Creation ex deo

 

A little background information first. As I look back at the first 25 years of my life, I find it terribly sad that everybody who tried to evangelize me (except Matt) came at me from an Arminian point of view. So what I thought was Christianity was vastly different from what is found in the Bible and therefore when I was able to come up with objections that could not be solved by those who were attempting to evangelize me I felt pretty good about myself. These well-meaning evangelists really did more harm than good (the sovereignty of God notwithstanding) and ended up hardening me even more in my sin. Therefore, since becoming a Christian, I recognize the massive importance of good theology in our evangelistic endeavours, the massive importance of displaying God as he truly is, and the massive importance of displaying reality as it truly is. Let the sinner do with it what he will (or rather let the Holy Spirit do with it what he will), but we must not shrink back from declaring the whole counsel of God.

I see the same kind of thing going on when a person tries to evangelize an atheist while holding to the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo. A smart enough atheist can draw enough conclusions from this starting point to see right through it if he is so inclined. I, however, was not smart enough to see through it and accepted creation ex-nihilo for the first couple years of my Christian life until John Gerstner and Jonathan Edwards conspired to change my mind.

First, and most importantly, I stumbled across Edwards' "Essay on the Trinity" which was the most important thing I ever read outside of the Bible which took me deeper into the Trinity than I ever cared to think about. It definitely got me thinking harder about the essence of who God is and all of the conclusions that follow from such a thought. Then I stumbled upon Edwards' "Of Being" which made me redefine how I think about nothing, though I didn't really get it at the time. All of this got me prepared for Gerstner's lecture about creation in his "Handout Theology" series which settled the matter for me. Here is a summary of that lecture which changed my mind for good:

• Creation usually means making something out of nothing, which is the ultimate absurdity.
• Even God is unable to make something out of nothing.
• If God made something out of nothing, it could not have been nothing. Out of nothing, nothing comes or is brought, because there is nothing to come out of it or be brought from it.
• God can't square circles or make nothing something. More properly speaking, it is not that God can't do it, but that there is nothing to do. It is a meaningless proposition.
• Besides, God himself is Being, infinite, unlimited. Other beings than Being cannot exist independently of him. Speaking more properly, they have no meaning if considered separate and independent beings.
• There cannot be being in addition to all-being or it (God) would not be all-being.
• What, then, is creation?  It must refer to the modification of infinite divine Being.
• This seemingly obvious doctrine of creation is often resisted because it seems to spell pantheism.
• This is what seems to make the even more objectionable creatio ex nihilo the only way out. It is another curing of a headache by decapitation.
• Pantheism cannot be.  Creatio ex nihilo cannot be.  So it must be creatio ex Deo.

So creation ex nihilo says "God created everything out of nothing." Pantheism says "Everything is God." And creation ex Deo says "In Him we live and move and have our being." I think the distinction is important in order to having a proper concept of reality. Of course, when you draw all of the proper conclusions from this you end up realizing that every single event in the history of the universe was predetermined by God, so you would have to be a Calvinist to accept this. I'm sure I'm in an extreme minority here in accepting this, though probably not as extreme as I think, so any comments would be appreciated.

Comments

[Dave Renken]

I appreciate your comments on creation out of nothing. Years ago I had heard the Handout Theology series and it makes sense. Thanks for your summaries on this.

[Fred Pittenger]

I have come to the same conclusions about Ex Nihilo, but from completely different directions.
One source is Robert Spitzer's book New Proofs for the Existence of God, a brutal little read on Cosmology and the Amorphic Principle.

Secondly is my own spiritual path which has wound down many roads, almost always concluded that there can be no separation. It is not possible.

[Fred Pittenger]

I have been poking about your blog. I am curious. Do you, in light of your observations on Creation Ex Deo still hold the same thoughts about the Bible and Satin, as expressed herein in by Jonathan Edwards in 2004? From my perspective, these two posts are incongruent.

If as I believe Absolutely all that is, is God, then dwelling on fear and Satin is about the same as driving down the road a hundred miles an hour while only looking in the rear view mirror. Being the act, the pressence requires no books, no fear, no judgement, in fact requires nothing, but perhaps breathing....

[Micah L.]

Yes, I still hold to everything I wrote here back in '04. I do not believe that all that is, is God. I believe that all things have their being in God.