For those that believe healing is in the atonement

[Guojing]

But I think that this healing thing is way too important to allow it to just fall to the wayside.
We need to get this thing right because GOd WANTS us healthy.
He wants us to walk in health and to prosper in our soul and in our body etc.
Does that sound right to you in light of the scripture I mention?
( I really like to go by Scripture as much as possible)

I am curious, how would you then understand 2 Corinthians 4:16-18?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The big difference between salvation and healing is that with salvation, all those who receive Christ by faith by believing the promise that whosoever comes to Christ He will not cast out, will be saved. But in view of healing, the evidence shows that very few people are healed as the result of prayer.

Yet this is exactly what Paul says. MANY are weak, sick, and die young precisely for the reason many of us are stating.

1 Corinthians 11:29-30 KJV
29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

It is odd that the same people arguing against healing being included in the atonement use the results of that position to verify their own erroneous position.
They teach others to deny the Lord's body, and then when people get sick, are weak, and die young... they use that are proof that their position is correct.

 

[Guojing]

Yet this is exactly what Paul says. MANY are weak, sick, and die young precisely for the reason many of us are stating.

1 Corinthians 11:29-30 KJV
29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

It is odd that the same people arguing against healing being included in the atonement use the results of that position to verify their own erroneous position.
They teach others to deny the Lord's body, and then when people get sick, are weak, and die young... they use that are proof that their position is correct.

Don't you find it even more odd that, not only is this statement the only statement Paul made linking sickness and death to the Lord's supper, he didn't remind Timothy about this, in his advice to him about his stomach aliments?

Nor did Paul mentioned this as the reason why he left people sick, or why people are sick, in his prison epistles?

You are aware of the rule advising against using one cryptic verse to form a doctrine?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Don't you find it even more odd that, not only is this statement the only statement Paul made linking sickness and death to the Lord's supper, he didn't remind Timothy about this, in his advice to him about his stomach aliments?

Nor did Paul mentioned this as the reason why he left people sick, or why people are sick, in his prison epistles?

You are aware of the rule advising against using one cryptic verse to form a doctrine?

Do you think we should remove the verses from the NT?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Faith IS the evidence according to Hebrews.
So while the healing is granted, it may not be "seen" immediately.
Daniel found out how that works in Daniel 10

So we can't say that the evidence shows few are healed.
We CAN say that they didn't KNOW they were healed and so they didn't receive it.
Daniel persisted in faith>
Elijah persisted in faith..

You raise many good and important points, and I might revisit if you don't mind.
But I think that this healing thing is way too important to allow it to just fall to the wayside.
We need to get this thing right because God WANTS us healthy.
He wants us to walk in health and to prosper in our soul and in our body etc.
Does that sound right to you in light of the scripture I mention?
( I really like to go by Scripture as much as possible)

Faith has to be grounded in a Scripture promise that is shown to be definitely to us, rather than to others and for our education. That is why we need to know for sure exactly who is the intended audience for the promise. For example, the promise of healing to those who came out of Egypt in Exodus may not be for us. The healing was subject to Israel's faithfulness to the Covenant between them and the Lord. They failed to keep the covenant and so people got sick and were not healed.

When John wrote his greetings to the lady and said for her to be in health and prosper, it was a standard greeting when one person corresponded to another. John did not intend it to be a theology of health and prosperity for all believers. This is an example of the author's intention and how his reader would interpret it. It is the same as a podcast by a well known Youtube contributor who starts his videos by saying, "I trust that you and your family are doing well today." This does not mean that the person who made the video is expecting that the viewer should have a theology of he and his family should always be doing well.

I have asked on this thread for someone to find a clear promise of guaranteed healing since the day of Pentecost. We can't use Jesus as an example, because He is God as well as man, and so He never had to use faith to get anyone healed, because, as God, He was able to heal people through His own power as the second person of the Trinity. Therefore, if we are to guarantee healing for anyone, we need to use faith in a definite and clear promise that every one we lay hands on will be healed without exception.

The only one that looks like a promise is in Mark 16, but it starts off with "These signs shall accompany those who believe"...etc. When we look at the context, it is linked with the great commission to go into all the world and make disciples. So the signs and wonders accompany the preaching of the Gospel to the lost, and not a wholesale guarantee that all Christians who are prayed for will be automatically healed. In James, a sick person is encouraged to call upon the elders of the church who will pray the prayer of faith and the Lord will raise the person up. This is in the church context, and it is the function of the church elders and not for any tom dick or harry to go laying hands on sick people. Of course, the church has to be in a right place with God for the results to happen. As we see in the Corinthian church, just one professing believer committing serious sin can affect the whole church. This is where Paul said that a little leaven affects the whole lump. That church was so full of problems that Paul said he had to treat them as "carnal" brethren - no better than mere men just like the pagan men around them.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Do you think we should remove the verses from the NT?

