Larson, M., Three Centuries of Objections to Biblical Miracles

8/13/2019 Larson, M., Three Centuries of Objections to Biblical Miracles

1/25

BiBLlOTHECA SACRA 160 (January-March 2003): 77-100

THREE CENTURIES OFOBJECTIONS TO

BIBLICAL MIRACLES Mark J. Larson

T HE MIRACLES RECORDED IN THE BIBLE have been a problemfor many people in recent centuries. As Thornwell put it,"The supernatural has been the stone of stumbling and therock of offence." 1 This article discusses a number of challenges tomiracles and includes assessments of those objections. The thinkers examined here are in the three philosophical movements of the

Enlightenment, Romanticism, and atheistic naturalism.

MIRACLES IN THE AGE OF REASON

JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704)

Though the eighteenth century was a period marked by unbeliefabout miracles, it is remarkable that the century began with atreatise by Locke in which he affirmed the legitimacy of the biblicalmiracles. Written in 1702, A Discourse of Miracles was publishedposthumously in 1706. Locke said miracles have three characteristics. They are "wrought by God himself'; 2 they are to be understoodas "contrary to the established course of nature"; 3 and they are forthe "attesting of divine revelation." 4 They are "the basis on whichdivine mission is always established." 5

Mark J. Larson is Pastor, Catawba Valley Presbyterian Church, Granite Falls,North Carolina.


2/25


3/25

Three Centuries of Objections to Biblical Miracles 79

a miracle is. 13 In a biblical miracle God may work without or abovethe laws of nature, as when Jesus turned water into wine (thereby

working apart from the normal processes of fermentation). Or Godmay work against the laws of nature, as when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (thereby working against the principle of corruption in the natural order). In neither instance (nor in any otherbiblical miracle) was there a violation of the laws of nature. Schlesinger has rightly stated, "An event may be the source of marveland elicit genuine religious response . . . without violating anynatural law." 14 Even more pointedly Lewis remarked, "The divine

act of miracle is not an act of suspending the pattern to whichevents conform but of feeding new events into that pattern." 15

According to Voltaire any divine changes in the overall running of the cosmic machine would indicate weakness in God. However, God's performance of miracles is not an admission of divineweakness, but of human weaknessthe human need for divineauthentication of true revelation.

HERMANN S. REIMARUS (1694-1768)Reimarus was influenced by the English Deists, as seen in his attempt to eliminate miracles from the Gospels. The posthumouspublication of his Fragments of an Unknown Writer (1774-1778)caused a raging controversy. In one treatise, Concerning the Inten-tion of Jesus and His Teaching, Reimarus wrote that Jesus' cry,"My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me" (Matt. 27:46), wasan admission of His failure. God had not helped Him "to build up aworldly kingdom, and to deliver the Israelites from bondage." 16Also Reimarus essentially charged Matthew with fraud. Accordingto Matthew 28:13 the Sanhdrin bribed the guards assigned towatch Jesus' tomb and urged them to bear false testimony. "Youare to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away whilewe were asleep.' " Reimarus, however, accused Matthew of lying,maintaining that "there must have been no guards there." 17 In addition he basically accepted the Sanhedrin's position about the sur-

16


4/25

80 BiBLiOTHECA SACRA / January-March 2003

reptitious theft of Christ's body, "that Jesus' body was secretly stolen from the tomb at night and that it was buried in anotherplace." 18 "His few followers," he alleged, "have so acted that . . .suspicion logically falls upon them." 19 Reimarus declared, "It isquite clear that Matthew alone spun this story out of his head." 20

This allegation of the theft of Jesus' body was not a new idea.In his Dialogue with Trypho Just in Martyr (ca. A.D. 100-165) indicted the Jews for their unbelief. "You have sent . . . men throughout all the world to proclaim that a . . . heresy had sprung from oneJesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciplesstole him by night from the tomb . . . and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven." 21

Reimarus's siding with the Sanhdrin is questionable in lightof how the Jewish high court is presented in the Gospels. For example "The whole council kept trying to obtain false testimonyagainst Jesus" (26:59), and Pilate "knew that because of envy theyhad handed Him over" (27:18). However, why would Jesus' followers have concocted such a scheme of deceit? Surely they becamefollowers of Jesus because they were attracted to His message.Reimarus himself admitted, "The goal of Jesus' sermons and teaching was a proper, active character, a changing of the mind, a sincere love of God and of one's neighbor, humility, gentleness, denialof the self, and the suppression of all evil desires." 22 It is inconceivable that the disciples would have given themselves to proclaimJesus despite threats from the Sanhdrin, persecution, and evenmartyrdom. Even Bultmann, who did not accept the historicity ofJesus' resurrection, did not question the integrity of the disciples atthis point. "The resurrection," Bultmann affirms, "is not an event ofpast history. All that historical criticism can establish is the factthat the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection." 23

GOTTHOLD LESSING (1729-1781)

Unlike Reimarus, Lessing did not question the integrity of theGospel writers and their testimony regarding miracles. 24 "I do not,"


5/25


he wrote, "for one moment deny that Christ performed miracles." 25

Perhaps this position reflects something of his upbringing as the

son of an orthodox Lutheran pastor. On the other hand Lessingwas like Immanuel Kant in his elevation of human rationalityembracing the teaching of Jesus not on the basis of confirmatory miracles, but because of the authority of unaided reason. 26 Theimportant thing, according to Lessing, is what one thinks about theDeity, but there is no obligation, he said, "to believe somethingagainst which . . . reason rebels." 27 The heart of Lessing's argument, though, relates to what has been called "Lessing's Ditch." Hesaw a disjunction between the "accidental truths of history" andthe "necessary truths of reason." 28 While the necessary truths ofreason have an unqualified certainty, the accidental truths of history cannot provide unqualified certainty. 29 Thus because of thisdisjunction between two different classes of truth, a "ditch" isformed. "That, then, is the ugly, broad ditch which I cannot getacross, however often and however earnestly I have tried to makethe leap." 30

Because Lessing believed that historical truth always lackedunqualified certainty, he felt unable to move from the realm ofwhat is "only historically certain" 31 to the sphere of "metaphysicaland moral ideas." 32 The metaphysical realm is a "different class oftruths." 33 And so Lessing made statements such as this: "If on historical grounds I have no objection to the statement that thisChrist himself rose from the dead, must I therefore accept it as

true that this risen Christ was the Son of God?"34

Lessing's fundamental concern is that testimonial, historical truths always havean element of uncertainty about them. He even conjectured that "it

cal Writings, trans. Henry Chadwick (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,1956), 55.25 Ibid., 53.26

Ibid.27 Ibid., 54.


6/25


still might be possible" that Alexander did not really conquer almost all Asia. Even Alexander's exploits, for Lessing, do not haveabsolute certainty.

In response to Lessing's thinking one can first acknowledgethat it is appropriate to trust the evidence of one's senses. AsAugustine wrote, "The City of God . . . trusts the evidence of thesenses in every matter; for the mind employs the senses throughthe agency of the body, and anyone who supposes that they cannever be trusted is woefully mistaken." 35 From the days of antiquity decisions of "great, permanent worth" 36 have also been made

on the basis of multiple witnesses to the same event. "On the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed" (Deut.19:15). Juries constantly make decisions of "great, permanentworth" on the basis of testimonial evidence and at times on circumstantial evidence.

As to Christ's miracles, there are multiple witnesses in the historical documents, including the unanimous testimony of the fourGospels, the Epistles, and Revelation. In addition the Old Testa

ment announced that the coming Messiah would perform miracles.Thus for Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah He had to have performed miracles. As Origen wrote, referring to Isaiah 35:5-6, "ThatHe healed the lame and the blind, and that therefore we hold Himto be the Christ and the Son of God, is manifest to us from what iscontained in the prophecies: Thus the eyes of the blind shall beopened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then the lame man leapas an hart. ' " 37 The fact of propheti c expec tation u nders cores th e

ce rt ai nt y of th e hist oric al testi mon y record ed in th e Gospel s.Irenaeus declared, "If, however, they [the heretics] maintain thatthe Lord, too, performed such works simply in appearance [like thepagan magicians], we shall refer them to the prophetical writings,and we prove from these . . . t ha t all thin gs were thu s pred ictedregarding Him, and did take place undoubtedly." 38

The miraculous events recorded in the New Testament are established as certain not only on the evidence of two or three witnesses, but also because of the inspiration of the documents themselves However Lessing rejected the New Testament's self


7/25


affirmation about its divine inspiration, 39 and he did not refer tothe internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, which provides the certi

tude that the Bible is the revealed Word of God. Calvin taught thatby the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit believers can "affirm withutter certainty . . . that it has flowed to us from the very mouth ofGod by the ministry of men." 40 Therefore Lessing was wrong insaying that "reports of. . . miracles . . . are [only] as reliable as historical truths ever can be." 41 Because the reports of miracles in theNew Testament are of divine origin, they have an ultimate and absolute certainty about them.

IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804)

Kant is known for his exhortation to be courageous in the use ofone's reason. In Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone 42 hepresented "the kind of religion that could be acceptable in the Ageof Reason." 43 In this Deistic presentation of religion Kant said themorally perfect individual is "a person who would be willing notmerely to discharge all human duties himself and to spread abouthim goodness as widely as possible . . . but even . . . to take uponhimself every affliction, up to the most ignominious death, for thegood of the world and even for his enemies." 44 This description ofhuman goodness is clearly informed by the biblical account of Jesus, but Kant never mentioned Jesus in this work. In fact he maintained that since the idea of the morally perfect person resides inhuman reason, 45 no need exists for a historical exemplification ofactual moral perfection. 46 And yet he did allude to his belief thatJesus was perfect. 47 Kant conceded that some people need a living,concrete example of moral excellence to follow. But he said theyought not demand miracles to authenticate that person's moral

d9 Lessing, On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power, 55.0 Jonn Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans.

Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1.7.5.

