The Nature of God in Mormonism.

[RebeccaJ]

the problem is that you are choosing what fits your a priori beliefs

I am not a scholar, but I am sure I could find work that disputes what you are saying.

At any rate, we have the teaching of Christ’s Church, which have been, from the beginning, ex nihlio.

 

[teancum79]

the problem is that you are choosing what fits your a priori beliefs

I am not a scholar, but I am sure I could find work that disputes what you are saying.

At any rate, we have the teaching of Christ’s Church, which have been, from the beginning, ex nihlio.

That has a fox guarding the hen house ring to it.

 

[BDawg]

the problem is that you are choosing what fits your a priori beliefs

I am not a scholar, but I am sure I could find work that disputes what you are saying.

At any rate, we have the teaching of Christ’s Church, which have been, from the beginning, ex nihlio.

Hi Rebecca,

You can find various Bible commentaries, and various apologetic works from a number of churches, that come to different conclusions, but Hayman was saying that the recognized biblical scholars working specifically on this topic over the last few decades, have come to this conclusion.

Here’s a reference to a recent apologetic article by a couple Evangelical scholars, who aren’t experts in this particular area. They come to the conclusions that you would find more appealing, but they wouldn’t have been included in the group Hayman was talking about.

Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, "Craftsman or Creator: An Examination of the Mormon Doctrine of Creation & a Defense of Creatio Ex Nihilo, in Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, eds., *The New Mormon Challenge *(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 95-152.

Paul Copan had earlier written a defense of creatio ex nihilo in the following article.

Paul Copan, “Is Creatio Ex Nihilo a Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination of Gerhard May’s Proposal,” Trinity Journal 17 (1996), 77-93.

So I don’t mean to imply that there are no arguments out there for your side, on this issue. Rather, the fact is that the heavyweights are all on our side. I don’t mind setting aside the “who has the biggest scholars” talk and just look at specific arguments, though. I don’t always agree with the “scholarly consensus” on everything, after all.

 

[BDawg]

If Mormons used the entire Bible it might be easier for them.

2 Maccabees

28 I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things; and in the same way the human race came into existence.

Hi Rebecca,

I don’t mind you posting this, although Z is right to point out that we don’t consider the Apocrypha authoritative. Since 2 Maccabees predates Christianity, it is relevant for the discussion of whether anybody explicitly taught creatio ex nihilo before the 2nd century A.D.

First let me provide an alternate translation, from the New English Bible.

“I beg you, child, look at the sky and the earth; see all that is in them and realize that God made them out of nothing, and that man comes into being in the same way.” (2 Maccabees 7:28)

Lets look at the last part of the passage, where it says either that “man” (meaning individual men) comes into being out of nothing, or that “the human race” comes into being out of nothing. It seems likely to me that she was talking about individual men, because a few verses earlier the woman says to her sons,

“You apppeared in my womb, I know not how; it was not I who gave you life and breath and set in order your bodily frames. It is the Creator of the universe who moulds man at his birth and plans the origin of all things.” (2 Maccabees 7:22-23)

So how does a person appear in the womb? Even the ancients had figured out that you need a man’s “seed” inside the woman to make a baby. And notice that she says that God “set in order” their bodies and “moulds man at his birth.” All of this presumes an unorganized, pre-existing substratum.

But what if she was referring to the human race? Undoubtedly, this Jewish woman got her belief about that from Genesis, where it says God formed Adam “from the dust of the ground.” Obviously, the human race was not formed out of absolute nothingness.

So anyway, for these reasons, all those scholars I mentioned consider the 2 Maccabees passage to be an example of an early use of the language of creation from nothing that clearly did not mean “absolute nothingness” to the original authors.

Consider also this other passage from the Apocrypha:

“For thy almighty hand, which created the world out of formless matter, was not without further resource.” (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 NEB)

 

[PaulDupre]

Maccabees is in the Apocrypha. It is in the Catholic Bible, but not in the LDS one. We do not recognize that as part of the canon (neither do the Protestants). I would like to read the text of that in several translations to get the correct meaning of it. I doubt it says God made everylthing out of nothing.

zerinus

Here’s the New Living Translation:

I urge you, my child, look at heaven and earth and all that is in them, and remember that God made them out of nothing. He made human beings in this way as well.

• 2 Macc 7:28

 

[RebeccaJ]

That has a fox guarding the hen house ring to it.

Look, attempting to use Jewish scholarship to “prove” a non-Jewish belief is not anything I want a part of. For one, I am not even remotely qualified. If you want to argue Jewish scholarship, and interpretation of scripture, bring it up with someone that knows. Such as HashemEchad. She’ll set you straight.

I am Catholic, not Jewish. The Holy Spirit guides our understanding of scripture. Not Jewish scholarship and certainly not Mormons.

 

[BDawg]

Hi guys,

In my previous two installments, I argued for creatio ex materia in the following ways.

1. In post #13 I pointed out that the biblical scholars who have worked specifically on the origin of creatio ex nihilo have uniformly come to the conclusion that it was not taught in the Bible, and indeed, was not taught by anyone in the ancient world until the mid-2nd century A.D.
2. In post #24 I argued that 2 Maccabees 7:28 is not a counterexample to point 1, but rather an example the scholars I mentioned use to show that some ancients talked about “creation from nothing” when they obviously didn’t mean “absolute nothingness.”
3. In that same post, I also pointed out that Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 specifically teaches creation from formless matter.

Now I want to start at the beginning, namely, Genesis 1:1-2. Most older Bible translations render the passage something like this:

“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.” (King James Version)

This seems to imply that God created heaven and earth, and THEN the earth was without form, etc. I won’t get into all the gory linguistic details, but a lot of Hebrew scholars have pointed out that this is probably a mistranslation, and so many of the newer translations render it something like this:

“In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.” (New Revised Standard Version; see also the New English Bible, for another example)

In this rendering, it seems that the Earth was ALREADY a formless, watery chaos in the beginning, when God got around to creating the heavens and the Earth. This is appealing to many of these scholars, because many of the cultures surrounding the Israelites had mythologies that included creation from a watery chaos. So it makes sense that the Israelite creation story would have common elements like this.

You might be objecting that just because some pagans had this belief, it doesn’t mean the Israelites did. But for one thing, you might be surprised how much Israelite religion had in common with, for instance, that of the Canaanites. For another thing, Peter himself confirmed this interpretation!

“They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water.” (2 Peter 3:5, New Revised Standard Version)

So in the New Testament, there is clear evidence for creation from the watery chaos, but no clear evidence for creation from absolute nothingness.

 

[BDawg]

Addendum to my last post:

The most respected translation of Genesis is from the Anchor Bible series, by E. A. Speiser. He translates Genesis 1:1-2 like this:

“When God set about to create heaven and earth - the world being a formless waste, with darkness over the seas…”

In the notes he commented on why the newer translations tend to translate the first word in the Bible (bereshit) as “in the beginning when…” instead of just “in the beginning”.

“The first word of Genesis, and hence the first word in the Hebrew Bible as a unit, is vocalized as beresit. Grammatically, this is evidently in the construct state… Thus, the sense of this particular initial term is, or should be, ‘At the beginning of…,’ or ‘When,’ and not ‘In/At the beginning’; the absolute form with adverbial connotation would be bare’sit. As the text is now vocalized, therefore, the Hebrew Bible starts out with a dependent clause.” (Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible Series, p. 12)

He goes on to explain specifically that his translation goes against the idea of creatio ex nihilo.

“To be sure the present interpretation precludes the view that creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent matter.” (Speiser, Genesis, p. 13)

 

[BDawg]

Another addendum:

Here is a quotation from a Catholic scholar, who says that in the original Hebrew conception, God formed the world from pre-existent material.

“It has long been recognized by Bible scholars that the Priestly account of creation of the world [in Genesis 1] reveals traces of Mesopotamian influence. This influence is most apparent in the cosmological presuppositions, and in this sense the Priestly account differs significantly in outlook from that of the Yahwist [in Genesis 2]. For example, where as the Yahwist record envisages the primeval state as a desert needing water to make it fertile, the Priestly presupposes the existence of an unformed chaos enveloped in primeval darkness… The world is pictured as ‘being then a formless waste, with darkness over the seas,’ in short a watery chaos. The passage concerned seems to indicate a situation in which the world is envisaged as immersed in the thwm, the ‘seas.’ As further development of the idea shows, the chief features of the primeval chaos were those of the raw material of the universe.” (Luis I. J. Stadelmann, S.J., The Hebrew Conception of the World, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970, 12.)

