She said how there's a kid in her school that has sight issues, and she was laughed at by the other kids because she said that if the child prayed enough, then God would heal him or her. I'm impressed by how bold this girl is in her faith at such a young age, and how she's willing to put herself out on a limb for her faith and her empathy with this other child.
What I've been worried about is if I crossed a line when I told this child that God can heal, but he doesn't always, and a lack of healing doesn't necessarily prove a lack of God. My evidence for this? The many good Christians in the world that suffer illnesses which they no doubt pray for healing for, and yet still suffer.
This has lead me to thinking about how an incorrect view on healing can harm the apologetic cause. Say, in this example, the child with the sight problems comes into school, and says publicly 'I did pray, and I'm still blind!'? Those without faith may hear this and become even more strongly convinced in the lack of God. Others may have faith, yet this situation may make them falter.
I'm not saying it's wrong to pray for healing, for ourselves and others. I do every day! It's just that we need to recognise that healing isn't always a promise - at least not in this life anyway. The ultimate healing awaits us when we go to be with the Father.
I've recently purchased the book 'A Place of Healing' by Joni Eareckson Tada. I've only had chance to read the introduction so far, but I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the book soon. It's written by a Christian who following an accident is a quadriplegic. She talks about her illness and how God hasn't healed her physically, yet her faith is still strong. I don't want to talk too much about the book without having read it fully, but I feel the following quote from the book is a good way to end this post:
"Because isn't that the bottom line? That Jesus gets the glory, whether I jump out of my wheelchair pain free and tell people that my healing is genuine evidence of God's awesome power... or whether I continue smiling in my chair, not in spite of my pain but because of it, knowing I've got lessons to learn, a character to be honed, other wounded people to identify with, a hurting world to reach with the gospel, and a suffering Saviour with whom I can enjoy greater intimacy. And every bit of it genuine evidence of God's love and grace"
I'm not sure an incorrect view of healing "harm's the apologetic cause", as much as it harms the proclamation of the gospel (in which we also state who God is and something about what He has done in Christ). The gospel does *not* promise anything beyond justification (and righteousness and sanctification and all they entail). Justification is not healing (except in the strict sense of spiritual healing). Therefore to argue that lack of healing is absence of God *in a situation* or that the presence of healing *is proof* of the presence of God in a situation is a logical fallacy.
ReplyDeleteWe have to also remember that those who see unanswered prayers for healing as *proof* that God does not exist (or at the least does not intervene in creation in any way outside of natural law) and whose hearts are hardened because of this, are merely following the natural inclination of a depraved heart. Man cannot will himself into faith; he cannot be convinced into faith; he cannot be won by arguments about the tenacity of the truth of the faith or even be won by signs and wonders (hence the Bible mostly speaks of these of "signs that follow"). Like Pharaoh their hearts become harder against the gospel simply because God has not awakened faith in their hearts to accept it.
In a peculiar way we probably won't ever understand, the gospel "is the power of God" and to Greeks (those who love philosophy and things of the mind) it is foolishness. Our best- and only mandated route- to reaching out to people and partnering with God in missions is to preach this glorious gospel and leave the results to a sovereign God whose choice will (in the final analysis) will determine who listens and who hardens their own hearts against Him.
Now if we talk about suffering as a route of grace and an avenue of witness against a cold and hurting world, that's a whole different story. The NT is replete with examples of those who suffer and *in their suffering* become a "broken rose" (whose smell is stronger and the more pungent the more it is crushed). The purpose of suffering in life is to glorify God- not our intellectual attestation of God. A tough one to learn.
Interesting article :)
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response. Yes, I'd agree an incorrect view of healing does indeed harm the proclamation of the gospel, and the gospel promises nothing but justification (and as you say, righteousness and sanctification). As I said, 'we need to recognise that healing isn't always a promise - at least not in this life anyway. The ultimate healing awaits us when we go to be with the Father' - there is no promise of healing at all! I have a problem with those that claim lack of healing = lack of faith.
I'm still trying to work out the purpose of what is commonly called apologetics nowadays. I'm fairly certain it has a purpose (and not just for debating the New Atheists), and can be used as a route to accepting the gospel - that is to say, that was how I primarily came to listen and accept the gospel. Given that the evidence I was presented with is the same as the evidence presented to others who deny the Lord, this shows that, for whatever reason, God didn't harden my own heart *at that time* - I say that because I've had access to that same information most of my life, and yet was driven to delve further in that time. Either way I find it a fascinating subject :)
Suffering - I actually think suffering can be used by, and is sometimes sent by God - not a popular view I know! But I certainly think that God will use suffering in order to draw an elected person to Him. I don't understand why some people are chosen and others not, and I doubt I'll ever understand this.
Thanks for the comment - a lot to think about there! :)
I think the issue with 'apologetics' is that rather than seeing it for what it should be (Biblically it is a defence of the reasons for your faith) we see it as an evangelistic tool (which it shouldn't be). The reason I say that is because although you can pique someone's interest towards Christianity by showing that belief in God is logical, or that science hasn't necessarily discounted the need for God etc etc., that is not the gospel. Rather, if we are pointing to these things as responses to questions about the faith (or often attacks on the faith of Christians) and 'apologetically' doing so then we are all bound up to be apologists in some way.
