The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[Stone holm]

Daniel wrote: 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.

 

 

Just for fun, I will provide you with a verse that says something very interesting:

 

2 Corinthians 4:18

So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

 How does this quote support your thesis? Are saying that the only thing unseen is God?

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

 

Daniel wrote: 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.

 

 

Just for fun, I will provide you with a verse that says something very interesting:

 

2 Corinthians 4:18

So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

 How does this quote support your thesis? Are saying that the only thing unseen is God?

-Stephen

 

 

 

My thesis is that many things (maybe even infinite things) that are unseen are eternal, not only God.

 

Perhaps you have not reviewed this thread from the beginning?

 

When you couple that verse with the verse from Hebrews, then it is even more revealing:

 

"By faith we understand that the cosmos was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was created from that which is unseen." (Heb 11:3)

 

-Stephen

Edited July 24, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[Vance]

Daniel said this,

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.

 

Daniel provided these in response.

 

Deut. 33:27 The eternal God is your refuge,
And underneath are the everlasting arms;

Psalm 90:2 Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

1 Tim. 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Notice that NOT A SINGLE ONE of them state what Daniel claimed.

[Vance]

Probably because Daniel is equating the word "invisible' with immaterial. Yet air is invisible.

And when the concept of "immaterial" was first fabricated in the mind of men and the word coined, both wind and breath were "known" to be "immaterial".

 

Their theology has not kept up with science.

[stephenpurdy]

And when the concept of "immaterial" was first fabricated in the mind of men and the word coined, both wind and breath were "known" to be "immaterial".

 

Their theology has not kept up with science.

 

 

I just started a new book,

 

What We Talk About When We Talk About God by Rob Bell

 

This part is interesting: 

 

 

He talks about the outdated way of thinking, that "there is a clear distinction between the material world and the immaterial world, between the physical world and the spiritual world."

 

"What we are learning from science, however, is that the distinction isn't so clear after all.  In other words, the line between spirit and matter may not be a line after all."

 

He quotes Jeffrey Kluger who says scientists are now “grappling with something bigger than mere physics, something that defies the mathematical and brushes up – at least fleetingly – against the spiritual.”

 

"The primary essence of reality is energy flow ... things are ultimately relationships of living energy.  This energy isn't destroyed or created, it simply changes form as it is conserved."

 

 

 

-Stephen

[Spammer]

"What we are learning from science, however, is that the distinction isn't so clear after all.  In other words, the line between spirit and matter may not be a line after all."

 

This is an interesting claim.  Has the line between spirit and matter been measured scientifically?  Has science finally found evidence of the existence of spirit through observation and experiment?  Have findings been submitted for peer review and replication?  How does science know a) that spirit exists and b) that spirit is material and not immaterial?  

Edited August 4, 2015 by Spammer

[Nofear]

"What we are learning from science, however, is that the distinction isn't so clear after all.  In other words, the line between spirit and matter may not be a line after all."

 

This is an interesting claim.  Has the line between spirit and matter been measured scientifically?  Has science finally found evidence of the existence of spirit through observation and experiment?  Have findings been submitted for peer review and replication?  How does science know a) that spirit exists and b) that spirit is material and not immaterial?  

 

We have no theory wherewith to describe spirit matter, therefore we cannot scientifically "observe" it. The best we could do is observe anomalies or departures from predictions of our current theories, e.g. General Relativity, Standard Model of Particle Physics -- both of which are holding up incredibly well.

 

On the other hand, knowing that we only have an understanding of about 5% of the stuff that makes up the universe does leave a bit of room...

[danielwoods]

I would not define "infallible" as "not capable of sin".  I would define it as being wise enough, intelligent enough, caring enough, loving enough etc., such that the individual will always make correct moral choices.

 

 

Therefore, moral infallibility is NOT a "fallacious argument".  You just attempted to change the definition such that it would become fallacious so that you could try to bypass it. 

 

You continue to avoid the real problem here.  I guess we are just going to see how long you can dance?

 

 

Tell me about this "new nature".  Why doesn't God just give that to us now ... or to begin with?

 

I mean, this has been an issue that you have been avoiding throughout the entire thread.

