Articles and book excerpts used in and referred to on Issues, Etc.

Debunking the Case Against Miracles
by Ron Rhodes

Many modernists have claimed that miracles are impossible in view of the clear teachings of science. Claimed miracles are dismissed in a number of ways. Some say the observers of alleged miracles are just mistaken. Others argue that simply because we don't have a present explanation for some inexplicable event does not mean the supernatural was involved; as we grow in our understanding of the natural processes, we may come to a new natural understanding regarding what many previously thought were miraculous events. Almost all critics of miracles hold that the statistical consistency of natural law (or "laws of nature") is such that supernatural events are impossible.

Sometimes we come across references to the "miracles of modern technology." It is argued that if our ancestors witnessed some of the advances we have today -- the airplane, telephone, television, laser, and the like -- they would surely have considered such things as miraculous. The lesson we learn here is that the more scientific understanding we have, the less necessity there is to believe in the supernatural.

Yet Christians respond by saying that the events described in the Bible are truly miraculous. Indeed, no matter how much science one knows, the physical resurrection of a person who has been dead and decomposing for three days will never be naturally explainable. The supernatural is clearly involved in such an event.

In this article, my goal will be to briefly examine some of the major objections to miracles, and then respond to these objections from a Christian perspective. It will be seen that the Christian need not commit "intellectual suicide" in maintaining a commitment to belief in supernatural miracles.

THE DEIST DENIAL OF MIRACLES

Deism is a school of thought that grew to be popular in England in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It sets forth a belief in a God who created the world out of nothing but is now completely uninvolved with the world or its events. He governs the world through unchangeable, eternal natural laws, and is in no way immanent in creation. God created the world and the natural laws that would govern the world, and since that time has been utterly detached from the affairs of the world.

The universe is viewed as a well-ordered machine, and there is thus no need for any direct supernatural intervention in its affairs. Some deists suggested that God is like someone who winds up a clock and then lets it run on its own without interference. In their thinking, miracles would imply that God's original creation was somehow defective and needed some kind of intervention.

Voltaire, a French deist, believed that God oversees the natural laws by which the universe functions, but thought it was absurd to believe that God was providentially involved in individual people's lives. Thomas Paine, another deist, considered God a "Great Mechanic" of creation, and wrote of that "system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed."¹ Paine emphasized that "we have never seen in our time nature go out of her course."² Indeed, the universe operates according to inviolable natural laws.

A rather famous deist was Thomas Jefferson, the author of the American Declaration of Independence (A.D. 1776). Jefferson literally cut out all the miracles of Christ in the four Gospels, and following his death this truncated version was published as THE JEFFERSON BIBLE. This "Bible" ends without any reference to the resurrection of Jesus Christ: "Now, in the place where he was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulcher, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher, and departed."³

DAVID HUME AND THE DENIAL OF MIRACLES

C. S. Lewis once wrote, "If you begin by ruling out the supernatural, you will perceive no miracles."⁴ He was right. The philosophy of naturalism asserts that the universe operates according to uniform natural causes -- and that it is impossible for any force outside the universe to intervene in the cosmos. This is an antisupernatural assumption that prohibits any possibility of miracles. David Hume was a British empiricist (meaning he believed all knowledge comes from the five senses) and a skeptic of the Enlightenment period. In a chapter entitled "On Miracles" in his ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, he argued that, given the general experience of the uniformity of nature, miracles are highly improbable and that the evidence in their favor is far from convincing.⁵ He wrote: "A miracle is violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined."⁶

In his thinking, since all of one's knowledge is derived from experience, and since this experience conveys the absolute regularity of nature, any report of a miracle is much more likely to be a false report than a true interruption in the uniform course of nature. Hence, a report of a resurrection from the dead (for example) is in all probability a deceptive report.

Since Hume's time, the case against miracles has continued to grow. Many have argued that science utterly disproves the miracles of the Bible. Many others have held that the gospel writers were biased and therefore their testimony cannot be trusted. Still others have argued that the miracles recorded in the Bible are the fantasies of ignorant people in biblical times who did not understand the laws of nature. Christians believe that such objections are easily answered.

A DEFENSE OF MIRACLES

There are many points a Christian can offer in response to the case against miracles depicted above. The place to begin is to properly understand the laws of nature.

UNIFORMITY IN THE PRESENT COSMOS

Christians do not argue against the idea that there is a general uniformity in the present cosmos. As theologian John Witmer puts it, "The Christian position is not that the universe is capricious and erratic. Christians expect the sun to rise in the east tomorrow as it always has just as everyone else does. Christians recognize that this world is a cosmos, an orderly system, not a chaos. More than that, Christians agree that the regularity of the universe is observable by men and expressible in principles or laws. As a result Christians do not deny the existence of what are called the laws of nature. Nor do they think that the occurrence of miracles destroys these laws or makes them inoperative."⁷

What Christians take exception to is the notion that the universe is a self-contained closed system with absolute laws that are inviolable. Such a position would rule out any involvement of God in the world He created.

Christians believe that the reason there is regularity in the universe -- the reason their are "laws" that are observable in the world of nature -- is because God designed it that way.⁸ It is important to keep in mind, however, that the laws of nature are merely observations of uniformity or constancy in nature. They are not forces which initiate action. They simply describe the way nature behaves -- when its course is not affected by a superior power. But God is not prohibited from taking action in the world if He so desires.

Scripture tells us that God is the Sustainer and Governor of the universe (Acts 14:16-17; 17:24-28). Jesus is described in the Bible as "upholding all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3) and the one in whom "all things consist" (Colossians 1:17). That which from a human vantage point is called the "laws of nature" is in reality nothing more than God's normal cosmos-sustaining power at work! As reformed scholar Louis Berkhof put it, these laws of nature are "God's usual method of working in nature. It is His good pleasure to work in an orderly way and through secondary causes. But this does not mean that He cannot depart from the established order, and cannot produce an extraordinary effect, which does not result from natural causes, by a single volition, if He deems it desirable for the end in view. When God works miracles, He produces extraordinary effects in a supernatural way."⁹

MIRACLES DO NOT "VIOLATE" THE LAWS OF NATURE

If one defines a miracle as a violation of the "absolute" laws of nature, like Hume did, then the possibility of miracles occurring seems slim. However, as theologian Charles Ryrie notes, a miracle does not contradict nature because "nature is not a self-contained whole; it is only a partial system within total reality, and a miracle is consistent within that greater system which includes the supernatural."¹⁰

When a miracle occurs, the laws of nature are not violated but are rather superseded by a higher (supernatural) manifestation of the will of God. The forces of nature are not obliterated or suspended, but are only counteracted at a particular point by a force superior to the powers of nature.¹¹ As the famous physicist Sir George Stokes has said, "It may be that the event which we call a miracle was brought on not by a suspension of the laws in ordinary operation, but by the super addition of something not ordinarily in operation."¹² In other words, miracles do not go against the regular laws of cause and effect, they simply have a cause that transcends nature.¹³

Apologists Ken Boa and Larry Moody explain it this way: "Since miracles, if they occur, are empowered by something higher than nature, they must supersede the ordinary processes or laws of nature. If you took a flying leap off the edge of a sheer cliff, the phenomenon that we call the law of gravity would surely bring you to an untimely end. But if you leaped off the same cliff in a hang glider, the results would (hopefully!) be quite different. The principle of aerodynamics in this case overcomes the pull of gravity as long as the glider is in the air. In a similar way, the occurrence of a miracle means that a higher (supernatural) principle has overcome a lower (natural) principle for the duration of the miracle. To claim that miracles violate or contradict natural laws is just as improper as to say that the principle of aerodynamics violates the law of gravity."¹⁴

Boa and Moody further illustrate their point with the fictional story of a Martian who lands his spacecraft atop a building in Chicago. The Martian looks over the edge of the building and observes how people respond to traffic lights. Green lights cause people to go; yellow lights cause people to slow down; red lights cause people to stop. He observes this consistent pattern for a solid hour. All the sudden, the Martian witnesses a vehicle with flashing red lights and a siren, and against all that he has thus far observed, the vehicle goes straight through the red light. "'Aha!' he said, 'there must be a higher law! When you have a flashing light and a loud sound, you can go through the crossing regardless of what color the light may be.'"¹⁵

What this little story is intended to illustrate is that the natural laws of the universe can be (and are on occasion) overruled by a higher law. The universe is not a closed system that prevents God from breaking in with the miraculous. God does not violate the laws of nature but rather supersedes them with a higher law. God is over, above, and outside natural law, and is not bound by it.

What about scientists who claim that if such miracles were possible, it would disrupt any possibility of doing real science, since there would no longer be uniformity in the world? Well, as argued above, there IS uniformity in the world because God created the world that way. Miracles are unusual events that involve only a brief superseding of the natural laws. By definition, they are out of the norm. And unless there were a "norm" to begin with, then miracles wouldn't be possible. As apologists Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli put it, "Unless there are regularities, there can be no exceptions to them."¹⁶ Miracles are unusual, not commonplace events. A miracle is a unique event that stands out against the background of ordinary and regular occurrences. Hence, the possibility of miracles does not disrupt the possibility of doing real science.

THE PROBLEM WITH HUME

As noted previously, Hume argued that a "miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined."¹⁷

The big problem with Hume's conclusion is that there is no way that all possible "experience" can confirm his naturalistic viewpoint unless he has access to all possible experiences in the universe, including those of the past and of the future. And since finite Hume does not have access to this much broader (infinite) body of knowledge, his conclusion is ultimately baseless.¹⁸

Theologian Henry Clarence Thiessen forcefully makes this point with an illustration based on geology: "The... proposition that miracles are incredible because they contradict human experience, wrongly assumes that one must base all his beliefs on present human experience. Geologists tell of great glacial activities in the past and of the formation of seas and bays by these activities; we did not see this in our experience, but we do accept it.... Miracles do not contradict human experience unless they contradict ALL human experience, that in the past as well as that in the present. This fact leaves the door wide open for well-supported evidence as to what did happen."¹⁹

The reality is that we could trust very little history if we were to believe only those things which we have personally observed and experienced! Sadly, this is the methodology modernistic critics still hold onto when it comes to the issue of miracles.

Apologists Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks have noted that Hume essentially equates probability with evidence. Since people who die typically stay dead, a so-called miracle of resurrection is impossible. Geisler and Brooks counter, "That is like saying that you shouldn't believe it if you won the lottery because of all the thousands of people who lost. It equates evidence with probability and says that you should never believe that long shots win."²⁰ A miracle may be a "long shot," but long shots make good sense when God is involved in the picture. What is impossible with man is possible with God (Matthew 19:26).

SCIENCE DOES NOT DISPROVE MIRACLES OR THE BIBLE

Science depends upon observation and replication. Miracles, such as the Incarnation and the Resurrection, are by their very nature unprecedented events. No one can replicate these events in a laboratory. Hence, science simply cannot be the judge and jury as to whether or not these events occurred.

The scientific method is useful for studying nature but not super-nature. Just as football stars are speaking outside their field of expertise when they appear on television to tell you what razor you should buy, so scientists are speaking outside their field when they address theological issues like miracles or the Resurrection.

It is also important to note that science does not involve an infallible body of absolute facts. Indeed, science historian Thomas Kuhn, in his book THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS, convincingly proved that science is in a constant state of change. New discoveries have consistently caused old scientific paradigms to be discarded in favor of newer paradigms. Hence, science is not some infallible judge that can simply pronounce miracles "impossible."

Actually, there is very good reason to believe in the biblical miracles. One highly pertinent factor is the brief time that elapsed between Jesus' miraculous public ministry and the publication of the gospels. It was insufficient for the development of miracle legends. Many eyewitnesses to Jesus' miracles would have still been alive to refute any untrue miracle accounts (see 1 Corinthians 15:6).

