Creatio Ex Nihilo and Mormons

[ChristIsTheWay]

Does this make sense of it:

Of those in the early Church who wrote on this subject, they are all unambiguous except for two—Justin Martyr (2nd century) and Clement of Alexandria (3rd century). Both men studied Greek philosophy prior to becoming Christians.

Justin Martyr wrote that God created from “shapeless” matter (First Apology 59). His references to Plato and “shapeless” matter has led some to question whether Justin held to creation from preexisting matter along the lines of the Greek philosophers. However, he most likely held (contrary to Plato) that it was God who created this “shapeless” matter, which He subsequently formed into things during the creation days. That is, God created matter (Genesis 1:1); that matter was initially shapeless and chaotic (Genesis 1:2); and He then formed it into the world we observe (Genesis 1:3-31).1 Thus, Justin held to creation ex nihilo and rejected eternal matter. Further evidence that he believed in creation ex nihilo is that his two students—Tatian and Theophilus—both clearly taught it.

Clement’s statements on creation are likewise sufficiently unclear as to allow speculation that he followed Greek ideas. Looking closer, however, it seems that he did believe in creation ex nihilo. Like Justin, he believed that the Greeks stole many of their ideas from Moses and the Hebrew Scripture and he could, therefore, appeal to the fact that some Greek philosophers did believe in creation. Specifically, he described the universe “as deriving its being from him [the Maker] alone and springing from non-existence” (Miscellaneous 5.14, also known as Stromata). He also argued that matter could not be its own creator on the basis of the law of cause and effect (Miscellaneous 8.9).

reasons.org/articles/historic-age-debate-creation-ex-nihilo-part-2-of-4

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Why does the NAB adopt this translation of Genesis 1:1:

1In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth— 2* and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters—

When a case can be made for Genesis 1:1 being independent of Genesis 1:2? That is, Genesis 1:1 establishes that God created the primordial chaos and Genesis 1:2 and the rest is God making that primordial chaos into creation. It would seem to clear up a lot of the misunderstandings of creatio ex nihilo.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right formless matter, First Apology 10, “We have been taught that God in the beginning, in His goodness and for the sake of men, created all things out of formless matter.”

He often used Platonic terminology, not necessarily in a precise platonic meaning, you can see a difference in Second Apology 5.

“But if this idea takes possession of some one that if we acknowledge God as our helper, we should not, as we say, be oppressed and persecuted by the wicked; this, too, I will solve. God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law–for these things also He evidently made for man–committed the care of men and of all things under heaven”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Why does the NAB adopt this translation of Genesis 1:1:

When a case can be made for Genesis 1:1 being independent of Genesis 1:2? That is, Genesis 1:1 establishes that God created the primordial chaos and Genesis 1:2 and the rest is God making that primordial chaos into creation. It would seem to clear up a lot of the misunderstandings of creatio ex nihilo.

I have to look at this and check out the footnotes, I have been using the RSV, I have an older NAB here though.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Right formless matter, First Apology 10, “We have been taught that God in the beginning, in His goodness and for the sake of men, created all things out of formless matter.”

He often used Platonic terminology, not necessarily in a precise platonic meaning, you can see a difference in Second Apology 5.

“But if this idea takes possession of some one that if we acknowledge God as our helper, we should not, as we say, be oppressed and persecuted by the wicked; this, too, I will solve. God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law–for these things also He evidently made for man–committed the care of men and of all things under heaven”

So it would be correct to say that these early church fathers did in fact teach creatio ex nihilo, albeit in a more confused form.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s an article which is worth a read.

earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Here’s an article which is worth a read.

earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html

Yes, I read that article. It was pretty convincing. But am I right to interpret those early church fathers as having taught creatio ex nihilo, albeit in a more confused form?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, I read that article. It was pretty convincing. But am I right to interpret those early church fathers as having taught creatio ex nihilo, albeit in a more confused form?

Most definite. You see the presumptions which underlie the argument?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Most definite. You see the presumptions which underlie the argument?

I’m not sure I understand you. Could you please elaborate a bit more? Thank you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“misrepresented the biblical data to read into it their doctrine, and that their argument that the doctrine of creation ex nihilo was not a philosophical development is uninformed and fails to grasp the essential distinctions necessary to make sense of the doctrine as it developed in patristic theology.”

This is what can be traced with the early church fathers. The development such as with Plato, his work is recognized and quoted and rebuked before 200-AD. Its also true the philosophy continued in understanding as we see up through Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas. The physics and metaphysics is also consistent leading us up through today. So too the Christian understanding coincides with 2 Macabees 7 and to further add the CC OO and EO were all one Church then. To use Irenaeus to promote a gnostic view also leaves a bit to be desired.

Its a perfect example of how Christian doctrine is written. For example if you read St Theophilus of Antioch [To Autolycus 181-AD]

“And He is without beginning, because He is unbegotten; and He is unchangeable, because He is immortal. And he is called God Θεός] on account of His having placed τεθεικέναι] all things on security afforded by Himself; and on account of θέειν], for θέειν means running, and moving, and being active, and nourishing, and foreseeing, and governing, and making all things alive. But he is Lord, because He rules over the universe; Father, because he is before all things; Fashioner and Maker, because He is creator and maker of the universe; the Highest, because of His being above all; and Almighty, because He Himself rules and embraces all. For the heights of heaven, and the depths of the abysses, and the ends of the earth, are in His hand, and there is no place of His rest. For the heavens are His work, the earth is His creation, the sea is His handiwork; man is His formation and His image; sun, moon, and stars are His elements, made for signs, and seasons, and days, and years, that they may serve and be slaves to man; and all things God has made out of things that were not into things that are, in order that through His works His greatness may be known and understood.”

There are two etymologies being used above, one from Herodotus, History 2-52, the other in Platos Craylus 397. Already the doctrine is sound and developing, and by using Plato in rebuke. Very clever. Which he further writes…Book 2 Chapter 4

“But Plato and those of his school acknowledge indeed that God is uncreated, and the Father and Maker of all things; but then they maintain that matter as well as God is uncreated, and aver that it is coeval with God. But if God is uncreated and matter uncreated, God is no longer, according to the Platonists, the Creator of all things, nor, so far as their opinions hold, is the monarchy of God established. And further, as God, because He is uncreated, is also unalterable; so if matter, too, were uncreated, it also would be unalterable, and equal to God; for that which is created is mutable and alterable, but that which is uncreated is immutable and unalterable. And what great thing is it if God made the world out of existent materials?”

Anyway you get the idea.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Yes, I think I get what you’re saying. The doctrine underwent a gradual process of clarification, starting with the early church fathers (some of whom believed in a two-stage creation of shapeless matter, then the world) and on down to the Scholastic period.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Since no one bothered to respond to the article I posted, I will attempt to do so. Please feel free join with me with your own points and insights.

2 Peter 3:5-6. Several New Testament passages are cited by Copan and Craig that supposedly support creation out of nothing. Their treatment of 2 Peter 3:5 is typical of the way they force the text with assumptions contrary to the text throughout their book (see The New Mormon Challenge [NMC], p. 427 n. 136, and CON, pp. 87-91). Second Peter 3:5-6 presents a New Testament text that clearly refers back to an Old Testament teaching that God created the heaven and the earth by organizing preexistent chaos. 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).

You conveniently ignore the Old Testament section of Copan and Craig’s book. They list six reasons why the first verse of Genesis 1:1 is an absolute reading, not a construct reading. This makes room for a totalism that includes the creation of the primordial chaos by God in a two-step creation process.

In fact, the scripture in 2 Peter seems to have been directed to people like Copan and Craig: “They [sarcastic scoffers] deliberately ignore the fact that long ago there were the heavens and the earth, formed out of water and through water by the Word of God, and that it was through these same factors that the world of those days was destroyed by the floodwaters” (2 Peter 3:5-6 New Jerusalem Bible [NJB]). This text rather clearly teaches the creation of heaven and earth by verbal fiat out of waters that existed before the heavens and the earth and that this preexisting chaos eventually provided the water for the great flood. In essence, the flood represents a return of the world to chaos because the people that God had created had not obeyed his commands.[4]

Again, you’re ignoring the totalism of Genesis 1:1. The Bible never, ever says the primordial chaos was uncreated or co-equal with God, as the Mormon religion teaches.

