Like Judaism, the Catholic Church teaches God created all things ‘out of nothing’ (i.e. creation ‘ex nihilo’). This is contrary to the Greek view of pre-existing eternal matter. Note that Mormonism’s rejection of creation ex nihilo is, in fact, in line with Platonic thought.
2 Machabees 7:28 “God made the sky and the earth out of nothing, and… man comes into being in the same way.”
Though some Scriptural passages seem to say God organized the universe from chaotic materials, we have to ask: Which interpretation, creation ex nihilo or no creation ex nihilo fits ALL the Scriptural data? The creation ex nihilo position of course. See also the distinction between creatio prima and creatio secunda. Creatio prima refers to creation ex nihilo, but creation secunda refers to organizing matter which has been created by creatio prima (not pre-existent matter). More on this point later.
The most important Greek philosopher in this area is Philo, (a follower of Plato) whose ideas we shall discuss below.
Creation ex�nihilo: What did Philo say?
Philo (20 B.C. to 40 A.D) was an Alexandrian Jew who fused Greek philosophy with his Judaistic beliefs in his work, The Creation of the World (from c. 30 CE). He was especialy interested in the creation account in Genesis, and used Platonic philosophy in his interpretation. Like Plato, he also subscribed to the notion of “Forms” or “Ideas”. in regard to creation:
From the Wikipedia article: Philo�s relation to Plato
“His account of the Creation is almost identical with that of Plato; he follows the latter’s “Timæus” pretty closely in his exposition of the world as having no beginning and no end; and, like Plato, he places the creative activity as well as the act of creation outside of time, on the Platonic ground that time begins only with the world. In the Jewish world, the greatest of Alexandrian philosophers was undoubtedly Philo Judaeus (25 B.C-50 A.D.). His works reflect the influence that Hellenistic thought and culture had on the Jews of the dispersion.” C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (London: Cambridge University Press, 1958), 66.
Mormon apologist Barry Bickmore on page p. 110 of “Restoring the ancient Church” (FAIR; 1999), says that “Philo was a thoroughly Hellenized Jew”. This is important to note, because Mormonism follows similar beliefs to Philo in regard to denial of creation ex nihilo , a fact which renders rather hollow the LDS claim of “apostasy” as evidenced by Hellenization in the Early Church.
From “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” pages 350-2:
“Element had an existence from the time he [God] had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.”
Alleged words of Christ in Book of Abraham:
“We will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell.” “…And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth” ((Abraham 3:24; 4:1).
Let’s look again at Philo’s position. From the Campbell Corner Language Exchange Science and Metaphysics in the Three Religions of the Book we read:
“Remarkably, Philo lived at the very moment of the birth of Christianity, from about 15 BC to 50 AD. What is interesting for us is the use that Philo made of Greek modes of thought in his interpretation of the Books of Moses�the Torah for Jews and the Pentateuch for Christians. What classical scholars have long known is that Philo created a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Judaism, producing what some would call “Jewish philosophy.”(emphasis mine)
So we see from the above that Philo himself created a synthesis of Greek and Jewish philosophy.
We see that Mormon doctrine accepts the teachings of Plato and Philo in regard to creation ex nihilo, showing the Greek influence on their doctrine. What is more remarkable is that Philo himself was known to have created a synthesis of Greek and Judaistic philosophy. Remember for the above that Mormon apologist Barry Bickmore on page p. 110 of “Restoring the ancient Church”, says that “Philo was a thoroughly Hellenized Jew”. Thus yet again we see the utter hollowness of the Mormon charge of “Hellenization” as a “proof” that an apostasy took place and that the Mormon religion is a restoration.
Edwin Hatch wrote (cited in Bickmore, op. cit.p. 195-6):
“With Basilides the conception of matter was raised to a higher plane. The distinction of subject and object was preserved, so that the action of the Transcendent God was still that of creation and not of evolution; but it was ‘out of that which was not’ that He made things to be [i.e. creation ex nihilo]�The basis of the theory was Platonic…”
What good is saying the basis of the theory of creation ex nihilo is Platonic if the opposite theory which denies creation ex nihilo is really Platonic? This is an uncomfortable fact for Mormon apologists.
Jonathan Goldstein claims the doctrine originated within Judaism (Journal of Jewish Studies 35 (1984): pp 127-135 and Journal of Jewish Studies 38 (1987) pp. 187-194. Whether this is the case or not, the Scriptural evidence points to creation ex nihilo.
Note that here we have a true doctrine , founded allegedly by a Gnostic (though supported, as we saw, in Scripture), which the Mormons try to blame Plato for! Irony of ironies, it is the Platonic doctrine of creation out of existing matter which the Mormons themselves believe. Yet they say the early Church was Hellenized because it took up the (non-Platonic) doctrine of creation ex nihilo! Attempts by Mormonism to rationalize this despairing position include the following from Mormon apologist Barry Bickmore’s “Restoring the Ancient Church”(1999) p102-103.
Bickmore, beginning on page 102 of “Restoring the Ancient Church” makes a number of speculations, which I shall address below:
“If Christianity had become so enamored with Greek philosophy, why did the Church take hold of this strange doctrine of creation out of nothing when Plato himself believed in the eternity of matter?”Bickmore continues with the following: “… Christians may have accepted creation ex nihilo as a reaction to the rapid influx of secular philosophy. That is, they were trying to separate themselves from the mainstream of Greek philosophy, which they relaized had made inroads into the Church.”
Response:Bickmore, on page 100 had said the doctrine of creation ex nihilo came from the Gnostic Basilides. Now he attempts to say it was accepted as a reaction to Platonic influxes. But his whole thesis is that the Early Church took up Greek (i.e. Platonic) doctrines, not the opposite of them! This is a major contradiction in Mormonism’s “Hellenizaion” charge.
So it is quite ironic that the Mormon doctrine of denial of creation ex nihilo is in fact derived from Plato.
“Perhaps it is more realistic to postulate that these second century Christian thinkers were merely eager to express their belief in God in terms the Greeks could accept, therefore they had to incorporate a radically transcendent view of deity.”
Response: We shall see in Part II that the Platonic idea of God and (Byzantine) Christian view totally opposed. The use of philosophical terms by the Early Church in no way added to, or altered, the Divine revelation, much as the Mormons would like to believe this. This area will be explored further in Part II.
“Christian thinkers readily adopted creation ex nihilo because it provided a good argument against the the extreme Gnostic position that matter is no lower reality, but actually evil. If this is the case, it is ironic that the doctrine apparently originated with a Gnostic teacher.”
Response: How creation ex nihilo refutes the idea that matter is evil is hard to see. Whether matter is created or uncreated, it is still matter. So how would this refute the Gnostic idea? The argument makes no sense, especially in view of Joseph Smith�s atomic teaching that spirit is just fine matter (see the next article). Surely it is the Atomic view that refutes the “matter is evil” notion, by claiming that even spirit is matter?. In any event, Bickmore�s remark concerning the “irony” of the situation shows just how despairing his view actualy is. A gnostic teaching being accepted by the Church in order to refute Gnosticism? What a self-contradiction. Why not just accept creation ex nihilo as the truth?
Furthermore, since God created all things, including matter, Christianity understands matter in general, and the human body in particular, as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31). This is a major point of departure from Greek philosophy, which viewed matter, and the human body, as somehow not good. The body was a tomb for the immortal soul. Contrast this idea with the Christian view of the body in the resurrection context, glorified and united for ever with the soul.
Ludwig Ott, in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” (TAN; 1974) pages 79-80 and 84, writes:
“From Creation in the proper and strict sense (creatio prima) is to be distinguished the so-called creatio secunda, by which is understood the modelling of formless material and the bestowal of life upon it.”
Everything outside God must attribute its existence to God (Isaiah 42:8; 40:17)
Genesis 1:1
“no substratum of creation is named. “In the beginning,” without a more detailed definition, means the absolute beginning.”
Since no substratum (building material) of creation is named, we must be dealing here with creatio prima. 2 Macc 7:28 “I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heavens and the earth�and consider that God made them out of nothing.” Also Wisdom 1:14. Wisdom 11:18 refers to creatio secunda, not creatio prima. The same is true for Hebrews 11:3 and Genesis 1:2. You see, LDS fails to distinguish creatio prima and creatio secunda, so think all creatio is secunda (i.e. creation from already existing matter).
Jewish scholar Jonathan A. Goldstein, in “The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo.” (Journal of Jewish Studies 35:2 (1984): 127. writes
“Yet medieval Jewish thinkers . . . held that the account of creation in Genesis could be interpreted to mean that God created from preexisting formless matter, and ancient Jewish texts state that he did so.”
The above is a perfect example of not distinguishing creatio prima from creatio secunda. Barry Bickmore refers to Goldstein’s argument as weak in a footnote on page 101 of his book “Restoring the Ancient Church.” Since Goldstein�s quote refers to creatio secunda, it leaves untouched the question of creatio prima. Both creatio prima and creatio secunda are relevant to the creation account in Genesis; they are not mutually exclusive. The “pre-existing formless matter” was only existing from the time it was created by creatio prima. This is the point Goldstein (and Bickmore) both apparently miss. As Ott said above, the absence of a substratum indicates the Geneis creation account is one of creatio prima.
- Tertullian Adv. Hermogenem 1
“For, turning away from Christians to the philosophers, from the Church to the Academy and the Porch, he learned there from the Stoics how to place Matter (on the same level) with the Lord, just as if it too had existed ever both unborn and unmade, having no beginning at all nor end, out of which, according to him, the Lord afterwards created all things.”
- Tertullian De Praescr. 13 (The Prescription against Heretics)
“you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth.”
- Tertullian Apolog 17
“The object of our worship is the One God, He who by His commanding word, His arranging wisdom, His mighty power, brought forth from nothing this entire mass of our world, with all its array of elements, bodies, spirits, for the glory of His majesty.”
- St. Irenaeus Adv. Haer. I 22, 1;
“The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus saith the Scripture, to that effect “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth.” And again, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal; and these eternal things He did not make by angels, or by any powers separated from His Ennoea. For God needs none of all these things, but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence.” (emphasis mine)
- St. Irenaeus Adv. Haer. II 10, 4
“While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point preeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence.”
- Thephilus of Antioch, Ad Autol. II 4, 10
“Some of the philosophers of the Porch say that there is no God at all; or, if there is, they say that He cares for none but Himself; and these views the folly of Epicurus and Chrysippus has set forth at large. And others say that all things are produced without external agency, and that the world is uncreated, and that nature is eternal; and have dared to give out that there is no providence of God at all, but maintain that God is only each man’s conscience. And others again maintain that the spirit which pervades all things is God. But Plato and those of his school acknowledge indeed that God is uncreated, and the Father and Maker of all things; but then they maintain that matter as well as God is uncreated, and aver that it is coeval with God. But if God is uncreated and matter uncreated, God is no longer, according to the Platonists, the Creator of all things, nor, so far as their opinions hold, is the monarchy of God established. And further, as God, because He is uncreated, is also unalterable; so if matter, too, were uncreated, it also would be unalterable, and equal to God; for that which is created is mutable and alterable, but that which is uncreated is immutable and unalterable. And what great thing is it if God made the world out of existent materials? For even a human artist, when he gets material from some one, makes of it what he pleases. But the power of God is manifested in this, that out of things that are not He makes whatever He pleases; just as the bestowal of life and motion is the prerogative of no other than God alone. For even man makes indeed an image, but reason and breath, or feeling, he cannot give to what he has made. But God has this property in excess of what man can do, in that He makes a work, endowed with reason, life, sensation. As, therefore, in all these respects God is more powerful than man, so also in this; that out of things that are not He creates and has created things that are, and whatever He pleases, as He pleases.” (emphasis mine)
- St. Augustine CONCERNING THE NATURE OF GOOD, AGAINST THE MANICHAEANS.
“For He is so omnipotent, that even out of nothing, that is out of what is absolutely non-existent, He is able to make good things both great and small, both celestial and terrestrial, both spiritual and corporeal. But because He is also just, He has not put those things that He has made out of nothing on an equality with that which He begat out of Himself.”
Other verses include St. Irenaeus (Epideixis I 1, 4); Pastor of Hermas, Mand. I 1; Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos). See also the citations at Catholic Answers: Creation out of Nothing
The Fathers reject the eternity of the world:
Tatian, Or ad Graecos 5;
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. II 34,2;
St. Basil, In Hexaem. hom.1.7.
Scripture: John 17,5; Psalm 101, 26; Gen 1,1
The LDS reasoning goes as follows: if creation ex nihilo is false, then we can say Jesus was created. If He was created, He does not have to be part of the Platonic essence, so by showing creation ex nihilo is false, we are showing Jesus did not need to have the Platonic essence, we can say Jesus is a created being. On the other hand, if creation ex nihilo is true, Jesus is “begotten” not created, and He must be of the Platonic “essence”.
Why is denial of creation ex nihilo important for Mormonism?
So their denial of creation ex nihilo allows them to say Jesus was a created being.
This is of course a non-sequitur. Even if creation ex nihilo were false, it still would not reflect on the Divinity of Jesus. Jesus does not have to be of the Platonic “essence” in order to be described as “uncreated”. This is a Mormon attempt to make Jesus� Divine nature dependent on a Platonic concept. We know of course that Jesus is divine because He is God, not because of any Platonic formulation.
Mormon apologist Barry Bickmore writes (op. cit. p. 105) goes on to say:
“…if creation from nothing was not the original doctrine, the whole discussion of the Nicene Council was irrelevant to the earliest form of the Christian Church.”
Comment: you see how Mormonism tries to invalidate the Council of Nicea by denying creation ex nihilo
Conclusion
We have seen from this article that the denial of creation ex nihilo is a Platonic idea which is central to Mormon belief. Mormonism fails to distinguish creatio prima from creatio secunda in Scripture, and thinks all creation is merely “organizing”. Yet again, we see how a Platonic belief rejected by Scripture and the Early Church is accepted by Mormonism. This is once again in marked contrast to the Revelation of Jesus Christ as transmitted to the Catholic Church, which, while accepting Greek terminology, never once introduced a new doctrine. Mormonism, on the the other hand, has several doctrines not based on Scripture or the Early Church but rather on Platonic ideas, their denial of creation ex nihilo being just one of them.
1 response so far ↓
Mormonism files on this blog « Beati mundo corde // June 13, 2009 at 8:57 pm |
[...] http://seanhyland.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/denial-of-creation-ex-nihilo-with-a-discussion-of-the-nat... [...]