As you know, Scott, I take neither side of the cessationist debate. From a materialist's perspective 'miracle' means a rare, unlikely, and unexplained event. No supernatural causation or suspension of the rules is necessary.

Your mention of Steve's challenge caught my attention. Paraphrasing, he said "Show me a biblical defense of cessationism and how it’s not taken out of context". This challenge is only persuasive if one is a strict constructionist of the Bible. That is, if one believes that all things that are true are contained within the Bible.

I would argue that a strict constructionist interpretation is the incorrect one. There are certainly things that are true that are not contained in the Bible. Take for instance the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra (simplified): a polynomial of degree n has at most n real roots. Thus it is possible that cessationism is both true and not in the Bible.

One might limit their strict constructionism to theology. In other words, one can say that the Bible contains all theological things that are true. I would respond to this with a challenge of my own. Show me a biblical defense of the Trinity and how it’s not taken out of context.

Some great thoughts here. First of all, to answer Sid in the comment above, I am not a strict constructionist. The point in asking for a biblical defense of cessationism is not because I believe the only proof for continualism lies in scripture, but because cessationism usually is tied to a particular view of scripture being the ultimate authority (i.e., the "sufficiency" of scripture). On that basis, I prefer to discuss cessationism with cessationists on the basis of biblical support, taking the argument onto "their turf", so to speak. Does that make sense?

Scott, my reply to you is too lengthy for the comment stream, so I'll post it on my blog.

Here ya go, bro (link to my response)

By the way, Scott, do you have any sources for "miracles by definition are rare"? I'm having trouble finding that as a definition of "miracle". God intervening in natural affairs, yes. Rare? Not seeing that.

Well Merriam says this:

1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

If you're looking for something more Biblical the word itself and the events described as miraculous are pretty rare. You have a better definition w/ sources?

Well, the definitions I was looking at (via dictionary.com which culls from many different sources, including the one you quoted) emphasize the supernatural aspect of a miracle, rather than the frequency of it. However, I see what you are inferring from the bolded words there.

One thing that may be interfering here is the use of the word "miracle" itself. But if we are talking about the same thing, I'm not sure how you are concluding that healings, etc. described are "rare" in the accounts of the gospels and Acts. It appears to me, without publishing a full list of references here, that there is a tremendous amount of ink spilled in the gospels detailing healings that were performed. Am I exaggerating the case?

In fact, what's even more interesting to me is how casual the writers often are. For example, Matthew 8:14-16 speaks rather casually about the fact that Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law, and then many were brought to him to be healed. And he healed them all. Matthew sounds very matter-of-fact about it. But he doesn't use the word "miracle", so maybe that's what's throwing us off in this discussion.

Another case could be made from the fact that when Matthew 13:58 says that Jesus didn't do many miracles in Nazareth because of the unbelief, would this not imply that doing "many miracles" was a regular part of his ministry elsewhere? For example, Luke 7:19-22 says (again rather casually) that Jesus healed many people of diseases, illnesses, and evil spirits in a particular situation.

The matter-of-fact method of reporting these healings seems to discount the notion that they were "rare", wouldn't you say?

Through all of this, though, we're losing the original question that started this whole conversation this time around. Were those healings that Jesus and his disciples did solely for the purpose of authenticating the message (a role purportedly supplanted by the completion of canon)? Or are they part of the actual message of the kingdom that is announced?

We won't "waste cycles" if we get back to that question :)

I'd say regarding the rarity of miracles that there was certainly a veritable plethora of miracles surrounding Jesus and his apostles. In the larger scope of the world though they were certainly rare and special. But you're correct, we could chase our tails for hours on nailing down a strict definition.

I think a large part of the purpose behind them was to authenticate Jesus and his messengers. I understand that there were a number of messiah claimants around Jesus' time and following. And of course we're told that there will be more and that they/he will perform miracles to "prove" he is who he says he is. So we can't discount that.

Is that the only reason? I'd say no. Jesus also perrformed miracles because he loved these people. He wants them whole. They want to be whole and believe that he can heal them. Part of the message is that wholeness that a relationship with Jesus can bring. I won't limit that to some sort of "spiritual" wholeness either, but I think that the spiritual part is more important. Just as Jesus performed these miracles he also spoke strongly about people who sought him out just for the signs and wonders he could perform.