ReplyDeleteHere's a question then: can someone get saved by having a discussion with a Christian about the scientific validity of the Bible's claims about creation?
Good Question! I can only speak from my own experiences and limited understanding. I can tell you that my own interest towards Christianity came from similar discussions - as you know. However, that alone was not enough! Granted, they may have been seeds that were planted, and I researched the scientific and historical evidence as best I could. I then looked at personal testimonies, which also increased my interest, but it was the gospel that saved! It took a while to get to that point as well - years in fact. I actually had conversations of this manner several times over a 4 year time frame, but only after four years did the conversations lead to me reading the gospel and accepting it. I have no reason for why the timing was as such - so I'd have to conclude that for whatever reason God allowed my heart to accept what I heard at that time.
ReplyDeleteSo I'd say that while conversations of that nature may well lead to someone seeking the gospel, or more accurately, listening to the gospel, the academic conversations alone are not nearly enough - it takes God's will that the heart of the listener be opened to not only hear the God's word, but accept it.
Then you have answered your other question (the role of apologetics)- if used to give reasons for the hope that is within us it can be powerfully linked to the gospel; if used on its own basis it becomes an academic exercise and promises little beyond interesting discussion. When the Bible says that we should "be ready always to give an answer for the hope that is within us" the emphasis is normally (I think wrongly) placed on the word "reason" (apologia) rather than the much more important "hope"--- what is it you hope for? Who do you hope in? What is this hope based on? How do you get this hope? We don't hope in God because there is evidence for Him or that He created (or even- going back to your original point - that He heals) but instead because He has given us faith to believe the gospel and awakened hope in our hearts.
ReplyDeleteThat said, apologetics when used lovingly and intelligently can indeed open up investigation as you rightly said. I would see one as an intellectual defence of the faith and the other as an epistemological defence-- why we believe what we believe ("the reason for the hope that we have in God"). I prefer the latter but realise we also need people who can develop the former. And when all is said and done only the gospel- presented with reliance on the Holy Spirit- is the power of God for salvation.
Good thread :)
Really good thread - thank you very much :)
ReplyDeleteYes, apologetics in and of itself is nothing more than an academic exercise, and however interesting, is of little value. It's the gospel that saves!
Thanks :)
Watch how Doug Wilson tackles someone like Hitchens- this is the place of epistemological apologetics (my phrase) in "giving a reason...for the hope". Awesome video and fantastic ending ;)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU0Ue-Ki-mU
Just finished watching - great video, thanks :) Hitchens reminds me of someone I know!
ReplyDeleteA couple of points I found interesting. Fairly early on Hitchens talks about his debating opponent as someone who believes that Jesus Christ actually existed. This, although not outright saying he doesn't believe the historical Jesus existed (regardless of his deity or not), would suggest he doesn't agree that he did. However, someone such as myself with very limited historical or apologetics knowledge could point out very reliable non-christian sources that prove this. I'd be very surprised if Hitchens hadn't come across this evidence at some stage. So how can I (or many others) view this evidence, and see without a doubt that Jesus existed, yet others deny His very existence? Or how can I examine the apologetic evidence and see Jesus's deity, yet other can look at that same evidence and dismiss it? The only answer I can come to is that without God's intervention, we cannot accept God!
Hitchens made an argument at about 1:19 - "Why did God create us in such a form as to demand that we rebel" - I've had a similar conversation with my daughter this week, and I'm still trying to formulate an answer for her.
I've just ordered the book Is Christianity Good for the World, looking forward to reading it!
Thanks for the link, and the comment thread :)
Just to add - great ending too, and I have to respect the honesty of Hitchens admission, in spite not agreeing with his worldview
ReplyDeleteI don't think Hitchens denied the "historical Jesus" but demanded instead that the "Christ of miracles" was a myth (probably more to do with his scientific worldview that apparently denies the miraculous whilst endorsing the big bang "from nothing" ;) Bultmann and other "theologians" from the late 18th and early 19th centuries helped reinforce this view by dividing the "Jesus of history" from the "Jesus of myth", and this came at a time when Darwin and Lyell were pushing their theories and they were gaining notoriety, influencing even the Church that before then had held to a relatively young earth theory.
ReplyDeleteWhy did Hitchens not see the same evidence we do and come to the same (saving) conclusion? Hard though it may be to understand I believe it is because God didn't grant him repentance and faith (both are gifts). So although he understood what he spoke of (to a degree) it served to harden his heart. Interestingly this was Isaiah's whole ministry- speak to people and therefore harden their hearts!! We always see Isaiah's call as something to relate to and a declaration to preach the gospel etc., but if you read further it was to have the opposite effect on people (would we be so quick to say "here am I" after realising that?).
