The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[stephenpurdy]

 

You didn't actually refute "my" position, rather, you expounded on your faith, as if that refuted it. It doesn't.

 

I don't have to hide or admit that I'm wrong, because it's based on faith. You believe that God cannot create out of nothing, a free will. I do. Difference of faith. You believe that Craig was trounced by Ostler. I do not. ....

 

How would you know?  You never analyzed Ostler's response or my videos on the topic which go beyond even that.  I assume that you have not even bothered to look into the details, because you have not given any indication that you understand the arguments being presented by those who you disagree with. 

 

You have never decided to discuss any details as to why you believe that Ostler's arguments or my arguments are not valid.  Rather than study the matter, you just prefer to stick your head in the sand.

 

Daniel wrote:    What is common sense?   Common sense tells me that God can create a free willed being out of nothing.

 

Stephen wrote:  Right.  And according to your version of common sense , "God can cause an uncaused cause".  That isn't logic or common sense Daniel.  Not even close. Even the guy you like to quote so much, William Lane Craig, has some issues with this, he wrote: "How could we be really related to God as effect to cause, but God not related to us as cause to effect? " Yes.  How indeed?

 

 

And you believe God can't. Thanks for the admission of your faith (or lack therein). 

 

 

And you believe that God cannot create a being like Himself.  You believe that God is incapable of doing so?

 

Oh ... your lack of faith in God is it?  (Just throwing your own tactic back at you.  Sorry.)

 

A more recent defense of the problem of evil and suffering given the Evangelical world view has been provided by Alvin Plantinga.  I have addressed the arguments in more detail elsewhere, but for starters, let's look at what Ostler wrote:

 

Does this response (from Plantinga) constitute a defeat of the logical problem of evil? Hardly. First, Plantinga’s response does not exonerate the “compatibilist” position that has been the majority view held by creedal Christians since the time of Augustine. Plantinga’s defense assumes the libertarian view of free will which holds that free will is incompatible with an act being caused. Compatibilists believe that free will is compatible with an act being caused.⁵ Further, Plantinga has not shown that God is constrained by logic to create morally irresponsible persons such as we are if he creates ex nihilo. Plantinga assumes that God must create morally fallible persons if he creates them free. However, that is not true given evangelical assumptions. If God creates ex nihilo, then he can create any persons that it is logically possible to create. He certainly could have created more morally sensitive and rational persons than we are. Indeed, Francis Beckwith, in his contribution to NMC, argues that perfectly rational beings are perfectly good even though free to choose evil if they wish. If Beckwith is correct, then the fact that a person rationally chooses to always do what is right is not incompatible with libertarian free will. Given the creedal view, there is no reason that God could not have created perfectly rational persons who will always see by the light of reason that always choosing what is right is the most rational course. Thus, God had open to him the possibility of creating more intelligent and morally sensitive creatures who would bring about less evil than we do because of sheer irrationality. God is thus morally indictable for having created creatures who bring about more evil than other creatures he could have created from nothing.

 

 

 

-Stephen

Edited July 14, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

 The best way to destroy mainstream Christianity is to continue the suicidal belief in ex nihilo creation.

 

 

I have argued the same thing.  They will self destruct because they stubbornly hold to this non-scriptural belief that people will intuitively know is not accurate about a truly benevolent God.

 

It is precisely what the restoration claimed, they believe doctrines of men ... mingled with scripture.

 

 

Daniel won't listen to the arguments.  He will say that "MOST" people believe in ex nihilo , and that is why he has faith in that belief system. 

 

The Hebrew structure of Gen 1:1 is clearly laid out here:

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

 

List of scholars who believe in ENC (Ex Nilhilo Creation)

Blocher, Henri.

Waltke, Bruce K.

...

 

 

 

For starters, I find it troublesome that all you do is list people who you claim to believe in Ex Nihilo creation ... but you yourself have not bothered to read their works, so you don't even know why they believe it, and you have no idea why other scholars reached an opposing conclusion.  I have read extensively on both sides of this issue.  I created a video that non-scholars can clearly understand (less than 8 minutes would get you my arguments on Gen 1:1).  Also, the second guy on your list, Waltke, certainly should not be there: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/rooker-gen1pt2-bssac.pdf

 

 

 

....

"Biblical scholars and theologians within the Christian tradition such as Augustine (354-430),[12] John Calvin (1509–1564),[13] John Wesley (1703–1791)[14] and Matthew Henry (1662–1714)[15] cite Genesis 1:1 in support of the idea of Divine creation out of nothing.

 

 

And aren't you even curious about the reasons (very good reasons), that more recent scholars, very good scholars, have rejected that interpretation?   I guess you will never know why.

 

Apparently, you were not even willing to read the entire Wikipedia article that you quote later.  Otherwise, you would have known that Waltke argued against Ex Nihilo.  The explanation is right there!   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo#Arguments_against_ex_nihilo_creation

 

It is clear that you will never even consider a point of view that is different than your own.   Why do you even bother posting on this forum?

