Actually, George, the language of “providence” is more standard, and certainly more thought-through in the history of theology, than the looser term “guidance”.
However, since in classical theology God’s providence extends to everything it’s customary to distinguish general providence from special providence, and that distinction is also where most of the controversy lies.
As already evident from some of my quotes from Newton and forbears above, general providence is the creation and set-up of the universe, which in scientific terms more or less corresponds to “laws of nature and initial conditions”, and in the early scientists’ thinking, therefore, it correponded to the “natural” that was their field of study. The Deists believed only in general providence, ie they saw the Universe as a clockwork, deterministic machine, in which nature ran without any “interference” by God. “Providential government” in this case means, in effect, “precision engineering.” Note that, strictly speaking, a clockmaker could “guide” a clock to tell the correct time at point n simply by faultless design and manufacture.
So those TEs who believe that, once God had set up the laws of nature, it “needed no further supernatural intervention” are saying they only believe in general providence within the natural realm - though there is a distinction (seldom clearly stated) between (1) those who believe that nature is so set up that it unfolds exactly as God planned, and (2) those whose view of “general providence” doesn’t cover the whole creation, so that all or some of evolution turns out fortuitously, God is delighted or saddend at what it does, and he slaps his image on any intelligent species that happens to arrive, if it does at all.
In between are the Molinists who believe that God allows chance or “freedom” to do its thing (2) but only creates the one universe where chance and freedom happen to coincide exactly with (1). Personally I can’t see where chance gets a look in when the outcome is planned, known and duly created, but it seems to suit some people OK - I don’t think they’ve fully considered how chance only means “ignorance of a specified agent about specified events.”
Special providence, however, the early scientists regarded as supernatural, or even miraculous; as interventions either suspending laws of nature, or simply changing events by employing them (as we do when we throw a rock). Newton (or his disciples) disputed with the Deist Leibniz that the kind of universe in which God was not immanently active through special providence was not Christianity.
In this case, God “guides” his creation by his direct action apart from the laws of nature + initial conditions. He is immanently involved with it, in the jargon. Creatio continua, in some major traditions. So in standard theological terminology a person’s general viewpoint is demonstrated by whether they believe God governs only by general providence (and it’s helpful to pin them down on just how “general” they believe such providence to be, for a weak view of general providence leads to a creation partly independent of God’s intentions), or whether they believe he governs also by special providence.
The question, of course, is theological rather than scientific.