This question was posed by an athiest for Christians to answer.
He said that Christians claim that God heals disease and then give story after story of people being healed from all kinds of diseases as proof that God exists. But, why then doesn’t he heal amputees? Why hasn’t there ever been a case of someone regrowing an arm or leg? At the very least, this casts doubt on the validity of medical miracles and therefore cast doubt on evidence for God’s existence.
This is a very clever question. It throws you off because, chances are, you personally have never seen or heard of an amputee regrowing his limbs. But, honestly, this question is nothing new. It is another rehash of two age-old questions:
1. If God exists, why doesn’t he just come down and show me he exists?
2. If a good God exists, why does he allow suffering in the world?
However clever it is, it is a trick question. Let me walk you through why I think it’s a trick question.
Firstly, there is no way our atheist friend is going to know if God has regrown limbs before (although the bible is filled with those kinds of stories). For him to know that, he would have had to personally documented every single amputee’s life story since the beginning of history. So, what he really means is why hasn’t God shown HIM an amputee who has a regrown limb.
Obviously, the atheist is prone to doubt any eyewitness testimony or video, audio, or written evidence of an amputee miraculously being healed. So, we Christians would have to take one amputee for every atheist in the world and bring them before said atheist to be examined by him and any medical expert he chooses and then we would have to pray to Jesus right then and there that He would regrow the amputated limb AND the limb would have to regrow right there in front of said atheist’s eyes for him to believe. (This is what an atheist means when he says undeniable proof.)
Besides the fact that the Christian God is not required to dance around like a puppet for our atheist friend, to do his bidding, it sidesteps one very obvious fact. Many more people don’t require such a ridiculous amount of proof to believe God exists. So, in a sense, God could be saying, “Why should I give you more evidence than let’s say, Billy Graham? Just because you took a philosophy course at the community college doesn’t make you a deep thinker who ‘isn’t going to accept things on blind faith’ and therefore doesn’t require me to do more to show you I exist. Or, more seriously, just because you had a bad experience in life, such as a priest fondling you, ALSO doesn’t mean I am required to show you more proof I exist- especially when there are plenty of those who have had similar experiences and yet still believe.
The point is, God doesn’t have to come to you and beg you to believe in him by performing all these miracles (actually, he did do that 2,000 years ago and people still chose not believe). You have to come to him, putting aside all of your pride, conceit, and sinful motives and ask him to reveal himself to you.
Secondly, I have touched on this already, but I want to point out that the nature of the atheist is to doubt. It is in his heart to doubt. Romans 1 says that the nature of the unbeliever is that they supress the truth with their unrighteousness. They know the truth, but still deny it and continue to deceive themselves. So, if God did heal an amputee’s limb right before his eyes, the athiest would be more likely to think it was a hoax then to believe it was a miracle. Or he is more likely to believe there was something wrong with his eyes- that he was hallucinating. Or, if he did choose to believe in God, he would do like the Pharisees did to Jesus- he would refuse that that power came from the one true God but instead came from the devil himself.
Even if athiests got together and made a list of all the proof that God would have to produce for them to believe and even if He produced it, they would continue to disbelieve. The only way for them to escape their cynical and skeptical nature is for God to initiate that change in their heart first.
Thirdly, why stop at regrowing limbs? Why not just ask why God allows them to happen in the first place? Oh, but that wouldn’t be as clever of a question. That would give us a question that philosophers and theologians have been grappling with for centuries and there’s no fun in that. Not to mention the fact that Christians have a list of morally sufficient reasons as long as my arm as to why God allows suffering to exist.
For God to not allow the chance for suffering to exist, he would have to make us into the kind of beings that would perfectly do his will all the time. But, in order to do that, he would have to take away our freedom to choose. Does anyone know of an atheist who wants their freedom to choose be taken away from them? I didn’t think so. Therefore, we have to live with the fact that people use their power to choose for evil purposes that would (in the long run) end up with someone having their arm amputated.
Finally, for those of you who are reading this and may be sitting on the fence, please consider this- the Christian response to suffering (limb amputated or otherwise) is that the consequences of man’s sin is vast, but God can use those consequences for his glory and for your benefit. Through suffering God can teach us dependence on Him, dependence on each other, to be grateful for the things that we do have, and ultimately, through His plan of salvation, give us an eternal hope- a heavenly hope where a new body awaits us.
Not only that, but only the Christian God can tell us that he has personally experienced human suffering. Jesus, being God in the flesh, suffered and died an unjust execution on the cross to pay the penalty for sins he did not committ. He DOES empathize with our suffering.
The atheist, on the other hand- offers only two things: 1. The ‘comfort’ to know that you believe in the truth and not fairy tales. 2. Nothing. Your suffering is real and beyond what limited, finite man can do, you have no hope of an end to your suffering. The old saying is true, “Atheism has never dried a tear.” There is no hope beyond the grave if you’re an atheist.
So, can God regrow amputated limbs? I believe He can and I believe He has. But, he has done much more. He has offered us a new life with Him through His Son Jesus.
