'm not so interested in HOW God created and will not marry myself to any theory, but will simply affirm that God creates. I personally see God creating from that which God had already created as what the Bible has to say. Ex nihilo may be right and it seems to logically follow. However, maybe our reasoning fails when it gets to that point and I allow for this. Science, last I read, couldn't even talk about the 0 point of time in the Big Bang because the math fails when we get to less than so many milliseconds from 0.

[John Brickley]

Not to push the point to far but logically any sentence that speaks of something before matter is false. Its like saying before there was matter, there was matter.



But Craig that is precisely my point. If the universe is not eternal in both directions, then that demands that there was a time when it was not (now I don't want to rehash the debate over time, I honestly just don't know how else to state it) and the very fact that it is now, demands a creative act. Even if we go back to the big bang, that is not the beginning, where did that stuff come from? As Dennis pointed out this whole doctrine is a logical construct, but it seems to me to be an unavoidable one, all that is had to have a source if it is not in itself eternal. So I really have not yet seen how this logic is upended.

[Billie Goodson]

In that sense, Genesis 1 is not so much about ultimate origins, but rather about the nature of God as Creator. Note how often in the biblical narratives, the emphasis is on the stability of the world, and the threat that things like famine and drought bring. If we take that aspect seriously, it would cast a different light on most of our discussion about Genesis 1.



Dennis -- would this be accurate"

Hebrew texts seem to deal more with the why than the how. When references are made to angels, they seem to focus more on the action of the angels than the appearance of the angels. When we read the texts, we have a tendency to want to know what they looked like, and the ancient text writers were more focused on the actions. The primary focus of the Genesis story is not the how, but the why. In that sense, we get a simplistic rendering of things that were not within the focus of the ancient text writers. They were concerned not with how God created, the fact that they stood on the ground and saw things, was clear enough proof that God had taken some action. What was significant to them would be why God did it. This is somewhat emphasized by Paul Copan in when he wrote (same cite as earlier):


"...Jewish thought was preoccupied with the God of the cosmos rather than with the cosmos itself, with the creation rather than the ex nihilo."

[John Brickley]

Dennis -- would this be accurate"

Hebrew texts seem to deal more with the why than the how. When references are made to angels, they seem to focus more on the action of the angels than the appearance of the angels. When we read the texts, we have a tendency to want to know what they looked like, and the ancient text writers were more focused on the actions. The primary focus of the Genesis story is not the how, but the why. In that sense, we get a simplistic rendering of things that were not within the focus of the ancient text writers. They were concerned not with how God created, the fact that they stood on the ground and saw things, was clear enough proof that God had taken some action. What was significant to them would be why God did it. This is somewhat emphasized by Paul Copan in when he wrote (same cite as earlier):

Billie,

While I know I am not Dennis, I would say that this is correct for the most part but not all together complete. I too agree that the creation narratives are not primarily concerned with the how, and that the why is an essential part of the story, but so too is the Who. Genesis 1:1 starts out with the affirmation that this God is the God who created, thus it is addressing Who this God is, He is creator. Which (the little that I understand creatio ex nihilo) it seems to me is the same question at the heart of this doctrine. It is not attempting to define how this happened, but rather Who is this God of whom we speak, He is the one that created. Now we may want to debate the underlying assumptions (as Dennis has done) but I believe the Who question is still of vital importance to the creation narratives and to this doctrine. Therefore I do not see this doctrine as primarily concerning itself with the question of how, in fact it really does not get into that, it seems to be far more concerned with the Who.

Now having said that, I do think this is where the doctrine runs into trouble, because it in attempting to answer the question of Who God is it necessarily gets into areas of philosophical speculation about Him that goes beyond the narrative. I want to be very cautious about that, but I still find the logic of creation out of God (I much prefer that idea to out of nothing) to be unavoidable.

PS. I know you are thinking about it so here's the link... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8o89PoboiI&feature=related

[Dennis Bratcher]

Dennis -- would this be accurate"

Hebrew texts seem to deal more with the why than the how. When references are made to angels, they seem to focus more on the action of the angels than the appearance of the angels. When we read the texts, we have a tendency to want to know what they looked like, and the ancient text writers were more focused on the actions. The primary focus of the Genesis story is not the how, but the why. In that sense, we get a simplistic rendering of things that were not within the focus of the ancient text writers. They were concerned not with how God created, the fact that they stood on the ground and saw things, was clear enough proof that God had taken some action. What was significant to them would be why God did it. This is somewhat emphasized by Paul Copan in when he wrote (same cite as earlier):

John is right that the primary question in the biblical narratives is not even why, but who. The Genesis narratives came from a context in which on a practical level there were competing deities vying for allegiance. The response, cast in the mythical imagery of the Ba'al myth as a functional necessity, says that it is this God who creates, that it is this God who orders the world, and that it is this God who sets the boundaries of human existence. Therefore, it is this God who requires us to live within the boundaries that he has set for human existence.

(Side note: Complicating the issue but another whole topic: it is possible that Israelite creation theology developed backward from the exodus event in which God created a people. That is, the exodus was the defining moment historically and theologically for the Israelites and other issues took that as a reference point. It is as the people created by God in the exodus events that they are struggling to express God as creator against the popular mythical conceptions of creation as an unintended consequence of a war between the gods.)

