# Hoeksema's rejection of ex nihilo



## Nate (Jun 22, 2017)

I’m having difficulty determining whether Herman Hoeksema rejects the historical position of creation _ex nihilo_ or whether he simply dislikes the specific term ”_ex nihilo_”.

This is from his _Reformed Dogmatics_:



> It is not correct to say that to create is to make something out of nothing (_ex nihilo_). As a definition this is very defective and incorrect because such a definition cannot be applied to all the various acts of God that constitute the one mighty work of creation, nor is the real idea of the work of creation expressed in this definition. It leaves the impression that the origin of things must be sought in nothing. The idea of a creation out of nothing is entirely foreign to Scripture. The word of God explains the origin of things according to the counsel of God from his omnipotent will and tells us that God calls the things that are not as if they were (Rom. 4:17). The words that occur in scripture to denote the creative act of God certainly do not express the idea of making something out of nothing, although they do express very clearly, when understood in their proper context, that creation is exclusively a divine work. The words in Hebrew are: ראָבּ) ָto create), צרָ ַי) to form), and שׂה ָע) ָto make). In the Greek we find the corresponding terms: κτίζειν (to create), πλάσσειν (to form), and ποιεῖν (to make). The idea expressed by the term ראָבּ) ָto create) is most probably that of separation, of cutting off, and in this way giving separate being and form. Out of his eternal counsel, God separated the things and all creation by an act of his almighty will and gave them existence, not in themselves, but existence that is essentially distinct from his own being. He separated and defined the several creatures also in relation to one another so that each creature is distinct from all other creatures, even though the creatures together express the harmony and the unity of God’s thoughts. The Hebrew verb צרָ ַי) to form) and the Greek πλάσσειν (to form) denote the same idea of giving distinct form to anything outside of God. The verbs שׂה ָע) ָto make) and ποιεῖν (to make or to do) denote the general idea of giving existence or being to anything.
> 
> The work of creation is always ascribed in scripture to the act of God’s almighty will. Before the beginning there was nothing outside of him. He alone is from eternity. Besides, he is not a needy God, who became rich through the creation of the world, for he is the all- and self-sufficient, who has no need of anything, and to whom no creature can add anything that would make him richer. He is the triune God, who even without the world lives in himself a perfect covenant life of friendship. He knows himself in the Son, the eternal Word, who is the express image of his substance (Heb. 1:3). Not only does God know himself through his Son and in the Spirit, but also all his works are known unto him from eternity (Acts 15:18). The Son is the Word and Wisdom of God, the fullness of all his thoughts, and in his counsel God conceived and willed all things that will ever be or become. This counsel is the implication of all the thoughts of God with regard to all that exists, not only as it was formed from the beginning but also, according to the purpose and intention of God, as it will be when all things both in heaven and on earth will be united in Christ Jesus our Lord. Not only are the beginning and the end eternally established by the Lord in his eternal counsel, but also the connection and the relation of that beginning and end of all things stand eternally before his divine consciousness. He knows the becoming and the history of all things, the course of their development along the way of sin and grace, of curse and death, and of glorification. In this sense the eternal reality of all things is certainly with God in the counsel of the Most High; he rejoices in and glorifies himself in his own decree from eternity to eternity. Therefore, even though the things are executed in time, and although he gives them all existence in time, outside of and in distinction from himself, yet he is eternally the creator of all things. In God there is no variableness or shadow of turning (James 1:17).
> 
> ...



Does anyone have thoughts on this?

Reactions: Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## MW (Jun 22, 2017)

Like Gerstner he was rejecting the term but was misusing the proper function of the words in the doctrinal formulation. It is probably owing to some metaphysical issue of that era; possibly the ramifications of big bang cosmology, where "nothing" was redefined as "something."

The phrase properly understood does not function to point out the instrument God used. "Nothing" obviously cannot be an instrument. The instrument is described in the phrase, "by the word of His power." The ex nihilo phrase only points to the fact that nothing existed beside God prior to creation.

Like Gerstner, Hoeksema appears to have adopted Jonathan Edwards' "ex Deo" view. It looks pantheistic at first view because "ex" is the common term, and "ex" is being understood in an instrumental sense. But both theologians maintained a Creator-creature separation, and they explained themselves so as to clarify that creation is a voluntary act of God, not an emanation of the nature of God.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 3


----------



## Nate (Jun 22, 2017)

MW said:


> Like Gerstner he was rejecting the term but was misusing the proper function of the words in the doctrinal formulation. It is probably owing to some metaphysical issue of that era; possibly the ramifications of big bang cosmology, where "nothing" was redefined as "something."
> 
> The phrase properly understood does not function to point out the instrument God used. "Nothing" obviously cannot be an instrument. The instrument is described in the phrase, "by the word of His power." The ex nihilo phrase only points to the fact that nothing existed beside God prior to creation.
> 
> Like Gerstner, Hoeksema appears to have adopted Jonathan Edwards' "ex Deo" view. It looks pantheistic at first view because "ex" is the common term, and "ex" is being understood in an instrumental sense. But both theologians maintained a Creator-creature separation, and they explained themselves so as to clarify that creation is a voluntary act of God, not an emanation of the nature of God.



That was very helpful - thanks Rev. Winzer.


----------



## MW (Jun 23, 2017)

Nate said:


> That was very helpful - thanks Rev. Winzer.



You are very welcome. The Dogmatics can be difficult reading, but quite rewarding.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 24, 2017)

MW said:


> Like Gerstner he was rejecting the term but was misusing the proper function of the words in the doctrinal formulation. It is probably owing to some metaphysical issue of that era; possibly the ramifications of big bang cosmology, where "nothing" was redefined as "something."
> 
> The phrase properly understood does not function to point out the instrument God used. "Nothing" obviously cannot be an instrument. The instrument is described in the phrase, "by the word of His power." The ex nihilo phrase only points to the fact that nothing existed beside God prior to creation.
> 
> Like Gerstner, Hoeksema appears to have adopted Jonathan Edwards' "ex Deo" view. It looks pantheistic at first view because "ex" is the common term, and "ex" is being understood in an instrumental sense. But both theologians maintained a Creator-creature separation, and they explained themselves so as to clarify that creation is a voluntary act of God, not an emanation of the nature of God.


He would then seem to be rejecting the idea that God used part of Himself to form the creation.


MW said:


> Like Gerstner he was rejecting the term but was misusing the proper function of the words in the doctrinal formulation. It is probably owing to some metaphysical issue of that era; possibly the ramifications of big bang cosmology, where "nothing" was redefined as "something."
> 
> The phrase properly understood does not function to point out the instrument God used. "Nothing" obviously cannot be an instrument. The instrument is described in the phrase, "by the word of His power." The ex nihilo phrase only points to the fact that nothing existed beside God prior to creation.
> 
> Like Gerstner, Hoeksema appears to have adopted Jonathan Edwards' "ex Deo" view. It looks pantheistic at first view because "ex" is the common term, and "ex" is being understood in an instrumental sense. But both theologians maintained a Creator-creature separation, and they explained themselves so as to clarify that creation is a voluntary act of God, not an emanation of the nature of God.


was he holding that God was not using part of Himself to create the Universe, so that He created from really nothing pre existing?

Reactions: Like 1


----------

