Discrediting Miracles

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D.C. · Nov 3, 1904

Discrediting Miracles

THERE are two ways of discrediting miracles. One way is to deny them altogether. This is usually done on the ground that it is easier to believe that the testimony by which they are established is false, than to believe that anything so contrary to the course of nature could ever take place. In this case the appeal is to nature and to what are called the fixed laws of nature as being so unalterably opposed to the possibility of miracles as to prove unreliable the testimony of the Scriptures and the evidence recorded therein. This is the least dangerous form of opposition to miracles, as it defines the issue squarely, and makes an open warfare upon the truth. The truth can cope most easily with an enemy who wears the uniform of an enemy, and fights in the open.

Another way of discrediting miracles is to claim that every operation in nature where divine power is revealed is a miracle. On this basis we have in physiology the miracle of the heart beat, the miracle of digestion, etc., and in agriculture we have the miracle of the corn field, etc. At first thought this view of the subject might seem to strengthen the case for miracles, and to make it easy for all to believe in them, but a more careful examination of the fruits of this teaching will show that its tendency is to weaken faith in the possibility of any really miraculous working at the present time, and that the logical result of it is that we need not ask for or expect any such thing now.

Here is a recent illustration of this kind of teaching: “The Bible record of the creation of man out of dust is confirmed by the teaching of true science, especially the science of biology. We constantly behold the miracle of creation wrought out before our eyes in the growing of a human being from infancy to adult age, and the maintenance of individual identity from year to year.” In other words the growth of every man is just as much a miracle as the creation of Adam in the first place. The same would, of course, be true of the grass, the shrubs, and the trees, and in fact of everything where life is found. Let us note, then, what is really involved in this kind of scientific confirmation of miracles. According to the present operations of nature, all growth depends upon the assimilation of some existing materials. Unless a man supplies food of some kind, gaseous, liquid, or solid, to his organism, his growth ceases, and life soon becomes extinct. This so-called present-day miracle of the creation of man is therefore dependent upon the action of the man himself, and may be hindered or brought to an end by his unwillingness or his inability to supply the requisite materials to his body. But it was not so in the creation of Adam. “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . . And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” By a special creative fiat man was called into existence where there was no man before. There was no human agency co-operating with the divine power, and man could neither help nor hinder the process. Furthermore the work was an instantaneous one. The first man did not grow from a cell or a combination of cells, but he became a man by a special act of creation. This was the miracle of the creation of man, an act which has not been repeated since that time.

The attempt to make the birth and growth of all men at the present time the same miracle of creation as in the case of Adam will end in the claim that the case of Adam was no different from what we see at this day,—a case of development and growth from previously existing

materials. But this is evolution. Evolution claims an orderly development in nature without any special act on the part of a Creator. The claim that there are no miracles and the claim that all the operations of nature are miracles are both in harmony with the theory of evolution. The essential thing in evolution is that all acts in nature shall be of the same kind. It makes little difference what name is applied to them so long as they are all put into the same class. The claim, therefore, that all the operations of nature are miracles, just as much as the original creation, is simply evolution in disguise.

It may be worth the while to follow up this matter in its relation to the gifts in the church, and especially the gift of healing. The natural consequence of this view about miracles is the claim that the recovery of a sick person to health through the use of rational remedies is just as much a miracle as when Peter’s wife’s mother was restored. The next step in logic and in experience is that the only miracles of healing which we may expect to see in these days are those which are wrought through the use of rational remedies. The consequence is that there is left no place for the gift of healing in the church. We believe in the use of rational remedies and we believe that it is only the power of God which restores the sick to health, even when these remedies are used, but we also believe in the gift of healing as one of the gifts which ought to be found in the church, and that in the exercise of this gift the sick are restored without the use of remedies rational or irrational. It is right to give to God all the credit for healing disease even when remedies are used, but it is not necessary to do this in a way to weaken faith in his ability and willingness to heal instantaneously and without the use of remedies, when such working would be to his glory.

The claim that every case of recovery from sickness to health is a miracle has the appearance of giving special honor to God, but a little examination will show that it really leads to dishonoring God. The atheist or the infidel may become an expert in the application of rational remedies, and the sick may recover under his treatment. If this is a miracle, then God must hold himself in readiness to work miracles at the bidding even of those who deny his existence. This seems parallel with the claim of the Roman Catholic Church that even though the priest may be of vile character and intoxicated at the time of the eucharist, yet at his command ‘what still appears to be bread and wine is no longer bread and wine, but the body and blood of Jesus Christ.’ Such teaching belittles God and exalts self.

What then is the truth in this matter? The so-called laws of nature and of being describe God’s habitual way of working, so that the same results can always be predicated of the same causes. In the plan of the divine government created beings are permitted within certain limits prescribed by their scale of being to co-operate with God in the ordering of these causes. Thus the application of heat and cold, of the electric current, and of other natural agencies to the human organism may produce stimulating or depressing effects, according to the method of application, and the use of powerful stimulants may keep life in the body for some time after the vital powers of the body have really been exhausted. These results may be obtained even by those who refuse to recognize the fact that they are co-operating with a divine power. There is a vast difference however between this experience and that unusual and immediate working of God in answer to that appeal for special help which he has encouraged us to make to him. In this case his working is not unnatural but supernatural, not in disregard of an established order, but in a realm distinct from the natural and subject to the higher law of faith. In this field of work only believers can co-operate with God in the ordering of those causes which will bring results impossible to unbelievers. In this field may appear genuine miracles, subject to the divinely ordained law, ‘According to your faith be it done unto you,’ and to that perfect submission to the divine will which is expressed in the prayer of the Saviour, ‘Not as I will, but as thou wilt.’ Such was the experience of the apostles who did not control the miracle-working power, but through whom it was revealed when God would be glorified thereby. Such is the experience of the church when the gifts of the Spirit are manifested in it.

In the attempt to correct error, and especially one which appears to exalt the power of God, there is always the danger of causing a reaction which will really dishonor God. It may therefore be proper to emphasize the fact that we believe that rational remedies are divinely ordained agencies for the relief of sickness and suffering, and that their use is not incompatible with the prayer of faith, but we think it is a confusion of correct principles to call the results thus obtained miracles. We also believe that genuine miracles will be wrought, in response to the faith of God’s people, as a testimony to the truth in this closing message. “Servants of God, with their faces lighted up and shining with holy consecration, will hasten from place to place to proclaim the message from heaven. By thousands of voices, all over the earth, the warning will be given. “Miracles will be wrought, the sick will be healed, and signs and wonders will follow the believers.”—Great Controversy, page 612. May God increase the faith of his people, that the day may be hastened when these results will be seen in fuller measure than at present. So shall we the sooner sit down with our blessed Redeemer in his kingdom.