Notice that Stadelmann was a Jesuit scholar, who published his work through the Pontifical Biblical Institute.

 

[BDawg]

Yet another addendum.

The New American Bible, which was approved for liturgical use by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, translates Genesis 1:1-2 in the more modern fashion.

“In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.”

It renders 2 Peter 3:5 like this:

“They deliberately ignore the fact that the heavens existed of old and earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God.”

Ok, I’m done with addenda for now, but I think it’s clear that the Mormons can make a pretty solid case for the proposition that our belief in creation from chaos is in line with the viewpoint of the original Biblical authors. Like I said before, if that’s what God revealed in the Bible about the nature of the Universe, then maybe we should just accept it, rather than arguing about whether that makes God “almighty” enough.

 

[Nan_S]

The Catholic position:

We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. (Wis 9:9) It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: “For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.” (Rev 4:11) Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: “O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all”; and “The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made.” (Ps 145:9) God creates “out of nothing.”

We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely “out of nothing”: (Lateran Council, 1215 A.D.)

“If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.” (St. Theophilus of Antioch, 1052 A.D.)

Scripture bears witness to faith in creation “out of nothing” as a truth full of promise and hope. Thus the mother of seven sons encourages them for martyrdom:
“I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws. . . Look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.” (2 Macc 7:22-21:28)

Since God could create everything out of nothing, he can also, through the Holy Spirit, give spiritual life to sinners by creating a pure heart in them (Ps 51:12), and bodily life to the dead through the Resurrection. God “gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.” (Rom 4:17) and since God was able to make light shine in darkness by his Word, he can also give the light of faith to those who do not yet know him. (2 Cor 4:6)

God is infinitely greater than all his works: “You have set your glory above the heavens.” (Ps 8:1) Indeed, God’s “greatness is unsearchable”. (Ps 145:3) But because he is the free and sovereign Creator, the first cause of all that exists, God is present to his creatures’ inmost being: “In him we live and move and have our being.” (Ac 17:28) In the words of St. Augustine, God is “higher than my highest and more inward than my innermost self”.

Nothing is greater than God. Nothing is co-equal with God the Father, except the Son and the Holy Spirit. “In the beginning was the Word. . . and the Word was God. . . all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” (Jn 1:1-3) To suggest that matter was eternally present with God, and that the existence of matter, however formless, was independent of God’s creative power, is to both elevate matter to equality with God, and to diminish God. It would be to say that God was not omnipotent, because it would claim that at least one thing did not need God as it’s origin.

 

[BDawg]

Hi Nan,

It seems to me that the only passages you cited that bear on the question at hand are the following.

1. Rev. 4:11, which says that God created everything.

But the Greek verb used in this passage is ktizo, which can be translated “to create,” or “to form, shape, i.e. to completely change or transform.” So the question is still, “What does it mean to create something?” For example, in 1 Cor. 11:9, it says “for indeed man was not created [verb=ktizo] for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” But the Bible says man was formed from the dust of the ground, i.e., not from absolute nothingness.

Eph. 2:14-15 says, “For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace.” The word “make” here is the verb ktizo here, and it plainly refers to taking two pre-existing things and forming them into a single thing.

1. The passage from 2 Macc. 7, which says that God created everything from nothing, and humans as well.

I already addressed this passage. See post #24.

1. Romans 4:17, which says God “gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.”

If I were to invent a new kind of lawn mower, I could say that I had made something that didn’t exist before… out of pre-existing material.

1. The passage from Theophilus of Antioch. (He was probably writing in the second half of the second century, not 1052 AD, as you had.)

Theophilus was one of the first Christians to explicitly teach creatio ex nihilo. Nobody disputes that he taught it, but there were a number of earlier and contemporary Christian writers who taught creatio ex materia.

 

[zerinus]

Thank you Nan for your post. We believe that Christian doctrine is derived ultimately from Christian scripture. Catholic theologians, or councils, or Tradition, or even Church Fathers may make useful comments and (name removed by moderator)ut into the discussion; but we examine them in the light of scripture. If we find that scripture does not support, or even contradicts their teachings, then we have no obligation to accept it. That reduces the amount of material in your post that I need to address. I am only interested in the scriptural references that you have given—and not even to all of those. Some of the scriptural deductions you have made are irrelevant to the subject of the discussion. For example, that God is “greater than all His works”. Well, of course He is greater; but that is beside the point. Every creator is greater that the work he creates. A carpenter is greater than the table he makes. A doctor is greater than the medicine he prescribes. A baker is greater than the loaf he bakes. That is a redundant truism that is irrelevant to the discussion. So to narrow it down, we are left with the following scriptural reffs, and the conclusions you have derived from them:

Scripture bears witness to faith in creation “out of nothing” as a truth full of promise and hope. Thus the mother of seven sons encourages them for martyrdom:
“I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws. . . Look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.” (2 Macc 7:22-21:28)

As I explained earlier, we do not accept the Apocrypha as scripture; but assuming that it is, BDawg has already explained how that need not be interpreted to mean creation ex nihilo in the absolute sense.

Since God could create everything out of nothing, . . .

You have not established that God could create everything out of nothing. You are arguing from the conclusion to the premise, which is a logical fallacy.

. . . he can also, through the Holy Spirit, give spiritual life to sinners by creating a pure heart in them (Ps 51:12), and bodily life to the dead through the Resurrection. God “gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.” (Rom 4:17) and since God was able to make light shine in darkness by his Word, he can also give the light of faith to those who do not yet know him. (2 Cor 4:6)

This is another logical fallacy. God’s ability to “give spiritual life to sinners by creating a pure heart in them” or His ability to “make light shine in darkness by his Word,” and “give the light of faith to those who do not yet know him” are not dependent on His ability to create something out of nothing. The two concepts are not interconnected.

As for Romans 4:17, there are different translations for this. Here is the KJV translation, in context:

Romans 4:

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

This does not say that God creates something out of nothing. It refers to the promise that God made to Abraham that He would multiply his seed as the stars of heaven for multitude. Calling “those things which be not as though they were” refers to that promise of God made to Abraham. It refers to the ability of God to know and foretell of the future seed of Abraham which do not yet exist. It says nothing about “creation out of nothing”.

“In the beginning was the Word. . . and the Word was God. . . all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” (Jn 1:1-3)

This is a rather interesting verse. It doesn’t say that God made everything out of nothing either. On the contrary, it supports creation out of something. It says “without him was not anything made THAT WAS MADE.” The implication is that there were some things that were not made. All that were made, were made by Him. Therefore there were some things that were NOT made at all, therefore they were not made by Him either. That is the implication of that verse.

To suggest that matter was eternally present with God, and that the existence of matter, however formless, was independent of God’s creative power, is to both elevate matter to equality with God, and to diminish God.

That is illogical and untrue. If a carpenter went to the woods and chopped down some trees, and made a log cabin out of it, does that elevate the trees to the level of the carpenter because they existed at the same time as him? Of course not! That is a ridiculous thing to say.

It would be to say that God was not omnipotent, because it would claim that at least one thing did not need God as it’s origin.

God is certainly not omnipotent in that absolute sense of the term, because that is an impossibility, and would led to logical paradox. Can God make a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it Himself? If you said Yes, then you must conclude that God is not omnipotent because there is a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it Himself! If you said No, then you would still conclude that God is not omnipotent because there is at least one thing that He cannot do; He cannot make a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it Himself! This paradox arises out of attributing to God omnipotence in the absolute logical sense of the term, which is the product of philosophy not scripture. The truth is that God is omnipotent within the realm of what is possible. Some things are inherently impossible, even by God. This does not diminish God, or reduce His omnipotence; because those are things that nobody and nothing can do. If we said that there is being greater than God who created something out of nothing, and God took that and made the rest, then you would be right. But that is not what we are saying. What we are saying is that there are some things that are inherently impossible, that nobody and nothing can do, not just that God can’t do. That does not diminish God’s omnipotence. He still remains omnipotent because He can do anything He wants within the realm of what is inherently possible.

And lastly, I know where you got all of this post from. You got it from the Catholic Catechism. Here is the source:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm

I will tell you what is wrong with that. Firstly, it is not very honest to quote something from the Internet, without giving people the source, because you may give the false impression that you wrote it yourself. People need to know the source so that they can look it up. Secondly, it is not a good idea to cut and paste from the Internet without putting any intellectual capital into it yourself. I cannot debate with the Catechism. I can only debate with you. If you don’t have enough intellectual horsepower to make independent decisions and produce rational arguments, and can do no better than merely cut and paste, that makes serious and intelligent discussion with you impossible.

zerinus

 

[BDawg]

That is illogical and untrue. If a carpenter went to the woods and chopped down some trees, and made a log cabin out of it, does that elevate the trees to the level of the carpenter because they existed at the same time as him? Of course not! That is a ridiculous thing to say.

Good point, Z.

Paul compared God’s creation of human beings with different attributes to a potter forming lumps of clay.

“Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one?” (Romans 9:21 NAB)

Doesn’t sound to me like he thought of clay as being on equal footing with the potter.

 

[Nan_S]

Thank you Nan for your post.

Thank you also.

And lastly, I know where you got all of this post from. You got it from the Catholic Catechism. …

I will tell you what is wrong with that. Firstly, it is not very honest to quote something from the Internet, without giving people the source, because you may give the false impression that you wrote it yourself. People need to know the source so that they can look it up. Secondly, it is not a good idea to cut and paste from the Internet without putting any intellectual capital into it yourself. I cannot debate with the Catechism. I can only debate with you. If you don’t have enough intellectual horsepower to make independent decisions and produce rational arguments, and can do no better than merely cut and paste, that makes serious and intelligent discussion with you impossible.It’s true that I did take most of the post from the Catechism without citing it, but I did that for a reason. I wanted your honest assessment based on the arguments and individual citations, not on the fact that they were part of the Catechism. You gave us that. You must admit that I did start by saying that this was the Catholic position. Perhaps that’s what ultimately tipped you off?

The comments about my lack of “intellectual horsepower” were insulting, unkind, and unnecessary. You win no points in a debate by substituting insults for analysis.

If you had compared my entire post to the Catechism you would have discovered that the last paragraph in my post is not a quote from the Catechism at all. It is entirely mine.

What I myself said:

Nothing is greater than God. Nothing is co-equal with God the Father, except the Son and the Holy Spirit. “In the beginning was the Word. . . and the Word was God. . . all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” (Jn 1:1-3) To suggest that matter was eternally present with God, and that the existence of matter, however formless, was independent of God’s creative power, is to both elevate matter to equality with God, and to diminish God. It would be to say that God was not omnipotent, because it would claim that at least one thing did not need God as it’s origin.

That is illogical and untrue. If a carpenter went to the woods and chopped down some trees, and made a log cabin out of it, does that elevate the trees to the level of the carpenter because they existed at the same time as him? Of course not! That is a ridiculous thing to say.

It’s not ridiculous at all. Both the man and the trees were created things, each coming from some other source that is greater than both of them. In that sense the man and the trees are equal. The gifts and abilities of the man and the trees are different, but they are both created products of a higher source. In fact, if you look at Sequoia Redwoods, many individually thriving for over 3,000 years, you might even say that in some ways trees are actually greater than men.

God is certainly not omnipotent in that absolute sense of the term, because that is an impossibility, and would led to logical paradox. Can God make a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it Himself? If you said Yes, then you must conclude that God is not omnipotent because there is a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it Himself! If you said No, then you would still conclude that God is not omnipotent because there is at least one thing that He cannot do; He cannot make a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it Himself! This paradox arises out of attributing to God omnipotence in the absolute logical sense of the term, which is the product of philosophy not scripture. The truth is that God is omnipotent within the realm of what is possible. Some things are inherently impossible, even by God. This does not diminish God, or reduce His omnipotence; because those are things that nobody and nothing can do. If we said that there is being greater than God who created something out of nothing, and God took that and made the rest, then you would be right. But that is not what we are saying. What we are saying is that there are some things that are inherently impossible, that nobody and nothing can do, not just that God can’t do. That does not diminish God’s omnipotence. He still remains omnipotent because He can do anything He wants within the realm of what is inherently possible.

zerinus"The realm of what is inherently possible", as you put it, comes from the fact that God created a universe that has basic rules and universal constants. Each element has a fixed atomic weight and composition. Matter and energy, at their most basic levels, can be changed in nature and substance, but can neither be created nor destroyed, within the realm of this known universe which God has designed. What you believe to be an impossible paradox is merely impossible within the rules of our universe as we know it.

God Himself is the source of the basic rules and universal constants. “What is inherently possible” has limits, because those are the limits God chose when He created everything out of nothing in the first place. He could, if He wanted to, violate the basic rules that are the fabric of the universe, but if He were to do so it could destroy the universe.