Goodness, this is a mess of bad reasoning. Rather than pick it all apart, would you do me the favor of telling me what you feel is your strongest point?
By: Robert on June 18, 2008
at 6:59 pm
Well, since you started off with “this is a mess of bad reasoning”, I’m not actually inclined to start a conversation with you.
Furthermore, no argument works on just one strong point. The points work together as a whole. If you don’t want to do the work of critiquing it yourself, instead of asking me to do it for you, then why bother leaving a comment?
By: ndefalco on June 19, 2008
at 7:15 pm
Robert – The argument is really not that complicated. Rather than fighting a thousand little swordfights over secondary questions, why don’t you try dealing with the core arguments here. Which argument do you find objectionable?
A. God exists.
B. God allows or initiates suffering.
C. God allows or initiates bad things to bring glory to Himself and for the good of his people.
D. The only way for God to prevent all suffering is to take away man’s moral autonomy and force all people to follow His will perfectly like robots.
By: Lucas Defalco on June 19, 2008
at 8:24 pm
A couple of accounts of God healing inoperable or amputed limbs as documented by a physician….
Luke 6:6-10
“On another Sabbath, he entered the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was withered. And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse him. But he knew their thoughts, and he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come and stand here.” And he rose and stood there. And Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?” And after looking around at them all he said to him, “Stretch out your hand.” And he did so, and his hand was restored.”
Luke 22:49-51
“And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him.”
By: Lucas Defalco on June 19, 2008
at 8:35 pm
Very well, since the argument works “together as a whole,” then demonstrating how it fails on one point should invalidate the rest of it, correct?
Your first error is to grossly mischaracterize the question. It is certainly not a trick question, and it certainly is not a re-hash of old, familiar questions. Are you claiming these old, familiar questions are in fact trick questions?
Allow me to break it down.
Christians claim miraculous healings for all sorts of ailments, from the mental to the physical, even up to today. However, there is one class of individuals whom Christians never present as being healed: amputees. This is an anomaly to the general claim. Why aren’t amputees ever miraculously healed by God, while those with, say, cancer, are? This anomaly requires an explanation since it appears as if a single class of individuals is being singled out for exclusion from God’s miraculous healing power. The question is just as relevant to Christians as it is to atheists or anyone else.
Your first point in answer to the question is a gross strawman. Every atheist doesn’t require presentation of a miraculous regrowth of a limb before their very eyes. The proof is much more mundane. Simply pray for someone whose limb has been medically documented as missing or amputated (children of war would be good candidates). When her limb is restored, present her to any medical professional for verification.
I’ve demonstrated a) how you’ve mischaracterized the question and b) how your first point is a strawman. Your argument thus fails.
By: Robert on June 20, 2008
at 2:36 pm
Lucas DeFalco,
I don’t see those as the “core arguments”. They’re not, strictly speaking, arguments, but claims. Nonetheless, allow me to address them.
A. God exists.
This is a claim which is not demonstrated as true.
B. God allows or initiates suffering.
God is the origin of suffering. This either conflicts with the claim of His omnibenevolence, or we’ve misunderstood suffering as something evil. If God is its creator, then suffering is in fact good.
C. God allows or initiates bad things to bring glory to Himself and for the good of his people.
Then no suffering can be characterized as evil. The Christian has no basis to claim events such as the Holocaust are evil.
D. The only way for God to prevent all suffering is to take away man’s moral autonomy and force all people to follow His will perfectly like robots.
So, there’s suffering in heaven too?
By: Robert on June 20, 2008
at 2:50 pm
In response to the citations from Luke:
6:6-10 does not speak of an amputated or missing limb, it speaks of one as “withered”, meaning, it’s still there, but emasculated in some manner.
22:49-11 does speak of an amputated body part. This is the only portion of the Bible, I’m aware of, that does. There’s no way to verify this happened, of course. In any case, why does God not heal amputees even today, since He’s (apparently) done it in the past?
By: Robert on June 20, 2008
at 2:55 pm
“Very well, since the argument works “together as a whole,” then demonstrating how it fails on one point should invalidate the rest of it, correct?”
First, let me just say I am pleased that you took the time to respond after all. My humble little blog doesn’t get much traffic, so anytime someone does take the time to interact, I’ll take it!
My hope is to keep any discussion civil and light-hearted.
“Your first error is to grossly mischaracterize the question. It is certainly not a trick question, and it certainly is not a re-hash of old, familiar questions. Are you claiming these old, familiar questions are in fact trick questions?”
No, I’m not saying the old familiar questions are trick questions. I called it a trick question because it masks the two other questions and dresses it in new shiny packaging. Maybe I should have called it a distracting question instead of a trick question.
And yes, it is a rehash of old, familiar questions.
“Christians claim miraculous healings for all sorts of ailments, from the mental to the physical, even up to today. However, there is one class of individuals whom Christians never present as being healed: amputees. This is an anomaly to the general claim. Why aren’t amputees ever miraculously healed by God, while those with, say, cancer, are? This anomaly requires an explanation since it appears as if a single class of individuals is being singled out for exclusion from God’s miraculous healing power. The question is just as relevant to Christians as it is to atheists or anyone else.”
