>However, somebody on the Evolution reflector raised a point which (despite
>my sympathy for van Till's position) I think deserves some discussion here.
>As Christians, we affirm that *salvation* history IS (at least from the
>viewpoint of human history) "interventionist", in that God bridged a
>specific gap almost 2000 years ago. One even hears the "Couldn't God have
>done it right from the beginning?" question with regard to salvation. Of
>course there are reasonable answers to that question. But, for our current
>discussion, can anybody point out some fundamental difference that would
>make "interventionism" less theologically acceptable for the Earth's
>formational history than it is for salvation history?
A couple of brief thoughts -- One obvious difference is that we are free
moral beings capable of resisting Gods will. Thus we do not always
cooperate with God in bringing forth His will. The non-human creation on
the other hand is, I believe, incapable of disobedience. There is thus no
resistence to God's creative will.
"non-interventionist" way. That is, my sanctification proceeds as an
historical process. Why does God choose to have us "work out our salvation
in fear and trembling" ? I believe there is some similarity here with
God's action in the natural world. God has chosen to bring about His will
in our lives by working in and through our actions - by making us
participants. God similarly does His creative work by making creation
itself participate in its own creation.
I hope these thoughts are productive.
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506