Why Doesn’t Jesus Heal Anymore?
by Don Watson
Mark 3:10 tells about the huge crowd of people who came to Jesus from all over Israel—even the heathen areas of Tyre and Sidon—to be healed and have devils cast out of their loved-ones. And so I've wondered many times why God doesn't heal people today like He did back then. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure it still happens. Perhaps it even happens more often than I know, particularly in poorer countries, where affluence has not dulled people's dependence on God. But another thought has come to my mind that I want to share with you. Perhaps these thoughts will help keep your faith firm in God when you have a loved one who is sick, especially when God seems absent, not provide healing in the way you wish.
First of all, let me say that I believe God sees our healing as already accomplished rather than something that hasn't happened yet or may not happen. In other words, because the Great I AM is not a creature of time and His promises are as sure as if they had already happened, Jehovah declares it already accomplished. Isaiah says, "But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed" (Is. 53:5, KJV). Peter quotes this prophetic declaration of the Healing-Messiah as well in 1 Peter 2:24. So we may not SEE our healing, but we ARE healed because God says so. Paul declares in 2 Corinthians 5:7 that we, as Christians "walk by faith, not by sight," because God's Word is more sure than what we see. So the more we speak faith—the REAL reality—the more our spirit hangs on and soars rather than letting go and diving into the depths of despair.
Another thing: When Jesus came to this earth the teachers of Israel believed that sickness, deformities and other weaknesses or ailments, including even poverty, were the result of God's disfavor toward men who were terrible sinners. The existence of the condition, whatever it might be, confirmed the sinful state of the person. Their lack of repentance was obvious because they remained sick. If they had repented, God would have forgiven them, and they would no longer be sick or infirmed. Sick people were considered to be unrepentant, unforgiven people who remained under the condemnation of God.
This was a horrible misunderstanding of God’s love and mercy. So Jesus set about to correct this evil doctrine from the beginning of His ministry. The record states that multitudes came to be healed. A simple touch of the hem of His garment could give healing. THAT is the picture Jesus wanted people to have of His Father! Every time He healed a person of some disease, or corrected some malady, such as blindness, or cast out demons, He was revealing the God who forgives first and then heals. According to the thinking of New Testament times, Jesus could not heal a person unless God had first forgiven that person. In this way Jesus brought the Gospel to life, demonstrating His love with a gift of healing for those that suffer, revealing the Good News about who God truly is. God accepts us WHILE we're sinners (Romans 5:6,8). The healing change comes afterwards, and it too is a gift of God. That's the Gospel!
Of course, nothing demonstrated God's unconditional love for every man better than the cross (Romans 5:7-8). So now in our day, we have a fuller understanding of the Gospel as revealed in the life AND death of Jesus—God loves sinners. Our sickness, defects or deformities are not God's punishment for personal sinfulness or a sign of His disfavor. Every man is loved eternally and unconditionally; they are saved and accepted exactly as they are (Romans 5:6-8). Calvary has settled the issue concerning God's love for us. Healing is not necessary to prove God's love and acceptance of us.
All that being said, Revelation 14:13 says that those who die in the Lord are blessed, because they get to “rest from their labors and their works follow them.” Certainly, we miss our departed loved ones and are saddened by this loss, but we can be happy for THEM because the next thing they will see is Jesus coming to resurrect them. In fact, the next paragraph (Revelation 14:14-16) describes the coming of Jesus and the end of the world.
I lost my Dad about 25 years ago. Every now and then I think of his laugh or some funny thing he would say. For example, after eating a piece of pecan pie, he would tell the person who made it that it was "musty—musty have some more!" Or after a great meal he would declare: "My sufficiency has been suffunsified." And then when I was discouraged, he would take me into the bedroom and kneel down with me and pray until I knew everything would be all right. God heard Dad; I knew it. But Dad developed Alzheimer’s, so when he died, though I missed him, I wouldn't have wished him back to life for a moment. The next thing dad will see is Jesus.
Now I know what you're thinking right now: "But Johnny was only 17 years old" or "Tiffany was still so young" or "Rebecca had four kids." And you're right, none of them wanted to die, to say nothing of those of us left behind who loved them, needed them, and miss them in a way so excruciatingly painful. But what is the next thing they will see? Jesus. And the next thing they will experience is being reunited to live FOREVER with all those people they love. Let's not forget that the best life any of us have is full of hard labor, pain and a lot of sorrow. But that will end when Jesus comes. This life is only a short breath compared to heaven’s everlasting, perfect peace, joy and endless love, leaving behind forever the suffering that now fills this world.
So why doesn't Jesus heal like He did back when He was here on earth? Does He love us less now than He did then? Was it because He had the center stage back then and had to make a really big splash while He was in the spotlight? No, a thousand times no to all of these ideas! He healed so you and I today, 2000 years later, would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that regardless of our sin, sickness or weakness, we are loved without limit or condition by the God who gave His Son on Calvary so we would never forget who He is. He is Jesus, who died FOR us to rid this world forever of sin, pain and death. In the meantime, because He died, He has earned the right to live IN YOU, suffer with you, cry with you, hurt with you and be lonely with you. "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me!" (Psalms 23, KJV). In this world of pain, the Jesus who endured all pain is with you!
'So why doesn't Jesus heal like He did back when He was here on earth? Does He love us less now than He did then? Was it because He had the center stage back then and had to make a really big splash while He was in the spotlight?'
Great questions Don. I largely agree with your conclusions and reasoning throughout, especially that Jesus was trying to deal with a erroneous theological idea of the time that sickness equalled unrepentent sin.
To me personally:
The answer is simple. Mark 6:6-7 tells us: "And because of their unbelief, he couldn't do any mighty miracles among them except to place his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their unbelief." (NLT). (For further illustration on this point do a word search in your concrdance for "unbelief", "disbelief" and similar.)
God is not able to do miracles of healing (or other miracles including raising the dead) because of our disbelief. Instead of believing we're focused on proving we're right. We argue points of knowledge about God's promise to empower believers while remaining unempowered. We're so focused on arguing about the gift of prophecy in one person being proof that we are God's true church that He is unable to send new prophets and bless us beyond what we have imagined. The result is the church claiming to be God's true church in the last days being without the power that is proof of believing in God. This means the large majority of people claiming to be believers need to be praying the plea of the father of a demon-possessed son to Jesus, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24, NIV).
Interesting perspective. I remember a very good sermon once, where the Pastor reflecting on Moses going up to Mount Sinai. If you recall, the original plan was for all the elders to go up there but the people were affraid. So Moses had to go up alone. The Pastor's point was we claim we want to see miracles, but in some respects, we are kind of too scared to really see them happen.
That's a great observation. Why do you think we would be scared of miracles? Maybe because it would mean getting closer to God and giving-up some of our treasured sins?
Good point, Stephen. I once heard a minister friend suggest, tongue in cheek, that if he could work one miracle today he would have an angel blow out the match or lighter before anyone could light a cigarette and thus rid the world of lung cancer. God could do that kind of thing with all sin. But then we'd have a world of frustrated sinners who wanted to do things God wouldn't let them do. They wouldn't DO sins but their hearts would be unchanged, because – as you suggested – it would take away their choice. God wants our hearts not just correctness of behavior. Thanks, Stephen, for that additional insight.
Having said that, however, the main purpose of this article was to remind us that God wanted men in the time of Jesus to know they were radically loved by God, and their sicknesses, handicaps, or infirmities did not indicate God's condemnation of them like the religious leaders taught – THAT'S why Jesus healed whole towns indiscriminately, it was an indictment against this false teaching. Today, however, it may seem that God chooses so seldom to heal, and we . And a lot of us wonder if that is an indication of an attitude of indifference toward us if not condemnation.
