>Yet Hodge recognises a clear distinction between Creation and
>Providence (which he calls "Preservation"). He rejects the idea that
>Preservation is continued Creation because it confounds Creation and
>Preservation (Providence):
>
>"A second view of the nature of preservation goes to the opposite
>extreme of confounding creation and preservation." (Hodge, p577).
>
>He begins his "Objections to the Doctrine of a Continuous Creation"
>with:
>
>"All these modes of representation, however, are objectionable.
>Creation, preservation, and government are in fact different, and to
>identify them leads not only to confusion but to error. Creation and
>preservation differ, first, as the former is the calling into
>existence what before did not exist; and the latter is continuing, or
>causing to continue what already has a being; and secondly, in
>creation there is and can be no cooperation, but in preservation there
>is a concursus of the first, with second causes. In the Bible,
>therefore, the two things are never confounded. God created all
>things, and by Him all things consist." (Hodge, p578)
>
The continuous creation that Hodge is talking about is the belief that God
re-creates the entire universe at every instant, rather than sustaining
some creation that he has already created. I agree fully with Hodge here
and don't see how it is relevant to our discussion. I'm asserting that God
uses pre-existing material guided by providential power (and in the case of
the orgin of the human soul, a special creative act) to create--this is
mediate creation.
>What I did find interesting in looking up Hodge is that he
>apparently believed in Progressive Creation! :-)
>
>"There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not only an
>immediate, instantaneous creation ex nihilo by the simple word of
>God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working
>in union with second causes." (Hodge, p557)
Ah, but don't be guilty of reading your definition of progressive creation
(that of Ramm's from the 1950's) into Hodge's words. This quote equally
describes evolutionary creation, only we (with Hodge) take second causes
seriously. Progressive creationists, as represented by you, seem to be
saying that second causes, even with the power of God working in union with
them, cannot (or did not produce) the macroevolutionary novelty or the
original life forms.
Now I'm not claiming Hodge as an evolutionary creationist either, so don't
rebut my position with that accusation. I'm just saying that Hodge's view
of providence and secondary causes is compatible with my view of
evolutionary creation.
As we've noted before, I think our positions are exceedingly close. I,
however, am completely open to naturalistic descriptions of these origin
processes (as long as the providential hand of God is recognized). You, on
the other hand, seem to be highly suspicious of them. It's also nice to
know that there are other people out there who still read Charles Hodge.
TG
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt