advice wanted

[Edial]

Ed,

As far as I am aware, the only Judeo-Christian text that explicitly precludes all other possibilities is the deuterocanonical 2 Maccabees. I'm a panentheist and reject ex nihilo creation accounts, and have encountered no scriptural evidence that mandates acceptance of an ex nihilo account of creation. Is it your view that all accounts that reject creation ex nihilo stand against the clear word of scripture; if so, whence do you derive this view? Thanks!

I did not even know about the 2 Maccabees text.
I was referring to the scriptural texts.
There are probably more.

HEB 11:3 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.

COL 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

But let me ask you a question.

How did all things come to be?
And please also give scriptural references conerning your view.
Since we really have no other way to know about such things, but through the Bible,

Thanks,
Ed

 

[JoeCatch]

Ed,

None of the texts you cite seem to mandate an ex nihilo view of the creation of the universe. The passage from Hebrews states only that what ws created was not made out of anything else that was visible (i.e., as I understand it, other mere ordinary matter). It doesn't preclude the possibility that God created the world out of some sort of formless, divine energy (i.e., some sort of spiritual but non-physical substance) through which God now continues to inhabit the universe and all things in it. Such a substance would not have a temporal nature the way that ordinary matter as we know it does, and so would not be created (i.e., brought into existence at some particular time) in the way that ordinary, physical matter came into existence. This was, in fact, the view of many of the church fathers, though many of them who held it derived it more from Platonic philosophy than from scripture.

I'm afraid that scripture simply doesn't say enough about the "how" of the creation of the universe for us to claim that any one particular view is the only possible correct interpretation of the issue. So, in keeping with what scripture says on the matter, I'll just respond to your question about how all things came to be by quoting the philosopher Jerry Fodor (he was responding to a different question, but his answer applies just as well here): "I don't know, and you don't know, and nobody knows, and anybody who says that they do know is lying; the only person who knows is God, and he hasn't told me yet." Since you're right that a clear word from scripture is the only possible source of a definite answer on the question, Fodor's
response is the only one I know of that we can honestly offer. Beyond that, each of us may hold to whatever interpretation is most helpful for us in making sense of what makes no rational sense, but there's just not enough there for any of us to say with certainty that anyone else's interpretation is necessarily wrong.

 

[Edial]

Ed,

None of the texts you cite seem to mandate an ex nihilo view of the creation of the universe. The passage from Hebrews states only that what ws created was not made out of anything else that was visible (i.e., as I understand it, other mere ordinary matter). It doesn't preclude the possibility that God created the world out of some sort of formless, divine energy (i.e., some sort of spiritual but non-physical substance) through which God now continues to inhabit the universe and all things in it. Such a substance would not have a temporal nature the way that ordinary matter as we know it does, and so would not be created (i.e., brought into existence at some particular time) in the way that ordinary, physical matter came into existence. This was, in fact, the view of many of the church fathers, though many of them who held it derived it more from Platonic philosophy than from scripture.

I'm afraid that scripture simply doesn't say enough about the "how" of the creation of the universe for us to claim that any one particular view is the only possible correct interpretation of the issue. So, in keeping with what scripture says on the matter, I'll just respond to your question about how all things came to be by quoting the philosopher Jerry Fodor (he was responding to a different question, but his answer applies just as well here): "I don't know, and you don't know, and nobody knows, and anybody who says that they do know is lying; the only person who knows is God, and he hasn't told me yet." Since you're right that a clear word from scripture is the only possible source of a definite answer on the question, Fodor's
response is the only one I know of that we can honestly offer. Beyond that, each of us may hold to whatever interpretation is most helpful for us in making sense of what makes no rational sense, but there's just not enough there for any of us to say with certainty that anyone else's interpretation is necessarily wrong.

But the second verse that I quotes states that invisible things were also created.
COL 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

And if invisible things were created, it is impossible that they were created from other invisible things ... since it stated above that invisible things were created.

And Christ is over "all things" in the text below, presuming "visible and invisible" things.

HEB 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. ...

And He sustains them by his "powerful word".

And we know from the scriptures that all things were created, visible and invisible.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[JoeCatch]

Ed,

Yes, even the "invisible things" (I take this to mean human souls, angels and such things, since it's not clear to me what else it could be referring to) were created. But from what? When I mentioned "spiritual substance" and "divine energy," what I had in mind was what the Eastern Orthodox view of the Energies of God. Said energies, being truly a part of the Godhead, are understood as being uncreated; they cannot be created because they are a part of God himself.

On this view (which is nowhere, as far as I am aware, directly contradicted by scripture) God created the universe and everything in it out of his own energies--themselves uncreated because they are a part of God himself. It is for this reason that God could look upon his creation and say, "it was good." Christ himself, as you recall, tells us that God alone is good. And yes, God sustains the universe by his powerful word (which, of course, we recognize as having its ultimate fulfillment in Christ's Incarnation).

Paul Tillich, one of the great theologians of our Lutheran tradition, took such a view when he wrote that it is an inadequate conception of God that views him as just one being among all others, differing only in that God is uncreated. On Tillich's view, God is not just a being, but the Ground of Being, the ultimate reality underlying all things in the universe, visible and invisible. Again, I see nothing in scripture that directly contradicts this view or mandates your ex nihilo interpretation of God's role and actions in the creation of the universe. If it were so, it would be news both to me and to the church fathers and theologians who reject your view in favor of the one I have described.

I cannot emphasize this enough though: scripture gives us no clear word on whether either of these views (or another view altogether) is the correct view. Thus let no one mandate acceptance of any particular view on the matter (no matter how convinced he might be in his own mind of its truth) as an article of faith. As far as I can tell, the Gospel itself does not hinge on how we answer this question. So, with a. no clear word from scripture, and b. the Gospel not hanging in the balance, this matter seems to me a paradigmatic example of adiaphora. The best we might be able to do is to defend one view against another by engaging in systematics, but that's not what you asked for; so long as we limit ourselves to the clear teachings of scripture, this matter shall remain in the realm of pious opinion.

I must also note that, though it seems we're destined to continue to disagree on this issue, I find your insistence on taking what scripture says seriously and your willingness to dig into the texts admirable. My purpose in this conversation has not been to dissuade you from your view or prove you wrong in it, but only to discuss some other possibilities that both scripture and tradition seem to accomodate just as well.

 

[Edial]

Ed,

Yes, even the "invisible things" (I take this to mean human souls, angels and such things, since it's not clear to me what else it could be referring to) were created. But from what? When I mentioned "spiritual substance" and "divine energy," what I had in mind was what the Eastern Orthodox view of the Energies of God. Said energies, being truly a part of the Godhead, are understood as being uncreated; they cannot be created because they are a part of God himself.

On this view (which is nowhere, as far as I am aware, directly contradicted by scripture) God created the universe and everything in it out of his own energies--themselves uncreated because they are a part of God himself. It is for this reason that God could look upon his creation and say, "it was good." Christ himself, as you recall, tells us that God alone is good. And yes, God sustains the universe by his powerful word (which, of course, we recognize as having its ultimate fulfillment in Christ's Incarnation).

Paul Tillich, one of the great theologians of our Lutheran tradition, took such a view when he wrote that it is an inadequate conception of God that views him as just one being among all others, differing only in that God is uncreated. On Tillich's view, God is not just a being, but the Ground of Being, the ultimate reality underlying all things in the universe, visible and invisible. Again, I see nothing in scripture that directly contradicts this view or mandates your ex nihilo interpretation of God's role and actions in the creation of the universe. If it were so, it would be news both to me and to the church fathers and theologians who reject your view in favor of the one I have described.

I cannot emphasize this enough though: scripture gives us no clear word on whether either of these views (or another view altogether) is the correct view. Thus let no one mandate acceptance of any particular view on the matter (no matter how convinced he might be in his own mind of its truth) as an article of faith. As far as I can tell, the Gospel itself does not hinge on how we answer this question. So, with a. no clear word from scripture, and b. the Gospel not hanging in the balance, this matter seems to me a paradigmatic example of adiaphora. The best we might be able to do is to defend one view against another by engaging in systematics, but that's not what you asked for; so long as we limit ourselves to the clear teachings of scripture, this matter shall remain in the realm of pious opinion.

I must also note that, though it seems we're destined to continue to disagree on this issue, I find your insistence on taking what scripture says seriously and your willingness to dig into the texts admirable. My purpose in this conversation has not been to dissuade you from your view or prove you wrong in it, but only to discuss some other possibilities that both scripture and tradition seem to accomodate just as well.

In this case you might be saying that all things were created out of the divine energies that themselves are uncreated and eternal.
Therefore these divine energies are a "part" of God.

You also mentioned that church fathers and the EO thoughts promote that.

But I object on the following grounds.

1. Technically speaking, all Christianity comes from the same written source, the Bible.
The EOs and some church fathers came up with some conclusions that cannot be found in the Bible.
What were their sources, in your opinion?

2. Church fathers were simple people that were saved and commented on Christianity. They were not much different than some of the saints we have now. Same Holy Spirit.
What makes one believe that they were always correct in what they said, especially when other church fathers disagreed with them?

