John Gerstner on Creation: Pantheism?

[Taylor]

I have been listening to Dr. John Gerstner's lectures on systematic theology (called "Handout Theology") on Ligonier's website. Dr. Gerstner is one of my favorite people to listen to. Yesterday, I listened to his lecture on creation. It was one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard on the topic. I would like an evaluation of his thoughts.

He recognized that his position is in the extreme minority. However, he said he was convinced by Jonathan Edwards (which makes sense for Gerstner, an Edwards scholar). By way of summary, his position is in the following points:

1. Creatio ex nihilo is absurd and nonsensical. Only nothing can come from nothing; ex nihilo nihil fit.
2. At the same time, nothing except God has the power of being in itself.
3. Therefore, both creatio ex nihilo and the eternality of matter are impossible and unscriptural.
4. Therefore, we ought to affirm creatio ex Deo. Creation is "some kind of modification of the divine nature." Although we do not know what this means, and we cannot even really find out what it means or how it happens, it is a fact.

While he denied at several points that this leads to pantheism, he admitted it seems dangerously close. Again, he said he was drawing heavily from Jonathan Edwards. Has anyone encountered this kind of teaching before? Does it have historical roots? Is it a viable doctrine of creation?

 

[Nate]

Hoeksema's rejection of ex nihilo

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...

www.puritanboard.com

 

[Nate]

I miss Rev. Winzer and often wonder how he would respond on various contemporary PB threads.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

So, when God said “Let there be light” where did it come from if ex nihilo is not a possibility? What “source” (best word I can think of using at the moment) did light come from if not God? I find the OP (not the poster but the guy and his stance) quite disturbing.

 

[TylerRay]

I have been listening to Dr. John Gerstner's lectures on systematic theology (called "Handout Theology") on Ligonier's website. Dr. Gerstner is one of my favorite people to listen to. Yesterday, I listened to his lecture on creation. It was one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard on the topic. I would like an evaluation of his thoughts.

He recognized that his position is in the extreme minority. However, he said he was convinced by Jonathan Edwards (which makes sense for Gerstner, an Edwards scholar). By way of summary, his position is in the following points:

1. Creatio ex nihilo is absurd and nonsensical. Only nothing can come from nothing; ex nihilo nihil fit.
2. At the same time, nothing except God has the power of being in itself.
3. Therefore, both creatio ex nihilo and the eternality of matter are impossible and unscriptural.
4. Therefore, we ought to affirm creatio ex Deo. Creation is "some kind of modification of the divine nature." Although we do not know what this means, and we cannot even really find out what it means or how it happens, it is a fact.

While he denied at several points that this leads to pantheism, he admitted it seems dangerously close. Again, he said he was drawing heavily from Jonathan Edwards. Has anyone encountered this kind of teaching before? Does it have historical roots? Is it a viable doctrine of creation?

It's technically panentheism, not pantheism. Still an aberration, though.

 

[TylerRay]

On Edwards' panentheism: https://heidelblog.net/2020/12/crisp-edwards-was-a-panentheist/

 

[Knight]

When someone says he picked up his metaphysical views on creation from Edwards, a red alert should instantly go off in your mind.

 

[RamistThomist]

That's actually not the worst part of Edwards on creation/pantheism. There are ways creatio ex Dei can be okay, but this sounds that creation comes from God's being, and if it comes from God's being, then it has some part of God's being.

 

[ZackF]

That's actually not the worst part of Edwards on creation/pantheism. There are ways creatio ex Dei can be okay, but this sounds that creation comes from God's being, and if it comes from God's being, then it has some part of God's being.

Would this be what some Catholic theologians call immanentism?

 

[C4MERON]

Interesting. I agree that Gerstner is ordinarily very sound but this is a tad strange.

 

[RamistThomist]

Would this be what some Catholic theologians call immanentism?

Could be.

 

[RamistThomist]

Some more problems with Edwards's panentheism.

Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin

This isn’t really an exegetical defense of Original Sin as it is an extended book review on Dr Taylor’s works. There is some exegesis, and Edwards does make a few good comments on concreated holin…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

 

[Romans678]

When someone says he picked up his metaphysical views on creation from Edwards, a red alert should instantly go off in your mind.

Good day to you. Can you explain what you mean here? Is Edwards someone with erroneous views we should avoid? I'm just trying to understand that's all.

 

[RamistThomist]

Good day to you. Can you explain what you mean here? Is Edwards someone with erroneous views we should avoid? I'm just trying to understand that's all.

Edwards' metaphysics came very close to denying the reality of the external universe. In Original Sin he seemed to say (and I say "seemed" because he wasn't the clearest communicator) that the the universe ceased to exist each moment and was subsequently created each moment.

 

[Taylor]

Another thing I cannot get over is that one of the premises for Dr. Gerstner’s argument is that God is “all being,” and therefore, there cannot be any other being but him. This did not strike me well; I don’t think it’s correct to think of God this way. Finally, I remembered reading about this in Vos’ Reformed Dogmatics, literally beginning on page one. Although the context here is about the knowledge of God, it is still quite applicable:

3. On what ground do others deny God’s knowability?​

​

On the ground that God is All-Being. They have a pantheistic view of God. Now, knowing presumes that the object known is not all there is, since it always remains distinct from the subject doing the knowing. Making God the object of knowledge, one reasons, is equivalent to saying that He is not all there is, that He is limited.​

​

4. What response is to be made against this view?​

​

a) The objection that this view presents stems entirely from a philosophical view of God, as if He were All-Being. This view is wrong. God is certainly infinite, but God is not the All. There are things that exist, whose existence is not identical with God.​

​

b) It is certainly true that we cannot make a visible representation of God because He is a purely spiritual being. But we also cannot do that of our own soul. Yet we believe that we know it.​

​

c) It is also true that we do not have an in-depth and comprehensive knowledge of God. All our knowledge, even with regard to created things, is in part. This is even truer of God. We only know Him insofar as He reveals Himself, that is, has turned His being outwardly for us. God alone possesses ideal knowledge of Himself and of the whole world, since He pervades everything with His omniscience.​

​

d) That we are able to know God truly rests on the fact that God has made us in His own image, thus an impression of Himself, albeit from the greatest distance. Because we ourselves are spirit, possess a mind, will, etc., we know what it means when in His Word God ascribes these things to Himself.​

​

—Geerhardus Vos, Theology Proper, ed. Annemie Godbehere, Roelof van Ijken, and Kim Batteau, trans. Richard B. Gaffin, vol. 1, Reformed Dogmatics (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), 1-2; italics original; bold-underline added.​