In previous blogs, I’ve argued that the Bible doesn’t support creation out of nothing. I’ve shown that Gnostics originally proffered this view, because they thought the world was inherently evil. And I’ve argued that the view of God’s power implied in creatio ex nihilo makes the problem of evil unsolvable. Despite all this, some people still affirm creatio ex nihilo, and they’ve got some pretty good reasons for doing so.
Some of the reasons people affirm creatio ex nihilo are more understandable to me. In this blog, I want to list some of them.
While listing these understandable reasons, I also note that they don’t finally convince me to affirm creatio ex nihilo. Instead, I believe an alternative doctrine can account for these understandable reasons. And the alternative doctrine I’ll proffer affirms with Scripture that God always creates from something, while avoiding Gnosticism and the view of God’s power that makes the problem of evil unsolvable.
Creation depends upon God
Some Christians affirm creatio ex nihilo, because this view clearly says creation depends upon God. I also think a strong creation doctrine should affirm creation’s dependence upon its Creator. To exist, in other words, creatures require God’s initiating and sustaining activity. They require God’s gift of life.
But we can affirm such dependence simply by saying God is a necessary creative cause for the coming to be of all creatures. All things can depend upon God, even though God created them using things God previously created.
A robust alternative doctrine to creatio ex nihilo should affirm creation’s utter dependence upon God. The alternative I propose affirms God is the necessary giver of existence, and it affirms creaturely dependence.
To exist, God does not depend on creation
Some affirm creatio ex nihilo, because they believe this view safeguards Christians from saying God must depend upon the world. Creation out of nothing, they say, allows them to affirm God’s ontological independence as a sovereign being. At stake is what we mean by God “depending” upon creation.
If by “ontological dependence” we mean God’s very existence depends on whether creation exists, I believe God enjoys this kind of ontological independence. I agree that the world is not a necessary condition for God’s existence. I think God exists necessarily. Creation didn’t begin God’s existence, and creation could not end it.
But if by “ontological dependence” we mean the content of God’s experience depends at least partly upon God’s loving relations with creatures, I affirm this view of divine dependence. Affirming this is part of affirming that God is relational toward creation.
The main issue is whether we think God can necessarily exist and necessarily create. Most Christians have no problem believing God both necessarily exists and necessarily relates within Trinity. Many believe God necessarily exists and necessarily loves others. In these examples, we say loving and relating are part of God’s eternal nature. We can also say God necessarily acts, but those acts have contingent aspects.
Given what we’ve seen in the Bible about God always creating from something, it makes more sense to say God necessarily exists and necessarily creates. There’s no logical contradiction in this view. It means that God essentially creates and relates to creatures. Relating, creating, and giving existence are part of God’s essence.
In sum, my alternative doctrine of creation agrees with creatio ex nihilo that God does not depend upon creatures for God’s existence. Instead, God exists necessarily. But the mode of God’s existing, I will argue, involves always creating and relating with creation.
The world is not co-eternal with God
Others affirm creatio ex nihilo, because they worry an alternative theory requires the world be co-eternal with God. If God has always been relating to and creating others, they say, the world must be on the same level as God. Creator and creation are on par.
This worry is understandable, given the Christian conviction that God is sovereign over all creation. Creatio ex nihilo appears attractive, because it clearly rejects the notion that the world is eternal. Fortunately, however, one doesn’t need to affirm creatio ex nihilo to overcome this worry.
I also believe the world had a beginning and is not eternal. But this is consistent with saying God always creates in relation to creatures God previously created. No single world or creature exists eternally. In fact, no creature, world, or universe of any type exists eternally. Only God lives everlastingly.
The alternative creation theory I offer affirms an everlasting chain consisting of creatures God creates. No creature, world, or universe in that chain is eternal. But God’s relentless creating in love means God has endlessly been creating new creatures from those God created previously. In love, God always gives the gift of existence, and God does so in relation to that which God previously created.
Hat analogy
Although comparisons between God and creation have limits, let me offer an analogy to illustrate how God’s necessarily creating doesn’t mean created things are themselves eternal. Suppose we know someone who constantly makes and wears hats. If this person was to do this making everlastingly (which is impossible for a creature, but stay with me), we might think making and wearing hats is a necessary activity of this hat maker.
We wouldn’t also need to believe, however, that any particular hat made and worn is eternal. Instead, we could say hat after hat comprise an endless chain of hats made and worn by the maker. Analogously, transient world after world comprise an endless chain God consecutively makes, and with which God lovingly relates.
In sum, we can reject creatio ex nihilo and still deny that our world or any other exists eternally. God is the only One who eternally and necessarily exists. What is ultimate, I am proposing, is the everlasting Creator who creates from that which the Creator previously created.
God creates all things
Although Genesis 1 says something existed – e.g., “primordial chaos” or “face of the deep” – when God began to create the heavens and the earth, some people affirm creatio ex nihilo because they think it states clearly that God creates all things. To deny creation out of nothing, they say, would mean God used pre-existing materials God didn’t first create when making our universe.
Few Christians worry that after making the universe, God creates using materials previously created. Most think, for instance, God’s creating each human occurs in tandem with the sexual activity of a male and female in conception and the subsequent maturation of the child in relation its mother. The language used in the Bible to speak of God’s creating something new from something previous supports this. The idea God speaks into existence new things (Gen 1), for instance, fits well with the idea God creates something new from something God created earlier.
But when it comes to the initial Big Bang of our universe (or some other theory of initial creation), we rightly wonder from where did the something come God used? Did God just stumble upon some material stuff? Or has it always been existing uncreated on its own, and God finally decided to use it when creating our world?
My creation proposal says God creates everything that exists and has ever existed. Whatever the “something” might be over which the Spirit hovered in Genesis, it consisted of materials God created previously. God didn’t “stumble upon” it. The materials didn’t pre-exist God. And this stuff didn’t come into existence entirely on its own. Instead, God created whatever existed prior to our universe.
In sum, my proposal says God always creates out of that which God created previously. I agree with those who affirm creatio ex nihilo that nothing predates God. Whatever existed prior to our universe, God created it too. Because God creates all things.
The Creator differs from creation
Some affirm creatio ex nihilo, because doing so points to a qualitative difference between God and creatures. Although creatures can join God’s work when creating from something previous, say some, God’s creating from nothing reveals a crucial difference between Creator and creatures. Only God creates ex nihilo.
The intent to identify how God differs from creation is noble. I join those who argue the Creator is not identical to creatures. When taken to an extreme, however, Christians have sometimes claimed God is entirely different from creatures. Such negative theology provides no way to talk meaningfully about God, because it only claims God is not whatever we think God may be.
If no similarities exist between Creator and creatures, we should stop talking altogether. Constructive theology would have no place. Verbal witness disappears, because silence is required. We could have no knowledge of God whatsoever.
In contrast to negative theology, biblical authors often regard some aspects of God as similar to creatures. This seems part of the claim we are made in God’s image (Gen. 1). Although we see through a dark glass dimly (I Cor. 13), some similarities must exist between the Creator and creation if our beliefs tell us anything true about God and how we ought to imitate God (Eph. 5:1).
Instead of requiring the capacity to create out of nothing be what distinguishes God from creatures, it makes more sense (in light of Scripture and arguments earlier) to look to other attributes. For instance, we might say the Creator differs from creation, because only God exists everlastingly. We might say God’s nature is steadfast love, while creaturely natures do not possess steadfast love. God knows all that can be known, while creatures only know in part. God is triune, and creatures are not. Etc.
We can affirm radical and qualitative differences between God and creation without also affirming creatio ex nihilo. The Creator differs in many and important ways from creatures.
Sum
I’ve noted that there are good reasons to affirm creatio ex nihilo. But I’ve also argued that an alternative theory of creation – what I will call “God Always Creates out of Creation in Love (creatio ex creation en amore)” can account for these good reasons while also avoiding the problems of creatio ex nihilo.
In my final blog on initial creation, I’ll lay out more details of my alternative doctrine.