If God gives to all men life and breath and all things, he acts with reference to each individual man, to each individual breath that each man breathes, and to each particular thing going to make up all the things which he gives them. Again, if God appoints beforehand the "periods" of the nation, (by which I understand all the great eras in their history,) and the "boundaries of their habitations," he certainly directs the movements of individual men; for the movements of the nations depend upon the movements of the individual men of whom they are composed. Sometimes, indeed, the movements of one man, as of Christopher Columbus, determine the settlement of continents, and the destiny of mighty nations. In view of these facts, we must admit the most special and minute providence of God in all the affairs of the earth. It would never, perhaps, have been doubted, but for the philosophical difficulty of reconciling it with the free agency of men, and of discriminating between it and the working of miracles. This difficulty, however, affords no rational ground for such a doubt, for the method of God's agency in human affairs is above human comprehension. To doubt the reality of an assured fact, the nature of which is confessedly above our comprehension, because we know not how to reconcile it with other known facts, is equivalent to confessing our ignorance at one moment, and denying it the next.
J.W. McGarvey's Original Commentary on Acts [pp. 221 -- pertaining to Acts 17:22ff]
-
Stephen R. Bradd
Reply
Weylan Deaver 11:23 am on March 16, 2011 Permalink |
Excellently stated. And it is bothersome that a few radical preachers today–who have obviously given less thought to (or have a lesser grasp of) the subject than had McGarvey–think that admitting of God’s direct involvement in providence implies belief in modern day miracles. Their failure to distinguish miracle from providence leads to all manner of misguided accusations against those of us who refuse to give up on providence. They acknowledge providence in theory, but then define it into oblivion, thinking they’ve done the church a service. We ought to accept the fact of divine activity in providence (since the NT affirms it), even though we cannot offer an exhaustive explanation of its workings (since the NT does not demand it). And some of us preachers ought to REFRAIN (from speaking when we don’t know what we’re talking about), REFLECT (more deeply on Scripture before we speak out of ignorance), and REACT to alleged error with kindness and solid evidence, rather than an intellectually vapid position which, though failing to respect various biblical passages, yet reigns in an embarrassing example of political correctness in certain pulpits and brotherhood papers.
Stephen R. Bradd 12:42 pm on March 16, 2011 Permalink |
Weylan, I’ve gotten myself “in trouble” before on this topic of providence & miracles because I don’t tow the “traditional” view on it anymore. I don’t claim to understand all the ways of God (Isa 55:8,9). I don’t even claim to always be able to clearly define the distinction between providence & a miracle. The more I learn, the more I find myself saying “perhaps” (e.g., Philemon 15) in regards to a lot of things. I believe God is active in our world–even today. He’s involved in our lives. He’s promised to work things out for the best for those who love Him (Rom. 8:28). I believe all that but am in awe and ignorance of how it all works together–but I believe it, nevertheless.
Much of the whole subject boils down to how one defines his terms (e.g., giving a precise definition of what constitues a “miracle” and what constitutes “providence” can be difficult).
The thing that hit me between the eyes a few years ago was 1 Cor 13. I had always been taught and had preached the following: “1 Cor 13 teaches that miracles have ceased.” Many brethren hear that statement and conclude (falsely) that God is not involved in our world today. This view cripples one’s prayer life of much of its power, I think. That’s unfortunate. Today, when I preach on 1 Cor. 13, I state it differently (and this makes some people nervous)–”1 Cor 13 teaches that the age of God working miracles THROUGH THE AGENCY OF MANKIND is over. But, 1 Cor 13 says nothing about God’s DIRECT involvement in our world today.”
Additionally, I’ve often said that there are things I just can’t explain that happen today. For example, a young girl with brain cancer–serious brain cancer–and suddendly it disappears. I can’t explain that. (1) Were the tests initially wrong? (2) Did the body heal itself in a way we don’t understand currently? (3) Or, is it possible God intervened in some way because He is merciful and answers prayer? Ultimately, I don’t know the answer; any of the 3 options are possible. But I’m not willing to cast away the 3rd option as many do. God is working today in ways I don’t understand. The label I try to put on His activity is somewhat besides the point (i.e., miracle, providence, whatever).
I hope some of this is making sense. I would love to hear from you further on this, Weylan, especially if you think I’ve missed the boat somewhere.
Weylan Deaver 3:05 pm on March 16, 2011 Permalink
No, I think you make a lot of sense. I do believe there is a category called “miracle” that has ceased (cf. 1 Cor. 13). But it is incorrect to assert (as some do) that any direct action of God today would be a miracle. To me, the easiest way to explain the difference between what went on in NT times (miracles) and what God does today (providence) is to say that miracles were obvious, whereas providence is subtle.
There’s a difference in Malchus’ ear being miraculously reattached after Peter sliced it off (the only explanation being Jesus’ immediate effort), and the young girl in your illustration, cured of brain cancer (leaving us with unanswered questions). God’s power can be exerted in either case, being on obvious display in the former, and hidden in the latter.
Thus, by their nature, miracles could be signs (as they related to a message) and wonders (as to the reaction they caused in observers). Providence is not so easily pinpointed or observed. It differs from miracle, not by God’s involvement, by by our ability to perceive it. In providence, God intentionally keeps his actions “behind the scenes.”
So I think you are right, Stephen. To say that God can only work today through his word (which we already have), or that God can only work indirectly today (which really means he cannot do anything), is to imply that prayer is a waste of time. For example, to say that Weylan acts, but he only ever acts indirectly, is to say that I do nothing. If I act at all, then I must do something directly, somewhere, somehow.