Re: [asa] anti-evolutionism and deism

Here's another bit of Pannenberg that is probably even more on point:

the theological affirmation that the world of nature proceeds from an act of
divine creation implis the claim that th existence of the world as a whole
and of all its parts is contingent. The existence of the whole world is
contingent in the sense that it need not be at all. It owes its existence
to the free activity of divine creation. So does every single part of the
world. ....

Affirmations about the contingency of the world at large and of all its
parts already imply a close connection between creation and conservation.
The world was not simply put into existence once, at the beginning of all
things, in such a way that it would have been left to its own afterward.
Rather, every creature is in need of conservation of its existence in every
moment; and such conservation is, according to theological tradition,
nothing else but a continuous creation. This means that the act of creation
did not take place only in the beginning. It occurs at every moment.
Accordingly, in the traditional theological doctrine of creation the
activity of every creature is dependent on divine cooperation, a *concursus
divinus*. There is no activity and no product of creative activity in the
world without divine cooperation.

The divine activity operates without detriment to the contingency and
immediacy of singular actions, which has been identified in the theological
tradition with the idea of divine governance of the world. It is due to
this divine government of creation that the sequence of contingent events
and created forms takes the sahpe of a continuous process toward the divine
goal of an ultimate completion and glorification of all creation.

The threee aspects of conservation, concurrence, and government have been
often taken together into the concept of divine providence. The difference,
however, between the act of creation in the beginning and the activity of
divine providence in the course of an already existing world, as well as
further subdistinctions of the concept of providence itself, must not
obscure the unity of divine action in all these respects.

(TTN, 34-36).

On 4/20/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think Louise's and Dave S.'s comments are dead-on.
>
> Here's also something I read recently by Wolfhart Pannenberg, which might
> be helpful (from "Towards a Theology of Nature, Essays on Science and Faith"
> ed. by Ted Peters ( http://tinyurl.com/2a4kau)):
>
>
> If the God of the Bible is the creator of the universe, then it is not
> possible to understand fully or even appropriately the proceses of nature
> without any reference to that God. If, on the contrary, nature can be
> appropriately understood without reference to the god of the Bible, then
> that God cannot be the creator of the universe, and consequently he cannot
> be truly God and be trusted as a source of moral teaching either. To be
> sure, the reality of God is not incompatible with some form of abstract
> knowledge concerning the regularities of natural processes, a knowledge that
> abstracts from the concreteness of physical reality and therefore may be
> able also to abstract from the presence of God in his creation. But such
> abstract knowledge of regularities should not claim full and exclusive
> competence regarding the explanation of nature; if it does so, the reality
> of God is denied by impliciation. The so-called methodological atheism of
> modern science is far from pure innocence. It is a highly ambiguous
> phenomenon. Yet its very possibility can be regarded as based on the
> unfailing faithfulness of the creator God to the creation, providing it with
> the unviolable regularities of natural processes that themselves become the
> basis of individual and more precarious and transitory natural systems --
> from stars and mountains and valleys and oceons to the wonders of plants and
> animal life, resulting in the rise of the human species.
>
>
> ("Theological Questions to Scientists," pp. 15-16.)
>
>
> On 4/20/07, Dave Wallace <wdwllace@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > To follow up on all the excellent notes but especially Jon Tandys and
> > Michaels. I have never figured out if:
> >
> > 1)God established and maintains the laws that we observe
> > or
> > 2)The laws that we observe are simply the normal (ie usual) way that God
> > interacts with the universe. Implies that God continually makes
> > decisions as to how matter-energy and space-time will behave. This
> > would imply a view of providence that in some matters at least is
> > extremely particular.
> >
> > I tend to lean towards #1 but don't have any real solid reasons for that
> > choice. The Bible does not seem to say anything that applies or at
> > least I have not found it. Doubt any experiment could tell the
> > difference and am not sure it matters in any case as I am not a deist.
> >
> > Dave W
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 20 11:40:01 2007