Christian Readers discussion
Miracles: 32 True Stories, is Free on Kindle today
date
newest »

message 1:
by
John
(new)
Jun 14, 2012 05:00AM

reply
|
flag
*

Benny Hinn type or Jesus type? Or Martin Luther type? Did anyone grow a new arm? OR did a sinner come to have an eternal relationship with the loving God of all creation?
I'll go read some reviews on it. Although Christians often deal more with emotions than truth. It's tricky reading between the lines.

The funnest thing to do is look at all the claims of other world religions. Every religion claims miracles and healings. Yet NO ONE has grown back a missing limb yet. Why? Because God is doing big important things. Things that affect all eternity.
But if God wants to do miracles. I'm okay with that. But i'm not convinced scripture tells us that.

Please don't get me wrong, I believe God to be at work in these events! I also believe in a miracle working God! I just think it is dangerous to have so loose of a definition of "miracle." Why? First, because the Bible doesn't seem to have this. Yes, the work of God is shown to be provisional, unique, and amazing in any instance! However, what we consider miraculous in the Scripture is so because it defies that which we know to happen on its own in nature. Sure, our observation is limited, we may not know every cause, and all that jazz...we can assume some basic things and not venture too far into philosophy with all of that here. Nonetheless, we see that when we let go of a ball, it goes down toward the earth every time. If something else happened, like it went up or did a loop-the-loop in mid-air, either something else acted on it or a miracle occurred. In the instances of Jesus actions -- making water into wine instantaneously (change of substance plus fermentation instantaneously is quite miraculous!), healing illness and disability, multiplying matter (bread and fish), rising from the dead, etc. -- those were more than just coincidental or providential. They were impossible by natural standards! That is what made them miraculous! Therefore, when we try to broaden the term miracle to that which can possibly be accounted for by God working within the natural order that is already in place, we dilute the term without changing the definition.
How is this problematic? People believe strongly that something is a miracle (which is actually providential or something of that nature), and when they find that it can be explained naturally, they might throw out more than is warranted by not believing in God at all because one event was not a miracle! Just because my conversion experience was not a miracle (breaking of natural order) does not negate its truth or God's work in the situation! Also, Christians use miracles to attest to the existence of God. Some people get saved hearing such things, true. But others shy away from Christianity because they see the natural explanations of the events and believe the Christians to be overly spiritualizing the event. They have a few good points here since the term miracle to the secular world (and Western Christian history and philosophy prior to modern popular Christian preachers and writers) a miracle is assumed to be an interference by God of the natural physical order he created to fulfill some purpose he has in some event. So, someone saying that people bringing them food when they were poor and needed some seems to be someone attributing to God what man did. As Christians, we believe that God most likely did something to make the person go out and get the groceries or something of that nature, but God did not necessarily break natural order to provide those groceries...he used human agents and normal natural happenings to fulfill the need.
I think what I am ultimately trying to say is that natural events (whether orchestrated by God or not) should not be describes in unwarranted supernatural ways, otherwise everything could be a miracle to someone (i.e. my old car starting, finding a lost dollar, finishing a long paper on time) and the concept of "miracle" will lose its value and its credibility as evidence for the faith. We ultimately make God's actual miraculous actions in the Scriptures and the rest of human history out to be on such a weak level as this when we broaden the term too much to include such events.
THERE ARE MIRACLE STORIES OUT THERE THAT ARE VERY CONVINCING! People such as Gary Habermas have devoted their lives to the study and assessment of such claims. But even evangelical Christians such as Habermas do not take the majority of claims to be evidential or even necessarily miraculous. Of the three I read, one of them may have actually been miraculous, but there is no way of knowing, analyzing, or proving this, so we can not affirm that it actually is or is not a miracle. Therefore, we should take these stories for what we know they are: true (as far as I know...I have no reason to doubt them) inspirational testimonies about the providence, power, and love of the God of Christianity and allow "miracle" to be a special term (which is used with the honesty of sometimes not knowing the nature of an event) once again!
This is not an attack on the author. She did a fantastic job of writing as far as I read. Any complaints people have about that are merely subjective and are in my opinion not worth very much. However, I think that she should re-evaluate the term miracle and present these wonderful testimonies under a different title and with different explanations as to what these accounts actually are.