Phil Johnson on Miracles

I've been pretty delinquent on my blog of late, but I'm reviving it to link to an outstanding post by Phil Johnson distinguishing miracle from providence. Probably more incisive even than this distinction, though, is his careful distinction of miracle from superstition:

Superstition is irrational awe or fear of the unknown, resulting credulity regarding the supernatural. In this case, people's superstition was purposely manipulated and intensified by the preacher's deliberate blurring of any distinction between God's supernatural intervention by miracles and His providential control over everything that happens.

A miracle is a particular kind of sign—an unmistakable display of supernatural power calculated to confront unbelief and provoke awe—with the purpose of authenticating an agent of divine revelation. True miracles are not merely arbitrary displays of God's power; they are manifestly supernatural and are themselves a form of revelation.

My mentor in systematic theology, Rolland McCune, used to lament in class that the mission field has ruined many a good cessationist. This used to bother me. Couldn't it be that God acts miraculously in regions of the world where people are more apt to welcome miracles as miracles? Maybe. But I've grown very dubious. Instead, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the difference is not in what God is doing, but in the worldview that interprets what God is doing.

Americans, and especially late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century Americans, were so steeped in rationalism that the category of miracle all but disappeared—even from the Bible. Science filled all the "gaps." This sentiment has eased a bit, perhaps, in the last few decades, but certainly has not disappeared.

In third-world contexts where rationalism never "took," however, science does not fill the gaps. God does. Or perhaps I should say the gods do. It is easy for missionaries (and others), upon leaving their rationalist world behind, to discover a certain superiority in this more primitive outlook. After all, it is extremely refreshing to teach about creation, the flood, the virgin birth, and the resurrection (etc.) and find no resistance at all to the miraculous element in these biblical events. But lurking in this ready acceptance is not always simple biblicism. Sometimes this ready acceptance reflects an older, but equally serious problem—superstitionism. The superstitious worldview does not reject miracles; instead, it multiplies them, seeing miracles where there are none. And it is here that Phil makes perhaps his best point:

It's not necessary to invent a "miraculous" explanation for every extraordinary turn of events in order to give God due credit for accomplishing His will in human affairs. In fact, it downgrades the biblical concept of miracles to imagine that everything unusual qualifies as a "miracle."

Tightening the standards for miracle to include only those undeniable, unmistakable events that are "manifestly supernatural" is not a signal of weak faith. As Phil notes, The faith that sees the hand of God in the natural outworking of divine providence (and understands that God is sovereign over every detail of everything that happens) is not a lesser faith than the kind of belief that can only see God at work when He intervenes in spectacular, supernatural, and miraculous ways. Nor is this tightened definition of miracle fundamentally a capitulation to deism. Instead, it is an attempt to faithfully reflect a robust biblical supernaturalism that remains sensitive to protecting the category of miracle from theological dilution.

Thanks, Phil, for an outstanding post.

MAS