Was Calvin entirely against miracles? (Quote)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Catholic

Puritan Board Freshman
John Calvin: "It is unreasonable to ask for miracles, or to find them where there is no new gospel. The miraculous attestation of that one single gospel suffices for all lands and all times and no further miracles are to be expected in connection with it."

This is really eloquently put, as is typical of Calvin, but is he drawing the conclusion that in this age miracles no longer happen at all? Would that be an incorrect conclusion to draw from this? I have heard that elsewhere Calvin was not entirely closed to the possibility of miracles in this age.

(by the way, this is not a discussion on Cessationism, I am well aware of Calvin's views on miraculous gifts, this is more related to miracles happening in general)
 
John Calvin: "It is unreasonable to ask for miracles, or to find them where there is no new gospel. The miraculous attestation of that one single gospel suffices for all lands and all times and no further miracles are to be expected in connection with it."

This is really eloquently put, as is typical of Calvin, but is he drawing the conclusion that in this age miracles no longer happen at all? Would that be an incorrect conclusion to draw from this? I have heard that elsewhere Calvin was not entirely closed to the possibility of miracles in this age.

(by the way, this is not a discussion on Cessationism, I am well aware of Calvin's views on miraculous gifts, this is more related to miracles happening in general)
I don't want to read too much into the quote. Part of it is pushing back against some of Rome's more bizarre claims. From a logical point of view, it doesn't follow. Yes, the gospel suffices for all lands and times, but it does not follow from that no more miracles happen today. What Calvin's argument needs to say:

Major premise: miracles in the gospel only function to attest the gospel message.
Minor premise: the gospel message is finished.
Conclusion: no more miracles today.

The problem is Major premise. That does not seem to be the case in the NT. It seems miracles are both mercy of God AND gospel attestation.
 
It seems miracles are both mercy of God AND gospel attestation
The counterargument I've often heard against this is that, yes, God shows mercy today still, but through providence, not miracles. (The specific definition of "miracle" in this context would be something completely against the laws of nature that has no reasonable explanation, while "providence" would refer more to God working all things through the means of natural mechanisms. In other words, a strong distinction is placed between general providence and miracles.

An example: Joe's wife is in critical condition in the backseat of the car, and while he is driving to the hospital during rush hour, traffic seems to flow much more smoothly than general and he somehow correctly guesses the fastest route to the hospital. Joe could be right to thank God for his special providence in this situation, but it can't be called a "miracle" because it is not a complete deposing of natural laws.
 
The counterargument I've often heard against this is that, yes, God shows mercy today still, but through providence, not miracles. (The specific definition of "miracle" in this context would be something completely against the laws of nature that has no reasonable explanation, while "providence" would refer more to God working all things through the means of natural mechanisms. In other words, a strong distinction is placed between general providence and miracles.

An example: Joe's wife is in critical condition in the backseat of the car, and while he is driving to the hospital during rush hour, traffic seems to flow much more smoothly than general and he somehow correctly guesses the fastest route to the hospital. Joe could be right to thank God for his special providence in this situation, but it can't be called a "miracle" because it is not a complete deposing of natural laws.

If they want to call it "providence," that's fine. I don't like that definition of miracle, since it seems taken from David Hume's flawed conception of miracles.
 
It helps when quoting someone, to quote the extant material to determine the concern. Down to this very day, the Roman Catholic Church "confirms" its idolatry through "miracles" The challenge by the RCC to the Reformers was" "Where are your miracles to prove that what you teach is true?" The question from them was not whether or not God continues to act supernaturally.
 
Calvin's response is similar to what we might say to a Word of Faith person who told us that you can't trust a Reformed Pastor and what he says about the Bible because he's not able to perform miracles. I'll try posting the extended quote later but, essentially, Calvin is arguing that the doctrine we teach is attested to by the signs and wonders of the Apostles and the Prophets. We have no further need for *that* kinds of signs and wonders because there are no more Prophets and Apostles laying the foundation for that which is believed and preached. This, however, does not preclude God working in ways that we could call "miraculous" - that is we still believe He can heal, but we're not using this kind of events to establish the doctrine we believe.
 
