Exploring sources on creaton

[Linusthe2nd]

You seem like a very intelligent and knowledgeable person. Perhaps you could comment on posts 14-18? I’d really appreciate some help in responding to the Mormons I’m in contact with and this is one really tough issue for me. Thanks.

To be honest, that is a bit much to comment on. The thinking of the early Fathers and theologians, individuals in Scripture were not of a philosophical nature but interpretations about what Revelation was actually saying. It is the Church which interprets Scripture and Tradition for us. It was the job of Thomas and other philosopher/theologians to attempt to provide a philosophical basis for as much as they could. But it belongs to the Magisterium to have the final word. But among the great thinkers of Catholic philosophers/theologians, one has to place Thomas as the highest and most reliable.

Finally, in those things the Church has not pronounced upon, one can still speculate but in a reasonable way guided by Scripture and Tradition. For now that is all I would want to say. You will have to deal with your Mormon friends as best you can guided by the above. But your best source would be Thomas. Linus2nd

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Okay, let’s try this one at a time then. Here is the first:

"Aristides of Athens.

Copan and Craig also assert that perhaps the earliest philosophical apologist for Christianity, Aristides of Athens, expressly taught the doctrine of creation out of nothing. Their analysis is seriously flawed and, indeed, borders on being irresponsible. Aristides reportedly delivered an apology to the Roman emperor Hadrian about AD 130. Copan and Craig fail to inform the reader that the textual sources vary and are quite questionable.[54] There are three recencions of Aristides’ Apology: a shorter Greek version, a much longer Syriac version, and Armenian translations of the Syriac. Aristides reportedly stated:

Let us come now, O king, also to the history of the Jews and let us see what sort of opinion they have concerning God. The Jews then say that God is one, Creator of all and almighty: and that it is not proper for us that anything else should be worshipped, but this God only: and in this they appear to be much nearer to the truth than all the peoples, in that they worship God more exceedingly and not His works.[55]

They also cite a passage found only in the shorter Greek recension: “O King, let us proceed to the elements themselves that we may show in regard to them that they are not gods, but perishable and mutable, produced out of that which did not exist (ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος) at the command of the true God, who is indestructible and immutable and invisible, yet he sees all things and, as He wills, modifies and changes things.”[56] Copan and Craig argue that these statementsimply creation out of nothing because Aristides claims that God is both “Artificer and Creator.” They thus claim that the text asserts: (1) “there is an ontological distinction between Creator and creature . . . ; and (2) God created in stages, first bringing into being the elements and then shaping them into a cosmos” (CON, p. 131).

Neither of these assertions is supported by the text. There is not a word about a two-stage creation in Aristides’ Apology. There is a distinction between creator and creature, but it is not an ontological distinction as claimed by Copan and Craig. Rather, the text merely states that God is incorruptible and unchangeable, whereas “the elements” (not “matter”) are subject to decay and change.The elements were always seen as created from a preexisting substrate that the Greeks called the τοῦ μὴ ὄντος (tou mē ontos) or “non-being.” Those who believed in creation ex materia never claimed that matter should be worshipped or that it is somehow equal with God. It was lifeless and liable to fall into chaos, whereas God is the source of life and order. Moreover, those who accept creation from preexisting matter also saw a distinction between the creator who organizes everything that is created and the created, which would be no-thing, completely devoid of order and form, in the absence of God’s creative activity. Thus, merely recognizing that God is creator and that he created all that is created does not imply or logically require creation out of nothing.

More important, this analysis shows very clearly that Copan and Craig have failed to grasp the essential distinction between relative non-being, which refers to a material substrate without form, and absolute nothing in these texts. Aristides (if he said it at all) uses the exact phrase used by Aristotle to refer to generation of life “out of non-being” ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος. The technical language used shows that this text actually refers to the creation from the preexisting material substrate of relative non-being without form. Thus, May concludes quite accurately that: “Aristides means that the elements are created by God; but it does not appear from his book that he consciously distanced himself from the philosophical model of world-formation and . . . creation.”

How can I respond to this?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Anyone?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

No one, then, can respond to this Mormon apologist? I thought Mormon apologetics was supposed to be weak. I guess not.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I’ve been emailing professors about this issue. It seems the Mormon has overstated his case and misrepresented other areas. Still, I would appreciate any additional responses. Mormon apologetics is supposedly weak but this guy is kind of tough. Thanks.

 

[rom422]

Your Mormon friends seem to say that the Church Fathers did not teach creation out of nothing. However, that is not true, as you can see below:

Tertullian: “Now, with regard to this rule of faith— that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend— it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth…” - Prescription against Heretics, Ch. 13.
See newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm

Athanasius: “But the godly teaching and the faith according to Christ brands their foolish language as godlessness. For it knows that it was not spontaneously, because forethought is not absent; nor of existing matter, because God is not weak; but that out of nothing, and without its having any previous existence, God made the universe to exist through His word, as He says firstly through Moses: In Genesis 1:1 the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” – On the Incarnation of the Word, #3.
See newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm

Irenaeus: “The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist.” – Against Heresies, Book I, Ch. 22
See newadvent.org/fathers/0103122.htm

I only searched the New Advent website, but if you search in other websites you might find more.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Do you know where I can find these quotes in the original Greek? Then I can compare them to the quotes from the other church fathers the Mormons say taught creatio ex materia. Thank you.

 

[rom422]

Do you know where I can find these quotes in the original Greek? Then I can compare them to the quotes from the other church fathers the Mormons say taught creatio ex materia. Thank you.

No, I don’t read Greek. I could be looking at it already and still not know that it’s what you are looking for. LOL. However, the links I gave you are good English translations.

Do you have the references (in English) of the other church fathers who allegedly taught creation ex materia? I’d like to read the actual texts so I can analyze them.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

No, I don’t read Greek. I could be looking at it already and still not know that it’s what you are looking for. LOL. However, the links I gave you are good English translations.

Do you have the references (in English) of the other church fathers who allegedly taught creation ex materia? I’d like to read the actual texts so I can analyze them.

See posts 14-18 for the references and to see how the Mormon apologist is using them. Thanks.

 

[rom422]

Okay, let’s try this one at a time then. Here is the first:

"Aristides of Athens.

Copan and Craig also assert that perhaps the earliest philosophical apologist for Christianity, Aristides of Athens, expressly taught the doctrine of creation out of nothing. Their analysis is seriously flawed and, indeed, borders on being irresponsible. Aristides reportedly delivered an apology to the Roman emperor Hadrian about AD 130. Copan and Craig fail to inform the reader that the textual sources vary and are quite questionable.[54] There are three recencions of Aristides’ Apology: a shorter Greek version, a much longer Syriac version, and Armenian translations of the Syriac. Aristides reportedly stated:

Let us come now, O king, also to the history of the Jews and let us see what sort of opinion they have concerning God. The Jews then say that God is one, Creator of all and almighty: and that it is not proper for us that anything else should be worshipped, but this God only: and in this they appear to be much nearer to the truth than all the peoples, in that they worship God more exceedingly and not His works.[55]

They also cite a passage found only in the shorter Greek recension: “O King, let us proceed to the elements themselves that we may show in regard to them that they are not gods, but perishable and mutable, produced out of that which did not exist (ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος) at the command of the true God, who is indestructible and immutable and invisible, yet he sees all things and, as He wills, modifies and changes things.”[56] Copan and Craig argue that these statementsimply creation out of nothing because Aristides claims that God is both “Artificer and Creator.” They thus claim that the text asserts: (1) “there is an ontological distinction between Creator and creature . . . ; and (2) God created in stages, first bringing into being the elements and then shaping them into a cosmos” (CON, p. 131).

Neither of these assertions is supported by the text. There is not a word about a two-stage creation in Aristides’ Apology. There is a distinction between creator and creature, but it is not an ontological distinction as claimed by Copan and Craig. Rather, the text merely states that God is incorruptible and unchangeable, whereas “the elements” (not “matter”) are subject to decay and change.The elements were always seen as created from a preexisting substrate that the Greeks called the τοῦ μὴ ὄντος (tou mē ontos) or “non-being.” Those who believed in creation ex materia never claimed that matter should be worshipped or that it is somehow equal with God. It was lifeless and liable to fall into chaos, whereas God is the source of life and order. Moreover, those who accept creation from preexisting matter also saw a distinction between the creator who organizes everything that is created and the created, which would be no-thing, completely devoid of order and form, in the absence of God’s creative activity. Thus, merely recognizing that God is creator and that he created all that is created does not imply or logically require creation out of nothing.