That does not mean it excludes the issue of why. But the biblical answer to that question is far more simple than we might imagine.


Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited!): I am the LORD, and there is no other.

As the Genesis narratives say indirectly, the purpose of the world is to provide a place for human beings to live. That is more obvious in the second creation account in Genesis 2 where humans were created first and then the world was created as a place for them. In the first narrative in Genesis 1, the imagery of Eden fills that role, only with the added dimension of expressing God's intentions for humanity that would be corrupted by sin.

Ancient Israelites had no conceptual categories beyond the cultural pool of mythical imagery to address the question of how the world was created. And I do not believe that God somehow secretly encoded those answers into the biblical text in cryptic ways that humanity would not begin to understand for 3,000 years. I think that reduces Scripture to a book of magic.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Craig Laughlin]

But Craig that is precisely my point. If the universe is not eternal in both directions, then that demands that there was a time when it was not (now I don't want to rehash the debate over time, I honestly just don't know how else to state it) and the very fact that it is now, demands a creative act. Even if we go back to the big bang, that is not the beginning, where did that stuff come from? As Dennis pointed out this whole doctrine is a logical construct, but it seems to me to be an unavoidable one, all that is had to have a source if it is not in itself eternal. So I really have not yet seen how this logic is upended.

Yes, setting aside the language problem concerning the word time, I think one of the things I really like about relativity is that it is some way opens the door philosophically to the idea of God. (Hawking got burned talking like this) Of course others would simply say that matter (energy) is eternal. However I am attracted to the idea of a God who "speaks" and truly creates. What ever "form" (another space/time word) he existed in "before" he created matter. As has been pointed out everything after that is re-creation but one of the characteristics of God that we do not share is the ability to truly create.

We won't bring up issues of alternate universes, dimensions and some of the really, really crazy stuff string theory talks about! I think Dennis hit it best, we are trying to answer a philosophical/cosmological question with theological tools. The long history of this sort of endeavor is not good.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Ben,

I'm wondering the opposite of (2). What do we gain specifically by rejecting creatio ex nihilo? How does that rejection allow us to affirm something which allows us to be a more faithful witness?

--JS

[Steven Martinez]

Dennis, thanks for your post. It was insightful and respectfully written. While I would not say that I agree with all of it, I think it speaks that there is a duality in the theological world. You are obviously going through this process through the art of biblical theology and it seems that I am going through the process in a more systematic way. It seems like those who reject Creatio ex Nihilo seem to also reject systematics in some degree. I am not saying this as an insult or even as a problem but merely the reality in which we work. In fact I think it is a wonderful thing and why it is important not to abandon either art as we progress through a post-modern climate.
Grace and Peace to you as well my Brother
Steve

[Steven Martinez]

Now this is getting a little dangerous. It almost sounds like I'm talking to a concerned Nazarene, while you are not. I'm sorry Steven, but I'm not going there.
This is extremely hurtful. To even say this phrase in a casual manner is really hurtful to me. I think we should all be passionate about our beliefs. All of us have our little hills we defend more passionately then others. I have not once called you a heretic or an apostate because you do not believe like I do. At the same time I make no apology for speaking about what I believe. I can be wrong, I know I am probably wrong in many things. I just think that we cannot just simply cast things aside because they might not be important to us. Many people come and stay in a relationship with God because God relates to us on personal levels in regards to our passions and interests. Systematics is one of those things that allows me to feel welcome in our denomination. Therefore I will be passionate on these subjects. But I never meant to offend. If I did, I am truly sorry. However to lump me into a group, in a casual comment, that abhors dialogue, and basic Christian love is just beyond reasonable.

[Benjamin Burch]

(Side note: Complicating the issue but another whole topic: it is possible that Israelite creation theology developed backward from the exodus event in which God created a people. That is, the exodus was the defining moment historically and theologically for the Israelites and other issues took that as a reference point. It is as the people created by God in the exodus events that they are struggling to express God as creator against the popular mythical conceptions of creation as an unintended consequence of a war between the gods.)

Not only do I believe it's possible, but I find the creation stories impossible to understand apart from this...

[Dennis Bratcher]

Ben,

I'm wondering the opposite of (2). What do we gain specifically by rejecting creatio ex nihilo? How does that rejection allow us to affirm something which allows us to be a more faithful witness?

Obviously I'm not Ben. And he likely will have a different answer.

But for me one clear answer is that it is more faithful to what Scripture actually says. We, as heirs of the Early Church, have become too preoccupied with the logical (and now scientific) arguments that, I fear, lead us too far astray from the simplicity of what the biblical narrative is affirming. While logical and systematic constructions have their place, we begin to lose more than we gain when those formulations are taken as a level of truth that they simply cannot sustain in light of other intersecting factors. If we are not careful, our logical formulations that we assume to be ontology set us up for dealing with scientific issues in an automatic defensive posture instead of listening to new ideas with an open mind.

In the modern world we simply cannot assert theology in ways that set up nearly guaranteed conflicts with what science tells us about the physical world. That does not make science paramount, nor does it suggest that every scientific theory or hypothesis must be accepted. But I think that creating conflict by logically constructed theology is counterproductive to what the Church should be about in a modern world. It is a conflict that we generate and that can be avoided by not assuming that our logic is the same as truth.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Dennis, thanks for your post. It was insightful and respectfully written. While I would not say that I agree with all of it, I think it speaks that there is a duality in the theological world. You are obviously going through this process through the art of biblical theology and it seems that I am going through the process in a more systematic way.

Exactly. As long as we can acknowledge that creatio ex nihilo is a logical way of talking about God given certain frames of reference in order to construct a coherent and consistent system within certain parameters of time and place, then it has its role. But that still has to acknowledge that the biblical perspective is much different. I do not accept the biblical view of the physical world from 1,000 BC as absolute. The simple reality is that we know too much about the physical world for that to be viable. But then that same truth applies to the Early Fathers.

For me, there are three intersecting factors. 1) be faithful to the biblical witness without making it speak 21st century English; 2) be faithful to the historical faith confessions of the Church without making them absolute truth; and 3) take seriously the enormous amount of information about the physical world and the cosmos that modern science provides without making it speak 10th BC Hebrew.


It seems like those who reject Creatio ex Nihilo seem to also reject systematics in some degree.

I reject Systematics at the point where it says that the theological system that it has constructed is an accurate and complete description of God and the world. As long as systematics acknowledges that it is as limited as tenth century BC Israelite mythological imagery when it comes to defining God, then I have no problem with it. BTW, the same is true for biblical interpretation and biblical theology.


I am not saying this as an insult or even as a problem but merely the reality in which we work. In fact I think it is a wonderful thing and why it is important not to abandon either art as we progress through a post-modern climate.

Absolutely! The recurring problem is that both biblical theologians and systematicians tend not to talk to each other much. Or that they speak different languages.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Not only do I believe it's possible, but I find the creation stories impossible to understand apart from this...

Understatement is sometimes an excercise in prudence.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben,

I'm wondering the opposite of (2). What do we gain specifically by rejecting creatio ex nihilo? How does that rejection allow us to affirm something which allows us to be a more faithful witness?

--JS

Come now. I've done so well. genuinely want opinions of others here and don't want to argue. I've not said what I think at all! Now you're going to make me do so? :tongue:

I like Dennis' answer, but like he said, I also want to say something different.

Really, my big concern is fleshed out in (1) on my initial post.

That is, we (Christians) are a people who find our identity and understand all reality within a single story. This story is about one person and our relationship to that one person (Christ). However, this story itself is deeply rooted in the salvation of God and the story which our story is the "fulfillment" of!

My concern is that we confess a "salvation story" not a "creation story." That salvation story seems to run consistently in one way/fashion throughout the entire Biblical text. Time, and time, and time again. In fact, as Dennis said and I alluded to, it seems that even the creation stories themselves are understood in light of this "salvation story" and I think are even retellings of this salvation story!

When we require our salvation story (through logical premises and syllogisms) to affirm a quite different creation story then it seems that we've altared that salvation story. This has always and will always make me nervous.

Secondly, I guess I simply do not find the logical presuppositions and premises convincing or even compelling.

(1) God is defined as eternal and therefore if something else is eternal (co-eternal) then this diminishes God's eternality and therefore makes God (in some way) not/less God.

- God is God because only God is God. Who cares if something else is co-eternal?

(2) This makes God only fashioner and not "creator."

- False. A table is a "table" precisely because it is something new that was not before. The "creator" is the one who made this thing which previously did not exist. However, the entire process is one of creating out of "something."

(3) If God did not create everything (including the materials as it were) then it is not rightfully God's to redeem.

- False. Is the table not the carpenter's to repair and restore?

So, I simply don't even find the starting points valid at all.

I also think that creatio ex nihilo actually does not create a situation where God "created all that is good and human sin causes evil." Instead, creation out of nothing seems to make this line of thinking problematic. However, if God created out of "neutral" "chaos" then it can firmly held that God is the ground, source, and creator of all that is "good" and that creaturely sin is what causes "evil." So it would seem that at the very least creation out of chaos gives us equally good grounds on which to affirm this idea and possibly even better ground.

However, with all of that being said, I am finding everyone's responses extremely helpful.

[Hans Deventer]

This is extremely hurtful. To even say this phrase in a casual manner is really hurtful to me. I think we should all be passionate about our beliefs. All of us have our little hills we defend more passionately then others. I have not once called you a heretic or an apostate because you do not believe like I do. At the same time I make no apology for speaking about what I believe. I can be wrong, I know I am probably wrong in many things. I just think that we cannot just simply cast things aside because they might not be important to us. Many people come and stay in a relationship with God because God relates to us on personal levels in regards to our passions and interests. Systematics is one of those things that allows me to feel welcome in our denomination. Therefore I will be passionate on these subjects. But I never meant to offend. If I did, I am truly sorry. However to lump me into a group, in a casual comment, that abhors dialogue, and basic Christian love is just beyond reasonable.

Steven, I meant nothing of what you are writing here and I am very sorry if you feel hurt. My mistaken attempt was to comment on the idea that I had to be wrong because the church fathers thought differently and considered their opinion on this issue to be vital. Which to me meant adding essentials to the Creeds and the AoF and that is a very touchy subject with me, because I have had enough trouble already with those that do. But I apologize for anything I have written and will leave the discussion.

[John Brickley]

My concern is that we confess a "salvation story" not a "creation story." That salvation story seems to run consistently in one way/fashion throughout the entire Biblical text. Time, and time, and time again. In fact, as Dennis said and I alluded to, it seems that even the creation stories themselves are understood in light of this "salvation story" and I think are even retellings of this salvation story!

When we require our salvation story (through logical premises and syllogisms) to affirm a quite different creation story then it seems that we've altared that salvation story. This has always and will always make me nervous.


I appreciate what you are saying here.

[Charlotte 'Mercer' Burton]

I feel somehow obligated to make an entirely off-topic statement here; threads like this are why I love NazNet. I love watching people argue both passionately and intellectually about various ideas and what they say about the nature and character of God, and I love seeing these disagreements, which could so easily become angry and offensive, instead playing out in an open, loving, respectful, and Christlike manner. This is what Christian theological debates ought to look like. Thank you all for your example to me and to my peers. I love you!

[Roland Hearn]

I've got to say that the issue of the point of creation is one that I think is the domain of speculative philosophy and neither hard science nor theology. I've read a little, far from enough to even gain a sense of certainty about the issues but it seems to me that there is attraction in the idea of the recreating God. Science does seem to suggest that all that is in the universe came from a spec massive beyond comprehension, yet smaller than is knowable. For many, including myself, that seems close enough to nothing so as to qualify. But for others the idea of an expanding and shrinking cyclic universe has appeal. We are in the expanision phase at the moment but eventually it will turn and shrink back to nothing at which point presumnably God will create again. We are talking about time scales so far beyond our imagination that it is not greatly helpful but to affirm something about the nature of God. I think either points of view are going to end up pretty much the same. My faith suggests God is the first cause, of all that reflects Him, however He did it. He is not caused. Now lets get on to the good stuff - God is love.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

I wasn't trying to force anyone into any positions. I was simply trying to attack the problem in a way that made sense to my feeble brain.

The following is me thinking out loud as we southerners are prone to do. It in no way represents a final position or anything approaching a final position:

I suppose, uncritically at some level, I had always thought that creatio ex nihilo offered a clear way to say that all that was created was good. I'm thinking here of avoiding the gnostic heresy that matter is evil. Perhaps this doctrine isn't necessary to avoid thinking matter is evil. Since we aren't dualists then one wouldn't necessarily need to think that the pre-existent stuff wasn't evil. In a naive way, I assumed, if God created everything, then no one could say that matter is evil.

That being said, I have always assumed that this is a theological statement rather than a scientific statement. I guess I'm interested in the point of something because I wonder what the practical import of holding any idea would be. I'm probably fine with argument that places all that is to be dependent upon God (in him we live and move and have our being). Who am I kidding, I wasn't ever into dogmatics nearly as much as I like philosophical theology and ethics.

What are the implications for our own interactions with the creation around us? Does creatio ex nihio help or hurt us there?

One other small though. I've generally thought of chaos as being something other than neutral. Especially in terms of my household, my sons who regularly cause chaos is regarded in a negative light. I've always thought of chaos as being something that threatened the order necessary for life.

At any rate, that is just some thinking out loud.

--JS

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Thanks for your response. Where I'm most comfortable is assuming that there is some logic to the Credo and trying to figure out or explicate that logic. One of the reasons I've always been suspicious of process ontologies is that they seem too neat and seem to impose some pretty strict logical formulations that don't necessarily emerge strictly from the Scriptures. I'm not trying to cause a fight with those statements, it is probably just an expression of some character flaw.

--JS

[Dennis Bratcher]

I've generally thought of chaos as being something other than neutral. Especially in terms of my household, my sons who regularly cause chaos is regarded in a negative light. I've always thought of chaos as being something that threatened the order necessary for life.

I think this ("other than neutral") places too much substance onto the biblical concept of chaos. Perhaps it might be helpful to think of chaos as the "natural" state of things. Using modern categories, highly ordered systems or complex mechanisms tend to deteriorate if left unattended. Mountains erode, cars break down, weeds grow in the garden, and kid's rooms (but not the man cave!) get cluttered. The tendency is always toward disorder, disorganization, and less complexity, without additional "input." It is not negative; it is just, as my five year old granddaughter says, the way the earth goes.

So, in one sense, disorder/chaos is the default of the world. Order, or creation, is the work of God to bring, and maintain, an order a coherence to the world. In ancient perspective, that was an ongoing activity, like the cycles of seasons. In the Genesis narratives, the creative acts of God are to establish the order of the cosmos, to place boundaries within which the world, and humanity, exist. That is not ontological and really cannot be made ontological.

While we do not work within that conceptual framework, perhaps it is still a good way to conceptualize God, not only as Creator but also as Sustainer, not only as having created but also as constantly creating. Creation is part of the nature of God, expressed by Israelites as ordering that which is in disorder. For God to withdraw results in chaos once again dominating, not in any ontological sense, but experientially and perceptually. Yet perhaps it really is God in his providence who continues to ignite stars in nebulas of distant spiral galaxies and constantly creates new planetary systems from interstellar dust.

Where the dust came from I have no idea. That is the domain of speculative philosophers and theoretical astrophysicists. The best answer I can give is exactly what the ancient Israelites said: God.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Roland Hearn]

I recognise that the recreating God is an attempt to deal with the problem of evil. If God created all from nothing and evil rose from that creation then in the end evil potentially resides within the creation of God and therefore can be laid at his feet. I'm thinking out loud here, so to speak, I mean so to write, well I'm not actually verbalising anything, I'm writing what I am thinking so forget the metaphor of thinking out loud. I wonder about this: God created in the temporal. By its very definition what is created has beginning and end. Decay begins at the point of creation. Thus all that is created is less than perfect -if perfection includes existence. Better the perfect that exists than the perfect that does not - now where have I heard that before? Oh well, I continue. The process of decay on a scale the size of the universe does inherently include natural evil. Into this system is placed a thinking, free will being. The nature of existence for this being will include pursuit of the godly. God is perfect; the created is not. For the thinking being, however, perfection must be equated with the ultimate goal of life for to be perfect is to be like the creator. That perfection can only be achieved by relationship with the creator but this thinking being can't help but wonder, "is there another way?" The pursuit of the "other way" is the human experience of evil. So natural evil and sin are components of the otherness of creation. Not because God created evil but less than perfection includes lack and in that lack evil finds expression. Evil is not substantive but describes the result of being less than God. The only way for evil to not exist in creation is for God to create a static eternal universe. Why did He not do that? Perhaps such a Universe lacks a dynamic that reflects the creative capacity of God; that sounds a little weak -I really don't know.

[Eric Vail]

This has been a great thread to read! It is dear to my heart since I wrote my dissertation on this topic (Using "Chaos" in Articulating the Relationship of God and Creation in God's Creative Activity) and am currently revising it for publication. If anyone wants to see what I argue about creatio ex nihilo and about the Genesis 1 account you can look at epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/5/ (http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/5/).

There are several sources that would be of help in this conversation. In looking at the historical circumstances around the development of creatio ex nihilo see: Gerhard May's, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of “Creation Out of Nothing” in Early Christian Thought. Translated by A. S. Worrall. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994. This will help with some of the anachronistic readings we sometimes do of biblical/ancient texts. For that matter also see: Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1—11: A Commentary. Trans. by John J. Scullion, S.J. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984.

I like some of the points that Dennis has been making in his posts, but I do not agree fully with his reading of Genesis 1 and the nature of the ANE influences. I tend to side with these three authors on what to do with comparative issues in biblical creation texts.
Tsumura, David Toshio. Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
Watson, Rebecca S. Chaos Uncreated: A Reassessment of the Theme of “Chaos” in the Hebrew Bible. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2005.
Brown, William P. Structure, Role, and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis 1:1—2:3. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 132. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.

Benjamin, it is interesting that you want to reject creatio ex nihilo because you want a consistent, cohesive story from begining to end. I argue for a reformulated version of creatio ex nihilo for the same reason of having a cohesive story (chapter 5 of my dissertation).

I found Dennis' statement of not wanting to make people revert to a 10th century BCE or 4th century CE worldview important. I agree with a strong percentage of biblical scholars that there is no clear evidence for a belief in creatio ex nihilo in either testament. I can agree with Gerhard May's reconstruction of creatio ex nihilo's emergence in history. I do not believe that what is necessary for our salvation is holding to one cosmology or metaphysic, one from the past or a current one. This is why I do not understand the argument that we should hold to a creation out of something belief because it is closer to the framework in which the biblical authors were trying to communicate the nature, character, and story of God. Christians have been boldly taking the truth of what is revealed in the biblical worldviews and giving testimony to it in later worldviews. That is what the church does, it gives witness to the story in the present. It labors to embody the story in ever new (thought) worlds.

Even if creatio ex nihilo arose in one thought world for very specific reasons that no longer concern us, or seem convincing, it does not mean that a version of creatio ex nihilo is not the most appropriate course in the present (for altogether different reasons). Many of the attacks on creatio ex nihilo and reasons for dismissing it, I believe can be avoided in a reformulated version. Thus, you can have a doctrine that can handle theodicy questions and can make God loving (not coercive). You can also have an answer for questions of ontology/begining that I do not believe Tom Oord's or Catherine Keller's proposals can satisfy.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I like some of the points that Dennis has been making in his posts, but I do not agree fully with his reading of Genesis 1 and the nature of the ANE influences. I tend to side with these three authors on what to do with comparative issues in biblical creation texts.
Tsumura, David Toshio. Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
Watson, Rebecca S. Chaos Uncreated: A Reassessment of the Theme of “Chaos” in the Hebrew Bible. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2005.
Brown, William P. Structure, Role, and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis 1:1—2:3. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 132. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.

Without either belaboring the point or being defensive, I might point out that my perspective is different than much of the 19th and early 20th century application of comparative religions or of historical influences on biblical formulations. Rather than seeing the Israelites borrowing wholesale and then "tweaking" the details, I think they came to a much more radical understanding of God than simply making Ba'al or Marduk into Yahweh, as many of the earlier historians argued.

The exodus event, however we understand the details, moved Israelite conceptions of God from the mythical to the historical. That was a significant and drastic change. The "primeval battle" motif of ANE mythology is not a part of Israelite conceptions of God. In fact, it is almost diametrically the opposite (which raises significant theological questions concerning the re-mythologizing of such a cosmic battle in the early Chruch!).

