On Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:15:43 -0400 you wrote:
TG>ABSTRACT: A response to Steve Jones criticisms of my blurring
>creation and providence. A key point is made that EC/TE tend not to
>distinguish between direct vs. indirect acts of God whereas Steve
>Jones does. Indirect acts of God are labelled semi-deistic.
May I first point out that it is *you* who used the words
"semi-deistic", not me (see below).
TG>For the record let me say that Hodge is indeed on your side of this
>debate--I will grant that he is most likely a progressive creationist as
>you have defined it.
Thank you.
TG>I'm not so sure that that is true of Warfield (with the exception
>of the creation of the human soul).
Warfield was also a PC. See below.
TG>Hodge was not convinced of evolution nor did he have the *vast
>evidence* (yes, I know--what evidence? but I really think that we
>are at an impasse for now) that we have today.
This is interesting. Hodge published his Systematic Theology in 1892
- that's 33 years after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species
and yet you admit that there was still insufficient evidence for such
an acute and scientifically aware theological mind as Hodge to be
"convinced of evolution". You are just confirming one of Johnson's
main points, that Darwinism was first believed without sufficient
evdience and then evidence was then sought to try to confirm it:
"The triumph of Darwinism clearly contributed to a rise in the
prestige of professional scientists, and the idea of automatic
progress so fit the spirit of the age that the theory even attracted a
surprising amount of support from religious leaders. In any case,
scientists did accept the theory before it was rigorously tested, and
thereafter used all their authority to convince the public that
naturalistic processes are sufficient to produce a human from a
bacterium, and a bacterium from a mix of chemicals. Evolutionary
science became the search for confirming evidence, and the explaining
away of negative evidence." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p152).
TG>My sole point is that Hodge's notion of mediate creation,
>secondary causation, concurrence, and providence are compatible with
>and evolutionary creationist perspective.
No. Your original "point" was that "nearly all theologians who
recognize the possibility of some kinds of mediate creation, including
Hodge and Calvin" "blur the distinction" between creation and
providence.
I have shown conclusively from Hodge's own writings that he drew a
sharp distinction between creation and providence. You have admitted
that "Hodge... is most likely a progressive creationist". So I
cannot see how you can still maintain that "Hodge's notion of mediate
creation, secondary causation, concurrence, and providence are
compatible with an evolutionary creationist perspective."
It seems to me that you can only do this by blurring words and
meanings until they shade into what you believe and then claim that
they then agree with what you believe. With such a methodology,
*anything* would be "compatible with an evolutionary creationist
perspective"? :-)
TG>I think that Warfield's sympathy for evolution is partial evidence
>that I am right.
What "sympathy for evolution"? Please substantiate. Also, please
first define what you mean by "evolution". Warfield may have had
"sympathy" for micro-"evolution" (as I do), but where does he say he
believed in Darwinist *macro*- "evolution"?
>SJ>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.
No. Hodge at least claimed that "mediate creation" was *creation* not
"providence". He drew a sharp distinction between God's working in
creation and His working in providence.
[...]
SJ>"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>Perhaps I should not have used the word *blur*. I must admit that
it was chosen in part just to get a response from you.
Why would you do this Terry? Do write provocative things that you
don't really believe in, just to "get a response from" me? :-)
TG>But if you look at this very citation of Hodge that you have
>provided you see creation AND providence (second causes work by
>providence) working together in what Hodge calls mediate creation.
>Now if that's not *blurring* then I invite you to choose another
>word. It likely means something very similar.
It is not "blurring" at all. Hodge makes it quite clear that "the
power of God working in union with second causes" is mediate
*creation* and not to be confused with His working in *providence*.
A modern Calvinistic theologian, Erickson (who presumably by now knows
about "the *vast evidence*" for "evolution" <g>), draws a clear
distinction between: "God's Originating Work: Creation" and "God's
Continuing Work: Providence" (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology",
Baker, Grand Rapids: MI, 1985, pp365, 387)
>SJ>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>Aha! The key issue has surfaced. What do you mean by *indirect*?
I do not believe that God does anything *indirectly*.
Sorry to disappoint you. I mean "direct" and "indirect" in the sense
of primary and secondary causation. A modern evangelical theologian
like Erickson so uses it:
"God's creative activity includes not only the initial creative
activity, out also his later INDIRECT workings...." (Erickson M.J.,
"Christian Theology", Baker, Grand Rapids: MI, 1985, p385-386. My
emphasis)
"At the opposite end of the spectrum is what is sometimes termed fiat
creationism. This is the idea that God, by a DIRECT act, brought into
being virtually instantaneously everything that is....Another tenet of
this view is the idea of DIRECT divine working. God produced the
world and everything in it, not by the use of any INDIRECT means or
biological mechanisms, but by DIRECT action and contact." (Erickson,
p479. My emphasis)
TG>He is as actively involved in the water turning to wine at Cana as
>he is in water turning to oxygen and hydgrogen in my electrolysis
>experiment.
Agreed. But here you use the word "actively", not "directly". I doubt
you tell your student that the "water turning to oxygen and hydgrogen
in my electrolysis experiment" is *the same* mode of God's working
as it was the "water turning to wine at Cana"?
TG>You've denied it many times, but I think that this betrays a
semi-deistic view of natural processes, i.e. that God made them and
the laws which govern them, but that he doesn't *directly* interact
with them after that. He only does that in miracles it seems.
You are clutching at straws Terry! :-) Nowhere have I claimed that
"God made them (natural processes) and the laws which govern them, but
that he doesn't *directly* interact with them after that". But for
ther record, let me state clearly and unequivocally that I believe
that God in His providential preservation and government of His
universe is *directly* involved with it.
TG>Perhaps I'm putting words in you mouth, Steve, but this does seem
>to be the crux of the matter.
You are indeed "putting words in you mouth" Terry, by fastening on one
word I used and trying to construe it that I am a semi-deist (whatever
that is). I believe *everything* about God's providential dealings
with the world that you do, but I do not limit His dealings in the
past (ie. the events on this Earth up to the creation of man Gn
1:1-2:4a; 2:4b-25) to *only* providence.
TG>My view of EC and TE has God active and directly involved in
>"whatsoever comes to pass" by his providential and concurring acts.
I believe that too. But we are talking only about the events on this
Earth up to the creation of man (Gn 1:1-2:4a; 2:4b-25).
>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.
SJ>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>I think I answered this above.
Well, I don't understand it clearly enough to answer your charge that
"Progressive creationists...seem to be saying that second causes, even
with the power of God working in union with them, cannot (or did not
produce), cannot (or did not produce) the macroevolutionary novelty or
the original life forms." I need you clarify *exactly* what you mean
by "the power of God working in union with them", before I can answer
your charge.
>SJ>For example, in your trial defence web page you quoted
>Warfield:
TG>"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)
SJ>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! :-)
TG>Warfield explains what he is talking about in that last sentence:
>the creation of the human soul, the creation of Eve. You want to add
all sorts of things like the origin of life, origin of phyla, etc.
You put words in his mouth.
Firstly, Warfield says more than your you do. He says in addition to
"the giving of the soul", something that you don't say, e.g. "in
creating Eve...".
Secondly, he also ads an "etc.", which would indicate that he believed
that God intervened in *more* that these two examples, something you
and EC apparently deny.
Thirdly, Warfield's general principle was "...there is no necessary
antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold
to too extreme a form of evolution." He defined that "too extreme a
form of evolution" as one that "DOES NOT PERMIT GOD FREELY TO
WORK APART FROM LAW AND WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW INTERVENTION..."
Warfield felt that "evolution" would be not antagonistic to
Christianity, if, and only 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...." (emphasis mine).
If your EC does not meet these standards set by Warfield, then I
suggest you cannot claim him as one of your supporters.
Indeed, although he was perhaps less clear-cut than Charles
Hodge, elsewhere Warfield gave a strong indication that he believed in
progressive creation:
"The Christian man, again, must needs most frankly and heartily
believe in the supernatural act. Belief in the supernatural act is,
indeed, necessarily included in belief in the supernatural fact. IF
IMMANENCE IS AN INADEQUATE FORMULA FOR THE BEING OF GOD,
IT IS EQUALLY INADEQUATE AS A FORMULA FOR HIS ACTIVITIES.
