Chaotic Potentiality: A Patristic Assessment of the Ontological Implications of a Cosmos Created from Nothing

By Dimmtri Christou

In the beginning of a chapter devoted to the dogma of creation ex-nihilo in the significant work Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, philosopher of religion and theologian William Lane Craig explains: For the author of Genesis 1, no preexistent material seems to be assumed, no warring gods or primordial dragons are present only God []1 Craig concludes that Genesis 1 speaks plainly of the universe coming into being in the temporal sense in which the universe came into existence, sometime ago in the finite past, from nothing. Ironically the noted atheist, theoretical physicist and

cosmologist, Laurence M. Krauss, has recently argued that the universe came into being from nothing as well. However in his most recent work, A Universe from Nothing, Krauss, albeit contradictorily, argues: [] quantum gravity not only appears to allow universes to be created from nothingmeaning, in this case, I emphasize, the absence of space and timeit may require them.2

J. P. Moreland & William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003), p. 554. 2 Laurence M. Krauss. A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing. (Atria Books, 2013), p. 168.

For Craig, God is the efficient cause of the universe. Yet, for Krauss, quantum gravity is the efficient cause of the universe. While both scholars cannot be

simultaneously correct, and while both scholars have argued in favour of their distinctive positions regarding the subject matter, such arguments remain outside of the scope of this article. However what is of key interest to this article are the details that arent shown attention in professional debate and literature published by prominent Christian apologists on the dogma of creation. Hence, this article will gauge a Patristic

interpretation of the Christian dogma of creation ex-nihilo and so attempt to fill the hole that various apologists sometimes tend to dig. Specifically by analyzing a Patristic interpretation of creation ex-nihilo, this article will assess what the dogma discloses regarding the nature and autonomy of the Creator, with reference to the dignity of matter, and the spatio-temporal confines of creation. Firstly this article will endeavour to analyze Philo of Alexandrias view of the nature of God and his relationship to the universe. Subsequent to analyzing Philo of Alexandrias view of creation, Ss Athanasius and Maximus the Confessor will also be gauged for their particular contributions to the three aforementioned questions raised which will remain as the key hermeneutic for this article in scrutinizing the dogma of creation ex-nihilo.

1. Early Witness to the Dogma of Creation Ex-Nihilo The dogma of creation from nothing (La. creatio ex nihilo) explains that the universe came into being from non-being. However, it is believed the universe did not merely come into being from nothing. For according to the classical metaphysical formulation,

being cannot be derived from non-being. For nothing just is no-thing and so lacks causal powerfrom nothing, nothing comes.3 Rather, God, the One, or Prime Mover, is

generally understood to be the efficient and first cause of the universes existence and so is understood as its fundamental origin. In contrast with the later dogma of creation ex-nihilo expounded upon by Christian thinkers, the ancient Greek philosophers prior argued for the inversespecifically, that independent of Gods creative activity, matter is by nature eternal.4 Still, an early attempt at synthesizing Hellenistic thought with the Hebrew scripture is found in the works of Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE. 50 CE). Philo, acting as a bridge between Hellenistic and Hebraic thought, historically preceded Christian writers. Yet in the history of ideas, Philos mindset and contribution possesses uniqueness as well as illustrates a degree of coherency between that of mystical Mosaic thought with that of Hellenic philosophical principles. In particular, Philos approach and contribution to the proposition of creation ex nihilo presents a dualistic function, where a reciprocal relationship between Mosaic thought in context of Hellenic philosophical and scientific categories are commonly displayed by their harmonious utilization.

Arguments for God as efficient and first cause of the universe appear in a variety of forms. The most popular form of the argument at present is the Kalam cosmological argument. For a full treatment of the Kalam cosmological argument, see: Wiliam Lane Craigs & James D. Sinclairs article, The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Pp. 101-202, published in: The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. (Black well Publishing Ltd., 2009). 4 See: Aristotle, Metaphysics III, 4, 999b, 8., wherein Aristotle argues: that generation should take place from nothing is an axiomatic impossibility. Still independent of the aforementioned reference, Aristotles argument is as follows: the existence of matter is contingent upon pre-existing matter. The nature of matter then just is to be a substratum from which the existence of matter is derived. Hence, matter could only come into existence from being acted uponnamely, the reduction to actuality of potencyby pre-existing matter and so matters existence being derived presupposes the eternity of matter.

Hence understanding Philos approach and model of creation as distinctive in its own unique respect from that of the Middle Platonists remains as a key principle toward analyzing the Alexandrians contributions. In light of Philos distinctive methodology, Paul Blowers explains that for, [] Philo, the Mosaic Law and the law of nature are thoroughly bound up with each other.5 One should expect then to discover a view of creation in Philos literature that, rather than being monolithic in nature, expresses a holistic understanding of the cosmos, where creation is not purely gauged as a hierarchical tree of the varying degrees of being but instead is experienced as a celestial organism imbued with intrinsic value and so of inimitable soteriological worth and meaningthus differentiating Philo from strict Middle Platonic thought while demonstrating the effect of the dualistic function of Mosaic thought with Hellenic philosophical principles. That said, this article will now gauge Philos model of creation before analyzing the Patristic sources focusing on creation ex-nihilo.

For Philo God so drastically transcends creation that he is considered wholly distinct from it.6 Specifically as Philo argues, God is not only devoid of peculiar qualities, but he is likewise not of the form of man7 such that God is [] free from distinctive qualities.8
9

Following Philos argument, God being devoid of qualitative

properties of being, properties which are appropriate to composite objects (e.g., objects
Paul Blowers. Drama of the Divine Economy: Creator and Creation in Early Christian Theology and Piety. (Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 46. 6 Cf. Ibid., p. 48. 7 Philo, Legum Allegoriarum, 1.36. 8 Philo, Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis, 55. 9 Philo, Legum Allegoriarum, 3.36
5

composed of form and matter), necessitates the conclusion that one is incapable of exhaustively and positively speaking about the essence of God. Certainly qualitative predications imply positive knowledge of a beings essence, which with respect to God for Philo is a priori impossible as God is utterly ontologically distinct from all created being. Though paradoxically for Philo only God is capable of speaking positively of himself for only God possesses positive knowledge of his own nature.10 Nevertheless, as God is wholly other from creation, Philos creation framework, as derived from Platos Timaeus, argues that God himself is not responsible for the creation of the universe but rather it is the Logos instead, the divine second principle, who is the causal basis of the universes being.11 The Logos is, as Philo interprets, considered as the Idea of Ideas. 12 As the Idea of Ideas, the Logos is understood as the exemplar of all being, imbuing his imprint upon all things created through him (the thought being here the perceptible world came into existence from the mind of God by way of its archetypal seal and model).13 Consequently, the Logos derives the derivatively functional role as an ontological bridge between the terrestrial realm of being and the celestial realm of being, meaning as Blowers explains that the Logos is [] the intersection of Gods transcendence and immanence14 All the same, the Logos is considered the fundamental agent

Philo, Legum Allegoriarum, 3.206 Philo, Legum Allegoriarum, 3.96 12 Philo, Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat, 75-76. 13 Philo, De Opificio Mundi, 25. 14 Paul Blowers. Drama of the Divine Economy: Creator and Creation in Early Christian Theology and Piety. (Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 49.
11

10

responsible for the existence of the universe, being as such the imperishable Form of wisdom comprehensible only to the intellect. Accordingly, Philo believed that the corporeal world is eternally being formed by virtue of the agency of the Logos.15 In this respect, Philo denies that matter is a preexistent principle and so divine insofar as matter existed eternally alongside God. On the other hand, Philo also denies that creation possessed a temporal beginning. Instead, for Philo, it is by the act of Gods thinking that God simultaneously and eternally creates as it is by Gods eternal thoughts that all particularsincluding the intelligible world receive their essential existence relative to their distinctive nature. Thus God did not at some point of time begin to create the world but instead has been eternally applying himself to its creation.16 17 Of particular importance, as this article lightly touched upon prior and as Blowers points out, is the fact that Logos for Philo operates as a salvific compass for worthy souls precisely as mediator of creation. As such, the Logos as the mediating principle for the existence of the universe doesnt merely create and so retain a static relationship with the cosmos from eternity but rather dynamically orients the person to ultimate perfection in the Creators bosom.18

2. Early Christian witnesses to the Dogma of Creation Ex Nihilo

Philo, Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit, 134. Philo, De Providentia, 1.7. 17 Philo, De Opificio Mundi, 7. 18 Paul Blowers. Drama of the Divine Economy: Creator and Creation in Early Christian Theology and Piety. (Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 51.
16

