Mediate or Immediate? God Forming Us In Our Mother's Womb

[Kurieuo]

Did God create us in our mother's womb in a mediate (i.e., indirect through nature processes) or immediate (special direct creation) manner? Here is some Scripture on which to base you response.

Psalm 139:13-16 (ESV)

• For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

Job 31:15

• Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?

Job 10:8-12

• Your hands fashioned and made me, and now you have destroyed me altogether. Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese? You clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. You have granted me life and steadfast love, and your care has preserved my spirit.

Job 33:4

• The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Isaiah 44:24

• Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb,
  “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things,
  Stretching out the heavens by Myself
  And spreading out the earth all alone,

Jeremiah 1:5

• "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..."

Isaiah 64:8

• But now, O Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

I'm sure I could find more passages along the lines above, but will rest here.

[hughfarey]

I don't recognise the distinction between mediate and immediate. Not a single metabolic process nor cell division occurs without the direct, personal, immediate action of God, but he follows his precise divine plan so intimately and perfectly that some people are led into the belief that it all happens 'by itself'. Theists call this illusion 'mediate', atheists do not recognise it as an illusion at all.

[RickD]

I'm not sure that I understand the distinction.

[Kurieuo]

I guess you need to be old school. Sorry, I could have used more modern words, but there is a reason why I chose to use the terms "mediate" and "immediate" as I felt they'd carry less baggage.

Theologian Charles Hodge wrote in his Systematic Theology:

"Mediate and Immediate Creation. But while it has ever been the doctrine of the Church that God created the universe out of nothing by the word of his power, which creation was instantaneous and immediate, i. e., without the intervention of any second causes; yet it has generally been admitted that this is to be understood only of the original call of matter into existence. Theologians have, therefore, distinguished between a first and second, or immediate and mediate creation. The one was instantaneous, the other gradual; the one precludes the idea of any preexisting substance, and of cooperation, the other admits and implies both. There is evident ground for this distinction in the Mosaic account of the creation. ... It thus appears that forming out of preexisting material comes within the Scriptural idea of creating. ... There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not only an immediate, instantaneous creation ex nihilo by the simple word of God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working in union with second causes."

[RickD]

I guess you need to be old school. Sorry, I could have used more modern words, but there is a reason why I chose to use the terms "mediate" and "immediate" as I felt they'd carry less baggage.

Theologian Charles Hodge wrote in his Systematic Theology:

"Mediate and Immediate Creation. But while it has ever been the doctrine of the Church that God created the universe out of nothing by the word of his power, which creation was instantaneous and immediate, i. e., without the intervention of any second causes; yet it has generally been admitted that this is to be understood only of the original call of matter into existence. Theologians have, therefore, distinguished between a first and second, or immediate and mediate creation. The one was instantaneous, the other gradual; the one precludes the idea of any preexisting substance, and of cooperation, the other admits and implies both. There is evident ground for this distinction in the Mosaic account of the creation. ... It thus appears that forming out of preexisting material comes within the Scriptural idea of creating. ... There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not only an immediate, instantaneous creation ex nihilo by the simple word of God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working in union with second causes."

So, both?

[Kurieuo]

In what ways both?

[RickD]

In what ways both?

Never mind.

You're talking specifically about in the womb.

In that specific case, I'm not really sure. But if it's through natural processes, then God was the one who created those processes. So, I'm not sure if it makes a difference.

Is there a reason why you think there's a distinction in this case?

[Kurieuo]

In what ways both?

Never mind.

You're talking specifically about in the womb.

In that specific case, I'm not really sure. But if it's through natural processes, then God was the one who created those processes. So, I'm not sure if it makes a difference.

Is there a reason why you think there's a distinction in this case?

Just mulling over, whether there mightn't be a double-standard in 20th century Evangelical Biblical scholarship (specifically the ICBI), which denied Theistic Evolution as an acceptable interpretation because of language in Genesis only possibly being understood as "fiat" creative acts.

Whereas, on a lesser controversial issue such our being created in our mother's womb, all such verses seems to have just as much "fiat" sounding language and an "immediate" working, yet we more readily accept (I'd expect at least many would) that such is "mediate".

[RickD]

In what ways both?

Never mind.

You're talking specifically about in the womb.

