On Sat, 27 May 1995 15:34:56 +0700 you wrote:
>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).
I am pleased that you think your view is similar to Hodge.
>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).
OK.
>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.
I did not outrightly "accuse you of a form of pantheism". What I
said was:
"It could be argued that you yourself are making "anti-*theistic*"
claims Terry. Your God seems to be a a deistic one, with a tendency
to become a pantheistic one. <g>"
Note the "it could be argued...seems...tendency..." and last but not
least "<g>". This is to emphasise the tentative nature of my
assessment.
The fact is that I am not sure what your position is, but I welcome
your attempts to set me straight. I must say that at present I regard
your and Glenn's positions as what I would regard as Deism. However, I
will be shortly posting and extensive quote from Erickson's "Christian
Theology" that might clarify the difference.
>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.
Good!
>Of course I could be misunderstanding Terry. Like you, I await his
>clarification.
>
>I hope this helps a bit.
Yes. Thanks. Apologies for any ignorance on my part. I hope to remedy
that in the days to come!
In Him.
Stephen