Wayne Grudem's definition of miracles:
Notice his definition does not mention anything about the use of 'means'.
Grudem continues,
It seems to me that Grudem is redefining "means". Jesus did not use the bread and fish to make more bread and fish. Jesus did not use the water to change the water into wine. His objection to the more traditional definition of miracles seems confused.
Am I missing something?
We may define a miracle as follows: A miracle is a less common kind of God's activity in which he arouses people's awe and wonder and bears witness to himself. Systematic Theology; chapter 17 (I still don't know how to make proper Kindle citations)
Notice his definition does not mention anything about the use of 'means'.
Grudem continues,
Another definition is "God working in the world without using means to brings about the results he wishes." Yet to speak of God working "without means" leaves us with very few miracles in the Bible, for it is hard to think of a miracle that came about with no means at all: in the healing of people, for example, some of the physical properties of the sick person's body were doubtless involved as part of the healing. When Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes, he at least used the original five loaves and two fishes that were there. When he changed water to wine, he used water and made it become wine. This definition seems to be inadequate.
It seems to me that Grudem is redefining "means". Jesus did not use the bread and fish to make more bread and fish. Jesus did not use the water to change the water into wine. His objection to the more traditional definition of miracles seems confused.
Am I missing something?