My suggestion (And I'm sure there are other reasons as well) is that God has made it clear by the death of Jesus, that we sinners are loved, accepted, and forgiven exactly as we are! This is so critical to our assurance of salvation. We MUST believe that God has already blown the myth – that sickness and deformity is God's judgment against our sinfulness – completely out of the water. His love for us as sinners has been forever proven by Calvary (Romans 5:6-10), there is no longer a need for it to be proven by healing. Consequently, like Revelation declares, death is a blessing to the one who dies, because the next thing our departed loved ones will experience is the resurrection and the glowing face of Jesus. God allowing his children to die (While He hates death and longs for the day when He can destroy it) is actually an act of merciful love and deliverance from this world of sin. I believe that can help those of us who are left behind after the death of a loved one to cope with the enormous sadness and loss. Just an additional thought.
Don,
It is one thing to comfort the grieving. It is quite another to perform a miracle of healing as Jesus did that restores a person to health or prevents them from dying.
Unbelief prevented Jesus from doing miracles in at least one village that He visited. (Matt. 13:56, Matt. 17:20, Mark 6:5-6)
Why should we pay attention to the question of how to comfort those who have lost a loved one to death when we could be ministering God's power to restore life? Is not that answer potentially of far greater value?
A miracle, is an "impossible event," there can be no explanation.
Miracles were recorded because all the other gods that people knew performed miracles and they were given for "signs" so they would believe. "Miracles" were not uncommon in those times, check out POCM for many miraculous events before and contemporary with the first century.
Were all those reported miracles literally true? Were all the miracles recorded in the Bible literally true? None of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses but by stories they had heard, and they all have contradictions that cannot be resolved. The writers' purpose was to demonstrate Jesus' divinity and miracles were one of the "signs" as recorded of all the other gods.
There is absolutely no way to verify miracles that were reported two millennia ago. Anyone who is willing to believe in the miracles of Jesus needs to concede the possibility of other people performing miracles in Jesus' day and in all eras down to the present. If someone believes a report of a miracle in a country thousands of miles away, why would it be any different than one in your own city?
Jesus' life began with a miracle: the virginal conception and his entire life was recorded as filled with miracles. "BELIEVING in miracles is based on one's own personal faith, nothing less, nothing more.
The Blessed Virgin Mary appears to people almost daily, somewhere in the world. The choice is to believe or not. But those who "see" her, truly believe it's a miracle.
All the Christian claims are based on one's belief; one's faith. Miracles are only defined by true believers.
Elaine,
With such doubt, why should anyone be surprised you are not seeing miracles today?
They were viewed as miracles to people then. They were performed where people accepted and believed that what they could not explain were miracles.
Today, miracles are not at all what they were 2,000 years ago.
And what were you saying to me the other day Elaine about lacking faith?
I have no issue with anything you have said, Elaine. My only point is that the gospels are revealing an important purpose for these miracles. Religion was telling the sick and infirmed that they were sinners, condemned by God, but Jesus – God Himself in the Flesh – was passionately letting all of us sinners know that wasn't true. Your point is well taken that people outside the time and space of Jesus ministry have experienced what they felt was a miracle. Some may be and some may not, but I believe (There's that word) God uses all "miracles", genuine or not, to convey a message via the Holy Spirit to some sinner or group of sinners that they are loved. God isn't trying to protect Jesus' reputation as the only miracle worker, He's trying to communicate His unconditional love however He can. Elaine, I suppose I could be wrong – I often am, but you seem to have many doubts and challenges toward God, I personally love that, and I believe God does too. You are so honest and open – you seem to live in the light. I think God just loves it whenever you speak. I hope you know that you are ever so precious to Him.
Don,
Thank you for your reassuring words.
Thankfully, it is unnecessary to believe in miracles to be a Christian, last time I looked, all that was required was to be accepted by Him. Humans have made all sorts of requirements and added to the Bible's requirements.
Miracles are only what we cannot explain. And what we experience daily would all be miraculous to those who lived in Bible times. Belief is a very personal thing and there are those who believe in all sorts of impossible things, but that does not mean they are true and factual.
Today, there are groups of people who believe that it was a U.S. government plot to destroy the World Trade Towers; that Obama is a Muslim; that there is an abominable snowman and BigFoot. It is very difficult to convince an educated person to believe in ghosts and witches and demons and angels. Thankfully, there is no need to believe in what cannot be shown by evidence.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
If you claim to be a believer in Jesus, He performed miracles and said that His followers would perform even greater works than He did, how can you NOT believe in miracles? Why are you satisfied with only partial belief?
William, are you asking me to believe that Jesus was intentionally lying? I don't believe in miracles because you can't show me any. If you follow Jesus, and he wasn't lying, you ought to be able to show me a miracle. Yeah, I know Jesus didn't do miracles on command and I don't expect you to do so either, but on the other hand he did do them, and according to his word, I should expect even greater things from you. The unspoken testimony of your life (and not just yours, please don't feel like I am attacking you) is that Jesus was a lier and none of us really believe him.
How can you believe in reported miracles thousands of years ago unless you believe in reported miracles today? Do you believe in miracles reported today?
It is much easier to deny belief in miracles than to believe in them. Is there a limit to what you will believe if someone says it's a miracle? Do you simply believe all reports of miracles, or do you have a method of testing or determining them?
Unless you believe all miracles as reported, you, too, are "satisifed with only partial belief."
Yes, I believe in miracles today because I have seen them. Considering what you have described, you appear to be a long way from needing to test the reality of miracles because it appears you are dealing with a far more basic issue of whether or not you even believe in God enough to have confidence in His promise to save you. Allowing God to resolve that issue and learning to trust what He says because He says it will be your first miracle.
Elaine,
I've not only seen miracles, I've received them. Let me share one of the bigger ones.
This week we marked my son's 28th birthday, though my wife and I felt we were the ones receiving the presents because that was the day he returned home from an overseas military deployment. He was the baby doctors told us we would never have. My wife had a history of abdominal surgeries and illness that caused major reproductive problems. She went through extensive diagnostic procedures and treatments to the point where we thought she could get pregnant. Then we discovered I also had problems. The combination was a diagnosis of infertility that could be treated only by adoption or the then-brand new techology of in-vitro fertilization. We were at the point of being referred to the UCLA in-vitro clinic. Except we couldn't afford it. Our health insurance didn't cover "experimental" treatments. The $20,000 a month cost was far more than we could ever dream of paying and a very substantial portion of our annual take-home pay. At that time the average time to conception and successful implanting was around six months. Our disappointment was great and heart-breaking. It threatened our marriage. We poured-out our hearts to God and it seemed He was not listening. I grew bitter at God and doubted that He cared about me. Then, less than a year after getting my diagnosis and being told we would never have children on our own, we discovered she was pregnant!
I tell people the first result of every miracle Jesus performed was in immediate improvement in the recipient's life. The first responses were great joy and thanksgiving. Well, for me at least, that got delayed a short period. Learning we were expecting left me weak in the knees and I nearly fainted. When I tried to speak only nonsense came out of my mouth. Then I was filled with such great joy that I had to tell everyone I met about the power of God to do such an amazing thing.
Our daughter arrived three years later in the normal way (and has been anything but "very normal" since, but that's another story). 😉
God has a very personal miracle waiting for you. He wants to deliver it, but your unbelief has shut the door, disconnected the door bell and gotten you busy at the farthest end of the house with the radio turned up loud. Please, ask Him to help your unbelief so you can receive it.
How can you believe in reported miracles thousands of years ago unless you believe in reported miracles today? Do you believe in miracles reported today?
It is much easier to deny belief in miracles than to believe in them. Is there a limit to what you will believe if someone says it's a miracle? Do you simply believe all reports of miracles, or do you have a method of testing or determining them?
Unless you believe all miracles as reported, you, too, are "satisifed with only partial belief."
Almost any action that isn't understood is a 'miracle' to observers. We might recall the 'miracle' of Poalaroid photos among pimitive cultures in the past. Persons of biblical history would surely call it a 'miracle' to see me fly away in my little plane. Seeing may not necessarily warrant believing.
Erratum: make that 'Polaroid' photos.
BTW, who or what created the 'miracle' bread mold aka penicillin?
Yes, the term gets used rather liberally to describe what is amazing and outside the conceptual envelope of the majority. But there is a big difference between amazing technical innovation and what can only be attributed to Divine action.
William, I have mixed feelings about your example. There is part of me that wants to believe in your miracle. There is another part of me that is disappointed that you didn't expect the miracle in advance. It makes me suspicious that you don't really believe it was a miracle from a God who is dependable. That part of me is also dissapointed that unlike you, God did not do a miracle for me. I still don't understand why God loves you more than me.
The slightly more cynical side of me notes that the doctors did a lot of work on you and your wife and wonders if maybe the doctor wasn't establishing very low expectations in the face of highly variable and uncertain outcomes. If you only have a 20% success rate for a procedure, it is generally better to be pleasantly surprised 20% of the time than be disappointed 80% of the time.
It's interesting to me that our discussion has moved from Jesus, miraculously (According to Mark) healing the sick, to a doctrinal discussion about whether these miracles are real. Most of us have been raised in a church that focuses on doctrines about God rather than a relationship with Him. And certainly both are important, but most of my life, I thought the study of these doctrines and beliefs WERE the relationship with God – that's all there was. I mean, it's not like we could cuddle up with God on the couch and chat. I had heard people speak of a personal relationship with Him, but I didn't know what that meant, looked like, or felt like. It simply didn't exist in my experience.
Perhaps one reason why a doctrinal discussion is easier is because it's not personal. I'm in control of who God is and who I am, without acknowleging who I really am. I don't have to deal with my sins, my dishonesty, my lust, my hypocrisy, or all my dirty little secrets. So we keep it doctrinal and impersonal, but not God. He personally comes and blasts apart our little pet theories like the one we're talking about – the belief that if you're sick, it's because you are a sinner who is under the condemnation of God. And how does He do it? By intellectual arguments so clever and air-tight that His adversaries were put to flight? No. By personally coming into their broken, sick, deformed, diseased lives and doing something so miraculous that it could only be God. SO THAT men would know that the only way the healing could have happened is if God had first forgiven them. For, if they were still sinners (According to their theology and doctrin) God would never heal them! But since Jesus was able to forgive them, God must have forgiven them beforehand. The relationship aspect of this story becomes more convincing than any theological argument. And Jesus did it all by simply loving them.
The implications for you and I are radical and exciting. We are just as sick and broken as the people who were healed by Jesus. But then Isaiah 53 declares that "By His stripes, we are healed." Get that? Isaiah is talking about the death of Jesus, so we were healed when Jesus died. It IS an accomplished fact. So IF we were healed when Jesus died, we must have been forgiven (See Ephesians 1:7)! That's the great good news! God forgives first. In fact, it is that forgiveness that God uses to heal us. Read it again in the gospels and let it be relational. Let it be about love. Let it be about you. You are loved, you are forgiven!
Amen!
Miracles were a vital part of the ministry of Jesus because they demonstrated the loving character of an all-powerful God. People were drawn to the power they saw displayed. They listened to His teaching because their lives had been changed, or they had witnessed the life-changing power of God at work. That is why miracles were such a powerful part of the ministry of the Apostolic church and the Gospel spread to the most distant parts of the planet. In contrast, today we see people claiming they are believers and we hear preachers proclaiming facts about God, yet without miracles being performed showing the loving power of God, the church has become almost irrelevant.
The blind in John 9 became to be a believer because Jesus made a miracle in his life. His words are a powerful testimony “One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!”
The lord is the same yesterday and today. My conversation to Christianity was catalyzed by miracles in my life.
David,
Please, never forget the power of God that you have seen working in your life and remain always aware of how God continues to work in you. Keep sharing it!
I don't like the term "miracle" because its connotations infer that God has intervened in some unnatural manner. I think God uses His own laws to guide us through life on major and minor issues to make things happen. I do think He answers prayers according to his foresight, and we just need to trust he knows what is ultimately in our best good.
As I have said before, no one has actually died eternally. If we did not have this first death, the world would be overpopulated and would be destroyed by the result. The wicked would always be with us. It's a necessity. I suspect a lot of people healed would go back to their same bad habits that put them where they were.
I agree that healing was an important part of Christ's ministry–salvation is also known as healing. Perhaps healing was a metaphor for the salvation that would come to a sick world.
Ella,
Disbelief is painted boldly in words attempting to explain away the works of God as something else. Such disbelief as you have expressed is why Jesus was not able to do many miracles in some places and why we do not see them today.
If you do not believe the events described in the Bible as miracles were not the intervening work of God, what else in the book might be untrue? Do you have any credible basis left for believing in a forgiveness of sins, resurrection from the dead, that Jesus will come again, or anything else the Bible teaches?
How can you judge Ella as a "disbeliever" for not believing as you choose to? Did God die and make you the judge?
Each person is only responsible for his own understanding and those who choose to believe in miracles and those who cannot are not rejected by God. Such an attitude of rejecting all those who do not believe as you do is the worst form of judgmentalism. If this is the religion you believe in and practice, why should anyone want to be a part of it? What church has EVER demanded a strict set of beliefs that must be accepted for admittance; or where has there been such a list for heavenly admittance?
Elaine, you recently said I lacked faith. Wasn't that a suggestion that I lacked belief? I fail to see how that is any different from William saying someone else has disbelief? Whose judging who – you seem to be judging William.
I believe William's wider point is that of course there are no miracles if people don't have the faith to believe in them. You don't believe in miracles do you? So it would be a statement of fact, not a prejorative statement, to say you have disbelief in miracles, or a lack of faith in them?
Why is there such a need to have others' accept your story of miracles? If you believe something was a miracle, is that insufficient? Do you need support because you doubt? Otherwise, simply believe for yourself. Miracles are not a group event, but usually experienced by only someone who is a firm believer in miracles. Belief is absolutely necessary.
Just as there are people who believe all sorts of things; it doesn't require others to accept or also believe in them. Some experiences are very personal. Your may convince your friends but why try to convince the doubters who have a much higher threshhold to meet?
Belief in more than just miracles is essential. Your salvation depends on believing what God teaches in scripture and what He reveals through the Holy Spirit. Believing is more than mere mental assent that something is factual. Real belief requires that we incorporate His commands and teachings into the very core of consciousness.
Often the real issue with belief is not believing, but disbelief. Disbelief is pernicious and insidious. It infiltrates and invades our soul without us even realizing it or being able to measure it until we are confronted with our disbelief, often in ways that surprise us. In that time of self-discovery we realize that it extends farther into our being than we ever imagined. First we express doubt about something. Doubt grows into minimizing the next issue, then trying to dismiss something by claiming it cannot possibly be true. By this point we are in full-blown disbelief. But, where did it begin? When we expressed doubt instead of accepting the declarations of scripture and the claims made about God. But the bottom line is this: our doubts, dismissals and denials do not make God any less real or scripture any less true.
That isn't my opinion. The Bible says Jesus was not able to perform miracles in at least one place because of the disbelief of the people. (See the texts listed in my previous post above.) Maybe you need to read your bible more often.
That isn't my opinion. The Bible says Jesus was not able to perform miracles in at least one place because of the disbelief of the people. (See the texts listed in my previous post above.) Maybe you need to read your bible more often.
That isn't my opinion. The Bible says Jesus was not able to perform miracles in at least one place because of the disbelief of the people. (See the texts listed in my previous post above.) Maybe you need to read your bible more often.