More important, this analysis shows very clearly that Copan and Craig have failed to grasp the essential distinction between relative non-being, which refers to a material substrate without form, and absolute nothing in these texts. Aristides (if he said it at all) uses the exact phrase used by Aristotle to refer to generation of life “out of non-being” ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος. The technical language used shows that this text actually refers to the creation from the preexisting material substrate of relative non-being without form. Thus, May concludes quite accurately that: “Aristides means that the elements are created by God; but it does not appear from his book that he consciously distanced himself from the philosophical model of world-formation and . . . creation.”

How can I respond to this?

I read Aristides’ Apology in The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher, and here is my comment regarding the above post.

The post spent more time criticizing the views of Copan and Craig rather than explaining the views of Aristides regarding creation. Actually, I did not see any text in the Apology indicating that Aristides favored creatio ex materia. At least, he did not explicitly say that the elements were created from a pre-existing substrate. Your Mormon friends were the ones who said that. They said, “The elements were always seen as created from a preexisting substrate …,” indicating that it was the common opinion of the Greeks that the elements and the world at large came from pre-existing matter, but your Mormon apologists didn’t actually prove that Aristides was buying that. After reading Aristides, I got the impression that he was actually quite orthodox in his views, and would more likely reject that view. The reason I say this is because the concept of creatio ex nihilo was already the accepted view since at least the time of the Machabees. Consider, for example, this text from 2 Machabees 7:28: “I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them, and **consider that God made them out of nothing, **and mankind also.” You see, even if the Mormons do not consider the books of Machabees as part of their bible, they should at least regard them as historical artifacts that document the current views regarding the origin of the world. To think that the view of creation that the early Christians inherited from the Jewish tradition was exclusively creatio ex materia rather than creation ex nihilo is bogus.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I read Aristides’ Apology in The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher, and here is my comment regarding the above post.

The post spent more time criticizing the views of Copan and Craig rather than explaining the views of Aristides regarding creation. Actually, I did not see any text in the Apology indicating that Aristides favored creatio ex materia. At least, he did not explicitly say that the elements were created from a pre-existing substrate. Your Mormon friends were the ones who said that. They said, “The elements were always seen as created from a preexisting substrate …,” indicating that it was the common opinion of the Greeks that the elements and the world at large came from pre-existing matter, but your Mormon apologists didn’t actually prove that Aristides was buying that. After reading Aristides, I got the impression that he was actually quite orthodox in his views, and would more likely reject that view. The reason I say this is because the concept of creatio ex nihilo was already the accepted view since at least the time of the Machabees. Consider, for example, this text from 2 Machabees 7:28: “I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them, and **consider that God made them out of nothing, **and mankind also.” You see, even if the Mormons do not consider the books of Machabees as part of their bible, they should at least regard them as historical artifacts that document the current views regarding the origin of the world. To think that the view of creation that the early Christians inherited from the Jewish tradition was exclusively creatio ex materia rather than creation ex nihilo is bogus.

It might surprise you to learn this but the Mormon apologist actually argued that 2 Maccabees 7:28 favored creatio ex materia! What is your take on Wisdom 11:17, which appears to reflect a Greek understanding of creation? And if you could comment on the other fathers, except the heretic Hermogenes, I’d be highly appreciative.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

As hard as I try, I can’t find definitions for the Greek terms that the Mormon apologist alleges refer to a material substrate. I’m beginning to think they refer not to a material substrate but to shapeless, formless matter. In other words, they refer to nothingness that God organized into something. Not quite orthodox but not what the Mormon apologist is alleging, either.

I’m also in email contact with a professor who says that the ancients would have viewed eternal matter as divine and worthy of worship. We see none of this in the Church fathers quoted by the Mormon apologist. I also found this:

*Ouk on vs. me on. Absolute non-being vs. relative non-being. First mentioned in Parmenides but there is no consistent distinction until the German theologian Paul Tillich defined them as absolute and relative in the first volume of his famous Systematic Theology

webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/309/greekterms.htm

What can this mean?

 

[rom422]

It might surprise you to learn this but the Mormon apologist actually argued that 2 Maccabees 7:28 favored creatio ex materia!

I am not surprised at all if your Mormon apologist tries to interpret 2 Machabees as favoring creation ex materia, because it is clear from your posts that he is leaning toward that. So, he might say that the statement of the mother of Machabees, - “God made them out of nothing,” - actually means “God made them out of relative non-being.” Because in Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotelian philosophy, prime matter may be thought of as a relative non-being. But here is the thing: what evidence would your Mormon apologist have that the mother of Machabees was speaking in Aristotelian terms? Remember, the mother was merely counseling her son, so it seems like a stretch to think that her “nothing” would actually signify “prime matter.”

