On Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:57:18 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
>ABSTRACT: I give a review of theological reasons for favoring "natural
>processes" over "supernatural intervention" in biological history.
[...]
LH>2. Scriptures use similar language to describe God's creative
>activity and his providential care --- which is typically exercised
>via natural processes. Jesus spoke of God "feeding ... the birds of
>the air" and "clothing the grass of the field." We believe that God
>exercises this providential care by his governance over, and subtle
>guidance of, natural processes, rather than by supernatural
>intervention. Numerous poetic passages in the Old Testament
>simultaneously praise God for both his creative acts in forming the
>world and his providential care over the world today; the language of
>tehse passages draws little or no distinction between creative and
>providential acts. This gives us reason to think God might have
>governed formative natural history (both physical and biological) the
>same way he governs it today --- through natural processes.
We have been through this before. There is a fundamental difference
between originating something and maintaining it, even though there
may be some processes in common. Only in Genesis 1 we read "Let there
be...and there was" (eg. Gn 1:3, 6, 14, etc). Nowhere else in the
whole of scripture does this form of words appear. Also Gn 2:1-4
indicates that creation is "finished" (Gn 2:1), "ended" (Gn 2:2), and
now God has "rested" from his work of creation (Gn 2:2-3). IMHO TEs
reductionist desire to crunch together Creation and Providence is not
really listening to what God is saying in Scripture.
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------