St. John Studies

Presupposition: a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action [dictionary.com].

Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained [dictionary.com].

Scientific theory: a matter of the highest of probability based on the data available.  There are no absolutes in it.  Furthermore, science is a train that is constantly moving.   Yesterday’s generalization is today’s discarded hypothesis [Paul Little, 103].

Herein lies the problem, the moving presupposition, the theory that is no longer relevant.

Science is only one way to find the truth and science focuses on physical things. That’s ok but the explanatory power is limited—to physical things. What about what Paul Little refers to as nonmaterial realities?

What about God? What about creation?

In the limited space we have in this post, it would be folly to try to tackle in any substantial way topics as vast as the questions above but we can discuss Christian presuppositions. If scientists have them, can’t we have them also?  Of course we can.

Evolutionary scientists have what Little calls “three views of evolution” or three presuppositions or theories. One is evolutionism which holds that the universe has been evolving forever on the basis of natural processes, mutation and natural selection.  Secondly, there is microevolution which is a change or development within a species [chromosome changes, gene mutations or hybridization].  Thirdly is macroevolution where genetic information is transferred to a higher, more complex classification.  Depending on your scientific view of evolution, these three theories explain your view of the world.

Christians assume the earth must have been created many thousands of years before the birth of Christ. And some Christians may struggle with what that date would be but there are two presuppositions that override any theories put forth by scientists.  1. God supernaturally and deliberately created the heavens and the earth and deliberately created the first man and first woman.  2.Scientists can quit looking for the “missing link” between man and lower life forms.  Man did not evolve from some animal ancestor.

What about the thousands of years controversy? The Bible says God created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh.  How could that be?

Well it all depends on how a day is defined. I always thought that the writers of the Bible were wise in how they took God’s thoughts and put them on the page.  In this case, maybe Moses wrote Genesis so man in his time could conceptualize the passage of time.  Let’s not forget that the Hebrew people possibly did not have the scientific capability to think back in thousands of years and Little proposes the Hebrew word “day” could mean a passage of time, rather than a 24 hour day.    When one turns to other parts of the Bible, God’s time does not seem to be as man’s time.  Psalms 90: 4 “A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”  2 Peter 3:8 “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”

Should we as Christians be obsessed with pinpointing the origin of man down to the year? I don’t think so.  Let the scientists debate this based on scientific evidence.  Just recognize that scientific evidence can be superseded by more recently discovered scientific evidence, presuppositions can be presupposed by more current presuppositions and theories can be re-conceptualized as new systems are discovered that have explanatory power.

We see the limitations of science in the constantly moving train. To rely on scientific theory as a way to explain God or the origin of man is a problem because it is so tentative.  This is why it is so dangerous to try to explain the Bible using scientific theory.

Little explains pretty clearly in these words: “If the Bible becomes wedded to today’s scientific theories, what will happen to it when science, ten years from now has shifted?”

Toot! Toot!

What is real?

That is not a question we ask every day but when you begin to think about science and religion, the discussion must eventually go there.

Why?

Things that can be explained by the laws/theories of science can be termed as ‘real’. This is probably behind the logic that scientists use to categorize ghosts/spirits as supernatural as there are no scientific explanations to justify their existence.

Hard core scientists want real things to be measureable and objective, not subjective.

Where does that leave God for many scientists?

In the realm of the ghost, spirits and the supernatural.

Are there other means than laboratory methodology to explain knowledge?

Knowledge of God for example?

Can we put God in the laboratory and prove His existence? I am afraid not.  God “is a personal Being who has revealed Himself in love and can be known in personal presence” [Little, 97].

I find it very amusing to read of the originators of contemporary scientific thinking. Little says the originators were from the 16^th Century and they were all Christians.  The revolution they led in the science world was a break from Greek polytheistic concepts that viewed the world as irregular and incapable of systematic study.  They began to see regularity and the more they were able to prove that, the more they were able to have presuppositions which became the beginnings of scientific knowledge.

What were the underpinnings of their ideas about the world? Regularity was caused by an Intelligent Designer…God.

All the scientists of the 16^th Century were Christian. That needs to be emphasized.

