Say what you mean.

[S.A.Laffin]

Ex nihino, no, no.

This article can be looked at as a double sided dagger, that is it is cutting two different ways at one time. I will be bringing up a new way to look at creatio ex nihilo while also exposing the importance of semantics in Christian theological discussion.

Let us begin with the problem of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). The phrase is commonly used to describe how God created the universe. The argument goes that God created everything from nothing, he did not use any other material. As Genesis says, God spoke and it came into being. This language is not only misleading it is wrong. God did not create ex nihilo he created ex dei (out of god). God has always triunly existed (father, son, spirit). Creation was an outflowing of this eternal relationship. Creation did not come from nothing, it came from God. It is time we give credit where credit should be given. God, not nothing, should be credited for the universe. I do not believe that those who hold to a creatio ex nihilo theology of creation, would think I am saying anything wrong. They might however say, "we are not saying that God did not create, what we are saying is that God did not use any outside material when he created." To this I would have to suggest that we use the language creatio ex dei since it captures what actually happened. God created from himself, not from nothing.

This brings us to semantics. The old cl'ech'e goes "let's not argue over semantics," needs to be put to rest. Semantics are what allow us to communicate clearly. When we discuss semantics we are usually discussing the smaller meanings behind what the greater message is. In the argument of creatio ex nihilo vs. creatio ex dei the big issue is that God created, and the smaller meaning behind that big issue is how he did it. While in discussion among other Christians the semantical issues may seem meaningless (or at least not critical), although to those outside the Christian culture, semantics are huge. As stated earlier, semantics allow us to communicate clearly. As Christians when discussing theology it is imperative that we are careful to say what we mean. For, if we do not we run the risk of being gravely misinterpreted.

(This was taken from my blog, but I think it can be of good discussion here )

[Leonard]

A creation ex dei would mean that God made the universe using material of His own Substance. That is NOT what Scripture teaches.

The substance of God cannot sin, therefore in an ex dei creation Adam could not have sinned, and any talk about the plan of Redemption becomes meaningless drivel.

An ex dei creation may be something like Spinoza's view, but it is a sub-Christian view, long ago rejected by the Church.

[Fraught]

A creation ex dei would mean God used the substance of Himself to create the universe. This is the argument perhaps of Spinoza, but it is NOT a Christian view.

The 'substance of God' cannot sin, so Adam could not have fallen. The whole plan of Redemption falls into a meaningless drivel if we speak of an ex dei creation.

what do you think about this? God said 'let there be light'; after that he created the sun and the moon. if God created the universe using his own substance i.e. light - and taking into account the substance is only good, sin would be wherever the light is covered up.

kinda fits in with the scientific fact of darkness being the absence of light + Jesus' commands for us to 'be light'.

btw i'm not arguing a point - the fact is, i do not know. i wonder, however, if it as you say, then what was used to create the universe? whatever it was, it had to be created

[Leonard]

That would make sense if you thought God was made ex lux (from the substance of light), but we don't believe THAT either!

[EricH]

A creation ex dei would mean that God made the universe using material of His own Substance. That is NOT what Scripture teaches.

The substance of God cannot sin, therefore in an ex dei creation Adam could not have sinned, and any talk about the plan of Redemption becomes meaningless drivel.

An ex dei creation may be something like Spinoza's view, but it is a sub-Christian view, long ago rejected by the Church.

Exactly. Ex Die is simply a precursor to the Hindu view that Gid is in all and everything makes up God

[EricH]

I think also we need to be cautious that our semantics do not exceed what the scripture actually says. Sometimes we attempt to slice the baloney too thin.

[S.A.Laffin]

Yes, semantics should not exceed what is in scripture, but on this topic creation neither ex nihilo nor ex dei are terms given in scripture. Our semantics should be used to help us explain what is said in scripture.

Now to deal with Lenord's statement,

"A creation ex dei would mean that God made the universe using material of His own Substance. That is NOT what Scripture teaches.

The substance of God cannot sin, therefore in an ex dei creation Adam could not have sinned, and any talk about the plan of Redemption becomes meaningless drivel."

and EricH's statement,

"Ex Die is simply a precursor to the Hindu view that God is in all and everything makes up God "

Ex Dei is not saying that God makes up everything, it is not pantheism. When God created matter out of himself he was not reproducing himself, he was creating from himself. Therefore, the matter which he created was not "God." Since it was not God it the creations made up of that matter to sin. I do understand that if someone thinks that that which God created from himself was himself, they are in danger of pantheism. However if we realize that creation was an outflowing of the trinitarian relationship we will have a better understanding of creation and its meaning. Redemption becomes much more meaningful if God created ex dei. If as an outflowing of the relational attributes God created, his purpose for creation was to be in relationship with his creation (us). Redemption is restoring that relationship.

