Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Collins <etlgycs@etl.ericsson.se>
To: Mark Phillips <mark@ist.flinders.edu.au>
Cc: ArvesonPT@nswccd.navy.mil <ArvesonPT@nswccd.navy.mil>; asa@calvin.edu
<asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: supernatural
>Mark Phillips wrote:
>
>> > "Inasmuch that GOD is the God of nature, what does "supernatural"
mean?"
>> >
>> > Many Christian writers have expressed their doubts about the
>> > excessive usage of the word 'supernatural' for reasons such as this.
>> > CS Lewis and James Houston come to mind.
>>
>
><big snip>
>
>>
>> The argument against Christians using the notion of "supernatural"
>> that I have heard, is that supernatural is not a biblical concept.
>> The argument says that because the bible doesn't distinguish between
>> natural and supernatural, neither should we. Now I don't feel
>> comfortable with this. I feel that logically there really is a
>> difference between the natual and supernatural. Yet I'm not sure what
>> to make of this argument about supernatural not being biblical. Any
>> thoughts?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mark.
>
>Hi Mark,
>
>Yes, I like your definition. My way of phrasing it would be to say that
>what we call
>'natural' is the way that God usually does things. This I see as God's
role
>as the
>sustainer (The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact
>representation of
>his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word, Heb.1:3; He is
before
>all things
>and in him all things hold together, (Col. somewhere, I think) ).
>
>In contrast, when He departs from his usual ways and does something
unusual,
>that is what we would identify as 'supernatural' or 'miraculous'. I do
>believe, though,
>that God is not the only source of supernatural events; e.g. Jesus warned
us
>that
>false prophets would come performing miraculous signs. (But that's another
>issue.)
>
>/Gary
>