Syndicate
User login
Navigation
Everyday Miracles?—Part 2
First, I need to apologize for my absence into everyday life for the past month or so. I was sick for a while. More recently, I have had tremendous opportunities to both teach and be taught. So, my blogging presence has been almost nonexistent. I hope to remedy this.
Now, onto part two of the discussion on “miracles”.
LaffingBoy asked the thunder-stealing question as to exactly what a miracle is. I will agree with Thomas Huxley, in that we are merely “beating the air” until we can agree on this. Let me offer a working definition:
A miracle is an action by God performed as intervention into our natural world. It is a natural effect with an immediate supernatural cause. (I use the phrase “immediate supernatural cause” so that there is no misunderstanding. If Christianity is correct, then God is the cause of everything. A specific miracle has Him as the immediate cause, and not merely as the cause of the natural processes that are the daily effects we see in action about us.) It may be an addition to or suspension of natural laws.
Turning water into wine was a miracle. Walking on water was a miracle. Burning a bush with non-consuming fire was a miracle-- as was healing and raising the dead.
In short, a miracle is an action with its immediate cause being the hand of God. This is much different than "providence", where God may use natural processes to get a desired effect, such as fog rolling in to cover ships at Normandy.
The second point here is that of motive. If God is the author of miracles, then why would He do so? E-Dogg asked a similar, pertinent question-- or more fairly, made a comment—in that he couldn’t see any reason that God would create a creation where He needed to interact with it. Personally, I see this as a bit of a shortsighted and ill-formed philosophy. (No offense meant, of course, E-Dogg. Part of what I love about our discussions is an opportunity to see things through others’ eyes.)
This practical deistic mindset seems a bit conflicting. If one were to admit the miracle of creation one needs a bit more than credulity to write off any subsequent miracles (interaction) from the same hand. I could see one arguing against a personal God. I could see one arguing for naturalistic ideals. Those are separate conversations, and I’ve made it pretty plain that I feel those mindsets suffer from their own failures. But how does one deny interaction from a God that has interacted (i.e. creation)?
Christianity claims that the same God that created has continued to interact. The most “blatant” of these interactions, we call miracles. Christianity also claims that He has good reason for these interactions. For the most part, they are used as “signs and wonders”. They were used to verify His Word when it was given. The burning bush verified His Word. The fulfilled prophecies verified His Word. The water/wine verified Jesus’ claims, as did the healing, etc… The “Sign of Jonah”- the Resurrection - was the ultimate sign of verification.
Thus the theme of these posts... Everyday Miracles… There are no “everyday miracles”, and being drawn into this mindset steals the beauty of God’s plan for us. Further, it steals the knowledge of what He’s already done.
He selected a group of people in history to reveal Himself to. Through them, He revealed Himself to the world, verifying Himself with signs and wonders. Among them, Christ became man and offered Himself a willing sacrifice that offered us unfettered communion—all verified with signs and wonders.
1 Cor 10:12 Now these things happened to them [Israel] as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.
1Co 15:1-8 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
That doesn’t happen just every day…
God bless you
custom-pager custom-pager-1 custom-pager-blog
Technorati Tags:
No Offense Taken, nor Given
First, welcome back. I kinda missed our little discussions.
But how does one deny interaction from a God that has interacted (i.e. creation)?
I don't really consider creation to be an interaction. It is an act outside of everything we experience. I don't deny that a creator COULD interact, but I think my point at the time was that if it created everything, it could have preprogrammed the natural laws to produce any desired outcome.
Further interaction might suggest that this creator was changing its mind over time and needed to correct something it didn't account for at the beginning. However, you've answered that by proposing that the miracles are meant to provide “signs and wonders” to confirm holy authenticity. I can accept that explanation. Without a little magic, Jesus was just a really good philosopher. (see: Jefferson Bible)
Now, a few questions: Are you suggesting that there have been no further miracles since biblical times? I suppose we'll see some as armageddon comes, right? Anything in between? If so, why?
How about Satan? Can he interact with this world? If so, what are those interactions called?
Finally, a bit of a sidebar that I imagine you may want to deal with in a separate post:
Christ became man and offered Himself a willing sacrifice that offered us unfettered communion
I never really understood how this "sacrifice" bought us salvation. If Jesus was who you say he was, he knew what would happen. He knew he would die, yet rise again. What exactly did he sacrifice, his corporeal life here on Earth? To me, it doesn't seem that would be all that valuable to an omnipotent deity. What is it about that act that pays the price for our sins?
My 2 cents.
A: In short, a miracle is an action with its immediate cause being the hand of God.
B: Christianity also claims that He has good reason for these interactions. For the most part, they are used as “signs and wonders”.
I think 'A' is too broad a definition for 'miracle' and is better suited to 'supernatural event', althought this may be splitting hairs. I think the term 'miracle' is exclusively reserved for supernatural acts performed by humans in order to verify their message as being from the transcendent creator and master of nature, God. Now, I may be wrong about this and I'm willing to be shown my error. By my definition the pillar of fire that guided the Israelites through the wilderness in Sinai would not be a miracle. Moses bringing water from a rock would be.
I think this becomes an important distinction when someone asks a question like E-Dogg's about if there continue to be miracles since biblical times? I think the answer is no, because God is no longer validating a messenger or a messsage. Grandma might be inexplicably cancer-free after a dire diagnosis, and God may have directly intervened for some reason, but no miracle has occurred. Even if her healing corresponded with my laying hands on her and praying for all I'm worth (which isn't much) God did not just validate my message or me as His messenger. New revelation from God has ceased, and He has no reason to re-validate the old message.
This is not to say God has ceased interacting in the physical universe, for if He did the physical universe would break apart. God is transcendent AND IMMANENT in nature. (Col. 1:16) He is not at all like the deistic concept of Him. God is not like a cosmic Mousetrap(TM) player who built a contraption and then dropped the universe in one end and is merely watching it roll along its inevitable course to the other. I don't think the deistic idea is illogical on it's face (many intelligent Christians hold to it to some degree), but it is not derived from what God has revealed of Himself; it comes from 200-year-old philosphers who were, as it turns out, not so good.
Some very good questions
... and some very good responses.
e-dogg:First, welcome back. I kinda missed our little discussions.
Thank you much-- as have I... I've tried to spend the time away productively. What I failed to mention was that the time away was also a self-imposed hiatus.
I was a bit disappointed in myself with some of my responses in the various evolution discussions. I was pricked in the fact that I allowed myself to speak from ego, and not always in love. I've been in prayer and God's Word in hopes that I become a little better at this, and a better reflection of my Father. If I am my Father's son, I hope to show that He "raised me better than that". :)
Now, with the admissions out of the way...
LB: I think the term 'miracle' is exclusively reserved for supernatural acts performed by humans in order to verify their message as being from the transcendent creator and master of nature, God.
I think I would disagree to a certain extent. You aren't speaking of "miracles" in total, but of "signs" and "wonders", which were a segment of miraculous acts, and were performed by God, though men. (See 1 Kings 18:25, it is God who answers by fire-- also 1 Cor 12).
LB: I think the answer is no, because God is no longer validating a messenger or a messsage.
I'm not so sure. I think some miracles (signs and wonders) were to validate His message. There are numerous reports every year of miracles in the mission fields. God may be done validating His message to the West, where it has been preached in all corners. But he may very well still be validating His message in the furthest reaches of the world where they are just now receiving it.
Miracles were not just signs and wonders for the sake of validation, but were/are also a gift of the spirit for the edification of the body (1 Cor 12). If one believes an end to these gifts, then they will naturally believe an end to this type of miracles too. I think this a seperate discussion and so won't belabor that point. :)
For the most part, I think we agree on the source and purpose of (what I would call) most miraculous events, though.
e-dogg:[creator]it could have preprogrammed the natural laws to produce any desired outcome.
I can understand and respect your reasoning (while obviously disagreeing). I think this presupposes disinterest on the part of the creator (whether force or Being). My point is that a total disinterest can't be presupposed, since there was interest enough to create. It's logically harder to discount that interest when it is already established.
Further, this idea of "preprogramming" would take you away from deism, through naturalism and into naturalism's logical result-- nihilism. If there is only natural law fueled by cause and effect, then you are left with strict determinism and a total lack of meaning and free will. You have made our entire reality a "batch code"-- pre-programmed and immutable.
e-dogg:Are you suggesting that there have been no further miracles since biblical times? I suppose we'll see some as armageddon comes, right? Anything in between? If so, why?
No. I apologize for the mischaracterization. I believe there are still miraculous events, as I mentioned in response to LB above. LB may very well believe in a cessation of miracles. I guess either of us may be right without damaging Christian doctrine. I look forward to whatever input LB may have in speaking for himself here.
The purposes of modern miracles? To validate His Word as it is preached throughout all the world... To edify (build up) the body that currently believes (1 Corinthians 12). To show greater power than that of the current "powers and principalities", which leads into your next question:
e-dogg:How about Satan? Can he interact with this world? If so, what are those interactions called?
He can interact. They are called false signs, magic, the occult, etc, and are supernormal as opposed to supernatural. God is the God of His creation, and thus has all power over it. Satan as a created being, has limited power within it. We are called to test every spirit to see if it is of God.
I'll quote from the work of Norm Geisler, "When Skeptics Ask":
"In contrast to this [magic], we see the superiority of biblical miracles. The magicians of Egypt tried to reproduce Moses’ works by means of illusions and had some success at first ( Ex. 7:19ff ; 8:6ff ), but when God brought forth gnats from the dust, the sorcerers failed and exclaimed, “This is the finger of God” (v. 19 ). In the same way, Elijah silenced all claims of the prophets of Baal when he called down fire from heaven when they could not ( 1 Kings 18 ). Moses’ authority was vindicated when Korah and his followers were swallowed up by the earth ( Num. 16 ). And Aaron was shown to be God’s man for the priesthood when his rod budded ( Num. 17 ).
Jesus healed the sick ( Matt. 8:14–15 ), made the blind to see ( Mark 8:22–26 ), reached down and embraced lepers to heal them ( 1:40–45 ), and raised people from death ( Luke 8:49–56 ). His pattern continued in the apostles after He was gone as we see Peter healing the beggar at the temple gate ( Acts 3:1–11 ) and raising Dorcas from the dead ( 9:36–41 ). Hebrews 2:4 tells us the purpose of these miracles: “God [was] also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.” As far as purposefulness, goodness,and confirmation of God’s message, these miracles are in an entirely different class..."
The power of the Creator was and is able to bring forth life (the gnats, resurrections, budding, etc..), to alter creation for good (healing, etc...), and to show authority over any other "power" (the fire of Elijah, casting our demons, etc...). The power of the Creator is ultimate and uncontested.
e-dogg:I never really understood how this "sacrifice" bought us salvation. If Jesus was who you say he was, he knew what would happen. He knew he would die, yet rise again. What exactly did he sacrifice, his corporeal life here on Earth? To me, it doesn't seem that would be all that valuable to an omnipotent deity. What is it about that act that pays the price for our sins?
I am thrilled by these questions. They take the conversation from "apologetics" into the heart of the gospel. With your permission, I would like to deal with these in a post of their own.
e-dogg and LB, I'm glad to have these discussions again. I truly appreciate both of you and your input here.
God bless you.
"Miracles were not just
"Miracles were not just signs and wonders for the sake of validation, but were/are also a gift of the spirit for the edification of the body."
Give me an example of a non-validation type miracle done solely for the edification of the body.
You make a good point about signs/wonders in unreached areas. However, I would not call them miracles because may times they are not done through human agency and even if they are, I don't think God is saying, "Listen to this person, he/she speaks for me."
I will put some more thought into this.
Plus 2 = 4 :)
Give me an example of a non-validation type miracle done solely for the edification of the body.
Act 20:4 He was accompanied by Sopater (the son of Pyrrhus) from Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe, Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus from Asia.
Act 20:5 These men went on ahead and were waiting for us in Troas.
Act 20:6 After the days of Unleavened Bread, we sailed from Philippi, and days later we joined them in Troas and stayed there for seven days.
Act 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we had met to break bread, Paul began to address the people. Since he intended to leave the next day, he went on speaking until midnight.
Act 20:8 Now there were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting.
Act 20:9 A young man named Eutychus, who was sitting in a window, began to sink off into a deep sleep as Paul kept speaking longer and longer. Overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third floor and was picked up dead.
Act 20:10 But Paul went down, bent over him, took him into his arms, and said, "Stop being alarmed, for his life is in him."
Act 20:11 Then he went back upstairs, broke the bread, and ate. He talked with them for a long time, until dawn, and then left.
Act 20:12 Then they took the boy away alive and were greatly relieved.
Paul was breaking bread with believers (his traveling companions and others), and this was done in their presence, for their benefit. He was "preaching to the choir", in that they had received the message already. This was done for the benefit, relief, comfort, edification, etc of the body in attendance.
Be blessed, brother...
Another 2 cents.
Take a listen to this MP3 when you have a few minutes. The part that bears directly on this conversation is from ~9 mins to ~13 mins into the file, but the whole thing is only about 30 mins. Enjoy, brother.
Thanks for the Answers
[context: my comments about preprogramming the universe]
I think this presupposes disinterest on the part of the creator (whether force or Being). My point is that a total disinterest can't be presupposed, since there was interest enough to create. It's logically harder to discount that interest when it is already established.
I don't think it presupposes disinterest, but it does presuppose an omnipotent viewpoint outside of time. At the time, I wondered why would the creator intervene WITHIN time, when it was perfectly capable of intervening outside of time. However, I've accepted your narrative of doing so to provide validation of revelation. Even with that, the miraculous events could be preprogrammed by a creator that knows when intervention would be needed, thereby satisfying both of our viewpoints.
supernormal as opposed to supernatural.
Interesting; I'd like to see clear a distinction drawn there. Is "supernormal" still natural?
The power of the Creator is ultimate and uncontested.
I humbly disagree. That power is certainly contested, else we'd have nothing to discuss here, no? The opposition might be doomed to failure, but it certainly exists.
I knew the sacrifice thing was way too big to hash out in impulsive comments, so take your time on that one. I honestly want a sober discussion, and intend no offense in the asking.
I don't think it presupposes
I don't think it presupposes disinterest, but it does presuppose an omnipotent viewpoint outside of time. At the time, I wondered why would the creator intervene WITHIN time, when it was perfectly capable of intervening outside of time. However, I've accepted your narrative of doing so to provide validation of revelation. Even with that, the miraculous events could be preprogrammed by a creator that knows when intervention would be needed, thereby satisfying both of our viewpoints.
I guess these are points well made. I think our finite, time-bound minds may have a tendency to over(under?)think these subjects. I'm not sure there would be such a huge difference from His perspective. The end result is that He responds to us in a way that we can interpret, as in Jeremiah 18.
Interesting; I'd like to see clear a distinction drawn there. Is "supernormal" still natural?
To the effect that God alone has power enough to suspend or add to His natural laws/creation...
I humbly disagree. That power is certainly contested, else we'd have nothing to discuss here, no? The opposition might be doomed to failure, but it certainly exists.
Perhaps you made my point in a better way. As long as it is said that the opposition has only as much power as is given for a time.
I knew the sacrifice thing was way too big to hash out in impulsive comments, so take your time on that one. I honestly want a sober discussion, and intend no offense in the asking.
That's strange, actually. It's BIG, in the fact that it is the back bone of the gospel. It's the central tennet of the Bible, Old testament and New. It's simple in that it's easy to understand. But I know that it may not be so easy to believe from the outside looking in.
I look forward to forming the response, and as much to the discussion. Don't fear the threat of offense taken. I'm truly thanksful just to have the conversation.
Take care, brother...