Thanks for the post. I would love a follow-up post that engages theologians like Aquinas and Augustine on the topic of creatio ex nihilo. Since the tradition/Bible distinction didn’t really get going until the Reformation, I worry when this distinction is hauled out against the long consensus of pre-Reformation theologians. Augustine and Aquinas certainly never thought they were doing anything other than interpreting Scripture. And Lord knows Augustine knew his Scripture! I doubt there’s ever been a text more suffused with biblical citations and allusions than his Confessions, and who else comes to mind who preached five huge volumes of sermons on the Psalms alone? To put the concern differently, I doubt very seriously that one can both affirm that the doctrine has tradition on its side and deny that the doctrine has any strong basis in Scripture.

Also, it would be interesting to see you reflect on the work of particular contemporary interpreters of the doctrine. I have in mind first and foremost the late Dominican theologian Herbert McCabe (see esp. his “God Matters”, and there esp. part one), but also Rowan Williams (see scattered reflections in “On Christian Theology”). In these contemporary theologians’ work, I think you’ll find a position that evades many, perhaps all, of the difficulties you enumerated in your post.

Tom:

Thanks for inviting me to comment. I hope to be constructive. While I share some of your concern over the Biblical and philosophical arguments for creatio ex nihilo, I don’t share your reasoning:

1. What do you do with the possibility that, while beyond our conception, absolute nothingness may have actually been? Our conception doesn’t limit historical reality, does it?

2. You’re committing the genetic fallacy: rejecting an idea on the basis of its origin, rather than on its merits alone.

3. To the contrary: there’s plenty of evidence, even if much of it is theoretical and philosophical. Scientists and theologians agree that the universe had a beginning…so, prior to it existing, it had to not exist.

4. First, what kind of evidence would you expect to find if something WERE created out of nothing? Second, you’re not answering the question, but pushing it further back. Is the universe eternal, or did it come to be at some point?

5. Power is the ability to do work. There’s no implication in the word that a social component is required…it appears you’re imposing your own meaning on the word.

6. Let’s turn this around for clarity: you seem to be saying that because clear revelation doesn’t exist (your words, not mine), God lacks the ability to create from nothing? Non sequitur.

7. I agree with the general principle that a powerful God would be responsible for not preventing evil (if culpable, I’m not sure to whom He would report)...but your presumption is that God would not allow evil at all. Without more evidence, I’m not sure we can draw such a conclusion. Non sequitur.

8. On what basis do you reject this idea…is it because you don’t like it, or because you have evidence that it’s incorrect?

9. On this we agree.

I’d like to add another point of contention. Let’s suppose for a moment that God DID indeed simply order the existing chaos at the beginning of our universe. You seem to be suggesting that this is evidence that God COULD NOT create from nothing. It’s not. If I take a vacation to Seattle, that doesn’t mean that I couldn’t have just as easily gone to Phoenix…does it? What God DID is not necessarily an indication of the extent of His ABILITY.

I don’t mean to be harsh or unnecessarily argumentative, Tom. I look forward to hearing more from you, especially in response to the kinds of questions I’ve raised above. I’m not done learning, and I’m sure you have much to teach me. =)

Tom,

I look forward to your forthcoming essay. You may address my concern in it, so feel free to say “just wait”, but if we say God created out of something doesn’t that require that something to be eternal as He is eternal? What are you willing to say is eternal with Him other than Himself?

I have a feeling you gave a glimpse of your answer in the title of the next essay but I still wanted to ask. Thanks,

-Dan

My main question, then, is more a theological one, Tom: Was there a time when all there was was God?  Some Jewish commentaries of Gen. 1:1 understand it to be something like this: “Before there was anything else, there was God; then God spoke.”  This, of course, is an “ex nihilo” account.  However, what about the ancient creedal statements regarding “before there was anything, there was God.”  I believe one can affirm the idea of a God who precedes all other things without a specific ex nihilo reading of Gen. 1; however, I don’t see you addressing that question, and I’d like your take on it.

Finally (for here), the two statements that address the problems with a God who is able to create ex nihilo yet doesn’t stop evil are not convincing to me.  What about the Trinitarian model of a God who is perfect community who wishes to take a risk to reproduce this perfect community by creating?  The risks involved CAN (and do for many) address the problem of evil while still positing a God with the power to create ex nihilo.  Again, I like many of your comments, but I don’t see these two things addressed, and they are historically significant concerns.  Blessings! ~ Charles

Tom, as usual your thoughts are cogent and worth pondering.

I wonder if there is a middle ground between the extremes of creatio ex nihilo and creation from chaos. My problems with creation from chaos, as I understand the idea, is:
-Chaos seems to become the default reality. Chaos is the natural state of all things. This seems to suggest that we are not ultimately the creation of God but are God’s ordering of a chaotic primordial state or substance. We are, most basically, chaos given order.

-This also seems to smack of dualism. If God is in an eternal “battle” with chaos, how is this different from other forms of dualism in which God eternally battles evil in one form or another?

-While I think the problem of evil’s origin may be solved with creation out of chaos… the problem of evil’s exodus is glaring!

I wont offer my underdeveloped theory here but I think there is a third way in which we can see God as creator in the fullest sense and yet still affirm that chaos is a necessary element of the creation.

OK Tom,

Let’s say after 10 years your starting to win me over on this one.

let’s say to summarize some key points of your of your argument (maybe some previous discussions we have had on the same subject mixed in)

God is by nature both relational and creative.

If he created out pre existant matter, He would have had to created the pre existant matter which he created from pre existant matter and so on creating a sort of ‘creation loop’

where i get lost is humanity and as we know it is relatively young even by the longest estimates.

My current understanding of God’s nature is so relational that i have trouble with the notion that God would have created over and over again with out also creating community/love capable live prior to us.

then my mind starts really spinning could heaven already be populated?

maybe it sounds crazy but it seems the natural next step

If not creation ex nihilo, then creation from what?  If ordering of chaos, from whence cometh the chaos? 

Also, regarding the power of God over against the power of evil, you seem to imply that God must not be able to overcome the power of evil—otherwise, God is culpable for not doing such.  Are you suggesting that there is some other—some power—outside of God that limit’s God’s power?

Please forgive my spelling everyone.

Man it must have been torture reading my papers in my pre- secretary years

Hi Tom,

I only recently started following the blog and I’m lovin’ it! Thank You.

I love theology.

(Okay, love is a strong word there but my D.S. may read this blog and I’ll take the brownie points whenever I can get ‘em – Go Yankees!)

That being said, in order to cling to my passion for theology I need it to translate into action and real life so here’s my question.

What does all this do for Meth Addicts?

I tell our people everyday that by fully submitting to God’s loving strength they can conquer Meth, which tends to be just one particularly nasty bit of chaos in their lives. Sadly, more often than not they fail that battle. 

Are we saying God is limited in dealing with chaos in general, or is he only limited when dealing with pre-creation chaos? If those limits exist at all are they self-imposed by God, which would seemingly only make him stronger, or is he unable to fully remove chaos?

(Yikes, that has the potential to mess with traditional Naz theology.)

Sorry if I stepped outside of the scope of the post. Thanks again.

Grace and Peace, Dan

Tom, I think we are so trapped in our limited, finite, physical thinking that we do not/cannot understand God. He is spiritual. He exists in a different state of being. We have no way of understanding Him outside of His explanations of of Himself expressed in our finite language, with our physical terms, and concepts. That is one reason why Jesus is so important to us.

I think it is absurd for us to make speculations about the spiritual realm unless we can form them from what He has told us. The word “nothing” has no meaning in the spiritual. What was created just did not exist before. It is that simple. Romans 4:17, and Hebrew 11:3 gives us a little insight to God’s perspective.

The whole world has a physical picture of God, including the old philosophers, which we seem to revere, but the spiritual and physical are completely different states of being. Contemporary Christian theology has not corrected that either. God is just the big man upstairs. The spiritual is beyond our comprehension. We need to understand that part, at least, and let His word help us understand Him and His heart toward His creation.

Jack

Charles,
The position that “before there was anything, there was God”, reminds me of the mystical Jewish concept (picked up by Moltmann) called zimsum. This is the idea before there was anything, there was God, which means that in order for something non-God (something finite) to exist, God would have to withdrawn unto God’s self, making room for the finite. While this is a very sophisticated position, it does not help us with two key issues: theodicy, and “out of nothing comes nothing” (ex nihil, nihil fit).

Lori,
I appreciate your questions - “If ordering of chaos, from whence cometh the chaos?” In response to your question, I pose a parallel question “If creation/ordering by God, from whence cometh God?” In both cases, God and chaos have no beginnings. The same logic/faith that is applied to a God with no beginning, is the same logic/faith that is applied to a chaos with no beginning.

Tom, you are raising some good critiques of the tradition that I believe do need to be addressed.  I think we need to examine further some of the unintended implications of traditional ways of speaking about creation.  Like many who have already posted, I do not agree with all of your critiques.  Also, Charlie Collier mentioned a few contemporary theologians whose articulations of the doctrine are not guilty of many if any of your critiques.  In my own dissertation I too tried to develop a language for talking about creation out of nothing that avoids your critiques.  I welcome anyone’s thoughts on whether I was successful or not.  See “Using ‘Chaos’ in Articulating the Relationship of God and Creation in God’s Creative Activity” at http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/5/

I enjoyed reading this blog. The idea of creatio ex nihilo raises questions in my mind as to why, if God is all powerful and did create the universe from nothing did he create evil and other negative factors? Does God allow calamity to grow perseverance? Also, where did God come from if nothing was there? In my personal faith I strongly believe that God is all powerful and all knowing, but I now question in a sense creation, because of the arguments posted.

Good stuff! I eagerly await your alternative.

As theists, problem one seems to remain an insurmountable problem. If we accept the idea of an eternal/infinite God then absolute nothingness is very much impossible to conceive.

Reguarding the question of creation out of what, that many have already raised, I am guessing that we may see an alternative that proposes that God has created out of Himself, maybe God created out His nature, will, desire, or even His Love.

Y’all,

Thanks for your helpful comments!  I’m posting my follow-up blog, which has my alternative theory.  Your comments helped me fine-tune my arguments.  Thanks!

Tom

Hey, TJ,

I responded to and linked to your post on creation ex nihilo. You brought up some very good points.

Rod
http://politicaljesus.com/

Creatio Ex Nihilo:  “No Problem”

To believe that God created the heavens, the earth, and every living thing is an act of faith.  We have no proof that God created it, we only know that it exists.  Whether God created this world   from absolutely nothing or by organizing chaos is of little consequence.  But to accept the idea that God created the universe yet limit our belief in His creating ability to what we can explain or understand is absurd.  How can you so easily accept the notion that God can create all the intricacies of this world only if it is prefaced with the idea that it was created out of something?  Christians should not reject the idea that God created the universe from absolutely nothing…unless His Word rejects the idea.  But this would seem to place the authority of God’s Word above man’s wisdom.  Can we do that?  Well, Proverbs 3:5 says “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.”  It would seem that God wants us to trust Him, by trusting in His Word.

Now we are getting to the crux of all the questions being raised.  Can we trust a God who allows evil in this world when He could have created a world without evil?  Or was He just powerful enough to set this world in motion but is powerless to control it?  The implication seems to be that God is either responsible for evil or not powerful enough to stop it.  Maybe it is because He gave us all free choice to either choose Him or allow the consequences of sin to be carried out.  If He created us to glorify Him, to honor, love and serve Him it would mean very little to Him if we couldn’t choose an alternative.  That alternative is separation from God, sin, evil, and it has consequences.  If we ignore the law of gravity and get hurt should we blame God?  Maybe He should have made us with bodies that can’t be broken, not susceptible to disease and able to live forever.  Oh, yea, He does have a plan for that…for those who trust in Him and His Word.

How do we know if any part of God’s Word is true?  Considering the assets and liabilities of a Biblical concept is the wrong approach.  Truth is not proven on the basis of its assets and liabilities.  It is not based on what feels right or what the majority considers to be Truth.  What is True is True even if not one person believes it to be True.  What about all those miracles?  Should we consider the assets and liabilities of them to decide if they were real or fictitious?  How could we prove them?

The real problem is how we view God’s Word.  Once you start doubting God’s Word and deny that it is inerrant, where do you draw the line?  Do you draw the line at the “creation story”, the “virgin birth”,  the “miracles”, or maybe the “resurrection”?  Once you decide that you can not trust God’s Word is in fact God’s words, you end up with man trying to dissect and prove each and every aspect of the Bible through man’s infinite wisdom and deciding what to keep and what to throw out.  Oh, but then you would have to throw out that whole Proverbs verse above.  I am not that smart so I tend to just believe God’s Word is His Word and it is inerrant.  Now I can learn about God by reading His Word.  I don’t have to guess which parts to believe, I can safely believe it all.  If it says God created…then He did, period. 

Colossians 2:8

But doesn’t scriptures say that God spoke and then there was his creation? Doesn’t that imply that there was nothing before God spoke?

Also, I don’t quite see how your 9 reasons are so solid that you don’t have any more evidence for it. I would be interested to see more support for the statements.

@Wm. Andrew Schwartz

You say “...whence cometh God?”  For those who view God as non-temporal, this is not an issue.  I think the problem of “How did God create out of nothing?” stems from the perception of God as pan-temporal.  Maybe this presupposition is wrong?  Those who view time as part of creation are more easily able to explain creation from nothing.  I admit, it still has difficulties with an all-powerful God allowing genuine evil.  However, this seems to me to be an almost separate, distinct, issue.

I have a hard time grasping the concept that the world came from nothing as well. But I do think that this is just one of those things that we will not know or understand until God allows us to know. I do think that something must have been here first though. It is hard when you believe what the Bible says, but somethings are contradicting. Like I said though, when God is ready to let us know, he will.

Genesis 1:1 tells us what God did. The rest of the chapter gives some details on the order in which He did it. The text does not tell us that God created the primordial waters. The narrative begins with the Spirit of God hovering over them. God then begins His acts of creation, or bringing order out of chaos. Creation ex nihilo may be true, but that’s not what this story is about. In any case, the essay above could open the door to somewhat of a panentheistic view of God—i.e., the cosmos is IN God, even if that means the “energies” as opposed to the essence of God(to borrow from the Eastern fathers). Thus, the primordial waters are not so much the waters of chaos as a metaphor for the divine energies from which an ordered cosmos evolved.

The fundamental fallacy above, is that you assume that being exists beyond God. This has the consequence of making God a part of the natural order as opposed to above and outside of the natural order.

If you conceive of God as being ontologically beyond nature, then your issues are solved.

To understand this most basic and crucial starting point in theology one should consult Van Til “defense of the faith”

Was it a supernatural event?  The Wisdom of Solomon speaks of almighty hand of God, who created the cosmos out of formless matter.

A God, who is omnipotence and uses the nature of creative process to form the invisible to be visible to the human eye. God’s creative power is seen in the world in which we live and breathe, as we care for the animals and the earth. God brought human beings out of non-beings.

Through the sovereign creative act of God that was not there to begin with, God spoke forth creation. God creates everything that has being (formless matter into something).

How can something that was not there come into being? Or was it a change in something that was already there? Maybe it is a mind over matter issue.  It could be a place and time, where thoughts have the effect to change realities. Did not God speak things into being?

As human beings we can be very creative, but we require materials to build things. Inventors start with the idea or concept, write it done on paper, come up with proposed theories, design and test it, and refine or fine tune before it comes into being.

In scientific terms: matter cannot be destroyed or created but it can be converted from liquid to gas; atoms can be mixed with molecules and split into their different parts; but matter cannot be created from nothingness. So as human beings it is hard to see God creating everything from nothing but God is not natural. God is supernatural.

I believe that God brought (and continues to) bring order and form to the substance that had no order or even beauty to it. It that is the case it might help in how evil was present before creation.

I must confess that I am split on agreement with your arguments and those of Tony Scialdone. The idea that absolute nothingness cannot be conceived does not make it impossible, just that we cannot explain it.  I have a very difficult time conceiving eternity, yet God tells us it is.  I am also baffled by the argument of evil. Why does God have to be less than God or take the blame?  Jesus did not heal all the people at the Pool of Bethsaida, just the one man of which we are told.  Does that make Jesus evil because He walked away from all that pain and suffering?  Are we as parents evil when we do not do all in our power to eliminate all the pain and suffering that come into the lives of our children?  If we did that, we would raise some very dysfunctional adults.  There is a great deal of evil in this world, agreed, but why should we lay the blame for it at the doorstep of God?  If we say God should remove some of the suffering, where is the line drawn?
-Even in Scripture, Genesis 1:1 says,“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Verse 2 then talks about the deep and the formless void depending on your version.  I will confess I do not have your time or experience in this study, but even if we use the big bang, this version still allows for God to create out of nothing, and for the “primordial soup” to be present as the “face of the deep” for the Spirit of God to hover over.  For me, the jury is still out, but I lean toward, creation “ex nihilo.” That is my vote.

Tom, several of these ideas have been running through my mind this week as we have been doing our reading in Clayton’s book. As I mentioned in class, specifically the idea “absolute nothing” makes zero sense in light of the also orthodox belief in an infinite God, and specifically the problem of evil- a God that exerts the kind of power and control necessary to create “out of nothing” is culpable for evil. I do want to address one issue that Tony Scialdone brings up, namely point 5. He says that power is the ability to do work, and is not a social concept. I actually can agree, it is not necessary for it to be understood as a purely “social” concept- but it does have to be understood as a “relational” concept as you point out. What is being “worked” on? If the answer is nothing, than no work exists- which goes right to ex nihil, nihil fit

Guilty as charged! I have always been a believer in creatio ex nihilo because I was raised in an environment where it was the consensus of church teaching on that aspect of creation. However, you’ve set out a number of explanations that raise some doubt on that tradition. I suppose most convincing that the Bible seems to suggest in Genesis and 2 Peter, “creation out of something (water, deep, chaos, invisible things, etc.), not creation from absolutely nothing.”  I think this insight needs to be further explored as what the Bible says ought to be the guiding principle in this debate.
  I would have liked a bit more clarification why you felt the problem of evil was greatly impacted by this particular issue. It seems to me that the problem of evil would remain as troublesome whether one embraced creatio ex nihilo or what you describe as “creatio ex creare en amore- God creating out of creation in love.”

I understand the problems that you have listed here.  However, I’m not sure that I understand the alternative doctrine that you are suggesting we should adopt.  I find a fundamental problem with the concept of creation out of something and it is this: where did the something come from.  I know that it is difficult for us to conceive of creation out of nothing, but the philosophical problem of not accepting this doctrine is that suddenly creation only answers part of the question regarding origins.  It may answer the origin of “the heavens and the earth” but there was something before it and where did that come from.  “It just was” has never been enough for the human race.  This is the reason we have pursued scientific theories and theological constructs so rigorously to begin with and that is what has brought us to this particular discussion.  Therefore, you have torn down a theory or theology without, as near as I can tell, a viable explanation to replace it.

The concept of coming from something begs the question of, “what?”  What was the material that existed and where did it come from?  The posting above pulls terms from Scripture to answer this question: water, the deep, etc.  Yet even here we can ask, “Where did these come from?”  To pull from Clayton’s discussion, we have evaluated the concept of God as infinite and found it to hold merit.  We also, from above, have acceptance that God created everything in the world.  So the question becomes, did the creation arise from God pulling together molecules and atoms from pre-existing materials? Did He pull together material from chaos?  Suppose we say the Chaos was within the infinite.  The creation would then be from within God’s Godself.  If God can be all things, can God also contain nothing?  If God is a God of order, does He also represent disorder.

Many of these arguments against creatio ex nihilo point to the idea that if God were powerful enough to create something from nothing, then [fill in the blank].  Yet, this pre-supposes that the limits on God are something that He could not have chosen otherwise, if He had created out of something. 
When you say, “The God with the capacity to create something from absolutely nothing would apparently have the power to guarantee an unambiguous and inerrant message of salvation (e.g, inerrant Bible).  An unambiguously clear and inerrant divine revelation does not exist” I don’t see how it necessarily follows that He would be any more likely to super-cede our human agency having created us out of nothing than if He had created us from something.  In either case, He has chosen to work in and through us - giving us free agency - journeying with us and relating and responding to our choices.  Using this argument implies that if God had created us out of something, He would not have the power to intervene by producing an inerrant divine revelation.  This seems to be an arbitrarily assigned distinction.

Tom,
Yea, we have finally found a common ground to agree on. I have always held doubt about the idea of “nothing”. You have some very compelling arguments to support the fact that nothing can be created out of nothing. It is like trying to make a sum out of zero plus zero.  It will never equal anything but zero. I think it would be fascinating to see what the void looked like that God created everything out of but this side of heaven, we will never find that answer. I especially appreciate the way you handle this argument biblically. I have often wondered how people get out of Genesis that there was absolutely nothing to begin with. I would agree with you that ex nihilo is not biblical. None of this changes the fact that Regardless of how we believe it happened it takes faith to believe it even could happen.  I think we would all agree upon that however.

I also like something one of the guts you quoted says:  “Terrence Fretheim: “God’s creating in Genesis 1…includes ordering that which already exists…. God works creatively with already existing reality to bring about newness.”

God working with reality to create newness kind of summarizes our entire conversation about emergence up to this point.

Thanks for the blog and the thoughts.

At the first thought of “creatio ex nihilo” the idea that God created the universe out of nothing, it seems absurd. There must have been something there for him to work with, right?

