Dear All,
Many Christians hold the view that the day of open miracle is long gone,
and never to return this side of the parousia. To sustain their position
they cite one or other of the many biblical passages which inform us
that _faith_ is what really counts in Kingdom matters. Perhaps the most
striking and instructive of these concerns Abram, of whom we read, "And
he believed in the Lord; and it counted unto him for righteousness."
(Gn.15:6). But while the equivalence, faith = righteousness (= eternal
fellowship with God), is clear enough, it is pertinent to inquire, What
is it that might engender faith? In Abram's case, earlier verses inform
us that he had experienced the reality of God's presence, and had been
able to respond accordingly. What, then, of the potential effect of a
manifestation of his presence today, in a wider setting? Surely it
would be presumptuous of any to dismiss the possibility out of hand.
There have been times in history when large gatherings of people have
had little cause to doubt the reality of God's Being and Sovereignty.
Consider, for example, Israel's flight from Egypt: the pillar of cloud
by day, and of fire by night; the parting of the waters of the Red Sea;
the sustenance of this multitude, over a long period, in the
inhospitable terrain of the Sinai desert. One would have supposed that
such gratuitous manifestations of divine power and providence must
secure a 100% public response in respect of belief and trust in Jehovah.
Not so, however! We read (Nu.14:33) that Israel was confined to
wandering in Sinai for a further 40 years - because of widespread
unbelief!
We hereby learn the staggering fact that open miracles are no guarantee
of a transformed life for those who have witnessed or experienced them.
To effect a saving faith, something extra has always been required. But
what, precisely?
Turning to the 'Mt.Carmel experience' (1Ki.18:17-40), we read that,
following Elijah's prayer, "Hear me, O Lord, hear me, that this people
may know that thou art the Lord God, and that thou hast turned their
heart back again.", confirmation was duly provided, and the people
chanted "The Lord, he is the God; the Lord, he is the God.". Yet King
Ahab - an eye-witness - was not impressed (indeed, Elijah had to fly for
his life the following day!) and the majority of his subjects soon
returned to idolatry.
Here, the principle is confirmed: direct experience of the supernatural
does not necessarily stimulate faith. We get a hint of what more is
required from Elijah's prayer, "...and that thou hast turned their heart
back again." The suggestion is that God himself is required to bridge
whatever gap remains between sight and faith.
For our final example we move forward into New Testament times and ask,
How many of those who witnessed the miracles of Jesus immediately became
true believers? Few apparently, for we read of his challenge to those
who refused to believe his words: "If I do not the works of my Father,
believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the
works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in
him." (Jn.10:37, 38). He appears to be exasperated with those who,
having witnessed supernatural events, were unable to convert their
experiences into a robust faith in him. Indeed, before the day of
Pentecost, it is clear that even his closest followers were never fully
convinced!
In appealing to reason in this context, the Lord sets an important
precedent; for while the witnessing of a miracle is insufficient in
itself to bring a person to Christ, we learn that it may, nevertheless,
have a significant part to play!
To summarise then: (a) the biblical emphasis on faith is confirmed as an
essential ingredient in any process of conversion, and is God-given
(Jn.6:44) - on a basis known only to him, and (b) God breaks no
promises if, in order to achieve his eternal purposes, he presents his
creatures, gratuitously, with an open miracle from time to time.
Of course, the trouble with non-repeatable supernatural events that take
place over a brief span of time, and before a limited audience, is that
they may later be, (a) denied as ever having occurred, (b) explained
away - possibly by appealing to some natural phenomenon, or (c)
genuinely forgotten. Compare this with the permanence of the _standing
miracle_ of Genesis 1:1 (open to all at http:www.otherbiblecode.com):
clearly, (a) here are facts that cannot reasonably be denied, (b) they
admit of no naturalistic explanation, and (c) their memory need never
fade.
For those claiming to follow truth, no matter where it leads (yet, in
their attitude and behaviour, effectively saying, 'so far, no
further'!), the denial of rational thought can be a painful experience.
To date, the standard line of defence has been, 'don't look; hold your
tongue; and just ignore it', or else, the more aggressive and outspoken,
'numerological rubbish!'.
It is clear to me that until this standing miracle is acknowledged,
properly investigated and discussed, the creation/evolution debate
should be suspended; for, following the Referee's decision to apply a
rule that most of the players had assumed was redundant, how can
meaningful play continue?!
Vernon
"In any field, the Establishment is not seeking the truth, because it is
composed of those who, having found part of it yesterday, believe that
they are in possession of all of it today."
ET Jaynes in "Dealing with Critics"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 15 2001 - 17:47:00 EDT