On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 17:48:08 -0400 you wrote:
SJ>Yet Hodge recognises a clear distinction between Creation and
>Providence (which he calls "Preservation"). He rejects the idea that
>Preservation is continued Creation because it confounds Creation and
>Preservation (Providence):
>
>"A second view of the nature of preservation goes to the opposite
>extreme of confounding creation and preservation." (Hodge, p577).
>
>He begins his "Objections to the Doctrine of a Continuous Creation"
>with:
>
>"All these modes of representation, however, are objectionable.
>Creation, preservation, and government are in fact different, and to
>identify them leads not only to confusion but to error. Creation and
>preservation differ, first, as the former is the calling into
>existence what before did not exist; and the latter is continuing, or
>causing to continue what already has a being; and secondly, in
>creation there is and can be no cooperation, but in preservation there
>is a concursus of the first, with second causes. In the Bible,
>therefore, the two things are never confounded. God created all
>things, and by Him all things consist." (Hodge, p578)
TG>The continuous creation that Hodge is talking about is the belief
>that God re-creates the entire universe at every instant, rather than
>sustaining some creation that he has already created. I agree fully
>with Hodge here and don't see how it is relevant to our discussion.
I am well aware that Hodge was talking of "continuous creation" and
what it means. I deliberately disclosed the full context of Hodge's
remarks so you could not accuse me of being out of context. The point
was that Hodge clearly rejected the idea of blurring Creation and
Providence.
TG>I'm asserting that God uses pre-existing material guided by
>providential power (and in the case of the orgin of the human soul, a
>special creative act) to create--this is mediate creation.
This is not all that you asserted. You claimed that:
"TG>...I do blur the distinction (between Creation and Providence) as
>have nearly all theologians who recognize the possibility of some
>kinds of mediate creation, including Hodge and Calvin"
My point was that Hodge maintained that Creation and Providence were
separate and distinct, and not to be blurred:
"A second view of the nature of preservation goes to THE OPPOSITE
EXTREME OF CONFOUNDING CREATION AND PRESERVATION." (Hodge,
p577. my emphasis)
and
"...Creation, preservation, and government ARE IN FACT DIFFERENT, AND
TO IDENTIFY THEM LEADS NOT ONLY TO CONFUSION BUT TO ERROR...In
the Bible, therefore, the two things are NEVER CONFOUNDED...."
(Hodge, p578. my emphasis).
SJ>What I did find interesting in looking up Hodge is that he
>apparently believed in Progressive Creation! :-)
>
>"There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not only an
>immediate, instantaneous creation ex nihilo by the simple word of
>God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working
>in union with second causes." (Hodge, p557)
TG>Ah, but don't be guilty of reading your definition of progressive
>creation (that of Ramm's from the 1950's) into Hodge's words. This
>quote equally describes evolutionary creation, only we (with Hodge)
>take second causes seriously.
I agree, this might not be what Ramm meant by PC, but it is consistent
with PC. It depends on whether "the power of God working in union
with second causes" is direct and indirect (PC) or wholly indirect (TE
& EC).
TG>Progressive creationists, as represented by you, seem to be saying
>that second causes, even with the power of God working in union with
>them, cannot (or did not produce) the macroevolutionary novelty or
>the original life forms.
Before I can answer that, I would like you to define exactly you
mean by "...with the power of God working in union with them", with
especial reference to citations from Hodge.
TG>Now I'm not claiming Hodge as an evolutionary creationist either,
>so don't rebut my position with that accusation. I'm just saying
>that Hodge's view of providence and secondary causes is compatible
>with my view of evolutionary creation.
If Hodge was not a progressive creationis and he is not an
evolutionary creationist, then what was he? You claim his support,
for your EC views, but slide out from under when they are put under
the microscope. :-)
TG>As we've noted before, I think our positions are exceedingly close.
>I, however, am completely open to naturalistic descriptions of these
>origin processes (as long as the providential hand of God is
>recognized). You, on the other hand, seem to be highly suspicious of
>them. It's also nice to know that there are other people out there
>who still read Charles Hodge.
I am glad you think "our positions are exceedingly close", but it may
be only because you are blurring important distinctions. You make
claims really that Hodge and Warfield supported EC when really they
are supporting what would today be called PC! (Indeed Hodge called it
PC). For example, in your trial defence web page you quoted Warfield:
"A few citations from Warfield's own writings will suffice to make the
point that a theistically interpreted evolution is within in pale of
orthodoxy and that this extends even to the origin of Adam's body. In
his unpublished "Lectures on Anthropology" (Dec. 1888) (cited in
Darwin's Forgotten Defenders, p. 119) he writes: The upshot of the
whole matter is that there is no necessary antagonism of Christianity
to evolution, provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of
evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work
apart from law and WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW INTERVENTION (in the giving of
the soul, in creating Eve, etc.) will entail a great reconstruction
of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the detailed
authority of the Bible. But if we condition the theory by allowing
the constant oversight of God in the whole process, and HIS OCCASIONAL
SUPERNATURAL INTERFERENCE for the production of new beginnings by an
actual output of creative force, producing something new i.e.,
something not included even in posse in the preceding conditions, ;we
may hold to the modified theory of evolution and be Christians in the
ordinary orthodox sense." (my emphasis)
This is straight PC (I would endorse it fully), and not TE or EC at
all (do you endorse it fully?). If your EC allows God's "occasional
supernatural interference for the production of new beginnings by an
actual output of creative force, producing something new i.e.,
something not included even in posse in the preceding conditions",
then we are not just "close", we are identical! :-)
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------