64
THE K I N G ’ S B U S I N E S S
February 1925
th a t th a t g reat F irs t Cause should produce, by evolution or otherwise, a creature having the powers of reason, will, choice and initiative, when th a t F irst Cause itself has no such powers? T hat would be for the stream to rise higher than its source. Hume has argued the impossibility of miracles. He assumes, w ithout w arran t, th a t a m iracle is a violation of the laws of natu re. He argues th a t the laws of n atu re, by universal observation, and through all past time, have been uniform ; th a t th e re can be no violation of those laws; and th a t m iracles are, in th e ir n atu re, impossible; th a t no te sti mony whatever, no m atter by whom given, could establish the occurrence of a m iracle. B u t does he not reason in a circle? Does he not assume the impossibility of a miracle, the very thing th a t he undertak es to prove? Huxley does not agree w ith Hume in th e statem en t th a t a m iracle is a violation of the laws of natu re. Huxley says th a t he is too much of a sceptic to say th a t anything is im possible. His position is th a t of agnosticism. He does not know; the occurrence of m iracles has not been proven, or th e possibility of m iracles has not been established, to his satisfaction. Huxley was more scientific, and also more logical th an Hume. The N atu ral Involves th e Supern atu ral But when we have arrived a t the belief in th e existence of a personal God, all-wise and all-powerful, th e difficulty as to the possibility of m iracles vanishes. We must endow a personal God w ith th e power of reason, w ith th e attrib u tes of will, choice and initiative, w ith the power to act, to do. It is unreasonable to believe th a t a personal God, w ith all such powers and faculties, should refuse for ages to exer cise them ? He would then become an impotent God, a sleeping God, a dead God, in effect pu tting an end to His own existence. Has God annihilated His own personality? To the ath eist w ith no God, and to the p an th eist w ith an impersonal God w ithout volition or choice or initiative, the n atu ral may seem to exclude th e supernatural. But to one who believes in a personal God, the n atu ral ra th e r involves the supernatural. But if we tak e either the ath eist, or the p antheist “ horn of th e dilemma,” how can we account for the existence of man, w ith his powers of reason, will and choice? Could an impersonal F irs t Cause, or a no-god, by n atu ra l forces, evolution or otherwise, bring fo rth a being like man, w ith higher powers than th e original impersonal God, or F irst Cause, or no-god? The very au tho rity and power of man over n atu re and its forces tends to establish the existence of a God with infinitely higher powers. Man, plus n atu re, accomplishes wonderful things b u t they are not m iracles. But God, plus man, plus natu re, can accomplish wonders which are m ir acles. Introduce God into th e equation and th e .re su lt is miracle. So then, instead of conceiving of a m iracle as a violation of the laws of natu re, let us ra th e r th ink of it as the interposition of the special will and choice and power of God. The A theist—A Fool An atheist, who says “ th ere is no God,” may also, from his standpoint, logically say, “ th e re is no m iracle.” But th ere are not many atheists. The intellectual world pretty well agrees w ith th e Bible th a t the man who says in his h eart, “ there is no God,” is a fool. But a mere agnostic does not say “ there is no God.” He does not know. Nor can he say “ th ere is no m iracle.” He does not know; nor can he know. Christ said, “My F ath e r worketh h ith erto and I w ork.” Where God is, His works áre m anifest,—-works of redemp
tion, or of creation, or what not. Where Christ, the Son of God is, His works are also manifest. The n atu re of God demands m iracles, as an expression of His personality and work. The n atu re of th e Son of God likewise demands m iracles, as an expression of His divine n atu re and work. The M iracle of all Miracles The resurrection of Christ is the m iracle of all miracles. As has often been said, and proven, it is the best attested event of history. If we reject th e tru th of th e resurrection, it is impossible to prove the existence of any other fact of ancient history, for no other event is so well attested. More th an a century ago, two little books were w ritten by men who had both been sceptics; one, “The Resurrection of Christ,” by G ilbert West, the other “The Conversion of St, P au l,” by Lord Lyttleton. Both deal w ith th e m iracle of the resurrection, and assemble the proofs and argum ents in a way, so far as I know, th a t has never been surpassed. Their proofs and argum ents are unanswered and unan swerable. These books are commended to th e considera tion of sincere sceptics who really desire to know. Sincere Sceptics vs. S tubborn Sceptics But th e re is a vast difference between an honest sceptic, who is w illing to be shown, and a stubborn sceptic who will not. Christ said of th e stubborn sceptics of his own time, — “ If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neith er will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” ' In due time th a t One did rise from the dead, bu t th e re were many who would n o t believe; not could not, b u t would not. It is not reason th a t rejects th e m iracle of th e resurrection, but the perverse w ill of man. “ If any man will to do his will, he shall know.” But th e honest sceptic will say, “ I am not stubborn; I can n o t believe; I can no t apprehend these things of faith, about which you speak.” And th e sceptic is partially ju sti fied in th a t contention; for in his present condition, ap art from God, he is but a n atu ra l man, and the n a tu ra l man can not perceive the things of God. W hat he needs is God’s sp iritual nature! “The n atu ra l man receiveth no t the things of God; for they are foolishness unto him : n either can he know them , because they are sp iritu ally discerned” (1 Cor. 2 :1 4 ). But God stands ready to give to the honest sceptic th a t sp iritu al discernment, if he will only tak e Him a t His word. When he does take God at His word, by the acceptance of Christ, then he will see and know th a t which before he could not apprehend. W ith th e acceptance of the m iracle of th e ressurrection, belief in the other m iracles recorded in the Bible will n a tu r ally follow. A Modern Miracle Have we modern confirmation of m iracles? Surely. The Jew is a standing modern m iracle, and one of th e incon testable proofs of the tru th of th e Scriptures. And we have others. Regeneration, or th e new birth, the transform ing power of Christ in human lives, is a sp iritu al m iracle the proofs of which are abundant and conclusive. By what power is a d runk ard and profligate changed into a sober and useful member of society? By w hat power is a h arlo t transform ed into a pure woman? By w hat power is a dope-fiend, lost to every sense of decency, changed into a normal, helpful, useful man or woman? , By w hat power is an ath eist or an agnostic transform ed into a believer and lover and servant of God and of Christ? We see these things happen. Whence the power, except it be the power of God, which is m iracle?
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker