On the Supernatural: Resisting Two Errors
Image
Read the series.
What do you think of when you hear the word “supernatural”? For many, I suspect it’s a novel, movie, or TV series—or more than one. In the West, we have for a long time now associated “supernatural” with terms like unexplained, unusual, and paranormal.
These terms reflect our modern biases toward empirical and materialist ways of looking at the world. Naturalism and materialism tend to be our default, so we see phenomena that aren’t explainable in purely naturalistic terms as exceptional. The modern Western mind values science over stories. Measurable, examinable, understandable things are most real.
At the same time, there is an older bias, an older worldview that never really dies. It’s the polar opposite. Empirical data and verifiable, natural processes are suspect. Mysterious, otherworldly, often secretive causes behind events are the default. Lore is valued over science.
Many believe the West is well into its post-modern phase now and decreasingly committed to certainty and facts, whether empirical, intuitive, or supernatural.
I tend to think we are seeing a convergence of two threads of belief: post-modern West and old-school superstition. The post-modern thread is the intellectual shift toward seeing truth as a slipperier concept than ever before. The other thread is pre-modern. A whole lot of people never bought into science and empirical truth in the first place.
If I’m right—and I’m sure the theory isn’t original to me—the convergence means we’re going to see more and more openness to the non-material and mysterious—and with it, more interest in what we have often called “occult.”
In this series, I’ve been interested in revisiting biblical foundations as context for resisting both of these threads (and some others, for good measure). A biblical view of reality firmly rejects the notion that we can only know what we observe empirically or that reality is only physical and material.
But a biblical view of reality also rejects obscurantism (in the sense of opposing study and learning). As Christians, if we are allowing Scripture to fully mold our thinking, we know God made an orderly, observable, “studiable” world. Empirical truth is a real thing, and science is, at its core, a God-honoring activity.
Biblical anthropology helps us resist the errors of our times also. Scripture reveals that humans are both vulnerable to deception and prone to deceive. We are talebearers. Until we change families (Gal 4.5-6) we are children of our “father the devil” who is “the father of lies” (John 8.44).
So, it’s fair to say that science isn’t ultimately authoritative. Neither are folklore and intuition, which I’m shorthanding loosely here as “superstition.”
In my previous post in the series, I addressed the question, “What is the supernatural?” Scripture gives us a different way of, literally, seeing it. There is the seen and unseen, not really the natural and supernatural.
Here I want to build on that a bit by addressing a second question.
Where is the supernatural?
We encounter the invisible, non-material parts of reality in two places, so to speak.
1. In everything, everywhere, all the time
In the Bible, we discover what I think humans generally already know, deep down: that the invisible, non-material parts of reality are absolutely real. Maybe we also know that they are present in all the visible things every moment. Romans 1.20 certainly fits that idea.
Whether we already know these truths intuitively or not, Scripture directly reveals them.
One of the most beautiful and powerful examples is Colossians 1.17, here with context and added emphasis:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Col 1.15–17)
What we learn here is that the invisible reality present in everything is personal. It is Christ Himself, making all the physics and chemistry work.
I enjoy how Geisler, et al., put it, alluding to Aristotle’s types of causation (emphasis original):
In fact all things were created by Him (di’ autou, instrumental Cause) and for Him (eis auton, final Cause), and in Him (en autō) they hold together (He is the constituting or conserving Cause). Christ is not only the One through whom all things came to be, but also the One by whom they continue to exist.1
Another writer summed it up well, this way (emphasis original):
He is the sustainer of the universe and the unifying principle of its life. Apart from his continuous sustaining activity (note the perfect tense συνέστηκεν) all would disintegrate.2
To our senses, a rock seems like an independent, unchanging, unified thing. It’s why we have the term “monolithic.” But we know from study that a rock is a continuous series of events—its constituent molecules and atoms constantly moving and changing.
If we reflect on it, we correctly feel that there is more going on than a rock sitting there.
From Scripture, we know not only that there is an invisible, non-material (spiritual) reality present, but that in some way, the invisible, non-material reality is a being, specifically the second person of the Trinity.
Doubtless, it can’t be said more beautifully or potently than this:
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. (Heb 1.3–4)
Nor can science, great gift though it is, give us this:
Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? 8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! 9 If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, 10 even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. 11 If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night,” 12 even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you. (Ps 139.7–12)
So, where is the supernatural? It is everywhere, in everything, all the time. It is not unusual or exceptional. Though the aorata (“invisible,” Col 1.16) is usually not observable in terms of the five senses, it is not “paranormal,” as in, along side of normal. Normal fully includes it. Normal is made of it.
2. In the occult
What about “occult,” then? What about ghosts, witches, magic, and fortune tellers? What about secret rituals and associated objects and practices?
The Bible is clear that there have been individuals who in some way tap into the invisible aspects of reality to make things happen or gain information. The biblical cases include some with real abilities (e.g., the girl in Acts 16.16), some who were frauds (e.g. the sons of Sceva, Acts 19.14-16; Bar-Jesus, Acts 13.6; the false prophets of Deut 18.22), and some who were probably a mix of both (e.g., Balaam, Num 22.5-24.25).
Deuteronomy 18.10-11 lists various kinds persons believed to be tapping into supernatural power. We are not told directly that these individuals really accomplished what they set out to accomplish. But neither are we given any reason to believe they were all phonies.
Still, in Scripture, evil rituals and tainted places and objects are almost always associated with idolatry (e.g., Jer 32.35, 44.25), and idolatry is associated with demons (1 Cor 10.19-20, Is 19.3).
The term “occult” is—like the term “supernatural”—not found in the Bible. What we do find there is that rebellion against God has expressions in both the seen world and the unseen world.
In any case, as Merriam Webster shows, the term “occult” is used in a wide variety of ways among English speakers in our day. If we want to avoid confusion—and resist both modernism and superstition—we need to think in biblical categories. And if we want to be understood, we’ll have to explain what we mean when talk about “occult.”
In this series one question remains: How should we react to the supernatural? How do we respond to the various ways people think of it and interact with it in our world today? I hope to explore that in a future post.
Notes
1 Geisler, Norman L. “Colossians.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Vol. 2. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985. 673. Print.
2 O’Brien, Peter T. Colossians, Philemon. Vol. 44. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982. Print. Word Biblical Commentary.
Photo by Zoltan Tasi on Unsplash.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
I appreciate this, Aaron, and am awaiting next installment.
"The Midrash Detective"
Deuteronomy 18.10-11 lists various kinds persons believed to be tapping into supernatural power. We are not told directly that these individuals really accomplished what they set out to accomplish. But neither are we given any reason to believe they were all phonies.
It's interesting that you use the word "supernatural" in this statement after you have talked much about how it is not a biblical word.
Regardless, what the passage reveals is people whom God says engaged in "abominations of those nations" that His people were not to learn to do after them.
Deuteronomy 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
God does not reveal anything about how they did/do what they did/do.
Furthermore, there is not anything in the passage that even hints that we should be skeptical about whether these people were/are frauds. Nor does He authorize (here or anywhere else in Scripture) examining what they do to supposedly prove through human abilities whether they were frauds or not.
There is no justification for anyone to claim that Deuteronomy 18:10-11 intermingles human "superstitions" with authentic practitioners of the occult.
The biblical cases include some with real abilities (e.g., the girl in Acts 16.16), some who were frauds (e.g. the sons of Sceva, Acts 19.14-16; Bar-Jesus, Acts 13.6; the false prophets of Deut 18.22), and some who were probably a mix of both (e.g., Balaam, Num 22.5-24.25).
What basis is there in the account in Acts 19 to hold that the sons of Sceva were "frauds"?
My apologies for the delay. I didn’t get back to check for comments on this one for a while, then forgot about it.
It’s interesting that you use the word “supernatural” in this statement after you have talked much about how it is not a biblical word.
It is still useful. Few would understand what I mean if I said “tapping into aorata power” or even “the power of the invisible.” I could have put it in quotes, though, or said “what people call the supernatural,” but that gets cumbersome.
Regardless, what the passage reveals is people whom God says engaged in “abominations of those nations” that His people were not to learn to do after them.
Absolutely true. Let’s remember also, though, that lots of things are “abominations” in the OT, including eating shrimp, apparently (KJV, Leviticus 11:10-12). Just for context.
What basis is there in the account in Acts 19 to hold that the sons of Sceva were “frauds”?
I would not give it 100% certainty, but the fact that they failed spectacularly is a big clue. See Deut.18:21-22, where one of the main criteria for testing a prophet is whether his predictions come true or not. So, success is meaningful in this context. I don’t have it handy, but I think there is also a passage that encouraged Israel to ask prophets for a sign, and they were to be regarded as frauds if the sign didn’t work out. (Edit: Yeah, I think it was Deut 13:1-3).
A counter argument would be that the disciples also failed to cast out demons on at least one occasion (Mark 9.18), and they weren’t frauds. But the difference is not really all that huge, if we consider it closely: on that occasion they did not really have the power they thought they did and apparently claimed they did. Still, sincerity matters. So it’s fair to say that failure is not always proof of phoniness.
I appreciate this, Aaron, and am awaiting next installment.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Using explicitly given criteria for testing prophets to argue for the inauthenticity of any particular exorcists is an invalid use of Scripture. The Bible never connects the two things, and there is no biblical way that I know of to argue validly that exorcism is a subset of prophesying.
Moreover, you have rightly anticipated the counterargument that the failure of the disciples to exorcise a demon on an occasion that Scripture records for our profit shows that such a failure is not a valid criterion for determining which exorcists were frauds and which ones were not.
Saying that lots of things are deemed abominations in Scripture does not equate those things. None of the evil practices and practitioners listed in Deuteronomy 18 were made in any way by God, but all animals were made directly by God at creation and eating all of them was authorized by God after the Noahic Flood.
So, where is the supernatural? It is everywhere, in everything, all the time. It is not unusual or exceptional. Though the aorata (“invisible,” Col 1.16) is usually not observable in terms of the five senses, it is not “paranormal,” as in, along side of normal. Normal fully includes it. Normal is made of it.
As I see it, these statements are problematic and unhelpful in the discussion about what we should consider and speak of as being supernatural. To say that the supernatural is "everywhere, in everything, all the time," does not account for the vital distinction between things that are not of supernatural origin and things that are of supernatural origin.
For example, Scripture speaks many times of material swords made by humans (e.g., Gen. 34:25). According to your understanding, we should regard those swords as being supernatural because Christ is sustaining their existence, etc.
Using supernatural in that way, however, is not helpful and does not account for biblical revelation about a sword that was truly a supernatural sword that was not of human origin or use in any manner:
Genesis 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Unlike the human swords spoken of in Scripture, the flaming sword spoken of in Genesis 3:24 properly merits being regarded as a supernatural entity.
RajeshG said,
As I see it, these statements are problematic and unhelpful in the discussion about what we should consider and speak of as being supernatural.
In one sense, I agree with you, especially when we are talking to people who don’t know the Lord.
Aaron’s point, I believe, is that we often fail to realize that the Laws of Science are themselves created and maintained by God. He designed them and keeps them working. In that sense, they are supernatural (miraculous), looking at it from the believer’s perspective.
The term “natural” includes the laws that God supernaturally created and supernaturally maintains. “Super” here means “beyond.” So your point is well taken.
If we look at a related word, “miracles,” we could perhaps parse things out a little.
If we call the things that follow the laws of science “miracles,” then what do we call the exceptions, the things beyond those laws and direct violations of them, like Joshua’s long day or the raising of Lazarus? We have already used up the word “miraculous.” That, I think, is your point. A point of nomenclature.
What we technically have are miraculous things that a constant (based upon God’s laws of nature and maintenance) and miraculous anomalies that defy those laws. And it might be better to reserve the word “miracle” for those anomalies, for the sake of clear communication. This would especially be true when debating the reality of miracles, which Aaron is not. This is an “in house” discussion.
But the article’s point is this: while advocating for miracles that are truly anomalies, we need to remember that the regular things that happen are miraculous (supernatural) in the sense that God makes them work, the idea of concurrence. They don’t strike us as spectacular, but they are.
It is not wrong (IMO) to label the regular patterns of nature miraculous (technically), but it is not practically helpful when debating the reality of the miraculous (anomalies).
"The Midrash Detective"
To our senses, a rock seems like an independent, unchanging, unified thing. It’s why we have the term “monolithic.” But we know from study that a rock is a continuous series of events—its constituent molecules and atoms constantly moving and changing.
If we reflect on it, we correctly feel that there is more going on than a rock sitting there.
From Scripture, we know not only that there is an invisible, non-material (spiritual) reality present, but that in some way, the invisible, non-material reality is a being, specifically the second person of the Trinity. . . .
So, where is the supernatural? It is everywhere, in everything, all the time. It is not unusual or exceptional. Though the aorata (“invisible,” Col 1.16) is usually not observable in terms of the five senses, it is not “paranormal,” as in, along side of normal. Normal fully includes it. Normal is made of it.
According to this line of reasoning, it seems that we are supposed to understand that all rocks are "spiritual" or "supernatural" entities, etc. In addition, all meat and drink should seemingly be understood in the same manner.
What we find in Scripture, however, does not support this understanding. As far as I can find, the Bible speaks only once about meat, drink, and a rock as "spiritual":
1 Corinthians 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
It is undeniably clear that the Spirit's teaching in this passage is not to teach that the meat that they ate and the water that they drank from a rock that followed the people were "spiritual" or "supernatural" entities because the meat, water, and rock were being sustained in their existence by Christ and the word of His power.
According to this line of reasoning, it seems that we are supposed to understand that all rocks are “spiritual” or “supernatural” entities, etc. In addition, all meat and drink should seemingly be understood in the same manner.
What we find in Scripture, however, does not support this understanding.
I showed how Scripture does support this understanding. You did not interact with my evidence or reasoning.
Are you saying that “by Him all things consist” really means “all things except food”?
But you don’t seem to have actually understood my view or the underlying biblical support. Which is fine. It’s why I’m here. Feel free to seek understanding. Once you get it, I’m all ears for arguments against it.
I don’t see the point in defending a view that isn’t actually my view, though.
As I see it, these statements are problematic and unhelpful in the discussion about what we should consider and speak of as being supernatural. To say that the supernatural is “everywhere, in everything, all the time,” does not account for the vital distinction between things that are not of supernatural origin and things that are of supernatural origin.
Everything is of supernatural origin. That is the whole point.
You are welcome to see it as you like, of course. If you want to demonstrate that I’m wrong by understanding my argument and countering it, I’d be interested in reading that.
If we call the things that follow the laws of science “miracles,” then what do we call the exceptions, the things beyond those laws and direct violations of them, like Joshua’s long day or the raising of Lazarus? We have already used up the word “miraculous.” That, I think, is your point. A point of nomenclature.
