This article can be looked at as a double sided dagger, that is it is cutting two different ways at one time. I will be bringing up a new way to look at creatio ex nihilo while also exposing the importance of semantics in Christian theological discussion.
Let us begin with the problem of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). The phrase is commonly used to describe how God created the universe. The argument goes that God created everything from nothing, he did not use any other material. As Genesis says, God spoke and it came into being. This language is not only misleading it is wrong. God did not create ex nihilo he created ex dei (out of god). God has always triunly existed (father, son, spirit). Creation was an outflowing of this eternal relationship. Creation did not come from nothing, it came from God. It is time we give credit where credit should be given. God, not nothing, should be credited for the universe. I do not believe that those who hold to a creatio ex nihilo theology of creation, would think I am saying anything wrong. They might however say, "we are not saying that God did not create, what we are saying is that God did not use any outside material when he created." To this I would have to suggest that we use the language creatio ex dei since it captures what actually happened. God created from himself, not from nothing.
This brings us to semantics. The old cl'ech'e goes "let's not argue over semantics," needs to be put to rest. Semantics are what allow us to communicate clearly. When we discuss semantics we are usually discussing the smaller meanings behind what the greater message is. In the argument of creatio ex nihilo vs. creatio ex dei the big issue is that God created, and the smaller meaning behind that big issue is how he did it. While in discussion among other Christians the semantical issues may seem meaningless (or at least not critical), although to those outside the Christian culture, semantics are huge. As stated earlier, semantics allow us to communicate clearly. As Christians when discussing theology it is imperative that we are careful to say what we mean. For, if we do not we run the risk of being gravely misinterpreted.
For the sake of clarity and to avoid being misinterpreted I must add one more paragraph. When I cay that God created ex dei, I am not saying that he created by spreading himself out, that is I am not saying that all matter is made up of God. What I am saying is that when God created he created by the means of himself. Matter was an outflowing of the triune relationship (which may be the topic of a future post).
2 comments:
So, I think I get your meaning, but if you are misunderstood, this language of God creating out of Himself, or creation from His very being, could imply and lead oneself to the conclusion that everything which was created was/is in part, god, and so you've ended up at pantheism.
A blanket statement on language and its usgae is dangerous. There are dangers in assuming that the use of a term (here: ex nihilo) is always uniform and a simple replacement should be made. The "out of nothing" language may be more appropriate if you are talking to a Pantheist or to a scientist in a conversation about the cycles of the universe and the problem of matter without a beginning.
That being said, I think I agree with your point about creation having its beginning in God and our need to emphasize it, but I'm not sure a blanket word swap is the best way to remedy the situation.
Aaron, your point is heeded. I may need to add another paragraph to this post to avoid being pantheistic. In saying that God created ex dei, I am not saying that he merely spread himself out in material form, this would support a pantheistic creation model. What I am saying is that God created from himself not from nothing. I do understand that blanket statements can be dangerous however I would rather make a blanket statement which better explains Gods work in this world than another one which does not.
Post a Comment