A
Brief Examination of the Nature of the Universe:
Is it made from God, Shaped by God, or Created From Nothing by God?
Adam C. Parker
Sometimes, Scientists are Useless
What is the nature of the universe? Though someone’s initial reaction is to answer this question based upon the latest scientific findings, what they may realize at some point in the process of working towards proving their thesis is that, ultimately, this is a metaphysical question for philosophers and not necessarily for scientists. This is because the question of the nature of the universe does not ask, “What does science say about the universe?” The question inquires beyond the levels of atoms or particles or electrons; instead, it asks, “Ultimately, what is God’s relationship to this universe? Is it made of Him? Is it separate from Him?” This is a question scientists cannot answer, because if they answer it, they will no longer be doing science, they will be doing metaphysics.[1]
There are three basic possibilities concerning the universe’s most basic structure in relation to God. The first possible answer says that the universe was made by god, from god’s own substance; I will call this view creation ex deo (out of god). The next possibility is that the universe was made by god, from pre-existing matter. This view will be called creation ex materia (out of matter), though some have called this the “Dualistic Theory of Creation.” The last view to be examined says that the universe is entirely separate and distinct from God, and that the universe was created, not from God’s substance or from pre-existing matter, but from nothing. This view will be called creation ex nihilo (out of nothing).
Historically, the church as a whole has held closely to creation ex nihilo. There have been some exceptions to this, however, as several early Christian philosophers (some would say largely due to the influence of Platonism) defended the idea of ex materia and its compatibility with the Christian schema. An examination and discussion of both views as well as questions of each of their implications is in order. First, however, it would seem important to talk about the option listed which has had little if no impact upon the Christian church’s doctrine, historically speaking, and that is the view called ex deo.
The idea that the universe is made from god – that it is composed of his substance or essence – is sometimes known as monism or pantheism. Pantheism is not a monolithic worldview, however, and it can generally be subdivided into two different schools of thought: absolute and nonabsolute pantheism. In the end, however, it should become apparent that the criticisms that can be leveled at absolute pantheism also apply to nonabsolute pantheism.
The first view is absolute pantheism, which has historically been held to by Greeks like Parmenides, the Hindu Shankara, as well as classical Hinduism, among others. Absolute pantheism says that all is actually composed of mind, or spirit. Essentially, matter is an illusion, according to this view. This view essentially sees creation as “a kind of emanation from him, as light from the sun, so that the creation is itself divine.”[2] Also, an important tenet, which differentiates this view from the other views, is that according to the absolute pantheistic concept, it is absurd to argue that more than one thing exists (this was articulated very clearly by Parmenides). Some misunderstandings have caused a few theologians to accuse Jonathan Edwards of pantheism, due to the language of emanation that he is so fond of using, in reference to God and the necessity to create.[3] However, such misunderstandings do not take into account the important fact that Edwards is careful to make a distinction between God and creation, and also the fact that he holds none of the implications for creation that absolute pantheism implies.
Compared to absolute pantheism, nonabsolute pantheism is “a more flexible and elastic view of reality.”[4] Some philosophers like Spinoza, as well as contemporary Hinduism affirm this type of pantheism. The difference between nonabsolute pantheism and its counterpart is that this version, while believing that all is one with god, allows for a diversity or multiplicity within god. This view of the universe says that distinctions can be maintained, all things still spring from the one essence, but they will all eventually “merge back into god.”[5]
There are several metaphysical and religious implications for reality, if pantheism is true. First, and perhaps most importantly is that, if pantheism is true, then god exists and it seems that world does not.[6] It would, however, almost seem more consistent to say that all is One. In the pantheistic worldview, everything is the One, and anything that does exist is only a modification of the One. Second, though nonabsolute pantheism argues otherwise, given pantheism’s basic tenets, it is absurd to really believe that there are any distinctions between humanity and god. If humanity does not exist, and only god exists, ultimately, humanity is god. Though this statement seems self-contradictory, many non-absolute pantheists believe that humanity is god. Shirley Maclane’s declaration, “I am god!” immediately comes to mind, as an example. Thirdly, it is consistent with pantheism to maintain that creation is eternal. The primary reason for this is that pantheism sees creation in relation to god as a dream is to the mind. Since pantheism says that god is the only being, and something has always existed, then creation has always existed as a dream in the mind of god, so to speak.
How are we to evaluate pantheism (both absolute and nonabsolute)? Norman Geisler is quick to point out in his evaluation of this worldview that science does not support the idea of an eternal universe. I do not find this criticism convincing, however, since it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that god’s “dream” need not always be physically consistent from day-to-day. Though a pantheist may deny miracles, it does not seem important that this worldview be consistent with science, since in one sense, from the perspective of a pantheist, science itself does not even exist! My second problem with this criticism is that it seems to be a mistake to reject a worldview based upon science alone, since the arguments from science may shift or change from day to day. This is not to say that science is not useful, but we should resist the urge to let our arguments hinge upon momentary, fallible scientific theory.
Our primary reason for rejecting pantheism should lie within the implications of pantheism for reality, and the inconsistency of that view of reality with the view presented by Scripture. Scripture presents us with a view of reality whereby God speaks and creation begins to exist. Creation is never inferred by scripture to be a part of God, an extension of God, or an evolution of God Himself. In the Bible, God is clearly distinguished from His creation, He is said to be in control of creation, and most importantly, creation affirms the reality of good and of evil, which pantheism must deny. Though non-absolute pantheism may deny this, to remain consistent with their worldview, they must acknowledge that though good and evil can be distinguished from one another, they are united via the fact that they are mere modifications of the One. This departure from the teachings of Scripture is just one more reason that we, as Christians, should reject the teachings of pantheism in any form (absolute or nonabsolute).
There are some within the theistic community who believe that god created from pre-existing matter. Those who historically have held to this include Mormons, early Greeks such as Plato, Plotinus, Origen, Justin Martyr, and Philo. Like the worldview discussed above (pantheism) there is no monolithic belief system which the ex materialists hold or conform to. Instead, we must examine this concept of creation in light of the simple commonality which is found between these theologians or philosophers, as well as this philosophy’s existence as a basic logical possibility.
The basic element of the ex materia worldview is expressed in the classic phrase ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing).[7] To enunciate ex materia, it is the idea that the universe is not composed of god, but also that the idea of god creating out of nothing is absurd. The alternative offered by the ex materia theologians is, therefore, that god does not create from nothing, but that instead he forms the universe from the “cosmic clay,” much like a potter. This “cosmic clay,” or matter, is eternal, and has always existed, just has god has always existed. In other words, this matter is co-eternal with god.
The goal of such a view is to remove the absurdity of something arising from literally nothing. Thomas Aquinas presented arguments used by the ex materialist in his Suma Theologica. The primary problem that the ex materia view perceives is that god and matter are two divided principles which are contrary one to another. If one accepts this premise then it can be deduced that one would not arise from the other: otherwise they would not be contrary. The secondary problem that is presented by Aquinas:
…every agent produces its like, and thus, since every agent acts in proportion to its actuality, it follows that everything made is in some degree actual. But primary matter is only in potentiality, formally considered in itself. Therefore, it is against the nature of primary matter to be a thing made.[8]
As I do not share his Aristotelian philosophical/apologetical approach, I will attempt to avoid Thomas’ angle on the question presented and instead attempt to deal with the problems raised from a Scriptural/Historical perspective. However, such an evaluation will have to wait.
The ex materialist (whom today largely appear in the form of Mormon apologists) argues that Scripture is largely neutral on the subject of the ex materia/ex nihilo views of creation. Some do, however, appeal to a verse in 2 Peter 3:5: “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water…” Concerning non-canonical sources, an appeal is also made to the Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 3:15: “From the knowledge of God comes all that is and shall be. Before ever they existed He established their whole design, and when, as ordained for them, they came into being, it is in accord with His glorious design that they accomplish their task without change.”
Finally, during a funeral sermon for King Follett, Joseph Smith, the head of the Mormon church, said the following:
Now I ask all who hear me why the learned men who are preaching salvation say that God created the heavens and earth out of nothing. The reason is that they are unlearned… God had materials to organize the world out of chaos, chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of elements are principles that can never be destroyed, they may be organized but not destroyed.
We see in this quote that Smith holds to several presuppositions concerning reality: a) matter exists independently of god; b) god can only re-organize matter; c) these “elements” of pre-existing matter cannot be destroyed. It should be noted, however, that in the sermon from which this is quoted, no rationale or source is utilized to prove his assertion of the eternality of matter. This is in keeping with Smith’s usual way of dogmatic assertion based upon his own “divine authority,” and should not be thought of as an aberration.
There are several metaphysical and religious implications of the ex materia view of reality: First, this view implies that god does not produce, he instead shapes and forms, as a potter forms clay. Second, and perhaps most importantly, this means that god is not sovereign over all things, in the sense that he cannot destroy matter, should he so choose. At best, he could only move matter from one location to another, or reorganize it into another perhaps unrecognizable form. The final implication of the ex materia perspective is that one is forced to adopt a dualistic worldview, namely, one of god vs. matter, or to utilize Plato’s language, “Chaos” (the formless) vs. the “Demiurgos” (or the former).
Such a worldview deserves a strong critique, as well as an answer to this question: would there be anything wrong with a Christian holding to the ex materia view of reality? First, however, is the critique: The ex materialist’s quotation of 2 Peter 3:5 is at best a weak confirmation of a presupposition which they come to the text with. No one would read this verse and come away wondering if perhaps God created from matter, which was co-eternal with Him. Does it even confirm the view? I would argue that all the verse teaches is that God spoke long ago, and because of God’s speaking, the world came into being. “Out of water and by means of water” most reasonably refers to the fact that God created water and then formed the earth, as Genesis 1:2 records. The quotations from Joseph Smith and 1 QS 3:15 have little or no bearing on the Christian, as they accept neither as an authority, except for perhaps understanding the worldviews of others.
But what of the implications of the ex materialist? The first implication that god does not produce but only forms is contrary to the overwhelming Biblical testimony that God’s creation is not formation, but actual creation of an object that is entirely new. In the last section on creation ex nihilo, we will examine more closely the Biblical testimony of God’s creation from nothing.
The second implication seems to be the most serious problem for the ex materia view is that, given this schema, god is not truly sovereign. If there is one repeated assertion which God makes in scripture, it is that, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11). The ex materia perspective faces a problem here: what if god wanted to destroy or annihilate all or even just some matter? It is clear that according to this view, god is in fact, limited in His freedom by the presence of another eternal being, namely, the matter itself.
In the course of my pointing out this second problem, the astute reader may notice that a third problem arises. Namely, this problem is that the Former and the Chaos are both equal beings, neither of which can destroy or override the other. There is a sense in which this view would require one to hold a Gnostic view of reality, where one must choose the side of the physical world (matter) or the side of the spiritual world (god). This foundation begins to become even more troublesome when we consider the problems that a dualistic view of reality results in. First, God is very clear in Scripture to say that, “I am God, and there is no other.” God asserts that He is the only eternal being. If there is a dualism between God and the physical, I would question whether the physical would not also be a god, as the Gnostics said. If it is co-eternal, and if it is indestructible, and if it is sovereign in its own special way, though devoid of personality, it would seem that the eternal matter is another “god,” against which god is in a power-struggle of sorts. The implications of this are non-Christian at best. Even if the proponent is disinclined to call this co-eternal substance “god” or “a god,” Berkhof points out that it is perfectly philosophically adequate to postulate one self-existent cause to the universe, rather than two.[9] This seems to be an application of Ockham’s razor, which says that the simplest explanation for a given theorem is usually the best explanation.
Even if we do not draw this conclusion that matter is a god, there is a final problem of which the implications again lead us far from Christian orthodoxy. If god is not able to create but only form, is it not also illogical to think that god creates spiritual beings from nothing? If the ex materialist is correct, then all spiritual beings are created from some type of pre-existing spiritual material, as well. And if this assumption is correct, then the grand non-Christian theme arises: souls must have existed before they were “created” on earth. This problem would apply to angels, as well: have angels always existed, co-eternal with god? If the reader thinks that radical implications are being drawn, consider that Plato, Plotinus, Origen, and the Mormons, among others agree strongly with the concepts of creation ex materia and also just happen to unanimously teach the pre-existence of the soul.
The question I raised above has perhaps been answered at this point: is there anything wrong with a Christian holding an ex materia view of reality? It seems so. In addition to denying the Biblical teaching of God being the origin of all reality and indeed all that exists, this viewpoint is a radical reduction of the sovereignty of God, and indeed raises more problematic and paradoxical issues than it solves. The Biblical testimony that God is the only eternal, only sovereign is grossly violated by the ex materialist’s belief that matter is co-eternal with God. Additionally, Scripture’s teachings that the spirit does not exist until God creates it is decimated by the idea of pre-existence of the soul. There are numerous other problems with the doctrine of pre-existence, but I will not take any more time to argue against pre-existence, as orthodox Christians unanimously reject it.[10]
The final point I may mention is that some forms of the ex materia actually consider matter to be an eternal, evil principle to the universe. In this form, there is no guarantee from god that good will ultimately ever triumph over evil. As Berkhof observes concerning this, “It would seem that what is eternally necessary is bound to maintain itself and can never go down.”[11]
The final possibility which we are left with, and which this writer strongly affirms is that of creation ex nihilo, or creation by God from nothing. Some “Christians” have opposed creation ex nihilo, but they are widely regarded as heretical or outside the sphere of orthodoxy, at best. From a historical perspective, the first known Christian to speak of creation ex nihilo was Shepherd of Hermas. In the second century, Theophilus of Antioch, Aristides, and Irenaeus were also the earliest known defenders of creation ex nihilo against the opposing viewpoint offered forth by the Gnostics.[12] This view has been the classical view of the church and was ultimately affirmed by both the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence. This view was held by Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and all of the Reformers.
The phrase “creation out of nothing” is not in the Bible. According to Berkhof, this phrase comes from the apocrypha in Second Macabees 7:28.[13] The most basic tenets of ex nihilo can be summarized into two beliefs. First, ex nihilo theists say that there is an absolute distinction between the Creator and His creation. This means that creation is not God, is not a part of God, and can be consistently and wholly distinguished from God. In other words, Christian theists make an absolute distinction between God and His acts, and creation fits perfectly under the rubric of acts. Secondly, ex nihilo theists believe that creation had a beginning. For the Christian, there was a time when there was no creation, and only God Himself existed.[14] This creation I refer to includes the spiritual world, which God also created, along with the host of angels and any other spiritual beings which have ever existed.
The Scriptures plainly say, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The words used for “to create” in the Hebrew are bara (bara), asah (asah), and yatsar (yatsar). Hodge and Berkhof both agree that these words do not in and of themselves express the idea of creation out of nothing. At the least, however, a cursory reading of Genesis 1:1 does not imply that God created from pre-existing material. Why do Christians, then, say that God created from nothing, if it is not explicitly present in the text? Well, they argue that it is present in the Bible. First, consider Hebrews 11:3 “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” Romans 4:17 refers to “God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.” Less explicit are passages which refer to God, who “created all things” (Colossians 1:16), and a time “when there were no fountains abounding in water” (Proverbs 8:24). Other passages which imply or at least seem to prove creation ex nihilo include 1 Cor. 1:28; 2 Cor. 4:6; Ps. 33:6, 9; 148:5.
In addition to appealing to the Scriptures, Christians also point out that if one follows the metaphysical implications of the other two possibilities (ex deo and ex materia), one is left with anti-Scriptural implications (as discussed above), such as pre-existence of the soul, eternal creation, dualism, etc.
What are the metaphysical/religious implications of holding to a belief in creation from nothing? There are many implications, but I will attempt to be very concise:
1. The world has a distinct existence from God. Since it is separate, the world is not God, neither is it a part (or mere modification) of Him.
2. The world is always dependent on God for its own existence. Since the world came from nothing, if the primary agent of its existence ceased to perform that act which brought it forth in the first place, it would cease to be.
3. God did not create as a necessary act of emanation, as the pantheists believe: His creation was a free and unbound act of His own determination, and He existed perfectly satisfied and perfectly glorious before creation even began.[15]
4. Creation is not eternal, but a temporal act of God. No matter what an individual’s beliefs regarding God and time, everyone agrees that creation itself is an act of God, which expresses itself through a temporal order of events.[16]
5. God is totally sovereign over His creation. Contrary to the ex materialists, Christians are able to consistently affirm that God is wholly sovereign over His creation. There is no invincible matter or dualistic opposite with which God must contend. This also means that God can absolutely guarantee the outcome of all things.
6. Souls are created by God, and do not exist before they are created in the world. Once again, though Christians may have divergent theories regarding the nature of the soul (dichotomy or trichotomy, for instance), they must all agree that human beings and their souls exist when they are born (or conceived) into this world, and not before then. This is contrary to those who believe that souls exist eternally before they are born on the earth (i.e. Mormonism and Origen) and also those who believe in past lives (i.e. reincarnation).
7. God may appropriately be said to have freely created for a specific reason. Contrary to the Christian position, Pantheists may not locate or distinguish a reason for creation; in fact, they may not even consistently distinguish acts of god in creation. The dualists, as well, may not consistently observe a purpose to creation, aside from the overarching conflict between good and evil, which, in their case, is necessarily an eternal battle.
I believe that overall, there are two reasons why the ex nihilo position should be accepted. First, this worldview best squares with the witness of Scripture, which teaches that God creates by divine fiat (by simply speaking). And Secondly, this concept of creation is the only worldview which does not carry boldly non-Christian and non-Scriptural implications.
Adam C. Parker is a philosophy student at Grand Canyon University, in Phoenix, AZ. He can be contacted at: adamc.parker@gmail.com
[1] The basic presupposition
that I am going to maintain going into this study is that the God (capital “G”)
that I am referring to in this paper is the Christian God, as perfectly
revealed in the Bible and acknowledged in the Christian Church’s classic confessions
(The Nicene Creed, The Westminster Confession, the Heidelberg Confession, etc.)
[2] Frame, John M. The Doctrine of God. Presbyterian and Reformed; 2002, Philipsburg, NJ. 299.
[3] For one example, consider: Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Vol. 1. Hendrickson. Massachusetts, 2003. Pg. 120.
[4] Geisler, Norman The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker House Books. 1998. 174.
[5] Ibid.
[6] It would also seem that even god does not exist, for even god would only be a modification of the One.
[7] This statement misunderstands creation ex nihilo, however, since to believe that creation comes from nothing does not mean that creation has no cause.
[8] Aquinas, St. Thomas; Suma Theologica 44.2. [http://www.newadvent.com]
[9] Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Eerdman’s. Grand Rapids, 1977. 138.
[10] As a side note, the church did rule against the ex materia worldview at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, and also at the Council of Florence in 1442. The rejection of this worldview stemmed from a resurgence of it in the form of the Cathari and Albigenses, who taught that matter is evil, and was created ex nihilo by the devil. McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Blackwell. Oxford, 2001. Pg. 298.
[11] Berkhof, 138.
[12] Frame, John M. The Doctrine of God. Presbyterian and Reformed. Philipsburg, NJ, 2002. 300.
[13] Berkhof, 133.
[14] This comment is not intended to be taken as a literal doctrinal endorsement of any particular view of God and time, but rather a simple assertion that creation has not always existed, but that only God has always existed.
[15] There are some who would even find the idea of referring to a time “before creation” when God exists to be absurd. These individuals believe that to even refer to a “before” is illogical since before creation, time did not exist.
[16] As stated earlier, my purpose here is not to endorse a particular view of God and time. The plain meaning of this sentence is that creation takes place from one moment to the next, perceived by human observers as a temporal event, proceeding from one moment to the next. The particulars of this statement should probably be discussed elsewhere, and by someone who is more qualified to discuss God and time.