Fw: The Mere Creation Discussion
Russell Maatman (email@example.com)
Tue, 3 Dec 1996 15:22:28 -0600
Richard Knopp wrote on Tuesday, December 03, 1996 2:05 PM
> Russell Maatman wrote:
> > To the Groups:
> > SNIP
> > 2. Whether God "interferes" in his creation has come up several times.
> > seems to me that everyone rejects this idea--and rightfully so. The
> > of divine interference arises in the consideration of miracles. (D.
> > in a talk I heard, said that picturing God as reaching into his
> > creation--as it were--and pricking it with a pin to disturb it--is a
> > teaching.) I've always strongly opposed the idea of interference.
> > occurred--but not by interference. (I gave a paper at the national ASA
> > meeting at Eastern Mennonite College in the summer of 1954--Don De
> > do you remember?--on these matters. It was published in the ASA
> > March, 1955 under the title "Science and Biblical Miracles.") Here's
> > I've been saying: We discover what God has done and describe it; the
> > of humanly-formulated law is "descriptive law." But every part of God's
> > will is consistent with every other part; the sum of God's will for all
> > creation is his "prescriptive law." Prescriptive law is absolute;
> > descriptive law is fallible.
> > Paul Arveson had a point when he said: "'...and the Spirit (or wind) of
> > was moving over the face of the waters"' and "'The wind blows where it
> > wills, and your hear the sound of it, but you do not
> > know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is
> > born of
> > the Spirit.'" Paul continued: "We accept this mystery of the
> > of God to us in the case of our
> > spiritual rebirth, but why not in the relationship of God to nature
> > generally?"
> > SNIP
> Whether the non-interference of God is the predominant paradigm is
> not of particular consolation in itself. Minority views have sometimes
> right. Regarding the claim that "miracles occurred--but not by
> interference," may I say that not all miracles are biblically
> as a Spirit moving over the waters. For example, I find it inexplicable
> (and incoherent) to take seriously the Christian notion of the
> and to interpret miracles per se as "non-interference" events. For me,
> incarnation is one (but one sufficient) reason why it is not acceptable
> view "this mystery of the relationship of God to us ... generally" as a
> non-interference movement of Spirit.
Perhaps it is a matter of semantics. I'm quite pleased to say that in the
Incarnation God entered history. But that is not to say this entrance is an
interference. Surely the Incarnation was a part of God's eternal will,
which (I think) can be termed "prescriptive law," a law that takes care of
all events. Citing the miracle of the Incarnation and other miracles ought
to emphasize the human-ness of descriptive laws.
In the Lord,