One must also recognize the noble character of the men who witnessed these miracles (Peter, James, and John, for example). Such men were not prone to misrepresentation, and were willing to give up their lives rather than deny their beliefs.

There were also hostile witnesses to the miracles of Christ. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, for example, none of the chief priests or Pharisees disputed the miracle (John 11:45-48). (If they could have disputed it, they would have.) Rather, their goal was simply to stop Jesus (verses 47-48). Because there were so many hostile witnesses who observed and scrutinized Christ, successful "fabrication" of miracle stories in His ministry would have been impossible.

Regarding the issue of hostile witnesses, theologian James Oliver Buswell comments: "In the Biblical events strictly regarded as miracles, the adversaries of faith acknowledged the supernatural character of what took place. After the healing of the man 'lame from his mother's womb,' the rulers and elders and scribes, 'beholding the man that was healed standing with them... could say nothing against it.' But they said, '...that a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it' (Acts 3:1-4:22) In the case of the miracle at Lystra (Acts 14:8-23), the pagans said, 'The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.' With reference to the resurrection of Christ, Paul could ask a Roman court of law to take cognizance of an indisputable, publicly attested fact, for, said he, 'This thing was not done in a corner' (Acts 26:26)."²¹

Further, in Acts 2:22 recall that a bold Peter told the Jewish crowd: "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, AS YOU YOURSELVES KNOW." If Peter were making all this up, the huge crowd surely would have shouted Peter down. But they didn't, for they knew that what he said was true.

THE GOSPEL WRITERS WERE RELIABLE

As noted previously, some critics of miracles say the four gospel writers were biased in the sense that they had theological "motives." Their intent was to convince readers of Jesus' deity, we are told, and hence their historical testimony about miracles is untrustworthy. The fallacy here is to imagine that to give an account of something one believes in passionately necessarily forces one to distort history. This is simply not true. In modern times some of the most reliable reports of the Nazi Holocaust were written by Jews who were passionately committed to seeing such genocide never repeated.

The New Testament is not made up of fairytales but is rather based on eyewitness testimony. In 2 Peter 1:16 we read, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." First John 1:1 affirms, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched -- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life." The historical evidence solidly supports the reliability of the New Testament writers.

MIRACLES ARE NOT THE FANTASIES OF IGNORANT PEOPLE WHO DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE LAWS OF NATURE

Such a claim is preposterous. People in biblical times DID know enough of the laws of nature to recognize bona fide miracles. As C. S. Lewis put it, "When St. Joseph discovered that his bride was pregnant, he was 'minded to put her away.' He knew enough biology for that. Otherwise, of course, he would not have regarded pregnancy as a proof of infidelity. When he accepted the Christian explanation, he regarded it as a miracle precisely because he knew enough of the laws of nature to know that this was a suspension of them."²²

Moreover, when the disciples beheld Christ walking on the water, they were frightened -- something that wouldn't have been the case unless they had been aware of the laws of nature and known that this was an exception. If one has no conception of a regular order in nature, then of course one cannot notice departures from that order.²³ Nothing can be viewed as "abnormal" until one has first grasped the "norm."²⁴

In keeping with this, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart tell us: "The people living at the time of Jesus certainly knew that men born blind do not immediately receive their sight (John 9:32), that five loaves and a few fish would not feed 5,000 people (John 6:14), or that men do not walk on water (Matthew 14:2). Doubting Thomas said, 'Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe' (John 20:25, RSV). He refused to accept the testimony of the unbelievable event of the resurrection, but changed his mind when confronted face-to-face with the resurrected Christ. Thus we are not expected to believe the ridiculous, and neither were the people of biblical times."²⁵

IF GOD EXISTS, THEN MIRACLES ARE POSSIBLE

The bottom line, once you get rid of all the fancy philosophical arguments against miracles, comes down to this: If one admits the postulate of God, miracles are possible. Paul Little writes, "Once we assume the existence of God, there is no problem with miracles, because God is by definition all-powerful."²⁶ Reformed scholar Charles Hodge, in his SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, similarly writes: "If theism [belief in a personal Creator-God] be once admitted, then it must be admitted that the whole universe, with all that it contains and all the laws by which it is controlled, must be subject to the will of God."²⁷

Really, it all goes back to the very first verse in the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). If this verse is true (and I believe it is), the belief in miracles should be no problem -- for this verse immediately establishes that an infinite and all-powerful God brought the universe into being out of nothing and that He is thus sovereign over it.

If God has the capability of calling the universe into being out of nothing, then such things as turning water into wine, walking on water, and raising people from the dead are not only possible but expected. As Norman Geisler put it so well, "If there is a God who can ACT, then there can be ACTS OF GOD. The only way to show that miracles are impossible is to disprove the existence of God."²⁸ And that is something that cannot be done!

End Notes

[1] Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demerest, INTEGRATIVE THEOLOGY Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), p. 75.
[2] Lewis and Demerest, p. 75.
[3] Norman L. Geisler, THE BATTLE FOR THE RESURRECTION (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992), pp. 68-69.
[4] Jodie Berndt, CELEBRATION OF MIRACLES (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), p. 20.
[5] "Religious Doctrines and Dogmas: In the 18th and early 19th centuries," ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, electronic media.
[6] Cited in R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, IN DEFENSE OF MIRACLES: A COMPREHENSIVE CASE FOR GOD'S ACTION IN HISTORY (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), p. 33.
[7] John A. Witmer, "The Doctrine of Miracles," BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, Logos Bible Software, electronic media.
[8] One must recognize that the "laws" of science are generalizations based on repeated, testable experience. They are provisional to the extent that they are open to modification and correction in the light of further understanding.
[9] Louis Berkhof, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 177.
[10] Charles Ryrie, SURVEY OF BIBLE DOCTRINE, QuickVerse Library, electronic media.
[11] Berkhof, p. 177.
[12] Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, WHEN SKEPTICS ASK (Wheaton, IL: Victor Press, 1989), p. 76.
[13] Geisler and Brooks, p. 76.
[14] Ken Boa and Larry Moody, I'M GLAD YOU ASKED (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1994), pp. 50-51.
[15] Boa and Moody, p. 53.
[16] Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), p. 109.
[17] Cited in Geivett and Habermas, p. 33.
[18] Norman Geisler, cited in Geivett and Habermas, p. 78.
[19] Henry Clarence Thiessen, LECTURES IN SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 12.
[20] Geisler and Brooks, pp. 79-80.
[21] James Oliver Buswell, A SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), p. 176.
[22] C.S. Lewis, GOD IN THE DOCK (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), p. 26.
[23] Lewis, p. 26.
[24] Ron Rhodes, THE COMPLETE BOOK OF BIBLE ANSWERS (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1999), p. 304.
[25] Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, ANSWERS TO TOUGH QUESTIONS (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993), p. 84.
[26] Paul E. Little, KNOW WHY YOU BELIEVE (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975), p. 59.
[27] Charles Hodge, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, Logos Bible Software, electronic media, insert added.

[28] Norman L. Geisler, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF APOLOGETICS (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1999), p. 450.

The Dr. Ron Rhodes is the editor of REASONING FROM THE SCRIPTURES NEWSLETTER - a free newsletter featuring "Answers to Common Questions"

Permission is granted for reproduction by the publisher of Reasoning from the Scriptures Newsletter (November-December 2000 Edition Dr. Ron Rhodes, Editor).

Internet friends:
This issue of the newsletter focuses attention on debunking the case against miracles. This article is excerpted from my new book, MIRACLES AROUND US: HOW TO RECOGNIZE GOD AT WORK TODAY -- a book I've written largely to address some of the imbalances of our day on this subject. (For those interested, ordering information for the book is found below.)