Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 414: Line 414:     
:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do.  Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)
 
:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do.  Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)
 +
 +
::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.
 +
 +
::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
 +
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
 +
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)
    
== What is not foreknowledge. ==
 
== What is not foreknowledge. ==

Navigation menu