miracles

Do miracles happen any more? This question was posed to me while in MI during one of my first couple weeks there. I answered it; we debated briefly, and then we moved on. It did not reoccur to me until last night. Here is the dilemma.

How do we define miracles? Are miracles special revelation or general revelation? These two questions settle the matter. First, if we cannot define miracles, then how will we know if they still happen? Further, with a completely ludicrous definition, we could say there have never been such a thing as miracles. (Such would be nonsense for the Bible clearly speaks of miracles (in 37 different verses).)

But, how do we define revelation? Let us pause here to first consider some facts.

Special revelation as we have classically defined it has ceased. This argument we must have, and can prove from Scripture against the Catholics, and the Pentecostals.

Miracles, as commonly defined do happen. Since again, we are dealing with the very word which we want defined, we shall instead clarify our meaning by citing examples: A man wrought with a fatal illness to which no person (but one, whose mind had become mush) has ever been recorded surviving, suddenly was cured and retain no sign that he had ever possessed the disease. This is something we would refer to as a miracle. With this wonder, that escapes the explanations of science and medicine we see what we are considering. [The response to this not being a miracle is that there is something within nature that we have yet to discover that healed this man of this disease. And, that science, given several hundred more years would be able to explain this away. Before resorting to such a leap (which is an excuse that could almost certainly be used in infinite ways always claiming a lack of ignorance to be explained in the future), let us instead turn back to our problem of revelation.]

[Let me clarify here that this is without any research besides a brief concordance search. I have not ran my definitions through any systematics, nor compared them to my present theology looking for errors. This is a working definition for the time present. I hope, that if my findings change significantly, that I will have the time to return and expand upon them.]

Now then, we define special revelation as that that points directly to Jehovah or to Christ, and general revelation as that that points to the Almighty, or the Creator. (Notice the difference here: As Christians we can equate these terms, Christ and Creator, but the Bible speaks that nature and general revelation point not to Christ, but rather to the Almighty. Nature, and so we define general revelation points to the fact that there must be a Supreme Being. It does not point to Christ specifically. Man only comes to that conclusion via special revelation as found in Scripture.)

These definitions work for our purposes. Again, Special revelation points specifically to Christ. General revelation points to An Almighty Being. If this is the case, then miracles as defined via example can and do fall within the venue of general revelation. For, they do not point to any specific god, but to A God. However, not all miracles are the same.

For out present age/dispensation, we are safe to say that miracles fall into general revelation, but in the Scriptures, miracles were used to identify a prophet as truly being from the god that sent them. Moses and Aaron performed miracles before the elders of Israel showing that they were really from Jehovah God. Pharaoh's magicians performed their miracles in an attempt to demonstrate that their god was just as powerful. The miracles performed by Christ were a sign and condemnation to the cities in which they were done for they clearly showed Him to be the Messiah of Israel, and He was rejected. Further, the early church was accompanied by miracles to demonstrate that the speakers were from God. These miracles gave credence to the performer. They neither pointed to Christ per se, nor to Almighty God.

We have yet to have define a miracle. This is not easily done. First, there are several unsaved philosophers (Kant is a big name you should probably be somewhat familiar with) that provide a definition one might easily accept. Some Christian philosophers insist that it is impossible to put a definition to a miracle. Further, one must be careful not to abandon the definition just because they provide it, but to provide a definition based solely on what merits it stands.

If we say that miracles are that which is not normal, we must then define what is normal. That in itself is a harder question then we may be able to answer here. Theologians say that God is the ultimate Norm. If God is the standard by which we judge normal, then miracles are obviously normal.

If we say that it is contrary to nature, we know that God has not just set the Earth on its course and let it go, but that He upholds all things by the Word of his power, and that he is the Sustainer of all things. Further, our proper understanding of his sovereignty tells us that every drop of rain falls where He desires, and how He desires and thus God is personally active in everyday events.

I think, that if we define miracles experiencially, rather than ontologically we have a much easier time of it. Experientially, we know miracles to be the blind receiving sight, the lame walking, the deaf hearing, the dumb speaking, and the dead coming back to life. The curing of all manner of diseases falls into this category as well as per the Gospels, and so, given this definition, and the previous definitions of revelation we can say with certainty that miracles do take place.


I have been having less and less blogging time/material as I have been emailing my cousin. But I have also been trying to spend time talking through everything in good detail with my wife. It is good for me, her, and us, and to be honest, it is more enjoyable than blogging about it. I will try to continue to blog though. That is good for me, you, and us as well. ;)