Exploring sources on creaton

[rom422]

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.

I found your quote from the Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 5. In that quotation St. Justin was talking about the soul. His opinion was that the soul was not immortal because it was begotten. However, St. Justin in the same chapter affirmed that only God is unbegotten, which would imply that matter was also begotten and, therefore, corruptible. In fact, the Old Man asked him: “Do you say that the world is also unbegotten?” To which St. Justin replied: “Some say so. I do not, however, agree with them.” newadvent.org/fathers/01281.htm

You can see from here that St. Justin had his own mind. He knew Plato’s philosophy and probably had a great respect for him, but he did not always agree with him on all points of doctrine.

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.

That’s OK. Incidentally, I have been reading Athenagoras’ A Plea for Christians because Copan and Craig made their quotation from Chapter 4 of this book. In addition, your Mormon apologist made a quotation from Ch.15 in which Athenagoras spoke of the relation of God to matter as potter to clay. The Mormon apologist used this quotation to argue his point that, for Athenagoras, God is nothing but a mere artificer or organizer of matter, rather than an originator of matter. However, your Mormon apologist did not read far enough. If he read the next few chapters, particularly Ch. 19, this is what you read: [Note that Plato’s *Demiurge also created lesser gods that were made up of the elements, particularly water.]

“Such was the beginning of the existence both of their gods and of the universe. Now what are we to make of this? For each of those things to which divinity is ascribed is conceived of as having existed from the first. For, if they have come into being, having previously had no existence, as those say who treat of the gods, they do not exist. For, a thing is either uncreated and eternal, or created and perishable. Nor do I think one thing and the philosophers another. What is that which always is, and has no origin; or what is that which has been originated, yet never is? Discoursing of the intelligible and the sensible, Plato teaches that that which always is, the intelligible, is unoriginated, but that which is not, the sensible, is originated, beginning to be and ceasing to exist. In like manner, the Stoics also say that all things will be burnt up and will again exist, the world receiving another beginning. But if, although there is, according to them, a twofold cause, one active and governing, namely providence, the other passive and changeable, namely matter, it is nevertheless impossible for the world, even though under the care of Providence, to remain in the same state, because it is created— how can the constitution of these gods remain, who are not self-existent, but have been originated? And in what are the gods superior to matter, since they derive their constitution from water? But not even water, according to them, is the beginning of all things. From simple and homogeneous elements what could be constituted? Moreover, matter requires an artificer, and the artificer requires matter. For how could figures be made without matter or an artificer? **Neither, again, is it reasonable that matter should be older than God; for the efficient cause must of necessity exist before the things that are made.” **A Plea for the Christians, Ch. 19. newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm

I highlighted the last sentence. Based on this text I think we have a case for saying that for Athenagoras matter was not eternal, as God is, but had a beginning. So, he was an advocate of creation ex nihilo.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Very good stuff! You really know your church fathers. I wish I had more time to engage your thoughtful posts. I’m trying to find some time to do so. I thank you wholeheartedly for the knowledge you have thus far imparted. I think we can begin to see how the Mormon has cherry picked his case and not been very honest, or at the very least, not very thorough in his examination of the fathers.

 

[rom422]

Very good stuff! You really know your church fathers. I wish I had more time to engage your thoughtful posts. I’m trying to find some time to do so. I thank you wholeheartedly for the knowledge you have thus far imparted. I think we can begin to see how the Mormon has cherry picked his case and not been very honest, or at the very least, not very thorough in his examination of the fathers.

Thanks.

In the case of Saint Clement of Alexandria, the Mormon apologist made a quotation from the Paedagogus (“The Instructor”), Book III:

O King, great Giver of good gifts to men,
Lord of the good, Father, of all the Maker,
Who heaven and heaven’s adornment, by Your word
Divine fitly disposed, alone make;
Who broughtest forth the sunshine and the day;
Who appointed their courses to the stars,
And how the earth and sea their place should keep;
And when the seasons, in their circling course,
Winter and summer, spring and autumn, each
Should come, according to well-ordered plan;
Out of a confused heap who created
This ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass
Of matter did the universe adorn—
Grant to me life, and be that life well spent,
Your grace enjoying; let me act and speak
In all things as Your Holy Scriptures teach;
You and Your co-eternal Word, All-wise,
From You proceeding, ever may I praise;
Give me nor poverty nor wealth, but what is meet,
Father, in life, and then life’s happy close.
newadvent.org/fathers/02093.htm

You will find the entire hymn toward the end of the webpage. Again, nowhere in that quotation did Saint Clement of Alexandria say that matter was eternal. I tried to review some of the other texts from Saint Clement published in the NewAdvent website, and I did not find a hint that Saint Clement regarded the “confused heap” of matter to be eternal. So, in spite of the Platonic overtones that the Mormon apologist sees in St. Clement’s poem, we still cannot definitely say that St. Clement also advocated creation ex materia.

