aiki
Regular Member
i wondered when this one would come up ... its an argument that is the epitome of the unbelieving attitude .
If you want to be taken seriously, you shouldn't begin your arguments with ad hominem. Attacks upon me personally are the weakest way in which to argue for your perspective.
My views on healing don't arise from an "unbelieving attitude" but from a more careful exegesis of Scripture than you appear to have made.
It flies in the face of the great commission and the signs that shall follow those that believe
The Great Commission does not entail miraculous healing. And miraculous signs followed those responsible for the establishment of the Early Church and the writing of the New Testament. Healings helped to confirm the divine authority of the apostles and the divine nature of Christ. Since the Church is well-established now and the canon of the New Testament long ago written and closed, the miraculous is not nearly as vital as it was in the times described in the New Testament.
it is, as with most theologies formed in unbelief ,based upon an apparent exception .
Well, merely saying so doesn't make it so. Your attempt here to poison the well is both obvious and impotent. My "theology formed in unbelief" is firmly - and correctly - grounded in Scripture. I can't say the same about yours.
the lord Jesus healed none other then ALL those who came to him . expressing it was his very nature to be wiling to do so .
And what of all those sick at the Pool of Bethesda that Christ ignored (John 5:2-9), healing not one of them, except the single crippled man who had not even asked Christ for healing? Where was Christ's "willingness to heal" then? It seems very evident in the story that healing was not the priority for Christ that you want to make it out to be.
no one ever said any one is immune - our flesh is preserved alive by the power of the holy Spirit until we vacate it . but the flesh itself will not inherit the kingdom of god the flesh is corruptible and corrupted .it is prone to sickness and death . no ones immune . but it is always the will of God to heal .it is the divine nature of God to do GOOD .
God doing good does not always involve His giving us physical well-being. The examples of God's will entailing physical harm to His own are many in Scripture. There is Paul's "thorn in the flesh," and the martyrdom of John the Baptist, and the Twelve, and, of course, the crucifixion of Christ. God accomplished good through the destruction of the physical well-being of all of these men. It is not accurate, then, to say that the good God does always benefits us physically.
Timothy had a stomach ailment .. (thine often infirmities) .. bad water , local diet etc . and there is NO record that he continued to be that way and there is no record he died of it . and it is with the others you listed the same .
THis is a facile and dismissive response to what I pointed out about those saints of God who were recorded in the New Testament as having fallen ill. Epaphroditus was traveling with Paul when he became sick. Why didn't Paul heal him immediately instead of leaving him behind to recover from his illness naturally? And what about Dorcas who was sick for a time and then died? Why wasn't some believer able to heal her before her passing? You skip over providing a reasonable answer to these questions. Why is that?
James give great insight stating that for double mindedness and sinful motive you do not have what you ask because you ask with bad motive .. sin always brings a degrading of all life and ultimately death .
Yes, and? What does this have to do with miraculous healing? As I've shown, not everyone in Scripture who should've been healed, if your view is correct, was. None of them were said to have been double-minded or guilty of sinful motives.
so when we fail to do so let us not come up with theologies that are based upon unbelief . Rather let us humble ourselves and go to god saying lord .. what am I getting wrong ? because YOU are the Lord who Changes not .
See above.
Last edited:
Upvote
0