On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 10:15:38 -0400, Terry M. Gray wrote:
TG>As to your distinction between evolution and mediate creation and
>your reference to Hodge, I have the following to say. As much as I
>dislike the particulars of the terminology, you yourself have
>recognized that I'm really a "progressive creationist" when it comes
>to the origin of man.
I don't particularly like the "terminology", of "progressive
creationist" either. I would prefer just "creationist" or OEC, but
"progressive creationist" is understood as a position and it is
nearest to mine. Also, I agree that you are at, or close to, the
"progressive creationist" position "when it comes to the origin of
man."
TG>My position has been that God used a hominid body and then by a
>*miraculous special creative act* created a human being, body and
>soul, from that pre-existing hominid. This is the position that was
>soundly rejected by the OPC General Assembly. In other words, since
>I did not adopt a positon of "immediate" creation of the body of
>Adam from literal *dust of the ground* (ordinary dirt), my view is
>contrary to Genesis 2:7 and the Larger Catechism Question 17.
Yes. I sympathise deeply with you The problem is in the "Larger
Catechism". This is a "tradition of men" and should not be elevated
to the a "command of God." (Mk 7:8). From my Baptist/Church of
Christ background, I would disagree strongly with using credal
statements to judge the orthodoxy of church officers and members. The
Scriptures *alone* should be the judge in such matters.
TG>Your view, if you would assert that there any kind of biology
>continuity between a hominid body and Adam's body (other than common
>design), would have been ruled heretical as well.
Probably. My point was that your use of "evolution" to describe
your position may have been the deciding factor in the judges' minds.
TG>I have always claimed that there is discontinuity (image of God,
>uniqueness from the animals, etc.) and continuity (hominid
>ancestors, anatomical-physiological-genetic-biochemical similarity)
>when it comes to origin of man.
Yes. See above. The problem may be in using the word "evolution" to
describe your position. This same word is used by *atheists* like
Dawkins and Gould to describe their position. It is understandable
that an Orthodox Presbyterian Church would not want one of its elders
to be publicly holding a position, namely "evolution" that Dawkins
claimed "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p6)
TG>Of course, on my view, all evolution is mediate creation anyway,
>admiting both *preexisting substance and cooperation*, but some
>minds don't seem able to grasp that concept ;-)
Well, why not use that term, ie. "mediate creation", rather than
"evolution"? :-)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones |
| Perth, West Australia v (My opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------