Re: [asa] Anti-Creationism Lecture

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Dec 15 2008 - 09:14:43 EST

True God used miracles throughout the OT as part of the providence for Israel but in the NT Jesus used miracles in a much more casual way for signs and wonders. In one passage he even equated miracles with His routine task of forgiving sins by asking which is easier.

He also embued his disciples with the power of miracles and in fact miracles are supposed to accompany all who believe, specifically for the stated purpose of being a sign and wonder.

Thanks

John

--- On Mon, 12/15/08, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Anti-Creationism Lecture
> To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> Cc: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 8:58 AM
> Would it not be easier to look at miracles as they occur in
> the Bible,
> and see if that can shed any light on the question as to
> whether TE is
> "based on miracles".
>
> It seems to me that miracles in the Bible are chiefly
> concerned with
> God's interaction with people; in the OT with His
> chosen people. They
> are not there to "explain" certain phenomena, but
> to display how God
> cares for his own people.
>
> Hence I think it's a senseless question to ask if
> miracles are
> involved in TE (or indeed any "creation"
> scenario). It seems to me
> that the problem with so-called "Scientific
> Creationism" is that when
> the science doesn't add up (e.g. the RATE
> "accelerated radioactive
> decay" explanation which would cause the earth to
> vapourise with all
> the heat), then the proponents invoke a miracle or Divine
> Intervention
> at that point in order to make it work. But such miracles
> are NOT
> biblical - indeed it seems to me that the Bible teaches
> (Genesis Ch 1)
> that the earth was what did the "bringing forth"
> and that God endowed
> it with the properties to be able to do this.
>
> Hence I think it's wrong (and unbiblical) to assume
> that miracles are
> involved in natural processes. So I don't support a TE
> notion that
> has God somehow fiddling the outcome by stacking the dice,
> or
> whatever. In fact I am sure that would be called
> "Progressive
> Creation" instead of "Theistic Evolution".
> My concept of TE would be
> "God said - Let the earth bring forth" ... and
> after that creative
> action, it (nature) was endowed with all the properties
> necessary to
> bring forth ... by natural processes.
>
> Iain
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:06 PM, George Murphy
> <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> > David -
> >
> > In order to give a really adequate "answer as to
> whether TE is based on
> > miracles or whether it is not based on miracles"
> we'd need to define a) TE
> > and b) miracle. As the term is used in practice, TE
> is a very broad
> > category. "Miracle" really is too. The
> basic word means something that
> > people marvel at, without any statement about its
> cause or causes. OTOH the
> > classical Christian view (which I think too narrow) is
> that a miracle is a
> > phenomenon which is beyond the capacities of creatures
> & is caused directly
> > by God.
> >
> > But if TE simply means belief that biological
> evolution has taken place &
> > that God has been at work in the process then no, it
> is not based on
> > miracles if "miracle" is defined in any
> reasonable way. OTOH it does not
> > rule out miracles, even miracles that are involved in
> the development of
> > life. E.g., a Roman Catholic who believes that life
> has generally developed
> > through evolution in ways that science can understand,
> but that God
> > specially "inserted" a rational soul"
> into the some hominids to create the
> > first humans in a miraculous way would certainly be
> considered a theistic
> > evolutionist.
> >
> > Shalom
> > George
> > http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: David Clounch
> > To: john_walley@yahoo.com
> > Cc: ASA
> > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Anti-Creationism Lecture
> > I'm trying to get an answer as to whether TE is
> based on miracles or whether
> > it is not based on miracles. At first I thought the
> answer is that no it is
> > not based on miracles. But then given what Ted said I
> changed my mind and
> > concluded surely it must be based on miracles. Now I
> simply dont know. You
> > seem to indicate the answer is no.
> >
> > I said nothing whatsoever about anybody caving on
> anything.
> >
> > The problem is, how do we know one thing involved
> supernatural intervention
> > and another thing didnt?
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
>
> -----------
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.

      

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 15 09:15:24 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 15 2008 - 09:15:24 EST