Category: Biola University

Are Miracles Possible?

On By Jovan PayesIn Biola University, Christian Apologetics, Christology, Early Christianity, Essays, Miracles, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Popular Essays, Resurrection, Talbot School of Theology, Theology2 Comments

The question of whether miracles are impossible strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. Its viability hangs on one significant miracle: the resurrection of Jesus. Paul argued,

 if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. (1 Cor 15:14 ESV)

If the bodily resurrection never happened, because it is impossible, then the traditional Christian faith is catastrophically and irreparably compromised. In response, I will first argue there is evidence for a creator-God necessary for miracles to occur, then demonstrate that anomalies (like miracles) require intelligent causation. Finally, I will look at the resurrection as a case study.

The Creator-God

The evidence for the existence of God is cumulative in nature. This means there is a body of positive evidence combined to support the case that the universe is created by a personal Creator-God. Furthermore, God as creator is separate, or outside, of this creation. This Creator-creation relationship would allow, then, for the possibility of miracles:

if God exists then miracles are possible.[1]

Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
When Skeptics Ask, rev. ed. (Baker, 2013)

Natural theology affirms that the created world is host to evidence positively supporting God’s existence and justifying belief in him. There are four broad categories of arguments from natural theology:[2]

  • Cosmological (argument from causality, from effect to cause),
  • Teleological (argument from fine-tuned and intelligence-laden design),
  • Moral (argument from the objective value of morality and ethics), and
  • Ontological arguments (argument of a necessary uncaused Being).

These arguments represent a preponderance of the evidence that justifies belief in a personal ethical Creator-God.

A strong case can be made for the existence of God with the Kalam cosmological argument.[3] The first premise may be stated as “the universe had a beginning.” The evidence from the second law of thermodynamics affirms that the universe is experiencing entropy, a running out of useable energy. This points to the finite nature of the cosmos and points to a beginning when the universe was “fully charged.” The second premise affirms, “the universe was caused to exist.” What caused it to exist? Or had it come into being out of nothing? The evidence from nature (natural theology) points to a powerful (creation), ethical (morality), and intelligent designer (DNA) which brought these phenomena into existence. The reasonable conclusion is that a supernatural being created the universe into existence, this is God.

Not all Causes are Naturally Recurring

In response to the above supernatural claim, proponents of a naturalistic worldview argue that the existence of miracles would render the scientific method impossible to practice. This is only an assumption because there are different kinds of scientific ways of understanding causation, for not all causes are natural. A difference must be made between “operational science” which studies “regular patterns in the present from which predictions can be made,” and “forensic science” which studies “past singularities.”[4] The study of photosynthesis which takes into account how sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water, are converted into food by plants (operational science) would be conducted differently than a study of a singularity like the creation of the Mt. Rushmore monument (forensic science).

Miracles would no more disrupt operational science than would the reshaping of a naturally formed mountainside into a monument bust relief at Mt. Rushmore, or the carved-out ruins of Petra Pella. The use of intelligence and power offers a different source for causation than the naturally regular patterns in the world. The question remains how to decipher in what way miracles interact with the regular patterns of nature (disrupt, break, suspend). This difficulty of understanding anomalies like miracles or “the Big Bang” is not proof that such anomalies are incompatible with known scientific theory. It suggests we still have much to learn.

The Resurrection

A religion that is consistent with the picture of God derived from natural theology should have evidence of supernatural activity (historical reliability, fulfilled prophecy, etc.).[5] As noted already, the central figure of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, is presented in the historical setting of first-century Palestine, in which his teaching ministry is substantially interwoven with supernatural activity (healings, exorcisms, telepathic and empathic actions). The most significant miracle is his post-mortem bodily resurrection from the dead following his execution by means of crucifixion. Is this just legendary material that has been added, or are these ancient documents reliable eyewitness testimony to the most important miraculous event of human history?

