The Immanence of God in his Providence

[Keachian]

Let's try this again, I believe that the main problem between special creaionists and evolutionary creationists is not how they view God's initial act of creation but how they view his continued interaction with creation. As this is a generalisation there are going to be people from both sides who actually agree on this point, but this is one of the issues that I feel is most important to our understanding of who God is and how he relates to us and the rest of his creation.

The distinction I see is that the evolutionary creationist is happy to assert that God continues to be involved in an immanent manner with his creation, while the special creationist will mark a delineation between the actual initial creative act and God's providence, citing that God leaves all other things up to the natural processes that he has created and put in order. If anything I would say that this last position is deistic, but I often get in trouble for saying this so I'll be clearer, I do not deny that in the special creationist's theology God continues to interact with humanity, what I am objecting to is the distance that is placed between God and the rest of his creation.

A definition of providence:
Nature is under God's intimate care and while his care normally is predicatble and consistent such that we have been able to construct "laws" to define such care, he can and does act within creation in ways that contradict our understanding and these formed patterns, we normally call such actions miracles.

 

[juvenissun]

Let's try this again, I believe that the main problem between special creaionists and evolutionary creationists is not how they view God's initial act of creation but how they view his continued interaction with creation. As this is a generalisation there are going to be people from both sides who actually agree on this point, but this is one of the issues that I feel is most important to our understanding of who God is and how he relates to us and the rest of his creation.

The distinction I see is that the evolutionary creationist is happy to assert that God continues to be involved in an immanent manner with his creation, while the special creationist will mark a delineation between the actual initial creative act and God's providence, citing that God leaves all other things up to the natural processes that he has created and put in order. If anything I would say that this last position is deistic, but I often get in trouble for saying this so I'll be clearer, I do not deny that in the special creationist's theology God continues to interact with humanity, what I am objecting to is the distance that is placed between God and the rest of his creation.

A definition of providence:
Nature is under God's intimate care and while his care normally is predicatble and consistent such that we have been able to construct "laws" to define such care, he can and does act within creation in ways that contradict our understanding and these formed patterns, we normally call such actions miracles.

One key idea among the arguments is: God HAS DONE His creation. No More creation after the 7th Day.

I am not sure how many TE people agree with this. If they do, then there will be trouble in TE.

 

[Papias]

Juvi wrote:

One key idea among the arguments is: God HAS DONE His creation. No More creation after the 7th Day.

I am not sure how many TE people agree with this. If they do, then there will be trouble in TE.

Yes, that's the key idea that progmonk described.

This TE says that God is not done, or distant, today, but is active every day and every hour.

I see this supported by scripture, such as John 5:17, and others:

Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working".
​

In Christ-

Papias

 

[MKJ]

Yes, I would agree with that. The idea that God creates things with their own nature, and then stands back from them and lets them work, seems to me to be what most creationists think.

Whereas I would say that nature of each thing exists in the Word and, and it is that connection to their source that gives them their continued reality. If they lost that connection they would cease to exist.

The created world is God revealing himself in time, as opposed to God as beginning or end. Evolution then is really just part and parcel of a creation spread out in time. The idea of species is just how we label living things that we perceive at only one moment in time rather than in their wholeness.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Nice.

 

[Keachian]

One key idea among the arguments is: God HAS DONE His creation. No More creation after the 7th Day.

I am not sure how many TE people agree with this. If they do, then there will be trouble in TE.

We're not really talking about God's creative acts, (though Ps 51, and other passages disagree with your position) we're talking about his continued interaction with all of creation through both miraculous and providential means.

 

[gluadys]

Juvi wrote:



Yes, that's the key idea that progmonk described.

This TE says that God is not done, or distant, today, but is active every day and every hour.

I see this supported by scripture, such as John 5:17, and others:

Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working".
​

In Christ-

Papias

There is also the oft-noted fact that scripture does not include an ending to the 7th day. And again, the Psalmist's invitation to enter God's rest (sabbath) "Today" and the way the writer of Hebrews picks up that motif.

 

[juvenissun]

There is also the oft-noted fact that scripture does not include an ending to the 7th day. And again, the Psalmist's invitation to enter God's rest (sabbath) "Today" and the way the writer of Hebrews picks up that motif.

