Chapter 11.2

Defending Biblical Miracle Workers

Table of Topics

A) The View of Liberalism and Charismaticism Disagrees with Historical Christianity

B) There are No “Ordinary” Miracle Workers in Scripture

B.1) Super-supernaturalism’s straw man of “apostolic” miracle workers

B.2) The “Seventy” were Apostles of Jesus Christ

B.3) Ananias was personally appointed by Jesus Christ with a monumental message for the Church

B.4) Phillip introduced extra-biblical revelation to Samaria

B.5) Stephen was personally appointed to represent apostles

B.6) NT does not imply “ordinary” miracle workers: 1 Cor 12, Gal 3:5

B.7) There are no “ordinary” miracle workers in the OT: Aaron, Joshua, & Samson

C) Super-supernaturalism Confuses the Primary Purpose of Miracle Working with the Secondary Beneficial Effects

D) Christ’s Injunctions for Silence Condemn Super-supernaturalism

E) Supposed “Miracle Workers” in Other Religions Do Not Negate God’s Purposes for Miracle Working

Publications & Particulars

Super-supernaturalism understandably wishes to deny the biblical purpose of God-sent miracle workers. If, in fact, God only grants miracle working gifts in order to authenticate a messenger of new extra-biblical divine revelation to be believed and obeyed by all, then we would have no expectation for them operating today. Not even the most ardent super-supernaturalists today want to claim they are adding to Scripture. Therefore, super-supernaturalism has offered several arguments to deny their biblical purpose, many of which have been addressed elsewhere in KOG.

For example, there were times when Christ condemned a request by the Pharisees for a miraculous sign to authenticate Himself. But this was obviously because of their hard hearts and refusal to accept the multitude of previous signs. ^[1] In addition, we note elsewhere that mere physical miracles are not adequate to completely authenticate a messenger of God as satan can empower miracle workers as well. This is why the ultimate divine authentication is supernatural virtue which no human can consistently fake, and the devil cannot and will not duplicate. ^[2] Additional support and responses to objections regarding our claim that God’s purpose for miracle working gifts is the authentication of new divine revelation, will be offered below.

A) The View of Liberalism and Charismaticism ^[3] Disagrees with Historical Christianity

In spite of the clear biblical evidence of God’s intention to authenticate His messengers with miracle working abilities, theological liberals and teachers in super-supernaturalism deny this. Concerning primarily the former, William Abraham, Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SMU writes:

Recent discussion of the relation between miracle and revelation has found this account [that supernatural deeds authenticate supernatural revelation] so unsatisfactory that it is rare to find it examined in any detail. It would be no exaggeration to say that it is not even taken seriously. The assessment of John Dillenberger is not untypical. He writes: “The defense of Christianity through miracle and prophecy in the 17/18th century sense is an unfortunate chapter in the history of Protestant theology.” ^[4]

Such a perspective is reflected by the Yale historian Kenneth S. Latourette who claims in his very popular A History of Christianity that Jesus, “Meticulously avoided any display of his power to call attention to himself or to prove his divine commission.” ^[5]

Unfortunately, however, this unbiblical perspective is not only promoted by liberal theologians, but in super-supernaturalism as well. For example, Jack Deere writes:

None of the writers of Scripture ever appealed to miracles to support their claims that they were writing Scripture. . . . No text of Scripture says that the authority of Scripture rests on miracles! ^[6]

Mr. Deere seems to state only half the truth which becomes untrue. Contrary to his deceptive statement, and as we have demonstrated above, the Apostle Paul clearly referred to his miracle working abilities in order to authenticate his divine authority to write Scripture (cf. 2 Cor 12:12; cf. Acts 14:3; 19:10-12; Rom 15:18-19). The reason he defended his authority to the Corinthians, for example, was so his letters to them would be given divine authority. Accordingly, he writes to them: “If anybody thinks he is a Prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.” (1 Cor 14:37). Therefore, the recognition of the divine authority of an Apostle did depend on their miracle working ability, and then as an Apostle their writings were recognized as having divine authority.

Accordingly, NT passages such as Hebrews 2:3-4 tell us that the message of the first century Apostles, that became the basis for the message of the written Scriptures, was authenticated by miracle working. The first century miracle working, and the recording of them in the Scriptures, is no doubt intended by God to strengthen our confidence in the authenticity and authority of the new divine revelation we possess in the NT. Unfortunately, arguments such as Mr. Deere’s tarnish something that God intended to be an encouragement to our faith. And such super-supernaturalists are once again against the historical view of authentic Christianity.

Along these lines, Dr. Colin Brown writes:

From the close of the New Testament period to the third century and beyond, the appeal to miracles was a regular part of the Christian apologist’s armor. ^[7]

Accordingly, several early Christian leaders reflected the authenticating purpose of miracle working in their apologetic writings. In the second century, Bishop Melito of Sardis (c. 177) wrote:

The activities of Christ after His Baptism, and especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in His flesh. ^[8]

Likewise, despite numerous claims among the pagans to their own miracle working, Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-254) wrote in response to the criticisms of Celsus:

Now this is our answer to his allegations, and our defense of the truths contained in Christianity. . . . [T]he Gospel has a demonstration of its own, more divine than any established by Grecian dialectics. And this diviner method is called by the Apostle the “manifestation of the Spirit and of power”; of “the Spirit,” on account of the [fulfilled] prophecies, which are sufficient to produce faith in any one who reads them, especially in those things which relate to Christ; and of “power,” because of the signs and wonders which we must believe to have been performed [notice past tense]. . . .

[W]ithout “miracles and wonders” the Apostles would not have persuaded those who heard new doctrines and new teachings to leave their traditional religion and to accept the Apostles’ teaching at the risk of their lives. ^[9]

Also, Saint Augustine (354-430) wrote:

For what other purpose are so great and so many miracles, He Himself also saying, that they are done for no other cause, than that He may be believed in? [John 14:10-11]. . . . Therefore He bringing to us a medicine such as should heal our utterly corrupt manners, by miracles procured to Himself authority, by authority obtained Himself belief, by belief drew together a multitude, by a multitude possessed antiquity, by antiquity strengthened religion; so that not only the utterly foolish novelty of heretics dealing deceitfully, but also the inveterate error of the nations opposing with violence, should be unable on any side to rend it asunder. ^[10]

Christian apologist Alan Richardson points out the importance that the biblical unity between miracle working and the authentication of new divine revelation had in medieval Christian theology when he writes:

Until the nineteenth century it was generally agreed by Christian theologians, Catholic and Protestant alike, that the divine revelation given in the Scriptures was divinely guaranteed by the supernatural evidences of miracle and prophecy. A supernatural revelation, it was held, required supernatural testimonies to demonstrate its authority to rational beings.

In so far as Christians believed truths which were beyond the power of reason to establish, it was held to be reasonable to believe them because they had been attested by the divinely given signs of miracle and prophecy. Miracle and prophecy were thus regarded as the “external evidences” of revelation, and hence the argument from miracle and the argument from prophecy have played a very important part in traditional Christian apologetic down the centuries.