For where God is, there He must act: and if He exists above and
beyond nature He must act also above and beyond nature. The
supernatural God cannot but be conceited as a supernatural actor. He
who called nature into being by a word cannot possibly be subject to
the creature of His will in the mode of His activities. He to whom
all nature is but a speck of derived and dependent being cannot be
thought of as, in the reach of His operations, bound within the limits
of the laws which operate within this granule and hold it together.
...Nor can he confine himself to the confession of this one
supernatural act. The Christian's God not only existed before nature
and is its Creator, but also exists above nature and is its Governor
and Lord. It is inconceivable that He should be active only in that
speck of being which He Himself has called into existence by an act of
His independent power. It exists in Him, not He in it; and just
because it is finite and He is infinite, the great sphere of His life
and activity lies above it and beyond. IT IS EQUALLY INCONCEIVABLE
THAT HIS ACTIVITIES WITH REFERENCE TO IT, OR EVEN WITHIN IT,
SHOULD BE CONFINED TO THE OPERATION OF THE LAWS WHICH HE
HAS ORDAINED FOR THE REGULATION OF ITS ACTIVITIES AND NOT
OF HIS. What power has this little speck of derived being to exclude
the operation upon it and within it of that almighty force to whose
energy it owes both its existence and its persistence in being? Have
its forces acquired such strength as to neutralize the power which
called it into being? Or has it framed for itself a crust so hard as
to isolate it from the omnipotence which plays about it and
successfully to resist the power that made it, that it may not crush
it or pierce it at will through and through? Certainly HE WHO
CONFESSES THE CHRISTIAN'S GOD HAS NO GROUND FOR DENYING
THE SUPERNATURAL ACT.
..But LET US NOT FANCY, ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT THE PROVIDENCE
OF GOD ANY MORE THAN THE IMMANENCE OF GOD IS A FORMULA
ADEQUATE TO SUM UP ALL HIS ACTIVITIES. GOD IS THE GOD OF
PROVIDENCE: BUT HE IS MUCH MORE THAN THE GOD OF PROVIDENCE.
The universe is but a speck in His sight: and its providential
government is scarcely an incident in the infinite fullness of His
life. It is certain that He acts in infinitely varied modes,
otherwise and beyond providence, and THERE IS NO REASON WE CAN GIVE
WHY HE SHOULD NOT ACT OTHERWISE AND BEYOND PROVIDENCE EVEN
IN RELATION TO THE UNIVERSE WHICH HE HAS MADE. In our conception
of a supernatural God, WE DARE NOT ERECT HIS PROVIDENTIAL ACTIVITY
INTO AN EXCLUSIVE LAW OF ACTION FOR HIM, AND REFUSE TO ALLOW
OF ANY OTHER MODE OF OPERATION.
WHO CAN SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER CREATION ITSELF, IN THE
PURITY AND ABSOLUTENESS OF THAT CONCEPTION, MAY NOT BE
PROGRESSIVE, and may not correlate itself with and follow the process
of the providential development of the world, in the plan of such a
God-so that the works of creation and providence may interlace through
all time in the production of this completed universe? WHAT WARRANT,
THEN, CAN THERE BE TO ASSUME BEFOREHAND THAT SOME WAY MUST
BE FOUND FOR "EVOLUTION" TO SPRING THE CHASMS IN THE CREATIVE
PROCESS OVER WHICH EVEN DIVINELY LED SECOND CAUSES APPEAR
INSUFFICIENT TO BUILD A BRIDGE? And if for any reason-certainly not
unforeseen by God, or in contradiction to His ordering- there should a
"rift appear in the lute," WHO DARE ASSERT THAT THE SUPERNATURAL
GOD MAY NOT DIRECTLY INTERVENE FOR ITS MENDING, but must needs
beat out His music on the broken strings nor let their discord jar
down the ages to all eternity? THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE NOT BONDS
BY WHICH GOD IS TIED SO THAT HE CANNOT MOVE SAVE WITHIN THEIR
LIMITS: they are not in His sight such great and holy things that it
would be sacrilege for Him not to honor them in all His activities.
