The Story of a Christian II

Gather round, chil'ren, it's story time again.

Once upon a time there was a Christian. He ran a ministry and was well known for his preaching, which was scriptural and on the level. All this changed when our Christian started opposing someone else's ministry. In this ministry, there were some signs and wonders that were amazing people and leading many to believe. There were even supposed healings in this ministry. People were flocking to these signs and wonders, believing they to be the work of God. Many made a profession of faith because of it.

Well, our Christian was worried by all this. He was worried about the false teachings and contrary theology that came with these signs and wonders. He began to protest it, telling those within the church that they didn't need to seek for signs and wonders, but they just had to turn to the holy scriptures for guidance from God. Unfortunately, this was not met well. Layman and church leader alike condemned our Christian as an agitator, a Pharisee and a heretic. He was soon removed from his position in the city, and forced to minister outside in the country. Eventually he was even arrested and executed for his beliefs. Those who carried this out believed that they did the church a favor and that they were better off without him.

Who was this Christian? It was Jan Hus, the fifteenth century Bohemian theologian. The "signs and wonders" were a red wafer that the Roman church claimed was a Eucharistic host covered in the blood of Christ himself. It was declared a miracle and pilgrims were coming from all over to see the wafer in Brandenburg. Jan Hus openly denounced the supposed miracles, saying that it was the word of God by which Christians were to live, and from there his life spiraled downward until finally he was condemned and ordered to be burned at the stake at the Council of Constance. A year later, Martin Luther and many others would arise in the Reformation, and the truth Jan Hus had professed would finally take root, by the grace of God.

This day and age, many people want to forgo the authority of scripture, or even doctrinal purity for the sake of signs and wonders. As I said during last story time, if many so-called Christians today were consistent with their own positions, they would be against the greatest Christian teachers in history. Those staunchly condemning those who speak against the "signs and wonders" ministries in favor of the complete, and just preliminary, authority of scripture, would be like those who long ago opposed Jan Hus for his own opposition to "signs and wonders" ministries in his day. Yet it wasn't because of Jan Hus's person that his position was the correct one - it was because all that he protested worked against the authority of scripture, while his own authority came from the inspired word of God.

Presuppositions on Miracles and God

In an earlier post I discussed what I called the "fallacy of contrary presuppositions." Namely, two presuppositions that a person upholds which cannot coexist without one contradicting the other. Recently I've been reading or encountering another series of contrary presuppositions that I often seen be made by accidental deists, liberal theologians, and similar groups. Many of these people will assert, at once, two things:

A) God exists


B) Miracles do not exist, or cannot be proven

Herein is the problem: A is affirmed without being established, yet B is affirmed without establishing why in light of A. Let me explain this contradiction by highlighting that both A and B deal with the supernatural. A affirms that God exists, which therefore affirms the supernatural exists; B denies that miracles happen or can be proven, hence either denying or objecting to the supernatural.

At this point we can immediately see the contradiction. Namely, that a person admits that a Being, energy or presence exists beyond the confines of the natural world, yet refuses to believe that anything that likewise goes beyond the confines of the natural world exists, or can be verified. In other words, they are affirming that A is true, yet they are denying miracles in B, even though the belief in A, by extension, confirms that B cannot be true in the sense that miracles cannot happen or be proven. Yet if the supernatural exists, that at least provides the possibility that miracles and other supernatural occurrences exist.

Many might immediately protest this reasoning and accuse me of opening the door for false miracles and giving validity to supposed miracles found in false religions. On the contrary, I am simply skimming the surface at this point. If B is false because A is true, then miracles have the possibility of happening, and then can be studied, and therefore some validity can be given as to whether or not they actually happened. To give an example: I believe in God, and I believe God performs miracles - but when miracles that supposedly happen at a Benny Hinn event are proven false time and time again with medical evidence and background checks of the supposedly healed, I can safely say that the miracles are false. Likewise, if I believe in the one true God of Christianity, then miracles attributed to false gods such as those in Hinduism, Islam or otherwise can be dismissed based on our presuppositions. This argument is merely meant to give validity to the idea of miracles, not to affirm miracles in toto.

In order for a person to uphold both A and B, they have to either admit to deism or some form of dualism: deism in the sense that they believe in a god, but he is a passive, absent one; dualism in the sense that there is a supernatural world, but this supernatural world will have nothing whatsoever to do with creation. Whether the person directly confesses one belief or the other, they will be separating themselves from orthodox, historical Christianity.