CAN sickness glorify God?

[LeeS]

that's a pretty far reach for context.

That was my point. You said he did not interpret scripture correctly and I was wondering what you would have interpreted the word "thorn" as in the scripture he gave since you said he interpreted them incorrectly.

 

[oworm]

Im allowed to ask questions here right?


In 1 Timothy 5:23 The apostle Paul advises Timothy to:
"Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses."

Ok here are my questions:

1.Why did Paul advise Timothy to use wine because of his stomach and frequent illnesses ?

2. Why didn't Paul tell Timothy to exercise more faith and call upon the Lord to heal him of his frequent illnesses?

 

[Andrew]

Im allowed to ask questions here right?


In 1 Timothy 5:23 The apostle Paul advises Timothy to:
"Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses."

Ok here are my questions:

1.Why did Paul advise Timothy to use wine because of his stomach and frequent illnesses ?

2. Why didn't Paul tell Timothy to exercise more faith and call upon the Lord to heal him of his frequent illnesses?

Instead of seeing this passage as a reason to say "See! God wants some of us sick!"

I could say, Paul spoke by the inspiration of the Spirit and gave Tim a word of knowledge and/or wisdom about his condition.

In other words, Paul told Tim how to get healed and be rid of his condition, thereby proving that God wants His children healthy.

Of course, many of us would rather focus on the sickness than the healing offered.

Once, I had a throat infection coming (I could feel it coming -- usu symptoms) and I felt impressed by the Lord to just buy the smallest bottle of Listerine and gargle. I did as prompted and never developed a sore throat. The symptoms went away quickly.

Why God did not ask me to have more faith and pray the prayer of faith in Mark 11:24 or have hands laid on me by a leader, I don't know.

My pastor shared an even more interesting eg. Once, when he was working in the secular world, he had a splitting headache one morning. So he prayed as usu for healing. Nothing happened. When he reached his office, he asked God, "What's happenin? How come the pain is still there?"

Then, he felt God prompting him to jump up and down 7 times. The 7th time, he landed on his feet, the pain totally disappeared.

The next time, he had a headache, he naturally did the same thing expecting the same results, but the pain just got worse, because God didn't tell him to do that.

 

[oworm]

Instead of seeing this passage as a reason to say "See! God wants some of us sick!"

I could say, Paul spoke by the inspiration of the Spirit and gave Tim a word of knowledge and/or wisdom about his condition.

In other words, Paul told Tim how to get healed and be rid of his condition, thereby proving that God wants His children healthy.

Of course, many of us would rather focus on the sickness than the healing offered.

Thankyou Andrew. I wasn't seeing the passage the way you percieved,and I wasnt focusing on the sickness. But thankyou for attempting an answer to my question

 

[oworm]

Instead of seeing this passage as a reason to say "See! God wants some of us sick!"

I could say, Paul spoke by the inspiration of the Spirit and gave Tim a word of knowledge and/or wisdom about his condition.

In other words, Paul told Tim how to get healed and be rid of his condition, thereby proving that God wants His children healthy.

Of course, many of us would rather focus on the sickness than the healing offered.

Once, I had a throat infection coming (I could feel it coming -- usu symptoms) and I felt impressed by the Lord to just buy the smallest bottle of Listerine and gargle. I did as prompted and never developed a sore throat. The symptoms went away quickly.

Why God did not ask me to have more faith and pray the prayer of faith in Mark 11:24 or have hands laid on me by a leader, I don't know.

My pastor shared an even more interesting eg. Once, when he was working in the secular world, he had a splitting headache one morning. So he prayed as usu for healing. Nothing happened. When he reached his office, he asked God, "What's happenin? How come the pain is still there?"

Then, he felt God prompting him to jump up and down 7 times. The 7th time, he landed on his feet, the pain totally disappeared.

The next time, he had a headache, he naturally did the same thing expecting the same results, but the pain just got worse, because God didn't tell him to do that.

I see you edited your post after I responded.Again,thankyou for your efforts.

 

[Andrew]

No problem, I've amended my reply to give 2 examples.

If you really want to understand and believe in healing, you need to go back to the foundation -- the cross. ie as surely as Jesus bore your sins, He also bore your diseases. That's the only reason I believe in healing. We can't go by testimonies or examples, +ve or -ve, whether in the Bible or in the world. That's a shaky foundation.

 

[oworm]

No problem, I've amended my reply to give 2 examples.

If you really want to understand and believe in healing, you need to go back to the foundation -- the cross. ie as surely as Jesus bore your sins, He also bore your diseases. That's the only reason I believe in healing. We can't go by testimonies or examples, +ve or -ve, whether in the Bible or in the world. That's a shaky foundation.

Thankyou Andrew. I do understand and believe in healing.Thankyou agin for your input

 

[Strong in Him]

I find it pretty pathetic that the passage about Paul's thorn in the flesh is the only thing people can come up with to supposedly support their "God-wants-some-people-sick" mentality.

I have never said that God wants people to be sick and so I'm not going to go looking for Scriptures that support that view and therefore show what a mean and nasty God we have. Because we haven't. All I was saying was that often when we talk about sickness and healing someone will say "there is nowhere in Scripture where sickness is allowed to remain to God's glory." The most obvious question then is "what about Paul's thorn?" This is a valid question as far as I can see. There is much debate about this thorn and even scholars are undecided about its nature.

But what happens when the thorn incident is brought up is that those who don't accept that God can ever say "wait" in answer to a prayer, or delay healing, rush to explain that Paul was experiencing some kind of persecution/troublesome relationship and was not sick at all. Those of us who have experienced God saying "wait" or "not yet" in answer to a prayer and believe that he has a perfect right to say this, look at this incident and see that Paul was asking to be delivered from something, received the answer that God's Grace was sufficient for him, and said as a result that he was happy to boast about his weakness.

I find it pretty pathetic that some people seem to explain away Scriptures that don't say what they want them to say. Job is another example. If all else fails, dismiss him as being OT and therefore different.

 

[JimB]

No problem, I've amended my reply to give 2 examples.

If you really want to understand and believe in healing, you need to go back to the foundation -- the cross. ie as surely as Jesus bore your sins, He also bore your diseases. That's the only reason I believe in healing. We can't go by testimonies or examples, +ve or -ve, whether in the Bible or in the world. That's a shaky foundation.

I believe in and practice healing which I believe is a provision of the Gospel, though not a guarantee of the Atonement.

The idea that physical healing is included in the Atonement of , that Jesus bore our physical sicknesses comes from an alternate (though I believe erroneous, as I will explain here) translation of Isaiah 53.4, Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted -where, it is claimed by PHIA “scholars” (none of whom, it appears, can read a paragraph in Hebrew!), seeking justification for their doctrine, claim that “griefs” and “sorrows” should actually be translated “sicknesses” and “diseases”. Still, all modern translations (who, incidentally, are translated by people who can actually read Hebrew!) retain the “griefs/sorrows” translation. Some may include the alternative translation in a footnote but still opt for the “griefs/sorrows” translation in the body of the text.

Why not go for the alternative “sicknesses/disease” translation? Why stay with the “griefs/sorrows” view? Well, of course, as I frequently hear PHIA’ers charge, it has to be because they have an anti-physical-healing-in-the-Atonement agenda (as though PHIA’ers do not have a pro-physical healing agenda). But the honest feeling among trained biblical linguists, using accepted centuries-old rules of biblical hermeneutics, is that the term “heal” in Isaiah is always, without fail, spiritual in nature (i.e., healing from sin, backsliding, brokenheartedness) as a study of Isaiah’s use of the word “heal” clearly shows (used, as has been shown before, 8 times in the book - I will list those instances from biblegateway.com below, with links to their context).

1 Peter 2.24 in contextwill show that the Apostle Peter agreed that the “healed” of Isaiah 53.5 was, in fact, healing from the disease of sin, not the healing from physical maladies.

Furthermore, since as always the proof of the pie is in the pudding not the talking, if the Atonement includes the guarantee of physical healing then why, when its claims are appropriated by a believer, wouldn’t physically ill people be instantly healed at the time their sins were atoned for just as their sins are instantly remitted?!!

