Creatio Ex Nihilo and Mormons

[ChristIsTheWay]

Either God and Matter co-exist infinitely or they don’t.

That is the question I am getting at.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No they didn’t co-exist. This suggests matter existed without creation, Therefore it is either produced by itself, produced by nothing, or produced by something other than itself.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Here is a rather long article that I didn’t finish reading. maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=590 It asserts that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was invented in the 200s during disputes with the gnostics. How can I refute this argument and show that the Church’s teaching of creatio ex nihilo is biblical and comes from Jesus Himself?

Where Mormons see invention, we see defense of what was already believed. They use this tact when treating the ECfs.

1. if it doesn’t align to Mormon belief it was invented.
2. if it does align to Mormon belief, it is a bit of light and truth that made it through the great apostasy.

How this fails is in the denial of the unfailing apostolic church. What has always been taught and what has always been believed. Through the centuries errors arose, and the church clarifies for the faithful what the apostolic teaching is. The church doesn’t invent it protects and defends.

They make an error, assuming that one man in the course of history is the definition of apostolic teaching. Must be read with the whole, not cherry picked for supporting one particular and favored heresy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Here is a rather long article that I didn’t finish reading. maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=590 It asserts that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was invented in the 200s during disputes with the gnostics. How can I refute this argument and show that the Church’s teaching of creatio ex nihilo is biblical and comes from Jesus Himself?

Begin with Who Jesus is. Is He God, “I AM”, or is He “I CAME TO BE”? Creation from matter isn’t compatible with the God who Christians worship. Either God is the creator of ALL things, or He is no God at all.

See Isaiah 44:24

And also see Galations 1:6-9

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Is it literal, or figurative?

 

[RebeccaJ]

And don’t rely on Mormons for interpreting scripture! There’s is reinterpretation. Rationalizing.

Amazing to even consider as valid! In other words, what are you thinking? Christ abandoned His church and turned it over to the Mormons in 1830?

Sorry if that is harsh, just I find Catholics being enamored of Mormonism to be one of the great mysteries of this life. You have the truth, hang onto it with all you’ve got, stick to Jesus, not the spin masters of BYU.

 

[kimg901]

And don’t rely on Mormons for interpreting scripture! There’s is reinterpretation. Rationalizing.

Amazing to even consider as valid! In other words, what are you thinking? Christ abandoned His church and turned it over to the Mormons in 1830?

Sorry if that is harsh, just I find Catholics being enamored of Mormonism to be one of the great mysteries of this life. You have the truth, hang onto it with all you’ve got, stick to Jesus, not the spin masters of BYU.

I would listen to Rebecca, she would know. The lds will spin and twist the words of Scripture to align with their own beliefs. If they didnt, their religion would fall to the wayside. I would look at other lds threads here to get a better understanding of what they believe and then you will ammo to fight with. They will then hide in the trenches ducking from your salvo.

 

[truthseeker32]

The first thing everyone needs to acknowledge is that it is theoretically possible that the universe could be either eternal or finite. Further, one thing I am surprised that Catholics overlook is the best argument ever offered for God’s existence (in my opinion), St. Thomas Aquinas’ five ways,never claims that the universe had to have a temporal beginning in order for God to be necessary. Rather they argued that movement requires there to me an unmoved mover at any instant, sustaining the chain of movement in the universe.

Second, prior to the Jewish religion it was common for cultures to see time as circular and eternal. This was the case in Mesopotamia, and is still the case in many Eastern cultures. Judaism truly was revolutionary in that it posited a beginning to time.

Even if it is true that many cultures and religions have viewed the universe as eternal, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are right. Imagine we didn’t have powerful telescopes, and that up until last year everyone believed that there was nothing outside our solar system. For some reason a group of people, for reasons mysterious to everyone else, started to claim that this was untrue, and there were millions of other galaxies outside of our own. This group would of course be correct, even if the majority didn’t support their beliefs.

