Around 100 years ago, when the Pentecostal movement began to grow rapidly, B. B. Warfield (among others) noticed some beliefs and practices of the movement that were quite unbiblical. In fact, he gave a series of lectures on miracles, healing, gifts, etc. at Columbia Theological Seminary. Those lectures are now found in his book, Counterfeit Miracles. The book is not very easy to read since many persons, beliefs, and practices that Warfield examined and critiqued are no longer well-known. If you read this book, remember that he was addressing the issues of his day, so some parts of it are outdated.
However, the theological aspects of the book are outstanding. One section that sticks out for me is the end of his chapter on faith healing where he summarizes his arguments (pp. 190-195 or so). Below is part of his summary which I’ve edited for the purpose of the blog. The main charismatic argument Warfield critiques is this: if you have enough faith, you will be healed. In other words, if you are not healed of your infirmity, you do not have enough faith. Here is Warfield’s critique.
1) Such a miraculous method of action on God’s part would be wholly unnecessary for the production of the effect desired; God can heal the bodily hurt of his people without miracle (by means such as medicine, doctors, and the body’s own healing capabilities).
2) The employment of a the ‘miracle’ of faith-healing is contrary to the analogy of God’s mode of working in other spheres of his activity, namely how he uses secondary causes to accomplish his purposes.
3) It is contrary to the very purpose of a miracle. If miracles are to be common, every-day occurrences, normal and not extraordinary, they cease to attract attention, and lose their very reason of existence. What is normal is according to law. If miracles are the law of the Christian life then they cease to serve their chief end.
4) The miraculous gifts in the New Testament were the credential of an apostle, and were confined to those to whom the apostles had conveyed them. Therefore it is presumptuous to argue that they should continue after the apostolic age.
5) Paul did not tell Timothy he needed more faith to be healed. He told Timothy to drink wine for his ailments (1 Tim. 5.23).
6) The belief in faith-healing presupposes or leads to many false doctrines. Namely, a) Assuming all sickness is specifically related to sin. Jesus denied this in John 9:3; b) Belief in faith-healing is like believing in perfectionism, the teaching that a Christian in this life can be perfect. However, the Bible says Christians will always struggle with sin and sickness in this life and these things will not be totally gone until the new creation; c) Faith-healing wrongly assumes that sickness and suffering are evil and from the devil alone. However, the Bible teaches that God sometimes afflicts his children to wean them from the world and make them more dependent upon his grace, which is sufficient. Though illness is not pleasant, God can and does use it for his glory and the good of his people.
7) The belief in faith-healing leads to contempt for God’s appointed means. This leads to the fanatical attitude of demanding from God apart from all means something which he has said only comes through his appointed providential means. We are not to refuse to cultivate the soil and then demand to be fed by miracle.
8) The faith-healing practice leads to the production of ‘professionals’ who stand between God and the Christian. There is grave danger in permitting an unauthorized intermediary to take up a position between man and the gracious activity of God towards him. The evil sacerdotalism of Rome is an example this. Furthermore, it leaves the faith-healer prone to pride and autocracy, which kills his own spiritual life and leads to other terrible things.
Again, I’ve summarized and edited Warfield’s summary a bit. If this interests you, I recommend reading this chapter (and book) by Warfield. I believe his arguments are solid, valid, and biblical. To be sure, faith-healing is something that is still prevalent today. Christians should be able to confront this distortion of Christianity in a biblical and loving way. Even though Counterfeit Miracles is somewhat difficult to read, it is a good resource to have.
shane lems
sunnyside wa
“Counterfeit Miracles” is a very good resource for combatting the false doctrines of this sort that are so prevalent today. One I recently read that is updated more for our day, however, is John Macarthur’s “Charismatic Chaos.” Even though John is a dispensationalist, he has much to offer in many of his books, including this one. I’ll just give the chapter headings for your consideration: 1. Is experience a valid test of truth? 2. Does God still give revelation? 3. Prophets, fanatics, or heretics? 4. How should we interpret the Bible? 5. Does God do miracles today? 6. What is behind the “Third Wave” and where is it going? 7. How do spiritual gifts operate? 8. What was happening in the early church? 9. Does God still heal? 10. Is the gift of tongues for today? 11. What is true spirituality? 12. Does God promise health and wealth?
The book is published by Zondervan, and comes in a very inexpensive paperback in most any Christian book store.
[...] FROM Faith Healing source http://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/faith-healing-and-faith-healers/ #family movie -THE LAMP- one family's loss shows them how to turn to Faith instead of magic [...]
How should I square this position with the clear instructions given in James?
James 5:14-15 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up.
What do you think James is seeking here? If it is for healing by “normal” or “appointed” means, then why does “the prayer offered in faith … make the sick person well”?
How would you respond if one of your parishioners asked you and your elders to anoint him with oil in this way?
