Creatio ex Nihilo: Arguments For and Against

¹In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ²The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

³And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. ⁴And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. ⁵God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

⁶And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." ⁷And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. ⁸And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

⁹And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. ¹⁰God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1.1-10 ESV

Author's Note (Feb 2014)

"Directly below are my earliest thoughts on Process Thought as it was still unknown to me. Many of my initial comments below can be seen to be modified over the years ahead..." - r.e. slater


Discussion Proper

As I am able this week I will include some notes to each short discussion below. Here are my initial thoughts ahead of my reviews (and therefore subject to further review afterwards!):

• Classic Theism's epistemology draws upon an "open system" view of a God beyond our imaginings. Hence, process theism's arguments for God as part of His creation appear more as a "closed system" view.
• Accordingly, God is independent and beyond His creation who self limits Himself in some aspect to be inter-related to His creation (a word I prefer over the process term of "inter-dependent"). In this respect then, both classic theism and process theism are "correct" philosophically as well as materially.
• Overall, I would predispose classicism's "open system" over-and-above process' "closed system" in preference and general rule.
• This means that within process' "closed system" interpretation of ex nihilo creation there is no creative void as such. Only a particle-based void that is undetected, unknown, perhaps beyond dimensionality, latent with potential and possibility.
• However, as understood within classic theism's "open system" interpretation, ex nihilo creation can refer to a non-particle based creative void that is part of, or within, the Godhead... even if it were reduced to mean mere thought or expression. Difficult as it may be to comprehend. And even more difficult to allow if using as explanation the materialistic cosmogonous structure of matter-based physics.
• Consequently, I am allowing for God to be incredible, and unrealistic as framed within particle quantum physics, but very credible, and very realistic, when framed in non-materialistic, non-quantum, epistemological terms.

Lastly, I am interested in knowing if classic theism can be upgraded into process-like terminology using postmodernism's post-structuralism as interpretive guide and instructor. But by doing so will this attempt be a limiting factor in the eras ahead or one that establishes a baseline that can widen and deepen our apprehension of the Divine depending upon the prevailing epistemological system present?

Thought another way, will process theology limit the supremacy of God while closing the gap between man and creation? Rather the reverse of classicism's declaration of the supremacy of God while distancing Him at the same time from man and creation. Whereas process focuses on the problem of man, sin, evil, creation chaos and harm, classicism focuses on the problem of God's holiness, righteousness, the shalom of order and blessedness, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. Each area as paradoxical as the other.

Hence, eclectically, I'm hoping for the best of both worlds. And am especially stating henceforth that as pertaining to the study of the Godhead, eclecticism is a most proper tool of usage. And so, let us assume that process theology may have some elements that can be helpful to the study of man and creation in relation to God, as classic theology is helpful to the study of God in relation to man and creation. So that whether when discerning the problem of man, sin, evil, creational chaos and harm (process), or when discerning the problem of the supremacy of God (classicism), we must proceed forward in some kind of syncretistic and eclectic form of discovery until a better, more mitigating system can be better proposed.

R.E. Slater
November 27, 2011

*part of the above dilemma of differing viewpoints is explained as instances of phenomenological "blik" - please refer to this post here for further discusion - http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/seeming-incorrigible-perspective-of.html.

* * * * * * * * * *

Part 1

Update: The Ongoing Discussions re

"Creatio Ex Nihilo" between Process Theologians

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/06/update-ongoing-discussions-re-creatio.html

* * * * * * * * * *

AAR - Open and Relational Theologies Session
Creatio ex Nihilo: Arguments For and Against

http://www.ctr4process.org/media/

The Open and Relational Theologies session at AAR included a panel and conversation on Creatio ex Nihilo: Arguments For and Against. The panel included: Philip Clayton, Claremont School of Theology, Claremont Lincoln University; Monica A. Coleman, Claremont School of Theology, Claremont Lincoln University; Catherine Keller, Drew University; Michael Lodahl, Point Loma Nazarene University; Richard Rice, Loma Linda University, and Marit Trelstad, Pacific Lutheran University.

• Philip Clayton, Claremont School of Theology view/download paper
• Monica A. Coleman, Claremont School of Theology view/download paper
• Catherine Keller, Drew University view/download paper

• Michael Lodahl, Point Loma Nazarene University view/download paper
• Richard Rice, Loma Linda University view/download paper
• Marit Trelstad, Pacific Lutheran University

Date Recorded: Nov. 20, 2011 Location: Claremont School of Theology Date Added: November 2011 Philip Clayton [For] Michael Lodahl [For] Monica Coleman [Against] Marit Trelstad [Against] Catherine Keller [Against] Richard Rice [For]

Website -
http://videocenter.cst.edu/videos/channel/50/

  

Audio is Garbled
 6:17

AAR-Open & Relational - Rice
Owner: ProcessCenter
Channel: ProcessCenter 

Audio is Clear

06:07

AAR-Open & Relational - Trelstad
Owner: ProcessCenter
Channel: ProcessCenter

04:57

AAR-Open & Relational - Lodahl
Owner: ProcessCenter
Channel: ProcessCenter

08:11

AAR-Open & Relational - Keller
Owner: ProcessCenter
Channel: ProcessCenter

06:21

AAR-Open & Relational - Coleman
Owner: ProcessCenter
Channel: ProcessCenter

07:17

AAR-Open & Relational - Clayton
Owner: ProcessCenter
Channel: ProcessCenter

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Addendum

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Feb 2014


 Creatio coninua Ex Electione: A Post-Barthian Revision of
the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo (.pdf)

http://www.academia.edu/658910/Creatio_Continua_Ex_Electione_A_Post-Barthian_Revision_of_the_Doctrine_of_Creatio_Ex_Nihilo

by David Congdon

The case against the classical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo continues to mount as arguments arise from all angles - historical, exegetical, and theological. Many of these critiques are aimed at the Hellenistic framework within which the Christian doctrine originally took shape. Others examine the ambiguities latent within the biblical texts themselves. In this paper I will identify three theological problems with the doctrine in conversation with three theologians.

The first problem is the fact that the doctrine of “creation out of nothing” posits no material relationship between creation and redemption. Here I will engage the work of Catherine Keller, who attacks creatio ex nihilo but ends up perpetuating this same bifurcation between origin and telos in her conception of creatio ex profundis.

The second problem is that “creation out of nothing” indicates no essential connection between the divine will to create and the divine being as creator. In this context I briefly take up the work of Jürgen Moltmann and assess his understanding of divine creation as a creatio ex amore.

The third and final problem is the separation between creation and providence, between original creation and continuing creation. Here I briefly treat Schleiermacher’s account of creation in his Glaubenslehre.

I conclude by using a modified version of Barth’s doctrine of election as the lens through which I reconcile these various strands in modern theology. I argue for what I call a creatio continua ex electione (David Congdon) - a continuous creation out of divine election. In the end, I hope to show that this position addresses these three problems while still upholding the necessary insights of the traditional doctrine of “creation out of nothing.”


... continue reading at link above ...

The Continuum of Open and Relational Theology

Postmodern Relational (Process) Theology (under-developed)
v.  Modernistic Relational (Open) Theology

In a previous post on process theology ( http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-and-what-of-process-theology.html ) I expressed a desire to elevate Classic Theism into postmodernistic process terms not realizing that Open Theology had already done that. I also declared a new name for this type of theism, calling it Relational Theism. Not realizing that that had been done too having discovered Thomas Jay Oord's version of Relational Theism which he calls by the same name. It is a blending of Open Theology (also called Open Theism), with that of his own Relational Theism, both of which elevate the concepts of Classic Theism into modernistic expressions. And, it seems that process theology had at one time been considered under the label "relational-process theology," which is yet another theme Thomas Oord may have re-packaged from process theology like what I am attempting to do now, however belatedly.

