What criteria should we use to identify genuine miracles in modern times?

[Fervent]

What's that got to do with distinguishing between natural causes and the miraculous? Did you read my earlier post about the difference between Providence and a miracle?

The difference is that in your view God is passively observing the universe as it is passing, choosing to intervene at certain moments. There's no real reason to distinguish between ordinary providence and extraordinary examples as the only real difference is in our perception. The "laws of nature" don't operate independently of God's providential action, but are in fact nothing more than a useful fiction we choose to arrange our understanding upon.

In a sense, I agree that he is 'creating and sustaining the universe at every moment', but I don't think I would put it that way. He created, and it was done —that is, from OUR point of view. Sustained, certainly. However, I think, like apparently you do too, that 'sustaining' which is obvious from such attributes of first cause, such as timelessness, is one and the same with creating. The problem with that is that our saying it still includes time sequence. He created and is the very sustenance of every detail, but that is not the same as to say, He is creating and sustaining every detail. But yeah, that is useful hyperbole, however, to make the point.

This is a thornier area, especially when it comes to the question of how God relates to time. There are several possibilities, such as that all of creation was created at one point and we are simply on-rails in our experience of it, a sort of fatalist experience where even our experience of a will is nothing but an illusion. Or the future is created as it unfolds, which creates difficulty with the Genesis narrative and the notion of God resting from His work. In either case, though, from our perspective the creative act is unfinished so long as there exists something known as "the future."

 

[RDKirk]

That's great. Thanks.
Have you ever prayed for the sick, or injured?

Matthew 10:8
... Freely you have received; freely give.

Yes, I do.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, I do.

If you ever want to share your accounts, I will listen. Thanks.

 

[Mark Quayle]

(Responding to tdidymas) The difference is that in your view God is passively observing the universe as it is passing, choosing to intervene at certain moments. There's no real reason to distinguish between ordinary providence and extraordinary examples as the only real difference is in our perception. The "laws of nature" don't operate independently of God's providential action, but are in fact nothing more than a useful fiction we choose to arrange our understanding upon.

Well said. This is a keeper.

(Responding to Mark Quayle) This is a thornier area, especially when it comes to the question of how God relates to time. There are several possibilities, such as that all of creation was created at one point and we are simply on-rails in our experience of it, a sort of fatalist experience where even our experience of a will is nothing but an illusion. Or the future is created as it unfolds, which creates difficulty with the Genesis narrative and the notion of God resting from His work. In either case, though, from our perspective the creative act is unfinished so long as there exists something known as "the future."

Your assessment here seems to me to invoke binary fact —an unnecessary consideration. Both your "possibilities" are just ways to put (in our words) what we so ignorantly and, (sorry, but), 'temporally', understand. I expect you know that, lol, but being human as you are, you have no better way to make your point. (And being human as I am, I am prone to criticize and try to improve on what you say! And to claim it is because I love the Truth!! (But then, it is true —I do.))

Regardless, it does my heart good to know we are agreed that God's sustenance of all things is continuous as far as any valid temporal POV goes. I have noticed, though, that Scripture does not condemn a temporal POV, and even uses language that fits a temporal POV, though it suggests (outright claims, in places) God's POV is quite a bit different from ours, in the many ways it puts things.

One thing that makes it hard for people is that when God says such things as that his POV is not ours, is that it simply makes the claim, and doesn't qualify or explain. The attitude displayed is that of default fact, authority. We must accept it, and arrange ourselves around it, as over against arranging it around our worldview, or finessing it to fit us.

 

[tdidymas]

The difference is that in your view God is passively observing the universe as it is passing, choosing to intervene at certain moments. There's no real reason to distinguish between ordinary providence and extraordinary examples as the only real difference is in our perception. The "laws of nature" don't operate independently of God's providential action, but are in fact nothing more than a useful fiction we choose to arrange our understanding upon.

How do you know this? Do you have a revelational source for this information? This sounds like pure speculation, since you don't know the mechanics of how God does things or how all things are held together.

Besides that, you're "passively observing" idea is a false conclusion on what I wrote. God chooses to intervene with miracles to show His power, as scripture attests.

What it sounds like you're trying to do is confuse the definition of 'miracle' as if it doesn't mean anything special.

This is a thornier area, especially when it comes to the question of how God relates to time. There are several possibilities, such as that all of creation was created at one point and we are simply on-rails in our experience of it, a sort of fatalist experience where even our experience of a will is nothing but an illusion. Or the future is created as it unfolds, which creates difficulty with the Genesis narrative and the notion of God resting from His work. In either case, though, from our perspective the creative act is unfinished so long as there exists something known as "the future."

Again, "the creative act" the way you are using it, is a phrase that appears to confuse the creation of the material universe with ongoing work that God does. The scripture says that God "had rested from all his work which God created and made." This can't mean anything other than God ceased to create the material universe.

 

[Fervent]

How do you know this? Do you have a revelational source for this information? This sounds like pure speculation, since you don't know the mechanics of how God does things or how all things are held together.

Besides that, you're "passively observing" idea is a false conclusion on what I wrote. God chooses to intervene with miracles to show His power, as scripture attests.

What it sounds like you're trying to do is confuse the definition of 'miracle' as if it doesn't mean anything special.

While there certainly aren't Scripture that say exactly how God does what He does, that it is an active process is clear through verses like Isaiah 45 and God's speech to Job in Job 38-40. There is also the demonstration of Exodus where God proved that He alone was controlling things as each of the signs performed were directly against Egyptian gods. The notion of "laws of nature" are just a modern version of nature gods that allow for men to deny the One true God.

Again, "the creative act" the way you are using it, is a phrase that appears to confuse the creation of the material universe with ongoing work that God does. The scripture says that God "had rested from all his work which God created and made." This can't mean anything other than God ceased to create the material universe.

There's no confusion, and reading Genesis in such a wooden manner isn't necessarily called for though again this is purely a matter of perpsective. We perceive an uncertainty to the future, as if it is unfolding as we experience it. We perceive an ongoing "creation" but this is, again, from our place within it and not necessarily how a transcendent God would see it. As Jesus said "My Father is working to this day, and I am working." So no, a simplistic "God stopped creating things" is not what the rest implies.

 

[tdidymas]

While there certainly aren't Scripture that say exactly how God does what He does, that it is an active process is clear through verses like Isaiah 45 and God's speech to Job in Job 38-40. There is also the demonstration of Exodus where God proved that He alone was controlling things as each of the signs performed were directly against Egyptian gods. The notion of "laws of nature" are just a modern version of nature gods that allow for men to deny the One true God.



There's no confusion, and reading Genesis in such a wooden manner isn't necessarily called for though again this is purely a matter of perpsective. We perceive an uncertainty to the future, as if it is unfolding as we experience it. We perceive an ongoing "creation" but this is, again, from our place within it and not necessarily how a transcendent God would see it. As Jesus said "My Father is working to this day, and I am working." So no, a simplistic "God stopped creating things" is not what the rest implies.

This is where our paths diverge. I disagree with the conclusions you make from these scriptures.

 

[Hawkins]

What does a genuine miracle look like?

How to distinguish between a genuine miracle and just coincidence / a natural event?

There are many books collating reports of miracles in modern times (see a few examples below). Can we trust those reports? Are they all lies?

• The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural (link)
• Miracles : 2 Volumes: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (link)
  
• Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World. (link)
• The Miracles: A Medical Doctor Says Yes to Miracles! (link)

How can we know for sure that a genuine miracle has truly happened?

Generally speaking, a miracle can serve 2 purposes. To a prophet, a miracle serves the purpose of confirming (i.e., conveying) a message from God. This seldom happens again after the completion of the Scripture. More often, it serves the purpose of strengthening one's faith and the faith of those who witnessed the miracle and those who heard of the miracle. It is thus aimed at human faith. Under the circumstance then humans won't be able to confirm whether it is genuine or not, or else how can it strengthen your faith?

Matthew 25:29 (NIV)
For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.

If you deliver your faith you'll have an abundance, or else you have none but doubt.

 

[tdidymas]

Generally speaking, a miracle can serve 2 purposes. To a prophet, a miracle serves the purpose of confirming (i.e., conveying) a message from God. This seldom happens again after the completion of the Scripture. More often, it serves the purpose of strengthening one's faith and the faith of those who witnessed the miracle and those who heard of the miracle. It is thus aimed at human faith. Under the circumstance then humans won't be able to confirm whether it is genuine or not, or else how can it strengthen your faith?

Matthew 25:29 (NIV)
For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.

If you deliver your faith you'll have an abundance, or else you have none but doubt.

I might agree with you except for the statement I highlighted. The point of a miraculous event like parting of waters, raising the dead, making the blind see, etc. is to show God's hand to unbelievers, so that they don't have any excuse. Some believe, like Nicodemus, but some don't, like the religious leaders who got desperate to kill Jesus after Lazarus was raised.

I agree that "blessed is he who does not see, and yet believes." However God does perform obvious miracles in the sight of the unbelieving. Remember the unbelieving Jews did acknowledge that Jesus was doing mighty works, even though at one time they claimed that He did it by the power of Beelzebub.

God also does miracles in the sight of the believing to increase their faith. Examples are Jesus walking on the water, and His appearances to the disciples after His resurrection.

So, I think it is part of the OP that a miracle be well-defined in order to dispel the confusion of the age.

 

[Fervent]

I might agree with you except for the statement I highlighted. The point of a miraculous event like parting of waters, raising the dead, making the blind see, etc. is to show God's hand to unbelievers, so that they don't have any excuse. Some believe, like Nicodemus, but some don't, like the religious leaders who got desperate to kill Jesus after Lazarus was raised.

I agree that "blessed is he who does not see, and yet believes." However God does perform obvious miracles in the sight of the unbelieving. Remember the unbelieving Jews did acknowledge that Jesus was doing mighty works, even though at one time they claimed that He did it by the power of Beelzebub.

God also does miracles in the sight of the believing to increase their faith. Examples are Jesus walking on the water, and His appearances to the disciples after His resurrection.

So, I think it is part of the OP that a miracle be well-defined in order to dispel the confusion of the age.

Unbelievers don't need to see miracles so defined to be without excuse, in fact the Bible is clear that God's attributes in "nature" are sufficiently recognizable as to render unbelievers without excuse. In fact if miracles in that sense were required to remove any excuse then most unbelievers would have an excuse since only a handful of unbelievers across time and space witness these grand miracles.

 

[splish- splash]

I'd say it's better to feed on God's word and understand it. Then from there, I believe we can then pick up more easily on what's what....

Most miracles nowadays are very fake... At least if I pray for myself, I know who Im really praying to then..

 

[Guojing]

I might agree with you except for the statement I highlighted. The point of a miraculous event like parting of waters, raising the dead, making the blind see, etc. is to show God's hand to unbelievers, so that they don't have any excuse. Some believe, like Nicodemus, but some don't, like the religious leaders who got desperate to kill Jesus after Lazarus was raised.

I agree that "blessed is he who does not see, and yet believes." However God does perform obvious miracles in the sight of the unbelieving. Remember the unbelieving Jews did acknowledge that Jesus was doing mighty works, even though at one time they claimed that He did it by the power of Beelzebub.

God also does miracles in the sight of the believing to increase their faith. Examples are Jesus walking on the water, and His appearances to the disciples after His resurrection.

So, I think it is part of the OP that a miracle be well-defined in order to dispel the confusion of the age.

I think what you are talking about here are "signs", which are meant for the nation of Israel to point them towards God (John 20:30-31).

All signs are miracles but not all miracles are signs.

Even though my view is that there are no longer signs today, God still perform miracles in this present world.

 

[jamiec]

What does a genuine miracle look like?

How to distinguish between a genuine miracle and just coincidence / a natural event?

There are many books collating reports of miracles in modern times (see a few examples below). Can we trust those reports? Are they all lies?

• The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural (link)
• Miracles : 2 Volumes: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (link)
  
• Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World. (link)
• The Miracles: A Medical Doctor Says Yes to Miracles! (link)

How can we know for sure that a genuine miracle has truly happened?

