It is so sad that such a topic has to be put in controversial theology. This should be a mainstay of our beliefs.
Why? Why should it be a "mainstay" of Christian belief? It is certainly something God does on occasion, but when I think of a "mainstay" of Christianity I think of the Gospel, the Trinity, the Second Coming of Christ, the Lord's Table, Baptism, and the Final Judgment, not healing. On what basis should healing stand on par with these pillars, these "mainstays" of Christian belief?
But, we have dummed down the "normal" beliefs to account for the theology of those who are too blinded by pride to see the Truth.
How do you know any of this? Proof, please (as opposed to your personal feeling).
Their crowd is rebellious, wants to hate God because of the situation they are in.
Actually, they want to hate God because of their wicked, self-centered hearts. (
Jeremiah 17:9; Ephesians 2:1-3; Colossians 1:21)
I would love to say that God heals everyone I touch. But, truthfully, I don't see that. For a long time I struggled with that.
Why would you struggle with this? Why should God heal everyone you touch?
He knows what is most beneficial to His kingdom and in some cases the faith of the individual who doesn't see what they are believing for and continues to believe may be more important to His kingdom. Or it could be that their healing was a work prepared for another unknown Christian who just has to listen to the Spirit tell him or her to step out and start praying for the sick. It is certainly abundantly clear in the Scripture for those with ears to hear.
Or, maybe God doesn't use healing at every turn because it isn't a vital part of how He interacts with us. Epaphroditus fell deathly ill but did not receive miraculous healing (
Philippians 2:25-27); neither did Trophimus (
2 Timothy 4:20); Paul recommended a little wine as a medicinal for Timothy's stomach, not healing (
1 Timothy 5:23); and Dorcas (aka Tabitha) a faithful disciple of Jesus became ill
and died. She was not miraculously healed by her fellow disciples of Christ nor was she able to heal herself. (
Ac. 9:36, 37) Peter, however, arrived and
in his special position as an apostle successfully appealed to God to resurrect her from the dead. Why, if healing is a mainstay of Christian living, did these people not get healed immediately upon falling ill?
And then there are conversations I have with adults who want to live a doubting Thomas life, but will never be happy regardless of the proof they see. Jesus said "A wicked and perverse generation seeks a sign." It doesn't mean Jesus stopped providing signs; He just wouldn't do them on the demand of the unbelievers who wanted Him to prove who He was!
This isn't what Jesus said, though. He said that those who seek for miraculous supernatural proofs of God (aka "signs") are wicked and perverse. How many who want healings at every turn and suggest that a Christian isn't really living in faith when he doesn't want the same, are seeking after a sign? In my experience, every single one. Any spiritual gift that makes you look down your nose at your brothers and sisters in Christ and despise them as "doubting Thomases" is not, I think, from God.
The focus should be on helping that child to know God lives him or her and wants to have a living relationship with him or her also.
Healing isn't necessary to pursuing - or achieving - this end. Paul points to Creation, and to conscience, and to Scripture as the primary means through which God reveals Himself. Paul says nothing at all, though, of the importance of God revealing Himself through miraculous healing. Nothing.
The focus is on the wrong person, if the prayer has to run to get proof of the healing that left that kid's jaw dropped when it happened.
If you want to claim a miracle happened, then you need to be prepared to prove it. If you can't, the skepticism of others is entirely warranted.
Jesus defined what signs would follow believers (
Mark 16:16-18)
"Follow" is not "define." Those signs listed in Mark 16:16-18 do not define a believer, or even certify that they are one. And Jesus does not say that such signs will be the common everyday experience of a believer, either.
Notice, He told us to preach; but "preaching" wasn't a sign of belief.
Preaching is not a sign of
unbelief, either. It is more likely to be an indicator of belief than not, I think. Preaching the Gospel was certainly what the first born-again believers did when the Spirit baptized them into Christ. (
Acts 2)
Unbelievers are preaching in "church" pulpits today.
Yes, and so are believers.