To suggest that matter was eternally present with God, and that the existence of matter, however formless, was independent of God’s creative power, would be to say that at least one thing exists that does not need God as it’s origin. If God is not the uncaused cause of everything, something greater than God must be the uncaused cause. You must believe this, because you said:

If we said that there is being greater than God who created something out of nothing, and God took that and made the rest, then you would be right.

Please explain. Who or what is this being greater than God?

 

[BDawg]

Thank you also.
It’s true that I did take most of the post from the Catechism without citing it, but I did that for a reason.
It’s always polite to give citations

The comments about my lack of “intellectual horsepower” were insulting, unkind, and unnecessary.

I think Z did not say that you lack intellectual horsepower, but that people who ONLY cut-and-paste do. He was encouraging you to do more than that, so we can have a discussion.

It’s not ridiculous at all. Both the man and the trees were created things, each coming from some other source that is greater than both of them. In that sense the man and the trees are equal.

In that case, then any attributes we share with God make us equal “in that sense.”

What you believe to be an impossible paradox is merely impossible within the rules of our universe as we know it.

So, are you saying that God CAN create a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it?

If God is not the uncaused cause of everything, something greater than God must be the uncaused cause.

Why does everything have to have a single “uncaused cause”? I think it is more accurate to say that a) some things are “caused,” and b) other things “just are.” You say that God is the only thing in category b, whereas we say that matter and intelligence are the only things in category b.

Why on Earth should we feel bound to have only one thing in category b? I think the only reason you do is because Aristotle postulated an “Unmoved Mover,” and Aquinas harmonized Catholic doctrine with Aristotelian philosophy. Personally, I don’t see why we should give special weight to the musings of ancient pagan philosophers.

 

[PaulDupre]

BDawg,
You have done a fine job of showing that the bible teaches that the earth was formed from pre-existing matter. I agree with you that it does.

But that is a non-issue. The matter in the universe is about 14 billion years old but the earth is only about 4 billion years old. When God created the earth, the matter he used was indeed pre-existing (by about 10 billion years) but it was matter that God originally created out of nothing. The most recent advances in cosmology bear this out.

It is no surprise that the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest. That explanation for the beginning of the universe and all the matter and energy that make it up is now widely accepted (except by Mormons, I presume).

Your thoughts?

Paul

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So your question basically boils down to whether God made everything out of nothing or out of preexistent materials. That is the difference between two different philosophies. There is nothing in the Bible that says that God did not make everything out of something that already existed. “Create” does not mean out of nothing. It simply means to make, manufacture. You have no case to make against the LDS doctrine of creation out of preexistent materials.

zerinus

This is precisely why this thread is needed.

The nature of the term “Almighty” means all powerful. If something exists and is not created (ex nihilo) and sustained by the power of God then God is NOT all powerful by definition, there are things outside of Him he is powerless over.

Is there such a concept as a theology department for the LDS Church?..because at this point it seems “theology” extends only to surface level concepts without a foundation to build upon. Claiming things like that God created out of pre-existing matter has serious ramifications on who God is and how you view Him.

 

[zerinus]

If we said that there is being greater than God who created something out of nothing, and God took that and made the rest, then you would be right.

I did not say that there was such a being. Evidently you did not read my post carefully enough. I suggest you read it more carefully before replying.

zerinus

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hi CD,
For Mormons, all this talk about “almightiness” and “omnipotence” is a little beside the point. When we say God is “almighty” or “omnipotent,” we mean that God can do anything that is possible. (Even Catholics would say that God can’t do two things that are logically contradictory, etc.) So what is possible? Well, that depends on what the Universe is like. In our case, we believe the Universe consists of eternally existent matter and “intelligence,” which can’t be created or uncreated. So if we said that God created matter or intelligence out of nothing, that wouldn’t make any sense, because that’s not possible, given the way the Universe happens to be.

I think you are making a false distinction here. Catholics say God can’t do things contradictory to His nature (eg, tell a lie), you are saying something very different. You are saying God is restricted to what His environment offers, as if God was stuck in a box.

“But that’s blasphemous!” someone might object. “How could God really be God, if matter is as eternal as Him?” Understand that matter doesn’t DO anything by itself. It’s just there. How would just sitting there for eternity doing nothing make something Divine? It seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate to call someone “God” who can do anything that is possible in the Universe, on the other hand.

