On the Supernatural: Resisting Two Errors
Image
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.)
- 597 views
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.
Discussion