By John Schaeffel for CSAP 691, Biola University, July 5, 2013

The Influence of Assumptions

 Everyone approaches life from a set of fundamental assumptions about the world that they inhabit. An individual’s assumptions are like lenses through which they view “reality” strongly influencing their reaction to everything that comes their way. Over time and through experience, one’s notions about reality become settled convictions and create a paradigm or worldview from which that individual perceives and processes events and ideas.  If you were to ask a skeptic and a Christian “Are miracles possible?” You could expect to see their core assumptions about reality rapidly propelling them in different directions. Many skeptics operate from the belief that the universe can be explained in exclusively naturalistic terms and refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary. After all, if (Time)+(Matter)+(Chance) resulted in the world as we know it, then why would someone expect there to be another unseen realm inhabited by spirit-beings like angels and demons and God? The Christian, on the other hand, begins from the assumption that everything which exists came into being through the activity of a personal God who remains active in people’s lives today. Two sets of assumptions leading their adherents in radically different directions.

Consider how a skeptic and a Christian might read the following unpunctuated series of letters: GODISNOWHERE. A skeptic’s default assumption would probably compel him to him to divide the letters into the statement: GOD IS NOWHERE. The Christian, however, approaching life from a God-expectant set of assumptions would most likely punctuate the letters to form the phrase GOD IS NOW HERE.

The assumptions we hold profoundly influence the worldview we adopt and determine our degree of receptiveness regarding the prospect of miracles.

Defining Our Term: What Do We Mean By “Miracle”?

A miracle, according to Norman Geisler, is “divine intervention into, or interruption of, the regular course of the world that produces a purposeful but unusual event that would not have occurred otherwise.”[1]  Because the world we live in operates on the basis of predictable physical laws, we are able to make reasonably accurate predictions about what will happen in many situations we might encounter. Miracles, however, are not necessarily a violation of natural laws. In the words of Sir George Stokes, “it may be that the event which we call a miracle was brought on not by suspension of natural laws in ordinary operation, but by the super addition of something not ordinarily in operation.” [2] Suppose, however, that someone experienced the interruption of one of those physical laws and it had a beneficial or life saving effect upon them. Using Geisler’s definition, we might conclude that they had experienced a miracle. After all, if there is a powerful God who is active in people’s lives and something harmful was about to occur in the life of one of the people who please Him, He might choose to intervene on their behalf and interrupt the normal physical laws.  There is, however, also the possibility that there might be other spirit beings at work in the world such as demons who would use their power to intervene in the physical realm and create confusion or deception in people’s lives. Edwin Yamauchi seems to have had this in mind when he cited another work by Geisler that contrasts magic with miracles and adds an important qualifier related to interpreting whether an unusual occurrence is a miracle of God. “Unlike miracles, magic as such is amoral. It does not bring glory to God (it really brings honor to the magician), and there are usually no divine truth claims connected with it.” [3]  By adding this observation to our working definition of a miracle, we come up with the following concept: A miracle is God’s intervention in, interruption of or super addition to regular physical occurrence to produce a purposeful outcome that will glorify Him in regard to His truth claims. Or as Geisler also says, “God doesn’t intervene just to play around and confuse us: He has a purpose and communicates something with each miracle”.[4]

The Naturalistic Bias Against Miracles

 

Unfortunately, the West, for the last 200 years has been unduly influenced by naturalistic thought which rabidly opposes any idea that might open the door to the supernatural. Following the line of reasoning articulated by Benedict de Spinoza who boldly asserted that natural laws are “fixed and immutable,” negative assumptions toward the miraculous are now well entrenched.[5] The earnest libertines of the Enlightenment era eagerly embraced the Diety-distancing efforts of  men like Spinoza. Laboring in the limited light of Newtonian physics, these naturalists enthusiastically ran with their horizontally-focused assumptions and moved Western thought and culture as far away as they possibly could from the prospect of God’s involvement.  Since that time, however, other brilliant minds have made extraordinary technological and scientific discoveries that provide astounding evidence for the involvement of an Intelligent Designer of the universe and the systems necessary for its existence. On a macro level, evidence for a “Big Bang” creation event was made possible by the technology of Keck and Hubble’s space telescopes. These powerful instruments allow scientist to show in pictures that the universe is expanding which is evidence that it had a beginning.[6] The growing body of knowledge from astrophysics makes it very challenging for the naturalists to rest on their long held assumption that the universe has always existed. On a micro level, the elaborate and intricately complex system operating inside the miniscule world of cells also bear witness to design. Early naturalists could never, in their wildest imaginations, have thought that something equivalent to a complex biochemical factory exists inside of a tiny cell! [7] Unfortunately, most of the students in the public school system in America will only hear of Darwinian evolutionary theories of origin. America’s school system is in the grip of naturalism and its gatekeepers refuse to allow teachers to expose their students to ideas like the evidence for Intelligent Design.  Dr. Allan Bloom says, “Scientists are to a man against creationism, recognizing rightly that, if there is anything to it, their science is wrong and useless… Scientists do not prove there are not miracles, they assume it; without this assumption there is no science.”[8]

Unfortunately, the influence of Enlightenment skepticism isn’t confined exclusively to the domain of science; history has also been tainted by its assumptions. Geisler observes that Anthony Flew asserts that “the historian must reject all miracles” in a contemporary recycling of David Hume’s tired circular argument against even the possibility of the supernatural.[9] John Warwick Montgomery, however challenges this sort of Enlightenment skepticism by saying that “The only way we can know whether an event can occur is to see whether in fact it has occurred. The problem of ‘miracles,’ then, must be solved in the realm of historical investigation, not in the realm of philosophical speculation. And note that a historian, in facing an alleged ‘miracle,’ is really facing nothing new. All historical events are unique, and the test of their factual character can be only the accepted documentary approach that we have followed here. No historian has the right to a closed system of natural causation.[10]  And, as ironic as it sounds, even some theologians, scholars who purportedly study the activity of God, have fallen under the spell of Enlightenment dogma and reject the possibility of miracles. Rudolf Bultman said, “Man’s knowledge and mastery of the world have advanced to such extent through science and technology that it is no longer possible for anyone seriously to hold the New Testament view of the world…the only honest way of reciting the creeds is to strip the mythological framework away from the truth they enshrine.”[11] Fortunately, since Bultman’s death in 1976, many scholars have moved away from the hard-line skepticism he expressed. Craig Keener says that “Most scholars today….accept the claim that Jesus was a healer and exorcist”.[12] In his footnote on this subject, Keener quotes Bart Ehrman who says that “scholars can accept Jesus as an exorcist and healer without passing judgment on whether he acted supernaturally”.[13] (If not supernatural, what source would Ehrman offer for an explanation of the power Jesus had as an “exorcist and healer”?) While the naturalistic assumptions of Enlightenment thinkers make it difficult for them to allow the possibility of miracles, when we consider Jesus’ Messianic Identity and Goals I think we’ll see that miracles are actually consistent with what He was supposed to do.

Miracles Are Consistent with Jesus’ Messianic Identity and Goals

 

Earlier in this work, under the heading of “Defining our Term” I noted that Geisler had observed that miracles “produce a purposeful outcome that will glorify Him (God) in regard to His truth claims”.  As we consider Jesus’ Messianic identity it is important to acknowledge that Jesus related to Israel as a Jew and made his claim as the Messianic deliverer from within the cultural context of the Jewish faith and from their prophetic Scriptures.[14] Jesus’ calling to this role was recognized by the prophet John the Baptist who worked to prepare Israel for the Messiah’s coming by calling responsive individuals to “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”[15]  John announced, “I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know, even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.”[16] Please don’t miss my point; I realize that quoting the Bible won’t convince a skeptic to believe the Bible. My purpose in referencing the Christian scriptures is to show that since Jews and Christians both believe God has revealed Himself through the Jewish people and then recorded those revelations in the Bible, if God did send a deliverer to fulfill the promises God made to His people, which is the role the early Christians recognized Jesus to be filling, then it is consistent for God’s deliver to speak truthfully and to demonstrate the authenticity of His calling by performing miracles. Or to restate Geisler, “God doesn’t intervene just to play around and confuse us: He has a purpose and communicates something with each miracle.”[17] Jesus used miracles to demonstrate that He was God’s chosen messenger.

While those who hold to naturalistic assumptions rule out the Bible, a priori, or without considering it, there is strong internal evidence that the Bible is a reliable document. One strong indicator of its reliability is the fallibility it reveals in the lives of its key characters. John the Baptist, the spiritual forerunner of the Messiah, is progressively diminished in his public influence as Jesus’ prominence grows. John, however, expresses a mature outlook in this regard and says, “He must increase and I must decrease.” [18] As the crowds swell around Jesus, John fades into the background but not before his prophetic witness lands him in serious trouble for confronting Herod Antipas’ adulterous relationship to his brother Phillip’s wife. [19] As the Baptist languishes in prison, he follows the ministry of Jesus from the isolation of his confinement. In this context, the very human and fallible dimension of this stalwart man’s personality emerges as John begins to doubt whether Jesus really is the Messiah. Doubtful John then sends some people to ask Jesus “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?”[20] The Bible, unlike many ancient books reveals the failures of its great men and by so doing demonstrates its reliability. Here is the renowned prophet John, a true hero of the faith doubting his earlier endorsement of Jesus. Jesus is not discouraged, however, by John’s weakness but tells the messengers to go and report to John the miracles that Jesus was performing as a sign that he had identified the true Messiah. “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.” [21]  Miracles are consistent with Jesus’ Messianic Role and goals because they demonstrate God’s strong support for His message. After Jesus’ death and resurrection the apostle Peter preached a sermon where he too mentions how miracles were one of the aspects of Jesus’ ministry that God used to validate his message: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know…” [22]

Miracles Aside, God Expects People to Respond to The Light Available to Them

Clearly, miracles had a place in Jesus’ ministry and helped some people identify that He was God’s Messiah. Why then do we find that Jesus refused to do miracles for some people? “Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. “[23]

Prior to this request for a sign, the Gospel authors point out that the Pharisees had concluded that there was no way that Jesus could be a messenger from God since he didn’t observe the Sabbath according to all the minutiae and man-made regulations they had developed.[24]

The claims that Jesus made, however, and the evidence He provided should have been considered by these religious leaders.[25] Unfortunately, they were so incensed by His alleged lawless behavior and their personal myopia that they arranged to have a physically impaired man in a prominent place in the synagogue on the Sabbath hoping that Jesus would perform a miracle and heal him giving them another reason to reject Him.[26]

The degree of spiritual blindness evidenced by the Pharisees here is palpable. One would think that Jesus’ ability to perform a miracle would factor into the Pharisees’ consideration of His identity and guide them in their quest to decide how to interpret His claims in relationship to their Sabbath laws. But the Pharisees are so locked into their man-made religion that even after Jesus miraculously heals the man with the withered hand, they fail to recognize the possibility that He might be God’s messenger. From this point forward, the polarization grows more intense and being further estranged by Jesus’ demonstration of spiritual power, the Pharisees “conspire against Him, how to destroy Him.”[27]

With that as background, it is clear that when these religious leaders requested an additional “sign” from Jesus to prove He was the Messiah they already had sufficient information or spiritual light by which to make a decision about who Jesus was. [28] In response, Jesus indicted these spiritual leaders by contrasting their refusal to believe in Him with the responsiveness of the Gentiles in Ninevah to the prophetic ministry of Jonah. In the economy of God, the greater one’s exposure to the “light” or knowledge of God, the more He expects from that person. God was holding these highly trained Jewish leaders to a much higher standard of accountability than the Ninevites by virtue of their familiarity with His law and because “something greater than Jonah” was there.[29] The application of the “light principle” explains the change we find in Jesus’ teaching style in the subsequent chapters of Matthew. Jesus, in mercy to the unresponsive in the crowd, limits the knowledge for which they will ultimately be responsible by changing His teaching style from a propositional method to parabolic form.[30] When this occurred, His disciples asked Him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And He answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be take away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear nor understand.”[31] The take-away concept we find in Jesus’ refusal to perform additional signs for the Pharisees is that God expects people to respond to the knowledge He has made available to them. When people respond affirmatively, God gives more light, if people reject the truth they have, God will not give them more since that would only bring greater condemnation to them. Another way of saying this is, Jesus doesn’t do “magic” tricks because truth and miracles are not intended to amuse or entertain but to assist people in recognizing that God is at work and to lead them to repent and believe the Gospel.[32]

God has provided, through the created world, ample knowledge of His existence and from His perspective, “men are without excuse”. [33] While God is not willing that any should perish and desires for all men to come to the knowledge of the truth, most people love darkness rather than light and choose to hide behind flawed philosophy or bad theology rather than come to Him in repentance.[34]  The hopeful outlook in all this is that when anyone is willing to seek God and respond to the truth, He gladly reveals Himself to them.[35] In light of God’s faithfulness, we shouldn’t feel bad about the hostile skeptics whose assumptions prevent them from finding God. Respectfully engage them with your best arguments; pray that God would open their eyes and grant them repentance and press on to do your part in fulfilling the Great Commission of Jesus Christ by bringing the good news of His victory over sin, hell and the grave to the receptive.[36] Jesus didn’t do miracles and perform signs to amuse the skeptics, instead He “set His face to go to Jerusalem” where He died for our sins and then arose triumphant leaving us with the greatest miracle of all, His resurrection from the dead.[37] Jesus gave us the promised “sign of the prophet Jonah” and that is a whale of a miracle for the skeptics to deal with![38]

[1] Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990),76

[2] Ibid

[3] Edwin Yamauchi, Magic or Miracle? Diseases, Demons and Exorcisms in Gospel Perspectives, The Miracles of Jesus, Volume 6, David Wenham and Craig Blomberg, (Trowbridge, Wiltshire, Great Britian:JSOT Press)89

 

[4] Geisler and Brooks,82

[5] Ibid 76

[6] Hugh Ross, “Reasons to Believe:Facts for Faith, Issue 3, http://www.reasons.org/facts-faith/issue03 (accessed May 18, 2013).

[7] William Dembski, Mere Creation: Science Faith & Intelligent Design (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 180

[8] Geisler and Brooks, 80

[9] Ibid,83

[10] John Warwick Montgomery, Miracles, Prepared Defense Version 2.0, 2011, Clay Jones, D.MIN.

[11] Geisler and Brooks, 84

[12] Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, Volume 1, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), 23

 

[13] Ibid

[14] Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 7:14; 11:1-4; 35:3-6; 52:13-53:12 ; 61:1-2; Zechariah 9:9; 12:10; Malachi 3:1

[15] Matthew 3:2, ESV

[16] John 1:26,27

[17] Geisler and Brooks,82

[18] John 3:30

[19] Matthew 14:1-5

[20] Matthew 11:2,3

[21] Matthew 11:4,5

[22][22] Acts 2:22

[23] Matthew 12:38,39

[24] Matthew 12:1,2

[25] Matthew 12:3-8 *Jesus claims He is greater than the temple (v.6) and that He has authority to interpret the law in regard to Sabbath observance.

[26] Matthew 12:9-14

[27] Matthew 12:14

[28] Matthew 12:38-42

[29] Matthew 12:41

[30] Matthew 13:1-9

[31]  Matthew 13:10-13

[32] Luke 23:8-12 demonstrate Jesus’ refusal to entertain a sin-hardened skeptic. Herod was excited to finally see Jesus and hoped to see him perform a sign but Jesus doesn’t even answer this man who rejected the moral intrusion of John the Baptist by having him beheaded.

[33] Romans 1:18-20

[34] 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4; John 3:18-20

[35] Deuteronomy 4:29; Jeremiah 29:13; Acts 17:26, 27 reveals that God even arranges the boundaries of peoples dwelling place, that they should seek <Him>, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us

[36] Acts 26:18; 2 Timothy 2:25, 26; Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:44-48; John 20:21; Acts 1:8

[37] Luke 9:51

[38] Jonah 1:17; Matthew 12:39, 40 *I recognize that the most accurate translations say “great fish” but I couldn’t resist using the cultural expression in this regard.