Healing is NOT in the atonement

[jeolmstead]

I mean that God never told Paul "no". That's a man-made doctrine. NO translation of scripture says that God said "no". God said "My grace is sufficient". That does not mean "no". Unless your doctrine tells you otherwise.

It is astounding to me how religion has taken a powerful phrase such as this and reduced it to God saying "no".

If my child said: “please give me an ice cream cone”

And I said “you don’t need an ice cream cone”

And the result is: He doesn’t get the ice cream

Both he and I (and anyone reading this) understands the answer was no

 

[TreeOfLife]

If my child said: “please give me an ice cream cone”

And I said “you don’t need an ice cream cone”

And the result is: He doesn’t get the ice cream

Both he and I (and anyone reading this) understands the answer was no

That's not a compatable analogy.

If you and your son are standing in an ice cream parlor and he says "Please give me an ice cream cone" and your response is "that dollar I gave you is sufficient", then that is a compatable analogy.

 

[probinson]

If my child said: “please give me an ice cream cone”

And I said “you don’t need an ice cream cone”

And the result is: He doesn’t get the ice cream

Both he and I (and anyone reading this) understands the answer was no

Building on ToL's comparison, If my son says "please give me an ice cream cone", and I say, "the ice cream in the freezer is sufficient for you", I have not told him no, have I?

 

[jeolmstead]

That's not a compatable analogy.

If you and your son are standing in an ice cream parlor and he says "Please give me an ice cream cone" and your response is "that dollar I gave you is sufficient", then that is a compatable analogy.

Good Point!

But then why didn't Paul buy the icecream?

 

[probinson]

Good Point!

But then why didn't Paul buy the icecream?

How do we know Paul didn't "buy the ice cream"?

 

[TreeOfLife]

Good Point!

But then why didn't Paul buy the icecream?

I think the context shows that he did. He goes on to explain how he overcame.

 

[jeolmstead]

The fact is Paul didn’t get the “ice cream”

Why?

He wanted it for sure

2 Cor 12:8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me.

According to your theology he did not even have to ask, It was in the freezer all the time, he could have just taken it.

Why did got God not allow him to have what he wanted badly enough to “plead 3 times”? And, If Paul who wrote most of the NT didn’t adhere to your point of view are you sure it’s sound?


The Word says:

2 Cor 12:9 But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. 10That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

 

[TreeOfLife]

The fact is Paul didn’t get the “ice cream”

Why?

He wanted it for sure

2 Cor 12:8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me.

According to your theology he did not even have to ask, It was in the freezer all the time, he could have just taken it.

Why did got God not allow him to have what he wanted badly enough to “plead 3 times”? And, If Paul who wrote most of the NT didn’t adhere to your point of view are you sure it’s sound?


The Word says:

2 Cor 12:9 But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. 10That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

You are still falsely injecting a "no" there where none exists in the scripture. Until you stop doing that you will never understand this passage. That's too bad, because it is an astounding teaching.

 

[jeolmstead]

I think the context shows that he did. He goes on to explain how he overcame.

Paul tells us why God said “no”

2 Cor 12:7 To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

These are Paul's words not mine. As to question as to weather or not this is a “no” answer.

1. Paul asked, not only asked “pleaded 3 times”
2. Show in scripture where his request was granted?

I think that it is a blessing that God gives grace when the answer is “no” but, In Paul’s case it was not just grace, God told him that this “thorn” was to keep him humble.

 

[TreeOfLife]

Paul tells us why God said “no”

2 Cor 12:7 To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

These are Paul's words not mine. As to question as to weather or not this is a “no” aswer.

1. Paul asked, not only asked “pleaded 3 times”
2. Show in scripture where his request was granted?

I think that it is a blessing that God gives grace when the answer is “no” but, In Paul’s case it was not just grace, God told him that this “thorn” was to keep him humble.

God told him?

 

[jeolmstead]

You are still falsely injecting a "no" there where none exists in the scripture. Until you stop doing that you will never understand this passage. That's too bad, because it is an astounding teaching.

You are correct when you say that the word “no” is not written in 2 Cor 12.