Jonathan, what is outlined in James actually is the normal or appointed means. But, James is not teaching that all sicknesses will be healed if those ill simply call for the elders of their church, or try to make themselves have enough faith, or pray with enough conviction. All healing comes from God. He is sovereign over all circumstances, including illness. Lack of faith on the part of the one who is sick does not determine whether one is healed. It is up to God alone. Sometimes He chooses to allow someone not to be healed in order to give Him glory through their infirmities (II Cor. 12:7-10). As far as your question is concerned, personally, I would have no problem if a parishioner requested the elders of the church to come and pray for healing, even anointing with oil, but the results would be in the hands of our all-knowing and loving God.
Thanks for the comments, Jonathan. I’d like to piggyback on Tom’s statements below. Consider these things about James 5:14-15:
1) Most likely the “prayer offered in faith” refers to the prayers of the church’s elders, whom the ill person called to pray for him in a private setting (not a public one). There is no reference to a “healer” in the church.
2) The illness spoken of here is not just any illness (like a cold or a sore back). The illness has to do with a debilitating weariness (“sick” in v15 is the same word as “weary” in Heb. 12:3). Furthermore, James refers to sin in this context (v15 & 16), which makes one think of Psalm 31:10b. One other argument that supports this illness being a specific one is that if the elders were called every time someone in the congregation was sick/in pain, they would not have time to do the other tasks they are ordained to do.
3) Since James is wisdom literature (1:5), I doubt it is a good interpretation to say that James is telling a 90 year old lady with all sorts of health problems to seek healing this way. A similar argument could be made about wounds that require immediate emergency care. (If my young daughter was bitten by a black widow, I would not wait for my elder who lives 20 minutes away. Rather, I would go to the emergency room which is 3 minutes away – out of love and to preserve life as implied in the 6th commandment.)
4) The focus of the text is not on the amount of faith the ill person has or the power of the oil. The focus of the text is the elders, their prayer(s) of faith, and ultimately the Lord who heals as – and when – he wills (James 4:15).
5) Finally, James doesn’t give details on the exact timing and method of healing. Perhaps it is instant, but perhaps it is not. Perhaps it involves medicine and doctors, perhaps it does not. As Tom said from 2 Cor. 12:7-10, sometimes it is not God’s will that a person be healed form his/her illness/suffering. Part of the Christian’s great hope is the new creation, where our bodies will no longer suffer the effects of sin/evil.
In summary, I don’t think we can use this text in James 5 to prove faith-healing. It certainly does teach that there are some circumstances where Christians can call for elders to pray over them. And taken with the rest of Scripture it certainly does not forbid us to go to the doctor, take medicine, and patiently wait upon the Lord when it is his will that we suffer.
Hope this helps,
shane
Just as an additional comment: in the ancient world, oil was often used for medicinal purposes. My sense, then, is that James is very much talking about “normal” or “appointed” means. He commands treating the sick person with oil and praying over him/her to commend these means to God.
A couple of comments: first, about the Warfield book, then about faith healing.
Warfield is very close to his best in this volume. As always, his erudition is amazing and his elevated style a pleasure, while his theological argumentation is very stimulating. What in addition the reader sees here (and in his two volumes on Perfectionism) is that quiet but deadly wit in his dead-pan and understated description of statements and practices he rejects, and the wierder these are, the funnier is his restraint–in other places, where he is in large agreement with the writer or idea he discusses, he can be a little overwhelming.
As for faith healing, maybe we can make a distinction between the “gift of healing” and simply “answers to prayer”; whether the former exists, I am not sure–Warfield’s argument that these “spooky” (I borrow the phrase from Peter Wagner) gifts were temporary gifts that served to credential the bearers of revelation until the canon was complete works almost too well, if you know what I mean. It has always seemed to me to be a little too water-tight and perhaps aimed to deny a vote to the people we feel are a little disreputable and not up to our standards of orthodoxy.
But I guess most Bible believing Christians can agree that God answers prayer. Prayer is a request, indeed, not a peremptory demand, but Jesus did say more than once that the prayer of the afflicted had made them well, and so I think we also can pray. I do not agree at all with the idea that always “God wants you well” but I am not sure God wants us sick all the time either. Sometimes “If it’s the Lord’s will” is simply a disguise for lack of faith; moreover, it is striking to me that many people who do not pray for healing because they do not want to claim to know God’s will in the matter certainly make all sorts of efforts to obtain medical help in the normal channels.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones once recommended a book on this subject called “Miraculous Healing” by Henry Frost, sometime head of China Inland Mission and so I got a copy and I think this is one of the best things written on the matter. It may be out of print.
I will recommend a further book which I know is not out of print, because, as far as I can tell, it sold only three copies last year. It is Johann Christoph Blumhardt, Life and Work by Dieter Ising (Wipf and Stock). Blumhardt was a remarkable man, sort of the Billy Graham (or Oral Roberts? certainly not Benny Hinn) of his day in Europe (1805-1880). He saw many remarkable healings but was quite candid about when his praying failed to obtain healing and quite sensible and non-sensational about the strange experiences he witnessed. You may chalk this up to special pleading, since I am the translator of the book, but still I think it is a worthy and instructive addition to the literature on answer to prayer, and my appraisal is entirely objective.