>I am not sure that Hodge'e idea of "energizing" is the same as
>Terry's. Hodge says:
>
>"The fact is clearly revealed that God's agency is always and
>everwhere exercised in the preservation of his creatures, but the mode
>in which his effciency is exerted, further than that it is consistemt
>with the nature of the creatures themselves and with the holiness and
>goodness of God, is unrevealed and inscrutable. It is best, therefore,
>to rest satisfied with the simple statement that preservation is that
>omnipotent energy of God by which all created things, animate and
>inanimate, are upheld in existence, with all the properties and powers
>with which He has endowed them." (Hodge C., "Systematic Theology",
>Vol. I, 1960, James Clarke & Co., London, p581).
>
>Hodge is saying this "energy" belongs to God and is not a property of
>the creatures. It is therefore analogous to God's "energy" in creation
>which always arised from within God, not from within the creation.
Thank you for the Hodge quote. I am glad to see someone else familiar with
his theology. I have quoted this very section (at length) on this
discussion group before. I believe that this describes my position very
well and don't quite understand why you think my view is different from his
(although I know that there are some differences). This is part of Hodge's
discussion of "concurrence", how the sustaining and governing power of God
is creaturely being, properties, and capacities. In the end I believe that
Hodge is willing to leave much of it as mystery ["unrevealed and
inscrutable"] (although he spends several pages discussing the matter), but
the upshot is that any creaturely (both animate and inanimate) behavior is
does what it does ("is energized?") as a consequence of this sustaining and
governing power of God. There is no creaturely behavior apart from it.
Thus, any lawful desciption (one dependent on seemingly ordinary processes)
of creaturely behavior is still under the province of God sovereign power
and this accomplishes his holy will (even if contingent from the human
point of view as would be the case in history in general and evolutionary
history in particular).
In an earlier post Stephen accused me of a form of pantheism when I
advocated this position. I am no more a pantheist than Hodge is (just a
good old-fashioned Calvinist). Just because God's power is required for
any creaturely behavior does not mean the creature is God or that God is
the creature.
>
>>In any case, is that concept sufficient to explain how He might
>>use the process of evolution (which is influenced as much by the
>>contingencies of history as by natural law) to accomplish a very *specific*
>>goal, the creation of man's body (including his mental capacities)? I
>>don't think so. Or is the "divine energizing" mysterious and hidden
>>(although I believe you have explicitely rejected vitalism in a former
>>post; I don't remember whom you were writing to)?
>
>If Terry maintains this "energising" is a property of the creature,
>rather than a power of God, then I think it is, by definition, a form
>of vitalism.
"Energizing" (as we've been discussing it) is not a property of the
creature; it is a power of God.
>
>Of course I could be misunderstanding Terry. Like you, I await his
>clarification.
I hope this helps a bit.
Terry G.
______________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Phone: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
mailto:grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt/