A question about the Christian theory of creation

[Terra Nullius]

Seems like the idea of creatio ex nihilo is not based on scripture or philosophy, but doctrine. And that doctrine seems to have ben developed mainly as a reaction to ancient heresies such as dualism. I'm not sure it holds any great importance in today's Church.

The only stuff I could find about current Church teaching on creation emphasises that creation is above all an act of revelation. That act of revelation is constantly occurring, not limited to some unique point of time in the past. Also, God is logically distinct from the created world, and did not create the world out of some part or potential of Himself. I really couldn't find anything that stated ex nihilo creation as being of fundamental importance.

The early Greeks tended to view the world as flowing by necessity out of some basic raw material.

I think it's anachronistic to read ex nihilo doctrine into Genesis. I also think it's somewhat anachronistic to read that doctrine into John 1:1 - 5.

I'll admit, by the time of John's Gospel, Christians were probably starting to develop an idea of creation from nothing. But it seems more like an idea that developed gradually over the 2nd to 5th centuries. The philosophical framework simply didn't exist at that time to make sense of the idea that the universe came from nothing. John's Gospel was written for a largely hellenist audience and goes to some effort to portray the story of Christ in a way that makes sense to it's audience.

Creatio ex nihilo really wasn't incorporated into a coherent cosmology until St Thomas came along with the idea of an act-of-existence.
Wow! I even made that sound like it wasn't just pulled out of my butt!

[threadjack]At the same time, the Judaeo-Christian tradition has never really been tied to any one specific philosophy. Starting off as a local tribal cult, it gradaully refined the ideas behind strict monotheism. Early Christianity had to deal with both the hebrew and the hellenistic world-views. It's really only in the past few hundred years that Christianity has hitched it's cart quite so staunchly to one particular philosophy.

The basic revelations of Christianity should probably not be tightly dependent on any particular cosmology.

I wonder just how much the Thomist world-view is necessary to the Church?
[/threadjack]

So yeah, creatio ex nihilo:
Not explicitly supported by Genesis or other scripture.
Not a logical requirement in understanding the cosmology of creation.
Principally developed as a doctrinal refutation of some early heresies.

So my basic question remains:
To what extent is the idea of ex nihilo creation really necessary to Christianity?

[Ben Kenobi]

Tatian became the "first Christian theologian known to us who expressly advanced the proposition that matter was produced by God" . Following on his heels, Theophilus of Antioch asserted it more forcefully: "God has created everything out of nothing into being." While Theophilus commended Plato's belief that God is uncreated, he disagreed with the notion that matter existed co-eternally with him, which would make matter equal to him: "But the power of God is manifested in this, that out of things that are not He makes whatever He pleases." With Irenaeus, the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was well established. He also argued that the world was not coeternal with God:

Irenaeus is very early in the church, well before St. Aquinas. Everything he said here is basically what I have said, and precisely the point that I am trying to make, why we cannot have matter co-eternal from God. Then there is the other matter of the verse:

"Through him all things were made."

Again, it makes sense that God brought forth the world from himself his Word, who is Christ.

The answer to your question, which was 'what do Christians believe about creation' need not be based solely on what scripture says, but ought also rely upon the church fathers who have the same books we do, but have also considered these same issues thoroughly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Seems like the idea of creatio ex nihilo is not based on scripture or philosophy, but doctrine. And that doctrine seems to have ben developed mainly as a reaction to ancient heresies such as dualism. I'm not sure it holds any great importance in today's Church.

Seems Irenaeus must be considering philosophy if he is rejecting the teachings of Plato. I see no reason to dismiss an idea as 'doctrine' when this is precisely the issue at hand. The question was, what do Christians believe, and thus doctrine is perhaps the essence of your answer. The reaction isn't against dualism as you have earlier quoted, but rather against the Greek notion that you are bringing up here, of matter and the universe being coeternal with God.

As for Creatio ex nihilo not being explicitly stated in scripture, one could also say that about the Trinity. There is nothing in scripture that contradicts creatio ex nihilo, and the idea makes sense because of the Christian concept of an eternal God.

The only stuff I could find about current Church teaching on creation emphasises that creation is above all an act of revelation. That act of revelation is constantly occurring, not limited to some unique point of time in the past.

What constitutes 'current Church teaching?' It's a very curious term. Why should the teachings of previous years not apply to the church of today?

Also, God is logically distinct from the created world, and did not create the world out of some part or potential of Himself. I really couldn't find anything that stated ex nihilo creation as being of fundamental importance.

You should be reading your own sources. Where do any of these Christians assert that God is logically distinct from the created world? Is this because there cannot be any interaction between the natural and the supernatural? That's an enlightenment notion, and contrary to what Christians believe.

I think it's anachronistic to read ex nihilo doctrine into Genesis. I also think it's somewhat anachronistic to read that doctrine into John 1:1 - 5.

Anachronistic? Well lets look at it this way.

When did Plato write? When did Socrates write? They wrote several centuries before the Gospels were written. The Greeks are not the only source of knowledge in the western world, you also have the Hebrews, and their strange concept of a monotheist God. This is the tradition that the Christians are drawing from when John writes this in his first Gospel, as you see the parallels with Genesis 1.

I'll admit, by the time of John's Gospel, Christians were probably starting to develop an idea of creation from nothing. But it seems more like an idea that developed gradually over the 2nd to 5th centuries. The philosophical framework simply didn't exist at that time to make sense of the idea that the universe came from nothing.

That's a rather arrogant presumption. Why did this framework not exist? As far as I can tell, all of the old issues were debated then as we see in Irenaeus, the framework existed at least since the time of the Greeks.

It's really only in the past few hundred years that Christianity has hitched it's cart quite so staunchly to one particular philosophy.

Uh, well read your sources again. You are quoting creatio ex nihilo from the second century.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
precisely the point that I am trying to make, why we cannot have matter co-eternal from God.

We cannot have matter co-eternal from God??

Aquinas doesn't seem to think so.

For the world to be created it is not necessary that God precede the world in time. Rather, He must precede it in power.

As you say, Iraneus preceded Aquinas by quite some time. If anything, that just adds to my argument that we are dealing with a concept which was developed and clarified over time.

Iraneus makes the assertion that:
If matter is co-eternal with God, it must be equal to God.

Aquinas later shows that this is not so. Iraneus was wrong in logic, even if he was correct in 'fact.' (By 'fact' I mean he correctly expressed the Church's view.)

It seems to me that Iraneus was struggling with the concept. He was trying to express something which he perhaps only vaguely understood and took to be true as a matter of faith. He certainly did not point to some ready-made coherent philosophical system and demonstrate a logical proof.

Well, OK he did try to offer a logical proof... and he was wrong.

We can have matter co-eternal with God. In fact, we do not (according to the Roman Church doctrine).

"Through him all things were made."

Again, it makes sense that God brought forth the world from himself his Word, who is Christ.

To whom? You?

Of course it does. If you look back to that text with a modern world-view, it makes perfect sense.

In terms of the author's deliberate intent, the Logos was probably employed more as a device to make the Gospel intelligible to a hellenistic audience. Hence the appeal to hellenist terms and beliefs - beliefs which did not include a beginning and end of time.

Nowhere does the text make explicit the idea that the universe was created in time.

Personally, I think the author had a certain intimation, a developing idea, of creatio ex nihilo. I do not think it was a fully formed concept at that stage.

Heck, if Iraneus was still getting the logic wrong, how many other people really understood the idea?

The answer to your question ... need not be based solely on what scripture says

Certainly.

Church tradion and doctrine is an important part of Christianity.

But creation ex nihilo is based on doctrine, not scripture.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Uh, well read your sources again. You are quoting creatio ex nihilo from the second century.

Precisley.

That's the earliest mention of the doctrine. So it's extremely unlikely that the writers of Genesis even considered the notion. It's possible that John 1:1-5 points to a developing idea, but the first mention of ex nihilo creation in't recorded until some time later.

And just because people were talking about it doesn't mean they understood it. People were talking about lightning for a looong time before Maxwell came along.

Why did this framework not exist? As far as I can tell, all of the old issues were debated then as we see in Irenaeus, the framework existed at least since the time of the Greeks.

No. The framework did not exist.

Classical philosophy did not deal with the idea of beginning and end times.

Hence the need for Iraneus and others to make doctrinal statements. There was no coherent philosophical system at the time which made good sense of the idea.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it (at least until Aggie comes along and gives me the chance to call him a sheep-shagger again).

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You should be reading your own sources. Where do any of these Christians assert that God is logically distinct from the created world?

It is the Church's official teaching that God created the whole world, spiritual as well as material realities (against all forms of dualism, Gnosticism and Manichaeism especially); that the world is distinct from God (against Pantheism); that God created the world in freedom, to manifest divine goodness and glory. All created things, therefore, are good. Indeed, they have their own rightful autonomy and are not simply means to some spiritual end.

This teaching is contained in the documents of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Council of Florence's Decree for the Jacobites (1442), the First Vatican Council's [i]Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith[i/], the encyclical letter of Pope Pius XII, [i]Humani Generis[i/] (1950), and the Second Vatican Council's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (1965). The last document is especially important because it underscores the autonomy of the created order and draws out the principal practical implication of such autonomy, namely, "if methodical research in any branch of learning is carried out in a truly scientific manner,.. it will never really conflict with the faith, because both secular things and the realities of faith derive from the same God..." (n.36).

Richard P. McBrien - Catholicism
CollinsDove (1994)

Note:
Earlier you suggested that aneeshm's option (b) was the more accurate of the two ideas suggested in the OP.
This is not the case.
Although it might not have been explicit in his post, he implied that God created the world out of some pre-existing potential or part of himself.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What constitutes 'current Church teaching?' It's a very curious term. Why should the teachings of previous years not apply to the church of today?

Why should earlier teachings not apply today?

Well for one, there's this:

Declaration on Religious Freedom

Although it is hardly a milestone in the history of the world (the principle of religious liberty had long since been recognised and defended by others inside and outside the Church), the declaration was a major event in the history of the Catholic Church and of the Second Vatican Council. It was by far the most controversial document produced by the council, because it raised in a special way the underlying question of doctrinal development. In light of so many seemingly unequivocal condemnations of the principle of religious freedom in earlier papal documents, how could the Church now turn around and endorse the principle? The distance between Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors (1864) and Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom (1965) is more than chronological. They inhabit two different theological universes.

ibid.

But in a more general sense, try this one for size,..

There is a greater respect today for the historical context of dogmatic pronouncements. Fundamentalism in the interpretation of dogma is no less objectionable than fundamentalism in the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Mysterium Ecclesiae, a 1973 declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Holy Office, and, before that, the Inquisition), acknowledged in principle the historical conditioning of dogma.
Not only do the mysteries of faith transcend the powers of the human intellect, the document declared, but the very expressions of revelation are historically conditioned and therefore their meaning is not always self-evident to those in some other historical setting.
The meaning of dogmatic language may change from one historical period to another. The truth itself may be expressed incompletely (even if not falsely). The original dogmatic teaching may have been directed at specific questions or certain errors, and these may not be the same questions or errors at issue in some later period of the Church's history. Furthermore the dogmatic formulae themselves inevitably bear the marks of the philosophical and theological universe in which they were first constructed. The formulae may not always be the most suitable for every time and place. Indeed they must sometimes give way to new expressions which present the same meaning more clearly and more completely. At the same time, of course, Mysterium Ecclesiae rejects the Modernist notion that a dogma can never express Christian truth in a determinate way.

ibid.