Moreover, as I explore Open Theology I am discovering it to complete Arminianism's questioning of the Calvinistic concepts of God's foreknowledge and election. Which is helpful because a doctrine focused on man's free will in relation to God can only go so far (though Armenianism is more than this but I am generalizing here to pander to its opponents that grant ill-will towards its doctrines). Consequently, Open Theology coupled with that of Oord's Relational Theism helps to complete Arminianism's reaction against Calvinism's overemphasis on God's Sovereignty vs. man's free will. What I want is balance and what I'm finding is that Arminianism is curiously much better positioned to speak to God's sovereignty than Calvinism is (even though Calvinism's many significant themes all revolve around the sovereign, active control of God over His creation!... all of which has been discussed in numerous articles posted on the sidebars here in this website).

Further, Open Theology / Relational Theology are syncretising themselves with their larger, more sophisticated and better developed relative, Process Theology. But with an important distinction that the former differs from Process in terms of being non-panentheistic. However, to my mind, the understanding of "ex nihilo creation" pertaining to God's independence and interdependence to His creation can both be true without the denial of the other. The former as factually explicit in defining a Creator who creates; and the latter, as a Creator who willingly limits Himself to His creation.

However, this is not true panentheism in classic Whiteheadian terminology. But it does seem that a more liberal, modified, version of Process Theology away from its stricter definition of "ex nihilo creation" could allow for a syncretism between Process Theology with Open Theology. Which is the syncreticism that I had earlier mentioned and hope to see (if possible). If this be so, than I continue to be attracted towards investigating all the areas of similarity and dissimilarity between these two systems in hopes of seeing a newer expression of Theism arise. One couched within postmodernistic language and allowing for the double meaning for the concept of "ex nihilo creation."

Moreover, my originating concept of Relational Theism is not strictly at this time, the same as Thomas Oord's expression of Relational Theism.... Though as I read Oord, I find him expressing exactly my own sentiments, and to which am thankful for all of his hard work of "personalizing" Open Theology's animating basis that felt static, cold and impersonal without it.

But I think what I want to further see is whether Open Theology and Oord's Relational Theology will continue to intermingle and elevate themselves systematically towards Process Theology's postmodernistic language. If that then becomes the case then we will have as a consequence a more mature system of Open-and-Relational Theism/Theology. One that is both similar and dissimilar to Classic Theism and more in tune with Process  Theology's pervasive (but not substantive) elements (as mentioned in a previous post). And postmodern. For me, this is where Relational Theism should be headed as I understand it right now. And it is a continuing interest of mine to study and examine in the year ahead once I get past several other topical issues expressed here on this blogsite.

And with these thoughts in mind, let us now continue to explore Thomas Oord's Relational "The-ism/Theo-logy" (sic, "God Study") that re-expresses its earlier historical fellow, Open Theology, into more relational terms between God, man and creation. Leaving us not with an uncaring, distant (or even a damning, judgemental) Godhead. But a Godhead more intimately involved in our lives then we had first imagined in our time-bounded past, present and future. And within the frailty of our fleshly constitutions pitted as they are against the harsher truths of sin, disease, calamities, and ruin. These truths give us hope. Hope any human most requires when apprehending God's divine love through His many salvific acts and benevolent rulership.

R.E. Slater
November 25, 2011

Some Questions to Ask of Open Theism/Theology

1. What does practical ministry look like from an Open view?

2. How should we think about science and culture as Open theists?

3. What biblical insights have Open theists to date either underemphasized or not noticed?

4. How should Open theists think about pain and suffering?

5. Can the Open view help us think better about prayer and pray with greater conviction?

6. What voices at the margins need to be heard for Open theology to be expanded and/or embraced by others?

7. What might missions and missional theology look like from an Open view?

8. Does the Open view suggest any new insights into Christology, pneumatology, or Trinity?

9. Where should the Open theology conversation go in the future? How might the insights of Open theology be more widely disseminated?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Emergence of Open Theology

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/the_emergence_of_open_theology/

By Thomas Jay Oord
November 19, 2009

In 1994, a quintet of Evangelical scholars – David Basinger, William Hasker, Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, and John Sanders – published The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. This work has caused – and continues to cause – an uproar within Evangelical circles.

This uproar exposed the reality that many Evangelical Christians are influenced more by the theology of Reformers such as John Calvin and Martin Luther than has been often recognized. The theological voices championed by mainstream Evangelical groups have often explicitly or implicitly identified themselves with a non-open, non-relational view of God.

