DiscussMormonism.com

In his 2009 book, Old Testament scholar (non-mormon) John H. Walton explained creation from the Biblical perspective of ancient Israelites before Hellenization:

"If we are to reach an understanding of an ancient text such as Genesis 1, we have to be able to think about the issues the way [the Israelites] would have. A foundational issue is the way people think about existence. In the ancient world, they believed that something existed when it had a role and a function in an ordered system. This is in stark contrast to our way of thinking, that something exists when it has material properties. In the ancient world, to cause something to exist involves giving it a function and a role. In the Hebrew, the word translated “create” (bara') expresses this very idea. So, “In the beginning period, ...God created (gave functions to) the cosmos.” Thus in Gen 1:2, the narrative starts with no functions (not with no matter), and assigns functions by separating and naming."

I have addressed this topic in considerable detail. The first issue I discuss is "free will". I argue that it cannot exist in a theology of ex nihilo creation.

Introduction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWsQiyc832k

part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOiYvKDack

I go on to go into the origin of the doctrine of ex nihilo in history, as well as covering the Biblical verses that are used in attempt to support the incorrect concept. Later, I explain that if we understand this, then we can begin to understand the existence and persistence of evil. Only then, can we even begin to grasp the problem of suffering.

-7up


P.S. John H. Walton also discusses how the 7 day creation story should be not understood literally, but instead as a "temple text" , as in a temple ceremony whereby those observing the ceremony, learn the relationship and authority that God has over His creations:
http://www.blackhawkchurch.org/archive/ ... walton.pdf

seven7up wrote:...(snip)... "free will". I argue that it cannot exist in a theology of ex nihilo creation. ...(snip)...

most of us will not watch the 20+ minute video to parse out your point on this matter...why not simply state the reason for this claim? (ie. don't go around the barn to get to the woodshed)

I mean, it is an interesting premise, but the information resented in the OP dies not justify that premise. It could actually contradict that premise. If one considers unorganized "stuff" as only having "free will" when it is organized then......

subgenius wrote:most of us will not watch the 20+ minute video to parse out your point on this matter...why not simply state the reason for this claim?

I guarantee that it will take much more than 20 minutes to parse out the matter by attempting to explain an animated video on this forum.

How about a compromise? Part 2 is ten minutes, and the crux of the argument is made there.

If people don't have 10 minutes to spend in order to introduce themselves to a discussion, then perhaps it is best that they not participate in the discussion at all.

-7up

Seven7up,

You are bringing up a sizeable subject that people have thought about in a Christian context for close to 2000 years. The difficulties of determinism have not gone unnoticed.

A few observations, starting from the later portions of the presentation working backward.

I have no reason to think that Creeds are not inspired. I think that if there is a possibility of some scripture being inspired then the conclusion of the church and its instituted authorities could be inspired as well.

I cannot imagine any reason to think Adam and Eve could not have intercourse without first knowing evil.

I do agree that the consequences of the fall are oriented to our benefit, though perhaps not all details like the death of Abel. God meaning the process for good is standard Christian doctrine with or without creation exNilo.

I agree exhilo is an interpretation resulting from people using their heads. That is a good thing. I will allow that no completion of the understanding has yet been reached.i

To my view. only spirits created from nothing can be free. Otherwise an escape from the determinism of matter, environmental structures, preexisting character and random events is hard to see.

I do not think that exnilo has to imply all events are determined. You simply asserted that it does.

The Adam and Eve discussion I address here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29109&start=21
Those Adam and Eve videos are different than the free will video links that I posted here.

However, this discussion and that discussion are related because we are explaining WHY Adam and Eve are ignorant and disobedient to begin with. Is it because God created them that way?

huckelberry wrote:I have no reason to think that Creeds are not inspired. I think that if there is a possibility of some scripture being inspired then the conclusion of the church and its instituted authorities could be inspired as well.

If you look at the history of how the creeds were created, with councils, arguments, politics and locking out groups like the Arians, then I think you will find that it is MUCH different than how scripture was produced.

huckelberry wrote:Seven7up,
You are bringing up a sizeable subject that people have thought about in a Christian context for close to 2000 years. The difficulties of determinism have not gone unnoticed.... To my view. only spirits created from nothing can be free. Otherwise an escape from the determinism of matter, environmental structures, preexisting character and random events is hard to see.

Does God have free will?

huckelberry wrote:I do not think that ex-nihilo has to imply all events are determined. You simply asserted that it does.

I didn't just "simply assert" that it does. In the first post of this forum, I provided two videos. The second video is 10 minutes long. It explains EXACTLY why creation ex-nihilo by an omniscient and omnipotent God is the most deterministic scenario possible.

huckelberry wrote:I agree ex-nihilo is an interpretation resulting from people using their heads. That is a good thing. I will allow that no completion of the understanding has yet been reached.

All I am asking is that we continue to use our heads. If you give what I lay out here some time and thought, you will see some compelling arguments that Ex Nihilo does not only adversely affect an understanding of free-will, but it also makes difficult the problem of evil and suffering. It even distorts the understanding of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ.

But let's deal with one thing at a time. Let's discuss free will and then move on from there.

-7up

seven7up,

I watched several of the videos. They were what I was responding to. Determinism has been the majority theological understanding the past 2000 years. Your argument is fairly standard from that point of view. It runs close to Jonathan Edward's discussion of the matter. He of course believes God determined who was naughty and nice saved and damned before creation. My comment was considering whether creation from preexisting stuff, intelligence, and principals does anything to improve free will. I do not see it doing that. I can see that it removes God from being the sole determiner.That would be a change making God seem maybe nicer but less able to save us from the negative determining patterns in our existence. Randomness would to my mind be the most gruesome form of determinism. Decisions and events would be out of both my and Gods control.

I have no exact knowledge of how God creates or what he is capable of and not capable of but if we are to have freewill I can only see it happening as a direct result of the way God created us. Do not think he can? Well you and Mr Edwards and many other Calvinists do not either.

Again. Do you believe that God has free will?

[quote="seven7up"]Again. Do you believe that God has free will?[/quote]

Yes, why not?

huckelberry wrote:seven7up, I watched several of the videos. They were what I was responding to.

At this point in the conversation, there is only one 10 minute video that needs to be addressed. It explains exactly why ex nihilo and the "traditional" Christian view of God does not allow for free will:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOiYvKDack

huckelberry wrote:Determinism has been the majority theological understanding the past 2000 years. Your argument is fairly standard from that point of view. It runs close to Jonathan Edward's discussion of the matter. He of course believes God determined who was naughty and nice saved and damned before creation.

Calvinists simply take the mainstream view of God and ex-nihilo ... and then take those ideas to their logical conclusion. Mark Hausam put it this way:

"Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian thought. In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism. So, there is a conflict between ex nihilo creation and some of the central features of the Arminian universe."

huckelberry wrote:My comment was considering whether creation from preexisting stuff, intelligence, and principals does anything to improve free will. I do not see it doing that. I can see that it removes God from being the sole determiner. That would be a change making God seem maybe nicer but less able to save us from the negative determining patterns in our existence. Randomness would to my mind be the most gruesome form of determinism. Decisions and events would be out of both my and Gods control.

As I said in the video, I was using randomness as an example which represents different possible choices. For example, I give a scenario where we are rolling dice, which represent 6 possible choices. Even though this and electron location are the "parallels" and "illustrations" given, I do not believe that free will and randomness are the same thing. I chose those words carefully so that people would not make that mistake.

[quote="huckelberry"]I have no exact knowledge of how God creates or what he is capable of and not capable of but if we are to have freewill I can only see it happening as a direct result of the way God created us. Do not think he can?

Two can play this game. Is your God not smart enough or powerful enough to create morally superior beings with free will?

Blake Ostler put it this way,

"[Evangelicals assume] that God must create morally fallible persons if he creates them free. However, that is not true given the evangelical view of creation ex nihilo, for if God creates ex nihilo, then he can create any persons that it is logically possible to create. He certainly could have created more morally sensitive and rational persons than we are. Richard Swinburne has argued that a perfectly rational being is necessarily good. There is no logical reason that God could not have created perfectly rational beings who are perfectly good even though they are free to choose evil if they wish. If Swinburne is correct, the fact that a person always rationally chooses to do what is right is not incompatible with libertarian free will. Given the creedal view, there is no reason that God could not have created perfectly rational persons who would always see by the light of reason that choosing what is right is the most rational course. us God had open to him the possibility of creating more intelligent and morally sensitive creatures who would bring about less evil than we do through our sheer irrationality. God is thus morally indictable for having created creatures who bring about more evil than other creatures he could have created from nothing."

-7up

"seven7up wrote:Again. Do you believe that God has free will?

"huckleberry wrote:Yes, why not?

I, and LDS, absolutely believe that God has free will.

Earlier, you essentially argued that God could not have free will.

Only, at the time you did not realize that was what you were arguing.

-7up