On Wed, 03 Apr 1996 19:42:13 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>Thanks for your quotes from Hodge. I don't agree with your
>interpretation of him. You wrote:
>SJ> Reformed theology (as typified by Hodge)
>taught a "mediate creation" (3) in between creation ex-nihilo (2)
>and providence (4):
LH>Let's go back to the actual quotes by Hodge, and I'll add my own
>emphasis at points:
SJ>".......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...The same theory
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of gradual, or mediate creation, has been applied to account for all
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the phenomena of the vegetable and animal kingdoms."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "... ALL the phenomena..." ????
I presume he means in the sense of their *creation*. It's found under:
PART I. - THEOLOGY
CHAPTER X. - CREATION
2. Mediate and Immediate Creation
On re-reading page 558 "...The same theory of gradual, or mediate
creation, has been applied to account for all the phenomena of the
vegetable and animal kingdoms", it is not clear whether Hodge believes
this himself. He could be merely stating the opinion of "The
theistical advocates of the Nebular Hypothesis assume that the
universe was an indefinitely long period in coming to its present
state."
>Hodge C., "Systematic Theology", Vol. I, 1892, James Clark & Co:
>London, 1960 reprint, p556-558).
SJ>Hodge goes on to sharply distinguish between Creation and
>Providence:
>
>"A second view of the nature of preservation goes to THE OPPOSITE
>EXTREME OF CONFOUNDING CREATION AND PRESERVATION." (Hodge C.,
>"Systematic Theology", Vol. I, 1892, James Clark & Co: London, 1960
>reprint, p577)
>>
>"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)
>
>and
>>
>"It is true that the preservation of the world is as much due to the
>immediate power of God as its creation, but THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT
>PRESERVATION IS CREATION. Creation is the production of something out
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of nothing. Preservation is the upholding in existence what already
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>is." (Hodge, p579. emphasis mine)
OK. Hodge is saying that Creation is always a result of first causes,
not second causes.
LH>Based upon the lines I underlined, to sure looks to me like Hodge's
>term "creation" on page 578/579 corresponds to "immediate,
>instantaneous creation ex nihilo" on pages 556-558; and it looks like
>Hodge's term "preservation" on page 578/579 corresponds to "mediate
>creation" on pages 556-558, since, "... The same theory of gradual,
>or mediate creation, has been applied to account for ALL THE
>PHENOMENA of the vegetable and animal kingdoms."
See above. Hodge clearly includes "mediate creation" within
*creation*, and he clearly distinguishes it from providence.
LH>Pages 578-579 seem to imply that Hodge would like (as I would) to
>reserve the term "creation" for processes which include ex-nihilo
>creation.
He distunguishes between "Mediate and Immediate Creation" as
follows:
"2. Mediate and Immediate Creation.
But while it has ever been the doctrine of the Church that God created
the universe out of nothing by the word of his power, which creation
was instantaneous and immediate, i. e., without the intervention of
any second causes; yet it has generally been admitted that this is to
be understood only of the original call of matter into existence.
Theologians have, therefore, distinguished between a first and second,
or immediate and mediate creation. The one was instantaneous, the
other gradual; the one precludes the idea of any preexisting
substance, and of cooperation, the other admits and implies both."
(Hodge C., "Systematic Theology", Vol. I, 1892, James Clark & Co:
London, 1960 reprint, p556).
That is:
1. Time: immediate creation was instantaneous; mediate creation
was over a period of time;
2. Pre-existing material: immediate creation was out-of-nothing;
mediate creation used pre-existing materials.
3. Co-operation: immediate creation used no natural processes;
mediate creation used natural processes.
Clearly, there is some overlap between elements of mediate creation
and providence, but Hodge is at pains to distinguish between them.
LH>But I will grant you two points. (1) Hodge is not crystal-clear on
>this distinction, so I can see where your interpretation of him comes
>from.
Thank you for your usual generosity of spirit, Loren! :-) I agree that
Hodge is not "crystal-clear" in this matter. But he placed "Mediate
Creation" under the heading "Creation" and under the heading
"Providence" he clearly distinguished between "creation" and
"preservation".
(2) It is frequently sensible to distinguish between God's
"ordinary providence" on one hand, and God's occasional "supernatural
>making and/or re-assembling matter into different forms" on the other
>hand.
Yes. Much of this debate Creation vs Providence is semantics. No
doubt some theologians do blur the distinctions between creation and
providence. My point was that Charles Hodge did not.
1. Original Creation (Gn 1:1) - wholly supernatural
2. Mediate Creation (Gn 1:2-31) - supernatural + natural
3. Providence (Gn 2:1-) natural (apart from special miracles)
LH>Therefore, for the sake of argument, I will grant these three
>categories as distinct, and use your terminology:
>
>1. Immediate Creation - ex-nihilo creation of matter.
>2. Mediate Creation - making and forming matter created in 1. above.
>3. Providence - preservation and government of made and formed matter
> in 2. above
See my definitions above, which I wrote before I scrolled down to see
yours. We agree if your 2. includes supernatural.