As to his reference in 1:19- I would have to say he got it wrong there. The Bible never speaks about God having created us in "such a form as to demand we rebel". He knew we would fall (I don't understand this but have to accept it given His attributes), and placed Adam and Eve exactly where they would be required to make a choice. So although He knew what would happen that did not negate their free choice. In that way we have the same "free will" (although being totally depraved we rarely if ever choose the truly good and don't- of ourselves- have the capacity to respond to God in faith). Adam and Eve had perfect free will- had they wished they had the capacity to choose the good. They didn't. And so sin entered the world and death through sin. We don't have perfect free will and so lack the capacity (Morally and essentially) to do anything without it being tainted by sin...
The Apostle Paul reminds those of us who would question on this basis "why did you make me this way?" with the response, "who are you to question God?"
So God didn't "demand we rebel"- He knew it was going to happen. Even so He created and blessed with the garden and provided a sacrifice (proto-evangelion) as a picture of who was to come and what would be required to annul such rebellion in man's heart.
It's more complex than all of that but I'm lecturing already :P
:)
Would you believe me if I said I had already typed up a response, then pressed the wrong key and the whole thing disappeared? ;)
ReplyDeleteYes, on reflection Hitchens doesn't seem to be denying the 'historical Jesus', but rather the 'Christ of miracles'. Hitchens would say I'm biased here, but if Jesus was just another figure who angered the Romans and was executed, then there would be little reference to Jesus in secular history as His crucifiction would have been of little significance. For me, Jesus's resurrection is the event that delivers the 'Good News' - in the 'Is Christianity Good for the World book Hitchens does indeed deny the resurrection. Again, if Jesus wasn't resurrected, from what I've studied, I'd say that the whole 'Jesus Myth' could / would have been quashed fairly quickly by the Romans and the Jewish leaders.
The creation ex nihilo argument is one of my favourites ;)
As to why Hitchens didn't come to the right conclusion - that's a true calvinist response there! I'm still on the fence regarding election, although I can see great scriptural evidence for it. In the recent past I'd sort of attributed a non-theists reason for not accepting God as being pride. I'd even fostered a kind of pride in not being too proud to accept the gospel - a bit of a paradox there.
Isaiah - the evangelicals favourite! I haven't read Isaiah in it's entirety yet - I'm still only working through 1 Kings. But Matt Chandler makes reference to it in his latest book - Isaiah 6:9 specifically. So Isaiah was called to preach to a group of people who would never accept the gospel? I honestly don't think I'd be too happy to get that calling! I think people like to measure success in quantifiable ways, including 'converts'. Interestingly, Chandler also speaks of how the gospel forces a response - either a hardening of the heart towards God, or hopefully an acceptance of the Word of God - this is something I've definitely observed. And of course God does harden hearts for his glory - the obvious example would be Exodus 9:12, but I'm sure there are other examples.
Hitchens comment in 1:19 is certainly wrong. I don't know why God gave us that choice. I accept that there's many, many things I won't get answers to this side of death, and maybe after they just won't matter! Total depravity is something I'm wrestling with though. I'm struggling to see how people, especially non-believers, can make choices that we would consider moral or good. If pushed, I'd say it was God working through the person - believer or not, as all that is good is from God. And I can see how all our 'good works' are tainted, hence why we can never earn our way to salvation.
The term 'proto-evangelion' is a new one for me. I looked it up and yes I'd seen how Genesis 3:15 was a proto-evangelion - I just didn't know the term for it, so thank you! For every new piece of information I learn, I realise there's another 100 things I don't know!
Thanks very much :)
No problem :)
ReplyDeleteBy the way- it's worth noting that I actually answered Hitchens himself on the reason why atheists can make "good moral choices" just like "those Christians". The reason (as I put it) is that we are all created imago-dei (in the image of God)- which has more to do with things like love, truth, goodness, kindness and so on than it does an actual "imago" in the physical sense (the Greek there would be 'morphe'). In other words, every human has been created (because of our first parents Adam and Eve) with the *capacity* to do good; the issue is that when sin entered the world that capacity was hindered. Adam and Eve could make a real moral choice (therefore had true "free will") because at that point they were without sin!
Our choices (even though we are imago-dei) are never "good"- else the Bible wouldn't say that "there are none good, no not one" and we wouldn't need a "new nature". So atheists can make what we would call "good moral choices" and perform good "moral actions" like Christians or muslims or even buddhists- it's just that those acts in the sight of God aren't good :)
'Proto-evangelion' -always loved that one :D
So I might be over-simplifying here, but the only humans to ever exist with total true free will were Adam and Eve? Because of their rebellion, sin entered the world (along with death and disease), and every person was tainted and influenced (to a greater or lesser degree) by sin? But the capacity to do good, and even the desire to do so - whether we acknowledge it or not - is because we are made in the image of God, who is good?
ReplyDeleteI've just finished the Hitchens / Wilson book. Very interesting. I didn't know that Hitchens was baptised. Here's a quick question then, if you don't mind. Hitchens went through with a baptism. Assuming that at the time he was sincere about his faith, and something happened that made him either drift away from his faith or more likely some event caused him to react angrily to the idea of a God, would he still be saved? The fifth point of calvinism (Perseverance of the Saints) would indicate he would be, but I may well be interpreting this incorrectly.
Thanks for the comments - I've learnt a lot from this comment thread.
:)