Google "amputee healed" on the web and you will find a plethora (I like that word) of entries on the topic of the "proof" that God doesn't exist because "Why doesn't God heal amputees?" Believe it or not, there is even a website titled with that premise. (I don't have to link to it. You can find it if you feel you need to.) I'm really confused at the argument. It goes something like this:
1. The Bible claims that God answers prayers.
2. Christians claim that God has miraculously answered prayer for all manner of afflictions, as He has promised.
3. There is one set of individuals for which this claim is never made -- amputees.
4. This suggests, as atheists believe, that there is no God, since Christians can't explain it.
Why is it confusing to me? Well, it seems like the question isn't asked either fairly or clearly. Here, let's run some "witnesses" by our "panel of atheists" (Note: Both my witnesses and my panel are fictional -- for purposes of illustration only. Any correlation to actual people would be because we recognize these things as entirely possible.) and see how it shakes out.
John worked in a cabinet-making shop. He was rushing to get some work done and chose to bypass some of the safety features of the equipment to speed things up. Distracted for a moment, John suddenly lost a hand to the spinning saw blade. Paramedics are called. John (and his hand) are rushed to the hospital. John's family prayed furiously for him as the doctors operated to restore the lost limb. In the end, John regained the full use of his lost hand because of the quick response of the paramedics and the doctors skills. John and the family, however, thanked God for the restored limb.
"Eeeeeh!" the rejection buzzer sounds. "Sorry," the panel responds, "you can't use doctors. Calls for speculation that it was 'God' -- only an opinion. That doesn't count."
Okay, meet Allysa. One day she was driving down the freeway when someone cut her off. Veering to avoid a collision, she went off the road. The car rolled and, unfortunately, her hand was outside the vehicle and was crushed. The doctors could do nothing to save the hand. Her church raised her in prayer. Allysa's stump healed more rapidly than the doctors expected and soon she was back home. She was able to care for herself, goes on to live a happy life, and thanks God for the close encounter with death that was averted and for the rapid healing of her limb.
"Eeeeeh!" the rejection buzzer sounds. "Sorry," the panel responds, "but the object of 'healing' here is not a stump. She had to end up with a new hand to be considered 'healed'. That doesn't count."
How about Mark? Mark was serving his country overseas when a roadside bomb detonated and severed his left leg. No amount of doctoring could save the leg. While Mark was flown back to the US, his church family held him up in prayer. His stump healed quicker than usual and he was soon fitted with an excellent prosthetic. Soon he returned to duty to finish out his enlistment. So well did he adapt to the prosthetic that he became a runner, got sponsors to support his racing, and everywhere he went he touted his belief that God made it all possible for him.
"Eeeeeh!" the rejection buzzer sounds. "Sorry," the panel responds, "no way. He wasn't healed. A prosthetic isn't 'healing'. He has to have a new limb grow back. You can't consider it healing just because he thinks it is and becomes fully functional. That doesn't count."
Janice was a young girl who grew up in a Christian home. Inundated with Christianity, she rebelled as a teenager and went out on her own as soon as she could. At 19 she was on the back of her boyfriend's motorcycle when he lost control and crashed. The boyfriend died from his injuries, but Janice survived. Unfortunately the doctors couldn't save her leg. As she lay in the hospital, her family praying for her unceasingly, Janice realized that she had been running from God and relying solely on herself. She saw her need for a Savior, repented of her sin, and became a follower of Christ. Today she uses the prosthetic that helps her walk as a daily reminder that she needs to constantly lean on Jesus, not to trust in herself.
"Eeeeeh!" the rejection buzzer sounds. "Sorry," the panel responds, "but that's not even close. How is that a 'healing'?" Well, it would seem that in Christianity the biggest concern is not the body, but the soul. Janice received the biggest healing of all, a healed soul. "Sorry, that doesn't count at all. Rejected out of hand. That doesn't count."