There are five crucial points in 2 Peter 3:5 that support the view that the author of this scriptural passage believed that everything was organized from a preexisting chaos. First, the text addresses the formation of “heaven and earth,” or all that is said to be created by God in Genesis 1:1-2. Indeed, the parallel with Genesis 1:1 is unmistakable and clearly signifies that 2 Peter speaks of the same creation spoken of there.

Genesis 1:1 is an absolute, independent clause. It includes all things in heaven and on Earth, which includes the waters spoken on in 2 Peter.

Second, the heaven and earth are said in 2 Peter 3:5 to be formed ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δι᾽ ὕδατος (ex hydatos kai di hydatos), both “out of water” and also “through water.” The double reference to water as the material substrate used in creation “out of” and “from” which the heaven and earth are formed appears to be an intentional emphasis.

So what? It says nothing about the waters being eternal or uncreated.

Third, the fact that we are dealing with the entire scope of creation is indicated by reference to God’s Word as the power by which the heaven and earth are formed from water—τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγῳ (tō tou theou logō). The text is referring to Genesis 1:1-2, which states that God spoke and heaven and earth were created, and also to John 1:1, which mentions that God creates all that there is by the power of his Word.

How does this support your case? John 1:1 doesn’t mention the creation of anything. It is John 1:3 that states all things were created by the Word.

Fourth, the heaven and earth are formed from water, which is recognized in the very next verse as the principle of chaos causing the flood or the deep in Genesis 1:2. The earth was created from water, and it was destroyed by water through the flood because water represents the unformed and chaotic—the deep that is never said to be created in the Genesis account of creation but is presented as already present at the time God undertakes to create the heaven and the earth.

Copan and Craig list six reasons why Genesis 1:1 is an absolute, independent clause, not a construct. If Copan and Craig are right, and you did not address their argument, then the two-stage creation theory expoused by Copan and Craig is most likely correct and you, sir, are wrong about the deep never being created. Also, Psalm 104:6 indicates that the deep was created. So does Psalm 104:25 and so does Psalm 146:6 and Psalm 148: 4-5 and so does Proverbs 8:23-29.

Fifth, the verb used in 2 Peter 3:5, συνεστῶσα (synestōsa), is a form of the verb συνίστημι (synistēmi), meaning to organize by combining together and not by creating out of nothing.[5]

2 Peter addresses the second stage of creation, when God created by organizing and ex nihilo.

In an endnote to their article, Copan and Craig claim that in 2 Peter 3:5 there is a “two-step” creation, with an initial creation ex nihilo and a second creation from chaotic water. They claim that 2 Peter 3:5 “focuses on the second stage” dealing with creation by chaos (NMC, p. 427 n. 136). However, their ad hoc explanation consists of imposing an assumption on the text for which there is no textual support at all.

We have just seen that it is not an ad hoc explanation but fits rather well with the text

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Second Peter 3:5 gives no indication of any prior creation ex nihilo. This interpretation is a good example of how Copan and Craig are willing to gerrymander texts and read into them their own theological demands in a way that is contrary to the text. They admit that many biblical scholars, such as J. N. D. Kelly and evangical Richard Bauckham, interpret this text to teach precisely that water is the “sole original existent” and the “elemental stuff out of which the universe was formed” as the Greek philosopher Thales had taught (and as Genesis 1 presupposes in equating the “deep” or the waters with the uncreated chaos).[6] This is where their prior theological assumption supposedly comes to their rescue. The fact that the text says absolutely nothing about some prior creation of water from nothing doesn’t deter Copan and Craig from seeing this belief as the key to interpreting the text. In their book they assert:

