On Mon, 25 Mar 1996 13:20:19 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>I'd like to permanently sink the occasionally resurfacing charge
>that evolutionary creationism "blurs the doctrines of Creation and
>Providence."
Well, you need to take that up with your fellow TE's! On Wed, 13 Mar
1996 13:06:43 -0400 Terry Gray wrote:
"....yes, Steve, I do blur the distinction as have nearly all
theologians who recognize the possibility of some kinds of mediate
creation, including Hodge and Calvin....
LH>Rather than writing a long treatise on the richness of the doctrine
>of Creation, I'll just list four features common to any creative act,
>human or divine:
>
>1) conception and design
>2) acquisition of component pieces (_de_novo_ creation for the universe)
>3) assembly of new forms from component pieces
>4) maintenance throughout the creative process
>
>Whether you advocate progressive creation or evolutionary creation, steps
>1 and 2 are NOT providence, while step 4 is included under providence.
Nearly agreed. In the case of "creation" by God's there is a unique
difference between the "human or divine" in 2. Man acquires the
"component pieces" from existing material, whereas God creates those
materials of nothing.
LH>Assembly could happen by "intervention-assembly" or, if the
>component pieces were so designed, "self-assembly."
>Intervention-assembly is not providence, but I'm quite willing to
>accept self-assembly under providence.
This is where we differ. Reformed theology (as typified by Hodge)
taught a "mediate creation" (3) in between creation ex-nihilo (2)
and providence (4):
"But while it has ever been the doctrine of the Church that God
created the universe out of nothing by the word of his power, which
creation was instantaneous and immediate, i. e., without the
intervention of any second causes; yet it has generally been admitted
that this is to be understood only of the original call of matter into
existence. Theologians have, therefore, distinguished between a first
and second, or immediate and mediate creation. The one was
instantaneous, the other gradual; the one precludes the idea of any
preexisting substance, and of cooperation, the other admits and
implies both. There is evident ground for this distinction in the
Mosaic account of the creation. God, we are told, " created the
heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved
upon the face of the waters." Here it is clearly intimated that the
universe, when first created, was in a state of chaos, and that by the
life-giving, organizing power of the Spirit of God, it was gradually
moulded into the wonderful cosmos which we now behold. The whole of
the first chapter of Genesis, after the first verse, is an account of
the progress of creation; the (production of light; the formation of
an atmosphere; the separation of land and water; the vegetable
productions of the earth the animals of the sea and air; then the
living creatures of the earth; and, last of all, man. In Gen. i. 27,
it is said that God created man male and female; in chapter ii 7, it
is said, that " the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground."
It thus appears that forming out of preexisting material comes within
the Scriptural idea of creating....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...The same theory
of gradual, or mediate creation, has been applied to account for all
the phenomena of the vegetable and animal kingdoms."
Hodge C., "Systematic Theology", Vol. I, 1892, James Clark & Co:
London, 1960 reprint, p556-558).
Hodge goes on to sharply distinguish between Creation and Providence:
"A second view of the nature of preservation goes to THE OPPOSITE
EXTREME OF CONFOUNDING CREATION AND PRESERVATION." (Hodge C.,
"Systematic Theology", Vol. I, 1892, James Clark & Co: London, 1960
reprint, p577)
"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)
and
"It is true that the preservation of the world is as much due to the
immediate power of God as its creation, but THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT
PRESERVATION IS CREATION. Creation is the production of something out
of nothing. Preservation is the upholding in existence what already
is." (Hodge, p579. emphasis mine)
LH>Progressive creation typically allows for self-assembly of new
>physical forms (stars, planets, oceans, atmospheres, dry land).
>Evolutionary creation extends self-assembly to new biological forms.
No. PC would not regard this as "self-assembly" if the *origin* of
"new physical forms" is meant. But as I have pointed out, the Bible
says very little in Genesis 1 about the creation of these "physical
forms".
LH>The means of assembly is just one part of a much larger picture of
>Creation. Evolutionary creation will seem to "blur the doctrines of
>Creation and Providence" ONLY IF you first make the mistake of reducing
>"Creation" to "assembly."
No again. You appear to be re-defining "Creation" as only *ex-nihilo*
creation and and "assembly" (=Providence?) as everything else. Yet
what Hodge teaches is:
1. Immediate Creation - ex-nihilo creation of matter.
2. Mediate Creation - making and forming matter created in 1. above.
3. Providence - preservation and government of made and formed matter
in 2. above
If TEs call "Providence" what Hodge (and I) call "Mediate Creation",
then according to our paradigm they have indeed "blurred the doctrines
of Creation and Providence", as Terry candidly admits. :-)
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------