Vagn H. Jensen of Ammon, Idaho wrote this recent letter to the editor of our local paper, The Post Register.
There have been several letters lately regarding science versus religion. One even went so far as to say the Bible was wrong from the start. Either he/she is atheist, took things out of context or did not read the whole Bible.
Second Peter 3:8 –“one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” One thousand days, 2.7 years times 1,000 years, and we now have 1 million years in the Lord’s, or celestial, time. Multiply this by six or seven or more thousand years, and we now have several billion years. Therefore, the Bible is right, as are the scientists who calculate things by carbon timing.
We do not know how long each creative period took, but surely it took more than one day each, as men measure time. Creative is not a good word. Even God can’t create anything out of nothing. He can organize, reorganize or even change things into something else –as can a chemist – but that’s all. Material was always there and always will be, even if in different substance.
When man is learned, he thinks he’s wise, somewhat like Washington.
Vagn brings up a very core issue. As a pastor in Ammon, Idaho, I respectfully but strongly differ with him. His use of the word, day (yom), and his reference to create (bara) in Scripture, become the center of the needed debate about the activity of God. My father is a retired chemist from Argonne National Laboratory outside Idaho Falls; and he has never been able in the lab to create wine from water. There is a chasm between the earthly chemist and the heavenly Creator. In John’s Gospel, God miraculously created grape ingredients out of nothing for the transformation of the water. The beginnings of John’s Gospel and Genesis are intertwined.
I would be curious to hear Mr. Jensen’s remarks on God’s relationship to matter. Is God bound to the natural laws of matter? Is God different from physical matter which has a beginning in time (for example, the physical body of Jesus in the Incarnation)?
Though I differ with the world’s leading geneticist, Francis Collins, on the Big Bang, I do agree with his argument here:
If God exists, then he is supernatural.
If he is supernatural, then He is not limited by natural laws.
If He is not limited by natural laws, there is no reason He should be limited by time.
If He is not limited by time, then He is in the past, the present, and the future. (The Language of God, p. 81).
Is physical matter on par with God and not limited by time? Does the Bible teach us this?
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Rejection of creation ex nihilo is a big commitment in Mormon theology. I won’t pretend to understand all the pro and con arguments whether Biblical, historical, or philosophical. Blake Ostler is probably the one who has championed Mormonism’s rejection of it the most and there are some good articles that can be found online at FAIRLDS and FARMS if you are interested.
As it is, I think that creation out of nothing was first promoted by Tatian. A Mormon critic, John Patrick Holding, made a rather telling concession from my POV: “it is not explicitly taught in the Bible: there are only broad hints that are compatible with it.”
http://tektonics.org/af/exnihilo.html
Here is how I would answer some of your questions:
>Is God bound to the natural laws of matter?
Yes, one of which is that matter cannot be created or destroyed (laying aside questions of epistemological certainty about this law) . I think many Mormons follow James Talmage’s argument that miracles are simply manifestations of higher, less understood, natural laws.
>Is God different from physical matter which has a beginning in time (for example, the physical body of Jesus in the Incarnation)?
This question can’t be answered yes or no, because its premise is rejected. Some Mormon’s would respond that the physical body of Jesus was organized from always existing matter. An analogy would be that that the atomic elements that make up my body existed prior to coming together.
>Is physical matter on par with God and not limited by time?
In my opinion the physical matter that makes up God is in a much more exalted state or higher level of being than say, a handful of dirt. I think there are other ways of measuring greatness than the amount of time in material existence.
>Does the Bible teach us this?
The Bible is subject to interpretation on this issue. I would have to say that my personal beliefs on the subject have been heavily influenced by LDS revelation and that I approach reading Biblical texts with a prior commitment. I do appreciate getting my preconceptions challenged from closer study of the texts and persuasive reasoning, however.
David, your answers are refreshing. And thanks for the link.
Several months ago, I read, “The Big Bang: What Does It Mean For Us” by Hollis R. Johnson. It was a review of Paul Copan and William Lane Craig – “Craftsman or Creator? An Examination of the Mormon Doctrine of Creation and a Defense of Creatio ex nihilo.” In The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement, ed. Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen.
Johnson rebukes Copan and Craig for their belief in the Big Bang and the Bible. As a Creationist, this particular rebuke would be irelevant to me. Can you think of any direct links where FARMS or FAIR would be countering the biblical creationist’s model of cosmology? (For instance, the Answers in Genesis ministry)
Recently, I read a book from the local library that contained all the material argumentation on organic evolution and controversial letters to General Authorities by Sterling Talmage. It is very interesting to hear of Sterling’s rebuke to the LDS literalists, those with fundamentalist tendencies.
For the life of me, I can’t think of the title of the book. Do you know what I am talking about?
So does this seem to be a fundamental difference between evangelicalism and mormonism at present? I hope to be fair.
Evangelical Christianity – God outside the limits of natural law because God created it.
Mormon Christianity– God within the limits of natural law
Todd,
I enjoy reading your comments on the various LDS blogs, they often make discussions much more exciting.
You asked for some direct links and indicate that you have read Hollis Johnson’s rebuttal. I remember reading that too when it first came out, but I had to jog my memory because much of it went over my head.
Blake Ostler has other responses to Copan and Craig, but they make for long reads:
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai184.html
http://tinyurl.com/yunjmt
I do agree that considerations about whether or not the “big bang” entails creation out of nothing is not as big of an issue as other concerns about ex nihilo.
I think the Sterling Talmage book you read was Can Science Be Faith-Promoting? I haven’t read it, but I have read other studies of the internal debates among GAs over evolution such as Michael Ash’s article http://www.mormonfortress.com/evolution.pdf . I tend to remain neutral about evolution and tolerant of diversity of opinion about it like the LDS church is currently.
I find it difficult to say that God works outside of natural law precisely because He is the source of natural law. To say that God obeys the law does not diminish His role as lawgiver, rather it means that we can rely on what he says, that He will not capriciously change the rules just when we have complied. This does not mean that there is not a hierarchy of laws, thus Jesus could turn water into wine while your father cannot. Likewise, and more significantly, the atonement satisfies the demands of the moral law that God has given in ways that are similarly miraculous, but still bound by the sure promises, or laws, of God.
David,
In your last link, I saw the words, “When the leaders speak, the thinking has been done.” I had those very words mentioned to me in a discussion by a friend this morning. Would you by chance know the date publication of Michael Ash’s article?
Also, this morning, I got into a discussion about a pre-Eve (a prior Eve that refused sex with Adam, hence divorce and the current Eve recognized in biblical literature.) I wonder how this would fit in with pre-Adamites.
Talk about a diversity of discussions in Idaho Falls . . . there is ample opportunity in Southeastern Idaho. 🙂
I am not neutral toward organic evolution. In accepting such concepts, I think this in turn muddies bibliology, harmiatology, soteriology, etc. and most importantly theology, darkening the beautiful music of doxology. The scientific theories on origins and cosmology are neither clear nor consistent for persuading me to alter my more literal, normative interpretation of those early Genesis chapters.
A couple weeks ago, while I was acting as a docent at the Ink & Blood Exhibit in Idaho Falls, I met the chairman of the board for the Answers in Genesis ministry, Don Landis. He is the pastor of the Community Bible Church in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Nice fellow.
It would be interesting to get together with Blake Ostler & other LDS apologists over in Jackson some time to meet together for some counterpoint discussion.
Ugly Mahana, even though I am one of those bizarre trees in the forest, it is nice that you popped in.
But now I got to go. More later.
Todd,
The Ash article came out in 2002.
We, Mormons need to hold a funeral for the phrase about “the thinking has been done.”
I have heard some of the folklore about Lillith, but those types of stories are more heretical for me than the pre-Adamites theories are.
I do think we will see more academic exchange over the philosophical implications of creation ex nihilo. I read a paper by David Paulsen where he tried to persuade social trinitarians that rejecting it will make some of the problems they are trying to solve easier.
I don’t know that evolution is a hot-button issue for some Mormons right now. With our relatively young intellectual tradition I think we like to pick our areas where we can make a contribution. EV’s clearly produce the best work in defending Bible literalism, and secularists already champion what they think is the best read of the science; so I am inclined to be a spectator on the issues.
David, I am not convinced that social trinitarianism squares correctly with Scripture. But I would be willing to read Paulsen’s paper.
Would you have a link for this?
Todd,
Unfortunately what I read was a pre-publication copy aimed for a Christianity Today type audience, sometime last year. I am not sure what its status is at the moment. I think a month or two ago, a paper with a similar theme was presented at a Mormon philosophy conference.
You may want to email him at his BYU address* to get an e-copy if you’re still interested. In my brief interaction with him (I emailed him for his opinion about a Catholic decision to not accept Mormon baptisms), I have found him to be quite helpful.
*BYU addresses are all formatted First_Last@byu.edu
Meanwhile, Paulsen briefly covers the Social Model of the Godhead, among other things, in last year’s “Are Christians Mormons?” in BYU Studies. But there he is preaching to the Mormon choir, and what is joyful noise to me might be grating to evangelical ears.
Click to access 45.1Paulsen.pdf
*I am going to chew on this paper by Paulsen piece by piece. In the introduction to the paper, Paulsen mentions a Christian scholar who claims that half of the scholars today writing on the Trinity hold to a social trinitarian view. David, this seems a little extreme. I would be interested on 1) who is the Christian scholar making this claim and 2) what is his persuasion.
*Madsen’s cautions at the beginning are worth noting.
*I read up to page 12 (covering New Testament gifts) and stopped for tonight. David, you might find this interesting. I married a Pentecostal girl. Believe it or not, even within historical Christian fundamentalism, one’s view as cessationist or non-cessationist was not a test of fellowship. Paulsen should have pulled this from his paper as a point of convergence. It is not a fundamental issue that divides traditional Christianity from Mormonism.
