Re: ASA positions on science/faith issues

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: ASA positions on science/faith issues

> Ted,
>
> No quibble with the term progessive creationism or theistic evolution
> (although as noted in the past, I much prefer evolutionary creation).
>
> I think I'm recalling Hodge on this. I'll spend some time trying to locate
> the exact passage. Hodge is available on-line so I should be able to cut
> and paste the exact quote (or give the URL).
>
> My recollection is that Hodge makes your exact point about secondary
> causes but gives theological/philosophical justification for it. I also
> think there was something about the "reality" of creation in his argument.
> Let me get the details and get back. It may well be rooted in his Scottish
> common sense philosophy and not in real Biblical theology.
>
> As I mentioned, the doctrine of sustenance (as well as the doctrine of
> immanence) is distinct from this view. It it not necessary to believe that
> God re-creates everything moment-by-moment to believe that God sustains
> the being, properties, and behaviors moment-by-moment. When I hear Keith
> talk about continuous creation, I have always assumed that he means the
> latter (the doctrine of sustenance)--I also assumed that that was what you
> meant as well.

I think it's rather weak to call sustenance (aka preservation) alone a view
of creation. It implies - as is consistent with a static world view - that
God simply keeps things in existence. The traditional doctrine of
providence was divided into preservation, cooperation (or concurrence) and
governance, and cooperation was usually subsumed under either preservation
or governance. I.e., God worked with the creatures he kept in being to
direct things toward their desired ends.

I think it's much better to place the primary emphasis on cooperation. This
stresses the fact that God indeed _acts_ and fits in better with the dynamic
picture of creation that both the Bible as a whole and modern science points
to. With our understanding of particle physics in which matter is almost
defined by its interactions, it makes sense to say that God preserves things
by cooperating with their interactions, so that preservation could be
subsumed under cooperation.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Thu Mar 31 17:42:13 2005