Alright, one more. Henry and his wife were missionaries to a remote tribe in South America. They weren't making much headway there. One day a young boy was bitten by a venomous snake. Henry was a doctor and his wife a nurse. While the witch doctor chanted, Henry and his wife went to work, all the time praying for the boy and the village. They saved the boy from the venom, but the bite made the hand useless. Now, a person with only one hand in this part of the world was a danger to himself and to others. Traditionally, the tribe would kill such a person for self-defense and as an act of mercy. The night before the tribal leaders were planning to come and do the deed, Henry and his wife were praying for the child with all their might. In the morning, as the leaders arrived to kill the child, they are shocked to find that the boy had grown a new, healthy hand. So amazed were they that the witch doctor was the first to surrender his life to Christ, followed closely by most of the villagers.
"Eeeeeh!" the rejection buzzer sounds. "Sorry," the panel responds, "but that's not here. That's a nice story, and if it occurred here we'd have to agree, but it's just a story. Without the actual evidence of the event in front of us, we have to rule it inadmissible. That doesn't count."
You see, this is primarily how it goes. The anti-theist who uses this argument starts with the presumption of no God. Then he/she demands that God act in a way that fits his/her own criteria. The only actual, allowable method whereby God can answer the prayer for healing is if He actually regrows the limb ... essentially in the presence of the skeptic. When God fails to meet the demand, God fails to exist. Poof! God vanishes in a puff of logic. "If the Most High God, the Sovereign of the Universe, is unwilling to accede to our demands, He must not be." That's the premise. They pass this off as rational, as if the Sovereign of the Universe logically should do what they say He should do. I don't get it.
My grandfather was an atheist. Once I asked him, "What would it take to convince you otherwise?" He told me, "Simple ... just have God come down here in my presence and perform a miracle or two." Yeah, He tried that. They called Him Jesus, but He was also called Immanuel -- "God with us". He healed the sick, made the blind see, even raised the dead. One time He restored the ear of someone who had it amputated. Do you know what they did with Him? Well, when all the witnesses to the raising of the last dead guy, Lazarus, reported it, they not only planned to kill Him, but to kill the resurrected guy as well. Eliminate the evidence. Otherwise there will be ... trouble.
In the story of Lazarus (different Lazarus) and the Rich Man (Luke 16), Jesus says, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31). I'm sure we can tack onto that "neither will they be convinced if an amputee has a limb restored ... by any means."
5 comments:
Great follow-up on that debate, Stan. You've exposed the spurious nature of the argument better than I did. Unfortunately, many athiests have grown emotionally attached to this argument. They seem to have something like faith in their "God doesn't heal amputees" trump card.
A century ago Chesterton nailed this style of skepticism.
But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time.
...
In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.
Why not? They're freethinkers, right?
My name is Ben, and I have been brought up in a strong christian family, AOG style. I have gone to church once or twice a week since I was born. I am 24 years old, I married as a virgin, my first kiss with my wife was on the wedding day. My sister is the worship leader of the church, my brother the band director, I am the drummer. My mum and dad are christian marriage counsellors, mum is the sunday school director, my dad used to be the treasurer. My family is well respected in our church, and better yet, I respect my parents and their teachings. Im not a 'Pastors Kid' that rebels because my parents are hypocritical. My brother, sister and I recently went on a christian missions trip to India to spread the gospel. I tell you this to push away any ideas that I am of athiestic or uneducated origin.
I am not an athiest. I believe in God, that Jesus was the Son of God, and that the bible is true.
But I am being rocked right now. My faith is being rocked. The fact that I have not been able to find any good, solid, undeniable healings on the enourmous vastness of the internet really...really bothers me. I am NOT a skeptic! I am not starting from the presupposition that god does not exist and I am STILL EXCEPTIONALLY UNSATISFIED WITH THE LACK OF MIRACLES CAUGHT ON CAMERA. Despite seeing so many people 'fall down under the spirit', laugh crazily, cry, behave as if they are demon possessed, or claim they are healed of all manner of 'small' things... why can I not find something that IS testable and stands up against the simplest of scrutinies? If God is doing all of these miraculous things around me, (pain going away, sore arms not sore, limbs having more than normal movement in them) why does He leave the born-lame in the wheel-chairs, the born-blind without their sight, the limbless without them restored, the deformed still twisted, when all of the other, untestable and undeniable problems are being healed in the same church meeting?
Does God not like doing really really 'cool' things and just wants to stick to stuff that we don't have to believe unless we choose to...through faith????
These are hairy questions to ask, and I have had many people upset at me for asking them. I hope you can give me a decent answer, because I really need one.
God Bless,
Ben.
Hi, Ben. To start out, I'm not among those upset with you for asking the questions. I don't think God has anything to lose when people ask questions. If you want to find some of the most challenging and penetrating questions asked of God, go to the Psalms where David demands answers. Questions are fine.
On the other hand, what you want is "a decent answer". That is, essentially, an impossible task. I can say to one person who asks, "Why does God do what He does?" "Well, He does it because He wants to" and that's a "decent answer". The next person would say, "Oh, no, that's not even close." I can say, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God" (Deut. 29:29) and someone would accept that while the next one won't. Indeed, I could get a direct answer from God with documentation and video and some people would still find it not a "decent answer". Do you see the problem? Jesus Himself said, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31). So how will I know what is a decent answer to you?
I have real problems with the questions myself. Not that people shouldn't ask them -- it's that I can't ask them. Look at the root question: "Why does God ...?" Really? Does someone actually expect that we -- finite beings -- will be able to grasp the Infinite and offer real motivational analysis? I can't tell you why I do some of the things I do.
That's my first problem. The second problem is the foundational principle of the question. "Why doesn't God do what I want Him to do to convince me?" Generally it is predicated on "Why doesn't God make our world a nicer place to live?" Yes, too general, I know, but that's the main idea. God must provide the evidence we demand, and He must do it in the way we demand it -- and that means making things better for people. Other people have no problem asking these questions. I just can't seem to bring myself to do it. If God is sovereign, I would not expect Him to tell us why He does what He does or submit Himself to our demands.
I have no doubt that there are reasons that you haven't seen any healings on the Internet. The notion that "healings" are the cornerstone proof of God is a problem for me, and I would guess that it would be a problem for God. If I were God, I'd likely knock that off when there are cameras running. People don't believe because of healings. (Look at the Pharisees. When they knew Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, they didn't believe -- they sought to kill them both.) If I were God I'd know that video can be faked and skeptics cannot be swayed by video and, in all frankness, I wouldn't want others being swayed by a video. I'd want them to believe. You know: "Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed" (John 20:29). And there are other reasons that I can expect. God won't submit Himself to Man. I suspect that in many cases the simple demand by the masses "Show us a sign" means that He won't. Then there is the real danger in thinking, "This world should be a better place" when God has made it clear that we are merely sojourners, strangers here. It would be misleading to make us think that this world should be a better place. I am stunned by the idea that "real healing is only physical" when spiritual healing is so much more difficult and so much more vital. The notion that the worst thing in the world is people without limbs is a ridiculous notion. (Talk to Joni Eareckson Tada about that sometime.) And the list goes on and on.
Frankly, I'm not surprised that there are no dramatic, physical healings caught on video. But, that's just me. If I were God, I'd make sure it didn't happen. We walk by faith, not by sight. Jesus spent years performing visible miracles in front of people, and all they wanted was more miracles. He fed 5,000 and all they wanted was more food. I wouldn't do it if I were God. Fortunately for everyone, I'm not.
I do wonder if the AOG input you've received hasn't tainted some of your thinking. I don't know that God is nearly as much in the "signs and wonders" business as the Pentecostal or Charismatic folk would like to think He is at all.
Unfortunately, I don't suppose I've offered a very "decent answer". One thing I learned a few years ago, however. Often -- not always, but often -- God will give us something spectacular like you're looking for ... after we surrender demanding it and accept Him on His terms. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
You guys should watch "Finger of God" and "Furious Love". There are miracles caught on tape! Jesus is real and is still healing today!
Post a Comment