>Brian> I tend to agree with Bill on this. Suppose we rearranged Bill's idea
>> slightly ;-) to say "If He can accomplish His purposes in human history
>> without intervening, then I presume He wouldn't". What do you think?
>> I think this is most likely the case.
>
>Even if humans didn't rebel, I think God would "intervene" to establish
>"personal relationships" with us. (e.g. verbal communication from God to
>humans is an "intervention.")
>
Yes, this is a very good point. I think that I was thinking more along
the lines of intervention in the "lives" of nations rather than
individuals, although I think one could make a strong argument for
the case that God usually influences nations by interveneing in the
lives of individuals. I also tend to think of revelation and intervention
as being different sorts of things, with revelation being generally more
positive. For example, God reveals the law to Moses and intervenes to
prohibit the people from entering the promised land on schedule.
Putting these things aside, can't we still say that God's intervention
in the establishment of personal relations and his revelations of
himself to individuals is necessitated by the rebellion of the first
man?
====
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |