Dr Paul Allen

Elisha’s healing of Naaman in the Bible (the leper [and] commander of the army of the king of Syria) is a familiar story to many (2 Kgs 5:1–27). Naaman hears that Elisha, the prophet of Israel, can heal him, so he makes the trip. When the two meet, Elisha tells him rather dismissively that he needs to take a bath in the Jordan River. Naaman doesn’t take this well and prepares to go home. At the behest of some servants, he consents to dip himself in the Jordan. He is miraculously healed by the simple act. The display of power, so transparently without sacrifice or incantation, awakens Naaman to the fact that Yahweh of Israel is the true God. Here’s where the story usually ends in our telling, but that would result in the omission of one very odd detail—what Naaman asks to take back home. Two mules and a pile of dirt In 2 Kings 5:15–19, the elated Naaman returns to Elisha and begs him to take payment for healing him. Elisha repeatedly refuses. Finally, before embarking for Syria, Naaman

We believe in Jesus miracles but what about today? The most fundamental reason that people don’t believe the miracles in the Bible is that they already believe something else, namely, that miracles are impossible. In other words, they have a worldview that rules out the supernatural from the outset. Thus, it doesn’t really matter how good the evidence for a particular miracle might be. It doesn’t really matter how many eyewitnesses there are. Such factors are irrelevant. Any claim to the miraculous must be rejected in principle. Of course, this approach just raises the obvious question of whether there are good reasons to think miracles are impossible. After all, how does a person know that miracles can’t happen? The sceptic might say, “Because I’ve never seen a miracle.” But that’s not a very good argument. Not personally seeing something doesn’t make it impossible. There are tribes in the remote Amazon that have never seen snow, even in pictures. Their personal experience is uniforml

Theologians John Piper and Al Mohler have weighed in on why God answers certain prayers for healing in this life, but not all, and the role faith plays in the outcome. On an episode of his DesiringGod podcast, Piper responded to a reader who asked if greater faith would have saved his father from dying of a brain tumour. “[My] answer is that I don’t know. I don’t know,” Piper said. “What I do know is that I would go insane if I had to figure that out every time I preached — that when I preach, I’ve got to know what would have happened if I’d done things differently. And when I preach, it’s not just what’s at stake here on Earth; it’s what’s at stake eternally. Eternal lives are at stake when I preach, not just my dad’s few years of life on the planet. I cannot bear the burden — I can’t bear it — of having to answer the question, What if? What if? What if? “So it is with our prayers for those we love, whether physical healing or spiritual salvation. Would more faith heal? Would

Just over one hundred years ago, B.B. Warfield delivered the Thomas Symth Lectures at Columbia Theological Seminary in Columbia, S.C. The transcription of those lectures forms the content of Warfield’s book Counterfeit Miracles , which opens with these words: “When our Lord came down to earth He drew heaven with Him. The signs which accompanied His ministry were but the trailing clouds of glory which He brought from heaven, which is His home.” Taking up the subject of miraculous healings, in particular, Warfield summarized his assessment of contemporary claims to the continuation of healings when he stated:  “All Christians believe in healing in answer to prayer. Those who assert that this healing is wrought in a specifically miraculous manner, need better evidence for their peculiar view than such as fits in equally well with the general Christian faith.”  For Warfield, the great burden of the day was for Christians to reckon with the biblical teaching about the unique, rede

The famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say to God if he found himself standing before Him after his death. Russell replied, “I probably would ask, ‘Sir, why did you not give me better evidence?’” For Russell, it all came down to the evidence. The implication is, given better evidence for God, Russell would believe. Many atheists today make similar claims. For example, while taking questions on The Atheist Voice , Hemant Mehta—the Friendly Atheist—was asked, “What would it take for you to believe in God?” He replied, “I guess, simply put, I would need to see a miracle. I need evidence for God, and maybe that would come in the form of a miracle that has no possible explanation in the natural world.” When we hear claims like these, it is tempting to think belief in God comes down to the evidence and nothing else. On this view, it’s as if we have an “evidence meter” in our heads. And when the “evidence meter” reaches a certain level, we believe

In his best-selling book God is Not Great, the late atheist Christopher Hitchens argues that a Virgin Birth is scientifically impossible: “In any case, parthenogenesis is not possible for human mammals.” According to many atheists, this point is enough to end the discussion. A virgin birth would violate science, and since science has more credibility than religion, we can simply dismiss the miraculous story. Case closed. And yet the case is not that simple. In one sense, this atheist criticism is correct: humans, like other mammals, are normally incapable of parthenogenesis (a word that derives from Greek words meaning “virgin” and “birth”). However, this normative observation in no way proves that God could not cause a woman to conceive a child in her womb without the involvement of a human father. A Modern Example In a 2013 peer-reviewed periodical, two scientists in India explain that parthenogenesis, which they define as the process where “growth and development of em

About 15 years ago God showed me the results of tithing and believing (faith) so quickly that I was pleasantly surprised by it and I still am today. God does not require us to give our all, but I did, especially when things started to get desperate with my cash situation, he wants to bless us, and by us, I mean everyone who follows his word. At the time I was reading the bible and came to the book of Malachi. When I read God saying for us to test him and see if he doesn’t fill our coffers, this really stirred me into action. It was a few years after my stroke which had left me with many problems, I could not do any physical work anymore (no way to earn a wage) and had used all my cash funds up on trying to stay alive. Then one Friday afternoon I went to the ATM to get some cash-out and found that there was only $50 left, after withdrawing this I was in a quandary on how I should use it. After much pain, I departed with my last and gave it to my Church on Sunday. On waking up Monday

The restoration to a sound physical or psychological state or to the greatest degree of health (Heb. šālōm “completeness, welfare”) possible given such limits as age and dismemberment. The process might involve regeneration as well as restoration, which included rectification of a sinful condition for which disease was often considered divine punishment (Ps. 38:3; cf. Isa. 38:10–20). Ultimately, God is the source of healing (e.g., Gen. 20:17; Exod. 15:16). Healing might be effected through prophets who acted as God’s agents (e.g., 2 Kgs. 5:3–14; 2 Kgs. 20:1–7 par. Isa. 38) as well as purification rituals performed by priests (cf. Lev. 15). By the Hellenistic period professional physicians had gained a prominent role, relying on magic and superstition as much as actual medical treatment (cf. Sir. 38:1–15). As part of his ministry of restoring humanity to wholeness, Jesus healed a variety of physical and psychological ailments (e.g., Luke 7:21–22; cf. 4:18). Although in some ins

Thus says the Lord: “By this you shall know that I am the LORD: Behold, I will strike the waters which are in the river with the rod that is in my hand, and they shall be turned to blood” (Ex. 7:17). The Egyptians worshiped the Nile River . They derived so much benefit from it that they looked upon it as divine. To show His sovereignty and superiority over the Egyptians and their gods, the Lord sent this first plague to taint the waters of Egypt, turning the Nile into blood. It must be emphatically stated at this point that this was not a discoloration from the red clays of the Ethiopian highlands that sometimes washed into the Nile, turning it a reddish color. The term used in the text for blood is never used for a color, but for the actual substance of blood. This was a supernatural act of God, a miracle. God had said that He would enable Moses to perform great miracles that would only harden Pharaoh’s heart. If it had been merely discoloration from a natural occurrence, it woul

English: By Rembrandt. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) It is often contended that people who lived during biblical times were more simple minded and superstitious than modern man, and could be tricked into believing the miraculous stories contained in the Bible. Today it is claimed we live in a scientific age and have outgrown these superstitions , since we have developed the mental capacity to see these miracles as being superstitious myths rather than paranormal phenomena. A close study of the evidence will show that these accounts are not a superstitious reaction to some clever trickster. The response to the miraculous acts of God show the same surprise and anxiety that modern man would have if he were placed in the same situation. The people living at the time of Jesus certainly knew that men born blind do not immediately receive their sight (John 9:32), that five loaves and a few fish would not feed 5,000 people (John 6:14), or that men do not walk on water ( Matthew 14:26 ).

The answer to this question really depends on the definition of the word miracle. If we define miracle as “a direct activity of God in the world,” then all the spiritual gifts are miraculous because they are all empowered by the Holy Spirit ( 1 Cor. 12:11; cf. vv. 4–6). But in that sense everything that happens in the world might be said to be miraculous, because all of it is brought about by God’s providential work in creation (see Eph. 1:11; Dan. 4:35; Matt. 5:45).18 Therefore the word miracle loses its usefulness, because it is difficult for us to find something that happens in the world that is not miraculous in this sense. It is better to define miracle in a narrower sense, as we did in chapter 17, above: A miracle is a “less common activity of God in which he arouses people’s awe and wonder and bears witness to himself.”19 In terms of this definition, only some gifts are “miraculous”: namely, those gifts that people think to be miraculous because they are amazed at the ac

The Miraculous Draught of Fishes, 1515, one of the seven remaining Raphael Cartoons for tapestries. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) In Matthew 17 we see an example of God's providence in action, in connection with a mundane event — the paying of the temple tax . Jesus , as the Son of God , was under no obligation to pay the tax. Yet in order to give no offense, He sent Peter to catch a fish in whose mouth was the required shekel . This brief account raises some questions: How did the shekel get into the mouth of the fish? How did Peter just “happen” to catch that fish and not another one nearby? It is possible that Jesus performed a miracle and created the coin out of nothing in the mouth of the fish. It is more likely, however, that it was a work of providence. Someone “accidentally” dropped a shekel into the sea. A particular fish grabbed it, and it stuck in its mouth. The fish swam to the exact spot where Peter cast his net and the fish was caught. None of these events was m

Jesus drives out a demon or unclean spirit, from the 15th-century Très Riches Heures (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) “Now many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the hands of the apostles. And they were all together in Solomon’s Portico. None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high esteem. And more than ever believers were added to the Lord , multitudes of both men and women, so that they even carried out the sick into the streets and laid them on cots and mats, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem , bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits , and they were all healed.” Acts 5:12–16 This text speaks of “signs and wonders,” but another word for these occurrences is miracles. A miracle is an act of God by which he sets aside the rules of what normally happens and does something very different for the sake of his glory. Do you believe G

A stained glass representation of confirmation in the Lutheran Church. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) The point that cessationists try to make with this passage is that the word of salvation  taught by the Lord was confirmed in the past by those who heard, referring mostly to the apostles . It is argued that the aorist tense ofejbebaiwvqh indicates a past completed act 48  or a "once for all" act. 49  They also argue that the sign gifts were given  strictly for the confirmation of the gospel to unbelievers.  50 While it is correct that  Heb 2:1-4  talks about the validation of the apostles message, it does not necessarily restrict the signs, wonders, and spiritual gifts to the apostles.  The use of the aorist tense cannot be used to argue that this "confirmation"  is restricted absolutely to the past. First, the aorist is probably constative, which views the action as a whole. It does not focus on the beginning or the end of the action. It merely states that the