 

IF God is creating any kind of being possible out of God's own mind, then God could create a being with any kind of nature that God wanted from the get go.

As I stated above, "... God could have created our memories intact, and us as already mature beings in heaven, but that defeats the purpose of memories based on past experience, which serve to guide us in our future decisions."

 

Re: New nature. All through the NT is the description of believers as having a new nature. This is what is described as being born of the spirit of God. With this new nature, which we choose (and were chosen), we no longer desire sin. Now, your question is why didn't God just start out with that new nature? Well, in some ways God did. Adam certainly had the ability to stay sin free and live forever. Yet, he chose not to. Satan had a nature that would have allowed him to avoid punishment, but didn't chose to follow his nature. So, it's clear that our nature isn't all there is. Our will still is in play, which makes sense if one understands that true love doesn't exist without the freedom to choose. 

 

Craig just made an assertion, but had no backing to it.   When you read and watch my argumentation, I have explained precisely why I hold my opinions and the logical arguments that lead up to those opinions. 

 

See the difference?

 

-Stephen

Actually that is your opinion on what you have done. I have a different one, that I've repeatedly stated. Simply stated again here for brevity, you outline our argument but you don't define your assumptions of faith. And it's at that point that we disagree. You simply assume to be true, your faith based assumptions, as does Craig. The source of those faith assumptions is where the debate has to occur. 

Edited August 4, 2015 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

Please explain why you think that those verses are meant to teach that God did not create "from something".

 

 

 

-Stephen

 

I never claimed they did. If you read what I posted in context, they were a reply to Vance and his question. 

[stephenpurdy]

As I stated above, "... God could have created our memories intact, and us as already mature beings in heaven, but that defeats the purpose of memories based on past experience, which serve to guide us in our future decisions."

 

Re: New nature. All through the NT is the description of believers as having a new nature. This is what is described as being born of the spirit of God. With this new nature, which we choose (and were chosen), we no longer desire sin. Now, your question is why didn't God just start out with that new nature? Well, in some ways God did. Adam certainly had the ability to stay sin free and live forever. Yet, he chose not to. Satan had a nature that would have allowed him to avoid punishment, but didn't chose to follow his nature. So, it's clear that our nature isn't all there is. Our will still is in play, which makes sense if one understands that true love doesn't exist without the freedom to choose.

 

So, does everyone have the same nature?  ...  Like Lucifer,  or does everyone, including Lucifer or Adam, or Abraham, have different natures?

 

Will we sin in Heaven?  Will we still have free will in Heaven?

 

 

Actually that is your opinion on what you have done. I have a different one, that I've repeatedly stated. Simply stated again here for brevity, you outline our argument but you don't define your assumptions of faith. And it's at that point that we disagree. You simply assume to be true, your faith based assumptions, as does Craig. The source of those faith assumptions is where the debate has to occur. 

 

You have not been able to explain the "assumptions" I have made.  You have not been able to explain exactly why you disagree with the arguments I have presented. 

 

Your claim is that you believe that God created Ex Nihilo AND God gave free will, but you have not been able to explain how this is possible.  It is YOU who have made assumptions ... not me.  I explained EXACTLY why it is impossible.  I used many illustrations and descriptions as to why there are issues with your view point. 

 

The video with the dice, for example, you have not demonstrated any understanding about the arguments that I describe in the video.  So lacking has been your response, that I seriously doubt that you have even taken the 10 minutes to watch it at all.

 

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

Daniel gave verses in the Bible which supposedly support Ex Nihilo creation.

 

Stephen wrote:  Please explain why you think that those verses are meant to teach that God did not create "from something".

 

I never claimed they did. If you read what I posted in context, they were a reply to Vance and his question. 

 

Then why do you believe in Ex Nihilo in the first place? 

 

-Stephen

[danielwoods]

So, does everyone have the same nature?  ...  Like Lucifer,  or does everyone, including Lucifer or Adam, or Abraham, have different natures?

Men and angels have different natures. Lucifer has the nature of an angelic being. We do not. 

 

Will we sin in Heaven?  Will we still have free will in Heaven?

