Medieval miracles

Jason appears to have a similar charitable perspective to alleged miracles among non-Christian faiths, particularly Roman Catholics. I find that to be odd, knowing what I have read of him in the past outlining the false gospel Catholicism promotes. His conclusion is that within Catholicism, there are Catholics who are genuine believers and the alleged miracle claims from Catholic circles is God working out of compassion on behalf of those Christians. I personally see no precedent from Scripture in which God worked in such a fashion among the purveyors of a false Gospel. 

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/the-theology-of-miracles/

I've discussed this before, but I'd like to elaborate on this claim. 

i) Fred didn't take time to explain why he doesn't think God would do that, so I can only speculate. However, I assume the unstated reason for Fred's position is that if purpose of miracles is to attest doctrine, then God wouldn't empower a false teacher to preform miracles. For, by so doing, God would attest false doctrine, which would defeat the evidential function of miracles. 

ii) Of course, that argument is premised on the assumption that the exclusive purpose of miracles is to attest doctrine. If, however, that's simplistic and reductionistic, then the argument fails.

iii) Fred goes on to attribute some miracles to demonic agency. There is scriptural precedent for that. However, that move undercuts the evidential value of miracles. For if some miracles are demonic, then miracles don't reliably attest doctrine. So that's a potential point of tension in Fred's argument.

iv) But let's consider the assumption from another angle. Unless you believe there were no real Christians between the death of the apostles (or their immediate converts) and the Protestant Reformation, then for many centuries Christians suffered from an obscured gospel. 

Put another way, if God elected a Christian to be born in Medieval Europe, then due to social conditioning and the available theological models and resources, that Christian would have a very flawed theology by Protestant standards. Yet Calvinists do believe that God preserves a remnant throughout church history, including the pre-Reformation era. Indeed, the fact that you could be a genuine Christian despite the poor theological paradigms at your disposal is a tribute to God's sustaining grace. God is able to overcome those daunting impediments. 

And even if you're not a Calvinist, I daresay evangelical Christians generally believe there were real Christians before the Protestant Reformation. By contrast, it's cults like Mormonism which think the Gospel went into eclipse for centuries on end, until God restored the "lost" gospel.  

So unless you think there were no true Christians during the "Dark Ages" or the Middle Ages or the Renaissance, unless you think the gospel dropped out of sight between the death of St. John and a monk nailing 95 theses to the door of All Saints Church, then, in fact, you must make allowance for the coexistence of true believers and false doctrine. 

There are, of course, degrees of error. But it's going to reflect the religious culture of that time and place. 

v) I'd add that within this historical context, we could even grant the evidential value of miracles. By the standards of the day, a medieval missionary could symbolize Christianity–in contrast to, say, unchurched Vikings. In that historical setting, he can be a representative of the Christian faith even if his theology quite deficient. To take a comparison, under the Mosaic Covenant the high priest officially represented the true faith, even if he was personally corrupt. He held that emblematic role, in contrast to the pagan nations which surrounded ancient Israel. 

If, say, God empowered a medieval missionary to practice "power evangelism" in the face of unchurched Vikings, that wouldn't attest the specifics of medieval theology. Rather, that would operate at a higher, more symbolic level. It would stand in contrast to the heathen faith of the Vikings.

vi) Finally, MacArthurites typically insist that continuationists should be able to furnish evidence for miracles throughout church history. If, however, continuationists meet their demand, it would be duplicitous of MacArthurites to dismiss the evidence because it comes from the wrong period of church history. To discount evidence of medieval miracles because they are too...medieval. 

vii) Having spoken in abstractions, I'd like to close with a concrete illustration. Indeed, I've set the stage. This concerns Bernard of Clairvaux's reputation as a miracle-worker. Keep in mind that this was written by contemporaries and eyewitnesses. Also keep in mind that this was prior to his canonization. He wasn't technically a "saint" at that time. So this isn't your conventional hagiography. Rather, it's a historical chronical. 

…Especially in Geoffrey of Auxerre's account of Bernard's preaching of the Second Crusade in Germany…It is predominately about a group which accompanied Bernard, recording miracles as they happened…they provide an excellent example of miracles performed as a living saint, recorded in meticulous detail by well-informed, astute and reputable observers: 

        EBERHARD: On that day I saw him cure three others who were lame.

FRANCO: You all saw the blind woman who came into church and received her sight before the people. 

GUADRIC: And we saw that a girl whose hand was withered had it healed, while the chant at the offertory was being sung. 

GERHARD: On the same day I saw a boy receive his sight. 

BISHOP HERMAN: The priest of the town of Hereheim, for so it was called, showed me a man who had been blind for ten years who came from his home on the First Sunday of Advent, and it was blessed by Bernard as he passed and he returned to his home seeing. I had heard of this before and everyone in that area confirmed it. 

EBERHARD: I heard from two honest men, one a priest the other a monk, about two people in the town of Lapenheim who on that same day were blessed and receive their sight. 

PHILIP: On Monday in my presence a blind man was led into the church and after the saint had laid his hand on him, just as you have heard from everyone, the people proclaimed that he could see. 

ABBOT FROWIN: I myself with brother Godfrey saw that man coming in. 

FRANCO: On Tuesday, in Frieburg the mother of a blind boy brought him in the morning to our lodging; and when the Father was told that after he had touched him he could see, he ordered inquires to be made about him; and I myself did this. I interrogated the boy and he replied that he could see clearly and proved it with many actions. 

The details given of the journey and of those present were not in question; it was clear where they went and who they were. What, then, did they see? They affirm that they saw and heard Bernard being asked to cure the sick and him doing so. Can these firsthand records of such miraculous cures be considered as events, taking place visibly during the three months of the tour of Germany? It seems that they could: they were events which were seen and recorded by well-known monks and clerics. Bernard…would make the sign of the cross and pray for a cure in the name of Christ, or the Trinity or just himself. On several occasion he was interested in the outcome of events and sent his companions to see if the person concerned was really cured. 

The number of cures performed must have been considerably more than those recorded, but the records note the healing of 235 cripples, 172 blind as well as cures of the deaf and dumb, demoniacs and those afflicted with other diseases.  

B. Ward, "Miracles in the Middle Ages," G. Twelftree, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Miracles (Cambridge University Press 2011), 158-160.