Steve Jones wrote on 2 May 96:
> Loren wonders why TEs can't
> get their point across either to the atheists or the creationists. It
> is because to the plain man, a God who does not intervene is not worth
> praying to or indeed believing in in a personal way.
I'm jumping in here as I don't understand the TE position in this way
- and would like to clarify a few things in my own mind.
According to my understanding, the word "intervene" has deistic
overtones. The cosmos is like a machine: it runs smoothly according
to natural law and is only perturbed by divine intervention.
Neither TEs, PCs nor YECs should have this view the physical world.
God is active continuously: you could say that intervention is
continuous and unbroken. Relevant scriptures from the psalms refer to
God making the grass grow; God feeding the animals; God
causing the rain to fall. Assuming a TE thinks like this, it
cannot be said that s/he believes in a God who does not intervene.
God's normal activity can be described in terms of physical law;
God's unusual (extraordinary) activity can be described in terms of
miracles. The power is the same; the nature of the intervention is
the same; God's intention is different and there are changes in the
consequences of his activity.
> BH>I personally would prefer to say that we acknowledge that God may
> >intervene at any time, and that indeed He may be intervening
> >continually. However, based on experience and some theological
> >reasons, we expect God's interventions (really "acts of oversight" is
> >more appropriate) to be mostly law-like and not observable by normal
> >physical means.
>
> What exactly are these "theological reasons"? If the Bible
> teaches anything it is that God is an interventionist God.
Clearly, neither Bill nor Steve are using "intervene" in the sense I
have given above. I don't think I can comment on Bill's words, but
Steve's are worthy of discussion. The Bible talks about God working
"wonders" - this is said of creation (as in the Psalms); it is said
of the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt; it is said of
Christ's miracles; it is said of the apostolic messengers when God
confirmed their words with miraculous signs. Since I read lots of
deistic ideas into "intervene", I would suggest that, until we can
develp more precise terminology, we refer to "wonders" or "miracles".
Thus: "If the Bible teaches anything it is that God is a wonder-
working God".
In passing, I find this important in interpreting Christ's miracles.
Healing the sick, stilling the storm, raising the dead, turning water
into wine: these are signs of the Creator. The NT letters inform us
that Christ was the agent of creation - something which his miracles
testified directly about him.
> God is not bound to obey His own laws, as Warfield emphasises over
> and over again:
> "He is not imprisoned within His works: the laws which He has
> ordained for them express indeed His character, but do not compass the
> possibilities of His action.." (Warfield B.B., "Christian
> Supernaturalism", Presbyterian and Reformed Review, viii. 1897,
> pp58-74, in Craig S.G. (ed.), "Biblical and Theological Studies",
> Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co.: Philadelphia PA, 1968, p8)
Much though I respect Warfield, I cannot endorse these words. Does
God ordain "laws"? God ordains everything - I'm not differing from
that. But "laws" are a HUMAN description of God's actions. I cannot
elevate something which we know imperfectly, and which at best is
descriptive of the behaviour of the physical world, into something
that is ordained of God. The behaviour that we describe in
terms of "law" is ordained by God. Warfield or not, talk of God
"ordaining laws" sounds deistic to me.
> (Warfield again): In our
> conception of a supernatural God, we dare not erect His providential
> activity into an exclusive law of action for Him, and refuse to allow
> of any other mode of operation....The laws of nature are not bonds by
> which God is tied so that He cannot move save within their
> limits: ....
I'm happy with this thought - as long as "the laws of nature" are
recognised as our descriptions of God's normal activity.
This may be an exchange about terminology and not about underlying
concepts. But I thought it worth contributing some thoughts to
help clarify the issues.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***