 

Are you going to try to convert Mormons away from the LDS church?  Do you really think you can do that without even trying to understand why we hold to the positions we hold?

 

How will Christians be able to share the gospel to the world, if they cannot explain the world we live in?  They cannot explain evil and suffering.  Another scholar you quoted in your list, has been quoted by myself and others, “No theology should be countenanced as possibly true, much less considered true, if it cannot account for what we know about the world we live in."

 

I have explained in detail, in the video series, exactly why Ex Nihilo creation theology cannot account for the world we live in.

 

 

....

Some of the early Christian Church Fathers with a Platonic background, argued that the act of creation itself involved pre-existent matter, but made that matter in turn to have been created out of nothing.[16]"

Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

 

 

Yes, we know this.   ... But what scripture did they cite in order to conclude that the pre-existent matter was created "from nothing"?

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

By the way , if anyone else is interested.  Here is William Lane Craig presenting Plantinga's "possible worlds" argument from the "free will defense".

 

He goes into it starting around 18 minutes in: 

 

In that explanation, WLC goes on to explain that a person named Peter, will "freely choose" to do a certain thing in a certain set of circumstances.  Let's say that Peter decides to steal a candy bar from the supermarket.  Since , WLC claims, that it is Peter who decides what to do in those circumstances , not God , then certain "possible worlds" are not feasible. 

 

Hopefully we are all following the reasoning given by WLC so far, however ...

 

The first argument that I gave was that what Peter decides to do in those particular circumstances depends on the nature and characteristics of Peter himself.  If God created every single aspect of Peter's nature and being from God's own mind, then what Peter does was ultimately determined by the way that God created Peter (ie Peter's created characteristics).

 

But, for fun, let's ignore that aspect of the argument for now.  Let's humor Daniel and pretend that God can "cause an uncaused cause", (something that WLC himself denies)....

 

Those who support Ex Nihilo creation theology claim that God creates the soul/spirit of a human being Ex Nihilo.  Guess what?  God did not have to create Peter ... not the one who stole the candy bar.  If God doesn't want that candy bar stolen, God could refrain from creating that particular individual, and instead create an entirely different individual in Peter's place ... one who decides NOT to steal the candy bar in that particular circumstance. 

 

The same is true for any choice or event in all of human history.  Creating Ex Nihilo, God would have INFINITE possibilities of any combination of infinite "possible persons" to create "from nothing".  Ex Nihilo DOES make all possible worlds possible. 

 

Thus Ex Nihilo's greatest defenders , William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga, still fall short, even if you ignore that other argument.

 

Both of my arguments are summarized here:

 

 

-Stephen

[Robert F. Smith]

What is happening is you are making huge leaps where none is justified. For example, the text plainly states that God alone created the heaven and earth, nothing is mentioned as pre-existing with God, anywhere. Yet, for some reason (your faith?), you assume that matter is co-eternal with God. A huge unjustified leap, that the text doesn't even hint at. 

I am simply reflecting the consensus in non-Mormon scholarship.  You are free to disbelieve the scholars, and to imagine what you will, but no leap of faith is involved, daniel.  I have been reading biblical Hebrew now for almost half-a-century and I try to understand the latest scholarship in matters of this kind.  If the scholars said that Genesis 1 entailed creatio ex nihilo, I would say that.  Simple honesty and sincerity requires that I be frank.  You have even been presented with numerous sources on this matter.  You are, of course, free to ignore them.  I realize that you really don't have any way to judge a matter of this kind, and that you feel that the rug has been pulled out from under you.  The only consolation I can offer is that salvation does not depend upon which theology of creation you accept.  Most people never even consider the issue at any time in their lives.  However, we do discuss such matters here on this board from time to time, so be forewarned that you may find some issues to be disturbing.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

List of scholars who believe in ENC (Ex Nilhilo Creation)

Blocher, Henri.

Waltke, Bruce K.

Copan, Paul

Craig, William Lane

James Patrick Holding

Beckwith, Francis J.

Stephen J. Parrish.

Goldstein, Jonathan

Moreland, J. P

Alister McGrath

Colin Gunton

 

Irenaeus (130-200)

 

Tertullian (160-225)

"Biblical scholars and theologians within the Christian tradition such as Augustine (354-430),[12] John Calvin (1509–1564),[13] John Wesley (1703–1791)[14] and Matthew Henry (1662–1714)[15] cite Genesis 1:1 in support of the idea of Divine creation out of nothing.

Some of the early Christian Church Fathers with a Platonic background, argued that the act of creation itself involved pre-existent matter, but made that matter in turn to have been created out of nothing.[16]"

Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

None of those listed is a prominent modern Hebraist (you had Henri Blocher listed twice), and all merely reflect the standard mainstream Christian, Jewish, and Islamic dogma of creatio ex hihilo.

Another participant here pointed out that Bruce Waltke does not belong in that list.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[stephenpurdy]

None of those listed is a prominent modern Hebraist (you had Henri Blocher listed twice), and all merely reflect the standard mainstream Christian, Jewish, and Islamic dogma of creatio ex hihilo.

Another participant here pointed out that Bruce Waltke does not belong in that list.

 

I think that one of the reasons that Christians have held on so tightly to creatio ex nihilo is because, with "the Big Bang" theory, they felt that the doctrine was "backed up by science". 

 

They are going to be in for a rude awakening when they realize that the theory is 20 years out of date, and science has much more to say on the matter: 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14372387

 

http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

 

Then the atheists/agnostics (and reasonably skeptical people) will again direct to the Christians, "guess what? the solar system does not revolve around the Earth ... and the Big Bang does not support ex nihilo.  Wrong again folks."

 

And it will be even harder to win people to Christ because the Christians have been presenting a false representation of God and creation.

 

-Stephen

Edited July 14, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

 

List of scholars who believe in ENC (Ex Nilhilo Creation)

Blocher, Henri.

Waltke, Bruce K.

Blocher, Henri.

Copan, Paul

Craig, William Lane

James Patrick Holding

Beckwith, Francis J.

Stephen J. Parrish.

Goldstein, Jonathan

Moreland, J. P

Alister McGrath

Colin Gunton

 

Irenaeus (130-200)

 

Tertullian (160-225)

.....

 

 

 

The question is whether or not there is a point or argument provided by any of the people remaining on this list that stands up to analysis.

 

Can you, Daniel, provide the MOST convincing evidence in your mind provided by any one of these individuals?

 

If you are going to believe in something then you should

 

1) study it out

 

2) humbly ask God whether or not your heart and mind are in the right place

 

3) repeat

 

 

Something that is strongly instilled into the Mormon youth is this: you need to gain your own testimony, study it out for yourself, pray and sincerely ask God about it.

 

You should not believe in something just because other people do.

 

 

-Stephen

[danielwoods]

Agreed, we should let the text speak for itself.

You quote the NRSV, "In the beginning when God created." as being the best translation. Yet, even this phrase is missing your presupposed co-eternal matter. Where do you read that matter existed already?

 

As I indicated, that is one of the things further revelation is for. You're talking under the mistaken notion that I'm saying Genesis says matter is co-eternal. I am not. What I am saying is that Genesis depicts matter as already being there when began to create. In this case, further revelation fills in the blank, as it were.

So two things here. One, you aren't doing what you stated. "Letting the text speak for itself." You admit above, that you use "further revelation" (i.e. your faith) to fill in the blanks. And two, you claim that Genesis depicts matter as already being there when God began to create. This is false. "God created the heaven and earth…" Matter is created by God according to Genesis. 

 

The Jewish Encyclopedia is a bit out of date, but let's take a look at what the article does say. It acknowledges that Genesis does not settle the matter. It acknowledges there is a strong presumption in Genesis that creation was made out of matter that already existed. Then, after an exaggerated statement about the Prophets and the Psalms (the cited passages are hardly unambiguous statements of creation from nothing), goes into a history that demonstrates just how unsettled the issue is within Judaism. And notably, the longer the discussion goes on, the further away from the actual text it gets. The Jewish proponents of creation ex nihilo moved away from the text and used philosophy to make their points. Basically, they are filling the blank in their own way. I've no quarrel with that. Judaism is no more a sola scruptura tradition than Mormonism is. What I'm insisting on is distinguishing what the text says from how we deal with the information presented.

Genesis is also a bit out of date. Your opinions on what it states are generated by your position and faith. It states simply that the Prophets and writers of the Psalms do accept the doctrine of ENC. Otherwise, the doctrine of eternal matter would have to be accepted, and that is taught nowhere in the text (even you acknowledge this). 

[danielwoods]

The "originators" of the text did not get it wrong. 

 

The Jews who came later did. 

 

Jesus demonstrated over and over again that the apostate Jews of his time did not understand the scriptures.

 

 

 

Daniel wrote:  .... where does the presupposition come in that matter or anything co-existed eternally with God?

 

Quite frankly, the Biblical text does not address the issue at all.  Paul says that God created from something that is "unseen".  Peter referred to God creating from some kind of primordial "waters".   But no detail is given in the Bible. 

 

However, we can clearly demonstrate that creation "from nothing" is not taught by the text, nor should anybody assume that it is implied by the text.

 

-Stephen

 

If you can clearly demonstrate that ENC isn't taught in the text, then why haven't you done so? 

 

It seems to me that there are two choices here. One God and matter co-existed eternally, and two, they didn't. Either one preceded the other. (maybe that's three choices?) 

 

You acknowledge above, that the Bible doesn't say that matter is co-eternal, yet it says in many places that God is alone the eternal one. So, how you can "clearly demonstrate" that God did not create out of nothing all things, will be interesting. 

 

 

 

How would you know?  You never analyzed Ostler's response or my videos on the topic which go beyond even that.  I assume that you have not even bothered to look into the details, because you have not given any indication that you understand the arguments being presented by those who you disagree with. 