This is still not the core question. It is a derivative or as you said, an anomaly of the core question. The core question is, “Why doesn’t God prove to me he exists?” The skeptic asks that question first then the Christian responds with, “He already has through x, y, and z miracles.” Then the skeptic says, “Well, what about the problem of amputees? Why isn’t there any proof of God healing amputees?” You see, I’m dealing with the foundational question here. Knock out the foundation, you have no reason to doubt God’s existence with the amputee question.
I believe the first question is unfounded. God doesn’t have to prove to you any more than he has me that He exists. He is not required to, even by the Biblical definition of omnibenevolence, and even if he was and he did, you would still not believe because you have already made up your mind beforehand that you wouldn’t believe.
“Your first point in answer to the question is a gross strawman. Every atheist doesn’t require presentation of a miraculous regrowth of a limb before their very eyes.”
Not a strawman. A generalization. I certainly recognize that there are some atheists who do not need as much proof to be convinced as others. But, in general, atheism lends itself to more and more skepticism. In its pursuit of truth it ends in a chasm of doubt. That is why I said that they would rather doubt their experience of a miracle happening right before their eyes, than to accept it as a miracle. Maybe not all atheists, but a consistent atheist certainly would.
“The proof is much more mundane. Simply pray for someone whose limb has been medically documented as missing or amputated (children of war would be good candidates). When her limb is restored, present her to any medical professional for verification.”
C’mon Robert. You know this isn’t true! How many times have the media covered miraculous healings with doctors on hand to prove its veracity and atheists still doubt? It’s thought-provoking to say the least that athiests seem to be just now getting around to talking about amputees. Maybe this is the last category of medical miracles they can pick on.
I will at least admit that I never thought about the question (of amputees) until an atheist brought it up. I think there are three perfectly good reasons why it’s a medical need that’s not on the forefront of people’s minds.
1) Category of suffering is different: The suffering of amputees is different than that of let’s say, cancer patients. Amputees seem to adjust fairly quickly to the kind of life change which that kind of injury would bring them. Those who are born without limbs cope even better. After the initial pain that a severing of a limb would bring, life simply goes on. And let’s not forget advances in technology that give amputees a chance to function with a prosthetic. So, I guess you could say the demand for the kind of miracle you’re thinking of isn’t as great.
2) Purpose in suffering: I’ve met some amputees that told me they’re glad they are the way they are. That they wouldn’t have learned and experienced what they have in the past if it wasn’t for their handicap.
You brought up a good point when you said “it appears as if a single class of individuals is being singled out for exclusion from God’s miraculous healing power.” That could actually be the case. God could be withholding his miraculous powers form certain people. I can only guess at what each specific purpose he would have in each of those amputees’ lives, but in general it’s safe to say that it teaches them a kind of dependance on God that no one else gets to experience.
And before you call me (or God) unfair, keep two things in mind: a) The Christian God’s love is always balanced out by his freedom. God IS love, but the expression of it is not dependant on our state of comfort or happiness. God is not required to make us happy. b) There are many crippled Christians out there that are fine with this kind of theology. Let me give you one real-life example: John Farese. He was born with Spinal Muscular Atrophy and is about as physically handicapped as one can get. I want you to watch a video of him all the way through before you write me off. He not only articulates the Christian theology of God’s sovereignty in an intelligent way, but his testimony is inspiring to say the least.
http://www.farese.com/
Watch the one on the sovereignty of God.
3) The law of excluded middle. The law of excluded middle is a phrase that missionaries came up with to describe the way western Christians often think. Western Christians many times have no trouble talking about God/heaven/eternity/souls and they have no problem accepting the physical realm either. But, when the two intertwine (such as miracles), many Christians in the west have balked at confronting such a complex issue. So, they have a tendency to rely more on medical science than they do shear miracles.
Why bring this up? Well, I know missionaries that have either performed miracles of regrowing limbs or they have at least witnessed it happen. Of course, these aren’t properly documented firstly because people in Africa or the far east have no problem believing in miracles. No, their skepticism is of a different variety. Instead of believing that it was the power of Jesus that healed them, they’re inclined to say it was their local witch doctor. Secondly, missionaries do not care to make it a public spectacle. Especially since some preachers make claims of the miraculous to rake in the coin.
Now, I am not presenting these three reasons as proof for God’s existence. I am simply giving a reasonable alternative explanation as to why there doesn’t seem to be as much documented proof as other medical miracles.
“I’ve demonstrated a) how you’ve mischaracterized the question and b) how your first point is a strawman. Your argument thus fails.”
a) I shouldn’t have used the word “trick”. But, it is true that it is a distraction and avoids answering the more foundational questions.
b) You’re response of the proof being “more mundane” is not reality. Atheists would have stopped being atheists long ago if this were true. So, I don’t believe it is a strawman.
I do have a question for you, Robert. How does the amputee question cast doubt on God’s existence? Sure, you may question his love or power- or some other attribute, you may not LIKE the fact that He doesn’t heal amputees, but it doesn’t cast doubt on his existence.
