Can one summarize what you are saying by the following substitutions in
Philippians 2:12-13:
"So then, my beloved (Nature), just as you have always obeyed (My Laws), not
as in my presence only (in the act of creation ex nihilo), but now much more
in my absence (present time), work out your salvation (Your laws) with fear
and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you (Nature), both to will
and to work for His good pleasure."
I realize that these verses refer to the realm of the spiritual, but it
seems to me that they describe, in a general sense, God's interaction with
His whole creation.
Take care,
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy <"gmurphy@raex.com"@raex.com>
To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
Cc: Adam Crowl <qraal@hotmail.com>; asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: A neat syllogism
>Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>
>> Dear George,
>>
>> Your posts are always very challenging and I use them to sharpen my own
>> sword. I do agree that God's creative activity is delegated to part of
His
>> creation. But can't God "change His mind" and cease that from being the
>> case? I believe that He can and so to say that the creation will go on
>> regardless is a basic assumption.
>
> I'm not sure I understand this but that may be because of the way I
>formulate a doctrine of providence. The traditional way of stating the
matter is to
>divive providence into preservation, cooperation (or concurrence) &
governance, &
>usually to subsume cooperation (i.e., God's action with & through natural
processes)
>under either preservation or governance. It seems to me that in light of
the dynamic
>picture of the world which relativity, QM, & modern science in general
gives us, it
>may be better to reverse that, emphasize God's cooperation with natural
processes, & to
>a certain extent subsume preservation under cooperation. I.e., God
preserves creatures
>in existence, not by simply conserving static substance but by cooperating
with the
>dynamics which constitute material entities (cf. E = mc^2). IF that is the
case then
>for God to cease cooperating with natural processes altogether would mean
to cease
>preserving creation, which would then cease to exist.
>
>> I do not know if immaterial angels can
>> make bicycles, but my point is that the creative aspect of man is very
>> peculiar to man, which is distinct from that of any other part of
creation
>> and is akin to God's. The ability to reason and thus to create is what I
>> understand to being created in the image of God. No animal can claim that
>> and the transition can never be continuous as claimed by a pure
>> evolutionist.
>
> It may be - as Pope John Paul insisted recently - that there must be some
>addition of a soul to the result of biological evolution in order for
genuine humanity
>to come into being, but I see no reason to assume that. The evolution of
consciousness,
>linguistic ability, & capability for intelligent communication - including
"hearing" &
>understanding God's Word - may have been a process as "natural" as any
other (&, like
>all other, one with which God cooperated). It may, however, not have been
_continuous_.
>I think that Teilhard's analogy of a phase change in connection with the
origin of
>consciousness - or for that matter, of life - has a good deal to recommend
it. When you
>turn on the burner under a pot of water, energy is put into the system
continuously, but
>you don't see any change until - at 373K - there is a jump from liquid to
gas phase.
> I think that _homo sapiens_ (& other intelligent species if they exist)
are the
>material universe become conscious of itself & able to (inter alia) make
bicycles. &
>that development is preparation for the Incarnation & the accomplishment of
the "plan"
>spoken of in Ephesians 1:10.
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
>George L. Murphy
>gmurphy@raex.com
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>