Today some science has begun to deny the existence of God because of His subjective nature. Science and the scientific method are the only ways to truth.  Maybe some have begun to worship scientific method and not God.

Little states “Science can tell us how something works but not why it works that way. Whether there is any purpose in the universe can never be answered for us by science.  As one writer put it, ‘Science can give us the ‘know how’ but it cannot give us the ‘know-why.’”

Maybe the Bible falls short on the hows but it clearly gives us the whys.

Little believes that what is needed for the scientist and the theologian is humility. Instead of thinking that man will be able to explain everything in the universe, it would be best to admit that this will never happen.  A famous quote about science is “the scientist has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians …”   The theologian can gloat that God is not only the Creator of the world but the sustainer.  That the universe would fall apart if not for God.  That’s a viable position but the theologians should admit that science is making strides in explaining more and more about this world.

Little says that there is a meeting of the minds between science and religion as more and more scientific advances do emphasize that life did not come by “blind chance, but by intelligent mind, as the result of prodigious thought….Recent discoveries would argue for theism rather than the opposite.”

I think Little is right. The most appropriate attitude of thinking in science and theology should be humility.  Science is real.  We can point to many advances we have in our world today due to science.  I lead people in prayer a lot as a Sunday School teacher and a phrase I am always using about someone facing surgery is to surround that person with peace and comfort and the doctors with knowledge and skill.  We want to have the scientific advances we have in our world today.  Ask anyone who is sick and in need of help from the medical community.

I just want leading thinkers to have the attitude of the 16^th century scientific revolutionaries.  Little says “they were convinced they were thinking God’s thoughts after Him” [Little, 97].

Paul Little’s chapter on “Does Science and Scripture Agree” is a conundrum for me.

I like to throw in the fancy words to make people think I have some sense. When it comes to science, I lack a lot of scientific sense.  I avoided science as much as I could in college.  I have a layman’s curiosity about the Bible but I am not seminary trained at all.  Hence, I am weak in theology.

Words like conundrum serve as my smoke screen.

But as Mr. Little discusses the topic for the week, I find it interesting that he does not denounce science, nor does he uphold theology. He says the conflict between the two is the blame of both the scientist and the theologian.

Let’s lay out his explanation.

Scientists like objectivity.   That’s why they are so driven by data.  That’s why the experiment is so important for them.  Data or results show a trend.  Experiments with controlled variables are supposed to mean something.  So where do scientists cause controversy?  When they speak outside of their findings.  Little points to the very popular Astronomer Carl Sagan.  I remember him when he was on television.  He popularized astronomy and science, making it more interesting and accessible to the masses [by the way, I took astronomy in college and absolutely hated it; made a C, I think].

Sagan is used as an example of scientism or making philosophical statements about science that are not fact based. When he said “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be…does it not make sense to worship the sun and the stars?”  Here he is going way beyond the facts of science.  Maybe he meant well but you can easily see where people of the Bible would take offense at this statement because he gets into the theology of nature worship.

Before we go too far, the people of the Bible go too far also.   We like to take our beliefs and make them scientific.  This of course rankles men and women of science.  Some think that Bishop James Ussher’s date of 4004 BC is the date of creation.  “James Ussher (or Usher; 4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) was the Irish Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar and church leader, who today is most famous for his chronology that sought to establish the time and date of the creation as ‘the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October… the year before Christ 4004;  that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC.’”  Through meticulous calculation he “determined” that this date is it; the year when God started it all.  Scientists are quick to point out that Bishop Ussher’s date is of course not correct, with many pieces of pre-4004 BC fossilized evidence to bolster their case.   That did not keep the date from making it into some English Bibles but those Bibles were not based on any original texts [just Ussher’s popularity in the 17^th Century].  This did not keep the date from becoming an example of science vs theology.

Little says “If we limit ourselves to what the Bible actually says and to what the scientific facts actually are, we shrink the area of controversy enormously.

However there are so many well-meaning souls out there; people who have such a firm belief in the importance of science that they take science into the area of philosophy or theology. And there are so many well-meaning Christians out there; people who want to make pseudo-scientific statements to make religious ideas sound data driver.

And then there are blokes like me… dilettantes who encounter conundrums and we expound on ideas when we should not.

