Table of Contents

Appendix A Detailed Contents

Chapter 11.5

Defending Miracle Faith

Table of Topics

A) Miracle Faith is Completely a Gift from God

B) Miracle Faith is Required for Miracle Working but not Miracles

C) Miracle Faith May be Given to the Healer or the Healed

D) God Never Blames His People for the Absence of Miracles

E) Miracle Faith Can be Granted Without the Gift of Miracle Working: James 5:14-16

F) God Chooses When & Where to Grant Miracle Working Faith & Gifts

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

God needs no one to have any faith to perform direct miracles. However, delegated human miracle working always requires miracle faith in either the miracle worker or the recipient of the miracle because a miracle is being effectively commanded or claimed at a specific point in time.
In the majority of the healings recorded in Scripture, miracle faith was given to the healer and the faith of the healed had no bearing on the miracle at all. This exposes the fraud of modern “faith healers” who often blame their failures on others.
Contrary to the accusations of super-supernaturalism God never blames His people for a lack of miracles occurring.
Miracle working gifts and faith were not something that operated continuously in even the Apostles, but only when God deemed it necessary to authenticate their authority. This is why they were not always healing.

A) Miracle Faith is Completely a Gift from God

Perhaps the most important attribute of miracle faith regarding its relationship to miracle working is that it comes completely from God as a gift, and is not dependent upon people at all. This is, in fact, why it is included in a list of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:9. Again, miracle faith is as God-given and supernatural as the miraculous deed itself. It is not a type of faith that can be produced by humans through positive thinking or any other human exercise, but rather, must be graciously and supernaturally given by God.

The “gift” nature of miracle faith is certainly demonstrated in the Apostle Peter’s healing of the paralytic, as he is careful to explain: “By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through Him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see” (v. 16). Yes, it was “By faith in the name of Jesus” that the man was healed, but it was a miracle faith that was granted to the Apostle Peter by God to command his healing.

As we point out elsewhere, some kinds of biblical faith are dependent on us, and others are completely a gift of God. ^[1] Miracle faith is the kind of faith that humans are not at all capable of because it requires belief in a miracle without any doubt at all (cf. Matt 21:21). Therefore, the kind of faith that must accompany miracle working has to come from God just as much as the miracle itself.

Accordingly, it is a significant mistake to confuse Abraham’s miracle faith in Romans 4, with empowering faith as many do. The latter is something human’s naturally exercise based on the evidence provided and for which humans are given the credit. Miracle faith is a belief that is produced by a miraculous revelation from God of His certain will, and therefore, it is a faith that comes from Him.

And this is precisely the Apostle Paul’s point in the passage because he is illustrating saving faith which is a gift from God. It is God who was glorified by Abraham’s faith because his faith was given to him by God. Applying empowering faith to this passage results in the unfortunate tendency to give the credit and glory to the one exercising the faith (i.e. Abraham), rather than the One granting the faith (i.e. God).

Empowering faith is a human work, miracle and saving faith are a work of God and a gift to humans. The fact that this was a God-given faith (like miracle or saving faith is), instead of a self-chosen faith (like empowering faith), is demonstrated by the fact that the Apostle Paul is using this miracle faith as an example of the saving faith we receive from God by grace, and which for Abraham, “was credited to him as righteousness” (v. 22). A righteousness that is a gift of God’s grace and not based on any human merit or action whatsoever (cf. Rom 4:3-4, 16; Eph 2:8-9).

Those who would suggest that Abraham’s faith was from himself misunderstand the nature and source of the kind of faith that surrounds the commanding and reception of miracles. They also steal the glory of God, and find a way to give at least some of the credit to humans, suggesting we could all have such faith if we just tried harder. It is God alone who provides everything (including the revelation of His will and the subsequent faith) for such miracles to occur, and He therefore gets all the glory for them.

In fact, all of the above characteristics make it obvious that miracle faith is a sovereign gift from God, because humans are not capable of any of them. Humans will not be absolutely certain that something will happen if there is no evidence for it, or evidence against it. Humans cannot know that a miracle will occur unless God supernaturally reveals it to them. Finally, humans do not have the power and abilities to work the kind of miracles that result from such faith.

We insist, then, that the nature of miracle faith requires it to come from God, not ourselves, and He grants it when He desires to have a miracle occur through the command, claim, or prayer of a person. Accordingly, the NT scholar F. F. Bruce (1910–1990) wrote regarding miracle faith:

Whether one talks in Pauline terms about gifts of healing or whether with James one talks in terms of a prayer of faith (which surely comes because the elders have heard the heart of God), the source is God. So even [miracle] faith is not a work of ours; it is a gift of God. Our only action is to respond appropriately to the faith in our heart. ^[2]

B) Miracle Faith is Required for Miracle Working but not Miracles

Because the miracle working gifts operated on the confident command or touch of those possessing them, miracle faith was always present as well to provide such confidence. This is not true of all miracles. God needs no one to have any faith in Him to perform direct miracles. ^[3] These even happen with or without prayer. Accordingly, it wasn’t because of someone’s faith or prayer that God raised Jesus from the dead, because it was a direct miracle of God. However, delegated human miracle working always requires miracle faith in either the miracle worker or the recipient of the miracle because a miracle is being confidently commanded or claimed at a specific point in time by a human.

Therefore, the unspecified claim that faith is required for miracles to occur is very common, but also inaccurate. For example, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology under “Miracles” states:

Only faith, i.e. trust in the power of Jesus which transcends all human possibilities, can receive miracles (Mk. 2:5; 5:34; 7:29; 9:23 f.; Matt. 8:10; 9:28 f.; cf. Jn. 4:50; 11 :40); unbelief is denied miracles (Matt. 13:53-58; Mk. 6:1-6; cf. Lk. 4:16-30). ^[4]

On the contrary, all of the references given refer to delegated human miracle working, which, as we’ve said, does require miracle faith. However, this is not true of all miracles, as Dr. Hofus and many others imply.

On the other hand, the Christian apologist Norm Geisler is equally inaccurate when he states: “Faith is an essential ingredient of a psychosomatic [psychological/emotional] healing, but not for a supernatural healing.” On the contrary, the need for miracle faith in either the healer or the healed in biblical miracle working is clear. ^[5]

C) Miracle Faith May be Given to the Healer or the Healed

In the case of the Apostle Peter’s healing of the paralytic in Acts 3, the miracle faith was given to Peter to command the healing. The paralytic had no faith at all to be healed, neither was he expecting it. Rather, “he asked [the Apostles] for money . . . expecting . . . silver or gold” (Acts 3:3, 5-6), and yet the healing occurred anyway.

Obviously, this argues against the practice in “faith healing” ministries that do everything to raise people’s expectations so that the power of suggestion will work in their meetings. Secondly, the miracle faith to heal in this instance resided in Peter the healer, not the cripple.

This fact exposes another common and hurtful error in “faith healing” ministries today. Normally, if a healing doesn’t occur, it is the victim’s lack of faith that is blamed, instead of the healer’s lack of faith. Here, the healed had no faith as he wasn’t even expecting to be healed! In fact, under our topic of the relationship between faith and miracles, it is important to note that in the majority of the healings recorded in Scripture, the faith of the healed had no bearing on the miracle at all. ^[6]

When biblical characters are commanding a healing, we know that God has granted the miracle worker the faith necessary to heal, and the faith of the healed is irrelevant. This is illustrated as well with the healing that occurred at the “pool” of “Bethesda” (John 5:1). We read:

One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, He asked him, “Do you want to get well?”

“Sir,” the invalid replied, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.” (John 5:5-7)

We see here that the paralytic has no faith in Christ to heal him, but rather some kind of faith in the healing properties of the pool. In fact, the text tells us that the man didn’t even know who had healed him afterwards (cf. vs. 12-13). Nonetheless, with the miracle faith given Him by God, Jesus, “said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked” (vs. 8-9).

Therefore, even when someone has no faith at all, a person with the biblical gift of healing can heal them. This is obviously the case with those who were raised from the dead (cf. Matt 9:18-26; John 11:38-44; Acts 9:40; 20:9-12). Accordingly, faith from the recipient of a miracle is not necessary for a God-sent miracle worker to perform a miracle, as is certainly illustrated in Christ raising Lazarus from the dead (cf. John 11:43-4). How much faith, miraculous or otherwise, did Lazarus have? None. And yet the deed was done because God willed it to be done.

In fact, contrary to the teaching of many “faith healers,” in most of the cases where the Scriptures record someone has received a miracle or healing, there is no mention of the faith of the recipient, but more often, the faith of the miracle worker is evident. And this was precisely the case with Lazarus. This relates to the fact that evidently the gift of healing did not even require the person to be a Christian, as is evidenced by the paralytic in Acts 3 and Publius’ father (cf. Acts 28:7-8).

At other times, however, God grants the healed miracle faith to believe without doubt they will be healed. Therefore, not only does miracle faith enable one to work miracles, but to receive them as well. We read in Matthew: “The blind men came to Him [Jesus], and He asked them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” “Yes, Lord,” they replied. Then He touched their eyes and said, “According to your [miracle] faith [supernaturally given by God] will it be done to you” (Matt 9:28-29). In other words, if a person is given supernatural faith, then a supernatural deed can occur (cf. Matt 15:28; Acts 14:9).

So, indeed, sometimes God requires miracle faith on the part of the healed, but it must be remembered that it is a gift from God, and not something He expects a human to produce. Miracle faith requires belief in a miracle without doubt and this must come from God.

D) God Never Blames His People for the Absence of Miracles

The biblical fact that God grants miracle faith to either the healer or healed corrects a great deal of unbiblical and harmful practices in super-supernaturalism which we have addressed elsewhere. ^[7] Accordingly, we wrote:

Neither Christ nor the Apostles ever criticized a believer for a lack of faith to either produce or receive a miracle. The criticisms concerning faith for miracles were always directed toward unbelievers, and many of the miracles in the Bible had nothing to do with anybody’s faith, and often occurred in spite of doubt. . . .

An obvious problem with such accusations of disbelief and sin in the context of miracles is that everyone knows that there is a particular movement of churches that is claiming to be experiencing far more miracles than other movements of churches. The claim itself is arrogant and unfounded, but the reasons that the modern “miracle” movement gives for this supposed discrepancy is that the “non-miraculous” churches are less spiritual, holy, and faith-filled than they are. . . .

While super-supernaturalists are accusing Christians of a lack of faith and “openness,” the fact of the matter is that other Christians are exercising more biblical discernment than they are. ^[8]

Commonly, the reason that is offered today to explain the dismal record of modern-day “faith healers” is that the effectiveness of the gift of healing depends on the amount of faith exercised by the person being healed. In other words, if the person isn’t healed, it is because of a lack of faith that the “victim” was able to produce in themselves.

On the contrary, many biblical healings depended completely on the miracle faith of the healer, and therefore, if modern “faith healers” want to point fingers at anyone for their pathetic results, they had better be pointing at themselves. It is suggested then that if modern day “faith healers” truly desired to apply all NT teaching on faith healing, it would seem at times they should blame their lack of faith when someone is not healed. Yet, how often have we heard them admit that?

Along these lines, Robert Saucy, Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot, writes:

The presence of extraordinary “Sign” miracles at certain times in biblical history denies the explanation, sometimes put forward, that the lack of comparable miracles at other times was due to sin or unbelief. God sent miracle workers among his people whenever he desired, even in times of great unbelief.

The depth of the faith of the people of Israel at the time of the Exodus is questionable, especially during the desert wanderings. Yet God worked miracles in their midst through his servant Moses. Elijah and Elisha clearly worked miracles . . . in the midst of an apostate people. The same could be said for Jews among whom both Jesus and the Apostles ministered . . .

Scripture reveals that the level of God’s working of miracles was not primarily dependent on human faith, but on his sovereign plan and purpose. Nowhere in the New Testament are believers encouraged to have faith so that they can become the recipients of miraculous works. ^[9]

As we have discussed further elsewhere, it is scandalous for modern “faith healers” to use the lack of a patient’s faith as a crutch to explain why their supposed gift of healing does not work with 100% effectiveness like the authentic biblical gift of healing did. ^[10] Unfortunately, such false teaching has seriously injured many brothers and sisters in Christ. Far too many of them have been led to believe that they will be healed if they can only muster enough faith. When the attempted healing fails the reasons often given, or at least seemingly always implied, is that the person’s faith was too weak, they have some hidden sin, or that God simply has something against them.

They are told in so many words that to not be physically healthy is some kind of curse. All of this, of course, devastates the spiritual vitality of those God has ordained not to be healed. In addition, it would seem to ignore the experience of the Apostle Paul who, although one of the greatest Christians who ever lived, remained unhealed himself (cf. 2 Cor 12:7-10).

On the other hand, when the miracle faith was to reside in the healed, it was always completely the sovereign gift of God and not even God would blame them for a lack of the kind of required faith necessary for miracle working to occur. Once again, then, super-supernaturalism finds itself at odds with the God they claim to follow.

In addition, miracle faith by its very nature is extremely rare, and therefore the great expectation of it within super-supernaturalism is misplaced. Because miracle faith involves miraculous revelations, gifts, and events, it is by nature also extremely rare, the essence of the miraculous. It is not something that all Christians can expect to experience or exercise like empowering faith. It is often suggested, particularly in super-supernaturalism, that such faith will be common, is dependent upon us, and that if we were more spiritual we would be constantly experiencing miracles and a supernatural confidence in their occurrence. However, both the biblical and historical evidence demonstrates its great rarity.

The Apostle Paul notes it is a gift, sovereignly given by the Spirit, and not for everyone (cf. 1 Cor 12:9). Its rarity may be particularly demonstrated by the fact that no one has moved a mountain as Christ promised we could if someone had even a very little of this faith. And while some claim that the gift is working in abundance among them, the rather dismal record of commanded miraculous healings suggests otherwise. How many “faith healers” have commanded, “Be healed!” and no healing has come. This is because the healer possessed no miracle faith from God, not because the victim had no faith.

The suggestion that the number of miracles in a Christian’s life depends on the amount of their faith (whatever that means) breaks down too when we remember as stated above, direct miracles from God do not depend on anyone’s faith.

One verse that is cited in favor of placing blame on the victims of modern “faith healing” is the description of Christ’s return to His hometown where, “He could not do any miracles there, except lay His hands on a few sick people and heal them. And He was amazed at their lack of faith” (Mark 6:5-6; cf. Matt 13:58). It should be noticed, first of all, that those who did come to Him for healing and on whom He did “lay His hands on” were healed. It is not that Jesus attempted to heal someone as modern “faith healers” will, and they weren’t healed. All those who came for healing were healed and this offers contemporary “miracle workers” no excuse for their lack of miraculous ability.

Likewise, Matthew’s version states:

Coming to His hometown, He began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at Him.

But Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown and in his own house is a Prophet without honor.” And He did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith. (Matt 13:54-58)

Notice again that Jesus had done enough miracles in Nazareth that the people recognized His “miraculous powers” (v. 54).

Nonetheless, it could be suggested that Jesus didn’t heal many because not many came or were brought to Him for healing because of the general disdain for Him in Nazareth (cf. Matt 13:56-7). Notice too that it is not their lack of faith in His ability to heal that is the issue, as modern “faith healers” would imply, but the lack of belief that their hometown boy was God’s Son. This is the kind of unbelief that had earlier compelled a “furious” crowd in the same town to attempt to throw Him off a cliff (cf. Luke 4:16-30). That is not the kind of unbelief that a desperate, willing child of God may come to a “faith healer” with. It is the kind of unbelief that is possessed by the damned, not the redeemed. For all of these reasons, the people of Nazareth cannot be used as an example of why supposed “miracle workers” today are not more effective.

In addition, Dr. M. H. Cressey shares in his entry to the New Bible Dictionary on “Miracles”:

It is important to observe that faith on the part of human participants is not a necessary condition of a miracle in the sense that God is of himself unable to act without human faith. Mk. 6:5 is often quoted to support such a view, but Jesus could do no mighty work in Nazareth, not because the people’s unbelief limited his power-Mark tells us: that he healed a few sick people there-but rather because he could not proceed with his preaching or with the deeds which proclaimed his gospel in action where men were unready to accept his good news and his own person. Wonder-working for the crowds or the sceptics was inconsistent with his mission: it was in this sense that he could not do it in Nazareth. ^[11]

Dr. Cressey’s point reflects the biblical purpose for miracle working as authenticating new divine revelation. Because no new revelation was going to be given to such a hostile crowd, no authentication was needed.

Another event that is used in the debate concerning the relationship between faith and miracles is the disciples’ inability to cast out a demon because of “little faith.” Mark’s account of the incident is the most detailed, but additions from Matthew’s account are included here in brackets:

When they [Jesus and three of the disciples] came to the other disciples, they saw a large crowd around them and the teachers of the law arguing with them. A man in the crowd answered, “Teacher, I brought You my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked Your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not.”

“O unbelieving [Matthew adds “perverse”] generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to Me.” So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth.

Jesus asked the boy’s father, “How long has he been like this?” “From childhood,” he answered. “It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if You can do anything, take pity on us and help us.” “‘If you can’?” said Jesus. “Everything is possible for him who believes [with miracle faith].” Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”

When Jesus saw that a crowd was running to the scene, He rebuked the evil spirit. “You deaf and mute spirit,” He said, “I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.” The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, “He’s dead.” But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him to his feet, and he stood up.

After Jesus had gone indoors, His disciples asked Him privately, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer” (Mark 9:14-29; cf. Matt 17:14-20).

Matthew records Christ’s response to the disciples question about why they could not drive out the demon as follows:

Because you have so little [miracle] faith. I tell you the truth, if you have [miracle] faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you. (Matt 17:20)

Again, many use this passage to suggest that the miracle faith needed to cast out this demon was something the disciples and father of the boy were responsible for, and therefore, Christ rebuked them as part of an “unbelieving” or “perverse generation.”

First, let us notice that Matthew’s account makes it clear that the faith needed to exorcise this demon was miracle faith, of which a “mustard seed” amount would allow one to command a literal “mountain” to “move.” With the kind of faith that the disciples needed to exorcise this demon, “nothing” would “be impossible for” them. This is a miracle faith which we have demonstrated above is not dependent on us, and therefore, we doubt Christ is condemning the disciples and father at all here. This is not a faith that Christ was expecting the disciples to have, much less produce within themselves. It is a faith that God grants as part of a power that God grants in order to do what is humanly impossible. And it was, no doubt, a supernatural faith and power that was needed to expel such a powerful, noxious being.

Accordingly, one is inclined to agree with John Calvin (1509–1564) that Christ “did not intend to treat the ignorant and weak (i.e. the child’s father and the disciples) with such harshness,” but rather the Pharisees who were “arguing” with the disciples (v. 14). ^[12] NT scholar Leon Morris thinks that Christ’s rebuke of unbelief and perverseness (v. 19) is directed toward the general state of, “all the people alive at that time.” ^[13] There is little doubt that both the father and Christ’s disciples were exercising whatever faith they had. It seems more likely that Christ’s passionate condemnation is prompted by the terrible state the boy is in, whose condition was a graphic demonstration of the power that Christ’s enemy, satan, still had over people. A power that would be dealt with at the cross, and a final defeat that Christ very much looked forward to.

What super-supernaturalists must claim in order to apply this passage in a derogatory way toward Christians is that the “unbelieving” (Mark 9:19) and “perverse generation” (Matt 17:17) Christ condemns can be applied to believers today. This is unlikely considering the meaning of “perverse.” The Greek here is diestrammena, the perfect passive participle of diastrophe which literally means “to turn (strophe) through (dia)” and translated here as “having been ‘twisted’ or perverted.” It is a very strong word, used to describe a complete commitment or conversion to something evil.

It is used of the attempt of “Elymas the sorcerer . . . to turn [diastrephai] the proconsul away from the faith.” The Apostle Paul then describes the sorcerer as, “full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked [diastrophon] the straight ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:8-10). The Apostle also uses it in Philippians in much the same way that Christ does in the passage above when he says, “become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation (geneas… diestrammenes), in which you shine like stars in the universe” (2:15). Here, the perverted generation is clearly set in contrast to the children of God.

Again, we see the word is used of a very depraved state, one that it would seem Christ did not intend to apply to His disciples or a man coming to him in the hope of having his boy healed. Christ’s condemnation is essentially directed toward the whole world which lives under the control, perversion, and some possession, of the enemy of God.

Elsewhere we have pointed out the unwarranted and offensive accusations that super-supernaturalists are rather forced to make because of their claim that they are experiencing more miracles because of a greater faith. ^[14] To the contrary, we have demonstrated that the relationship between a faith that we can produce and the abundance of God-sent miracles is uncertain, if not nonexistent. God does miracles when and where He pleases and super-supernaturalism is in no biblical position to make such an accusation. Would it have us conclude that the Apostle Paul (cf. Gal 4:3-4; 2 Co 12:8-9), Epaphroditus (cf. Phil 2:25-27), Timothy (cf. 1 Tim 5:23), and Trophimus (cf. 2 Tim 4:20) endured their illnesses because they lacked faith or holiness?

And neither are they in a historical position to make such an accusation. Who in super-supernaturalism wants to claim that they have more faith or holiness than the likes of Martin Luther, George Whitefield, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards or Charles Spurgeon, who, not only did not experience what super-supernaturalist leaders claim they have, but all of whom condemned much of what is occurring in super-supernaturalism today as the devil’s deceptions. ^[15]

And the obvious fact that there are a multitude of Christians who are advancing the kingdom of God at least as effectively as any super-supernaturalist, puts them in no reasonable position to make such an accusation either.

E) Miracle Faith Can Be Granted Without the Gift of Miracle Working

Notice in the above account that Christ implied that a miracle faith, with which “nothing [is] impossible” (Matt 17:20), coupled with believing prayer, would have healed the demonically possessed boy. Would this then be the gift of miracle working? Not necessarily. First, we have discussed elsewhere that Scripture distinguishes between exorcism and the gift of healing. ^[16] Secondly, we have biblical and historical evidence that God may grant miracle faith in order to pray confidently for a healing, but this need not constitute the gift of miracle working which, as demonstrated in the previous chapter, operated on command and only through those who were messengers of new extra-biblical divine revelation. ^[17]

Biblical evidence that miracle faith can be present apart from the gifts of miracle working is found in James 5:14-16 where we read:

Is anyone among you sick [anestheneō]? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil ^[18] in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in [miracle] faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.

Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. (Jas 5:14-16)

This is one of the most controversial passages in the Bible and there is a great deal that is unclear here. However, an understanding of the biblical concept of miracle faith is essential to interpreting it correctly. First, let us notice that the passage is clearly speaking of a kind of “faith” that “will” without fail or doubt “restore the one who is sick.” Secondly, this would appear to be more than a mere psychosomatic healing that can occur with confession of sins and the release of guilt. ^[19] We read that “the Lord will [supernaturally] raise him up,” and the Greek word used for “sick” here can include such illnesses as severe birth defects (cf. Acts 4:49); decades long incapacitating conditions (cf. John 5:7); and illnesses rather quickly leading to death (cf. John 4:46; 11:1). ^[20] Accordingly, the best interpretation of these promises is that the supernatural and unique attributes of miracle faith are involved.

Are we then to conclude that “the elders of the church” then and now are expected to possess the biblical gift of healing? More than that, the passage encourages all Christians to “pray for one another, so that you may be healed.” Does this suggest that a number of Christians in a congregation may have the gift of healing? This is, of course, a primary argument among super-supernaturalists in their attempt to redefine this gift into simply the ability to sometimes pray rather effectively for someone’s healing, an error we have addressed in the previous chapter. ^[21]

Along these lines Jack Deere writes: “Healing gifts are given to the whole church, and the elders of the church are to have a regular healing ministry (James 5:14-16).” ^[22] Notice how Mr. Deere equates “healing gifts” with elders praying for sick people. ^[23] Likewise super-supernaturalist Evangelical Free pastor Doug Bannister writes:

When most people think of healing ministry, they think of “faith healers”-certain people with the gift of healing who make a living going from town to town praying for people. (Evangelicals typically are suspicious of most itinerant healers. [and for good reason])

The Scriptures, however, don’t describe healing ministry as centered in an individual. James calls the elders to pray and urges the congregation to pray for one another. Paul tells the Corinthians that the Spirit gives “gifts of healing” (1 Cor. 12:9) for the body to share among them. The plural use suggests that this is not a permanent gift that resides in a certain person, but that each healing is a gift, given by the Spirit, to meet a need in the body. Anyone can pray for healing, and anyone can ask for “gifts of healing” to be given during prayer for the sick.

Some people do seem more effective than others in praying for the ill, and we can be thankful for them. Yet it is not helpful or biblical to set apart some as “healers.” This practice merely reinforces the myth that only certain people can pray for healing, when in fact this is every believer’s privilege. ^[24]

There is much subtle error here. First, Pastor Bannister is simply wrong to claim “The Scriptures don’t describe healing ministry as centered in an individual.” On the contrary, every single person recorded in Scripture as healing someone was an individual who possessed new divine revelation needing to be authenticated. Pastor Bannister is again arguing from silence. The miracle working gifts did not jump from person to person but were possessed by only a relatively few people.

Secondly, Pastor Bannister is guilty of mixing the possession of “gifts of healing” with “Some people [who] seem more effective than others in praying for the ill.” On the contrary, and as demonstrated in the previous chapter, ^[25] people who possessed the real gift of healing in Scripture commanded healings and they were not merely “more effective” than others but always effective.

Thirdly, contrary to Pastor Bannister, we have demonstrated elsewhere that 1 Corinthians 12:9 is no proof text at all that, “Anyone can pray for healing, and anyone can ask for “gifts of healing” to be given during prayer for the sick.” ^[26] That is a far and irresponsible leap from the Apostle’s simple mention of the miraculous “gifts of healing” (1 Cor 12:9, 30).

Therefore, we would suggest that while James 5:14-16 speaks of a miracle faith being given for a healing prayer, these elders did not possess the biblical gift of healing. Additionally, as discussed in the previous chapter, the attempt in super-supernaturalism to justify the “ordinary miracle workers” today with passages such as James 5:14-16 is without justification. ^[27] On the contrary, we believe this text is speaking of a direct miracle by God in response to prayer, not human miracle working through the command of someone possessing the gift of healing. ^[28]

No doubt, such miracle faith to pray for such healings is being granted today, even though the biblical gift of healing is not. Accordingly, Theodore Graebner comments on this passage in James:

James . . . directed that in cases of illness medicine (oil) shall be used, and the elders, who were men reputed for godliness, should pray for the recovery of the patient. ‘The prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up.’

