"Acts 4:16-level miracles"

I'm going to comment on this post:

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/skeptical-inquirers/

Steve Hays and his boys continue with this befuddling defense of modern day claims of the miraculous among charismatics and Pentecostals.

i) I by no means assume that miracles are confined to charismatics and Pentecostals. 

ii) Moreover, it should be unnecessary to correct Fred's misstatement of my position. I haven't been defending the Pentecostal/charismatic position. I take a mediating position on this issue. 

This is one of the persistent problems with the MacArthurites. They are so conditioned to debate the issue in binary terms that even if you present a third alternative, they automatically reassign you to the usual suspects. This reflects a lack of critical detachment on their part, which is ironic given how they attack the lack of critical judgment on the part of Pentecostals and charismatics.

Jason Engwer left similar sentiments in the combox under my previous post. 

Well, I can't speak for Jason.

They both seem to be bothered about my insistence that miracles, in order to even be considered genuine, have to be in the category of undeniable by such debunkers like James Randi.  We could also add other similar men like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett.

And in my response to Fred, I will hold him to that self-imposed standard.

To insist that any claims of the miraculous must be in that category demonstrates a profound ignorance of atheist debunkers on my part, or at least according the Steve and his friends.

As we shall see.

I had initially cited Acts 4:16 in reference to my claim about atheist debunkers. That verse says,  What shall we do to these men? For, indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it.A few important observations about that verse are in order.First, the statement is being made by the religious leaders. In fact, Acts 4:1 says it is the liberal religious leaders, the Sadducees. You know them. They’re the guys who consistently denied any supernatural workings by God, and yet they were among the ones who could “not deny” the miracle. 

Several problems. Just for starters:

i) Not all members of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees. Remember Nicodemus? He was a Pharisee. Likewise, remember how Paul played both sides off against the middle (Acts 23:6)?

ii) The Sadducees were liberal in denying the existence of discarnate spirits and the resurrection of the body. But they were conservative in denying the oral Torah.

iii) What is Fred's evidence that the Sadducees "consistently denied any supernatural workings by God"? Doesn't that go considerably beyond the extant record? 

Keep in mind that these aren't just my objections. It's not as if secular debunks are going to cut Fred any slack.

iv) For them to say it's "undeniable" is ambiguous. "Undeniable" to whom? In context, this is a PR issue. Damage control. They can't publicly deny the miracle without loss of face. To discredit the miracle would discredit them in the eyes of their constituency.

So there's no reason to assume it was undeniable to them. Rather, it's undeniable vis-a-vis public opinion. In context, that's the frame of reference. 

And even if Fred doesn't think that's the best interpretation of the statement, it doesn't matter what he thinks–since he's not the standard of comparison. Rather, he's made secular debunkers the standard of comparison. When in doubt, they are not going to give his interpretation the benefit of the doubt.

Second, the miracle was evident, meaning that is was undeniable. In other words, it was just clear that a seriously crippled individual was made whole. 

Up until now I withheld the biggest problem with Fred's appeal. The biggest problem is that secular debunkers won't grant his source of information. As Fred himself has framed the terms of the debate, that evidence (Acts 4:16) is inadmissible. That's not public information. Secular debunkers won't grant that Luke was privy to the closed-door deliberations of the Sanhedrin. The only information that Fred can appeal to within the confines of his own challenge is information in the public domain. What a debunker could see and hear with his own eyes and ears if he were living in Jerusalem when that happened. By contrast, a debunker would say that Acts 4:16 is, at best, hearsay. After all, the narrator (Luke?) wasn't a member of the Sanhedrin.

And third, it was made evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, so everyone was talking about it. The miracle wasn’t confined to a small number of witnesses, or a small congregation of people, or to the subjective evaluation of two sets of X-rays.

I find Fred's argument odd. Supposedly he's responding to me, yet as I already pointed out in the post he's responding to, that appeal violates Fred's own rules of evidence. For Fred is skeptical of "hearsay" evidence (to use his own term). "Everyone" in Jerusalem was talking about it due to word-of-mouth dissemination. Yet Fred dismisses "hearsay" evidence of modern miracles.

Moreover, it doesn't even matter what Fred thinks, since, by his own admission, his judgment is not the standard of comparison. A secular debunker would say this is a prime example of how quickly rumors become legendary. 

First, we see that this guy was a regular outside the gate leading into the temple. Thus, all the religious leaders would have been familiar with the man and his physical situation. They would have seen him there day in and day out, probably one among many crippled people, and perhaps even given him alms every once in a while.

So Fred is already shifting away from those who saw the miracle take place. Rather, he's appealing to the before and after condition of the man. 

Secondly, this man was born without the use of his legs, “from his mother’s womb.” Hence, he was seriously malformed and had never walked in his life… Acts 4:22 says this man was over 40 years in age, so he had been in that condition for over 40 years.

Notice how Fred treats the details of the account as unquestionably accurate. Problem is, that reflects his viewpoint, not the viewpoint of a secular debunker. 

Once again, Fred is appealing to inadmissible evidence. A secular debunker will ask, How do we know that the cripple was congenitally disabled? You can't appeal to the narrator's claim. How is the narrator in a position to know that? Did he interview the parents? Even if he did, a debunker will say, What's more likely: that parents lie or that miracles happen? 

As Fred has framed the issue, the only admissible evidence would be what a debunker could observe for himself, had he been on the scene at the time. Not Luke's record of the event, but the event itself. 

When the religious leaders passed him by every day, they would have seen his atrophied legs and his otherwise frail body because of his physical condition. 

i) Why assume that his body was generally frail? What if he developed his upper body musculature as compensation?

ii) But that's not the main thing. Notice how Fred tacitly assumes a Southern Californian dress code, as if the cripple was wearing shorts. But isn't it more likely that Palestinian Jew was wearing an ankle-length tunic? And it's not as if debunkers are going to give Fred the benefit of the doubt on how the cripple was dressed. 

Third, it is clear from the text that he was completely made whole. Luke wants his readers to know this guy was utterly incurable by human means and in an instant, his ankle bones were strengthened and he jumped up and began walking about.

Once again, Fred isn't even beginning to project himself into the mindset of a secular debunker. Yes, that's what "Luke wants his readers to know." And therein lies the problem, a debunker would say. Religious propaganda. Fred has implicit faith in the minute accuracy of Luke's account. By contrast, a debunker is prepared to relegate the entire story to pious fiction. 

Additionally, since the man had been living in that condition for over 40 years, the muscle tissue to his atrophied legs had to have been restored and he knew how to walk immediately apart from any physical therapy. That is an undeniable miracle and one that James Randi could “not deny.”

i) First of all, this piggybacks on a string of assumptions which, as I just noted, a secular debunker would never concede. 

ii) Secondly, Fred apparently has no inkling of how creative debunkers can be. In principle, a debunker could stipulated to just about everything Fred has claimed thus far, and still have an out. 

He could say, Yes, the man they saw everyday at the gate was congenitally crippled. But the "miraculously healed" man wasn't the same individual. Rather, that was his able-bodied identical twin! 

Think I'm making that up? Think again. That is Robert Greg Cavin's fallback position for the apparent resurrection of Christ. The man who died on the cross wasn't the man who reappeared on Easter. Jesus had a twin brother!

A secular debunker will say the existence of a twin brother is infinitely more likely than a healing miracle.

Consider the following fantasy scenario in the context of modern day miracles and what I am talking about…That’s a miracle that cannot be denied. Obviously something happened to this guy that is not explainable by the means of normal medical procedure.

I don't see how floating a hypothetically undeniable miracle is supposed to prove anything.

My point with recounting that little make-believe scenario is to say if people with the gift of healing are exercising that gift with regularity in churches as continuationists claim they are, then I wouldn’t have to research medical records and the like. The reality of the miracles would testify of themselves. A person with significant deformities or other serious medical issues would testify about his healing. His friends would testify to me about his healing.  Neighbors and townsfolk who knew the guy before he was healed would tell me of his healing. And most importantly, those who reject miracles, but would refuse to believe God’s healing in spite of him being healed, would testify about his healing, because it is “undeniable.”

i) Notice how Fred is conceding that secondhand evidence can be compelling evidence. But in that case, why did he previously say:

I too have read many accounts of modern miracles. I find them to be mostly hearsay and apocryphal.   

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/why-wont-faith-healers-heal-amputees/

ii) Notice how Fred rigs the answer: "If people with the gift of healing are exercising that gift with regularity in churches as continuationists claim they are…"

I haven't make that claim. To my knowledge, Jason Engwer hasn't make that claim. I haven't make any claim about the frequency of healers. 

iii) Why do MacArthurites chronically repeat the same fallacy? To say that "Acts 4:16-level miracles" aren't happening all the time doesn't imply that "Acts 4:16-level miracles" never happen. Why do MacArthurites keep making the illogical leap from "unless it happens all the time, it doesn't happen any  time"?

iv) Apropos (iii), for the umpteenth time, we have a MacArthurite reject an empirical claim a priori.