>LH>Here, I think, is a more accurate portrayal of all TE's: We allow
>God's intervention at any time in history, but we believe, based on
>the scientific evidence and for various theological reasons, that a
>>non-interventionist scenario is currently the best working hypothesis
>>for studying and understanding biological history.
Note that Loren first mentioned "theological reasons," so I hope he will
respond to this also (IOW HELP! Don't leave me high and dry, brother :-)
>
>BH>To some readers this is going to read as though "we allow God's
>>intervention at any time in history, but we really don't believe it
>>happens." I don't believe that's what Loren means, although I really
>>should let him answer for himself.
>
>That's what it amounts to. Denis claims that TEs/ECs don't even
>believe that God intervened in the origin of life, although perhaps
>Terry Gray disagrees with him on that?
Denis? Terry? (probably your definitions of "intervene" are important here)
Loren wonders why TEs can't
>get their point across either to the atheists or the creationists. It
>is because to the plain man, a God who does not intervene is not worth
>praying to or indeed believing in in a personal way.
You are expanding nonintervention in a way that is unacceptable to
Christians. You are impying that TE's don't believe that God answers
prayer.
>
>BH>I personally would prefer to say that we acknowledge that God may
>>intervene at any time, and that indeed He may be intervening
>>continually. However, based on experience and some theological
>>reasons, we expect God's interventions (really "acts of oversight" is
>>more appropriate) to be mostly law-like and not observable by normal
>>physical means.
>
>What exactly are these "theological reasons"? If the Bible
>teaches anything it is that God is an interventionist God.
Yes, it does teach that he intervenes. But the interventions were not
always obvious to observers. For example, when He parted the Red Sea, the
narrative simply says that a wind came up, and as I remember the wind blew
all night. I believe someone recently decided on the basis of some
simulations that such a thing could actually happen.
Furthermore, many of God's interventions in the world don't take the form
of disruptions of the natural order of things. Look at how He introduced
the Prince of Peace, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords into the world: a
simple, unnioticed birth in a stable in an obscure province of Rome. Yet
that was the most significant intervention in history so far as I'm
concerned.
There is a considerable amount of evidence in Scripture that God frequently
chooses to intervene in nonspectacular ways. In I Kings 19 he shows Elijah
an earthquake, fire and a great wind in succession, each time emphasizing
that he was not in the earthquake, the fire or the wind. Finally there is
a gentle blowing, and the implication is that he is speaking to Elijah
through the gentle blowing.
In Zech 4:6 he tells Zerubbabel "not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit."
God intervenes spiritually, and that is just as significant as, really more
significant than, physical intervention.
In I Cor 1:27 Paul reminds us that God has chosen the weak things of the
world to shame the strong.
In 2 Cor 12:9 Paul is reminded that God's power is perfected in weakness.
The history of the church IMO verifies that God carries out his most
crucial objectives by means that seem humble to casual observers. The
early Christians had no political power, were few in number, had no weapons
to speak of, and yet the church grew and spread throughout the world. This
was again one of God's most significant interventions in the world. Yet it
was not obvious to a casual observer that an intervention was in progress.
>
>And what exactly does "mostly law-like" mean? There is no law of
>nature called changing water into wine, yet when Jesus did it at the
>Cana wedding in a unique miraculous intervention, it integrated
>smoothly into existing natural laws of chemistry and physics.
Do all creationists think TE's doubt the miricales of Jesus? I don't.
This is a clear example of a miracle, and I don't understand why it
continually comes up in these kinds of conversations. BTW there is a
natural process for turning water (in the form of rain) into wine. It's
called grapes and fermentation :-). The miracle was in the timing.
>
>God is not bound to obey His own laws, as Warfield emphasises over
>and over again:
>
>"He is not imprisoned within His works: the laws which He has
>ordained for them express indeed His character, but do not compass the
>possibilities of His action.." (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, p8)
I have no problem with Warfield's view. However, when we see something we
classify as a miracle, is God actually setting aside some law of nature, or
is he utilizing a capability of nature we simply don't know about? God is
unchanging, and I don't expect him to capriciously change his mind about
how some process in nature should work to bring about a miracle. He knows
from the foundation of the earth every miracle that will need to be brought
about through history, and so is acting entirely in keeping with his
character when he brings about a miracle. If nature reflects his character
-- and I believe it does -- then it seems far more reasonable that he has
built capabilities into nature that enable it to respond to his commands
and produce miracles when needed. It may _seem_ like a violation of
natural law to a human observer, but I doubt it is. God has too much
foresight for that.
>
[interesting Warfield quotation (with which I agree) snipped]
>BH>This will be called "blurring creation and providence" by Stephen
>>Jones. However, I think a more accurate characterization is simply
>>that I'm not drawing the line between creation and providence where
>>Stephen wants it.
>
>It's not a question what *I* want. It's that the Bible itself draws a
>"line between creation and providence", and Christian theologians down
>through the ages have placed Creation and Providence into separate
>theological categories, as a cursory glance at just about any
>Systematic Theology will show.
Why don't you show us, from Scripture, specifially how creation is
differentiated from providence? I don't think it's as simple as you claim.
>
>It is really a question of whether TEs/ECs allow Scripture's
>metaphysical categories to have priority over those of Science:
>
>Ps 119:11 "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin
>against thee."
It's not that at all and you owe me an apology.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)