Robert Miller wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> I took the liberty to rename this thread
>
> George Murphy wrote in part:
> > > But what if God specifically ask us to pray for a miracle such as a
> healing?
> >
> > But does he - i.e., tell us to pray not just for healing but for
> > _miraculous_ healing?
>
> That is the way I read James 5:13-16
This says that the sick person is to be anointed with oil - a common
medication in biblical times (e.g., Is.1:6, Lk.10:34) - in ther name of the Lord
& prayed for & that "the prayer of faith will save the sick person." There is
nothing to indicate that _miraculous_ healing is to be prayed for & the use of a
medication, whether symbolic or not, argues against that. Nor is such prayer to
be expected: Christians believed that God could heal, & the question of whether
they expected that healing to be natural or miraculous probably didn't occur to
them.
> > The function of OED is to explain the ways in which English words
> have
> > actually been used, & this is indeed an old and still common understanding
> of
> > "miracle" by Christians (e.g., by Aquinas). But the Bible gives no
> precise
> > definition of the types of events which can be described as "miracles."
> > Moreover, in none of the accounts of things we would commonly describe as
> > "miracles" does the Bible tell us that God acted in an unmediated way &
> not
> > through cooperation with any creature. All these events of course _are_
> > understood to be due to God's action, but so is the "natural" growth of
> grain in
> > the fields.
> > Thus there is no compelling theological reason to say that any
> events
> > which have taken place in the world are beyond the capacities of "the
> operation
> > of any natural agency" _in cooperation with God_. Of course _without_
> divine
> > cooperation no natural agency would be able to accomplish anything or even
> > exist.
> > N.B. I am not saying that God _cannot_ do anything beyond the
> capacity
> > of created things nor am I saying dogmatically that God never has done
> such a
> > thing.
>
> I agree that the Bible is not a document of precise definitions but I
> understand that
> one of the principles of hermeneutics is to try to determine how the
> original recipients
> of the text understood it. When Jesus or Peter or Paul raised someone from
> the dead
> I think it is safe to say that the witnesses understood that to be an act of
> God, a miracle.
There seems to be misunderstanding here on a couple of counts. 1st, I
have not argued here against miracles. I have argued that they need not be
understood as phenomena which are beyond the capacity of created agents with
divine cooperation. 2d, you simply can't equate "act of God" with "miracle."
Everything that happens in the world is an act of God. Your breakfast Wheaties
& cure of a headache with aspirin are acts of God.
>
> That does not require that we understand it in the same way, but it does
> require that
> we need some compelling reason to dispute the eyewitnesses. That miracles do
> not conform to our present understanding of the laws of nature is not a
> compelling
> reason. Even John Polkinghorne has found room for miracles in quantum
> uncertainty
> and chaos theory.
Precisely. He has "found room for them" so that he doesn't see them as
completely beyond the capacity of creatures.
> In my earlier post I mentioned that Jesus refered to His
> miracles
> to John the Baptist to authenticate His ministry and messiahship. I think it
> is safe
> to say that John the Baptist understood that there is an intrinsinc
> difference between
> healing a blind person and the "natural" growth of grain.
Jesus referred to his _signs_, some of which were miracles. I am not
denying that miracles, in the sense of extraordinary & marvelous phenomena, took
place in the ministry of Jesus. But what Jesus appealed to was not the miracle
_qua_ miracle but the sign value of the miracle & its correspondence with
Messianic expectations. & again, the Bible does not say that miracles are
beyond the capacity of created agents with divine cooperation. I aplogize for
the repetition but apparently this point has not been made clearly enough.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
>
>
> Bob Miller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 29 2001 - 20:15:21 EDT