A distinction is usually made between “general providence”, which refers to God’s continuous upholding of the existence and natural order of the Universe, and “special providence”, which refers to God’s extraordinary intervention in the life of people.[1]Miracles generally fall in the latter category.[2] - Wikipedia
Note what it says about miracles (and I have cited it before). “Miracles generally fall in the latter category.” Events in the latter category do not have to be miraculous, as in supernatural. Again, I think the term hypernatural miracles has utility here – no natural laws are broken, but, one more time, the timing and placing of circumstances is miraculous.
I’m suggesting it as a special case of special providence, where God intervenes hypernaturally (i.e, it would not happen under normal circumstances, but no natural laws have to be broken) to cause abiogenesis. I am not committed to this, however.
Likewise in molecular evolution – is not God’s sovereignty capable, or is it precluded?
Aquinas’s primary and secondary causation can be read (in your terms) as special and general providence.
Aquinas shows us how to distinguish between the being or existence of creatures and the operations they perform. God causes creatures to exist in such a way that they are the real causes of their own operations. For Aquinas, God is at work in every operation of nature, but the autonomy of nature is not an indication of some reduction in God’s power or activity; rather, it is an indication of His goodness. It is important to recognize that divine causality and creaturely causality function at fundamentally different levels. In the Summa contra Gentiles , Aquinas remarks that “the same effect is not attributed to a natural cause and to divine power in such a way that it is partly done by God, and partly by the natural agent; rather, it is wholly done by both, according to a different way, just as the same effect is wholly attributed to the instrument and also wholly to the principal agent.”(21) It is not the case of partial or co-causes with each contributing a separate element to produce the effect. God, as Creator, transcends (22) the order of created causes in such a way that He is their enabling origin. Yet the “same God who transcends the created order is also intimately and immanently present within that order as upholding all causes in their causing, including the human will.” For Aquinas “the differing metaphysical levels of primary and secondary causation require us to say that any created effect comes totally and immediately from God as the transcendent primary cause and totally and immediately from the creature as secondary cause.”(23)
So if a particular effect can not arise from secondary causation (general providence) it must come from primary causation (special providence).
Free will and Nature are sources of secondary causation. Thus the choices we make and/or the outcomes of nature that lead to coincidences are the effects of secondary causation. Divine intervention comes into play if God specifically intervenes in your spirit to or nature to produce his chosen outcome that otherwise would not have chosen or would not have been produced by nature.
@jongarvey, @AllenWitmerMiller – Could you help me out here? I am apparently not able to articulate the distinctions well enough for Rich’s understanding. (or @dga471?)
Thanks for sharing your story about your cancer diagnosis/ successful surgery. I believe God was most definately working in these details. I have witnessed first hand God working more than "“hypernaturally” too. I have been involved in circumstances which one cannot explain as anything but God acting supernaturally where all inclination for any natural explanation was 100% interupted and discarded for another unexpected and unnatural outcome which all of those of us testify as the literal miraculous hand of God.
So it seems that God works in many ways-thru nature, supernaturally, providentially. And i bet we will be surprised about how much He was working in details unknown.
The Scriptures that led me to the God who may choose supernatural routes in human history tell us of a truly supernatural event called salvation where the old is gone and the new is reborn. Matching this, the Scriptures also tell us about created kinds made from scratch too. These both are the premier supernatural events of all of the history of the world and Christians have no business rewritting the historical narrative script with another natural or hyernatural one.
What do you mean by “molecular evolution”? Do you envisage “natural laws” (whatever they are) that cause or lead to molecular evolution in certain conditions?
Again . It’s not clear natural laws are anything other than God’s will… i.e things behave the way they do because God enables them to. They don’t have any such intrinsic ability or preferences.
This would mean that God “breaking” natural laws is not such a big deal.
So why the need for this “special providence” category?
The term “special providence” has been around a long time and is commonly understood, or so I thought, and scripture is replete with examples. Moses in the bulrushes being found by pharaoh’s daughter comes to mind. Just luck? No, special providence.
General providence is involved in that they were all breathing air.
There is a difference between biological evolution and molecular evolution.
That doesn’t say what they are. They can be any of the following -
Models which approximate how the universe functions assuming regularity.
Decrees of God as to how the universe should function.
Regularity in how God sustains the universe.
Of you mean option 2, then they need not be option 1. For example, what we describe as gravity need not have anything to with How God rules over creation. Gravity is just a human analogy for something that we observe in nature…
I don’t see how you are equating the laws of nature with scientific disciplines of physics and chemistry if these laws are decrees of God.
You could call it special providence if you want to.
I think it’s just general providence.
@DaleCutler, I think some of the terms you are using are disputed in their precise meaning, and this is tripping up your case. The way I explain this is:
“God providentially governs all things, but we usually do not know how. He might use miracles at times or natural processes or coincidences, but if he does not tell us how, we usually do not know how.”
That makes your point without getting into an unnecessary and loaded dispute about the precise categories of providence and how they do or do not play out in the world, and how they are emphasized or justified in different traditions or in Scripture. None of that really matters much to your main point.
If evolution is real, if we share common ancestors with animals, we know that God created evolution, and he providentially governs evolution as he providentially governs all things. In fact, the Genesis text teaches that plants and animals were created by an indirect process of providential governance, so it is not particularly innovative to understand creation this way. In fact, it brings us to a more grounded reading of Genesis than the “God usually poofs things into existence” theory.
Of course, this does not preclude God’s miraculous work. Instead, we locate our affirmation in providence, rather than in the mechanisms of God’s action. This is a far more sound theological position. It is less contested, and it is entirely consistent with science.
Does this direcition work for you? It would bypass the morass you are in as people are pressing you on the meaning of special and general providence. It really doesn’t matter to your point.
Also, the way you personally explain this is really strong.
You talk about how you recognize Gods providential work in day to day life, but you don’t usually know how God did it. Much of what you see could just be coincidence, but God could have done things miraculously. The details are hidden from you, and that is okay, and it is how most of us experience Gods work in our lives.
You are comfortable with understanding evolufion in this way because this is how God usually seems to work. He does not tell us the details of how and we don’t usually need to know the details of how.
That narrative of yours is really strong! It is theologically correct. It is also honest and relatable.
If I have a tombstone (which I don’t expect unless my carcass gets severely mutilated beforehand, since I’m a whole body donor to UNMC/The Nebraska Anatomical Board), it should have the I.B. Singer quote on it: “You have to believe in free will, you have no choice.” (…followed or preceded by “God is sovereign!”)
Scripture teaches that plants and animals were created by an indirect process?? If there are 100 examples in Scripture of Gods hand in a resultant fruit and we scaled these 1 to 10, where 10 is direct involvement and 1 is more indirect, then the creation history in early Genesis get an 11. If one would use your yardstick here to interpret the rest of Scripture, you can make it say anything you want. [quote=“swamidass, post:232, topic:7558”]
Of course, this does not preclude God’s miraculous work. Instead, we locate our affirmation in providence, rather than in the mechanisms of God’s action. This is a far more sound theological position. It is less contested, and it is entirely consistent with science.
[/quote]
I completely disagree with your last two sentences here. We are on different planets. Far less sound theologically and entirely consistent with interpretive behaviors bent on naturalism, not science.
It should never be a goal to appeal to someones direction. We are all sinners finite in our knowledge and have damaged receiver mechanisms. Biblical faith is taking the substance from Scripture and renewing our minds with it in order to know, love and serve God for who He is and in order to know how to love and serve each other with grace and truth.
Maybe i am misinterpreting you here so please extend grace if i am.
.
(…followed or preceded by “God is sovereign!”)