natural vs. supernatural

[Mallon]

I thought this article was interesting:

Naturalizing the Supernatural: How evolutionary ideas steal glory from God

It advocates that if we can use science to explain miracles given in the Bible, we are stealing glory from God. What do you think? Is God less powerful in your eyes if He exerts His will via natural means than supernatural ones? Is the development of a baby in the womb via natural means a less glorious testament to the Lord than if He had created the baby in a miraculous instant?

 

[metherion]

No. I actually find it very impressive that God could make such a world and so many natural processes that would do just what He wanted.

I also found the message of the article interesting. It seemed to be saying that, since trying to explain things takes glory from God, we should STOP trying to explain His creation and just go with the flow as it were. Arrest scientific development, just stop everything. And that is rather telling too, in its own way.

Metherion

 

[Papias]

metherion wrote:

I also found the message of the article interesting. It seemed to be saying that, since trying to explain things takes glory from God, we should STOP trying to explain His creation and just go with the flow as it were. Arrest scientific development, just stop everything. And that is rather telling too, in its own way.

Metherion

Hey, since trying to explain things takes glory from God, it's obvious that having explained things has taken glory from God. So the main point of the article seems to unavoidably be that we need to undo the harm that has happened since the Enlightenment, and the way to do that is to get rid of both the evil knowledge of explainations, as well as the results of that knowledge, which also must, by extension, be evil.

So to be good Christians, we need to get rid of all modern medicine and technology, and go back to living in caves.

Luther himself realized this when he wrote:

Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight. Know nothing but the word of God.

Papias






A post of Poe, of course.

 

[crawfish]

I don't understand how anybody can make that point without also making the implication that God is not in the natural, or that God's glory is not equally represented by the natural.

 

[miamited]

Hi Mallon,

Well, it's certainly what I've always believed about science and naturalism. Of course, the issue, as always, is who is right? Which position is the 'truth'?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Mallon]

Hi Mallon,

Well, it's certainly what I've always believed about science and naturalism

Hi Ted,

You're saying that you feel God is at His most glorious when He's suspending the laws of nature? I suspect many would agree with you, though it isn't the view I take.

 

[crawfish]

Hi Ted,

You're saying that you feel God is at His most glorious when He's suspending the laws of nature? I suspect many would agree with you, though it isn't the view I take.

It's not just that God is at His most glorious...if you take his approach, then every single discovery we make of some natural phenomenon takes away from the Glory of God. For years Christians read Jeremiah 1:5 and assumed that the conception of a child was miraculous; since we can now track down every single natural process for conception to birth, we've essentially removed God's hand from the event. Even if we accept that God still has a miraculous role in it, such as instilling each child with an eternal soul, we have still shrunk His responsibility in the matter and, in effect, shrunk God.

Only by accepting that the natural is fully revealing of God's glory in an equal part with the supernatural does one become able avoid this problem. Which, of course, makes the original argument in this thread moot.

 

[granpa]

there is nothing magical about the so called 'supernatural'.

its all via 'natural' means

 

[Papias]

Because "supernatural" means the same thing as "not-natural" or "unnatural", I don't find "supernatural" things to point to a glorious God more than "natural" things. God is glorious through his glorious natural world.

Otherwise, I'm left worshiping an unnatural ghost-thing that shows his presence when we see an unnatural act here or there, to the point that some Christians look for these unnatural acts on toast or windows, and seem to be straining at gnats or even fabricating frauds to find these unnatural acts.

It just feels.....unnatural.

Papias

 

[Mr Dave]

I thought this article was interesting

Interesting is an apt word

It advocates that if we can use science to explain miracles given in the Bible, we are stealing glory from God. What do you think?

No not at all. Stealing is the wrong word too. We don't take the glory from God but I'd say we show the glory of God by magnifying how great he is. They make the erroneous leap from 'TE's accept evolution' to 'TEs worship evolution over God and reject the resurrection.' Seems a bit of a cleverly emotive article to keep creationists on their side without using too much emotive language, if you get me.

Is God less powerful in your eyes if He exerts His will via natural means than supernatural ones?

Not at all. Why shouldn't He work through His creation to achieve His ends. He's using what He created, it's all His, how is that not showing His power?

Is the development of a baby in the womb via natural means a less glorious testament to the Lord than if He had created the baby in a miraculous instant?

No, because in bringing a baby through the womb and not 'ta-da' God not only brings a baby but fosters a relationship between mother and child and all other things that come through pregnancy (not saying that for one moment that not having been pregnant stops you having a relationship, adoption etc...). Isn't this bond where the two grow together just as glorious.

 

[Jazer]

Is God less powerful in your eyes if He exerts His will via natural means than supernatural ones?

God does things in a way so that you know He did it. So we can give Him the Honor and the Glory. In everything we can give thanks because we know that He will cause all things to work out for the best.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

This idea (understanding how the natural world works removes the glory of God) seems to regard God as some sort of magician. When we see a magician preform a trick we're filled with awe but explaining how the trick is done spoils the fun, like we're surprised to find out he isn't really a wizard or psychic. The same apparently goes for God - once we know how something is done he loses his power. With our modern understanding of physics and genetics we can preform our own miracles.

I'm not sure this is the right approach, as it seems we're using God as an excuse for our ignorance. Atheists too follow this trend, which to me this is like trying to prove Alexander Graham Noble did not exist by dismantling a telephone. Besides - the mechanics of the world is often far more interesting and varied than we first imagined.
The link provided a pretty good point however:

This intellectual rebellion against God (for that’s what it really is) appears to be driven by the same presumptive lie Eve bought into at the prompting of Lucifer, the great Enemy—“ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5).​

 

[gluadys]

God does things in a way so that you know He did it. So we can give Him the Honor and the Glory. In everything we can give thanks because we know that He will cause all things to work out for the best.

I find this a puzzling statement.

Are you suggesting that when it comes to a natural process we don't know if God did it?


Why wouldn't we?

 

[mark kennedy]

I thought this article was interesting:

Naturalizing the Supernatural: How evolutionary ideas steal glory from God

It advocates that if we can use science to explain miracles given in the Bible, we are stealing glory from God. What do you think? Is God less powerful in your eyes if He exerts His will via natural means than supernatural ones? Is the development of a baby in the womb via natural means a less glorious testament to the Lord than if He had created the baby in a miraculous instant?

Some of God's best miracles are natural ones, including nature itself. Anyway, the Christian worships a God of miracles who is very involved in human affairs. Do you believe that Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father? Well, if you do that is a miracle. I'm something of a Calvinist so I believe it takes a miracle for you to even understand the Gospel.

I don't really think that believing the Creation narrative is figurative need rob God of glory. I was pretty skeptical of miracles in the New Testament for a long time, especially the incarnation, what actually convinced me was miracles in my life and the clear testimony of Scripture. When you hear the Gospel (and I mean actually understand it) and receive the ingrafted Word you are indwelled with the Holy Spirit of promise as a down payment of future glory.

This is the thing, there is no way that is naturalistic. You know me Mallon, I really don't pull any punches when arguing against Darwinian evolution. Still, I don't think having some doubts or even being persuaded of a naturalistic understanding of creation makes you or breaks you as a believer. I just think that a profession of faith is just that, a profession of faith. You can't embrace a figurative interpretation of Genesis and just make whatever you like figurative in the New Testament by the same token.

Darwinism is more then the death of the less fit, it's a sweeping rejection of 'miraculous interposition' in favor of natural law. Bottom line, it just depends on how far you go and from what I've seen there is little difference between evolution for a TE and evolution for a Darwinian.

On the other hand. If you can maintain essential doctrine including 'miraculous interposition' in the New Testament you can still glorify God by producing fruit in accordance with your repentance. As for me, the same glory that raised Christ from the dead was the first light of creation as the Holy Spirit hovered over the face of the deep. What's more that same power made you a new man in Christ and will raise you on the last day in his perfect image glorifying God forever. This occurred the moment you first believed or you are still in your sins. What you believe about many of the other miracles is between you and the God who made you. I have neither the means nor the inclination to judge the motives of your heart along those lines.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Mallon]

Some of God's best miracles are natural ones, including nature itself. Anyway, the Christian worships a God of miracles who is very involved in human affairs. Do you believe that Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father? Well, if you do that is a miracle.

For what it's worth, neither myself, nor anyone else here, is arguing that God doesn't perform miracles. I affirm wholeheartedly that He does. The question is whether being able to explain some of God's mysteries using science in any way takes away from His glory, as the ICR article proclaims. Are we to glorify God only for those things we don't understand?

Darwinism is more then the death of the less fit, it's a sweeping rejection of 'miraculous interposition' in favor of natural law.

That's science, not "Darwinism". All science deals with natural law, not just evolution.

Thanks for your response.

 

[mark kennedy]

You had me until here...

That's science, not "Darwinism". All science deals with natural law, not just evolution.

Of course science in the modern sense is 'natural science', I don't deny that. However, science would not be obliged to reject special creation simply because it's a divine fiat.

Thanks for your response.

My pleasure.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

I remember when I was in grade 2, and the teacher was explaining how rain was made. I was like, "But the Bible says God sends rain. So it would make no sense for it to happen via natural means." Then when I realized she was right, God's power dwindled in my mind because everything he does has to be super natural or he's not God.

 

[gluadys]

I remember when I was in grade 2, and the teacher was explaining how rain was made. I was like, "But the Bible says God sends rain. So it would make no sense for it to happen via natural means." Then when I realized she was right, God's power dwindled in my mind because everything he does has to be super natural or he's not God.

When I was a child, I thought as a child.....

Time to get past the thinking of a 7-year-old and realize that both your teacher and the Bible got it right.

"Everything he does has to be supernatural or he's not God." ?????

Where does the Bible say that?

Where does Orthodox or Catholic or Protestant theology say that?

 

[Mallon]

I remember when I was in grade 2, and the teacher was explaining how rain was made. I was like, "But the Bible says God sends rain. So it would make no sense for it to happen via natural means." Then when I realized she was right, God's power dwindled in my mind because everything he does has to be super natural or he's not God.

It's a sad thing, isn't it? Science gets blamed a lot for leading good Christians astray, but I can't help but think that people fall away because they hold to a bad theology of science, seeing God as capable of acting only via miracles rather than recognize His constant providence in nature.

 

[Mallon]

Not many of our non-EC brothers and sisters have replied to the OP. Just wanted to bump this thread up again to give them a chance to answer.