Thus, so far from regarding the miraculous as being in any way opposed to reason or to nature, traditional Christian theology has always regarded the miracles as the rational grounds by means of which reasonable men may believe truths which go beyond the power of reason to establish.

On this basis, one of the principal arguments for the belief in the superiority of Christianity over Mohammedanism was developed in the Middle Ages. St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out that Mohammed had won men to his allegiance by promising carnal delights, whereas the greatest of all the Christian miracles was that Christianity effected the conversion on a vast scale of wise and simple alike, despite the fact that it promised not carnal but spiritual rewards-with persecutions. This “wondrous conversion of the world to the Christian faith” is proof that the miraculous signs did take place and were seen to guarantee the truth of the revelation in Christ. Mohammed had had to rely not merely on carnal promises but also on fables:

Nor did he add any signs of supernatural agency, which alone are a fitting witness to divine inspiration, since a visible work that can be from God alone proves the teacher of truth to be invisibly inspired; but he [Mohammed] asserted that he was sent in the power of military arms-a sign that is not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. [Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, I:vi] ^[11]

This same conviction was held in the Reformation. Accordingly, in response to the Roman Catholic Church’s demand for miracles to attest the Reformation doctrines, John Calvin (1509-1564) answered:

In demanding miracles of us, they act dishonestly for we are not forging some new gospel, but are retaining that very gospel whose truth all the miracles that Jesus Christ and his disciples ever wrought serve to confirm. ^[12]

Likewise, Calvin pointed out the remarkable fulfillment of biblical prophecies, and referring specifically to Isaiah’s predictions concerning Cyrus writes: “Does not this simple, unadorned narrative plainly demonstrate that what Isaiah spoke was not the conjecture of man but the undoubted oracle of God?” ^[13]

On this topic, Richard Hooker (1554-1600), the first great systematic theologian of the Church of England wrote:

When God Himself doth of Himself raise up any, whose labour He useth without requiring that men should authorize them; but then He doth ratify their calling by manifest signs and tokens Himself from heaven. . . . Luther did reasonably therefore, in declaring that the senate of Mulheuse should do well to ask of Muncer, from whence he received his power to teach, who it was that had called him; and if his answer were that God had given him his charge, then to require at his hands some evident sign thereof for men’s satisfaction; because so is God wont, when He Himself is the author of any extraordinary calling. ^[14]

Likewise, a foremost theological leader of American Evangelicalism, Charles Hodge (1797-1878) wrote:

What the Bible teaches on this subject is . . . that the evidence of miracles is important and decisive. . . . God has confirmed His revelations, whether made through Prophets or Apostles, by these manifestations of His power is of itself a sufficient proof of their validity and importance as seals of a divine mission. The sacred writers under both dispensations appealed to these wonders as proofs that they were the messengers of God. In the New Testament it is said that God confirmed the testimony of His Apostles by signs, wonders, divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost. Even Christ, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, constantly appealed to His miracles as a decisive proof of His divine mission. ^[15]

Not only then are liberal theologians and super-supernaturalism out of step with orthodox historical Christianity on this matter, but they are at odds with the majority of contemporary Evangelicalism as well. One leading apologists of this movement, J. W. Montgomery, wrote:

Elijah was faced with a common religious problem, one which existential immediacy is totally unable to solve. This is the problem of conflicting religious claims. The false prophets said one thing to the people; Elijah said another. How were the people to know who was proclaiming God aright and who was the idolater?

An objective test was the only way of ridding the situation of endless confusion and meaningless claims. So Elijah gave the false prophets the opportunity to demonstrate the “reality” of their God through his ability to perform an act of divine power on earth. The inability of the false prophets’ truth-claim to hold up under such a test, when coupled with Yahweh’s positive response to the identical test, provided the needed ground for belief in the true God. ^[16]

Likewise, in spite of the contemporary confusion regarding the God-ordained purpose of miracle working, Bernard Ramm (1916-1992), former Professor of Religion at Baylor wrote:

An unbroken belief stretches from earliest Hebrew times to the present century that supernatural knowledge in the form of a fulfilled prophetic utterance, and supernatural power in the form of a miracle are indicia of a divinely given revelation. The Biblical appeal to this type of evidence is clear; the Church Fathers wrote extensively on the subject; and the witness of the fulfilled prophetic word and the accomplished miracle has been central in Christian apologetics in the subsequent Catholic and Protestant centuries. Few convictions in Christendom have such a sustained historical continuity. ^[17]

Nonetheless, there is an effort particularly in super-supernaturalism to deny this God ordained purpose for miracle working in order to provide theological support for their claim that the miracle working gifts are operating today.

B) There are No “Ordinary” Miracle Workers in Scripture

B.1) Super-supernaturalism’s straw man of “apostolic” miracle workers

We have made the point throughout KOG that every God-sent miracle worker in Scripture was also a messenger of new extra-biblical divine revelation that must be believed and obeyed. Super-supernaturalism would have us accept its claim that it possesses miracle workers who do not possess new extra-biblical revelation that all Christians need to believe and obey. This, in spite of the fact, that there are no examples of such people anywhere in Scripture.

Super-supernaturalism, of course, needs to refute this. Accordingly, a primary approach to accomplish this is to claim that because people other than Prophets and Apostles performed miracles in the Bible, that we can expect such gifts to be given to any Christian, with no need for them to be a messenger of new divine revelation. Along these lines, Jack Deere writes:

In order to make their case, cessationists [historicists ^[18]] have to prove . . . that miracles authenticated [only] the Apostles. . . . If it could be shown that miracles did not authenticate [only] the Apostles . . . then their whole case collapses. . . .

Even if Apostles have ceased, that would prove nothing in regard to the ministry of signs and wonders or of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. This is true because neither signs and wonders nor the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were limited to the Apostles. Neither by example nor statement of Scripture can anyone prove that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were limited to the few. Just the converse is true. ^[19]

Once again, Mr. Deere is only half right, which makes him wrong. Of course miracle working was not limited to Apostles in the NT, but that in no way proves that these gifts were therefore abundant as he claims.

Mr. Deere goes on to point out that Phillip and Stephen performed miracles, disproving the notion that miracles were only to authenticate the Apostles, thereby supposedly refuting the historicists position. Surprisingly, Mr. Deere claims, “I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question.” ^[20] We might wonder what he has been reading, and suggest that at least here such an answer is given.

Mr. Deere is right in defining the traditional historicist position as claiming that miracle working in the early Church was the exclusive ability of Apostles, and that such miracle working gifts ceased with the last Apostle of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, we read in the New Dictionary of the Bible:

Even in the NT, we see no signs of these [miracle working] gifts except where Apostles have been at work. Even where there has previously been genuine faith, it is only in the presence of Apostles that these gifts of the Spirit are showered down. ^[21]

On the contrary, Mr. Deere is right to point out that ones like Philip and Stephen refute this position. In addition, we demonstrate elsewhere that the miracle working gifts continued even into the third century, long after the Apostles were gone, and therefore, the traditional historicists position needs refinement. ^[22]

That refinement as stated here is that every God-sent miracle worker in Scripture was also a source of new extra-biblical divine revelation that must be believed and obeyed. The difference, therefore, between our position and the traditional position that super-supernaturalists take advantage of, is that we recognize that biblical characters other than recognized Prophets and Apostles were sources of such revelation. In response to Mr. Deere, then, we might say, “We have never read or heard a sufficient answer” to this position.

Therefore, we concede that at least some of the “miracle workers” in the early Church (e.g. Stephen and Phillip) were not designated as “Apostles.” ^[23] Nor were the Scripture and sign gifts distributed only through the laying on of hands by an Apostle (e.g. probably Ananias), another traditional position. ^[24] However, this does not prove what super-supernaturalism needs to prove, namely, that there were a relative abundance of non-apostolic miracle workers in the early Church. And, again, a better way to state the historicist’s case is not that miracle working was confined to the Apostles, but that it accompanied the introduction of new extra-biblical divine revelation equal to Scripture wherever it occurred. This definition eliminates the vast majority of super-supernaturalist arguments to the contrary. ^[25]

Nonetheless, it is customary for super-supernaturalists to point to the following NT personalities as “non apostolic” miracle workers as evidence that “ordinary Christians” possessed these miracle working gifts in the early Church.: 1) Christ’s seventy disciples, 2) Ananias, 3) Stephen, and 4) Phillip. However, the ministries of all these men further prove our point that every God-sent miracle worker in Scripture was also a messenger of new divine revelation that must be believed and obeyed.

B.2) The “Seventy” were Apostles of Jesus Christ

Regarding the “seventy [two]” disciples, Christ told them, “Heal the sick . . . and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is near you’” (Luke 10:1, 9). At the time, this was certainly new extra-biblical divine revelation that God required to be believed and obeyed and, therefore, needed to be authenticated. Accordingly, Christ also told them: “He who listens to you listens to Me; he who rejects you rejects Me; but he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me” (v. 16). Accordingly, they were direct representatives of Christ that no one can claim today apart from quoting Christ’s words in Scripture. In fact, we demonstrate elsewhere that these seventy deserve the appellation of Apostle of Jesus Christ, as they met the biblical requirements for this. ^[26]

B.3) Ananias was personally appointed by Jesus Christ with a monumental message for the Church

Another supposedly “common guy” in the NT that worked a miracle was “a disciple named Ananias,” (Acts 9:10) who, “placing his hands on” the blinded Apostle Paul, “said, brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, Who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here, has [personally] sent me [through a vision, cf. v. 10] so that you may see again” (v. 17). Like all those granted the gift of miracle working, Ananias’ healing powers worked “immediately” and completely, such that Paul “could see again” (v. 18).

Also like every God-sent miracle worker in Scripture, Ananias carried an extra-biblical, divinely authoritative message that Paul was to obey. Evidently, Ananias was God’s personal messenger of the extra-biblical “controlling call” ^[27] of Paul to Apostleship to be God’s uniquely “chosen instrument to carry” the Gospel to “the Gentiles” (Acts 9:15). This “controlling call” of the Apostle Paul was no less momentous than the “controlling call” of Moses, and Paul’s mission to introduce the New Covenant to whole regions of Gentiles was unprecedented.

Ananias’ ability to heal Paul of his blindness no doubt authenticated his authority to commission Paul for his revolutionary ministry and to authenticate that ministry to the Jewish “disciples in Damascus” (Acts 9:19). No modern “miracle worker” can claim a God-given responsibility as pivotal as Ananias,’ nor such a need to have extra-biblical revelation supernaturally authenticated. In addition, we demonstrate elsewhere that Ananias met all the biblical requirements to also be called an Apostle of Jesus Christ, just like Paul, and no one today can claim such credentials. ^[28]

More specifically, Ananias offers no biblical evidence for the common claim by modern “miracle workers” to have a personal message from God for someone. Would they also claim Jesus Christ personally appeared to them to give them the message? Would their “personal message” equal the import to the universal Church that Ananias’ did? Have they ever immediately and completely healed a blind man? We seriously doubt it, and therefore claim that there are not biblical examples for the kind of “miracle working” “prophets” claimed in super-supernaturalism.

B.4) Philip introduced extra-biblical revelation to Samaria

Likewise, we read that the disciple, “Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there [new extrabiblical revelation of the New Covenant] and performed, “miraculous signs” such that “many paralytics and cripples were healed” (Acts 8:5-7). Philip introduced the revolutionary New Covenant to the Samaritans who had lived under the Old Covenant for centuries.

Here again we would stress the extra-biblical nature of Philip’s preaching as the Samaritan’s OT did not contain the revelation of the New Covenant. Therefore, even though Philip probably did not receive a revelation of the Gospel directly from God as the Apostle Paul did (cf. Gal 1:11-12), it was still extra-biblical divine revelation in Samaria that needed divine authentication. Through Phillip, God was changing nothing less than the rules of how to be right with God. Notice that he was not simply communicating the New Covenant from Scripture as many do today, but was communicating a new, unwritten, radical change in a divine/human covenant. And because God has given no one today such a “revealing ministry,” no one should expect such a healing ministry.

More specifically, we have written elsewhere:

Secondly, even for those missionaries today who might introduce the Gospel to a new people group, the Gospel is not new extra-biblical divine revelation. This is an important point for promoters of “power evangelism” to consider because, as we demonstrate elsewhere in KOG, every God-sent miracle worker in Scripture was also a messenger of new extra-biblical divine revelation to be believed and obeyed by all. Since even the Gospel is recorded in Chinese Bibles, miracle working is unnecessary, and accordingly, we see no believable evidence for it. ^[29]

Therefore, Philip offers no biblical evidence for the need to have miracle workers today, because the Gospel is no longer extra-biblical as it was in his day.

The example of Philip explains why the early Church universally testified that the miracle working gifts ceased in the third century. ^[30] Even though revelatory Apostles no longer existed at that time, the Gospel was still new enough to the planet to require miraculous authentication. Accordingly, there were perhaps several evangelists such as Philip who were given miracle commanding powers. But as Scripture became more available, these gifts ceased precisely because they are for the purpose of authenticating extra-biblical revelation. Since then, God’s plan been to authenticate the Gospel with the recorded physical miracle working in Scripture and the spiritual miracle working occurring with the supernatural effects of regeneration.

In addition, while this evidence is limited in value, it should not be missed that Phillip was personally commissioned by the Twelve Apostles with the laying on of hands (cf. Acts 6:5-6). Accordingly, perhaps, the early Church called Philip an Apostle. ^[31]

B.5) Stephen was personally appointed to represent Apostles

The personal appointment of the Twelve Apostles is equally important to recognize in Stephen’s life, another so-call “normal miracle worker” (cf. Acts 6:5-6). This again is an attribute that cannot be so easily ignored by those who would claim to have Stephen’s miracle working gifts. In addition, Stephen confirms our claim that every God-sent miracle worker in Scripture was also a messenger of new extra-biblical divine revelation. Accordingly, while Stephen, “did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people” (Acts 6:8), there are several clear indications that he was a messenger of miraculous revelation as well.

First, we are told that his opponents, “could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke” (Acts 6:10). Elsewhere we discuss the probability that this is describing the supernatural apostolic gift of divine knowledge and wisdom which produced Scripture-quality revelation. ^[32] It is clear that Stephen is described as speaking direct revelations of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, he preaches extra biblical revelation when he claims that his opponents “betrayed and murdered” “the Righteous One” or Messiah Who had been predicted by the Prophets (Acts 7:52). Finally, it was precisely because Stephen was preaching the new extra-biblical New Covenant revelation that his opponents were so incensed by him. Like the Apostles, Stephen did not have authoritative Scripture to support the Gospel, and therefore needed supernatural authentication to preach this message. What Stephen preached was revolutionary divine revelation apart from Scripture, and something that no one can do today. Therefore, no one needs the powers Stephen had.

In fact, in light of the obviously unique circumstances of all the above men, it is remarkable that super-supernaturalism would use them as validating examples of supposed “miracle workers” today. Would any “miracle worker” today dare to claim the kind of credentials and ministries that these men possessed? If not, then they cannot use them as biblical justification for their own “miracle working” ministries today.

B.6) NT does not imply “ordinary” miracle workers: 1 Cor 12, Gal 3:5

There is an understandable desire on the part of super-supernaturalism to find other biblical support for the idea that ordinary Christians possessed the gifts of miracle working. Along these lines, Mr. Deere and others cite 1 Corinthians 12:9-10, 28 and Galatians 3:5. ^[33]

Concerning 1 Corinthians 12:28 the Apostle Paul writes: “And in the church God has appointed first of all Apostles, second Prophets, third Teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing” (1 Cor 12:28). Some have understandably argued from this statement that Paul intentionally differentiated “workers of miracles” and “those having gifts of healing” from the ministry of “Apostles” and “Prophets” because the two are listed separately.

Paul may conceive of miracle workers and Apostles/Prophets as being two different people, but the mere mention of miracle workers here does nothing to refute the weight of NT evidence that miracle working was only the possession of those who were being used to reveal extra-biblical divine revelation. Therefore, Paul may be including men like Stephen and Philip as those possessing such gifts, but again, there is no support here for the idea that such gifts were separated from the need to authenticate a messenger of new revelation.

Additionally, the mere mention of “gifts of healing” and “miraculous powers” in 1 Corinthians 12:9-10, 28 cannot be made to imply that there was an abundance of individuals in the early Church who had “healing” ministries, but did not have “revealing” ministries. This interpretation in super-supernaturalism ignores the clear fact that when Paul is speaking of the gifts distributed throughout “the body of Christ” (12:27) and “the church” (12:28) he is referring to the universal Church, not the local Corinthian church. Accordingly, he says, “in the church God has appointed first of all Apostles” (v. 28), and most would concede the fact that Apostles were relatively rare and that not every local church had one in the first century. Therefore, these verses offer no support for the idea that “workers of miracles” were abundant and present in many or all local churches at the time.

Along the same lines, Pastor Bannister uses 1 Corinthians 12:9 to suggest that “gifts of healing” were rather common when he writes:

Paul tells the Corinthians that the Spirit gives “gifts of healing” (1 Cor. 12:9) for the body to share among them. The plural use suggests that this is not a permanent gift that resides in a certain person, but that each healing is a gift, given by the Spirit, to meet a need in the body. Anyone can pray for healing, and anyone can ask for “gifts of healing” to be given during prayer for the sick. ^[34]

First, Pastor Bannister ignores the fact discussed above that the gifts of healing and miracle working involved more that just a prayer, but that those possessing such gifts commanded healings. Secondly, there is no recognition here that Christ and the Apostles specifically pointed to their gifts of healing in order to uniquely authenticate them as messengers of extra-biblical revelation that must be believed and obeyed. If such gifts were as common as suggested here, these claims of Christ and the Apostles would have had little, if any value. Finally, while we would not dogmatically claim to know specifically what the Apostle meant by using the plural “gifts of healing,” Pastor Bannister’s claim that this is clear evidence that “anyone” can have these miracle working gifts is the kind of exegetical leap too common in super-supernaturalism and exposes the great dearth of biblical evidence for their claims.

Finally, concerning 1 Corinthians 12, super-supernaturalist theologian Max Turner suggests that there were not only “ordinary” healers in the early Church, but “ordinary” healings (whatever that means) that were not the “extraordinary” kind recorded in the Bible, but the kind that occur today. ^[35] However, NT scholar D. A. Carson, in commenting on “gifts of healing” in 1 Corinthians 12:9, 28 states what would seem to be the obvious: “There can be little doubt that Paul understands these healings to be as miraculous as those of the Lord Jesus himself.” ^[36]

Galatians 3:5 is another verse that is often used in super-supernaturalism to claim that miracle workers were common in the early churches. The Apostle asks the Galatians, “Does God give you His Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?” First of all, it could be suggested that this verse does not provide clear proof that miracle workers were in the Galatian churches at all. The Apostle says that it is God who is working the miracles, not human miracle workers, and the miracles Paul speaks of may very well be the direct miracles ^[37] that Christians pray for today and God miraculously grants apart from any human agent or miraculous gifts.

Secondly, the Apostle may be referring to the spiritual miracle and “greater works (NASB)” of the new birth that Christ promised in John 14:12 and that comes when “God give[s] His Spirit” (Gal 3:5), just as Paul reminds the Galatians in this very sentence. ^[38] This interpretation may be strengthened by the fact that Paul tells them later in his letter that “what counts [and what they should be seeking] is a new [spiritual, supernatural] creation” (Gal 6:15), not merely physical miracles. The greatest miracle occurring among the Galatians was supernatural conversion and it is possible that Paul is pointing to that here in 3:5.

Finally, however, the Apostle may be referring to the miracle working that authenticated the introduction of the new extra-biblical divine revelation of the Gospel in Galatia. The miracles here are closely tied with Paul (and possibly others) who first proclaimed the Gospel to them which was “the revelation from Jesus Christ” (1:12). There is no doubt that the Gospel was new in Galatia at the time (cf. 1:6), and this region was in fact one of the first to hear it. The miracles were no doubt authenticating the messengers of this new extra-biblical divine revelation just as they did in every other instance in Scripture. In fact, there could have been other Apostles of Jesus Christ in Galatia.

Regardless, if there were miracle workers in Galatia, then the rest of the NT tells us that they were also messengers of new extra-biblical divine revelation, the very Gospel that Paul mentions in the context of these miracles. Contrary to super-supernaturalism then, Galatians 3:5 provides no support for an abundance of “ordinary” miracle workers in “ordinary” circumstances, and many respected commentators agree. ^[39]

B.7) There are no “ordinary” miracle workers in the OT: Aaron, Joshua, & Samson

Our claim that every God-sent miracle worker in Scripture was also a source of extra-biblical new divine revelation is proven in the OT as well. We can start with Aaron of whom we read:

Moses and Aaron brought together all the elders of the Israelites, and Aaron told them everything the LORD had said to Moses. He [Aaron] also performed the [miraculous] signs before the people, and they believed. (Exod 4:29-31)

Once again, we have a biblical miracle worker being authenticated as a messenger from God of new divine revelation. Aaron, like perhaps Stephen and Philip, did not receive his revelation directly from God, but nonetheless, was commissioned by Moses to communicate the revelation on his behalf, therefore necessitating the supernatural authentication of Aaron.

Joshua, as well, certainly exercised the gift of miracle working, commanding the sun to stop in the sky during a battle (cf. Josh 10:12-14). But he was also to receive extra-biblical revelation that was to exercise divine authority over God’s people, just like Moses. Accordingly, we read:

So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him. Have him stand before Eleazar the Priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the LORD. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in. (Num 27:18-21)

The OT Prophets obviously authenticated themselves by miraculously predicting the future (cf. Deut 18:20-22), something that modern so-called “prophets” do not and cannot do. In addition, Elijah and Elisha were powerful miracle workers and healers, but they are never called such, but are called Prophets, sources of extra-biblical revelation from God, because that was the purpose of their miracle working.

Some may object that Samson is an example of a miracle worker who did not receive and communicate extra-biblical divine revelation from God. However, a closer examination of the office of an OT Judge reveals otherwise. We are told twice that Samson “judged [shaphat] Israel twenty years (Judg 15:20; 16:31). The Judges of Israel spoke for God, particularly revealing His extra-biblical will in personal disputes.

The ministry of the Judge Deborah is particularly revealing concerning this office:

Now Deborah, a Prophetess . . . was judging [shapat] Israel at that time. And she used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah . . . and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment. Now she sent and summoned Barak . . . and said to him, “Behold, the LORD, the God of Israel, has commanded, ‘Go and march to Mount Tabor.'” (Judg 4:4-6)

Not only did Deborah have the God given authority to pronounce extra-biblical judgments for Israel, she is described as a “Prophetess” who revealed something directly from God.

The Prophet Samuel is also described in the same way as Samson: “Samuel judged [shapat] Israel all the days of his life” (1 Sam 7:15), and he obviously received and communicated divine revelation.

It would seem that speaking directly for God was something the Israelite Judges did, even if it was merely to pronounce judicial decisions in the name of God. So although the Bible’s description of Samson’s judging ministry is not as explicit as those of Deborah and Samuel in portraying him as a source of God’s word, the fact that we are told twice that he “judged [shaphat] Israel twenty years” clearly implies he assumed a similar God-given role, even if he may not have fulfilled it as consistently, or certainly as admirably. If these arguments remain unconvincing than modern “miracle workers” are free to make the sinful and foolish brute their biblical poster child, because he is the only possible God-sent biblical candidate to represent them.

We see then that, while we do not have a record of the supernatural authenticating deeds of everyone whom we accept as a source of divine revelation (i.e. David, Asaph, some Prophets, etc.), it is still true that every God-sent miracle worker in Scripture was also a source of new extra-biblical divine revelation that must be believed and obeyed by God’s people. Therefore, there is an inseparable nature in Scripture between the granting of the miracle working gifts and being a bearer of such revelation.

C) Super-supernaturalism Confuses the Primary Purpose of Miracle Working with the Secondary Beneficial Effects

Modern day attempts to invent additional purposes for miracle working gifts, such as healing, do nothing to prove their existence today and confuse the primary purpose of healing (authentication of revelation) with secondary, although obviously wonderful, effects (physical healing). Physical healing was an effect of the gift, not necessarily its purpose. ^[40] Super-supernaturalist teachers routinely confuse this issue, completely ignoring the purpose of the gift and highlighting their desire for its secondary effects.

Dr. Grudem, for example, states:

As with other spiritual gifts, healing has several purposes [effects, yes, purposes, no]. Certainly it functions as a “Sign” to authenticate the gospel message. . . . Then also healing brings comfort and health to those who are ill, and thereby demonstrates God’s attribute of mercy toward those in distress. Third, healing equips people for service, as physical impediments to ministry are removed. Fourth, healing provides opportunity for God to be glorified as people see physical evidence of his goodness, love, power, wisdom, and presence. ^[41]

First, Dr. Grudem is imprecise when he says that miracle working gifts function “as a Sign to authenticate the gospel message.” As we have demonstrated, the sign gifts were given to authenticate any new divine revelation in the absence of Scripture, not just the Gospel. And now that the Gospel is in the written word of God, miraculous authentication is rarely needed, a point we will address further below.

Secondly, the rest of Grudem’s list certainly contains nice things which we could certainly wish were happening more, and even think are necessary, but that does nothing to change the real purpose God has for the miracle working gifts. If, in fact, these gifts were intended to merely do what Grudem suggests, why is every God-sent miracle worker recorded in Scripture also a source of new divine revelation from God that must be believed and obeyed?

Of course Christ greatly encouraged family members when He raised Lazarus from the dead (cf. John 11:1-43), but it was still to authenticate Him as a messenger of new extra-biblical divine revelation in the absence of Scripture (cf. vs. 41-2). The believers in Troas were “greatly comforted” when the Apostle Paul brought Eutychus back to life, but it should not be missed that this miracle working occurred in the context of Paul revealing new divine truth in the absence of Scripture, for he “spoke to the people . . . until daylight” and surely his preaching contained such truths (Acts 20:6-12).

Similarly, there is no reason not to assume the same when God granted the Apostle the ability to heal on the island of Malta where he stayed for “three months” (Acts 28:1, cf. 7-11). Surely during that three months Paul spoke new divine revelation in the absence of Scripture.

Thirdly, the miracle working over nature would hardly fulfill the purposes Dr. Grudem suggests. When Jesus made a coin appear in the mouth of the first fish Peter caught (cf. Matt 17:27), withered a fig tree with a word (cf. Matt 21:19), or walked on water (cf. Matt 14:25-32), it was not for the purpose of helping people, but authenticating Himself to His disciples.

Many in super-supernaturalism suggest that because Paul said miraculous gifts such as healing were “given for the common good” (1 Cor 12:7), that the purpose of these gifts cannot be confined to the reception, communication, and authentication of the NT revelation. ^[42] But why wouldn’t the purpose of authentication be “for the common good” of not only the NT Church in its infancy, but even to us today who possess a Bible? Who are we to define what “common good” miracle working gifts should be given for?

Additionally, as with any miracles at any time, even miraculous healings in the early Church were relatively rare, with only eight such occurrences being recorded during the first thirty some years of apostolic ministry (cf. Acts 3:2-10; 5:15-16; 9:34-35, 40; 14:10; 19:11-12; 28:8-9). If simply comforting the ill, removing physical obstacles to ministry, or even glorifying God was why God granted the miracle working gifts, He undoubtedly passed up a multitude of opportunities to do so, and still does today.

Of course the Apostles’ healings had some of these other secondary effects, but it becomes obvious that God had a specific and limited purpose for the sign gifts and when that purpose was fulfilled these gifts ceased to function. To suggest that these positive effects suffice for God-given reasons for the gift of healing to operate today goes beyond what the Bible tells us and amounts to merely wishful thinking.

Accordingly, Augustine points out in his reflections on the lame man at the pool of Bethsaida (cf. John 5:1-18):

[Jesus] entered a place where lay a great multitude of sick folk-of blind, lame, withered; and being the physician of both souls and bodies, and having come to heal all the souls of them that should believe, of those sick folk He chose one for healing, thereby to signify unity. If in doing this we regard Him with a commonplace mind, with a mere human understanding and wit, as regards power it was not a great matter that He performed; and also as regards goodness He performed too little. There lay so many there, and yet only one was healed, whilst He could by a word have raised them all up. What, then, must we understand but that the power and the goodness was doing what souls might, by His deeds, understand for their everlasting salvation, than what bodies might gain for temporal health. ^[43]

Augustine goes on to explain that Jesus only healed some as a “sign to all of the nature and coming of His Kingdom,” and even for those who were healed, the primary reason was for a sign to them of Christ’s divine authority, because they too, “fall ill again and finally die.”

Accordingly, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, Pastor of Moody Bible Church writes:

Clearly, if the first purpose of [biblical miracle working] was to help people, thousands more could have been healed. Instead of feeding five thousand with five loaves and two fish, only to send them home to awake hungry, a permanent “bread factory” could have been established where all could receive their “daily bread.” The simple fact is this: The primary purpose of the miracles was to authenticate the message of Christ and the Apostles. ^[44]

We do not see Christ and the Apostles indiscriminately healing merely for the purpose of helping people. If we keep in mind that God the Father’s real purpose for granting the gift of healing to both His Son and the Apostles was to authenticate His divine messengers, we can readily understand why they did not heal every person they could have. Only a relatively few miracles would suffice for sufficient authentication.

The fact that the primary purpose of the gift of healing was not for healing is reflected in the fact that we never find instruction in the NT for sick believers to go to a faith healer, even though in the early days of the Church, the gift of healing was certainly operating. Accordingly, the epistle of James instructs sick believers to seek praying elders, not “faith healers” (cf. James 5:14-16), and Paul tells Timothy to drink, “a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses” (1 Tim 5:23).

The early Church understood that the gift was not granted merely to cure someone of their illness, nor was it something that the believers could rely on for healing. Super-supernaturalists do not have an explanation as to why the epistle of James did not instruct people to call for someone with the gift of healing, except to incorrectly confuse the epistle’s instruction for prayer, with the gift of healing, which we have addressed above and do so further in the next chapter. ^[45]

Finally, we are concerned with the perspective in super-supernaturalism that the real purpose of miracles is for God to demonstrate His love and reality to us, and to relieve us of difficulties and hardships in this life. Super-supernaturalists have missed the point, and remind us of what Christ said to another self-seeking multitude: “I tell you the truth, you are looking for Me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill” (John 6:26). Such people had also completely missed the real reason for His miracles, and were only interested in the physical benefits of such miracles. May the same not be true of any follower of Jesus today.

D) Christ’s Injunctions for Silence Condemns Super-supernaturalism

Some suggest that Christ’s frequent instruction for those He healed to not tell anyone, is an argument against the idea that the healings were to authenticate Him. We have written elsewhere:

Some have noted Christ’s reluctance at times to have His miracle working advertised. For example, Matthew records that after Jesus heals a leper, He tells him, “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them” (Matt 8:4; cf. 9:30; 12:15-16; 16:20; 17:9). We notice here that Christ still wanted the miracle to be “a testimony” “to the priest,” so such an occurrence cannot be used to deny that Christ desired to provide evidence for belief in Him.

On other occasions, Christ’s contentment to authenticate Himself merely to the healed individual or a small group, as opposed to having the miracle advertised, reflected His desire to primarily authenticate Himself to believers instead of unbelievers, as discussed above. Other times He may have wanted to limit the publicizing of His miracles in order to avoid unnecessary opposition from the Pharisees (cf. Matt 12:9-24).

In addition, unlike modern “faith healers,” Jesus did not want to be known merely as a miracle worker, but rather as a messenger of new divine revelation from God, and therefore He would have avoided instances of miracle working that may have only communicated the former. ^[46]

Again, let us remember that divine authentication does not require the healing of a multitude. Jesus performed plenty of public miracles to authenticate Himself. In addition, it would seem His primary purpose was to authenticate Himself to His inner circle of Apostles, who would in turn authenticate themselves with their own miracle working abilities.

While the fact that Christ sometimes told people to be quiet about His healings does not refute their primary purpose of authentication, this fact does bring into question how much modern “faith healers” are out of step with the Lord they profess to follow. Commenting on the passage above, Dr. Carson writes:

[P]rohibitions against telling of cures and exorcisms . . . have nothing to do with the so-called messianic secret proposed by Wrede and defended by Bultmann. Nor does this particular prohibition enjoin silence only till the cured leper has been to Jerusalem to be cleared by the priest (Lenski, Barnes). The synoptic parallels (Mark 1:45; Luke 5:15) as well as other similar occurrences in Matthew demonstrate that these commands to be silent have other functions–to show that Jesus is not presenting himself as a mere wonder worker. . . ^[47]

Which is precisely what modern “faith healers” do. Imagine one of them asking someone to be secret about one of their “healings.” Their great propensity to exaggeration, instead of silence, exposes their desire to bring attention to themselves. Nothing could be more different than the “healing crusades” that appear on stages and TV for vain self-glory and Christ’s healing ministry for divine authentication.

E) Supposed “Miracle Workers” in Other Religions Do Not Negate God’s Purposes for Miracle Working

Some wonder if the claims of miracles in other religions argue against God’s desire to use miracle working as divine authentication of divine revelation. This was, of course, one of the foundational arguments of the skeptic David Hume (1711-1776) who wrote:

[W]hen we take seriously the claims to miracles found within the various religious traditions of the world, then they indirectly undermine each other. If certain miracles are the foundation of a particular religion, then they indirectly disconfirm the truth of a rival religion together with its miracles. But if we start with the rival religion and take its miracles seriously, they indirectly disconfirm the claims of the first religion we encountered, together with its miracles. Either way, the testimony to one set of miracles cancels out the testimony to the other. ^[48]

Likewise, Dr. David Clark, Professor of Theology at Bethel, asks a critical question:

If Christian televangelists and New Age cultists both appeal to miracles in support of their religions, do these conflicting claims cancel each other out? How can miracles provide evidence for one faith when another religion uses different miracles to bolster its case? ^[49]

Along the same lines, Dr. Lutzer writes:

If Christians had pointed to miracles to attest their message, the heathen world would have been unimpressed; they claimed their miracles, too; even fantastic accounts of the raising of the dead. ^[50]

What Dr. Lutzer seems to ignore here is that, as demonstrated in the previous chapter, the early Christians did point “to miracles to attest their message.” And this in spite of the fact that there were indeed all kinds of claims to miracles among pagan religions, as there are today. Even more than that, we have conceded that satan can empower human miracle working just as powerful as God’s miracle workers. ^[51] Still, we are confronted with the biblical fact that God intended miracle working to authenticate His messengers of new extra-biblical divine revelation. Therefore, several points can be made.

First, as discussed further elsewhere, many claims of miracle working in pagan contexts are frauds. ^[52] Accordingly, Dr. Clark writes:

Virtually all ancient miracle stories outside the Bible are described in texts written long after the events they report. But we read the stories of Jesus’ works in documents composed within a generation of his life,” by people who claimed to see the events, and in a context where friends and foes alike could either confirm or dispute the stories (see Acts 2:22; 26:26). By contrast, the story about the Buddha flying and shooting sparks, for example, is from Mahrwastu 3.115, a Mahayina-influenced text dating many centuries after the Buddha’s life. ^[53]

Secondly, just because satan can counterfeit miracle working to deceive people, does not mean that God does not intend to use it to authenticate people, as we would expect satan to attempt the thwarting of all of God’s purposes. Therefore, the solution is to apply biblical standards to distinguish between divine and demonic miracles as we do elsewhere, ^[54] and not to abandon their biblical and God-ordained purpose.

Thirdly, as also discussed elsewhere, while physical miracle working is not a final authentication of divine revelation, it is a very effective first-line test. For example, if this test is applied to Buddhism, ^[55] Confucianism, Islam, and Mormonism, all of these fail to supernaturally authenticate themselves, as their founders never even claimed to be miracle workers. Accordingly, there are no fulfilled prophecies in the Vedas, Koran, or Book of Mormon.

Finally, we have demonstrated elsewhere that it was never the simple performance of a physical miracle that was to ultimately authenticate divine messengers. ^[56] Jesus warned us that we would not detect false miracle workers by their power or even profession of Christ, but by their character (cf. Matt 7:15-23). The devil can indeed perform powerful miracles in the name of Jesus “to deceive even the elect” (Matt 24:24), but he cannot and will not duplicate unconditional love and supernatural holiness. This is why God sent Spirit-filled persons to communicate His message, not just miracle workers, as their message and authentication was bound up with their virtue in order to distinguish them from both the fakes and the demonic.

Therefore, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), considered the father of theological liberalism, was wrong when he said that the miracles recorded in the Gospels:

have nothing which raises them, in and by themselves, above other similar miracles of which we have stories from many various times and places. ^[57]

First of all, even the supernatural power of the miracles of Christ far exceeds the vast majority of any stories the pagans could offer, and this first-line of defense for the purpose of miracle working in Scripture eliminates a great number of such claims. However, ultimately, it is the supernatural character, coupled with the supernatural abilities, that authenticates a God-sent messenger of supernatural revelation. And contrary to Schleiermacher, no pagan “miracle worker” possessed all of these.

Publications & Particulars

1. Regarding Christ’s refusal of a request by the Pharisees for a miraculous sign to authenticate Himself see section 6.14.A.2. ↑

2. For further discussion on the fact that virtue is the ultimate test for discerning demonic activity, see chapter 11.13. ↑

3. By modern charismaticism we are primarily referring to what is commonly labeled the “charismatic” movement that began with the Pentecostals in the early 1900’s, spread into denominational churches in the 1960’s and 70’s, and has merged with what is referred to as the Third Wave churches today. Pentecostal churches include Assembly of God, Church of God, Open Bible, Apostolic, Foursquare Gospel, and Full Gospel. Third Wave churches include Vineyard and a variety of independent congregations.

   We thank God for all He has done through the “charismatic” movement, and for the dear Christian brothers and sisters who would claim membership in it. However, throughout Knowing Our God (KOG) we refrain from referring to this movement as “charismatic,” because this erroneously implies a uniqueness and even superiority in Christian grace (charis), and by further implication, a superior possession or experience of the Holy Spirit.

   Surely no right-minded “charismatic” would desire to claim such a superiority over their Christian brothers and sisters, especially since they cannot demonstrate one. Biblically speaking, being “led by the Spirit,” experiencing His power, and living “not under law” but by “grace [charis]” is most clearly manifested in the “fruit of the Spirit” which the Apostle Paul describes as “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Gal 5:4, 18, 22-3). “Charismatic” Christians in general are not superior in these virtues of love and holiness compared to other Christians, and these virtues are the real essence of Christian charisma, making all obedient Christians true “charismatics,” not just a particular sect.

   In fact, the greatest and most important uniqueness of charismatic churches over other authentic Christian churches is not their love or holiness, but rather an emphasis on, and practice of: 1) emotional worship, 2) speaking and/or praying in an incoherent tongue, 3) claims to direct divine revelation through spiritual gifts such as prophecy, and 4) claims to a greater abundance of miracles in general through the gifts of healing and miracle working.

   Therefore, throughout KOG we use the terms emotionalism (see chapters 4.8-11), glossaism (Gr. glossa: “tongue,” see Book 12: The Truth About Tongues), prophetism (see Book 9: God’s Prophets), and super-supernaturalism (see chapters 10.14-16) to refer to these distinctives respectively, while recognizing that they may exist elsewhere as well. Accordingly, we believe this allows us to address the areas of concern we have regarding the movement, and avoid speaking critically of the movement as a whole, which has many good, although not unique, attributes as well.

   Likewise, we refrain from referring to those Christians who would differ from “charismatics” as “non-charismatics,” erroneously implying again that the latter is somehow lacking in grace. Rather, those who oppose the sometimes bizarre worship of emotionalism, the obscure utterances of glossaism, the extra-biblical revelations of prophetism, and the miracle-a-minute mindset of super-supernaturalism are better labeled as historicists. This reflects the fact that for at least 1600 years of Church history, the great majority belief and practice of God’s people was opposed to all of the uniquenesses that the “charismatic” movement claims today.