If you want additional “ammunitions” to debate with your Mormon apologist, you can consult the following works of Copan and Craig:

By Copan: earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html

By Craig: reasonablefaith.org/creatio-ex-nihilo-a-critique-of-the-mormon-doctrine-of-creation#_ednref75

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Something else to keep in mind is that no one opposed these church fathers in their views on creation. The heretic Hermogenes had Tertullian to oppose him but we see no “Against Justin,” “Against Athenagoras,” etc. Later Christian theologians criticized Origen for some of his teachings but we do not see that with these fathers. It leads me to believe that each father mentioned taught a form of creatio ex nihilo, although perhaps in a muddled or ambiguous form.

 

[rom422]

Something else to keep in mind is that no one opposed these church fathers in their views on creation. The heretic Hermogenes had Tertullian to oppose him but we see no “Against Justin,” “Against Athenagoras,” etc. Later Christian theologians criticized Origen for some of his teachings but we do not see that with these fathers. It leads me to believe that each father mentioned taught a form of creatio ex nihilo, although perhaps in a muddled or ambiguous form.

I think that the Church at that time had been quiet on the issue, not because these Church Fathers taught creation *ex nihilo *explicitly, but because they did not teach creation ex materia. Had they actually taught creation from pre-existent and eternal matter, then they would have made a lot of stir.

Incidentally, I want to mention that although the Vatican Council ratified the dogma of creation ex nihilo in 1870, it was definied much earlier than that - by Lateran Council IV in 1215. I found it in *The Sources of Catholic Dogma *by Denzinger.

 

[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.

I, too, read the entire apology, something I should have done in the first place. I also got the impression that Aristides was quite orthodox. One thing to keep in mind is that the ancient world would have viewed eternal, unbegotten matter as divine and worthy of worship. We don’t see that with Aristides. Quite the opposite in fact. He condemns just this type of worship when he condemns the worship of false gods. Am I missing anything else? I will comment on your other posts as I find time. And you’ve given me plenty to comment on! Very good stuff. I knew there was an adequate response to this Mormon apologist out there, I just had to find it. Thank you.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Another thing about matter being divine. That a church father made a statement that in isolation that might sound like a crude “Making things out of eternally existent, divine matter,” doesn’t mean it should be taken anymore literally than statements about God’s footstool meaning God has legs he likes to put up after a long day. I got that from the professor I’ve been emailing about this subject.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Take a careful look at this: iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/#H3

Now the intelligible world was by Gregory’s day pictured as a pleroma of Platonic forms existing as ideas in the mind of God; for ever since the advent of Middle Platonism in the first century BCE, the Platonic forms had been transmuted from self-subsistent entities (as Plato conceived them) to ideas in the divine mind.

Does this mean that matter is dependent on God in Middle Platonism? If so, that is just a modified form of creatio ex nihilo.

 

[rom422]

Take a careful look at this: iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/#H3

Does this mean that matter is dependent on God in Middle Platonism? If so, that is just a modified form of creatio ex nihilo.

I don’t think that that is what is meant or implied by the text you quoted. Because the text is talking about the eternal Forms, not the matter which receives the Forms. You need to recall that for Plato there were two realities - eternal matter and the universal Forms, which were also eternal. Plato thought that the invisible Forms were *subsistent entities *that were later impressed on matter to produce the sensible objects that we find in the world. However, by the time of St. Gregory of Nyssa, people already had a different view regarding these eternal Forms. They didn’t think that they were subsistent entities anymore, but just ideas in the Mind of God. The text had nothing to do with the eternal matter of the Platonists.