 

 As I stated in post # 470

You ask if we will still have free will in Heaven? The answer is yes. Just as Jesus had free will on earth. It will be our past experience coupled with our new nature that will give us the ability to say no to sin, just as Jesus did.

 

 

You have not been able to explain the "assumptions" I have made.  You have not been able to explain exactly why you disagree with the arguments I have presented. 

 

Your claim is that you believe that God created Ex Nihilo AND God gave free will, but you have not been able to explain how this is possible.  It is YOU who have made assumptions ... not me.  I explained EXACTLY why it is impossible.  I used many illustrations and descriptions as to why there are issues with your view point. 

 

The video with the dice, for example, you have not demonstrated any understanding about the arguments that I describe in the video.  So lacking has been your response, that I seriously doubt that you have even taken the 10 minutes to watch it at all.

 

 

 

-Stephen

Since you claim that you make no assumptions, how do you expect anyone to actually have a discussion with you about the assumptions that you make, since you believe you haven't made any?

 

You make the assumption that God can't make a free willed being out of nothing. I assume that he can. We disagree on the assumption level, which is informed by our faith, not logic. Your arguments don't address this. 

 

[Ahab]

You make the assumption that God can't make a free willed being out of nothing. I assume that he can. We disagree on the assumption level, which is informed by our faith, not logic. Your arguments don't address this.

Yes you can assume anything and it doesn't have to be based on logic or reasoning.

Bravo for showing that someone can do that.

[danielwoods]

Yes you can assume anything and it doesn't have to be based on logic or reasoning.

Bravo for showing that someone can do that.

 

Faith based assumptions are often based on their own logic. For example, demonstrate logically how the resurrection is true without reference to faith.

[Ahab]

Faith based assumptions are often based on their own logic. For example, demonstrate logically how the resurrection is true without reference to faith.

The goal should be to provide reasons for our faith so that others can understand the reasons why we believe what we believe, which I will now illustrate with a reasonable and logical reason for why we believe people can be resurrected from the dead.

First, because our Lord was resurrected, and as one who was he has told us that all of us who die will be.

Second, well, the first should suffice. The fact that he was and has told us that we would be too is good enough for me. It is both logical and reasonable that one who was knows what he is talking about.

Now if you know of any logical reason for me to believe we were created from nothing I would very much like to hear it. It seems reasonable to me to think that all we can get out of nothing is nothing.

[danielwoods]

The goal should be to provide reasons for our faith so that others can understand the reasons why we believe what we believe, which I will now illustrate with a reasonable and logical reason for why we believe people can be resurrected from the dead.

First, because our Lord was resurrected, and as one who was he has told us that all of us who die will be.

Second, well, the first should suffice. The fact that he was and has told us that we would be too is good enough for me. It is both logical and reasonable that one who was knows what he is talking about.

Now if you know of any logical reason for me to believe we were created from nothing I would very much like to hear it. It seems reasonable to me to think that all we can get out of nothing is nothing.

 

You believe the lord was resurrected, therefore you have faith that you also will be resurrected. Trust and faith leads to the assumption and "logic". 

 

You have faith that God cannot create out of nothing, therefore it's illogical to you (who holds a faith that God can't do that). 

 

I believe that God can and did create all of everything from nothing. My faith leads to my assumptions, just as your faith leads to yours. Each are just as logically based on our faith's assumptions. 

[Ahab]

You believe the lord was resurrected, therefore you have faith that you also will be resurrected. Trust and faith leads to the assumption and "logic".

You have faith that God cannot create out of nothing, therefore it's illogical to you (who holds a faith that God can't do that).

It would be more truthful to say I don't have faith that God created us from nothing because God hasn't told me he did and it just doesn't seem reasonable to me that he could make something from nothing at all. If he used his powers or a part of himself to create us that wouldn't be from nothing. That would be from what he is and through his power.

Why do you have faith that he can do it from absolutely nothing? Do you think God told you he can? If so how? How did he explain it?

I believe that God can and did create all of everything from nothing. My faith leads to my assumptions, just as your faith leads to yours. Each are just as logically based on our faith's assumptions.

Faith is just the state of being sure about something, and you can be sure of anything you want to be sure about. Explain where your faith came from and why you think what you are sure of is true and the reasoning behind it. Edited August 22, 2015 by Ahab

[danielwoods]

Daniel gave verses in the Bible which supposedly support Ex Nihilo creation.

 

Stephen wrote:  Please explain why you think that those verses are meant to teach that God did not create "from something".

 

 

Then why do you believe in Ex Nihilo in the first place? 

 

-Stephen

 

 

It would be more truthful to say I don't have faith that God created us from nothing because God hasn't told me he did and it just doesn't seem reasonable to me that he could make something from nothing at all. If he used his powers or a part of himself to create us that wouldn't be from nothing. That would be from what he is and through his power.

Why do you have faith that he can do it from absolutely nothing? Do you think God told you he can? If so how? How did he explain it?

Faith is just the state of being sure about something, and you can be sure of anything you want to be sure about. Explain where your faith came from and why you think what you are sure of is true and the reasoning behind it.

 

I've been asked this question more than a few times, just in this thread. Here's a quote from page 8:

 

Because it's taught in the Bible. 

 

http://www.reasons.org/articles/creation-ex-nihilo

 

Well not explicitly at least according to Roger:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/01/why-i-believe-in-creatio-ex-nihilo-creation-out-of-nothing-even-though-the-bible-doesnt-directly-teach-it/

 

For William Lane Craig's view compared with that of the LDS:

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creatio-ex-nihilo-a-critique-of-the-mormon-doctrine-of-creation

I don't have any confidence that anyone here will listen or read the links, or interact with the ideas or remember what was said, as evidenced by the repeated questions.

[Ahab]

I've been asked this question more than a few times, just in this thread. Here's a quote from page 8:

I don't have any confidence that anyone here will listen or read the links, or interact with the ideas or remember what was said, as evidenced by the repeated questions.

I was just hoping maybe you would give a better answer to that question than I've seen you give, and no I don't usually read every post in a thread or in every link from everyone.

So what I'm getting from you is that your faith is from your interpretation of the Bible, which I reject because God has given me a different interpretation.

But you go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe.

[danielwoods]

I was just hoping maybe you would give a better answer to that question than I've seen you give, and no I don't usually read every post in a thread or in every link from everyone.

So what I'm getting from you is that your faith is from your interpretation of the Bible, which I reject because God has given me a different interpretation.

But you go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe.

 

You are correct. My faith is based on what I'm convinced is true, just as yours is. 

[Ahab]

You are correct. My faith is based on what I'm convinced is true, just as yours is.

Yes, that's what everyone's faith is, whether we are correct or not. Faith is simply to be sure/certain of something, convinced it is true. And whoever convinces us or helps us to feel sure/certain of something is the one who gave us our faith, whether that person is ourself, or one of our brothers/sisters, or our Father in heaven. And of course we should prefer to get it from our Father in heaven who is always correct.

[Stargazer]

 

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)

"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

 

 

They are all wrong.  That is all.

[Vance]

Men and angels have different natures. . 

 

 

The Bible tells us that John the Baptist was/is an angel.  In what way was/is his nature different from the group you call "men"?

[Bobbieaware]

The Bible tells us that John the Baptist was/is an angel. In what way was/is his nature different from the group you call "men"?

If angels are not men, I'm wondering why Luke (who surely was in a position to know better) would have made the following egregious "doctrinal error?"

2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, TWO MEN stood by them in shining garments:

5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, (Luke 24)

With regard this except from the Luke, I believe just about every Christian on earth, whether minister, scholar, or lay person, would say without hesitation that the two men in shinning garments were angels. So if angels are not men, and if they are of a different nature than men, why would Luke make such a mistake?

But if the above example isn't enough, in the very next chapter of Luke's continuing narrative history he says:

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, TWO MEN stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1)

So although angels look like men, act like men, talk like men, and are even called men by a prophet of God, we are supposed to believe angels aren't of the race of men.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Ahab]

So although angels look like men, act like men, talk like men, and are even called men by a prophet of God, we are supposed to believe angels aren't of the race as men.

Sheesh! No! Why would you believe that???

Now tell him what he should believe, Bobbie!