Theologica

a bible, theology, politics, news, networking, and discussion site

I'm not trolling for an argument here.  I only want an answer to this question:  How come healings done today bear no resemblence to those seen in the Gospels and Acts?  In the Bible healings are always instantaneous, complete and permanent.  But today, when I've been at healing services and have been prayed over myself, I've never seen anything that looks like a "biblical healing".  In the Bible Jesus, Peter and Paul healed with a simple and direct command. But the last time I had my chronically sore back prayed over the person who claimed the gift of healings prayed for like 20 minutes if not more and while my back was no longer sore, 20 minutes later the soreness was back.  That long drawn out prayer session seems the norm.  One guy told me that he was in a healing prayer session for two hours to no avail.

 

Some other folks, including those who claim to have the gift of healings, have told me that they ask the same question:  Why can't we heal like they did in the Bible?  Why can't we simply point at someone who is bedridden and tell them to get up, pick up their mat and walk?  Why do the same people keep needing healing prayer for the same things?

 

On a personal note, my dad has non-Hodgkins lymphoma and probably won't live to see next Spring.  How I wish I could go to his house and declare that he is healed in the name of Jesus and have my dad be cured instantaneously, completely, and permanently.

Views: 1220

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Stumbled upon this article by Craig Keener.

I have also been very concerned and have prayed much about this issue.

I ask the question. When we read the bible, would we generally agree that the lessons Israel learned on the ground in the OT are examples for our spiritual walk in the NT.

Now Israel knew that if they were under bondage of the enemy, ie. Philistines etc, one of the first things they had to do was dispose of the things which compromised their relationship with God. They had to get rid of the idols and the false God's they served. Idolatry gave Satan power over them. They also had to revise their understanding of the character of the one they should be worshipping.

Moving on, with the above in mind, what compromises do we have in today's churches regarding healing?

I am sorry if the following offends you, but from what I have encountered in my spiritual journey of over 50 years I get a sense that many believe that it is Jesus who "comes but to kill steal and destroy". That your enemy Jesus, like a roaring lion is prowling round to see who he can devour.

I could add many more perversions of scripture, but you get the picture. So why do I say this? 

Even if a church has good teaching about healing from the pulpit, it is frequently and seriously undermined by other statements made at other times either from the front or amongst the congregation.

I have lost count of the thousands of times when I have met a fellow Christian in church or the street only to find them looking very sickly. "How are you, you look a bit rough?" I greet them. "Oh, I have been really sick over the last few weeks. I haven't been able to work or eat properly. But I really know this is from the Lord because he is teaching me so much in it, and I am learning such patience, blah blah blah."

If we gave our children sickness and disease for their benefit, we would be in prison for child abuse! Is this the God we believe in, or is it some other God.

When I challenge them that perhaps this maybe from the devil rather than God, they get offended because to them that would mean that God is not in control. It would mean that God couldn't or wouldn't answer their prayers. 

This is fatalism at its worst. If everything is absolutely decided by God, then every disaster and death and sickness belongs to him. Where does Satan feature in all of this? We are attributing to Jesus the evil things that Satan is and has been doing.

Let's look at what frequently happens when crisis prayers are requested for perhaps a seriously ill member of the church. There is an all out cry ascending to heaven, " God please heal Sally (or Fred etc.)". Then immediately followed by the words, "If it be your will". We never find Jesus pausing when someone comes to Him for healing? "Mmmmm, not sure whether it is God's will. I believe that God wants you to remain blind because it is good for you."

After concerted effort by the church and friends, the casualty dies. Immediately after this, the word goes around, or is declared from the front, that the death of this beloved sister was the will of God all the time, because only God can decide that it is time for our death. God called her home. 

Whatever happened to, "........the devil...was a murderer from the beginning...."

The false belief that God gives us sickness for our blessing makes prayer for healing a joke. Tragically, such belief is self confirming. We believe that the sickness is God given, but we make a show of prayer, but because of the compromise to our faith, no healing ensues. The conclusion therefore is proven, God wants this person to be sick. Or dead!

These and many more falsehoods are idols we serve which compromise our faith in God as healer.

Francis,

Very interesting post below and I (at least) am not offended by it even though I think that it misses some important aspects on the subject of suffering and healing.   What follows are some snippets of thoughts that came to me as I read your post...I hope, likewise, that my responses are not offensive to you.

Francis Drake said:

Even if a church has good teaching about healing from the pulpit, it is frequently and seriously undermined by other statements made at other times either from the front or amongst the congregation.

I have lost count of the thousands of times when I have met a fellow Christian in church or the street only to find them looking very sickly. "How are you, you look a bit rough?" I greet them. "Oh, I have been really sick over the last few weeks. I haven't been able to work or eat properly. But I really know this is from the Lord because he is teaching me so much in it, and I am learning such patience, blah blah blah."

If we gave our children sickness and disease for their benefit, we would be in prison for child abuse! Is this the God we believe in, or is it some other God.

When I challenge them that perhaps this maybe from the devil rather than God, they get offended because to them that would mean that God is not in control. It would mean that God couldn't or wouldn't answer their prayers. 

This is fatalism at its worst. If everything is absolutely decided by God, then every disaster and death and sickness belongs to him. Where does Satan feature in all of this? We are attributing to Jesus the evil things that Satan is and has been doing.


To me, attempting to fix a source to suffering (from God or the devil) is not only secondary, but actually not helpful. Whatever comes are way it is best to know that God IS in control and go from there. For those who feel the need to "fix the blame" (know the source) perhaps the Book of Job offers some insight. Did God "send" the sufferings because He permitted it? (rhetorical question)

Let's look at what frequently happens when crisis prayers are requested for perhaps a seriously ill member of the church. There is an all out cry ascending to heaven, " God please heal Sally (or Fred etc.)". Then immediately followed by the words, "If it be your will". We never find Jesus pausing when someone comes to Him for healing? "Mmmmm, not sure whether it is God's will. I believe that God wants you to remain blind because it is good for you."


And yet we hear Jesus tell the pharisees that a certain man was not blind because of sin, but so that the Glory of God might be made manifest. We also see Jesus, faced with His Own suffering, praying for "healing" (let this cup pass) but then submitting to the will of the Father (but Your will and not mine be done).

That said I do agree that we should pray with confidence and then act as though we have already received what we have prayed for.

After concerted effort by the church and friends, the casualty dies. Immediately after this, the word goes around, or is declared from the front, that the death of this beloved sister was the will of God all the time, because only God can decide that it is time for our death. God called her home. 

Whatever happened to, "........the devil...was a murderer from the beginning...."


I don't agree with your conclusion here. The problem is not with the person dying, but with those remaining thinking they are dead. Remember Jesus words..."Even though they die, yet shall they live...."? Those who die in Christ are not dead.

The false belief that God gives us sickness for our blessing makes prayer for healing a joke. Tragically, such belief is self confirming. We believe that the sickness is God given, but we make a show of prayer, but because of the compromise to our faith, no healing ensues. The conclusion therefore is proven, God wants this person to be sick. Or dead!


Every person will die from this corporeal life. This is how God call us to Him in heaven. The vast majority will suffer from some disease at the end of life. My Dear Wife and I are undergoing such a case right now as she has Alzheimer's disease. Regardless of the "source" one wishes to assign to this, the fact remains that God has given to me, her caregiver, a great many insights and lessons and the opportunity to grow in Love beyond anything else ever could have.
Early on I did pray fervently for healing. God told me that there would be no healing from this disease, but through it both my wife and I would be reconciled to Him (we were away from Church for many years). He spoke very clearly to me with these words, "She's mine. I'll take care of her."
Do I need her to be cured of Alzheimer's? NOt really - because i already know that she is healed.

I know you like "experience" rather than "theory"....I hope you recognize that I do have some.

Peace
James

When I was growing up by mother prayed that she not need glasses. She spent the next 25 years not needing glasses. Her eyes are growing weak once again, but she's in her seventies now!

I think we have too much faith in medicine today, or rather a lack of faith in God to heal. A Doctor, a surgery and a drug seem more concrete and comforting than faith, don't you think?

At some point though, shouldn't we realize the power of faith in our own bodies healing ourselves?  The placebo effect works.  That isn't to say that God doesn't heal, but believing that a problem is going away, particularly on subjective things, often is all we need.  And I don't see how desiring/believing that you won't GET some problem is any different.  We do, as you say, have too much faith in medicine at times.  But it is also possible to credit God too much for things that were not actual healings to begin with.  I could, for example, pray that I'd never be beautiful and point to that as an answer to my prayer.  But it doesn't mean I was ever beautiful to begin with or was ever going to be. LOL

Bit Brush said:

When I was growing up by mother prayed that she not need glasses. She spent the next 25 years not needing glasses. Her eyes are growing weak once again, but she's in her seventies now!

I think we have too much faith in medicine today, or rather a lack of faith in God to heal. A Doctor, a surgery and a drug seem more concrete and comforting than faith, don't you think?

So a woman who is wearing glasses can placebo herself into not needing them for 25 years?! When something is specifically asked for in supplication to God and that things is delivered to us, whether it is our bodies healing naturally or an intervention from God, either is a gift of God and he is deserving of the credit because we didn't create ourselves. 

Is it possible that if God will not be credited, given the glory, that he can decide to act or not? I've seen enough to help me decide that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. I believe the Lord is not given enough credit. If it weren't for him would we even be alive and conscience of anything he was doing anyway?

The fact that she was already wearing glasses wasn't in your first mention of this. :)  Regardless though, people's eyes do change.  And the don't always get worse.  Last time I was at the eye doctor, my eyesight had actually improved.  Could it have been a miracle?  Of course.  But it also could have been a change in diet, a better computer screen, or any number of other things that effect our eyesight.  I'm just saying that while miracles occur, we shouldn't automatically assume them.  The fact that we are generally not grateful enough doesn't mean that every change in our health and well being is due to direct involvement from God because of our faith.

Bit Brush said:

So a woman who is wearing glasses can placebo herself into not needing them for 25 years?! When something is specifically asked for in supplication to God and that things is delivered to us, whether it is our bodies healing naturally or an intervention from God, either is a gift of God and he is deserving of the credit because we didn't create ourselves. 

Is it possible that if God will not be credited, given the glory, that he can decide to act or not? I've seen enough to help me decide that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. I believe the Lord is not given enough credit. If it weren't for him would we even be alive and conscience of anything he was doing anyway?

This is a very good question.

 

My answer would be this: there is a difference between spiritual healing and soulish healing. That sounds wierd at first, but bear with me. As you correctly pointed out, in the New Testament, healings, exorcisms, and the like happen with a word of authority, a command--not with any of the show, pomp, or struggle that mark such things today. That is because Jesus and the apostles spoke by the Spirit of God, releasing the Word to heal the people they came into contact with. The majority of so-called "faith-healers" and the like today operate out of the soul rather than the spirit--in short, they rely on their own ability to heal rather than truly resting on the Spirit of God. That might sound like a serious accusation--and indeed, it is--but it is also undeniably true that as you said from experience, the majority of healings are temporary rather than permanent. A great explanation for this can be found here.

 

As for your father, I am deeply sorry and will keep him in prayer. God bless you, Jim.

James, I am sorry about your wife's illness. However I do not change my position. 

Job is frequently called into the debate on suffering, however the scriptures make it clear that there was none like him on the earth. God wanted to use Job to demonstrate to Satan that he didn't control everyone on the planet. Job was God, not Satan's servant.

I would not like to compare myself to Job in any aspect.

Regarding the man born blind from birth, Jn9v1. This is a scripture which proves my point rather than yours. In my view, because of bad verse numbering, this scripture is always read wrong and therefore misunderstood. The commonly held belief is that God created the man blind, in order to demonstrate His power to heal. Just stop and think for a moment, what sort of God would do that? Does that sound like the Jesus (as creator God) we read in scripture? This is equivalent to pushing someone over a bridge parapet, so you will get the glory and a medal when you dive in and rescue him! Such a notion is amazingly perverse.

A correct reading of Jn 9 shows something different. Firstly recognise that the verse numbering is not scriptural. It was added to the texts far more recently. If I therefore alter the finish of verse 3 and the start of verse 4 it then makes more literary sense and agrees with the known character of God in Jesus everywhere else.

V2.....his disciples asked him saying, Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind.

V3 Jesus answered, Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents. V3. STOP HERE.

V4. NEW START...But that the works of God should be made manifest in him, I must work the works of him who sent me.........etc.

Jesus then demonstrates the works of God by healing him! (Please read this through several times in your bible to get the gist.)

GOD DOES NOT NEED TO STRIKE A MAN BLIND OR SICK IN ORDER TO GET GLORY FROM A HEALING. 

Obviously, my verse numbering is open to challenge, but no more than the existing is. 

If we continue to insist that God made the man to be born blind, apart from making God out to be cruel, we then need to ask who made the countless other people in the world to be born blind and sick, the ones that Jesus did not heal.

There are three possible answers to this question.

1). All the people born blind or sick were made so by God.

2). All the people born blind or sick were as a consequence of general bad health at that time.

3). All the people born blind or sick were made so by Satan.

If everyone who is born sick or blind has been made so by God, with no opportunity of healing, God is perverse and cruel. I DO NOT WORSHIP THAT SORT OF GOD!

If blindness and sickness is merely a general health issue of the time, and Jesus took this opportunity to heal one of them, then it demonstrates the love of God. 

 I actually believe that sickness etc. is a combination of demonic activity and general bad health practice. The fact that in half the healings Jesus did, he cast out spirits of infirmity confirms that sickness is frequently of demonic origin. To ignore the demonic in sickness is plain foolish.

Your penultimate paragraph saddens me. It is a delusion and a betrayal of faith to say that a person is healed when he has died. Where do we find this sort of nonsense in the bible? When Jesus sent the disciples out it was to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. None of this sounds like your theology does it? Jesus did not tell the disciples that if they find any sick, tell them it is the will of God, or if anyone has died, tell the widow its ok, he's really still alive, even when he stinks.

This is what churches do today. All the time we speak this nonsense, we will continue to get what we proclaim.

JRKH said:

Francis,

Very interesting post below and I (at least) am not offended by it even though I think that it misses some important aspects on the subject of suffering and healing.   What follows are some snippets of thoughts that came to me as I read your post...I hope, likewise, that my responses are not offensive to you.

Francis Drake said:

Even if a church has good teaching about healing from the pulpit, it is frequently and seriously undermined by other statements made at other times either from the front or amongst the congregation.

I have lost count of the thousands of times when I have met a fellow Christian in church or the street only to find them looking very sickly. "How are you, you look a bit rough?" I greet them. "Oh, I have been really sick over the last few weeks. I haven't been able to work or eat properly. But I really know this is from the Lord because he is teaching me so much in it, and I am learning such patience, blah blah blah."

If we gave our children sickness and disease for their benefit, we would be in prison for child abuse! Is this the God we believe in, or is it some other God.

When I challenge them that perhaps this maybe from the devil rather than God, they get offended because to them that would mean that God is not in control. It would mean that God couldn't or wouldn't answer their prayers. 

This is fatalism at its worst. If everything is absolutely decided by God, then every disaster and death and sickness belongs to him. Where does Satan feature in all of this? We are attributing to Jesus the evil things that Satan is and has been doing.


To me, attempting to fix a source to suffering (from God or the devil) is not only secondary, but actually not helpful. Whatever comes are way it is best to know that God IS in control and go from there. For those who feel the need to "fix the blame" (know the source) perhaps the Book of Job offers some insight. Did God "send" the sufferings because He permitted it? (rhetorical question)

Let's look at what frequently happens when crisis prayers are requested for perhaps a seriously ill member of the church. There is an all out cry ascending to heaven, " God please heal Sally (or Fred etc.)". Then immediately followed by the words, "If it be your will". We never find Jesus pausing when someone comes to Him for healing? "Mmmmm, not sure whether it is God's will. I believe that God wants you to remain blind because it is good for you."


And yet we hear Jesus tell the pharisees that a certain man was not blind because of sin, but so that the Glory of God might be made manifest. We also see Jesus, faced with His Own suffering, praying for "healing" (let this cup pass) but then submitting to the will of the Father (but Your will and not mine be done).

That said I do agree that we should pray with confidence and then act as though we have already received what we have prayed for.

After concerted effort by the church and friends, the casualty dies. Immediately after this, the word goes around, or is declared from the front, that the death of this beloved sister was the will of God all the time, because only God can decide that it is time for our death. God called her home. 

Whatever happened to, "........the devil...was a murderer from the beginning...."


I don't agree with your conclusion here. The problem is not with the person dying, but with those remaining thinking they are dead. Remember Jesus words..."Even though they die, yet shall they live...."? Those who die in Christ are not dead.

The false belief that God gives us sickness for our blessing makes prayer for healing a joke. Tragically, such belief is self confirming. We believe that the sickness is God given, but we make a show of prayer, but because of the compromise to our faith, no healing ensues. The conclusion therefore is proven, God wants this person to be sick. Or dead!


Every person will die from this corporeal life. This is how God call us to Him in heaven. The vast majority will suffer from some disease at the end of life. My Dear Wife and I are undergoing such a case right now as she has Alzheimer's disease. Regardless of the "source" one wishes to assign to this, the fact remains that God has given to me, her caregiver, a great many insights and lessons and the opportunity to grow in Love beyond anything else ever could have.
Early on I did pray fervently for healing. God told me that there would be no healing from this disease, but through it both my wife and I would be reconciled to Him (we were away from Church for many years). He spoke very clearly to me with these words, "She's mine. I'll take care of her."
Do I need her to be cured of Alzheimer's? NOt really - because i already know that she is healed.

I know you like "experience" rather than "theory"....I hope you recognize that I do have some.

Peace
James

Francis Drake said:

James, I am sorry about your wife's illness. However I do not change my position.


I did not figure that you would change your position. I mentioned my/our experience, because in a previous post you had mentioned about the difference between theories and experience in regards to this matter of healing.

Regarding the man born blind from birth, Jn9v1. This is a scripture which proves my point rather than yours. In my view, because of bad verse numbering, this scripture is always read wrong and therefore misunderstood. The commonly held belief is that God created the man blind, in order to demonstrate His power to heal. Just stop and think for a moment, what sort of God would do that? Does that sound like the Jesus (as creator God) we read in scripture? This is equivalent to pushing someone over a bridge parapet, so you will get the glory and a medal when you dive in and rescue him! Such a notion is amazingly perverse.

Actually - I never said that God created the man blind and certainly Jesus does not say that God created him blind. Neither does Scripture say that Satan made him blind. Of course given the OT understanding of such things, those who asked the question DID assume that he was blind as punishment for some sin...

A correct reading of Jn 9 shows something different. Firstly recognise that the verse numbering is not scriptural. It was added to the texts far more recently. If I therefore alter the finish of verse 3 and the start of verse 4 it then makes more literary sense and agrees with the known character of God in Jesus everywhere else.

V2.....his disciples asked him saying, Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind.

V3 Jesus answered, Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents. V3. STOP HERE.

V4. NEW START...But that the works of God should be made manifest in him, I must work the works of him who sent me.........etc.

Jesus then demonstrates the works of God by healing him! (Please read this through several times in your bible to get the gist.)

GOD DOES NOT NEED TO STRIKE A MAN BLIND OR SICK IN ORDER TO GET GLORY FROM A HEALING. 

Obviously, my verse numbering is open to challenge, but no more than the existing is.

You are quite correct that the whole scheme of verse numbering was added later and (IMHO) is one cause of much misunderstanding. However I don't think that particularly applies here. I read through this passage as written (Actually I never pay that much attention to verse numbering) and without numbering and its' meaning remains the same to me. So to me, it really makes no difference how the passage, or any passage for that matter, is numbered.

If we continue to insist that God made the man to be born blind, apart from making God out to be cruel, we then need to ask who made the countless other people in the world to be born blind and sick, the ones that Jesus did not heal.

There are three possible answers to this question.

1). All the people born blind or sick were made so by God.

