Christian philosopher Robert Larmer, who specializes in miracles, was kind enough to provide feedback on my Lourdes draft, which I'm posting with permission.
The question is whether in any sample group of 200 million people who pray for miraculous healing, there's a comparable percentage of unexplained cures.
I have no basis upon which to answer that question. I do have a few comments.
1. "Spontaneous remission" is not an explanation of why someone gets better. It is the admission that no explanation is known. It is probable that some events labelled as 'spontaneous remission' are answers to prayer, but that the attending doctors will not countenance a supernatural explanation. I am not claiming there are no spontaneous remissions that have a natural cause.
2. I agree that some events cannot be plausibly thought to be explicable in terms of natural causes.
3. The criteria for an event being called a miracle at Lourdes are extremely strict. Stanley Jaki in his "Miracles and Physics" references a case where a compound fracture, i.e. bones sticking through the skin, was instantaneously healed, but it did not meet Lourdes' criteria for calling something a miracle because a medical doctor was not in attendance. Jaki quotes a commentator to the effect that one does not need to be a tailor to tell if a coat is full of holes.
4. I do not think that healing miracles have to happen at certain special sites, but it does not bother me if God's providence includes people coming to certain locations to experience healing. If I need to be healed then God may require me to exhibit enough faith to go to a healing meeting being held in a certain location.
5. I think God may well perform miracles at Lourdes. That does not to my mind provide strong evidence for Marian doctrine, given that He also performs miracles for people who do not accept Marian doctrine. Both George Whitefield's and John Wesley's ministries were distinguished by events I view as miraculous, but Whitefield was Calvinist and Wesley was Arminian. Miracles are evidence of God's mercy and power, but in His mercy God does not require that we get all our doctrines totally right before He grants a miracle. When Jesus fed the five thousand he did not first ask who accepted him as the Messiah and who did not.
Another factor that I take into consideration is that answered prayer "from God" need not be something directly and explicitly granted by God. I'm not fully convinced of the following doctrine common in some Charismatic circles. In fact, I'm wary of the teaching. They teach there are healing angels from God or on the side of God. It seems to me that if angels are involved in healing, then they might heal in certain circumstances out of mercy in ways that (to some degree) distance God from the healing so that it doesn't involve God endorsing faulty theology tied to the event. Angels might minister healing within God prescribed parameters which we might mistakently take to be an endorsement by God of the theology taught in the healing context.
ReplyDeleteWhat possible Biblical evidence could there be that angels are involved with (some) healings?
- If the textual variant in John 5:4 is a tradition that has a basis in historical and spiritual fact, then that would support the concept that angels are sometimes involved in healing.
- When Jesus was weak in the desert angels ministered to Him after His temptation (Mark 1:13; Matt. 4:11). Something similar might have occurred in Gethsemane when it says an angel from heaven appeared and strengthened Christ (Luke 22:43).
- Heb. 1:14 states concerning angels, "Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?" The Greek word for salvation is part of the "soter" or "sozo" word group that includes the ideas of healing, deliverance, rescue, welfare, prosperity, deliverance, preservation, salvation, safety etc. The use of the word "inherit" in that verse seems to me to imply continual assistance throughout earthly life in order to ensure the elect enter into the Kingdom of God. And not limited to the very end of life when one transitions from earth to heaven.
- In Ps. 91:10 it says, "no evil shall be allowed to befall you, no plague come near your tent". The word dwelling/tent there might also have a secondary meaning of one's physical body, since the context is that of some plague or physical disease. It's in that context that the very next verses say:
11 For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways.
12 On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.
Thus implying angels might be involved in healing and not just protection, rescue etc.
CONTINUED
- In Scripture angels were instrumental in the execution of judgment through the means of sickness in both the OT and NT. So it stands to reason that they might be involved with healing as well (a reprieve of judgment).
DeleteHaving said that, some Charismatics overemphasize the involvement of angels in healing that even some Charismatics think those might be demons in disguise.
Here's another angle about angels.
Michael Heiser has argued that some angels may not be as strictly aligned with either God or the Devil as traditional theology teaches. And they might not be consistent in their professed allegiance to either one. They may straddle the fence or go back and forth in their behavior. This is a strange concept for me to grasp given the traditional concept that the angels are now fixed as either on God's side or the Devil's side. That the elect angels never sin, and the fallen angels can never have any good ior "good" intentions (whatsoever) for humanity. If Heiser's concept is correct, then some angels who are "on the fence" might be involved in Catholic healings. They might be "good", kind and merciful enough to ministry healing to some sufferers without being too concerned with whether the healing leads people toward or away from purer doctrine regarding the true God. In some cases these angelic "good intentions" might be among those that lead to hell.
These are a continuation of my thoughts expressed in comments in a previous blog.
I wrote a series on Craig Keener's book on miracles several years ago. That series addresses Lourdes, Catholic miracles, and miracles among those who don't even profess to be Christian. Those who are researching these issues may want to supplement what Steve and his sources have provided with what I wrote there.
ReplyDeleteKeener's book cites a lot of statistics related to miracle claims, and it ought to be consulted. We need to keep in mind that one group can have a larger number of miracle reports, yet have miracle reports among a smaller percentage of its followers. And the success of one group in getting more attention for its miracle claims (media coverage, books published, etc.) isn't equivalent to having more miracle claims. I discuss these and other issues in the series linked above. And we've written a lot of other posts on such issues in other contexts. If you search our archives, you'll find a lot of material on miracles within Christianity and among non-Christians.