Ed Dingess
You will reply that you personally don't know of any faith healers to whom we can turn for healing. Have you ever witnessed an indisputable, certified genuine miracle? One for which there were no natural explanations?
Lessing
Miracles, which I see with my own eyes, and which I have the opportunity to verify for myself, are one thing; miracles, of which I know only from history that others say they have seen them and verified them, are another.
I live in the eighteenth century, in which miracles no longer happen.
The problem is that reports of fulfilled prophecies are not fulfilled prophecies; that reports of miracles are not miracles.
Not quite soul brothers.
ReplyDeleteIf I understand Ed Dingess correctly, he's a cessationist who would affirm the following: "As a cessationist, I believe in divine healing, I just don't believe in someone having the gift of being a divine healer. There's a difference between a miracle, and someone having a miraculous gift."
In short, he might say something like: "I believe in divine healing, not divine healers."
You're changing the subject. Why is that? Why don't you deal with what I actually quoted? Look at his dismissive attitude towards reported miracles. That unless you personally witness a miracle, disbelief is the proper response. Lessing applies that principle to Biblical miracles.
DeleteYou quoted this part by Ed Dingess: "You will reply that you personally don't know of any faith healers to whom we can turn for healing."
DeleteThat's what I was commenting about.
Which doesn't stand alone. That's bolstered by the next sentence. By his logic, we should be equally skeptical about healers in the Bible (e.g. apostles, prophets, and Jesus).
DeleteDistinguishing between divine healing and healers don't salvage the issue, for his dismissive attitude towards secondhand knowledge logically discredits both.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTruth Unites... and Divides
Delete"I think the distinction is crucial, actually. If you have the inclination, would you interact with this seminary professor's explanation of this distinction"
No, I'm not inclined to have you derail the post by debating a different issue. The distinction raised by Dingess isn't between direct and indirect miracles, but between firsthand and secondhand information.
Besides, I've already discussed the direct/indirect miracle distinction, so I'm not going to rehash that issue. Don't post off-topic comments.