I just finished a huge blog post defending belief in the miraculous. Unfortunately, many self-professed Christians today would find that superfluous. “Why argue for miracles in our age of science,” they ask. “One can have Jesus without that.”
On this front I’m with Ronald Nash, who in his book Faith & Reason said this in a footnote dealing with why he also felt the need to defend believing in miracles as rational:
It requires little effort to discover writings that assert that the alleged miracles of early Christianity can be disposed of without altering or harming the nature of the faith. … The end result of all such efforts must be a totally different religion from historic Christianity. The honorable thing for all who make such claims to do is to find some new name for their new religion.
I take comfort in the fact that I’m also with the Apostle Paul, who spoke of the bodily resurrection of Jesus as essential to the faith. 1 Corinthians 15:14-19:
if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
Our faith is in vain. Our hope is useless. Our life is worthy only of pity. If there are no miracles. If the resurrection did not happen as an event in history.
There are some theological hills that are not worth dying on. I’ve detailed many of them here before. This is one that is worth fighting for and dying on. If we have no miracles, we have no Christianity.