2). All the people born blind or sick were as a consequence of general bad health at that time.

3). All the people born blind or sick were made so by Satan.

 

If everyone who is born sick or blind has been made so by God, with no opportunity of healing, God is perverse and cruel. I DO NOT WORSHIP THAT SORT OF GOD!

With regards to the last sentence, I completely disagree. Every person who has some need, some cross, some infirmity, whether it be a matter of physical health, mental health, spiritual health, financial etc...No matter what the problem is affords the opportunity for the Glory of God to be shown. In the case of the Blind man, it was Jesus who showed God's Glory - quite directly - by healing the man. But every one of us, by every act of Christian Charity we show demonstrate the Glory of God. In fact, it will be on such acts of charity that we will be judged.
So - it matters little what "mechanism" causes the problem. What is of much more import is what we - as avowed disciples of Christ - do about the problem.

If blindness and sickness is merely a general health issue of the time, and Jesus took this opportunity to heal one of them, then it demonstrates the love of God.


Agreed - Let us all, in God's name and for His Glory, do all that we can to alleviate the suffering of others.

I actually believe that sickness etc. is a combination of demonic activity and general bad health practice. The fact that in half the healings Jesus did, he cast out spirits of infirmity confirms that sickness is frequently of demonic origin. To ignore the demonic in sickness is plain foolish.

Makes sense. The whole issue of illness and so forth is a highly complex one.

 

Your penultimate paragraph saddens me. It is a delusion and a betrayal of faith to say that a person is healed when he has died.


Perhaps - perhaps not....
But of course, I don't believe I am deluded...and I think that the fact that even all the Apostles died, that Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead, eventually returned his body to the grave... all testify to the idea that we will die a corporeal death. It is not the health of our physical bodies that is of any real consequence, but the health of our souls.
Where do we find this sort of nonsense in the bible? When Jesus sent the disciples out it was to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. None of this sounds like your theology does it? Jesus did not tell the disciples that if they find any sick, tell them it is the will of God, or if anyone has died, tell the widow its ok, he's really still alive, even when he stinks.

But Jesus DID tell us that those who have died (in grace) are still alive. I even pointed out the passage, which I repeat here: "...I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die". He then asks Martha, "Do you believe this?"
And we must likewise ask ourselves...Do we believe this???

Physical healings are wonderful and they certainly have their place in the scheme of God's Glory. But so does suffering and physical death. Paul speaks of being happy in his sufferings for Christ. It is not fatalistic, nor is is defeatist in any ways to recognize that we will all someday die to this life

That said - I DO agree that we could all be happier, healthier and more contented if we truly put more trust in God and extended ourselves more fully in Love to our neighbor. Such things provide great "health and healing" benefits both physical and spiritual.

This is what churches do today. All the time we speak this nonsense, we will continue to get what we proclaim.

I suppose, but then again it might be you who is speaking nonsense.
I certainly have no more reason to accept your "Spirit guided" understanding than you have to accept my "Spirit guided" understanding....
I suppose that is why Jesus instructed us to "Tell it to the Church".

That said, I suspect that we each have valid points in this discussion. I certainly recognize in my own self, my weakness - in so far as trust goes.
But even despite my own shortcomings, God has worked many wonderful things in my life and in my spirit. Many/most have come about due to suffering of one sort or another.

This I have learned. The Kingdom of God is far better served, by our not trying to pin God down (i.e. did God cause an illness, or disaster, or accident etc.) and simply trying to respond to any given situation in the manner that God wishes us to. If we respond in Love (Love our neighbor as ourselves) then we do the Will of God.
The rest I leave to Him.

Peace
James

James, you have just said,
"Actually - I never said that God created the man blind and certainly Jesus does not say that God created him blind."
 But James you did previously say the following, which is what I was responding to,

"And yet we hear Jesus tell the pharisees that a certain man was not blind because of sin, but so that the Glory of God might be made manifest." 

In the context of your response, inserted amongst the words of my post, your words clearly indicate that you think he was born blind so that the glory of God might be manifest. How else could this be read. It is this notion that I reject. The scripture makes it clear that Jesus would heal him so that the glory of God might be manifest. If you are backing away from that position now, then that is fine.

