Re: [asa] Greetings from a new member

I am actually replying to one of George's remarks below -- but all the
same: Glad to have you with us, Christine. Some of us lurk more than
we post, so keep in mind the audience size could be larger than the
"prolific posters." -- somebody here recently compared his learning
from ASA posts to 'trying to drink from a fire hose.' I like that --
it's true.

George, while the God working 'in, with & under' the activities of
Scriptures matches daily experience, atheists smirk when they hear it.
A God who mysteriously and consistently chooses to remain concealed just
out of our observational reach is, oh so convenient for us theists.
While I can respect (from our Christian perspective) that God values
trust and faith without bludgeoning us with direct knowledge and sight,
there is also Biblical precedent for God wanting his work to be visibly
attributed to him. I just read about Gideon asking (a couple times no
less) for the sign of the dew on the flax which was a significant
enough deviation from the normal ways of things that Gideon was
convinced. Or again, when God tells Gideon to send away most of their
army because, at its larger size, they wouldn't give God the credit for
the victory. God apparently wanted enough deviation from natural ways
so that He would get the credit or so that it could be effective as a
sign to somebody. Would you say that such things only apply to miracles
(like the signs in John, and the resurrection itself)? How do you
reconcile the incognito version of God with the 'signs and wonders'
worker of Biblical times?

--Merv (a kindred doubt & faith wrestler right along with you, Christine.)

George Murphy wrote:
>
> At least in the vast majority of cases God works "in, with & under"
> the activities of creatures so that we don't see God at work
> directly. Luther called the created things through which God acts
> "the masks of our Lord God, behind which He wants to remain concealed
> and do all things." This means, I think, that we shouldn't
> be surprised if, among other things, human beings don't contain any
> special "supernatural" component.
>
> 2. The historicity of Biblical events also remains a
> challenge. Although I've never taken the Bible
> literally, or have assumed that it was 100% accurate
> in terms of historical events, the atheists raise good
> questions (they claim that temporary burials were
> common back in Jesus's time, and that Jesus could have
> been reburied without his disciples knowledge), and
> even some Christians seem to take the Bible much more
> figuratively than I do (i.e. Jesus was in the desert
> for a long time, not necessarily 40 days, etc.); thus,
> I'm not quite sure through what eyes I should read the
> Bible at this point.
> ...............................
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 9 20:48:06 2007