Don, I take issue with your basic premise — that Jesus doesn`t heal any more. He heals in many ways, and miracles are just one of those. And miracles still take place. I personally have known of several miracles of healing. One that comes to mind occurred in the Ukraine when my husband was there to preach in the 90`s. His M.D. sister took some medications and nutritional supplements with them. There was little to work with in the country. They witnessed at least one miracle of healing that occurred overnight and was not explainable by natural means, according to my sister-in-law, the Loma-Linda-trained doctor.
It rather depends on who you are listening to. Around the world we have regular accounts of miracles of healing and the occasional story of a resurrection. We don`t do much publicity of this as a church because we know that devils can also work miracles, and faith is not to depend on miracles. But miracles of healing DO occur.
Remember that the account in the gospels summarizes the work of three full years. It`s not as if the miracles occurred in the time you can read the accounts. Furthermore, Jesus performed these miracles to announce His Kingdom and establish His identity. While He still performs miracles right now, I expect we will see even more in the near future — right along with more miracles worked by demons.
When we look outward from Earth, it is beautiful, awesome, magnificient, of infinite complexity, its smallest ingredient beyond any human search, regardless of any and all building of testing devices seeking the "GOD" PARTICLE. Expanse without limits, majestic,frightening, beyond words to describe its universal fact. Earth has elements and laws, physics, and math, gravity, by which it is governed, intelligent design for this PLANET EARTH. But beyond Earth is a universe with its own particular & different laws of existence.It is beyond the possibility of the human mind to comprehend, and yet it exists. The ultimate intelligence of universality created it all, and some would tell us that it all just happened, without any forethought, or dependent upon any formative planning or parameters, and one day it will stop expansion, and collapse inward into a compressed ball, and will explode again & again infinitely. Brothers & Sisters, look out into space through the HUBBLE TELESCOPE, and with your own eyes & intelligence, BEHOLD A MIRACLE. You can witness it 24/7 every day you live. Then look at every living creature, and BEHOLD MIRACLES. Then look at all the LIVING plants (FOOD), and all the beautiful LIVING flowers, and BEHOLD MIRACLES.
Ps. 19:1 "The heavens declare the GLORY of GOD". And some say "SHOW ME A MIRACLE"?????
Jesus never called what he did as miracles. It was writers much later who had never personally witnessed them who called them miracles. After all, miracles cannot be replicated but are a one-time event; and perpetrated by those who believed they were miracles. No evidences of miracles are possible, as they rest in the mind of those who define them.
If one believes in miracles, no evidence is needed; if one doesn't believe in miracles, no evidence is possible as they are a one-time event that must be observed AND believed.
How much "evidence" or "proof" do you need to overcome your disbelief? God is not going to give you more evidence when you are dismissing what He has already provided. Your stubborn demands for more evidence reminds me of Luke 16:31: "He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead (NIV)."
Elaine: 'Why is there such a need to have others' accept your story of miracles? If you believe something was a miracle, is that insufficient? Do you need support because you doubt? Otherwise, simply believe for yourself.'
Elaine, why do you spend so much on a Christian Seventh-day Adventist affiliated website trying to convince others of your disbelief – not just in miracles, but pretty much everything? If you don't believe, why is that insufficient? Do you need to continually knock Christian SDA beliefs because secretly you doubt your decision to leave? Otherwise, simply belief for yourself.
'Your may convince your friends but why try to convince the doubters who have a much higher threshhold to meet?'
You may convince your ex-Adventist friends, but why try to convince the SDA believers who still have a much higher threshold of faith?
Anyone who can so easily change his mind by another person's doubt, is very tenuous in their beliefs.
Many people are weak and easily swayed by the doubts of others. But I have two questions for you: Why do you have so many doubts about God? What caused you to begin doubting?
Years of studying the Bible and the history of Christianity. That's it in a nutshell. I've read dozens of books on how the Bible was compiled, that no one knows for certain who wrote the books, or when, and that scholars who read both the Greek and Hebrew oldest available manuscripts have found hundreds of changes, additions, deletions, and editing; and no two are alike. Especially the Gospels:
Compare the Passion Week in all four and it will be seen that no two are alike and the differences are impossible to be the right one. Could it be because they are stories and none were eye-witnesses?
Have you ever heard any of these, and did you believe them? Were they sincere? Did they truly believe?
"Did you know I saw a UFO last night? I'm certian of it, and many of my friends saw it too. Don't you believe me? They have evidence in Roswell, N.M. of people being abducted and operated on."
"Don't you know that the U.S. government planted bombs in the World Trade Center Towers and had planes fly into them to make it look like the planes caused the towers to fall? Really, see how they just fall in the same place like the planned explosions of building?
"My brother-in-law's friend told him that his wife's neighbor actually witnessed a child cured of a deformed leg at this healing service. Others were also healed of tumors and all sorts of sicknesses. You should go see him cure all these people."
Maybe you should answer why are you so certain about God's healing powers. Where did you first hear about God? Were you an atheist first and were convinced to be a Christian? Or, were you a Muslim and converted to Christianity? What is your source of the belief you have?
You've spent a lot of time with teachers other than God. People like to talk a lot about God and give you their opinions and ideas about God which may or may not be accurate. The only place to learn the reality of God is directly from God by spending at least as much time with the Bible as you do the other sources and from the Holy Spirit. When are you going to start spending at least equal time with God and learning from Him?
I never fail to be amazed by how often Elaine continues to be the adult in the room on so many topics. The amount of wishful thinking that orthodox religiionists seem to think is required to retain some degree of religious faith is always facinating to read.
Elaine Nelson wrote: “Anyone who can so easily change his mind by another person’s doubt, is very tenuous in their beliefs.”
Now this may actually qualify as an “adult” observation; since anyone who changes his mind based on the doubts—and rationale for those doubts—that are expressed here would have to have been extremely "tenuous in their beliefs" in the first place.
On the other hand, as a result of hearing some of these doubts, and the rationale for them, some may well change their minds from unbelief to belief.
Studying doubts is an exercise in futility unless they are compared to God's word. Unbelief is only cured by experience with God.
“Unbelief is only cured by experience with God.”
Romans 10:17 says something very different.
Yes, faith begins with the word. But studying your Bible is only part of the experience God wants us to have with Him. There's also that major teaching in scripture about Holy Spirit being God literally dwelling in us to guide and empower us for ministry that so many modern Christians fail to embrace.
I am not sure if I would say Elaine is the adult here. She seems more like someone who doesn't want to play baseball anymore, so they go around and steal all the bases, all the ball and all the bats – or tries to do so.
I am only a 'young person' and even I know simply seeking to knock other people's faith is not entirely 'adult.' I remember when I was 'younger' that I use to think my purpose in life was to 'correct' others of their incorrect views. However, one day some older JW ladies came round. It dawned on me that even if I was sucessful in 'proving' they were wrong in their beliefs – so what? They would be expelled and shunned from their families. It made me realise trying to be right was pretty childless.
I get Elaine doesn't believe in miracles, or Adventist beliefs, or God's role in the Bible (i.e. it is not a document which provides moral, liturgical, theological or ethical guidance), or necessary not in God Himself (i.e. at least not in the way most people would believe, perhaps merely in the Emile Durkheim notion of God as a human construct in our minds representing society). I get all that.
But is it 'adult' to destroy the faiths of others who do believe? What does that ultimately achieve – a sense of personal intellectual superiority? Who says all the AToday readers, that silent majority, wants to have their Christian faiths destroyed? Who says that silent majority doesn't have 'tenuous beliefs', which others should be cautious in disrupting.
What is the point of a Sadducean religion (noting the Sadducees didn't believe in a supernatural resurrection), where one doesn't really believe anything anymore. Does that just leave an empty shell of a religion, going through the motions? Or a cultural group, whose religion consists of glutton steaks and haystacks? Or a sports and social club? What is the point of that – it sounds like a total waste of time to me.
And I'd rather believe a potential lie, a God Delusion, in 'religous wishful thinking', than whatever Elaine seems to be offering. She only seems to be offering a faithless existence world without hope. If that is an 'adult' view – then I'm happy to have faith like a child.
"Except you become as little children…."
Which is it? I'm either an adult or a child? Why should it be important to anyone? Can you not agree nor disagree without the necessity of personal analyses? Spare the sympathy for my delusions.
One definition of adulthood is the ability to speak to the message without attacking the messenger.
So, who's the adult?
Adulthood? I thank God that Jesus never told us we had to grow up and become like adults to enter the Kingdom of God because adults mistrust. Children instinctively trust their parents. That's why Jesus told us to become like little children or we could not enter the Kingdom.
Elaine, I was attacking your so-called 'adult' message – a rationalist faith, without supernatural elements (presumably including without an afterlife), which offers no real hope.
May I respectfully suggest to Mr. Noel that the statement of Jesus about the advantge of being childlike does not mean that we should be childish. There is a difference. Perhaps some theologian might correct me on this, but I've always assumed that the point is that chilfren are still open to new experiences and have not as yet acquired automatic knee-jerk reactions. I can't believe that Jesus was extolling the virtues of ignorance and inability to evaluate the validity of ideas. That comes only from experience and education. Or are we going back to the idea that used to be expressed by those extoiling the virtue of "jusit have fatih" is that a lot of education and knowledge is detrimental to the spiritual life and to be avoided by a "true" Christian–the ignorance-is-spiritual-bliss school of thought.. .
Erv,
I completely agree that we shouldn't behave in childish ways. That statement was a bit tongue-in-cheek where the discussion was getting sidetracked into criticisms that create disagreement and offense instead of pointing people to God.
Whenever I hear someone telling another to "just have faith" it is surprising how often the speaker is covering for their own spiritual immaturity and the reality they don't have any experience with God enabling them to share useful counsel. Will we study the Bible so we can know if a teacher is telling us the truth or spreading a false Gospel? Will we learn from those who have actual experience with God and who have a faith that works? More than that, will we allow God to teach us directly through a relationship with the Holy Spirit?
Studying the Bible is the key to believing that there is a Holy Spirit of which our bodies are the temples. We are empowered by God’s grace through His Spirit; but that is Biblical information.
For those who can read or hear, there is no substitute for believing the testimony of the inspired word of God.
Faith comes first by hearing and believing.
That is where we are to begin, not where God wants us to stay. That is the "milk of the word" (Hebrews 5:13) to nurture us when we are spiritual babies. Unfortunately a great many professed believers are content with remaining spiritual babies (1 Corinthinans 3:2) instead of growing and maturing into a constant, living relationship with God in the Holy Spirit where we eat the "solid food" given to us by the Holy Spirit. The evidence we are eating that "solid food" is seen in ministry guided by the Holy Spirit and empowered so that the loving power of God is seen at work.
Didn't the discussion of 'adult' versus 'child' because Erv made the interesting claim that Elaine was supposedly the only adult in the room? My belief and retort is that if she is the adult, I'd be happy to be the child, with the child-like faith.
As to child-like faith, I agree Jesus was probably talking about being open – not being ignorant. But many of the 'theologians' Erv seems to admire are not open – they're a more closed book that the exclusive brethren. For example, when they read about a miracle in the OT, they presume that can't be true, so they find a way to rationalise it away. They presume Jesus didn't really rise from the grave, but the disciples just suffered some form of mass delusion.
That is the sort of faith (or rather lack thereof) Elaine has after reading herself out of religion. That's not faith like a child, being open to new ideas. That's becoming a closed book. Just because Elaine or any other modern liberal theologian hasn't seen a miracle, or couldn't imagine one, then they say they can't exist. They read the Bible from the presumption that the miracles in the Bible are just made up. That attitude is pretty dogmatic, as much as the harshest dogmatic conservative.
True, but there comes a point when people become 'too smart for their own good'. I believe Adam and Eve learnt that the hard way. I think a number of theologians, who are so 'smart' they no longer really believe in God, a real Jesus as the incarnate God, the resurrection, supernatural miracles or an afterlife, are in that camp. Elaine seems to have similarly 'read herself out of religion', which only makes me very sad for her.
There also comes a sort of educational arrogance, where people think just because they can't imagine certain things, like an afterlife, and that they haven't experienced or seen it, then it must not exist. We haven't seen aliens either, but even the world's greatest atheist scientists, including Dawkins and Hawkings, think they exist. Higher crtical approaches to reading the Bible, which Elaine (and I presume you) favour, start from the presumption that anything supernatural in the Bible is made up. But who says? Who says one should start with that presumption?
We mock the more conservative elements of Christianity for thinking they have The Truth, and then dogmatically ramming those thoughts done everyone's thoughts. But I find a number of more 'liberal' Adventists (or ex-Adventists) are just as sure of themselves about The Truth of disbelief, that the Bible is a creation of human fiction without the involvement of God, that the Bible offers no moral or ethical guidance, that God is a figment of the human imagination, and these people are just as ernest to ram these thoughts down everyone's thoughts.
To paraphrase the punchline in the book, 'The Life of Pi', we can't prove or disprove much of this staff, especially the existence of God and an afterlife. Thus, at the end of the day, it really is a choice. Even if God and an afterlife is unlikely, because it can't be disproven, why would someone in their right mind choice not to believe in it, and instead accept a harsh and cruel reality without hope? And they call Bible-believing Christians delusional!
Where are we expected to believe all the reports of miracles we may hear? Personal experiences can never be duplicated, nor should it be expected.
Why would you seek to duplicate someone else's experience when you can have your own?
Don,
Are you seriously asking this question? Realllly honestly?
I guess to you Chris, as I am sure it would be for Elaine and Dr Taylor, Don's question shouldn't be 'Why Doesn't Jesus Heal Anymore', because that would be to suggest Jesus' miracles of healing were real in the past, and just not happening now.
Stephen,
Don's question assumes Jesus existed, that his miracles happened and were real.
The question also assumes he (Don) knows how to evaluate and validate that Jesus's miracles in fact happened and that, somehow on this basis, he is qualified to declare that such miracles are no longer taking place. This seems to assume a rather impressive grip on historical data. I suspect one could be forgiven for wondering whether he has even seriously grappled with the question and history relevant to the quetion whether Jesus himself was real!
The question is "Why doesn't Jesus heal anymore" Hmmmm, i believe He does. Man has never built a
living system. Have you not noticed that most systems start having internal problems, and often are obsolete almost immed. because of newly and ongoing research success & increase of knowledge, and definitely ready for retirement or the scrap heap in a decade? In my eighty plus years, i've witnessed more advances in inventions, systems, knowledge acquired by humans, than all previous human recorded history. Re: computer technology, have ever considered how & where Google got all the information it has in storage? Its because computer speeds of operation & storage tech double every two (2) years. Did the Bible not say "to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall be increased" Dan 12:4. Would you refute this?
Back to the subject, healing, i believe in humans, Jesus provided in our living systems, a reservoir of
healing, and vitality renewal,that the individual draws on for upwards of a hundred years.The body heals it self, in most cases. i don't think He interacts as a daily chore, to provide life extension to His favorites. Medical technology has learned to bring assistance, and extend longivety in areas, that in my childhood, were often deadly, ie: appendicitus, infections, burns, accidents, viruses, and many other crippling & life changing situations.
To the "little child question", i think Jesus was considering how the child is totally aware that it is dependent on family for all its needs, and is trusting and confident in that love. Not a doubter.
Earl,
The reason I asked Don my question is that his question is a bit like an onion. There are many layers to be cut away, and some of those deeper layers may take Don deeper than he intends by his question.
