> > George Murphy wrote in part:
> > >
> > > But does he - i.e., tell us to pray not just for healing but
> > > _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
> medication in biblical times (e.g., Is.1:6, Lk.10:34) - in ther name of
> & prayed for & that "the prayer of faith will save the sick person."
> 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
> be expected: Christians believed that God could heal, & the question of
> they expected that healing to be natural or miraculous probably didn't
Not so! In fact the writer added an illustration, James 5:17, 18, to make
knew he was talking about a miraculous answer to prayer
> There seems to be misunderstanding here on a couple of counts.
> have not argued here against miracles. I have argued that they need not
> understood as phenomena which are beyond the capacity of created agents
> divine cooperation. 2d, you simply can't equate "act of God" with
> Everything that happens in the world is an act of God. Your breakfast
> & cure of a headache with aspirin are acts of God.
I'm sorry that my "act of God" disconcerted you. I was simply distingushing
miracle from the act of a person. When Peter raised Dorcas to life we
that it was not an act of Peter's but of God.We don't say to Peter, "What a
thing you have done." No, we give thanks to God for what He has done.
> > 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
> completely beyond the capacity of creatures.
Oh? How do you know?
> Jesus referred to his _signs_, some of which were miracles. I am
> denying that miracles, in the sense of extraordinary & marvelous
> place in the ministry of Jesus. But what Jesus appealed to was not the
> _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
> the repetition but apparently this point has not been made clearly enough.
I'm sorry I seem so thickhead to you. We have had a similar discussion a
two ago. My impression is that you are uncomfortable with miracles in the
of things not explainable by the laws of nature. I see God's revelation as
with incidences of God's unique interventions into the lives of people and
miraculous acts that make no scientific sense. You have said that you accept
miracle of the resurrection and not much else, but in the most recent
you seem to have expanded your list a little.
We have also quibbeled over the definition of God's intervention, so let me
illustrate what I mean by intervention. In Acts 16:17 Paul and his
to enter the province of Bithynia to preach the gospel but were prevented by
Spirit of Jesus" (NIV). During the night Paul had a vision of a man of
"Come over here." Paul concluded that God wanted them to change course and
to Macedonia, so they did. That changed the course of history, and it
of God's intervention.
I see God's miracles and interventions as an intregal, important part of His
God's written revelation has apparently closed 2000 years ago but His
interventions have continued to this day and that is part of the reason we
we are troubled or in need, or have family or friends in need we believe we
and God will answer our prayer, sometimes by doing something miraculous.
I will give you the last word on this thread and maybe we can discuss it
again in a
couple of years.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 09:11:15 EDT