Greetings, Bob. I put in a comment on your last paragraph.
Dave
On Sun, 27 May 2001 18:39:12 -0700 "Robert Miller" <rlmiller@gilroy.com>
writes:
> Hi Howard,
>
> It always comes down to definitions doesn't it? I will use the
> OED's
> definition as sufficient for my post.
>
> Miracle - A marvelous event occuring within human experience, which
> could
> not have been brought by
> human power or by the operation of any natural agency, and must
> therefore be
> ascribed to the special
> intervention of the Deity or of some supernatural being; chiefly, an
> act
> (e.g. healing) exhibiting control
> over the laws of nature and serving as evidence that the agent is
> divine or
> is specially favored by God.
>
> Intervene - To come in as something extraneous, in the course of
> some
> action, state of things, etc.
>
> It seems to me that your discussion about Griffin's views does not
> answer my
> simple question about prayer.
> Can we sensibly pray to God about intervening in our life or our
> friends
> lives with the expectation that He will hear
> and answer our prayer?
>
> Bob Miller
>
If God is the limited being of Process Theology, I expect a problem here.
It is hard to imagine how a deity that is enmeshed in space-time can be
on top of all our petitions. Of course, the Creator who is outside of the
universe can be all-knowing as well as all-powerful. So he could have set
in motion the meteorological events that would produce the continuous
wind that let the Israelites cross the Red Sea and have it stop when the
Egyptians were in the middle. He would have understood just how to time
the "butterfly wing flap" to set in motion the greater wind. A puzzle for
which the answer is probably more difficult is what did God have to do to
have the brethren in Antioch recognize that Barnabas and Paul should be
commissioned? to have Paul see a Macedonian in his dream? All I am
confident of is that he is competent to produce any changes needed to
lead one of his own to the proper task.
With specific application to prayer, the Eternal has known our petition
from eternity and has arranged matters so that the results he wills will
come to pass. This does not excuse us from praying on the grounds that he
already knows what we'll ask for, for then he knows that we are too lazy
or stupid to ask. If appropriate, he has set natural causes in motion.
But he is not restricted by natural laws. When appropriate, he can make
iron float, water become wine, the sick be well, the dead rise. While he
usually acts within the pattern he has established for his universe, he
may change what we think to be the pattern to accomplish his purpose.
On a theme I think related, how does a Christian know the will of God in
matters which are not covered by scripture? Obviously, sometimes doors
are closed. If only one opening is left after one has prayed for
guidance, it's hard to argue that one should be looking elsewhere. But
there are times when there seem to be more opportunities, yet one will
say that the Lord has called or directed to a specific task. How does one
know? I think an indication of the anwer lies in John 7:17. But there is
a peril. Years ago, a young woman spoke to an evangelist who was
preaching in her church, "The Lord told me to marry you." He responded,
"He told me no such thing." He was still a bachelor when he went to be
with the Lord many years later. I lost track of the woman, so I do not
know if she had a later "revelation."
> -----
>
> > Robert Miller asks:
> >
> >
> > > If we didn't believe in miracles
> > > why would we pray for healing, or a job, or any number of
> things that
> we
> > > ask God to intervene on?
> >
> > The answer to this question hangs on the specific meanings of
> "miracles"
> and
> > "intervene" as they are here used. Do these terms entail the idea
> of what
> > Griffin identifies as traditional _supernaturalism_ (God breaks
> the
> > continuity of the creaturely cause/effect chain; God overpowers
> creaturely
> > systems to bring about an outcome that creaturely action could not
> have
> > accomplished)? If so, then Griffin would object and say that that
> is
> > precisely the supernaturalism that must be abandoned is the
> science/religion
> > warfare is to be resolved.
> >
> > However, Griffin fully believes that intercessory prayer is
> wholly
> > appropriate and that God does act "variably" in the world to bring
> about
> > outcomes different from what may have otherwise occurred. One of
> Griffin's
> > goals is to articulate a concept of divine action that is both
> variable
> (so
> > that, for instance, it can constitute a response to prayer) and
> > non-coercive. Traditional supernaturalism includes the option of
> coercive
> > divine action, which process theology finds objectionable.
> >
> > Bottom line: If I have read Griffin correctly, he believes that
> you may
> > indeed pray for healing, a job, etc., but that in so doing you
> should not
> > expect God to act _coercively_ in response. Rather, you should
> expect God
> to
> > act "persuasively" in calling upon the creaturely system to effect
> one
> > possible outcome (the desired one) rather than some other
> (undesirable)
> one.
> > Griffin does not believe in miracles in the sense of coercive
> supernatural
> > interventions, but he does believe in the appropriateness and
> effectiveness
> > of intercessory prayer.
> >
> > Howard Van Till
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 28 2001 - 00:44:41 EDT