LH>You would clearly like to group the BIOLOGICAL half of Hodge's list
>"(production of light; the formation of an atmosphere; the separation of
>land and water; the vegetable productions of the earth the animals of the
>sea and air; then the living creatures of the earth; and, last of all,
>man)" under the second category, "mediate creation." But what about the
>PHYSICAL half of Hodge's list? Empirically robust scientific theories
>strongly indicate that the regular and continuous operation of natural
>mechanisms can take us from the Big Bang to the completion of the physical
>half of Hodge's list.
I have said all this before. I have no problem with the "physical"
being a natural outworking of original creation, in the case of the
universe. But in the case of the Earth, I would not rule out God's
supernatural intervention. For example, Hugh Ross' Reasons to Believe
web page points out that the moon was necessary for life on Earth, yet
it is unique in the solar system, being the size of a small planet.
It was probably ejected from the Pacific by the impact of an asteroid.
If so, the angle and speed of impact would have to be amazingly
precise to cause the right amount of material to be ejected, the right
speed, so the moon settled into a stable orbit the right distance,
away. The same impact probably caused the old poisonous atmosphere to
be blown away, as well as established the Earth's tilt, so that
seasons were also possible, again necessary for life.
LH>It seems to me that you must choose (at least) one of these three
options: >
>
>(1) You could agree that "mediate creation" can (sometimes) be
> accomplished by the regular and continuous operation of natural
> mechanisms. (And therefore there is no theological basis for saying
> that macroevolution is incompatible with a sound doctrine of
> "creation").
>
>OR
>
>(2) You could deny that the production of light, the formation of stars,
> formation of the atmosphere, and the separation of land from water can
> be acomplished by the regular and continuous operation of natural
> mechanisms.
>
>OR
>
>(3) You could try to argue that there is a strong hermeneutical reason for
> allowing the physical half of Hodge's list to fall under "providence"
> while insisting that the biological half must (theologically) remain
> under "mediate creation."
>
>
>Which is it going to be? :-)
See above. It is *neither*. I am surprised you keep raising this
Loren. I have answered it at least *twice* before. :-) That is, I
see the physical universe as a non-issue in the debate between PC and
TE, for two reasons:
1. The Bible says next to nothing about the universe (basically it is
Gn 1:1.). It's focus from Gn 1:2 is *the Earth*. Even the mention of
sun, moon and stars on Day 4, is from the Eath's perspective . I am
happy to provisionally accept that the physical universe was created
ex-nihilo in the Big Bang, and everything was a natural outworking of
physical laws from that point, with the possible exception of the
Earth.
2. The complexity of biological things is orders of magnitude greater
than non-biological things. The simplest living thing (a bacterium)
may be more complex than all non-biological systems combined, ie. the
entire universe! What is true as far as God's manner of working for
the universe, may not be true for the Earth and its biological
systems.
To summarise. This is how I see it:
1. Original Creation (Gn 1:1) - wholly supernatural: physical systems
2. Mediate Creation (Gn 1:2-31) - supernatural and/or natural: Earth
and biological systems
3. Providence (Gn 2:1-) natural (apart from special miracles):
physical and biological systems
PC and TE/EC presumably agree on 1 and 3. We disagree on 2, but even
there only in degree. Even TE/EC allows some supernatural
intervention (eg. origin of life, creation of man's soul, etc.). The
degree here differs among TE/ECs. PC would include in 2. the origin
of life, the origin of life's major groups, and man. Most PCs would
probably argue against common ancestry, and claim de novo fiat
creation for major groups (basic kinds).
I agree with Ramm's paradigm (for the umpteenth time - sorry Terry
<g>):
"In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation.
The amount is to be determined by the geological record and biological
experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation. Vertical
radiation is only by fiat creation. A root-species may give rise to
several species by horizontal radiation, through the process of the
unraveling of gene potentialities or recombination. Horizontal
radiation could account for much which now passes as evidence for the
theory of evolution. The gaps in the geological record are gaps
because vertical progress takes place only by creation." (Ramm B.
"The Christian View of Science and Scripture", Paternoster: London,
1955, p191)
Ramm may or may not have seen this "fiat creation" as de novo whole
organisms, but I personally see no Biblical reason to claim that they
were. These vertical increments could be tiny, but it is sufficient
for my view that they could not be plausibly bridged in the
time-frame available by unaided natural processes. My emphasis is not
upon "kinds" but upon *features* (and the genetic code behind
features) that make up kinds. There may be some modifications to
details, but this is my basic position. I believe naturalistic
evolutionary mechanisms are manifestly inadequate to account for the
origin and large-scale development of life on Earth. I am therefeore
an avowed *creationist*, not a theistic evolutionist:
"The writer is not a theistic evolutionist. He is a progressive
creationist for he feels that in progressive creationism there is the
best accounting for all the facts-biological, geological, and
Biblical. He has friends who are fiat creationists and theistic
evolutionists. Their respect for the Bible and their loyalty to
Christ he admires. But progressive creationism is that theory of the
relationship of God's works and God's Holy Word which makes the most
sense to the author-and upon what other basis can he make up his
mind?" (Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture",
Paternoster: London, 1955, p205)
Happy Easter!
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------