Annotated Bibliographies - Full Version

Whilst producing a paper for a philosophy conference in 2022, which was based on a response to John Earman’s book Hume's Abject Failure,  I noticed that none of the books or articles that I looked at had any reference to modern examples of miracles (Ahmed, 2015, Bassinger 2018, Fogelin 2003, Hajek 2008, Levine 2002, Milican 2011, 2013^[1]). If we assume as Earman does that there are no a priori reasons for rejecting miracles, then the main issue becomes that of evidence^[2], and I believe that modern miracles have the potential to overcome the evidential arguments against miracles. The aim of this research investigation is to consider why I believe modern miracles have this capability (section 1) and then assess the significance of this conclusion for the study of philosophy by looking at the impact of miracles on methodological naturalism (section 2), Pascal’s Wager (section 3) and divine revelation (section 4). If I discover that the existence of miracles does significantly affect all three aspects of Philosophy then I would encourage Philosophers and Philosophy departments to study in more detail the evidence for modern miracles to see if they are credible and if they are credible work through the implications for their specialist area of philosophy^[3].  

Section 1 - Miracles

David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1777) Section 10 “Of Miracles”

By the end of Part 1 Hume concludes ‘when someone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened.’ (Earman: 144). This leads Hume to make the following statement ‘If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not until then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.’ (Earman: 144). In Part 2 Hume examines the weakness of human testimony. Almost all of his objections can be addressed by the existence of modern miracles since they furnish many witnesses with full medical records that can be cross examined and verified. Furthermore the comparison of Elizabeth I’s resurrection with the earth being dark for 8 days highlights what probably lies at the heart of Hume’s objection to miracles - Hume has a fixed                 worldview which does not allow for supernatural causation. As a consequence he is willing to believe the reports of a dark earth because he can potentially fit that in with his worldview. Whereas he can see no way of reconciling the resurrection of Elizabeth I with his pre-existing worldview. The evidence for both is of the same quality; the difference lies in their compatibility with his view of how the world works. However as Jesus pointed out miracles are designed to break into our preconceived visions of this world. They are meant to challenge our intellectual positions. Whilst it is reasonable to be initially sceptical about miracle claims; when confronted with the volume and the extraordinariness of modern miracles it seems unreasonable to deny their evidence has any power to influence this argument. Furthermore in the example of Elizabeth’s resurrection Hume has made the miracle over 150 years old so that it is dependent on historical records, whereas modern miracles are recent - within living memory and our modern records include detailed medical records, film and photographs. All these factors make the potential evidence for modern miracles significantly more robust than even the best case scenario for the resurrection of Elizabeth I. In Part 1 Hume lays out a challenge: is it possible for the falsehood of the testimony for miracles to be more miraculous than the event to which it relates? I believe the answer is yes - modern miracles do defy Hume’s scepticism and based on Craig Keener’s work I would suggest that once one had studied the evidence it would be irrational not to believe in miracles.

Earman, John Humes’s Abject Failure (Oxford, 2000)

With regard to miracles the book that has caused the most controversy in recent years is Earman's Hume’s Abject Failure published in 2000. As the title implies this book takes Hume to task on a number of issues. Firstly, Earman accuses Hume of circularity in a number of the points he makes. Ultimately he believes the only credible argument that can be salvaged from Hume is an evidential argument and Earman believes that using Bayesian methods it is possible to prove the existence of miracles. Quoting Babbage from his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise where he takes up Hume’s evidential challenge Earman notes that Babbage makes the following claim:

‘If independent witnesses can be found, who speak truth more frequently than falsehood, it is always possible to assign a number of independent witnesses, the improbability of the falsehood of whose concurring testimonies shall be greater than that of the improbability of the miracle itself’ (NBT 202;212)

‘

Earman believes that this approach can also be employed when dealing with multiple witnesses to the occurrence of different events (2000: 56). The significance of both these types of testimonies, multiple witnesses to the same event and multiple witnesses to different events is that this is very much the type of evidence Keener has provided in both his 2011 and 2021 books. Interestingly Earman does not consider modern miracles, therefore whilst he is critical of Hume’s argument he is not claiming in his book that any miracles have happened. However I believe if we look at examples of modern miracles we will have the evidence needed to make ‘the improbability of the falsehood of (these) concurring witnesses … greater than that of the improbability of the miracle itself’.

I would contend that once you have established the plausibility of miracles through several very well documented examples then the evidence criteria for subsequent miracle claims should be significantly lower because the claim for the extreme rarity of miracles is no longer valid.

Keener, Craig Miracles (Baker, 2011) & Miracles Today (Baker 2021)

In his 2011 book Miracles and more recently in his 2021 book Miracles Today Craig Keener, Professor of New Testament in Asbury Theological Seminary and current president of the Evangelical Theological Society, gives details of over one hundred modern miracles, and notes that recent research indicates over 200 million Christians believe they have witnessed or experienced a miracle (2011:237-238). Furthermore his most recent book Miracles Today reports that research in Nepal indicates that 80% of the Christians in that country, which had no indigenous church 70 years ago but has over 200,000 believers now, have become Christians because they have either witnessed or experienced a miracle^[4]. For Keener this represents evidence for miracles that cannot be ignored^[5]. The challenge that Keener presents to the academic community is what grounds have they got to reject the authenticity of these claims, and if they are not rejected then for each of these claims a supernatural explanation seems much more plausible than a non-supranatural explanation. As he sees it Hume, and others that reject the testimony of miracles, either employ circular reasoning, in which their premises involve such high levels of anti supernaturalism that the conclusion against the testimony for miracles is inevitable, or the arguments are ethnocentric, so that for example Hume’s claim that experience is universally against the existence of miracles is not really an argument against miracles, it is more a reflection of the poverty of his experiences of life, since the experience of the ‘majority world’ is quite different.

Ong, Hughson Book Review of Miracles by Criag Keener (Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 9 (2013) R28-R32)

Whilst Ong commends the book he make three requests for clarification. Firstly he wonders to what extent is the majority world's experience of miracles affected by cultural, economic and political factors e.g. the lack of good health care makes the need for miraculous healings much more acute. Secondly he should have engaged more with the atheist’s objections to supernatural forces. Thirdly he should have addressed the issue of why do we see so few miracle claims in the western world. With regard to the first and third point there answers may be connected. Leaving aside the opportunities for fraud which can be the situation in poorer societies which have limited medical facilities these societies may also have retained a spiritual sensitivity that we in the western world have lost. If for over 100 years a society has been taught from its academic institutions that the spiritual world does not exist then it will come as no surprise that people's expectations are going to reflect that teaching. With regard to the second point about considering the atheist’s arguments against supernatural forces I am not sure on what basis such an argument can exist since the human race can never arrive at a position to rule out supernatural causes because that involves a meta-physical claim and we are never going to be able to know for certain if that claim is true. However the evidence of modern miracles does give us reason to believe that not only do supernatural forces exist, but with a significant majority taking place in the context of Christianity, we potentially have in the Bible access to revealed truth from God which does allow us to have the possibility of metaphysical certainty about the existence of God and aspects of His character.