I’m kind of rambling, but I wanted to come back to the idea that the universe/ matter is eternal. This may be true, and it is a view compatible with Genesis, but this doesn’t get rid of the problems Mormon cosmology faces. They have no answer as to where metaphysical laws (morality, physics, mathematics) or movement originates. In order to offer a philosophically sound theology, Mormons would have to adopt a view like Hindus that believe in many lesser gods, but also hold that there is an ultimate oneness from which everything originates.

 

[SteveVH]

Something that is very important to keep in mind is that we cannot read Genesis in a linear fashion; that is as a text book or science book. In the first chapter of Genesis we find that light is created on the first day, yet the sun, moon and stars are not created until the fourth day. So the author(s) of Genesis were either completely ignorant and illogical, or they meant something else. Genesis is written in poetic prose and the creation account is not meant to give us a scientific understanding of how God created the universe, rather it was written to convey a profound theological meditation on the act of creation.

We must also remember that Genesis was written in a completely different age and culture, one not familiar to modern western cultures. The manner of writing, the use of repetition, the various idioms, the subtle uses of metaphorical language, all help us grasp the underlying theological meaning if understood from the author’s perspective.

For instance, Psalm 104 also as a creation account and both accounts envision the heavens as a dome and the earth being upheld with pillars. This conveys the true meaning of the creation account. The earth is a temple and our purpose is to praise and worship God (as one does in a temple). Creation itself, then, reveals our true purpose.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

The first thing everyone needs to acknowledge is that it is theoretically possible that the universe could be either eternal or finite. Further, one thing I am surprised that Catholics overlook is the best argument ever offered for God’s existence (in my opinion), St. Thomas Aquinas’ five ways,never claims that the universe had to have a temporal beginning in order for God to be necessary.

That is true. If I recall correctly, St. Thomas Aquinas even argued that there could be a created eternal universe. fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-eternity.asp

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

And don’t rely on Mormons for interpreting scripture! There’s is reinterpretation. Rationalizing.

Amazing to even consider as valid! In other words, what are you thinking? Christ abandoned His church and turned it over to the Mormons in 1830?

Sorry if that is harsh, just I find Catholics being enamored of Mormonism to be one of the great mysteries of this life. You have the truth, hang onto it with all you’ve got, stick to Jesus, not the spin masters of BYU.

Somehow, I think there is a logical fallacy present, but I can’t quite put my finger on which one.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

No they didn’t co-exist. This suggests matter existed without creation, Therefore it is either produced by itself, produced by nothing, or produced by something other than itself.

Don’t exclude the possibility that God created matter from nothing from all eternity. I think Thomas Aquinas argued something along those lines.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Is the article being honest when it says that a majority of Biblical scholars reject creatio ex nihilo?

 

[truthseeker32]

Is the article being honest when it says that a majority of Biblical scholars reject creatio ex nihilo?

This arguing point is rather weak. You can find “major scholars” on many sides of a single issue. Take Christianity, for instance. Some scholars adhere to it, some argue against it. This doesn’t tell us anything about whether Christianity is true or not.

Likewise, in assessing a scholar’s position on creation ex nihilo it is important to consider the scholar’s argument and the scholar him/herself. If the scholar is mormon, buddhist, hindu, etc. they are going to have a bias towards rejecting creation ex nihilo, whereas the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim scholar might have a biased perspective towards the other end. All you can do is consider these factors and decide what side you think makes the better argument. I personally lean towards creation ex nihilo. Science seems to support this idea, and I actually don’t think material things can exist without a creator, either in a motion or chronological sense.

This tidbit from wikipedia is interesting, although I must admit I have little knowledge of physics:

“A widely supported hypothesis in modern physics is the zero-energy universe which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. That is the only kind of universe that could come from nothing.[16] Such a universe would have to be flat in shape, a state which does not contradict current observations that the Universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error.”

