The Supernatural Case for Catholicism

I think that one mistake that we Catholics fall into is attempting to prove the faith without referencing the supernatural. We’ll use Scripture and reason to show the truth of Catholicism (which is great, of course), but we tend to get awkward about using miracles, particularly to non-believers. We’re quick to talk about John 6 or the Five Ways. But many of us are slower to talk about, say, Lourdes, Padre Pio, or the Shroud of Turin.

I understand why we tend to hesitate here: especially, if we’re dealing with an atheist who rejects the possibility of miracles, or a Protestant who rejects the possibility of Marian apparitions, and thinks that miracles are just a thing in the Bible. But I want to suggest why we need miracles in apologetics, what sort of miracles we should point to, and how we should use them.

I. The Need for “Signs and Wonders”

Miracles were one of the ways that the Israelites could determine that a specific message was from God: they’re intended to be a confirmation of the message, and sometimes, confirmation of the messenger. So, for example, Deuteronomy 6:22 says that “the Lord showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes,” and it was on the basis of these signs that Israel believed in God (Exodus 14:31).
this reason, miracles are often referred to as “signs” or “signs and wonders” in Scripture.  Miracles don’t exist for their own sake; rather, they exist for the sake of the Gospel.

Nor is this only in the Old Testament.  Jesus likewise confirmed His Gospel through a series of miracles.  This is the primary purpose of the miracles He performs during His public ministry. At one point, Jesus prays to the Father for a miraculous cure, “that they may believe that Thou didst send Me” (John 11:40-42).

In his Pentecost homily, St. Peter describes Jesus as “Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22).  And Hebrews 2:3-4 says that the Gospel “was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will.”

Nor do these miracles stop with Jesus.  After His Resurrection, “many wonders and signs were done through the apostles” (Acts 2:43), as they “went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it” (Mark 16:20). St. Paul said that he would “not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Romans 15:18-19).

 For that reason, he and Barabas remained in Iconium “for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, Who bore witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands” (Acts 14:3). These signs and wonders were understood to be God’s confirmation of the message, which is why Paul and Barnabas later use these miracles as evidence that the Gospel is to be extended to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12).

II. What Sort of Miracles Are We Looking for?

A critical text in this discussion is John 14:10-12, in which Jesus says to the Apostle Philip,

Masaccio, St. Peter Healing the Sick
with his Shadow (15th c.)

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. 

So Christ offers miracles that we might believe in Him, and promises that His followers will do even greater works. So what sort of works are we looking for?  Let me offer five major categories, although these are not exhaustive.

1) Baptism and the Eucharist: Perhaps the most frequently mentioned signs used in Scripture are the Exodus miracles.  The Israelites were repeatedly reminded that their deliverance was done in a miraculous way as a sign, that they might believe (Exodus 10:2, 12:13, 13:19, Numbers 14:22, Deuteronomy 4:34, 6:22, 7:19, 11:3, 26:8, 29:2-6, 34:11, Joshua 24:17, Psalm 78:43, 135:9, Jeremiah 32:20-21, etc.).   One of those deliverance signs was the blood of the Passover lamb, smeared on the doorpost (Exodus 12:13).  Another sign was the miraculous bread from Heaven, the Manna (Deut. 8:3, Duet. 29:6). St. Paul recalls these deliverance miracles in 1 Cor. 10:1-4,

I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

These were signs, not in the sense of being mere symbols, but in the sense of pointing to God. And each of them is surpassed by something greater in the New Testament: the parting of the Red Sea foreshadows Christian Baptism.  This Baptism miraculously imparts the Holy Spirit, unlike prior, merely symbolic Baptisms (Acts 19:1-6).  And as Paul points out, the New Covenant has spiritual food and drink in the Eucharist (1 Cor. 10:16-17). There have been several Eucharistic miracles in which the Host has turned visibly into Flesh and Blood.  But whether it occurs visibly or invisibly, it remains miraculous.

2) The Forgiveness of Sins: Christ ties His ministry of miracles with the forgiveness of sins several times, most directly in Mark 2:1-12 and John 9:1-41.  In the case of the forgiveness of sins, as with Baptism and the Eucharist, the miracle occurs invisibly. But the fruits of it are visible.

3) Exorcisms: The first miracle Jesus performs in Mark’s Gospel is an exorcism (Mark 1:21-28), and in Mark 16:17, He explicitly cites exorcisms as one of the signs of His followers.  And He shows in Luke 11:14-23 that these exorcisms can only occur “by the finger of God.”  He rejects the idea that Satan can cast out demons, since every “kingdom divided against itself is laid waste,” and a house divided cannot stand.

So exorcisms are a critical sign in determining whether the Church is acting for or against Christ.  The true Church will do them, and they’re a uniquely helpful sign that someone is operating on behalf of God. So why not point to the fact that Catholic priests perform numerous exorcisms every year throughout the U.S., and around the world? This fact alone debunks the old Protestant theory that the Catholic Church is the Antichrist, since the devil cannot be the one driving out demons.

4) Miraculous Healings: Acts 19:11-12 says that “God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.”  Those items that have touched a Saint are what we today call “relics,” and we continue to use them to perform miraculous healings.

Miraculous healings happen several other ways in the New Testament, and several other ways in the Catholic Church today.  For example, the waters of Lourdes have healed numerous people.  Or talk to any priest: they can likely recount several healings that they have personally witnessed after the anointing of the sick, following James 5:14-15.

5) The Church Herself: The biggest miracle is one that no one can deny. Under the Old Covenant, the Jews themselves were a miracle. God chose them because they were small and weak. Their continued existence over thousands of years is a demonstration of His Divine Power, and a confirmation that the God of the Jews is the true God.  We see this played out throughout Scripture.  For example, the Israelites who scouted out the Promised Land returned with accounts of its bounty, but also with a warning (Numbers 13:28-29):

Yet the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there. The Amal′ekites dwell in the land of the Negeb; the Hittites, the Jeb′usites, and the Amorites dwell in the hill country; and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and along the Jordan.

Today, where do we see the descendants of Anak, or the Amal′ekites, the Hittites, the Jeb′usites, or the Amorites? They’ve all long since disappeared, yet the Jews remain.
In Matthew 13:31-32, Christ improves upon this miracle, in His promises to His Church, the Kingdom of God.  Like the Jewish people, the Church will never be destroyed.  But the Church will go from being “the smallest of all seeds” to becoming a great tree. She won’t just survive: She’ll thrive.  
Of course, the Catholic Church has born this out.  She has survived for two thousand years, and is the oldest government in the world.  Innumerable empires have attempted to suppress Her: they’ve faded away, while She’s continued to grow. Throughout those two millennia, She’s kept an astonishingly consistent set of doctrinal beliefs. Who else can boast this track record?
III. The Use of Miracles
Some people are more disposed than others to the possibility of miracles. For those who are disposed, use them to show that God has confirmed the message of the Catholic Church.  For those who aren’t, treat the topic the way you would to someone skeptical of the Empty Tomb. Leave it to the skeptic to explain how Lanciano, bilocation, Guadalupe, and the miracle of the sun are hoaxes or forgeries.  Personally, I am partial to Msgr. Knox’s explanation in The Belief of Catholics:

It belongs to the courtesies of duelling that the challenger should offer his opponent a choice of weapons. In this debate, which here reaches its critical point, it is the Catholic Church which challenges the human intellect. In courtesy, therefore, the reader must be allowed his choice of weapons, if he is prepared to abide by it. 

If you are prepared to admit the possibility of miracle, then you will naturally expect that an event so full of importance for the human race as a personal revelation from Almighty God should be accompanied by evidences of his miraculous power. It will be my object in the later part of this chapter to show that the Christian revelation fulfils the conditions so laid down. But if you are determined, from some preconceived prejudice, some strange inhibition of thought, to rule out the possibility of miracle; if you are prepared to dismiss as a fiction any story which involves a miracle, for the reason that it involves a miracle and for no other–then I will do my best to give you satisfaction on your own terms; but you must abide by your own terms. You must consider, in all honesty, whether the life of our Lord does not give you every possible assurance of his Divinity, short of a miracle. I do not say that such assurance would ever satisfy me, but it must satisfy you. It must satisfy you, because it is precisely the kind of assurance you have demanded. You must not say that no revelation would satisfy you unless the guarantee of miracle accompanied it, and then say in the same breath that you will refuse to accept any story of miracle precisely on the ground that it is miraculous. That is as if you were to invite your opponent to stab you with a pistol. If you will not have miracles, then you must be prepared to be satisfied without them.

This puts the burden where it belongs: on the person who dogmatically rejects the possibility of miracles, while refusing to believe in Christianity (or in Catholicism) on anything less than miraculous evidence.  Of course, the role for the miraculous should be to supplement the Scriptural and reasonable case for Catholicism, but in the right context, it’s got a very important role to play.

25 comments

  1. It’s amazing at how the human mind can work. A friend of mine (convert) was teaching her kids (8 years old or so) the real presence, and to check for understanding I asked them a true or false question:

    Is Jesus present in the Eucharist body, blood, soul, and divinity?

    They said yes.

    I asked if Jesus was present in the Eucharist, body, blood, bone, nerve, fingernails, soul and divinity?

    They said no–it would be crunchy.

    The child could conceptualize the blood could be present in an unbloody way, but not that the bones could be present in an uncrunchy way.

    That might be a tangent, but it’s germane to, “You must not say that no revelation would satisfy you unless the guarantee of miracle accompanied it, and then say in the same breath that you will refuse to accept any story of miracle precisely on the ground that it is miraculous”

    Reply

  2. “Weird things happen.” That’s one summary of miracles that I heard once.

    A bunch of people say that a lot of weird things happened 100 or so years ago at Fatima. Okay then, weird things happen.

    Twelve guys say that their dead teacher walked out of his tomb about 2000 years ago. Okay then, weird things happen.

    There needs to be something of an order to miracles, which are by nature not orderly. If miracles didn’t happen at all then maybe the atheist secular humanists of the world would have something. If they happened all the time we wouldn’t be able to get any work done because the laws of nature wouldn’t be fixed. One day gravity is 9.8 m/s/s, the next day it is 10.4 m/s/s, the next it has left a note that it has gone on a vacation to Palm Springs…

    Reply

    1. The children of Fatima asked the Blessed Mother for a sign to show the people that they weren’t a fraud. The Blessed Mother said she would perform a miracle on Oct.13 at 12:00. Over 70,000 people were there, many to ridicule the children when no miracle happened. At the precise time, the sun seemed to dance in the sky and it looked like it was going to fall to earth. People began screaming and praying. All of a sudden the sun returned to it position. On this day, it rained all day.
      The people were soaked. After the miracle, the people’s clothes were completely dry.
      There were professors, doctors, atheists, journalists, along with the faithful. All of those interviewed had the same story. Some of the atheists were converted to Catholicism on the spot. This story has been documented.

      Reply

  3. Unless it is just my computer, some parts of this post are not displaying correctly. There is a ‘we’ hanging out by itself, ‘Forthey’re’ has run together, the sentence ‘run Miracles don’t exist for their own sake; rather,’ breaks off abruptly, etc.

    Reply

    1. Agree. Looks like some parts are left out or it was written in haste. Here’s a quote at the top:

      I think that one mistake that we Catholics fall into is attempting to prove the faith without referencing the supernatural. We’ll use Scripture and reason to show the truth of Catholicism (which is great, of course), but we tend to get awkward about using miracles, particularly to non-believers. We

      I understand why we tend to hesitate here: especially, ….

      Notice the dangling “We” after “non-believers.” And I also see the others which you mentioned.

      Reply

    2. Joe,

      First. I agree that we should not shy away from the Supernatural and the miraculous when we discuss Catholicism.

      Second. But, I am of the opinion that the Supernatural and the miraculous are sort of, built in, wouldn’t you say?

      Example:

      Perhaps I’ve mentioned that I’m a revert from Atheism. Having been a skeptic for approximately 20 years, when I came back to Catholicism, it was still sort of a knee jerk response when people would ask, “Do you believe in spirits? Do you believe in ghosts?” I would automatically respond, “No.”

      In fact, I can remember vividly, picking up a book by Fr. Gobbi. He said that he received messages from the Virgin Mary. As soon as I read that, I immediately put the book down. I didn’t believe in Apparitions.

      One day, however, I suddenly realized that, at every Mass, I said that I believed in that God who created the visible and invisible.

      Three. Having said that, I don’t shy away from discussing miracles. I simply don’t bring them up because:

      a. They are built in. I don’t know how not to discuss them because they are the signs which Jesus brought to prove His Divinity.
      b. It tends to stop rational discussion prematurely. If I bring up the Apparitions of Mary, that tends to incite Protestants to call her a demon. If I bring up the Shroud, that tends to incite accusations of forgeries and things of that nature.

      Four. However, if the Protestant or Atheist brings up the Apparitions of Mary or the Shroud of Turin or any other miracle which I know the Catholic Church has validated, and they normally do so in a negative way, I defend them with as much zeal as I defend every Doctrine of the Catholic Church.

      Five. I recognize, though, that we all bring different gifts to the table. If someone can bring the miraculous to a discussion in a manner which adds value to the discussion, then by all means, do so.

      Reply

    3. D.A. and De Maria,

      Thanks: typos fixed. I was working on several sections simultaneously, and didn’t put them together very smoothly the first time around.

      De Maria,

      I think that there are different ways of using the argument from miracles, but I think it’s worth bringing to the forefront. Make the skeptic declare that they reject, a priori, any supernatural evidence, and you’re in roughly the position that Msgr. Knox describes. All too often, “skeptics” uncritically reject the miraculous, and then refuse to believe in Christianity on anything less than miraculous evidence.

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Reply

    4. Hi Joe,

      First, I think we agree, completely.

      Second, and relatedly, I think, in my discussions with Protestants (whom I class as skeptics), II like to bring into the discussion the efficacy of the Sacraments. And I like to identify them throughout Scripture.

      Let me try to describe the connection between the mentioning of miracles and the mentioning of the Sacraments.

      Frequently, Protestants will object to Baptism because they say that water can not wash away sins.

      However, Protestants are the first to boast, with all sorts of eloquence, that there are no obstacles to the power of God.

      Yet, if pressed, they deny that God can wash our sins away with water as the agent.

      In Baptism, they deny that God can work through water.

      In the Eucharist, that God can transform bread and wine to His Flesh and Blood.

      In Confession and in the rest of the Sacraments, they deny that God can work through men.

      And so, I believe the logic is similar in the case of the miraculous presented to skeptics and in the case of the Sacramental presented to Protestants.

      Sincerely,

      De Maria

      Reply

  4. I was once able to stump an atheist with the “fun fact” that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the two men most associated with American independence (“the voice” and “the pen” respectively) died on the same day, precisely 50 years after July 4, 1776. This particular atheist had found it very easy to dismiss the miracles of Fatima, etc, based on the idea that these things were the self-serving claims of Catholics that predictably upheld Catholicism, he hadn’t seen any good photos, etc.

    But the thing about Adams and Jefferson was absolutely uncanny, incredibly unlikely by random chance, and is an undisputable historical fact. Bonus points that it involved Jefferson, a man who atheists often claim as one of their own. It was very hard for this atheist to deny that the coincidence was a supernatural sign. (Eventually he retorted that if the event was a message, it was a poor one because its meaning wasn’t perfectly clear to everyone, why didn’t God write us a note in plain English, etc., but I really do think that I cracked his armor a bit.)

    Reply

  5. How does one answer the ? about miracles involving people will missing limbs, this is the ? most atheist bring up why has there been no cases of missing limbs being restored?

    Reply

    1. There have been cases of missing limbs restored, and malformed limbs healed. We’ve had reports of these types of cases for centuries, including from Lourdes. I think many atheists want miracles that are literally undeniable: that is, miracles that eliminate any room or possibility for faith. But even a cursory reading of the New Testament shows that (a) the miracles performed are for the faithful (see, e.g., Matthew 9:28-29; Mark 6:1-6), and (b) Jesus always leaves room for faith (see, e.g., the particular mode of the Resurrection). Miracles are signs that confirm faith, not replace it.

      In a way, the atheist objection amounts to “I won’t believe in the Gospel unless God acts in a way contrary to what the Gospel describes.”

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Reply

    2. Dave, I wondered about that too. St. John of Damascus had his hand cut off by the Muslims. If I remember correctly, Mary appeared and fixed it.

      There was also two saints and I can’t remember the circumstances, but somehow they got a black leg on a white person’s body or something to replace the one that the guy lost. Does anyone remember this in greater detail?

      Reply

    3. Joe

      I’ve experienced this very thing with nick, yes the same one. Who has claimed that only reason and science matter but then said that the only way he would believe if God came and gave him personal revelation. But that would go strictly against the things he most harshly criticizes.

