Re: Christ and Creation

David J. Tyler (D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk)
Thu, 11 Jul 1996 13:05:13 GMT

Glenn Morton wrote on 9th July:
"IMO, if scripture has nothing to say about origins, then it can not
have very much to say about salvation. The two-book approach always
seems to relegate Scripture to the lesser status as history."

This is an arresting way of putting it. To link it to the thread:
since Christ is Lord in creation, providence and redemption, we must
give attention to what is revealed about each aspect of his work.
This is a matter of basic discipleship.

I agree completely with the comment on the two-book approach.
However, I can't reconcile the sentiment expressed here with the
closing sentences in your post:
"Genesis 1 can not be understood as miraculous if one believes in an
old universe. Plants simply did not appear before the sun appeared."

Whilst it is legitimate to use our studies of earth history to
illuminate the Bible, we must operate on the principle that God is
the author of all truth. Glenn - you give the appearance here of
reinterpreting the Bible on the basis of what you believe from
science. I would suggest it more appropriate to say: "Based on the
interpretation of Genesis 1 as "days of proclamation", it is not
appropriate to view the account as historical."

In which case, I would still like to know how Christians should
interpret the miracles of Christ - is there a link with him being the
Agent in creation?

I made some comments on mediate creation, including:
"Certainly we must all say that the creation of man was mediate."
Glen responded:
"I probably would not agree to a mediate creation of
man. Genesis 2:7 states:
"the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living
being." NIV
In this case man was formed directly, immediately rather than
mediately."

I think we are using "mediate" in different senses. In my
understanding, mediate creation refers to creative acts of God using
materials that had a prior existence. Thus the man was formed from
the dust of the ground (pre-existing materials) and his origin can be
categorised as mediate creation. Am I using the term in the commonly-
accepted sense? I'd appreciate feedback on this.

Best wishes,

*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***