However, it’s very difficult for me to deny “creatio ex nihilo” simply because in my understanding of God this is not by any means impossible for him to do. If we are to say that there was something there, what was it? And where did it come from? We say that God is eternal with no beginning or end but surely there must be a source from which this “thing” came from that was there already. I understand that there is no biblical proof that the universe was created out of nothing, but there also isn’t any proof that something was already there.

I am persuaded to believe that all things originate from God and he alone was, is and always will be.

I was happy to have an easier essay to read about a topic I haven’t heard of before.  I agree there are problems with creation ex nihilo.  My first problem is connecting the significance of creation ex nihilo and its application to salvation.  I continually seek to keep my focus on the majors and not the minors.  I see salvation for the lost a major priority, so we need to get going and present the Gospel to them.

I do reject creation ex nihilo from the basis of Scripture.  Genesis doesn’t give the detail to understand how God created.  I do believe God is God and if He chose to create something out of nothing, He would.  I do agree that Scripture is foundational over tradition, experience, and reason.  This is Wesley’s emphasis with good reason.  It was one of the major issues Jesus took up with the religious leaders (Matthew 15). 

I am having difficulty with errant revelation and the evil problem being significant based on the support given.  I think it is a stretch to make the connection between the capability of creating something out of nothing and the power to guarantee unambiguous and inerrant message of salvation.  More importantly, we are in big trouble if the message of salvation is errant.  For the evil problem, my thought as I was reading was 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 and the fact that the world sees wisdom and foolishness differently than God does.  It sounds like we are assuming that God planned to stop genuine evil.

I do appreciate the essay and agree with the overall premise and I think that is the most important part of this post.

Professor Oord wrote: 7. Evil problem: If God once had the power to create from absolutely nothing, God essentially retains that power.  But a God of love with this capacity is culpable for failing to use it periodically to prevent genuine evil.
While I reading your blog and this particular point I began to think about evil a little more than perhaps in the past. As I was reflecting on evil, I asked myself if I really understood evil the way God would understand evil. Quite possibly my idea of evil in comparison to God’s idea of evil is not the same. In fact they might not even be close or even in the same ball park so to speak. I think of evil being something that can destroy the world where God might think of evil being an outside force destroying all of creation which includes humanity. This is why it’s hard for me to think that God didn’t create off of this from nothing. I know my way of thinking has no merit or proof other than something inside me thinks this way. Our idea of evil through free will may be different than the evil God has seen and will continue to see. Of course I’m thinking more in the spiritual realm of evil which is what I believe to be different than humanities evil.
Dan Kraynek

I have to admit that the beginning of your post put me in a defensive posture -

“I believe God created the heavens, the earth, and every living thing. But I think Christians should reject the idea that God created the universe from absolutely nothing.”

I am one of those Christians who never seriously considered the ‘assets’ and ‘liabilities’ of creatio ex nihilo.  I, like some of my classmates, can agree with some of your 9 statements and there are a couple I need time to wrap my mind around, not because I do not understand what you are saying but because of the implications it has in my theology as I move forward with Jesus. 

The one that has the biggest implications in my theology is the Evil Problem.  I have spent much time processing the problem of evil and continually get stuck with the question, if God is all about love then why evil in the world?  I can here everyone’s answer in my head as I write that statement but I need to flesh that out so that I have an intelligent answer to the question of evil.

I think one of the strongest objections to creatio ex nihilo, particularly for those that desire to form or perpetuate what Christopher Knight calls a “static ontology,” or that the world exists in a consistent state of being. Within this view and philosophical preference, problem #4 carries very significant weight. For it has always been true, that out of nothing, you get nothing.

For most of those following Christ, such a need for consistency doesn’t exist. They can, without evidence or philosophical consistency, believe in creation from nothing, a God who chooses to intervene here but not there, or believe the surface of the deep is metaphorical while the days of Creation are literal.

I’m grateful for philosophical consistency and for the deep levels of thinking that it draws us into. I’m not sure the places we land are always helpful, particularly for the people we serve. There are plenty of weak spots apparent in creatio ex nihilo. Sidebar: I wish that those who call themselves Christ-followers were a little less self-assured of their position on the narratives found in Genesis 1 and 2.

Blessings.

The Problems you list about Creatio Ex Nihilo are fair and I agree with them. That being said, I find that it is difficult to think of a creation theory that best explains the creation of the earth. All of them seem to have major faults or places where they can be argued against so it leaves me wondering if there can ever be a plausible theory of creation. While it may take a very long time to develop, I think it can be done but it will not be accepted by most people because most people are firmly rooted in their beliefs.