Miracle or Providence? - by Jesse Johnson *Updated*

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

*Update*

We left a comment on the article asking questions, to which the author replied.

Question: How does a Bible teacher not quote the Bible? Where in the Bible does it tell us about these things? How does the distinction between providence and miracles matter or make a difference in the life of a Christian?

Answer: Good questions. Above I use three Bible stories--the water to blood, the light sound that confused, and the angel who killed. At what point is one a miracle and the other "providence." Some argue for a difference b/c they want to argue that the gift of miracles is for today, so they have to show how it is distinct from providence. but I don't buy that distinction. Hope that helps.

In essence, the reason the author advocates for "providence" is to remove the possibility of contemporary miracles. Thus it's not so much a matter of obtaining the biblical teaching, but rather to deprive his theological adversaries of an issue.

This is certainly a sad development. Ordinarily a Bible teacher's task is to make plain the Bible, but apparently now their is an aspect of advocating for a particular doctrine because it can be used as ammunition against someone with a different doctrine.

*end update*

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

The main topic of his article is "providence," which he will define in a way that will leave the reader wondering what he is talking about. He will then quote the Westminster Confession, which will still not plainly define what is meant by "providence."

So we will step up to do what the author seems unable to do: Define the word. Providence is

God omnisciently directing the universe and the affairs of humankind with wise benevolence.

This is also known as as "ordinary providence," where God uses the mechanisms and circumstances of the natural world He created in order to effect His will. This is in contradistinction to miracles (or "extraordinary providence"),  which is God working

directly, and without the secondary causes. 

So quite simply, providence is when God uses the created order ("secondary causes") to get His things done, while miracles are His direct interventions which do not use "secondary causes."

It only took us a handful of words to describe these concepts. Hopefully this will help the reader.

Our initial reaction to this article agrees with the author's question: Why would such a distinction matter? He will expend almost 1200 words engaging in arcane explanations, but he will not quote any Scripture However, he will discuss a theologian and a statement of faith.

After reading this article, our question is to ask why. Why all the parsing and minute detail? What is the author's intention? What is he trying to prove?

Our answer is that the author doesn't believe in miracles. His doctrine as a cessationist is that miracles have ceased. God no longer directly intervenes in human affairs, but in our present day only uses circumstance and elements of His creation to work out his purposes.

He believes this even though the NT uses the word Greek word for "miracles" 1411 times. NT characters like Paul or Peter would have completely understood the supernatural power that is miracles, but they would not recognize the author's definitions and his advocacy for providence. 

Providence, then, is the workaround to the miraculous. So when the author reads,

1Co. 12:28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

he can safely dismiss its relevance for today because of providence. Thus there are no healings, prophecies, tongues, or signs and wonders. The distinction between miracles and providence in his view is an artificial one because providence covers it all.

So, the statement he wants to refute, 

...more “miracles” happen in the Muslim world among Christians than in the Western world, because in the Muslim world, believers there “expect” more miracles.

violates his cessationist doctrine, and that is what offends him.

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

I recently heard someone make the argument that more “miracles” happen in the Muslim world among Christians than in the Western world, because in the Muslim world, believers there “expect” more miracles. There is a strong implication that God would do more miracles among Americans, if only Americans expected more from God. 

There are three reasons this logic fails: it makes an artificial distinction between providence and miracles, it is logically contradictory, and it fails to account for different cultural responses to the gospel. I’ll blog about these over three days staring here: to say that God does more miracles in places they are expected makes an artificial distinction between providence and miracles.

To demonstrate this I’ll use a specific example from the podcast Maverick—it tells the story of a convert to Christianity who is going to be executed with a handgun at pointblank range. But when the murderer pulls the trigger, the gun fires, no bullet apparently comes out, and the Christian lives. He later says he felt air touch his head, almost like an angel’s hand blocked the bullet.