 

[bzkoss236]

Don’t exclude the possibility that God created matter from nothing from all eternity. I think Thomas Aquinas argued something along those lines.

That doesn’t make any sense, because creation implies a beginning. Something that is eternal does not have a beginning.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

That doesn’t make any sense, because creation implies a beginning. Something that is eternal does not have a beginning.

No, creation implies being caused by something. Take it up with Aquinas here:

Let us assume, in accordance with the Catholic faith, that the world had a beginning in time. The question still arises whether the world could have always existed, and to explain the truth of this matter, we should first distinguish where we agree with our opponents from where we disagree with them. If someone holds that something besides God could have always existed, in the sense that there could be something always existing and yet not made by God, then we differ with him: such an abominable error is contrary not only to the faith but also to the teachings of the philosophers, who confess and prove that everything that in any way exists cannot exist unless it be caused by him who supremely and most truly has existence. However, someone may hold that there has always existed something that, nevertheless, had been wholly caused by God, and thus we ought to determine whether this position is tenable.

If it be impossible that something caused by God has always existed, it will be so either because God could not make something that has always existed or because such a thing could not be made, regardless of God’s ability to make it. [3]] As to the first, all parties agree that, in view of his infinite power, God could have made something that has always existed. [4]] It remains to be seen, therefore, whether something that has always existed can be made.

If such a thing cannot be made, the impossibility will arise for one of two reasons: either because of an absence of a passive potentiality or because of some contradiction between the ideas involved. [5]] In regard to the first, notice that before an angel is made, we may say, in a certain manner of speaking, that the angel cannot be made, [6]] since no passive potentiality precedes its being, for an angel is not made from pre-existing matter. Nevertheless, God was able to make the angel, and he was able to cause the angel to be made, for God made it, and it was made. Therefore, if we understand “being made” or “being caused” as implying the pre-existence of a passive potentiality, then it should to be conceded, according to faith, that something caused cannot always exist, for it would then follow that a passive potentiality has always existed, and this is heretical. But since a passive potentiality need not precede in time whatever God may make, it does not follow that God could not have made something that has always existed.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis…s-eternity.asp The link contains the rest of the article by Aquinas.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That is true. If I recall correctly, St. Thomas Aquinas even argued that there could be a created eternal universe. fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-eternity.asp

“Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”

Quoted from Aquinas which is from the links provided and agrees with my post about not co-existing infinitely, God preceded creation.

As per the thread eternal and infinite are conflicted, I’m talking infinite which I mentioned earlier. You live eternally but you are not infinite.

So as you say…

“Don’t exclude the possibility that God created matter from nothing from all eternity”

God created, being the point. Which means they didn’t co-exist infinitely, eternally is relevant.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

“Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”

Quoted from Aquinas which is from the links provided and agrees with my post about not co-existing infinitely, God preceded creation.

As per the thread eternal and infinite are conflicted, I’m talking infinite which I mentioned earlier. You live eternally but you are not infinite.

So as you say…

“Don’t exclude the possibility that God created matter from nothing from all eternity”

God created, being the point. Which means they didn’t co-exist infinitely, eternally is relevant.

I never meant to imply I believe God and matter are co-existing infinitely. My only point is that God could have created matter from all eternity. It therefore has always existed but only because God creates it from nothing. I think this provides a solution to the idea that God created from primordial chaos. The primordial chaos was created by God from all eternity.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I never meant to imply I believe God and matter are co-existing infinitely. My only point is that God could have created matter from all eternity. It therefore has always existed but only because God creates it from nothing. I think this provides a solution to the idea that God created from primordial chaos. The primordial chaos was created by God from all eternity.

Sounds good. Its hard to avoid philosophy with this. The early writings became more clearly explained as you see with Aquinas.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

But what am I to make of the fact certain early church fathers like Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr taught creation from pre-existent matter? Did the fathers mean something like Aquinas or were they too deeply imbedded in Middle Platonism for that to be possible?