MIRACLE, Testing by Doctrine & vice versa
TESTING MIRACLE BY DOCTRINE AND DOCTRINE BY MIRACLE
Virgil Warren, PhD
A problem has been suggested in connection with testing miracle by doctrine. On the one hand, we say miracle confirms revelation (Mark 2:1-12; note 3:2; 20:30-31). On the other hand, we apply the doctrinal test to prophets to judge the divine origin of their message (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). In fact, Moses subjected signs to doctrinal evaluation in this statement. Prophets who gave a sign that came to pass (miracle or coincidence) were nevertheless to be executed if they urged the people on that basis to serve other gods (doctrine; Deuteronomy 13:1-5). Miracle proves doctrine and doctrine tests miracle.
The problem poses a false dilemma; the doctrine proved by miracle is not the same doctrine used to judge miracle. (a) Miracle authenticates doctrine. (b) That doctrine in turn tests any miracles used to authenticate further doctrine that contradicts previous teaching.
In the beginning God attested the message of Moses by a stupendous demonstration of miracle in the triumph of divine over demonic in confrontation. As revelation progressively unveiled further truth, it was miraculously attested; but any prophet who sought to contradict previous revelation by displaying lying wonders (demonic, deceptive, or otherwise) was cut off because no message from God is at odds with the previous messages from him.
Besides the false dilemma, a sign may have varying degrees of obviousness that it is supernatural and divinely so. Even though it is not the same miracle that tests doctrine that is tested by doctrine, there is some ambiguity in miracle as such. We can appeal to (a) stupendous miracle (greater degree) and (b) miracle in confrontation. The case in Deuteronomy 13 is the same doctrine, “Who is God?” In that case, a more stupendous display of the divine supernatural had earlier occurred in confrontation with some of the gods a “dreamer of dreams” would propose to serve. Those gods were the ones Yahveh had overwhelmingly defeated in the exodus; the gods of Canaan, whom a new prophet might propose serving, would be overwhelmingly defeated in the conquest. Those previous and future confrontations were significantly more obvious than any sign some “dreamer” would be offering. Note the connection with the notion of relative certainty. We stake our position on what makes the best case, not on what offers absolute certainty, has no ambiguity, or presents no difficulties.
There is a theoretical problem in the interaction of doctrine and miracle: how do avoid circularity. The answer is that it is not the same doctrine that checks miracle as is proved by miracle. Furthermore, we look for triumph in confrontation with opponents of God when God promised success in that confrontation.
There are also two practical problems in the doctrinal test. The first is what to do when no previous revelation exists on a given doctrine. The answer is to supple the doctrinal test with the success test, the moral test, the definitional test, and the kind-of-miracle test. The second practical problem is how to avoid missing the truth on something that erroneously strikes us as false. The answer is attitude expressed in willingness to listen. The doctrinal test assumes correct doctrinal understanding by the “tester.” The miracle test assumes the correct identification of an event as divinely supernatural. Miracle and doctrine are not absolute tests because miracle may not always be clearly divine rather than something else. Doctrine is not always absolute because an observer may not correctly understand the doctrine and the doctrine may not have come up in previous revelation.
christir.org