[EricH]

Yes, semantics should not exceed what is in scripture, but on this topic creation neither ex nihilo nor ex dei are terms given in scripture. Our semantics should be used to help us explain what is said in scripture.

Now to deal with Lenord's statement,

"A creation ex dei would mean that God made the universe using material of His own Substance. That is NOT what Scripture teaches.

The substance of God cannot sin, therefore in an ex dei creation Adam could not have sinned, and any talk about the plan of Redemption becomes meaningless drivel."

and EricH's statement,

"Ex Die is simply a precursor to the Hindu view that God is in all and everything makes up God "

Ex Dei is not saying that God makes up everything, it is not pantheism. When God created matter out of himself he was not reproducing himself, he was creating from himself. Therefore, the matter which he created was not "God." Since it was not God it the creations made up of that matter to sin. I do understand that if someone thinks that that which God created from himself was himself, they are in danger of pantheism. However if we realize that creation was an outflowing of the trinitarian relationship we will have a better understanding of creation and its meaning. Redemption becomes much more meaningful if God created ex dei. If as an outflowing of the relational attributes God created, his purpose for creation was to be in relationship with his creation (us). Redemption is restoring that relationship.

From your description of what ex dei means to you, I think the term itself could be misleading. Ex dei implies from the "substance of God". I think what you are describing is a motivation for creation. Namely that since God existed in the form of eternal relationship, that He desired his creation to reflect that relationship.

[Guest Greg Davies]

Yes, semantics should not exceed what is in scripture, but on this topic creation neither ex nihilo nor ex dei are terms given in scripture. Our semantics should be used to help us explain what is said in scripture.

Now to deal with Lenord's statement,

"A creation ex dei would mean that God made the universe using material of His own Substance. That is NOT what Scripture teaches.

The substance of God cannot sin, therefore in an ex dei creation Adam could not have sinned, and any talk about the plan of Redemption becomes meaningless drivel."

and EricH's statement,

"Ex Die is simply a precursor to the Hindu view that God is in all and everything makes up God "

Ex Dei is not saying that God makes up everything, it is not pantheism. When God created matter out of himself he was not reproducing himself, he was creating from himself. Therefore, the matter which he created was not "God." Since it was not God it the creations made up of that matter to sin. I do understand that if someone thinks that that which God created from himself was himself, they are in danger of pantheism. However if we realize that creation was an outflowing of the trinitarian relationship we will have a better understanding of creation and its meaning. Redemption becomes much more meaningful if God created ex dei. If as an outflowing of the relational attributes God created, his purpose for creation was to be in relationship with his creation (us). Redemption is restoring that relationship.

From your description of what ex dei means to you, I think the term itself could be misleading. Ex dei implies from the "substance of God". I think what you are describing is a motivation for creation. Namely that since God existed in the form of eternal relationship, that He desired his creation to reflect that relationship.

Ex Dei? Where's that in the Bible? We men are so full of ourselves that we have to invent these intellectual concepts to feel important or what?

God spoke and His words manifested what He intended. Simple enough and good enough for me.

Dang! Now I'm starting to feel puffed up. Doh!

Sorry, Greg.

[EricH]

Yes, semantics should not exceed what is in scripture, but on this topic creation neither ex nihilo nor ex dei are terms given in scripture. Our semantics should be used to help us explain what is said in scripture.

Now to deal with Lenord's statement,

"A creation ex dei would mean that God made the universe using material of His own Substance. That is NOT what Scripture teaches.

The substance of God cannot sin, therefore in an ex dei creation Adam could not have sinned, and any talk about the plan of Redemption becomes meaningless drivel."

and EricH's statement,

"Ex Die is simply a precursor to the Hindu view that God is in all and everything makes up God "

Ex Dei is not saying that God makes up everything, it is not pantheism. When God created matter out of himself he was not reproducing himself, he was creating from himself. Therefore, the matter which he created was not "God." Since it was not God it the creations made up of that matter to sin. I do understand that if someone thinks that that which God created from himself was himself, they are in danger of pantheism. However if we realize that creation was an outflowing of the trinitarian relationship we will have a better understanding of creation and its meaning. Redemption becomes much more meaningful if God created ex dei. If as an outflowing of the relational attributes God created, his purpose for creation was to be in relationship with his creation (us). Redemption is restoring that relationship.

From your description of what ex dei means to you, I think the term itself could be misleading. Ex dei implies from the "substance of God". I think what you are describing is a motivation for creation. Namely that since God existed in the form of eternal relationship, that He desired his creation to reflect that relationship.

Ex Dei? Where's that in the Bible? We men are so full of ourselves that we have to invent these intellectual concepts to feel important or what?

God spoke and His words manifested what He intended. Simple enough and good enough for me.

Dang! Now I'm starting to feel puffed up. Doh!

Sorry, Greg.

Many terms we use are not in the Bible, but that does not make them invalid.