 

You have never decided to discuss any details as to why you believe that Ostler's arguments or my arguments are not valid.  Rather than study the matter, you just prefer to stick your head in the sand.

 

Daniel wrote:    What is common sense?   Common sense tells me that God can create a free willed being out of nothing.

 

Stephen wrote:  Right.  And according to your version of common sense , "God can cause an uncaused cause".  That isn't logic or common sense Daniel.  Not even close. Even the guy you like to quote so much, William Lane Craig, has some issues with this, he wrote: "How could we be really related to God as effect to cause, but God not related to us as cause to effect? " Yes.  How indeed?

 

 

 

And you believe that God cannot create a being like Himself.  You believe that God is incapable of doing so?

 

Oh ... your lack of faith in God is it?  (Just throwing your own tactic back at you.  Sorry.)

Rather than respond to your ad hominem attacks, I ignore them. Thanks. 

 

As for common sense, it's simply another way of saying faith. You and I both use "common sense" and with yours you see your faith position as logical and coherent as I do with mine. Faith is what separates our positions, nothing else. 

 

As I have noted in the past God did make beings like himself. If he made them only able (or wanting) to choose good, he wouldn't have made them like himself, but like a dog or a robot. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

For starters, I find it troublesome that all you do is list people who you claim to believe in Ex Nihilo creation ... but you yourself have not bothered to read their works, so you don't even know why they believe it, and you have no idea why other scholars reached an opposing conclusion.  I have read extensively on both sides of this issue.  I created a video that non-scholars can clearly understand (less than 8 minutes would get you my arguments on Gen 1:1).  Also, the second guy on your list, Waltke, certainly should not be there: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/rooker-gen1pt2-bssac.pdf

 

 

 

And aren't you even curious about the reasons (very good reasons), that more recent scholars, very good scholars, have rejected that interpretation?   I guess you will never know why.

 

Apparently, you were not even willing to read the entire Wikipedia article that you quote later.  Otherwise, you would have known that Waltke argued against Ex Nihilo.  The explanation is right there!   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo#Arguments_against_ex_nihilo_creation

 

It is clear that you will never even consider a point of view that is different than your own.   Why do you even bother posting on this forum?

 

Are you going to try to convert Mormons away from the LDS church?  Do you really think you can do that without even trying to understand why we hold to the positions we hold?

 

How will Christians be able to share the gospel to the world, if they cannot explain the world we live in?  They cannot explain evil and suffering.  Another scholar you quoted in your list, has been quoted by myself and others, “No theology should be countenanced as possibly true, much less considered true, if it cannot account for what we know about the world we live in."

 

I have explained in detail, in the video series, exactly why Ex Nihilo creation theology cannot account for the world we live in.

 

 

Yes, we know this.   ... But what scripture did they cite in order to conclude that the pre-existent matter was created "from nothing"?

 

-Stephen

 

No much here really to respond to. The appeal to authority fallacy doesn't interest me and isn't persuasive. So, who or what doesn't believe in who and why isn't really interesting or persuasive. 

 

Your continued mischaracterization of me and my position also get's old. 

 

I hope I'm wrong, but it appears that you lack the ability to grasp what I've been saying. I make this statement based on your recent statements about me. You think that I only have this faith because the majority of people believe it? And you honestly think that this position (ENC) can't account for evil? Seriously? IF that's the case then you truly don't understand it.

[danielwoods]

I am simply reflecting the consensus in non-Mormon scholarship.  You are free to disbelieve the scholars, and to imagine what you will, but no leap of faith is involved, daniel.  I have been reading biblical Hebrew now for almost half-a-century and I try to understand the latest scholarship in matters of this kind.  If the scholars said that Genesis 1 entailed creatio ex nihilo, I would say that.  Simple honesty and sincerity requires that I be frank.  You have even been presented with numerous sources on this matter.  You are, of course, free to ignore them.  I realize that you really don't have any way to judge a matter of this kind, and that you feel that the rug has been pulled out from under you.  The only consolation I can offer is that salvation does not depend upon which theology of creation you accept.  Most people never even consider the issue at any time in their lives.  However, we do discuss such matters here on this board from time to time, so be forewarned that you may find some issues to be disturbing.

 

The fallacy of the appeal to authority ("consensus of scholarship") isn't a valid argument, because all it essentially says is these are the scholars that believe as I do, therefore they are correct. And as I pointed out, there are scholars on both sides of any issue you wish to analyze. 

 

As for Hebrew, I have acknowledged that I don't read Hebrew. However, those who do are on both sides of this issue. The arguments that I have made are actually ones that I've read and found persuasive made by scholars, like the fact that the context of the word dictates it's meaning more than the etymology does, especially in the case of God in Gen. 1:1. 

 

I agree with you that this isn't a "salvation issue" so for many they would feel it irrelevant. 

 

 

None of those listed is a prominent modern Hebraist (you had Henri Blocher listed twice), and all merely reflect the standard mainstream Christian, Jewish, and Islamic dogma of creatio ex hihilo.

Another participant here pointed out that Bruce Waltke does not belong in that list.

Instead of using the fallacy of the appeal to authority (bolded above), why not just explain why or post exactly what this "Hebraist" says that is so persuasive to you? 

Edited July 14, 2015 by danielwoods

[stephenpurdy]

 

If you can clearly demonstrate that ENC isn't taught in the text, then why haven't you done so? 

 

 

I have done so.  You never addressed the specifics.  So far, you have ignored my arguments altogether.  It is much more convenient for you to do this.

 

 

 

 

You acknowledge above, that the Bible doesn't say that matter is co-eternal, .... 

 

I simply acknowledge that the Bible does not address the issue specifically.   It mentions God creating the heaven and the Earth.  It does not specify how God did it.  It certainly does not say that God created the Heaven and the Earth "out of nothing".  Therefore, you have no reason to assume that this is the case.

 

 

 

 

 

Rather than respond to your ad hominem attacks, I ignore them. Thanks. 

 

As for common sense, it's simply another way of saying faith. You and I both use "common sense" and with yours you see your faith position as logical and coherent as I do with mine. Faith is what separates our positions, nothing else. 

 

As I have noted in the past God did make beings like himself. If he made them only able (or wanting) to choose good, he wouldn't have made them like himself, but like a dog or a robot. 

 

It wasn't an ad hominem attack.  You attempted to use a tactic against me, I just turned it around back at you.

 

As for common sense, you have not even demonstrated, by your posts that you even understand the logic that has been presented to you.  Again, you have ignored the points being made altogether.

 

And as for God making beings like himself ... Does God have free will?  Is God like a dog or a robot?  Clearly you have not bothered to think this through.

 

-Stephen

[danielwoods]

The question is whether or not there is a point or argument provided by any of the people remaining on this list that stands up to analysis.

 

Can you, Daniel, provide the MOST convincing evidence in your mind provided by any one of these individuals?

 

If you are going to believe in something then you should

 

1) study it out

 

2) humbly ask God whether or not your heart and mind are in the right place

 

3) repeat

 

 

Something that is strongly instilled into the Mormon youth is this: you need to gain your own testimony, study it out for yourself, pray and sincerely ask God about it.

 

You should not believe in something just because other people do.

 

 

-Stephen

 

 

What is interesting is that you reference gaining your own testimony. This alone is the key to this debate. For our differences are over faith, not logic, not scripture, not anything else. 

[stephenpurdy]

No much here really to respond to. The appeal to authority fallacy doesn't interest me and isn't persuasive. So, who or what doesn't believe in who and why isn't really interesting or persuasive. 

 

 

I am simply demonstrating on this forum, that you simply have not done your homework.  You have not studied the topic in detail.  Not only are you not aware of  (and refuse to look at) the arguments of those who oppose your point of view, but you don't even know the arguments of the people that do support your point of view.

 

 

 

 

Your continued mischaracterization of me and my position also get's old. 

 

 

 

Please explain exactly how I have mischaracterized your position.

 

You think that I only have this faith because the majority of people believe it? And you honestly think that this position (ENC) can't account for evil? Seriously?

 

 

Yes.  And I explained, in detail, exactly why it cannot.  Now it is up to you to explain why you think that my arguments are invalid, and then present some arguments of your own, rather than just appealing to people who you have not even read.

 

 

-Stephen

[danielwoods]

I have done so.  You never addressed the specifics.  So far, you have ignored my arguments altogether.  It is much more convenient for you to do this.

You definition of "clearly demonstrate" and mine must be quite different.

 

 

 

 

I simply acknowledge that the Bible does not address the issue specifically.   It mentions God creating the heaven and the Earth.  It does not specify how God did it.  It certainly does not say that God created the Heaven and the Earth "out of nothing".  Therefore, you have no reason to assume that this is the case.

So, you have two choices, either God alone is eternal or God and other things are eternal together. Given the knowledge we gain from the past teachers and prophets, you side with the second option.

 

Now, in their teachings/writing we find statements that indicate that God alone is eternal, not once, but numerous times. That God alone is God, the first and last. That God is the I AM. No where can we find the same statements made for anyone or anything else. Yet, when it comes to matter, for some reason, you think matter is co-eternal with God? 

 

Even John 1:1 agrees with the concept that only God was in the beginning, nothing else. No thing. 

 

 

 

It wasn't an ad hominem attack.  You attempted to use a tactic against me, I just turned it around back at you.

 

As for common sense, you have not even demonstrated, by your posts that you even understand the logic that has been presented to you.  Again, you have ignored the points being made altogether.

 

And as for God making beings like himself ... Does God have free will?  Is God like a dog or a robot?  Clearly you have not bothered to think this through.

 

-Stephen

So, telling me that my head is in the sand is a literal description of what you've seen? Please tell me where and when this was!   

 

OR that I've not bothered to think this through because I disagree with your position? OK. Got it. Not an attack. 

 

Does God have free will? No. Not like Man does.

 

It's like asking does man have the freedom to live without oxygen? No. The nature our being alive is dependent on air. 