I don’t think is really a problem. There is always such a thing as context, to make how we’re using a word more clear. But if we’re thinking God is only using His power when the usual patterns of nature are circumvented in some way, we’re thinking wrong. Every breath is indeed a miracle. Every atom. Every quark. But if I were preaching or writing about what we usually call miracles, I would probably point out the flaw in the term, then explain that I’m using it in my article/sermon/lesson in the sense of an unusual deviation in our expectations for how things work.
But that is all a miracle is: God’s constant, ever-present power behaving in an unexpected way vs. the way we’re used to. It is not more power or a different kind of power. To God, it is not special at all. He does not have to work a little harder or anything. Omnipotence. He doesn’t have to think harder. Omniscience. He doesn’t have be present in any special way. Omnipresence.
It’s why we worship Him (along with a lot of other reasons)!
So my point with all that—beginning with two earlier posts in the series—is that the radical distinction we tend to assume exists between the visible and the invisible is not really how the created world is. It is modern thinking we have absorbed.
Because He is a God of order—Genesis 1—He has given us a lot of chemistry and physics to make the created world behave in (mostly) reliable ways, and to reveal His glory. But He is not really suspending anything when a miracle happens. He doesn’t have to do that. It just looks like the ‘laws’ of nature are being broken.
In a manner of speaking, we could say a miracle suspends or breaks the rules of nature, but that suggests God is less actively involved when things are normal. We should try to avoid feeding that way of thinking if we can. There are ‘norms’ in nature, of course, but He is not less involved in those than in the suspension of the norms.
Getting back to ‘supernatural,’ this is also true of all that is invisible. In Scripture, God graciously (or justly in judgment) allows what is normally invisible to be vividly seen at times. But it is not less there when it’s invisible.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I showed how Scripture does support this understanding. You did not interact with my evidence or reasoning.
Are you saying that “by Him all things consist” really means “all things except food”?
My point is that Scripture does not speak of all things as being "spiritual" or "supernatural" because Christ is the One sustaining the existence of all things. As I see it, you are not accounting for the Spirit's explicit predication of things as being "spiritual" in 1 Cor. 10:3-4 with the meaning clearly not being that of Christ's sustaining their existence.
In other words, the truth that "by Him all things consist" does not justify using terms such as "spiritual" or "supernatural" to speak of ordinary rocks, etc.
This is not really about terms. It’s about realities. Terms are just what we call them. That said, it’s not like I haven’t made clear what I mean by the terms I’ve used.
Are you really denying that there is spiritual reality present invisibly in all physical/visible things?
If not, we do not disagree.
I thought it might help to summarize my theses and arguments in parts 2 and 3 of this series. I asked for this from the Claude AI. It words things differently than I would in places, but has the gist, and I also edited here and there.
Article 1: “Can We Call It Something Else?”
Thesis: Christians should abandon the natural/supernatural distinction (not necessarily the terminology, which is sometimes useful) in favor of biblical categories of visible/invisible reality, recognizing that both aspects are good, created by God, and not inherently opposed.
Supporting Arguments:
- Linguistic Evidence: Biblical terms are horata/aorata (visible/invisible), blepomena/me blepomena (seen/unseen), and “flesh and blood” vs. “spiritual forces” - never “natural/supernatural”
- Colossians 1:16: All creation includes both visible and invisible elements, both created by God and declared good
- 2 Corinthians 4:16-18: The unseen is actually more substantial and eternal than the seen, which is transient
- Ephesians 6:12: The conflict is not between natural and supernatural, but between believers and evil spiritual forces specifically
Key Evidence: Scripture consistently presents reality as a harmonious duality rather than oppositional categories, with Christians called to focus on the unseen/eternal aspects of reality.
Article 2: “Resisting Two Errors”
Thesis: Christians must resist both materialist empiricism and pre-modern superstition by recognizing that invisible reality is ubiquitous (not exceptional) and that occult practices represent rebellious attempts to access this reality.
Supporting Arguments:
- Two Cultural Errors: Modern empiricism reduces reality to the observable; pre-modern superstition elevates the mysterious over the studiable
- Biblical Anthropology: Humans are both vulnerable to deception and prone to deceive, making neither pure empiricism nor folklore ultimately authoritative
- Ubiquity of Invisible Reality: Colossians 1:17 shows Christ personally sustaining all physical processes; the invisible is “normal” not “paranormal”
- Occult as Misuse: Deuteronomy 18:10-11 and Acts passages show some practitioners have real abilities, others are frauds, but all represent rebellion against God’s order
Key Evidence: Scripture reveals the invisible realm as the personal sustaining activity of Christ in all things, while condemning attempts to access this realm through forbidden practices associated with idolatry and demons.
One correction I would make is that the two cultural errors is not actually a supporting argument. It’s just elucidation of the thesis. But the other three bullets express arguments.
I want to note also that I worded part 2 (the title… which Claude calls Article 1 because I didn’t show it the first one) as a question partly because I’m not sure we can really ditch the terms everyone is used to. But I wanted to express the wish that we could. I think it would be better if we did, mostly. But I assumed it was obvious that we always have to speak the language of whoever we are trying to talk to if we want to be understood: or define terms using their language. So of course people have to have shared language/vocabulary in order to communicate.
I didn’t think that needed pointing out, but it apparently does.
As I see it, you are not accounting for the Spirit’s explicit predication of things as being “spiritual” in 1 Cor. 10:3-4 with the meaning clearly not being that of Christ’s sustaining their existence.
I agree that Paul is not speaking of Christ sustaining their existence in that passage. I don’t think that in any way detracts from what I’ve been arguing here.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
This is not really about terms. It’s about realities. Terms are just what we call them. That said, it’s not like I haven’t made clear what I mean by the terms I’ve used.
Are you really denying that there is spiritual reality present invisibly in all physical/visible things?
No, it is about terms, and we should let the Bible instruct us about how the terms are to be used. As I have pointed out, speaking of an ordinary rock as "spiritual" has no biblical support, and actual biblical use of words like "spiritual" do not accord with your treatment of the subject.
Scripture does teach us that there is a divine reality that sustains the existence of all things that exist. Scripture, however, does not speak of that reality as "spiritual reality present invisibly in all physical/visible things."
No, it is about terms
Since this is my series of articles I’m pretty sure I know what it’s about.😀
Scripture does teach us that there is a divine reality that sustains the existence of all things that exist. Scripture, however, does not speak of that reality as “spiritual reality present invisibly in all physical/visible things.”
It sure does. But the reader does have to engage in a tiny bit of reasoning.
Tell me which of these statements is false, in your view:
- God is a spirit
- God is everywhere
- God is actively sustaining His creation, including every physical thing
Unless you’re prepared to deny one of those, we do not actually disagree on the question of spiritual reality present in everything. If you want to call it something else, I certainly don’t care. But it will not change what it is.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[RajeshG said:]No, it is about terms
Since this is my series of articles I’m pretty sure I know what it’s about.😀
Yes, this is your series of articles. What I mean when I say, "No, it is about terms," pertains to my strong disagreements with your treatment of the subject pertaining to various terms in both of your articles.
[Rajesh G said:]Scripture does teach us that there is a divine reality that sustains the existence of all things that exist. Scripture, however, does not speak of that reality as “spiritual reality present invisibly in all physical/visible things.”
It sure does. But the reader does have to engage in a tiny bit of reasoning.
Tell me which of these statements is false, in your view:
- God is a spirit
- God is everywhere
- God is actively sustaining His creation, including every physical thing
Unless you’re prepared to deny one of those, we do not actually disagree on the question of spiritual reality present in everything. If you want to call it something else, I certainly don’t care. But it will not change what it is.
My point is that God has something to say about what we are supposed to call something. You have chosen to use terms in ways that do not accord with how God uses those terms in His perfect revelation, the Bible.
Doing so detracts from a proper understanding of what God has revealed.
My point is that God has something to say about what we are supposed to call something. You have chosen to use terms in ways that do not accord with how God uses those terms in His perfect revelation, the Bible.
Which is why I derived it all from the Bible.
This is precisely the point of Part 2.
Here’s another opportunity to actually engage: Are these statements taught in the Bible or not?
- God is a spirit
- God is everywhere
- God is actively sustaining His creation, including every physical thing
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[RajeshG said:]My point is that God has something to say about what we are supposed to call something. You have chosen to use terms in ways that do not accord with how God uses those terms in His perfect revelation, the Bible.
Which is why I derived it all from the Bible.
This is precisely the point of Part 2.
Here’s another opportunity to actually engage: Are these statements taught in the Bible or not?
- God is a spirit
- God is everywhere
- God is actively sustaining His creation, including every physical thing
Even deriving everything from the Bible and using human logic to reason from that information does not guarantee in every instance that the conclusions reached will not be faulty biblically. When other essential biblical information is left out or overlooked, faulty conclusions result.
That is precisely what I believe has happened in your two articles.
As I see it, the problems in this article stem from problems with your treatment in the first article and what you say in the concluding part of that first article:
The Bible doesn’t talk about reality in terms of “natural” and “supernatural.” What it does do is declare that creation includes the visible and invisible, seen and unseen, transitory and eternal, physical (“flesh and blood”) and spiritual.
This statement does not stand up to further biblical scrutiny. I have already presented in an earlier comment in this thread how your positions do not account for what the Spirit says in 1 Corinthians 10:3-4.
Your positions are also not supported by what the Spirit says in 1 Corinthians 2:14:
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ· μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστι, καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται.
ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος here cannot correctly be explained to mean "physical man" because all humans are physical beings, but some are also ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος. The "natural man" is the correct way to speak of such people.
Contrary to your statement that I have quoted above from your first part in this series, the Bible does talk about reality in terms of "natural" versus "spiritual."
Ah, now we’re engaging, I think.
So you hold the following thesis to be false:
The Bible does not speak of ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ but in terms of visible and invisible.
This is a little bit simpler than what I said, but I think it will do.
You argue that this view is false on the following grounds:
This statement does not stand up to further biblical scrutiny. I have already presented in an earlier comment in this thread how your positions do not account for what the Spirit says in 1 Corinthians 10:3-4.
Your positions are also not supported by what the Spirit says in 1 Corinthians 2:14:
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
So we have two counterarguments here:
- 1 Cor 10:3-4 is not compatible with my thesis
- 1 Cor 2:14 is not compatible with my thesis
Here are the two passages, for easy reference, with a bit of context.
1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. (1 Co 10:1–4)
And…
13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. 14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Co 2:13–16)
A look at each passage, one at a time
1Cor10:3-4
It is not immediately clear to me what Paul means there by “spiritual food,” “spiritual drink” and “spiritual Rock.” What is clear, though, is that the rock was in some sense Christ and the food and drink were “spiritual” in a similar way that the rock was. Paul’s point seems to be that Christ was present with them and they were well provided for in every way, but they chose to reject all of that in favor of idolatry (1 Cor10.7).
The passage does not deny that reality consists of visible and invisible aspects. The case could be made that it argues in favor of that idea, but it’s sufficient to point out that it does not in any way deny the thesis.
1Cor 2:14
Here we have a contrast between people who are in their natural state (from elsewhere in the NT, we know this to be unregenerate, hostile toward God, in darkness, condemned, etc.), and people who are no longer in that state, described as spiritual. The contrast focuses on the capacity for discernment and understanding, those who are natural lacking it, and those who are spiritual possessing it.
Once again, the passage does not deny that reality consists of visible and invisible aspects.
Conclusion: These passages are not incompatible with the thesis and do not function as counterarguments.
Edit to add: Do you really even disagree that reality consists of the visible and invisible? In any case, I provided biblical evidence that this is the case. I made a positive case. You have not yet engaged with that evidence. Pointing out two other passages doesn’t stand in for explaining how the passages I drew from do not mean what I took them to mean. So, how do the Scriptures about the visible and invisible, the seen and the unseen not mean what I interpreted them to mean?
Since these passages are how I supported my view, these are the passages that must be dealt with to refute that view.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Do you really even disagree that reality consists of the visible and invisible? In any case, I provided biblical evidence that this is the case. I made a positive case. You have not yet engaged with that evidence. Pointing out two other passages doesn’t stand in for explaining how the passages I drew from do not mean what I took them to mean. So, how do the Scriptures about the visible and invisible, the seen and the unseen not mean what I interpreted them to mean?
I do not deny anything that the Bible actually teaches (visible and invisible, etc.). There is no need for me to engage with that evidence because that evidence does not prove what you have asserted it proves, namely, that the Bible does not talk about "natural" versus "supernatural."
As I have shown from several passages so far (there are others that I have not yet presented), you have inadequately and incompletely treated what Scripture says about distinctions among created entities.
The Bible does not speak of ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ but in terms of visible and invisible.
What this quote says is not true, and it is not what I cited in my earlier comment. I am not sure where you got this quote from, but the following direct quote from your first article is what I responded to:
The Bible doesn’t talk about reality in terms of “natural” and “supernatural.” What it does do is declare that creation includes the visible and invisible, seen and unseen, transitory and eternal, physical (“flesh and blood”) and spiritual.
In this quote, the first statement is certainly false. The second statement, in connection with the first, is lacking because it does not account for other directly relevant distinctions that Scripture also teaches are true about creation.
This part matters:
[Aaron wrote…]The Bible doesn’t talk about reality in terms of “natural” and “supernatural.” What it does do is declare that creation includes the visible and invisible, seen and unseen, transitory and eternal, physical
(“flesh and blood”) and spiritual. [1]
[Rajesh wrote…]In this quote, the first statement is certainly false. The second statement is faulty because it does not account for *other directly relevant distinctions that Scripture also teaches are true about creation*.
You’ve decided not to interact with the Scripture I provided as abundant support for my view. You have declared it to not prove my point, which is sort of interaction, I guess, but how does not not prove my point?
There is something worth clarifying here, though, I think, in my thesis.
As the context for the quoted bit above shows, my thesis concerns the categories of natural and supernatural that we impose on the world as moderns. The Bible’s categories don’t align with our modern western ones, because—as I showed—the Bible does not represent reality as being divided in that way. It prefers the language of visible vs. not visible.
As I showed, this is biblical language, but it’s also better than our English ‘natural’ vs. ‘supernatural,’ because it does not assume the two are completely separate phenomena, with the ‘supernatural’ being exceptional. Rather, in Scripture, the visible and invisible are characteristics of one thing: creation.
As for 1Cor10 and 1Cor2. They might seem incompatible with that view, but they definitely aren’t. Here’s why:
- These passages cannot be incompatible with the thesis, because multiple other Scriptures clearly reveal that reality consists of one reality with seen and unseen features, not two distinct realities of natural and supernatural.
- These passages do not use the categories ‘natural’ vs. ‘supernatural.’ Rather, they use the terms ‘natural’ and ‘spiritual’ to distinguish two qualities that are not equivalent to what English speakers mean today by “natural” and “supernatural.”
- The 1Cor10 passage does not use the term ‘natural’ at all, and uses ‘spiritual’ in a special sense.
- The 1Cor2 passage uses ‘natural’ in most English Bibles, to translate ψυχικός. The context shows that what is meant is a person who is in their characteristic state as a fallen human unregenerated by the Spirit and not indwelled by the Spirit. ‘Spiritual’ here refers to the Holy Spirit and the believer’s relationship to Him.
- It is possible that ψυχικός here is meant to convey ‘physical.’ If it does, though, the passage only makes sense if ‘physical’ is shorthand for the overall condition of persons who have not believed (something like synecdoche). (This is clear, among other reasons, because the ‘spiritual’ persons in the passage still have physical bodies. The contrast is not literally between people who are physical and people who are not physical.)
Conclusion:
Nothing in those passages endorses the modern categories of ‘natural’ vs. ‘supernatural,’ and nothing in them denies that “creation includes the visible and invisible, seen and unseen, transitory and eternal, physical (‘flesh and blood’) and spiritual.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
So, it’s fair to say that science isn’t ultimately authoritative. Neither are folklore and intuition, which I’m shorthanding loosely here as “superstition.”
“Folklore” and “intuition” don’t seem to fit under superstition as you have elsewhere described it.
I think of folklore as stories that teach something that a culture values.
I think of intuition as a conclusion we lack a full understanding of how we concluded it.
Both of those could have natural or supernatural causes.
idolatry is associated with demons (1 Cor 10.19-20, Is 19.3).
Could add Deuteronomy 32:16-17,36-38 “They stirred him [God] to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger. They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded… For the LORD will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants, when he sees that their power is gone and there is none remaining, bond or free. Then he will say, ‘Where are their gods, the rock in which they took refuge, who ate the fat of their sacrifices and drank the wine of their drink offering? Let them rise up and help you; let them be your protection!”
Nothing in those passages endorses the modern categories of ‘natural’ vs. ‘supernatural,’ and nothing in them denies that “creation includes the visible and invisible, seen and unseen, transitory and eternal, physical (‘flesh and blood’) and spiritual.”
It is regrettable that you have set forth problematic views in your two articles because you have somehow overlooked or for some other reason not accounted for all that God has said. The very passage that you have cited as the main support for your positions says something vitally important that you have left untreated:
Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Contrary to the thrust of the viewpoint that you have emphasized repeatedly, what the Spirit says first in the passage is that He sets forth all created reality as divided between heavenly things and earthly things. Only after He says that truth does He speak about the visible and invisible.
Furthermore, what does God emphasize for us in this passage through the only truth that He repeats in the passage concerning such distinctions? Note, that it is not the distinction between visible and invisible that He repeats.
Instead, what He puts ahead of that distinction is what He says prior to it in verse 16 and then repeats in verse 20--all created things are set forth as being either heavenly things or earthly things.
It is also vitally important to understand that the visible vs. invisible distinction cannot be made to be the same thing as the heavenly vs. earthly distinction because we know with certainty that there are both invisible and visible realities about all created things in the earth.
As for repetition in Scripture, other passages set forth the same truth as of vital importance:
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
John 3:12 εἰ τὰ ἐπίγεια εἶπον ὑμῖν καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε, πῶς, ἐὰν εἴπω ὑμῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια, πιστεύσετε;
Jesus here was not distinguishing between things that are visible versus things that are invisible.
Paul points similarly to the same distinction:
1 Cor. 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
1 Cor. 15:40 καὶ σώματα ἐπουράνια, καὶ σώματα ἐπίγεια· ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρα μὲν ἡ τῶν ἐπουρανίων δόξα, ἑτέρα δὲ ἡ τῶν ἐπιγείων.
Using a related word, Paul in effect speaks similarly of this distinction later in that same passage:
1 Cor. 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1 Cor. 15:48 οἷος ὁ χοϊκός, τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱ χοϊκοί, καὶ οἷος ὁ ἐπουράνιος, τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱ ἐπουράνιοι·
What's more, in another passage that you treated in your first article, you also left unaccounted for this same truth:
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Ephesians 6:12 ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἡ πάλη πρὸς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις.
Paul here teaches that it is not just our wrestling against evil spirits--he explicitly specifies that they (unlike us) are ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις.
These five passages point to the truth that the heavenly versus earthly distinction at least certainly matches the importance of the visible versus invisible distinction concerning creation.
Based on these biblical truths (and even more that I have not yet presented), I urge you not to continue setting forth the same views that you have set forth in your two articles. It is vitally important that you do more study of Scripture concerning these matters and adjust what you say about them so that you are setting forth more accurately and fully what God has said.
“Folklore” and “intuition” don’t seem to fit under superstition as you have elsewhere described it.
This is true. Hence, I said “loosely.” Probably “extremely loosely” would have been fair. What I’m trying to contrast there is the alternatives of intentional, disciplined thinking vs. the less conscious and more passive ways people arrive at beliefs.
But superstitions are stories passed down. Intuition is not usually story at all. What they have in common, in this context, is that we tend to take them as truth without realizing we’ve done it.
[Rajesh:] Contrary to the thrust of the viewpoint that you have emphasized repeatedly, what the Spirit says first in the passage is that He sets forth all created reality as divided between heavenly things and earthly things. Only after He says that truth does He speak about the visible and invisible.
There is nothing about “heavenly” or “in heaven” that contradicts what I’ve explained about the seen and unseen, visible and invisible, temporal and eternal, etc. Heaven, in the sense of a place, is simply (and temporarily) invisible, and part of the unseen/invisible/eternal I talked about. “Heavenly” doesn’t always have to do with place, but whether it has the locational idea or more of the spiritual realities idea, it doesn’t argue against what I’ve been saying.
There is also nothing about the location of spirits that contradicts what I’ve been saying.
None of the other passages you noted are a problem for my view either.
I’ll just paste it again (though I explained it at length and this is just one of the summaries):
The Bible doesn’t talk about reality in terms of “natural” and “supernatural.” What it does do is declare that creation includes the visible and invisible, seen and unseen, transitory and eternal, physical (“flesh and blood”) and spiritual.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Rajesh:] Contrary to the thrust of the viewpoint that you have emphasized repeatedly, what the Spirit says first in the passage is that He sets forth all created reality as divided between heavenly things and earthly things. Only after He says that truth does He speak about the visible and invisible.
There is nothing about “heavenly” or “in heaven” that contradicts what I’ve explained about the seen and unseen, visible and invisible, temporal and eternal, etc. Heaven, in the sense of a place, is simply (and temporarily) invisible, and part of the unseen/invisible/eternal I talked about. “Heavenly” doesn’t always have to do with place, but whether it has the locational idea or more of the spiritual realities idea, it doesn’t argue against what I’ve been saying.
There is also nothing about the location of spirits that contradicts what I’ve been saying.
None of the other passages you noted are a problem for my view either.
I’ll just paste it again (though I explained it at length and this is just one of the summaries):
The Bible doesn’t talk about reality in terms of “natural” and “supernatural.” What it does do is declare that creation includes the visible and invisible, seen and unseen, transitory and eternal, physical (“flesh and blood”) and spiritual.
As I have shown, Colossian 1 refutes your claiming that the four distinctions that you have chosen to base your whole position on are the right way to set forth what God says about all created reality. Heavenly versus earthly surpasses all the distinctions that you have set forth in importance--that is what the Bible explicitly teaches by the Spirit's fronting it in Colossians 1:16 and repeating only that distinction in Colossians 1:16-20.
It simply is not true that "the visible and invisible, seen and unseen, transitory and eternal, physical (“flesh and blood”) and spiritual" accounts for all that heavenly things versus earthly things signifies.
As I have shown, Colossian 1 refutes your claiming that the four distinctions that you have chosen to base your whole position on are the right way to set forth what God says about all created reality.
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’m going to reask a question I asked earlier…
Are these statements taught in the Bible or not?
- God is a spirit
- God is everywhere
- God is actively sustaining His creation, including every physical thing
If you agree with these statements we do not have different views on this, and I don’t know what you are going on about.
So, I’ll ask a new question. Are any of these, or any combination, your view?
- It’s wrong to refer to creation as including visible and invisible features.
- It’s wrong to say “supernatural” is not in the Bible.
- It’s wrong to say that spiritual aspects are present with physical aspects in creation.
- The claim that the Bible does not speak of creation as falling into two categories, natural and supernatural is incorrect.
- Creation should only be referred to as heavenly and earthly.
- It’s wrong to say that God is present with every physical bit of His creation.
I’m just looking for some clarity here because I can’t figure out what you’re really objecting to.
I mean, if you want to say that we should speak in terms of “earthly and heavenly” rather than “natural and supernatural,” I can sign on to that. Works for me.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
It simply is not true that "the visible and invisible, seen and unseen, transitory and eternal, physical (“flesh and blood”) and spiritual" accounts for all that heavenly things versus earthly things signifies.
Rajesh, can you explain a little more what extra significance one would get by dividing creation into "things in heaven vs things on earth" rather than dividing it by invisible and visible? I take it the earthly things are the physical world such as humans, plants, animals and the earth itself. Those things are visible to us. Would the spirit world then be the heavenly things? Would demons fit into your understanding of heavenly things or would demons be earthly things even though they are invisible?
Is the greater significance of heavenly vs earthly due to some particular meaning to those terms or is the greater significance simply due to your understanding of repetition creating significance.
Are these statements taught in the Bible or not?
- God is a spirit
- God is everywhere
- God is actively sustaining His creation, including every physical thing
If you agree with these statements we do not have different views on this, and I don’t know what you are going on about.
These statements are true, but they are not all that is true and must be accounted for to form a proper theological understanding of all created things.
I have already pointed out several problems with what you have been saying.
So, I’ll ask a new question. Are any of these, or any combination, your view?
- It’s wrong to refer to creation as including visible and invisible features.
- It’s wrong to say “supernatural” is not in the Bible.
- It’s wrong to say that spiritual aspects are present with physical aspects in creation.
- The claim that the Bible does not speak of creation as falling into two categories, natural and supernatural is incorrect.
- Creation should only be referred to as heavenly and earthly.
- It’s wrong to say that God is present with every physical bit of His creation.
I’m just looking for some clarity here because I can’t figure out what you’re really objecting to.
I mean, if you want to say that we should speak in terms of “earthly and heavenly” rather than “natural and supernatural,” I can sign on to that. Works for me.
#1 It is not wrong to refer to creation as including visible and invisible features. What is problematic is the formulation that you have set forth with your treatment of only the four distinctions that you have talked about.
#2 Saying that the word "supernatural" is not in the Bible does not establish that the word should not be used.
#3 Does the Bible use "spiritual" versus "physical" in this manner?
#4 See my response in #2.
#5 and #6 I have never said anything along these lines.
There are quite a few deficiencies with what you have formulated so far. I urge you again to do more study of Scripture and adjust your views.
Rajesh, can you explain a little more what extra significance one would get by dividing creation into "things in heaven vs things on earth" rather than dividing it by invisible and visible? I take it the earthly things are the physical world such as humans, plants, animals and the earth itself. Those things are visible to us. Would the spirit world then be the heavenly things? Would demons fit into your understanding of heavenly things or would demons be earthly things even though they are invisible?
Is the greater significance of heavenly vs earthly due to some particular meaning to those terms or is the greater significance simply due to your understanding of repetition creating significance.
I have never studied this subject in depth. Within the limits of what I have studied, I am certain that there are serious problems with the views that Aaron has presented.
As for the heavenly versus earthly distinction compared to the visible versus invisible distinction, I showed in my treatment of Colossians 1 that the Spirit emphasizes the former above the latter. I am not able at this time to explain what all the significances are of that teaching by the Spirit.
What is needed to advance our understanding is to examine the biblical data pertaining to the subject far more than has been done so far. I have already presented several passages and am studying more.
Having said that, no, the difference between earthly things versus heavenly things cannot be made to correspond directly on a one-to-one basis with visible versus invisible things. For example, we know that wind is an earthly thing that is invisible (cf. John 3:8).
In addition, the manna that God gave to the children of Israel was visible, seen, transient, and physical, but the Bible also speaks of it as "spiritual meat" (1 Cor. 10:3), "angel's food" (Ps. 78:25), and "bread from heaven" (John 6:31).
This subject is a very complex subject that cannot be properly understood by teaching about all things that is limited to speaking of them as being "the visible and invisible, seen and unseen, transitory and eternal, physical (“flesh and blood”) and spiritual."
#1 It is not wrong to refer to creation as including visible and invisible features. What is problematic is the formulation that you have set forth with your treatment of only the four distinctions that you have talked about.
OK. I don’t really know what you mean by the second part, but if we agree on the first part, we agree on all that is important from my point of view. I realize it’s not all that is important from your point of view.
#2 Saying that the word “supernatural” is not in the Bible does not establish that the word should not be used.
Sure. As I’ve said, the term continues to be somewhat useful (especially if we clarify how our use differs from the popular idea). Would you agree, though, that we should prefer biblical terms?
#3 Does the Bible use “spiritual” versus “physical” in this manner?
Not in every context, no. Overall, it certainly does. Here’s the reasoning:
- God is a spirit (see John 4)
- God is everywhere (see Psalm 139)
- God is present in every physical thing He has made.
- Therefore, spiritual reality (God being spirit) is present with physical reality, always, everywhere, all the time.
This doesn’t preclude the word ‘spiritual’ being used in the Bible in a different sense in some contexts. Nor does the term being used in a different way create a problem for using it the way I’ve used it above.
If our English words mean anything at all, God being a spirit means His presence is spiritual (not to mention His sustaining power—“by Him all things hold together,” Col 1).
#5 and #6 I have never said anything along these lines.
I don’t know what your point about heavenly and earthly was, then. If it was just to say that there are some Bible words that describe the nature of creation in addition to those I noted, I agree. I didn’t set out to discuss every way the visible and invisible aspects of creation are described in the Bible. It would have to be a lot longer study. But the goal was to include enough examples to support the point.
The main point being twofold: that the Bible reveals that—and I’ll say it yet another slightly different way, because it is possible to say the same thing with different words—
(a) the nonphysical is present with the physical everywhere in creation, and
(b) the Bible has its own ways of describing this reality, and they are not the modern categories of “natural” distinct and separate from “supernatural.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
As for the heavenly versus earthly distinction compared to the visible versus invisible distinction, I showed in my treatment of Colossians 1 that the Spirit emphasizes the former above the latter. I am not able at this time to explain what all the significances are of that teaching by the Spirit.
Yes, Colossians 1 does contain an emphasis on heavenly vs earthly, but I think a focus on just those 2 location markers is deficient compared to the location markers in another passage I've found. At the time of creation, all spirit beings were heavenly, since none of the angels had yet fallen. After the fall of angels and mankind, there is another location marker presented to us. Philippians 2:10 says, "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth." It seems to me that the "things under the earth" would include the demonic realm.
(b) the Bible has its own ways of describing this reality, and they are not the modern categories of “natural” distinct and separate from “supernatural.”
I'd agree that the modern category of "natural" is quite distinct from the modern category of "supernatural." When I think of the common way society uses "natural," I think of the scientific method and our ability to observe things and develop understandings about the way the natural world works. If we can't observe something or test it, then it's not natural. The term "supernatural" is commonly used for spirits, genies, leprechauns, ghosts, processes of witchcraft, and other things that are commonly seen as coming from the world of fables. To the world, saying "natural vs supernatural" is like saying "scientific vs fictional."
Yes, Colossians 1 does contain an emphasis on heavenly vs earthly, but I think a focus on just those 2 location markers is deficient compared to the location markers in another passage I've found.
I have plainly said that there is more data that I have not yet presented. There is no deficiency in what I have been saying because I never have said that I am presenting the totality of what is true.
At the time of creation, all spirit beings were heavenly, since none of the angels had yet fallen. After the fall of angels and mankind, there is another location marker presented to us. Philippians 2:10 says, "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth." It seems to me that the "things under the earth" would include the demonic realm.
Philippians 2:10 is one of many passages that poses problems for Aaron's attempts to characterize creation by using just the 4 distinctions that he has talked about. Having said that, I do not think that Scripture supports your take that the demonic realm is what "things under the earth" will signify at the time that Philippians 2:10 will take place.
The main point being twofold: that the Bible reveals that—and I’ll say it yet another slightly different way, because it is possible to say the same thing with different words—
(a) the nonphysical is present with the physical everywhere in creation, and
(b) the Bible has its own ways of describing this reality, and they are not the modern categories of “natural” distinct and separate from “supernatural.”
My response to these "main" points is so what?
That God's sustaining presence is everywhere does not justify speaking of everything as "spiritual" or "supernatural." The Bible itself never uses "spiritual" in this way that you want to use it to speak of God's sustaining presence everywhere in creation.
It is at least ironic (? right word) that you keep wanting to use biblical terminology in ways that the Bible does not use them and then turn around and keep arguing against speaking of things as "natural" versus "supernatural" because the Bible itself does not use those terms.
That God’s sustaining presence is everywhere does not justify speaking of everything as “spiritual” or “supernatural.” The Bible itself never uses “spiritual” in this way that you want to use it to speak of God’s sustaining presence everywhere in creation.
So?
Is God’s sustaining presence everywhere in creation or not? Is He a spirit or not?
3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. (Heb 1:3)
Do you really want to try to deny that “the word of his power” is spiritual?
Surely you know that’s not a tenable position. Everybody knows that what a “spirit” does is “spiritual,” by definition.
That said, my view and the support I’ve explained don’t require that word. I have “unseen” and “invisible” and “eternal”—also, as you noted, “heavenly.” If you prefer, use those instead.
arguing against speaking of things as “natural” versus “supernatural” because the Bible itself does not use those terms.
OK, one more time, I prefer “visible” and “invisible.”
The main point being twofold: that the Bible reveals that—and I’ll say it yet another slightly different way, because it is possible to say the same thing with different words—
(a) the nonphysical is present with the physical everywhere in creation, and
(b) the Bible has its own ways of describing this reality, and they are not the modern categories of “natural” distinct and separate from “supernatural.”
As for…
My response to these “main” points is so what?
You are certainly free to not care. I have no objection to that. I’ve explained why it matters. But I know not everybody is interested. That’s fine.
But edit to add: If you don’t disagree with those points, then we have the same view on this topic.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Philippians 2:10 is one of many passages that poses problems for Aaron's attempts to characterize creation by using just the 4 distinctions that he has talked about.
I don't think Aaron was trying to limit his point to just 4 distinctions. Several times you've mentioned that he is leaving something out, but his intention was not to present "the totality of what is true." Perhaps you missed reading the following paragraph from Aaron.
I don’t know what your point about heavenly and earthly was, then. If it was just to say that there are some Bible words that describe the nature of creation in addition to those I noted, I agree. I didn’t set out to discuss every way the visible and invisible aspects of creation are described in the Bible. It would have to be a lot longer study. But the goal was to include enough examples to support the point.
I got interested in how “spiritual” is used in the Bible. I didn’t have a lot of time, so focused on NT and pneumatikos, which is the usual word translated “spiritual.” There are a couple of other Greek words that end up as ‘spiritual’ in most English translations.
As I’ve noted, the use of “spiritual” is not a question my main points rely on for support. It does add some depth, though, to the study of the material vs. non-material features of creation and how the non-material relates to the material.
Anyway, I think these are all pneumatikos. I did a quick survey of “spiritual” in English, though, so it’s possible a couple of other Greek terms are here also:
NT Uses of πνευματικός (pneumatikos) English: “spiritual”
- Of a thing that comes from the Holy Spirit (“gift”): Rom 1:11, 1 Cor 12:1, 14:1
- Of a thing that has a special relationship with the Holy Spirit (“the law”): Rom 7:14
- Of things that are not physical (“spiritual blessings,” in contrast to “material” blessings) Rom 15:27
- Of truths about nonphysical realities (“spiritiual truths”) 1 Cor 2:13
- Of people who have the Spirit and possess abilities due to that relationship: 1 Cor 2:15
- Of things having to do with non-physical realities (“spiritual things”) 1 Cor 9:11
- Of blessings God provided to Israel (“spiritual food” and “drink” and “rock”) 1 Cor 10:3-4
- Of bodies that are no longer limited in physical ways (“spiritual body” – “imperishable” and “raised in glory”) 1 Cor 15:44-46
- Of people influenced by the Holy Spirit/living faithful lives (“you who are spiritual”) Gal 6:1
- Of blessings that from heaven or located in heaven or both (“spiritual blessing in the heavenly places”) Eph 1:3
- Of songs having to with matters of spirit and/or the Holy Spirit (“spiritual songs”) Eph 5.19, Col 3:16
- Of forces of evil that non-physical (“spiritual forces of evil”) Eph 6:12
- Of wisdom that comes from the Spirit or has to do with non-physical topics (“spiritual wisdom and understanding”) Col 1:9
- Of a non-physical things, possibly metaphorical (“spiritual house” and “spiritual sacrifices”) 1 Pet 2:5
Some Lessons Learned:
- “Spiritual” often has a not-immediately-obvious sense in many passages.
- At times it’s in direct contrast to sinful behavior (e.g. Gal 6:1). At other times, its direct contrast to psuchikos, but the term psuchikos itself seems to be a shorthand for something like “the unregenerate natural condition and way of life” while at other times it seems to mean more like “the merely human or merely physical.”
- Sometimes pneumatikos seems to mean symbolic or metaphorical or picturing a deeper reality.
- At times it seems to just mean “living the faithful Christian life.”
- It would take a lot of study to arrive a confident understanding in every passage where the term occurs.
- What all of the uses seem to have in common, though, is that they reference the invisible, more-than-material features of creation and God’s presence and activity in the world and in our lives.
- This is consistent in every way with what I’ve been saying about the true nature of creation vs. our modern Western ways of thinking about natural processes and physical objects and so on.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[RG]That God’s sustaining presence is everywhere does not justify speaking of everything as “spiritual” or “supernatural.” The Bible itself never uses “spiritual” in this way that you want to use it to speak of God’s sustaining presence everywhere in creation.
So?
When a Christian sets forth an understanding of a Bible term in a way that God never uses a term and does not account for the ways that God does use the term, the problematic nature of what is being said is plain to see.
Is God’s sustaining presence everywhere in creation or not? Is He a spirit or not?
3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. (Heb 1:3)
Do you really want to try to deny that “the word of his power” is spiritual?
Surely you know that’s not a tenable position. Everybody knows that what a “spirit” does is “spiritual,” by definition.
