Re: Christ and Creation II

Robert Joel Duff (duff@siu.edu)
Thu, 25 Jul 1996 22:35:20 -0500

>PD> "But when man sinned, he introduced a disruptive element which has so
>> upset the mechanism in certain areas that God must now intervene
>> redemptively to maintain it against a total breakdown. In these areas
>> natural science will find itself up against imponderables with which it
>> is not equipped to deal, for here God is at work in a supernatural way."
>> Arthur C. Constance, Science and Faith, Academie Books, 1978.
>
>
>I've got some good ideas of how this might apply to psychology and
>sociology. I have no good ideas of how this might apply to physics,
>chemistry, geology, or simple biology. Do you or Arthur Constance have
>anything in mind?
>
>
>
>> What are your thoughts WRT the general creationist perspective that
>> Christ's "holding all things together" is actually related to the need
>> to restrain the general disintegration of His "good" creation from the
>> supernatural effects of sin?
>
>
>I've always thought about it this way: the idea that God "holds all
>things together" follows fairly simply from God's transcendence,
>omnipotence, and omniscience. If anything happens --- even something as
>"trivial" as the continued moment-by-moment existence of an electron or a
>natural law --- then it must be happening in accordance with His will.
>
>Identifying Christ, the Word of God, as the agent of creation follows
>simply from John 1. All of the biblical passages which teach these things
>are related to creation and providence; I don't see how to relate them to
>the Fall or the Curse.
>
>
>
>> Many creationists believe that man's fall, and the resultant effects of
>> sin in general, started supernatural processes that need to be partially
>> or wholly restrained until Christ's redemptive work for His creation is
>> complete. Christ's "holding together" referenced in Col 1:15-17 points
>> to that intervention.
>
>
>It looks like that passage links Christ's action of "holding all things
>together" to his role in creation; I don't see any clear link to Christ's
>role in redemption.
>
>> Of course, this presupposes that the Bible teaches a complete
>> uncorrupted creation at some point in time. Hence, Christ's current
>> supernatural intervention would not be viewed as creative in nature, but
>> rather it would be redemptive or sustaining.
>
>If you are suggesting that there WAS a fundamental change in the way the
>universe operated after the Fall, my answer is that astronomy, geology,
>and the other historical sciences strongly imply continuity.
>
>If you are suggesting that there WOULD HAVE BEEN a fundamental change in
>the way the universe operated after the Fall, except for Christ's
>restraining and redemptive action, my answer is that I don't see biblical
>support for that claim.
>
>Do you have something else in mind?

I am sympathetic to the concerns outlined in this post and have been
extremely pleased the direction of this thread (an effort to produce some
theological continuity with some of the other issues that are discussed in
this group). I wish I could make some contribution but I think I can only
add more questions.

This discussion reminds me of another passage I have not seen discussed
(although I am still working my way through the archives). The passage is
Romans 8: 18-25. This seems to be a crucial passage to our understanding of
the condition of creation in the present and past although it is all
together unclear to me whether Paul is speaking of the Creation as changed
from the time of the fall or whether the created order is as such from the
beginning.

Rom 8:18: "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are
not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
(19)for the anxious longing of the creation...

JD: What is Creation referring to here- all things or man, heavenly
hosts, those who have the "image of God?"

....waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. (20) For the
creation was subjected to futility (doesn't this signify a change in all
creation not just the condition of man?) not of his own will, but because of
Him who subjected it, in hope (21) that the creation itself also will be set
free from its slavery to corruption (again what is the extent of corruption)
into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. (22) for we know that
the whole creation (seems pretty plane this is all things) groans and
suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.......

JD: Is it clear from here or another passage that the "groans and
suffers the pains of childbirth" refers to the fallen state, except, of
course the reference of childbirth which is specifically mentioned after the
fall?
Also the phrase "for we know" is interesting, what is the context (in terms
of his audience) in which Paul can state so freely that this is so clear?

.....(23) And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits
of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for
our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. (24) for in hope that is
seen is not hope: for why does one also hope for what he sees? (25) But if
we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. (NAS)

Not to open a whole can of worms but I don't think that it is insignificant
that this passage is followed by the predestination passage which is very
well know and in which we find also that "....God causes all things to work
together for good to those who love God" (vs. 28). The question of how the
fall can be considered a "good" thing might be interesting considering God
foreknew those whom he called before the foundations of the world has been set.

I would be very interested in any enlightenment on the use of the
terminology in this passage through the use of other scripture passages. I
do not find the cross references particular helpful in this regard in my
Bible.

Joel

Postdoctoral Research Associate
Dpt. Plant Biology
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901-6509