The narrator then lays out three ways to view stories like this:

1). To assume the story is not true

2). To assume the story is true, but there is a “natural” explanation

3). To assume the story is true, and an example of a modern day miracle

The problem with #1 is that the person who comes to faith is now entering into a life of persecution. He has nothing to gain by lying, and everything to lose. So other than the attention gained by being on the right end of a story like that, there doesn’t seem to be much incentive for lying. Thus, #1 seems unreasonable.

The problem with #2 according to the podcast, is that ostensibly there is no “natural” explanation that makes sense. How would the gun have misfired? Were there even any blank bullets around? If the bullet itself was corrupted, the shooter would have likely known and recognized it. Thus, there does not seem to be a natural explanation, and #2 can be ruled out.

By process of elimination the conclusion then is #3, it must have been a miracle. But I want to point out that there is a gaping problem with such a list. Namely, by pitting “natural” causes against “miracle” it diminishes providence.

Providence is the term often used by Christians to describe the intentional and meticulous way God directs all the affairs of this world for his general glory, his own specific purposes, and his own personal ends. In other words, the details of this world are under God’s overarching yet personal sovereignty. You ran into a friend from high school on a flight? Providence. You got the last parking spot at the restaurant? Providence. Also, you missed your flight by 90 seconds, and thus you missed a funeral you were attending? That too is providence.  

The Westminster Confession uses the term providence to describe how God “doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least.” (WCF 5.1). He does this “according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.” 

The final two options above—natural causes or miracles—create a false dichotomy between miracles and providence. Such a division is often used by those who reject the concepts of divine sovereignty and meticulous providence. Wayne Grudem has an excellent section in his Systematic Theology (Chapter 17a) where he wrestles through how miracles relate to providence—and while I may disagree with some of his conclusions as they relate to what he calls the “gift of miracles,” I completely agree with him that miracles are essentially a subset of providence and are impossible to distinguish. How would one even set about determining if an invisible angel blocked the bullet or if a nervous uncle misloaded the gun or closed his eyes and missed his target by a millimeter? How could we, hearing the story later? How could the person on the other end of the gun? Why would such a distinction matter?

If you meditate on the concept of providence for very long, you will quickly realize that providence is in a sense more miraculous than a miracle. Hey, it is easy for God to send an angel to block a bullet. But imagine the level of meticulous sovereignty it would take for God to direct the affairs of human history such that a corrupted bullet gets mixed in a box with otherwise normal ammunition. Imagine the level of control God must have over creation to direct that someone to leave a bullet out in the rain, and it gets corroded, and the powder gets wet, and then it gets put into a box that in the dark, an uncle grabs and loads his gun to shoot his nephew—but despite all his military training, he’s never shot his nephew before, and in that moment he is not focused on the bullet he chooses, and misses that it is defective. How many moving parts are in that story? Does it undersell it to call it a “natural cause” and then contrast that with “a miracle”?

The good news is that we don’t have to make those distinctions. Sometimes God causes the sun to shine off the field in such a way people think it is filled with blood, and they flee (2 Kings 3:22). Sometimes God uses echoes to multiply sound and spread confusion in the camp (2 Kings 7:6). And sometimes God uses angels to just simply kill 185,000 people (Isaiah 37:36). Note that in all three, God is using means—light, sound, or angels. Is one of those a “natural explanation” and another a “miracle”? Is one providence? Two? Or all three? At some point the distinctions become not only arbitrary, but impossible for us to understand.

This is not a denial of the supernatural. Part of being a Christian is the belief in the supernatural. The new birth, for example, is a demonstration of God directly entering a human heart and causing his work of regeneration (John 3:8; 1 john 4:7). But of course God uses means to do even that miracle (Romans 10:14).

When all things are understood as coming from God’s will, then the details of this world are understood to fall under God’s overarching sovereignty, and only then can believers can give thanks to God in all things and through all things. Whether the gun misfires or not, God is the one who gets the glory for his work in the world. When you see the world this way, you will realize that saying “God does more miracles in one part of the world over another” really undersells the nature of God’s global and providential work.

Next week we’ll look at the other two objections I have to the idea that if the West expected more miracles, we’d experience more miracles: it is logically contradictory, and is ignores cultural responses to the gospel.