RE: Kline article in PSCF

jeffery lynn mullins (
Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:06:02 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Keith B Miller wrote:

> Jeff posted:
> >The position that I think is dangerous philosophically is just the
> >reverse: that God cannot interject into the natural order and that
> >natural law cannot be violated. I am uneasy about talk of a "seemless
> >web" of natural law in science that cannot involve God in any way other
> >than in secondary causation. I see no problem with having God have
> >providential oversight and secondary causation and also having the
> >ability to interject via primary causation whenever he wants to.
> I am uncomfortable with the distinction between primary and secondary
> causation. I personally see no distinction as it relates to the
> accomplishment of God's will in the physical universe. Many of the events
> described in scripture as the actions of God were accomplished through
> natural processes. Most answered prayer is accomplished through natural
> processes. I think we get in trouble by viewing certain of God's actions
> as more "direct' than others. For me "special creation" is not any more
> special than God's use of natural process.
> Keith
Many of the events described in Scripture as the actions of God were
accomplished through supernatural processes as well. If special acts of
God are no more special than natural acts, then why are supernatural
miracles used as "signs" to point to the divine person and message of
Christ rather than natural processes? The only way that a natural
process will do is if it is very unlikely and/or the timing very unlikely
(of which some of the special acts of God were), but it seems that the
turning of water to wine, and the resurrection of Jesus were not of this