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 [is] 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 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....