How Miracles Refute Protestantism
A Simple Principle
It is quite true that many of the apologetic demonstrations for Catholicism from miracles lack a step.
Often, apologists will simply take the listener through a number of different examples of miracles and leave it at that. Yet, the perceptive Protestant will have a number of different questions that are fair. The chief among these concerns diabolical deception.
Directly, it is possible to demonstrate that these miracles are not diabolical in two ways: either a) due to the fact that the miracle is above angelic powers (e.g., raising the dead), or b) that the end or circumstances of the miracle are inconsistent with demonic activity (e.g., the miracle encourages pious acts of the worship of God).
These methods are invoked in Sacred Scripture. First, the man born blind refutes the arguments of the Jews by appealing both to the moral circumstances of the act and the sublimity of the power required for the act: “We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if any one is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him. Never since the world began has it been heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” (Jn. 9:31–33) Second, Our Lord objects to the Pharisees from the circumstances of his miraculous casting out of demons: “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?” (Matt. 12:25–26)
Yet, there are legitimate difficulties with either of these methods for those who are hyper-skeptical. While Our Lord and the Apostles, speaking to ordinary men, appealed to what is common sense, not descending into the particularities of disputation, these men, on the other hand, are not satisfied by the obvious and the sensible. Like Thomas, they are not content with the manifest witness of trustworthy messengers, but require to “touch the wounds.”
First, they object to the first method by an appeal to the difficulty with which we grasp the limits of angelic power. Beside obvious examples such as knowledge of the secrets of the heart and knowledge of contingent futures, these individuals are hard pressed to concede that such an act is only unique to Divine power. This is exacerbated by the fact that it is not necessary for God to do miracles that are unique to Divine power, but He often performs miracles that can be done by lesser powers (e.g., healing an illness). Hence, the Protestant argues either that it is a hidden natural cause or that we at least cannot have sufficient certainty that it is not such.
Second, they object to the second method by stating that it assumes the conclusion. Protestants argue that Roman Catholicism teaches many heresies and encourages idolatry. Hence, it is no wonder that Satan would “come as an angel of light” by mixing together many true things and noble acts with false things and evil acts. Thus, according to their manner of argumentation, Satan may encourage pious acts such as repentance or prayer in order to draw men into evils.
In response to these appeals, there is another aspect to the demonstration from miracles that is often missed: Divine Providence. Roman Catholic apologetes argue that it may be reasonable to explain away individual anomalies as demonic deceptions (as we frequently concede about non-Catholic religions), yet the same does not apply to a multitude of miracles that provides manifest credibility. For, in such a case, there would be a clear violation of the prudence and justice of God in His providence over mankind, who would be permitting nearly the entirety of mankind to be invincibly led into error. For, it is common sense, as mentioned above, that leads to the realization of the impossibility that such an act in such circumstances could be uniquely a demonic act. Yet, such is the sufficient guide for the majority of men in their frequent dealings. Hence, they would be invincibly led into error about the true religion. This functions as a reflex principle.
This fundamental principle acts as an underlying axiom in the preaching presented in Sacred Scripture. Otherwise, the constant method employed by Our Lord and the Apostles would lack all apologetic force. Why appeal to the manifest credibility of the message confirmed by countless prophecies and miracles if such manifest credibility could be, in principle, a demonic deception? This leaves two uncomfortable consequences for the Protestant. First, God could permit a universal demonic deception that invincibly leads men into error without manifest circumstances that are morally sufficient to discern that such miracles are false. Second, the method of argumentation used by Our Lord and the Apostles was fundamentally fallacious.
How could St. Peter describe Jesus to the Jews as “a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know”? (Acts 2:22) Wouldn’t this be a manifestly false statement under the Protestant supposition? If a multitude of miracles providing manifest credibility — without clear attendant circumstances indicating that it is demonic — could be devoid of Divine sanction, how was St. Peter correct in saying that Jesus Christ was “attested to you by God?” Further, how could St. Peter so confidently say that such an attestation was “known” by the multitude unless they were able to discern manifest credibility by the same ordinary powers of common sense employed throughout the Gospels?
Commonly, Protestants do not attend closely enough to the words of our theologians when attempting to refute us. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange admits that testimonies of miracles only provide us with general historical certitude, yet if we consider the multitude of miracles in light of Divine Providence, he is not afraid to say that we garner extrinsic metaphysical certitude: “God would have permitted the whole of the Christian religion, which is fruitful in all good things, to be founded on an invincible error, which is contrary to the rational notion of providence.” (De Revelatione) The same is witnessed to by Scheeben, who solemnly draws out the horrifying consequences of admitting what the Protestants must admit:
The same thing is true with regard to the ecclesiastical hierarchy’s claim to the power and the privileges of the apostolate itself, as is true with regard to the claim of Christ Himself to divine dignity and worship. If the specifically divine power over spirits, along with the exclusive, infallible possession of divine truth which the Catholic hierarchy claims and so decisively and consistently asserts, is not really entrusted to it by God, then this claim is the worst blasphemy imaginable…If that were so, however, then it would not be possible for the Catholic Church to accomplish so much good, to contribute so much to the sanctification of mankind, and to be persecuted so much by all the enemies of Christ and of God as is in fact the case; moreover, far from cooperating miraculously with this institution, in order to preserve His honor and to prevent the greatest deception ever worked in His name, God Himself would have to work against it in every way, and if He allowed the deception to some extent, He would nevertheless not allow it to triumph so long, so generally, and with so much brilliance and with so much success among the best and most pious men. (Handbook 1.1)
Objection. Throughout Sacred Scripture, we see that God permits deceptive miracles to be performed for some special purpose, e.g., for judgement against sin. Therefore, God may permit a multitude of miracles that invincibly lead to error.
Response. This may be responded to in two ways. First, it is conceded that God permits deceptive miracles for the judgement of men, yet it is untrue that such deceptive miracles provide such credibility as to invincibly lead into error the majority of mankind; and this for two reasons drawn from Sacred Scripture. First, God provides the very rules and principles for judging the circumstances of a miracle so as to avoid lying deceptions (Deut. 18:15–22). Now, such would be superfluously given if the majority of men would be led invincibly into error by such lying deceptions. Therefore, etc. Second, God promises that proximately sufficient helps are given in order to overcome any sort of temptation toward evil: “God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Cor. 10:13) Now, if manifestly credible signs were given that invincibly lead men into error, then proximately sufficient helps are not given to overcome such error. Therefore, etc.
Second, the examples given in Scripture are not universal, but are given as particular judgements for particular times and for particular men. Yet, the manifest credibility of the Catholic religion is not established merely for particular times and for particular men, but for all times and for all men. Hence, the two cases are not analogous.