From my readers…

I ask for your forgiveness…

I spent thirty-six years in a college environment. It was a small college.  It was so small when I arrived in 1977 that we could take all of the faculty and put them in a reasonably medium-sized room.  We had our own offices (which was nice) but we were not departmentalized in my early days. When I left the college in 2013, we were departmentalized.  That means that the humanities people had offices in their own building in their own area.  Scientists were in another building, in their own departmental area.

My next door neighbor in 1977 was a physics professor*. A few feet down from him in the hallway was a biology professor*.

They tolerated the humanities guy at first but as the years went by, I got to know them both pretty well. I got to be their friend.

They were collegial, by that I mean they got along as professional teachers teaching their subject matter but I found out that they did not see eye-to-eye on some basic things.

The physics teacher had what I would call a more secular worldview regarding his view of science. Before we go any further, he was a Christian in his spiritual life but in his science life, he felt duty bound to give a scientific point of view as he presented his material.  What do I mean when I say a scientific point of view?   He did not inject religion into his course work .  He felt that to take Christian concepts into the science classroom was not appropriate.  In short, science and Christianity don’t mix.  Don’t get me wrong.  He did not advocate against Christianity but he felt that science as a subject matter was adequate for explaining physics and there was no need for God in his classroom.

On the other hand, the biology professor was a creationist.

I remember the physics teacher getting very irritated a few times over the years because he just did not think like the biology professor. I pressed him on the issue of creationism and he said he just could not deny the science and wondered about his biology colleague.

Keep in mind that this guy was a Christian and went to a local church. He was my friend and a very good man.

Paul Little says that scientists and Christians disagree all the time, from the church’s persecution of Galileo to the Scopes trial of 1925. Sometimes scientists don’t agree either.

What were the physics professor and the biology professor disagreeing about, the most contentious issue in science: origins.

People with a Christian worldview struggle to reconcile their faith with the Bible and the “fact” that man and all living things evolved from a single speck of life. The biology professor could not accept that; that person wanted God to be the creator of the first glimmer of life on earth.  It goes further than that though.  People with a Christian worldview don’t buy into the notion of natural selection.  If one did, that would make the Garden of Eden just an allegory and the basic lesson of sin in this world would not be relevant.  Life would all be founded on survival of the fittest.

Scientific thinking is an interesting way to see the world if you don’t make an effort to mix some theology into the thought process. Science rests on “presuppositions” that have been proven to be “factual” by repeated observation or replication.  All my life I have spent time around scientists who feel they have a grasp of the facts of life and they are “pushing back the veil of ignorance” by their scientific exploration.

But they don’t have that grasp totally.

They have a grasp of facts as they exist now. Theory is based on facts that exist now.

Sometimes the facts don’t pan out. The scientist notes an aberration.  That aberration may occur over and over and soon it becomes a new fact.

Well known aberrations that became facts are: the Black Death was not spread by coughing, the world is not flat and the earth is not the center of the universe.

This week we will discuss some of the conflict that occurs in the battle between science and Scripture.

We have seen that conflict even occurs between scientists.

Why discuss this?

Science has been used for many years to undermine the Bible and many doubters use science to make their case against Christians.

Many people who have these conflicting views do not get along as well as my physics friend and the biology professor.   For our sake as Christians it may be good to have some thinking about this topic to help us in times when people challenge our worldview.

*Names will be omitted to protect my innocent friends.

**I hope to receive grace from my science friends as I offer simple explanations for their complex academic disciplines.

This has been one of those books.

You know, one of those books that are hard to study but you know you need to.

Let’s pause a moment and consider the title…Know Why You Believe.  Let’s consider the book and it’s purpose.

I was in a Bible study the other night and the teacher was doing a good job of asking questions. The class was pretty big which naturally can inhibit some response from more reticent people, so maybe that was what was going on.  As he asked question after question, some people did the “look in the book” response.

I am a teacher in the classroom with thirty-six years of experience and I know that look.

The students either do not know the answer or they are too scared to speak up and they are pretending to find the answer in the book in front of them. They scour the pages looking for the answer. When I was a teacher, I would make students uncomfortable by commenting on seeing the tops of their heads and many times I would pause and say “Ok, I am going to wait it out.  I won’t say a word until someone tries to give me an answer.”

