It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority, which always attend received opinions. When we peruse the first histories of all nations, we are apt to imagine ourselves transported into some new world; where the whole frame of nature is disjointed, and every element performs its operations in a different manner, from what it does at present. Battles, revolutions, pestilence, famine and death, are never the effect of those natural causes, which we experience. Prodigies, omens, oracles, judgements, quite obscure the few natural events, that are intermingled with them. But as the former grow thinner every page, in proportion as we advance nearer the enlightened ages, we soon learn, that there is nothing mysterious or supernatural in the case, but that all proceeds from the usual propensity of mankind towards the marvellous, and that, though this inclination may at intervals receive a check from sense and learning, it can never be thoroughly extirpated from human nature. It is strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon the perusal of these wonderful historians, that such prodigious events never happen in our days. The advantages are so great, of starting an imposture among an ignorant people, that, even though the delusion should be too gross to impose on the generality of them (which, though seldom, is sometimes the case) it has a much better chance for succeeding in remote countries, than if the first scene had been laid in a city renowned for arts and knowledge. The most ignorant and barbarous of these barbarians carry the report abroad. None of their countrymen have a large correspondence, or sufficient credit and authority to contradict and beat down the delusion.
– Hume
i) One of the things I'm struck by when I see some members/followers of the MacArthur circle dissing reported modern miracles is how their arguments unwittingly mimic the arguments of infidels like Hume. Take the way they breezily dismiss reported miracles in Third World countries, as if a reported miracle from Ethiopia, the Philippines, rural India or China, is inherently suspect. This is precisely the argument Hume uses. And it's the very same argument modern-day atheists deploy against Biblical miracles. Biblical miracles are reported by primitive, backward, superstitious writers.
ii) I think part of the problem is that many members/followers of the MacArthur circle don't seem to have much experience debating atheists. They generally seem to prefer intramural debates involving eschatology, creationism, &c. That renders them oblivious to the way they are aping atheist objections to miracles in general. It would be pitifully easy for an atheist to turn the tables. It's not as if we can compare reported Biblical healings with PET scans, CT scans, and MRIs of the patient, before and after.
iii) Now, for reported miracles from contemporary Western nations, I don't think it's unreasonable to request medical documentation. At least in a certain percentage of cases, if a miraculous cure took place, we'd expect there to be medical records to bear that out. That's because, in a certain percentage of cases, the patient ought to have medical records. So that's a reasonable standard, given the setting.
It's not reasonable to impose that standard in settings where that's not to be expected. Are we going to take the position that no Christian before the age of modern medicine is a trustworthy witness to a miraculous healing? Should we summarily scratch off 1800 hundred years of church history? Likewise, should we be reflexively skeptical of miraculous divine activity among the poor illiterate masses? Do we really think the distribution of divine activity lopsidedly favors the Northern hemisphere over the global south? Urban areas over rural areas? College grads over pious peasants? What about all the Christians who have to live by faith and prayer because they have nothing else to fall back on but the mercy of God?
It's like those infamous "prayer studies," where God is supposed to submit to randomizing protocols–as if answering prayer is equivalent to card-guessing experiments.
What I would suggest in reply is that I am looking for evidence.
ReplyDelete"My wife's nephew's missionary friend saw a guy who says he has the gift of healing and one time he healed this guy's headache in India" is not helpful in that regard.
As for miracles recorded in Scripture, God said those happened, so I have all the evidence I need. My wife's nephew's missionary friend is not prima facie as authoritative a source.
Could not this argument be made in favor of the existence of Nephilim in rural India? Unicorns? Crocks o' gold at the end of rainbows?
Rhology
ReplyDelete"What I would suggest in reply is that I am looking for evidence."
You could begin by consulting the extensive bibliography at the bottom of this post:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/02/bell-book-candle.html
"My wife's nephew's missionary friend is not prima facie as authoritative a source."
That's a caricature.
"Could not this argument be made in favor of the existence of Nephilim in rural India? Unicorns? Crocks o' gold at the end of rainbows?"
That's the way village atheists discount any and all testimonial evidence for miracles. Try to be more discriminating.
You could begin by consulting the extensive bibliography at the bottom of this post:
DeleteFair enough. Now, let me hasten to add that I'm not doubting that miracles occur. I should've been clear on that from the beginning, so that's my bad.
I guess what I'm looking for is A PERSON with the gift of miraculous healing. Does at least one of those sources discuss that? I'm asking in sincerity, out of ignorance.
Some of the literature documents human agents with "miraculous" or paranormal powers.
DeleteWho were born again? Who exercised those powers explicitly for the glory of Jesus? Who exercised such powers with regularity?
DeleteAlan, that's an example of moving the goalpost.
DeleteI disagree - we're not (at least, I'm not) talking about ppl with paranormal powers who are under the devil's control. I've been talking about people with gifts of the Holy Spirit. That's the entire discussion with Strange Fire. It's precisely the issue at hand.
DeleteThere's no reason why the Strange Fire conference should be allowed to dictate the terms of debate. That rigs the issue. It contains unexamined assumptions.
DeleteFor instance, it assumes that certain "miraculous" abilities must be supernatural rather than natural, or "spiritual gifts." But that's a preconceived way of approaching the issue. It doesn't start with the evidence. Rather, it screens the evidence through a preexisting filter. Yet we need to evaluate the filter.
Is that a categorisation scheme to which you'd be willing to ascribe the healing miracles of the NT apostles and the Lord Jesus? Not supernatural, but possibly natural?
DeleteWhat about prophetic utterances of the future? The sudden ability to fluently speak a language one has never studied?
i) Yeah I can see what you're saying about Jesus, but it's not natural FOR US. It's supernatural because it supersedes this natural world, which is why everyone was constantly amazed by Jesus' wonder-working abilities.
Deleteii) But we're talking about GIFTS that are grouped in other places in the NT with other GIFTS that ppl regularly exercise, like hospitality.
Not events. Gifts.
iii) Then why does the NT discuss healings, miracles, tongues, and prophecies in different ways, prescribing special treatment for those gifts? Like in 1 Cor 14?
Kurt Koch thinks that can be a hereditary, mediumistic ability.
Mediumistic? Isn't interaction with mediums generally condemned as evil in the Bible? Aren't we talking about the apostles of the Lord Jesus here? Was the day of Pentecost attributable to a mediumistic hereditary thing?
Wasn't that a Holy Spirit thing?
Rhology
Delete"i) Yeah I can see what you're saying about Jesus, but it's not natural FOR US."
Alan, that's a distinction that I myself drew yesterday in one of my posts. Try to take into account what I've already said on the subject, including recently.
"It's supernatural because it supersedes this natural world, which is why everyone was constantly amazed by Jesus' wonder-working abilities."
You can use "supernatural" in that sense, but it would be more precise to say "divine" in that context.
"But we're talking about GIFTS that are grouped in other places in the NT with other GIFTS that ppl regularly exercise, like hospitality."
Well, that's what *you* want to talk about. And that prejudges the answer.
I think you're too conditioned by your ex-Pentecostal experience to envision larger interpretive frameworks.
"Then why does the NT discuss healings, miracles, tongues, and prophecies in different ways, prescribing special treatment for those gifts? Like in 1 Cor 14?"
Well, for one thing, prophecies are different from miracles. Different effects. God could empower someone to do one kind of thing, but not another. On the other hand, apostles and some OT prophets could do several. There's one Giver. Same ultimate cause.
"Mediumistic? Isn't interaction with mediums generally condemned as evil in the Bible?"
Alan, you missed the adjective: hereditary. In Koch's experience, Christians can inherit mediumistic abilities. The Christian didn't personally dabble in the occult. He may have a paranormal ability, but be unaware of the source.
Now, one can debate the merits of that theory. My point is that the issue is more complex than you are making it out to be.
"Aren't we talking about the apostles of the Lord Jesus here?"
No, Alan, that's not what I'm talking about. You keep superimposing your agenda onto me. You're entitled to your priorities, but I have my own priorities.
And clearly the debate over continuationism isn't limited to the apostles, since that involves the question of postapostolic thaumaturges.
"Was the day of Pentecost attributable to a mediumistic hereditary thing? Wasn't that a Holy Spirit thing?"
Alan, you're going off on a tangent. One problem is that you pose questions I've already addressed. Try reading the post I directed you to. I don't need to reinvent the wheel.
\\"Aren't we talking about the apostles of the Lord Jesus here?"\\
DeleteNo, Alan, that's not what I'm talking about.
OK, so what are you talking about?
And clearly the debate over continuationism isn't limited to the apostles, since that involves the question of postapostolic thaumaturges.
Well, I was just talking about that the apostles had these spiritual gifts that are at the center of the modern controversy. There are those that claim that those gifts CONTINUE to this day. So ISTM that discussing the nature and character of those apostolic gifts is quite à propos.
\\Was the day of Pentecost attributable to a mediumistic hereditary thing? Wasn't that a Holy Spirit thing?\\
Alan, you're going off on a tangent. One problem is that you pose questions I've already addressed.
I didn't see you address it, sorry. That's the first time I've seen you propose some sort of hereditary Holy-Spirit-gift passing on.
You can use "supernatural" in that sense, but it would be more precise to say "divine" in that context.
True. Supernatural is, ISTM, the more general category. Divine being a subset thereof.
\\"But we're talking about GIFTS that are grouped in other places in the NT with other GIFTS that ppl regularly exercise, like hospitality."\\
Well, that's what *you* want to talk about. And that prejudges the answer.
Maybe. Or maybe it's directly relevant b/c of the way the NT discusses the issue, and you can't win the debate on those grounds. :-)
Rhology "OK, so what are you talking about?"
DeleteIf this post is the frame of reference, then didn't I indicate what I was talking about in the body of the post?
"Well, I was just talking about that the apostles had these spiritual gifts that are at the center of the modern controversy."
From what I've read, the MarArthur circle oscillates between different formulations. One is the distinction between mediate and immediate miracles. That's a different issue than "apostolic gifts," "apostolic miracles," or "spiritual gifts." Lack of a consistent target is one source of the confusion.
If you're talking about "continuationism" generally, there's more than one way of parsing that.
Take the case of Alexander Peden. Assuming (ex hypothesi) that those ascriptions are accurate, that would be a counterexample to the cessationism of the MacArthur circle. At the same time, we can assess the case of Peden on its own terms. We don't have to sublimate that to a particular model of continuationism, where what he was allegedly able to do is equivalent to "apostolic miracles."
Likewise, that doesn't predict for the frequency of cases like Peden, or what specific abilities they manifest. Why assume it has to be that standardized?
"There are those that claim that those gifts CONTINUE to this day. So ISTM that discussing the nature and character of those apostolic gifts is quite à propos."
Who's the target? TBN "faith-healers"? Michael Brown? Gordon Fee? Craig Keener?
"That's the first time I've seen you propose some sort of hereditary Holy-Spirit-gift passing on."
You're not reading carefully. I didn't suggest a "hereditary Holy-Spirit-gift passing on." You have a habit of combining your framework with my framework. You need to have the detachment to step outside of your framework to view things from a different perspective.
"Or maybe it's directly relevant b/c of the way the NT discusses the issue, and you can't win the debate on those grounds."
What are you debating? Exegesis? Church history? The practice of TBN "faith-healers"?
Rhology
ReplyDelete"Is that a categorisation scheme to which you'd be willing to ascribe the healing miracles of the NT apostles and the Lord Jesus? Not supernatural, but possibly natural?"
i) Well, there's a sense in which performing miracles comes "naturally" to the Son of God. Omnipotence is a divine attribute. God's nature includes that ability.
So it depends on whether you're using "natural" as a synonym for "creaturely," or in a different sense.
ii) Apostolic miracles are attributed to empowerment by the Holy Spirit. So that comes from "outside" the human agent.
iii) Keep in mind that the nature/supernatural dichotomy is generally a secular dichotomy. It's typically atheists who frame the issue that way because they need to draw a bright line between nature and supernature in order to exclude supernature.
But in Scripture, what's "natural" isn't synonymous with "naturalism." God is nature's author. God created the order of second causes. "What about prophetic utterances of the future? The sudden ability to fluently speak a language one has never studied?"
To take one example, Kurt Koch thinks that can be a hereditary, mediumistic ability. Not in all cases, of course.
Now, he may be wrong about that. But that's one of the explanations we need to take into consideration.
Rhology said...
ReplyDeleteI guess what I'm looking for is A PERSON with the gift of miraculous healing. Does at least one of those sources discuss that? I'm asking in sincerity, out of ignorance.
and
Who were born again? Who exercised those powers explicitly for the glory of Jesus? Who exercised such powers with regularity?
I could point to various individuals who I personally believe operate in the charismatic gifts on a regular basis. But some of them won't be as credible as others to some people (for various reasons). That's why I'm specifically pointing to Roger Sapp as an example of someone who is more credible than some others. Since he was a U.S. Army chaplain, a theology professor for 5 years and he holds a Bachelor, a Master of Divinity and Doctor of Philosophy degrees.
If anyone is interested, here's a link to some of his A/V materials on the web that I've gathered.
http://www.charismatamatters.blogspot.com/2013/07/recommended-resources-on-healing.html#sapp
BTW, if anyone is wondering, my theological position is Calvinistic and Continuationist (specifically charismatic). Roger Sapp is Arminian and/or Wesleyan in his theology.
Here's a link to a list of some Notable Calvinistic Continuationists (at least six are fairly well known)
http://gospelcrumbs.blogspot.com/2011/02/list-of-notable-calvinists-who-are-also.html
Sapp's Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/DrRogerSapp/about
DeleteI have to admit, I'm not entirely convinced by Dr Sapp's presentations.
DeleteFor example in his Healing Q&A, he said this:
No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. 1 Timothy 5:23
Some have noted this verse indicated that Timothy had not been healed but actually this verse does not really say that at all. It does not indicate that healing prayer had been ineffective either. It does not indicate that Timothy had any particular problem at the time of the writing of this verse. It does indicate that Timothy had some reoccurring physical issues. Paul was recommending to Timothy a natural preventative measure, a way of staying well. Paul’s comments here do not mean that Paul thought his prayers for healing of Timothy were not effective. Timothy might have been repeatedly healed but the ongoing stress of his life might have caused him to need additional physical help. This is not contradictory. Paul may have thought that preventative measures were wise. For example, someone asks for prayer for blisters on their heels from badly fitting shoes. We can pray in faith for healing of their wounds and wisely recommend a preventative measure, a new pair of properly fitting shoes without contradiction. The examples may differ but the principle is the same. If we can successfully prevent illness through natural means, then isn’t that wiser than seeking healing after we are sick? If we are ill, then we can count on the will of God being healing for us because of what Christ consistently reveals of the Father’s will.
Merely asserting "this is not contradictory" is not particularly helpful.
Can anyone heal the sick? What if I don’t have the gift of healing? Yes. Anyone who is a true believer in Jesus Christ can heal the sick since Christ the Healer is living within them.
1 Cor 12:30 - All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
The body itself reveals that it is God's will to heal. God has so designed the body that it has its own limited ability to heal itself.
Some bodies attack their own cells.
One can lie down in health in their home and wake up in heaven. Sickness, injury or disability are not prerequisites for death.
So, a sudden death in bed is not due to sickness? Just one's organs failing to work properly. That smacks of special pleading.
Those who believe that they have faith in Christ as Healer and have not yet received healing need only to seek to remove their doubts. Many times this is the case of those who have not received. They have faith in Christ but their remaining doubts prohibit their receiving.
That is no different than what Benny Hinn says.
Merely asserting "this is not contradictory" is not particularly helpful.
DeleteI cited Sapp as an example of someone who consistently operates in the supernatural. Not as someone whose theology of healing I completely agree with. My tentative views are summarized here.
1 Cor 12:30 - All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
According to Sapp's theology being able to minister healing doesn't require the gifts of healing. Though, having the gifts of healing help. He cites Mark 16:17-18 as evidence that ordinary Christians can expect to be able to minister healing. It's the text that says "these signs will follow those who believe...they will lay their hands on the sick and they shall recover." As many Christians know, the authenticity of that passage is highly questionable. However, it's been in the tradition of the Church for so long that apparently God honors it when people claim the passage in faith. I suspect Sapp knows the questionable nature of the passage since he's seminary trained and knows basic Koine Greek. He also prefers using the NASB 1977 edition which has a footnote saying verses 9-20 aren't in some manuscripts. Here's a link to his lessons on the Synoptic Gospels where he addresses the Synoptic Problem (HERE). I mention the lessons to show that he is aware of textual issues.
Some bodies attack their own cells.
That's when the body is sick. Not when it's functioning normally. Obviously he's referring the normal operation of the human body as God designed it and as it normally functions (even post lapsis). Though, even after the fall there is no truly health body. That's for the the time of the eschaton when saints receive their glorified bodies.
So, a sudden death in bed is not due to sickness? Just one's organs failing to work properly. That smacks of special pleading.
There are cases of people dying for no apparent reason even after an autopsy. Again, I don't agree with all of his theology of healing so I do feel the need to defend every aspect of it. Mine's a synthesis of his view (which is really very similar to the traditional Pentecostal view) and of a Calvinistic view.
That is no different than what Benny Hinn says.
There's are A WHOLE BUNCH of things that Sapp and Hinn disagree about theologically both in regards to theology proper and the theology of healing. Your comparision would be like a Jehovah's Witness saying, Evangelicals and Catholics agree on the Trinity, therefore Evangelical theology is false since we know that Catholicism is a false idolatrous religion.
typo correction:
DeleteAgain, I don't agree with all of his theology of healing so I [ DON'T ] feel the need to defend every aspect of it.
Rhology, you question whether a Christian need not have a gift of healing in order to minister healing. Well, after the apostle James wrote about the responsibility of the elders of a church to pray for the sick (James 5:14-15), James apparently goes on to say that even ordinary Christians can pray for each others healing (James 5:16).
Delete16 Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.
Then he goes on to use Elijah as an example and model of earnest and fervent praying. He points to Elijah having the same nature as the average Christian rather than putting him on a pedestal whom we dare not try to emulate.
Some other relevant passages 1 John 3:22; 5:14-15; John 9:31; Acts 3:12, 16;
There's are A WHOLE BUNCH of things that Sapp and Hinn disagree about theologically both in regards to theology proper and the theology of healing
DeleteOf that I have no doubt. I was merely pointing out that THAT STATEMENT could come straight out of Hinn's mouth (and has). The problematic nature of it is that it DOES in fact place the blame on the person who lacks faith. You didn't get healed b/c you lacked faith. Because God doesn't want you to be sick.
James apparently goes on to say that even ordinary Christians can pray for each others healing (James 5:16).
Well, sure, but I'm sure you'd agree that just b/c we pray for something doesn't mean it gets answered in the way we requested it. I pray for patience all the time and the Lord keeps taking me through trials instead of just granting it to me! ;-)
In one sense Sapp is "worse" (from your perspective) than Hinn because Hinn admitted to Larry King that he doesn't know why some people aren't healed. Only that he knows God wants them healed. Whereas with Sapp there's no fudge factor. Sapp specifically states that the only hindrance is lack of faith or more usually doubt. He says most Christians have enough faith to be healed, the main problem is doubt. I agree with Sapp but with Calvinistic qualifications. I believe that God requires us to believe even though faith itself is the gift of God. Whether it's the development of the 1. grace of faith or the immediate impartation of the 2. gift of faith (a distinction that George Mueller used and Piper accepted). Unlike Arminians who believe that responsibility presupposes ability and that faith is self generated, we Calvinists believe that God can rightfully have expectations, give commands and place upon us duties that we cannot perform in our own ability. But that with the New Covenant God enables us to exercise faith and to begin to fulfill His impossible requirements (Matt. 5:48).
DeleteI pray for patience all the time and the Lord keeps taking me through trials instead of just granting it to me! ;-)
But you should have been perfectly patient even though you failed at times. That requirement wasn't lowered just because you couldn't fulfill it perfectly. As Calvinists we believe that sanctification is ultimately God's work in us even though we're cooperating with it. The fact that we may not have faith enough to receive a healing for ourselves or for others is ultimately because God didn't give the gift of faith or develop the grace of faith in us at that time. But that doesn't mean God can't blame us for not having enough faith. Since Jesus blamed/rebuked the apostles (and others) for their fear and/or lack of faith repeatedly (e.g. Matt. 6:30; 8:26; 14:27, 31; 16:8; 17:17, 19-21; Mark 4:40; 5:36; 6:50; 9:19, 23-24; Luke 8:25, 50; 12:32 John 6:19-20; 20:27-29). God commands us to be perfect and never to sin (Matt. 5:48; 1 Pet. 1:15-16) but we're blameworthy whenever we do sin even though it's in God's power to enable us to never again sin (which He will grant at glorification).
My point is that it's our duty to develop the grace of faith and to seek the gift of faith along with the other spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:1) trusting God to grant them and sanctify us progressively in His timing. BTW, I came to this conclusion independently of Vincent Cheung who, as a Calvinist, also came to the same conclusion. God can blame us, but we shouldn't be blaming ourselves or each other harshly for lack of faith. Nor should we be praising ourselves or others in a proud manner because ultimately the "grace of faith", "gift of faith", the gift of miracles, the gifts of healing are all the gifts of God. That's true even if we may do things like pray, fast read Scripture (etc.) to develop or receive them (1 Cor. 14:1; James 4:2).
It seems to me the real issue between us is that you don't believe that it's God general will to heal the sick. That He is generally disposed to heal the sick if they will have "enough" faith for it. But I think Scripture is clear that God is willing. One of the best books I've ever read on this issue is Christ the Healer by F.F. Bosworth.
DeleteAccording to John Piper George Mueller received the "gift of faith" a few times for healing. But because he didn't believe that the Bible guaranteed healing on the condition that we had enough faith, he never attempted to use the "grace of faith" to persist in believing for someone's healing like he did for God's promises of provision.
Given that faith is ultimately the gift of God, there's no danger in saying that God guarantees healing on the condition that we have enough faith, since we wouldn't be able to exercise such faith if it wasn't God's will anyway. In fact, there are many instances of ministers of healing who have gotten impressions that it wasn't God's will to heal a person. Or to heal a person at the moment, until some issue was dealt with. For example, Charles S. Price lost a sense of God's presence to heal a genuinely sick man when it turned out he was a hypnotist went for prayer to test whether it was the power of suggestion that got people healed (The Real Faith page 81). Or until it was discovered that a woman was involved in the occult before her daughter was healed (page 89-91).
BTW, I think what Price described as "faith" in that book is actually the "gift of faith." I highly recommend the book, but it could give the impression that we shouldn't exercise the grace of faith for healing.
Here are some interesting quotes by Mueller on the grace of faith.
DeleteThink not, dear reader, that I have the gift of faith, that is, that gift of which we read in 1 Corinthians 12:9, and which is mentioned along with “the gifts of healing,” “the working of miracles,”prophecy,” and that on that account I am able to trust in the Lord. It is true that the faith, which I am enabled to exercise, is altogether God's own gift; it is true that He alone supports it, and that He alone can increase it; it is true that, moment by moment, I depend upon Him for it, and that, if I were only one moment left to myself, my faith would utterly fail; but it is not true that my faith is that gift of faith which is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12:9.- George Mueller quote taken from a sermon by John Piper
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/george-muellers-strategy-for-showing-god
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
In Basil Miller's biography of Mueller, the same quote above continues "...It is the self-same faith which is found in every believer...for little by little it has been increasing for the last six and twenty years."
http://servantofmessiah.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/01/George-Muller-Man-of-Faith-and-Miracles.pdf
God delights to increase the Faith of His children. Our Faith which is feeble at first, is developed and strengthened more and more by us. We ought, instead of wanting no trials before victory, no exercise for patience, to be willing to take them from God's hand as a means. I say—and say it deliberately—trials, obstacles, difficulties, and sometimes defeats, are the very food of Faith.http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/archive/pdf-english/rfai.pdf
One thing more. Some say, “Oh, I shall never have the gift of Faith Mr. Mueller has got.” This is a mistake—it is the greatest error—there is not a particle of truth in it. My Faith is the same kind of Faith that all of God's children have had. It is the same kind that Simon Peter had, and all Christians may obtain the like Faith. My Faith is their Faith, though there may be more of it because my Faith has been a little more developed by exercise then theirs; but their Faith is precisely the Faith I exercise, only, with regard to degree, mine may be more strongly exercised. Now, my beloved brothers and sisters, begin in a little way. At first I was able to trust the Lord for ten dollars, then for a hundred dollars, then for a thousand dollars, and now, with the greatest ease, I could trust Him for a million dollars, if there was occasion. But first, I should quietly, carefully, deliberately examine and see whether what I was trusting for, was something in accordance with His promises in His written Word.
http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/archive/pdf-english/rfai.pdf
More Mueller quotes Here.
you don't believe that it's God general will to heal the sick.
