Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Jesus Creed

Ordinary Presence Rather Than Ordinary Absence (RJS)

Last updated on: January 9, 2018 at 9:06 pm   by RJS

Ordinary Presence Rather Than Ordinary Absence (RJS) 2018-01-09T21:06:48-06:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

RTB-BioLogosThe next chapter in the recent book Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation? Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos addresses the question of divine action. As with the question of natural evil, J.B. (Jim) Stump from BioLogos and Jeff Zweerink from Reasons to Believe agree substantially on this question. John Laing (Southwestern Baptist Seminary) moderates the chapter.  Both Jim and Jeff emphasize that it is a serious theological mistake to separate ‘natural’ processes from divine action, as though these are opposites – one or the other.

John Laing begins the chapter with a definition: “The doctrine of providence refers to God’s governance, sustainment, and preservation of the created order.” (p. 85) This starts the discussion on the right foot by emphasizing the full range of divine action.

Jim Stump emphasizes the fact that BioLogos accepts God’s omnipotence and capacity for miraculous action.

But no matter how many miracles a Christian accepts, if it is assumed that when God isn’t performing miracles he’s not acting at all, the difference from deism is only a matter of degree. Aubrey Moore saw the problem with that approach more than one hundred years ago, saying, “a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence.”

At BioLogos we think that attempting to preserve a role for God by denying scientific explanations is going about things the wrong way. We see God’s hand throughout the created order not because science can’t explain nature but because it can. …

God created the world but did not leave it on its own. At BioLogos we hold that the ordinary functioning of the world is describable by science, and that God is continuously involved in sustaining and governing it.  (p. 87-88)

Many who argue about divine action seem to think about God as a character within creation rather than the author of all creation. Jim references C.S. Lewis who made the point that a better metaphor is that of author. As we see Shakespeare in his plays, so we see God in his creation. Scientific explanations only touch on one aspect of reality, they don’t plunge the full depth of meaning and knowledge placed there by the author/creator.

Stars From HSTJeff Zweerink agrees that God is found in all of creation, not only in the places that lack scientific explanation. In fact, the RTB position is that if God removed his sustaining hand from creation even the so-called laws of physics would fail us.  “Without God’s providential work in the created order, none of the predictability that the scientific enterprise requires would exist.” (p. 93)  and “If God were to withdraw his hand from creation, it would tumble into nonexistence.” (p. 94)

We can divide God’s action in the world into that of ordinary providence (“the kind of activity that leads to such an orderly creation that scientists can describe it by the laws of physics”) and extraordinary providence. A miracle can involve an improbable sequence of ‘normal’ events or be an event that transcends the ‘normal’. “Hypernatural miracles have a natural accounting, but their explanations require such unusual or contrived circumstances that they appear natural.” (p. 95)  The parting of the sea of reeds in Ex. 14 where “the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind” is such an example. Jim Stump uses different descriptions, but seems to have roughly the same categories. He points out that John 21, when the disciples were fishing and Jesus told them to cast their nets on the other side of the boat, was a ‘miracle’ of timing, but not an event that transcended the laws of physics.

In contrast, the resurrection transcends the law of physics.  Jim Stump notes: “Scientists could not say, “the resurrection of Jesus was a remarkable coincidence.” It was something they believe not to be just rare or extraordinary, but physically impossible.” (p. 100).

The primary difference between BioLogos and RTB concerning creation involves the frequency of ordinary and extraordinary providence in the process. At BioLogos we tend to think that creation involved primarily God’s ordinary providence but did not transcend the laws of physics. Some (perhaps many) of us will accept the possibility of ‘hypernatural’ providence on occasion, most notably in the origin of life. In contrast, Jeff Zweerink observes:

Probably the main difference between RTB and BioLogos relates to the was we view how frequently God intervenes beyond ordinary providence. RTB would argue that the bulk of God’s creative activity in Genesis 1 and 2 consists of extraordinary providence, whereas BioLogos contends that this activity is largely a part of ordinary providence. Clearly the main purpose of these two chapters in Genesis centers on revealing the nature of God and how he interacts with his creation. However, the biblical author uses language to communicate God’s direct activity as opposed to a more passive historical description. (p. 101)

RTB sees much more extensive place for hypernatural miracles in creation – from the collision that produced the moon to the fine tuning that results in the stable water cycle and permits the existence of life on earth. They also see a larger role for transcendent miracles. For example, RTB sees the advent of humanity and human consciousness as something that transcends physical laws.

What categories describe God’s action in creation?

How active was God in the processes of creation?

Does ‘ordinary providence’ imply God’s passive involvement? (I think not.)

If you wish to contact me directly, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Uncategorized

Previous Post



January 8, 2018

Body Life By Org Chart?

Next Post



January 10, 2018 Is Trump A Conservative?


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000


Follow Us!

Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter



TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How old was Abraham when Sarah died?

Select your answer to see how you score.

137 years 117 years 127 years 147 years

Related posts from Jesus Creed

Evangelical

Jesus Creed

Evangelical

The Gospel of With Us and Through Us

Jesus Creed

Evangelical

Northern Seminary Announces: Nijay Gupta Joins Faculty

Jesus Creed

Evangelical

The Gundrys and Me: Ruth Tucker

Jesus Creed

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical

He’s Making A List… A Great Way to...

I’ve been having a problem. It’s a problem with distraction, and if...

To Halloween or Not to Halloween… That Is...

This week, as I put the finishing touches on my church’s Trunk...

Do You Know Yourself?

The great theologian, John Calvin, said that nearly all the wisdom we...

Creation as Secondary to Judgment

Creating is a most human act. A good canonical (classical) education will...

Nuggets of Wisdom—Fall 2026

Every few months or so I like to share quotes that I...

How the author of the world's best hymn...

I've been working with John Newton for a while now. This makes...

view all Evangelical blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube