But isn't it interesting that when we do become healed, or we do get the
job, or whatever else it is we pray for...that event occurs in a natural
way? In other words, God never pops out of the sky waving a magic wand
and shooting off fireworks. So...we are still left without proof that
"God did it." And it's a good thing, too, because otherwise our faith
would become "conditional." Lucy
attached mail follows:
Hi George,
I agree George, the thrust of John the Baptist's inquiry is a believer
suffering from
doubt, a circumstance and method that is still viable. If we didn't believe
in miracles
why would we pray for healing, or a job, or any number of things that we
ask God to
intervene on?
Bob Miller
> It's important to observe the context in which Jesus makes this
appeal
> to the signs have accompanied his ministry. John isn't an unbeliever or
an
> "enquirer." He's pictured as a believer who is struggling with doubts
about a
> specific issue, whether or not Jesus is the Messiah. (What the
understanding of
> the historical John was is not to the point here.) & Jesus strengthens
his
> faith by pointing to the fulfillment of prophecies about the Messianic
reign -
> Is.35:3-6 & 61:1 &c. & while some of the things to which Jesus points may
well
> have been miracles ("the poor have good news preached to them", e.g.,
wasn't),
> their importance lies not in their miraculous character in itself but in
the
> fact that they are the expected Messianic signs.
> For apologetics there is also just the practical question of
whether the
> appeal to miracle will
> _work_. R. Seeberg said nearly a century ago, "The miracle was once the
basis
> of all apologetic. It then became an apologetic crutch, and today it is
> frequently a cross which apologetic must bear." If a person is
fundamentally
> skeptical about miracles, it may be unwise to adopt an apologetic approach
which
> has to overcome two barriers, first convincing the person that miracles
are
> plausible and _then_ that they provide any support to the Christian
gospel. A
> straightforward frontal attack on the first barrier will accomplish
nothing with
> a person whose basic world view rules out miracles. (E.g., the classic
Humean
> argument against the miraculous.) The world view has to be changed first.
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Dialogue"
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 26 2001 - 22:53:40 EDT