So, the miracles are part of the message absolutely. The resurrection is part of the message. Remaining broken and seeking God's grace in our brokeness (sic) is part of the message. Anything that's part of the grand story put forth in the Bible is part of the message. Does that mean that the miraculous healings, speaking in tongues, etc. are now or should be now a part of everyday Christian life? Should miracles of those sorts be something that we should expect? Should we question our faith if an annointing of oil doesn't cure someone? Should we question theirs? I don't have the answers for those questions.

So, the miracles are part of the message absolutely.... Does that mean that the miraculous healings, speaking in tongues, etc. are now or should be now a part of everyday Christian life?

If it's part of the message, I think it makes sense to respond to your question with: why not? That's really the whole point of my initial question. On what basis do we 1) not teach about them (apart from historical referencing), and/or 2) not expect them?

BTW, I'm not sure I see where you get the "remaining broken" concept from scripture. How can being whole and remaining broken co-exist in the same message? I don't ever see remaining broken being preached by Jesus or his apostles, but I'm possibly missing something. Care to elaborate? Or do you want me to leave you alone now? ;)

As a 30+ year charismatic I guess I am somewhere in the middle on miracles.

I think that the mainstreaming of miracles by certain sects of Christianity keeps people in denial and doesn't help them grieve the loss of life changes and life itself.. Christian Science, Jehovah Witnesses and some Word of Faith theologies come to mind.

Having said that I always come down on the side of prayer.. my first wife was blind and was healed in her left eye when people prayed.. it just is not a formula.

And about the connection of faith and miracles.. I am okay with people talking about it as long as they don't start spiritual detective work when the miracle doesn't come.. Job shows us that bad things happen even when there is faith and no sin.

So we come again to the question, when you say "teach about them" what does that mean/look like?

Re: brokeness, the last half of Romans 7 is a good start.

With regard to the last half of Romans 7:

As I know you understand, Paul is talking about the struggle between his flesh and his spirit. This struggle remains because it is the spirit that is re-created at the new birth. We have the same old flesh until the day of glorification. Yet when Jesus healed, He made the blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk, and the physically dead live.

To me the only sort of brokeness (sic) being dealt with in regard to what we call miracles is physical. We generally do not discuss regeneration as miraculous--though it is without a doubt the biggest miracle of all.

Of course never having facilitated or observed a bona-fide "miracle" in the physical realm myself, what do I know?

Grace and peace Brother, and thanks for the interesting discussion!

Thanks Bob! I agree that we have to be careful not to try and explain that which we cannot know (why someone is struggling, why a paryer "didn't work", etc.).

Larry, I appreciate you stopping by. When I talked about remaining broken I feel the need to clarify. I wasn't talking about remaining broken on purpose. Also I think the brokeness (is that spelled right?) can be physical or spiritual. Paul prayed for a removal of a thorn and some believe that was a physical affliciton, others don't. Either way I know I've prayed for removal of my own thorns. Some God saw fit to remove. Others he's given me grace to deal with. That's what I mean there.

Brokenness. Boy that just doesn't look right.

Steve: I read from your post the hows of a miracle.

1. The people receiving the miracle believed it was possible, and


2. The person facilitating the miracle (or at times, someone on their behalf) believed it was possible. That seems to be an incredibly common factor throughout. Enough of a factor that I don’t think we can dismiss it too easily.

When Paul cast out the demon from the fortune-telling slave girl, her owners certainly did not have faith. In fact, they did not even want the spirit out of her. Paul did it to basically silence the spirit, even though it was giving positive testimony about Paul and his companions.

If the faith of the facilitator is all that is needed, then Jesus would have been able to perform miracles in Nazareth, despite the lack of faith.

Back to the Widow of Nain for a moment. When the people declared that a great prophet was amongst them, there is no record that Jesus corrected them. To say that this miracle was for the Kingdom message, it would seem odd that the people were not corrected in their error.

Along those lines, maybe Paul wasn't so pragmatic as to allow a spirit to testify to his message.

It could be that the Widow of Nain miracle was done for the faith of John the Baptist. (Luke 7:14 - 23 follows the text of the Widow of Nain) I would still like to believe that it was done because, and only because, Jesus had compassion on a woman that literally lost everything she had when her only son died.

As for my view, I'd do the best I can. In short, God's will is not subject to our control. We cannot make God heal someone. Fact is, there are some people he does not heal despite prayers, faith, testimony, and the like. No one knows why except God alone.

Point is that miracles are like any other prayer. God can say 'no'. Why he didn't say 'no' to Paul or early Christians is his prerogative. He said yes to a church during Irenaeus's time. To quote:

But so far do they come short of raising the dead, as the Lord raised them, and the apostles through prayer. And oftentimes in the brotherhood, when, on account of some necessity, our entire Church has besought with fasting and much supplication, the spirit of the dead has returned, and the man has been restored through the prayers of the saints.

So that leaves me to believe that miracles are the realm of the God's Will. Not the message, the promise, the evidence or the anything else...

I have been away from the computer for most of the afternoon and evening, so I am behind on comments. I'm sorry, guys.

I simply responded with another post because I had way too much to say to both the comments here and the comments on my blog.

Sorry about that.

Well then you're fired. ;-)

Steve: I'm answering here because this is my friend Scott's site and the source of the original question.

Before responding, brother Steve, I feel it necessary to say that tone doesn't always come across in comments. I want to be clear, but not antagonistic. I do not agree with you in some points, but it does not mean that such an issue needs to divide. You have very good-naturedly asked men and women of faith to think. I have, but have arrived at different conclusions than you. That's not always a bad thing and it doesn't mean that I am right.

1. Those of you who believe that God is not always willing to heal, can you explain to me the basis for that belief?

In Luke 4, Jesus says

I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.

From a modern perspective it is from observation. Faithful men and women have prayed and believed for healing and it did not come. Sometimes it did come and I rejoiced with them. My father has been healed. Other friends and family have also. Some have not and I mourn their loss. On a personal note, my two children have not been healed despite the prayers and faith of many.

This has lead me to Romans 9 where the clay cannot ask the potter, "Why did you make me this way?". This would be depressing had it not been preceded by Romans 8:28. I take great comfort that all things will work out for the good.

2. Those of you who believe that faith is not an important part of receiving a healing, can you explain to me how you answer the numerous times (and they are quite plentiful — just read through the first four books of the New Testament) that Jesus mentions faith with regard to the healing?

Intentionally or not, you are presenting this as an all or nothing statement. The Widow of Nain's son was healed without faith, but through compassion of our Lord. The fortune telling spirit of the slave girl was cast out when her owners clearly didn't want her to be 'healed'. This means that until these two exceptions are addressed,it cannot be said that faith is a requirement of healing. Address these two clear examples first.

3. Those of you who believe that the completion of the canon supplanted the healings and miraculous events of the first century, can you explain the basis for that belief, please?

I don't believe this totally. As I mentioned, there was a resurrection during Iraneus' time (although that was before the canon was set.) I'm just answering here for completeness.

pinakidion, even though Scott has fired me, I wanted to take a moment to respond to you! ;)

Thank you for your gracious response.

Using your numbers:

1. I'm not positive that your take on Luke 4 takes the context of that comment of Jesus fully into consideration. In the context, he is talking about the fact that a prophet is not welcome in his own town. The point of the comments about Elijah are that there were miracles done for people outside of Israel. Why? Contextually, because Elijah was not welcome in Israel. It's not talking about people in Israel asking for miracles or healing, and God denying their request.

Experience is a hard thing to argue with, and I am trying to be careful with my words. I, too, have prayed for healings/miracles that never happened. But I can say this, based on my own experience: I was always taught to pray (and did, in fact, pray) along the lines of, "God, if it is your will to heal here..." with the net effect that I was never fully convinced that it actually was. I think that culturally, we experience a whole lot more unbelief than we even realize.

For example, when James says that a sick person should call for the elders, etc., he doesn't say, "And if God chooses to, they will be healed." He says simply, "And they will be healed." Yet, I hear this passage explained away by saying, "This really means that if it's God's will..." Why can't we just take what it says?

There is a very well-known quadriplegic who has stated with certainty that they don't want God to heal them because they are afraid they would not be as close to God. Then that person is held up as an example by others of someone that God has "chosen not to heal". Huh? This person has said they don't want to be healed!! Is it any wonder that they aren't?

A friend of mine spent some time in Africa. She reported when she came back some pretty phenomenal things. She said that she was actually afraid to talk about them here in the US because people were cynical about what she shared. We asked her why she thought those things were happening there, and she said, "The people there expect these things. There's no question of whether or not they will happen. They just believe." That seems to match biblical accounts, in my opinion.

With regard to Romans 9, again, I think there is a very important context to that highly-debated passage. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have nearly all the answers on Romans 9, but again, as I've tried to point out, why base our belief on something that is not clear? Romans 9 is not referencing physical healing at all! It's talking about salvation, etc. James 5:14-16 talks specifically about healing. The gospels talk specifically about healing. And none of those passages that speak specifically about healing ever give any "loopholes" that I can see with regard to what God desires to do, and what God chooses to do when asked. As I challenged in my last post, show me one place where someone asked for healing and God said "no".

Might Romans 9 have bearing on the subject? Maybe! :) But like you said on number 2, I'll say to you. Unless you first deal with the very clear passages regarding healing, I don't think we can adequately pull Romans 9 into the discussion.

2. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get at. I was not saying that healings or miracles never come without faith. Rather, I was saying that those appear to be the exception, rather than the rule. My question was addressed to those who challenged my use of "faith" in the discussion at all by saying that gives credit to man (a common false dichotomy in theological discussions). I wasn't trying to ignore your point, but just felt that your point lies outside the scope of the point I was trying to make. Does that make sense?

Also, I never pointed this out in my ramblings on this subject, but when I studied healing in the gospels and Acts, the "faith" aspect only ever seems tied to physical healing. Casting out demons seemed to be handled differently than physical healings in that permission was never sought, or faith never questioned with regard to whether or not Jesus or the disciples were going to cast them out. It's impossible to ask a demon-possessed person if he wants to be free, and it's pretty futile to ask a demon if he wants to be cast out! ;)

3. You said you weren't really responding to my question, so I don't need to clarify anything here.

Scott, I'm SO sorry for the length here. I keep trying to keep it brief, but there is so much to be said.

Steve, brevity is never required, only civility and given the caliber of the commenters here I think that any fears I have in that regard are laid to rest.

I don't have anything to add at this point though if time allows today I may write a new post. I may also (with your permission) reproduce the comment threads and posts on this topic in my Debate forum. This is worth preserving in some meaningful way for me.

Scott, by all means use these comments in whatever way you desire. I don't know if I was aware of a debate forum that you have. Is it a public forum, or what is it?

The debate forum is an extension of this blog. I set it up so that I could debate Sid on the moraliy of abortion and so that when things like this come up I could have a spot for guest posters to post in a sort of debate format. Since you have your own blog I didn't think to mention it. It's bot public in the sense of being a message board and requires that I set up a log in.

Length? Who cares about length? RSS feeds make it pretty readable. :)

I agree that there is a lack of faith in the US. I agree that more needs to be taught about faith, not just theology.

At a fundamental level, Steve, you and I practice a different hermeneutic. As such, I think we can quote a lot of Scripture and still speak past each other. Too many things are interconnected in my mind to narrow the scope down to what you are suggesting. Besides, I think that your position leads to Christian Science beliefs and the like. It leads to questions of using medicine at all, visiting doctors, blood transfusions, etc.

There is no verse that states my position directly. In this regard, it is similar to my belief in the Trinity. No verse says "Jesus is God, separate but equal" or "The Holy Spirit is God, separate from the Son and the Father, but still one." My belief in the Trinity comes from Jesus' indirect claims.

1. With all the sick in Jerusalem and elsewhere, God chose to heal a foreigner, Naaman. Naaman was not a man of faith, he was upset at the instructions given. A servant advised him to try dipping in the river 7 times because it wouldn't hurt anything to do so.

Naaman was not healed by his faith, but his obedience. This deals more with question 2, but is fruitful to point out here.

Elisha was given the power to heal only two people. The Shunammite son and Naaman. With all the other sick in Israel, Elisha was not given power to heal any of them. This makes God selective. Does God say, "NO"? It doesn't say. It only shows that God selectively heals.

This leads into question 2. Is faith the criteria that makes God's healing selective? No. Healings have been performed without faith being present. Naaman was not faithful. The Shunammite woman was bitter. The man at the pool of Bethesda was discouraged. The Widow of Nain didn't even ask.

Let's look at the issue a different way, the blind man of Bethsaida required two touches to be healed. Is this because of an incomplete faith the first time? Is this because of an incomplete faith of his friends that begged Jesus to heal him? Why was Jesus' power limited the first time?

Faith is a common element to most of the healings in the NT. I agree with you in that. However, it is not common to all healings. Because it is not common to all healings, I cannot in good conscience teach someone that God wants to heal them (your words) because I do not know the will of God in this matter. I can say that God wants to give them good things and point them to the parable you mentioned. However, I do not consider myself smart enough to read God's mind to know what those good things are.

What is common to all healings in the NT and OT is the sovereign choice of God. For whatever reason, (So that they will know that God is in Israel, confirmation that Jesus' message is from God, convenience, etc.) The Sovereignty of God is more crucial to me. As I read Romans 9 in relation to his Sovereignty and not just salvation, I connect it with the whole question of healings.

In regards to the passage in James, I'm certain that the elders could heal the sick in Jerusalem. I'm sure that when the brothers and sisters confessed their sins, they were able to be healed by the elders. It applies to the recipients of the James' letter.

My church has no elders. Does that mean no one can be healed? I don't think so. The point appears to be that the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective as evidenced by Elijah. Prayers of righteous people have healed my father and others I know. Prayers by these same righteous people have not healed my children. What else can I conclude other than God is selective? I would like to avoid ugly questions like "Am I more faithful about my father than my children?" "Do my children need some sort of faith to be healed? (They are 7 months and 25 months old.) Who sinned? Me or my children?

I do not believe that God puts people in situations where it is somehow their fault that God has not healed certain people. Again, this leads me to the sovereignty of God.

I hope this makes my position clear. I believe I understand yours, but as I said earlier, I cannot agree as I currently understand it.

pinakidion, I do appreciate the tone with which you have engaged this topic with me.

I don't hold any illusions of being able to convince you otherwise. And I specifically want to be very careful in dealing with this issue not to imply that I'm questioning anyone's faith. I think you still may be reading statements into my position that aren't there, but it's ok.

Different hermeneutics definitely can pose difficulty in discussions such as this, and I recognize that we would probably continue to talk past each other because of that.

I would simply point out that I think it's worth looking at how much of one's hermeneutic is piecing together things that aren't said vs. dealing with what is actually said. You have acknowledged that some key beliefs you have do not have direct biblical support, and I think that's at least helpful that you recognize that.

The problem often comes in when we draw some inferences out of some not-so-explicit passages and then use those inferences to interpret explicit passages contrary to what is actually stated in them. In those situations, I think we might end up doing more damage to the text than we intend.

At any rate, faith and theology always come down to the very personal level, in my opinion, and at that level, I want to say that I appreciate your openness about your children, and I am praying for you and them. If there is anything specific that you would like me to be praying for, please don't hesitate to email me at steve(at)theologicalmusingsblog(dot)com.

Thanks again for the great discussion. May God bless you and your family.

Steve: I have also appreciated your tone as well in this discussion. I do not feel that you have ever questioned my faith or hurt my feelings. Thank you for the prayers.

I would like to point out that part of one's hermenutic is thinking through the implications of what is taught and an individual's convictions. There are consequences to firmly held beliefs. I believe in adult immersion. One of the implication of that belief is that those that 'pray Jesus into their heart' are not Christians. This can and has been a dividing point. It is imperative for me to think through the implication and consequences of this belief in order to care for the hearts and faith of others.

If I say, "God wants to heal you," there is an implications to how that applies in a person's life, particularly in regards to the medical profession. In not thinking through the implications and consequences of our doctrine, I think we do damage to people's hearts and personal faith more than we intend. Part of any hermeneutic should be an examined faith.

Thank you for the discussion. As always, I will consider what you have thoughtfully shared. I hope the Lord will make it clear to me in His time. I have no doubt that He will. I hope in time to believe differently, to be honest. God bless.

As far as specific prayers, my daughter has had nine surgeries to open the airway in her nose. We are scheduling what may be number ten today. She was born with what is called choanal atresia, or blockages, of both nostrils. She would have died in minutes had she not been tested for it. Because it is so rare, many hospitals do not normally test for it.

My son was also born with choanal atresia (thus the doctor's tested my duaghter) as a part of Goldenhar's Syndrome. His case is mild, but he has some internal skull deformations (though you can't tell from his outward appearance) and moderate deafness in both ears due to a lack of ear canals. He will also probably need to be treated with human growth hormone as he does not produce very much right now.

My son's chonal atresia (nose blockage) was successfully treated after one surgery.