>Although I find the philosophical attraction of seeing the world as
>"fully gifted creation" , the product of a "robust formational economy
>principle", we must be careful that in presenting these perspectives we
>do not end up espousing deism.
I agree wholeheartedly, as I have said on numerous occasions.
>From my perspective the important point to emphasis is that a fully
>gifted creation that exhibits a robust formational economy is still
>completely dependent on God as it's sustainer. It is an important part
>of the Biblical picture of creation that the world is dependent and
>contingent, and not an autonomous entity. This has been the historical
>contrast between Biblical theism and deism
I agree wholeheartedly, as I have said on numerous occasions.
>So I would like those such as Howard who are developing these concepts
>so well to clarify the way they see such a creation as still fully
>dependent.
I envision the 'being' of the Creation at this moment to be no less dependent
on the Creator's effective will than at any other moment in time, including
t=0. If the first occasion of the Creation's 'being' was dependent on God's
creative action, why should its being at any other moment be any less so? The
continuing existence of the Creation is perhaps nothing less than the
continuing effectiveness of God's "Let there *be*...." In that case, God's
'sustaining' action is not substantially different from God's 'creating'
action; both are instances of God's 'giving of being' to the Creation.
>Equally, defenders of ID should also emphasis in a
>theological discussion, whether it is possible to distinguish between
>theistic and deistic ID (and how).
I'm sure you will find that statement immediately following their definition
of what it means to be (or have been) 'intelligently designed.' :)
Note: the following is a very lightly edited version of something that I
posted more than a year ago, in response to a comment from Bill Hamilton. Bill
had raised essentially the same concern as Jonathon did, the concern that
accepting RFEP could be misunderstood as deism.
Nearly every time I present the concept of the 'Robust Formational Economy
Principle' someone expresses the concern that it "smacks of deism." So,
Jonathon, I guess it was your turn to be the spokesperson this time.
First, I must say that I find the frequency of this concern very intriguing. I
suspect that it is telling us something about how we Christians today are
inclined to think about divine action. Have we, in reacting to the Naturalism
so often preached in the name of natural science, become overly concerned to
preserve a protected and "special" place for God's action? Do we think that,
in order for God to be able to act, there must some sort of empirically
discernible gap in either the formational or operational economies of the
Creation? I don't know the answers, but I think we Christians need to reflect
on this thoughtfully.
Jonathon, I presume that you know that I am *not* a proponent of deism. And I
presume that your question was meant simply to demonstrate that. Please take
my response in that same friendly light as well.
One thing we should note at the outset is that the only gaps relevant to my
earlier posts on the Robust Formational Economy Principle (or the Fully-Gifted
Creation Perspective) are gaps in the *formational economy* of the
Creation--gaps created by the absence of particular creaturely capabilities
for self-organization or transformation. If there were, by God's choice to
withhold certain creaturely capabilities for self-organization or
transformation, such gaps in the Creation's formational economy, then a
corresponding set of episodes of gap-bridging, form-imposing, extraordinary
divine action would be *necessary* (as opposed to *optional*) elements in the
Creation's formational history.
The question raised by Jonathon's post is this: Would the absence of these
gaps necessarily imply the deistic concept of a distant and inactive God? Or,
to state it differently, Is it the case that, "If no gaps, then no divine
action?"
I think the quickest way to dispel that fear is to ask the following question:
Has orthodox Christian theology ever suggested that God is able and/or willing
to act in the world only within gaps in either the formational economy or the
operational economy of the Creation?
To the best of my knowledge the answer is a resounding, NO.
"
Therefore, IF THE PRESENCE OF SUCH GAPS IS NOT REQUIRED IN ORDER TO "MAKE
ROOM" FOR DIVINE ACTION, then THE ABSENCE OF SUCH GAPS IS NO LOSS WHATSOEVER.
End of story.
the Robust Formational Economy Principle is true, GOD IS STILL AS FREE AS EVER
TO ACT IN ANY WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH GOD'S NATURE AND WILL. The
fully-gifted Creation, complete with a gapless formational economy, does not
in any way hinder God from acting as God wills to act. As I have said on
numerous occasions, the question at issue is not, Does God act in or interact
with the Creation, but rather, What is the character of the Creation in which
God acts anw with which God interacts?
Closely related and equally important questions are, What is the nature of
divine creative action? How does it differ from creaturely action? By what
marks would we recognize it?
Cordially,
Howard Van Till