What you are describing is a God who found himself in a room full of a mess of Legos all over the floor and decided to build stuff. That is the blasphemous part, the idea that the Legos dont do anything and just sit there is a different issue (though it has its own issues).

To my mind, then, it seems like we can leave behind all these hoity-toity philosophical issues. I mean, really, how would it be possible for a human mind to comprehend something like “omnipotence,” anyway?

Thats just it. My point here is that the LDS understanding of omnipotence is being derived and defined in the wrong manner. It is explained in terms of what we can comprehend and on a purely human level. It is like the Greek and Roman gods who were** essentially gods created in the image of men (with a touch of fantasy involved**).

Our finite human minds cannot comprehend creation ex nihilo, we cant comprehend somthing being called into existence from nothing. But that is the true and orthodox conclusion for a God who is Almighty (omnipotent).

Instead, why not take a more practical approach? Why not ask, “What did the writers of the Bible actually mean when they said God created the Earth? Did they mean that it was created from absolute nothingness, or did they mean that God created the Cosmos out of pre-existent material?” Since both Catholics and Mormons accept the Bible as scripture, I think we would all be interested in seeing evidence for one interpretation or the other.

This is where theology comes in because how we understand the Nature of God plays a direct role in how we understand other issues like creation.

(Note: When I say “evidence,” I do not mean “absolute proof.” I am ok with it if I present my evidence, and everyone doesn’t automatically jump on my bandwagon.) If we can figure out what the Biblical writers actually meant, then that might settle the question of what the Universe is really like.

This is going to be tough because we understand terms and concepts very differently. For example in the creation account where it says God created man “in His image,” Mormons think “image” means a physical representation ( God looks like human with a head and arms and legs, etc). Catholics say “image” is in regard to attributes of God which the rest of creation was not given, man was given an immortal and rational soul. One serious flaw in the Mormon interpretation of “in his image” is they leave out the second half of the verse.

Some Evidence for Creatio ex Materia

In his 1990 address to the British Society for Jewish Studies, the president of that society, Peter Hayman, said this.

“Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C.E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism. The one scholar who continues to maintain that the doctrine is native to Judaism, namely Jonathan Goldstein, thinks that it first appears at the end of the first century C.E., but has recently conceded the weakness of his position in the course of debate with David Winston.”

(Peter Hayman, “Monotheism - A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?”, Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991), 1-15. See also Jonathan Goldstein, “The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo”, Journal of Jewish Studies 35 (1984), 127-135; Jonathan Goldstein, “Creation Ex Nihilo: Recantations and Restatements”, Journal of Jewish Studies f38 (1987), 187-194; David Winston, “Creation Ex Nihilo Revisited: A Reply to Jonathan Goldstein”, Journal of Jewish Studies 37 (1986), 88-91.)

This quote is irrelevant, it is quoting of scholars (secular?) who have no business discussing LDS or Catholic theology.

The quote by Rebecca J above of 2 Mac 7:28 obliterates the idea ex nihilo is foreign to Judaism and not in the Jewish Scriptures. And the claim this arose in Christianity in the 2nd century goes against passages like Heb 11:3Through 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.
Combine this with passages (eg Jn 1:3) that say without Jesus nothing came into existence and it is clear the concept of pre-existing matter was never on the radar.

This standard work on the subject of the origin of the creatio ex nihilo doctrine is a book by the German scholar Gerhard May. (Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Christian Thought, trans. A. S. Worrall, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994; originally published as Schöpfung aus dem Nichts Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1978.) May’s main argument goes like this.

This has no authority in this discussion, from the very sound of it it is of a secular/liberal (and probably atheist) scholar, not a Catholic or Mormon theologian. Such works are “standards” because anti-Christian groups dominate the printing presses.

1. Many passages in ancient literature explicitly teach creation from pre-existent material.

Assertion without proof, and ignoring the passages which speak of nothing coming into existence without God speaking it.

1. Before the mid-second century A.D., there are a few passages that say God created from “nothing,” or from “that which did not exist,” but in almost all cases those same authors (including Philo the Jew) clearly implied or explicitly stated a belief in creation from pre-existing matter.

This is simply an assertion, the authority behind this claim has no force in either of our churches.

(cont)