How about the very first sentence of Scripture:How can I refute this argument and show that the Church’s teaching of creatio ex nihilo is biblical
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [Genesis 1:1]
A Mormon would dispute what the word “create” means. Are there any Church fathers from before 200 AD that clearly taught creatio ex nihilo? And what about the main points of the article I posted? I know it is kind of long but it makes what seems to be a sound case for creatio ex materia.How about the very first sentence of Scripture:
Conclusion
I believe that we can conclude quite confidently that Copan and Craig have seriously misunderstood the evidence that they present in support of creation ex nihilo. Based on the evidence that I have reviewed, the following conclusions seem warranted:
- The New Testament does not teach creation ex nihilo. On the contrary, 2 Peter 3:5-6 expressly teaches that God created out of the already existing chaotic waters, Hebrews 11:3 expressly teaches that God created the visible world from the already existing invisible world, and Romans 4:17 teaches that God created from an already existing substrate.
- The claim made by Copan and Craig that the dogma of creatio ex nihilo was already well established in the Jewish texts about the time of Christ is simply false. None of the texts they cite for this conclusion addresses the doctrine of creation out of nothing. Indeed, some of the Jewish texts that they claim teach creatio ex nihilo, such as 2 Enoch and Joseph and Aseneth, expressly teach that God created the world by making visible those invisible things that already existed. In addition, none of the Christian texts cited by Copan and Craig, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Odes of Solomon, actually teach creatio ex nihilo. Indeed, these texts better exemplify the doctrine of creatio ex materia. Further, it is clear that several Jewish texts from around the time of Christ, such as the writings of Philo Judaeus and the Wisdom of Solomon, as well as several early Christian writers such as Clement, Justin Martyr, and Athenagoras, expressly teach the doctrine of creatio ex materia.
- The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo seems to appear rather suddenly about AD 180 in the writings of Tatian and Theophilus in their arguments with Stoics and Middle Platonists. It is fairly clear that it arose as a philosophical consequence of their adoption of a Middle Platonic concept of God. What we see in all texts from about AD 165 and after is that Platonic philosophy, both Middle and Neo-, had infiltrated Christian thought and become a basis for major innovations in doctrine. Latter-day Saints see this as the apostasy in action, in living color. The personal God of the Bible, known through revelation and personal encounter, is suddenly too far removed from the human sphere of existence to be involved in such things as interactions with humans. The notion that humans are created in the image and likeness of God must be reinterpreted to fit the Platonic view that God is utterly unique and entirely unlike humans. God’s mode of creation, therefore, must be completely different from any human mode of creation. The Middle Platonic assumption that only the absolutely immutable can be eternal is used as a background assumption to argue that matter cannot in any sense be eternal because it is subject to change. The Middle Platonic view that matter necessarily entails an eternal cycle of recurrence leads to adopting a view of God that altogether transcends the material sphere. If one accepts the assumptions from which the Christian apologists of the late second century begin, then creatio ex nihilo becomes the only logical conclusion. It apparently never occurred to them to reject these Platonist assumptions.
The adoption of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo had other far-reaching implications for the history and form of “Christian” theology, extending even to our own day. The doctrine of creation out of nothing led inevitably to the Council of Chalcedon, in which Christ was described as one person having two natures, consubstantial with the Father in his deity. This two-nature theory of Christology assured that the Platonic view of natures and substance would be essential to make “sense” of the doctrine of God within the creedal tradition. The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo also gave rise, and continues to give rise, to arguments that everything that occurs must be caused by God, for if he did not cause each substance to exist anew in each moment, it would cease to exist. Thus, a very strong form of divine determinism and predestination seems to be entailed by the doctrine—though a thorough discussion of these issues would take me far afield from the purpose of this essay.
It seems to me, therefore, that Copan and Craig have overstated their case. They speak in their essay and book as if anyone who disagrees with them is simply in error and ignorant of the facts, heedless of the overwhelming number of respected scholars who do in fact disagree. They give a false impression of the evidence and fail even to note the necessary distinctions between absolute negation of existence and relative non-being that are necessary to make sense of the texts in the postbiblical era. All in all, their argument for creatio ex nihilo as the universally accepted doctrine of early Christians simply does not withstand scrutiny.
Specifically:How about the very first sentence of Scripture:
Genesis 1:1-2 states: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2 King James Version [KJV]). The waters represented the primordial chaos already present when God created the earth in Genesis 1:2 (and there is no indication in the text that the waters are ever created).
Science.No one, then?
Not all models of the Big Bang have it as the beginning of existence. See here: maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=556 Besides, it says nothing about Scripture teaching either creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex materia.
I would imagine they’d say to have faith in God and live our life praising Him. However, that does not answer my question. Thank you.Ask them is it Gods plan for us to worry about the subject at hand (Creatio Ex Nihilo) or to have faith in God and live our life praising Him?
But the runner existed. So did the raceway. What about “and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” It seems to imply water as primordial chaos from which God created the universe.Going back to Gen 1:1, the phrase that the first poster bolded about this is “the beginning”, which implies a start. When something begins, it didn’t exist before hand. If you say, “I began my run” this implies you were not running before. So, in “the beginning” implies that there was nothing before then. It also says that the earth was formless and void. Some may refute formless as like a constantly changing shape, and void as barren, but that is stretching the meaning. In context with “the beginning”, formless and void implies that the space which the earth would come to take up was empty, there was nothing there.
St Irenaeus - Against Heresies- Men indeed are not able to make something from nothing, but only from existing material; God, however is greater than man first of all in this; that when nothing existed beforehand, He called into existence the very material for His creation.But the runner existed. So did the raceway. What about “and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” It seems to imply water as primordial chaos from which God created the universe.
St. Irenaeus is said to be one of the origins of the belief in creatio ex nihilo, that before him (and maybe one other), the early Church taught creatio ex materia.St Irenaeus - Against Heresies- Men indeed are not able to make something from nothing, but only from existing material; God, however is greater than man first of all in this; that when nothing existed beforehand, He called into existence the very material for His creation.
But the beginning I referred to was only about the run, not the runner. The runner had a beginning as well. And those parents that brought about the beginning of the runner, and those who brought about the beginning of the raceway also had a beginning. Then you run into the “infinite causes” problem, or is it? Everything in time and space has a cause, until some point where there had to be an uncaused cause. And to imply that God did not create something is to say that God is not infinite (which technically would fit into Mormon theology for our God). The issue with this is, if God is not infinite, then God had a cause, and if God had a cause, then there would be that infinite cause paradox, which is something that cannot exist. There fundamentally needs to be a first cause, which itself was not caused. Something that exists without having a beginning, otherwise nothing would exist. And that is God.But the runner existed. So did the raceway. What about “and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” It seems to imply water as primordial chaos from which God created the universe.
But Mormons teach that matter is co-eternal with God, so I don’t see how you run into an infinite regress problem. Besides, I am not interested in the philosophy of the matter but rather what the Scriptures say and the earliest church fathers.But the beginning I referred to was only about the run, not the runner. The runner had a beginning as well. And those parents that brought about the beginning of the runner, and those who brought about the beginning of the raceway also had a beginning. Then you run into the “infinite causes” problem, or is it? Everything in time and space has a cause, until some point where there had to be an uncaused cause. And to imply that God did not create something is to say that God is not infinite (which technically would fit into Mormon theology for our God). The issue with this is, if God is not infinite, then God had a cause, and if God had a cause, then there would be that infinite cause paradox, which is something that cannot exist. There fundamentally needs to be a first cause, which itself was not caused. Something that exists without having a beginning, otherwise nothing would exist. And that is God.
Sounds similar to PlatoBut Mormons teach that matter is co-eternal with God
If he got creatio ex nihilo wrong, I’d have to wonder what else he got wrong.Sounds similar to Plato
Contrary to St Irenaeus above. Can’t have it both ways. Also if you use one his teachings how did we deem the rest not relevant?