My approach is far more literary than historical, while still acknowledging that literary imagery arises from a cultural and historical milieu. I have argued that the Hebrews/Israelites used the metaphorical language of the culture in which they lived to express their conceptions about God, yet without buying into the mythical assumptions on which they were built. They used the language and the imagery as a means to argue against the very mythological system that gave rise to the imagery. In that sense, there is no cosmic battle between opposing deities in Scripture (the Chaoskampf motif assumes such a battle), there is no effort to explain in narrative form the cycles of seasons, and rain and other aspects of the natural world are not personified as deities. Yet, repeatedly across biblical traditions God crushes the head of Rahab/Levithian/the dragon and subdues water/the deep. There are repeated references to God establishing the order of the seasons, or appeals to God to correct disorder (for example in drought). And God is often described in language associated with the personifications of Ba'al/Marduk in "nature" metaphors, such as "rider of the clouds" or the imagery of thunder and lighting.

So, I do not accept a lot of the conclusions of the historical/comparative use of "chaos" in the Old Testament, especially when it is linked to the Hebrew/Israelite appropriation of ANE mythology. But it is difficult to understand the biblical metaphors without seeing at the very least significant literary borrowing of the cultural imagery of the ANE. As the Frankforts concluded in the 1940s, there simply was no other language for the Israelites to use to talk about deity, at the same time that they gave the imagery radically different content.


I found Dennis' statement of not wanting to make people revert to a 10th century BCE or 4th century CE worldview important. I agree with a strong percentage of biblical scholars that there is no clear evidence for a belief in creatio ex nihilo in either testament. I can agree with Gerhard May's reconstruction of creatio ex nihilo's emergence in history. I do not believe that what is necessary for our salvation is holding to one cosmology or metaphysic, one from the past or a current one. This is why I do not understand the argument that we should hold to a creation out of something belief because it is closer to the framework in which the biblical authors were trying to communicate the nature, character, and story of God. Christians have been boldly taking the truth of what is revealed in the biblical worldviews and giving testimony to it in later worldviews. That is what the church does, it gives witness to the story in the present. It labors to embody the story in ever new (thought) worlds.

I agree, not only in relation to creation but to theology in general. Yet, as I have observed before, it becomes very difficult to distinguish the form of communication from truth. The issue, I think, is not that we reformulate ideas in new modes, which is always necessary. The problem is that we tend to assume that when we have reformulated ideas into modes that make sense to us in our context, we then assume that our reformulation is the truth, and certainly a better truth since it makes better sense to us. We seem to forget the contingent nature of the context that provided the framework for the reformulation. This has been a problem throughout the history of the Church, and even earlier in the Old Testament (a good example is the later priestly formulation of the sacrificial system).

For example, we can reject chaos, or creation in terms of order out of chaos, as a factor in the Old Testament creation narratives. For the Greek mind (or the modern mind) that is far too historically conditioned, from a different thought world, and therefore in need of revision. However, at the same time we have trouble realizing that the logical necessity of pushing the question of creation into absolute origins to answer the philosophical question of ultimacy is just as much the result of a particular contingent context as was the ideas of chaos and order. We need to recast our ideas into formulation and imagery with which we are familiar in order to make sense out of our theological system. It is not that it is wrong in some sense, only that it is as tentative and conditional as was the formulation it replaced.


Even if creatio ex nihilo arose in one thought world for very specific reasons that no longer concern us, or seem convincing, it does not mean that a version of creatio ex nihilo is not the most appropriate course in the present (for altogether different reasons). Many of the attacks on creatio ex nihilo and reasons for dismissing it, I believe can be avoided in a reformulated version. Thus, you can have a doctrine that can handle theodicy questions and can make God loving (not coercive). You can also have an answer for questions of ontology/begining that I do not believe Tom Oord's or Catherine Keller's proposals can satisfy.

I agree to a point, for the reasons above. Yet, perhaps the biblical perspective answers a different set of questions that we have forgotten how to ask, preoccupied as we have been for so long with those questions of theodicy and ontology. Perhaps taking the biblical confessions more seriously as theology (which 19th/20th century study struggled with doing) might, at the very least, remind us that ontological questions may be important to us from our particular milieu, but are not the only or even the primary questions. It might remind us that our ontological questions finally have no answer except what we can create logically, since they are finally questions of logical necessity.

We may end up with truth by traveling that road. But maybe not. I think the best we can do is satisfy our need for coherent systems and logical ends tied up. I understand that some people need to do that. And some people need to understand God in those terms. But others do not. That is why I do not think we can abandon one formulation for the other, no matter how much the newer one makes more sense to us. Perhaps we need to put more effort into recognizing the limitations of our own assumptions and milieu, and realize that different questions, and different answers, may be as important in the larger scheme of things as our own.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I recognise that the recreating God is an attempt to deal with the problem of evil. If God created all from nothing and evil rose from that creation then in the end evil potentially resides within the creation of God and therefore can be laid at his feet. I'm thinking out loud here, so to speak, I mean so to write, well I'm not actually verbalising anything, I'm writing what I am thinking so forget the metaphor of thinking out loud. I wonder about this: God created in the temporal. By its very definition what is created has beginning and end. Decay begins at the point of creation. Thus all that is created is less than perfect -if perfection includes existence. Better the perfect that exists than the perfect that does not - now where have I heard that before? Oh well, I continue. The process of decay on a scale the size of the universe does inherently include natural evil. Into this system is placed a thinking, free will being. The nature of existence for this being will include pursuit of the godly. God is perfect; the created is not. For the thinking being, however, perfection must be equated with the ultimate goal of life for to be perfect is to be like the creator. That perfection can only be achieved by relationship with the creator but this thinking being can't help but wonder, "is there another way?" The pursuit of the "other way" is the human experience of evil. So natural evil and sin are components of the otherness of creation. Not because God created evil but less than perfection includes lack and in that lack evil finds expression. Evil is not substantive but describes the result of being less than God. The only way for evil to not exist in creation is for God to create a static eternal universe. Why did He not do that? Perhaps such a Universe lacks a dynamic that reflects the creative capacity of God; that sounds a little weak -I really don't know.

