From: Gary Collins <email@example.com>
To: Mark Phillips <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: ArvesonPT@nswccd.navy.mil <ArvesonPT@nswccd.navy.mil>; email@example.com
Date: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: supernatural
>Mark Phillips wrote:
>> > "Inasmuch that GOD is the God of nature, what does "supernatural"
>> > Many Christian writers have expressed their doubts about the
>> > excessive usage of the word 'supernatural' for reasons such as this.
>> > CS Lewis and James Houston come to mind.
>> The argument against Christians using the notion of "supernatural"
>> that I have heard, is that supernatural is not a biblical concept.
>> The argument says that because the bible doesn't distinguish between
>> natural and supernatural, neither should we. Now I don't feel
>> comfortable with this. I feel that logically there really is a
>> difference between the natual and supernatural. Yet I'm not sure what
>> to make of this argument about supernatural not being biblical. Any
>Yes, I like your definition. My way of phrasing it would be to say that
>what we call
>'natural' is the way that God usually does things. This I see as God's
>sustainer (The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact
>his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word, Heb.1:3; He is
>and in him all things hold together, (Col. somewhere, I think) ).
>In contrast, when He departs from his usual ways and does something
>that is what we would identify as 'supernatural' or 'miraculous'. I do
>that God is not the only source of supernatural events; e.g. Jesus warned
>false prophets would come performing miraculous signs. (But that's another