3. CHARGES OF ANTAGONISTS REFUTED: NEWNESS, UNCERTAINTY; THE VALUE OF MIRACLES
Despite this, they do not cease to assail our doctrine and to reproach and defame it with names that render it hated or suspect. They call it “new” and “of recent birth.” They reproach it as “doubtful and uncertain.” They ask what miracles have confirmed it. They inquire whether it is right for it to prevail against the agreement of so many holy fathers and against most ancient custom. They urge us to acknowledge that it is schismatic because it wages war against the church, or that the church was lifeless during the many centuries in which no such thing was heard. Finally, they say that there is no need of many arguments, for one can judge by its fruits what it is, seeing that it has engendered such a heap of sects, so many seditious tumults, such great licentiousness. Indeed, it is very easy for them to revile a forsaken cause before the credulous and ignorant multitude. But if we too might speak in our turn, this bitterness which they licentiously and with impunity spew at us from swollen cheeks would subside.
First, by calling it “new” they do great wrong to God, whose Sacred Word does not deserve to be accused of novelty. Indeed, I do not at all doubt that it is new to them, since to them both Christ himself and his gospel are new. But he who knows that this preaching of Paul is ancient, that “Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again for our justification” [Rom. 4:25 p.], will find nothing new among us.
That it has lain long unknown and buried is the fault of man’s impiety. Now when it is restored to us by God’s goodness, its claim to antiquity ought to be admitted at least by right of recovery.
The same ignorance leads them to regard it as doubtful and uncertain. This is precisely what the Lord complains of through his prophet, that “the ox knew its owner, and the ass its master’s crib; but his own people did not know him” [Isa. 1:3 p.]. But however they may jest about its uncertainty, if they had to seal their doctrine in their own blood, and at the expense of their own life, one could see how much it would mean to them. Quite the opposite is our assurance, which fears neither the terrors of death nor even God’s judgment seat.
In demanding miracles of us, they act dishonestly. For we are not forging some new gospel, but are retaining that very gospel whose truth all the miracles that Jesus Christ and his disciples ever wrought serve to confirm. But, compared with us, they have a strange power: even to this day they can confirm their faith by continual miracles! Instead they allege miracles which can disturb a mind otherwise at rest—they are so foolish and ridiculous, so vain and false! And yet, even if these were marvelous prodigies, they ought not to be of any moment against God’s truth, for God’s name ought to be always and everywhere hallowed, whether by miracles or by the natural order of things.
Perhaps this false hue could have been more dazzling if Scripture had not warned us concerning the legitimate purpose and use of miracles. For Mark teaches that those signs which attended the apostles’ preaching were set forth to confirm it [Mark 16:20]. In like manner, Luke relates that our “Lord … bore witness to the word of his grace,” when these signs and wonders were done by the apostles’ hands [Acts 14:3 p.]. Very much like this is that word of the apostle: that the salvation proclaimed by the gospel has been confirmed in the fact that “the Lord has attested it by signs and wonders and various mighty works [Heb. 2:4 p.; cf. Rom. 15:18–19]. When we hear that these are the seals of the gospel, shall we turn them to the destruction of faith in the gospel? When we hear that they were appointed only to seal the truth, shall we employ them to confirm falsehoods? In the first place, it is right to investigate and examine that doctrine which, as the Evangelist says, is superior to miracles. Then, if it is approved, it may rightly be confirmed from miracles. Yet, if one does not tend to seek men’s glory but God’s [John 7:18; 8:50], this is a mark of true doctrine, as Christ says. Since Christ affirms this test of doctrine, miracles are wrongly valued that are applied to any other purpose than to glorify the name of the one God [Deut. 13:2 ff.]. And we may also fitly remember that Satan has his miracles, which, though they are deceitful tricks rather than true powers, are of such sort as to mislead the simple-minded and untutored [cf. 2 Thess. 2:9–10]. Magicians and enchanters have always been noted for miracles. Idolatry has been nourished by wonderful miracles, yet these are not sufficient to sanction for us the superstition either of magicians or of idolaters.
The Donatists of old overwhelmed the simplicity of the multitude with this battering-ram: that they were mighty in miracles. We, therefore, now answer our adversaries as Augustine then answered the Donatists: the Lord made us wary of these miracle workers when he predicted that false prophets with lying signs and prodigies would come to draw even the elect (if possible) into error [Matt. 24:24]. And Paul warned that the reign of Antichrist would be “with all power, and signs and lying wonders” [2 Thess. 2:9]. But these miracles, they say, are done neither by idols, nor by magicians, nor by false prophets, but by the saints. As if we did not understand that to “disguise himself as an angel of light” [2 Cor. 11:14] is the craft of Satan! The Egyptians of old worshiped Jeremiah, who was buried in their land, rendering to him sacrifices and divine honors. Did they not misuse the holy prophet of God for idolatrous purposes? And yet, they thought that the curing of snake bite was a just reward for such veneration of his tomb. What shall we say except that it has always been, and ever will be, a very just punishment of God to “send to those” who have not received the love of truth “a strong delusion to make them believe a lie” [2 Thess. 2:11]?
Well, we are not entirely lacking in miracles, and these very certain and not subject to mockery. On the contrary, those “miracles” which our adversaries point to in their own support are sheer delusions of Satan, for they draw the people away from the true worship of their God to vanity [cf. Deut. 13:2 ff.].