Babbage, Charles The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise

(Cambridge, 2009/1837)

Based on Hume’s claim that human testimony is universal that people are not raised from the dead, Babbage calculates the probability of a person being raised from the dead as 200,000,000 to 1 against such an occurrence (p139). Babbage also calculates that if six independent witnesses of tolerably good character and understanding testify to the same event, then the probability of their being false is 1,000,000,000 to 1 (p130). This is ‘five times as great as the improbability against the miracle of a dead man being restored to life deduced from Hume’s method of estimating its probability solely from experience’ (p131). The evidence for modern miracles should easily provide that number of independent witnesses for many of the examples recorded. 

Kuhlman, Kathryn I Believe in Miracles (Bridge-Logos, 2021)

This book was originally produced in 1961 tells in detail the story of 20 miracles, almost all of which had at the time full medical records to support the miraculous nature of the healing, and the healings all took place at least 10 years before the book was published so that they could be confirmed as long term healings. This book is not unique but it is illustrative of the quality and quantity of modern miracles which strongly support my contention that there is enough good quality testimonial evidence in modern miracles to overcome Hume’s evidential objection to miracles because these would have had the potential to supply the quality of evidence needed to meet Hume’s objection to miracles since they had multiple witnesses, including doctors and they would have appropriate medical records.

Chap 2

A man severely injured by a landmine at Luzon 1st Jan 1945 and had been operated on 42 times was left hardly able to walk or eat. After his miracle he has experienced robust health for over 10 years with no pain.

Chap 3

A woman with malignant tumours on her liver, stomach, gallbladder and pancreas was sent home to die. In 1952 she received her healing and when medically examined in 1955 not only was there no cancer but all the damaged organs were fully restored and the five doctors involved in her case can confirm that her original diagnosis was correct.

Chap 4

A man had badly burnt his eye with molten iron in an industrial accident resulting in such severe scar tissue it could not be removed. After his healing in 1947 an optometrist examined his eye and confirmed that the scar tissue in his damaged eye had completely disappeared.

Chap 5

A nine year old boy diagnosed with Pethe’s disease, which meant his left leg was underdeveloped and shrivelling up - at least 1.5 inches shorter than his right leg, was healed in 1950. In 1955 his doctors on examining the teenager admitted his healing was a miracle and in 1961 he was considered fit enough to join the AirForce.

Chap 6

A man ill with emphysema and bronchial asthma, for which there is no medical cure, received his healing in 1952. Instantly healed with full strength restored and the doctors can confirm that his lungs are now perfect.

Chap 7

A lady in the last stages of MS healed in 1950 and the doctors were astounded that her coordination was now perfect. 10 years later she is still in perfect health with no signs of MS.

Chap 8

A mothers liver was like an old lace curtain because of cancer. After her healing when she was operated on no trace of cancer could be found and she is still well 10 years later.

Chap 9

A baby with a severely enlarged head (twice the normal size) and displaying very limited mental capacity was restored to full health and the doctors admitted it was a miracle. The child at the age of 12 was an ‘A’ student with perfect eyesight, mind and body coordination.

Chap 11

A lady with a huge goitre for 36 years, that affected every part of her life, saw her goitre instantly disappear when she was healed. 13 years later she is still a physically fit woman.

Chap 12

A man severely wounded in WWII (leaving him in continuous pain which developed into severe arthritis in the neck and legs) was instantly healed. When re-examined by doctors who were treating him he was told he had nothing wrong with him. (1956)

Chap 13

A young child with a very severe skin ailment instantly healed and her skin was now flawless. The doctor treating the child described it as a miracle.

Chap 14

From 1948 a lady suffered a severe heart issue that made her a semi-invalid - resting most of the day. During a healing service her heart was healed and she was fully restored to health.

Chap 15

A lady suffering a severe form of arthritis that gave her so much pain she could hardly move was instantly healed and free from pain (and ten years later she is still free from pain).

Chap 16

A man with advanced lung cancer, whose lungs burned all the time, was instantly healed in 1949, and the ‘x’ ray and bronchoscopy results showed no signs of cancer. (Ten years later he is still healed).

Chap 17

A 16 year old boy in 1949 quickly developed acute transverse myelitis - creeping paralysis. Through prayer over a number of days he was healed and thirteen years later he is still physically fit and strong.

Chap 19

A man whose hip never mended properly was healed instantly. When examined afterwards his ‘x’ ray showed a new piece of bone had welded all the fragments together - also during his healing it was observed that his wasted leg muscles were instantly restored.

Chap 20

A baby had a clubfoot and one leg was significantly shorter than the other. When aged 1 this child received instant healing and when he was 10 he was the fastest runner in his class.

Chap 21

A man sent home to die of cancer of the stomach and bowel (because of this cancer he had lost the lining of his stomach and had not eaten solid food for a month), was instantly healed - so much so he could eat fried eggs and three hot dogs with onions on the day of his healing! (13 years later he is still perfectly well.)

Kuhlman, Kathryn God Can Do It Again (Bridge-Logos, 2021)

The following miracles would have had the potential to supply the quality of evidence needed to meet Hume’s objection to miracles because they had multiple witnesses, including doctors and they would have appropriate medical records.

Chap 2

A man healed instantly of a severe back injury.

Chap 3

A boy’s eye injury instantly healed and as a result did not need further surgery.

Chap 4

A man instantly healed of Hodgkin's Disease - cancer of the Lymph glands - he had reached the end stage of the illness.

Chap 6

A man instantly cured of MS.

Chap 9

A teenage girl instantly healed of violent seizures that were happening on a daily basis.

Chap 11

A woman with Dermatomyositis - a condition that affects the nerve endings and causes severe pain in all the muscles, joints and nerves, was instantly healed.

Chap 12

A woman with curvature of the spine and rheumatoid arthritis instantly healed.

Chap 14

A man with severe and progressive arthritis instantly healed.

Chap 15

A woman born with a congenital dislocation of both hips and curvature of the spine instantly healed - likewise her husband instantly healed of his physical pain and immobility.

Chap 17

A woman with scleroderma - a hardening of tissues that line the vital organs of the body, it is incurable and associated with a great deal of pain is instantly healed.

Chap 19

A woman suffering from severe MS for many years is instantly healed.

Kuhlman, Kathryn Nothing Is Impossible with God

(Bio-Logos 1974)

The following miracles would have had the potential to supply the quality of evidence needed to meet Hume’s objection to miracles because they had multiple witnesses, including doctors and they would have appropriate medical records.

Chap 2

A man instantly cured of terminal cancer.

Chap 3

A young girl is healed of her terminal cancer.

Chap 4

A baby was healed instantly of a severely dislocated hip.

Chap 5

A woman with severe M/S and a heart problem is instantly healed.

Chap 6

A two year old girl is instantly healed of leukaemia.

Chap 7

A woman with severe arthritis throughout her body is instantly healed.

Chap 8

A woman is instantly healed of severe arthritis and curvature of the spine and her husband is instantly healed of his emphysema.

Chap 10

A woman is instantly healed from renal papillary necrosis - a severe kidney disease.

Chap 11

A man with an aggressive cancer of the lymph glands is instantly healed.

Chap 12

A man is instantly healed of huge tumour in his pancreas.

Chap 13

A woman who suffered serious pain and partial paralysis so that she could not walk is instantly healed.

Chap 14

A man with multiple tumours and given a year to live is instantly healed.

Chap 15

A woman with multiple cancerous tumours is instantly healed.

Chap 16

A woman dying from myasthenia gravis - a chronically progressive muscular weakness affecting all the vital organs of the body was instantly healed.

Chap 17

A woman with vasculitis - a deterioration of the blood vessels that causes strokes and would result in death was instantly healed.

Chap 19

A woman whose entire lower spine had deteriorated after 16 years of increasing back pain was instantly healed so that the ‘x’ rays showed no sign of deterioration and spine had been straightened.

Chap 20

A young girl is instantly healed of a fatal blood condition.

Nagasawa, Yujin Miracles A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2017)

In dealing with Hume Nagasawa states that Hume believes the evidence for the laws of nature is so strong ‘that no evidence for miracles can be strong enough to contradict it (p81)’. Therefore even if 100 scientists observed water turning into wine there would be a higher probability of these 100 scientists experiencing a hallucination than this being a miraculous event (p82). Nagasawa’s claim is that turning water into wine is an event that is nomologically impossible (i.e. it is impossible given the laws of nature p16) whereas the hallucination of 100 scientists is only probabilistically impossible. The problem with this approach is the assumption that the laws of nature cannot be violated - the miracles of the Bible and modern miracles assert that a supernatural being can violate these laws (assuming they actually exist) therefore the claim that something is nomologically impossible does not affect the probabilistic impossibility of 100 scientists all hallucinating the same thing at the same time. Any reasonable person should conclude a miracle had taken place in those circumstances - the nomological impossibility is what gives this event its status as a miracle.

Nagasawa, Yujin Miracles A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2017)

In dealing with Hume Nagasawa states that Hume believes the evidence for the laws of nature is so strong ‘that no evidence for miracles can be strong enough to contradict it (p81)’. Therefore even if 100 scientists observed water turning into wine there would be a higher probability of these 100 scientists experiencing a hallucination than this being a miraculous event (p82). Nagasawa’s claim is that turning water into wine is an event that is nomologically impossible (i.e. it is impossible given the laws of nature p16) whereas the hallucination of 100 scientists is only probabilistically impossible. The problem with this approach is the assumption that the laws of nature cannot be violated - the miracles of the Bible and modern miracles demonstrate that a supernatural being can violate these laws (assuming these laws actually exist), therefore the claim that something is nomologically impossible does not mean it is impossible^[6], whereas the probabilistic impossibility of 100 scientists all hallucinating the same thing at the same time really is impossible unless it is the product of supernatural intervention. Any reasonable person should conclude a miracle had taken place in those circumstances - the nomological impossibility is what gives this event its status as a miracle. 

Hajek, Alan Are Miracles Chimerical? In Jonathan Kvanvig, ed., Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion (Volume 1), (Oxford University Press, pp 82-104:2008)

Unlike other recent philosophers Hajek is happy to defend Hume’s apriori contention that belief in miracles can never be justified because there is as compelling a proof from experience as can possibly be imagined against a miracle (2008:88). However, as mentioned before, there is good reason to believe this argument from experience either reflects a poverty of experiences or involves circularity where anti supernaturalism is being asserted in the premises and unsurprisingly it produces an anti supernatural outcome. With regard to Hume’s a posteriori arguments, whilst Hajek is generally supportive of Hume, he concludes that Hume's claim that the probability of miracles should be vanishingly small because they are so disanalogous to anything we have experienced is unrealistic. Firstly, for those with prior religious experiences miracles would not be that disanalogous. Secondly, ‘if the strength-of-analogy is such a crucial determinant of a reasonable person’s probability function, then that person should also be a sceptic about spectacular scientific discoveries’ that are often very disanalogous to anything we have experienced - which is clearly an absurd conclusion (2008:103).

Grygiel, Wojciech Cognitive aspects of the philosophical and theological coherence of a miracle within the contemporary scientific world view

(Philosophical Problems in Science, No 70 (2021 pp 111-138)

Grygiel notes that the recent ‘Divine Action Project’ was predominantly made up of scientists and theologians who believed that such ‘Divine action in the world is non-interventionistic on the grounds that it would be contradictory to hold that on one side God runs the universe according to its laws and on the other disrupts this order by this intervention’ (Grygiel, 2021 p128). My objection to this position is that claims that God has to abide by the laws of nature imply that those making such claims have access to metaphysical knowledge about what God cannot do and how He views what we call the ‘laws of nature’ - such knowledge must be outside our natural grasp and can only known through revelation or at the beatific vision. Furthermore Grygiel believes that folk-ontology^[7] and folk-psychology, which forms the basis ‘for what in the cognitive science of religion is termed as the standard model of the formation of religious beliefs’, could account for ‘why the human mind interprets natural events with no visible cause as the working of intentional agents’ (ibid p123). Without subscribing to the ‘standard model’ it seems plausible that humans can misinterpret events as being the product of intentional agents when a natural explanation can later be shown as a more appropriate cause. However there are events which so far exceed the reasonable expectations of the productive power of nature that it is beyond reasonable doubt that these events are the product of supernatural causation and claims that such supernatural causation cannot exist is as I pointed out earlier a metaphysical claim that we cannot have access to - instead powerful well documented miracles should challenge such assumptions. It seems from his bibliography that Grygiel is unaware of the modern miracles that meet this criteria which Keener provides significant evidence for.

Section 2 - Methodological Naturalism

The first book in this section reflects an attempt to understand the complexity of what constitutes modern science and the other articles reflect a variety of modern positions on Methodological Naturalism. What they have in common is that none of them mention the existence of modern miracles. The difference between historic miracles and modern miracles is that the quantity and quality of evidence we have access to means that it is possible for these modern miracles to be treated as epistemic facts with all the implications that has for our understanding of reality.

Chalmers, Alan What is this thing Called Science?

4th Ed (Open University Press, 2013)

Chalmers identifies five major attempts to address the question ‘What is this thing called science’ - Positivist reliance on facts, Popper’s falsification, Kuhn’s paradigms, Lakatos’s use of ‘research programs’ and Bayesianism. He concludes that none of them are completely satisfactory. Chalmers then lays out what he believes to be the distinctives of science. He illustrates his position by reflecting on differences between the philosophical versus scientific knowledge of atoms as we see them develop over time. His conclusion is that the scientific approach was obtained by severe testing^[8]. I note with interest that in his epilogue to the third edition to his book that whilst he apologises for not providing a universal definition of science he feels he has supplied what is needed to examine the status of ‘creation science’ (p228 & 232). This may be so, but if we adjust the requirement for ‘methodological naturalism’ because of modern miracles, I believe the outcome of such an examination would be different to what he expects; because the creation scientists would argue that Creation, the ‘Fall of Man’ and the worldwide flood all involved supernatural causes (miracles)^[9], and that once we allowed for these supernatural causes, then their theories would be better able to withstand ‘severe testing’ than the alternative theories of evolution, uniformitarianism and ‘Big Bang’ cosmology.

Forrest, Barbara Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying and Connection (2000) 

(Philo, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall-Winter 2000), pp. 7-29)

For Forrest, philosophical  naturalism is the “most methodologically and epistemologically defensible world view” because of “the success of methodological naturalism, the knowledge gained by this method compared to the lack of an alternative method for supernaturalism and the lack of evidence for the supernatural.” (p11) Repeatedly, Forrest claims that supernaturalism is unable to support its claims. Ultimately her view is summed up with the following claim: ‘Naturalist philosophers ground their philosophical naturalism in both the failure of the supernaturalist to meet Schafersman’s challenge (to provide evidence for their belief in a supernatural mind and purpose in nature) and in the success of methodological naturalism in science’^[10] (p6). The answer to Forrest’s challenge is to observe that no one expects supernaturalism in general to have a single methodology since each version of supernaturalism will have its own specific methodology. With respect to miracles within the context of Christianity that methodology would be eyewitness accounts recorded in the Bible. That is how the Bible reads and it is how, for the first 18 centuries, the church saw the events of the Bible. Jesus accepted that you would not directly see the Spirit but, like the wind, you will know his actions by the effects of the Spirit, most notably in miracles (John 3v8). Likewise Jesus expected his hearers to believe he was the son of God because of his miracles. For Paul and Peter, as recorded in Acts, the preaching of the gospel was often accompanied by miracles which for many onlookers authenticated the gospel as a message from God. In the Old Testament Elijah challenged the Israelites to come off the fence with regard to Baal and Jehovah, which they only did when they witnessed a miracle (1 Kings 17). Furthermore, as Professor Keener points out, there is abundant evidence today that many people believe they have experienced or witnessed a miracle. Whilst a miracle is not a repeatable event it is an historical event that is publicly accessible and potentially verifiable - thus satisfying the sceptics desire for public, shareable, empirical evidence (p6).

Plantinga, Alvin Methodological Naturalism?

(Philosophical Analysis Origins & Design 18:1)

Alvin Plantinga rejects methodological naturalism, because he disputes the premise that science is always religiously neutral. Instead a Christian academic ‘ought to pursue in (their) own way, starting from and taking for granted what we know as Christians’, since for Plantinga that is the correct approach. Plantinga believes the Christian ‘has a certain freedom denied her naturalist counterpart: she can follow the evidence where it leads’. He uses evolution as a case study where he comments that when Gould, Futuyma, Simpson and Dawkins assert the certainty of evolution they ‘are neither speaking as scientists nor doing science. They are instead commenting on science, drawing conclusions that don’t follow from the scientific results themselves’. For Plantinga the evidence for evolution seems convincing because methodological naturalism has precluded the alternative explanations (e.g. intelligent design) which probably would give a better fit to the evidence we have. Hence his claim that the Christian has a greater freedom to follow the evidence, because they are not shackled to the essentially atheistic worldview implied by methodological naturalism. The evidence of modern miracles would add further credibility to Plantinga’s desire to see Christians free to explore science from a theistic perspective.

 Ruse, Michael Methodological Naturalism Under Attack

(a response to Plantinga’s article on Methodological Naturalism)

Ruse notes that Plantinga employs a number of critiques of methodological naturalism but the one he believes is most central to Plantinga’s case is his argument for what Ruse refers to as Augustinian science or ‘theistic science’. In this Plantinga is arguing that science should be able to include references to miracles. At first sight Ruse seems to allow him to do that but he then makes the distinction between what he calls qualified and unqualified science. Unqualified science follows the rules of methodological naturalism whereas qualified science allows for miracles. Ruse’s objection is that this qualified version of science should not be given the ‘status or authenticity of science without qualification’ (p51). He believes this ‘theistic science’ will lead to an impoverished ‘God-of-the-gaps’ theology and he gives three reasons for rejecting it. Firstly it does not represent all Christians in what they believe and cites the views of Roman Catholic priest Ernan McMullin to support this contention. Secondly Ruse believes, again quoting from McMullin, that it is possible to believe in ‘salvation history’ without the necessity of believing in the type of miracles with regard to creation that Plantinga alludes to. Finally Ruse claims that the types of common modern miracles Plantinga refers to, such as transubstantiation and the appearance of the human soul (at conception or birth) are very problematic. Ruse’s first two points are themselves problematic and his third reason whilst mentioning miracles is not referring to the type of miracles Keener is talking about, and it is that type of miracle, with its potential for objective verification, that has the capacity to impact methodological naturalism; particularly with respect to the miracle of creation.

Plantinga, Alvin Where the Conflict Really Lies (Oxford, 2011)

In his most recent book on this subject Plantinga claims the apparent conflict between science and theism is superficial. He considers miracles to be one of the areas of apparent conflict and with respect to this conflict he makes the following observation; the laws of nature only apply when the universe is causally closed - the laws say nothing about what happens when the universe is not causally closed (Plantinga 2011:90). With regard to methodological naturalism, as currently practised by contemporary science, it can produce Simonian science, a science that arrives at theories that are incompatible with Christian belief. However that does not mean Simonian science is a defeater for beliefs based on a Christian evidence base, since a Christian using their evidence base views Simonian science as truncated science because it is constrained by methodological naturalism (Plantinga 2011:174-178). My contention is that the evidence for modern miracles is so powerful and publicly accessible it should have an impact on the evidence base of all people, not just Christians.

Torrance Andrew Should a Christian Adopt Methodological Naturalism? (Zygon, vol. 52 no. 3, September 2017)

Torrance’s conclusion is to draw up five points that should guide a Christian in their scientific endeavours. Firstly don’t expect a discovery of divine action that will convince the scientific world. Secondly, don’t expect divine action to ever be an ‘appropriate explanation within the natural sciences’ (p716). Thirdly, reject a ‘scientific hermeneutic that does not allow for … God’s revelation of himself within the history of the natural world’ (p717), because such an approach will be unable to fully account for the natural world. Fourthly, recognise that as understood in the current scientific community methodological naturalism is not metaphysically neutral. Fifthly, challenge the secular world to adopt methodological agnosticism, which genuinely keeps the option of both theistic and naturalistic assumptions open. Ultimately for Torrance he wants the scientist who is a Christian to be free to pursue their science as a vocation as an integral part of their spiritual life rather than feel obliged to ‘bracket out God’ in order to retain the approval of their peers. However whilst Torrance acknowledges the existence of miracles with regard to Jesus he does not refer to the existence of modern miracles and I would argue that the quality of evidence provided by modern miracles should challenge Torrance’s first two conclusions.

John Perry and Sarah Lane Ritchie

Methodological Naturalism? Magnets, Magic, and other anomalies: in defence of Methodological Naturalism

(Zygon, vol. 53. No. 4 December 2018)

The issue that most interests Perry and Ritchie is the issue of miracles or as they prefer to put it anomalies. I suspect they agree with Torrance that ‘special divine action is not discernible by empirical science’ (p1072) therefore to the scientist these events will appear as anomalies. They disagree with Torrance that this poses a problem for the scientist as a Christian. Yes the implicit methodological naturalism of the scientist will not allow them as a scientist to proclaim this event as a miracle but that does not stop them from declaring to a theologian that to the best of their scientific endeavours this event cannot be explained - it is an anomaly. This is the practice of the Catholic church in its canonisation process. They seek the advice of the medical scientists and all they require of them is to declare that the person's recovery has no explanation based on our current understanding of medical science. It is the theologians who use that evidence to proclaim that a miracle has taken place. This is what Perry and Ritchie mean by theologically engaged science. Attractive as this may sound, this approach is inadequate for the big miracles of creation and the world wide flood where the implications for science are immense. The existence of modern miracles, as I will argue when I discuss divine revelation, will furnish the scientist with good reasons for taking seriously these two historic miracles.

Torrance, Andrew Methodological Naturalism? The Possibility of a Theology-engaged Science: A response to Perry and Ritchie

(Zygon, vol. 53, no. 4 December 2018)

Torrance agrees with Perry and Ritchie that when a scientist finds an anomaly that may be very challenging their normal response should be to keep on digging, however he wants to argue that there are a ‘handful of exceptional anomalies that entail visible phenomena which require an explanation with recourse to special divine action’ (p1095). These exceptional anomalies are the result of what Torrance refers to as ‘The Miracles’. These include creation ex nihilo, the Incarnation, Resurrection and the Ascension. They produce observable phenomena which it would be inappropriate for a scientist who is a Christian to keep on digging. Torrance would argue that it would ‘be more scientific to revise her scientific method to allow for theological information - hence the term Theologically-engaged science. ‘The Miracles’ form an empirical fact and Torrance questions how someone wedded to methodological naturalism can manage these facts. Generally Torrance accepts the concept that what we know with our senses and sacred doctrine should remain separate, but he does believe that in ‘The Miracles’ we have a genuine place of overlap. I would also argue that modern miracles form an empirical fact which secular and theistic scientists must consider, because these facts undermine the assumption that supernatural causes do not exist or are not relevant to science.

A History and Critique of Methodological Naturalism - The Philosophical Case for God’s design of Nature, Joseph B Onyango Okello (Wipf and Stock, 2016)

In Onygango Okello’s review of the history of science he notes that 17th century British scientists ‘stressed the need to avoid any notion of a methodological a priori’ (p64) and along with their fellow Liberal Anglicans developed the concept of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (p63) - I am confident that these scientists would have agreed that the evidence for modern miracles would have had that status, especially as these early scientists believed in miracles (p64). With regard to the more modern concept of methodological naturalism, Onyango Okello’s conclusion identifies two types of science; Duhemian that is based on methodological naturalism and is accessible to all, irrespective of their theological commitments and Augustinian science that incorporates relevant Christian theological positions (p211). He observes that ‘just because something is a ‘science stopper’ does not mean it is not true or that it is not important (p212). My caveat to this position is that for statements made by scientists about the distant past, if we allow for the miracles of creation ex nihilo and the worldwide flood, then these miracles will have a very significant impact on what could be available for consideration as Duhemian science^[11].

Swinburne, Richard The Existence of God (Oxford, 2004)

Whilst Swinburne accepts miracles of healing can happen he believes ‘our ignorance of what are natural laws means that there is no public evidence that he (God) has set aside their normal operation’. However Swinburne believes the general existence of miracles ‘is something ‘too big’ for science to explain’. By contrast Jesus believed miracles were publicly accessible and likewise modern miracles have the same potential.

The following are two recent books that between them contain around 40 articles on methodological and philosophical naturalism which contain no reference to modern miracles (Blum 2018, Clark 2016, Harrison 2020^[12])

Section 3 - Pascal’s Wager

If we accept that Keener’s work on modern miracles has the potential to provide a powerful evidential argument for the God of Christianity being true, because almost all modern miracles take place within the context of Christianity, then we can examine how this impacts Pascal’s Wager.

Pascal, Blaise Pensees (Penguin, 1961)

For Pascal his wager was a pragmatic device to arrest the attention of the agnostic/atheist because he considered it a ‘monstrous thing to see in the same heart and at the same time this sensibility to trifles and this strange insensibility to the greatest matters (Pensee 335, p120). Though Pascal knew that no one could become a Christian without ‘inspiration’ he did believe reason was on the side of Christianity (Pensee 482 p165-6). He argued that ‘the strongest proofs of Jesus Christ are the prophecies^[13] (Pensee 526 p180). Pascal also devotes a whole section of Pensees to a discussion of miracles. My contention is that the evidence for modern miracles is of such a quality that it allows us to turn Pascal’s Wager into Pascal’s Certainty and as a consequence we have the material needed to produce a very serious risk assessment with respect to the eternal future of our students - in effect this has the potential to become a very significant safeguarding issue.

Hajek, Alan Waging War on Pascal’s Wager’

(Philosophical Review, 112/1, 2003)

Hajek argues that by using infinity as an outcome Pascal has opened the door to various mixed strategies each ‘equally sanctioned by decision theory, it seems we have the predicament of Buridan’s ass in spades (p33)’. The existence of modern miracles may resolve this problem by assigning to the God of Christianity a probability of 1 thus ensuring all other mixed strategies have a probability of zero, and infinity times zero is still zero.

Foley, Richard Pragmatic Reasons for Belief

(Gambling on God: Essays on Pascal’s Wager - Rowman and Littlefield, 1994)

Foley defends Pascal’s Wager against Clifford’s objection to using pragmatic arguments to support intellectual beliefs. Indeed pragmatic considerations are significant factors when considering ‘the kinds of issues it is worthwhile for us to investigate, as well as the time, effort, and resources it is reasonable to devote to these investigations (p45)’. I would argue that Pascal had this in mind in creating the Wager - he wanted to shock people into taking the evidence for God seriously because the stakes were so high. My contention is that when ‘time, effort, and resources’ are appropriately deployed to investigating examples of modern miracles the evidence for the God of Christianity will be overwhelming.

Jordan, Jeff (Gambling on God: Essays on Pascal’s Wager - Rowman and Littlefield, 1994)

& Pragmatic Arguments and belief in God

(Oxford University Press, 2006)

Jordan concludes that of the seven types of wager that exist the ‘Jamesian wager’, which argues that believing in God offers such advantages in this life that even if it proves false we life has been enriched, is the most successful in combating the various objections levelled against Pascal’s Wager. I remain unconvinced that the Christians around the world who are suffering severe persecution^[14] would subscribe to the ‘Jamesian wager’ and as I believe modern miracles overcome the objections Jordan refers to I do not see the need to employ this rescuing device.

Rota, Michael Taking Pascal’s Wager (Intervarsity Press, 2016)

Rota defends the wager by dealing with the classic objections and then considers the probability of the existence of God where like Pascal, but for different reasons, he concludes that on balance there is a good probability that God exists^[15]. Furthermore, like James, he considers committing to God will increase chances of greater life satisfaction and increase chances of exercising certain civic virtues^[16] (p48). However his only reference to miracles is that of the resurrection, where he follows the analysis of William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne (p164). I would argue that the existence of modern miracles has the potential to increase the probability to 1 of God's existence and thus significantly increase the effectiveness of the wager.

Section 4 - Divine Revelation

This section considers the significance of divine revelation and the capacity for modern miracles to authenticate it.

Locke, John An Essay concerning Human Understanding Chap 18, 2nd Edition (Cambridge University Press)

With regard to the significance of divine revelation Locke observes that all human reasoning is provisional and that divine revelation, where we are satisfied we have it can be fully trusted - ‘Revelation, where God has been pleased to give it, must carry it (the proposition under consideration) against the probable conjectures of reason.’ (Chap 18)^[17]. I would argue that modern miracles supply the basis for us to be satisfied that we are in possession of divine revelation.

Bible - New King James Version (Thomas Nelson, 1982)

In both the Old and New Testaments there is an expectation that miracles are capable of authenticating divine revelation. For example Jesus authenticated His authority to forgive the paralytic man of his sins, something only God could do, by performing the miracle of healing him (Luke 5:17-26)^[18]. Likewise, when John the Baptist questioned whether Jesus was the Messiah, Jesus authenticated His claim by performing many miracles in front of John’s messenger.(Luke 7:18-23). Indeed Jesus severely rebuked the cities of Galilee, who had observed His miracles but failed to repent (Matthew 10:20-24). Furthermore this approach to miracles can be seen in John’s gospel where Jesus on a number of occasions reminds His hearers that they should listen to His words and believe what He says about Himself because of the miracles He has performed (John 10:37-38 & 14:10-14). In the Old Testament it is the miracles of the exodus that the Israelites are to remember so that they can have confidence that the law that they are to obey comes from God (Deuteronomy 4:9, 6:20-24, 7:17-19 8:2-6 11:1-8). In all these verses we see that from the Bible’s perspective God expects miracles to provide sufficient proof for rational belief that the revelation in question has divine approval/origin. With regard to the church age the apostle Paul expected the preaching of the gospel would be accompanied by miraculous power  (1 Corinthians 2:4-5 & Galatians 3:5). We see examples of this miraculous power in the book of Acts (Acts 3:1-10, 5:15, 6:8, 8:6-7, 9:33-42, 14:3,9-10 19:12-13) and Acts 4:29-30 showed that Peter and the apostles expected miracles to accompany the preaching of the gospel - the purpose of these miracles was to authenticate that the gospel was a divine revelation.With regard to modern miracles their existence can be seen as evidence that confirms that the Bible and the gospel it contains are in fact a divine revelation - something Jesus alludes to in John 14:12 when he talks about his disciples doing greater works. However, from the Bible's perspective modern miracles are not expected to authenticate any new doctrinal revelations; for example Galatians 1:8-9 indicates that even the appearance of an angel could not authenticate any departure from the gospel that Paul had received. Likewise Matthew 24:24 shows that Jesus warned his followers to not follow deceptive versions of the gospel even if they are accompanied by miracles. 

Locke, John The Reasonableness of Christianity

(First Rate Publishers, 2014/1695)

Locke wrote this book to explain his belief that saving faith is fully accessible and can be clearly learnt from the gospels (p85); also he states that you cannot alter that which God has revealed (p53). Furthermore Locke challenges anyone to ‘show there was any other doctrine (p54). With regard to miracles Locke observes that Jesus used miracles to convince people of His teaching (p8 & 28) and he makes miracles the first of his three proofs that Jesus is the Messiah (p16)^[19]. Therefore we can see that for Locke miracles perform a key function in confirming that a teaching has the status of a divine revelation^[20].

Harrison, Peter Miracles, Early Modern Science and Rational Religion (Church History 75(2006), 493-511)

Harrison observes that throughout history miracles have played a part in confirming Christian doctrines^[21]; however with the reformation and the ensuing scientific revolution this became much more pronounced. He argues that in the seventeenth century natural philosophers (scientists) saw themselves as having ‘a unique expertise in establishing both the external evidence for the Christian religion (miracles and prophecy) and the internal evidence for religious belief in general (primarily the argument from design) (p17). The problem with the mainline protestant use of miracles was the often widespread belief amongst such protestants that God no longer uses miracles, which means that they can only refer to biblical miracles, and it is far from clear if such miracles can ever overcome Hume’s evidential barrier. However I would argue that if we accept the existence of modern miracles then this barrier is overwhelmed by the evidence that is available. Furthermore Harrison’s observation that the reformation created a new concept the ‘Christian religion’ which was different to how the early and medieval church saw the faith is only partially correct. Whilst it does seem that the medieval church did view Christianity as a faith mediated through the church rather than as a set of propositions to be believed, Paul in Galatians 1 & 2 makes it very clear that for the apostles the gospel did involve a set of propositions that needed to be believed and that angels (Gal 1:8) and church leaders (Gal 1:9, 17-20 2:6-8^[22], 11-21) cannot alter this gospel; therefore for the Protestant they would see the emphasis on a set of propositions as a return to biblical New Testament Christianity..

Blaauw, Corne Redemptive History as a Paradigm for Jonathan Edwards Exposition of Miracles (Jonathan Edwards Studies, vol 4, no1 (2014))

Blaauw argues that Edwards makes a strong case for miracles and whilst Edwards assumed miracles ceased once the canon of scripture were established accepted that New Testament miracles were used to confirm revelation.

Swinburne, Richard The Existence of God (Oxford, 2004)

Whilst Swinburne accepts miracles of healing can happen he believes ‘our ignorance of what are natural laws means that there is no public evidence that he (God) has set aside their normal operation’ (Swinburne, 2004:277). However Swinburne believes if you allow the laws of nature to be so plastic as to allow for the apparent miracles we have records of then the only plausible explanation for these very subtle laws of nature is a God^[23](ibid). By contrast Jesus’s reprimand of Bethsaida, Chorazin and Capernaum (Matthew 11:20-24) suggests He believed miracles were publicly accessible and likewise modern miracles have the same potential.

Paone, Jason, Signs and their Presuppositions - Elisabeth Anscombe and Matthias Scheeben (ST 824 Thomism in Modernity, The Dominican House of Studies, Spring 2018) 

Paone notes that for Anscombe and Scheeben miracles occupy for Christianity a central role of epistemic significance which is confirmed by Edward Gibbon, Augustine and as recently as the 19th century by the Vatican council (p1-3). However whilst to the ancient world the meaning of miracles was self-evident^[24] Anscombe felt that miracles required some sort of prior religious commitment because our culture has developed ‘meaning blindness’ (p13). This blindness may be in part the result of our unwillingness to submit to a higher intellectual being^[25] because of our modern conception of individual autonomy. However Paone concludes by asking the question 'what evidence could there be in support of such a bold metaphysical claim' (which involves the rejection of absolute, extrinsic authority and the embracing of individual sovereignty p25). I would argue that modern miracles provide sufficient evidence to challenge our modern cultures ‘meaning blindness’.

Swinburne, Richard The Resurrection of God Incarnate

(Oxford University Press, 2010)

Using a Bayesian approach to probability Swinburne argues that given a background probability that God exists is 0.5 then with the evidence we have we could arrive at a high probability that the Resurrection of Jesus did take place. Plantinga has argued that the complexity of this analysis severely undermines its effectiveness. However modern miracles, because of the high quality of their eye witness testimony and medical records to authenticate these events, can command a much greater confidence in their veracity. Therefore, I believe modern miracles are capable of providing authentication of divine revelation in a way that is consistent with how Jesus used miracles to authenticate that He was the Messiah, the Son of God.

Padgett, Alan Miracles as Evidence for the Existence of God

Chapter 9 - Philosophy: Religion ed DM Bockert - Macmillan Interdisciplinary Handbooks (Macmillan Reference 2017)

In his bibliography Padgett references Keener’s 2011 book Miracles and his positive reference to the ‘abundant testimonial evidence from around the globe and across time’ (p140) to the existence of miracles; or SEE’s (strictly extraordinary events) as he calls them, implies Padgett accepts Keener’s verdict on the existence of many modern miracles. However, Padgett is not convinced they can prove the existence of God because you can never be certain that God was the cause of that miracle. I would argue that claims that miracles cannot prove the existence of God give undue weight to the non-theistic worldview and that the Bayesian approach provides a significantly stronger proof for God than Padgett claims (p141). I would argue that the volume of modern miracles associated with Christianity from a Bayesian perspective is vastly more probable if Christianity is true than it would be if Christianity was not true.

Rea, Michael Authority and Truth, in D.A. Carson (ed.) The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Apollos, 2016)

In his discussion about the connection between the authority of scripture and its truthfulness one of Rea’s conclusions is that even if we find that the Bible is inerrant this ‘has relatively few implications about what we actually ought to believe in light of scripture’ because of the wide variety of ‘views about what (if any) propositional messages are asserted or conveyed by biblical texts’ (p898). Were this statement to be true then establishing the Bible as a divine revelation authenticated by modern miracles would not be that profound. However as mentioned with my footnote on Locke I believe the 16th/17th century doctrine of perspicuity would address this problem. Also I believe that the adjustment to methodological naturalism that would result from the evidence of modern miracles would ensure the biblical account of creation, the fall and the flood would have more credibility, as these are examples of miracles^[26]. Interestingly Rea admits that ‘if we think that God intends to teach us sober historical facts about the genesis of life on Earth … then we will have reason to take most of the declarative sentences in the Old Testament as genuinely asserting their semantic contents’ (p898). I believe modern miracles can allow us to have that confidence.

