Dictionary definitions are often inadequate as is this one . Here miracle is
defined as the suspension of natural law and an intervention. This owes more
to David Hume than Christian theology or the Bible.
In his Gsopel John talks of signs not miracles and expalnations are not
sought - as befits a pre-scientific era. When we look at the biblical
miracles we will find some can be given a "rational" explanation others
cannot . BOTH are miracles and SIGNS of God's activity.
If we follow Hume we will begin to deny God's everday involvement in the
world and restrict him to interventions thus making him a God of the Gaps -
which Creationists and Intelligent designers tend to do.
We should let the Bible and Christianm thought set the definition of Miracle
and not David Hume or some compiler of the OED who probably knows nothing
about God and cribs his definition from elsewhere.
Michael Roberts
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Miller" <rlmiller@gilroy.com>
To: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@novagate.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 2:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Griffin #2]]
> 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
>
> -----
>
> > 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 - 16:57:13 EDT