The study of the historical reliability of the New Testament demonstrates that it has the strongest transmission history of any work from antiquity. It has preserved the eyewitness testimony of its authors who acknowledge the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. (1 Cor 15:1–11 ESV)

Their ancient words have been preserved in over 5,000 Greek manuscripts.[6] These documents contain doctrinal traditions which include the Divine Lordship of Jesus, his bodily resurrection, and his miracles, so early (within less than a decade of the actual events) that there is no room for legends to displace Christianity’s core historical truths.[7]

The question “did Jesus rise from the dead?” must then be taken seriously. The death of Jesus is one of the surest known historical facts of Christianity.[8] Despite many attempts to theorize that he successfully survived the crucifixion, the medical evaluation[9] of the historical descriptions of his wounds points out that he was a “dead man” before the spear was thrust through his side (John 19:34). The belief that Jesus appeared bodily to his disciples after his execution is another known fact of Christianity, which transformed his disciples and converted unbelievers (e.g., James). The early disciples shared their witness that Jesus was raised from the dead by the power of God, many of them dying for their claim that they saw Jesus bodily raised.

Conclusion

The short version of this brief essay’s argument is, “if God exists, then the supernatural anomaly of the miraculous bodily resurrection of Jesus, as historically reported in the New Testament, is possible.” The possibility of the miraculous is, therefore, quite reasonable.

Endnotes

  1. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 71.
  2. Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 9–19.
  3. James P. Moreland, “Transcript: Arguments for the Existence of God” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.); Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 10.
  4. Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 74–77.
  5. James P. Moreland, “Transcript.”
  6. Geisler and Brooks, 101–05; Joe Hellerman, “Handout: Defending the Gospel Accounts of Jesus” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d).
  7. Lee Strobel, “Handout: The Case for Faith” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
  8. Known historical facts of Christianity are taken from Craig Hazen, “Handout: Evidence for the Resurrection” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
  9. William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255.11 (March 1986): 1462.

Does the Holocaust Disprove God’s Existence?

On By Jovan PayesIn Biola University, Disteleology, Essays, Graduate Work, Holocaust, Moral Argument, Problem of Evil, Talbot School of Theology

In the Spring of 2002, I enrolled in a Humanities course called, “Holocaust Films.” We watched hours of first-account documentaries and interviews of survivors. The horrors captured on film of charred human remains, human pyramids in the gas chambers, and the emaciated bodies of the survivors will haunt me forever.

Despite these images, my faith in God has never wavered; however, the same cannot be said for others who argue that the moral evils of the Holocaust prove that God does not exist.

I will briefly respond to this common argument by demonstrating, first, that this argument is self-defeating. Second, I will also show that the existence of God still holds, and then finally, propose that God’s people approach suffering with faith and empathy.

The Argument is Self-Defeating

First, it is important to establish that the logic of this argument is self-defeating. The argument is that the moral evil of the Holocaust disproves (is incompatible with) the existence of God; however, objective moral conclusions like this are ultimately dependent on the existence of God for it to have real meaning. In other words, the conclusion (God does not exist) denies the source of moral objectivity which makes this argument hypothetically possible. The argument implodes on itself and illustrates the inconsistency of the atheistic worldview.

What does it matter morally if the Holocaust happened if God does not exist? For the French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) we are only left with two options regarding moral values. They are either “expressions of personal taste” or “byproducts of sociobiological evolution and conditioning.”[1] In this view, moral subjectivity is the currency of the realm which makes it impossible to provide an objective moral criticism that would condemn Adolf Hitler’s actions during the Holocaust and commend Mother Teresa’s altruistic ministry. In the end, “all that remains is subjective, personal opinion.”[2]

The atheistic worldview cannot provide ultimate meaning or significance, the ultimate value, or the ultimate purpose. They live in an indifferent universe in which objective moral affirmations are inconsistent with their worldview.

God Exist, So Does Evil

Second, the present argument against God’s existence offers an unequivocal example of evil in the world, but it does not invalidate nor outweigh the preponderance of evidence for the existence of God. The argument presumes that God should have intervened so that such a horror would not have happened, but since the genocide of the Holocaust occurred God must not exist. This falls back on a traditional argument that attacks the attributes of God, namely, his power, his knowledge, and his love.

In short, since evil exists and is real, God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent. These attributes should demand God to intervene but since he has not, God must not exist.

Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks point out that the argument suppresses the assumption that God is not doing anything at all about evil, but such an assumption cannot be proven. Instead, Geisler and Brooks argue that even though evil is not yet defeated, it does not mean that it will never be defeated.[3] For example, Christian theism provides the cross of Christ as the greatest of good acts possible that will outweigh all the evil that has ever been (1 Cor 15:54–55; 2 Pet 3:11–13).[4]

The work and resurrection of Jesus Christ is evidence that God exists and is acting until all is resolved.

Additionally, the cumulative evidence from natural theology provides sufficient reason to believe that God exists.[5] The following arguments support God’s existence.

  • The cosmological argument affirms the application of the law of causality to our finite universe which states that “every limited thing is caused by something other than itself.”
  • The teleological argument affirms the application of design and information in the natural world demands an intelligent designer.
  • The moral argument affirms that the universal sense within humanity that there are moral things that ought to be, versus what ought not to be, implies a moral lawgiver.
  • From these arguments, the ontological argument demonstrates that this God necessarily exists to bring into existence the finite created world.

Evil certainly exists but as these arguments demonstrate so does God.

Faith and Empathy

Third, no amount of logical explanation can account for a world in which God exists and suffering occurs that makes suffering any less painful or evil. For that matter, who wants an explanatory discourse while in the throes of inconsolable pain? Even when searching for God or meaning, evil feels so overwhelming that God feels distant or dead in its presence.[6] How people respond to suffering and evil “determines whether the experience is one of blessing or blight.”[7]

The Bible provides a path forward: we need a strong understanding of who God is and we need a strong demonstration of human empathy.

The book of Job recounts the story of a righteous sufferer (his children killed, livestock taken, servants killed, and struck with an illness) who is accused of hidden wrongdoing by his “friends” (“miserable comforters,” 16:2) who plead for Job to repent of his sin(s) (1:1–3:26; 4:1–31:40). Job proclaims his innocence from any crime that would demand such punishments. He also demands God’s presence to solve this inequity. Ultimately, the Lord appears to Job and gives him a grand tour of the complexity of the cosmos which demonstrates the grandeur of God, His infinite management of the universe, and humanity’s lack of control of the wild of the earth (38:1–42:6). This moves Job to recant his arrogant charges against God’s righteousness.

Job positively illustrates God is present with us when we experience suffering that cannot be escaped (39:1–4). It also illustrates what bad company looks like (16:2), showing that God’s people would serve others better with pastoral empathy, to “weep with those who weep” (Rom 12:15). As Garrett DeWeese points out,

people “don’t need a theological lecture. They don’t need a philosophical discussion of the evidential problem. They need the emotional support.”[8]

Transcript: “Solving the Problem of Evil”

Conclusion

The existence of God may appear incompatible with evils like the Holocaust. However, in a world where God does not exist, suffering has no moral meaning or significance and renders the present argument moot. Furthermore, there is no reason to presume that God is not acting to end evil and this is seen in the work of Jesus. This God is clearly seen in the natural world around us.

Finally, logic may prove helpful for the critic and the curious, but it is faith in a sovereign God and empathy towards those who suffer that will matter to those who suffer today.

Endnotes

  1. Quoted in William Lane Craig, ““Transcript: The Absurdity of Life Without God” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
  2. Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (1998; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005), 20; Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013), 33.
  3. Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 58.
  4. DeWeese, “Transcript: Solving the Problem of Evil” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
  5. The arguments are taken from Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 9–19.
  6. I thought of Elie Wiesel’s thoughts, “‘Where is God now?’ And I heard a voice within me answer him, ‘Where is He? Here He is. He is hanging here on these gallows.’” Quoted in DeWeese, “Transcript.”
  7. DeWeese, “Handout: Solving the Problem of Evil” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.), 10.
  8. DeWeese, “Transcript.”

Bibliography

Beckwith, Francis J., and Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. 1998. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005.

Craig, William Lane. “Transcript: The Absurdity of Life Without God.” Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.

DeWeese, Garrett. “Handout: Solving the Problem of Evil.” Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.

––––––. “Transcript: Solving the Problem of Evil.” Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.

Geisler, Norman L., and Ronald M. Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences. Rev. edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013.