|
|
|
Modern
Day Miracles? By
Eddie Lawrence A
lot of religious people believe that miracles brought about by the power of God
are being performed today just as they were in Bible times. Others claim that
the days of miracles ended when the last of the New Testament apostles and
prophets died and that miracles are no longer happening. Which is correct? If
one is observant, one will quickly realize that these two groups aren't using
the word miracle in the same way. Those who believe that miracles still happen
today tend to use the word miracle in a way that is more inclusive of the events
in question than those who don't think miracles still occur. For that matter,
people in general tend to use the word miracle too loosely. For example, the
birth of a baby is said by some to be a miracle. It certainly is wondrous how
God has equipped the human body to reproduce after its own kind, but is it
really a miracle? If
the truth is ever to be determined, we all must set aside how the word is used
in general everyday speech and turn to the Scriptures to determine exactly what
it means there. In addition to defining what a miracle is, does the Bible give
any clues as to the traits of real miracles? Acts
4 is an excellent passage of scripture to help sort this question out. Peter
and John are being called into question by the Jewish rulers because they had
"taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the
dead" (vs. 2). They had healed a man (in chapter 3) who had been lame since
birth. The man couldn't walk but had to be carried everywhere he went. God
miraculously healed the man through Peter and John and he immediately leapt up
having received strength in his feet and ankle bones. All the people present saw
this man whom they knew to be lame now walking and leaping and so they eagerly
listened to the preaching of Peter and John (Acts 3:1-10). The
council hears Peter and John's answers regarding their actions and then puts
them outside so that they can confer among themselves privately. In Acts 4:16
the rulers make an astounding statement, "What shall we do to these men?
For, indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to
all who dwell in The
first clue is in the definition of the word miracle itself. The Greek word used
in Acts 4:16 that is translated into English as miracle is "semeion"
(Strong's number 4592). In the context of the miraculous, the word is defined in
Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon as "a sign, prodigy, portent, i.e. an
unusual occurrence, transcending the common course of nature". So, in order
to qualify as a miracle, an event must be unusual and transcend the common
course of nature. Qualifying
trait number one: A
miracle is a supernatural event that violates or supersedes the laws of nature. Next,
notice in the passage that even those who opposed Jesus and His followers
could not honestly deny that a miracle had taken place "a notable miracle
has been done… and we cannot deny it". When they were honest amongst themselves,
even the enemies of the Lord admitted that miracles were being performed
through His followers. Qualifying
trait number two: True
miracles cannot honestly be denied even by those in opposition. The
miracle that God's followers had performed was "evident to all who dwell in
Qualifying
trait number three: Real
miracles are evident to everyone and they pass the test of public scrutiny. Many
times it is claimed that a miracle has occurred when the circumstances surrounding
the event are perhaps not well understood. For example, sometimes people will
undergo a medical procedure and be given what at first appears to be bad news.
After a more thorough medical examination it turns out that all is well and
the initial diagnosis was faulty. Another example could be the oft heard of
situation where someone has positively been diagnosed with a disease that
later goes into remission. In
both examples, it often happens that those who have been praying for the person
will conclude that a miracle has taken place. In the first case there was never
a real problem to begin with and thus no miracle. In the second either the
body's immune system has defeated the illness or remission is typical of the
disease itself. Again, no miracle has taken place. Certainly
we want to give God the credit when someone recovers from an illness. God is the
one who gave our body the power to heal itself. Through His providence, and
through ways we may not understand, He can certainly bring marvelous things
to pass. However, if we are going to speak as the Bible speaks, we should take
care in calling such events miracles. If
a modern day event cannot meet the three qualifications that are found in Acts
4:16, it cannot be called a miracle in the same sense that the word is used in
the Holy Scriptures. & Those
Pesky Preconditions of Intelligibility By
Bob Myhan Before
there can be any intelligent discussion of competing worldviews, there must be
common ground. If the disputants cannot agree on what will constitute final
authority, they will be at cross purposes in trying to prove their respective
propositions. In other words, attempts at debating without a common final
authority will be futile. For
example, if there is to be a debate concerning what the Bible teaches, the disputants
must agree to take the Bible as their final authority. But if there is to be a
discussion over what the Book of Mormon teaches, that book must be agreed on as
the final authority. Thus,
there can be no debate over competing worldviews, if the two sides cannot
agree to a common final authority. In any debate, certain preconditions of
intelligibility must be assumed at the start. But these preconditions cannot
be assumed arbitrarily. Preconditions
of intelligibility are conditions that must be assumed before any intelligible
discussion can be had. Two such preconditions were mentioned in the July 18,
2010 issue of Faithbuilder. They were logic and morality. Others are the uniformity
of nature, personal dignity and freedom, the reliability of our senses and the
reliability of memory. No
worldview can be consistently defended that does not provide justification for
whatever preconditions of intelligibility it assumes. Atheism, for example, can
provide no justification for the
use of logic or moral judgment. If matter is all that exists, then laws of logic
do not exist and thought can exist only as an aspect of matter. Nor can there be
any moral law independent of man if man is only matter in motion. Deism,
on the other hand, can
provide justification for the use of logic, in that it maintains the existence
of a greater being,
who created man and gave man the ability to reason. But it cannot consistently
assume a law of morality, because it maintains that the Creator has not
provided us with any such law—not in the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon
nor any other book that is purported to be inspired. Therefore,
atheism cannot consistently make a logical defense of itself, and deism cannot
consistently argue—on the basis of morality—against God, as He is described
in the Bible. In
addition, deists aggressively deny the reality of miracles on the grounds of the
uniformity of nature, though they have no
justification for assuming the uniformity of nature. The Bible teaches that
nature is, and shall remain uniform. Then
Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every
clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a
soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, "I will never again curse
the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from
his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done. While the
earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day
and night Shall not cease." (Gen.
8:20-22) Thus,
the Bible believer has a basis for assuming the uniformity of nature. But the
deist and atheist do not. For all they know, nature is not uniform, except where
they have observed it to be so. & |