By: ndefalco on June 21, 2008
at 4:15 am
Well, I’m not sure what to say. It is the core question. I understand your desire to reframe it another since you think you have a ready answer, but it’s only tangentially related to the original. There’s a strange discrepancy between what Christians claim and observed reality. You seem to acknowledge this later, when you wrote, “God could be withholding his miraculous powers form [sic] certain people.”
I don’t dispute this. This is a claim about God that’s impossible to test. It’s along the lines of “God prefers the color blue.”
Are you omnipotent? How can you know how anyone would react to a given situation?
There are cases I know of where former atheists claim to have received some kind of personal revelation and subsequently became Christians.
Your claim has no foundation.
What is your definition of a “miraculous healing”?
God excludes some categories of suffering from miraculous healing? Why?
Extend the logic. If there’s such a benefit, why don’t more Christians get their limbs amputated? Is your child straying from God? Get his limb amputated to teach him “dependence”.
Funny how miracles of this sort can never be properly documented. Who are these missionaries you know?
Please identify what is “not reality” in the mundane proof I’ve asked for. Christians pray for miraculous healing all the time, and if you’re to be believed, it happens frequently, “with doctors on hand to prove its veracity,” no less. So why not pray for restoration of an amputees limb?
By: Robert on June 23, 2008
at 6:36 pm
Robert, you asked me several questions in your latest response. I will be happy to answer all of them, just as soon as you answer the one question I asked you:
“I do have a question for you, Robert. How does the amputee question cast doubt on God’s existence? Sure, you may question his love or power- or some other attribute, you may not LIKE the fact that He doesn’t heal amputees, but it doesn’t cast doubt on his existence.”
By: ndefalco on June 25, 2008
at 4:19 pm
ndefalco,
Sorry, I misunderstood the importance of the question to you. I thought I had indirectly answered it by denying the amputee question was simply a re-phrasing of the question of God’s existence. Recall what I had stated previously,
“The [amputee] question is just as relevant to Christians as it is to atheists or anyone else.”
In other words, Christians, who accept God’s existence, may ask this question too.
By: Robert on June 25, 2008
at 8:32 pm
Hello,
Interesting discussion. I’ve often wondered about the amputee issue. You can even take it further. On-stage healings always involve interior problems (deafness, bad back, sore hip, cancer). The healed person starts jumping around wildly (although often times they are strangely flat when they say they feel better or can hear).
How about a giant melanoma on someone’s face? Bam! Vured right before the congregation’s eyes. Why doesn’t it ever happened when 50 deaf people are supposedly cured in a one hour period? Or how about a cleft palate? Or baldness? Or rotten teeth? Or crossed eyes? Or autism? Or spina bifida? Or scars from burns? Or morbid obesity?
Why is it ALWAYS something that is not obvious. Obvious healings happened all the time in the Bible. An Ohio preacher touted an upcoming AIDS healing service in Central or South America not long ago and that country told him he couldn’t do that without proving that people were being healed of AIDS. I never heard of him providing proof after that.
It really is the core question and it’s real simple. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that I know of that says people cannot or should not be healed of these mostly-physical problems. Why doesn’t it happen?
D
By: D on July 5, 2008
at 4:50 pm
Now, I’m not sure what to say. It isn’t the core question. I am not trying to reframe it to give a ready-made answer, but to show there is a question behind the question. Here is the logical progression:
1. Christian says, “God exist.”
2. Athiest: Why doesn’t God show me proof of his existence?
3. Christian: He has through many different ways including miracles.
4. Atheist: What about amputees? Why isn’t there any evidence of amputees being healed?
See? This shows us that the core question is different than the one being asked here. You even called it an anomaly to the claim. So there had to be a claim first before this question could be asked.
But, I will let it rest now concerning what the core question is. I feel like I’ve sufficiently exposed what is going on behind the scenes so people will not end their search for truth at the question of amputees.
I understand why you would react this way. I’ll explain my claim further. The Bible tells us you will react this way- unless prompted otherwise by God himself. Romans chapter 1 says that the unbeliever suppresses the truth with his unrighteousness. The word “suppresses” in the Greek is one of continual suppression. So, unless God initiates a change, you will continually deny God because of your current state of unrighteousness. I’m not omniscient, but I have access to an omniscient God who reveals the hearts of all men in his Word.
So, you’re right. Both of us have known of atheists that became Christians through special revelation. But, it’s only because of that prompting that they did become Christians in the first place.
Before you respond to this rebuttal, remember God does not drag people into heaven kicking and screaming. In other words, just because he initiates the change doesn’t mean the unbeliever’s choice is uninvolved. In the end they choose to be a Christian because that is what they want.
Besides, am I wrong? Are you not continuing in your doubt despite the amount of evidence you have been given thus far (more than just this discussion that is)?