The Bible teacher the other night did not do that. He was very graceful in handling the situation and certainly did not want to embarrass anyone.  He did not do the cruel things I did in my past.

However his questions were about Jesus and the book they were looking into was the Bible.

Should we not know the answers? Should we not feel comfortable enough to venture good guesses?

Let’s pause before we plunge into the final four chapters of Paul Little’s book and ask about the purpose of this little book. It is to give Christians a good beginning foundation with questions that people may have about our faith.

Are the issues the book deals with easy to comprehend? No.  Are the issues the book deals with designed to make us comfortable?  No.  Are the issues the book deals with designed to give us a thoughtful basis for our faith?  Yes.

People who don’t believe in God think that Christianity does not make sense so Little includes a chapter on the rationality of our faith. Next is the basic idea that there is no God.  How do we answer that one when that question is posed by an unbeliever?  “Is Jesus God?” is a related question in Chapter 3.  Then the all-important question “Did Christ Rise from the Dead?”   If we can’t answer that question well, many believe Christianity falls apart.  We got into the great debate on the Bible being God’s word and saw that many did not see it as such.  Following up on that, I wrote on the reliability of the Bible documents in Chapter 6.  Archaeology was a challenging chapter because archaeologists prefer to think of themselves as scientists and believe their discoveries are merely evidence.  This past week, we discussed the miracles and how skeptics doubt that they really occurred.

What does Paul Little’s book do for us? He makes us think about our faith.

Mr. Little spent his life defending the Bible. He went to college campuses and spoke to some of the most inquisitive minds in America.  He went to college campuses and confronted the doubts that people had.   He went to college campuses and bolstered the faith of many students who were away from home and away from their home church.

I spent a lot of my life on a college campus and it is a “free thought zone”, a place where ideas can be discussed freely and openly. It is also a place where people have a lot of doubt as they are exposed to ideas that are very foreign from their previous lives.  Beliefs and values come into question for the very first time.

As Christians how do we learn to defend our faith from those who doubt it? As Christians how do we develop a solid foundation on which to base our lives?  As Christians how do we have the ready answers to express the basics of our faith in Bible study?

First of all, we have to realize that thinking is a good thing. Secondly, we need to be active in seeking out answers [yes that means reading one of those books that are hard to study but you know you need to].  Thirdly, we need to speak up.

Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

If we are Christian students and Christian teachers, we don’t make people who respond to questions feel like fools. We just look them in the eye and say “Thank you for your answer.”

Next week:  Do science and scripture agree?

Are there any reliable records for miracles in the Bible?

Well that depends on what you call reliable. It depends on what you regard as evidence.  It depends on whether you are inclined to believe God’s Word or not.

Skeptics will always question the Bible for many of the reasons we have discussed in this blog in many posts this past month.

When one looks at the evidence for the miracles, there seems to be some convincing proof that they existed.

Paul Little cites Bernard Ramm from his book Protestant Evidences.  Ramm finds five compelling reasons that miracles did actually occur.

First of all, many miracles were done in public. Not all of them were such as Jesus walking on the water in front of his Disciples or Jesus changing water into wine. But Jesus fed the masses with only 2 fish and a few loaves of bread.  Many saw Jesus heal the man born blind  while they were both at the Pool at Bathesda. The Jewish religious leaders were upset with Jesus because they knew that word of Jesus’ miracles was getting out despite the fact that Jesus did not try to publicize them.

Secondly, one of the best things to do to make a skeptic become a believer is to perform a miracle in front of the skeptic. Think about it.  Take someone who is critical and do something in front of them that they disbelieve.  It takes strength of will, but the skeptic can add credibility to your actions.  They want to pick you apart.  They are looking for the sleight of hand.  But what if the miracle is real and they have to admit it.  That’s powerful evidence.

Thirdly, Ramm states that Jesus performed miracles over a long period of time, involving a great variety of powers. He proved He had power over nature when He calmed the storm.  He had power over disease when He healed lepers.  He had power over demons when He cast them out.  He had power of knowledge when He met Nathanael under a fig tree and He had the power of creation when He fed 5000 from two fish and a few loaves.  He even had the power to create sight for a man born blind when sight is the result of many years of human growth.  He had the power to conquer death with the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

No disrespect but Jesus was not a “one trick pony.” He had multiple powers.

Fourth, Jesus left people who testified to his powers in the Bible.   After healing the man born blind, that man and his parents were questioned by the Pharisees.  Read the dialogue from John 9 “Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. ‘He put mud on my eyes,’ the man replied, ‘and I washed, and now I see.’   Some of the Pharisees said, ‘This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.’  But others asked, ‘How can a sinner perform such signs?’ So they were divided.  Then they turned again to the blind man, ‘What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.’  The man replied, ‘He is a prophet.’  They still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents.  ‘Is this your son?’ they asked. ‘Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?’  ‘We know he is our son,’ the parents answered, ‘and we know he was born blind.  But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself.’ His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. That was why his parents said, ‘He is of age; ask him.’  A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. ‘Give glory to God by telling the truth,’ they said. ‘We know this man is a sinner.’  He replied, ‘Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!’

Fifth, the method of performing the miracles [as I commented on in yesterday’s post] adds credibility. Jesus did not make his miracles a “carnival side show.”  He did not try to draw crowd with “magic displays.”  He just saw a need and acted quickly, without fanfare.

Paul Little writes that miracles are very much in the Jewish DNA because the Israeli people were brought about as a nation by a series of miracles in the Old Testament. They did not have the skeptical mind that many people have today.  Many just had an anti-Jesus bias.  They did not want the carpenter from Galilee to be a miracle performer.  They wanted one of their religious leaders to do that.

But He did do the miracles.

We have reliable records to prove it.

Reliable records from our New Testament.

Paul Little* writes about the contrast between the miracles of the pagan soothsayers and Jesus: “[Jesus’ miracles] were never capricious or fantastic.  They were not scattered helter-skelter through the record without rhyme or reason.  There was always clear order and purpose to them….They always had as their purpose to confirm faith by authenticating the message and the messenger, or to demonstrate God’s love by relieving suffering.  They were never performed as entertainment, as a magician puts on a show for his patrons.  Miracles were never performed for personal prestige or to gain money or power.”

When Jesus was asked by His mother to do something about the shortage of wedding wine, Jesus told His mother “Dear Woman, why do you involve Me…My time has not yet come” [John 2]. In a way that was far from “magical flair,” Jesus calmly told the servants to fill the wine jars to the brim with water and then draw out some and take it to the master of the banquet.  When they did, they realized they no longer had a wine shortage. He did what He was asked without fanfare [and even seemed reluctant to perform the miracle].

Jesus was asked by a royal official to heal his son. That was becoming more common as news of Jesus spread.  Jesus said to the official “Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders…you will never believe”[John 4].  Again, Jesus seems reluctant to perform this miracle, not wanting to make a big deal out of what He knew He could do.  Jesus performs the miracle “long distance.”  He told the official “You may go.  Your son will live.”  The official left Jesus, believing Him I suppose.  It is only when he arrived home that he realized the power of Jesus’ healing.  He found out that his son was indeed healed from the sickness at the exact time that Jesus spoke the words “Your son will live.”  I can imagine seeing an attention-seeking healer surrounded by people, standing over a bed-ridden child.  The exhortations are shouted and the sick child arises from the bed as the crowd has loud intakes of breath.  That is not what happened with Jesus.  He healed from afar.

The Pool of Bethesda had been a prime location for disabled people to lie, hoping for a healing from the special waters. Jesus arrived at the pool, but the people didn’t realize He had the true power of the ability to heal.  There He encountered a man who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years; he was on his mat, hoping for a chance to get to the pool when it bubbled.  At that time people felt the pool could heal.  He never had a chance to get in quickly because he could not move well enough.  Then Jesus arrived and said to the man “Get up!  Pick up your mat and walk” [John 5].  He did.  Jesus made no big public claim at that location.  He just slipped away in the crowd, leaving people to wonder who He was.

Word was beginning to spread about Jesus despite His efforts to remain low-key. Sometime later, Jesus was at the Sea of Galilee and a great crowd of people had followed Him.  The Jewish Passover feast was near and Jesus wanted to feed the crowds but how was He going to do it?  He asked his Disciples and they did not see a way.  Phillip said it would take eight months wages to feed that many.  Andrew said the only food was five loaves and two small fish, carried by a boy.  How will that be enough?  Jesus did not make a big show of His power; He just gave thanks for what they had and told His disciples to pass it out.  It was enough; in fact, there were leftovers.  The people were impressed but instead of pressing them to adore Him or asking them to take some action against the controlling forces of the day [the Romans or the Pharisees], Jesus withdrew to the mountain.

It was inevitable that Jesus began to get more attention but He continued to handle it in a humble manner. He walked on the water but it was in the dark with His Disciples looking on.  He healed the man born blind and after the miracle, the Pharisees wanted to know who did this.  They question the man.  It is obvious that Jesus is beginning to be a concern but they don’t know much about Him; who is this Man and where is this Man?  Those are their main questions.

The raising of Lazarus is the miracle that confounds many because Jesus did not hurry to Lazarus’ grave to bring him back to life. Some think that was to heighten the drama but I am not sure.  I go back to the miracle of the loaves and fishes and the confidence that Jesus had in His ability to feed the people.  Is it possible that Jesus does not rush to Lazarus’ grave because He knows that He will be able to bring him back from the dead?  Mary confronted Jesus when He arrived on the scene with the words “Lord, if you had been there, my brother would not have died” [John 11].  Don’t forget that Jesus was upset because everyone else at that location was upset.  “Jesus wept” over the death of Lazarus but He also said “Where have you laid him?”  When He arrived He did not make grand gestures and exclaim loud words.  He had a simple command:  take away the stone, Lazarus came out and took off the grave clothes.

He knew He could do this.

In John 10: 25 Jesus says to those who question Him about His identity as the Messiah “I did tell you, but you did not believe. The miracles I do in My Father’s name speak for Me.”

Indeed they do.

I think they speak two ways: first of all they are miracles brought about by a Divine person; secondly they are brought about by a humble man.

Jesus fought the problem that many of us have; the need to draw attention to ourselves. He did what He did because His Father asked Him to do it.  He did what He did because He knew He was no trickster, no magician, no soothsayer.

He was the real deal.

He was God.

* In 2016 one of the authors I commented on in my blog Saint John Studies was Paul Little.  These comments were based on his book Know Why You Believe.

An unbeliever says to you: “If God performed miracles then, why won’t He perform them now?  If I could only see a miracle, I would believe in God?”

I say to the unbeliever, maybe He does.

I am going to spend this post telling about my observation of responses to a man telling about being spiritually moved. He will remain nameless.  He is a good man, a sensitive man but someone who does not realize that other people just don’t understand very subjective spiritual experiences.

He went before a group and spoke of his recent spiritual experience, the fact that he was called to step forward in a church and when he went forward, the Holy Spirit came upon him and filled him with a sense of being cleansed, a sense of being thrilled and fulfilled.

I listened to him and was excited for him but I did not show my excitement. I was in awe of what he was saying but I kept it hid. I began to focus on the other people in the group listening to him talk and they did not know what to say.  Finally they did say something but it was not that supportive and eventually we began to leave and as we did, a woman came up and talked about how she differed in her spiritual experience at the aforementioned church and she elaborated on an issue that was negative about the church where this man’s experience happened. To me that was not supportive at all.

What was going on here?

The man was taking something private and making it public.

Jesus performed miracles and after many of them He said to person directly affected not to tell anyone. Skeptics may think that was a tactic to stir curiosity among the masses but I am not sure.  I think Jesus knew that people would not understand.

Just last Saturday in Kalamazoo, Michigan another gun tragedy occurred as an Uber driver took a gun and killed several people in a random shooting spree. One of the victims was a fourteen year-old girl named Abigail Kopf, of Battle Creek, described by her parents as strong-willed, fun-loving and an athlete. She was spending a night out with one of the special people in her life, her pretend grandmother “Grandma Barb Hawthorne”. They said Abigail loved to spend time with Hawthorne, who had been a pretend grandmother to her since she was much younger. They had become partners to attend theater events and other gatherings.  “Grandma Barb” was one of the fatal shooting victims of the Kalamazoo Uber driver.