What the verses about Timothy and Epaphroditus show us is that Christian believers, even those in successful ministry, get sick and are not necessarily healed instantly, but are given medication to aid their recovery. They also tell us that getting sick does not mean that a person is deficient in holiness and faith.

Every verse in the Bible has a function for us, whether as a foundation for our faith, or for our education to know the consequences of a person's action whether positive or negative. Just because Judas got so depressed that he went out and hanged himself, doesn't mean that we should do the same if we become depressed. And just because Elisha beat the river Jordan with an item of clothing and it parted for him to cross, doesn't mean that we can do the same. Or that Peter walked on water at the bidding of Jesus, that we can do the same.

 

[Berserk]

The NT conditions for healing miracles are very complex and few people completely satisfy them. But here's the problem with listing and discussing all these conditions: you can always dismiss healing failure by claiming that not all the requisite conditions have been satisfactorily met.
That problem makes one's positive belief in healing ultimately untestable---unfalsifiable in principle and therefore epistemologically meaningless.
So I prefer a different approach that has not yet been discussed here: let's consider texts that imply Jesus' failed effort to heal on a specific occasion and the evidence the Paul's "thorn" really was a chronic physical ailment and not persecution or any other kind of spiritual battle.

This thread will limit its discussion to Jesus' unimpressive visit to Nazareth, His hometown:

"And they were scandalized by Him. Then Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown AND AMONG HIS OWN KIN AND IN HIS OWN HOUSE." And HE COULD DO NO deed of power there, [except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and cured them.] And He was amazed by their unbelief (Mark 6:3-6)."

Here are 4 points evangelical NT scholars can make related to this text:
(1) The natural implication of "could do no" is that Jesus tried and failed to heal some sick Nazareth residents. In copying Mark, Matthew tries to soften this implication by replacing "could do no" with "did not do many (13:58)," thus creating the false impression that Jesus could have healed every one there if He were so inclined.

(2) I put the "except" clause in parentheses because most scholars consider it a later gloss to soften the complete failure of Jesus to heal in Nazareth. The telltale sign of an early gloss is the awkward self-contradictory combination of the assertion, "He COULD DO NO deed of power there" with the clause "except He laid His hands on a few sick people and cured them." If the present text were original, we would expect a more succinct reading like "And He could only heal a few people there."

(3) Jesus' family, especially His brothers, didn't believe in Him for most of His ministry (see Mark 3:20-21, 31-35; 6:4; John 7:5). In fact, In John 7:5 we're told, "His own brothers didn't believe in Him." In the context, His brothers try to goad Jesus into joining them in Jerusalem to perform public miracles because by implication they never saw any miracles in Nazareth. This text supports the scholarly claim that the "except" clause in Mark 6:5 is a later gloss.

(4) The shocking skepticism of Jesus' family during His public ministry clearly implies that they never saw Him heal any one during the missing years--His life as a carpenter prior to His reception of the Holy Spirit at His baptism. Joseph figures in no story of Jesus' ministry and Jesus' need to entrust His mother's care to the Beloved Disciple at the cross because of Joseph's death. Joseph has apparently died prior to Jesus' healing ministry and His brothers no doubt ask why Jesus couldn't head their Dad before he died.

3 conclusions can be drawn here. (1) Jesus' healing ministry required the unique endowment with the Holy Spirit that He received at His baptism. (2) Prior to that, His prayers for healing were subject to the same limitations that ours are. (3) His failure in Nazareth implies that a community's culture of skepticism can be so toxic that healing miracles are impossible-- or close to impossible if you don't buy my case for a later gloss in Mark 6:5.

 

[Guojing]

Do you think we should remove the verses from the NT?

I am saying, could it be possible that Paul never actually meant 1 Corinthians 11:29-30 to be used in a manner that you are using?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I have asked on this thread for someone to find a clear promise of guaranteed healing since the day of Pentecost

There is not a guaranteed result. But there is the provision for all who believe.
Just as in salvation. You have to believe. But the matter is settled in heaven. All who pray and believe they have received will.

James 5:14-15 KJV
14. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

This is more than a promise. It is a statement of fact. You cannot get any stronger or more in context. Word for word. There are no exceptions and no conditions except to pray the prayer of faith. The question then is why are not all healed. There is only one answer because there is only one condition. Why is faith not present? What is preventing the faith?
In the case of the Corinthian Christians, it was a matter of lack of knowledge. They did not discern the Lord's body (bread).
In the case of Paul, it was, by his own admission, a matter of pride in his life and the inability to act on the provided "sufficient grace" the Lord had already provided.
Jesus called Peter to walk on the water, but Peter feared and doubted.
The people in Jesus' hometown doubted Jesus and so limited what the Lord could do.
Even in the OT, the people believed the evil report of the ten spies, and so they all died, save 2, in the wilderness and never went into the promised land. They all died. The two who did go in, Joshua and Caleb, did so because they had faith.
We could go on and on why people fail to receive the things God has given us.
There are cases where we do not know what was blocking or preventing faith, such as Timothy.
But never can we question or doubt the will of God. Never can we say He has not provided. If there must be blame involved, it is not God. We can only seek the reasons why we have not or cannot receive.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I am saying, could it be possible that Paul never actually meant 1 Corinthians 11:29-30 to be used in a manner that you are using?

Well. it says what it says.
What you are suggesting is almost exactly what the serpent said to Eve: "Hath God said?"

Genesis 3:1 KJV
1. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The NT conditions for healing miracles are very complex and few people completely satisfy them. But here's the problem with listing and discussing all these conditions: you can always dismiss healing failure by claiming that not all the requisite conditions have been satisfactorily met.
That problem makes one's positive belief in healing ultimately untestable---unfalsifiable in principle and therefore epistemologically meaningless.
So I prefer a different approach that has not yet been discussed here: let's consider texts that imply Jesus' failed effort to heal on a specific occasion and the evidence the Paul's "thorn" really was a chronic physical ailment and not persecution or any other kind of spiritual battle.

This thread will limit its discussion to Jesus' unimpressive visit to Nazareth, His hometown:

"And they were scandalized by Him. Then Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown AND AMONG HIS OWN KIN AND IN HIS OWN HOUSE." And HE COULD DO NO deed of power there, [except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and cured them.] And He was amazed by their unbelief (Mark 6:3-6)."

Here are 4 points evangelical NT scholars can make related to this text:
(1) The natural implication of "could do no" is that Jesus tried and failed to heal some sick Nazareth residents. In copying Mark, Matthew tries to soften this implication by replacing "could do no" with "did not do many (13:58)," thus creating the false impression that Jesus could have healed every one there if He were so inclined.

(2) I put the "except" clause in parentheses because most scholars consider it a later gloss to soften the complete failure of Jesus to heal in Nazareth. The telltale sign of an early gloss is the awkward self-contradictory combination of the assertion, "He COULD DO NO deed of power there" with the clause "except He laid His hands on a few sick people and cured them." If the present text were original, we would expect a more succinct reading like "And He could only heal a few people there."

(3) Jesus' family, especially His brothers, didn't believe in Him for most of His ministry (see Mark 3:20-21, 31-35; 6:4; John 7:5). In fact, In John 7:5 we're told, "His own brothers didn't believe in Him." In the context, His brothers try to goad Jesus into joining them in Jerusalem to perform public miracles because by implication they never saw any miracles in Nazareth. This text supports the scholarly claim that the "except" clause in Mark 6:5 is a later gloss.

(4) The shocking skepticism of Jesus' family during His public ministry clearly implies that they never saw Him heal any one during the missing years--His life as a carpenter prior to His reception of the Holy Spirit at His baptism. Joseph figures in no story of Jesus' ministry and Jesus' need to entrust His mother's care to the Beloved Disciple at the cross because of Joseph's death. Joseph has apparently died prior to Jesus' healing ministry and His brothers no doubt ask why Jesus couldn't head their Dad before he died.

3 conclusions can be drawn here. (1) Jesus' healing ministry required the unique endowment with the Holy Spirit that He received at His baptism. (2) Prior to that, His prayers for healing were subject to the same limitations that ours are. (3) His failure in Nazareth implies that a community's culture of skepticism can be so toxic that healing miracles are impossible-- or close to impossible if you don't buy my case for a later gloss in Mark 6:5.

Thank you.
And I do not think, in any case, the will of the power of God was in question. There were always reasons why faith was not present in the people present the limited the Lord. But His will and power were never called into question.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

What the verses about Timothy and Epaphroditus show us is that Christian believers, even those in successful ministry, get sick and are not necessarily healed instantly, but are given medication to aid their recovery. They also tell us that getting sick does not mean that a person is deficient in holiness and faith.

Every verse in the Bible has a function for us, whether as a foundation for our faith, or for our education to know the consequences of a person's action whether positive or negative. Just because Judas got so depressed that he went out and hanged himself, doesn't mean that we should do the same if we become depressed. And just because Elisha beat the river Jordan with an item of clothing and it parted for him to cross, doesn't mean that we can do the same. Or that Peter walked on water at the bidding of Jesus, that we can do the same.

But in the end, we do not question the ultimate will of the Lord to save and heal all. There may be something in the way. Nobody is questioning the holiness. Though there is evidence in the NT that sin most certainly can and does result in sickness. James 5 is evidence enough. There problem with defending the integrity of the believer's faith at the expense of questioning the will and power of God. Yes, sometimes faith is not present to accomplish the desired thing. This is repeated again and again in the NT. What deniers want to do is to make this a moral issue by suggesting not having faith present is an attack on a believer's character or spirituality. It is not. It is merely a scriptural reason for not receiving what God has already given. The answer is to diagnose the faith and life of the believer and find out what may be preventing faith. But the first step is to remove the will and power of God from that query.

 

[Guojing]

Well. it says what it says.
What you are suggesting is almost exactly what the serpent said to Eve: "Hath God said?"

Genesis 3:1 KJV
1. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

So why do you think Paul did not remind Timothy of that in his letter?

 

[sunlover1]

I am curious, how would you then understand 2 Corinthians 4:16-18?

I'm curious too why you're asking me another question.
I need more communication so I can understand what you're getting at.
I asked you if that made sense to you, because I'm not trying to argue here, but rather seeking truth.
So before asking me that, what are you getting at?
Do I think we age?
Do I think we go through trials and tribulations?
I hope I am communicating well.
Forgive me if I missed something.

 

[Aaron112]

So why do you think Paul did not remind Timothy of that in his letter?

Remember it was not up to Paul what to write.

As Yahweh's Word Says, His Word, Scripture, was not subject to private or personal interpretation or whims or however you might like to say this.
Just as Yahshua spoke and did only what the Father directed, nothing of Himself,
so also , especially as Yahweh Inspired Scripture to be Written,
the messengers did not write what they wanted to as if by man's intentions , but only what Yahweh directed.

 

[sunlover1]

Don't you find it even more odd that, not only is this statement the only statement Paul made linking sickness and death to the Lord's supper, he didn't remind Timothy about this, in his advice to him about his stomach aliments?

Nor did Paul mentioned this as the reason why he left people sick, or why people are sick, in his prison epistles?

You are aware of the rule advising against using one cryptic verse to form a doctrine?

Do you believe that God no longer heals? If so, why did He and what's changed?

 

[Guojing]

I'm curious too why you're asking me another question.
I need more communication so I can understand what you're getting at.
I asked you if that made sense to you, because I'm not trying to argue here, but rather seeking truth.
So before asking me that, what are you getting at?
Do I think we age?
Do I think we go through trials and tribulations?
I hope I am communicating well.
Forgive me if I missed something.

Its about your point about God wanting us healthy.

 

[Guojing]

Do you believe that God no longer heals? If so, why did He and what's changed?

Do you believe in rightly dividing the word of truth? (2 Timothy 2:15), specifically between Israel and the Body of Christ?

Under the Law, God literally promised Israel that if they obey him, they will never fall sick (Deuteronomy 7:15, Exodus 15:26)

Under the promised kingdom of heaven on Earth, no one in Israel will be maim or sick too (Isaiah 33:24, Psalms 103:1-5.

Israel broke their covenant of Law that was given at Mount Sinai. They killed or ignored all the prophets that God repeatedly sent to them when they were separated into 2 kingdoms and went into captivity under Babylon, and then under Persia. (Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19).

Thus, at the time of Jesus's first coming to Israel, many people in Israel are sick, demon possessed, precisely because they have forsaken that Law covenant. (Luke 13:11, Acts 3:2)

Jesus thus healed all of them to give them a taste of what life in that kingdom would be. Acts 10:38 is an especially beautiful summary by Peter to show that

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

But now, God no longer relates to us in the Body of Christ under the Law (Romans 6:14, 1 Timothy 1:9).

So when we believers are sick nowadays, we can be rest assured that it is not because we have disobeyed God in anyway.

 

[Aaron112]

So when we believers are sick nowadays, we can be rest assured that it is not because we have disobeyed God in anyway.

No. Many have and continue to disobey, and also have a great lack of knowledge, lack of experiential knowledge , lack of being in union with Jesus, lack of simple faithful obedience ...
and thus many suffer and are ill daily (plagues even of /like ... .. <pick any disease> )
although they may recover their health with or without faith if God just decides to heal them or
if they find out what to do and do it .

 

[sunlover1]

Its about your point about God wanting us healthy.

Ahh, thank you.
I don't see the two things being at odds because while He desires that we prosper and be in health
(even as our souls prosper), we also do age. I don't see "aging" as a bad thing or as a sick time.

If we think of aging by what we "see" around us, maybe it looks bad. People eat buckets of sugar
and speak death over themselves.. etc.
But living and walking in the kingdom, aging should go gracefully, as in the Bible.

Here's my take.
We have a commission (besides talking about the Bible lol)
We have a very important assignment!
In order to fight the enemy, we need strength and focus.
Now add the Scriptural truths concerning health, and then look
at the patriarchs etc.
Seems the disciples were martyred. They didn't die from sickness.
Nor did the OT Fathers. IIRC they 'chose' to go and give up the ghost.