Providence vs. Miracles: same difference?

[DaleCutler]

@Jordan

Well, I personally don’t think if I saw somebody just out walking on the water I would just chalk it up to providence go about my day.

Well, neither would I, personally. Frankly, too.
I was just going with your hypothetical. Eye-roll. ← (Please note, @John_Harshman, per your request.)
 

@Jordan

Is that a fair assessment?

No, because most people that I have talked to understand almost immediately the difference between a supernatural miracle and a [‘hypernatural’] providential one, the latter doing nothing physically phenomenal, but involving ‘only’ miraculous timing and placing, aka ‘coincidence’ or more astoundingly, multiple ‘coincidences’ that infuse meaning, as in Maggie’s case – there was nothing subtle about them!

Individual ‘coincidences’ can be highly astounding, as well, so that is not a limiting criterion. (I put scare quotes around ‘coincidence(s)’ because it is not a word in my working vocabulary, denoting, as it does, mere chance. My Father is absolutely in control. It is a wonderful mystery, @Mercer, how he can choreograph time and events without violating anyone’s free will. Some Christians think that Molinism explains away the apparent paradox.)

[DaleCutler]

@Jordan

I believe that we are unlikely to know exactly how God works because some of our best tools for determining mechanism (science) can’t see God’s action in the way we’d like. I know it seems like a side-slip but we’re not God so I tend to think we are limited in our ability to investigate the precise nature of his action.

You got it! Yay!

[ThomasTrebilco]

@John_Harshman

The first option is referred to here as the cosmic billiard shot. But in that case God’s miracle is only at the beginning of time. If that’s what providence is, there is no intervention in the present day. (And free will becomes problematic, incidentally.) The second option is, of course, a series of miracles.

Well, Providence mainly is referring to Gods control over the timeline of all events. A sense of order in the regular occurrence of things.

This is really just to say he has ordered the world in a way that has a set end. Part of that ordering could involve setting up things to naturally occur that function like miracles, but I see no reason why this would have to preclude direct intervention. I agree with @Jordan in that miracles occur as signposts, or for directly theological reasons.

Perhaps we wouldn’t always be able to distinguish between the two. I don’t particularly see the issue there because there are at least some cases that we can be fairly confident aren’t solely on account of how he set up the deck at the start of the game, such as a resurrection after 3 days.

Direct interventions could be cases where energy is added to the system, while divine action that occurs by way of providence would just require that the world continue on its regular path of cause and effect, like with Jordan’s story above.

@John_Harshman

Instead of merely leaving room, why not explain what you mean instead of alluding to a book in which it’s supposedly explained? What is the difference in activity among the three persons? Which are relevant here, and how?

I haven’t fleshed out any views on this. I am happy to quote from the book as an illustration, if you like?

@Jordan

The bit about sheer coincidence is that I don’t believe that I can know for sure if God did something “extra” (an interventional force or whatever) or if it really was a true coincidence. As @Mercer said, the best I can do is say there is mystery here where I (we) just don’t know the mechanisms.

Could the knowledge be based in a confidence of his attributes? For example, we know God as all-knowing. This would have meant he set the world up in a way full well knowing that your pay check would be deposited right on time at that point in history. The world could have been different, but the one we find ourselves in - and as Christians we believe God ordained - is the one that happened.

@T_aquaticus

What strikes me as interesting is that only the positive outcomes are said to be miraculous. A long string of co-instants and rare events that lead to someone’s death or misfortune are never described as miraculous. Why is that? To my eyes, humans are the ones adding meaning to a series of events. In fact, false associations seems to be one of the strongest biases that humans have

Would you consider Sodom and Gomorrah and what happened with Lot’s wife a miracle?

There’s an account of God causing the earth to ‘swallow’ a group of people, as well as Ananias and Sophia being struck dead for a particular lie.

[DaleCutler]

@Mercer

The things you claim to know, I view as mysteries.

What things? You apparently are not versed in what I view as mysteries. Cite me an e.g. ‘whether’.

[T_aquaticus]

@ThomasTrebilco

Would you consider Sodom and Gomorrah and what happened with Lot’s wife a miracle?

Let’s say someone is hit in an intersection by a car that failed to see a red light. Imagine all of the co-instants and rare events that had to happen that day for that person to be in just the right position to be killed by that car. The same for the driver who missed the red light. All of these extremely coincidental things added up to someone being killed by a car. So is that a miracle? Does anyone think God’s providence is behind this person being killed by an inattentive driver?

[ThomasTrebilco]

@T_aquaticus

Does anyone think God’s providence is behind this person being killed by an inattentive driver?

Pending what you are implying when you say ‘behind’, yes.

It’s important to note that appealing to providence is not saying anymore than simply referring to the fact that God ordered the world in such a way that this event (or series of events) would occur, when he could have ordained another world instead.

This is the same explanation I’ve just offered to Jordan when it came to his bank check.

