Some Calvinists take the position that all miracles came to an end with the death of the apostles. They stake out this position on the grounds that the only function of miracles is to attest the authors of the canon.
I’m going to confine myself to three or four brief points:
1.Even Warfield, who is the leading spokesmen for Reformed cessationism, draws a distinction between a wonder-working church and a wonder-working God. Cf. Counterfeit Miracles (Banner of Truth 1983), 58.
2.Within the history and theology of Calvinism, there are numerous references to both the possibility and actuality, of postbiblical miracles of one sort or another.
Vern Poythress documents some examples in the final section of an article he once wrote:
Here’s another example:
My point for now is not to evaluate the truth or falsity of these claims. Rather, my immediate point is that belief in postbiblical miracles is well within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy.
We can debate the pros and cons of all these claims, but this is a point of liberty within Reformed theology.
I’d also add, in passing, that you can’t reject something just because it conflicts with Calvinism. Calvinism is not immune to scrutiny. Calvinism is not some unquestionable axiom. A Calvinist must be prepared to argue for his position.
3.Finally, there’s a problem with summarily dismissing all testimonial evidence to postbiblical miracles. The Bible itself appeals to testimonial evidence. And that includes fallible eyewitnesses. For example, when Paul appeals to 500 eyewitnesses (1 Cor 15:6), that is not an appeal to 500 apostles or prophets.
To peremptorily discount all testimonial evidence to postbiblical miracles implies a deeply skeptical view of testimonial evidence. It treats testimonial evidence as something fundamentally untrustworthy. And, in so doing, it takes a position directly at variance with Biblical rules of evidence.
Testimonial evidence is not uniformly reliable or unreliable. But to dismiss out of hand all testimonial evidence to postbiblical miracles could only be justified on the assumption that testimonial evidence is generally and radically unreliable. Indeed, that not a single report of a postbiblical miracle is accurate.
That degree of skepticism is both biblically and philosophically untenable. Indeed, it's ultimately self-refuting–since the skeptic must inevitability rely on testimonial evidence for most of what he himself believes.
The reason that some Calvinists back themselves into this corner is due to their reductionistic view of miracles. Believing that the only function of miracles is evidentiary, they must then disallow all postbiblical or extrabiblical miracles for fear that once you concede their occurrence, they will be invoked to attest the claims of a rival religion.
But that conclusion follows from their false premise–as I’ve discussed on more than one occasion.