The Miracle-Working God of Theism

This concludes my series on the picture of God as illustrated by C. S. Lewis’ Aslan. Go here for the previous post.

Although more details could be added to our imaginary sculpture (such as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity), its rough outline is now complete. In front of our mental eyes we see the picture of a God who is the sole Source of all creation, not one of many gods or one who battles against an independent opponent; we see a God whose creation is utterly dependant on Him though it is something other than Himself—a real creation, not an illusion; who is concrete and personal, not a vague life-force; and who is knowable—who can potentially make Himself known to mankind both in His moral goodness and in His other attributes.

Only this God can be a miracle worker. Only He can act into His creation in a meaningful way. If He were not the Source of all creation, then His miraculous powers would be limited, just as our miraculous powers are limited. We would not have discovered miracles beyond our own ability to work miracles, that is, to act into Nature as a force partially independent from Nature. Only a God completely independent from Nature can work completely independently into Nature. This also applies to dualism. If there were another independent force battling against God, this other force would likely hinder God’s ability to act into Nature.

And if the world were not real but an illusion, any talk of miracles would be nonsensical. There can be no miracles in an illusory world. If ordinary Nature did not exist, neither could extraordinary (miraculous) events exist in that Nature.

Moreover, if God were an impersonal life-force, it would be illogical that “it” should be able to act into Nature. Any act into Nature has to be the result of intelligent action; it cannot be impersonal and thus accidental. Impersonal action is always caused by something else. Only personal, intelligent action is independent. Humans only stand above Nature because of their personhood, because of their (partially) independent intelligence. If God were impersonal, He would be as much a part of Nature as water or a tree. And being a dependant part of Nature would of course make it impossible for Him to act into Nature as a miracle worker.

And lastly, if He were not knowable—if He were the Wholly Other—then any miracles he did perform would be meaningless. An unknowable God who acts into His creation is (from the perspective of the creature) the same as a God who does not act into His creation at all. To the creature, God’s miraculous actions (as opposed to His sustenance of Nature) would seem to be merely a part of Nature. Perhaps they would surprise people. Perhaps people might not easily find a natural explanation for them. But if God were unknowable, people could only react to the miracles agnostically. They could only shrug their shoulders and say together with Karl Barth, “This grave [of Jesus] might be proved to be finally closed or open; it is really all the same; what use is a grave proved closed or open near Jerusalem in the year 30?”[1]

---

[1] Barth, Die Auferstehung der Toten, Eine akademische Vorlesung, München, 1925, 2nd ed., 1926, p. 78; quoted by O’Neill, The Bible’s Authority.