 

God is the very definition of Good, for him to act or be against himself is like telling someone to make a 4 sided triangle.

 

Free will is how our choice is described in this life, we are either for or against him. He cannot be against himself. 

[Bobbieaware]

You definition of "clearly demonstrate" and mine must be quite different.

So, you have two choices, either God alone is eternal or God and other things are eternal together. Given the knowledge we gain from the past teachers and prophets, you side with the second option.

Now, in their teachings/writing we find statements that indicate that God alone is eternal, not once, but numerous times. That God alone is God, the first and last. That God is the I AM. No where can we find the same statements made for anyone or anything else. Yet, when it comes to matter, for some reason, you think matter is co-eternal with God?

Even John 1:1 agrees with the concept that only God was in the beginning, nothing else. No thing.

So, telling me that my head is in the sand is a literal description of what you've seen? Please tell me where and when this was!

OR that I've not bothered to think this through because I disagree with your position? OK. Got it. Not an attack.

Does God have free will? No. Not like Man does.

It's like asking does man have the freedom to live without oxygen? No. The nature our being alive is dependent on air.

God is the very definition of Good, for him to act or be against himself is like telling someone to make a 4 sided triangle.

Free will is how our choice is described in this life, we are either for or against him. He cannot be against himself.

Any intelligent being, including God, cannot be good unless he freely chooses to be good. Anything less than this and you're talking about a programmed soulless machine without emotion, without passion and without the capacity for achieving genuine moral excellence. Goodness cannot exist within any intelligent being unless that intelligent being chooses to be good, as the very definition of goodness is CHOOSING to do right rather than choosing to do wrong. Soulless machines may be programmed to do only good things, but they are still soulless machines that are unable to make moral choices as intelligent free agents.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[danielwoods]

For starters, I find it troublesome that all you do is list people who you claim to believe in Ex Nihilo creation ... but you yourself have not bothered to read their works, so you don't even know why they believe it, and you have no idea why other scholars reached an opposing conclusion.  I have read extensively on both sides of this issue.  I created a video that non-scholars can clearly understand (less than 8 minutes would get you my arguments on Gen 1:1).  Also, the second guy on your list, Waltke, certainly should not be there: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/rooker-gen1pt2-bssac.pdf

 

 

 

And aren't you even curious about the reasons (very good reasons), that more recent scholars, very good scholars, have rejected that interpretation?   I guess you will never know why.

 

Apparently, you were not even willing to read the entire Wikipedia article that you quote later.  Otherwise, you would have known that Waltke argued against Ex Nihilo.  The explanation is right there!   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo#Arguments_against_ex_nihilo_creation

 

It is clear that you will never even consider a point of view that is different than your own.   Why do you even bother posting on this forum?

 

Are you going to try to convert Mormons away from the LDS church?  Do you really think you can do that without even trying to understand why we hold to the positions we hold?

 

How will Christians be able to share the gospel to the world, if they cannot explain the world we live in?  They cannot explain evil and suffering.  Another scholar you quoted in your list, has been quoted by myself and others, “No theology should be countenanced as possibly true, much less considered true, if it cannot account for what we know about the world we live in."

 

I have explained in detail, in the video series, exactly why Ex Nihilo creation theology cannot account for the world we live in.

 

 

Yes, we know this.   ... But what scripture did they cite in order to conclude that the pre-existent matter was created "from nothing"?

 

-Stephen

 

 

Please explain exactly how I have mischaracterized your position.

Let's just take your recent post (quoted above):

 

1)  that I am not curious about the reasons some scholars disagree with me

2) that I am not willing to consider a different point of view

3) I can't explain the world we live in.

4) ENC can't explain evil and suffering

5) Your video explains that ENC cannot account for the world we live in. 

6) I only have faith because a majority believe it.

 

All of these are a mischaracterization of my position. And if you honestly think these things, then you must not really understand ENC. That's just my opinion though. 

 

 

Yes.  And I explained, in detail, exactly why it cannot.  Now it is up to you to explain why you think that my arguments are invalid, and then present some arguments of your own, rather than just appealing to people who you have not even read.

 

 

-Stephen

I did and have numerous times.

 

It's almost laughable. The situation is like this. A group of people who believe a certain way is called by another group of people as having in faith in something that cannot be logical or true.

Now, if this something was like a belief in rocks floating in the air at night above water under a full moon. Then we could both test to see if rocks float at night above water under a full moon. And we could both observe that this belief was either true or not. 

 

But, since this belief/faith isn't testable. Your accusation and/or arguments are invalid because they are also based on your own faith, which is not testable either. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

Any intelligent being, including God, cannot be good unless he freely chooses to be good. Anything less than this and you're talking about a programmed soulless machine without emotion, without passion and without the capacity for achieving genuine moral excellence. Goodness cannot exist within any intelligent being unless that intelligent being chooses to be good, as the very definition of goodness is CHOOSING to do right rather than choosing to do wrong. Soulless machines may be programmed to do only good things, but they are still soulless machines that are unable to make moral choices as intelligent free agents.

 

Right. This is a statement of your faith, and what you believe about God. I disagree. I have a different faith. 

 

In my view, God is Good, as Jesus said, only God is good. All measure of goodness is a comparison to him. 

[Bobbieaware]

Right. This is a statement of your faith, and what you believe about God. I disagree. I have a different faith.

In my view, God is Good, as Jesus said, only God is good. All measure of goodness is a comparison to him.

In the LDS religion, God is good because he WANTS to be good. There is nothing at all praiseworthy in a being who ACTS in good ways only because he is preprogrammed to behave that way. Christ is the greatest of all spiritual heroes because, as a free agent, he was enticed in all things to choose between good and evil, but in spite of the devil's most beguiling and concentratef efforts to lure him away, he still choose to do and love goodness.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, when our Lord was confronted with the greatest of temptations, when fear caused our Master to repeatedly plead with the Father to provide a means of escape from that which he knew all along he must do, he finally resigned himself to do the Father's will by plunging headlong into all the horrors of hell in the ultimate act of sacrificial goodness and love. Because he faced his fear and faithfully waded through much temptation and unimaginable sorrow, we now shout exultant praises to him as eternity's greatest conquering hero.

And remember, our Savior said he only did those things which he had seen his Father do before him. It was by observing the great acts of goodness of the Father that he was able to draw the inspiration that enabled him to successfully travel down the exceedingly difficult and lonely road of the conquering heavenly hero. So we Latter-day Saints confidently believe God the Father is good because, just like his Son, he is a free agent who chooses to be good and loves goodness for its own sake.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

I think that one of the reasons that Christians have held on so tightly to creatio ex nihilo is because, with "the Big Bang" theory, they felt that the doctrine was "backed up by science". 

 

They are going to be in for a rude awakening when they realize that the theory is 20 years out of date, and science has much more to say on the matter: 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14372387

 

http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

 

Then the atheists/agnostics (and reasonably skeptical people) will again direct to the Christians, "guess what? the solar system does not revolve around the Earth ... and the Big Bang does not support ex nihilo.  Wrong again folks."

 

And it will be even harder to win people to Christ because the Christians have been presenting a false representation of God and creation.

 

-Stephen

And of course the atheists and agnostics would be exactly right even if for the wrong reasons.

 

The bad news of course is that if the truth or falsity of a scientific theory can prove or disprove anything about God, and we get smug and think that now our view is vindicated, we may be in for the same shock when suddenly the paradigm changes again.

 

In short, science teaches us how things work.

 

Religious questions are about what life is about and what makes us happy and why.

 

Knowing how your car works doesn't help you pick a good spouse or figure out which church to join, or why you should believe in God in the first place.

Edited July 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[tagriffy]

 

So two things here. One, you aren't doing what you stated. "Letting the text speak for itself." You admit above, that you use "further revelation" (i.e. your faith) to fill in the blanks. And two, you claim that Genesis depicts matter as already being there when God began to create. This is false. "God created the heaven and earth…" Matter is created by God according to Genesis. 

 

 

Round we go again. How does filling the blanks using other resources constitute not letting the text speak for itself? I've let the text speak for itself. Where the text doesn't say anything one way or the other, I am free to fill in blanks with whatever resources I have available.

 

Second, my claim that Genesis depicts matter as already being there when God began to create is true. "In the beginning when created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void." According to Genesis, matter was already there when God began to create. You'll find no mainstream scholar who will maintain otherwise, and there are even Evangelical scholars who admit Genesis doesn't settle the issue on whether God created ex nihilo. See Vos and Wenham on the passage. If you want to fill in the blank with ex nihilo creation, be my guest. You want to say the text says it, you better do your homework.

 

 

Genesis is also a bit out of date. Your opinions on what it states are generated by your position and faith. It states simply that the Prophets and writers of the Psalms do accept the doctrine of ENC. Otherwise, the doctrine of eternal matter would have to be accepted, and that is taught nowhere in the text (even you acknowledge this).

 

My opinions on what the text states is generated by the text. When I study the text, I make the effort to set aside my position and faith and let the text speak for itself as much as possible. When you've proven Genesis depicts creatio ex nihilo, then we can discuss how my view of the text was generated.

 

The statement in the Jewish Encyclopedia was "it is clear that the Prophets and many of the Psalms accept without reservation the doctrine of creation from nothing" as you emphasized by with the bold font. Actually, it is not clear that the Prophets and Psalms accept creation from nothing, let alone they do so without reservation. The cited texts either use metaphors that assume pre-existing matter or simply don't say anything one way or the other. I can go through the cited texts and demonstrate it if you wish.

 

And no, the doctrine of eternal matter would not have to be accepted. The text depicts creation being accomplished using matter that existed when God created the heavens and the earth. That's it. It doesn't say where the material came from; it doesn't say whether it was created beforehand; it doesn't say the matter was eternal. It's simply a blank. If you want to fill in that blank with creatio ex nihilo, go right ahead. That's not my problem.

[stephenpurdy]

What is interesting is that you reference gaining your own testimony. This alone is the key to this debate.

 

Stephen says:  I have faith that God created "from something".

 

Daniel says:  I have faith that God created "from nothing".

 

Oh, O.K.   Nice debate.  Next topic.

 

Not much of a debate there Daniel.

- - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - -  -

 

As for gaining a "testimony", I intuitively knew that the assumptions of Mainstream Christianity do not explain the world that we live in.   I knew this long before I knew or understood Mormon doctrines.  I would have never even considered accepting Christ if it weren't for the LDS religion presenting to me a reasonable alternative.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

By the way, I posted a paragraph from Blake Ostler on post 426.  Did you read it?  Do you understand it?  Do you agree with it?

 

If you don't agree with any part or argument within that paragraph, then why not? 

 

This is exactly what I am referring to when I make the claim that you are not addressing the arguments being presented to you.  That is not an "ad hominem" attack.  It is an accurate description on how you are handling this conversation.

 

 

-Stephen

Edited July 15, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

You definition of "clearly demonstrate" and mine must be quite different.

 

 

How would you know?  So far you have ignored most of the arguments presented to you.

 

 

 

 

So, you have two choices, either God alone is eternal or God and other things are eternal together. Given the knowledge we gain from the past teachers and prophets, you side with the second option.

 

 

What do you mean by "eternal"?  On the other thread, I presented to you these usages:

עוֹלָם `owlam

Deut 33:15 describes the hills/mountains as "everlasting/eternal". Yet clearly the Bible teaches that the Earth along with the hills and mountains were created.

This is the same term used in the Psalms for God being “from everlasting to everlasting”. Yet most of the time we find this word translated as “ancient”. Other examples include “ancient people” (Isa 44:7), ancient landmark (Prov 22:28), and so forth.

Similarly, we have the Hebrew wordעַד `ad

Job 20:4 "Haven't you known this from ***everlasting/eternal***, since mankind was placed on the earth?

So here, having known since the beginning of the Earth is sufficient to be considered eternal/everlasting. The meaning is "antiquity or of old'. (Interesting also that Isaiah uses this same term in 57:15 to say that God “inhabits eternity.” Almost as if eternity can also be considered a place.)

Keep in mind that this is the same term that is used in Isaiah 9:6 for the “everlasting/eternal Father”.

Lets look at some New Testament words, like Ἀΐδιος aïdios

Jude 1:6 uses the term to describe “everlasting chains” for the angels who “kept not their first estate” which they will have “unto the judgement of the great day.” So, did these chains under darkness exist (in eternal past) before God supposedly created everything Ex Nihilo, including the angels themselves?

Yet this term is the same word used to describe God's “eternal power and Godhead” in Romans 1:20.

How about another term, from which we get aeon. Αἰών Aiōn

Sometimes this one it is not just understood as long periods of time, but as “the worlds” or the Cosmos/Universe, which, as we both know, are created by God, so does not really fit your definition of something that always has been.

Finally, we have χρόνος and Αἰώνιος aiōnios ,

It is used over and over to describe both eternal salvation/redemption/

inheritance as well as eternal judgment/fire/destruction.

It is also used to describe a whole host of other things, like the “eternal weight of glory” to be bestowed upon the faithful. It is used by Paul to describe an “everlasting covenant” between God and man. It is used in conjunction with another Hebrew term to say “since the world began”. It as also used to things that will exist in the future, for example, when comparing our earthly tabernacle, which is temporal, to the tabernacle we will have in the resurrection. (2 Cr 5:1).

So, we should be asking whether or not our definition or meaning of “eternal” is consistent with how these terms were actually used and understood in ancient scripture.

- - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - -

After I posted this, your claim was essentially that "eternal", when referring to God, MUST mean something different than it means everywhere else in the Biblical text.  Just another "extra-Biblical assumption" on your part.

 

 

 

 

 Even John 1:1 agrees with the concept that only God was in the beginning, nothing else. No thing. 

 

 

That isn't what the text says.  It says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God.…"

 

First question.  In the Beginning of what?   The beginning of creation. Sorry, but the text does not say, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and nothing else existed in any way."

 

The Bible starts with the "creation".  God existed before/beyond "creation".  Certainly, in that sense, creation is not coeternal with God. 

 

I lay out the New Testament issues very plainly here:

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

 

 

Does God have free will? No. Not like Man does.

 

It's like asking does man have the freedom to live without oxygen? No. The nature our being alive is dependent on air. 

 

God is the very definition of Good, for him to act or be against himself is like telling someone to make a 4 sided triangle.

 

Free will is how our choice is described in this life, we are either for or against him. He cannot be against himself. 

 

I asked you, "Do you believe that God is capable of creating a being like Himself?"  Your claim was "yes".

 

Now you are saying that God is NOT like us, because God does not have free will like man does.   So, now you have to flip again.

 

Do you see where this is going?

 

-Stephen

 

P.S.  IF God does not have free will, then God does not truly love us.