ISTM that:

1. Miracles have no other source than God Alone.
2. Acts of men, and fallen angels, and the created order in general, are not miracles, but are one of the following:

a. misidentified human actions that are called miracles, but are in reality produced by causes within nature.
b. demonic delusions masquerading as genuine Acts of God, & permitted by Divine Providence
c. human impostures that are meant to be taken as miracles
d. Processes within created nature that have not been understood properly or completely.
e. Ordinary natural processes, such as the seasonal cycle.
f. Human abilities that are either innate, or acquired. The art of surgery is a gift of God, but it is acquired by human ingenuity & effort. So the removal of a cancer, though beneficial to the patient, is not a miracle.

2. Miracles may be performed immediately, by God alone; or, mediately, by the instrumentality of some creature.

a. No creature is the author of a miracle, because miracles proceed from God's Omnipotence. And God alone is omnipotent - to be a creature, is to be limited; therefore, no creature can be the source of infinite power. So it is impossible for a creature, a limited being, to exercise, by the resources natural to it, the infinite power of God.

b. Creatures can, however, be enabled to exercise the omnipotence of God, in a limited, incomplete, manner. Not in the Authorial manner that God does, but as created instruments through which God condescends to operate.

c. Miracles are therefore purely gratuitous - they are graces. God is the Lord of all His gifts to His creatures, and therefore He is under obligation to none of His creatures. He bestows the working of miracles on whom He will, when He will, for the benefit of whomsoever He will, where He will, in whatever measure He will.

d. Therefore, in principle, anyone on Earth can be God's instrument in working miracles, should God so choose. For this reason, I don't see why (what seem to be) reports of miracles outside Christianity must necessarily be ruled out. If Josephus claims that the Emperor Vespasian, a heathen, miraculously healed a man, my instinct is, not to reject that story out of hand, but to entertain the possibility that Vespasian did that. If God's goodness comes through heathens in other ways, why not by the working of miracles through their instrumental agency, as well as through that of Apostles & other Saints ?

If there were reports, from reliable, sober, trustworthy witnesses, of miracles at the tomb of some great criminal, I would take them with the same seriousness. If God deigns to work miracles through heathens, sceptics, enemies of Christianity, persecutors, unbelievers, heretics, schismatics, evildoers of all kinds, etc., then He does; and it is nobody's business to tell God He can't.

e. I think that, if a society in the world is the Body of Christ that He has founded, and if its foundations are His Apostles & Prophets, and if His Spirit animates it, that it would be altogether fitting that it should manifest the Life in it by the working of miracles. Since the Holy Spirit of Christ promised by Christ has been poured out on the Body of Christ on Earth, the miracles worked by Christ, and then by His Apostles, may reasonably & unpresumingly be expected still to be worked.

3. I think that a miracle has the following attributes:

a. It is a purely super-natural act of God, Who is alone, and in the strictest sense, super-natural; because God Alone is "Wholly Other" than all created nature, visible or invisible, spiritual or material. (IOW, angels & demons are in no sense whatever super-natural. In Catholic theology, they are called "preternatural" - that is, "beyond [material] nature". That is, they resemble God in being immaterial & spiritual; but, they are created beings nonetheless. So they can no more be the authors of miracles than a butterfly can.)

b. It has an ethical purpose.

c. its miraculous effect is accessible to the senses. Cases in point: the raising of Lazarus, the multiplication of the Loaves & Fishes, the Stilling of the Storm, the Walking on the Water, the Resurrection of Christ, the raising of Dorcas.

d. It is no way the result of processes within the natural universe.

e. It is instantaneous.

So, if, for the sake of argument, it is granted that genuine, God-Authored, supernatural miracles do occur; what is their relation to the workings of the material universe that works in ways accessible to unaided human investigation ?

ISTM that:

Miracles are not from any factors in the universe - material, or spiritual, or preternatural.

Miracles are not breaches of the laws of nature.

Miracles are wholly impossible - to creatures. So when people deny that miracles are possible, they are in fact correct.

Miracles are not the ordinary instruments by which God rules His Church, world, & universe.