The uproar also revealed that a large and growing number of Evangelical Christians are looking for theological alternatives that better fit their reading of the Bible and deepest Christian intuitions. Open theology provides a potentially more satisfying alternative.

Open theology has both expanded and matured since 1994. It has become a well-spring for both theological renewal and controversy. Many significant biblical, theological, and philosophical scholars now openly embrace Open theology or at least recognize strong affinities between Open theism and their own work.

While important differences of opinion exist among Open theists, the similarities among them are also striking. Here are core themes affirmed by the majority, if not all, Open theists:

• God’s primary characteristic is love
• Theology involves humble speculation about who God truly is and what God really does
• Creatures – at least humans – are genuinely free to make choices pertaining to their salvation
• God experiences others in some way analogous to how creatures experience others
• Both creatures and God are relational beings, which means that both God and creatures are affected by others in give-and-take relationships
• God’s experience changes, yet God’s nature or essence is unchanging
• God created all non-divine things
• God takes calculated risks, because God is not all-controlling
• The future is open; it is not predetermined or fully known by God
• God’s expectations about the future are often partly dependent upon creaturely actions
• Although everlasting, God experiences time in a way analogous to how creatures experience time

These are brief statements, of course, and they do not address theological nuances that matter to Open theology scholars. But these statements are sufficiently narrow to distinguish Open theology from alternative theological options. And they are sufficiently broad to allow for differences among those who embrace the Open theology label.

I am optimistic about the future of Open theology. My optimism ultimately rests, however, on grace. I believe our loving God is, as John Wesley put it, “strongly and sweetly” calling and empowering us to live lives of love. In doing so, we participate in God’s loving reign. Open theology provides conceptual tools to make sense of these truths.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Characteristics of Evangelical Open and Relational Theology

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/characteristics_of_evangelical_open_theology/

By Thomas Jay Oord
February 2, 2010

In a previous blog entry, I noted many of the theological beliefs that open and relational theologians affirm. I now identify three characteristics of Evangelically-oriented open and relational thinkers.

I find these three tendencies among open and relational scholars in the Evangelical tradition:

Scripture First

Open theists appreciate and draw from reason, experience, and the Christian tradition. But open and relational theologians place primary importance on the Bible for things related to God, salvation, and the big questions of life. Scripture is principally authoritative.

Open and relational theists are typically not committed, however, to affirming everything the Bible says about science, history, or culture. Most open theologians are not biblical inerrantists, if biblical inerrancy is defined as the notion that the Bible is without any error whatsoever. This rejection of what I call “absolute inerrancy” distinguishes open and relational theology from Fundamentalism.

Yet the typical open and relational Evangelical theologian also rejects the label “liberal theologian” as a way to identify their views. The primacy of the Bible steers them away from more liberal theologian traditions.

Evangelical Community Influence

While open and relational theologians may reside in just about any Christian denomination or subculture, a good number identify with the Evangelical Christian tradition. Virtually all of the major figures who adopt the label “Open theist” either teach at an Evangelically-oriented institution or attend a congregation whose members consider themselves Evangelicals.

The community with which we locate ourselves affects the way we do theology. Of course, the fact that Evangelical open and relational theists do theology in the broad Evangelical context does not also mean that they affirm all of the political and social issues normally associated with Evangelicals. In fact, Open theology sometimes draws advocates toward positions on political and social issues that do not fit either the typical conservative or liberal labels.

Humble Realists

Most open and relational theologians want to talk about how things really are or might be. This not only includes talking about the world, it also means talking about God in a realistic way.

In terms of epistemology, open and relational theists tend to be realists or critical realists. They realize that language about God and the world has limitations. But they affirm that some language better identifies what is true about God and the world than other language.

These three factors, in themselves, position open and relational theology differently than other theological alternatives. They provide fruitful avenues for engaging the sciences, for instance. They provide ways of engaging Postmodernism in constructive ways that avoids extreme relativism. And they draw upon and support the Evangelical witness and passion to the good news revealed in Jesus Christ and lived out within the Church.

Of course, open and relational theologies have critics. But I believe the ideas and theological proposals in this way of thinking are potentially more helpful today than any of the alternatives.