 

[rom422]

What is your take on Wisdom 11:17, which appears to reflect a Greek understanding of creation? And if you could comment on the other fathers, except the heretic Hermogenes, I’d be highly appreciative.

I will comment on the other Church Fathers in another post (perhaps tomorrow night).

I do not think that Wisdom 11:17 necessarily reflects a Greek understanding of creation. The truth is, it should be read in the context of Genesis 1:1-2, whose authorship dates farther back in time than Plato or Aristotle. For this reason, I think it makes sense to discuss Genesis 1:1-2 first before Wisdom 11:17.

Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created heaven and earth.

In the beginning, that means, *in the very beginning, before anything else was made. *Notice that the Hebrew conception of God and the world is entirely different from that of the Greeks, or of any other ancient culture. The Greeks, for example, thought that an eternal world co-existed with God. The Hebrews, however, thought that only God could be eternal. The world is only a creature, and it came from an all-powerful God, who made all things just by calling them into existence: “And God said: Be light made. And light was made” (Gen.1:3). Only God is this powerful, that He could produce something by a mere act of His Will.

If this is how the Hebrews thought of God, then it is easy to understand that, for them, only God could create and only God could be eternal. So, in the beginning, - the very beginning, - there was nothing but God alone. He created the world from nothing, just by the word of His mouth. “For He spoke, and they were made: He commanded, and they were created” (Psalm 32:9).

Genesis 1:2: And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved over the waters.

Apparently, although the first verse said that in the beginning God created heaven and earth, the earth that He made (out of nothing) was not the earth as we see it today. The earth began as a shapeless mass of matter, which God gradually fashioned to its present shape and condition. Some people see in Genesis 1:2 a biblical basis for an evolutionary view of the world. However, let us not forget that the author of Genesis is describing the origins of the world and of man by a literary imagery that is not necessarily scientific nor purely fictional. So, I would hesitate to say that Genesis 1:2 is endorsing the scientific hypothesis of evolution. The Genesis account may also be viewed as endorsing the sequential creation theory.

Wisdom 11:17. **For thy almighty hand, which made the world of matter without form, ** was not unable to send upon them a multitude of bears, or fierce lions,…

This is actually Wisdom 11:18 in the Douay Bible, which I am using. The blue text is the crucial one. St. Jerome’s translation betrays no inconsistency with Hebrew thought, but more modern translations are problematic. For example, the New American Bible says, “For not without means was your almighty hand, **that had fashioned the universe from formless matter, **to send upon them a drove of bears or fierce lions…”

Some scholars, like your Mormon apologist, think that this text can be used to support the idea of creation ex materia. However, the only way that we can interpret the text of the NAB correctly is by reading it in the context of Genesis 1:2, not in the context of Greek philosophy. In this context the “formless matter” was itself created from nothing. It would be incorrect to read “formless matter” as the prime matter of Greek philosophy because Greek philosophy was not yet born when Genesis 1:2 was conceived. Those who want to justify creation *ex materia *tend to introduce Greek notions in the Hebrew text, when such notions were actually unknown to the sacred writer at the time when the sacred text was written.

Incidentally, a pre-existing prime matter is impossible even in Aristotelian philosophy. Because prime matter is pure potentiality. As such, it cannot actually exist apart from act (form). The biblical “earth that was void and empty” is not the same thing as Aristotle’s prime matter, because the empty earth – granted that it is nothing but a confused mass of atoms and molecules – is already secondary matter, although it is waiting to be rearranged into the various beings that we now find in the world.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I can appreciate the Aristotelian context but the Mormon is claiming the fathers wrote from a middle Platonist perspective. Do you know if Plato thought prime matter could exist?

 

[rom422]

I can appreciate the Aristotelian context but the Mormon is claiming the fathers wrote from a middle Platonist perspective. Do you know if Plato thought prime matter could exist?

Yes, Plato thought that “matter” was a pre-existent, chaotic, shapeless, stuff upon which the eternal Forms can somehow be impressed. It, therefore, cannot be equated with Aristotle’s *prime matter, *which cannot exist without form. Plato’s “matter” is supposed to be objectively existing but in a confused state, so that you cannot identify it as being this or that being. In a sense, it is partly a non-being. Actually, I don’t think that Plato called it “matter,” and his description of this principle indicates that it is more like a “space” or “receptacle” that can receive and imitate the eternal Forms.

In one of his dialogues, known as the Timaeus, Plato speculated the existence of a Demiurge who put order in the chaotic world of matter by imposing upon it the Forms of various things. Some have identified the Demiurge to be God, insofar as it was the cause of the various beings and order in the world. However, the Demiurge was not really a creator because the eternal forms and the formless matter were already existing. Therefore, we cannot equate Plato’s Demiurge with the Hebrew God either.

You are right. Some early Christian writers, particularly St. Justin Martyr, wrote from a Platonic perspective. But it really doesn’t matter whether the perspective was Aristotelian or Platonic. The similarity between the shapeless “earth” of the Bible and the formless primeval matter of Greek philosophy (Aristotelian or Platonic) is purely accidental. The fact is, the book of Genesis was written long before Plato or Aristotle was born. Therefore, to interpret the biblical texts *as if *the sacred writer (or writers) intended to speak of the shapeless earth as having the eternal and increate character of “matter” in Greek philosophy, is unwarranted. We should not artificially introduce extraneous meanings that were absent from the mind of the sacred writers.

Note that the Bible did not explicitly speak of creation ex nihilo, but neither did it speak explicitly of creation ex materia. I can grant, for the sake of argument, that creation *ex nihilo *cannot be inferred from Genesis alone. However, if we examine all the other relevant texts of Sacred Scripture, we can see that the early Christian interpretation favors ex nihilo. Consider, for example, the following text from the New Testament:

John 1:1-3: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.”

Colosians 1:16-17: For in him were all things created in heaven, and on earth, visible, and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and in him: and he is before all, and by him all things consist.

So, everything was created in Christ and by Christ – those in heaven as well as those on earth. Clearly, the angels in heaven were not created from pre-existing matter, because angels are pure spirits without matter. So they were created from nothing. Now, if – as the text seems to convey - the earth was created as heaven was created, then it means that the earth, too, was created from nothing.

Also, did you notice that the Scripture said that Christ existed “before all”? That means, there was a time when there was nothing but God alone. If that is the case, then the whole world was created from nothing.

In spite of the above evidences, disagreements can take place. As we see, some Christian writers thought that the world was created *ex materia, *while others say it was created ex nihilo. In this case what matters is not what this or that Church Father teaches, but what the Church teaches, because the task of teaching the faith to all peoples was entrusted primarily to the Church (Matthew 28:19-20). Now, the Church on April 24, 1879, decreed in the Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith, Chapter 1, that the world was created from nothing by an Omnipotent God. Therefore, it is an article of faith that the world had a beginning, and that it was produced from nothing.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

You are right. Some early Christian writers, particularly St. Justin Martyr, wrote from a Platonic perspective.

You might be surprised but Justin’s views were a bit complicated. He said the following:

For that which is unbegotten is similar to, equal to, and the same with that which is unbegotten; and neither in power nor in honor should the one be preferred to the other; and hence there are not many things which are unbegotten: for if there were some difference between them, you would not discover the cause of the difference, though you searched for it; but after letting the mind ever wander to infinity, you would at length, wearied out, take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say that this is the Cause of all.

Sounds like Justin thought matter was created after all. I don’t think the Mormon apologist even addressed this quote, though it is plainly in Copan and Craig’s book. Also consider two of Justin’s pupils taught creatio ex nihilo and this is not disputed by even the Mormon apologist. Where did they get this belief? Could it have been from their teacher, Justin Martyr? What do you think?

I also eagerly await your thoughts on the other church fathers. Thanks.

 

[rom422]

You might be surprised but Justin’s views were a bit complicated. He said the following:

Your quotation follows.

Can you give me a link where you got that last quote from St. Justin Martyr?

Sounds like Justin thought matter was created after all. I don’t think the Mormon apologist even addressed this quote, though it is plainly in Copan and Craig’s book. Also consider two of Justin’s pupils taught creatio ex nihilo and this is not disputed by even the Mormon apologist. Where did they get this belief? Could it have been from their teacher, Justin Martyr? What do you think?

I think you are referring to Tatian and Theophilus, both of whom were students of St. Justin Martyr, and who were advocates of creation ex nihilo. Honestly, I think that St. Justin himself could have believed in creation ex nihilo, although it is not easy for me to prove that on account of what he said in The First Apology, Ch. 59. But here is the thing. Genesis 1:2 clearly said that the earth was at first void and empty (or “formless”, if you want to call it that). So, if God further developed the earth from its initial, formless state to its present state, even I can say that the world came out of formless matter. But that alone would not make me a Platonist or an advocate of creation ex materia. However, if I believe that the initial, formless earth was eternal, then I definitely become a Platonist. Therefore, my point is that the quotation that we have from St. Justin Martyr’s *The First Apology *only shows that he agreed with Plato on the fact that the world started by being formless, and then further developed by God. It does not decisively prove that St. Justin believed that this formless earth was eternal, or that there was something else besides God in the very beginning. So, I am not quite convinced that he really advocated creation ex materia. The fact that two of his students - Thanks for pointing that out! – advocated creation *ex nihilo *makes my doubt even stronger.

Let me point out, too, that St. Justin was always aware that the doctrines of the faith have analogous counterparts in the beliefs of the Greeks. So, his formulations of Christian doctrine should not be interpreted as a wholesale endorsement of Greek philosophy and beliefs. For example, here is what he says in Ch. 20 of * The First Apology*:

“And the Sibyl and Hystaspes said that there should be a dissolution by God of things corruptible. And the philosophers called Stoics teach that even God Himself shall be resolved into fire, and they say that the world is to be formed anew by this revolution; but we understand that God, the Creator of all things, is superior to the things that are to be changed. If, therefore, on some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching, and if we alone afford proof of what we assert, why are we unjustly hated more than all others? For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a world by God, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of Plato; and while we say that there will be a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of the Stoics: and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of the good being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers; and while we maintain that men ought not to worship the works of their hands, we say the very things which have been said by the comic poet Menander, and other similar writers, for they have declared that the workman is greater than the work.” The First Apology, Ch.20. newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

Notice his language carefully. He said that although on some points he taught the same things as the poets and philosophers, on other points his teachings were “fuller and more divine.” He also said that his teaching about the world being produced and arranged by God seems to utter the doctrine of Plato; meaning, it resembles, but does not exactly match that of Plato. These passages hit me as saying that, while his teachings remind one of Plato’s philosophy, one shouldn’t think that his teaching was completely aligned with those of Plato.

 

[rom422]

I also eagerly await your thoughts on the other church fathers. Thanks.

I can only comment on one Church Father at a time. So, I’ll tell you my opinion about **Athenagoras of Athens **next. I think that Athenagoras, just like St. Justin Martyr, believed that God fashioned the universe out of formless matter (“a material substrate”). However, this is again simply in line with Genesis 1:2, and it does not automatically make him an advocate of creation ex materia. Of course, it does not mean that he was an advocate of creation *ex nihilo *either. The key here is to determine whether he thought that matter always existed, or whether it had a beginning in time. In your Post #16 Copan and Craig made a quotation from Athenagoras’ A Plea for the Christians, Ch. 4, newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm, in which Athenagoras cited the vast distinction that exists between God and matter, saying that God is uncreated and eternal, whereas matter is created and perishable. This means that Athenagoras believed that matter was only a creature, and therefore dependent on God. But, saying that matter was created does not mean that it did not always exist. As St. Thomas Aquinas also admits, it is not impossible that created matter could have been existing from eternity. It would just imply that it was eternally dependent on God. So, this leaves the status of Athenagoras unresolved for us. Based on the evidences presented, we still do not know for sure whether Athenagoras advocated creation ex nihilo, or not. However, I think that there are good reasons to believe that he was probably also an advocate of creation ex nihilo, not just because of his awareness that matter was a created being and perishable, but also because of his knowledge of Sacred Scripture. As I said previously, Genesis 1:1 may not have used the words “ex nihilo” explicitly, but it seems to be the meaning when it started with “In the beginning…” Also, the fact that God could call something into existence by the word of His mouth (or by a mere act of His Will) seems to remove the necessity of having pre-existing matter first just to produce anything. Also, although creation “out of nothing” was not always explicitly cited (except at 2 Machabees 7:28), the cumulative weight of many other texts in both the OT and the NT lean heavily in favor of creation ex nihilo. I think that this is the reason why the Vatican Council defined it as an article of faith, meaning, it is a truth that is at least implicitly contained in the sacred texts.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Your quotation follows.

Can you give me a link where you got that last quote from St. Justin Martyr?

Justin’s Dialogue 5, if memory serves me correctly. You can also find it quoted on page 133 of Creation Out of Nothing by William Lane Craig and Paul Copan.

And great stuff on the fathers so far. I don’t have the time right now to engage your post more fully but I will.