I read Section 3 of the link that you provided. St. Gregory certainly had interesting ideas, although I don’t always agree with them.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I don’t think that that is what is meant or implied by the text you quoted. Because the text is talking about the eternal Forms, not the matter which receives the Forms. You need to recall that for Plato there were two realities - eternal matter and the universal Forms, which were also eternal. Plato thought that the invisible Forms were *subsistent entities *that were later impressed on matter to produce the sensible objects that we find in the world. However, by the time of St. Gregory of Nyssa, people already had a different view regarding these eternal Forms. They didn’t think that they were subsistent entities anymore, but just ideas in the Mind of God. The text had nothing to do with the eternal matter of the Platonists.

I read Section 3 of the link that you provided. St. Gregory certainly had interesting ideas, although I don’t always agree with them.

Yes, I see that now. Too bad. Did any Middle Platonists believe that matter was dependent or contingent on God?

 

[Deconi]

I think that the Church at that time had been quiet on the issue, not because these Church Fathers taught creation *ex nihilo *explicitly, but because they did not teach creation ex materia. Had they actually taught creation from pre-existent and eternal matter, then they would have made a lot of stir.

Incidentally, I want to mention that although the Vatican Council ratified the dogma of creation ex nihilo in 1870, it was definied much earlier than that - by Lateran Council IV in 1215. I found it in *The Sources of Catholic Dogma *by Denzinger.

Marvelous job thus far and I’ve really enjoyed your expositions/dialogue.

I was going to point you to Denzinger’s ‘Sources…’ but you really already have the completed sphere!

AWESOME WORK!

 

[rom422]

Marvelous job thus far and I’ve really enjoyed your expositions/dialogue.

I was going to point you to Denzinger’s ‘Sources…’ but you really already have the completed sphere!

AWESOME WORK!

Thank you so much, Deconi. God bless!

 

[rom422]

Yes, I see that now. Too bad. Did any Middle Platonists believe that matter was dependent or contingent on God?

I know that Plato himself did not think of his Demiurge to be a cause or originator of matter. God was more of an organizer only, or an artificer, who produced other sensible beings in the world by impressing a pre-existing Form to a pre-existing matter. Now, the Greek Church Fathers agreed that God also had a role in the future development of the world after the primeval matter was created. However, it appears that, for them, the primeval matter was not eternal but was also created and, therefore, dependent on God.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I know that Plato himself did not think of his Demiurge to be a cause or originator of matter. God was more of an organizer only, or an artificer, who produced other sensible beings in the world by impressing a pre-existing Form to a pre-existing matter. Now, the Greek Church Fathers agreed that God also had a role in the future development of the world after the primeval matter was created. However, it appears that, for them, the primeval matter was not eternal but was also created and, therefore, dependent on God.

Another thing to keep in mind: St. Thomas Aquinas made his famous arguments independent of the beginning of time/the universe. Yet, he still maintained that God was the creator of the universe and definitely believed in creatio ex nihilo. So, to believe that matter is dependent on God for existence is a form of creatio ex nihilo, even if you believed that matter was co-eternal with God. So the Mormon argument holds no water, especially when it comes to the fathers of the Church. This Mormon apologist is making a weaker and weaker case as we consider it more in depth. I wonder what else he got wrong in that article. It is too long to discuss but if he got the fathers this wrongly, I can only imagine how badly he has mangled Scripture and extra-Scriptural sources. Also, he doesn’t even engage Copan and Craig on the Old Testament, philosophy, and science, all of which is included in the book but conspicuously lacking in his review of their work. I think you’re right, the weight of OT and NT writings is firmly behind creatio ex nihilo.

Also, about Wisdom 11:17. A little further down in the chapter, Wisdom 11:25, reads “How would anything have endured if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved?”

This, to me, sounds like it is saying the formless matter of Wisdom 11:17 is willed (e.g. created) by God.

 

[rom422]

Also, about Wisdom 11:17. A little further down in the chapter, Wisdom 11:25, reads “How would anything have endured if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved?”

This, to me, sounds like it is saying the formless matter of Wisdom 11:17 is willed (e.g. created) by God.

I am not familiar with Mormonism, and am not sure whether the Book of Wisdom is part of their canon. Also, I think there are current threads in the CAF where the eternity of the world is being discussed. You might want to check those to gain more insights.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Since you have covered the fathers so well, I have nothing of value to add to the discussion. I am content to let this thread fade into oblivion now. Thanks to all who participated, especially you, rom422.

 

[rom422]

Since you have covered the fathers so well, I have nothing of value to add to the discussion. I am content to let this thread fade into oblivion now. Thanks to all who participated, especially you, rom422.

Oh thanks! See you around in other threads.