Re: [asa] Hiding the miraculous?

Sorry, meant to post this to the forum, rather than
sending it offlist...

--- Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> I've thought a lot about this question on and off
> again through the years, particularly as members of
> my
> owned family have faced illness..here are some
> thoughts that have shaped my way of thinking, it no
> particular (or coherent) order...
>
> 1. C. S. Lewis wrote that in order for free will to
> exist, we must live in a predictable, natural
> world--otherwise, "choice" based on our knowledge of
> the world would not be possible (because the world
> would be too fluid). Thus, natural disasters will be
> what they will be, good people will suffer at the
> hands of the evil sometimes, and miracles will be
> the
> exception, rather than the rule.
>
> 2. As the book Cry the Beloved Country put it, "I
> have
> never thought that a Christian would be free of
> suffering, umfundisi. For our Lord suffered. And I
> come to believe that He suffered, not to save us
> from
> suffering, but to teach us how to bear suffering.
> For
> He knew that there is no life without suffering."
>
> 3. It is important to realize that God is NOT a
> wishing well or a genie. We are in relationship with
> God, and prayer is our dialogue with Him. He is our
> Father, and we are His children. We may, in prayer,
> make our requests to Him regarding healing, but He
> is
> under no obligation to grant that request, just like
> a
> parent, listening to their child's request, is under
> no obligation to oblige them. Sometimes, this denial
> causes us pain, and sometimes we don't understand
> it,
> but just as children, we must trust that our
> heavenly
> Father is working in our best interests.
>
> 4. Even in Mark 9:17-29, there is a story of the
> apostles being unable to heal a child, and then
> asking
> Jesus why they weren't able to...
>
> 5. One of my pastors once gave a sermon on this
> topic,
> and noted that in the stories of Jesus' healing
> people
> in the New Testament, the miraculous act was never
> the
> point of the story. Yes, He did it out of
> compassion,
> but more primarily, He did the miraculous to point
> to
> His divinity, to His power, and to give us a glimpse
> of His coming kingdom. Miracles have a purpose.
> Think
> about it...even when Jesus, God Incarnate, walked
> the
> earth, do you think no one died during that time
> period? Do you think that no one's relatives prayed
> for healing during that time? Of course
> not...Jesus's
> ministry was one of bringing eternal
> salvation--miracles were just a means to an end...
>
> ...the follow-up question might be, well why doesn't
> He do miracles for everyone, so that all would come
> to
> faith? I think then we get back to the idea of free
> will, and the value that God places on faith. God
> intends us to have free will, and intends for us to
> be
> saved through faith...thus, His doing miracles for
> everyone would diminish His sovereignty--He would in
> essence be "proving" that He is God, which is
> something that is wrong for us to demand.
>
> 6. God cannot grant the petitions of every prayer,
> because inherently, we often times pray FOR things
> that other people pray AGAINST (so to speak). Thus,
> for God to answer one with "yes" might inherently
> mean
> that the other person will be answered with a "no".
> Nevertheless, God HEARS ALL prayers, and all are
> valued by Him.
>
> 7. I once read (maybe in The Lutheran magazine?) a
> prayer for the sick. To paraphrase, it acknowledged
> both the power of God to work through faith alone
> (miracle/faith healing) and the power of God to heal
> through the earthly means (medicine/doctors), but
> above all, it acknowledged His sovereignty in all
> things, life and death.
>
> The bottom line is that God is both sovereign, and
> faithful. He alone has the power to save our souls,
> but our bodies (and the exact timing of when our
> souls
> are released from our bodies) are also subject to
> the
> laws and sins of this world. He may, if it is His
> purpose and will, intervene in this, but most of the
> time, He lets "nature" (whether we are referring to
> human nature or traditional nature) take its course.
>
> Okay, I gotta' run...hope this didn't go too much
> off
> on a tangent...
>
> Christine Smith
>
> --- Chris Barden <chris.barden@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Merv,
> >
> > > I find the objections against the apparent
> > "inconsistencies" of answered
> > > Christian prayer to themselves, be shortsighted
> > and inconsistent according to
> > > their own assumptions. The logical conclusion
> (if
> > there was one) of their
> > > objection to non-universal healings or
> "sparings"
> > is that nobody can ever die
> > > unless it be some form of "ideal" or peaceful
> > death in bed -- which others
> > > would then, in any case, find objectionable.
> > Moreover nothing bad could ever
> > > happen in the world because if it did, then
> those
> > subjected would have been
> > > unfairly treated by God. Christians (and to my
> > knowledge --nobody) has ever
> > > claimed the world should exist in this
> > ridiculously absurd and unimaginable
> > > state. It's basically nonsense, and Dawkins or
> > others would be unable to
> > > answer the question: So what would the world
> have
> > to be like before you would
> > > say "OK, now God is consistently answering
> > prayer." They construct an
> > > illogical & undefinable ideal and then hold
> > Christianity in contempt for not
> > > achieving it.
> >
> > True, as regards the problem of evil. I believe
> > this is much like
> > Plantinga's argument that, in order to argue that
> > evil in the world
> > disproves God's action in it, one must first
> > demonstrate that the
> > quantitative amount of evil (he invented a unit, I
> > recall) is greater
> > than one would expect from a world under God's
> > superintendence.
> > Dawkins, indeed no one, can demonstrate this,
> which
> > is why he focuses
> > more on an emotional non-argument; Plantinga
> himself
> > has granted this
> > is the strongest polemic for atheism, even if
> there
> > is no evidencial
> > basis for believing it. And McGrath's reference
> to
> > the cross at this
> > point is the only remotely satisfying counter from
> > an emotional
> > perspective. Why it was that set of children and
> > not some other set
> > that God saved, we cannot answer.
> >
> > > An aside: I seem to remember Yancey using
> > Pancreatic cancer as one of the
> > > cancers he has never ever heard of any healing
> or
> > documented remissions from
> > > from among the thousands of accounts he does
> have
> > of apparent answers to
> > > prayer. Apparently that is one of the deadlier
> > cancers -- it would be
> > > interesting to self-proclaimed hear faith
> healers
> > comment on it.
> >
> > Pancreatic cancer is close to mind because I
> > recently had an aunt
> > succumb to the disease. She was a strong
> Christian,
> > so I tried to
> > focus on her future hope as solace for her present
> > pain. I was well
>
=== message truncated ===

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 13 21:58:53 2007