Miracles are not "interventions" by God. To call God's action in His creation an intervention, risks implying that in the normal run of things God leaves the world to itself; or that God is a stranger to His own creation.

I think it is more accurate, and sounder as Christian theology, to regard miracles as totally unrelated to the natural universe. They occur in it, but are not, as miracles, from it. Just like the Incarnate Word Himself. They witness to Him - so His Character is reflected in them.
Example: the water at Cana that became wine was "from" creation, and could be entirely accounted for by the processes within creation. The miracle, consisted in the creative act of Jesus, that resulted in the existence of wine where previously water had been: and that act, though occurring within the universe created by God, had its source not in the created universe, but solely in the Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ.

I think miracles are manifestations of the Holy "Otherness", Apartness, Hiddenness, Uniqueness, & Incomparability of God. They are not like any acts arising from created factors, because they are in their origin holy; and are therefore essentially inaccessible, dread-ful, awe-ful, terrible; as is the God Whose works they are. This may help to explain why, in Christianity, miracles and Saints often go together.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Miracles must lead one towards the real Jesus, not towards a Pastor or anyone else.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Miracles must lead one towards the real Jesus, not towards a Pastor or anyone else.

SHOULD lead one towards the real Jesus, yes. But 'miracle' is not identified by toward whom someone is lead.

 

[Strong in Him]

What does a genuine miracle look like?

How do you define "genuine miracle"?

As far as I'm concerned it's a miracle that God loves me, gave his Son for me and has been so patient with me when I've been slow/impatient/unable to believe/unwilling to obey.
Reading about people who've been in prison, or imprisoned by drugs etc, and then born again and made clean, is a miracle.

How to distinguish between a genuine miracle and just coincidence / a natural event?

I don't believe in "coincidence", so I don't see a problem. And God controls natural events.

It depends on how you view things. If you pray for rain and it rains, do you see that as an answer to prayer, "coincidence" or is there a "natural" explanation, like you unconsciously heard the weather forecast. Would you thank God for hearing your prayers and sending rain, dismiss it as "coincidence" or not even pray in the first place because the weather is a "natural event"?

How can we know for sure that a genuine miracle has truly happened?

Like I say, it depends on your definition of "genuine miracle".
More important are the unspoken questions in your thread; "do you need to prove that a genuine miracle has happened before you believe?" Or "are you looking for genuine miracles so that you can prove to an unbeliever that God exists?"
In the latter case, the Pharisees saw healing miracles, and even saw Lazarus walking out of a tomb, and still didn't believe. Genuine miracles don't always lead to faith.

 

[Bruce Leiter]

What does a genuine miracle look like?

How to distinguish between a genuine miracle and just coincidence / a natural event?

There are many books collating reports of miracles in modern times (see a few examples below). Can we trust those reports? Are they all lies?

• The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural (link)
• Miracles : 2 Volumes: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (link)
  
• Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World. (link)
• The Miracles: A Medical Doctor Says Yes to Miracles! (link)

How can we know for sure that a genuine miracle has truly happened?

Do you have a real question underlying this question? In other words, are you trying to find evidence for God? What difference does it make to you whether or not we can define a miracle?

 

[Saint Steven]

Do you have a real question underlying this question? In other words, are you trying to find evidence for God? What difference does it make to you whether or not we can define a miracle?

I think the topic OP is very relevant to the situation.
Many question the Signs and Wonders denominations/movements.
A key complaint against them is that the miracles are fake.
cc: @TruthSeek3r

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Do you have a real question underlying this question? In other words, are you trying to find evidence for God? What difference does it make to you whether or not we can define a miracle?

I think it is very relevant to the cessation vs. continuation debate that we know how to recognize genuine miracles when they actually occur, and to be able to tell them apart from fake miracles and demonic counterfeits.

 

[RDKirk]

I think it is very relevant to the cessation vs. continuation debate that we know how to recognize genuine miracles when they actually occur, and to be able to tell them apart from fake miracles and demonic counterfeits.

Not relevant at all. Cessationists will accept no evidence as conclusive, continuationists do not need it.