-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
I am your healer
- Thread starter NBB
- Start date
But on a general level you do. You point to Mk 11:24 and a supposed lack of faith as the reason their prayers are not answered, just as you did in post #231. The only other reason I've seen from you is unconfessed sin. Again, according to you it's their own fault.
Let me tell you there are many other reasons prayers for healing are not granted, all stemming from it not being God's will (with the various reasons in scripture I've already given. A lack of faith to be healed is not one of them.
Then you should also teach that sometimes it is God's will not to grant our prayers. As that is clearly taught in scripture.
Not always it isn't. I've given you a dozen reasons from scripture showing you when it is not God's will for people to be well. Do I need to repeat them again?
Jesus granted the request of the Canaanite women because that was his will in that circumstance. That doesn't mean it is his will to grant healing to everyone else who asks for it.
'The children' here represent the Jews who were initially offered Christ's mercy. The gentiles are the one's who only got the occasional crumb, as the Canaanite woman fortunately did.
Her faith was not that Jesus would definitely grant her daughter healing. Her faith was that she acknowledged Jesus as her 'master' (v27).
Out of all the 36 healings recorded in the New Testament only one person had faith they would definitely be healed - the woman will the issue of blood. Most of the others expressed no faith at all. Those who did express faith only expressed faith in Jesus's ABILITY to heal. eg the centurion, the 2 blind men, the lame man at gate Beautiful, etc, etc.
So your WoF claim that faith to be healed is always required for healing to occur is completely bogus. Nowhere is that taught in scripture, and apart from 1 person there are no examples of it.
We've had that discussion before where I debunked your theory about Paul's thorn in the flesh being a demon. There is not a single commentary of 2 Corinthians that agrees with it. Instead the unanimous consensus of commentators is that was a physical ailment of some kind. Whatever it was, Paul's prayer for relief from it was denied. It was God's will that he suffer so that he became more dependent on Him.
Wrong. Paul certainly did become physically ill....
Galatians 4:13-14 You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
And had he not been martyred he would no doubt have eventually died of a natural death caused by some condition or other, be that heart disease, cancer, alzheimers or whatever. As all Christians do. Or do all Christians as they age start to lack faith, so they become ill and die? Or do those praying for them fail to muster up the required amount faith to heal old people as they require more faith to heal? Of course not. That's silly. God ordains that all people will die one day (Heb 9:27, Eccl 9:2-4) and that is usually from an illness.
Jesus is our example to follow in prayer as he taught in the Lord's prayer ("Your will be done") and his own prayer in the garden. Jesus clearly shows us that our requests should be "if it be Your will", even if those words not explicitly spoken by us. Scripture clearly teaches that prayers are only granted if they are the will of God. If it that was true for Jesus' prayer then it is certainly true for ours.
But the point to note is, Jesus's prayer that his cup of suffering be removed was not granted. Was his prayer denied because he lacked faith or harboured unconfessed sin? Of course not, it was was because it God's will that he had to suffer.
You know full well I was referring to God's sovereign will in ordaining what happens, not God's revealed will in the precepts he gives us in scripture which we can disobey.
Upvote
0
The disciples failed to cast out this demon because they were trying to cast it out by themselves. They were not praying! Jesus told them they could have cast it out if only they had prayed (see Mark 9:28-29 account of this event). That is faith the size of a mustard seed mentioned in the other gospel accounts. The tiniest belief that God can intervene in a situation would result in a prayer to him. And if it is his will, the request will be granted.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sorry SW but you're reasons weren't substantial.
Can very well be possible it is one of them. I said possible. It can't be ruled out.
James 1 talked about the prayer of Faith....not sure how you can deny it. In the prayer of faith as he outlines it in James 1 he talks about praying for wisdom and he ends off including anything and if one doubts they've received , wavers.....one moment believing you've got it and the next moment not believing you don't....like tossed to and fro on the waves well the person hasn't stayed in Faith. And just a few chapters later James 5 he talks about the same prayer of faith....is ANY sick among you and he talks about the prayer of faith to be used. How can it be anything different than chapter 1???????
