Monday, September 15, 2014

Where Are Luther's Miracles?

To the left: "The "Incombustible Luther" of 1689. A number of printed images of Luther were thought to be impervious to destruction by fire. This one was found in the house where Luther had been born after it was badly damaged by fire in 1689. The earliest examples of the belief in incombustible Luther images date back to the earliest years of the Reformation. They are testimony both to the profound influence of the Reformation on the image culture of the late Middle Ages and to the persistence of pre-Reformation beliefs and religious practices in Protestant lands (source)."

Where are the Miracles of Luther?
Over on the Catholic Answers forums someone asked this about Luther, "Where are his miracles? Where are the miracles of any person who set up a Church against the True Church?”

This is an argument that has been used by the defenders of Rome for quite a long time (I've tackled it before: Hey Reformers: Got Miracles? If Not, You Were Not Called By God). The argument is old. For example, Francis de Sales made the argument in The Catholic Controversy. A 1622 pamphlet Lutheri Manes, das ist D. Martin Luthers abgeleibter Geist Amno raised the issue to confront the 1617 celebration of Luther. Here's an interesting excerpt from the late 1800's:

At the time of Martin Luther, a certain man, named William, was drowned. Luther was requested to raise him again to life as a proof of the truth of his doctrine. He commanded him repeatedly to rise from the dead. It was all in vain. (Bredenbach, L. vii., c. 1.) Calvin wished to prove the truth of his doctrine by a miracle. So he begged a man to feign death and have himself carried as a corpse to the church, and then rise at his bidding, so that the people might believe he had been raised again to life by the prayer of Calvin, as a proof of the truth of his doctrine. That man complied with Calvin's request. He was carried to the church, apparently dead. Calvin approached the coffin and said in a loud voice: I command you to rise in the name of Christ, whose Gospel I preach. But alas! the man never arose again. He was dead. God had punished him, and by the sudden death of this deceiver God manifested his detestation of Calvin's heresies, and the truth of the Catholic religion. (Franc-Torrianus, L. i. De Dogmatibus.) Thus Almighty God has never permitted, and will never permit, a real miracle in confirmation of an heretical doctrine; should he bestow the gift of miracles even on an impious man, yet he will never permit him to use this gift in confirmation of a false doctrine. Were god to perform a real miracle in support of an heretical doctrine he would thereby lead the people into error, and become guilty of the sin of wilful lying and deception.

In more recent times, one can find things like this traditionalist website that goes into great detail with this argument (using deSales): ProtestantErrors.com.  And finally, here's a modern example from pop-Roman defender Taylor Marshall:

You can start with Martin Luther. Did Luther perform any miracles? Did he make prophecies that came to pass. No, not at all. Yet at the same time period, the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe (a public miracle) did occur to St Juan Diego and millions of Aztecs. Also during this time period, the Catholic missionary Saint Francis Xavier was miraculously preaching to the people of India, Indonesia, etc. in their native tongues without study.


The Miracles of Luther?
Interestingly, there is actually a tradition of alleged miracles and prophecies attributed to Luther. For an intriguing study of this, see: R.W. Scribner, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany (London: The Hambledon Press, 1987). Chapter 15 is entitled, "Incombustible Luther: the Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany" (Much of this chapter is available via a free preview, but reading the chapter in its entirety is well worth it).

Scribner points out that the quality of incombustibility is rooted in the Roman cult of the saints myths (Scribner, 328). The notion of the incombustible Luther comes from 18th century stories of multiple fires in the 17th Century in which paintings of Luther were found in the ashes intact and unharmed. The actual genesis of Luther and fire appears to go back to a pamphlet from 1521 (Scribner, 324), and it picked up various other Luther miracles as the years progressed.  Scribner mentions that in 1583 Antonius Probus made the very argument our friend from Catholic Answers is making, that "God did not send great prophets and doctors of the church unless miracles accompanied them" (Scribner, 336), and then Scribner documents a number of 17th Century miraculous Luther stories (Scribner, 336-338).  Scribner also mentions that seven years before Probus, Johann Lapaeus produced a list of Luther's prophecies and miracles (Scribner, 349).

No, I don't believe the miracles attributed to Luther are true, but it is a fascinating, if not funny study. There are guidelines set up as to how to become a saint in Romanism, so perhaps if someone wanted to play with Rome's rules, you could make a case for Luther. Rome's defenders have a seemingly countless number of official and unofficial miracles, so someone with creativity could argue for the beatification of Saint Luther. The flaw though in going in this direction is that it assumes Rome's worldview is true.