      Similarly, science is great until its inconvienent (as with abortion) in which case rather than face truth and change views the argument resorted to well that’s what I believe and you can’t change it… We can present truth but we can’t force others to accept it

      Reply

  6. Msgr. Knox has another great passage on miracles that is worth sharing:

    “It is to be remembered that the Gospel records do not stand unsupported in their assertion that our Lord’s coming was marked by extraordinary events. Those critics who glibly tell us that it is just as easy to understand miracles being falsely attributed to our Lord in the first century as to understand miracles being falsely attributed to St. Francis in the thirteenth, have curiously missed the point. Why did the thirteenth century so lightly credit St. Francis with miraculous powers? Because it was part of the tradition of the Church that saints do miracles. But how did that tradition arise? That tradition had been passed on continuously from the first century, from the time of the apostles, and there its parentage stops.

    Belief in miracles (you may almost say) began, or at least began again, in the first century. The Jewish scriptures record hardly any miracles after the time of the Captivity; there is no atmosphere of the miraculous to be found in Josephus, and the occultist claims of a Simon Magus only testify to a local and a personal influence. Pagans connected their stories of the miraculous only with antiquity; the very oracles were dumb at the time when our Lord came. And then suddenly, in this extraordinary first century, a blaze of credulity flares up through the world. There is no question of “ignorant peasants” merely; rich men like Barnabas, educated men like Paul, medical men like Luke, are suddenly swept away on this odd stream of belief in miracle. When the moderns say that “ignorant people are always expecting miracles to happen,” what they really mean is that “ignorant Christians are always expecting miracles to happen.” But there were no Christians till Christ came. When Christ came, people suddenly started believing in miracles–why?”

    Reply

  7. I would be averse to using certain of them in apologetics, as rarely have I been able myself to follow up a chosen miracle claim to the point of finding solid, objective sources that would meet a criteria for something I’d share – like I can a historical point about Scripture or a philosophical argument upheld by published scholars. So often, sources online merely reference to blogs or each other…that shared the same cut and paste uncited article, claiming ‘scientists’ discovered something – but never turning up the actual material of the actual ‘study’. This has been personally problematic with OL of Guadalupe; original study which I HAD found indicated suspicion from Philip Callahan that the ‘image’ was indeed unaffected after centuries – but that the image he had in mind did NOT include the symbols from the book of Revelations (the moon, the rays of the sun, etc); even indicating that those portions DID show wear. And even in the image above, wear can clearly be seen from the frame behind the tilma. On top of which, people regularly make additional, extravagant claims about miraculous images like Guadalupe – and this only makes making a SOLID case even harder to make. The willingness of apologists to share out so much unverified popular claims is actually a source of doubt for me regarding the Church – especially when I hear priests make claims in homilies around them that are simply bizarre.

    Reply

    1. Experts have debated under-painting, whether the image was “touched up” at some point, etc. That risks missing the forest for the trees. One of the cruelest empires in the world, the Aztecs, encountered something that caused mass conversions by the millions, and this mass conversion is tied to Our Lady of Guadalupe’s alleged apparition to St. Juan Diego.

      Compare with the early Christians, and the mass conversion of the Roman Empire. This mass conversion is one of the best testimonials for the authenticity of the Empty Tomb.

      Reply

    3. I’ve done yet further reading, chasing Callahan’s research down to his original commissioned research prior to his book with Jody Smith – I’m having a very hard time quantifying ANY scientific research on it SINCE this infrared photographic study, performed some 30 years ago. He is unambiguous about the touching up, much of it very clear in his photographs – also clear is that the central image is indeed inexplicable, the survival OF THE TILMA ITSELF inexplicable – despite wear he chronicles – inexplicability which he marshals equally compelling evidence for, from what was available to him (he had less than 4 hours with the image and could do no chemical analysis, a fact he is unambiguous about). I have no problem accepting that what he quantifies as the actual image is a miracle – but it emphasizes again the willingness for people to embellish – literally in this case – a miracle, a saint’s life, etc, etc. When something is CANON, when it has unambiguous Church sanction from the earliest of days, as do the events of the Gospels – I think arguing from miracles is very different nature. Especially when people treat as canon that which is NOT, relying on eccentric methods to claim authenticity that the Church does not sanction, in the name of the Church. So many later claims that accrue to the miracle are shattered by his initial, direct access and study of the tilma (it’s interesting to see, for example, that in one of the earliest accounts of the image, she is described as standing on a rock). His work is even blatantly and selectively expurgated to make those very eccentric claims – and when someone explores the miracle – ANY given similar miracle – we, as you say risk loosing faith in “the forest for the trees”. Someone who does not BELIEVE already, as I and others do, would likely look at so much popular ‘research’ and find valid cause to dismiss the ENTIRE *actual* relic, given the alterations quantified by Church-sanctioned research, and given the eccentric elaborations people have made on them. They are as non-indigenous species ‘trees’, willfully planted by well-meaning people who seek to do good (at least in the case of those who elaborate on the alterations – some to the very Image itself…), but only alienating those who seek truth.