Ramelow, Anselm Miracles: Finite & Infinite Agents

(Angelicum 2015, Vol 92 (1), p57-92)

Ramelow argues that if the miracles that God works for prophets (in authenticating divine revelation) can be wrought also by finite and even deceptive agents, then they cannot assure us of the truth of a religion’ (Ramelow, 2015:59). Using the work of Aquinas Ramelow concludes there are two attributes that distinguish true miracles from deceptive miracles; one is coherence, do the miracles point people to God and His kingdom (Ramelow, 2015:90), and the other is power, ‘true miracles need to display in some way or other divine omnipotence’ (Ramelow, 2015:91). It is worth noting that Jesus felt He had achieved that in His miracles (Matthew 11:20-24) and the question is can modern miracles also satisfy these requirements? (I suspect our reluctance to accept this outcome is the result of over 200 years of prejudice against the supernatural in the academic world - with the starting presumption that naturalism is the most appropriate starting point for our understanding of the world with theism having to demonstrate why we should reject this presumption. However from the Bible's perspective God believes we are without excuse the evidence of our senses should lead us to a belief in a creator God. Likewise God expects us to believe that His miracles are capable of being identified and thus they are capable of authenticating His divine revelations - bearing in mind that the existence of events that look like miracles destroys the presumption for naturalism - see Swinburne’s argument. Furthermore using Swinburne’s argument for miracles as a model it could be argued that the prevalence of extremely complex design in living organisms is better explained by theism than naturalism even if all the elements were capable of a natural explanation since the improbability involved is better explained by divine foreknowledge than naturalism. With regard to what is authenticated by miracles it is not the personal interpretation of scripture of the one performing the miracle - Samson is a classic example of that - also the disciples prior to Pentecost performed miracles under the authority of Jesus but it is clear from the gospels that they personally at that point in time did not have a clear understanding of Jesus’s teaching. Miracles authenticate the God of the Bible and it is clear from the teaching of Jesus in the gospels that He upheld all of the Old Testament likewise Paul upholds the New Testament revelation of truth when in Galatians he declares that even if an Angel Light preached another gospel you should reject that gospel - this confirms the significance of ‘coherence’. With respect to omnipotence miracles by themselves cannot say the author of the miracle is omnipotent but by authenticating the Bible which contains the revelation that God is omnipotent then indirectly it can establish that truth. Furthermore if we see in miracles that authenticate the God of the Bible a pattern in both their power and frequency that lifts these events above the background noise of competing spiritual phenomena, then as with the analogy of a radio signal competing with the background noise of competing electrical phenomena so miracles of the type we are considering will give a clear signal that the God of the Bible does exist and the Bible is a divine revelation - also this background noise of spiritual phenomena is consistent the picture of reality we see in the Bible.)

Resane, K. T. 2017 Miracles in the Neo-charismatic movement: Historical and Theological Critique (Verbum et Ecclesia 38(1) a1736.hps://doi.org/10.4102/)

Resane is very concerned that the church in South Africa is being seriously affected by the proliferation of what appears to be egocentric rather than christcentric ministries which emphasise miracles and are generally emanating from Nigeria. Whilst he accepts that miracles can happen and have historically been seen as a way God authenticates His message Resane is concerned about the scale of miracles being performed in situations that suggest that these are potentially either fraudulent or counterfeits. Sadly Rasane’s conclusions may be correct but as observes Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23 people who do not properly know God can perform miracles and He warns us in Matthew 24:11 about the possibility of deception. However these potentially false do not invalidate the possibility of true miracles and their significance and a close reading of Keener's examples shows that he primarily draws upon these types of miracles.

Conclusion

Since the obvious characteristic of miracles is their capacity to defy known natural explanations, a useful definition for miracles should build on that common understanding. Aquinas’s definition that a miracle is an event that exceeds the productive power of nature seems a good match. If we assume there is no a priori proof for there being no non-material existence then the existence of many testimonies for miracles across many cultures and systems of beliefs is more probable in a reality which contains non material existence. Furthermore, the fact that a significant majority of the most extraordinary and well documented miracles are found in Christianity is much more probable in a world in which Christianity is true. Conversely it is highly improbable that these miracles would happen in a world which did not have non material causation or with a world in which another reasonable alternative religious system was proposed as being true.

—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regard to the widespread belief that the gift of healing along with the gift of tongues ceased after the apostolic age there does seem to be a significant number of church leaders over the centuries who subscribed to this view (Lactantius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret, Gregory the Great, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Whitfield and Hodge). The main argument deployed is that these gifts are no longer needed and proof of that assertion is the fact that for the most part both of these gifts have ceased from 100 AD onwards. However there appears to be no direct evidence from the Bible that these gifts were only for the apostolic age. Therefore do we have examples of God's word being neglected for significant periods of time but resurrected later on in the history of God's people. Two examples can be found with regard to the feast of Passover - 2 Chronicles 30:26 and 2 Chronicles 35:18. In both cases it is clear that the feast of Passover celebrated by Hezekiah and by Josiah were significantly superior to any previous celebrations that had taken place during the previous three to four hundred years. Likewise from Malachi to John the Baptist there was a gap of several hundred years in the exercise of the prophetic gift. None of these gaps were permanent and therefore this apparent gap in the use of the gift of tongues and of miracles could be a reflection of God’s providential order rather than the biblical mandated cessation which these church leaders imply. Furthermore judging by the evidence it appears that over the last 100 years God in His providence has seen fit to reactivate in a powerful way the gifts of tongues and of healing (this could be a fulfilment of Hosea 6:3b)

With regard to the claim that 1 Corinthian 13:10 is referring to the canon of scripture I would suggest that this is a highly problematic interpretation. A more obvious interpretation is the return of Christ. Paul is often looking forward to that day because of the incompleteness of his own experience of God (Romans 8:23-26, 1 Corinthians 13:12, 2 Corinthians 5:2, Philippians 1:21 & 3:12) and John in 1 John 3:2 declares that in that day ‘we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is’. Perfection is not the Bible but the revelation of Christ and who we are in Christ that we will receive at His return.

With respect to the claim that 2 Corinthians 12:12 implies that the gift of healing ceased with the apostles is to confuse two different manifestations of healings. One manifestation of healings was designed to authenticate the status of the speaker as an apostle whilst the second manifestation of healings was a gift given to the church for the purpose of compassion and to authenticate the message of the gospel. For example deacons such as Philip and Stephen were able to perform miracles and they were not apostles (Acts 6:8 & Acts 8:6-7) and 1 Corinthians 12:29-30 strongly implies that the gift of apostles is separate and distinct from the gift of healings.