Difference Between Healing In The Bible and Healing Now

[Jim Zeirke]

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.

[JRKH]

Francis Drake said:

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.How else could this be read", is reading into the text. Something that you seem to take issue with as being the problem with most ecclesial communities in general.

The man was blind. Jesus healed him. God gets the Glory. I really don't need to fix the source for his blindness any more than a surgeon needs the source of a tumor in order to remove it.

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. 

lol - Good point re: the last part about getting cured...As to the rest...one or both of us are misunderstanding the verse....Care to bring in "two or three witnesses" to confirm the facts...(tongue in cheek)?

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.

That's good.

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. 

Well one of our views is delusional....Personally I take Jesus at his word when he says, "...even though he die yet shall he live and he who believes in me shall never die".
I suspect that in this - and probably many other areas, you and I hold very fundamentally different views.

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.

There is something to what you say here and I certainly agree that we need to be more trusting but I also think that much good can come out of suffering no matter where it might originate. I am a living testament to that fact.

Peace
James

[Francis Drake]

Truce

We could go on but I think it is better to explore other things. Thanks for being gracious to my aggressive comments. 

Finally thought though. Yes, good can come out of suffering. But its strange that Jesus never made that point when people asked him for help. It is simply recorded that He healed ALL that were diseased or oppressed by the devil. Nobody came away with another result other than full healing in THIS life.

Blessings to both of you.

Frank

JRKH said:

Francis Drake said:

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.How else could this be read", is reading into the text. Something that you seem to take issue with as being the problem with most ecclesial communities in general.

The man was blind. Jesus healed him. God gets the Glory. I really don't need to fix the source for his blindness any more than a surgeon needs the source of a tumor in order to remove it.

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. 

lol - Good point re: the last part about getting cured...As to the rest...one or both of us are misunderstanding the verse....Care to bring in "two or three witnesses" to confirm the facts...(tongue in cheek)?

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.

That's good.

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. 

Well one of our views is delusional....Personally I take Jesus at his word when he says, "...even though he die yet shall he live and he who believes in me shall never die".
I suspect that in this - and probably many other areas, you and I hold very fundamentally different views.

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.

There is something to what you say here and I certainly agree that we need to be more trusting but I also think that much good can come out of suffering no matter where it might originate. I am a living testament to that fact.

Peace
James

[JRKH]

Francis Drake said:

Truce

We could go on but I think it is better to explore other things. Thanks for being gracious to my aggressive comments.

Truce....And no problem. Zealousness can be a good thing. I appreciate your honesty using the terms you did. Fortunately, because of the method of communication, we both have time to step back and consider. That goes a long way to keeping conversations civil and productive.

Finally thought though. Yes, good can come out of suffering. But its strange that Jesus never made that point when people asked him for help. It is simply recorded that He healed ALL that were diseased or oppressed by the devil. Nobody came away with another result other than full healing in THIS life.

Blessings to both of you.

Frank

Yes - this is true. And yet none of the healings were "permanent", by that I mean that all of these people, even people who saw these things, were beneficiaries of these things, and even those given authority to heal, did, themselves, corporeally die.

Blessings to you and yours.

Peace
James

[Norrin Radd]

Alex Guggenheim said:

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.

Can you demonstrate from Scripture why we should regard some "gifts" as "permanent," and others as "temporary"?

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.

Can you show me in Scripture where there is a "gift of healing"?

Can you show me where it constitutes some ability that remains resident within its alleged possessor?

Can you demonstrate such an ability being used "at will" by its alleged possessor?

Can you account for such cases as Jesus being unable to heal in His hometown, some disciples being unable to exorcise a demon, and for cases such as Luke 5:17, where the wording implies that healing power was NOT always available, even to Jesus, and Luke 8:45-47, where the power was present and operated totally apart from the "will" of the one possessing it (Jesus)?

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.

Clever.  I trust you can answer my above questions in a way that is concise, rather than "impressively lengthy," a characterization which in context I take to be sarcastic and disparaging.

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.

Can you show me where *ability* to heal was itself given as a "gift," was so given only to "some," only "temporarily," and (only) as a "sign"?

[Alex Guggenheim]

Norrin

At my leisure I will answer all your requests as I see fit. I am quite aware of the lengthy arguments by charismatics here and in other places so do understand that for the last 30 years I have continued to study the arguments. You got the use of my sarcasm which appears to have been used with accuracy to make my point. So as time permits I hope to approach the questions.

[Norrin Radd]

Okilly dokilly.  Looking forward to it, neighbor.