Providence Particularly in Relation to Works of Nature?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alexander Suarez

Puritan Board Freshman
Geerhardus Vos argues in his Reformed Dogmatics that the doctrine of providence "belongs to the ad extra works of God and in particular to the works of nature, which are to be distinguished from the works of grace." For this reason he did not treat of miracles under this topic.

What are the consequences of such a position and who preceded and followed Vos in this regard?
 
"Providence" generally treats the subject of God's ordinary superintendence of creation, time, movement toward the telos, the eschatological end or goal, the fulfillment of its purpose. So then, the standard set of laws and natural order is the ordinary providence by which God accomplishes his purpose in creation generally. "Miracle" supervenes that natural, providential regularity; but typically (according to special revelation) if God interrupts his ordinary work for a special act of providence, the purpose for that intervention is in service to his saving acts, his gracious work.

Miracles, or divine intervention, is neither haphazard nor done simply to impress the creature, nor as in heathen perspective to achieve some end that--leaving things to an ordinary progress--could thwart the will of God. If God left ordinary progress to continue, his purpose would still be met by the standard methods chosen by him. For none of history is happening in the least by a purposeless chance, a pure cause-and-effect pattern. This makes his miraculous work a special-revelatory means, that cannot be conceived (by the Christian mind) apart from the covenant of grace and redemptive scheme.
 
He could be distinguishing between providence and predestination. Both are works of God ad extra, but the latter is concerned exclusively with God’s work of grace. Just my guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top