Reconciling underlying assumptions??

Gladwin Joseph (
Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:12:06 -0800

Dear Folks,

Can one use God's method of operating in Salvific history as
a model to interpret Creation history. This presupposes
the pre-eminence of Salvific history over Creation
history, although i would rather prefer a method that holds
the two in tension. Searching for analogies to illustrate
such a tension, I think a ship with its three key components
may help. The engine, the compass, and the rudder. The
Salvific history is both the engine and the compass, then
Creation history is both the compass and the rudder. You
need all three to keep the ship moving in the right

If however we should use Salvific history as the model, we
see GOD intervene periodically to accomplish His
Soverign purpose for Creation. From a human perspective
we see GOD intervening in the trajectory of history. This
does not have to mean that GOD in the intervening period
twiddles His thumbs- For in Him All things hold together.
The biblical record reveals Godly intervention, there is
silence till Adam, then there is silence till Noah, silence
till Abraham Isaac and Jacob, silence till Moses, and so on
till Jesus Christ. There is stasis and change, stasis and
change. Nature appears to evolve in analagous ways. In
nature, God's intervention has a material manifestation
that corresponds to that level of nature. Is it necessary
that at all levels of nature, God's mechanism of
intervention needs to be understood/visible to human
epistemological constructs? I think not. In Creation
history He intervenes invisibly but in Salvific history He
intervenes visibly for reasons that are not readily
apparent. In other words there is a Holy tension
(mystery:)) between the visible and invisible
intervening mechanism of GOD.

IMO this helps me bring the model of Functional Integrity
and ID Progressive Creation together in some form, albiet
in `Holy' tension!

Gladwin Joseph