4 1 Lessing, On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power, 53.Immanuel Kant Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone trans Theodore M


8/25


perfections. Rather than expecting that this morally perfect person"should have performed miracles," Kant urged his readers to be

lieve that real virtue can truly be exemplified in daily life, and thisconfidence has "moral worth." 48

Unlike Voltaire and Reimarus, Kant did not rule out miracles.He said they are "events in the world the operating laws of whosecauses are, and must remain, absolutely unknown to us." 49 And heeven classified them. "One can conceive of either theistic or de-monic miracles; the second are divided into angelic miracles (ofgood spirits) and devilish miracles (of bad spirits)." 50 Neverthelesshe shared the general embarrassment of the Enlightenment Ageabout miracles.

The uneasiness about miracles in the Age of Reason was preceded by "the century of genius," the period of such seventeenth-century luminaries as Johann Kepler (1571-1630), Galileo Galilei(1564-1642), and Isaac Newton (1642-1727). The change from themedieval to a Newtonian cosmology was revolutionary. In the Newtonian scheme "gravity . . . abundantly serves to account for all themotions of the celestial bodies and of our sea." 51 The new cosmologymeant that the Aristotelian notion of a Prime Mover who causesmotion throughout the universe 52 was no longer necessary.

Scientific discoveries in the seventeenth century tended to emphasize the regularity, continuity, and orderliness within the cosmos. "Every body continues in its state of rest or of motion in aright line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces im

pressed upon it."53

But this led to the idea that the universe is amachine, a closed mechanical system. 54 Newton's view "gave rise toa severely mechanistic description of the universe in terms of rigid. . . concepts and laws." 55 Perhaps the apex of this rigidly determi-nist and mechanical explanation of the universe is seen in the work

4 8 Ibid., 56.4 9

Ibid, (italics his).5 0 Ibid 81 (italics his)


9/25


of Pierre Simon de LaPlace (1749-1827), who attempted to explainthe entire cosmos by the laws of physics and chemistry. 56

Obviously this new science with such a changed cosmologywould eventually impact the theological views of the time. 57 Formany thinkers Deism seemed to be the rational position to embrace. In this perspective God created the world, imposed fixedlaws of nature on it, and then backed off from it, never needing tointerfere supernaturally in the affairs of the cosmos.

Several points may be given in response to the Newtonian andDeistic worldview. First, it should be noted that Isaac Newton wasa theist who did believe in miracles. Newton felt the cogency andpower of the teleological argument for God's existence. 58 As to thecentral miracle of the Christian faith Newton expressed himselfwithout hesitation. "And by the same power by which he gave lifeat first to every species of animals he is able to revive the dead, andhas revived Jesus Christ our Redeemer." 59

Second, Deism and its denial of miracles is considerably weakened by the fact that the Newtonian science on which it rested wasdisplaced in the twentieth century by Albert Einstein's principles.The Newtonian "outlook on the universe/' Torrance argues, "hasbeen overthrown." 60 The old cosmology of Kepler, Galileo, andNewton no longer reigns. The "unitary outlook upon the universebrought about by relativity theory and quantum physics has displaced the older mechanistic view of the world as a closed materialist framework." 61 While LaPlace alleged that the universe (the

macrocosm) could be explained solely in terms of physics andchemistry, the fact is that one cannot even explain a man-mademachine (the microcosm) exclusively according to the laws ofphysics and chemistry. The problem with the LaPlacian approachis that "any machine with which we are familiar embodies operational principles that are simply not explainable in terms of thelaws of physics and chemistry that govern its component particu-

5f> Pierre Simon de LaPlace quoted in Torrance Christian Theology and Scientific


10/25


larsthat is why we need sciences of engineering over and abovethe sciences of physics and chemistry." 62

"The point we have now reached," Torrance writes, is "in theopen-structured universe of general relativity and non-equilibriumthermodynamics." 63 Recent scientific developments are a welcomechange for historic Christianity. The new outlook in science makesroom for faith in the classical biblical doctrine of miracles.

DAVID HUME (1711-1776)

According to Hume, perhaps the most renowned skeptic of theeighteenth century, miracles are "utterly absurd," 64 nothing but a"superstitious delusion." 65 Christian supernaturalism "cannot bebelieved by any reasonable person." 66 Miracles, he said, are quitesimply "not to be found, in all history." 67 Many philosophers remain impressed by Hume's approach. 68

Did Hume deny the possibility of miracles (the "hard" interpretation), or did he simply maintain that it is more rational to trustone's own personal experience rather than believe human testimony about a miracle (the "soft" interpretation)? Apparently hetook both a hard and a soft stand against miracles. 69 His denialthat miracles are possible comes near the end of part one of hiswork An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, while parttwo focuses on the argument that miracles are not credible. "Amiracle," he wrote, "is a violation of the laws of nature." 70 Thequestions then arise, Can miracles occur? Are miracles possible?

Hume answered that "there is . . . a direct and full proof . . . againstthe existence of any miracle." 71 What proof did he offer to establishhis claim that miracles cannot occur? Basically he argued that

6 2 Torrance, Christian Theology and Scientific Culture, 16.6 3 Ibid., 17.6 4 David Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (LaSalle, IL: OpenCourt, 1945), 123.6 5 Ibid., 115.


11/25


miracles cannot occur because miracles do not occur. The laws ofnature cannot be violated because violations of the laws of naturedo not occur. He refers to "a firm and unalterable experience" that"has established these laws." There is indeed "a uniform experienceagainst every miraculous event." The "direct and full proof againstmiracles is the simple fact that miracles do not occur. 72

Such reasoning, however, is a question-begging argument.Hume used the unproved conclusion (that miracles are not possible) and made it a datum of his argument (miracles do not happen).As Geisler points out, this is special pleading. 73

The bulk of Hume's discussion attempts to argue that miraclesare not credible. Testimonial evidence, he wrote, has a variety ofpossible effects. Depending on a number of factors, it may amountto a proof or just probability. 74 If the testimony concerns "the extraordinary and the marvelous," it is diminished significantly andbecomes doubtful. If the testimony, however, concerns the "miraculous," the testimony is destroyed and the report is to be regarded as incredible

Why did Hume limit himself to testimonial evidence in considering the question of whether miracles have ever occurred? Flewcontends that Hume concentrated on testimonial evidence "becausehis own conception of the historian" was of "a judge assessing, with

judicious impartiality, the testimony set before him." 77 That may ormay not be the case. Do not historians, however, have the responsibility to consider other kinds of evidence as well? Swinburnepoints out that human testimony is only one kind of evidencebearing on the historical past. "We have four kinds of evidenceabout what happened at some past instantour own apparentmemories of our past experiences, the testimony of others abouttheir past experiences, physical traces, and our contemporary understanding of what things are physically impossible or improbable." 78

Nash states, "Hume was wrong when he suggested that mira-

11 Ibid, (italics his).


12/25

88 BlBLlOTHECA SACRA / January-March 2003

cles are supported only by direct evidence cited in the testimony ofpeople who claim to have witnessed them. There can also be indi-rect evidence for miracles." 79 Augustine set forth evidence of anindirect nature in support of Christ's resurrection, namely, thewidespread acceptance of the message that Christ rose again. "It isincredible that men of no birth, no standing, no learning, and sofew of them, should have been able to persuade, so effectively, thewhole world, including the learned men." 80

Hume nevertheless restricted himself to testimonial evidence

alone, which, he said, means miracles are incredible. He relied on"the ultimate standard" of "experience and observation." 81 As Helmput it, "The pattern of Hume's argument is clear; experience haspriority." 82 But "Is Hume correct in giving these respectiveweightings to experience and testimony?" 83

Several problems can be noted in Hume's view on miracles.First, he limited himself to only one kind of evidence for miraclestestimonial evidence. And regarding testimonial evidence he

confined himself to only one way of assessing a truth claimhisown experience and observation. He gave no consideration at all tothe test of coherence. The fact of the matter is, as Helm demonstrates, miracles are coherent with two elements of Scripture(prophecyLuke 24:26; Acts 2:24; 1 Cor. 15:4; and the Bible'soverall message of God's initiative in grace). In addition miraclesare consistent with the nature of God, who continually does theunexpected. 84 Hodge rightly stated, "The miracles recorded in the

Scriptures are a competent part of the great system of truththerein revealed. The whole stands or falls together." 85

Second, Hume's preference for his own experience over the testimony of others does not reflect the way humans actually acquireknowledge. As Helm observes, "We obtain a huge amount of ourknowledge from the testimony of others, from parents, teachers,books, films and the like. One only needs to think of the vast

7 y Ronald Nash, Faith and Reason (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 233 (italics


13/25


amounts of history, archaeology, science, geography that we accepton trust from other sources." 86 Actually people have a natural ten

dency to believe. It is "by a law of nature" that "we are compelled toreceive" the testimony of good men "as to facts within their personal knowledge." 87

Third, Hume was willing to believe something only if it occurred with some frequency. He said that whatever is rare, such asa miracle, cannot be believed. However, on the basis of this standard the prevarications of a liar about ordinary phenomena are tobe received as credible, while the statements of the upright regarding extraordinary events are to viewed as incredible. Thornwell aptly remarks, "Hume forgets that the credibility of testimonyis in itself, not in the object for which it vouches." 88 Indeed, "theintrinsic probability of phenomena does not directly affect theircredibility." 89 The proper way to assess testimonial evidence is toascertain the sincerity of the witnesses and the causes of their convictions. 90 The testimony of a witness should be received and believed if the witness is sincere and if the facts to which he testifiesare indeed the only possible explanation for his testimony. 91 Interestingly Jesus assumed that this is how many would respond to thetestimony that the apostles would give about His resurrection.They would be satisfied on both of these points, and therefore theywould believe. Responding to Thomas, who would not believe testimonial evidence alone, Jesus declared, "Blessed are they who didnot see, and yet believed" (John 20:29).

When this method is applied to the apostles' words about Jesus' resurrection, their testimony is credible indeed. Who can doubtthe sincerity of men who were willing to die for their belief in therisen Christ? The fact of Jesus' resurrection is the only credibleexplanation for their testimony.

Hume, however, was unwilling to accept the fact of Jesus' resurrection as the cause for the effect, namely, the testimony of theapostles. As Thornwell affirms, in the case of "sensible miracles, in

which the witnesses give unimpeachable proofs of the sincerity oftheir own belief, it is incumbent upon the skeptic to show how this


14/25


belief was produced under the circumstances in which the witnesses were placed before he is at liberty to set aside the facts." 92

This very thing Hume failed to do.In part two of his Enquiry Hume gave four arguments against

miracles. First, he questioned the caliber of the witnesses to miracles and the place where the miracles reportedly happened. "Thereis not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good sense, education,and learning . . . of such undoubted integrity . . . of such credit andreputation in the eyes of mankind . . . and at the same time, attesting facts performed in such a public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable." 93

Second, Hume rejected miracles because of "the folly of men," 94

that is, the credulity of human beings. 95 Human nature, he alleged,is credulous, ready to believe foolish miracles.

Third, Hume said that testimony about miracles is usuallyfound among backward and ill-informed people. "It forms a strongpresumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations,that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations." 96 And when miracles supposedly occur, it is always "in remote countries." 97

Fourth, Hume argued that different, competing religions oftenappeal to miracles to support their truth claims. By doing so, rivalclaims cancel each other out.

In Hume's first point, in which he challenged the quality of thewitnesses to miracles and the locations where they reportedly occurred, Hume made a sweeping generalization. The witnesses ofJesus ' resurrection who are mentioned in 1 Corinthians15:5-8Cephas, the Twelve, the five hundred believers, James,and Paulare "a sufficient number of men, of such unquestionedgood sense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them


15/25


above all suspicion of any design to deceive others." 98 In additionthe New Testament witnesses did attest to "facts performed in sucha public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render detection unavoidable." 99 Paul said to King Herod Agrippa II inthe presence of the Roman procurator Festus, "For the king knowsabout these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, sinceI am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice, for thishas not been done in a corner" (Acts 26:26).

As to his second reason for rejecting miracles, Hume identifiedfaith (a belief which has reasonable grounds) with credulity (thetendency to believe apart from evidence). True, some people arecredulous. The New Testament evidence suggests, however, thatthe early believers were not gullible. The apostles did not immediately believe "those who had seen Him after He had risen" (Mark16:14). The testimony of the women that Christ had risen seemedlike nonsense (Luke 24:11). Thomas adamantly declared, "Unless Isee . . . I will not believe" (John 20:25). The early Christ ians be

lieved only on the basis of the evidence presented to them by JesusHimself. Appearing to the disciples, "He showed them His handsand His feet," and He ate broiled fish in their presence (Luke24:40-43). He "presented Himself alive" to the disciples after Hissuffering "by many convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3). As Augustinecommented, "If it is incredible [that Christ be risen], then surely itis even more incredible that so incredible a thing should be socredited!" 100

In his third reason for rejecting testimony concerning miracles,Hume, as Nash observes, resorted to a sweeping generalizationthat is not supported by evidence. 101 It is quite incredible that thepeople who conveyed to Western civilization the Hebrew-Christianmoral tradition, which became the "traditional morality" 102 and thebasis of Western law, should be characterized as ignorant and barbarous. The Jews, in fact, were enlightened, in contrast to manypeoples of the ancient Near East. Moses asked, "What great nationis there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this wholelaw which I am setting before you today?" (Deut. 4:8). Paul took a


16/25

92 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January-March 2003

similar position, inquiring, "Then what advantage has the Jew?" Tothis question he answered, "Great in every respect. First of all, that

they were entrusted with the oracles of God" (Rom. 3:1-2).What response can be given to Hume's charge that miraclesalways happen in "remote countries"? True, ancient Palestine wasremote both chronologically and geographically from eighteenth-century Scotland. But it certainly was not geographically remotefrom the other major cities of the Mediterranean world in the firstcentury, such as Rome or Corinth. In fact in Corinth the miraculous was not at all distant. As Paul wrote the congregation there,"The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with allperseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles" (2 Cor. 12:12).By their very nature miracles were associated with the great revelatory epochs of past redemptive historythe revelation given byMoses (Exod. 4:1-9), the prophets (1 Kings 17:17-24), and Christalong with the apostles (Acts 2:22; 14:3). 103 Their purpose, as Owenremarked, was "to confirm the ministry of them by whom theywere wrought." 104 Or to put focus more on the Scriptures themselves, they occurred, Turretin contended, "for the purpose of inducing a belief in the divinity of the Bible." 105 The intended resulthas indeed been effected. "By unheard-of and extraordinary miracles," Calvin affirmed, "the dignity of his word has been excellentlyenough disclosed." 106 Miracles indeed are remote from most people;but this must be the case! They do not happen indiscriminatelythroughout history; they "belong to revelation periods, and appear

only when God is speaking through accredited messengers."107

Lewis strikingly wrote, "How likely is it that you or I will be present when a peace-treaty is signed [or] when a dictator commits suicide? That we should see a miracle is even less likely." 108

In Hume's fourth reason for dismissing testimonial evidenceconcerning miracles he wrongly assumed that all supernatural

10,3

Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville:Nelson, 1998), 409.