His real life is above and beyond them: THERE IS NO REASON WHY HE
MAY NOT AT WILL ACT INDEPENDENTLY OF THEM EVEN IN DEALING
WITH NATURE ITSELF: AND IF THERE BE REASON WHY HE SHOULD
ACT APART FROM THEM WE MAY BE SURE THAT THE SUPERNATURAL
GOD WILL SO ACT. The frank recognition of the possibility of the
supernatural act, and of its probable reality on adequate occasion, is
in any event a part of the Christian man's heritage."
(Warfield B.B., "Christian Supernaturalism", Presbyterian and Reformed
Review, viii. 1897, pp58-74, in Craig S.G. (ed.), "Biblical and
Theological Studies", Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co.:
Philadelphia PA, 1968, p9-13. Emphasis mine)
TG>As for me (and I think Warfield), I'd suggest that we let the
>investigation of God's creation tell us the answer.
How will "the investigation of God's creation tell us the answer"
about how God created, whether naturally or supernaturally?
TG>We think that we have a handle on the origin of phyla; of course,
>science is always tentative so we might be wrong.
How can naturalistic science ever know about the actual "origin" of
anything in the distant past? If God created progressively by
supernaturally "genetically engineering" Hox genes, how would
naturalistic science ever know that? Even if it happened *today* in a
scientists laboratory, science would not know *how* it happened - it
would know only that it happened. How much less can science know about
unique events that ocurred hundreds and even thousands of millions of
years ago? All naturalistic science can do is come up with the least
implausible *naturalistic* explanation of how it *might* have
happened.
TG>[God's power, role in creation, etc. is undiminished by whether
>we have an evolutionary expanation or not, right?]
It depends on what you mean by "an evolutionary explanation". If you
mean one that Warfield would accept, that allowed for God's
supernatural intervention in His own laws of nature, then I would
agree. But if by "evolutionary explanation" you restrict God to only
working within His laws of nature, then I (and Warfield) would say
that "God's power, role in creation, etc." is "diminished" by same.
TG>As to the origin of life, well, I'm open to a non-interventionist
>account, but my theology doesn't need one, and it's a very
>interesting question in terms of complexity theory, principles of
>self-organization, etc.
Well, I am not "open to a non-interventionist account" for the origin
of life. If scientists prove that life can originate spontaneously,
without even human intervention, from non-living chemicals, then I
think I would give up Christianity and probably theism (although I
might become a pantheist). And I think that there would be hundreds
of millions of Christians who would agree with me. The effect would
be *devastating* and would far surpass anything Copernicus or Darwin
did. It would be the crowning achievement of materialistic-
naturalism. You wouldn't have a job Terry, because there would be no
Calvin College.
TG>Pre-biotic evolution is a different beast than biological evolution
>(although there may be common features).
If there is no "Pre-biotic evolution" then there is no "biological
evolution", at least in the Darwinist blind-watchmaker sense. That's
why Dawkins spent nearly 10% of his book "The Blind Watchmaker" on
trying to argue for a plausible, naturalistic origin of life. For
without one, it means that there could have been a super-naturalistic
origin of life. And if there was a super-naturalistic origin of life,
then there is no reason why there could not be a super-naturalistic
origin of life's major groups.
TG>The fact that we don't have
>solid theories of pre-biotic evolution does not take away one iota
>from that support for biological evolution that we do have--most
>significantly, common ancestry.
Disagree. See above. I agree with Johnson:
"Biological evolution is just one major part of a grand naturalistic
project, which seeks to explain the origin of everything from the Big
Bang to the present without allowing any role to a Creator. If
Darwinists are to keep the Creator out of the picture, they have to
provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life." (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Second Edition, Inter Varsity Press:
Illinois, 1993, p103).
And as I said, "common ancestry" is not necessarily "support for
biological evolution". A theory of progressive creation could equally
account for "common ancestry".
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------