The Intrinsic Credibility of Biblical Miracles -- By: Henry S. Curr
BSac 98:392 (Oct 41) p. 469
The Intrinsic Credibility of Biblical Miracles
The Bible contains the record of numerous miracles as might be reasonably expected, if we are prepared to concede the claims which it makes for itself. Again and again it is asserted in its pages that the ultimate source of the wisdom and knowledge with which these marvels abound is God Himself, acting through the Holy Spirit one of whose functions has ever been to lead into all the truth the minds and hearts of such men as God may choose for the purpose. In these circumstances it need be no cause for wonder that the narratives of Holy Scripture give us information not only about the ways and works of men of like passions with ourselves, but also of signs and wonders so impressive that they cannot be adequately explained on any other principle than that they were wrought by the finger of God. To the believer whose understanding has been enlightened from above, these incidents offer no difficulty. They accord well with his faith in God to whom nothing is impossible. Indeed it may almost be said that the entire absence of miracles from the Bible would present to the man of God a much more serious problem than their presence. He feels himself entitled to expect that the ordinary march of events will be invaded and interrupted from time to time by manifestations of God’s power and compassion, as reminders that in Him we ever live and move and have our being.
To unbelievers of the more aggressive type, miracles have been for many centuries a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence. Endless attempts have been made to explain them away as stories which naturally arose in the midst of simple
BSac 98:392 (Oct 41) p. 470
folk whose intelligences were not exercised to discriminate in such matters. Thus the medical miracles of our Lord are supposed to be examples of psychotherapy, anticipations of modern theories regarding the power of mind over matter in the realm of health and hygiene. Perhaps the deadliest attack is that of David Hume. He argues that miracles are contrary to human experience, while there are only too many instances of human testimony being found to be untrustworthy. He, therefore, concludes that it is much more probable that those who were responsible for the records of miracles were mistaken, than that such astounding departures from the normal should actually have happened. The error underlying that reasoning which appears to be plausible enough, is that the incredible is not necessarily the impossible. Hume has surely forgotten the proverb that truth is stranger than fiction. Napoleon was right when he observed that impossible is a term only found in fools’ dictionaries.
The case for the validity of miracles rests upon much superio...
Click here to subscribe