In that specific case, I'm not really sure. But if it's through natural processes, then God was the one who created those processes. So, I'm not sure if it makes a difference.

Is there a reason why you think there's a distinction in this case?

Just mulling over, whether there mightn't be a double-standard in 20th century Evangelical Biblical scholarship (specifically the ICBI), which denied Theistic Evolution as an acceptable interpretation because of language in Genesis only possibly being understood as "fiat" creative acts.

Whereas, on a lesser controversial issue such our being created in our mother's womb, all such verses seems to have just as much "fiat" sounding language and an "immediate" working, yet we more readily accept (I'd expect at least many would) that such is "mediate".

Sure. So then, what would that tell you about the ICBI denying Theistic Evolution as acceptable?

[Kurieuo]

I just wanted to gauge what people think in one instance versus the other, since I'm re-evaluating my own thoughts on what is acceptable or unacceptable so-far-as Scripture is concerned regarding evolution.

I've never really seen much of a Scriptural case made by TEs, except just stating a verse here or there. However, I think, in recent days, I could make a stronger Scriptural case for Theistic Evolution being a possibility (not Natural Evolution).

Perhaps until more recently it's been more my own ignorance of any Scriptural claims, perhaps more the TEs I've interacted with haven't appeared to care very much about Scripture as a source of truth, perhaps my own writing it off and not giving it a fair go simply because I see problems with it and am happy with the position I have so what's the point, likely also influenced by certain respected evangelical scholars to reject it as acceptable like YECs are with Day-Age by their Christian peers.

I'd need to examine more clearly the reasons why someone like say, Geisler, says TE is off the table so-far-as Scripture is concerned. The only issue, is with an immediate "fiat" creation as I see. But then, language sounds very similar to what is said of babies in the womb who I'd say God mediately creates. So, can creation of life in Genesis too be taken in a mediate sense.

[RickD]

I didn't know Geisler said that. I'd be interested in reading why he feels that way.

[Kurieuo]

Well, I just changed my response from "mediate" to "immediate" based upon a reminder from Hugh re: the ontology of the universe and what we see as "natural processes".

[Kurieuo]

I didn't know Geisler said that. I'd be interested in reading why he feels that way.

Re: Geisler, in Explaining Biblical Inerrancy: Official Commentary on the ICBI Statements (2013) it has:

• ARTICLE XIX
  WE AFFIRM that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to
  Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to
  correction by it. WE DENY that Scripture should be required to fit alien
  preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism,
  evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.

And then, as part of the commentary within the same:

• The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity
  among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference. There was, however,
  complete agreement on denying that Genesis is mythological or unhistorical. Likewise, the use
  of the term “creation” was meant to exclude the belief in macro-evolution, whether of the
  atheistic or theistic varieties.

Geisler wouldn't view Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution as necessarily being non-orthodox, unless they embraced a secular Natural Evolution where God isn't at all involved at any point (read his deposition in the McLean v. Arkansas trial)). Rather, the matter for Geisler, is one of what is allowable by Scripture without distortion.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Did God create us in our mother's womb in a mediate (i.e., indirect through nature processes) or immediate (special direct creation) manner? Here is some Scripture on which to base you response.

Psalm 139:13-16 (ESV)

• For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

Job 31:15

• Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?

Job 10:8-12

• Your hands fashioned and made me, and now you have destroyed me altogether. Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese? You clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. You have granted me life and steadfast love, and your care has preserved my spirit.

Job 33:4

• The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Isaiah 44:24

• Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb,
  “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things,
  Stretching out the heavens by Myself
  And spreading out the earth all alone,

Jeremiah 1:5

• "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..."

Isaiah 64:8

• But now, O Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

I'm sure I could find more passages along the lines above, but will rest here.

This is a little hard for me. I currently think God, in a sense, did it, but at the same time, humans made the baby. Hence why the sin nature is retained, yet we are individuals.

[Kurieuo]

You raise another interesting issue. Yes, it raises different questions at different levels, I think are good to consider and think through. Such makes it quite difficult to answer, more than what I first thought when posting the question.

For example, I did change my answer from "mediate" to "immediate", given the ontology I accept of our "natural" world wherein God is directly involved and sustaining and acting at every point to keep it predictable and stable for us and other created life.