I affirm Genesis» proposal that creation is a matter of generating order out of chaos, rather than the church's post-biblical proclamation
of creatio ex nihilo.
Consistently with its rejection of this doctrine, process theism holds that God necessarily and hence always exists in relation to «others» with their own power, whereas traditional theism's acceptance of the doctrine
of creatio ex nihilo means that God faced «no prior constraints apart from those of logical consistency.»
This fundamentally affirmative and confident attitude to the creation is reinforced by the doctrine
of creatio ex nihilo (Heb 11:3), which, as we noted, was not available to the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, emerging as it does in the intertestamental period.
Some defenders of the traditional doctrine
of creatio ex nihilo hold that cause has a series of analogous meanings, making the divine cause significantly unlike ordinary causes and, thus, not a threat to creaturely freedom.
God is not vulnerable, however, at the level
of creatio ex nihilo, that is, at the level of creativity - esse.
Because of each actual entity's deep particularity and self - determination, we may say that its exercise of creativity - characterization resembles slightly, but only slightly, God's radical power
of creatio ex nihilo.
What Bultmann is really driving at may perhaps be demonstrated from a further consideration of the doctrine
of creatio ex nihil.
This puzzle is directly related to the problem many theologians have with Hartshorne on account of his explicit denial of the doctrine
of creatio ex nihilo or «creation out of nothing.»
A process philosopher influenced by substantialist modes of thought and who also affirms the notion
of creatio ex nihilo is Robert C.Neville.
Unlike most process theologians, Gilkey defends the importance of the doctrine
of creatio ex nihilo.
Hence, to say literally and meaningfully that God creates, we must exclude the notion
of creatio ex nihilo.
If Hartshorne does want to maintain that God is the source of being then he is going to run into the traditional problem
of creatio ex nihilo (which he explicitly rejects — as we have seen).
Autonomy can only be the property of God who is capable
of creatio ex nihilo.
We have already seen how defending God's omnipotence required the development of a doctrine
of creatio ex nihilo in Theophilus and Irenaeus, a notion not at all explicit in Genesis 1:2 where, when God began to create, all was «a formless void.»
The main reason that nature lacks intrinsic value is necessarily linked to the orthodox idea
of creatio ex nihilo, a view that essentially makes all created things completely contingent upon divine power.
Not only can such a deity be blamed for not intervening, but also held responsible, by virtue of the doctrine
of creatio ex nihilo, for natural defects as well as deficient wills.17
The idea
of creatio ex nihilo, or nontemporality, is regarded as noncontradictory by some, and absurd by others.
Not exact matches
But do not the classic and medieval formulations
of God speak
of him also as Creator, as Preserver (
creatio continuata) and as Final Cause or End?
However,
creatio ex nihilo is totally beyond our conception
of creating, says Hartshorne.
This is the hiatus which makes
of the new creation a
creatio ex nihilo — a hiatus so profound that the identity
of the risen Christ with Jesus crucified is the great question
of the New Testament.
Whatever theological orthodoxy may have to say about
creatio ex nihilo (creation out
of nothing), the Hebrew scriptures see it as bringing order out
of chaos.
Reference was made to Tradition, especially to the Decree
of the Biblical Commission in 1909 which laid down that a special creation (peculiaris
creatio)
of the first man was to be held to be the literal historical sense intended by the second chapter
of Genesis.
Polkinghorne then turns to orthodox Christian commitments such as a theistic understanding
of God and
creatio ex nihilo and defends them against competing positions.
Here the creature has a power that in a slight way resembles, but falls far short
of,
creatio ex nihilo.
Rather, just as esse is the presupposition
of characterization, so
creatio ex nihilo is the presupposition
of actualization.
In the previous endnote, we noticed one way in which the creature's power
of creativity characterization resembles the divine
creatio ex nihilo.
Although this book is not part
of the Protestant Bible, it does show that in a setting in which matter is held to be virtually eternal, the biblical understanding
of God as Creator leads naturally to a
creatio ex nihilo position since the alternative compromises the sovereignty
of God over nature).
What we are not justified in doing on the basis
of known usage is to read into bara» anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures later metaphysical understandings
of the idea
of creation, such as
creatio ex nihilo, which is not the sense
of Genesis 1:1 f. and is indeed not found in Jewish religious writing until 2 Maccabees 7:28, where there is undoubted Hellenistic influence.
This is indeed
creatio ex amore, and it is not a one - time matter in the beginning
of history.
His goal was to create a self published book consisting
of anecdotes, testimonies and
creatio...