IMO, I have taken what I feel is an honest approach to interpreting scripture, as best I am capable of rightly dividing the word of truth, and why I feel I must reject the relatively modern doctrine (1884, Russell Kelso Carter*) that physical healing is included in the price paid for our atonement.

~Jim



* the first instance, historically, of the notion that Isaiah 53.4-5 refers to physical, not spiritual healing, was in a book written by Russell Kelso Carter in Atonement for Sin and Sickness (Boston: Willard Tract Repository, 1884) - if you can find an earlier reference, I will happily edit this post. In fact, there is no recorded support for Kelso’s doctrine in any of the voluminous writings of Apostolic or Post-Apostolic Church Fathers or Reformers. Kelso’s novel idea, because it lent support to the healing doctrines of leaders in the Faith-Cure Movement of the era, was adopted and popularized by contemporaries such as A.B. Simpson, John Alexander Dowie, Kenyon, and later by various Pentecostal and Word-Faith leaders such as Hagin, Copeland, Price, etc.


Use of the verb to “heal” and its forms in Isaiah (from biblegateway.com):

1. Isaiah 6:10
   “ Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.”
   Isaiah 6:9-11 (in Context) Isaiah 6 (Whole Chapter)
2. Isaiah 19:22
   And the LORD will strike Egypt, He will strike and heal it; they will return to the LORD, and He will be entreated by them and heal them.
   Isaiah 19:21-23 (in Context) Isaiah 19 (Whole Chapter)
3. Isaiah 30:26
   Moreover the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, And the light of the sun will be sevenfold, As the light of seven days, In the day that the LORD binds up the bruise of His people And heals the stroke of their wound.
   Isaiah 30:25-27 (in Context) Isaiah 30 (Whole Chapter)
4. Isaiah 53:5
   But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
   Isaiah 53:4-6 (in Context) Isaiah 53 (Whole Chapter)
5. Isaiah 57:18
   I have seen his ways, and will heal him; I will also lead him, And restore comforts to him And to his mourners.
   Isaiah 57:17-19 (in Context) Isaiah 57 (Whole Chapter)
6. Isaiah 57:19
   “ I create the fruit of the lips: Peace, peace to him who is far off and to him who is near,” Says the LORD, “ And I will heal him.”
   Isaiah 57:18-20 (in Context) Isaiah 57 (Whole Chapter)
7. Isaiah 58:8
   Then your light shall break forth like the morning, Your healing shall spring forth speedily, And your righteousness shall go before you; The glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.
   Isaiah 58:7-9 (in Context) Isaiah 58 (Whole Chapter)
8. Isaiah 61:1
   “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
   Isaiah 61:1-3 (in Context) Isaiah 61 (Whole Chapter)

 

[probinson]

I have never said that God wants people to be sick and so I'm not going to go looking for Scriptures that support that view and therefore show what a mean and nasty God we have. Because we haven't. All I was saying was that often when we talk about sickness and healing someone will say "there is nowhere in Scripture where sickness is allowed to remain to God's glory." The most obvious question then is "what about Paul's thorn?" This is a valid question as far as I can see. There is much debate about this thorn and even scholars are undecided about its nature.

Correct. And, we can choose to believe what we will about it. I choose to believe that it was a messenger of Satan, to buffet, since that's exactly what Paul said it was.

But what happens when the thorn incident is brought up is that those who don't accept that God can ever say "wait" in answer to a prayer, or delay healing, rush to explain that Paul was experiencing some kind of persecution/troublesome relationship and was not sick at all. Those of us who have experienced God saying "wait" or "not yet" in answer to a prayer and believe that he has a perfect right to say this, look at this incident and see that Paul was asking to be delivered from something, received the answer that God's Grace was sufficient for him, and said as a result that he was happy to boast about his weakness.

This is true if you believe God's grace is empty and can do nothing other than permit you to endure suffering.

Again, if you go to dinner, and you have a plate of food in front of you, and you tell your host/ess to take this hunger from you, and your host/ess tells you "my plate is sufficient for you", did the host/ess say no, or even wait, or were they saying, you have all you need to deal with your hunger?

I find it pretty pathetic that some people seem to explain away Scriptures that don't say what they want them to say. Job is another example. If all else fails, dismiss him as being OT and therefore different.

