# Grudem's Definition of Miracles



## KMK (May 14, 2011)

Wayne Grudem's definition of miracles:



> We may define a miracle as follows: A miracle is a less common kind of God's activity in which he arouses people's awe and wonder and bears witness to himself. Systematic Theology; chapter 17 (I still don't know how to make proper Kindle citations)



Notice his definition does not mention anything about the use of 'means'.

Grudem continues,



> Another definition is "God working in the world without using means to brings about the results he wishes." Yet to speak of God working "without means" leaves us with very few miracles in the Bible, for it is hard to think of a miracle that came about with no means at all: in the healing of people, for example, some of the physical properties of the sick person's body were doubtless involved as part of the healing. *When Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes, he at least used the original five loaves and two fishes that were there. When he changed water to wine, he used water and made it become wine.* This definition seems to be inadequate.



It seems to me that Grudem is redefining "means". Jesus did not use the bread and fish to make more bread and fish. Jesus did not use the water to change the water into wine. His objection to the more traditional definition of miracles seems confused.

Am I missing something?


----------



## Peairtach (May 14, 2011)

Well Grudem is a Pentecostal. His view of prophecy - which is a type of miracle - that true prophecy can contain error is even more troubling.

See O. Palmer Robertson's "The Final Word" (BoT) on Grudem's view of prophecy.

He may be influenced in his interpretation of Scripture on these matters by his experience of counterfeit "miracles" and counterfeit "prophecy" in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches. 

In many other ways Grudem's _Systematic Theology_ is a good book.


----------



## KMK (May 14, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> Well Grudem is a Pentecostal.



Actually, I think he is a Third Waver.


----------



## KMK (Jun 15, 2011)

John Brown of Haddington on miracles:



> God’s miraculous providence is that in which his agency surpasseth, *or is contrary to*, the influence of of second causes, and stated rules of his common operation;-as in stopping the course of the sun,-dividing seas,-raising dead persons,-or giving sight to such as were born blind, &c.-God doth not exert more power in working miracles, than in common providence, but merely suspends his ordinary influence *or counteracts the natural or common influence of second causes*. Compendious View…; pg 204



It appears that John Brown would agree with Grudem in his definition of miracles.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 18, 2011)

A miracle does involve God working in a way different to His normal working by "natural", "scientific" law. There is a particular purpose or lesson behind the miracle which goes beyond what is achieved through the miracle. E.g. Jesus didn't turn the water into wine _only_ in order to provide wine for the guests but to teach about Himself as the Creator and about His Kingdom.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 19, 2011)

> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter V
> Of Providence
> ...



The Westminster context and definition of miracles is quite helpful.


----------