[DaleCutler]

@T_aquaticus

What strikes me as interesting is that only the positive outcomes are said to be miraculous. A long string of co-instants and rare events that lead to someone’s death or misfortune are never described as miraculous. [emphasis added]

God gave me kidney cancer, or at least explicitly allowed it, à la Job, natural carcinogens not withstanding. That I survived it was a good thing, for my wife, in particular. If I had not, that would have been fine with me. Revisit my nephrectomy account. (No, not that one, Medicare A, B & F covered it. Ü) I pretty much said so explicitly.
 

@T_aquaticus

To my eyes, humans are the ones adding meaning to a series of events. In fact, false associations seems to be one of the strongest biases that humans have.

And you are demonstrating it, Ü ← (Minimalist smiley for @John_Harshman’s sake. Ü), making a false association, at least as to ‘happy’ outcomes.

It is not true in my case, nor in Steve’s Saint’s, who said, in my hearing, “God killed my father.”*

End of the Spear - Kindle edition by Saint, Steve. Religion & Spirituality...

 
Another book by Steve, the signs of God being providences, some of them extremely painful, like when his daughter died, if memory serves – it frequently doesn’t at my age Ü. I think that is in the book, but it’s been maybe fifteen years since I read it.

Walking His Trail: Signs of God along the Way - Kindle edition by Saint, Steve,...

His faith is being tested – he fairly recently became paralyzed (quadriplegic?) in a freak accident, as I remember (again, take my memory provisionally Ü).
 

---

*Nor in the case of all the Waodani tribespeople who became Christians pretty much as a direct result of his father’s and friends’ deaths.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@DaleCutler

The things you claim to know, I view as mysteries.

What things? You apparently are not versed in what I view as mysteries. Cite me an e.g. ‘whether’.

You just cited a whole category:

@DaleCutler

It is a wonderful mystery , @Mercer, how he can choreograph time and events without violating anyone’s free will.

For me, the mystery is whether He does or not, not how. Do you not see the difference?

[DaleCutler]

Ah. Whether he does it is never in doubt for me, so I see why you would have a question. It simply is not an option in my worldview and doesn’t even occur to me – I had nothing to see a difference with. Yes, of course it’s easy to see the difference if it is allowed as a logical set. I did not see that you had specified that – you may have and I did not see it, or if I did, it was so foreign to my thinking that I didn’t really see it and it was not even a consideration, kind of like a white cat in a snowstorm.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@T_aquaticus

Let’s say someone is hit in an intersection by a car that failed to see a red light. Imagine all of the co-instants and rare events that had to happen that day for that person to be in just the right position to be killed by that car. The same for the driver who missed the red light. All of these extremely coincidental things added up to someone being killed by a car. So is that a miracle? Does anyone think God’s providence is behind this person being killed by an inattentive driver?

I’ll make it personal for me. A friend of mine had twin boys a few years back. When the twins were about 2 years old one of the toddlers somehow got out the front door and walked behind my friend’s car as he was backing up, accidentally killing his son. As a community our church grieved with this family.

Now, a very real question I ask myself is what is the relationship between that accident and God’s sovereignty, God’s love, God’s action (or lack thereof)? I don’t feel comfortable telling my friend that it was God’s providence. If God can somehow arrange for my rent check to not bounce, why on Earth couldn’t he have arranged for this young boy to be spotted before he was struck? I would have gladly given up my “miracle” for one that would have spared him. Did God have some “greater good” that required this accident? I know my friend, a counselor, has been able to have a positive impact on people’s lives because he has been able to share in their grief in a way others would not. Was that worth losing his son? I don’t think so. Maybe it’s not our place to know what greater good could come from it? Maybe, but then how can we really say “God is good”?

So here’s where, differently than my Calvinist/Reformed brothers and sisters, I think perhaps that God has self-limited his own control over humanity and perhaps the universe. Arminian theologian Roger Olson puts it this way (see here and here): God is in charge, but not in control. By this he means:

God limits Godself and allows things to happen that are not according to his “master plan” (antecedent will) and the reason is to allow real free will in the world.

Other theologians further along these lines are Greg Boyd and Tom Oord, who wrote a book a few years back called The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence. Greg and Tom are open theists, and while I don’t think I would go that far, I certainly can understand why people are attracted to that position.

In my mind, this makes more sense of what happened to my friend. I still don’t know what it means about my rent check, or whether God cares if the Chiefs go to the Super Bowl (had to slip it in there). It does seem to me to make more sense of things like tragedy, war, and an origin of life that evolved rather than “poofed” into existence. I don’t really know, and of course I believe God is “big enough” to do anything, but it’s those hard, seemingly senseless, heart-breaking tragedies that honestly make me wonder about how he chooses to act.

Sorry if none of this was helpful, but this is an area I struggle with. I see in Jesus God’s goodness and love, I see in life so much destruction and pain. How am I to put those together? My faith has taught me to say, with John in Revelation 22, “Come, Lord Jesus!”, but I still struggle with how to help those in the midst of evil and tragedy. No easy answers…

[John_Harshman]

@RonSewell

If God does play dice, so that it rolled according to his purposes

What does that mean? Loaded dice?

@RonSewell

If many worlds is at least an allowable concept, God choosing the world he wishes does not seem too much a stretch.

If many worlds is true, all those worlds exist. What does it then mean for God to choose one?

[John_Harshman]

@DaleCutler

[‘hypernatural’] providential one, the latter doing nothing physically phenomenal , but involving ‘only’ miraculous timing and placing , aka ‘coincidence’ or more astoundingly, multiple ‘coincidences’ that infuse meaning

Even with bold italics, I don’t know what that means. What is “miraculous timing and placing”? What if anything is God doing?

[DaleCutler]

He is orchestrating and choreographing. I don’t know how. Q.v. Maggie’s account. Maggie’s account is a bullhorn, shouting orchestration and choreography of timing and placing.

[John_Harshman]

@ThomasTrebilco

there are at least some cases that we can be fairly confident aren’t solely on account of how he set up the deck at the start of the game, such as a resurrection after 3 days.

How can we be confident of that? And have we established that Providence is equivalent to the cosmic billiard shot, i.e. setting up the initial conditions so that what he wants happens as a consequence?

@ThomasTrebilco

I haven’t fleshed out any views on this.

That was my point. I would like you to tell me not what your view is but what the book claims. Quotes should not be necessary, though if they’re good summaries, that would be fine.

@ThomasTrebilco

It’s important to note that appealing to providence is not saying anymore than simply referring to the fact that God ordered the world in such a way that this event (or series of events) would occur, when he could have ordained another world instead.

So your contention is that everything that happens is because God set up a workd in which that would happen. Literally everything is providence?

[John_Harshman]

@DaleCutler

He is orchestrating. I don’t know how.

So you have no idea what you mean, which explains why I’m having such trouble getting you to say. Just repeating “orchestration of time and placing” is useless if you don’t know what it means. (It’s useless if you do know too, but at least then one of us would know.)

[DaleCutler]

@John_Harshman

Literally everything is providence?

Pretty much, especially for his children. Maybe with others he just lets the adversary have his way. (‘The adversary’ is a euphemism for Satan. Yeah, I do believe he exists.) He was under constraints with Job, but not necessarily with everyone. I believe he is under restraints in some societies more than others, but times change. I.e., I think we get the government and the society we deserve.

[John_Harshman]

@DaleCutler

Pretty much, especially for his children.

You have a knack for saying something and then contradicting it in the same sentence.

@DaleCutler

Maybe with others he just lets the adversary have his way.

Who are these “others”? Who are his “children”?

@DaleCutler

I believe he is under restraints in some societies more than others

Wow. What does that mean? And this whole Satan thing brings up so many questions that it’s hard to deal with them. How can you tell if something you see is an act of God or an act of Satan? Is there Satanic providence? So much to ask.

[ThomasTrebilco]

@John_Harshman

How can we be confident of that? And have we established that Providence is equivalent to the cosmic billiard shot, i.e. setting up the initial conditions so that what he wants happens as a consequence?

It seems extremely unlikely that there is anything about the normal course of cause and effect relationships that would allow a body that has been dead for three days return to life. If you can think of any conditions that raise the probability, I’m all ears.

I guess I’m happy with that analogy. Again, it doesn’t seem to preclude God from being able to interfere , or having as part of his plans the idea to interfere in the movement of the billiard balls while they are in motion.

@John_Harshman

That was my point. I would like you to tell me not what your view is but what the book claims. Quotes should not be necessary, though if they’re good summaries, that would be fine.

So far its the only book I’ve read that goes into so much detail about this, but I know there are many others. Some of Walton’s work is controversial; I don’t think this includes his account of divine action, but I haven’t read enough around this subject to know.

I will look to find a relevant quote for you once I finish up for the day.

@DaleCutler

Pretty much, especially for his children. Maybe with others he just lets the adversary have his way. (‘The adversary’ is a euphemism for Satan. Yeah, I do believe he exists.) He was under constraints with Job, but not necessarily with everyone. I believe he is under restraints in some societies more than others, but times change. I.e., I think we get the government and the society we deserve.

I think you risk causing more confusion by introducing categories about election and statements about demonology/angelology.

[DaleCutler]

@John_Harshman

You have a knack for saying something and then contradicting it in the same sentence.

Or, you have a knack for not understanding.

@DaleCutler

You may have a distinction inside your head, but it hasn’t managed to make it out of your head so far.

Yeah, it has. It’s just into yours, John, is where the problem lies.
(I’ve been talking to people about God’s providence and the distinction for decades.)

Since you have been practicing your worldview for no doubt a couple of decades (your worldview of doubting), you are maybe like me in my not perceiving @Mercer’s question.

[DaleCutler]

@John_Harshman

Who are his “children”?

His children are those who have been adopted into his family via the work of Jesus, confessing their brokenness, their disobedience and their inability to be obedient to Father’s good laws of love, and asking his forgiveness and help.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

And of course, John 3:16.