I'm always a bit surprised when this argument is raised because based on the criteria of miracle = "sent by God", there are a fair amount of Pentecostal folks that are more than willing to claim they have the credentials required. Then also there's the problem that those who substantiate their message with an alleged miracle include non-Christian religions. Let us never forget the sobering words of  Matthew 7:21-23:
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.
But if someone really wanted to turn the tables on Rome's argument, place the argument in a Protestant, Biblical, and sola scriptura worldview. Yes, miracles certainly proved the divine message of the Biblical authors. Keep in mind though, the magisterial reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), did not believe they were receiving new revelation from God. Rather, they believed they were testifying to what was in the Bible. If you were to ask them "where are your miracles to prove your message?" A good way for them to respond would be to say: "Between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21."

Luther's Test
What's interesting to me about all this is Luther and the early magisterial Reformers faced a very similar problem with a dissident group of people they called the Schwärmer. These were the radicals that were made up of the peasants, Anabaptists, spiritualists, and all the others that couldn't be classified as papists or Lutherans. Early in the 1520's, Luther and the Wittenbergers came into conflict with some men claiming to be modern-day prophets, known as the Zwickau Prophets. What characterized these men was that the authority of Scripture was second to their private revelations from the Holy Spirit. Their subjective experience trumped the testimony of the scriptures, and it was no wonder to Luther that their ideas led to societal and political unrest and rebellion.

There was a difference between the Reformers and those like the  Zwickau Prophets- the Reformers found their doctrines in the Scriptures, relying on exegesis and devout study. The modern-day prophets came with a message not from the Scriptures, but from the inner revelation of the Holy Spirit. In fact, when Luther discussed these prophets via correspondence with Melanchthon, he asked the same question about their miracles... did they have them to establish their new revelation? He also wanted to know that if they really were prophets in the Biblical sense, did they demonstrate the fear and suffering similar to what the Biblical prophets experienced?:

Now let me deal with the “prophets.” Before I say anything else, I do not approve of your timidity, since you are stronger in spirit and learning than I. First of all, since they bear witness to themselves, one need not immediately accept them; according to John’s counsel, the spirits are to be tested. If you cannot test them, then you have the advice of Gamaliel that you postpone judgment. Thus far I hear of nothing said or done by them that Satan could not also do or imitate. Yet find out for me whether they can prove [that they are called by God], for God has never sent anyone, not even the Son himself, unless he was called through men or attested by signs. In the old days the prophets had their authority from the Law and the prophetic order, as we now receive authority through men. I definitely do not want the “prophets” to be accepted if they state that they were called by mere revelation, since God did not even wish to speak to Samuel except through the authority and knowledge of Eli. This is the first thing that belongs to teaching in public.
In order to explore their individual spirit, too, you should inquire whether they have experienced spiritual distress and the divine birth, death, and hell. If you should hear that all [their experiences] are pleasant, quiet, devout (as they say), and spiritual, then don’t approve of them, even if they should say that they were caught up to the third heaven. The sign of the Son of Man is then missing, which is the only touchstone of Christians and a certain differentiator between the spirits. Do you want to know the place, time, and manner of [true] conversations with God? Listen: “Like a lion has he broken all my bones”; “I am cast out from before your eyes”: “My soul is filled with grief, and my life has approached hell.” The [Divine] Majesty (as they call it) does not speak in such a direct way to man that man could [actually] see it; but rather, “Man shall not see me and live.” [Our] nature cannot bear even a small glimmer of God’s [direct] speaking. As a result God speaks through men [indirectly], because not all can endure his speaking. The angel frightened even the Virgin, and also Daniel. And Jeremiah pleads, “Correct me [O Lord] but in just measure,” and, “Be not a terror to me.” Why should I say more? As if the [Divine] Majesty could speak familiarly with the Old Adam without first killing him and drying him out so that his horrible stench would not be so foul, since God is a consuming fire! The dreams and visions of the saints are horrifying, too, at least after they are understood. Therefore examine [them] and do not even listen if they speak of the glorified Jesus, unless you have first heard of the crucified Jesus. (LW 48:365-367)
A few years later writing to Duke John of Saxony Luther stated,
Now it is an especial joy that our followers did not begin this heresy, as the sectaries themselves boast that they did not learn it from us, but directly from Heaven, and that they hear God speak to them immediately as to the angels. It is a simple fact that at Wittenberg only faith, love, and the Cross of Christ are taught. God's voice, they say, you must hear yourself, and suffer and feel God's work in you to know your own weight; aye, they make nothing of the Scripture, which they call "Bible-bubble-Babel." To judge by what they say their cross and passion is greater than Christ's and more to be prized. . . .
Secondly, their boasting about the spirit counts for nothing, for we have the saying of St. John, bidding us "prove the spirits, whether they be of God." Now this spirit has not yet been proved, and goes about with turbulence and makes a disturbance according to his own sweet will. If he were a good spirit he would first humbly submit to be proved and Judged, as does the Spirit of Christ. It would be a fine fruit of the spirit, by which he could be proved, if he did not creep into the corners and flee the light, but would stand out publicly before his enemies and opponents and make his confession and give his answers. But the spirit of Allstedt shuns that sort of thing as the devil shuns the Cross, and yet in his own nest he speaks the most unterrified language, as though he were full of three Holy Ghosts, and this unseemly boasting is a fine proof of who this spirit is. For in his book he offers to make answer in the presence of a harmless assembly, and to stake life and soul upon it, but not in a corner, but in the presence of two or three persons. Tell me, who is this bold and confident Holy Spirit who sets himself such narrow limits and will not appear except before a "harmless assembly," and will not make answer in a corner before two or three persons? What kind of a spirit is that who is afraid of two or three people and cannot endure an assembly that may do him harm? I shall tell you. He smells the roast; he has been with me once or twice in my cloister at Wittenberg and has had his nose punched; so he does not like the soup and will not appear except where his own followers are present who will say Yes to his swelling words. If I, who have no spirit and hear no heavenly voices, had used such words against my papists, how they would have shouted Victory, and stopped my mouth!
In the same letter Luther states that these prophets should submit in a proper manner, even if it's to "the papists":
I have said these things to your Graces, so that your Graces may not be afraid of this spirit or delay action, but enjoin them strictly to refrain from violence and stop their destroying of monasteries and churches and their burning of saints, commanding them, if they wish to prove their spirit, to do so in a proper manner, and first submit to investigation, either by us or by the papists, for, thank God! they consider us worse enemies than the papists.
I'm not going to speculate too much on this comment, other than saying that I think Luther realized these prophets wouldn't submit to anybody's scrutiny, and even if they did get scrutinized by "the papists" they would fail their test as well.

18 comments:

Andrew Suttles said...

My pastor preached a sermon Sunday about how those that are most satisfied with the Scriptures are the most interested in miracles - so with Rome! The only miracle those of us need who preach the Scriptures is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, whose gospel we preach.

James Swan said...

Great point Andrew. Every so often I follow Internet rabbit trails to this or that saint and read about their alleged miracles. I often think: so what? The miracles in the Bible are just superior.

Some dead person not decomposing really doesn't do anything for me in terms of increasing my faith.

steve said...

The Catholic argument backfires. To my knowledge, the church of Rome doesn't even claim that most popes, bishops, or priests perform miracles.

That's confined to the canonization of a few. And, of course, the very institution that's verifying saintly miracles has a stake in saintly miracles to verify the institution. So it's circular.

I'd add that in the case of miracles attributed to popes, given how many millions of Catholics pray to the pope to intercede for them, it's statistically inevitable that you'd have a few apparent answers to prayer. Classic coincidence.

So the argument from miracles undercuts the claims of Rome.

Finally, reported miracles are hardly confined to Roman Catholics. We can debate the status of modern miracles, but that's a two-way street. If we credit Catholic miracles, then we should credit Protestant miracles. They rise or fall together.

James Swan said...

Great points Steve- I think Rome is filled with double standards in this area.

Andrew Suttles said...

Oops! I meant to say above that - those most *DISSATISFIED* with the Scriptures are the most interested in extra-Biblical revelation - miracles, gifts, etc.

I hope you understood what I meant.

Paul Hoffer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Hoffer said...

I am re-posting my comment because of all the typos in the original.

Hello Mr. Hays, you wrote, "Finally, reported miracles are hardly confined to Roman Catholics. We can debate the status of modern miracles, but that's a two-way street. If we credit Catholic miracles, then we should credit Protestant miracles. They rise or fall together."

