I am your healer

[Bobber]

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 respectfully disagree. Now if God feels they need to make adjustments as Paul the Apostle pointed out in 1 Cor 11:30 then you could say it's his will to not heal them. Or if they haven't been taught what the Bible says about the subject they can't really get into faith but it's still God's will to heal them.

I'm getting tired of repeatedly pointing out the verses that prove this.

Well by gosh SW by all means don't let me tire you out. Take a break for a day or so and have a rest. I still might be here if you come back to talk. I just don't want to feel guilt for making you tired. LOL

 

[Bobber]

For Lazarus resurrection, his faith did not play any role

Great observation Guojing! But I've always been aware of that. It's true about the man at the pool of Bethesda. But we talked about that in earlier posts if you go back and have a read.

 

[Strong in Him]

BUT......did they rise up against it in the Name of Jesus and did they receive the manifestation of healing.

Not always.
Paul once left one of his co workers behind because they were ill, 2 Timothy 4:20. Why didn't he heal him so that he could go with Paul and preach the Gospel?
There is no evidence that, when Paul became ill, he "rose up against it in the name of Jesus" and received the "manifestation of healing." He went to Galatia instead.

And it is the will of God to raise people up.

If it was always his will to heal sick people, Christians would never be sick.
I had this said to me as well, once, when I had M.E. and it was suggested that I didn't want to be well. All sick people want to be well - that is why they pray for healing/go to healing services/take a pill/go to the doctor/have tests to find what is wrong, etc etc.
So if a sick person desperately wants to be well, is asking God for healing and God WANTS to heal - why do so many remain ill? David Watson didn't want to have cancer, be forced to stop his ministry as an evangelist and, ultimately, leave his children without a father. Joni Eareckson didn't want to be in a wheelchair. I didn't want to have M.E. for 18 years, have to leave my job and be without a career.
As we all wanted, prayed and believed for healing, why didn't God - who apparently wanted it too - grant it?

 

[Guojing]

I respectfully disagree. Now if God feels they need to make adjustments as Paul the Apostle pointed out in 1 Cor 11:30 then you could say it's his will to not heal them. Or if they haven't been taught what the Bible says about the subject they can't really get into faith but it's still God's will to heal them.

Using that single statement that Paul made in 1 Corinthians 11:30 to form your doctrine is unwise.

1. Don't hang your doctrine on one vague statement. If Paul meant to teach what you taught, you will get similar statements elsewhere in Romans to Philemon.
2. 1 Corinthians was written during the transition period, where God allow the Body of Christ to have sign gifts to make Israel jealous. What this means is that things that are prescriptive during that time may not be prescriptive today.

 

[Bobber]

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.

From my understanding that was only when the nation was obedient before their God. So years after what you talk about above Israel forsook God and as a nation lost that covenant protective right. Proof of this was in the time of Jeremiah they lost their nation and we're taken captive into Babylon. As you can see the Babylonians were not cursed for what they had done. Then they came back into the land after many years of captivity and eventually lost that blessing item you refer to above. Now the Romans had their turn with Israel.

Conquered their nation and had them under a Roman oppressions or NOT a free nation hence forth. Then 70 AD we see Titus a Roman General comes down does anything but blessing Israel. I think you probably know the story. So in the time of Christ what you claimed above was no longer in effect. More further down,

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.

Granted the religious leaders said this but was that the thing that moved Jesus? True those leaders we're probably bringing up the blessing Israel thing you mentioned but Jesus could very well have told them if he had wanted to point out to them, Guys that's not in effect right now. Are you not aware that you're not a nation right now blessed of God. You're not the head but you're the tail, Duet 28 .

However Jesus did go with them for it really was a man crying out for a healing deliverance. And what do we hear Jesus say to the Centurion? He made it known to Jesus that he didn't even need to come to his house but just speak the word only and his servant would be healed. That impressed Jesus and told him “Go! As you have believed, so will it be done for you.” And his servant was healed at that very hour.

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)

OK right, so you're in agreement with me. You just said she had a right to be blessed. So if the actual lunch on the table will HEAL one and the crumbs that fall off the table will do the same thing so it's all the same. There should be no rhetoric therefore saying well it's only for the Jews.