Abigail sustained very serious injuries and when she was rushed to the hospital, she was pronounced dead. Her very distraught mother was at the bedside holding the hand of her deceased daughter when suddenly Abigail jerked her mother’s hand.  She was not dead at all.

What did the mother say about this? “My daughter is not dead. She is alive and she’s fighting for her life. She was vibrant and beautiful and she did not deserve this. But right now, my daughter is struggling.”   Asked about reports that Abigail was at first presumed dead until she squeezed her mother’s hand, the mother said that moment was “Breathtaking, you don’t expect it and suddenly it was there.”

She stopped short of saying it was a miracle…but was it?

Maybe this was enough to make Abigail’s mother believe in miracles. I am not sure.  In Luke we hear that just having the word of God should be enough to convince us to believe.  Someone being raised from the dead should not be necessary and even that probably won’t work.  “And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.  Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.   In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.   And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’   But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’  And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’  But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’  But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’  But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’” [Luke 16: 20-31].

So I go back to my title of this post. Why not now?

Would miracles today work? Maybe they are happening all the time.

Maybe Luke is right. We should not need them but if they are happening…

Maybe we just miss them.

Maybe we just don’t even see them.

This week we are discussing whether or not miracles are possible.

Oftentimes it seems easiest to think of ideas like this in dichotomies. You either believe in miracles or you don’t believe in miracles.

Beneath the belief or unbelief is a foundation.

The foundation is you believe in God or you don’t.

I am not saying that people who don’t believe in miracles are people without belief systems. They have those but they may not be grounded in knowledge of God.

What do they believe in?

1.science—everything can be explained by logical, rational scientific explanation. The fact that God can supersede science is not part of their world view.

2.nature—nature is beyond the control of God. It has its own regularity and is beyond control of God or man.

3.atheism—there is no God. He is not needed and does not exist.

4.pantheism—there is a god [note the little g] but this conception of god exists in everything in the world [a Hindu or Buddhist precept].

We could go on and on but we could not begin to adequately explain all the worldviews that exist in our world today.

Let’s leave it at this: to believe in miracles, one has a Christian worldview; to not believe in miracles one has another worldview [something other than Christianity].  I must apologize if that is too simple by my blog posts do not go on and on forever.

What is the problem with the simple question that is discussed in Paul Little’s chapter this week: “Are Miracles Possible?”  The question makes us consider our worldview.  To be honest, many Christians spend little time thinking about world view.  David Noebel in his book Thinking Like a Christian states “Ask the average person about his or her philosophy of life and you will probably get some sort of answer, even if it turns out to be a little sketchy….The reason it is difficult to discuss the issue of worldview is because our generation has lost the art of thinking deeply about why we believe what we believe.  We are not accustomed to considering seriously life’s most foundational questions.”

Let’s say an unbeliever or an un churched person comes to you and says something like “I saw a televangelist asking people in the viewing audience for money. He said that if you would write him a check for fifty dollars to support his ministry he would pray a miracle into your life.   Do you believe in miracles?

What are you going to say?

As we begin Chapter 8, let’s start with a solid foundation. I would say I cannot vouch for a televangelist triggering a miracle from God with a fifty dollar donation, but I do believe that miracles happen.  I believe that an all-powerful God created the universe.  A miracle is something that happens that transcends “natural law” and God is certainly capable of transcending natural law because He has the right to do that.  He is the Creator of the universe.  Paul Little says “God is over, above and outside of natural law, and is not bound by it.”

Natural law is based on observation and when you think about it that way, natural law is trying to determine a cause for an effect. When we determine that something exists, we want to figure out what has brought it about.  Do Christians believe in natural law?  Of course they do.  Do Christians find cause and effect reasoning in the world today?  Of course they do.

But here is the main point I am trying to make: whatever your worldview, we can’t explain everything by referring to natural law.

The philosopher David Hume defines a miracle as a violation of natural law but that does not place natural law in the realm of the divine. That does not make natural law a god.

It is also important to realize that natural law does not imprison God. To the unbeliever or the un churched person…

 What are you going to say?

Here is the short-hand version. God is the author of the universe.  He transcends natural law. Of course we have miracles today…