This would imply a two-step creation process (already noted in the previous chapter) involving God's creating the universe and its elements. This is supported by the fact that the verb "formed [synestōsa]" is used rather than the verb ktizein (create). In Proverbs 8:24, we read that "the deep" did not always exist. God creates the waters and then uses them in the process of creation. Thus, water is the material from which the sky is created and instrument (dia) to create the sky. (CON, p. 88, brackets and emphasis in original)

So Copan and Craig suggest that the statement in 2 Peter 3:5 that God created “the heaven and earth” by “forming” them out of water really means that God first created water out of nothing and that he then used that water to create the “heavens and the earth.” They cite Proverbs 8:24 as a supposed instance of such creation of water out of nothing and then using that water to create the earth. Their eisegesis of Proverbs, however, is no more convincing than their attempt to read creation out of nothing into a text that teaches creation out of chaos. Proverbs doesn’t teach that God created the waters or “deep” out of nothing; rather, it expressly states that before God created the earth and thus before there was water anywhere on earth, God “prepared the heavens” and he organized the waters not by “creating” them, but by setting “a compass upon the face of the depth”—and this before he created the earth (Proverbs 8:26-27). “While as yet he had not made the earth. . . . When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth.”

How is setting a compass on the face of the depth not creating it? What, did it not have any directions before God’s creation? I suggest you are seriously misinformed.

Thus, the waters are never said to be created in Proverbs 8 (or anywhere else in the Old Testament for that matter), contrary to the assertion by Copan and Craig. Rather, God prepares the already existent waters by organizing them through the process of measuring them and plumbing their depths. The verb used in Proverbs 16:12 and translated as “prepared,” (yikkôn), indicates a preparation and establishing of something already existent and mirrors the statement in 2 Peter that “the heavens and earth were formed out of water” (author’s translation).

I provided ample scriptural evidence that the waters did not always exist and were created by God. Your assertion that the waters are never said to be created anywhere in the Old Testament has been demonstrated to be false.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Hebrews 11:3.Copan and Craig next turn to Hebrews 11:3, which says in the KJV: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” According to another translation of the same passage: “It is by faith that we understand that the ages were created by a word from God, so that from the invisible the visible world came to be” (NJB). What this text says is that God created visible things literally “from” invisible things (εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὸ βλεπόμενον). But the invisible things are not nothing; they already exist. Copan and Craig wrongly assume that invisible things can be equated with absolute nothing.

**This is simply incorrect. Craig and Copan list three views of what this verse could mean:

View #1. Nothingness: God brought the universe out of nonexistence(the invisible).
View #2. Transcendent realm: This reflects the Hellenistic notion that the visible world is derived from an invisible world.
View #3. The power of God’s word: What “cannot be seen” corresponds to the “word of God.”

View #2 is discounted because Hebrews do “not posit connections between heavenly patterns and earthly realities in any consistent way.” View #2 also doesn’t exclude an ex nihilo understanding because one could say that a cosmos ordered to Ideas and Forms in the Divine Mind sprang into being. However #3 appears to be the best explanation because the verse forms a chiastic pattern. See here:

1 was fashioned 1’ came into being
2 the universe 2’ that which can be seen
3 by the word of God 3’ by what cannot be seen

“Thus, ‘what cannot be seen’ appears to refer to the ‘word of God.’” Pslam 33:6 would seem to support this view.**

They cite Paul Ellingworth in arguing that creation of the world by the “word” of God “would ‘conflict’ with any idea that the visible world was made out of materials in the invisible world” (NMC, p. 116).[7] However, 2 Peter 3:5-6 teaches that God created from the waters by his word or command. The notion that creation by God’s command or word must assume creation ex nihilo is simply false. Moreover, Hebrews 11:3 states that the worlds were “framed by the word of God,” not that they were created out of nothing. The verb used here, καταρτίζω (katartizō) refers to organizing, framing, or putting together what is not yet organized or to mend, repair, or put in order something that has become disorganized.[8]

How does any of this discount creatio ex nihilo? Framed by the word of the God is just saying that the world was created ex nihilo. I am no expert on Greek but your use of καταρτίζω (katartizō) proves nothing except that the word of God organized during the second stage of creation.

Citing William Lane, Copan and Craig also argue that the reference to those “things which are not seen” teaches creatio ex nihilo because it “denies that the creative universe originated from primal material or anything observable” (NMC, p. 116).[9] Yet this is simply argument by assertion without any evidence or reasoning to back it up. Moreover, it is demonstrably wrong. For example, Copan and Craig also cite 2 Enoch (a document very likely dating to about AD 70-100 and thus contemporaneous with New Testament texts such as Hebrews and probably the Gospel of Matthew),[10] which uses very similar language about God’s command and things visible created from the invisible. Arguing that this text too “reflects the doctrine of creation out of nothing” in a couple of places, they cite 2 Enoch 25:1-2 as follows: “I commanded . . . that visible things should come down from invisible” (NMC, pp. 123-24). However, the entire relevant text reads: “Before anything existed at all, from the very beginning, whatever exists I created from the non-existent, and from the invisible the visible. . . . For, before any visible things had come into existence, I, the ONE, moved around in the invisible things, like the sun, from east to west and from west to east.”[11]

The full quote from 2 Enoch actually supports Copan and Craig’s case, not weaken it! A two stage creation, described in Genesis, can be safely assumed.

It is also well known that the Septuagint (LXX) translates the text of Genesis 1:2 referring to the “desolate and empty” world in its precreation state as ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος—which means “invisible and unformed.” This same word invisible is similar to Hebrews 11:3 μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων (mē ek phainomenōn), meaning “out of unseen things” the world was created. However, just as in LXX Genesis the unformed and lifeless world that is invisible or unseen is not “nothing at all” but, rather, chaotic and unformed matter that cannot be seen because it does not yet have form impressed upon it by God.[12]

We now know that Genesis 1:1 is an absolute, independent clause and supports the idea of a two-stage creation.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

In the context of 2 Enoch, it is clear that the “invisible things” are not absolute nothing; rather, they are things that are not visible to mortal eyes. That these invisible things already exist in some sense is demonstrated by the fact that God moves among them. The translator F. I. Andersen explains: “The impression remains that God was not the only existent being or thing from the very first. . . . God made the existent out of the non-existent, the visible out of the non-visible. So the invisible things coexisted with God before he began to make anything. . . . Vs. 4 is quite explicit on this point: Before any of the visible things had come into existence, God was moving around among the invisible things.”[13] Not only does this text not teach creatio ex nihilo, but it teaches the very opposite. This reading of “invisible things” as already existing realities is also very strongly supported by Romans 1:19-20 KJV: “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power.” Note that the invisible things already exist and can be seen through the power of God. This scripture fits well with the Latter-day Saint view that before God created the earth out of matter that is visible to us, he had already created a world out of spirit that is not visible to us (see Moses 6:36). This same view is expressed in Hebrews—things that are not visible or are unseen are still things that already exist. As James N. Hubler observes in his excellent doctoral dissertation on the emergence of the idea of creatio ex nihilo: “the notion of creation μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων was comfortable for Platonic dualists or Stoics, because it lacked all qualities.”[14] In other words, both the Platonic dualists and the Stoics could easily see the reference to “things invisible” as a type of formless matter that lacks any qualities of individuation but is matter nonetheless.

None of what you’ve said disproves that the invisible things are in the mind of God or that He gave them form and created them before creating the rest of the world, a two-stage creation.

The view that the “invisible things” are not absolute nothing is also supported by Colossians 1:16-17:

For in him were created all things

in heaven and on earth:

everything visible and everything invisible,

thrones, ruling forces, sovereignties, powers—

all things were created through him and for him.

He exists before all things. (NJB)

In this scripture it seems fairly evident that the “everything invisible” includes things that already exist in heaven, such as thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers. Further, the invisible things are also created by God; yet the fact that they are invisible means only that they are not seen by mortal eyes, not that they do not exist. The reference to invisible things does not address whether they were made out of preexisting matter. However, 2 Corinthians 4:18 states that “the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal” (KJV). It is not difficult to see that Hebrews 11:3 neither expressly mentions creation out of nothing nor implicitly assumes it. The argument that the text must somehow implicitly assume creation of out nothing misinterprets the text and forces it with assumptions that are contrary to the meaning of “invisible things.” If anything, Hebrews 11:3 implicitly assumes creation of the earth out of a preexisting substrate not visible to us.

To prove your point you quote scripture that states the invisible things were created! Wow, what logic. That the things unseen are eternal means nothing. Eternal simply means they properly belong to the mind of God.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I’ll post more later.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Romans 4:17. Copan and Craig next cite Romans 4:17 KJV: “even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were (καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄνταὡς ὄντα).” There are two possible translations of Romans 4:17. The majority translation does not entail creation out of nothing: “[Abraham] is our father in the presence of God whom he believed—the God who makes the dead alive and summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do.”[15] Another translation indicates that God “calls into existence the things which do not exist” (New American Bible, NAB). The first translation is preferred for several reasons. First, Keith Norman has pointed out that it is contradictory for God to call to that which does not exist.[16] Second, as Moo stated, “this interpretation fits the immediate context better than a reference to God’s creative power, for it explains the assurance with which God can speak of the ‘many nations’ that will be descended from Abraham.”[17] Thus, the preferred translation merely states that God summons the future reality of the resurrection as if it already existed. This seems to me to be a far better fit with the context.

There is nothing contradictory about God calling to that which does not yet exist. And of course any reference to the resurrection will speak of God’s creative power because it takes that creative power to raise the dead.

Third, as Hubler comments: “The verse’s ‘non-existent’ need not be understood in an absolute sense of non-being. μὴ ὄντα (mē onta) refers to the previous non-existence of those things which are now brought into existence. There is no direct reference to the absence or presence of a material cause.”[18] In other words, the Greek text suggests the view that God has brought about a thing that did not exist as that thing before it was so created. For example, this use of μὴ ὄντα is logically consistent with the proposition that “God called forth the earth when before that the earth did not exist.” However, the fact that the earth did not exist as the earth before it was so created does not address the type of material that was used to make it.

Precisely. It doesn’t address the type of material because creation was ex nihilo. No need to mention a two-stage creation here, either, since it has already been adequately addressed elsewhere in scripture.

Note also that Romans 4:17 uses the negative μή, which refers to merely relative nonbeing and not to absolute nothing, as required by the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. At this point it is important to understand a bit about the ancient concept of matter in the Greek-speaking world and the distinction between relative nonbeing (Greek μὴ ὄντα) and absolute nothing (Greek οὐκ ὄντως). Platonic philosophy—both Neoplatonism and Middle Platonism—posited the existence of an eternal substratum that was material but was nevertheless so removed from the One Ground of Being that it was often said to not have “real” existence. As Jonathan Goldstein observes: “Platonists called pre-existent matter ‘the non-existent.’”[19] This relative nonexistence is indicated by the Greek negative μή, meaning “not” or “non-,” in conjunction with the word for existence or being.[20] When the early Christian theologians speak of creation that denies that there was any material state prior to creation, however, they use the Greek negation ουκ, meaning “not in any way or mode.” As Henry Chadwick explained the usage in Clement’s Stromata: “In each case the phrase he employs is ek me ontos not ex ouk ontos; that is to say, it is made not from that which is absolutely non-existent, but from relative non-being or unformed matter, so shadowy and vague that it cannot be said to have the status of ‘being’, which is imparted to it by the shaping hand of the Creator.”[21] Edwin Hatch explained that, for Platonists, “God was regarded as being outside the world. The world was in its origin only potential being (το μὴ ὄν).”[22] He explains more fully:

