Do you believe in miracles?

What should we believe about modern miracles? 

i) Let's begin with Biblical miracles, which–in turn–implicates our position on Biblical authority. There are different positions you can take on that:

ii) If you believe in the presuppositional authority of Scripture, then you will have greater confidence (indeed, unconditional confidence) in Biblical miracles than you do in modern miracles, however well attested. According to the presuppositional authority of Scripture, the Bible is our ultimate standard of knowledge. 

The presuppositional authority of Scripture concerns religious epistemology. An a priori argument.

iii) Likewise, if you ground your confidence in the witness of the Spirit, that warrants a greater level of assurance than mere historical evidence. To take a classic statement: "Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts" (WCF 1.5). This is the Puritan position (e.g. John Owen; WCF). 

It concerns religious experience. An a posteriori argument.

The presuppositional position and the Puritan position are not mutually exclusive. You can accept both. Indeed, it's advisable to accept both. 

iv) Because the Westminster Confession is a consensus document, it reflects certain internal tensions. As an essentially Puritan document, it appeals to the witness of the Spirit (see above). And there it carries that over from Calvin.

However, it also has a classic cessationist statement (1.1,6,10). That stands in tension with the continuationist experience of the John Knox and the Covenanters. It also stands in tension with the appeal to the infallible witness of the Spirit. 

The classic argument for cessationism denies the presuppositional authority of Scripture. Cessationism typically appeals to the argument from miracles. Before you're entitled to believe a prophetic claimant, he must evidence his divine mission through miracles. On that view, the authority of Scripture is contingent on miracles, which are–in turn–contingent on testimonial evidence. 

That's an evidentialist argument. That places Biblical testimony and extrabiblical testimony on an evidentiary par. That places Biblical miracles and extrabiblical miracles on an evidentiary par. 

In my observation, many contemporary cessationists fail to think through their position on this issue. They mash together Puritan, presuppositional,  and evidentialist arguments. They need to work out a consistent position. 

v) It's also useful to draw some further distinctions. There are degrees of belief or receptivity with respect to modern miracles. 

a) I believe it happened.

b) I believe something like that happened.

c) I'm inclined to believe it happened.

d) I'm prepared to believe it happened.

When we sift through reports of modern miracles, it's useful to keep these distinctions in mind.