J. P. Moreland’s Story About God Healing an Amputee

Indeed a “negative” for me on the Moreland Stories, and not just because I tend to cessation as to outright or “biblical” miracles today, but more because of my Biblical epistemology. Surely God DOES do miracles, but more in the spiritual and salvific realm; the greatest miracle is the Grace and Salvation of God, ‘In Christ’!

Yes, I tend to believe his story. Why? I believe God exists, that he wants to heal, that he hears prayer, and that he sometimes does heal. I also agree that a critical scholar with a reputation to uphold is less likely to communicate something that he thinks will make him sound bizarre and insane unless it were true. And yes, while it’s possible, a story of a partial ear is less likely to be fabricated.

I’m not gonna lie, though. A half-grown back ear is weird. It raises questions – Why didn’t God go all the way? Was there not enough faith present? Was God trying to communicate something by that in particular? Maybe something about spiritual “hearing” as he did in Mark 8:23 regarding spiritual sight (I believe)?

I think this could, in the context of the whole cessationism vs. charismaticism debate, raise an interesting question as to place of experience in our theology. Generally most Evangelical theologians would put experience as the lowest influence. Often I’ve been told it is something that we should not let influence our theology and in fact have argued this myself in a number of contexts. On the other hand if I literally and personally watched a persons ear grow back, or limb, or something drastic like that I can’t deny that it would have a pretty drastic effect on how I thought about the issue. The question then becomes where to draw the line….

Michael asked the question, “[D]o you believe the Moreland story? Why or why not?”

I would answer wth another, “Why not believe it?” Why even refuse to believe it? If God is a good, all-power, a God to wom we seng “does wonders”, what legitimate reason is there not to believe it?

Because God doesn’t do miracles anymore? What? Has God lost his power? Does God change? If God is the “same yesterday, today, and forever, as we assert, why can’t he do the miracles he did in the OT, the NT, and do it now?

Because “the greatest miracle is the Grace and Salvation of God, ‘In Christ’!” does that mean God can’t, suspends, or refuses to do the “lesser” miracles in answer to faith?

Jesus didn’t perform miracles to primarily or only prove he was God, but simply because he is love; that was his prime and sole motivation. Loves is his prime and sole motivation today…to deliver, heal, save…

Every Biblical account of healing is whole. No healing event in Scripture ended with an incomplete healing of the ailment. The man’s ear is not healed.

To accept incomplete healing of an illness as miraculous is to misunderstand both the purpose of healings as authentication of the message and authority/divinity of source, never mind what a divine healing miracle is.

This appears to be a poor substitute and someone having believed to see something which was a parlor trick or saw something but misinterpreted it.

But you make a very bad investigator of truth. You should be pursuing this matter with an aggressive series of questions and independent accounts of other witnesses just to start with. None of which you presented as part of the presentation and your reception of it.

And if you cannot do this, just as a start, and until you do, appealing to how it just seems plausible because your source is reliable and it just seems the math is there without further investigation leaves you as credible as The Globe. You want, it seems, so bad to believe something is true instead if that which simply is true no matter what it is.

First off, thanks for writing this Michael. I am totally with you on your thinking.

Second, I can neither believe or dis-believe Moreland as the story is second hand. I did not see the mans ear prior to the alleged miracle. Therefore I can not make the determination.

I can tell you that I have come out of the “prophetic” vein of the charismatic group. And what you say here, “For me it is dishonoring to God for me to believe something just because I want it to be true or because it fits into a worldview I desire to be true.” I can not tell you the degree to which that is rampant in Charismaticism.

But does that negate the alleged miracles? No. But if the bible is our source for these things there are two aspects to consider.

1) The miracles of Jesus were verified by his proponents and detractors. They were indisputable.

2) There are those who are not of the household of God who can do “miracles.” (I suppose someone could say this passively concedes God does miracles too.) But I believe there are supernatural events that can take place in the last days that will lead believers away from God.

Which is something I think about. It seems like there is this issue of whether someone believes or not and the role the miraculous plays into that. Like do miracles help people believe in God differently or will it only cement what they already believe (if you disbelieve you would discount the miracle).

This is always an interesting topic becasue it is filled with TV images, and folklore tales and out right fabrications from those who mean well but are doing the Evil Ones work.
First off, let me say, I believe the correct translation for the words we translate as Faith is “belief as a verb.” Belief acted on is faith. Faith, then, is not a object but an action.
A miracle is a suspension of the natural order. The natural order or way General Revelation is set up to express itself as we understand it. Some tricky words there. Nature (General Revelation) has an order or process. But we add the mystery addendum of “how we understand it”. Medicine and Science complicate our understanding by implying that my understanding as a doctor may be different than your understanding as an Indigenous person of the Borneo jungle. So to keep true to the working definitions, in one event, I may have a miracle and you may not. The critical factor is belief in the suspension of the natural order.
The Roman Church spends much time and treasure investigating these type of events and seldom agrees they occur as a true suspension of the natural order beyond any doubt or point of view. About 1 in a 1000 according to my research. Yet they do so affirm.
So what are we left with then? We are left with the natural revelation that God called “Good” and the process it represents. We are left with the statement of God’s inspired word that they do happen and more importantly that God does do them at His will for His own purposes. We are left, that for whatever reason, those who believe that God has ceased to express Himself miraculously some 1500 years ago and those who say His power is expressed on going. We are left with an uneasy war between what we do for ourselves out of our own power (natural order) and what we believe God does for us (Holy Spirit).
(End Part one)

Jay Saldana

@Nelson

I am not CMP. Completely different Michael

Part Two:

The solution is divided into two contrasting categories, as I see it, (1) those that seek empirical proof (put my fingers into His wounds) (2) Those that believe becasue of a personal experience of whatever kind with the power of God and a sense of His on going participation.

[Some who seek to belong to this second category would seek to define it to special acts but I see them as part of the first group not the second.] This group merely accepts God without reservations. (This can make for a dangerous belief system bordering on the superstitious but that is another conversation.)
So then in my argument for the miraculous it comes down to what we are willing to accept. Did not Jesus say in His home town that what He could do was limited by the belief of the observers who came to see Him just before he healed the paralytic let down from the ceiling.
So then I would ask you, “Will you be the learned visiting with the Lord or will you be a paralytic let down from the ceiling acting on your belief?”
The choice is clearly ours. There is no error on the other side simply a smaller meal with no desert.

Have a God filled Day,
Your brother,
Jay Saldana

I must say that I am rather skeptical of such stories. Not because I don’t want them to be true. I wish they were because it seems this would provide irrefutable evidence of God working in the world. But there are lots of eyewitness reports of strange and mysterious phenomena around the world, that I don’t know I should believe it.
I am wondering what to think about similar reports of healing through Marian apparitions, such as at Lourdes or Medjugorje. Some of these healings have been verified by doctors as having no possible medical explanations. If those reports are true, then my theology needs serious modification. If those healings, in spite of being studied and subjected to more analysis than perhaps any mysterious/paranormal activity, are not from God, then how would these reports of healing stand up to scrutiny? I ask this as one really desiring to know, not as one trying score points in some online battle of wits.

Assuming you are not making this up just to test our credibility, then I have no problem believing Moreland’s story, nor the partial healing. I have heard similar stories about partial healing at least twice before. Both in books. One was partial because they did not follow through on praying further once God started to work (John White about another) and one was a reminder by God, though the limb was now functional (Gulshan Esther about herself).

Of the questions has God healed this person and why does God not heal more people the second seems more difficult to me

Michael T (comment #3) –

I think we do a disservice to our faith if we say that it is to be completely & solely grounded “in Scripture”. Please do know that I think Scripture is of primary importance. But I’ve come to realize that something like the Wesleyan quadrilateral provides a more holistic approach to how we come to know the revelation of God: Scripture, tradition, experience & reason.

In the end, whether we like it or not, experience is a part of our coming to know God in Christ. It doesn’t mean it takes primary place. But it is real. I know for myself that I did not come to know & believe in Jesus Christ because of some objective apologetic presentation proving something from Scripture. I heard a man’s storied account of how he came to Christ (his family Iranian refugees to the States) and it drew me to Christ. Of course, I subsequently have studied Scripture and theology with great interest. But that came after the “experience” of meeting Christ. I suppose it’s similar to coming to love and know my wife was to be my wife. Of course I have many “proofs” of her love for me. But it isn’t some fully objective engagement. And there are times that “doubt” comes in, i.e., when we have a great argument, when we see our failure, when we struggle with our parenting, etc, you ask questions. But I’m still convinced of the life-long love relationship we are in. It is true.

Of course, not every illustration is perfect. But I think we get the point.

I think the church in the west has been deceived to think we can fully come to know the truth of God in some post-Enlightenment, modernist way. We apply the scientific method to our journey of faith in Christ, when it is always going to be hard to apply such a method to a faith journey. It doesn’t mean there aren’t reasonable pointers. But this is a journey of faith.

Missy M –

You said: Every Biblical account of healing is whole. No healing event in Scripture ended with an incomplete healing of the ailment. The man’s ear is not healed.

Actually, we do find in Mark 8:22-26 in which a person wasn’t healed fully on the first “attempt” – and this by Jesus. So I won’t be surprised if he is healed more “fully” at a later time.

Not to mention that you have instances when people weren’t healed – i.e., the great thorn in Paul’s flesh, whatever it might have been.

To not be healed is to not be “wholly” healed.

Or what of prophecy that is to be from the Spirit of God himself, yet we are told it is only “partial,” as in seeing in a mirror dimly. Sometimes, in a fallen world, we don’t see the full restoration & revelation of God.

Now, I’m not saying this has to be THE final answer. But such a straightforward proclamation that you’ve given fails on many accounts, especially noting that we are not God and don’t always know what is going on in the larger and fuller picture, or in the future.

Blessings

“do you believe the Moreland story?
After all, if God is working in miraculous ways in the world today”

agreeing, first, with Fr. Robert: the Lord is raising from the dead every day;our God is in the heavens doing whatever He pleases-the perfect Father giving only what is good, supplying the exact need. Some need to see His sovereignty/some His supremacy (a Beth Moore statement recalled often); He is still speaking about the kingdom of God and curing those who have need of healing. Eph 2:4-6; Ps 115:3 ; Matt 7:11; Phil 4:19; Luke 9:11

re: believing the story, thinking the best way to honor another is to believe them (unless it contradicted the Lord’s word)

Scott

And you imagined I had not considered this in my claim? But hey, what is bait other than to capture its object. I am glad you seized the cheese.

As a charismatic I expect nothing more than you eisegetical narrative that somehow Jesus failed to fully heal. First, you miss the obvious and second you miss its theology.

You imagine Jesus either impotent or the man as having some causality. The text provides neither suggestion. What we do have however, is understand the nature and purpose of healing, to reveal the person of Christ.

The text presents Jesus communicating through his healing, hence in this case that Christ is more than what many may see. How do we know this. By what follows.

Immediately after this Jesus then questions his disciples, “who do people say I am” with the answer coming, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” And then our Lord asks them, “But who do you say that I am?” and Peter answers “You are the Christ.”

Christ did not partially heal anyone, he healed him wholly but used the process to communicate something about himself.

This is both the context and message of the healing which continues to be harmonious and consistent with the understanding that these miracles were not an end in themselves but the divine authority of the person and in this case, even greater, the divine person.

As for your appeal to Paul, that is a complete fail. Paul prayed for a removal of a thorn in the flesh. He does not use the word heal, no one tried to heal him, thus argue, at best, from silence but worse by changing Paul’s own words of asking that the thorn in the flesh which was a messenger to harass him which he prayed for God that it leave him to a prayer of healing and a failed attempt. But even from silence, not precise on what the thorn was, no one tried to heal Paul and Paul did not pray to be healed. There was no partial or failed healing.

forgive me above, I believe I misstated the first part ‘Some need to see His sufficiency’

…although in everything His sovereignty

“Missy M” seems to have gotten the issue best here! 🙂

And Scott your confusing biblical epistemology (how we understand and believe… and here the Word and Revelation of God is always central and “centre”), and the “ordo” of salvation, indeed “Regeneration” simply must precede any true Christian experience!

On the fly here.. this A.M. (time change)! 😉

Good post, Michael. I look forward to the next post. Yes, our personal experience matters, and for some more than others. Thomas said he wouldn’t believe the reports of his closest companions until he personally stuck his hands in the risen Christ’s wounds. Others didn’t need this. So be it. Our “how’s” may differ. The quadrilateral is a good way to discuss these things. Experience is a factor for us all, which is fine if we keep putting scripture in the chief place.

Was it a miracle? If he didn’t have an ear, and now he does, and it happened while people were praying for him (and not in surgery), then it was a miracle.

I think the best approach is the one taken by the blind man healed in John chapter 9.

24 So for the second time they called the man who had been blind and said to him, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.” 25 He answered, “Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.”

Was it a miracle? I don’t know. All I know is he didn’t have an ear, and now he does (assuming the the sources can be trusted).

I said all of that to say this – I’m not in the business of trying to wrap my theology around real life. If it happened, it was a miracle regardless of how I put the theological pieces together. If it didn’t, then it wasn’t.

Short answer – I do believe miracles happen today, but there are more gullible people than there are miracles. So that confuses the matter 🙂

I followed the Keener’s presentation last week through livestream and I really enjoyed the session. It’s a blessing that God is using Keener and more people to talk about Miracles especially related to the Christianity faith. I’m coming from Eastern hemisphere with the Eastern culture and in Asia, miracles are already part of our life in many forms. I think the background from Asia is more from Pantheistic while in the West is more Rationalistic. We don’t even know David Hume at all. In Asia Miracles blend together with Mysticism and even most Christian with wrong worldview can’t discern it well. Charismatic denomination is everywhere and “healing” is already as a brand. My past church even witnessed people raised from the dead, etc. All of this is done for the good and bad reasons.

The only problem I think is not about eye witness. Miracle can be seen as an experience and philosophically is very subjective. Skeptics will not so much bother with the eyewitness but on the bias, presupposition and the subjective of the person of the eyewitness, and that is beyond the science and philosophy. So I hope, there will more discussion on how to challenge the subjectivity of it.

Missy –

Thank you for your kind & gracious response. I do admit that I’m not always certain in a comment box what people have considered & have not. But I appreciate the interaction. I would encourage us to engage in a way that is Christlike. Eisegesis could well be all that I’m doing here, with you fully engaging in exegesis. But let’s have some constructive engagement here, rather than a bit of “name-calling”.

I never said Jesus failed to fully heal, nor that he is impotent. I do certainly believe the man was healed, as the text goes on to state. But, considering who Jesus is, it is interesting there was even some kind of “delay,” albeit not very long. Notice the text says that Jesus performed the action again. There were 2 instances. I’m not even setting this out as THE example. I simply point out some kind of delay here, even with Christ. It’s possible this can happen as well for us fallen & finite people who long to see God’s power at work in our lives in all its various manners, but who don’t see it come about all the time.

I think we will also do a disservice to somehow split the miraculous healing of God into 2 categories: a) by prayer and b) by proclamation. What is prayer? What is proclamation? Both are (or should be) involved in calling on & speaking the word of God. To split apart what we find in Acts and what we find in, say, James 5, I believe, is to bring a dichotomy God does not consider. So, Paul, the great apostle did not see relief from this thorn. Trophimus was left sick (2 Tim 4:20). Etc.

Again, prophecy comes partially, our teaching of Scripture comes as partial in comparison with the knowledge of God, etc. So, at times, miraculous healing might not come in full (at least not yet). It’s like a doctor providing medical care – At times, one ailment might be dealt with, but another cannot/is not. And I think doctors are also a gift of God. God works in all things. But we live in a fallen world where we do not always…

In reply to OP question, NO I do not believe the Moreland story. My litmus test: could I tell it to my unbeliever friend or colleague tomorrow, and defend it saying “I know it is true”? Of course not, what difference does it make if the witness is a PhD or a shepherd, contemporary or ancient? I would never say I have faith in Dr Moreland in the same way I can easily defend my lack of 100% eyewitness type certainty of the divinity of Jesus, and that he has saved me. So, no, I do not believe that story.

Does that mean I say that story is a lie? Nope. I remain agnostic, and it does not bother me a bit. Not knowing in this case is fine, so would criticism towards my stance. Label, Christian punk rocker available?

Very interesting question though, like the topic and thoughts on it!

Everlasting peace folks.

Scott

Save the unchristian finger wag for someone else, posturing always indicates you are about to delivery empty rhetoric.

As to the text, there was a delay but the context shows us what our Lord was communicating, the argument you clearly ignore and cannot rebut but instead pretend the context of our Lord cannot be understood, again, just as pointed to by the conversation with the disciples and this event fresh in their minds and instead you suddenly dump the context and opt for a claim that this is intended to be presented as a template for healing.

Second, your prayer/ proclamation dichotomy is a non sequitur in and of itself. But to Paul, no matter how many times you invoke his thorn you don’t know what it was with certainty and with certainty he did not ask for or pray to be healed and Trophimus left sick isjust that, someone not healed, partially or whole.

Finally, your injection of matters of prophecy onto this context are both irrelevant and foreign to any orthodox hermeneutic. It is just a made-up rationalism which assumes you get to carry the alleged arguments of a different issue and context into another.

To me you have a paper pope called charismatism to which your allegiance forces your inadequate, rationalistic, and unorthodox arguments.

Wow, Missy. What’s with all the belittling and name-calling? Do you even realize everything you said in your first paragraph to Scott, you did in the remaining paragraphs?? Talk about “finger wag.” I think Jesus’ speck/beam analogy applies here.

You’re just being flat-out mean.

I called no one a name. You are bearing false witness. Now deal with the issue of the discussion.

I kind of agree with “Missy” here, we are talking about a subject that demands theological study and historical inquiry. And in such surely polemics & argumentation are fair play! Btw, our friend Scott believes in the office and gift of Apostles for today. This is not exactly mainstream Christianity!

It is easy for me to want to view everything in the academic sense. In an academic sense it is difficult for me to believe nearly anything based on the witness of another, especially when there is so many passionate people that I respect involved in the opposite perspectives (cessationism/continuationism).

What if the immediate reason that God heals or performs miracles is to display his grace and love toward people by giving them something good (Matt 7:11, 1 Cor 12:4-7). I think that it is beneficial to consider why miracles or healings even happen. What if the main reason for miracles is not to validate a message or for God to display himself to the world as real, but to display His love toward the recipients and witnesses (there are numerous overlaps and reasons).

J.P. Moreland and the other witnesses believed that it was a miracle; the person healed either knows that there was a miracle or not, and whether it happened or not is completely independent of whether I believe it or not. So instead of going to extremes in my response to the testimony of this miracle by either:
1. Denying that it happened all together
or
2. Basing my hope on this testimony

I will simply rejoice with those who rejoice (Romans 12:15) and praise God for this testimony.

As for the sarcastic and snarky comments… pathetic.

Apart from contradicting his own character (telling a lie, etc.), I believe God can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants, however He wants. The Bible is prescriptive for us, but it is not descriptive of the totality of God. In fact, the Bible plainly tells us that we are not provided with all of the information as it relates to God, only what is sufficient to know and obey Him. Any attempt to restrict God’s prerogatives by appealing to a systematic theology is misguided, IMHO.

Missy –

Thank you again for your kind & gentle response. I enjoy healthy theological engagement.

Going back to your comment #15, you provided nothing that tells us why there was a delay. Yes, I agree with the statement that the words & acts of Jesus are to show he is God’s Messiah. And Mark 8:22-26 was a kind of enacted parable to teach the “half-blind” disciples. But, in the midst of the Gospel teaching of who Jesus is, the delay is still present. So delays can and have happened. And don’t forget Naaman who was asked by Elisha to wash 7 times (1 Kgs 5) – why the delay, in that he wasn’t healed on the first wash?

The comment about Paul’s thorn actually is pertinent to the discussion – that we should not divide God’s works into a prayer category and a proclamation category. All instances come from our good God responding to people. Not to mention that 2 Cor 12:8 states: “Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me.” What is prayer? It comes in all forms. So speaking aloud, bowing down with eyes closed, prayer silently or pleading – they all fall within the realm of prayer communication with God. We don’t know which one Paul took up, but whatever he did, he prayed/called out unto the Lord.

And the point of noting the non-healings is that this is the reality of living in a fallen world – we don’t always see the fruit of the final restored heaven and earth. We get tastes, but not always – even for Paul, not just us. This is why prophecy also related, since Paul himself told us that even the revelation we do receive from the Lord is partial (1 Cor 13:9-10). In the end, all healings are partial in this age because we all end up dying – like Lazarus, Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20), etc.

If we know him in part, if we prophesy in part, if we are at times not healed, if we at times don’t see prayers answered, if we don’t grasp the almighty One in full, I think it does follow that we can consider that a healing might…

Robert –

But belief in apostles today is not anti-orthodox nor heresy, since I don’t believe this means we are to add to Scripture or that God continues to give redemptive revelation. Scripture is closed as a canon (measuring stick) and God’s redemptive revelation is finalized in Jesus Christ. However, God does speak/reveal non-redemptively (since there were plenty of prophecies we read of para-Scripture, alongside Scripture, that were not recorded in Scripture – like those given to Timothy).

So this is very orthodox in regards to both God’s redemptive revelation closed in Christ and the canon of Scripture being our primary source of God’s revelation.

In the end, we need to ask what an apostle is? I think, though we argue against Rome in many ways, we create our own popes within evangelicalism.

Scott

You still don’t get it. The context of the event explains the delay. You are welcome to try and repeat the context but you would have to be Jesus and use this to communicate to your disciples in the miracle, your divine authority and person. You don’t get to remove it out of the context unless it is prescribing this, it us not.

As to the washing in 1 Kings, again it has its own context and because you cannot or will not determine what it is, it does not permit you to depart the text with an assumption this is prescriptive simply by asking, “what about this…” and assuming by asking this you get to simply then think that is a sufficient treatment and may now be taken out of context to agree with your thoughts.

Then indeed you don’t really believe fully in NT Apostles still today! Paul could claim the gift of prophecy, and the understanding of all mysteries (in the sense of revelation), and all knowledge (again in revelation), (1 Cor. 13: 2). But Christian Love, that must proceed all, as he reveals most fully in the whole chapter of 1 Cor. 13!

And btw, we Protestant Evangelical’s.. have known in the past at least, that the Roman Papacy is quite beyond the revelation of Holy Scripture! As are our new-age “emergents” in much of todays so-called Evangelicals! But indeed its back to the most Holy Scripture…Ad Fontes! The Revelational position of the “Ecclesia semper reformada” – always reforming by Spirit & Truth remains!

Missy –

There is a fuller context to always be considered. I noted that with Jesus in Mark 8. I’m not removing it – I really am acknowledging what you have said. And I agree. I like Craig Keener’s comment about this being something to teach the “half-blind” disciples. However, the detail is still in the account. You still have to look at that detail within the great context. Why is their a delay? So even if the delay is there to teach a point – it’s still there and we need to note it happened and, thus, it can happen.

This is important for hermeneutics and exegesis.

Just like when I engage Genesis 1. I look at the big picture of what ancient near eastern Hebrews are communicating. I ask questions in relation to their day and culture, the greater point of the Pentateuch, the greater point of Genesis as a whole, the greater point of Genesis pre-Abraham (chs.1-11), the greater point of the Hexaemeron (chs.1-3), etc. But I can also ask what about a particular phrase or verse.

That’s what I’m pointing out in Mark 8:24. I note that context preceding where Jesus asks: Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see? (8:17-18). And I note the question about who Jesus is.

But I still look at the detail of an actual and real delay set forth by the inspired writer Mark in 8:24.

I think this a worthy task to consider.

Robert –

Paul never claimed to understand all mysteries. It’s a hyperbolic statement not expected. That’s why he said we know in part and prophesy in part. To claim to be able to actually understand all mysteries would be to claim divinity, which would be unorthodox.

I want to make a comment about the previous discussion on experience. Doesn’t that argument cut both ways? I mean, if we can say experiencing something is a real method of discovering truth, then NOT experiencing would also stand to be a real method of truth. So I think when it comes to the miraculous more people have NOT experienced it, than those that have. I would go so far as to say that the successful experience rate is really very very low. Which is to say that those who have sought out the miraculous for some reason – money, health, etc – have NOT experienced it. At least not in the dramatic fashion claimed to be normative by charismatics.

Brian –

I think you bring up a very important and valid point. I would say cessationists, however much they do, will also focus on the experience aspect. For many, they have not experienced and don’t know anyone who has (though, I’ve oddly come across people who claim to be cessationists but have seen healings!?).

Now, I don’t want to create a 2-tier group like some of my charismatic brothers and sisters have. Some identify this as the “haves” and “have nots”. I think that terribly unhelpful.

But there are a host of factors of why we don’t see a healing: we live in a fallen world still awaiting the final consummation of God’s rule on earth as in heaven, lack of faith (this is Scriptural, but we need pastoral wisdom), we don’t know why and we trust God’s sovereignty, etc.

However, if you have experienced it – personally or seen it happen – it’s very, very, very hard to cast it aside. You can. Nine of the 10 lepers didn’t return to Christ. That’s disturbing. But I know what I’ve seen and experienced and nothing could deter me from believing that God still acts today in miraculous ways, he still speaks today, etc. So I think we keep pursuing him with those who also desire to pursue him and we’ll trust his good work. As one pastor friend of mine said: “All I know is that we are called to pray for the sick. We aren’t promised they will always be healed. But we are to simply call on healing from the Lord and entrust him to know what he’s doing.”

I find strength in that.

Blessings

I am at a bit of a loss to the point of the academic debate going on here. We are talking about something that does or does not happen in real life right now.

For those that claim the miraculous happens today would surely be able to provide their own proof (not second hand) of supernatural healing? Should they not be able to demonstrate their reasoning in their theological position? I mean, isn’t that the point of the theological position? If we really want to be cynical about this than both Moses and Jesus proved it to their detractors. So its biblical!

In the end, who cares? If God doesn’t do the miraculous today than most of Christianity and the world would not be affected. The miraculous does not seem to be the means by which people get saved (bit of snark there). It does not seem to be the means by which people grow in Christ. It seems that for most believers who are in need of something major, God handles them just fine without the miraculous as it is claimed. The question I have for those that believe in continuationism is this. What if you are wrong. What of God did stop. How does that affect what you believe about God? Does it rob you of hope?

If God DOES do the miraculous than great. I shall ask God for those things to happen for me as I have need and want. But in the mean time I will continue to get by doing what I have been doing. I will do so because if experience and history do teach us, than the lesson is the miraculous is not normative.

Something I am also confused about is the logic for categorizing the supernatural.

We put raising someone from the dead over here in this column. We put healing and miracles over here in this column, then we put prophecy, dreams and visions over here in this column.

The cessationist says none of this happens. It all stopped. is that right? Well, what about answered prayer? What box does that go in? Did that stop too? What about coincidence after coincidence happening for a believer? I’ve had clients come to me and keeping me financially afloat for years after my layoff. It has always seemed like God to me. Isn’t that supernatural?

I mean, don’t all those categories qualify as God altering physical reality by his supernatural divine means? Or does the cessationist say that reality is no longer altered in any way by the divine power of God? Which just seems crazy, cause don’t we believe God upholds all the universe by his power? He didn’t stop that did he?

It seems to me that the “miraculous” categories seem to have a point about them that served the mission of Jesus. If there was a logic to columnizing the miraculous this would be mine.

It seems to me that raising the dead had about a point about Christ being Life and master over death. He defeated it. A very important about his divinity and messianic call.

It seems to me that giving sight to the blind was very important metaphor about Christ being the Light and overcoming darkness.

It seems to me that restoring limbs was about restoring us completely – physically and spiritually.

If God wants to make a point he can when he wants to. But it is his point to make and not one we should expect happens normatively. Is this cessationist or continuationist?

Do those things differing from the revelatory gifts? Perhaps they do. I believe God hears me when I pray and often answers those prayers. How much harder is it to think God would put something on someone’s heart to tell or share with…

Note Scott, I prefaced Paul’s “gifts” here by his written Revelation! Don’t PUT other words into my mouth please! 😉

And I quite agree with “Missy”, Scott, you just don’t get it, but then you don’t really want to, for then.. there goes your ballgame! 😉

Brian –

I would say that miraculous happenings can be the means by which someone comes into Christ. I think we see this in Scripture. I also believe these things can help us grow in our faith. That’s where I think many cessationists miss the fuller biblical picture of miraculous works. Yes, they did work as attesting signs to the gospel message. And I still believe they do such. But they also function in an edifying sense – building up people. That’s Paul’s thrust in 1 Cor 12.

If God did stop doing these, then I suppose myself & many are misinterpreting what we’ve seen happen. In the end, I have to set aside Scripture, history & experience to say this doesn’t happen.

Now, if God had stopped & this was attested by never seeing such things happen (as well as being convinced in Scripture), then I’d be ok with that. But when these things happen, you’re conclusion is that they still happen. Is it “normative”? Well, not in the individualized sense of the west. We look at Scripture and say Paul did this, Philip did this, Agabus did this, etc. But I think God looks at it & says my people do this, my people do that. Of course, individuals are used. But this is much bigger than me & my small pocket. So, when there is are Christians nearing 2 billion, I expect these things are happening regularly, though it’s not everyday in my corner.

On the category aspect, I think you are right that we need to guard against the categories we create in the west. This was what I was getting at above – whether by prayer or spoken proclamation, a healing is a healing in which God miraculously works. But one thing we need to recognize is that the way the word “miracle” and “healing” is used in Scripture is different from how we might use it. Even Paul distinguishes between a miracle and a healing. And he distinguishes between a prophecy and a word of knowledge. So, in some ways there are “categories” to consider, but the biblical ones are quite different than what we…

Robert –

I’m happy to continue to not get it. But I still know what Scripture teaches, what history attests and what I’ve seen in action from the living God. Somehow God will use the weak and ignoble for his glory. Somehow.

I was just discussing this issue with a group of guys in my local study group last week.

Similar to yourself, I’m skeptical of miraculous accounts. One of the other guys in my group, while having his own share of skepticism, is more willing than I am to believe miraculous accounts depending on various aspects of the story. This prompted me to pose the following question: When presented with claims of miracles occurring today, should our default position be to believe, to doubt, or to remain neutral? Of course, other factors will alter our default position (how well you trust the source, if you’ve witnessed miracles before, etc.), but the question was really about our default disposition.

Personally, my default position is to doubt such claims. The first reason, because I’ve never personally witnessed anything I would consider to be a miracle. If you or I were a traveling companion of someone who’s ministry were accompanied by frequent miracles, it would be reasonable to trust the reports of other miracles accompanying their ministry in our absence, and perhaps the ministries of others.

The second reason, I have come to believe that all of humankind is exceedingly susceptible to being deceived … including myself.

Third, whether we believe the genuine exists today or not, counterfeit miracles most certainly exist.

Forth, we are called to test such things. Anything that is un-testable (i.e. not falsifiable) gets my default disposition.

Of course, this raises the question of whether I believe in the miracles of the Scriptures and how that’s any different for me, being I wasn’t there. The only answer I can give is that I believe this is part of the faith God has given me accompanying salvation. Perhaps that’s a foolish answer, but I believe in the death, burial, and resurrection, not because of Evidence that Demands a Verdict, but because of a circumcision of the heart. I simply don’t have a supernatural confirmation about these other claims.

Scott: I too see myself as one within Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 1: 25 thru 31! Read it in the Greek Text! And note too, election is found here also, 1: 24. Indeed a most awesome section! … From God in the hand and revelation of St. Paul, the great Gentile Apostle (Gentiles, you and I… I suspect! 😉 )

The difficulty with the j p moreland story deals with the apparent selectivity of this God to whom you might attribute such a miracle. Since many like-minded believers pray for similar miracles and they do not come to pass, it makes this God appear to be somewhat frivolous and unpredictable, raising legitimate questions concerning why some miracles happen and others do not. This God appears to be whimsical and simply too unpredictable, certainly no one you can count on in any meaningful way.

“what I’ve seen in action from the living God.” – Scott

And what have you seen specifically?

Btw Scott, your quite able I know to get this, but your choice and presupposition is turned to the so-called Charismatic, rather than the biblical text foremost, (at least in my opinion). Note again, I am a cessionist as to the so-called sign gifts, but I do (as I have said before) practice the gift of “glossolalia” (tongues) as a mystical prayer element, (1 Cor. 14: 2), in my private prayer closet. But, at least by desire, I like to preach also as old Paul! (1 Cor. 14: 3-4-5)

And this Moreland deal is quite dead to my mind! “Missy M” has quite hammered that! When God does heal – in the biblical reality – there are no doubts at all; its done!

And I don’t see the judgment of Acts 5: 1-12 ; nor verse 15, etc. still happening today either! Surely the Book of Acts is a Book and Revelation of God from Old Testament ground, to the New Testament or Covenant! Mosaic Law to the Gospel of Grace & Glory!