On Thu, 12 Oct 1995 11:08:05 -0400 you wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>
>Stephen writes
SJ>Ultimately, for me at least, PC is more in harmony with the
>interventionist God of the Bible. God is One who intervenes in human
>history at strategic points, therefore I assume He also intervened in
>biological history at strategic point.
BHam>I think you have a non sequiter here. God intervenes in human
>history because it suits His purposes. If He can accomplish His
>purposes in biological history without intervening, then I presume
>He wouldn't.
BHar>I tend to agree with Bill on this. Suppose we rearranged Bill's
>idea slightly ;-) to say "If He can accomplish His purposes in human
>history without intervening, then I presume He wouldn't". What do
>you think?
I assume that God intervened in human history because it was the best
way to achieve His purposes. I do not agree that not intervening and
accomplishing His will through natural proceses is somehow a better
way.
BHar>I think this is most likely the case. God intervenes in human
>history because man's rebellion throws his plans off course. Man
>rebels because of his free will. Can nature rebel, necessitating
>God's intervention?
There is an assumption that God needs to intervene in human history
"because man's rebellion throws his plans off course". God was
intervening in human history *before the Fall* (Gn 2:7-8, 15ff).
If man had not fallen, he would presumably have enjoyed the benefit
of intimate fellowship with God (Gn 3:8), which may have involved
daily intervention?
Besides, there is no evidence that "man's rebellion throws his (God's)
plans off course". As I have said to Bill, Rev 13:8 describes Christ
as "the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world." Isa
14:26-27 indicates that God has an overall plan that is being worked
out irresistably:
"This is the plan determined for the whole world; this is the hand
stretched out over all nations. For the LORD Almighty has purposed,
and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn
it back?"
Paul in Eph 1:11 says that in this "plan" God "works out everything in
conformity with the purpose of his will".
There seems to be here an inbuilt naturalistic philosophical
assumption that God working through natural causes is best and God
intervening is second best. But why could God not have planned to
intervene in biological history from the very outset?
BHar>Thus, I think the analogy between God's intervention in human
>and natural history is very weak.
Disagree for the reasons above. IMHO the analogy is decisive in that
it shows that the God of the Bible is by nature an interventionist
God. The desire to see God as One who works best through natural
causes and only second best through intervention, seems to be a
philosophical preference of scientists, presumably influenced by their
naturalistic training?
I suggest this is what J.B. Phillips called a "Your God is Too Small"
problem, peculiar to scientists and engineers. We are always prone to
making God in our own image. The rise of Deism in the 19th century,
which depicted the universe as a great clockwork machine which God
wound up and left running, is a case in point.
It also confuses *operation* science with *origins* science. The fact
that God operates in day to day Providence mostly through natural
causes, does not mean that He operates in Creation the same way.
I see absolutely *no* reason, theologically or scientifically why God
should not intervene in the origin of the universe, life and life's
major groups. He has done it at crucial points in human history, so I
can see no reason why He should not have done so in biological
history.
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------