3. EO openly states that their view is very mystical and that their traditions trump the Bible , or to say it more precisely, shape the biblical text in the light of their traditional teachings.
Since we both agree that the Bible should be the primary source of reference, where do the EO views that you accept are found in the text?

The simple understanding of the text is that God said this and that, and things came to being.
Why would we want to claim to know the mechanics of how it came to be?

Also, there are two Hebrew words for making things that are often used while describing Creation.
To make - which is to shape out of something.
Tp create - which excludes the making and shaping process.
Most of creation was "made", yet the foundation of the chaos in Gen.1:1 was created.

Any engineer would say that when he creates something, this is a new idea.
And when he makes something, he designs it, or bases it on of a previous thought or foundation.

We think and an idea comes.
Why can't God's "idea" be manifested in creation, like a stamp?
In this case it is "the word". Or, "Let there be".

If God's thought mainifests itself in creation, why say that creation contains divinity?
Now, God closely maintains that creation.
But so do our engineers when they create something.

Obviously, the purpose of the dialogue is not to change each other's mind. And that is not my purpose here.

What I am saying is that a creation out of nothing is supported by a plain understanding of the text.
To say that all was created out of God's divine energy needs to be scripturally supported.

Again, it is not my intent to escalate this into more than it calls for.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[JoeCatch]

Ed,

I'll address your points one-by-one:

1. As I've already conceded, scripture is silent on the issue of how the creation took place. It's been my understanding that the view you're advocating is that scripture mandates that we accept the ex nihilo view. As I've also conceded, conclusions on matters such as the mode of God's creation are derived primarily from the systematic theologies of the various Christians and communities of Christians who have taken positions on the matter. This is as true of advocates of the ex nihilo view as it is of the advocates of any other. Since I've already admitted as much, it's not clear to me exactly what your objection is here.

2. Yes, the church fathers often disagreed. My point in mentioning that many of them accepted the view of creation out of divine energies was not intended as a proof that this view is correct, as I've already made clear that I'm not purporting to pass anything off as a proof. My point in mentioning the church fathers was merely that the view of creation out of divine energies is not unattested among learned Christians who were very familiar with the scriptures, even in the earliest days of the church. They may have been ordinary men just like you and me, but I'd still take their knowledgeability regarding the scriptures any day over yours or mine or that of any of our contemporaries. Yes, they disagree; no, I don't offer the opinion of those who agree with me as a proof. Again, what exactly is your objection here?

3. As I've already commented, the ex nihilo view is as guilty of going above and beyond what the text actually says as the divine energies view. You keep asking me to offer you proof from the text for the view of creation out of divine energies, and for the third post in a row I'll reiterate that none of the texts address the matter explicitly. This means they don't offer definitive evidence in favor of the ex nihilo view, either. For what it's worth, even we as Lutherans interpret the texts of the bible through a unique lens, namely Christ and Him crucified. This is what makes our theology unique in all of Christianity. We all (even us Protestants and, more specifically than that, Lutherans) shape the biblical texts in light of our respective traditions. The main difference between us and the Eastern Orthodox is that, for whatever reason, Protestants love clinging to a denial of that reality.

On to your unnumbered comments:

Yes, the bible's words on the matter are simple and unelaborated. I find your view peculiar, though, that your particular view of the "how" of it somehow doesn't require scriptural support though everyone else's does. I also find your comparison between God and engineers suspect; engineers don't sustain the existence of their creations moment by moment. The example seems entirely disanalogous to me.

For what it's worth, I find the view of creation out of divine energies (along with creation and sustaining of the universe through the word of God) to evoke a far richer Christology than the ex nihilo view. On this view, something far more profound was going on than the author of the first book of Genesis could grasp, as the fullness of God's revelation in Christ had not yet been manifest. Nevertheless, God's revelation in Christ was implicit (i.e., its manifestation was not yet made fully explicit) from the moment of creation, for this is what it means for God to create through the word, which we know is ultimately revealed in fullness in Christ's Incarnation.

So, your view may have simplicity on its side, but mine has on its side the classic Lutheran teaching that all theology is ultimately Christology, and all the scriptures are rightly understood through the lens of Christ Incarnate, crucified and risen. This, on my view, is scriptural support not in the sense of pulling passages out as proof texts (perhaps the most un-Lutheran way of all of doing theology), but by appealing to what we as Lutherans ultimately believe that the scriptures are in the first place: a revelation of Christ. We gladly leave the ideas about revelations of God's sheer power to the Calvinists. So, between the two of us, each of our view has its respective virtues; whose virtue is superior, who can say?

In the end, though, we're in agreement that this ought not be a church-dividing issue. Since we've both conceded that neither of us will definitely prove his view or dissuade the other, it might be best to leave it at that. I don't know if I've really got much else to say!

- Joe