While we tend to conceptualize the processes at work in the natural world in terms of "decay," that may be too negative a way to express it. If we view those processes on a larger scale, "decay" is actually part of the process of regeneration or recreation. On a very simple scale, the compost that I generate from rotting garden waste becomes the basis for new growth in the Spring. On a far larger scale, astrophysicists tell us that stars go through life cycles of birth and death, with the remains of a dead star becoming the matter for a new star. That cycle on a vast scale is part of the process of recreation. And it seems to be a principal that characterizes all of existence.

From our perspective, we tend to see decay in linear terms of life and death, always ending in death. That is, the process moves downward. Yet on a larger scale death is part of a larger pattern of life. Even in Scripture, a basic theological principle is that "end" is not really an end, but the opportunity for new beginning. So, it makes sense to conceptualize God as Creator on much larger scales and in much more positive terms than "birth-death."

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Billie Goodson]

So, it makes sense to conceptualize God as Creator on much larger scales and in much more positive terms than "birth-death."

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

One of the themes I keep trying to integrate better into my own theology is that we are called to life after death -- being we are called to something in this life after our death to sin. Then life-after-life-after-death in the ultimate resurrection. Yes, I think God does so often tell us about new life, in Him first, that comes from death. Maybe one day, I will get that a little tighter and better expressed.

[Eric Vail]

Without either belaboring the point or being defensive, I might point out that my perspective is different than much of the 19th and early 20th century application of comparative religions or of historical influences on biblical formulations. Rather than seeing the Israelites borrowing wholesale and then "tweaking" the details, I think they came to a much more radical understanding of God than simply making Ba'al or Marduk into Yahweh, as many of the earlier historians argued.

The exodus event, however we understand the details, moved Israelite conceptions of God from the mythical to the historical. That was a significant and drastic change. The "primeval battle" motif of ANE mythology is not a part of Israelite conceptions of God. In fact, it is almost diametrically the opposite (which raises significant theological questions concerning the re-mythologizing of such a cosmic battle in the early Chruch!).
Nicely said. I too do not want to beat these issues to death; there are some things I want to at least bring into the conversation.

I am curious what you would think about Andrew Angel's dissertation in which he challenges the notion that there was a re-mythologizing of the imagry (at least in Jewish literature). He makes his case based largely on the number of historical vs. mythological uses of the imagery.

Angel, Andrew R. Chaos and the Son of Man: The Hebrew Chaoskampf Tradition in the Period 515 BCE to 200 CE. London: T & T Clark Intl, 2006.


My approach is far more literary than historical, while still acknowledging that literary imagery arises from a cultural and historical milieu. I have argued that the Hebrews/Israelites used the metaphorical language of the culture in which they lived to express their conceptions about God, yet without buying into the mythical assumptions on which they were built. They used the language and the imagery as a means to argue against the very mythological system that gave rise to the imagery. In that sense, there is no cosmic battle between opposing deities in Scripture (the Chaoskampf motif assumes such a battle), there is no effort to explain in narrative form the cycles of seasons, and rain and other aspects of the natural world are not personified as deities.
Again, well said. I agree heartily!


Yet, repeatedly across biblical traditions God crushes the head of Rahab/Levithian/the dragon and subdues water/the deep. There are repeated references to God establishing the order of the seasons, or appeals to God to correct disorder (for example in drought).
Crushing heads, yes. On subduing water/the deep, I think Rebecca Watson has some very compelling arguments against such claims in Chaos Uncreated: A Reassessment of the Theme of “Chaos” in the Hebrew Bible. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2005.

One of the key things I challenge in my dissertation is making the jump toward applying the language of "disorder" or "chaos" to the biblical language/imagery. For instance, why offer the assessment that drought is disorder? Why not say drought is death?

Where you say the story starts colors what you believe God is doing in the story (with the story being broader than Gen. 1). If we say the story starts with chaos or disorder and that in creating God is establishing an order or structure, that makes the end of God’s creative activity a structure. That may have been a fine claim to make theologically even a hundred years ago when physicists were trying to decode the mechanics of our linearly functioning universe. The natural world still seemed like a lifeless backdrop for the real story—humanity’s story—to unfold. If God masters the chaos, we have a smooth stage to act out our play upon. If order is not the telos of the story, then God’s creative activity of ordering becomes nothing more than a prelude to the real story.

I have argued, based on the arguments of David Tsumura and William Brown, that what we encounter in Genesis 1:2 is not rightly called “chaos.” It is rightly called “death.” We have a corpse lying in a dark, watery grave. The story moves from dead to alive, from a barren wasteland to a thriving community within which our creator dwells. The dead “earth” of Genesis 1:2 is made alive and responsive, its barrenness is replaced with fertility. Its emptiness is replaced with interdependent community, all participants having a role in service to others/the whole. The movement of the story (the Bible) is not back and forth between chaos/disorder and order/structure. The movement is between death and life. Where the story begins, and the activity of God from that point, has everything to do with the broader story. God’s creative activity is not a prelude to the main plot-line, it is ever the plot-line.

