Being Christian Reformed I believe, that God "wrote" the creation, see
Romans 1, and that His act of sustaining, developing etc. of Creation is
not to be seen apart from the "initial" creation. I put "initial" in
quotation marks, since the word "creation" has for diverse ASA-members
different meanings. God cannot be seen by us loose from His creation. He
"upholds and governs" this creation, as the Heidelberg Cathechism says,
quoting Scripture. Consequently, I cannot see God's work now in nature
disconnected from God's work at the beginning. Talking about natural laws
without realizing, that these too are under God's continuing control, seems
impossible to me.
Quite another consideration I miss in all discussions is the fact that God
is outside time. Time is a creation of God. Thus talking about God's
creation without noticing the close connection between time and mass
(nature) is impossible. God is above both, even when He works daily in
creation. For God yesterday, today and tomorrow are the same. In that
sense talking as if God set things in motion, and then left the creation to
itself does not make sense, and is unbiblical anyway. How it all fits
together, God's eternity and our temporality, God's instructions and
natural laws, the new heaven and earth etc. we cannot understand, and will
never be able to understand. We cannot draw God down to our level, and say
that He was intelligent. For me, talking about Intelligent Design is
blasphemy.
I have no trouble with a statement that says, that God creates out of
nothing. But, do we know what we say when we use a term like that? Is our
universe the only one God created? Are parallel universes possible? Is a
universe without "time" in our sense possible? Let us not deduce too
hastily definite things about the connection God has with the natural
environment, except that God created and creates it, and wants us to take
care of it. God Is Allmighty, but gives us a respobsibility. Here is
another mystery: the relation between our responsibility and God's total
control.
A different issue is: How do we read Scripture? John Calvin said already
that we come to Scripture with glasses on. We cannot leave ourselves
behind when we read, and read words in the bible using our understanding
of words. The contents or understanding of words have changed since the
Middle Ages, and even more since biblical times. It is not just
translators that struggle with that difficulty, we all should be doing it.
Some words are translated in one text in two different ways. Two different
translations try to clarify issues using different words. Etc.
Consequently different conclusions are drawn out of the same text. It is
good to comapre translations and use the foot notes and if necessaary
dictionaries and word-studies.
Differences exist about the meaning of the Scientific Method, and the
application of that method. For that reason, talks about these subjects
often have no results, because we talk before we have investigated: Do we
accept the same basic principles? And if we have different basic
principles, how do they affect our discussions? That is my reason for
writing this post. It appears to me, that many assume, that everyone
understands them, and knows their philosophical backgrounds. A great
shortcoming of scientific studies is, that the basic backgrounds of methods
is hardly ever discussed.
Is it possible to talk about the theological view that Moses wrote Ge.1
-11 after he had received God's Word on Sinai? If so, is it a great heresy
to say, that Gen.chapters 1 -11were written in order to make clear that
serving anything in creation is sin? That original man soon fell into sin
because he waanted to be independent ofg God? To see Gen.1as a poem
singing God's praise? Etc.
The above may seem rambling, but is caused by frustration, that no one
seems to study deeply the background of certain points of view. Yet, we
are all united in wanting to take the bible as our base, and Jesus Christ
as our King and Saviour.
Jan de Koning
Willowdale, ONt.