Is creation out of nothing a doctrine 'ex nihilo'?

 

Today I will continue to cover the reasons why I reject Young Earth Creationism and believe the earth to be quite old. If you're looking for biblical evidence, reasons, and compatibility you'll find some here. I covered some scientific evidence yesterday including radiometric dating and ice layers.

This is going to have to be a series of posts because there is a lot to cover even off the top of my head so today I will start with the lack of texts that God created the universe out of nothing. I do believe God made the universe out of nothing, but when I examine the Bible there is actually no text that clearly and explicitly states creation 'Ex Nihilo', that is, 'out of nothing'. And before we get too far into this point it is worth saying that the claims of some from the scientific community that the universe indeed did come out of nothing isn't the same thing. For them, 'Nothing' is actually 'Something' such as a quantum vacuum. The move has been deeply criticized for highjacking a term used in philosophy and theology and creating more confusion than light.

Creation 'ex nihilo' is essentially a theological conclusion based upon biblical statements about the nature of God in relation to creation. There are various views on this front: Pantheism, Panentheism, and Theism.

This picture illustrates the differences fairly well. In the middle we see that the universe simply is God, which is pantheism. To the right, we see that the universe is God, but God is still beyond it, or larger than it, or not exhausted by it, which is panentheism. To the left is Theism, which shows that God is completely 'other than' the universe. I think this image does lean more toward a deism, however, because it looks like God is spatially transcendent or beyond the universe with no interaction as though there is a great distance. The Jewish and Christian view of God and creation is one where God is not the universe in any sense, yet sustains it and is immanent, or near, while still transcendent beyond it. The Bible is also clear that God is the only thing or being that is existent from eternity. This is classic theology and because of this view of God and creation it is said that because the universe is in no sense God it must have come into being out of nothing and that such an act was performed by God as the cause.

'But what about Genesis 1?' you ask. This is what it says:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." (Gen 1:1-2 NIV)

Before the first day where God said let there be light we have an earth without form and deep waters. This is not creation out of nothing. The rest of this creation narrative describes God bringing order out of the chaos of the primordial waters and darkness. If you read through you will notice that there simply is not point in which God creates water. He separates it with a solid dome so that some is held back in the sky for rainfall. He makes dry land appear by gathering the waters together (the land was apparently also already there and was not 'created out of nothing' but made to appear by moving the water). The water was already there and God is controlling it; bringing order. There are similar problems with the other creation texts in the Bible. They simply do not make overt proclamation about the first moment of something from nothing.

Millard J Erickson agrees with my assessment that the Bible does not explicitly teach this doctrine saying, "Although the language in the Old Testament is not conclusive, the idea of ex nihilo creation can be found in a number of New Testament passages where the aim is not primarily to make a statement about the nature of creation. In particular, there are numerous references to the beginning of the world or the beginning of creation." (Introducting Christian Doctrine 2nd ed. 2001, pg 131). The phrases in the New Testament are pretty much variations of "from the beginning of the world..." or "since the creation of the world..." Such instances are incidental and not actually teaching creation ex nihilo, yet the implication of these types of statements make it reasonable to hold to the doctrine by inference.

This may seem like a major tangent and have nothing to do with whether or not the earth is young, but stay with me. Even conservative theologians agree that there are only implications from texts and that many of the clearer sounding texts aren't teaching about creation. This means that the creation texts themselves, and particularly the oldest ones, are not giving an account of the moment where something came out of nothing. It is possible to believe that these texts are describing this event, but there is nothing in the texts themselves that requires us to interpret the texts in this way. That means that the Bible's account of creation cannot be giving a clear indication of the age of the universe.

Dr. Dr. Dr. Lamoureux and Origins

Here is yet another Christian who holds to an old earth and common ancestry. That title was no error. He holds a doctoral degree in evolutionary biology, evangelical theology, and dentistry. His undergrad was a Bachelor of Science. He also holds a masters in Christian studies and an MDiv.. You can find his bio here.

He is the author of "I love Jesus and I accept evolution"

He has published a paper online called EVOLUTIONARY CREATION: MOVING BEYONDTHE EVOLUTION VERSUS CREATION DEBATE

He has posted free online web lectures on
Beyond the "Evolution" vs. "Creation" Debate 
The Bible & Ancient Science
Intelligent Design: Delusion, Uncertainty, or Divine Revelation?
Was Adam a Real Person?  

He has also posted versions for high school students that are less technical.  
Intelligent Design: Delusion or Divine Revelation?
The Bible & Ancient Science
Beyond the "Evolution" vs. "Creation" Debate

I have not personally viewed all of the contents or necessarily agree on every point, but I think it is very important to circulate alternate Christian views on this subject. As a Christian I feel compelled to counter the sometimes obtuse claims and ridiculous content sometimes presented in perspectives such as Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis.

Creation in Genesis and the Ancient Near East

This is an artistic depiction by Jonathan Walton of what the Ancient Near Eastern texts of the Bible, including Genesis 1 and others, actually describe. Looks a little different from the earth, doesn't it? Yet this is what the words these texts actually say (but perhaps Young Earth Creationists will claim this would be to read the text too literally).

The first step in reading any text is understanding the context. This includes not only where the passage is in relation to the whole, but the other writings of its day. In this case, other Ancient Near Eastern accounts of origins are significant and illuminating. For example, here is the Egyptian depiction of origins:

The most immediate difference is that there are figures of 'persons' embodying every aspect of creation. The god of the land, sky, etc. The Hebrew account is unique in excluding these personifications or any plurality of deities. There are, of course, other differences, but it is important to also notice the similarities. The same basic form remains with a flat earth, a sky being held up with sun, moon, and stars attached to it with waters above being held back. For a more thorough account of these similarities as well as one of the other Christian interpretations of the Genesis 1 text, read John Walton author of 'The Lost world of Genesis One." I will also post his online presentation in a separate post.

An Old Way of Being Christian

I saw a tweet from earlier today for the discounted pre-order of a book and then saw this and then saw a later tweet by its author:

@CaesarKal: Thank you! Transformed just hit #6 in it's category for Kindle books on Amazon! I guess it being $3.79 hasn't hurt any :)

Caesar is an amazing man. I really glad people are getting his book. I had the pleasure of learning from him in person and speaking with him last May at a conference. His new book is called Transformed: A New Way of Being Christian. You can buy it here.

What!?! A new way! That's awesome! How exciting! Not. 

I'm sure he would agree with me that this is a novel title. A plug. And if you don't already know, it is the publisher who gets final say on the title and artwork. However, marketing Christian living gets pretty tiring to me. It is not an new way of living. It is a very old way of living. In Christian faith new or novel ideas are seldom a good thing. Expressing the faith in fresh ways, renewing focus, bringing clarity, and contextualizing...yes. New? No. 

Our faith is old. Really old. As an evangelical I am often embarrassed at my own ignorance, not to mention the ignorance of this designation as a whole, regarding the history of our faith; its beliefs and practices. This is the regular criticism of Protestantism as a whole by Catholics and Orthodox, yet we who are not mainline denominations are now even criticized by Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. 

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that this is a 'new' way in the sense that it is 'new' to this generation of evangelicals. 

Let me know your thoughts in the comments. What have you had to learn that should have been obvious from the start? What have your interactions with other Christian traditions been?

Relaunch

This blog is relaunching and should have new content soon. In the meantime, you can check out my other blog on the gospel. Or you can check out some of the other great blogs I read on the right.

Thanks for checking me out.

Jason.