Thanks for your quotes from Hodge. I don't agree with your interpretation
of him. You wrote:
SJ> Reformed theology (as typified by Hodge)
> taught a "mediate creation" (3) in between creation ex-nihilo (2)
> and providence (4):
Let's go back to the actual quotes by Hodge, and I'll add my own emphasis
at points:
---> "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." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"... ALL the phenomena..." ????
>> 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)
Based upon the lines I underlined, to sure looks to me like Hodge's term"creation" on page 578/579 corresponds to "immediate, instantaneouscreation ex nihilo" on pages 556-558; and it looks like Hodge's term"preservation" on page 578/579 corresponds to "mediate creation" on pages556-558, since, "... The same theory of gradual, or mediate creation, hasbeen applied to account for ALL THE PHENOMENA of the vegetable and animalkingdoms."
Pages 578-579 seem to imply that Hodge would like (as I would) to reservethe term "creation" for processes which include ex-nihilo creation.
------------------------------------------------
But I will grant you two points. (1) Hodge is not crystal-clear on thisdistinction, so I can see where your interpretation of him comes from.(2) It is frequently sensible to distinguish between God's "ordinaryprovidence" on one hand, and God's occasional "supernatural making and/orre-assembling matter into different forms" on the other hand.
Therefore, for the sake of argument, I will grant these three categoriesas distinct, and use your terminology:
> 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
You would clearly like to group the BIOLOGICAL half of Hodge's list"(production of light; the formation of an atmosphere; the separation ofland and water; the vegetable productions of the earth the animals of thesea and air; then the living creatures of the earth; and, last of all,man)" under the second category, "mediate creation." But what about thePHYSICAL half of Hodge's list? Empirically robust scientific theoriesstrongly indicate that the regular and continuous operation of naturalmechanisms can take us from the Big Bang to the completion of the physicalhalf of Hodge's list.
It seems to me that you must choose (at least) one of these three options:
(1) You could agree that "mediate creation" can (sometimes) be accomplished by the regular and continuous operation of natural mechanisms. (And therefore there is no theological basis for saying that macroevolution is incompatible with a sound doctrine of "creation").
OR
(2) You could deny that the production of light, the formation of stars, formation of the atmosphere, and the separation of land from water can be acomplished by the regular and continuous operation of natural mechanisms.
OR
(3) You could try to argue that there is a strong hermeneutical reason for allowing the physical half of Hodge's list to fall under "providence" while insisting that the biological half must (theologically) remain under "mediate creation."
Which is it going to be? :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"If it was so, it might be; | and if it were so, it would be; | Loren Haarsma but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu -- Tweedledee (Lewis Carroll) |