That is a very good question. In context, I used the most commonly understood definition of miracles in America today: “A supernatural change in condition for the better which defies current scientific explanation.” However, I shouldn’t have used it in that way since the term miracle is really to be used for a different purpose than to explain away the unexplainable. We both know where that definition leads. Of course, we both also know that is an elementary understanding of the term.
So, I will have to refer you to Christian philosopher Millard Erickson, who, in his systematic theology, defines miracles as thus:
In short, miracles are the natural acting and reacting with the supernatural. Again, as an atheist, you come to the table with a bias against the supernatural, so of course you’re not going to believe in miracles.
I never said excludes. You are putting words into my mouth. I said the demand (from us) isn’t as great. God is not going to force a miracle of this type on us that we don’t ask for.
In context, this is not the logical extension. It is not within the Biblical ethic for a parent to amputate their child’s limb to teach them a lesson. Within the Biblical framework, the logical extension would be:
If being an amputee can make you more dependent (and therefore happier) on God, then ANY physical ailment can make you more dependent on God.
Why would you give an “ends justifies the means” application to my point? That seemed to just come out of nowhere. Well, maybe not out of nowhere. Consequentialism/utlitatarianism is essentially an atheistic philosophy- so it fits the way you think. It certainly doesn’t have its roots in the Bible! Robert, I hope you’re not the kind of guy who thinks that when Jesus said, “If your eye offends you, cut it out.” that he actually wants you to cut out an offending eye.
Why is it funny to you when I gave you a perfectly reasonable explanation why they aren’t properly documented? Do me a favor, define “properly documented”.
The missionaries I had in mind are Scott Langford who works for the Jacksonville Baptist Association and the other one, who is no longer a missionary, but professor of theology at Southern Seminary, is Greg Allison. I could go on, but for all I know your list of proper witnesses might range in the hundreds!
And I would like to rephrase the question that I asked you earlier, just to be clear and to the point: Does the lack of evidence of God healing amputees cast adequate doubt on God’s existence?
Finally, one last question and I will let you have the last word in this discussion: What would you say to a friend or loved one that was in a car wreck and was about to get their limb amputated? What words of comfort and hope would you, an atheist, give to them? I am very curious as to how you answer this question, so I hope you do.
By: ndefalco on July 7, 2008
at 1:12 am
D:
You asked, “Why doesn’t it happen?”
I hope you did more than just merely skimmed my sections in this discussion. Because I have given many adequate reasons. To just throw those questions out there without seriously engaging in what has already been said is not fair to those who have taken the time to write thoughtful responses.
By: ndefalco on July 7, 2008
at 2:51 am
Sorry, I didn’t mean to discount efforts to answer the question “why”, I guess I’m just left empty by the answers. I believe in God, but truly don’t understnad why the types of healings I mentioned seem to not exist when He is so involved in our lives that he knows the number of hairs on our head.
HOWEVER, check this video out. Turns out the woman being healed is a news reporter for the BBC in England. I have emailed her but have not received a response.
Perhaps such healings DO exist (and I’m not saying I’m positive this is real) and the Christian community is failing to get the word out in an effective manner.
Anyway, check out the video…
By: D on July 7, 2008
at 1:32 pm
D:
That youtube video wasn’t all that impressive. The shorter leg regrowing miracle is hard to prove when that person is wearing pants.
The on-stage performances- I mean miracles- are the kind of showboat mentality that should make us question its authenticity. Too many preachers have cashed in for millions of dollars showcasing these so-called miracles. I think our skeptical friends may have an easier time believing in miracles if the fakers would sit this one out for the next millennium or so.
I’m curious- why do you find my answers empty if you already believe in God and therefore are very open to believing in miracles?
By: ndefalco on July 7, 2008
at 6:02 pm
Well, the thing about the video that is intriguing is that it isn’t showy and it was done under a worshipful attitude, which seems like the way it ought to be done. Not standing in a white suit slaying a whole section of an arena in the spirit.
Because the woman is a news reporter I thought it might be a little easier to verify whether it actually happened (putting her reputation on the line). But even she didn’t seem to know or care much about the Lord in her interview on the video.
An example of an answer that you have that doesn’t sit well with me: ”
God could be withholding his miraculous powers form certain people. I can only guess at what each specific purpose he would have in each of those amputees’ lives, but in general it’s safe to say that it teaches them a kind of dependance on God that no one else gets to experience.
Based on the Bible there is no reason why ministers shouldn’t be leading blind people down to the river, putting mud in their eyes, and restoring their site. That is Biblical. Christ was about mercy and healing and redemption, not exclusion, so it just doesn’t sit well with me.
Maybe here’s a reason (if you are a believer in the end-time prophecies): The Bible says the Anti-Christ will perform great miracles in the name of God, fooling many people. So, in order for a miracle man to impress much of the world it would have to be on an unusual scale. Maybe that’s why there are no “knock your socks off” miracle men around today. Because a better (albeit evil) one is coming.
I dunno, just thinking out loud!
D
By: D on July 8, 2008
at 11:54 am
D:
Again, thank you for your response. I appreciate candor and honesty.
You said that God isn’t healing people because he is leaving room for the antichrist to truly decieve those people. But, basing a theological assumption on prophecy that has yet to be fulfilled is shaky ground to say the least. Not to mention it doesn’t make any sense. God is withholding miracles so that he can let the antichrist really show him up some time in the future? That is a leap of logic that has no basis in scripture.
Sure there is. Not everbody has the gift of healing. I don’t have the gift of healing and I’m a minister and I believe in those kinds of miracles.
When you talk in generalities like this, it makes me think you haven’t thought through this subject. Christ DOES exclude people. He talked about excluding people from the banquet hall of heaven in Matthew 22:11-14. He talked about excluding those who do not believe in them in John 3:16-18.
But, you know, all this talk about exclusion, yet I never once said that amputees were excluded. Both you and Robert keep putting words into my mouth that I never said.
I said he could be withholding his miracles for a reason. Ultimately, anyone found in Christ is not going to be excluded from miracles because they will be given a new body in heaven. Or maybe that withholding is only temporary and we’ll see God work a miracle before they die.
However, God is not to be put on a leash and perform for us at our very whim. He has his own unfolding, flowering plan for our lives. Just look at Joseph: beaten, sold into slavery, thrown in jail. Those are evil things that happened to him. But, as Joseph said, “What you meant for evil, God meant for good.” Eventually, he became Pharoah’s right-hand man. God uses the evil actions of individuals to draw people close to him. To make lemonade out of lemons.
Could He have created a perfect world in which nobody does anyone else harm? Certainly, but he’d have to take away our ability to choose. He didn’t take it away and since some people use that choice to do evil, God- whose plans will never be foiled by men- will take those evil choices and produce good from them.
Your answer as to why God apparently doesn’t do as many of these “knock yer socks off” miracles is based on prophecy and a leap of logic. Mine is based on a Biblical pattern found throughout the Old and New Testament. If I were you, D, I would rethink my position.
D, let me give you an alternative “big picture” reason as to why God doesn’t perform bigger miracles that I think you might like. If you look at redemptive history in the Bible, what you see is that every time God makes a move, it is peppered by miracles. He was silent for 400 years during the Jewish/Egyptian slavery era, and then when he sent Moses- bam!- a ton of miracles follow.
Then look at the conquering of the promise land.
Then take a look at the Jewish exile during the time of the major and minor prophet (180 yrs of silence from God and then when they’re delivered, we see more miracles).
Then look at the coming of Jesus (400 years of silence from God, then he speaks through Jesus and a ton of miracles follow).
Then look at the coming of the Holy Spirit- tons of miracles followed.
See the pattern? Maybe as the end draws near we’ll see more of these miracles (from God, not necessarily the antichrist- I still would like to see Biblical evidence that the antichrist absolutely is going to perform miracles).
By: ndefalco on July 9, 2008
at 2:48 pm
Hi again,
Well, first, my comments were, as I said, “thinking out loud.” They were meant to be taken as a snippet in speculative conversation–not as a well thought out belief.
But I do stand by my comment about ministers putting mud in the eyes of the blind. You say not all ministers have the gift of healing. But I didn’t say EVERY minister should be putting mud in the eyes of the blind. My point is, I’ve never even heard of ONE doing it. Hundreds or thousands of them still baptize people in creeks and streams–you’d think at least a handful of them would have the gift of healing and that we would hear about it once in awhile. Have you ever done it (put mud in the eys of a blind person)? If not, how do you know you don’t have the gift of healing? Maybe it never happens because nobody ever does it.
The exclusionary ways of Christ you refer to are not what I’m talking about. Yes, Christ (God) excludes those who don’t follow Him. I’m talking about amputees and children with cleft palates. I don’t believe for a minute that such sufferers are excluded from the healing powers of God. Lepers weren’t. Not even the DEAD were excluded from that!
And you did say “exclusion” when referring to amputees. You answered Robert this way:
‘You brought up a good point when you said “it appears as if a single class of individuals is being singled out for exclusion from God’s miraculous healing power.” That could actually be the case. ‘
You agreed with Robert that amputees may be experiencing exclusion from God. You went on to use the word “withhlding” but also agreed with Robert when his point was about exclusion.
Your points about patterns throughout history of healings and miracles are interesting. Can’t say I have an opinion one way or the other about it–I guess the bottom line is we just don’t know. But again, Christ repeatedly stated that, through God, we had the ability to do such great things. I don’t recall seeing anything about it being a timing issue.
Rev. 13 speaks of how man will be full of wonder over the powers and abilities of the Anti-Christ. At least that’s the way I was schooled, but whether that’s correct or not, like everything else in the Bible, is open to interpretation!
I enjoy discussions like this–civil and rational.
D
By: D on July 11, 2008
at 2:25 pm
To Robert and D:
Sorry, I guess I did say exclusion. I reread my posts several times and I STILL missed it. Not trying to play mind games with you two, just made a mistake.
By: ndefalco on July 11, 2008
at 3:28 pm
Brilliant!
By: WeilsokeDrero on August 2, 2008
at 10:15 pm
Weilsokedrero: Nothing else to say? Just brilliant? What did you like about it?
By: ndefalco on August 3, 2008
at 3:24 am
ndefalco-
I was reading through your mundande assertions but then something caught my eye as extaordinary.
You said-
Well, I know missionaries that have either performed miracles of regrowing limbs or they have at least witnessed it happen. Of course, these aren’t properly documented firstly because people in Africa or the far east have no problem believing in miracles. No, their skepticism is of a different variety. Instead of believing that it was the power of Jesus that healed them, they’re inclined to say it was their local witch doctor. Secondly, missionaries do not care to make it a public spectacle. Especially since some preachers make claims of the miraculous to rake in the coin.
1. Your finder’s fee for bringing to worldwide attention such miraculous events would be unfathomable. Your name would be known throughout the world just by association with a medically documented impossibility of this magnitude.
2. Of course if you are of the more selfless sort, why not bring attention to the medical community the unprecedented occurrence of limb regeneration. If this sort of spectacle were presented to medical practitioners and allowed their study, it need not be “God as a burning bush” but it would have potential benefit for amputee sufferers the world over. It may usher in a new era of biotechnology.
By: Anonymous on August 8, 2008
at 1:32 am
anonymous- nice try.
1. The miraculous can’t be packaged and sold at market price. Again, God is not our puppet to do our bidding when we ask. I already went over this and explained it to its fullest extent in the interactions I’ve had with others on this blog, but apparently you missed all that.
2. See #1
Calling my assertions mundane is an insult. I appreciate a friendly tone if you are going to post comments on my blog.
By: ndefalco on August 8, 2008
at 10:40 pm
well geez, if an ancient book says it happened how can we question it?
Now we need to go find Medusa and a Hydra!
By: stan on October 13, 2008
at 9:34 am
Stan: Yes, because we all know the Bible is equivelant to stories that even the Greeks knew were myths!
See how annoying sarcasm is? Please do not post here if you aren’t going to treat the Christians who post with some civility and respect.
By: ndefalco on October 13, 2008
at 11:30 am
ndefalco: first off, i just wanted to say thank you for not only sticking up for the faith, but also providing great reasoning with biblical substance.
i enjoyed your article and i think it can do a lot of good for a lot of people.
i also find it interesting how your atheist readers somehow keep skipping over the parts where you say that you DO believe that God has healed and does heal amputees.
I also believe that God heals amputees. Just because not many people have seen it happen, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
By: smw on November 17, 2008
at 4:29 pm
So, I believe in mermaids, does that mean I am right. If I say I believe that mermaids are out there and god himself created them, does it make it so. The bible says that there are unicorns, do you believe that? If you believe in the bible then you do. Have you ever heard of a unicorn? Deuteronomy:Joseph’s “horns are like the horns of a unicorn.” 33:17
Also, if you want to use the bible as your proof then, I ask, do you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible as well?
By: anissa on December 11, 2008
at 3:22 pm
anissa:
1. The Bible never confirms the existence of unicorns. Keep this in mind, Deuteronomy 33 is poetry. If you want to take poetry literally go right ahead. I don’t take poetry literally and neither does the author of Deut. 33. Poetry is to be taken figuratively. Even if the word really is translated “unicorn”, it fits just fine because it isn’t to be taken literally.
2. That version you quoted was taken from the KJV, which is 400 years old and does not have the advantage of all the manuscript evidence we have today. Furthermore, it was a rushed translation even during its time. Just because it’s popular doesn’t make it a good translation. ALL of the other translations translate that hebrew word as “wild ox”, not unicorn.
3. Believing in the “literal” interpretation to me means: believing that the Bible is true in all matters of faith and life. So, for example, in context, I do believe that Joseph’s “first born bull” (which is a metaphor for his ability to conquer lands) is true: that he really was a fine military leader. I don’t take “literal” to mean that Joseph gave birth to a bull (or unicorn) and it gored thousands of people.
4. So, you built your argument on a strawman- that strawman being a weak translation of the word unicorn and a weak interpretation of the context of Deut. 33.
5. If you look at my original post, I never used the Bible as proof that God heals amputees. Somebody else mentioned that first. I used the Bible to get to the motive as to why an atheist would ask such a question the first place.
6. But, let me ask you- do you consistently take the Bible out of context to give a prooftext of your arguments, or have you actually read the Bible to figure out what it is actually saying (not what you want it to say)?
By: ndefalco on December 11, 2008
at 4:48 pm
As a journalist I am responsible for getting all my facts right and making sure that my research is thoroughly documented.
So when someone stands up and makes a claim that he/she has been miraculously healed, I would need to check the facts before I could report the story.
First, I would need to interview the Doctor who made the original diagnosis and have access to medical charts, Xrays, etc.
Second, I would want to know if any medical assistance had been provided from the time of diagnosis and what, if any, effect that would have had on the patient’s recovery.
Third, I would require medical proof that the original condition has been corrected to a state of normalcy.
Finally, I would require all professionals and medical personnel involved in this event to go on the record that their original expectation of the recovery of the patient has been superseded by actual events.
