This is a sequel to my previous post:
Since, by definition, cessationists reject modern charismata, I will use "charismatic miracle" as a convenient designation to refer to the type of modern miracle which MacArthurite cessationists deny.
The challenge facing the MacArthurite cessationist is to define miracles in such a way as to include any and all biblical miracles while excluding any and all postbiblical charismatic miracles.
From what I've read, Fred Butler offers two criteria for miracles:
i) Public
ii) Naturally inexplicable
By implication, his criteria yield a fourfold classification scheme of events:
i) Public and naturally inexplicable
ii) Public and naturally explicable
iii) Private and naturally inexplicable
iv) Private and naturally explicable
On the face of it, the public criterion and the natural inexplicability criteria are different types of criteria. The public criterion is an epistemological criterion. An event (miraculous?) must be public to warrant our belief in the event.
The natural explicability criterion is a metaphysical criterion: an event must defy natural explanation to be miraculous.
Presumably, Fred doesn't think the public nature of an event is a sufficient condition of a miracle. After all, most public events aren't miraculous.
To take a comparison, both the Sermon on the Mount and the multiplication of fish are public events, but I assume Fred only regards the latter as a miraculous event.
When I say "naturally inexplicable," I'm not defining that category on my own terms, but in terms of how Fred seems to define that category, given his examples (e.g. Mt 8:23-27; 12:9ff; 14:23-33; Mk 2; Mk 8:22ff; Jn 2; 6; 11; Acts 4:16).
Evidently, Fred is using some biblical miracles as his standard of comparison to evaluate reported modern miracles. However, Fred only uses some biblical miracles as his standard of comparison. That generates a dilemma:
i) If he's saying only events which satisfy both criteria (public, naturally inexplicable) count as miracles, then his criteria exclude many biblical miracles.
ii) But perhaps his intention is to select certain biblical miracles as paradigm-cases of the miraculous, then use that as his frame of reference for judging reported modern miracles, without prejudice to all the other biblical miracles which don't measure up to his twofold criteria.
If, however, that's his unstated principle, then that's too loose to exclude modern miracles which don't meet one or both criteria.
Finally, let's apply his criteria to some Biblical examples:
1) The burning bush (Exod 3:3) is naturally inexplicable, but essentially private. Moses was the only human witness.
2) The metamorphosis of a staff into a snake and vice versa (Exod 4:2-4) is naturally inexplicable, but private. Moses was the only human witness.
3) The special creation of Adam and Eve (Gen 2:7,21-22) is naturally inexplicable, but private. There were no human witnesses to either event.
4) Jonah's survival inside the fish (Jonah 3) is naturally inexplicable, but private. He's the only witness.
5) Balaam's talking donkey (Num 22) is naturally inexplicable, but private. He's the only human witness.
6) Conversely, natural disasters like the flood (Gen 7), destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19), plague of boils (Exod 9), plague of hail (Exod 9), and plague of locusts (Exod 10) are public events, but not naturally inexplicable, inasmuch as these employ natural mechanisms.
7) The she-bears attacking the hecklers (2 Kgs 2:24) is public, but naturally explicable. These aren't supernatural bears.
8) The multiplication of food and oil, as well as revivification of the widow's son (1 Kgs 17; par. 2 Kgs 4), are private, but naturally inexplicable
9) Elijah's answered prayers for drought and rain (1 Kgs 17-18) are both private and naturally explicable. He's the only witness. Both rain and drought are natural meteorological phenomena.
10) The exorcisms of Christ are public, but naturally explicable (i.e. psychosomatic).
I could give other examples. Remember where Fred set the bar: something that even James Randi couldn't deny.
Question is: could Randi either deny that these events ever happened, or assuming their occurrence was undeniable, deny that they were naturally inexplicable?
My concern is that, in their zeal to debunk charismatic miracles, MacArthurite cessationists are implicitly (albeit unintentionally) attacking the integrity and credibility of biblical miracles.
No comments:
Post a Comment