However the idea that God made the beggar blind in order to get later glory by healing him, has been doing the church circuit for centuries. This is hardly surprising, because that is what the bad verse numbering implies. As a rumour it is as abhorrent now as it was when it was first started.  I always find it absurd that those who believe sickness is given by God for our good, seem to spend enormous effort and money trying to get rid of their gift. 


James said

"But of course, I don't believe I am deluded...and I think that the fact that even all the Apostles died, that Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead, eventually returned his body to the grave... all testify to the idea that we will die a corporeal death......... But Jesus DID tell us that those who have died (in grace) are still alive. I even pointed out the passage, which I repeat here: "

James, I am not arguing that we all die, only a fool would do that. However, in the context of healing, to twist the meaning of what Jesus said, to mean that when a person's body has died, that he has not died, is denying the plain facts. It is totally delusional. When the church quotes these verses, it is a con trick. It is used because, unlike Jesus, THEY HAVE FAILED TO HEAL, OR RAISE FROM THE DEAD. 

When Jesus used it, HE WAS RAISING SOMEONE FROM THE DEAD to demonstrate the resurrection. We, the church fail completely here, WE USE THE WORDS, BUT LEAVE THEM DEAD! We just quote these verses as a sop, and they do not work with a grieving relative. I have seen and heard very angry outbursts from relatives when some idiotic Christian tells them that their child has been healed, when they have just buried her.

If that is what Christian healing means, then please don't ever pray for me.



The difference btween the period of now and during the temporary operation of the spiritual gift to heal is illustrated by the permanent other gifts such as teaching. If one has the spiritual gift to teach they use it at will. The gift of healing was used just as all other gifts, at will. Today charismatics and their sympathizers have long explanations as to why there are so many reasons that the attempts to exercise this allegedly still operating gift cannot be used at will like teaching and their explanations are impressively lengthy but rationalistically based none the less. There is a saying about healing then and now:

If they would, they did because they could but today if they would, they don't because they can't.

Now, God's provodential intervention to heal apart from the special gift given to some people to be used temporarily as a sign, well that is quite available if God so wills and we may pray for that end.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sponsors

Linkologica

Blog Resources

Arminian Today

Anyabwile

Bock

Called to Communion

Challies

Classical Arminianism

Craig

Christian Answers For The New Age

Christians in Context

Conversation Diary (catholic)

Continuationism.com (marv & scott)

Desiring God blog

DeYoung

First Things

Fr. Stephen (eastern orthodox)

 

Internet Monk

KJV Only Debate (jason s.)

 

Köstenberger

Lisa Robinson - TheoThoughts

Mohler

McKnight

National Catholic Register (catholic)

Parchment & Pen

Pierce

Re-Fundamentals

Resurgence

Roberts

Roger Olson

Taylor

Team Pyro

The Apologist's Pen

Untamed Spirituality

WDTPRS (catholic)

Witherington

 

Theological Resources

BioLogos

Center for Reformed Study and Apologetics

Creeds and Confessions

Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Council of Biblical Manhood and Womenhood (complementarian)

The Center for Bibical Equality (Egalitarian)

Evangelical Theological Society

Monergism.com

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries

Society of Evangelical Arminians

Theopedia

Theological Word of The Day

Tyndale House Bulletin

 

Church History

Early Christian Writings

Glimpes of Church History

 

Christian Traditions

Book of Concord

Catholic.com

Eastern Orthodox

Orthodox Catechism

 

Apologetics

CARM

Lennox

Reasonable Faith

RZIM

Stand to Reason

Tektonics

 

Bible Study

Bible Gateway

Bible Researcher

Blue Letter Bible

Bible.org

IVP New Testament Commentaries Online

 

Online Bible and Theology Education

Biblical Training

The Theology Program

 

Theology and Bible MP3s

Covenant Seminary

263 Theology Questions and Answers

Veritas Forum

 

Theologica Chat Room

MiRC Chat

Badge

Loading…

Get the Widget


Sponsor



Bible Options




© 2014   Created by Michael Patton.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

/*============================================================================================ /*============================================================================================