Also like an onion, the cutting deep into those layers of questions may bring a tear or two for those not ready to ask them, let alone answer them!
Elaine: 'Where are we expected to believe all the reports of miracles we may hear?'
Is that the relevant question? Why isn't it, 'Where are we expected to disbelieve all the reports of miracles we may hear?' Or 'Why should be disbelieve ALL reports of miracles ever occuring ever?'
Elaine, Chris, Dr Taylor and others who seem to no longer believe in the supernatural aspects of the Bible, do you nonetheless believe in the following:
Many militant atheist scientists believe all these things – or are at least willing to acknowledge their possibility – even though there is barely a shred of evidence to really support such concepts. And yet when you think about it, these are concepts that all have religious equivalents. Why then do such concepts go from credible scientific speculation to mocked religious quackery, when they may in fact be attempting to describe similar things?
I am not attempting to write a Ron L Hubbard novel. I am just pointing out that things we routinely scoff in religions as supernatural bunckum are often similar to, or effectively the same as, concepts that are equally treated with the greatest plausability and seriousness by the world's greatest rational minds.
As a single example. I am sure if you asked Steven Hawkings whether he believes Jesus was really a supernatural being with god-like powers, who died and was resurrected, he would call such beliefs lunacy. And yet Hawkings has openly said he believes in aliens and time travellers – no doubt the kind with advanced 'god-like' powers whose healing technologies would seem like a miracle to the modern 21st century human standard.
So why is Hawkings completely rational to believe in his aliens and time travellers, but Christians who believe in Jesus who died and rose again as irrational? Is it only intellectual arrogance, or is there an actual reason?
There are those whose acceptance or existence or absence of objective fact is separate from how he feels about it.
Meaning what exactly – apologies but I don't speak riddles.
Are you saying you believing in 'scientific supernatural miracles', like blackholes, but not in religious ones? Or are you saying you don't believe in either – you only believe 100% absolutely in things that have been proved by objective fact? If it is the latter, I take it you don't believe in God – or the resurrection, or even aliens or time travellers?
Finally, as I asked, why do you think professed atheists such as Dawkins and Hawkins are willing to believe things without objective facts, like aliens or time travellers, but find it so easily to scoff at similar or effectively the same concepts, if dressed up in religious labels? Is it arrogance or hypocrisy? Is it a predetermined emotional problem with religious, so that when those same or similar concepts are described in scientific terms instead, then they are not so objectionable as speculative concepts?
Stephen,
Re your list and Hawkings beleiving time travel.
I don't hear religious believers using words like "perhaps", "could", "it is possible", etc etc. These are terms and words used frequently when such as Hawkings refer to time travel and aliens etc. If a few more observers on AT used such words about God and miracles we would have far less dogmatism.
Now re your list. I would use a large number of qualifiers to present any of the assertions in your list. Some are more verifiable than others, but none are unqualified.
If both sides use such qualfied language there is no problem. Let me illustrate: I may say "There may be a black hole". The religious persons says: "There are miracles". See the difference? That is more the problem. You are ignoring that the certainty and unequivocal nature of religious belief, as opposed to the qualified and tentative nature of most scientific assertions are generally worlds apart. It is in the religious assertions that you will find the most intellectual arrogance because they are building on dogmatic assertions rather than probabilities.
"It is in the religious assertions that you will find the most intellectual arrogance beause they are building on dogmatic assertions rather than probabilities."
BINGO!
Are there scientists who assert, unamibiguously, that discoveries or findings cannot be questioned?
Elaine,
Ronald Reagan famously told the story of a little boy who was searching through the manure in a corral when someone asked what he was doing. He replied, "I figured if there was this much manure then there had to be a horse in here somewhere." The continuation of the story was that the man laughed and suggested that the boy instead call to the horses in the nearby pasture to see if one would come to him. So he did and soon he was riding one.
You can keep smelling and seeing all the spiritual manure in the world. Or, you can let God reveal Himself to you and show you that all the manure is, well, just manure. That's where God resolves our spiritual issues. Do you want to let God resolve your issues? Or, would you rather just keep arguing about the manure?
Thanks William. You have somewhat addressed my concern or question, whether sometimes we might be trying to be too clever for our own good. We can read hundreds of books like Elaine, fill our heads with all sorts of academic knowledge, and come away with what – disbelief.
Perhaps the Gnostics were right. Perhaps The Truth is experiential knowledge, that can't be found at the end of a Catechism or statement of fundamental beliefs. Either you have that sort of experience knowledge or you don't.
With reference to the recent interaction between Steven, Elaine, Chris, & Ervin. What Steven is requesting is an answer to why the three of you respond negatively whenever a Christian faith or belief statement is made, or Bible reference is made re: Earth, LIFE, and heavens origins. Of events, actions, meanings, supernatural or miracle happenings, Creation of space, the universe , Jesus, Holy Spirit, etc.
It seems that one or the other of you will immed. ridicule the concept offered (often AOKed by another of you, BINGO), because it seems that you are unable to accept any concept that cannot be physically, scientifically replicated. This opposition to the statement really comes across as dogmatic, and often arrogant, as though the offerer is on trial, exasperation then sets in, and then the rare short comment from the ivory tower.
The question of Steven and me is "what is your motivation of participation on this Christian ethics program"? Why would you wish to "rain on the parade of anothers faith & belief philosophy, when it gives them peace and contentment and hope & courage to face each days dragon". Hey, Dude, why diss us????.
Earl,
Speaking for me….if people are only here to pat one another on the back and affirm entrenched beliefs….then forgive me… I have no place here. IF, on the other hand some are here to honestly grapple with the issues life and reality confront us with…then, what's the problem?
Seems to me too many are here for a pat on the back. Why ask the question at all if that's all one wants?!
Living as I do in the People's Republic of Oregon, we experience a great number of permutations on the supernatural theme in religion. By no means are we all atheists, though you won't find a lot of us (speaking generally) in church on Saturdays and Sundays (I do attend regularly and do serve as a local elder, so not to fear). In this context, I have become acquainted with a non-Adventist Christian family that refuses to seek or accept any treatment from a physician, or take medications, because in their minds doing so would show lack of faith in God to answer their prayers directly. Several children born to them with minor birth defects or metabolic or breathing conditions have perished because these parents refused to seek relatively simple surgical correctives. Some of these parents are now in prison for child neglect. There's not a one of us that is not moved when we read the headlines about this group losing yet another child, every three years or so, followed by a court case that puts one or more highly religious parents in prison. The kids that die are beautiful children, and their parents seem intelligent. But these poor families cannot come to terms with the view that not to literally expect a miracle is to show lack of faith, and allowing a disease to take its unencumbered course is a true test of the will of God for an individual. One of my good friends, a barber who belonged to this group, died shortly after retirement because he refused medication for high blood pressure, and sustained a major stroke. His death put major financial stress on his widow and daughter.
By contrast, there is an Adventist physician here in town who is known as an extremely capable internist and diagnostician. He and I have discussed divine intervention in the healing process, and his favorite text seems to be, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord, thy God." He tells me that he practices medicine as if there is no divine backup for any mistakes he might make. He imagines himself the last, best hope for every patient, and analyzes and treats those patients for each and every ailment in even complex combinations of diagnoses. He tells me he will retire the moment he senses that his judgment and intuition are becoming in the least compromised….
My physician friend believes in God and worships with his fellow Adventist parishioners. And he does believe that God can, and may, intervene where humans may require a special sign. But the good doctor refuses to use belief in miracles as an excuse to do anything less than his most intensely professional work. I think most of us who have survived any length of time in any profession recognize that miracles in the Bible are employed primarily as signs, not as everyday interventions we should simply build into our calculus for success. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord, thy God. To "expect" a miracle seems a bit blasphemous, but who am I to negate the faith of a child and his parents who hold onto what they see as the hand of God, though the heavens fall? I cannot call these people "evil" and "terrible parents." They are being urged on in this belief by charismatic and shrewd pastors and church elders who have invented this heresy and use it to control their spiritual wards by threatening to consign to perdition any parents who seek medical treatment for their children. This whole question is extremely complex and twice as emotional, when children's lives are involved….
Chris: 'I don't hear religious believers using words like "perhaps", "could", "it is possible", etc etc. These are terms and words used frequently when such as Hawkings refer to time travel and aliens etc. If a few more observers on AT used such words about God and miracles we would have far less dogmatism… If both sides use such qualfied language there is no problem.'
Thank you Chris – that seems entirely reasonable. Yes, I think there is extremism is saying one definately believes in something, which many Christians do. However, many ex- and anti-Christians do the opposite, stating with something approaching certainty that they don't believe something.
Are you admitting then the possibility of miracles?
Elaine: 'Are there scientists who assert, unamibiguously, that discoveries or findings cannot be questioned?'
Doesn't Richard Dawkins (whom I pretty sure is a scientist) say evolution is unquestionable fact and in effect can't be questioned? Doesn't he say with the same dogmatic faith of a fundamentalist that God doesn't exist? Do Christians really say things can't be questioned – over 2,000 denominations would suggest a whole lot of questioning is going on.
'"There may be a black hole". The religious persons says: "There are miracles". See the difference?'
I'm pretty sure scientists can be pretty dogmatic about things and say things as fact – not merely as possibilities. As I said, Dawkins loves to counter those who say evolution is just a theory with the retort that it is actually an undeniable fact.
'Seems to me too many are here for a pat on the back.'
I'm cool with challenging Christians who go around patting each other on the back. But do you 'non-believers' and 'atheist-Christians' (who seem to reject the supernatural, so presumably the notion of God and afterlife), have to always go around metaphorically punching us all in the face? Then can be a kinder, gentler way of things – rather than just pocking sticks in people's eyes.
Question for Elaine, Chris, Ervin and Co, and keeping with the theme of Don's article:
What does a 'rational' faith without supernatural elements look like exactly – no weasal words? Can it be rightly called a 'faith' or even a 'religion', or does it become merely a philosophy of sorts?
And didn't Jesus and Paul effectively deal with the same issue in their own days, dealing with the Sadducees, who likewise appeared very 'rational', in rejecting an afterlife?
I've never claimed to have a "rational" faith. Please explain its meaning.
I guess Elaine I am trying to understand what type of faith or religion you actually have. If one denied a belief in the supernatural, including denying miracles, which seems to be your position – is it not – is there then still room for:
If the answer to all the above questions is no – what's left in one's religion? If the answer is yes – how, given the supernatural, including miracles, is denied?
When you think of it – would a denial of the supernatural and miracles be a denial of the very basic components of the Nicean Creed and Rule of Faith? Could one legitimately call themself a 'Christian'? If one still believed in the moral value of Jesus' teachings, but not the supernatural elements, would that render it more a philosophy than a religion?
I am very interesting in what type of faith or religion one actually ends up with, when they follow your lead and read all those hundreds and hundreds of books, so that they seem to no longer believe in the supernatural, including denying belief in miracles.
Stephen,
You may notice I actually asked Don if he was asking his question with serious intent. The reason for this is that I did not want to turn up here and offer an answer that would, if he was not genuinely and fully seeking answer, be "poking a stick in his eye". I chose not to do so first up.
You were the first one to treat my question to him as a bait, which it was not. I fully intended to leave it at that, or if he responded affirmatively, offer some observations.
I have stayed away from Jack's latest blog for similar reasons. I know (fully) open dialogue is not appreciated on his turf. He is pushing for openness from "The Church" towards his position, but is not comfortable with his "incontrovertibles" being questioned.
I have commented directly on Ron's blog because the detail he went into indicated to me someone who was willing to grapple with any feedback. Yes, he did imply he only wanted Christians to respond. Most here think I am not of course!
Miracles may be possible. Of course defining such is not so easy. Many "natural" events were once thought to be miracles.
A rational faith? Recall my blog on Less faith = more belief and you have your answer. In the religious sense, I would say I live a virtually faith free life. To quote Hugh Mackay, I think I now live a more whole life than I ever have. I have more peace, more respect for life, others, nature and all my fellow creatures. I still sense there is some mystery and connectedness to life that one could define as spiritual. However, I refuse to codify that, because to do so would be to inerpret what I cannot explain. I now see the attempt to codify and explain this aspect of life as the cause of all/most religion/s.
Evolution being a fact? Yes, the reality of an evolutionary process is so well scientifically demonstrated one could almost declar it a fact.
Thank you Chris
And Chris to be honest I never really fully understand your previous blog, which is a reflection on me I am sure. I hope you would consider continuing to explore that theme though.
I remember reading recently some theological works by very famous theologians, such as Bultmann, who don't seem to believe in the supernatural and miracles either. If you recall, there was some controversy some time back about an Anglican Bishop who said he no longer believes Jesus was literally raised from the dead. I believe there is even a bit of a support group for atheist clergy in the Anglican Church in England.
My question is how do such people continue to rationalise involvement in a religious group? Many of these theologians are experts in ancient languages, and the cultural-historical methods for understanding what Jesus probably said and meant, but they don't believe Jesus rose from the dead! To borrow a phrase from Prof Dawkins, how does it not then all become a dedication to mental masturbation?
Assuming a whole group of people came to the same conclusions as say you, Elaine and Dr Taylor, and let's assume they went to form their own Christian denomination, what do you think it would look like? Would there still be praying? Would there still be rituals, like baptism and communion? Would there any comments about life after death, and what would a funeral for this group be like? Would there still be singing and communal worship? Would there be a commual component, or does the rejection of traditional religion, including rejection much of the supernatural and miracles, inevitably lead one to a personal spirituality only?
I would love it if you are Dr Taylor would consider exploring that thought further. The question would be, 'What would a Christian denomination look like if all its members rejected supernatural miracles?'
cb25, you have company on this site…a Little Flock, as it were. When asked, "Are you a Christian?" at a Christian gathering, I replied, "I have a problem with that name. Accepting that label alianates half of the world, and for good reason." Shock & awe were readily apparent on all faces within earshot.
"Less faith = more belief….very well said, my friend.
What is a Christian exactly? The 28 FBs – I doubt it. The Nicean Creed and ancient Rule of Faith (Diadache), but that would seem to require a belief in supernatural miracles, including the affirmation that Christ pre-existed, was with God and is God, was literally born of a virgin, and rose from the grave.
A good question. Can one call themself a 'Christian' in the way it was first derived in Antioch if one denies belief in supernatural miracles, which would seem to deny the very basic elements of the Christian faith? And if someone only believes Jesus was a great moral teacher, but not supernatural, then what should they be called? Are labels necessary?
If you say A plus B equals C, but you take away either A or B, how can you truthfully claim that you have C? The person who claims A without B equals C is lying. Period.
Scripture clearly declares the power of God to heal, that He does heal and the followers of Jesus will be empowered by the Holy Spirit to perform greater miracles than Jesus did. So, a person who claims God no longer heals is declaring their disbelief in God. Period.
Yet there is an issue greater than proving disbelief: growing in God's love so that our disbelief will be replaced by faith that works and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. That is also God's promise to us. Will we lay aside our disbelief and allow God to fulfill His promise in us?
I think we have to take into account that the name Christian was initially used to insult the 'followers of Christ.' It is perhaps the only religious name that isn't adopted from within itself. Like Islam for example. They prefer to be called Muslim and name their religion as Islam – of which they are rather forceful about. The name 'Christian' however was given by those who despised and persecuted the followers of Christ. Of course one good thing about it is that it bears his name and I'm down with that. Bearing the name of Christ is more precious to me than getting worried about not being socially correct in being different from half of the world. At least half the world will see Christ in us; if only, at least in name.
Christ was not his name…it was a title. His name was Yeshua/Joshua. His teachings I accept. However, the Crusades, the Inquisition, Jimmy Swaggert, and Jim Jones marched forth under Christian banners. I choose to NOT be included with a kind of belief/behavior that Yeshua would have totally rejected.
Great points Vernon, but does that only half address the issue of 'who is a Christian.' Is it enough to say one follows the teachings of Jesus Christ? Or does one also have to believe in the actions of Jesus, namely in His atoning death and resurrection? Can only still claim to be a Christian if you accept the former and not the latter? It is relevant because many modern theologians, including a number of commentators here, seem to accept Jesus' moral teachings but not in Jesus' atoning escthatological mission, which does require a certain belief in the supernatural – especially the idea of Christ's resurrection. As Paul says in 1 Cor 15:14, going to the heart of this Jesus:
That raises further interesting questions, such as whether 'Christianity' is really a religion of Jesus or an invention of Paul. If you reject the supernatural elements, then is Christianity even a religion, or just a moral philosophy? And why follow a man 2,000 years ago, whom we know next to nothing about firsthand? Why not follow Ghandi, or Mandella, or Bah'ulla, or even Mahummed, a range of other great moral leaders who we know a whole lot more about.
Can Christianity be just about Jesus' teachings? Is the fact that Christians believe He is the Christ, the annointed one, suggest something more than a mere teacher? Doesn't the Christ, the annointed, the returned king, bring emphasis to the eschatological mission of Jesus? So can there still be a Christianity without its Advent-focused, so important to that first generation of Christian believers?
Your questions are valid, Stephen, and deserve much consideration. In 2007, I shared a communion service, with 60+ believers of various denomintions, at the Garden Tomb. If emotion is any measure of belief, I had just about the right amount. It's the trappings of religion that I cannot accept. Accepting Yeshua as Lord & Savior is not enough anymore. Overnight, we're in an 'us-vs-them' situation. The sacrifice of Jesus happened without my input, and will remain fact (in my mind) regardless of any personal effort on my part. Sadly, an atheist is often a better neighbor than a Christian.
So true and much agreed.
“ Sadly, an atheist is often a better neighbor than a Christian”
In my case that is not true. My Christians friends were the ones who came to visit me when I was very sick, the ones who went to feed the homeless in the street, the ones who helped to a young single mother with 2 kids, the ones who are willing to share their time and resources to help some one who is in need.
Praise God for the blessing He has given you by making you part of such a group of caring believers. That is a great and precious gift.
I thank God that I am now part of such a community of believers. It was not that way when I was attending a different congregation and unemployed for a multi-year period. I will never forget the day I turned to the church to ask for help paying an overdue utility bill that I could not pay. Not only did I not receive the help requested, I came away feeling like I'd been through a "third degree" inqusition. Our struggle to survive had worn my spirit to such a degree that the refusal caused me to lose all respect for my inquisitors. In contrast, non-Adventists helped us willingly. The pain of that experience led me to determine that if I was ever in a position to help others that I would do so willingly. God has taken that determination and turned it into a helping ministry that has been a tremendous blessing to me as much as anyone we have helped.
David, I applaud the much needed support you received from Christians. My present wife received similar help while a single mom raising five children. In her case, however, aid was always rendered by members of a sect that had targeted her as a potential member…LDS, SDA, JW, etc. Each of her benefactors dropped out of sight when she stopped the 'studies.' At present, I find secular humanisim far more appealing than what passes for 21st Century Christianity.
What is a Christian? By their fruits shall ye know them. Many claim the title "Christian", but display little if any CHRISTLIKE virtues or actions. These are they that misrepresent the CHRIST. A good neighbor is one who practices first class human relations 24/7 to all they meet. These are those that have the love of Christ in their hearts. i have known people who claimed to be atheist, who displayed "fruits of the spirit".Genuine concern and support, i believe, encourage healing in those who are hurting.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, famous for being the spiritual leader of the German resitance against Hitler, and one of the greatest theologians ever, had much personal and spiritual crises in the 1930s. During this period, do you know who Bonhoeffer most wanted to visit to obtain spiritual guidance? Some greate Christian theologian? The Pope? No – Ghandi – a Hindu!
Stephen,
Ghandi was an admirer of Jesus, but for whom it was not possible to become a Christian because of the evil deeds he saw the professed followers of Jesus doing.
Back in 1982 I was visiting a retired friend in South Lancaster, Massachusetts who many years before had been a lead colporteur in India. Ghandi was prime minister and his dream was to personally deliver a copy of "Desire of Ages" to the man with an appeal for him to become a Christian. He was able to send a copy and received a personal letter in response. At that point in the story my friend pulled the letter from an album and handed it to me to read. I studied the manually-typed document with hand corrections and now yellowed from age. The letter expressed his appreciation for the gift and that he had read all of it. But what really caught my attention was what he said next: that while he was a great admirer of Jesus because of the love He showed and the many miracles He performed and that he tried to behave in the same spirit of love and kindness, it was not possible for him to become a Christian because of all the behaviors of professed Christians that were completely unlike the life of Jesus. I would not have believed the statement if I had not seen it with my own eyes.
I was reminded of that letter in 1995 when a new semester at graduate school started and I found a new crop of foreign students in one of my classes, including a group from India. My wife and I decided to host an International Night at our home to help them get acquainted and oriented to life in our community. One of the students was a cultural dancer who very proudly demonstrated her craft. When she found out I was a Christian her temper flared and she began sharing stories of how she had attended Catholic schools and how the nuns who were her teachers inflicted severe punishments for even minor offenses. But most repulsive to her was their teaching that everyone would be condemned to burning forever in hell if they didn't become Catholic. The vitriol in her voice was a chilling revelation of her deep antipathy for anything related to Jesus, no matter how different it may have been from what she had experienced.
"Did God die and make you the judge?"
Yes, actually, . . . He did. Rev. 20:4
Yes, Jesus does still heal! He heals sinners. [1Pet 2:24] Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes all of you were healed.
Houston, we have a problem.
People are talking past each other on this blog because while we seem to be talking about history, one side (Elaine, Erv, Chris, et al) is using historical criteria for judging historical events, the other side (oct22, et al) is talking about historicized theology. Historicized theology is not the same thing as history. Stories of Jesus walking on water, oozing through walls, performing healing miracles, resurrecting himself and floating up into the sky-heaven, is historicized theology; it is not history.
Every civilization and religion has historicized theology as founding myths. For example, according to the Shinto religion, Jimmu was Japan’s first emperor. Jimmu is regarded as a direct descendant of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. While it worked well for the nation of Japan, should we take it seriously as history? Of course not.
So founding myths are necessary and good things, because man is a social being and needs a civilization to fulfill his potential. Since religions need founding myths, and somebody needs to believe them in order for there to be order in that civilization, many believers are needed. If you are in that group, and can believe things like Jesus floating up into the sky, walking through walls, etc, then you must have the belief gene. More power to you, because society needs you. Ignore the skepticism of those not blessed with your belief gene.
I readily confess that I also am not one of those blessed with the belief gene, and therefore cannot take seriously as a historical event a story that has Jesus oozing through walls and floating up into the sky, etc. But I take consolation in the fact that history and science are also useful to civilization and my thinking tends to resonate with historical and scientific reasoning, even though I realize that they cannot provide absolute certainty about anything.
I suggest that these two legitimate modes of thinking be separated by the labels, “the historical Jesus,” and the “Christ of faith.” The “historical Jesus” must be evaluated by scientific historical-criteria alone, and the “Christ of faith” by traditional Christian beliefs alone. Once we do this, then Chris and Oct22 can both be right.