Should Christians Expect Miracles Today? Objections and Answers from the Bible, Part 4, by Wayne A. Grudem

26. Weren’t miracles in the Bible always successful, instantaneous, and irreversible? If Jesus were here today, He would be emptying hospitals by healing everyone in them. The miracles claimed today are nothing like the miracles in the Bible.

This objection has recently been expressed well by Norman Geisler⁷²  Geisler first formulates a much more restrictive definition of “miracle” than is usually found in discussions of miracles,⁷³  and then he uses that definition to argue against the possibility of contemporary miracles. Geisler says, “miracles (1) are always successful, (2) are immediate, (3) have no relapses, and (4) give confirmation of God’s messenger” (pp. 28-30, Signs and Wonders). He finds support for this thesis largely in the ministry of Jesus, but when he passes beyond the life of Jesus and attempts to show that others who had the power to work miracles were never unsuccessful, his thesis is much less convincing. Regarding the demon-possessed boy, whom the disciples could not set free from the demon (Matthew 17:14-21), Geisler says, “the disciples simply forgot for the moment to faithfully exercise the power that Jesus had already given them.”⁷⁴

But this is an unpersuasive argument. Geisler says that the power to work miracles was always successful, and when the Bible talks about some who were not successful (and who contradict his thesis) he simply says they “forgot.” Jesus, however, gives a different reason than Geisler does. “Because of your little faith” (Matthew 17:20). Lesser faith resulted in lesser power to work miracles.

Regarding Paul’s failure to heal Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:27), Geisler is forced to make the dubious claim that perhaps Paul never attempted to heal Epaphroditus (though he had come to him in prison and was so ill he almost died), or that “Paul no longer possessed the gift of healing at this time” (p. 150). He employes the same claim to explain the fact that Paul left Trophimus ill at Miletus (2 Timothy 4:20). In these instances, Geisler goes well beyond the usual cessationist claim that miracles ended with the death of the apostles—he is claiming that miracles ceased in the life of the greatest apostle before his first Roman imprisonment. That is simply an unconvincing argument with respect to the apostle whose ministry was repeatedly characterized “by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Romans 15:19), and who could say with triumph in his last epistle, “have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4:7).

Geisler’s description of miracles does not fit the case of the blind man of Bethsaida upon whom Jesus laid His hands. At first, the man did not see clearly but said he saw men who “look like trees, walking.” After Jesus laid His hands on him a second time, the man “saw everything clearly” (Mark 8:24-25). Geisler responds that it was Jesus’ intention to heal in two stages, in order to teach the disciples by using an object lesson about the gradual growth of their spiritual lives (pp. 153-154). Though the text says nothing to this effect, it may have been true. Even so, it disproves Geisler’s thesis, for if it was Jesus’ intention to heal in two stages then, it may also be His intention to heal people in two stages—or in three or four or more stages. Once Geisler admits that it may be God’s intention to work a miracle in stages, in order to accomplish His own purposes, then Geisler’s entire claim that miracles must be immediate and complete is lost.⁷⁵

Instead of accepting Geisler’s definition, it seems better to conclude that even those whom God gifts with the ability to perform miracles from time to time may not be able to perform them whenever they wish, for the Holy Spirit continually is distributing them to each person “as he wills” (1 Corinthians 12:11; the word “distributes” is a present participle in Greek, indicating a continuing activity of the Holy Spirit).

Moreover, there seems no reason to exclude (as Geisler apparently wants to do) unusual or remarkable answers to prayer from the category of “miracle,” thus making the definition extremely restrictive. If God answers persistent prayer, for instance, for a physical healing for which there is no known medical explanation, and does so only after several months or years of prayer, yet does so in such a way that it seems quite clearly to be in response to prayer so that people are amazed and glorify God, there seems no reason to deny that a miracle has occurred simply because the earlier prayers were not answered immediately. Finally, Geisler fails to recognize that several New Testament texts indicate that spiritual gifts, whether miraculous or nonmiraculous in nature, may vary in strength or degree of intensity.

Paul says that if we have the gift of prophecy, we should use it “in proportion to our faith” (Romans 12:6), indicating that the gift can be more or less strongly developed in different people, or in the same person over a period of time. This is why Paul can remind Timothy, “Do not neglect the gift you have” (1 Timothy 4:14), and can say, “I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you” (2 Timothy 1:6).

It was possible for Timothy to allow his gift to weaken apparently through infrequent use, and Paul reminds him to stir it up by using it and thereby strengthening it. This should not be surprising, for we realize it to be true in regard to a wide variety of gifts that increase in strength and effectiveness as they are used, whether evangelism, teaching, encouraging, administration, or faith. Apollos had a strong gift of preaching and teaching, for we read that he was “mighty (or “powerful,” Greek dunatos) in the Scriptures” (Acts 18:24), NASB). And paul apparently had a frequently used and effective gift of speaking in tongues because he says, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all” (1 Corinthians 14:18).⁷⁶

All of these texts indicate that spiritual gifts may vary in strength. If we think of any gift, whether teaching or evangelism on the one hand, or prophecy or healing on the other, we should realize that within any congregation there will likely be people who are strong in the use of that gift, perhaps through long use and experience. As well, there will be others who are moderately strong in that gift, and others who probably have the gift but are just beginning to use it or have simply been given less effectiveness in its use through the sovereign distribution of the Holy Spirit.

Tags: answers, bible, cessationism, continuationism, D. A. Carson, demonic counterfeit, grudem, Holy Spirit, inferior faith, instantaneous miracle, Kingdom and the Power, miracles, objections, sign gifts, signs and wonders, tongues, Wayne Grudem

Category: Fall 2000, Pneuma Review, Spirit