Me: I am not aware that Catholics would necessarily deny that there are such things as "Protestant" miracles, only Protestants do that. What I must ask is why you folks have such a stake in denying God's exercise of His omnipotence. Don't you claim that He is omnipotent? Or is that mere lip service? Miracles are God's reminders of His presence in the world and in our lives.

Mr. Swan: While some might not get anything out of honoring the witness to the faith in Christ crucified, Christ resurrected and Christ ascended that comes from honoring dead decomposing (and some incorruptable) canonized saints, why denigrate those who do? If such spurs and bolsters faith in Christ Jesus, why does it bother you so?

Also, Mr. Hays, Catholics do assert that every pope, bishop and priest perform miracles, daily even~it is called transubstantiation.

God bless!

Paul Hoffer said...

Mr. Suttles, With all due respect to your pastor, what is the basis for his assertion? Compare his polemical exaggeration with what Saint Augustine wrote in the City of God Book XXII, Chapters 8-10 and tell me which is more reasoned and consistent with the Gospel message. if you can not do this, why not send me by e-mail your minister's phone number so I can arrange a meeting with him since I too live in Ohio. I would love to share my Catholic faith and what I understand about the Church teaching on miracles as opposed to whereever he got his opinion. It will be a character building exercise, iron sharpening iron so to speak.

steve said...

Paul Hoffer said...

"Me: I am not aware that Catholics would necessarily deny that there are such things as 'Protestant' miracles..."

Of course, that admission cancels out the evidential value of Catholic miracles to attest Catholicism to the detriment of Protestantism. It's a wash.

"...only Protestants do that. What I must ask is why you folks have such a stake in denying God's exercise of His omnipotence. Don't you claim that He is omnipotent? Or is that mere lip service? Miracles are God's reminders of His presence in the world and in our lives."

What Protestants are you alluding to? Cessationists? Not all Protestants are cessationists by a long shot. Furthermore, most cessationists grant the possibility of modern miracles. What they typically deny is modern-day prophets, healers, miracle-workers, &c.

"Also, Mr. Hays, Catholics do assert that every pope, bishop and priest perform miracles, daily even~it is called transubstantiation."

It's called an indetectable, unverifiable miracle that's empirically indistinguishable from a nonevent. Thanks for the reminder.

steve said...

Paul Hoffer said...

"What I must ask is why you folks have such a stake in denying God's exercise of His omnipotence. Don't you claim that He is omnipotent? Or is that mere lip service? Miracles are God's reminders of His presence in the world and in our lives."

By your own logic, God isn't omnipotent since he didn't heal Pope John XXIII's cancer. God isn't omnipotent because he didn't heal John-Paul II's Parkinson's disease.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello Steve, the whole point of my comment is that God may work miracles when and where He wills. I never claimed that He is obligated to perform them just because someone is suffering from an illness, even if that person is a pope. He is not a dog on a leash forced to do miracle for our amusement or because we want Him to do them.

I will respond to the rest of your comments when I have the time to do so in a day or so.

God bless!

steve said...

Paul Hoffer said...

"Hello Steve, the whole point of my comment is that God may work miracles when and where He wills. I never claimed that He is obligated to perform them just because someone is suffering from an illness, even if that person is a pope. He is not a dog on a leash forced to do miracle for our amusement or because we want Him to do them."

And a Protestant cessationist could throw your argument right back in your face.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello Mr. Hays, I now have some more time to respond to your comments.

In response to your claim, “Of course, that admission cancels out the evidential value of Catholic miracles to attest Catholicism to the detriment of Protestantism”, I would state the following:

I am aware that some Catholic apologists make a distinction between first class miracles and second class miracles, the former having to do with confirming the faith and certain doctrinal teachings as opposed to those that involve healing and point to the lack of first class miracles in Protestant denominations as an indication that they are not true media for grace. However, since Lumen Gentium #15 states otherwise, I do not see how that argument can be asserted anymore. What can be argued is whether a particular event that seems miraculous can be properly documented, subjected to scientific testing or some other appropriate scrutiny to rule out natural causes that could explain the event. I am not aware of any Protestant denomination, including the ones that do follow the Catholic view that miracles still happen, conduct such a review. To my knowledge, only Catholics and Orthodox do that.

Since the whole issue of miracles involves natters of private revelation no Catholic can be compelled to believe in them. While I have to believe that miraculous events occur, I am not required to accept a particular event as miraculous that occurs outside of the Scriptures other than what the Church has solemnly pronounced~the Assumption for example. I do not have to believe in Lourdes, or Fatima, or that St. Pio had stigmata to be a Catholic in good standing. I happen to believe in those things based on my own discernment and inquiry, but if I came to an opposite conclusion, I would not be kicked out of the Church. For example, I am very skeptical about the miraculous cures connected with Marian apparition in Medjugorje. Based on what I have read on the Shroud of Turin, I do believe that is what it purports to be.

That said, I do not see the evidential value of using them in the manner which your comment implies. Using miracles as “proofs” in the manner you suggest is not something I believe is officially taught by the Catholic Church. It is merely an argument that some make, particularly when it comes to first class miracles. If you have documentation that the Catholic Church officially teaches that miracles can not occur in Protesant churches, please do share the papal encyclical, conciliar teaching or citation to the Catechism that teaches otherwise.

You wrote, “What Protestants are you alluding to? Cessationists? Not all Protestants are cessationists by a long shot. Furthermore, most cessationists grant the possibility of modern miracles. What they typically deny is modern-day prophets, healers, miracle-workers, &c.”

Me: I would be interested to know your view on miracles as such make this discussion a true dialogue instead of a polemical endeavor. Are you one of those folks who deny that miracles have ceased since apostolic times? Or do you claim that “Catholic” miracles are satanic in origin? Or do you believe that God’s grace can work in the lives of Catholics, too?

As for your comment about the Eucharist, there have been documented instances of Eucharistic miracles, but I do not rely upon them as “proofs” for the dogmas of Transubstantiation orReal Presence. My faith is more simple~I take Jesus Christ at His Word. The Eucharist is a sacrament and thus our belief in the Eucharist is formed by faith, not scientific arguments. But, that is a discussion that goes beyond the matters here.

TBC.

Paul Hoffer said...

You also wrote “And a Protestant cessationist could throw your argument right back in your face”.

Me: And if you are not a cessationist, I am sure that you could throw their counter- argument back in their face. To what avail? Can a million arguments of a million cessationists ever rebut a single Truth? As an ancestor of mine once said at the Boston Massacre trial, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Unexplainable events occur; healings happen. One can try to explain them away, but one can not deny that these things do occur. And as a person of faith, I see nothing wrong in attributing them to God’s omnipotence. How about you?

God bless!

steve said...

You suffer from a persistent inability to follow the argument. The question at issue is whether Protestants must perform miracles to attest Protestant theology. That's a fixture of Catholic apologetics. And that's what my original comment was geared to. I was responding to the Catholic contention on its own terms. That's how the original post was framed. For some reason, you have difficulty understanding the actual state of the argument.

i) To begin with, you seem to grant the possibility (even actuality) of Protestant miracles. But that directly undercuts the Catholic claim under review. For some reason, you're oblivious to that fact.

ii) You then use your admission as a pretext to change the subject, so that you can raise the issue of Protestant cessationism. In that regard, you make the illogical claim that cessationism is contrary to divine omnipotence. In so doing, you ignore really obvious counterexamples. I gave a couple.

You then respond by saying God may perform miracles when and where he will. He's "not on a leash." But that undercuts your appeal to omnipotence, for you've now conceded that it's a question of what God is willing to do, not what he is able to do. And a Protestant cessationist could easily avail himself of the same distinction. So not only are you unable to keep track of the original argument, you can't keep track of your own argument.

iii) You stumble from one non sequitur to another. In your latest comment you once again change the subject:

"What can be argued is whether a particular event that seems miraculous can be properly documented, subjected to scientific testing or some other appropriate scrutiny to rule out natural causes that could explain the event. I am not aware of any Protestant denomination, including the ones that do follow the Catholic view that miracles still happen, conduct such a review. To my knowledge, only Catholics and Orthodox do that."

a) To begin with, whether or not Protestant miracles are verifiable is completely different from your initial claim that Protestants deny modern miracles.

b) Moreover, Protestants like Craig Keener and Rex Gardner supply medical verification for modern Protestant miracles.

b) Furthermore, when Benedict XVI fast-tracked the canonization of John-Paul II, the outcome as a fait accompli. The review amounted to: we intend to canonize him: so go find the evidence. Finding evidence to retroactively validate a foregone conclusion is hardly an impartial process.

