Modern “Miracles” vs True Miracles Recorded in Scripture - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------------

This may be one of the worst explanations of the purpose of miracles we have ever read. We are not trying to be hyperbolic. The author completely fails to teach the Bible in any useful way. Almost every complaint we have issued in the past regarding supposed Bible teachers, discernment ministries, or the "Doctrinal Police" applies to this article:

• Little or no Scripture quoted
• Undocumented assertions
• Misinterpreted doctrine
• False teaching
• Presumption 
• Misrepresentation of the Bible
• Omission of key facts

The author clearly has an underlying agenda, and that is to refute those who believe in the continuing miraculous activity of the Holy Spirit in the Church. But he never does, nor does he deliver on his promised premise in the title.

----------------------

Why did Jesus and His apostles perform miracles? What is it about the “miracle” that makes it unique in God’s plan? What was God really doing with miracles some 2,000 years ago? These are very important questions the answers to which are extremely important as it relates to our overall understanding of Scripture. (The author will attempt to answer these questions, but will not use the Bible to do so.)

The modern American hermeneutic reads the reader into the text. The typical evangelical Christian sees himself in Scripture. He assumes that the activity of God recorded in divine Scripture is normative. That is to say, he fails to distinguish between God’s actions in the revelation of redemptive history and God’s actions outside that revelation. Unless Scripture and its contents are understood within the right framework, a variety of error is sure to follow. The purpose of this post is to make a case (A "case" requires evidence, analysis, and testimony. The author will not provide these, he will simply string together dozens of undocumented assertions. So his "case" will simply be his own undocumented opinion, not the biblical case.)

for the view that God’s activity in Scripture must not be confused with God’s activity outside Scripture. The logical implications for a right understanding and defense of Scripture are far-reaching when it comes to this particular subject. (How does one defend Scripture without quoting it?)

To begin with, a miracle is not just a unique event, although it is that. A miracle is a unique event not capable of being duplicated. It requires divine, or supernatural activity. (The author tells us what a miracle is not, but he will not actually explain what a miracle is. Nor will he tell us that where the Bible says a miracle is not capable of being duplicated, or why that is important.)

God, in His providence, (Providence?)

decreed that the Messiah would be identifiable as one who could work miracles of every conceivable type. The promise of a Messiah came early in the history of mankind. From the beginning of the fall, the promise of the “head-crushing seed of the woman” was given explicitly to the serpent. What was a curse for the serpent was the glorious promise of life and grace to our first parents! Who would this “seed” be? Who would be the “serpent-head-crusher” that would come to rescue mankind? As God continued to unfold or reveal His plan in history, He slowly began to reveal identifiers. The seed would come through Abraham, specifically, then through Isaac, through Jacob, through Judah, and finally through David. Additional identifiers for who this redeemer would be coming through the prophets. The Messiah would be born of a virgin, perform many supernatural acts, and sit upon the throne of David. (This is all perhaps true, but all of them are undocumented claims.)

The NT writers went to great lengths to connect the works of Jesus Christ with the promises of the coming Messiah. Their goal was not to give us something thrilling and exciting. It was not their intent to impress us with the dazzling display of God’s power so that we too should expect similar works of God in our lives if we could just conjure up enough faith. (What does this all mean? Why is he telling us this? Who is supposed to be thrilled and excited?)

The purpose was to demonstrate to their first-century audience that Jesus Christ is in fact, the “head-crushing-redeemer” promised in Gen. 3:15. It was to show that this is the one the prophets and Moses wrote about. (Again, perhaps all this is true, but again, undocumented.)

Now, it seems reasonable to hold that God would select proofs for the identification of the Messiah that no human could replicate so as to create confusion. (Reasonable, perhaps. But where does the Bible say this? And we note that they did not believe Jesus [Jn. 10:37-38, Mt. 12:24]. His disciples didn't even get it [Mk. 16:13, Lk. 24:41].)

And to that end, God providentially (This is the second time the author has used this word. What does he mean by it? Why is it important that God acted "providentially?" The word means, Happening as if through divine intervention. Wouldn't that mean every act of God is providential? This of course means the use of the word is unnecessary, obfuscating, and redundant.)

used the unique phenomenon of “miracle” to display the Messiah. God is not the author of confusion. He made a promise, gave clear criteria for that promise, and then delivered on that promise without ambiguity. Hence, we have the miracles of Jesus Christ.

(1) Only the Messiah will have these miracles surrounding his life.

(2) Jesus had those miracles surrounding his life.

(3) Therefore, Jesus must be the Messiah.

(4) Since Jesus is the Messiah, His message must be from God and must be believed. (This is a sound logical string, but again, undocumented. However, no Christian would dispute that Jesus performed miracles, or that He was the Messiah. We are hoping that the author will get to his point.)

Jesus selected a small group man, (True, but undocumented.)

taught them his doctrine, (True, but undocumented.)

gave them a special relationship with the Holy Spirit to enlighten them and preserve his teachings in them, (Wait, what?)

entrusted them with His message, (True, but undocumented.)

and commissioned them to be authoritative leaders of the church. (True, but undocumented.

Notice how the author creates a string of agreeable precepts, then inserts a questionable statement?)

Paul describes it this way; “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.” (Eph. 2:20) (Wow, our first [and only] Bible quote, and just a part of the verse. The author's claim is that the apostles were commissioned authoritative leaders of the church, but this verse does not say that. It only says the church was built in part on them.

So the author finally gets to the Bible, only to airball his shot.)

Jesus also empowered these men to work miracles as an identifier that they are His apostles, speaking with His authority. (1 Cor. 12:12) (Scripture referenced, but not quoted. We shall do so:

1Co. 12:12 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.

Oops. The author meant 2 Cor. 12:12:

The things that mark an apostle — signs, wonders and miracles — were done among you with great perseverance.

The author seems to think that this verse has something to do with the uniqueness of apostles. It does not. Let's look at the context of 2 Cor. 12:12. We have to go all the way back to chapter 10 to find where Paul starts discussing the issue:

2Co. 10:1 By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you — I, Paul, who am “timid” when face to face with you, but “bold” when away!

Paul was defending himself, a defense actually lasts all the way until the end of the letter, four chapters! We get hints of the complaints of the Corinthian church:

2Co. 10:10 For some say, “His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.”

2Co. 11:5-6 But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles”. 6 I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way. 

2Co. 12:11 I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the “super-apostles”, even though I am nothing.

They didn't like his speaking style. They thought the ministries of other apostles were better. They criticized him for not being like these other apostles. He was an inferior apostle. Finally, Paul has had enough. That's where the subject verse appears:

2Co. 12:12 The things that mark an apostle — signs, wonders and miracles — were done among you with great perseverance.

So Paul is essentially saying, "You think I'm not super enough? I did signs and wonders among you!" 

Paul is not proving his apostleship, he is telling the Corinthians he is just as good as the "super apostles." He's placing himself in the company of the foundational apostles (Ep. 2:20). He defends his status by telling them that if he claimed to be in the same company as the "super apostles" but could not do miracles, he would not be a "super apostle." 

This does not mean that someone doing miracles makes them an apostle [Stephen was not an apostle (Ac. 6:8)], but rather, Paul is specifically defending his position within the apostleship by appealing to the miracles. This verse is not about who can do signs and wonders, it is about Paul's status within the apostleship.

Let's consider some other details.

The word translated "mark" is the Greek word σημεῖον, which means a sign, miracle, indication, mark, token. So the apostles were "marked" [noted and famous for] by signs and wonders. The miraculous was something the apostles were particularly, but not exclusively, known for.

Lastly, notice also that this verse

1. does not describe spiritual gifts or the supernatural in the church. 
2. does not establish the idea that authentication of apostleship is the only purpose of miracles. 
3. does not imply that they would cease at some point.

So we see that this verse does not say what the author thinks it says.)

So now we have seen that God used miracles as a means to identify the Messiah and His apostles. Miracles then, should not be understood as a way to excite us, impress us, or to wow us with displays of His incredible power. (Who has this view?)

They are always pointing to something greater. Miracles are signs deliberately pointing to revelation. They are identifiers. They point to Christ. They point to the Word of Christ. The words of the Messiah are authoritative because they are the words of God, and they are identifiable because they are accompanied by the facts of the prophets, which included miracles. The words of the apostles are authoritative because they are the words of the Messiah. (All true, but undocumented.)

Moreover, we know that they are the Messiah’s special apostles because of the miracles and signs the risen Messiah enables them to perform. (Not true. We have never witnessed a single miracle done by Paul or Peter or any of the other apostles named in the Bible. Neither has the author.

Despite that, we know they are apostles because they are in the Bible and they are called apostles.)

And since they are His special apostles, (?? Are there other apostles, maybe not so "special?" If so, who are they? What difference might those kind of apostles have compared to the "special" apostles?)

His authoritative agents carrying His message, we know their message is the Messiah’s message and therefore, authoritative. From these facts, (Actually, "from this series of undocumented assertions...")

we know that the apostles were special messengers of Christ. (True, but undocumented. But what does it mean to be a "special" messenger? Were there other messengers who were not "special?")

Their relationship to Christ was unique. (True, but undocumented. But how was it unique?)

We also know that the apostles had a special and unique relationship with the Holy Spirit. (??? Is this true? Where does the Bible communicate this information?)

The Holy Spirit worked in them, enlightening them to understand the teachings of the Messiah, and He worked in them so that they would remember everything Jesus had said to them. (This is the "special and unique relationship?" We would think that there are instances, or even regular occurrences of these characteristics, in most every Christian.

Certainly the original Twelve were unique. We wonder if the author will be able to actually tell us why.)

Because this is true, the first-century Christians and every Christian thereafter have a Word from God for our lives that we can identify. (Oh, so this is about writing Scripture. While it is certainly true that certain apostles were writing things that would eventually become Scripture, Mark, Luke, and Jude were not apostles. It's not certain which James wrote the eponymous book. Scholars are unsure of who wrote Hebrews. 

So how again were the apostles "special and unique?")

It is not difficult to see the relationship of miracles to the revelation of Scripture. They serve as identifiers of that which eventually became written down: The Word of God. (Perhaps true, but another undocumented statement. How do they serve as identifiers? Where does the Bible say this?)

If we will only acknowledge that the works of God in Scripture were unique in that they served this purpose of identification, (What is this "purpose of identification?" Is this the only reason miracles are recorded in the Bible? Since we have witnessed none of these miracles, how do their presence in the biblical record validate what we are reading? The author is not making sense here.)

perhaps we can avoid the erroneous view that Scripture is nothing more than a history of God’s acts at that time, no different from God acts at subsequent times, and in particular, at this time. (Who takes this position? Why is it erroneous? We wish the author would actually explain something, with some sort of documentation.)

When someone claims to have heard from God, that God spoke to them and told them to do x, it is only fair that we ask for justification. Why should we accept the claim that “God has spoken to this person?” It is an extraordinary claim, and always has been, to say that God spoke. God has a long history of making it crystal clear when He speaks. (Again and again the author makes undocumented statements. Does God always speak in a crystal clear voice? No.

Let's start with king David. We find that David relied on an impression:

1Ch. 13:1-2 David conferred with each of his officers, the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds. 2 He then said to the whole assembly of Israel, “If it seems good to you and if it is the will of the LORD our God, let us send word far and wide to the rest of our brothers...

Here David, who quite often had the inside track regarding revelation from God, nevertheless communicated to the whole nation of Israel regarding an impression as to the will of the Lord.

Fast forward hundreds of years to Luke as he begins his gospel account:

Lk. 1:3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus...

Luke, who wrote this gospel and the book of Acts, felt it to be a good idea to commit to the written word what would become Scripture. The word "seemed" is dokeó to have an opinion, to seem; I think, seem, appear, it seems. Luke simply was of the opinion that writing to Theophilus was a good idea. It would be strange to someone like the author that a writer of Scripture did so because of an impression, but that's what Luke did.

In Acts chapter 15 there was a discussion about what instructions should be given to the gentiles, to be sent in a letter, concerning what is permitted and not permitted. They concluded

Ac. 15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements..." 

Was the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking audibly here, in a manner that He "seemed" (dokeó) to say this? Again this appears to be a matter of discerning a direction. And again, we are faced with a situation outside the parameters of the author's understanding.

And of course there was Samuel, who had to ask Eli what was going on (1Sa. 3:4). Clearly God does not always speak with booming clarity.)

 

If you do not believe me, ask Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, or any of the prophets and apostles. And that is the point of the miracles we see in Scripture. The last time I checked, we are not living in Scripture. As the one TV character put it: “This isn’t the Bible.” (No comes a final flourish of undocumented statements, some of which are true, some which might be true, and some that are false...)

• Unique proofs were to accompany the Messiah.
• The unique proofs were specific.
• Jesus performed these specific, unique proofs perfectly
• Jesus is the Messiah
• Jesus says that His apostles will do the works that He did (Incorrect. Jn. 14:12: I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.)
• The apostles performed the miracles that Jesus performed (As well as some non-apostles [Mk. 9:39, Ac. 6:8, Ac. 9:17, Ja. 5:15].)
• Therefore, these apostles of Christ were readily identifiable as Christ’s authoritative messengers (Really? What about Mt. 7:22?)
• Jesus said His apostles would be especially gifted with the Holy Spirit to understand, remember, and proclaim all His teachings (Where does Jesus say this? Please, Mr. author, can you cite a verse or two somewhere that tells us these things?)
• These apostles, identified by their unique abilities, issued a specific body of teachings (Is this how the canon was assembled, because the apostles did miraculous things? Or perhaps it might have been that the Church accepted various texts and letters as authoritative by affirmation?)
• Therefore, these teachings are the teachings of Jesus Christ as interpreted by the Holy Spirit in the writings of the Holy Apostles (As we mentioned, not all Scripture was written by apostles. So, Mr. Publisher, how were those Scriptures attested to?)
• If we look at Scripture from this perspective, we can certainly understand the role of miracles in God’s revelation: it was an identifier to the first-century eye-witnesses but it began with God’s promises in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago.