Counterfeit Miracles

THE ISSUE SURROUNDING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER GOD performs miracles today is complex and often inflammatory. If a person in the evangelical camp declares that he does not believe in contemporary miracles he is often looked upon with suspicion. The suspicion arises because unbelief in miracles is associated with naturalism, skepticism, or Liberalism. (I use the capital L for Liberal to refer to a distinct school of theology and not to a person who in some other way may be regarded as liberal.) Since a cardinal point of dispute between Liberalism and evangelicalism involves biblical miracles, the dispute spills over into the question of modern miracles as well. There is a tendency here to assign guilt by association; because Liberalism does not believe that miracles occur today we tend to think that anyone who denies that miracles occur today must be a Liberal. The key difference between evangelicals and Liberals on the question of miracles is not whether they occur today but whether they occurred in the past, as the Bible contends.

John Calvin, for example, is rarely considered a Liberal. Calvin and Luther, at the time of the Reformation, were repeatedly challenged by the Roman Catholic Church to produce miracles that would authenticate their teaching. Rome appealed to its documented miracles of the saints as proof that God was speaking through the Roman Catholic Church and not through the Reformers. For their part, the Reformers denied that the apostolic office continued in the church or that the church was the source of new divine revelation.

The debate over continuing revelation was critical to the Reformation position of Sola Scriptura, the belief that Scriptures were sufficient and the only source of written special revelation. Rome argued that a second source of such special revelation occurred in the tradition of the church; this dual source of revelation was decreed at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century and reaffirmed by the papal encyclical of Pius XII, Humani Generis, in the twentieth century.

Rome, aware of the biblical significance of miracles' proving or attesting to agents of revelation, could appeal to the church's miracles to support its claim that it was the true church and that the Reformers were false prophets.

This question of the Reformers' lack of miracles was mentioned by Calvin in his letter to the king of France that introduces his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin says: In demanding miracles from us, they act dishonestly; for we have not coined some new gospel, but retain the very one the truth of which is confirmed by all the miracles which Christ and the apostles ever wrought. But they have a peculiarity which we have not—they can confirm their faith by constant miracles down to the present day! Nay rather, they allege miracles which might produce wavering in minds otherwise well disposed; they are so frivolous and ridiculous, so vain and false, (p. 8) The magisterial Reformers argued that their doctrine was confirmed by the authority of the Bible. We notice in these arguments that neither Rome nor the Reformers challenged the premise that miracles function as signs that authenticate agents of revelation; they agreed on that point. The point in dispute was whether revelation continued beyond the apostolic age and with the continuing revelation the continuing attestation via miracle. Calvin and Luther challenged the authenticity not only of Rome's teaching and her claim to continuing apostolic authority and revelation, but the authenticity of their claimed miracles. The Reformers considered the miracles of Rome to be not only frivolous but counterfeit. They denied that they were real miracles at all.

One thing is clear about this dispute. The issue was not whether God could perform miracles but whether the Bible was the sole source of inscripturated special revelation. That point is often overlooked in the current debate about continuing miracles. Within evangelicalism today, especially but not exclusively in the charismatic wing, claims are being made of new revelation from God and the abundant presence of new miracles. The possibility of modern miracles is considered so great that posters are sold in Christian bookstores and adorn the studies of many pastors that read "Expect a Miracle!" In these circles miracles are not only considered possible, they are expected. Evangelists promise

miracles at their revival services and even claim to perform them on national television.

We must also be careful to note that many evangelicals are persuaded that revelation does not continue to this day but miracles do. They divorce miracles from revelation on the assumption that we can have miracle workers without revelation as others argue that you can have revelation without miracles. Since miracles have other functions beside as attesting agents of revelation they can continue without any corresponding revelation.

The classic Reformed position on this matter agrees that miracles have other functions besides attesting to agents of revelation, as we have seen. That is, miracles can do more than attest to agents of revelation. But the question remains, Can they do less? Herein lies the problem. If a non-agent of revelation is able to perform miracles, how can miracles ever function as proof of attestation of an agent of revelation? If both agents of revelation and non-agents of revelation can perform miracles, what possible attesting value can there ever be in a miracle? If a false prophet can perform a miracle, the true prophet cannot appeal to miracles as proof of his own office. The problem becomes all the more acute when we see that the New Testament does appeal to the miracles of the apostles as proof of their authority, which is clearly a spurious appeal and false argument if it is true that non-agents of revelation can do miracles.

I was once invited to speak at a meeting of Christian booksellers at the time when Benny Hinn's book Good Morning, Holy Spirit was the number one bestseller in the Christian marketplace. I asked, if Hinn was doing the miracles he claimed he was doing, why was no one advocating that his book be added to the New Testament canon? Hinn claimed new revelation, that God even spoke audibly to him; thus he had all the claimed credentials of a biblical prophet.

One of the things that is conspicuously absent in the repertoire of modern miracle workers is the type of miracles that were performed by biblical agents of revelation. Benny Hinn performs his miracles on a stage with theatrical accouterments that would have scandalized the apostles. He does not perform his miracles in the cemetery. What miracle worker today is able to turn water into wine or raise people from the dead who have been dead for four days?

Benny Hinn cannot part the Red Sea or cause ax heads to float. Why not? Is the quality of miracle that survives to this day less than those performed by biblical agents of revelation? Has the arm of the Lord waxed short?

It is clear that however we define a miracle we must place the alleged miracles of today in a different class, or category, from those recorded in the Scriptures.

No one is bringing something out of nothing these days—unless it is the currency produced by the federal government!

Does this mean then that God in His providence no longer is working? Has God ceased and desisted from exerting His supernatural power in our midst? Does God not answer prayers in extraordinary ways or grant requests for healing when doctors say such healing cannot occur? By no means! God is still alive and working. He answers the prayers of His people in remarkable ways.

His supernatural grace is evident among us every day. If we consider these things miracles then we must admit that miracles are still going on.

We distinguish three categories of issues raised by the function of miracles to attest to agents of revelation and authenticate His written Word. These categories include His normal providence, His extraordinary providence, and His miracles (in the narrow sense defined already). Within these three categories we say that God continues His work of ordinary providence and His work of extraordinary providence but not His work of attesting to agents of special revelation with miracles in the narrow sense.

Satanic Miracles

The question remains: What about the miracles of Satan? Does not the Bible teach that Satan, the Great Deceiver, can also perform miracles? Let us look at some of the relevant texts of Scripture that raise this question: If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, "Let us go after other gods"—which you have not known—"and let us serve them," you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer

of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deut. 13:1-3) Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"

And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (Matt. 7:22-23) Then if anyone says to you, "Look, here is the Christ!" or "There!" do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand.

Therefore if they say to you, "Look, He is in the desert!" do not go out; or "Look, He is in the inner rooms!" do not believe it." (Matt. 24:23-26) The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thess. 2:9-12) This sampling of biblical texts calls attention to the sober warning of the powers and deception of Satan. His first appearance as the serpent in Eden was marked by guile and craftiness, and he continues to be a formidable adversary for the people of God. As Luther said, "His power and craft are great," and since it is coupled with "cruel hate" it becomes all the more dangerous. Satan is so masterful in the art of deception that he is capable of appearing to us sub species boni, or under the auspices of the good. He can transform himself into an angel of light, and he seeks to deceive even "the elect" (see Matt. 24:24 and Mark 13:22).

The Scriptures portray Satan as a higher being than we are. He is an angelic being, albeit a fallen angel. As such, strictly speaking, he is not a supernatural being. He may be higher than what we expect to see in ordinary "nature," but he still belongs to the natural order in the sense that he is a creature and part of the

creaturely order of nature. He is not on the level with God and possesses no incommunicable divine attributes. He is a spirit being but a finite spirit. He is not infinite, eternal, immutable, omniscient, or omnipresent. He may have more knowledge than we have and greater power, but he does not have divine power.

When the Bible speaks of Satan's alleged "miracles," his works are called "signs and lying wonders" (2 Thess. 2:9). The question is this, What is meant by the qualifying term lying? Does this mean that Satan can perform actual miracles in a lying cause? Or does it mean that the signs and wonders he performs are lying in that they are fraudulent tricks and not actual miracles? Theologians are divided on this question.

Some who believe that Satan can perform actual miracles in the sense that he can do works that are contra naturam argue that these works are not contra peccatum, or "against sin." This technical distinction is designed to show that although Satan can act against nature he can never, or at least won't ever, act against his own evil purposes, which are "pro-sin" rather than "contra-sin." The reasoning is that a house divided against itself will not stand, and Satan will never work against his own aims by doing miracles. His miracles are always directed against the good and the truth of Christ. We are told by advocates of this view that we can discern the difference between the miracles of Satan and the miracles of God by subjecting them to the test of Scripture.

This argument suffers from a fatal fallacy, the fallacy of circular reasoning, or question-begging. Before we can ever test the miracles of Satan by the content of Scripture, we must first have a Scripture by which to test them. We remember that Scripture is attested to by the miracles performed by agents of revelation that certify they are spokesmen from God. But how do we know that the miracles that attested them were not satanic? Perhaps Nicodemus should have amended his statement to read, "We know that you are a teacher sent from God or the devil or you would not be able to do the works that you do." Indeed, the Pharisees made that very charge against Jesus, that He was performing His miracles by the power of Satan. At this point their theology was inferior to that of Nicodemus, who was more restrictive in his view of miracle.

The same problem we encountered with the question of miracles performed by

non-agents of revelation is exaggerated by the problem of satanic miracles. If Satan can perform real miracles, then the biblical appeal to miracles as certification that the miracle workers come from God is a spurious appeal.

I think it makes more sense to conclude that the "lying" that describes Satan's signs and wonders describes not only their aim but their character. They are lying signs in that they are fraudulent and fake. His signs resemble the astounding tricks performed by the magicians of Egypt who sought to duplicate the powers of Moses: Then the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, "When Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, 'Show a miracle for yourselves,' then you shall say to Aaron, 'Take your rod and cast it before Pharaoh, and let it become a serpent.'" So Moses and Aaron went in to Pharaoh, and they did so, just as the LORD commanded.

And Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent.

But Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers; so the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. For every man threw down his rod, and they became serpents. But Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods. (Exod. 7:8-12) The magicians of Egypt had no more magic than magicians have today. The difference is that most modern magicians in the Western world do not really claim to perform magic but are quite willing to call themselves "illusionists," or masters of sleight of hand. Magic stores abound where those interested in this modern form of entertainment can learn many tricks of the trade. I once had a neighbor who was a cabinetmaker. His specialty was in making special cabinets for performing magicians. They contained clever hinge mechanisms, false bottoms, secret panels, and often mirrors. Magicians today have no trouble concealing a rabbit in a hat or even a snake in a collapsible tube. When Moses and Aaron performed their miracles, the magicians of Egypt thought they could duplicate their feats. But not only were their serpents swallowed up in the process, they were chagrined when they soon ran out of their bag of tricks and could not duplicate the feats of genuine miracle workers.

Some of the tricks performed by modern magicians are truly amazing to those who witness them. The irony is that though many of them require great skill and years of careful practice some of the most amazing feats they perform are at the same time some of the simplest to execute.

Lou Costello would win a lot of money in bets when he would produce a normal deck of cards and ask his "pigeon" to select any card from the deck. Then he told his friend he knew a man in a distant city who was a bona fide mind reader. He would bet that if the man called the mind reader on the phone and asked for the wizard that the wizard could tell him which card he had selected by longdistance mental telepathy. When the sucker took the bet (as Jackie Gleason once admitted he did) he would call the number and ask for the wizard. The wizard would tell the man to think of the card he had selected and then promptly tell him the card over the phone ... It worked every time.

How did Costello or the wizard do it? It was a simple scam. Costello had fiftytwo designated "wizards" around the country. Each one was responsible for one particular card. Costello memorized the wizard and his phone number for all fifty-two cards in the deck. When his pigeon selected a card, Costello simply gave him the name of the wizard responsible for that card. Anytime that person received a phone call from someone asking for the wizard, he knew what card he was supposed to identify.

Satan's tricks are far more sophisticated than that, but they remain tricks nevertheless. His prestidigitation may exceed that of Houdini but it nowhere approaches the miraculous power of God, who alone can bring something out of nothing and life out of death.

Satan's minions lost their contest with Moses and Aaron. They were defeated by Elijah at Mount Carmel. And they were no match for Christ in the wilderness or during His earthly ministry. Satan sought to entice Jesus to use His genuine miraculous power in the service of Satan, a power Satan coveted. Simon Magus sought to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit to no avail (see Acts 8:9).

The providence of God is served by the power of God. Miracles are a part of His sovereign rule over the creation and over history. His Word is sovereignly

attested to by that power that He is unwilling to grant to the powers of darkness.

The tricks of Satan are exposed by the Word, whose truth has been confirmed and verified by the miraculous attestation of God.

The church today faces a grave threat from those who want to claim apostolic power and apostolic authority. In this regard the Christian must be ever vigilant and flee from those who make such claims.