Creatio Ex Nihilo

The below is the beginnings of a blog entry started several months ago. I never posted it because as I read and thought more it seemed that my thoughts were reperesented in extant literature. I am posting this incomplete entry so that you may see some of my thoughts. My present conclusion is that the love of Jesus is creative and sustaining. Since I believe that love is eternal ("the ground of all being"  as established in discussion between Bill, the Wesleyan and Al, the Taoist)
and all things come subsequent to and by Jesus, I suppose I don't really believe in creatio ex nihilo. Yet I, think I still hold onto the notion that God can do what God will do.

Incomplete post follows:

I had started a point by point commentary on some conclusions of a discussion held over three years ago. I have abandoned it but will share what I had done so far.

I just came across the following while trying to do a little catching up on some subjects that interest me: http://www.crivoice.org/exnihilo.html. The link records two "... lists represent[ing] the main ideas proposed in a panel debate/discussion at the Wesleyan Philosophical Society meeting, Duke University, March, 2008." The author of the lists, Dr. Oord  (http://thomasjayoord.com/) , is a professor at Northwest Nazarene University where I studied. (Online that is.) Dr. Oord had pointed out that he and I may think alike. That may be so but I don't pretend to have put in but a small fraction of the thought and work he has on this subject but I have spent a little time considering the problems of reconciling the perceived dichotomy of God's sovereignty and human free will. I think that issue lies at the heart of the subjects of the lists: "Nine Problems with Creatio Ex Nihilo" and "Twelve Advantages to Creation out of Chaosmos". You will have to refer to the original article to know what my "Twenty-one Reasons I Think God May Have Created Something" is addressing. I will key my reasons with the numbering of the original article: One through nine and one through twelve.

1. In my opinion, what can not be conceived by the mind of man can be revealed by the activity of God. There is a theory that God can do absolutely anything. Every one I have asked about this problem says they can conceive of it. There is an apologetic for the existence of God that postulates conception of the notion of God as evidence of God's existence. I don't know of anyone who thinks that is very sound reasoning. It would seem that inconceivability is no better evidence of non-existence especially when someone claims to conceive of the inconceivable.

2. It seems to me that this suggestion involves a bit of interpretation. If one has ruled out the possibility of nothingness then one would expect scripture not to suggest nothingness. Scripture suggests to me that there is that which exists before the beginning. I think of that as being not water, deep, or chaos. I term that God. That God's creation somehow issues from God seems to me a biblically sound notion. Dr. Bratcher's article talks about the case against seeing a dichotomy between what are sometimes termed matter and spirit but I am not convinced that there is not an important distinction between creator and created that remains unsettled (at least in my mind.) More on this later.

3. The local Methodist pastor thought me enough of a Wesleyan to fill in for him at a bible study but I certainly don't have any real authority in that regard but I wonder if Arminius' statement explicitly limiting God's sovereignty is ever uncategorically endorsed by Wesley. I think a decision to limit oneself does not reduce one's power but merely exercises it.
4. Does faith require empirical evidence? Even from a legal standpoint some things are established on the basis of testimony.
5. The issue is not really emergence but creation. If creation occured in the absence of anything then there would be no empirical evidence.

6. I think that orthodox notions of God never purport solitary power. The concept of Trinity may obliterate a notoin of solitariness in the activity of God.
7. What God has the power to do and what he does may be very different things.

8. Some say that sin is the cause of all evil. To say that God is culpable for evil will probably get you drummed out of many Christian gatherings but to say that God temporarily allows evil might be acceptable in the same gathering. Laying the call of culpability aside to the category of "not my job" for now, I would say that a major point of Jesus' crucifixion is God taking responsibility for sin.

9. I think this may be an inference not entirely implied by the notion. As long as I had not considered the possibility of a limited God, I didn't perceive God as a heartless tyrant. Just because someone has absolute power does not mean they will impose control on others. Whether God creates from nothing or just makes up a recipe for the materials at hand, my faith is that God is good. More on that later.

1. See 1. above.

2. The idea of a "biblical notion" is in some ways in the mind of the beholder.  I can easily say that the "long ago" of 2 Peter 3:4-5 (NIV)  (^"They [scoffers] will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”  But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.) is after "the beginning of creation." Consequentially God may have created the water from which he formed the earth. Doesn't the whole discussion in some way circumvent the assertion of God as first cause?

...