 

[Bobber]

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

Hahaha....Well Guojing don't be too quick calling me nice in the way that you think. LOL I never said he was sick I said he probably did experience what all men do on this planet. The issue is what did or would he have done if he was. I believe he would have done something similar to praying the prayer of faith and would have believed for healing as in the teaching of Mk 11:24

Now lest someone quote to me about the thorn in the flesh and God saying his grace is sufficient for him and he wouldn't answer that prayer I don't accept that was even talking about sickness but rather persecution related things at least from what I'm seeing in the scriptures.

 

[Bobber]

Not always.
Paul once left one of his co workers behind because they were ill, 2 Timothy 4:20.

Sure. But that doesn't tell us anything about WHY the person wasn't healed. And it doesn't even say the person didn't GET healed eventually through believing God for it. All it states that the man was in a sick condition. Again doesn't prove God wasn't willing to heal him.

In Phil 2:27 we see of another one....Epaphroditus who the Bible states he ended up in a condition of being sick near to the point of death. BUT....God healed him. Seems probable that they prayed the prayer of faith and he believed without wavering for healing . The Lord raised him up.

Epaphroditus

Why didn't he heal him so that he could go with Paul and preach the Gospel?

But you're under the impression that a minister can just lay hands on a believer and God will heal them regardless as to what the other person is believing. Generally speaking that's not how it works.

If it was always his will to heal sick people, Christians would never be sick.

That would be like saying if it's not Gods will for there to be division in the body of Christ there just wouldn't be any. We could say a great many other sentences like this too.

I had this said to me as well, once, when I had M.E. and it was suggested that I didn't want to be well.

Hmmm. Well why did they suggest that to them? I'll tell you this I think it's possible that some don't really want to be well. Some would lose financial benefits, any number of reasons. It might mean some would have to go to work.....some love the sympathy or self pity they get ...they'd lose that too. I've even seen a few which pride themselves on their difficult circumstances and leave the impression with glee, "My problems are greater than your problems"

it's been said that Jesus asking one, "Do you want to be healed" he might have asked it for perhaps that man was drowning in a pool of self pity feeling sorry for himself.....In other words Jesus might have been saying to him do you want to get out of that mental mess, yes or no. It's possible some people don't.

All sick people want to be well - that is why they pray for healing/go to healing services/take a pill/go to the doctor/have tests to find what is wrong, etc etc.So if a sick person desperately wants to be well, is asking God for healing and God WANTS to heal - why do so many remain ill?

Well we've discussed in many of our posts God YES wants to heal but their could be hindrances. The scripture is clear about that and actually has a lot more than people would think to reveal to a person what could be the problem.

David Watson didn't want to have cancer, be forced to stop his ministry as an evangelist and, ultimately, leave his children without a father. Joni Eareckson didn't want to be in a wheelchair. I didn't want to have M.E. for 18 years, have to leave my job and be without a career.

I can accept none of those people wanted to have those things happen to them including yourself.

As we all wanted, prayed and believed for healing, why didn't God - who apparently wanted it too - grant it?

I can't tell you exactly why Person A, B or C didn't receive healing in an absolute sense. We do have general principles in God's word which tells us what potentially could be a problem but it's up to each of those individuals to examine themselves and to yes praying even for wisdom as to why? I believe that why Job's friends got into trouble. If you study what they said it's not that things they said weren't potentially true but they layed the charge THIS IS THE REASON for you.

As ministers we're called to peach the principles. When Paul the Apostle stated one reason why many aren't healed in 1 Cor 11:30 he wasn't saying now Person A this is your reason. But God did show him what could be problems. Other scritpures talk about other things too different then 1 Cor 11.

 

[Bobber]

Using that single statement that Paul made in 1 Corinthians 11:30 to form your doctrine is unwise.

I've never said that AT ALL. I've been careful over and over and over to say Paul didn't say ALL weren't healed for that reason....BUT MANY. And I've also brought out other reasons as found in scriptures as well. All know this who look at my posts.

1. Don't hang your doctrine on one vague statement. If Paul meant to teach what you taught, you will get similar statements elsewhere in Romans to Philemon.

1 Cor 11: 30 isn't a vague statement of anything. It answers a question by many are weak, sick and some have died before their time. Seems like you're pushing to not have the truth of Paul's statement not to be a apart of anyone's teaching so as you can slam the door on any suggestion a person needs to examine themselves about anything relative to healing.

1. 1 Corinthians was written during the transition period, where God allow the Body of Christ to have sign gifts to make Israel jealous. What this means is that things that are prescriptive during that time may not be prescriptive today.

Oh my! So all the even chapters which instruct the church about the gifts and telling us to desire spiritual gifts aren't written to the church today OR DON'T desire them. I'd suggest you not go contrary telling people the opposite of what God says we should desire.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

Be honest, the overwhelming consensus of commentators is that this verse is referring to a physical ailment of Paul's. Just as the overwhelming consensus of commentators agree that Paul's thorn in the flesh was a physical ailment .

Paul got sick, and you cannot accuse him of lacking faith or harbouring unconfessed sin. It was God's will for him to suffer....just as scripture teaches can happen.

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.

So when Christians die of a heart attack, there was no underlying heart disease, as with other humans. They had a fully heathy heart that just suddenly stops beating and the doctors are lying when they perform a post-mortem and diagnose "Coronory Heart disease" on the death certificates?

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.

It wasn't Gods best and perfect will for these people to live long lives:

Robert Murray M’Cheyne died aged 29
Oswald Chambers died aged 43
John Calvin died aged 54
Charles Spurgeon died aged 58

Maybe lacked faith, had unconfessed sin, or now another thing to blame them for....dishonouring their parents.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

The power that Jesus gave them was only an temporary enablement while He sent them out in pairs. Mark's account makes that pretty clear. And the only record of the disciples casting out demons was on that journey. They clearly no longer had that ability when they met the demon possessed boy, and prayer was required. So it wasn't a lack of faith in praying. They were not praying at all. A simply prayer is all it takes to exhibit faith the size of a mustard seed. And Jesus said that would have resulted in the demon being cast out.

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.

Sigh. Jesus was using figurative language here. He didn't mean you have to literally command things to happen with your voice, any more than a mountain is literally going to move as a result. Jesus is saying the tiniest amount of faith is sufficient for God to intervene in our problems no matter how difficult. Well that is obviously not the immense amount faith that WoF says must be mustered up to be fully convinced that someone is going to be healed before it occurs, and the lack of which you blame others for not having when their prayers are not answered. The tiniest expression of faith would be to believe that God has the ABILITY to heal and to pray accordingly. That was all that was required for the healing in the NT examples.

The fact that so many people are not healed therefore cannot be due to lack of faith. It is simply that it is not God's will, as the scriptures clearly teach.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

James 1 says that a prayer for wisdom will not be granted if they doubt the promise of wisdom. You claimed James extends that to say a prayer for anything will not be granted if they doubt they will receive it.

None of the commentaries you quoted say that.

And nor does James.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

.....he says, immediately after quoting commentaries in an attempt to support his argument.

Sorry, but isn't that being rather hypocritical?

 

[swordsman1]

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.

That's wrong I'm affaid. The 1st thing she asks for is mercy (Matt 15:22), so "bread" is more than healing.

 

[swordsman1]

I respectfully disagree. Now if God feels they need to make adjustments as Paul the Apostle pointed out in 1 Cor 11:30 then you could say it's his will to not heal them. Or if they haven't been taught what the Bible says about the subject they can't really get into faith but it's still God's will to heal them.

Then you respectfully disagree with scripture. As I have provided numerous verses that clearly state it is sometimes God's will to allowing suffering.

 

[Bobber]

Be honest, the overwhelming consensus of commentators is that this verse is referring to a physical ailment of Paul's.

I don't know about that. Not the ones I just showed you from Bible Hub. Even they acknowledged it could have been a physical affection but they also offer up the other possibilities . So seeing you brought that up then show me your overwhelming consensus that they insist it has to be the way you say. I mean you're making that claim.

And even if you could put down some....commentaries or opinions of men are interesting to consider but should ever be considered the gold standard of what is sure. I just put down some commentators opinions so as not to have it seem other individuals may not totally disagree with me.

Just as the overwhelming consensus of commentators agree that Paul's thorn in the flesh was a physical ailment .

I don't. And neither do many, many others agree to this. Thorn in the flesh never meant in Bible usage as something in the physical flesh and the colloquial expression has been used three times in the OT which I put down in one of my prior posts.

Paul got sick, and you cannot accuse him of lacking faith or harbouring unconfessed sin.

As stated I don't think the scriptures people use to claim such necessarily confirm that. And IF he did and I said IF.....that doesn't mean he stayed that way. He knew all the teachings of Jesus and of course even the knowledge of what James stated about the Prayer of Faith that would bring healing to the sick.

And I claiming he would lack faith? Why would you say that? I don't believe sickness trying to come on one and stay on one means they have a lack of faith. The question is though are they standing against it believing they received when they prayed and not backing down and holding fast to that stance.

And let me ask you this. Because Paul revealed why many are sick and weak, (not all but many) would you say the same to him? That he's accusing people of harboring unconfessed sin? I mean he's the one who taught this. Something about this tell me you wouldn't do so. You would know it would be extreme suggesting he's trying to beat people over the head with accusations. So why should you do that to me or others? Give that some thought please.

So when Christians die of a heart attack, there was no underlying heart disease, as with other humans. They had a fully heathy heart that just suddenly stops beating and the doctors are lying when they perform a post-mortem and diagnose "Coronory Heart disease" on the death certificates?

Lying ? No. Misinformed I'd say YES. I also don't believe alcoholism is a disease it's rather an addicted affliction. Not a disease.

 

[Bobber]

It wasn't Gods best and perfect will for these people to live long lives:

And then you go off to mention people's personal names. You just won't back off until you have me make the mistake that Job's three friends did an that is say EXACTLY why Person A or B wasn't healed. As I meantone before SW I DON'T KNOW why they weren't healed in particular. That's between them and God alone. I will not however back down from teaching what God says we are to teach about it. Healing is the children's bread.

....or now another thing to blame them for....dishonouring their parents.

Now what do you mean another thing. Exactly why do you think Ephesians 6 :1,3 is in the Bible for?

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. Eph 6:1,3

So it's meaning? Don't shoot the messenger I just quoted the verse. So how about you tell us what that means potentially.

Pulpits Commentary: (Bible Hub) .... of the reason annexed to the fifth commandment, "that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

So what did God want peoples life to be? Not long? If not long then what did he mean?

 

[Bobber]

The power that Jesus gave them was only an temporary enablement while He sent them out in pairs. Mark's account makes that pretty clear.

It does? And where do you get that? What do we read in the last chapter of Mark? Let's see,

"And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons............. (plus more things)
Mark 16: 15.17

So are you prepared to say this great commission doesn't belong to the church? Perhaps were not to baptize people either? Just how far do you go to say this don't belong to us today or this doesn't either?

They clearly no longer had that ability when they met the demon possessed boy, and prayer was required.

No sorry SW reassess what you're saying. Consider what the text in Matt 17 actually says. The man said he brought his boy to his disciples and they could not cure him. They tried. (at least we agree on that) Next....what did Jesus say? Did he say,

"Oh yeah that's right! I forgot to tell you. Henceforth you guys have got to pray to me....NO MORE commanding these spirits to come out! "

No he didn't say that. What did he say? He rebuked them that is the disciples. He was exasperated with them and said, , "O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? " In other words they should have been in the place where they should have been able to get that done and not praying that God does it in the way that you think. He had given them authority and had NEVER taken that back. Now let's keep reading,

19Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

Now notice. Jesus didn't tell them their casting out the spirit wasn't something they were not to do. He told them they were in unbelief as they were applying the method. He said the method was right, IF YOU HAVE faith as a grain of mustard seed you would say, you would say, not God say for you , you would say to the mountain be removed and it would remove....So you weren't wrong on technique.....You were wrong that you don't have your spirit let me put it this way....they didn't have their spirits full of the presence of God where they were actually able to disperse God's spiritual power by their command.

Thus he said.....speaking to mountains YES....at your command they will move....and the spirit would have departed. Not enough praise and worship and fasting where you can connect to seeing your commands obeyed by God's power. In other words in modern lingo he was saying, "Come on guys! Get with it!" Now read the two verses below,

20And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting

So...their method was right....BUT NO spiritual life or power which comes by praise and worship and fasting.

Which shows us again....just because one isn't healed DOES NOT necessary mean at all it isn't God's will to heal. YES people make mistakes. Let's not be so sensitive that Jesus can't tell us this...how about it?

 

[Strong in Him]

Sure. But that doesn't tell us anything about WHY the person wasn't healed. And it doesn't even say the person didn't GET healed eventually through believing God for it. All it states that the man was in a sick condition. Again doesn't prove God wasn't willing to heal him.

I didn't say it did.
I was answering your question; "did they rise up against it in the name of the Lord and did they receive a manifestation of healing?"
My answer was, "not always." Or at least, if Trophimus did eventually receive healing, it wasn't in time to go on an evangelistic mission with Paul, and Paul left him behind rather than heal him/wait for healing.