Now let me ask this too. Do any of you people here not believe that anybody should be considered at fault about anything? Let's even talk about WISDOM....if anyone asks of God let him ask in FAITH nothing wavering. James 1: 5 James says it can be the fault of one not getting it IF they do not persist in faith. But are you people saying NO, NO, NO, don't have anything in your doctrine which tells people they've missed it about anything?????? Is it possible you're really advancing an I'M OK YOU'RE OK religion and that God never seeks to correct any of his people or it's unkind to do so. Actually this is what happened in 1 Cor 5. They wouldn't correct anybody about anything and Paul stated what you're priding yourself about is not valid.
Upvote
0
With all due respect I don't think you did that. The thorn in the flesh was called the messenger of Satan...It's , ἄγγελος, ου, ὁ or aggelos,
Original Word: ἄγγελος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: aggelos
Phonetic Spelling: (ang'-el-os)
Definition: a messenger, angel
Usage: a messenger, generally a (supernatural) messenger from God, an angel, conveying news or behests from God to men.
Seeing it's from Satan what else could it be but a demon? Sorry but there's just no justification for calling the thorn a sickness just because he uses the colloquial expression thorn in the flesh. The inhabitant of the land in Israel of whom they refused to drive out it was said they would be that "a thorn in the flesh" to them in the Old Testament. Didn't mean they were in their actual flesh. If you're open to consider this look at Num 33:55 where it confirm it. Num 33:55....and also Josh 23:13.....and, Judg 2:3
I'm sure I don't have to remind you that we have a same similar colloquial expression today? Currently our culture is well known to say,
"So and So is a pain in the..............."
Of course we know their backside isn't hurting. It's not talking about anything physical at all. So maybe we should just lay aside silly ways of interpreting scriptures as well? It would be just that saying the thorn was in his physical flesh.
Upvote
0
It was the will of God that the Jews hear the gospel first and they were to take that same message in turn to the Gentiles. That includes being redeemed from the curse which Duet 28 calls all sickness. Healing was the children's bread Israel's YES but also to the world. Jesus response to the woman made that clear when she said but even the dogs get the crumbs which fall from the children's table. But you say God will pick now what dogs will get a crumb? You're making that up. The fact is the dogs plural have a right to the crumbs. If Jesus didn't agree with that wouldn't he have told her so?
So let's examine what you're saying here. So you're acknowledging that healing was the children's bread meaning to the people of Israel. So tell me was God willing to give all of his children bread? Or just a few of them? See. Matt 7:9 So you're saying HEALING belonged to Israel and I'd say that's progress. So us being Gentiles being grafted into one new body.....well half of the body get's healing....the other side doesn't? Or you now say God is showing less mercy to those who are the new creation in Christ and is that called a better covenant established upon better promises?
Upvote
0
I do teach that. James 4:3 is clear about that. I don't inject healing into that consideration though unless of course one might need to make an adjustment as 1 Cor 11:30 points out. One can pray for healing but if they're violating the spirit of 1 Cor 11:30 they won't be healed....or you could say he won't grant their prayer answered. But in the bigger picture of even that God DOES want them healed so it is the will of God for them to be healed. They may however need to repent and make adjustments and that's what James 5 states as well. If they have sinned they shall be forgiven and the Lord shall raise them up.
Don't agree at all. I believe the message went far and wide that Jesus was willing to heal people. Willing. Not maybe. He was. He said he came to deliver the oppressed and he was anointed (empowered) to do so. Acts 10:38 His home town of Nazareth refused to accept this thus he could there do no mighty works. Matt 13:58 I imagine that broke his heart too seeing he must have known personally most of that population.
And another question What do you think we even have the account of the woman with the issue of blood in the Bible even for? Do you not believe it's meant to instruct us? What was the key thing she thought and did? She thought it was a shoe in....she thought it was a guarantee she WOULD BE healed. If I touch the hem of his garment I SHALL BE WHOLE! Word went around Galilei that Jesus WAS WILLING to heal all! There's only one way she could have said with such positive assurance I shall be whole only if Jesus gave an absolute certainty to people that they would be the case. She acted upon that and reaped the results.
Upvote
0
First let me say I'd NEVER claim nor have I done such in all my years that there wasn't a possibility Paul or any of the Christians in his day weren't impacted by the things that everybody else could be.....that is sickness, disease or affliction. I'm guessing they probably were BUT......did they rise up against it in the Name of Jesus and did they receive the manifestation of healing. Now that's what we're really talking about. Many like to marginalize us people of faith and claim one can never become sick. That's NOT what we're saying but what do you do about it when you do.
So my point. I"m not saying one can't be impacted with an affliction. I'm not saying one can't get sick but by God's grace I never did some down with covid and I was even the door man at a soup kitchen. But what does one do when they become impacted? That's the question. But we hear this over and over from some. You're saying Christians can never get sick. Nope, I never say that. I say what James says what are you going to do about it if you do? James 5:14,16 gives us an answer. And it is the will of God to raise people up.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
A dozen or so verses that clearly state suffering is sometimes God's will, is not substantial? Seriously?
No James 1 doesn't extend the prayer for wisdom to cover anything. The one who doubts like a wave of the sea is the same person who doubts the promise of wisdom. The language is clear.
James 5 is not the same prayer. It is a prayer for the sick that guarantees spiritual healing (v15), and the possibility that they "may be healed" physically (v16).
James 1 is an unconditional promise to provide wisdom if we ask for it. So yes we are at fault if we doubt God's promises.
There is no unconditional promise of healing if we ask for it....how can there be when there are so many verses that state it is sometimes God's will to allow suffering?
Upvote
0
We've already had the debate about Paul's thorn in the flesh in this previous thread. There's no point in repeating it all again here. I've seen your argument and shown why it is wrong and quoted a number of lengthy commentaries from respected scholars explaining why it was a physical affliction.
Upvote
0
No, I do not agree that healing was the children's (the Jews) bread. Jesus offered the Jews far more than just healing, so 'bread' was the multitude of grace and blessings offered by Christ. It includes the offer of salvation, forgiveness, teaching, miracles, exorcisms, healing, etc. Healing was not guaranteed to them, nor to us as later recipients of God's grace. And, as was the case with the Canaanite woman, when requested it does not require faith that you will definitely receive it.
Upvote
0
No, it is not always God's will for beleivers to be healed. And it's not just unconfessed sin that will deny healing. Sometimes it is God's will for them to suffer. I'm getting tired of repeatedly pointing out the verses that prove this.
Yes the woman had faith that she would definitely be healed. But out of 36 healings recorded in the NT she was the only one. Therefore it cannot be claimed that such faith is a requirement for prayers of healing to be granted. Far more often it was simple faith in God's ability to heal. And far more often still, no faith was required at all.
Upvote
0
As I stated in my last post I don't deny people can't be impacted. But what do they do when such occurs? But to your next verse you put down.....while I said what I said in my prior line that still doesn't mean you can substantiate the verse you put down below even guarantees it was a sickness but let's look at the verse.
And we do know the King James translates it as "an infirmity of the flesh" Is there other ways to consider this?
James Fausset commentary offers this as a possibility as well that it could have been talking about his sufferings in the gospel and one can see that outlined in 2 Cor 11:30
Gills Commentary allows for it to possibly be talking about his reproaches, and persecution instead of a physical sickness. To be clear they say it could have been talking about a sickness but possibly not.
Meryers Commentary offers it could have been referring too ill treatment which he had previously endured on account of the gospel.
Cambridge Bible School and Colleges allow for it to be related perhaps to persecutions, fleshly desires, or spiritual trials pushing him to despair.
So in other words there's no absolute clear knowledge that one can conclude the translation you've quoted from, of a bodily ailment is true. Infirmity of the flesh can be considered things of a different nature.
But I'll say even if it was. That doesn't say anything about that Paul wasn't standing in faith believing for healing.
And of course you have no proof of that. When one dies of old age such doesn't have to mean they had heart disease. If God takes them on of course their heart will stop. Then some come along and say, See there they had heart disease. Doesn't mean they did at all.
It's Gods best and perfect will for people to live long lives.
Ephesians 6: 1 states, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise 3That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
The above verse is one actually that those cynical about healing need to explain.
But now you're into fatalism or everything that actually does happen must have been the will of God. What God had has said in his word is one day all men will go the way of death. It didn't define what time. In fact as pointed out there is a promise for long life Eph 6: 1-3 which is also set aside by those who don't want to believe it. I know that's quite a claim but one needs then to answer the clear question.....DO THEY Believe there a promise to us of long life? The answer either has to be YES or NO.
Upvote
0
I suggest you're not understanding this passage correctly. Luke 9:1 states that Jesus GAVE THEM power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. They were to take his name like a power of attorney and cast out these spirits which caused affliction. (and that's another story we could talk about) but they carried out the instruction. The man's child was not delivered.
Now I could stop even right there and say well there you go. They did what Jesus told them to do and for all intent purposes in their way of thinking they did pray. Then shouldn't that tell you that if someone is not healed it can very well be the fault of men??? That seems to be your position and others here that no matter what don't ever consider that men who pray have made a mistake.
Well are we blaming people? Look we don't have to go down the road and even use that type of rhetoric which becomes like a smokescreen of diversion by flaring up people's emotions. The fact is that men sometimes are not making contact with God's healing power AND if can STILL be the will of God that they had done so.
And sorry but you're forgetting something here. They weren't to pray to Jesus here...he was on a mountain top....Mount Of Transfiguration....The were to do what Jesus said they were to do with faith as a grain of mustard seed, If you had faith or have it like a mustard seed YOU would SAY to this sycamore tree or a mountain be thou removed and IT WILL OBEY YOU.
The part about prayer and fasting had to do with getting into the manifested presence of God through praise and worship where their words would have God's anointed power with them. That would have delivered the child. They practiced the formula. but had no power, and AGAIN should show you that because one isn't healed by one praying doesn't demonstrate it is not the will of God. Of course much of Christendom is refusing to accept this. They don't want anyone to suggest to them they're mistaken in how the do things.
Upvote
0
Guojing
Well-Known Member
- Apr 11, 2019
- 13,379
- 1,422
- Country
- Singapore
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Before Paul, Gentiles who blessed Israel will be blessed by Israel's God, that has always been the case after the nation was formed, as promised to Jacob in Genesis 28:13-15.
And any nation that refused to bless Israel, or made life difficult for her, will also be cursed by God (Numbers 24:9, Deuteronomy 23:3-4), for many generations.
In time past, we cannot approach God independently, without Israel.
Even Jesus followed that rule during his first coming. (Romans 15:8, Matthew 15:24)
The Roman Centurion blessed Abraham's seed, by building Israel a synagogue. (Luke 7:4-5). That was why Jesus automatically agreed to meet with him and to grant him that miracle.
The Canaanite woman blessed Abraham's seed, Israel, by acknowledging her submission to Israel, that she was indeed a gentile puppy who have the right to be blessed from the bread crumbs falling from the children of Israel's table (Mark 7:28-29)
Both cases, Israel was honored, and Jesus could therefore bless them because they blessed Israel.
Upvote
0
Guojing
Well-Known Member
- Apr 11, 2019
- 13,379
- 1,422
- Country
- Singapore
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Nice, at least you are not as extreme as some of the others, who somehow believed that Paul was never ill and they have a bizarre interpretation of 2 Corinthians 11:23-30 to justify that
Upvote
0
Oh I don't know about that. Lots of commentaries disagree with you.
Barnes Commentary: states that so many prayers (and he meant of different types) going unanswered. People going to the Throne of Gracce and coming away empty.
Matthew Pooles Commentary: Even the least mercy mush less the wisdom mentioned.
Gills Exposition : he shall receive anything from the Lord; wisdom, or anything else, he is seeking after;
Cambridge Commentary: Faith, undoubting faith, is then the condition of the prayer for wisdom, as of all other prayers, being heard and answered.
For physical affection as in sickness? Where do you see that and much appreciated if you don't put in verses about persecution.
Upvote
0
Well SW I don't agree with one's you call respected scholars. Their opinions are not the golden rule or standard by which we define our beliefs. I believe ones who have a spirit like the noble Bereans consider what people might say but study the subject out themselves with the WORD. I trust you will too.
Upvote
0
So how is it that you don't think you're off the word of God by saying that. Did not Jesus SAY IT WAS???
"The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said. (she wanted healing for her daughter) 26But Jesus replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”27“Yes, Lord,” she said, “even the dogsf eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
That may be and I agree is true that Jesus came to provide more than just healing. But he still called HEALING what? The Children's Bread. We can't say it isn't because Christ said it was.
Yes it was guaranteed to them with conditions of course although even the religious priests of Jesus day lost sight of it as many churchman do today as well. Jesus asked religious leaders about one dear woman with an affliction....
"So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound—think of it—for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?” Luke 16: 13
Language demands that when someone says, Ought not or should not what follows becomes the reason why.....she had a right to be healed from a covenant perspective. Because she was a daughter of Abraham.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