I find it pretty pathetic when people start calling other people pathetic. (How's that for irony?)

Seriously. Job. Timothy. Paul. Name whoever you want. Go back and look at Jesus' ministry. NOT ONE person who approached Jesus in faith was told no, or wait.

 

[probinson]

But this belief that Jesus bore our sicknesses comes from an alternate (and I believe erroneous, as I will explain here) translation of Isaiah 53.4 - Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted-where, it is claimed by PHIA “translators” (none of whom, it appears, can read a paragraph in Hebrew), seeking justification for their doctrine, claim that “griefs” and “sorrows” should actually be translated “sicknesses” and “diseases”. Still, all modern translations (who, incidentally, are translated by people who can actually read Hebrew!) retain the “griefs/sorrows” translation. Some may include the alternative translation in a footnote but still opt for the “griefs/sorrows” translation in the body of the text.

What? You really believe this? That PHIA "translators", whom you've unnecessarily denigrated, base this doctrine on ONE scripture? You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that Jesus healed EVERYONE who came to Him in faith?

Jim, I have no idea who these people are you that you quote and attribute this "doctrine" to and frankly, I don't care. My belief that healing was provided for in the atonement did not come from any man. It comes from a demonstration of God's power in my own life, and in the lives of those that have witnessed and utilized the power and authority Jesus gave us.

Some may be intertested to see what Jesus thought "healing" meant:

What the Gospels have to say about healing

 

[oworm]

But this belief that Jesus bore our sicknesses comes from an alternate (and I believe erroneous, as I will explain here) translation of Isaiah 53.4 - Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted-where, it is claimed by PHIA “translators” (none of whom, it appears, can read a paragraph in Hebrew), seeking justification for their doctrine, claim that “griefs” and “sorrows” should actually be translated “sicknesses” and “diseases”. Still, all modern translations (who, incidentally, are translated by people who can actually read Hebrew!) retain the “griefs/sorrows” translation. Some may include the alternative translation in a footnote but still opt for the “griefs/sorrows” translation in the body of the text.

Why not go for the alternative “sicknesses/disease” translation? Why stay with the “griefs/sorrows” view? Well, of course, as I frequently hear PHIA’ers charge, it has to be because they have an anti-physical healing in the Atonement bias and agenda (as though PHIA’ers do not have a pro-physical healing agenda). But the honest feeling among trained biblical linguists, using accepted centuries-old rules of biblical hermeneutics, is that the term “heal” in Isaiah is always, without fail, spiritual (i.e., healing from sin, backsliding, brokenheartedness) in nature as a study of his use of the word “heal” (9 times in the book and I will list those instances below, with links to context) clearly shows. And, 1 Peter 2.24 in contextwill show that the Apostle Peter agreed that the “healed” of Isaiah 53.5 was, in fact, healing from the disease of sin, not physical maladies.

Furhtermore, the proof of the pie is in the pudding. If the Atonement included the guarantee of physical healing then when its claims are appropriated by a believer, wouldn’t physically ill people be instantly healed when their sins were atoned for just as their sins are instantly remitted?!!

IMO, I have taken what I feel is an honest approach to interpreting scripture, as best I am capable of rightly dividing the word of truth, and why I feel I must reject the relatively modern doctrine (1884, Russell Kelso Carter*) that physical healing is included in the price paid for our atonement. This is the fractured foundation of PHIA, not, as you say, "the cross".

~Jim



* the first instance, historically, of the use of the notion that Isaiah 53.4-5 contemporaries as A.B. Simpson, John Alexander Dowie, Kenyon, and later by various Pentecostal and Word-Faith leaders such as Hagin, Copeland, Price, etc. referred to physical, not spiritual healing, was in a book written by Russell Kelso Carter in Atonement for Sin and Sickness (Boston: Willard Tract Repository, 1884). If you can find an earlier reference, I will happily edit this post. In fact, there is no recorded support for Kelso’s doctrine in any of the voluminous writings of Apostolic or Post-Apostolic Church Fathers or Reformers. Kelso’s novel idea, because it seemed to lend strong support to the healing doctrines of leaders in the Faith-Cure Movement of the era, was adopted and popularized.













Use of the verb to “heal” (and its forms) in Isaiah (from biblegateway.com):

1. Isaiah 6:10
   “ Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.”
   Isaiah 6:9-11 (in Context) Isaiah 6 (Whole Chapter)
2. Isaiah 19:22
   And the LORD will strike Egypt, He will strike and heal it; they will return to the LORD, and He will be entreated by them and heal them.
   Isaiah 19:21-23 (in Context) Isaiah 19 (Whole Chapter)
3. Isaiah 30:26
   Moreover the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, And the light of the sun will be sevenfold, As the light of seven days, In the day that the LORD binds up the bruise of His people And heals the stroke of their wound.
   Isaiah 30:25-27 (in Context) Isaiah 30 (Whole Chapter)
4. Isaiah 53:5
   But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
   Isaiah 53:4-6 (in Context) Isaiah 53 (Whole Chapter)
5. Isaiah 57:14
   [ Healing for the Backslider ] And one shall say, “ Heap it up! Heap it up! Prepare the way, Take the stumbling block out of the way of My people.”
   Isaiah 57:13-15 (in Context) Isaiah 57 (Whole Chapter)
6. Isaiah 57:18
   I have seen his ways, and will heal him; I will also lead him, And restore comforts to him And to his mourners.
   Isaiah 57:17-19 (in Context) Isaiah 57 (Whole Chapter)
7. Isaiah 57:19
   “ I create the fruit of the lips: Peace, peace to him who is far off and to him who is near,” Says the LORD, “ And I will heal him.”
   Isaiah 57:18-20 (in Context) Isaiah 57 (Whole Chapter)
8. Isaiah 58:8
   Then your light shall break forth like the morning, Your healing shall spring forth speedily, And your righteousness shall go before you; The glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.
   Isaiah 58:7-9 (in Context) Isaiah 58 (Whole Chapter)
9. Isaiah 61:1
   [ The Good News of Salvation ] “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
   Isaiah 61:1-3 (in Context) Isaiah 61 (Whole Chapter)

Good post Jim

 

[justinstout]

Im allowed to ask questions here right?


In 1 Timothy 5:23 The apostle Paul advises Timothy to:
"Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses."

Ok here are my questions:

1.Why did Paul advise Timothy to use wine because of his stomach and frequent illnesses ?

2. Why didn't Paul tell Timothy to exercise more faith and call upon the Lord to heal him of his frequent illnesses?

1 Timothy 5:23
"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."


Paul's instructions to Timothy reveal that prior to that time, Timothy had not been drinking wine but only water. It was unusual that Timothy wasn't drinking the wine which was the custom of their day and culture. Paul told him to stop drinking the water and drink wine instead because it would help his stomach and his often infirmities.

Apparently, Timothy's stomach problems were caused by polluted water and Paul simply told him to stop doing what was causing the problem. This seemed painfully obvious. It seems strange that Paul would need to instruct Timothy about this simple issue.

It is possible that Timothy knew what the problem was, but was standing on the Lord's promise that he could drink any deadly thing and it would not hurt him (Mk. 16:18). Although that is true, we shouldn't tempt the Lord in that area. This is not a scripture that allows us to go and drink poison to test the Lord. It applies to situations where drinking poison is unavoidable.

The experience and wisdom of the elder, Paul, showed the youthful Timothy that the sickness he was fighting was avoidable. Don't be stupid, quit drinking the water. Anyone who travels to places where the drinking water is contaminated would do well to heed the same instruction.

There have actually been attempts to use this scripture to herald the medicinal qualities of wine. That is a complete misuse of this scripture. Whatever the virtues of a little wine may be, this verse is simply saying that Timothy's sickness was because of polluted water, and if he would substitute wine for water, he would get well.

Some have tried to use this statement about Timothy's often infirmities as evidence that it is not the Lord's will to heal everyone every time. The reasoning is that Timothy was a godly man who pastored possibly 100,000 people and was the protegee of the Apostle Paul. Certainly if it was God's will to heal everyone, Timothy would not have been sick. First of all, because a godly person experiences less than God's best, is not proof that God is the author of that situation. Anyone can miss it in any area if he walks out of faith. It's like flying in an airplane. It is the plane that allows us to fly, not our goodness or virtue. If we step out of the plane we immediately start to fall. Likewise, no one becomes immune to sickness because of his own virtue, it is a faith thing. When we are in faith we can walk in healing. When we are out of faith we are susceptible just like anyone else.

However, with Timothy, Paul makes it clear that his stomach problems were the direct result of the water he was drinking. Probably, as was and still is common in many of those countries, the water was polluted and drinking it caused stomach and intestinal problems. Paul told him to drink wine instead of water and his problems would be over.

This was not a long-term illness imposed on Timothy by God to humble him or accomplish some godly purpose. It was a case of bad water making him sick, and it was over in a short time.

 

[oworm]

1 Timothy 5:23
"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."


Paul's instructions to Timothy reveal that prior to that time, Timothy had not been drinking wine but only water. It was unusual that Timothy wasn't drinking the wine which was the custom of their day and culture. Paul told him to stop drinking the water and drink wine instead because it would help his stomach and his often infirmities.

Apparently, Timothy's stomach problems were caused by polluted water and Paul simply told him to stop doing what was causing the problem. This seemed painfully obvious. It seems strange that Paul would need to instruct Timothy about this simple issue.

It is possible that Timothy knew what the problem was, but was standing on the Lord's promise that he could drink any deadly thing and it would not hurt him (Mk. 16:18). Although that is true, we shouldn't tempt the Lord in that area. This is not a scripture that allows us to go and drink poison to test the Lord. It applies to situations where drinking poison is unavoidable.

The experience and wisdom of the elder, Paul, showed the youthful Timothy that the sickness he was fighting was avoidable. Don't be stupid, quit drinking the water. Anyone who travels to places where the drinking water is contaminated would do well to heed the same instruction.

There have actually been attempts to use this scripture to herald the medicinal qualities of wine. That is a complete misuse of this scripture. Whatever the virtues of a little wine may be, this verse is simply saying that Timothy's sickness was because of polluted water, and if he would substitute wine for water, he would get well.

Some have tried to use this statement about Timothy's often infirmities as evidence that it is not the Lord's will to heal everyone every time. The reasoning is that Timothy was a godly man who pastored possibly 100,000 people and was the protegee of the Apostle Paul. Certainly if it was God's will to heal everyone, Timothy would not have been sick. First of all, because a godly person experiences less than God's best, is not proof that God is the author of that situation. Anyone can miss it in any area if he walks out of faith. It's like flying in an airplane. It is the plane that allows us to fly, not our goodness or virtue. If we step out of the plane we immediately start to fall. Likewise, no one becomes immune to sickness because of his own virtue, it is a faith thing. When we are in faith we can walk in healing. When we are out of faith we are susceptible just like anyone else.

However, with Timothy, Paul makes it clear that his stomach problems were the direct result of the water he was drinking. Probably, as was and still is common in many of those countries, the water was polluted and drinking it caused stomach and intestinal problems. Paul told him to drink wine instead of water and his problems would be over.

This was not a long-term illness imposed on Timothy by God to humble him or accomplish some godly purpose. It was a case of bad water making him sick, and it was over in a short time.

Thanks Justin.
To save you from being accused of plagarism Justin I though it prudent to provide the link where the article you posted originated from

http://www.awmi.net/bible/1ti_05_23

 

[Evee]

If I am correct the brain is the only organ that don't reproduce new cells Drinking in small amounts will kill brain cells and I have to use what God gave me and not kill one brain cell.
I don't drink at all but not sure if it is bibically wrong.
For me it would be.

 

[oworm]

If I am correct the brain is the only organ that don't reproduce new cells Drinking in small amounts will kill brain cells and I have to use what God gave me and not kill one brain cell.
I don't drink at all but not sure if it is bibically wrong.
For me it would be.

Heres a thread discussing that very issue Evee:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2295177-should-christians-totally-abstain-from-alcohol.html

 

[JimB]

What? You really believe this?

*****

Of course, I believe it. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't.

That PHIA "translators", whom you've unnecessarily denigrated, base this doctrine on ONE scripture? You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that Jesus healed EVERYONE who came to Him in faith?

*****

Of course not. Please refer to my OP and subsequent posts in the “Did Jesus heal ‘all’” thread. << Edited out (voluntarily) snide remark >>

Jim, I have no idea who these people are you that you quote and attribute this "doctrine" to and frankly, I don't care. My belief that healing was provided for in the atonement did not come from any man. It comes from a demonstration of God's power in my own life, and in the lives of those that have witnessed and utilized the power and authority Jesus gave us.

Then I would suggest you approach your doctrine a little more objectively and do some serious research on where the PHIA doctrine really originated. It neither originated with Jesus or the Bible. It came from men. And yes, I believe PHIA it is a “doctrine of men”. It is a relatively modern innovation based on an amateur (i.e., novice, unskilled) interpretation/translation of a Hebrew word, which, apparently, none of the PHIA innovators who originated the doctrine, circa late 1800’s, could read. I think their effort at finding phyiscal healing in the atonement was sincere, just mistaken.

~Jim

 

[habeas]

Okay, I'll say it again. Just a couple short chapters before Paul talks repeatedly about his infirmities, and the thorn in his flesh (See, 11:29-30, 12:5), and says that the Lord told him "my strength is made perfect in weakness," he says in Ch. 10:9-10, "That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters. For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible."

No one is answering why Paul refers to his bodily presence as being weak, shortly before he says that the Lord's strength is made perfect in weakness, as the answer to is prayer about the thorn.

"Bodily weak," at least that's what it says in the KJV! Does anyone care to explain that without ignoring how close it is to the "strength in weakness" verse?

 

[Strong in Him]

Seriously. Job. Timothy. Paul. Name whoever you want. Go back and look at Jesus' ministry. NOT ONE person who approached Jesus in faith was told no, or wait.

But my testimony, and that of others I believe, is that he is saying just that today. That when I ask him about healing/ask others to pray for me he encourages me to persevere, he gives me his peace and assurance that he is at work in my life, that he hasn't forgotten about my physical symptoms but he is working on other things right now.

Unfortunately the only response that I get to this statement is that he can't be, that healing is always his will and if it doesn't happen then there is something in me that is preventing it, that I shouldn't ask because it has already been given and that if I can't grasp this then that is what is keeping me sick. Not those words, maybe, and not all that from any one person, but that is the argument.

As I've said before, I cannot accept that Isaiah 53 is about physical healing, for the reasons that Jim M explains so well. It's not a desire to make God out to be some sort of monster, or to doubt his word, nor is it a deep desire to hold onto my sickness and show where Scripture agrees with my viewpoint. I have too many questions about PHIA, questions I have asked several times and get answered with the statement "it's true because it works", or something similar. I am not the only one to say this, and there are some on this forum who have long term illnesses/disabilities who question this view and testify to his strength in their weakness.

Some people here can't accept that God has a right to say "wait" in answer to a prayer; the argument given against that is "well he can't do, that's not what happened two thousand years ago." Or they say that if healing is taking a while to manifest itself, we need to just keep denying the symptoms the right to remain in our bodies, or keep claiming and praising. Because this is what they did/someone else taught, and it works.

Both groups believe there are teachings/examples from Scripture that illustrate their experience. Both seem so desperate to give God a good reference in the area of healing that we end up arguing, belittling others points of view and casting doubt on their faith/experience, maybe not intentionally but that's how it comes across. Result? A thread that starts off being very positive where people share examples either of healing or of perseverance through difficulties - showing God's strength in the hard times - turns into a slanging match and gets closed.

 

[probinson]

Then I would suggest you approach your doctrine a little more objectively and do some serious research on where the PHIA doctrine really originated. It neither originated with Jesus or the Bible. It came from men.

This is a great statement to be prefaced with your infamous "IMO".

And yes, I believe PHIA it is a “doctrine of men”. It is a relatively modern innovation based on an amateur (i.e., novice, unskilled) interpretation/translation of a Hebrew word, which, apparently, none of the PHIA innovators who originated the doctrine, circa late 1800’s, could read. I think their effort at finding phyiscal healing in the atonement was sincere, just mistaken.

See my previous post. The belief that physical healing is in the atonement comes from FAR MORE than one "misinterpreted" word from some people in the late 1800's.

Didn't Jesus say something about the very elect being deceived?