That said, my view and the support I’ve explained don’t require that word. I have “unseen” and “invisible” and “eternal”—also, as you noted, “heavenly.” If you prefer, use those instead.
[RG]arguing against speaking of things as “natural” versus “supernatural” because the Bible itself does not use those terms.
OK, one more time, I prefer “visible” and “invisible.”
It is irrelevant what you or I or anybody else "prefers." Saying what God says is what matters.
The main point being twofold: that the Bible reveals that—and I’ll say it yet another slightly different way, because it is possible to say the same thing with different words—
(a) the nonphysical is present with the physical everywhere in creation, and
(b) the Bible has its own ways of describing this reality, and they are not the modern categories of “natural” distinct and separate from “supernatural.”
As for…
[RG]My response to these “main” points is so what?
You are certainly free to not care. I have no objection to that. I’ve explained why it matters. But I know not everybody is interested. That’s fine.
I have made plain that it is not that I do not care about what God has to say. My use of "so what" in this instance points to the reality that what you have said and continue to say does not establish as true what you have been trying to assert.
But edit to add: If you don’t disagree with those points, then we have the same view on this topic.
No, it does not. What God says, and how He uses terms matters.
I don't think Aaron was trying to limit his point to just 4 distinctions. Several times you've mentioned that he is leaving something out, but his intention was not to present "the totality of what is true." Perhaps you missed reading the following paragraph from Aaron.
No, I did not miss that paragraph. I have said repeatedly that what he has been saying is lacking and problematic because he is not accounting for vital information that directly pertains to what he has been saying.
- It would take a lot of study to arrive a confident understanding in every passage where the term occurs.
Which is precisely why you should not continue this series saying just what you have said so that you do not compound the problems with what you have said in the articles that you have written so far (James 3:1; 2 Tim. 2:15).
by Kevin Miller: ... The term "supernatural" is commonly used for spirits, genies, leprechauns, ghosts, processes of witchcraft, and other things that are commonly seen as coming from the world of fables.
by Dan Miller: “Folklore” and “intuition” don’t seem to fit under superstition as you have elsewhere described it.
Fables, folklore, and intuition strike me as adding a level of cultural human psychology that is natural, but it comes through peer pressure, human anxiety, the power of suggestion, subconscious displaying and recognition of human and cultural signs, etc.
Because feelings, impressions, and intuition come through those aspects of psychology, we often don't know where we came to feel or know them. And they get attributed to spiritual awareness, both by Christians and non-christians.
No, I did not miss that paragraph. I have said repeatedly that what he has been saying is lacking and problematic because he is not accounting for vital information that directly pertains to what he has been saying.
If leaving out vital information is problematic, then I stand by what I said earlier when I wrote, "Yes, Colossians 1 does contain an emphasis on heavenly vs earthly, but I think a focus on just those 2 location markers is deficient compared to the location markers in another passage I've found."
If Aaron's article is problematic because he has left something out, then a focus specifically on heavenly vs earthly is problematic because it leaves out "things under the earth."
As for the heavenly versus earthly distinction compared to the visible versus invisible distinction, I showed in my treatment of Colossians 1 that the Spirit emphasizes the former above the latter. I am not able at this time to explain what all the significances are of that teaching by the Spirit.
What is needed to advance our understanding is to examine the biblical data pertaining to the subject far more than has been done so far. I have already presented several passages and am studying more.
If you're accusing Aaron of "not accounting for vital information," but you can't even explain the significance of what you want him to add, then perhaps you should limit your own argumentation until you have done more study yourself. Of course, Aaron's articles weren't meant to be an exhaustive, all-encompassing study in the first place, but more of a general overview of the issue.
No, I did not miss that paragraph. I have said repeatedly that what he has been saying is lacking and problematic because he is not accounting for vital information that directly pertains to what he has been saying.No, I did not miss that paragraph. I have said repeatedly that what he has been saying is lacking and problematic because he is not accounting for vital information that directly pertains to what he has been saying.
What is it that is problematic?
What part of this is incorrect and why is it incorrect?
The main point being twofold: that the Bible reveals that—and I’ll say it yet another slightly different way, because it is possible to say the same thing with different words—
(a) the nonphysical is present with the physical everywhere in creation, and
(b) the Bible has its own ways of describing this reality, and they are not the modern categories of “natural” distinct and separate from “supernatural.”
If it’s still “spiritual” that is supposed to be the problem, it might be significant that I used the word exactly once in the article that began this thread:
From Scripture, we know not only that there is an invisible, non-material (spiritual) reality present, but that in some way, the invisible, non-material reality is a being, specifically the second person of the Trinity.
Is it really “problematic” to say that the non-material is “spiritual”? What else is there for it to be?
In the previous article, I used it quite a few times, looks like 9. Seven of the nine were direct quotations of Scripture, Ephesians 6.12-13. Here’s the other two.
These two truths remain important in our day, as increasing numbers of people see themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” There is a resurgent (not new) interest in the supernatural and, with it, an openness to ideas of power and information from outside of the realm of the five senses.
And…
Some Conclusions
The Bible doesn’t talk about reality in terms of “natural” and “supernatural.” What it does do is declare that creation includes the visible and invisible, seen and unseen, transitory and eternal, physical (“flesh and blood”) and spiritual.
What is specifically incorrect or problematic about these?
Am I wrong that the Bible represents reality as including both the physical and the spiritual? Am I using the term any differently there than Eph 6 does?
What evidence do you have that Eph 6 is not contrasting “flesh and blood” with “spiritual” realities?
And to repeat an earlier question, is God not a spirit? Did I read that wrong in John 4? Is He not upholding all things by the word of His power? How exactly is it problematic to call that power “spiritual”?
This is exactly how the term “spiritual” is used in 1 Cor 2. Here it is in context:
10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. (1 Co 2:10–13)
Here, what comes from God is “spiritual.” But I can’t say that God’s power sustaining all physical things is spiritual? Do you want to argue that power from the Spirit is “spiritual” but power from the Father or the Son is not?
But this whole debate is pretty silly. That God’s power is “spiritual” is self evident. I should have rested my case a dozen comments ago.
It’s been fun, though, and, at times, interesting.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
If you're accusing Aaron of "not accounting for vital information," but you can't even explain the significance of what you want him to add, then perhaps you should limit your own argumentation until you have done more study yourself. Of course, Aaron's articles weren't meant to be an exhaustive, all-encompassing study in the first place, but more of a general overview of the issue.
I am not focusing on that distinction for its own sake as if my position is that distinction is the sole thing that we must talk about. Rather, I pointed out how Aaron did not handle Colossians 1 properly by leaving out that vital information.
The Scripture does not elevate the visible versus invisible distinction above that of the heavenly versus earthly distinction. The Scripture does not prefer the former above the latter.
Some Conclusions
The Bible doesn’t talk about reality in terms of “natural” and “supernatural.” What it does do is declare that creation includes the visible and invisible, seen and unseen, transitory and eternal, physical (“flesh and blood”) and spiritual.
What is specifically incorrect or problematic about these?
According to what we know from Scripture, wind in invisible and unseen. According to your handling of Scripture thus far, is wind physical or spiritual?
If you say that wind is a thing that is "spiritual" because God is a spirit, God is everywhere, and Christ is sustaining its existence, does that make it a heavenly thing? If not, what is the difference between saying something is "spiritual" on these bases and saying that something is "heavenly"?
Similarly, concerning the manna: the manna was visible, seen, and transient. Was it a "physical" thing or a "spiritual" thing?
Was the manna an earthly thing or a heavenly thing?
Discussion