Re: ASA positions on science/faith issues

The words "continuously unfolding" or simply "unfolding" come to mind.
That would tend to overcome some notion of instantaneous (only)
existence. JimA

Ted Davis wrote:

>>>>"Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> 3/31/2005 2:26:50 PM
>>>>asks, relative to the statement on origins used at Messiah:
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>I'm wondering if anyone knows the history of this term [Ted: continuous
>creation] and how it
>came to be used to mean what I think your document and Keith means it
>to mean. In my reading of various systematic theologies, "continuous
>creation" means that God re-creates the universe moment-by-moment
>giving only the appearance of continuity of existence. This is
>rejected as heresy (and different from a doctrine of sustenance). I'm
>not suggesting that Messiah's document or Keith is using the term in
>this sense.
>
>Ted replies:
>Although I did draft this statement, there was a good bit of discussion and
>some editing by committee before it ended up in precisely this form. And it
>was several years ago. I no longer recall exactly why/how this particular
>term (continuous creation) came up. It might have been the preferred term
>by some in our old natural sciences department, and it might have been meant
>as an alternative term for "progressive creation." (PC, incidentally, was
>in use at least as early as 1830 in this country. Ramm endorsed it in 1954,
>but without I think realizing how long it had been in use. It's
>pre-Darwinian and in context quite definitely referred to the OEC views of
>some of the early natural historians on both sides of the pond. Ramm used
>it in just the same way, so I gather that it had at least one stable meaning
>all that time.)
>
>As for the point you raise about the view that God re-creates the universe
>moment by moment, I have not previously heard this described as heretical.
>Heresy of course always has a context--heretical to a particular group of
>religious believers, for a specific reason--that I'd like to know about in
>this case. It's possible that our statement might imply this to some
>readers, and it might also be a position held by someone here, I don't
>really know. I associate your sense of the term with "occasionalism," a
>formal philosophical position often assocaited with Descartes, who can be
>understood to be presenting that view of divine creation in his Principles
>of Philosophy, book 2. Malebranche might also be in this category. (As it
>happens, if you look up the term in the old Encylopedia of Philosophy, there
>is no entry, but you do find references to Cartesianism and to Malebranche.)
> I have sometimes leaned toward the view myself, inspired by the strong
>form of divine immanence that is found in the works of people like Dick Bube
>or Charles Coulson; Hooykaas might have leaned this way also. I do not take
>the position to be heretical. Mainly it stresses the mechanical passivity
>of matter and the constant activity of God in the world; it can be seen as a
>denial of the genuine efficacy of secondary causes, which obviously raises
>questions from scientists (who might think of it as heretical
>scientifically, if they are strong realists), but I'm puzzled why
>theologians would apply the label to it.
>
>Ted
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 31 17:20:04 2005