How would this matter to the time of creation? The Day Six is over, isn't it?

 

[juvenissun]

We're not really talking about God's creative acts, (though Ps 51, and other passages disagree with your position) we're talking about his continued interaction with all of creation through both miraculous and providential means.

Agree. We only have miraculous intervention, but not creation after the Day Six.

So, TE suggests that God keeps intervening in a miraculous way so that the evolution becomes possible.

I don't like that. I can accept one or two or a few of such intervention, but not thousands and tens of thousands. Do you think our God is a cheap labor or an inferior designer?

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, I would agree with that. The idea that God creates things with their own nature, and then stands back from them and lets them work, seems to me to be what most creationists think.

Whereas I would say that nature of each thing exists in the Word and, and it is that connection to their source that gives them their continued reality. If they lost that connection they would cease to exist.

The created world is God revealing himself in time, as opposed to God as beginning or end. Evolution then is really just part and parcel of a creation spread out in time. The idea of species is just how we label living things that we perceive at only one moment in time rather than in their wholeness.

Your concept of evolution is too easy.

If you take a closer look. Life forms linked by the idea of evolution is not continuous. People simply draw a line to connect them, without any understanding on how were the links actually built.

God's miraculous intervention is needed in all those links, thousands and thousands of them.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

How would this matter to the time of creation? The Day Six is over, isn't it?

It doesn't matter, Juvenissun; according to the YEC faction, ALL the uses of 'yom' in the initial chapters of Genesis mean one day; a single, twenty-four hour period, and that only!

Which means, according to that stance, the Lord rested from His labor on the seventh day and then resumed on the eighth day, does it not?

Or are you going to say the days in Genesis One (and Two, as needed) were 'flexible', perhaps allegoric meanings?

Or do you prefer the days you want to be twenty-hour days are all twenty-four hour days except for the ones which don't fit the YEC theory?

Back to the main stream -

In fact, God seems to have withdrawn from active participation in His Creation. God no longer shows up in the afternoon to discuss the day with His people - as was done in the Garden. God very seldom appears as He did to several of the Old Testament Patriarchs. Miraculous births to older than normal, hitherto barren women don't get a lot of press. In fact, God demand 'faith' in His followers rather than putting a 'light show' as a means to convince the unbeliever.

So, it is fair to say God no longer interacts with Creation on the same setting as He did with the burning bushes, pillars of cloud and light, and rather out of the ordinary happenings. Which is NOT to say God has pulled out entirely.

Woman still have babies in the 'regular' way. Is the marvelous, intricate and inexplicable mechanism the Lord installed in humanity to reproduce any less 'miraculous' than the Lord appearing in a thunderclap and pointing at a woman's belly? The only difference is, most of us are 'used' to the regular miracle.

When The Lord created the Universe, He established and set in place all the 'natural laws' of the Universe. Birth being one, gravity being another, Newton's Laws of Motion - which are part of Einstein's General Relativity, the laws of chance which caution against drawing to an inside straight and more.

So, let me ask this question: Do 'things' (including people, cars and dogs) stay 'down' on the Earth because the Lord interferes in each and every case to keep us all here, or due to His implementation of gravity?

If is it gravity - that the Lord established - how does that diminish the Lord?

Of course, being a believer ('depender' would be a better word) I interact with God every day. Just for the record, I am more of the scientific bent. I suppose the ignorant of the subject would class me as 'Theistic Evolutionist', even though that label has nothing to do with the scientific cosmology of the Universe. Still, the Lord moves in my life all the time; 'daily' is far too weak a word in this case.

And I constantly marvel at what God hath wrought.

 

[MKJ]

Your concept of evolution is too easy.

If you take a closer look. Life forms linked by the idea of evolution is not continuous. People simply draw a line to connect them, without any understanding on how were the links actually built.

God's miraculous intervention is needed in all those links, thousands and thousands of them.

But it is continuous, that is the point. Delineation into species over time is, in a certain sense, a convention, and arbitrary. We do it only from our own perspective in time. One generation follows another, there are no "linking" species, there is only a continuous series of related living things.

We divide them mentally, for our own purposes, in a way that reflects their characteristics as they show themselves over time.