      Reply

    4. I’m doing more reading on the “Guadalupe Event” (sounds like “The Tuskunga Event!), as it stands, and want to quantify the mass conversions; the early conversion to the Church is, I think more hotly debated than simply inexplicable,and I’m also looking into that, but I won’t digress here. But if anything worthwhile on the matter of using miracles come up, I will share with you directly, not here.

      Reply

  9. Joe,

    “thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:” Rev. 2:2 KJV.

    “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” 2 Corinthians 12:12 KJV.

    “For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:” 1 Cor. 1:22 KJV.

    The sum is this – that the miracles of Christ and his Apostles were to confirm the validity of New Testament Christianity, upon which the Bible is based. The book of Acts is all the “signs” that anybody needs to validate the gospel that Paul preached and the fact that God was truly changing course to welcome the Gentiles into the family of God.

    Thereafter for the last 2,000 years it is up to us to believe the report the apostles gave and not look for further signs and miracles. The Bible has been validated supernaturally – and there is no further use for “signs” because neither the apostles are present nor is there a need to validate any further revelation. If God cures somebody or does a healing – then he did so for that person alone – it does not have a broader message.

    This post should really be entitled “Those who don’t believe the Bible’s account of supernatural miracles don’t deserve and won’t get further signs from God.” They will get satanic miracles instead – for the purpose of deceiving and damning them, as scripture says:

    “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 KJV.

    – Mack

    Reply

  11. THE PURPOSE OF MIRACULOUS SIGNS

    What is the purpose of miraculous signs? Are miraculous signs occurring today?

    John 2:1-11…..11 This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.

    The first miraculous sign Jesus performed was turning water into to wine. It confirmed His glory. He was the Son of God.

    John 6:2 A large crowd followed Him, because they saw the signs which He performed on those who were sick.

    Jesus healed the sick to confirm that He was the Son of God.

    John 3:1-2….this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”

    Jesus performed signs to confirm that He came from God.

    John 20:30-31 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

    Jesus performed signs to confirm that He was the Son of God. The Bible has been written so men might believe and have life in the name of Jesus. Jesus is not coming back to earth to perform more signs. Jesus has already proved He the Son of God, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Savior of all who believe and meet God’s terms for pardon. Signs were to confirm that Jesus was the Son of God and that the Bible was God’s message about salvation for mankind.

    MIRACULOUS SIGNS AFTER THE DEATH OF JESUS

    Mark 16:16-20……17 These signs will accompany those who have believed in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them, they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover.”……20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirm the word by the signs that followed.

    Those who believed and were baptized performed miraculous signs to confirm the word of God. Are Christians today performing miraculous signs to confirm the word of God? NO, THEY ARE NOT. We have the written word of God to confirm that Jesus was the Son of God. We do not need miraculous signs today. The church of Christ was well established by the first one hundred fifty years. We have a completed Bible.

    If miraculous signs were available today these things would be occurring in every church of Christ congregation.
    1. Some would be casting out demons.
    2. Some believers would be speaking with new tongues.
    3. Some would pick up poisonous snakes and not be hurt.
    4. Some believers could drink poison without being affected.
    5.Some could lay hands on the sick and heal them.
    Is this happening in every single Christian congregation in the world? No, it is not occurring in any of the Lords churches anywhere.

    Hebrew 2:1-4….3…if we neglect a salvation? After it was at first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, 4 God also testifying with them, both by signs, and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.

    God has already confirmed (past tense) our salvation by signs, wonders, and miracles. It is recorded in the Bible so we can believe and be saved.

    God is not going to send Jesus to reconfirm that Jesus is His Son. God is not reconfirming His church and the gospel by using the contemporary churches with miraculous signs. We have a completed Bible with all the miraculous signs to confirm that Jesus is the Son of God.The Bible has the gospel plan of salvation.

    THERE ARE NO MODERN-DAY APOSTLES. THERE ARE NO MODERN-DAY CHRISTIANS PERFORMING MIRACULOUS SIGNS!

    YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.