Is a distinction between miracles and providence actually drawn in scripture? What is the significance of the distinction, in biblical terms?

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I personally believe that God using the laws he created is different from suspending them.

But that isn't the only way people of God in Scripture did miraculous things, now was it?

As one of my elders said, "Why would Satan waste resources with demonic possessions over here? We're already possessed by 'sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness'" (Eph 5:3)

Satan has done a pretty good job de-sacralizing our culture and ridding it of the divine or supernatural, where most "christians" are actually practicing atheists: saying they believe in God the Almighty on the on hand, and deny God's power on the other hand.

I have seen maybe a 1/2 dozen cases of demonic activity in this country that were pretty overt. Other times, I am sure I failed to recognize the divine and/or demonic due to my cultural upbringing (even though I have tried to shake that off since 1971).

Dr. Kurt Koch of Germany did a lot of work on Christianity and the occult. I highly recommend his work to anyone. If we took his research at face value, we would have a lot better church in this country.

Thanks,
Gary

The laws of nature say that a bolt of lightning will be created when the appropriate atmospheric conditions have been generated by the reactions between land and different air masses. Those reactions are governed by their own natural laws, etc etc. If God makes lightning shoot out of the blue clear sky, that's an intervention into the laws of nature. If God accelerates the process, that's an intervention into the laws of nature.

If God changes something, then SOME law of nature had to be violated. Any intervention into that process will be a "violation" of the laws of nature. ANY tweaking of the system is an intervention.

If the system is closed, if God is walled off from Creation, or at such a distance that he cannot/will not act in Creation, then of course, such talk is foolishness.

If the system is open, and if God is as close as the classic Hebraic-Judeo-Christian worldview of the last 6,000 years teaches (as opposed to the distant God of Deism, etc), then why are we surprised when God gets involved? Why do we believe he shouldn't get involved?

Perception doesn't equal truth — just because we perceive something as having occurred naturally doesn't mean it actually did. The soldier in Scripture fired an arrow into the air "at random" but God made that arrow strike the king. (1 Ki 22:34; 2 Chr 18:33) Miracle or providence?

in HIS love,
nick

PS – what if the splitting of God's activity into "miracle vs. providence", as well as natural law in general, are merely fallen human categories constructed to help us comprehend the world we find ourselves a part of? I don't think we're even out of kindergarten on this stuff, and we act like we know so much.

I mean, have you ever SEEN a "natural law"? Aren't they just ideas? What is it about our idea of God that suggests it would be beneath Him to make the sun rise every morning? I wonder if the obedient, God-glorifying angels kinda giggle a little bit while they do the bidding of God and keep the universe going?

I'm not suggesting that I know how things operate. But I trust that "every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." So I can't bring myself to tell anyone that God "can't have done" a certain thing.

I am inherently skeptical of miraculous claims, especially in our area of the world that is so much like Nazareth — so convinced of its familiarity with Jesus that it can't believe anything good. I'm also inherently skeptical of the God-origin of any power displayed by the televangelist crowd. God isn't the only source of power in the invisible world, and demons gleefully danced with the Israelites around the calf that Aaron told them was Jehovah God that saved them from Egypt.