15

Turning now to the varying Christian witnesses regarding the dogma of creation from nothing, we will first begin our assessment by analyzing St Athanasius the Alexandrians contribution to the dogma of creation from nothing before gauging St Maximus the Confessor. Specifically St Athanasiuss argument against the pagans found in the works On the Incarnation and Against the Gentiles will be addressed within the following section so as to answer the questions pertaining to Gods autonomy and nature and the spatial-temporal confines of creation. In St Athanasiuss works Against the Gentiles and On the Incarnation,19 creation from nothing is referred to almost indefinitely. Creation from nothing is alluded to on almost every page by the Alexandrian, so much so that one can see manifestly as to why the dogma of creation from nothing possesses cornerstone status for the great Bishops cosmological, Christological, and anthropological understanding of reality. Though, in turning specifically to St Athanasiuss distinctive contribution to the dogma of creation, we find in chapter two of On the Incarnation St Athanasiuss argument against the Platonist notion of the eternal nature of matter. In particular the Bishop of Alexandria begins by elucidating the Platonic understanding of the cosmos, which St Athanasius details as stating that [] God is not able to make anything unless matter preexisted, just as a carpenter must already have wood so that it may be used. 20 While the Platonic notion of the eternal nature of matter as described by St Athanasius is

For the purpose of this article Fr. John Behrs translation of On the Incarnation (New York: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2011) will be utilized. 20 St Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 2.

19

false for varying reasons, St Athanasius argues against the notion by stating that to say God creates from preexistent matter is to accredit weakness to God:
They do not realize that saying such things is to impute weakness to God: for if he is not himself the cause of matter, but simply makes things from pre-existent matter, then he is weak, not being able without matter to fashion any of the things that exist, just as the weakness of the carpenter is certainly his inability to make any required thing without wood. According to the argument, unless there were matter, God would not have made anything. And if this is so, as they thus have it, according to them God is only a craftsman and not himself the cause of matter. He could in no way be called Creator, if he does not create matter, from which created things come into being.21

St Athanasiuss argument is a simple one. Essentially St Athanasius is arguing that by admitting God creates from preexisting material a priori presupposes that God lacks, or is devoid of, the causal power to create from nothing. For according to the Platonist understanding of matter God would simply be proficient in arranging and forming rather than creating. Yet to suggest that God does not create from non-being but rather forms or arranges preexistent material is to suggest that God is substantially deficient in kind for St Athanasius. That is insofar as God by virtue of his creative activity and power does not differ from the artisan or carpenter, as the carpenter is limited to the confines of the material that surrounds him, God would then likewise be restrained in his creative capacities. Indeed Gods creative capability would be univocal to that of contingent beings according to the Platonist notion, though as St Athanasius explains this is false for

21

St Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 2.

an artisan shapes and is a shaper of objects while distinctly God creates and is Creator of objects. Thus by limiting Gods creative power to preexistent matter one would be restricting Gods sovereignty and omnipotence over creation. Further by suggesting that God arranges or shapes preexistent material one would be suggesting that God is restricted in his will by the goods that surround him. For St Athanasius matter is

contingent and so its existence is conditional upon the creative will of God. Hence both of the aforementioned difficulties presented by the Platonist notion of matter appear as metaphysically nonsensical to St Athanasius. Still, for St Athanasius God is not weak, but from nothing and having absolutely no existence God brought the universe into being22 such that Gods omnibenevolence necessitates in his causal activity not only ontological priority in relation to created objects but as well an unrestrained will that is not determined or affected by the features of eternally preexistent objects. All the same God does not simply create for the sake of creating insofar as the act of creating merely typifies some exercise in unconditional power for St Athanasius. Instead God creates out of his intrinsic goodness from nothing. St Athanasius explains: But the God of all is good and exceeding noble by natureand therefore is kind. For one that is good can grudge nothing: for which reason he does not even grudge existence, but desires all to exist, as objects of his loving-kindness.23

22 23

St Athanasius, On the Incarnationi, 2. St Athanasius, Against the Gentiles, 41.

The created worlds existence and simultaneous subsistence is contingent upon the love of God and so cannot be understood merely as an exercise in sheer powerthat the mere fact that the world possesses being for St Athanasius presupposes the loving goodness of its creator. Likewise the worlds being contingent upon the love of God discloses that material objects are inherently incapable of sustaining their own existence, therefore demonstrating the conditional nature of matter. As Khaled Anatolios succinctly explains,
So seeing that all created nature according to its inherent structures is in flux and subject to dissolution, and in order to prevent this happening and the universe dissolving back into nothing, he made everything by his own eternal Word and brought creation into existence. He did not abandon it to be tempest-tossed through its own nature, lest it run the risk of again lapsing into nothingness. But being good, he governs and establishes the whole world through his own Word who is himself God, so that creation, enlightened by the governance, providence, and ordering of the Word, may be able to remain secure, since it participates in the Word who is truly from the Father and is helped by him so as to exist.24

That said, for St Athanasius matters returns from where it first came. For the nature of created things, as the Alexandrian explains, inasmuch as it is brought into being out of nothing, is of a fleeting sort, and weak and mortal, if composed of itself only.25 Finally in turning to St Maximus the Confessors Ambiguum 7,26 this article will attempt to answer the final question before concluding; namely, what does the dogma of creation ex nihilo disclose regarding the dignity of matter.

24 25

Khaled Anatolios. Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought. (Routledge, 2004), pp. 40 -41. St Athanasius, Against the Gentiles, 41.

For St Maximus, understanding the logoi of all created beings in all of their cosmic plurality just is to understand the essential principle underlying the nature of a particular being. As St Maximus explains: When we learn the essential nature of living things, in what respect, how, and out of what they exist, we will not be driven by desire to know more.27 The essential naturethat is the logoi as suchtherefore present a causal structure as well as a universal teleology, in which all material objects that exist possess a distinctive characteristic relative to their nature. That said, the logoi do not appear as a spontaneous categorization or mere metaphysical explanation for the variety of beings that exist but rather present the purposed incarnate imprint of the Logos, who just is the exemplar cause of all being such that all being possesses as a causal effect a distinctive essential principle analogous to its archetype. As St Maximus puts it, he who knows the Logos would know that the Logos is many logoi. For all things that come to exist do so in relation to the Logos since he is the beginning and cause of all things.28 Consequently as essential principles, the logoi of creation disclose, as Blowers states: the exemplary pattern for the unfolding of the actual or historical creation.29 The dignity of matter in light of the cosmological pattern of logoi as such demonstrates an image of creation endowed with teleological features that not only disclose the relational manifestation of the object with its creator but also its final end. Since the

For the purpose of this article Paul Blowerss & Robert Louis Wilkens translation (New York: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2003) of St Maximus the Confessors Ambiguum 7 will be utilized. 27 St Maximus, Ambiguum 7, [1077A]. 28 St Maximus, Ambiguum 7, [1077C]. 29 Paul Blowers. Drama of the Divine Economy: Creator and Creation in Early Christian Theology and Piety. (Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 162.

26

logoi of creation disclose the actualization of certain events in creation as being actualized through the Logos, Blowers explains that [] the Logos incarnates or embodies himself in the logoi simultaneously from beginning to end, his hidden presence in them assuring the eschatological fulfillment of their protological purpose.30 St Maximus elucidates upon this notion stating:
Since each person is a portion of God by the logos of virtue in him, as the argument has shown, whoever abandons his own beginning and is irrationally swept along toward non-being is rightly said to have slipped down from above, because he does not move toward his own beginning and cause according to which and for which and through which he came to be made.

Therefore since all matter is created in such a way to possess an essential principle matter as a consequence possesses not only an intelligible form but soteriological worth that is teleologically explicated through its distinctive logoi. 3. Conclusion This article has endeavored to understand the Patristic background to the dogma of creation ex nihilo. Subsequent to gauging Philo of Alexandrias distinctive view of creation wherein at the eternal instant God thinks so too does he create, St Athanasiuss contribution as well as St Maximuss contribution to the dogma of creation from nothing has been analyzed. St Athanasiuss contributions, being unique in their own respect, present the reader with an understanding of creation that doesnt simply finds its resting place in offering a refutation against the Platonic belief that the world has existed from eternity. Similarly, St Maximuss contribution to the dogma of creation from nothing
30

Cf. Ibid., 163.

presents the reader with a metaphysically holistic understanding of reality that finds its intrinsic intelligibility through the embodiment of the Logos in creation.

4. Bibliography: 1. J. P. Moreland & William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003) 2. Laurence M. Krauss. A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing. (Atria Books, 2013) 3. Paul Blowers. Drama of the Divine Economy: Creator and Creation in Early

Christian Theology and Piety. (Oxford University Press, 2012). 4. Philo, Legum Allegoriarum. 5. Philo, Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis. 6. Philo, Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat. 7. Philo, De Opificio Mundi. 8. Philo, De Providentia. 9. Philo, Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit. 10. St Athanasius, On the Incarnation. 11. St Athanasius, Against the Gentiles. 12. Khaled Anatolios. Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought. (Routledge, 2004). 13. St Maximus, Ambiguum, 7