The [Platonic] dualistic hypothesis assumed a co-existence of matter and God. The assumption was more frequently tacit than explicit. . . . There was a universal belief that beneath the qualities of all existing things lay a substratum or substance on which they were grafted, and which gave to each thing its unity. But the conception of the nature of this substance varied from that of gross and tangible material to that of empty and formless space. . . . It was sometimes conceived as a vast shapeless but plastic mass, to which the Creator gave form, partly by moulding it as a potter moulds clay, partly by combining various elements as a builder combines his materials in the construction of a house.[23]

How does any of this disprove a two-stage creation? Besides, it wasn’t Hellenists that wrote this verse but a Jewish Christian. Creatio ex nihilo is implicit in this verse.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Aristotle wrote that: “For generation is from non-existence (ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος) into being, and corruption from being back into non-existence (εἰς τὸ μὴ ὄν).”[24] Generation is the act of a new animal being derived from an existing one, or a plant deriving from an existing plant. It is new life from life. He used the phrase from non-existence in a sense of relative nonbeing, where “things” do not yet exist and there is only a formless substratum that has the potential or capacity to receive definite form. This substratum is not absolutely nothing but is not yet a thing. It is “no-thing.” Thus, to say that God called to existence that which does not exist, as in Romans 4:17, actually assumes a preexisting substrate that God, by impressing form upon it, organizes into a thing that exists. Copan and Craig simply fail to note this important distinction, and thus their exegesis is critically flawed.

You just can’t accept a two-stage creation, can you? Just because Scripture alludes to a substratum doesn’t mean that substratum was eternal. That is a Greek view, not a Jewish or Christian view.

In their book, Copan and Craig cite a number of evangelical scholars who share their theological presuppositions and who opine that this verse refers to creation out of nothing (CON, pp. 75-78). Yet none of these authors provide any analysis or exegesis beyond asserting that the “non-existent” must mean that which does not exist in any sense. For example, Copan and Craig quote James Dunn’s commentary on Romans 4:17, which reads in the relevant part: “‘As creator he creates without any precondition: he makes alive where there was only death, and he calls into existence where there was nothing at all. Consequently that which has been created, made alive in this way, must be totally dependent on the creator, the life-giver, for its very existence and life’” (NMC, p. 117).[25] However, it is easy to see that the scriptural analogy of God bringing the dead to life in the same way that he creates “things which are not” does not support creatio ex nihilo. Resurrection does not presuppose that the dead do not exist in any way prior to their resurrection, nor does it presuppose that previously they did not have bodies that are reorganized through resurrection. Just as God does not create persons for the first time when he restores them to life through resurrection, so God does not create out of absolute nonbeing.

All this means is there were two-stages to creation. God first created the primordial chaos, then He fashioned the creation from it.

Moreover, note that Romans 4:17 doesn’t expressly address whether things are created out of nothing or from some material substrate. It simply says that God “calls” things into existence that are not. Moreover, such a statement in no way entails or requires creation out of nothing implicitly. If I create a table then I create a table that did not exist before I created it, but it doesn’t mean that I create it out of nothing. In this text, the word create is not even used. Rather, what God does is to “call forth” the non-existent. The verb καλέω means to call out loud to something, or to invite.[26] It presupposes something there to be called to or invited. God calls out to the non-existent by his Word, an act described by a verb used elsewhere in Paul’s writings (Romans 9:11; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Galatians 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:24). Thus, the most natural reading of this text is that the “non-existent” or μὴ ὄντα refers to a preexisting reality that does not yet exist as God calls it to be. Such a reading has nothing to do with creation out of absolute nothing.

It speaks of a two-stage creation process, one where God first calls from absolute nonbeing the shapeless matter of Genesis 1:2. He then fashions the creation from this shapeless matter.

 

[SteveVH]

ChristIsTheWay:
How do you expect people to respond to six, count them, six pages of material? I think there is a forum rule against this, not to mention that people naturally skip over the majority of it.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

How do you expect people to respond to six, count them, six pages of material? I think there is a forum rule against this, not to mention that people naturally skip over the majority of it.

I’m responding to them, which I guess will have to be enough. Six pages isn’t a lot of material.