ARTICLE GUIDE
At a Glance
Formulating an academically defensible definition of a miracle remains a contested task across philosophy, natural science, and theology. Post-Enlightenment discourse, shaped especially by David Hume, often framed miracles as impossible “violations” or “transgressions” of immutable natural laws.
Read moreShow less
What This Study Explores
Biblical Theology • Canonical Interpretation • The Promise-Plan of God
How Should a Miracle Be Defined?
A miracle is not best defined as God “breaking” a natural law, because natural laws describe regularities rather than acting as inviolable causal agents. A philosophically defensible definition treats a miracle as a specialized event that nature cannot produce from its own intrinsic capacities, brought about by supernatural agency and functioning as an authenticating sign within a larger revelatory purpose.
This definition neither proves a miraculous claim in advance nor excludes it by definition. Critical-realist historiography can compare explanatory hypotheses, assess testimony, and ask whether an event fits a coherent theological context. In Scripture, signs, wonders, and mighty deeds are not arbitrary spectacles; they advance the promise-plan, authenticate divine messengers, reverse cosmic fracture, and culminate in Messiah’s bodily resurrection.
Key Claims
- Natural laws are descriptions, not causal police. Introducing a new causal agent need not shatter the regularities scientists describe.
- Hume’s definition can prejudge the evidence. Calling miracles violations of unalterable law risks making their impossibility circular.
- Biblical miracle language is multidimensional. Power, wonder, and sign describe cause, human response, and revelatory purpose.
- Miracle claims remain historically testable. Testimony and competing explanations should be weighed rather than dismissed through methodological naturalism.
- The resurrection is the canonical climax. It functions as a public divine act that vindicates Messiah and inaugurates new creation.
Interpretive Context
The study evaluates Gary Habermas’s working definition in conversation with David Hume, C. S. Lewis, Richard Swinburne, Robert Larmer, and philosophical accounts of natural law. It distinguishes scientific description from metaphysical naturalism and treats the physical world as an orderly but causally open creation.
Walter Kaiser’s promise-plan places miracles inside covenant history rather than in an evidential vacuum. The divine-council horizon illuminates cosmic conflict, but the canon itself determines the meaning of Yahweh’s signs and the resurrection’s place in the restoration of Israel and the nations.
Selected Scholarship
- Habermas, G. R. (2024). On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences. B&H Academic.
- Hume, D. (1748/1902). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford University Press.
- Larmer, R. A. (2014). The Legitimacy of Miracle. Lexington Books.
- Lewis, C. S. (1947/2015). Miracles. HarperOne.
- Swinburne, R. (1970). The Concept of Miracle. Macmillan.
Scripture Connections
Genesis 3:15; Jeremiah 31; Ezekiel 36; Romans 11; Acts 2:22; Luke 10:13; Acts 1:8; Luke 2:12
Continue on Substack
The complete article remains on Rabbit Room Apologetics at Substack.
Originally published September 8, 2026. This WordPress page is a discovery guide; the complete article is hosted on Substack.