In chapters 2-4, Blue addresses three ideas which he believes can create obstacles to healing ministries. I include a summary of each chapter’s subject matter and some of my own thoughts. Sometimes this doesn’t require me to say much because some of the ideas are becoming increasingly obsolete theological views.
Ch. 2) Divine Determinism.
This is the view that God causes everything to happen. In more precise language, God is the ultimate and efficient cause of all events. If a rain drop falls from the sky and lands on a puddle, this is because God has caused it to do so. If I buy a $20 cigar, God has caused me to do so. I think that this view does deny free will, although some might try a more limited form in which God causes everything except what human beings (and other free-willed beings like angels and demons) do.
The problem that this view creates is to see sickness as caused by God, therefore, what’s the use of praying? If God has made someone sick, then he will make the person well if he chooses. It is all under the control and sovereignty of God.
I, personally, am not sure how people come up with these kinds of doctrines. I’m not sure what passages of the Bible they would refer to (perhaps Exodus 7:3 and similar ones about God hardening Pharaoh’s heart?) in support of their view. In any event, few enough people believe in this doctrine that I don’t see any strong need to thoroughly address it.
There is, however, a way to show that Divine Determinism is ultimately irrelevant to our decision-making when it comes to prayer for healing. Consider a hypothetical case in which a hospital patient, call him Fred, is sick. I am trying to decide whether or not to pray for Fred. My thinking goes along these lines:
“I can do one of two things: A) Pray for Fred, or B) Refrain from praying for Fred. If I pray for Fred, then it’s because God has caused me to pray for Fred. Likewise if I do not pray for him. Therefore, what do I do? It seems that no matter what I do, God has caused it. Therefore, the knowledge that God causes everything to happen does not help me to make a decision about what to actually do. I know that God will cause whatever I do, but I do not now know what action God will cause.”
Unfortunately, many people still believe that God causes all things – like the sickness and death of their children – which turn them against him. Therefore, this doctrine is not difficult to refute, but it is important to do so where it is encountered.
Ch. 3) Faith Formula
Blue provides a nice summary:
“‘Faith-formula’ thinking is based on the theory that there is a strict causality between faith and healing. It holds that all divine blessings, such as health and prosperity, are constantly and fully available to all Christians. These benefits, which are supposedly available to every and any child of God, may be instantly appropriated, provided the individual Christian knows enough and believes enough.” (42).
This is another doctrine with mysterious origins. I can’t find a passage in the Bible that would support this kind of theology because it reduces to this fundamental assumption:
A: God will heal any sickness if there is sufficient faith.
This is thin soup and pretty easy to address. God becomes too much of a robot – you believe hard enough and he will heal you. Further, this assumes that God wants to heal all sickness, or, alternatively put, that God does not use sickness to mature and grow us. I personally believe that he can, though I agree with Blue that sickness should not be equated with persecution (see below: http://sesosmenos.blogspot.com/2008/12/to-those-who-reject-healing-miracles.html) The “faith-formula” view says that if a person can believe hard enough, then God will heal them. Even if they remain impenitent, not desiring to learn from God through their suffering – God will heal them instantly if they believe hard enough.
Ch. 4) The Secular Worldview
Blue cites the Secular Worldview as a “theological hindrance” (20) to miracles of healing. I don’t think much needs to be said on this other than to observe that it is obviously true. If you don’t believe in God (or some kind of god), you won’t believe in miracles – simple enough.
What I think is particularly important for Christians in America, however, is to not allow the barrage of non-Christian viewpoints to lull them into implicitly thinking of God as a bored and distant landlord (and then to emulate him in this regard). Some people say that science has proven that miracles cannot happen. This is plainly false, as it is not the job of science to make claims as to what is possible if non-physical things (such as the God of Christianity) exist and influence the physical world. If one accepts methodological naturalism – which is basically the view that science can only talk about natural objects and how they affect each other – then science simply does not address the question of what happens to the natural world when non-natural entities start interacting with it. Science remains neutral. I’ve never been a big fan of methodological naturalism, however, so think that science can include miracles, but that’s a different topic. The main point here is that science, as it generally proceeds, is silent on the possibility of miracles.
alt="" border="0" >