What you are describing is a lot like Zeno's paradox. But despite the paradox, we know that the arrow still hits the target.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh goodie, here we go again

Let's try this again, I believe that the main problem between special creaionists and evolutionary creationists is not how they view God's initial act of creation but how they view his continued interaction with creation. As this is a generalisation there are going to be people from both sides who actually agree on this point, but this is one of the issues that I feel is most important to our understanding of who God is and how he relates to us and the rest of his creation.

I agree, the main problem is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Creation and the origin of life. There is no such thing as a special creationist or an creation evolutionist, that's just silly. There are those who believe that God created the heavens and the earth, life and man by divine fiat and those who deny the clear testimony of Scripture. Evolution is something that happens after life is created or formed by naturalistic means. The expression 'special creation' is a reference from On the Origin of Species that refers to Catastropheism, why is it so hard for Theistic Evolutionists to get their terminology straight.

The distinction I see is that the evolutionary creationist is happy to assert that God continues to be involved in an immanent manner with his creation, while the special creationist will mark a delineation between the actual initial creative act and God's providence, citing that God leaves all other things up to the natural processes that he has created and put in order. If anything I would say that this last position is deistic, but I often get in trouble for saying this so I'll be clearer, I do not deny that in the special creationist's theology God continues to interact with humanity, what I am objecting to is the distance that is placed between God and the rest of his creation.

So you would agree that Creation is the same miraculous act as the Incarnation, Resurrection and new birth (John 3:3)?

A definition of providence:
Nature is under God's intimate care and while his care normally is predicatble and consistent such that we have been able to construct "laws" to define such care, he can and does act within creation in ways that contradict our understanding and these formed patterns, we normally call such actions miracles.

Providence is natural law, it's also a term applied to natural rights, the operative word here is 'natural'. Creation isn't a provisional act of God it's a miraculous one, you do know that providence is invariably used in counter-distinction to a miraculous act of God right?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

How would this matter to the time of creation? The Day Six is over, isn't it?

Well, not necessarily. A common Jewish interpretation around the time of Christ, was that each of the creative days referred to in Genesis was 1,000 years (that being a "day" in God's view) and the seven days are not completed yet. In fact the seven days are not just the beginning, but the whole of history. IOW all of history is comprised of 7,000 years. And today is somewhere between 5001 and 6000. We know the fifth day is completed because the creatures of the sixth day already exist, but we also know the sixth day is not completed yet because the 7th day, the day of God's sabbath, and of the 1,000 year Messianic kingdom, has not yet begun.

This interpretation was also picked up by many in the early Church who saw Jesus' message as that the sixth day is nearly over and God's kingdom is at hand.

 

[Keachian]

I have reorganised your post to get to the meat first;

Providence is natural law, it's also a term applied to natural rights, the operative word here is 'natural'. Creation isn't a provisional act of God it's a miraculous one,

What do you mean by "natural law" does God need to continue to exercise himself in the sustaining of creation?

I agree, the main problem is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Creation and the origin of life.

Well, no that's not what I think is the problem, as can probably be demonstrated by my bringing your objection to my definition of providence forward.

There is no such thing as a special creationist or an creation evolutionist, that's just silly. There are those who believe that God created the heavens and the earth, life and man by divine fiat and those who deny the clear testimony of Scripture.

Well drawing on the high emphasis of the Sovereignty of God in my Theology I think you are making a false dichotomy between God creating by divine fiat and God creating life providentially, you are then charging the situation by saying that only divine fiat to the exclusion of providence is Scriptural, but this would be going into something this thread is not put up for, I may make a new one, but the crux of what I want to talk about is the poor definitions of providence across the scale.

Evolution is something that happens after life is created or formed by naturalistic means. The expression 'special creation' is a reference from On the Origin of Species that refers to Catastropheism, why is it so hard for Theistic Evolutionists to get their terminology straight.

I'm trying not to use charged words, but judging by your response I failed at this, I'm trying to dialogue with members across the spectrum and not just start a etymology war.

So you would agree that Creation is the same miraculous act as the Incarnation, Resurrection and new birth (John 3:3)?

I would be hesitant to talk about the Incarnation and Resurrection as creative acts, to make the first one would be to dabble towards denying the deity of Christ, If I'm going to tie the Resurrection to a creative act then it would be very hesitantly tied to the creation of the New Heavens and New Earth, of which the New Birth is most definitely a part of, so they are Eschatological creative acts rather than origin creative acts and to stress again, the Resurrection if anything is the Alpha of the eschatological creation.

you do know that providence is invariably used in counter-distinction to a miraculous act of God right?

Yes, and the definition I gave does make that counter-distinction

 

[Keachian]

Agree. We only have miraculous intervention, but not creation after the Day Six.

That's the thing, we don't only have miraculous intervention beyond D6, we have God "sending rain on the just and the unjust" there must be more way for God to interact with creation rather than just Creation and Miraculous Intervention, it's only because in the 18th and 19th centuries philosophy devised a God that wasn't active in sustaining His Creation that we have to present this to you.

So, TE suggests that God keeps intervening in a miraculous way so that the evolution becomes possible.

No, TEs see a continuity of God acting providentially.

I don't like that. I can accept one or two or a few of such intervention, but not thousands and tens of thousands. Do you think our God is a cheap labor or an inferior designer?

I think God pours himself into his creation, both to reconcile it to himself and to sustain it and have it declare his Glory.

 

[mark kennedy]

What do you mean by "natural law" does God need to continue to exercise himself in the sustaining of creation?

We are not talking about sustaining creation, we are talking about creation.

Well, no that's not what I think is the problem, as can probably be demonstrated by my bringing your objection to my definition of providence forward.

I already have and you didn't even notice, why would I chase it in circles? Divine Providence is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, it was synonymous with natural law. Miracles were something else entirely, Jefferson compiled a New Testament where he systematically removed the miracles. Providence isn't creation, it the functioning of natural law as opposed to miracles. Look it up.

Well drawing on the high emphasis of the Sovereignty of God in my Theology I think you are making a false dichotomy between God creating by divine fiat and God creating life providentially, you are then charging the situation by saying that only divine fiat to the exclusion of providence is Scriptural, but this would be going into something this thread is not put up for, I may make a new one, but the crux of what I want to talk about is the poor definitions of providence across the scale.

So you strongly emphasis God's sovereignty and providence as long as it's by exclusively naturalistic means. I know what providence means, I've studied a lot of theology and it's a naturalistic provision. As usual the problem is your not using the word properly and pretending I'm the one who needs a better definition.

So define Providence.

I'm trying not to use charged words, but judging by your response I failed at this, I'm trying to dialogue with members across the spectrum and not just start a etymology war.

I know what you mean by the word, I know what the word means, I know why you like the word. It's consistent with your naturalistic assumptions. So when do you honestly admit it?

I would be hesitant to talk about the Incarnation and Resurrection as creative acts, to make the first one would be to dabble towards denying the deity of Christ,

The Incarnation was God doing what only God could do, the body was a miracle performed by the Holy Spirit and that's not my interpretation, it's Gospel. The miracle was a 'bara' creation meaning it was a new creation without a naturalistic cause, it's God doing what only God can do.

Typical, you twist it around so it's backwards, denying a naturalistic explanation is a denial of the deity of Christ? You goys always do that, twist the meaning of words around until it means the opposite of the actual definition.

Creation, the Incarnation, the Resurrection and new birth are all the same miracle and never would any self respecting Christian theologian call it providence.

If I'm going to tie the Resurrection to a creative act then it would be very hesitantly tied to the creation of the New Heavens and New Earth, of which the New Birth is most definitely a part of, so they are Eschatological creative acts rather than origin creative acts and to stress again, the Resurrection if anything is the Alpha of the eschatological creation.

You don't have a problem with creation at the end of the age but you have a problem with it at the beginning of human history?

Yes, and the definition I gave does make that counter-distinction

More like an equivocation of Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. It's counter-distinctive with miracles, making providence a miracle is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Keachian]

We are not talking about sustaining creation, we are talking about creation.

The title is about God's providence, the OP is about God's providence, the thread is about God's providence, do you agree that God is exerting himself in the sustaining of God's creation?

I already have and you didn't even notice, why would I chase it in circles? Divine Providence is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, it was synonymous with natural law. Miracles were something else entirely, Jefferson compiled a New Testament where he systematically removed the miracles. Providence isn't creation, it the functioning of natural law as opposed to miracles. Look it up.