17/25


phenomena are to be classified as miraculous. He ignored the dis-tinction in Christian theology between mir acula, which can be done

only by God, and mirabilia ("wonders"), which can be performed byspirit beings, either holy angels or fallen demonic spirits. As

Augustine recognized. "The pagan marvels were the work of de-mons." He further commented on the motive of such unclean spir-its, referring to "the arrogance of their foul pride which made themambitious to be the gods of the pagans." 109 This distinction betweenmiracles and wonders arises from the biblical text itself. Throughdemonic power the magicians of Egypt, like Moses in the first

plague, were able to change water into blood (Exod. 7:22). In thesecond plague, when Moses brought up frogs on the land of Egypt,"the magicians did the same with their secret ar ts" (8:7). After thatpoint, however, the magicians could not duplicate God's miracles.Beginning with the third plague the Egyptian wonder workersshowed their weakness: "The magicians tried with their secret artsto bring forth gnats, but they could not" (v. 18). As Thornwell ob-serves, "Cases like these have nothing of ambiguity in them. Theyreveal, at a glance, the very finger of God." 110 Focusing on Jesus'miracles, Turretin made a similar observation. "They were notcommon signs and wonderful such as could be wrought by humanor diabolical act; but grand, unusual and such as could be per-formed by divine power alone." 111

The Scriptures indicate, however, that because of human weakness, there may be times when it is difficult to distinguish between a genuine miracle and a mere wonder. Referring to Jesus' warning in Mark 13:22 23, Augustine stated, "For against those whom I may call marvel workers, my God has put me on my guard,saying, the last times there shall arise false prophets, doingsigns and wonders, to lead into error, if it were possible, even theelect: Lo, I have foretold it to you.' " 1 1 2 How can a person distin-guish between miracula and mirabilia! The Bible says this can bedone by noting the doctrines of the alleged miracle workers (Deut.13:1 3). If their doctrines correspond to the truths of canonicalScripture, their supernatural work may be regarded as a miracle.If t it i thi th d "N th t b


18/25

94 BlBLiOTHECA SACRA / January-March 2003

are wrought) is conformable with the word of God; otherwise theymay be rejected as spurious." 113

MIRACLES IN SCHLEIERMACHER'S ROMANTIC THEOLOGY

The shift from extreme rationality to intense emotion, and fromGod as distant to immanent, is seen in the theology of FriedrichSchleiermacher (1768-1834). Raised in the tradition of Pietism, aswas Kant, Schleiermacher wrote about "the divine life and activityof the universe." 114 Revelation, for Schleiermacher, has to do with

original ideas about God arising in the human soul.115

Such arevelatory disclosure of the Deity to the individual will be accompanied by emotions, particularly the feeling of absolute dependence. 116 The uniqueness of Jesus relates to both of these issues,revelation and divine consciousness. In addition Jesus was furtherdistinguished from others by having the essence of piety withinHimself, a God-consciousness. 117

Unlike the Enlightenment thinkers, Schleiermacher main

tained that Christ did do miracles. In this sense Jesus was like theOld Testament prophets who performed miracles for the purpose ofauthentication. 118 In the case of Jesus, however, His miracles werenot to be the basis of messianic belief (although they might elicit orconfirm faith). 119 Instead Jesus' miracles reflected His general intention of doing good. 120 His miracles, then, "can be called miraclesonly in a relative sense." 121 Schleiermacher distanced himself fromthe classic perspective that a miracle involves an immediate operation of God's power. Christ did miracles, he wrote, because of Hisintense God-consciousness. One could therefore expect that Jesuswould also have a deep consciousness of nature and its secrets. His

lid Turretin, Institutes ofElenctic Theology, vol. 3, Eighteenth Topic, Q. XIII.

Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers,trans, and ed. Richard Crouter (reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1996), 53.

115 Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith (reprint, Edinburgh: Clark,1989) 51


19/25


human spirit had the capability of working on external nature. 122

Christ's miracles, for Schleiermacher, can be viewed as miraclesonly because people do not fully understand the relationship between the human spirit and the physical, material realm of nature.The human spirit influences the natural realm, and the humanwill impacts the natural order. Jesus' influence on nature cantherefore be called miraculous. In this definition miracles are miraculous only in a relative sense. According to Schleiermacher inJesus' miracles He worked with nature, not apart from or againstnature. Christ "will be able," he said, "to manifest also a peculiarworking . . . upon external Nature." 123 He spoke about "the suscep-tibility of physical Nature to the influence of the spirit and of thecausality of the will acting upon physical Nature." 124

The influence of Lessing is perhaps reflected in Schleier-macher's position that miracles could have only an immediatevalue rather than a long-range (apologetic) value. While Christ'smiracles were needed at the time in which they occurred (for thosewho needed healing, for example), they are not necessary for peopletoday. 125 Schleiermacher also affirmed that more important thanJesus' miracles was His moral character. "What takes the place ofmiracles for our time," he says, "is our historical knowledge of thecharacter, as well as of the scope and duration, of Christ's spiritualachievements." 126

Schleiermacher treated the New Testament witness to Christ'smiracles with greater respect than did the Enlightenment repre

sentatives. However, he stressed that the miracles performed byChrist were designed only to teach that He had a profound consciousness of nature and its secrets. But the Gospel of John presents seven noteworthy miracles for the purpose of affirming theidentity of the One who did the signs. "These have been written sothat you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God"(John 20:31).

Though Schleiermacher toned down what happened in biblical

miracles by saying that Christ was working with nature, the miracle in Cana, for example, was a divine work apart from nature's


20/25

96 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January-March 2003

Lazarus from death, He was working against the corrupting forceof nature.

As to the value of Christ's miracles it is true that a miracle'simpressiveness is largely immediate, but its impact is not exclu-sively immediate. Christ's miracles did have an immediate impact,as seen, for example, in his raising Lazarus from the dead. "On account of him [Lazarus] many of the Jews . . . were believing in Jesus" (12:11). But the apostle also assumed that written reports ofJesus' miracles would have the same result (20:31). Thus His miracles still have an apologetic value.

Schleiermacher wrote, "In Christ's miracles we have nothingwhich definitely raises them, in and by themselves, above othersimilar miracles of which we have stories from many times andplaces." 127 However, the sheer quantity of Jesus' miracles doesraise them above those of all the other miracle workers of Scripture. John 21:25 makes this very point: "And there are also manyother things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, Isuppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that

would be written."

MIRACLES IN ATHEISTIC NATURALISM

LUDWIG FEUER BACH (1804-18 72)

Feuerbach was one of Georg Hegel's better known students. Afterstudying at Heidelberg University, Feuerbach came to deny Godand he embraced the naturalism of the ancient Greeks. His atheistic philosophy of religion is presented in The Essence of Christian-ity, in which he attempted to describe the real essence of what liesbehind the phenomena of the Christian religion. 128 His embrace ofphilosophical naturalism is seen in his admiration of nature. "Tohim that feels that Nature is lovely, it appears as an end in itself, ithas the ground of existence in itselfin him the question 'Whydoes it exist?' does not arise." 129 How then did Feuerbach explainthe universal existence of religionthe fact that nearly everyone isreligious? Reminiscent of Hume, 130 Feuerbach affirmed that God isonly the projection of human nature for the purpose of worship


21/25


"The divine being is nothing else than . . . human nature purified,freed from . . . limits . . . made objective . . . and revered." 131 Ac

cording to Feuerbach this is the essence of every religion, includingChristianity.Regarding miracles Feuerbach, unlike Kant, recognized that

miracles are not inconsequential for the Christian faith. "Faith isthe belief in miracle; faith and miracles are absolutely inseparable." 132 Feuerbach identified two essential elements in a miracle.First, contrary to Schleiermacher, he said a miracle is a phenomenon that is contrary to nature. "Dust is changed into lice, a staffinto a serpent, rivers into blood, a rock into a fountain. . . . And allthese contradictions of Nature happen for the welfare of Israel,purely at the command of Jehovah." 133 The second characteristic ofa miracle, Feuerbach said, is that "it effects an immediate identityof the wish and its fulfillment." 134 This indeed is "the mystery ofmiracle," that "miraculous power realizes human wishes in a moment." 135 For Feuerbach, miracles are irrational and thereforemust be rejected. 136 He explains miracles psychologically, as beingexplanable in terms of human "feeling and imagination." 137

It is true, as Feuerbach stated, that biblical miracles often methuman desires or needs. Examples include Jesus' cleansing of aleper (Matt. 8:2-3), His curing a woman with an issue of blood(Luke 8:44), and His healing a nobleman's son (John 4:47, 50).

In saying that miracles are rationally inconceivable, Feuerbach compared a miracle to "the attempt to construct a circle with

a straight line."138

Yet he did not discuss how miracles are irrational.Feuerbach maintained that the doctrine of Christ's resurrec

tion springs from a psychological need for an emotionally satisfyingbelief. The resurrection of Christ is "the satisfied desire of man foran immediate certainty of his personal existence after

d Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, 14.


22/25

98 BlBLiOTHECA SACRA / January-March 2003

However, many of the doctrines presented in the New Testamentare not at all psychologically satisfying, including, for example,human depravity, the final judgment, and eternal damnation.

