An Affirmative Pentecostal Theology of the Miraculous

The major difference between Enlightenment anti-supernaturalism and Protestant cessationism is minor. Of course, cessationism does accept the reality of the miraculous in biblical times. To a greater or lesser degree, depending on other hermeneutical (interpretive) presuppositions, cessationism accepts the miraculous nature of certain events in the history of Israel and the ministry of Christ and his apostles. However, this tacit acceptance is minimized by its insistence that nothing miraculous has ever or could occur since those times. So then, Enlightenment influenced philosophers deny that any miracles have ever or could ever happen while cessationist theologians deny that any other miracles have ever or could ever, or most especially, do ever, happen.

Cessationism tries to have it both ways. It points to miracles in the Bible as proof of Christianity but spoofs any historical or contemporary claims to the miraculous as spurious. While cessationism’s acceptance of biblical miracles is not unimportant, in the long run its denial of the miraculous in the everyday life of faith comes out in the end at the same place as Enlightenment skepticism: expect no miracles. Furthermore, it is less consistent. Cessationism opens itself up to skeptics’ charge that the same spurious quality they attribute unblushingly to contemporary miracles can be not unfairly transferred to biblical narratives of miracles as well. Not surprisingly, cessationism is in serious decline as its unsustainable elements become increasingly apparent to honest thinkers.

Ruthven points out that recent increasing scientific knowledge has not substantiated but rather tended to repudiate Enlightenment skepticism.[47] True science simply does not inevitably exclude the possibility of the reality of God or of God’s powerful acts in the world. Pentecostals have long pointed out that careful biblical study refutes cessationism as well. I argue above that the Pentecostal supernatural worldview bases itself squarely on theology proper, that is, on the doctrine of God. At the popular level, Pentecostal preachers often appeal to the prophetic description of the Lord’s unchanging character and nature (Malachi 3:6) and to the apostolic injunction regarding the ceaseless character and nature of Christ and of the gospel (Hebrews 13:8). I recall that my Pentecostal preacher father often appealed to these texts to proclaim the message that the God who worked in people’s lives in the Bible has not changed and therefore still works in similar fashion today for those who have faith. When confronted with the claim that “the days of miracles” are past, my uncle, also a preacher, would often retort, “There never was a ‘day’ of miracles, only a God of miracles—and he hasn’t changed!”[48] These words exemplify the doctrine of continuationism or the theological belief that miracles and spiritual gifts continue to the present age. They also indicate that Pentecostal continuationism is ultimately an affirmation of the immutability and reliability of God’s nature and character. Now, let’s go on to Ruthven’s additional emphasis as already mentioned.

Authentic Gospel Expression

Ruthven takes the popular continuationist theme to a clear theological level. Although it is noted above that miracles have a certain sign value, Ruthven warns against overemphasizing this aspect. For him, “New Testament ‘miracles’ do not prove the gospel” so much as “they express the gospel”.[49] Apostle Paul’s words, “For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power” (1 Corinthians 4:20 NASB), indicate that the miraculous acts are an inherent element of the gospel message and experience. That is a subtle but significant nuance. Accordingly, miracles and spiritual gifts cannot be replaced by the biblical account of the gospel or by the preaching of the gospel because they are intrinsic to the gospel as it is manifested in this fallen world (cp. 1 Corinthians 12:8-12).[50] Miracles, signs, and wonders are not an ancillary aspect that can be detached and discarded. God’s powerful deeds are part of the gospel.

The gospel of Jesus Christ does not stop with merely announcing a message of glad tidings to hapless and helpless sinners; the gospel goes on to enact deliverance and transformation in the lives of broken people. Many of Jesus’ most dramatic miracles occurred out of his compassion for those who suffer (Matthew 9:35-36; 14:14; 15:32-38; 20:34). Therefore, miracles can no more cease than Jesus can cease being compassionate. Jesus being no longer compassionate is of course unimaginable. So, divine compassion and divine miracles are linked together. God does not merely work miracles to convince stubborn sinners of the gospel. God performs might acts out of loving compassion for hurting people. (Once again, note the assertion of theology proper that the miraculous is ultimately rooted in God’s own nature and character.)

According to Ruthven, divine acts of power “reveal God in expressing the gospel”. Miracles were prominent in the ministries of Jesus and of Paul as well as others and should and do continue today. Indeed, Ruthven boldly asserts that “the very essence of Christianity” or “the kingdom of God” is its “divine (miraculous) power” (1 Corinthians 2:4-5; 4:20; cp. Matthew 12:28). True enough, miracle mongering cannot be tolerated (as argued above). Divine worship is not a circus for the latest huckster to hawk his or her sensational wares. Neither can the plight or pain of those who continue to suffer be swept aside. The eschatological tension of now-not yet must be maintained. Believers experience the “now” or “already” of the miracle working power of the Holy Spirit alongside the “not yet” of final victory over all suffering and evil.[51] Especially in the Pentecostal context, this last point deserves brief elaboration.

Tags: affirmative, featured, miraculous, pentecostal, theology

Category: Spirit, Spring 2015