David, I read this today and thought it interesting to the topic.
I understand your concern about a second report from an anonymous scholar. I give such things little weight. What would really have to be done would be to survey academic publications on the Trinity. I am sure there are many scholars not caught up in promoting social trinitarians or rebutting it, but a 50/50 split could be explained by selection bias, with refereed journals and presses striving for balance on a debated topic. Scholars are not necessarily representative of their denomination as a whole as well. Especially when we see some of them switch denominations like Beckwith and Owen here recently. I think average members are usually 20-30 years behind academic paradigm shifts and even then not all ideas catch on.
I spent some time yesterday trying to get a feel for what is happening in Social Trinitarian discussions using JSTOR and Google. Here are a few links I found helpful:
TOWARD A BIBLICAL MODEL OF THE SOCIAL TRINITY: AVOIDING EQUIVOCATION OF NATURE AND ORDER
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2004 by Horrell, J Scott
The footnotes I link give a listing of who’s who in the pro and critical camps:
http://tinyurl.com/3b5ecf
The Trinity in Contemporary Theology: Questioning the Social Trinity
Gives an intellectual history of ST and a light critique
http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1483
I think your point is well taken about charismatic movements. I think the two topics addressed in that section would have been better parsed out into Open vs. Closed Canon and spiritual gifts. The latter issue won’t be all that interesting until if and when some mainline denomination adds to their canon and we see what the reaction of the rest of the Christian world to that is.
I do know that the early Mormons caught a lot of flack for their charismatic tendencies, but less so now. Part of that is because Mormons are less charismatic these days and are upstaged by the likes of Benny Hinn. I am less familiar with tensions Pentecostals experienced, but their vitality and mainstream acceptance deserves some Holy Envy and more due credit.
David, your first link in #12 – Millard Erickson is a social trinitarian? This is new to me. The second link is even more fascinating. Thank you for this. The author is thoughtful. I must admit. Barth all the way to Moltmann grate me the wrong way in many theological aspects. I strongly oppose neo-orthodoxy. And Moltmann rejects God’s immutability because in his logic this would remove God as being personal. I disagree.
#13 – I was introduced to this phrase, “holy envy,” by Amy-Jill Levine. Not quite sure what to do with the term.
Have you heard of the Mormon turned Pentecostal, Jim Spencer? This guy was quite the center of attention in Idaho Falls years ago and gained quite the reputation, good and bad.
Todd,
I have heard of Jim Spencer and read some of his criticisms of Mormonism. I can’t say I am a fan, as you could imagine.
I learned the term from reports of Rev. Krister Stendahl, a Lutheran, calling a press conference to help a new temple being built to be more warmly received somewhere in Europe. Evidently he was practicing holy envy by complimenting the Pentecostals in the Paulsen article, so I was trying to follow suit. Stendahl also has holy envy for the LDS practice for baptisms for the dead and he wrote the article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism for it. I had to look it up, but Levine picked the term up from Stendahl as well.
I not to familiar with Milliard Erickson’s writing or anyone on the paper’s lists for that matter, except Craig and Moreland.
If I had to choose between God having an adaptive personality as a response to my unpredictable, freely willed acts and God being immutable, I would choose the former set up. In fact, I think the best read of Mormon scriptures on eternal progression requires mutability. I plan on reading Clark Pinnock’s book on Open Theism sometime in the next year or so.
David,
I am thankful that Jim and I share some of the same core tenets of faith, but I don’t necessarily agree with some of the things that he has published. Not a fan either in some of the format. (But I do wonder what the fellow is doing now in his latter years.)
Thanks for bringing up Krister Stendahl. Yes, you have correctly reminded me of both Paulsen and Levine’s source.
Yesterday, I read with troublesome effort a little more of Paulsen’s paper, all the way to the conclusion on the topic of open/closed canon. Frankly, I have no respect for Funk or the other extreme thought of a “canon within a canon”. Like Thomas Jefferson of old, these “scholars” today piously shred Scripture.
Thinking of Dead Sea Scroll scriptures, Peter Flint sought to convince people not too long ago in Idaho Falls about accepting as canon the Enoch material found in the caves. But David, I would question whether the DSS Enoch material is able to seamlessly fit with 66 canonical books, let alone the Enoch material in the Pearl of Great Price.
Also in bringing up Qumran and the Essenes, I think Paulsen, rather than persuading me, generates more questions. The Pharisaical sect of Jews did not accept the apocryphal works, attached with the Septuagint, Vulgate (and the late 1611 KJV) as authoritative. The MT ruled. But in contrast to the Pharisees, didn’t the Qumran sect of Jews, if Essenes, not accept the historical accounts of the Maccabbees? There are too many holes to provide sweeping, substantial evidence.
On any canon discussion, I wish there would be interaction with Scripture passages that support promises of sufficiency and preservation. This is woefully lacking in Paulsen’s first main point on convergence.
As I saw the caption for the next point . . . God is personal and passible, I imagined how this might provide some more framework for your last paragraph.