Complete healing

I'm going to discussed a reported miracle. This presents an interesting test-case for cessationism/continuationism: Here's the account:

J. P. Moreland once told me, when I asked him why God does not heal amputees, a story that is continually in my mind when these kind of things are on the table. He said he once witnessed a guy who was missing an ear (there was just skin where the ear should be) and saw it grow back as people (including Moreland) prayed for him. He said they watched as there was a break in his skin, blood came out, and a slight “ear” formed. What is interesting about this story is that the ear did not grow completely back. When the miracle was over, he just had a hole there, a bit of an ear, and could hear out of it. 

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/11/j-p-morelands-story-about-god-healing-an-amputee/

And here's a brief exchange between Fred Butler and his interlocutor:

• Joshua Elsom ‏@JoshElsom Jan 22 
• @jpmoreland ’s Story About God Healing an Amputee — @CMichaelPatton 
• http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/11/j-p-morelands-story-about-god-healing-an-amputee/ … @Fred_Butler @DrMichaelLBrown #MalchusEar
  
• Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler Jan 22 
• @JoshElsom Who was this person? Why wasn't he completely restored? Just a hole? We can do better than that, right?
• 
  
• Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler Jan 22 
• @JoshElsom @jpmoreland @CMichaelPatton Honestly. I don't believe it because God really heals, not partially heals.

Butler's response raises a number of questions about cessationism.

i) MacArthurites typically assure us that they don't deny the possibility or actuality that God miraculously heals people today. What they deny is the "gift of healing." They don't believe in genuine faith-healers. That terminated with the apostles and their immediate disciples. MacArthurites are quick to correct a critic who insinuates that they deny modern miracles. 

As Phil Johnson put it:

Answers to our prayers usually come by means of providence, through acts of providence, not by miracles. There are two kinds of miracles noted in Scripture. Some are remarkable works of God apart from any human agency. The other kind of miracle involves a human agent, who from the human perspective is the instrument through which the miracle comes. 

http://www.biblebb.com/files/combating_charismatic_theology.htm

One of the oddities of Fred's debelief is that the incident which Moreland witnessed seems to be consistent with cessationism. It happened in response to prayer, rather than a faith-healer laying hands on the individual and curing him. Isn't that the kind of miracle MacArthurites inform us that cessationism allows for? Direct divine healing in response to prayer?

So it seems as though, even when a continuationist cites an example that meets their criteria, they up the ante.  

ii) What does Fred mean by saying he doesn't believe it? Does he mean he doesn't believe it happened? Or he doesn't believe God made it happen?

If the former, does he mean Moreland (or Patton) is a liar? Although we can't rule out that possibility, I don't think that's the most plausible explanation. For one thing, Moreland made his reputation as a Christian apologist, not a faith-healer. And he's a tenured professor at a top-tier Christian college. He doesn't make his living as a faith-healer. So I don't see why he'd be motivated to lie. 

I can understand why an atheist would find it more plausible to believe he lied than believe a miracle happened, but is that the first explanation a Christian should reach for?

Or does Fred mean Moreland didn't actually he what he thought he saw? He misperceived the incident? Strikes me as special pleading.

iii) One reason Fred gives is that the man wasn't completely restored. It was  "just a hole. We can do better than that, right?"

So is his criterion that since God could do better than that, God didn't do it? But how many Biblical miracles measure up to that standard? For instance, Jesus raised Lazarus from the death. Yet that didn't prevent Lazarus from dying a second time. The process repeated itself. Lazarus died of old age.

Jesus could have done "better" than that by making Lazarus immortal. 

iv) A related reason Fred gives is that "partial" healing isn't "real" healing. Only "complete" healing is real healing. But is that a valid criterion?

I take it from the account that the man suffered from congenital deafness in one ear. The miracle restored his healing in that ear by instantly creating an inner ear, middle ear, and part of the outer ear. Since that restored the function of the ear, why doesn't that count as a "real" healing? It's a purposeful miracle. That's then function of the ear. To hear and discriminate sounds. 

v) Fred's objection is that it wasn't "complete," because the outer ear wasn't fully restored. But isn't that an aesthetic criterion for miracles? The result wouldn't please a cosmetic surgeon. But so what? 

vi) Finally, let's explore Fred's criterion of "complete" healing or "complete" restoration. How much does that involve? 

Let's take a comparison. Sherrill Milnes was the best Verdi baritone of his generation. But he suffered a vocal crisis in 1980. Here's a description: 

Mr. Milnes said he could not pinpoint when the problems started. But a 1980 concert performance of "Hamlet," conducted by Robert Lawrence at Carnegie Hall, may have done serious damage."The role of Hamlet is a huge sing," he said, "a tour de force. I had specified that the dress rehearsal must be other than the day of the concert. But at the last minute, due to union rules, scheduling difficulties, Bob called and said that the dress rehearsal would have to be the same day as the evening performance. Even marking my part during an over-three-hour piece was terribly demanding. By the end of the performance that night I was vocally distraught." 

Mr. Milnes found a specialist who offered a plausible diagnosis: basically, that he had developed leaks in the capillaries of his vocal cords." 

Vocal cords have to have equal mass," Mr. Milnes explained. "If you have tiny amounts of fluid leaking, one is thicker." The doctor described exactly a set of associated symptoms that Mr. Milnes had in fact been experiencing. 

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/arts/as-the-limelight-fades-a-star-lowers-his-sights.html?src=pm&pagewanted=2&pagewanted=print 

Milnes had developed a rupture at the base of one of his vocal cords that went unnoticed by his doctors for months. As he continued to sing, without giving the injured tissue a chance to heal, the inflammation and hoarseness grew worse, until he could hardly talk, let alone sing.After several months of blood tests and physical exams, his condition was diagnosed as a burst capillary caused by an allergic reaction to aspirin. 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-09-29/entertainment/8503060066_1_lyric-opera-verdi-otello/2

Although Milnes underwent vocal surgery, he was never the same. 

i) Milnes was 45 at the time of his vocal crisis. Suppose, in 2010, some Christians prayed to God to heal or restore his damaged vocal chords. What would a "complete" healing or restoration require? 

Would he still have a 75-year-old pair of vocal cords? Would that mean repairing the damage, so that his vocal chords would now be in the condition they would have been at 75 had he not injured them at 45? 

But fixing a pair of 75-year-old vocal chords would not restore him to what he sounded like before his vocal crisis. And undamaged pair of 75-year old vocal chords won't produce the same sound as an undamaged pair of 44-year old vocal chords. Repairing the damage doesn't turn back the clock.

ii) Does that mean "complete healing" requires God to restore his vocal chords to the condition they were in at 44, before is vocal crisis? But putting 44-year-old vocal chords in the body of a 75-year-old baritone won't make his sound like a 44-year old baritone. As Joan Sutherland once explained: 

MONICA ATTARD:So does your voice age, I mean, is that the way it works? 

DAME JOAN SUTHERLAND:You don't only just use your voice, you use support form the lungs and diaphragm and everything gets old, whether you like it or not. You don't only have heart problems or any sort of digestive problems or anything like that. I mean the body gradually disintegrates whether you like it or not and I was not having the response with my organs, liver, lungs, heart etc. I had a slight heart problem anyway but it was time to stop, I'd been there for over forty years. 

http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/3039349.htm

So does "completely healing" mean, not only restoring his vocal cords to their physical condition when he was 44, but restoring his body to the condition it was in at 44?

iii) But it's arguable that by age 44, even before his vocal crisis, he was already past his prime. So does "complete healing" require God to rejuvenate his vocal chords to their pristine condition at, say, 25 years of age? And what about a 25-year-old pulmonary system and cardiovascular system to match? 

Where does Fred draw the line? Does he have some definition for "complete healing and/or restoration" that isn't ad hoc?