ANTONY FLEW (1923- )

Like Hume, Antony Flew wants to assess truth claims regardingmiracles by relying on contemporary experience, observation, andconfirmability. An example of his approach is reflected in his assessment of the healing of Mademoiselle Thibaut and the disbeliefof De Sylva as to her miraculous cure. Flew describes the testimonyof the witnesses who supported the miracle versus the categoricalrejection of De Sylva in this way: "The two crucial and conflictingpropositions are of very different and quite disproportionate ordersof logical strength, of confirmation and confirmability. For the . . .proposition asserted by the putative witnesses . . . were of the form. . . on one particular occasion, this or that actually happened. . . .But the . . . propositions that rule out the alleged miraculous occur

rences . . . must be open and general. They . . . can . . . be testedand retested anywhere and at any time. 140

Flew differs from Hume in his application of historical criticism to the New Testament, in which he attempts to distinguishbetween "fiction . . . tales and legends" and "the facts as they reallyhappened." 141 The nineteenth century, as exhibited in the work ofindividuals like David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874), was markedby the endeavor to apply "the canons of scientific historical re

search to the New Testament in order to separate fact from fiction,legend, and myth." 142

Flew evidences a strong commitment to the historical-criticalapproach, regarding it as "a breakthrough to which historians ofideas do not always give due place among the other intellectualrevolutions of this period." 143 "It is always theoretically (i.e., logically) possible," he says, "that any historical proposition claimed asknown might in fact be false." 144 This applies to the Bible as well asother historical documents. Thus "the criteria by which we mustassess historical testimony," Flew maintains, "must inevitably rule


23/25


that some genuinely miraculous event has indeed occurred." 145

Perhaps the major assumption of historical criticism, which Flewembraces, is "that the present relics of the past cannot be interpreted as historical evidence at all, unless we presume that thesame fundamental regularities obtained then still obtain today." 146

Flew also alleges that it cannot be known when and if therereally is an overriding of the natural order. 147 And if there is suchan overriding, how can anyone know whether God is responsiblefor it? After all, "the defining characteristics of the theist's Godpreclude all possibility of inferring . . . what such a God might reasonably be expected to do." 148 For the theist, "the ways of his Godmust necessarily be beyond our unaided understanding and conjecture." 149

Flew maintains that the propositions of history (human testimony regarding events that have occurred before eyewitnesses)differ from the propositions of science (which may be confirmed astrue by additional observation and experimentation). True, the

propositions of history, since they concern past events, cannot beverified in a laboratory. But is it true that the propositions of historyparticularly those of eyewitnesseshave less strength thanthose of science? Is it true that the testimonial evidence given bytrustworthy witnesses is of a "disproportionate" order of strengthin comparison with the propositions of science? What about theweight given in the United States judicial system, even in capitalcrime cases, to testimonial evidence? The fact that matters of sig

nificance such as the life or death of a defendant can be based onhuman testimony shows the error of playing down testimonial evidence.

As to Flew's faith in the historical-critical method, it should bepointed out that the historical results hypothesized by historicalcriticism cannot be corroborated. The presentation of Jesus in theNew Testament as a miracle-working Messiah, however, is fully inaccord with the messianic expectations of the Old Testament. Thusthe New Testament presentation is corroborated by the Old Testament. Flew claims that no one can know when and if the natural


24/25


events. Thornwell answers this claim in this way.

When we turn to the miracles of the Bible, we feel intuitively thatthey are of a character in themselves and on a scale of magnitudewhich renders the supposition of secondary causes ridiculously absurd. The scenes at the Red Sea, the cleaving of the waters, the passing over of the Israelites on dry land between the fluid walls, the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night, the daily supply of mannafrom the skieseffects like these carry the evidence of their originalon their face. There is no room for doubt. And so, in the New Testament, the conversion of water into wine; the stilling of the tempest;the raising of the dead; the instant cure, without means or appliances,

of inveterate diseases; the feeding of thousands with a few loaves,which involves the highest possible exercise of power, that of creation;and above all, the resurrection of Jesus Himselfcases like thesehave nothing of ambiguity in them. They reveal, at a glance, the veryfinger of God. The supernatural and the contranaturai are so flagrantand glaring that he that runs may read. 150

CONCLUSION: THE INDISPENSABLE MIRACLE

The intellectual winds of the last three centuries have blown in adirection contrary to belief in miracles. Science, in terms of theNewtonian revolution of the sevent eenth century, ha s been a majorcontributing factor to skepticism about the supernatural. Historicalcriticism, a major intellectual revolution of the nineteenth century,is another reason for widespread unbelief concerning the miraculous. Philosophical naturalism rules out any possibility of super

natural intervention in the natural order. Theological positionssuch as Deism, agnosticism, and atheism stand opposed to interruptions in the laws of nature.

This article has illustrated the intellectual climate of the Westin which many have found it difficult to believe in miracles. However, the various positions examined all have some dficiences. Thebiblical doctrine of miracles ha s been shown to be ra ti on al andcredible. As Paul asked, "Why is it considered incredible among youpeople if God does raise the dead?" (Acts 26:8). Even beyond theissue of their intellectual respectability the reality of miracles is


25/25

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Larson, M., Three Centuries of Objections to Biblical Miracles

Documents

Transcript of Larson, M., Three Centuries of Objections to Biblical Miracles