"That said, I do not see the evidential value of using them in the manner which your comment implies. Using miracles as 'proofs' in the manner you suggest is not something I believe is officially taught by the Catholic Church. It is merely an argument that some make, particularly when it comes to first class miracles.If you have documentation that the Catholic Church officially teaches that miracles can not occur in Protesant churches, please do share the papal encyclical, conciliar teaching or citation to the Catechism that teaches otherwise."

Which scuttles the traditional Catholic objection to the Protestant Reformers (and their successors). You're chronically unable to follow the argument.

"I would be interested to know your view on miracles as such make this discussion a true dialogue instead of a polemical endeavor."

My personal view is irrelevant to the topic of this post. I'm responding to the traditional Catholic apologetic objection (to Protestant theology) on its own grounds.

"My faith is more simple~I take Jesus Christ at His Word."

Where did Jesus say "Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity" (CCC 1413)?

Paul Hoffer said...

Mr. Hays wrote: “You suffer from a persistent inability to follow the argument.”

Me: I wasn’t aware that I was obligated to defend a fictive argument. Rather, I was responding to the comments that were made, which is why I reference the comments I was responding to.

You wrote: “The question at issue is whether Protestants must perform miracles to attest Protestant theology. That's a fixture of Catholic apologetics. And that's what my original comment was geared to. I was responding to the Catholic contention on its own terms. That's how the original post was framed. For some reason, you have difficulty understanding the actual state of the argument.”

Me: The question at issue is whether Martin Luther, the originator of the Protestant Reformation, performed any miracles, not Protestants in general. At least that is how I read it.

Moreover, I deny the assertion that the argument, as you frame it, is a “fixture of Catholic apologetics.” I am not aware of any credible Catholic apologist making such an argument. It is certainly not an official position of the Church, nor is it one that can be reconciled with present-day Catholic teaching, particularly in light of Lumen Gentium. If a Catholic apologist uses St. Francis de Sales’ arguments in The Catholic Controversy in the manner you assert, they would be wrong to do so, particularly since St. Francis himself does not frame his argument in that way.

St. Francis de Sales made two arguments in connection with miracles. Using the admission of the Reformers that they had not performed any miracles, St. Francis de Sales argues that the assertion by the Reformers that they had an immediate or extraordinary mission from God to reform the Church could not be true because unlike the biblical examples noted in the passage that Mr. Swan quoted in his link, their mission was not accompanied by miracles. (Part 1, Chapter III) Second, Saint Francis de Sales challenged the argument of the Reformers that the Catholic Church was not a true Church by responding that one of the marks of a true Church was that it ought to be resplendent in miracles and proceeded to show that in contrast to the Protestant churches, the Catholic Church could point to its “perpetual and ordinary succession” of miracles as proof that it was the true Church of Christ, “ No society can do these miracles which this does, so glorious and so continual, unless God was with it.” (The Catholic Controversy, Part 2, Art. III, Chapters VI-VII). In the course of his argument, he acknowledged the possibility of miracles occurring in Protestant churches but stated it was the continuity and regularity of miracles that occurred that mattered and that when such occurred outside of the Catholic Church, it was due to either God’s will to bring people to the true faith or because those persons followed the pattern of the Catholic faith. (Ibid. at pp. 184-185).

I see no reason for me to defend the argument as you have framed it since such is not supported by present-day Catholic teaching, especially since you can’t point to any magisterial teaching that says that I MUST accept it. Nor should I be required to accept the premise that it is a “fixture of Catholic apologetics” since I know of no Catholic apologist who asserts it. I would urge you not to conflate what St. Francis de Sales wrote against the Reformers who admitted that they performed no miracles into an assertion that Catholics argue that no Protestant has ever performed a miracle. He simply did not say that and I do not say it either. TBC.

Paul Hoffer said...

Steves Hays wrote: “To begin with, you seem to grant the possibility (even actuality) of Protestant miracles. But that directly undercuts the Catholic claim under review. For some reason, you're oblivious to that fact.”

Me: Read my remarks again. Not only do I grant the actuality of Protestant miracles, so does the Catholic Church. The claim under review as you put it is not the “Catholic claim” because no Catholics that I am aware of assert it. Even if the claim were a fixture of contemporary Catholic apologetics or is “the Catholic claim,” as you assert, I am obligated to oppose such argumentation as it is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Despite our numerous interactions over the years, you seem oblivious to the fact that I always try to set out what the Church authoritatively teaches, as opposed to argue just to argue.