Why is the Dec. of Ind. a Theological source? It was framed by deists, I know this, you know this, come on Mark, if we're going to engage in Theology then lets use Scripture, does God continue to be involved in his creation in an immanent way?

So you strongly emphasis God's sovereignty and providence as long as it's by exclusively naturalistic means.

Not what I said, I said that you are making a false dichotomy between Divine Providence and Divine Fiat. My acknowledgement of a false dichotomy only gives you the knowledge that I recognise it as a false dichotomy, not whether I accept the position that comes from the union of the two, and that is neither here nor there, the problem is the false dichotomy.

I know what providence means, I've studied a lot of theology and it's a naturalistic provision. As usual the problem is your not using the word properly and pretending I'm the one who needs a better definition.

Well then what word would you use for my definition of providence? I think providence is perfectly fine for the semitechnical theological definition I have given it.

So define Providence.

See OP, I gave a definition there, complete with counter-distinction of miracle.

I know what you mean by the word, I know what the word means, I know why you like the word. It's consistent with your naturalistic assumptions. So when do you honestly admit it?

The Incarnation was God doing what only God could do, the body was a miracle performed by the Holy Spirit and that's not my interpretation, it's Gospel. The miracle was a 'bara' creation meaning it was a new creation without a naturalistic cause, it's God doing what only God can do.

So Creation is the only divine action? I think you've made this doctrine a bit too big and so are in danger of denying or leading others to deny Christian truth.

Typical, you twist it around so it's backwards, denying a naturalistic explanation is a denial of the deity of Christ? You goys always do that, twist the meaning of words around until it means the opposite of the actual definition.

Who said anything about the Incarnation being naturalistic, you assumed wrong, I can deny it was a creation act to avoid the obvious conclusion that God the Son came into existence then and use the proper theological term; Incarnation without having to go to "naturalism" again, please define, is God involved in "naturalism" or not? Even though that is neither here nor there for this part of the discussion.

Creation, the Incarnation, the Resurrection and new birth are all the same miracle and never would any self respecting Christian theologian call it providence.

I wouldn't call any of those providence, I have delineated Resurrection and New Birth into the eschatological creation of the New Heaven and New Earth and the Incarnation is a unique event which I'm adverse to calling creation because of the uniqueness of the Incarnate One who is begotten, not made as the Statement of Faith says.

You don't have a problem with creation at the end of the age but you have a problem with it at the beginning of human history?

I don't have a problem with either.

More like an equivocation of Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. It's counter-distinctive with miracles, making providence a miracle is a contradiction in terms.

I'm not making providence a miracle, I'm simply denying that God chose to make a world that can "function" without his sustenance and affirming that he did this for his Glory.

 

[Keachian]

prov·i·dence
noun
1. ( often initial capital letter ) the foreseeing care and guidance of God or nature over the creatures of the earth.
2. ( initial capital letter ) God, especially when conceived as omnisciently directing the universe and the affairs of humankind with wise benevolence.
3. a manifestation of divine care or direction.
Providence | Define Providence at Dictionary.com​

In theology, divine providence, or providence, is God's intervention in the world. "Divine Providence" (usually capitalized) is also used as a title of God. A distinction is usually made between "general providence", which refers to God's continuous upholding the existence and natural order of the universe, and "special providence", which refers to God's extraordinary intervention in the life of people.
Divine providence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Well, there goes the "Progmonk is using a nonstandard definition of providence." argument.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, not necessarily. A common Jewish interpretation around the time of Christ, was that each of the creative days referred to in Genesis was 1,000 years (that being a "day" in God's view) and the seven days are not completed yet. In fact the seven days are not just the beginning, but the whole of history. IOW all of history is comprised of 7,000 years. And today is somewhere between 5001 and 6000. We know the fifth day is completed because the creatures of the sixth day already exist, but we also know the sixth day is not completed yet because the 7th day, the day of God's sabbath, and of the 1,000 year Messianic kingdom, has not yet begun.

This interpretation was also picked up by many in the early Church who saw Jesus' message as that the sixth day is nearly over and God's kingdom is at hand.

Interesting. This is the first time I heard this. Thanks.

So, this "fixed" the time scale as 1 Day : 1000 years.
Otherwise, your interpretation won't work. Right?