   It is a historical fact that miraculous gifts such as healing, tongues, and prophecy ceased functioning in the church in the fourth century when the NT canon had been completed, recognized and sufficiently distributed. Accordingly, the very few people since then who have promoted bizarre forms of worship, obscure utterances in prayer, claims to extra-biblical revelation, and miracle working abilities, were always thought to be deceived and dangerous, and not accepted as biblical Christians. What those in charismaticism also refuse to admit, or take seriously enough, is that the modern versions of the miraculous gifts being claimed do not match the attributes of their biblical counterparts. For a great deal of discussion on these matters see the books in Volume 2 of KOG. ↑

4. William Abraham, Divine Revelation and the Limits of Historical Criticism (Oxford University, 1982), 30. ↑

5. Kenneth S. Latourette, A History of Christianity (Hendricksen, 1975), 33. ↑

6. Deere, 106, underlining added ↑

7. Colin Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Eerdmans, 1984), 3. ↑

8. Quoted in William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (The Liturgical Press, 1970), 81. ↑

9. Origen, Against Celsus, I.21.46, online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

10. Augustine, On the Profit of Believing, 32, online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

11. Alan Richardson, Christian Apologetics (Harper, 1948), 154, 156-7 ↑

12. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, in The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, CD-ROM, (Ages Software, 1998), Prefatory Address. ↑

13. Ibid., I.viii.8. ↑

14. Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, VIL.xiv. ↑

15. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Abridged version, Edward N. Gross ed., , (Presbyterians & Reformed Publishing, 1992), 230 ↑

16. John W. Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology Suicide (Canadian Institute for Law, Theology & Public Policy, Inc., 1970), 343. ↑

17. Bernard Ramm in Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Baker Book House, 1958), 253. ↑

18. We prefer the more positive term historicist, rather than “cessationists” to refer to those who abide by the position that has been universally held for centuries in the Church that the Scripture and sign gifts ceased with the completion and distribution of Scripture. ↑

19. Deere, Power, 102, 252. ↑

20. Ibid., 105. ↑

21. Andrew F. Walls, “Healing,” New Bible Dictionary, J. I. Packer, et al. eds., 3rd ed., (Inter-Varsity, 1996), 59. ↑

22. For further discussion of the needed refinement to the traditional cessationist position see section 11.7.D. ↑

23. For further discussion on the definition and recognition of an Apostle see chapter 8.1 ↑

24. Some historicists have attempted to make the case that the Scripture and sign gifts were only received through the laying on of hands by an apostle. Therefore, if apostles have ceased, the gifts they gave have ceased also. This view has some merit in the fact that throughout Acts this would seem to be the case and Paul is possibly mentioning such a thing to the Romans (cf. 1:11). However, Paul seems to define what he means as simply encouragement (cf. v. 12) and not some Scripture or sign gift. In addition, Timothy received a gift when “the body of elders” (1 Tim 14:14), not Apostles, laid their hands on him. Because we cannot be sure what spiritual gift this was, we cannot be certain that the miraculous gifts were only distributed through the hands of the apostles. ↑

25. Mr. Deere especially makes a great deal of these issues and it makes up a very significant part of his “biblical” arguments (e.g. 105, 229-235, 241-252). However, if it is agreed that every miracle worker in Scripture was a source of new Scripture-quality divine revelation, instead of confining such gifts to apostles, a great number of super-supernaturalist arguments for an abundance of miracle workers in the early Church are eliminated and Mr. Deere’s book could have been a good deal shorter. ↑

26. For further discussion of the apostleship of “the seventy” see section 8.1.C ↑

27. For further discussion of the rare and miraculous nature of a “controlling call” see section 7.15.B.1.b. ↑

28. For further discussion of the apostleship of Ananias see section 8.1.C ↑

29. Excerpt from section 10.3.C.5 ↑

30. Regarding the claim that the early Church universally testified that the miracle working gifts ceased in the third century see esp. section 11.7.B.4 ↑

31. Philip is called an Apostle by the early Church historian Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, trans. G. A. Williamson, ed. Andrew Louth (Penguin Books, 1989), 102. ↑

32. Regarding the apostolic gifts of divine wisdom and knowledge see chapter 8.2 ↑

33. Cf. Deere, 66-67. ↑

34. Bannister, 157. ↑

35. Max Turner quoted in, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, 160. ↑

36. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Baker, 1987), 39. ↑

37. For the important distinction between direct miracles performed by God and delegated miracle working performed by humans see section 11.1.B. and 10.5.A.1 ↑

38. For further discussion of what Christ said would be the greatest miracle working see section 10.5.B.2. ↑

39. In support of our interpretation of Galatians 3:5, Dr. Saucy cites F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC (Eerdmans, 1982), 151; Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC, (Word, 1990), 105; and Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC, (T. & T. Clark, 1921), 152. ↑

40. Accordingly, F. Graber and D. Müller write in their entry to the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT) regarding healing:

    In the Gospels the work of Jesus is presented in terms of teaching and working miracles (Matt. 4:23 f.; 9:35; Lk. 6:18 and passim). Healing plays an essential part in Christ’s miraculous work, but the latter must be seen in the context of his teaching if it is to be understood aright.

    This is especially clear in the composition of the Gospel of Matt., where the two great collections of Jesus’ teaching (chs. 5-7) and of his miracles (chs. 8-9) are enclosed between the two almost identical verses of Matt. 4:23 and 9:35 (Jesus “taught in their synagogue and preached the gospel of the kingdom [new divine revelation], and healed all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people”). (“Healing,” Colin Brown ed., 4 vols., [Zondervan, 1986], 2:164 ↑

41. Grudem, 1064. ↑

42. See for instance Storms, Miraculous Gifts, 192. ↑

43. In Homily on Gospel of John, Quoted from Hiebert, 158 ↑

44. Erwin Lutzer, Seven Convincing Miracles (Moody, 1999), 35. ↑

45. For comments on James 5:14-15 see section 11.5.E. ↑

46. Excerpt from section 6.14.A.3. ↑

47. D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC), Frank E. Gaebelein ed., CD-ROM (Zondervan, n.d.). Stonehouse, Witness of Matthew, p. 62; Stonehouse, Witness of Matthew, p. 62. Davies and Allison, Green, and Nolland say nothing. ↑

48. David Hume, Enquiries (Oxford University Press, 1975), 121-2. ↑

49. David K. Clark, “Miracles in the World Religions” in In Defense of Miracles, Douglas Geivett, Gary R. Habermas, eds. (IVP, 1997), 199. ↑

50. Erwin Lutzer, Who Are You to Judge? (Moody, 2002), 114 ↑

51. Regarding our claim that satan can empower human miracle working just as powerful as God’s miracle workers see chapters 10.6 and 11.11-13. ↑

52. Regarding fraudulent claims to miracle working see chapter 11.8. ↑

53. Clark, 211. ↑

54. Regarding distinguishing between divine and demonic miracle working see chapter 11.13. ↑

55. Accordingly, David Clark writes:

    Consider original Buddhism. The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama (c. 563-c. 483 B.C.), remained agnostic about an unchanging God or Absolute . . . Since the Buddha is clearly not committed to the existence of a permanent divine being, he could hardly appeal to a miraculous act of a god as evidence for the truth of his teaching . . . Many religious founders, including Gautama, Confucius (c. 551479? B.C.), and Lao Tzu (c. 604-c. 531 B.C.), discouraged marvels. (Clark, 202-3) ↑

56. Regarding the fact that mere miracles cannot be the final proof of a divine messenger see chapter 11.13. ↑

57. Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith (T & T Clark, 1928), 449 ↑