Let’s think about how we believe. No, not “what we believe” or “why we believe it.” How we believe is what I want to discuss with you.
Craig Keener visited the Credo House last week. On Friday, he gave a presentation on miracles to a packed house. It was based on his excellent work, titled Miracles. During this presentation, Keener shared the fruit of his research; among other things, he has catalogued what he believes to be legitimate attestable miracles from God that have occurred around the world. In the book and presentation he gave examples and demonstrated how these miracles can and should be believed due to the testimonies and evidence he gathered for each. And the evidence, for many of them, was very compelling . . . or at least it should have been.
I have trouble believing things. So when Keener was sharing his stories, even though I am the one who brought him in to give this presentation, I found them all hard to believe. Why? I don’t know. I am skeptical. I don’t normally believe people, when they tell me this or that about how God intervened in a supernatural way. In the back of my mind, I am patting them on the head saying, “I am glad you believe this and I am not going to do anything to take away from your belief, but I don’t.” Maybe “don’t” is not the best word. It is more that I reserve my right to suspend judgment on this “miracle.”
But in truth, I need to believe more of these miracle stories. There are so many for which I don’t have any other legitimate explanation. For example (and this was not part of Keener’s presentation), 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.
This is one story I think I believe. Or, at least, I believe it somewhat.
I suspend belief on “miracle” stories for many reasons. One is that most of the stories I hear are not falsifiable. In other words, they can’t be proven wrong. I think this is convenient for fabrications and misunderstandings. After all, back pain, hurt knees, and short legs are very hard to verify. I am not saying healings do not happen. Perhaps many of these are true and I am missing some information that might give some more substance to my faith. But, seeing as how most of the stories are not falsifiable, I wonder why God would perform so many unsubstantiated (from a verification standpoint) miracles and be so absent (relatively speaking) from miracles that would leave everyone speechless. You know, I am referring to miracles such as raising the dead, healing the blind, and making a paralytic walk. Those are the things we see in the New Testament and, more importantly for me, these are the ones that are hard to deny.
The second reason I suspend belief is because I don’t, in most cases, trust the person telling the story. I don’t know his or her character. I don’t know if they have integrity in this area (not that I am claiming much), I don’t know whether they are critical enough to share these claims. Maybe they just want it to be true so they pass it on (albeit in a more objective sense). It takes awhile for me to trust people, especially when it comes to this stuff. Claims of God’s intervention are too important for me to “just believe.” 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. Therefore, I suspend belief because, at least in my mind, I am honoring God. For me to really trust someone takes time. It takes an experience of a person’s honest character, willing to wrestle with weaknesses, able to admit shortcomings. and not believing things just because they fit into a desired framework that makes him feel better.
J. P. Moreland, however, told a story that has all the makings for my belief. Therefore, I think I believe it. The story was certainly not something that was obscure like back pain. As I mentioned earlier, he related how he watched an ear grow back (at least in part). Moreland is no lightweight uncritical scholar. Over the years he has gained my trust, both through personal interaction with him and via his scholarly writings. He has also had the courage to change his theological position on some things that would otherwise be hard to change. Furthermore, the story itself contains an element of embarrassment in that the ear only grew back partially!
So, I think to myself: He is either lying, misunderstood what he saw, or it happened. Assuming I understood the story he told (and I sometimes doubt that), these are the only three conceivable alternatives. The first two are very hard to believe. Therefore, I think I believe the third.
This is the way it is with so many of the stories in Keener’s book. They seem so legit. I think I believe them. I want to believe them.
Then why is my belief so tentative in things like this? If it stands up to scrutiny (which I think it does), why not really believe it? The answer, I believe, comes down to an understanding of how I believe. The what and why are in place. They are defined and strong. But the how is getting in the way of my full commitment here.
Experiences such as these are not and will never be the foundation of my faith (at least I hope). Neither should they be the foundation of yours. However, they do turn a two-dimensional faith into a three-dimensional one. I do want to believe them (at least the ones that legitimately reveal God’s presence in the world). And you should, too. After all, if God is working in miraculous ways in the world today (and I believe he is), we need to be able to rejoice about such actions, even if we never experience them firsthand.
In the next blog post I am going to try to do what I originally intended here and explain more about how we believe.
I suppose, for now, a good question would be this: do you believe the Moreland story? Why or why not?
130 replies to "J. P. Moreland’s Story About God Healing an Amputee"
Scott
You said, “You have to look at the detail in the greater context”, right! And that greater context is Christ, not just his communicating his person but his entire advent!
Your theology is subject to so many whimsical insertions of rationalism and heterodoxical hermeneutics.
In the earlier question I asked the question of the effect of experience on our theology. I must admit that the point I was getting at has somewhat played out here. There seems to be a faction that says that Moreland MUST have been lying or misinterpreted things. The reason for this is simply that the interpretation and understanding one has of Scripture demands this conclusion. I just wonder how something like this would effect you if you personally had been there. If you had personally witnessed the ear partially regrow? Would it change your mind?
I personally probably fall into the de facto cessationist category. Unlike some I don’t see all charismatics as dangerous heretics (though certainly some are). I just am a highly skeptical person and have never witnessed a genuine sign gift. That being said when I read through the original post and the responses a few questions come to mind.
1. Does God still perform miracles today?
2. If not what is the purpose of praying that God heal somebody? What of the evidence presented by Keener and others?
3. Is it possible that God may still heal today, but have a different purpose in healing somebody today than He did in Scripture? For instance is it possible for God to will somebody to be sick, and then miraculously heal them later knowing that this will strengthen the persons faith and lead to them doing great things for God as opposed to a sign to others?
4. Is it really impossible for God to imperfectly heal somebody and have a reason for doing so?
I’m always a bit skeptical when the phrase “God can’t” is followed by anything other than a logical impossibility (e.g. square circle, married bachelor, [I would argue based on the nature of evil] do evil, etc.). I’m just a little disturbed that people would assume that a man such as Moreland, who has been a tireless defender of the faith, must be lying or deceived, based purely on theological presuppositions.
I’m inclined to believe Dr. Moreland’s attestation. I was raised a cessationist, but converted to Orthodoxy a few years ago. I’ve encountered a pair of icons in Taylor, Pennsylvania which have pretty much constantly exuded myrrh at widely varying rates for over two years now (itself a miraculous event which my rational mind resists wrapping around), and numerous miracles of healing have been attested.
-Those who needed constant bottled oxygen have no longer needed it after breathing the fragrance.
-Recently, a stroke victim went from catatonic to sitting up and conversing with those around her in less than an hour after being anointed with myrrh from one of the icons.
-Also recently, Muslim man who had denounced the icons as blasphemous to Allah stood fixated in front of them, then broke down into sobs. He related that the entire time he stood there he felt a warmth in his chest. A subsequent doctor’s visit showed that he now had the heart of a 20-year old, and no longer needed the six medications he had been taking for it. He is now preparing for baptism.
-A man from my church who had needed 8 major abdominal surgeries in 18 months due to continual complications related that when he kissed the icon, some myrrh squirted into his mouth. He didn’t know what to do, so he swallowed it, and the pain instantly went away. He cried for about the next hour. He had been hoping to get some myrrh earlier (the priest carries one of the icons around and allows the myrrh to drip onto peoples’ outstretched hands), but he wasn’t close enough, and figured then that it just wasn’t his time to be healed. It’s been about 18 months since that happened. He subsequently needed minor (for him, anyway) surgery to correct a hernia, but he’s otherwise been pain- and problem-free since.
I remain skeptical of unverifiable miracles (especially of the ecstatic charismatic sort), but the personal experience of these icons is difficult to explain away.
I believe in miracles. I don’t believe everything that people report as miracles, but I’ve seen miracles with my own eyes. In my town there was once a very renown preacher who got some condition that put him in a wheelchair. When I gave my heart to Jesus, I always heard the story about how during a service, when no one thought he would ever walk again, all of a sudden he stood up and started walking around never to go back to the chair again. I didn’t get to see that. But, there was this lady that my pastor would visit to invite her and her family to church. She wouldn’t go. One day we got the news that her husband had ran his car over her once, backed up over her, and then ran over her again. She was left badly twisted, in a way that from her waist down, the front of her legs were facing backwards. Though she survived, the doctors said she would never walk again. When she recovered, she finally visited church and in that service, you could feel the presence of the Lord as in many other services. Without no one putting a hand on her, she stood up, walked to the altar and never went back to her wheelchair. She serves the Lord till this day. I would not have believed it, if I didn’t know the details of her case and seen it with my own eyes. I think the Lord does miracles still, but it is us who do not allow for the miraculous to take place with our unbelief and our lack of dedication to God. I’m talking about myself.
“I’m always a bit skeptical when the phrase “God can’t” is followed by anything other than a logical impossibility”
I’m right there with you, Michael, but I don’t believe anyone here has argued that God can’t work in a particular way, only that they don’t believe He has chosen to act in a particular way based upon their reading of the scriptures, their experiences, etc.
Perhaps you’re referring primarily to those who’ve set forth the partial healing aspect of the account as reason for their unbelief. If so, I would say that we should be careful not to presume that just because someone has a believe about how God does things based on their reading of scripture and their experiences means that they believe He is somehow bound to working in that way.
While the reasons that I set forth for doubting second-hand claims of miracles was irrespective of the particular person or claim, the fact that the alleged miracle was only partial personally gives me pause. Nevertheless, I would never say that God couldn’t do something like this.
Concerning the logical implications of what one’s believe of a given miraculous claim should say about the conclusions they would have to draw about the witness, while certain conclusions may very well be a logical necessity, we are illogical beings and perfectly capable of stopping short of such reasoning and even of embracing cognitive dissonance.
For instance, you’ve said “I have never experienced such gifts in a way that would compel me to believe that these gifts, as they are expressed today, are legitimate.” and recently “I now have a relationship with many of these guys and call them friends … [but] … I have not been convinced by them”. Sam Storms believes the gifts occur legitimately today. The logical conclusion: You believe Sam Storms is deceived. While this may be the logical conclusion, it doesn’t mean that’s how you sum up his character. I think the same courtesy should be extended to your readers here.
“I suppose, for now, a good question would be this: do you believe the Moreland story? Why or why not?”
This would help me a little: Do we have a Before and After picture? Along with credible medical testimony?
Like a picture dated September 10, 2001, and a subsequent picture dated September 12, 2001. I would find such visual evidence as helpful.
@ Derek,
I am not the original author (who is C. Michael Patton). Different person entirely. My thoughts are quite separate from his. CMP is a soft cessationist I am more of a de facto cessationist. Additionally I was more responding to others and not you directly. There appears to be a faction that believe that God only performed miracles for one purpose in the Bible and that those miracles were always complete. I was pointing out that even if true it would be fallacious reasoning to presume that as a result God can not today perform miracles for different purposes and to varying levels of completion according to those purposes.
Oh, how embarrassing! My apologizes to both of you for the confusion.
Nevertheless, I would still advise the same thing to anyone. It shouldn’t be assumed that someone believes God can’t do something because they believe He isn’t currently doing something and we should be cautious at drawing logical conclusions about how people feel about one another based on their disagreements.
Perhaps it would be better to say that the faction believes that God “would not” (as opposed to “can not”) perform miracles in such a manner today. The reasoning, I think, would be non-sequitur in any case.
Here is an accounting of some of the things (charismatic) I’ve seen and done.
-When I got saved I felt the person of Jesus standing where the pastor was seated speaking to us. It was as if God was standing there speaking to me.
-Praying in tongues.
-Have prayed with someone and felt impressions inside me about things to say to them and about them.
-I have given one prophetic (foretelling) word. It did come to pass, but Im not sure if the timing I gave was exactly right.
-I have seen tongues and interpretations.
-I have had sleep dreams that metaphorically foretold my life and they have actually come to pass.
-I have had prophetic (forthtelling) words spoken to me that were encouraging. But nothing particularly foretelling that I recall.
-I have seen pictures in my mind while praying for someone or for myself. Visions?
-When my wife was pregnant with our first child I was praying for her, the child, and saw what she would looked like at about age 5 in my mind. She wound up looking just like what I saw.
-Once at an ‘open mic night’ at a pentacostal church I said a prayer and felt, quite literally, like warm golden oil pour over my head.
-Twice I had very painful stomach aches, but believed God would heal me, got up and got ready to do my day and the pain went away. Very possible they might have gone away anyways had I gotten up and moved around.
-I once was “slain in the spirit.” It felt like getting knocked out by happy gas.
-I once get “drunk in the spirit.” I felt joy and and laughter welling up in me. I couldnt stop. And I couldnt really walk. I was dizzy.
-I have never seen anyone raised from the dead.
-I have never seen a body part grow.
-I have never seen a fatal disease (cancer) miraculously disappear.
-I have never been visited by an angel, demon or Jesus.
-I have never been teleported to other places.
-i have never seen a demon speak or be cast out.
I have never seen gold teeth, gold dust, gems or feathers on or near me or…
I don’t see anyone seeking to speak to the issues I expressed in my # 50? And I too would be a more defacto cessionist myself also. At least to the idea that God chooses “not to” do so-called “biblical” miracles today! I would base this more on the so-called essence of Canon, and Holy Scripture.
Btw, let me recommend one of the finest books I have seen and read this year (2013), called: Logic, A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought, (Crossway, by Vern Poythress…733 pages!)
@ Fr. Robert
Not sure I follow…..
@Michael T.: I am one of those NT Canon rules guy! This surely is the essence of St. Paul’s ministry and writings, especially the so-called Prison Epistles! This makes me somewhat of a “Dispensatinalist”, though for the most part.. I am of the Progressive nature. Though Ryrie’s Revised and Expanded version of his Dispensationalism should be read by every Christian theolog today! – “No one, whether friend or foe of dispensationalism, can avoid consideration of this important work.” (Bibliotheca Sacra)
Btw, it appears Moreland has somewhat lost the wheels here?
@ Fr. Robert (Anglican):
One reason why we see less miraculous healing today is that we need less of it; we can cure or better cope with much of what was previously incurable without resorting to the supernatural. Another reason is general lack of belief (even Jesus could perform few miracles in Nazareth due to their unbelief).
In Cappadocia 100-150 years ago, there was no access to modern doctors; all the villagers had was St. Arsenios, a priest-monk. If a sick person was brought to him, he would effect cures by praying or reading the Gospel over the sick person. If a request was sent to him, he would write out a prayer which would effect a cure when recited over the sick person. On Wednesdays and Fridays, he would spend the entire day locked in his cell in prayer. In that case, villagers would take some dirt from his doorstep; mixed with water, drinking it would effect a cure.
I don’t know of people dropping over dead because they lied, but I do know of three quite independent recent instances where a holy monk or priest could discern someone’s thoughts, which would make detecting lies certain.
@Luke: You should go then with “Catholicism”, if this is your conscience and theology? I am quite Reformational and somewhat Reformed (neo-Calvinist) myself. 🙂
@ Fr. Robert (Anglican): I’m having trouble grasping how your post relates to mine. I’m not here to proselytize; I was just trying to give an answer to your post #50 after you had commented (#61) that no one had yet addressed it.
@Luke: I was raised Irish Roman Catholic in Ireland, and even somewhat educated there. So my point had nothing to do with proselytizing, but the “theology” you were presenting there with the so-called priest-monk and the confessional and healing. This has been supposedly common in Roman Catholic history & ecclesiology, with priest-monks and laity, etc. But of course not part of classic Protestant and Reformational theology.
@ Fr. Robert (Anglican): Thanks for the clarification. I am quite happily Orthodox, which has quite a rich tradition of spiritual gifts (including healing) throughout history. I agree that classical Protestantism has not typically had these gifts. St. Arsenios was indeed both a priest and a monk (in Orthodoxy, priests are quite frequently married, thus the distinction); why do you feel the need to dispute that, of all things?
By the way, only one of the three recent instances of people being able to read thoughts to which I referred was limited to confession (and Orthodoxy does not use confessionals).
Brian –
You asked what I had seen. Sorry for the late reply. It’s been busy. I’m moving country in a few weeks!
I personally haven’t been used in miracles and healings. I have been used in prophecy and tongues. But I’ve never been strongly used in some of these more “power” or “miraculous” gifts (though I’m not sure those adjectives are the best descriptors).
What I do know is that I have been in meetings where God’s miracle work has been at work as some of my pastor friends have prayed for people. I’ve known very direct prophetic words spoken to me and others, ones that were so direct and clear that it would take God to make it happen. And it did.
I also note some of my friend’s testimonies on my blog. Here is a video story from a close pastor friend of mine. Here you’ll find a very powerful account of a pastor contact from Malawi, a very powerful testimony. I suppose I could link to more, but you’ll find stuff under the “videos” category under the drop-down menu on the right side bar.
Blessings!
@Luke: You sure appeared Roman Catholic to me? Btw, I am somewhat EO friendly, but I don’t see the so-called overt miraculous in their history, not like the RC claims anyway! I mean how do we ever verify any of this, without investigation? At least Rome tries to verify.
Btw the EO St. Arsenios, or Arsenios the Cappadocian (1840-1924), is it appears a rather new EO Saint from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1986. And today Nov. 10th is his Day!
This is quite unknown to us in the West!
And btw, all the true Christians are “saints”, simply and profoundly ‘In Christ’! (Romans 1: 7 / 1 Cor. 1: 2) This is quite the true “Biblicism”!
@ Fr. Robert (Anglican):
I agree, all true Christians are “saints” (though we regularly fall far short of “holy”). As Orthdox, I can ask any Christian, whether living or fallen asleep, to intercede for me in prayer. The Church reserves liturgical veneration for martyrs and those who have been well attested as effectual intercessors. The investigative process is less formalized than Roman Catholic canonization, but it certainly does happen (I’ve read a book on St. Arsenios the Cappadocian, for example, which is based on an investigation of his life).
@Luke: Indeed as a Protestant Evangelical Christian I reject prayers to the dead, or the belief in any intercession, save that of Christ! (1 Tim. 2: 5-6…note the connection between Christ’s Intercession and the Atonement)…Literally “one mediator”, as “one Savior”!
Should we believe the J P Moreland story about the ear coming back after prayer and supplicaiton? Sure, why not. Believe what you want. In the end, how much difference does it make in how you live your life? And, after all, isn’t that what most matters?
And while your at it, why not believe that upon the death of Jesus the curtain in the Temple was torn, there was an earthquake, the graves opened, many of God’s saints were raised from their sleep, and they paraded around the Holy City where many saw them.
Does this discussion get anybody anywhere? Seems unlikely.
“the graves opened, many of God’s saints were raised from their sleep, and they paraded around the Holy City where many saw them.”
Zombies!!
Ultimately, the plants won in Plants versus Zombies. At least when I play.
Yes, indeed it really does matter how we approach the Holy Scripture, both theologically and historically. But this history always includes the proper biblical genre. See btw, again see Michael Locona’s book: The Resurrection of Christ, and note how he sees these verses in Matt. 27: 52-53, in the great Apocalyptic genre and reality! Yes, the more literal is also an interpretation, but there are historical and hermeneutical problems, in verses 52 and 53. And these certain texts are alone seen in Matthew’s Gospel.
Sorry no Zombies here! 😉
@ Fr Robert
You are aware that Licona basically got fired from his job and taken to woodshed by Geisler for advocating the non-literal interpretation of those verses? I actually think Licona’s view makes more sense logically speaking, however I don’t know enough to speak authoritatively on the matter. What bothered me more than anything regarding the back and forth was that the whole thing seemed to revolve around whether or not Licona’s view violated the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, rather than whether or not Licona’s views were well supported and correct.
@Michael T: Yes, I am quite aware of the whole Licona/Geisler affair. I was one at first who had taken the more classic literal position, but upon further study (then), and reading Licona’s book on the Resurrection (then), I changed to the Jewish Apocalyptic position. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, has some good points, but it is hardly the last statement itself. Here we have on this whole subject the great subjects of much in biblical mystery, even in epistemology. As I have said, Christ is always both the eternal Logos, and the Rhema, and both are incarnational!
Btw, I should surely note.. that there are places and aspects in Licona’s book on the Resurrection (IVP/Apollos, 2010), that I don’t agree with, but these are within some of the aspects of the historiography in Licona’s use and conclusions. I would always take the more presuppositional approach toward Holy Scripture, but then I am too always a classic Thirty-nine Article Anglican, which includes a form of Neo-Calvinism, noting the great beauty of Article XVII, Of Predestination and Election.
Strange? I wrote an exegetical piece on Matt. 27: 52-53, etc., that went who knows where?
These verses are part of the Jewish form of the “midrash”. A kind of Jewish cosmic portent, in the apocalyptic.
And, now, as we are coming to see, it becomes simply a matter of what you believe and figuring out why you believe it. Among other things it is often a matter of convenience and has nothing to do with “truth”. As Pilate asked, “What is truth?”
Ultimately it seems that we each choose to believe what we want, and it usually is driven by self-interest and self-preservation. And, yes, this even gets us into the area of the Resurrection and the offer made that we can live forever. Why wouldn’t you want to believe this where you wind up in Heaven where the gates are made of pearl and the streets paved in gold?
And Truth? Where do you find it amidst the different offers and alternatives presented? It might be, and seems somewhat reasonable, that what we ultimately believe says nothing about the truth of our belief, but rather is the result of that which has been most effective in the presentation and packaging of it. In some respects it’s exactly like most of what we buy and buy into, like political parties and economic systems. Packaging is everything, happy to remember how Kennedy overwhelmed NIxon on TV and why so many people voted for him.
I suspect that what we believe theologically happens in like manner. Even the author of John’s Gospel said as much, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life is his name.” With such a bias and an agenda, might this not give this particular author the license to include some things that might not be true? So many stories and accounts only found in this gospel written so many decades after the events they claim to portray? And what do you believe? And why do you believe it? Belief, rather than Truth, might be the end to which things point.
Indeed it is to biblical epistemology (the study of the origin, nature, methods, and limits of knowledge), and here too we are bound by history and exegesis in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Again part of this is also the biblical genre!
Btw, “belief and truth” are find together in the biblical revelation! Some of us call this approach to Holy Scripture as “presuppositional”, itself!
Let’s not forget that biblically and simply, what Jesus Himself said in John, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” (14: 6) No need to be a scholar to believe this!
Btw, The Book of Revelation has perhaps had more effect on Christian doctrine, art and literature than we realize in the West, with Jesus Christ being Himself THE Revelation and THE Apocalypse… (Rev. 1:1) HE is Himself the greatest “unveiling” of the Incarnation of God, both the Word (Logos), and the Rhema (utterance) of God – Himself! (Rev. 1: 17-18)…”I am the first and the last… Oh the great I Am!
@Thom Waters, I appreciate your last couple comments here.
To me reality seems to be the most truthful and logical evidence to this matter of Charismatic occurrences. It lays bare my beliefs in the supernatural. There are either these works or there isn’t. The belief alone requires that I have physical proof. Otherwise its just hearsay or an immaterial belief.
This is why I asked Scott to list his experiences and I listed mine. I do not know scott, nor his history or belief groups. But his response to my question patterns exactly to my experience. Which is the practices that are more easily produced by human means (words, mental pirctures, etc) are common and experienced while the ones less easily produced (healings, miracles) are not experienced, but typically are hearsay (my friend was at a meeting where …)
My reaction to my charismatic past has been to burrow into a reality based faith. If a belief has no material affect, what value is it? But I struggle to reconcile this with the fact that Christianity has an alternate (spiritual) and future (heaven) reality component to why it believes.
I struggle thinking there is no present benefit to Christ. Only a future one. I wish I had a better understanding of what is to come or what it is Jesus has called me to.
Salvation used to be to get free of some “sin” – drugs, crime, bad lifestyle, etc. But now I’m just like most other regular US citizen making a life for himself and his family. How does “salvation” work for me when Im struggling to pay bills, little league, having a beer with friends, car breakdowns, etc.
I wish I understood that existence that was bigger than this life. Then I see how I would hope for that alternate/future reality. And this hope (faith) for that future would produce works (revidence in this reality) that demonstrate its validity. This is how I see the apostles doing it.
But it seems charismatics go the opposite direction with that process. Works produce faith…
Wow! “No present benefit to Christ”? Well one thing is sure your never going to find it in just logical evidence! It is here that we must recover the biblical “reality” of the existential and the Christ Who is Himself the Existent One! This reality of faith & experience trumps all, as ‘In Christ’! Philippians chapter 3 might be one of the most important Paul has ever penned for the real Christian life…”that I may gain Christ, and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death.” (Phil 3: 8-10) Indeed here is the only lasting reality, i.e. Christ and His benefits!
“To know Christ is to know His benefits.” (Melanchthon)
And getting contemporary theology to return to this conviction, can ONLY come from the Holy Spirit Himself, the Spirit of Christ!
Care to explain what benefits you are presently deriving. Thats the only part that really matters. James 2:18.
It seems to me that the works of Christ are what absolutely gave evidence to his ministry. The fact-based proof of those who he healed threw everyones beliefs about the messiah into a twist.
Brian,
Thanks for your most recent comment. I sense that you are not alone in your struggle as to how your Belief relates to the Now and how your Belief translates to every day life. Much of this, of course, depends on not only what you believe but what you expect, especially as this deals with the notion of the “Living Christ” dwelling in you and living through you. Sorry, maybe this is the work of the Holy Spirit, as Christians might explain it. Not my expertise.
I can say this about my own belief and what I expect, and my expectation comes not from believing in some theological formulation but simply in what I take to be the bare bones teaching of Jesus himself. I look for and rely on the help and effort of no one but myself. Simply stated: I believe in loving my neighbor as I love myself, and in so doing I believe that completes the admonition to love God, whoever He might be.
And what is loving my neighbor? It is Luke 10 and it involves two levels.
1–If I see my neighbor and he needs help, my belief requires that I help him.
2–It is always wishing and hoping for my neighbor what I wish and hope for myself.
Anything short of these two things causes me to be deficient in my belief. It involves no specific Faith, as it were, because I am not subscribing to any belief formulation beyond recognizing the solidarity that I share with all men. It also recognizes that I’m not trying to “get anywhere” in so living in this fashion. No Heaven, no reward, nothing to be gained beyond acknowledging that this is an acceptable way to conduct myself, because Jesus, himself, has convinced me of its utility.
I would suggest that we do well by being suspicious of Faith, as it too often removes us from the task of simply living as we ought. And choose Belief wisely. It seems to me that the best Belief is one that immerses us, not in simply our own lives, but in the lives of others when that immersion seeks to better all. And the ear?
Myself, as the Church both Catholic & Reformed, I prefer the biblical Incarnate Christ, especially the Johannine and the Pauline, again the “Logos” and the “Rhema”. Here are our “benefits”!
Oh the myth of the so-called Historical Jesus, verses the biblical revelatory “Christ Jesus”, of the Apostle Paul. And we simply cannot escape the great doctrine theological of God, i.e. the study of the revelation of God In Christ!
@ thom waters:
Ignoring God in favor of relying on yourself and being manifestly uninterested in understanding Him is an odd way to show love for Him, to say the least. As for myself, I would be foolish to rely on myself only, as I quite frequently fail to measure up to the standard. Faith serves to steer me in the direction of what I should do.
Luke,
Perhaps you have missed the larger point or I have simply failed to express it sufficiently.
Loving your neighbor as you love yourself seems to fall quite squarely into the area of following God’s admonition as to how we should live our lives. It hardly smacks of “ignoring God”. That I simply choose to follow the directive, as it might be called, relying on simply my own devices, will, and strength of character hardly seems to represent an uninterest in Him. It only makes a statement about how I choose to live my life, nothing more. As well, it makes no statement regarding my success or failure in so doing.
Your comment about it “. . . would be foolish to rely on myself only .. .” seems more a statement about one thinking about the theological concept of Salvation and can someone “save” themselves. The notion of failing to measure up to some standard suggests that your standard is beyond your reach. And who sets this standard and why do you find it so necessary to live up to it, especially if you define it as “perfection”?
Remember, I have no motive in mind beyond living as I think one ought. Should I fail at some point to measure up to the concept of “perfection” is to acknowledge nothing more than my humanity. Does this cause me to despair? Hardly. It only reiterates what the Apostle Paul claims himself in Romans 7, when he does the very thing he tries to avoid. We find ourselves in the same boat, believers or not, saved or not.
Live your life as best you can. Let the chips fall where they might. Try to avoid the arrogance and condesension that so often accompanies Faith, as if your efforts have received some seal of approval beyond the rest of us who trudge through life as best we can with no motives beyond following the admontion to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. And we respond to it because it seems a reasonable and productive way to live. At least we won’t portray ourselves as different than we are.
True faith does not exist with “arrogance and condescension”, as faith itself is a gift from God! (Eph. 2: 8)
“Now faith is the assurance (substance) of things hoped (or expected) for, the conviction (evidence) of things not seen. For by it men of old gained approval.” (Heb. 11: 1-2)
Indeed biblical faith is always something that God does give Himself, in his assurance, substance and hope in God’s own expectation in the evidence and conviction in the things that only God can give. With open and even empty hands, we receive and believe! And this gives us a productive way and life “alone”, through “Faith alone”!
@ thom waters:
You say, ” That I simply choose to follow the directive, as it might be called, relying on simply my own devices, will, and strength of character hardly seems to represent an uninterest in Him. It only makes a statement about how I choose to live my life, nothing more. As well, it makes no statement regarding my success or failure in so doing.”
You protest too much. Relying simply on your own devices makes God irrelevant. Are those you love irrelevant?
You also say,
“Your comment about it “. . . would be foolish to rely on myself only .. .” seems more a statement about one thinking about the theological concept of Salvation and can someone “save” themselves.”
While it is true of salvation, it is also true of my life here and now.
You say further, “The notion of failing to measure up to some standard suggests that your standard is beyond your reach. And who sets this standard and why do you find it so necessary to live up to it, especially if you define it as “perfection”?”
God sets the standard (which He defines, not me). With His help, I can reach it, provided I only keep trying. I try because I love Him, for He is willing to save (and is saving) me.
Anyone who draws close to God has no room for arrogance or condescension, because the closer one gets to God, the more clearly one sees one’s own shortcomings.
The arrogance and condescension to which I refer relates to the notion of “rightness” with regard to Faith, and the apparent need of believers, whatever the faith, to be “right”, especially as it relates to theology. I suspect without actually knowing you or talking with you in person that you are absolutely convinced in the “rightness” of your Faith. Such certainty has an unattractive way of turning into and expressing itself as arrogance and condescension. Just an observation. If, as a believer, you can manage to avoid such pitfalls, then you are to be congratulated. This might even include an avoidance of consigning those who do not agree with you to an “everlasting hell.” Such a belief seems hardly to be void of the arrogance and condescension to which I refer.
Interesting to note that seemingly all faiths ultimately have the believer’s best interests in mind. It smacks of solipsistic motives where much is driven by the notion of “What do I get out of this?” I wonder how much commitment you could get from people promoting a faith that had no substantial reward to it beyond doing what seemed to be the right thing to do as it relates to the simple solidarity we have with each other? Just a thought.
Faith is never an end in itself. Love, on the other hand, is or should always be an end in itself. I’ll opt for the latter every time.
@tm.. St. Paul connects “faith, hope, love” (1 Cor. 13: 13) as a great and beautiful triad! And whatever YOUR spinning here?..sure isn’t Christianity! And for Judeo-Christianity, there is only ONE Saving Faith! (John 14: 6)
Thanks for making my point for me with that last comment, especially to the reference of the “One Saving Faith”.
With regard to what I’m “spinning” here, I suppose if promoting the notion of loving your neighbor as you love yourself can be explained as “spinning” something, then I’m spinning the second admonition of Jesus with regard to commandments. “Spinning” seems to detract somewhat from its utility, however, and it would not be my choice of words. “Promoting” seems to fit better, although I’ll give it some more thought. Perhaps I can find an even better word.
Paul’s “triad” is an interesting one and I’ll side with the enduring nature of Love. And, here, I suspect we’re talking of agape, not eros or phileo. It’s a tough assignment, but we’ll do our best and muddle through like Paul himself apparently did.
@tw: If you are trying to play devils advocate? Your missing it, for your not speaking clearly or purposefully, at least to my mind. And Jesus kept the Law of God vicariously for His people, the Gospel has moral elements.. but the essence is not morality, but redemption!
Yes, Agape and agapao! But always too the Moral Law of God.
Btw, our Reformers only “promoted” the Law/Gospel approach in both preaching and discipleship. And for the early NT Church, then, to preach the Gospel was by no means the same thing as to deliver moral instruction or exhortation. While the Church was concerned to hand on the teaching of the Lord, it was not by this that it made converts, It was by “kerygma” (Gospel), says Paul, not by “didache”, that it pleased God to save men. See, 1 Cor. 1:21…the word here translated “preaching,” kerygma, signifies not the action of the preacher, but that which he preaches, his “message”. And of course his message was “Christ” Himself! And here of course is found God’s great message of Agape, sacrificial love itself… the Person & Work of Christ.