What you call the biblical imagery, what you say is the starting point, colors what we see happening in the story. These labels are not harmless. I think we have been wrong to use the language of “chaos” in reference to biblical and much of the ancient Near East imagery.



And God is often described in language associated with the personifications of Ba'al/Marduk in "nature" metaphors, such as "rider of the clouds" or the imagery of thunder and lighting.

So, I do not accept a lot of the conclusions of the historical/comparative use of "chaos" in the Old Testament, especially when it is linked to the Hebrew/Israelite appropriation of ANE mythology. But it is difficult to understand the biblical metaphors without seeing at the very least significant literary borrowing of the cultural imagery of the ANE. As the Frankforts concluded in the 1940s, there simply was no other language for the Israelites to use to talk about deity, at the same time that they gave the imagery radically different content.
Again, I agree. It is the labels we connect with the imagery that I challenge. Also, I am concerned that we are clear which images are being used in different contexts.

For example, in Genesis 1 William Brown has looked at the way water functions in the chapter. He has then looked at the ways it functions in all the available literature from the ancient Near East. He says: "In sum, one can point to a widespread ancient Near Eastern tradition reaching as far back as the Sumerian and early Egyptian mythographers in which water plays a positive role in the formation of not only water creatures but also aerial creatures" (Structure, Role, and Ideology, 184). Further, "Such a tradition casts a generally positive light upon the role of water in creation, in contrast to other traditions that highlight the negative, resistant role water often assumes in mythological texts (E.g., Tiamat in Enuma Elish, Yam in Ugaritic literature)" (184).

Brown, William P. Structure, Role, and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis 1:1—2:3. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 132. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.


I agree, not only in relation to creation but to theology in general. Yet, as I have observed before, it becomes very difficult to distinguish the form of communication from truth. The issue, I think, is not that we reformulate ideas in new modes, which is always necessary. The problem is that we tend to assume that when we have reformulated ideas into modes that make sense to us in our context, we then assume that our reformulation is the truth, and certainly a better truth since it makes better sense to us. We seem to forget the contingent nature of the context that provided the framework for the reformulation. This has been a problem throughout the history of the Church, and even earlier in the Old Testament (a good example is the later priestly formulation of the sacrificial system).

For example, we can reject chaos, or creation in terms of order out of chaos, as a factor in the Old Testament creation narratives. For the Greek mind (or the modern mind) that is far too historically conditioned, from a different thought world, and therefore in need of revision. However, at the same time we have trouble realizing that the logical necessity of pushing the question of creation into absolute origins to answer the philosophical question of ultimacy is just as much the result of a particular contingent context as was the ideas of chaos and order. We need to recast our ideas into formulation and imagery with which we are familiar in order to make sense out of our theological system. It is not that it is wrong in some sense, only that it is as tentative and conditional as was the formulation it replaced.
Very well said!—except for the “order”/“chaos” language :tongue: This issue has caused me concern when I work with some of my brothers and sisters who want to raise up some form of Thomism as a test of orthodoxy, claiming that worldview really is the way things are. Humility and a clear understanding of the contingent nature of what we are doing in theology is vital.


I agree to a point, for the reasons above. Yet, perhaps the biblical perspective answers a different set of questions that we have forgotten how to ask, preoccupied as we have been for so long with those questions of theodicy and ontology. Perhaps taking the biblical confessions more seriously as theology (which 19th/20th century study struggled with doing) might, at the very least, remind us that ontological questions may be important to us from our particular milieu, but are not the only or even the primary questions. It might remind us that our ontological questions finally have no answer except what we can create logically, since they are finally questions of logical necessity.

We may end up with truth by traveling that road. But maybe not. I think the best we can do is satisfy our need for coherent systems and logical ends tied up. I understand that some people need to do that. And some people need to understand God in those terms. But others do not. That is why I do not think we can abandon one formulation for the other, no matter how much the newer one makes more sense to us. Perhaps we need to put more effort into recognizing the limitations of our own assumptions and milieu, and realize that different questions, and different answers, may be as important in the larger scheme of things as our own.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.
Dennis, thanks for your great response! I want to know more about what questions you have in mind when you say: “Perhaps taking the biblical confessions more seriously as theology (which 19th/20th century study struggled with doing) might, at the very least, remind us that ontological questions may be important to us from our particular milieu, but are not the only or even the primary questions.” What more primary questions do you feel the Bible reminds us to attend to? I have heard some people say the first question in philosophy (in the West) started out being ontology, then it was epistemology, and now it is language. I feel I did not get the real heart of what you want us to see in the Bible based on your years of study.

I also could use clarification on the last paragraph of your position. I don’t think this fully summarizes your point (not trying to be uncharitable in my summary): ‘Some people need questions answered, others do not. No matter how we try to give an account of the faith for the first crowd, we may or may not be right (we can’t know). So we should stick with the biblical formulations since we are so bound by the limitations of our context. We should be content to hear answers to questions that may not be our own and leave the questions we may carry unexamined.’ I want to better understand your reasoning for staying closer to an ancient Hebrew worldview in our theology.

Grace and Peace,
Eric