But you're under the impression that a minister can just lay hands on a believer and God will heal them regardless as to what the other person is believing. Generally speaking that's not how it works.

I doubt very much that anyone who prays for healing knows what the sick person is thinking.
And I'm saying that the idea of, this is how IT works; this is how you get God to heal, is wrong.

That would be like saying if it's not Gods will for there to be division in the body of Christ there just wouldn't be any. We could say a great many other sentences like this too.

No.
Generally speaking a person does not choose to become ill - whereas someone can choose to argue with someone, tell them that they have to believe a certain teaching or that the church down the road is misguided, don't have anything to do with them.

Hmmm. Well why did they suggest that to them?

Why did they suggest that to me?
I would guess because I said that I had faith that God could heal - but he hadn't yet healed me. I had the impression they were saying, "well it's not God's fault, so it must be yours."

I'll tell you this I think it's possible that some don't really want to be well. Some would lose financial benefits, any number of reasons.

Some, maybe.
Born again Christians who had been serving God and were actively seeking his healing? I wouldn't have said so.

It might mean some would have to go to work.....some love the sympathy or self pity they get ...they'd lose that too.

I'm not talking about a lazy person, someone who has it in mind to milk the benefits system or someone who loves to be a martyr; if any Christians are like that, God is very capable of showing, and convicting, them of their wrongdoing.

it's been said that Jesus asking one, "Do you want to be healed" he might have asked it for perhaps that man was drowning in a pool of self pity feeling sorry for himself.....

Yes, maybe he was.
But the man at the pool of Bethseda didn't answer Jesus but got healed anyway.

Well we've discussed in many of our posts God YES wants to heal but their could be hindrances.

I'm saying that if the sick person longed to be healed and was praying in faith, and God wanted them to be healed too - he'd heal them.

As ministers we're called to peach the principles.

But "God wants to heal you and will always heal in response to faith", is not a principle. If it was, then when faith was shown, God would heal - always.

"The wages of sin is death" is a principle. The wages of sin aren't sometimes death, or may be death if you catch God on a bad day. It's an unchanging Scriptural and spiritual truth.
Ditto, "Jesus was, and is, God", "Jesus was raised from the dead", "God is faithful", "God answers prayer and hears even 2 or 3 who are gathered." These, and many more, are unchanging principles and spiritual truths.

There is no principle which says, "this is how you get God to heal". God may heal in response to faith - maybe even often - but sometimes not.
He may heal through a certain person who has a healing ministry, but sometimes not. Jennifer Rees-Larcombe was healed when a woman, a single mother who had been a Christian for only a few weeks, prayed for her. She hadn't been healed when the elders prayed for her. The woman who prayed for me, (if saying "I want to heal you" is a prayer) used to say that she didn't have faith, yet I was healed. David Watson was prayed for by clergy, evangelists, healers, John Wimber and thousands of Christians, and wasn't healed.

When Paul the Apostle stated one reason why many aren't healed in 1 Cor 11:30

That's just it though - he did NOT say "this is why many of you are not healed". He said, "this is why many among you are weak and ill." They might have become ill only after they started behaving selfishly. Or he might have meant; this is why some of you are spiritually unhealthy and weak in the faith - because you treat the Lord's Supper as your own private meal. You are abusing Christian fellowship by eating what you want and not looking out for others.
He doesn't mention physical health at all.

 

[Guojing]

Oh my! So all the even chapters which instruct the church about the gifts and telling us to desire spiritual gifts aren't written to the church today OR DON'T desire them. I'd suggest you not go contrary telling people the opposite of what God says we should desire.

Even with Paul's epistles, you must learn how to rightly divide as well

Why did Paul talk about tongue speaking only in 1 Corinthians?

Here is my view. Acts 18 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; 2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. 3 And...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Guojing]

However Jesus did go with them for it really was a man crying out for a healing deliverance. And what do we hear Jesus say to the Centurion? He made it known to Jesus that he didn't even need to come to his house but just speak the word only and his servant would be healed. That impressed Jesus and told him “Go! As you have believed, so will it be done for you.” And his servant was healed at that very hour.

No doubt both of them have faith, but my point is that, if Israel was not blessed by them, just having faith in Jesus alone would not be sufficient for their healing.