In any discussion about living and dying, there should be a check on prognostications and analyses in the acknowledgment of the providences of God. We differentiate several functions of God so to allow for common grace and divine grace. Common grace is available to all, and God, in love, responds to all persons, devout or profane, in many ways and patterns. In divine grace there is special consideration. The miracles of Moses, or Elijah, or Jesus, or the Apostles, and others in all eras are miracles of God. The first, providence, is commonplace: the second, miracle, is beyond nature appearing seldom or in clusters as with Moses or Jesus. For example, if a person were to survive an accident in some inexplicable way,
I might attribute that experience as an intervention that is providential. It might have been a miracle, but I do not know it is. If a person, born blind, were to receive sight in a moment without medical intervention, I would affirm it miraculous – special divine intervention unexplained in nature’s causality.
I might believe an experience to be either providential or miraculous, not knowing which. God uses both categories. Providential experience is, by far, the most common, and raises less skepticism from naturalists. I cannot prove either providence or miracle in nature’s patterns, and need not do so. They belong to my faith. I do not insist my arguments about them in persuasion to others, and they may mean little to anyone else. They mean a great deal to me, and occurred in dramatic contexts that I could not easily present to skeptics or doubters – perhaps even to earthbound Christians. Where such events have occurred for others, and have firm documentation, they carry a force primarily for the believing person experiencing the special event or events. They may introduce to others more skepticism than belief.
As a young British Colonel, George Washington led his men into western Pennsylvania, and the Ohio territory, fighting Indian wars. In one skirmish, the Indian chief pointed out Washington as the leader of the colonial force. Washington was dangerously exposed, while his men were rather somewhat secreted – in the Indian style of fighting. The Indian chief directed his men to aim their weapon sights at Washington, so to concentrate on killing or severely wounding him. Washington was untouched in his person, but received four shots through his coat, and his horse shot from under him. His men perceived the unusual situation, as did he. He wrote about the experience to his brother. There were 714 Colonist and British soldiers killed, but only 30 Indians. The battle was a severe defeat for the forces under Washington, and may have led to a shift in Washington’s future plans. He had perceived a career in the British military. The Indians were impressed at Washington’s evasion of death. Years later, the Indian chief was brought into the presence of Washington. To everyone’s consternation no relaxed rapport was gained between the two men. The chief seemed taken with Washington as beyond the ken of mankind. The chief ultimately spoke: The Great Spirit protects that man, and guides his destinies – he will become the chief of nations, and a people not yet born will hail him founder of a mighty empire. The chief presumed Washington a miracle life, deserving of something more than mortal status only. (Lillback, George Washington’s Sacred Fire, Pgs.162-5)
Was Washington protected in common grace by a providential act (special divine control of human events) or was he protected by a miracle (a naturally unexplainable interruption from God)? The humanist would explain such events, and there are many reported in history, as a remarkable but human event of poor marksmanship. We cannot prove the conclusion of any witness or reviewer to the event. The event registers a difference that is vital to the whole context of each life concluding about the day’s observation. This and other similar providences or miracles appear to have had firm impact on Washington, leading him to a life of faith. It is common for persons closing their lives to look back and sense that there appeared to be footprints in the sand that witnessed God. Others see nothing of the kind. For persons of faith, God reveals enough to carry them through good or ill. For the skeptic it seems like chance or folly for good or ill. In all this we find some mystery of God related to personal experience. We must remember that mystery related to God is like an analogy of a child seeking the mystery of life. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020