Calvin, J. (2011). Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2 (J. T. McNeill, Ed.; F. L. Battles, Trans.; Vol. 1). Westminster John Knox Press.
 
6. Appeal to apostolic laying on of hands is unfounded

aIndeed, they defend themselves with the example of the apostles, who, they judge, did nothing rashly.12 Quite true; nor would we blame them if they showed themselves followers of the apostles. But what did the apostles do? Luke tells in The Acts that the apostles who were at Jerusalem, when they had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, sent Peter and John thither; these apostles prayed for the Samaritans that they might receive the Holy Spirit, who had not yet come upon any of them, for they had been baptized in Jesus’ name only; when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them, and through this laying on of hands the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit [Acts 8:14–17, cf. Vg.]. And he frequently mentions this laying on of hands [Acts 6:6; 8:17; 13:3; 19:6].

I hear what the apostles did, that is, that they faithfully fulfilled their ministry. The Lord willed that those visible and wonderful graces of the Holy Spirit, which he then poured out upon his people, be administered and distributed by his apostles through the laying on of hands. I think that no deeper mystery underlies this laying on of hands, but my interpretation is that they made use of such a ceremony to signify by their gesture that they commended to God, and, as it were, offered him on whom they laid their hands.

If this ministry which the apostles then carried out still remained in the church, the laying on of hands would also have to be kept. But since that grace has ceased to be given, what purpose does the laying on of hands serve? Surely, the Holy Spirit is still present among God’s people, for the church cannot stand unless he is its guide and director. For we have an eternal and permanently established promise by which Christ calls to himself those who thirst, that they may drink living waters [John 7:37; cf. Isa. 55:1; also John 4:10; 7:38]. But those miraculous powers and manifest workings, which were dispensed by the laying on of hands, have ceased; and they have rightly lasted only for a time. For it was fitting that the new preaching of the gospel and the new Kingdom of Christ should be illumined and magnified by unheard-of and extraordinary miracles. When the Lord ceased from these, he did not utterly forsake his church, but declared that the magnificence of his Kingdom and the dignity of his word had been excellently enough disclosed. In what respect, then, will these actors say they are following the apostles? They should have brought it about with laying on of hands, in order that the evident power of the Holy Spirit might be immediately expressed. This they do not accomplish. Why, then, do they boast that the laying on of hands is theirs, which we read was indeed in use among the apostles, but for a wholly different end?





a edition of 1536
12 Innocent III, in Decretals of Gregory IX, I. tit. xv, “De sacra unctione” (Friedberg II. 133), citing Acts 8:14f.; Eugenius IV, bull Exultate Deo xi: “secundum apostolum” (Mansi XXXI. 1055; Mirbt, Quellen, 4th ed., p. 236). Chrysostom treats this passage without reference to confirmation: Homilies on Acts, hom. xviii. 3 (MPG 60. 144; tr. NPNF XI. 114 f.).
Vg. Vulgate version of the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top