So Luther, by his powerful wrestling with God in prayer, caused life to be restored to dying Melanchthon. Similarly, in 1541, Myconius, lying in the last stages of consumption, was saved through Luther’s prayer. Yet Luther spoke very contemptuously of modern signs and wonder-working. Would that all Christians today retained both the common sense of the Reformer in the face of miracle working healers, and his great reliance on Christian prayer when illness enters their homes!” ^[29]

Likewise, in Don Piper’s book, 90 Minutes in Heaven: A True Story of Death and Life, the author relates that the prayers of a Baptist pastor were used by God to bring him back to life. He writes:

When Dick Onerecker came to see me two weeks after the accident, I had just been moved from the ICU to a hospital room. He told me about God telling him to pray for me and that he had done that for several minutes.

“The best news is that I don’t have any brain damage or any internal injuries,” I said.

Dick chuckled. “Of course you don’t. That’s what God told me to pray for, and God answered.”

“You believed that? You believed that God would answer that prayer?”

“Yes, I did,” he said. “I knew with all the other injuries you had incurred that God was going to answer my prayer.”

It took a few seconds for me to absorb what he’d said. From the force and intensity of the impact, I would have had internal injuries. Even the doctor had commented-in amazement-that I had neither head nor thoracic injuries.

“I’ll tell you this,” I said. “I know I had internal injuries, but somewhere between that bridge and this hospital I don’t anymore.”

Tears ran down Dick’s face, and he said, “I know. I wish I could pray like that all the time.” ^[30]

We all do, but it is not humanly possible without the extremely rare supernatural gift of miracle faith, which God sovereignly bestows when He wishes to use a person’s prayer to perform a direct miracle apart from a human miracle worker.

F) God Chooses When & Where to Grant Miracle Working Faith & Gifts

Because God is ultimately the One Who decides when and where miracles will occur, He is the One Who decides when and where He will grant the necessary miracle working gifts and miracle faith in order for delegated human miracle working to occur. Some expositors claim that biblical miracle workers always healed “at will.” This obviously isn’t true as they did not control when and where these miraculous gifts would operate through them, but God who “works all of them in all men . . . gives them to each one, just as He determines” (1 Cor 12:6, 11).

This explains why a man like the Apostle Paul who certainly experienced the authenticating gifts of miracle working at times, was unable to heal himself of his illness in Galatia (cf. 4:13-14), his “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12:7-10), or his friend “Trophimus” whom he reluctantly left “sick in Miletus” (2 Tim 4:20; cf. Phil 2:25-27). A biblical view of the purpose of the miracle working gifts would conclude that in these cases God did not deem it necessary at that time to authenticate the Apostle as a messenger of extra-biblical divine revelation, and therefore the gift of healing was not granted. Of course, when the gifts of miracle working were operating, they worked perfectly and powerfully, but the Apostles were not granted such gifts every minute of every day.

This is further proof that God had a very specific purpose for its operation: to authenticate new divine revelation. It did not operate randomly simply to cure the ills of loved ones, but was reserved by God for those times when He determined that divine authentication was needed for a divine revelation.

Therefore, it would seem wrong for many historicists ^[31] to insist that the Apostle Paul never healed in the later years of his life, demonstrating that the gift of healing had been removed from the Church. This would seem unlikely, however, as the Apostle was obviously still revealing new divine revelation until the very end of his life in, for example, 2 Timothy (c. 66 A.D., cf. 3:1-13). Therefore, it is likely that the Apostle demonstrated miraculous abilities until his death, because the gift of healing was given in order to authenticate messengers of new extra-biblical divine revelation.

This fact would seem to be clearly illustrated in the lives of the disciples and may be yet another reason that they could not deliver the demon possessed boy discussed above. In Luke 9 we read, “When Jesus had called the Twelve together, He gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, and He sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick” (vs. 1-2). We see again that their “healing” ministry was inseparable from their “revealing” ministry.

We see too that here, in the context of needing to authenticate them as messengers of new extra-biblical divine revelation, no demons would be able to resist them. And none did (cf. Lk. 10:19-20). Chronologically, the disciples “power” tour had occurred some time before their later “powerless” encounter with the demon that they could not drive out. No wonder they asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” (Matt 17:19). It is obvious that the miraculous and invincible ability that they had been given before, had now left them. And it is suggested here that it is because God did not deem it necessary to authenticate the disciples in this instance as divine messengers.

Unfortunately, super-supernaturalism uses this attribute of miracle working gifts and faith to explain their own dismal record of healing. Accordingly, the popular super-supernaturalist author Jack Deere writes:

What I find the most interesting about [historicist’s] claims that the gift of healing no longer exists is that according to the [historicist] definition of a modern day miracle healer even Jesus himself wouldn’t have the gift of healing! Even someone with the true biblical gift of healing cannot heal “at will,” he or she must be prompted and empowered by the Holy Spirit to do so, as was the case with Jesus. If his Father was not healing, then Jesus could not heal. . . .

I would submit that if someone claims to have the gift of healing and holds a conference or seminar where he “guarantees” that everyone who comes will be healed, there may be good reason to doubt his claims. The role of a healer is only to be used as a tool to materialize whatever healing ministry that God wills, it is never the role of a healer to originate ministry apart from His direction. ^[32]

We have already agreed with Mr. Deere that those possessing the biblical gifts of miracle working could not perform miracles “at will” because God ultimately chooses when and where He grants the necessary gifts and faith to do so. Nonetheless, contrary to Mr. Deere’s claims, someone being granted such gifts could indeed “guarantee” that all who came to them would be healed. What Mr. Deere is attempting to do is explain the great inconsistency in modern “faith healing” meetings by pointing out that the gifts of miracle working were not granted every minute of every day in Scripture either.

However, the difference between modern “faith healing” meetings and biblical ones is still far too great for super-supernaturalism to claim these gifts are operating among them. At best, super-supernaturalism can only claim that relatively very few people are healed in their meetings today. And if we exclude the emotional, psychological, fraudulent, and even demonic empowered healings occurring in these meetings and discussed elsewhere, then the number is practically non-existent. ^[33]

While it is admitted that God-sent miracle workers in Scripture did not always possess the miracle working gifts, we still maintain that modern “miracle workers” never do. They never perfectly and instantly heal all who are present in their “meetings,” by command or touch, and without fail. Contrast the attributes of these “healing meetings” with the ones in Scripture which we have noted elsewhere:

[T]he miracles worked by those possessing these gifts were 100% effective 100% of the time. As we’ve already noted, we have no record in Scripture of a God-appointed miracle worker commanding or attempting to perform a miracle that did not occur. . . . In every instance where the gift of healing is recorded as operating, every single person ministered to was healed. If you were there and wanted and needed healing, you were healed, completely, immediately, and convincingly. This was certainly true of Christ as Matthew records, “great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all” (12:15). Luke likewise records that at another time: . . Those troubled by evil spirits were cured, and the people all tried to touch Him, because power was coming from Him and healing them all. (Luke 6:17-19; cf. Acts 10:38)

The Apostles experienced nothing less. We read in Acts 5:

People brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by evil spirits, and all of them were healed. (Acts 5:15-16)

The gift of healing always operated at this very level of power and consistency and there is not a single verse of Scripture that would indicate otherwise. ^[34]

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

Why is miracle faith not needed for a direct miracle, but always needed for delegated human miracle working?
What biblical fact exposes the fraud of modern “faith healers” who often blame their failures to heal on others?
Why do we claim that, contrary to the accusations of super-supernaturalism, God never blames His people for a lack of miracles occurring?
What attribute of miracle working gifts and faith explain why the Apostles were not always healing people?

Publications & Particulars

See discussion of different types of biblical faith at section 6.1.D-E. ↑
F. F. Bruce in Hard Saying in the Bible (Intervarsity, 1996), 421. ↑
For further discussion on the important distinction between direct miracles performed by God and delegated human miracle working see section 10.3.A.1. ↑
O. Hofus, “Miracles,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT), Colin Brown ed., 4 vols. (Zondervan, 1986), II.631. ↑
Norm Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (BECA) (Baker, 1999), 301. ↑
Accordingly, Geisler notes: “Thirty-five miracles of Jesus are recorded in the Gospels. Of these the faith of the recipient is only mentioned in ten. (Ibid., 301) ↑
For further discussion of the illegitimate criticism and intimidation that occurs because of super-supernaturalism’s lack of understanding regarding the gift nature of miracle faith, see section 10.16.G. ↑
Excerpt from section 10.16.G. ↑
Robert Saucy, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, Wayne Grudem ed. (Zondervan, 1996), 119-20, (italics in original). ↑
For further discussion of how the unbiblical doctrines concerning faith in super-supernaturalism have harmed a great many Christians see sections 10.16.G and 6.11.A. ↑
M. H. Cressey, “Miracles,” New Bible Dictionary, J. I. Packer, et al. eds., 3rd ed., (Inter-Varsity, 1996), 772. ↑
John Calvin, Commentaries, online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Eerdmans, 1992), 446-7. ↑
For further discussion of the illegitimate criticisms made by super-supernaturalists see section 10.16.G. ↑
For further discussion of what the Reformers and leaders of the Great Awakening thought of super-supernaturalist doctrines and practices see sections 11.7.B.6-9. ↑
For further discussion of exorcism in relation to the gifts of miracle working see section 11.10.B. ↑
For further discussion of these attributes of miracle working see chapter 11.1. ↑
What does it mean in James when we read that the elders are to “anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord”? There is a great deal of controversy on this. One should first notice that the passage does not seem to give any miraculous powers to the oil, as it specifies that, “the prayer offered in [miracle] faith will restore the one who is sick,” not the oil. While the use of oil could have been merely medicinal in nature (cf. Luke 10:34) as many claim, the miraculous nature of the healing suggests that it may have been used in the context of miraculous healings as well (cf. Mark 6:13). Nonetheless, we see neither a prescription nor a prohibition here for church elders to anoint the sick with oil as they pray for them.

With that said, Matthew Henry’s (1662-1714) commentary on this issue is worth noting:

Expositors generally confine this anointing with oil to such as had the power of working miracles; and, when miracles ceased, this institution ceased also. In Mark’s gospel we read of the apostle’s anointing with oil many that were sick, and healing them, Mk. 6:13. And we have accounts of this being practiced in the church two hundred years after Christ; but then the gift of healing also accompanied it, and, when the miraculous gift ceased, this rite was laid aside.

The papists [Roman Catholic Church] indeed have made a sacrament of this, which they call the extreme unction. They use it, not to heal the sick, as it was used by the apostles; but as they generally run counter to scripture, in the appointments of their church, so here they ordain that this should be administered only to such as are at the very point of death. The apostle’s anointing was in order to heal the disease; the popish anointing is for the expulsion of the relics of sin, and to enable the soul (as they pretend) the better to combat with the powers of the air. (in loc. online at http://www.ccel.org)

On the issue of the anointing of oil in the James passage see also the thorough treatment of this subject by Douglas Moo in The Letter of James, TNTC, (Eerdmans, 1985, repr. 1999), 176-187. ↑
For further discussion of psychosomatic illnesses and their relation to confession see section 11.10.A. ↑
There are some that argue James 5:14-16 is not speaking of supernatural physical healings at all but only the psychological/emotional type (cf. John MacArthur, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Parsons Technology, 1997], in loc. James 5:14-16; J. Ronald Blue, James in the Bible Knowledge Commentary, eds. John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, [SP Publications, 1983]; Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Findex.Com, 1999]).

While the passage probably includes psychosomatic illnesses, it is difficult to believe that it outright excludes any physical ones requiring miraculous healing. Accordingly, Douglas Moo writes:

[S]ome argue that the text does not have to do with physical healing at all, but with spiritual restoration. They point out that astheneō in verse 14 can mean ‘spiritually weak’ (1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Cor. 13:3), as can kamnō, used in verse 15 (cf. Heb. 12:3). And save (sōzō), raise (egeirō) and heal (iaomai) are all used to describe restoration to spiritual vitality. Coming in a context in which the dangers of spiritual lethargy and slackness are all too real (cf. 5:7-11), an exhortation to the elders to pray for those downtrodden and weak in faith would be entirely appropriate.

While all this is true, James’ language makes it impossible to eliminate the physical dimension. First, while astheneō can denote spiritual weakness, this meaning is usually made clear by a qualifier (cf. Rom. 14:2, ‘in faith’; 1 Cor. 8:7, ‘in conscience’) or the context. Moreover, in the material that is most relevant to James, the Gospels, astheneō almost always refers to illness [and some serious physical ones as we noted]. The same is true for kamnō. And iaomai, when not used in an Old Testament quotation, always refers in the New Testament to physical healing. Beyond this, it is significant that the only other mention of ‘anointing with oil’ in the New Testament comes in a description of physical healing (Mk. 6:13). (James, 183-4). ↑
For further discussion of the error of redefining the gift of healing as effective prayer see section 11.1.B. ↑
Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Zondervan, 1993), 18. ↑
Unfortunately W. A. Elwell appears to do this in an entry to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT), (Baker, 1984, 1043) ↑
Doug Bannister, The Word and Power Church (Zondervan, 1999), 157. ↑
For further discussion of the biblical distinction between praying for miracles and working them see section 11.1.B. ↑
For further discussion of super-supernaturalism’s misuse of 1 Corinthians 12:9, 30 see section 11.2.B.6. ↑
For further discussion regarding the claim to “ordinary miracle workers” in Scripture see section 11.2.B. ↑
Douglas Moo would seem to also conclude that a central issue of James 5:14-16 is miracle faith:

Perhaps, at times, we are given insight into that will in specific circumstances and we pray with absolute confidence in God’s plan to answer as we ask. But surely these cases are very rare – more rare even than our subjective, emotional desires would lead us to suspect. A prayer for healing, then, must usually be qualified by a recognition that God’s will in the matter is supreme. And it is clear in the New Testament that God does not always will to heal the believer. Paul’s own prayer for his healing, offered three times, was not answered; God had a purpose in allowing the ‘thorn in the flesh’, that ‘messenger of Satan’, to remain (2 Cor. 12:7-9).

What we are suggesting, then, is that the faith with which we pray is always faith in the God whose will is supreme and best; only sometimes does this faith include assurance that a particular request is within that will. This is exactly the qualification that is needed to understand Jesus’ own promise: ‘if you ask anything in my name, I will do it’ (Jn. 14:14). To ask ‘in Jesus ‘name’ means not simply to utter his name, but to take into account his will. Only those requests offered ‘in that will’ are granted. Prayer for healing offered in the confidence that God will answer that prayer does bring healing; but only when it is God’s will to heal will that faith, itself a gift of God, be present. Such faith cannot be ‘manufactured’, however gifted, insistent, or righteous we are. (James, 186) ↑
Theodore Graebner, Faith Healing (Concordia, 1951), 4. ↑
Don Piper, 90 Minutes in Heaven: A True Story of Death and Life (Baker, 2004), 54. ↑
We refrain from referring to those Christians who would differ from “charismatics” as “non-charismatics,” erroneously implying again that the latter is somehow lacking in grace or God-given spiritual gifts. Rather, those who oppose the miracle-a-minute mindset of super-supernaturalism are better labeled as Historicists. This reflects the fact that for over 1600 years of Church history, the universal belief and practice of God’s people was opposed to all of the uniquenesses that the “Charismatic” movement can rightfully claim today. For further introduction to the “Charismatic movement” see chapter 10:13. ↑
Deere, 60, 62. ↑
For alternative but legitimate explanations for the “healings” claimed in super-supernaturalism, see chapters 11.8-12. ↑
Excerpt from section 11.1.D. ↑