From a journalist’s point of view this then becomes a bone-fide, fully documented, miraculous occurrence that can be legitimately reported.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Every healing miracle that Jesus did would have passed the Journalist’s test.
This does not make us athiests. We are fact-checkers, truth-finders and the Christian community should welcome the kind of scrutiny we provide to ensure that ordinary people are not being hoodwinked.
By: Paul McCain on February 15, 2009
at 6:54 pm
Paul,
Well-said! The Bible itself encourages people to be skeptical and offers many warnings about false prophets, etc.
We watch people like Benny Hinn “heal” on-stage. But he also said he had been told by God that Fidel Castro would be out of power in the 1990s and that homosexuality would be destroyed. Since he declared he had been told these things by God and they did not happen, it makes Benny Hinn a false prophet and evil, according to the very Bible that he holds up before his congregation of thousands. There’s some clips on Youtube of Hinn making these assertions.
And, as you said, our skepticism does not make us atheists at all.
D
By: Anonymous on March 2, 2009
at 2:55 pm
I couldn´t read all the posts, so please forgive me if I repeat something already said.
As far as I could grasp, there is a confusion here. First, the atheists claim that “Cristians claim that all sorts of miracles are happening today”. My first answer is: SOME so-called cristians say that, and they are the so-called charismatics (which is not Cristianity, but a false religion). Actually it is funny that both atheists and charismatics seem to believe in the same god, but with the only difference that the former observe the reality better and conclude that this god doesn´t exist, while the latter, against all evidence, claim the existence of that human-made, all-healing god. The Bible, on the contrary, teaches that miracles are not the rule, but the exception, and that they have happened only in very particular times of the history of revelation.
After the times of the Apostles not one single Christian has ever claimed the existence of what I call “physical miracles”, except those with demonstrable heterodox doctrine, like Catholics, Mormons, Charismatics, and other.
This of course isn´t in itself a direct answer to what the atheists are questioning. It doesn´t really matter for them if we believe that miracles happen today or not, but what is crucial here is that we all claim at least that in Biblical times those miracles happened. The real question, what perplexes them, is to be informed by us that in different points of history great miracles have happened, including many healings, but strangely, it is never recorder any single one of them pertaining an amputee. They think that this sort of proves the inexistence of God. In this they are wrong, but still, as Robert says, it´s a very interesting question.
They conclude: if God loves men and heals o has healed them miraculously, why has he excluded the amputees? He doesn´t love them as he loves the others? Or he is not powerful enough to heal them? They believe that everything we can answer is a weird rationalization of something unexplainable. So they conclude that it is easier to believe God doesn´t exist, than to accept a God who acts in such a weird manner.
Unless we understand clearly what are they arguing, and the seriousness of the issue, we´ll never be able to answer it. We ourselves need a theological answer for that, because it can help us undestand better our faith.
And there are many answers we can give. I wrote a 16 page essay on the subject, but it is in Spanish, so if someone here is able to read that language and wants me to send him/her the file, please let me know.
If we were left alone with our reason, without having a Special Revelation, we would have absolutely no means of knowing what to say. We would be just as perplexed as the skeptics who discovered it. The Biblical answer, I think, is simple and of course will never satisfy an atheist. They would have to get into the faith in a very different way, and then they would be able to understand this. It happened to me when I was a fervid atheist. It can also happen to them.
In Genesis 2:2 we read: By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
This has to mean something. Is it that God was tired, and couldn´t move after all he had done? Does it mean that he rested one day and next Monday he was again behind his desk? No, it means that after he finished the special miracles of the creation, he decided to never again perform that kind of miracles (which include creation of new matter-energy ex nihilo). The days are ages, so we are still in that seventh day. That explains why there is as far as I remember not one single miracle in the Bible which includes creation of new things out of nothing. God always took pre-existent materials to build new things, and through natural laws. He is not a magician who breaks every one of those laws. If He created them, thy must be good. But in miracles he directs those laws to do something they would normally wouldn´t, but He is always respectful of the means that there are at hand.
Somehow, the question is still present. We just gave a Biblical argument to explain that some kinds of miracles have never happened and that is in accordance with the Revelation. But still the atheist might want to know which are EXACTLY the motivations that a God could have had to establish that law. I cannot answer that. And it doesn´t prove either that my faith is void. Scientist are also unable to explain many things they perceive, but they have always the faith that there must be a reason. And I´ve never heard a scientist abandoned science just because of that. It´s the same with us.
And please don´t believe in those charlatans that see, for example, in almost every human being a leg shorter than the other and then proceed to pretend they heal it. It´s an offense to intelligence.
By: Ricardo on April 24, 2009
at 10:49 pm
Ricardo:
Spanish is my first language, If you could please send me the essay I would deeply appreciate it. Thanks in advance!
jgrdaniel@yahoo.com
By: Jgrdaniel on August 11, 2009
at 7:06 am
Ricardo: Thank you for your thoughts. I think you’ve at least framed the problem nicely.
By: ndefalco on May 13, 2009
at 1:00 am