Re: [asa] a creationist on the hiddenness of God

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Thu May 07 2009 - 16:46:20 EDT

A couple of comments:

Bernie is right - what "careful observers" see is not God's "hand" but the
"tools" wielded by that hand. This is why I've emphasized that faith (in a
deeper sense than just believing in invisible agents) has to be a component
of an adequate theology of divine action.

On Ted's discussion: People may have varying reasons for thinking that
God's action is generally hidden. As will surprise no one, I think the
fundamental reason for such a view is that the God we're talking about is
the one revealed most profoundly in the event of the cross - i.e.,
paradoxically where God is most hidden. (Some will ask, "What about the
resurrection?" As I said in a recent post, a theology of the cross includes
the resurrection of the crucified one. But the resurrection was not a
public event, the kind of phenomenon open to observation by everyone - cf.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 3:27 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] a creationist on the hiddenness of God

>I think the following is a fallacy:
> "Only careful observers see His hand."
> Scientists are painfully "careful observers." If anyone could "carefully
> observe" it should be scientists. If God's workings are imperceptible, I
> don't think it is because of the fault of the observer. Also- if it only
> took a "careful observation" to see God at work, then that perception
> could be then shown to others once it is discovered-- so where is it?
> That's what DI ID'ers are trying to do (explain God's hand at work through
> Intelligent Design because life as we know it is impossible to happen
> naturally), but they don't seem to have a compelling "careful observation"
> to peddle.
> ...Bernie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of Ted Davis
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 11:27 AM
> To:
> Subject: [asa] a creationist on the hiddenness of God
> Cameron Wybrow has been encouraging us to talk about a kenotic view of
> creation and God "hiding himself", in connection with TE and ID. While
> browsing in the college library this afternoon, I found a very curious
> little book by Gorman Gray, a retired engineer, called "The Age of the
> Universe: What Are the Biblical Limits?" Information is at
> Mr Gray is an advocate of a universe with "undefined age," but a recent
> biosphere (no more than 6000 years ago or 7500 years ago if the Septuagint
> is used). I encountered a similar view once, when a Brazilian teacher
> told
> me about it. Actually the famous YEC George McCready Price admitted this
> possibility at one point. As a say, a curious little book.
> My point in mentioning it here is that I found the opening paragraph of
> the
> preface to be interesting in connection with the theme of this thread. I
> quote as follows. Remember, the author is a creationist, if not
> technically
> a YEC then almost a YEC but absolutely not a TE.
> "We are compelled to believe in a God who is above His creation and who
> can
> intervene supernaturally whenever, wherever and however He pleases. Most
> of
> His interventions today are quiet. So quiet, in fact, that some might
> consider world events merely as natural forces producing their predictable
> physics. Only careful observers see His hand. We are dealing with a God
> who silently 'hides himself' (Isaiah 45:15)."
> Wow.
> My only comment: those TEs who like the QDA view (quantum divine action)
> are motivated by a similar concern. Contrary to what is often said or
> implied, they are not denying that God sometimes work genuine miracles
> (that
> would in some cases go well beyond QDA) and they are not picking a view to
> retain academic prestige. Rather, they really believe that virtually all
> divine activity is pretty subtle, while at the same time they want to
> uphold
> the orthodox belief in a God who acts--who acts all the time, all over the
> place.
> Whatever else we might say about that view, we need to keep this in mind.
> Ted
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 7 16:46:43 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 07 2009 - 16:46:43 EDT