Delete100% of people die. ISTM the burden of proof would be on you, no?
But you should have been perfectly patient even though you failed at times.
Of course, but patience is an ongoing thing, requiring constant vigilance and continual "effort" (for lack of a better term).
Healing is a one-time event. They're not the same thing.
Nor should we be praising ourselves or others in a proud manner because ultimately the "grace of faith", "gift of faith", the gift of miracles, the gifts of healing are all the gifts of God.
How do you avoid that, if healing is dependent on the faith of the heal-ee?
If they don't get healed, they didn't have enough faith. Where do you go from there?
If the reply is "God didn't give them the faith at this time", how is that not the same as saying "It was not God's will to heal them at this time"? And thus wouldn't that militate against it being God's general will to heal the sick?
Given that faith is ultimately the gift of God, there's no danger in saying that God guarantees healing on the condition that we have enough faith, since we wouldn't be able to exercise such faith if it wasn't God's will anyway
You're strengthening my position, ISTM, not your own. :-)
In fact, there are many instances of ministers of healing who have gotten impressions that it wasn't God's will to heal a person.
Why is it that at any other time you'd (probably) warn a person against trusting their impressions to give an accurate portrayal of reality, but are saying they were good guides in this case?
I didn't realise you responded. I don't know if you'll see my comments. But that's okay.
Delete100% of people die. ISTM the burden of proof would be on you, no?
Believing that God is our healer doesn't necessitate a denial that we die. God promised the Israelites to be their healer (Exo. 15:26; 23:25-26; Ps. 103 2-3 etc.), yet that didn't mean they were not to die. In that passage in Exo. 23:25-26 there's the promise of healing AND that God would "fulfill the number of their days". In other words, healing and eventual death aren't contradictory.
Of course, but patience is an ongoing thing, requiring constant vigilance and continual "effort" (for lack of a better term). Healing is a one-time event. They're not the same thing.
Exo. 15:26's promise in Hebrew has been translated by some to imply an ongoing process. Like I am YWHW who IS heal-ING you. Healing can be instantaneous like justification, or a process like sanctification. And like sanctification which can fluctuate, so can healing. Even in the healings of Jesus and the apostles sometimes it was progressive. The ten lepers were healed on the way to the priests. Jesus prayed for a blind man twice. Another blind man received his sight after washing at Siloam. The official's son progressively got better when Jesus said he would live. Notice Jesus didn't say he healed him immediately (John 4:50-53).
How do you avoid that, if healing is dependent on the faith of the heal-ee?
So is progress in sanctification. Also, I think NORMALLY that the faith of both pray-er and prayee contribute to the degree of healing. However, IDEALLY the faith of the pray-er should be sufficient to get the person well either immediately or progressively (James 5:14-16, Matt. 17:19ff).
If they don't get healed, they didn't have enough faith. Where do you go from there?
Grow in faith for healing is just like for sanctification. God's ultimate will for Christians is their ultimate complete healing and sanctification when they receive their resurrection bodies and are glorified. Healing and sanctification in this age are partial foretastes of that ultimate healing and sanctification.
If the reply is "God didn't give them the faith at this time", how is that not the same as saying "It was not God's will to heal them at this time"? And thus wouldn't that militate against it being God's general will to heal the sick?
Just because it wasn't God's will of decree to heal at time T4 doesn't mean it's not God's will of decree to heal at T5. It's always God's revealed will for us to be morally perfect and live perfectly sinless sanctified lives, yet God's will of decree is that our sanctification fluctuate. The same goes for healing. Just because we sin, that doesn't give us permission to say "I guess God doesn't want me to strive for holiness since He ordained I sin at this instance." But just as God can ordain that in our future we will be more sanctified, so God can also ordain that in our future we'll be more healthy. The issue is a matter of God's promise and commands. God promises and commands us to seek our sanctification spirit, soul, and body (1 Thess. 5:23; James 5:14ff; 3 John 1:2).
[Continued in next post]
Why is it that at any other time you'd (probably) warn a person against trusting their impressions to give an accurate portrayal of reality, but are saying they were good guides in this case?
DeleteI'm a continuationist so I have no problem with God given impressions. I'm not against impressions. I'm against raising impressions or prophecies or words of wisdom or knowledge above or equal to the highest authority, namely Scripture.
You're strengthening my position, ISTM, not your own. :-)
Not at all. We don't tell non-Christians to first determine whether they are elect and then to believe on Christ. Nor do we first determine who the elect are before we share the Gospel of justification (and sanctification, glorification). We proclaim the offer of salvation to all and encourage all to believe even though we know that not all are elect. Same thing with healing. We ought to preach the Gospel of healing (which is part of the Gospel as a whole) knowing that sometimes God wills to heal some people at T1, others at T3 and others never, and if they are Christians ultimately at the Last Day (too if they were also healed at T2). A Christian can receive healing at T2, then die a natural death decades later, and then receive his ultimate healing at the resurrection.
So, who exactly is doing this stuff? Dan Phillips? Frank Turk? Phil Johnson? Fred Butler? Myself? Who dismisses miracle reports from the third world BECAUSE they're from the third world?
ReplyDeleteNobody that I'm aware of.
And Hume? Overstating things a TAD Steve?
I cannot speak for other folks, but there's a wild difference between not providing PET scans and not being able to produce a single name for any of the thousands of people you claim to have raised from the dead...and if names are provided, nobody knows the person who even knew if they were dead. Reinhard Bonkke is an easy case in point on this. He claims to have performed 100x as many resurrections as Jesus (at least), and yet when people contact his ministry there's not a single date, name or anything.
The problem also isn't with people not providing "proof" for biblical miracles. The problem is 2 fold:
a. Claiming that something is a certain type of miracle (i.e. an evidence of the NT gift of healing, as wielded by Jesus and his apostles) as opposed to something else (i.e. an evidence of answered prayer), over and directly against the teaching of scripture. We're all supernaturalists, and we all believe in miracles and answered prayer. The problem is with the claims of possession regarding the sign gifts, not miracles.
b. The absolutely comic lack of any sort of even basic evidence for the sensational stuff (i.e resurrection claims, healing of terminal illnesses, etc.). The stories don't check out (dates, locations, etc.). Many of the time, names cannot even be provided. There's also a consistent pattern how people claim (x) happened at event (y) and when you look for video/reporting of event (y), none of the stories of (x) appear, but rather at event (y) there were stories of event (z) that equally cannot be confirmed. The chain goes on and on with no actual video/record/testimonial of the events in the stories actually happening at the event where they're claimed to have happen.
Just trying to bring some clarity to the issues at hand. I don't think you have as much of an understanding of the issues at hand as you may possibly believe.
mennoknight
Delete"So, who exactly is doing this stuff? Dan Phillips? Frank Turk? Phil Johnson? Fred Butler? Myself? Who dismisses miracle reports from the third world BECAUSE they're from the third world? Nobody that I'm aware of."
Perhaps you need to turn up your hearing aid:
Dan Phillips @BibChr 21h
EVERY time someone challenges this, the story starts, "I knew/heard about someone who was in the Philippines/Mexico/Uganda once, and..."
1:53 PM - 15 Aug 13 · Details
Who have you been reading? For instance, have you bothered to read:
ReplyDeleteCraig Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts
Rex Gardner, Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates
I've read some of Craig Keener. Heck, GTY got the books just because we knew this would be an question raised by critics. Keener is defending miracles in general. Something we as "cessationists" agree happen. He doesn't, however, affirm Reinhard Bonkke raising 100 plus people from the dead. Bonkee is confirmed by Michael Brown as being a solid minister.
ReplyDeletei) One would need to distinguish between reported mediate miracles and reported immediate miracles in books like Keener's and Gardner's, then assess the evidence for reported cases of the former.
Deleteii) Keep in mind, as I pointed out in another post, that the cessationist distinction between mediate and immediate miracles breaks down in the case of "prophecy."
iii) I'm not defending Michael Brown's charismatic theology.