>>BH>However, I disagree with your implication that TE implies God does
>>>not intervene. I am simply claiming that God's means of intervention
>>>(or more properly, as a Calvinist, I should say "governance" since to
>>>me intervention implies a change in plans) are not necessarily
>>>visible to humans.
>>
>>Why does intervention imply "a change in plans"? Why could not God
>>have *planned* to intervene? Rev 13:8 says that Jesus was "the Lamb
>>that was slain from the creation of the world.". This indicates that
>>God *did* plan to intervene in human history.
>
Stephen responded to one of two points I made above (the one about
governance v. intervention) and I responded to him in another post. What I
was really interested in was Stephen's response to my claim that "God's
means of intervention...are not necessarily visible to humans." It seems
to me that much creationist reasoning implicitly assumes that God's
interventions (or His acts of governance) can be detected and identified by
objective observation. In many -- perhaps most -- cases, I believe this
assumption is not justified.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)