This certainly addresses the implication of "intervention" that when
God is not intervening he lets things alone (a semi-deistic position).
> In other words, it seems presumptuous against the regularity
> and concurrence of God's providential work to call any particular
> instance that strikes us as anomalous or unusual an "intervention."
> If we say that a phenomenon is unprecedented from the point of
> view of our finite scientific perspective, I think we are being
> more accurate.
>
> Your comments?
The problem is that "unprecedented" means "having no precedent". Is
this what you really mean to convey? Was the phenomenon of Jesus
feeding the 5000 unprecedented? In which case how do we describe
Elisha's feeding of the prophets? Was the raising of Lazarus
unprecedented? How do we understand Elisha's role in raising the
little boy?
Somehow, we need to convey the thought that although God's action is
different, but that there is no change in his sovereign government of
the physical world.
"Unprecedented" does not necessarily carry the idea that the
phenomenon was miraculous. Chaos theory suggests that some
unprecedented events may be perfectly understandable in terms of the
continuity of natural law and God's providential rule.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***