You wrote: “You then use your admission as a pretext to change the subject, so that you can raise the issue of Protestant cessationism.”

Me: Actually you raised it first: “We can debate the status of modern miracles, but that's a two-way street.” I only responded to it.

You wrote: “In that regard, you make the illogical claim that cessationism is contrary to divine omnipotence. In so doing, you ignore really obvious counterexamples. I gave a couple.”

Me: Given my world-view that miracles occur, my assertion is not illogical. Cessationism, in all of its many nuanced flavors, is a distinctive peculiar to Protestantism only. I did not ignore your assertions, I reject them. There is a difference.

You wrote: “You then respond by saying God may perform miracles when and where he will. He's "not on a leash." But that undercuts your appeal to omnipotence, for you've now conceded that it's a question of what God is willing to do, not what he is able to do. And a Protestant cessationist could easily avail himself of the same distinction. So not only are you unable to keep track of the original argument, you can't keep track of your own argument.”

Me: Your notion of omnipotence is different from how I understand omnipotence as your definition seems to imply that God is not sovereign as well. Please do tell me how “my appeal to omnipotence” is undercut by my argument taking into account how Catholics perceive miracles and how they fit in God’s plan of salvation. God can and does work miracles in our lives if such is part of His plan. Miracles are for His glory, not ours. For each of us, God’s grace is sufficient and we should be satisfied what is given to us. (2 Cor. 12:9-10) If He chooses to respond to our needs through miracles or by some other grace, the bottom line is that He graciously and with plenitude gives us sufficient grace to do His will and we should accept whatever He has ordained for us. Frankly, whether a Protestant cessationist could avail himself of that argument is irrelevant since my world view does not put limits on how God chooses to dispense His grace.

You wrote: To begin with, whether or not Protestant miracles are verifiable is completely different from your initial claim that Protestants deny modern miracles.

Me: It is a historical fact that most of the Reformers denied that miracles were on-going, particularly when it came to miracles within the Catholic Church. Your previous comments making a distinction between cessationism and continuationism show that a significant portion of Protestants still do. I am also aware that some Protestant apologists, who do acknowledge that miracles still occur, deny that they occur in the Catholic Church, instead claiming that “Catholic miracles” are actually performed by Satan to confuse the faithful. What my comment was directed to is the fact that many Protestants do deny modern miracles occur. If you took it to mean that all Protestants do, I apologize for my imprecise language as the thrust of my comments show that I never claimed such to be the case.

TBC

Paul Hoffer said...

You wrote: “Moreover, Protestants like Craig Keener and Rex Gardner supply medical verification for modern Protestant miracles.”

Me: I very much appreciate you letting me know this. It bolsters my claim that there is such a thing as a “Protestant miracle” and I will certainly use your information to correct any Catholics or Protestant cessationist who tries to say otherwise.

You wrote: “Furthermore, when Benedict XVI fast-tracked the canonization of John-Paul II, the outcome as a fait accompli. The review amounted to: we intend to canonize him: so go find the evidence. Finding evidence to retroactively validate a foregone conclusion is hardly an impartial process.”

Me: That may be how you see it through “skeptical spectacles”, but your skepticism does not amount to a fact. Your description does not accurately reflect how the canonization process works which is beyond the scope of our discussion.

You wrote: “Which scuttles the traditional Catholic objection to the Protestant Reformers (and their successors). You're chronically unable to follow the argument.”

Me: Since I reject the premise that Catholics argue that Protestants do not perform miracles is the “traditional” Catholic objection to the Reformers, there is no reason for me to follow it. The point that St. Francis de Sales made is that since Protestant Reformers admitted themselves that they performed no miracles, that undercut their assertion that the way they chose to reform the Church was sanctioned by God. Assuming, arguendo, that some folks who happen to be Catholic may have at some point in history fail to understand St. Francis de Sales’ argument and presented it wrongly does not make it the “traditional” objection; it only makes it wrong.

Bottom line: The Catholic Church does not teach that miracles do not occur in Protestant churches; it has never taught that miracles do not occur in Protestant churches; nor will it ever teach that miracles do not occur in Protestant churches. If you see some Catholic misusing St. Francis de Sales’ argument to claim otherwise, you have my permission to send them my way and I will correct them.

God bless!

TBC