Re: Response to Howard on Tillich & Bultmann

From: Dick Fischer (
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 11:45:26 EDT

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Response to Howard on Tillich & Bultmann"

    Hi Howard, you wrote:

    >4. Not all divine action need be considered as supernatural.

    Can we allow for any supernatural divine action? A resurrection certainly
    seems to call for something extraordinary.

    >5. If "miracle" is defined in terms of human perception (as in Locke's
    >approach) then miracles need not be supernatural either.

    "If" is the operative word here, isn't it? By such a definition David
    Copperfield performs miracles. Doesn't there have to be some yardstick by
    which we can delineate between those "miracles" that are hallmarks of our
    Christian faith and those that can be performed on a stage with smoke and

    >6. Naturalistic theism rejects the concept supernatural divine action, but
    >at the same time enriches the concept of "natural" action to include
    >non-coercive divine action as an essential element in all events that occur
    >in the world.

    Not to be divisive, but would you care to give any NT example (outside the
    resurrection) where "supernatural divine action" might explain the event,
    such as calling forth Lazarus, changing water into wine, a blind man made
    whole, etc.

    Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
    Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 22 2003 - 11:45:41 EDT