However the answer “No” is certainly implied.

1. Paul asked 3 times, If as you say the answer was “yes” what did he ask the 2nd time,, then the 3rd?

2. There is no mention that I’m aware of anywhere in the NT where Paul states that he ever overcame this “thorn in his flesh” except that the implication in the passage is that God gave him the grace needed to live with it

(sincerely) Please show me from the word where this is not so.

 

[jeolmstead]

God told him?

When Paul said: "I asked the LORD....", and then "He said to me......"

I think this was the context:

(my paraphrase)

No Paul, I'm not going to take this thorn away from you, you need it to keep you humble in light of the wonderful revelations I've given you. Instead I'll give you grace to endure so that when people see your weakness they will marvel at my strength in you.

 

[probinson]

When Paul said: "I asked the LORD....", and then "He said to me......"

I think this was the context:

(my paraphrase)

No Paul, I'm not going to take this thorn away from you, you need it to keep you humble in light of the wonderful revelations I've given you. Instead I'll give you grace to endure so that when people see your weakness they will marvel at my strength in you.

You're doing what many on the forum are doing, and that is making a distinction between grace and God's provision where no such distinction exists in scripture. It is not "healing" or "grace", "provision" or "grace". Grace IS healing and provision. I've done nothing to deserve any of it, yet God has graciously given me all I could ever need and then some! The phrasing of my original post about the thorn was such that I believe that God's grace is all-encompassing. When God heals me, He is showing me grace.

That is where we likely will not agree. I believe that God's sufficient grace does not mean "no. Instead, cope with this".

In the past, I've asked God why He has allowed things to happen to me, and the answer was more often than not that I allowed those things to happen. But even in what appears to be my weakest time, with Christ in me, I can RESIST the devil and he flees. I am to resist the devil. I'm not to plead with God to resist him for me.

Lest we forget, Paul's thorn was a messenger of SATAN. God was simply saying to Paul, I've given you the grace (unmerited favor) to deal with this through my Son. That is why Paul said He would more gladly boast in his weaknesses. Because when trials come against me, that is when Christ in me is strongest.

 

[jeolmstead]

You're doing what many on the forum are doing, and that is making a distinction between grace and God's provision where no such distinction exists in scripture. It is not "healing" or "grace", "provision" or "grace". Grace IS healing and provision. I've done nothing to deserve any of it, yet God has graciously given me all I could ever need and then some! The phrasing of my original post about the thorn was such that I believe that God's grace is all-encompassing. When God heals me, He is showing me grace.

That is where we likely will not agree. I believe that God's sufficient grace does not mean "no. Instead, cope with this".

In the past, I've asked God why He has allowed things to happen to me, and the answer was more often than not that I allowed those things to happen. But even in what appears to be my weakest time, with Christ in me, I can RESIST the devil and he flees. I am to resist the devil. I'm not to plead with God to resist him for me.

Lest we forget, Paul's thorn was a messenger of SATAN. God was simply saying to Paul, I've given you the grace (unmerited favor) to deal with this through my Son. That is why Paul said He would more gladly boast in his weaknesses. Because when trials come against me, that is when Christ in me is strongest.

Ok...I think I got it now, at least I can see your point. I don't see the passage exactly the same way as you. you say it means :

"cope with this, I've given you all that you need to do so"

I would say it means "No, Paul this trial is good for you, it will keep you humble, and I've given you everything you need to cope with it"

I think it kinda of comes around to the same thing. Thanks for investing the time in your explanation to me.

John O.

 

[probinson]

Ok...I think I got it now, at least I can see your point. I don't see the passage exactly the same way as you. you say it means :

"cope with this, I've given you all that you need to do so"

I would say it means "No, Paul this trial is good for you, it will keep you humble, and I've given you everything you need to cope with it"

I think it kinda of comes around to the same thing. Thanks for investing the time in your explanation to me.

John O.

Well whattaya know! We can disagree and be civil about it! And there was much rejoicing...

Thanks for your gentleness in debating, John. Your posts are like a breath of fresh air.

That said, the reason I post so vigorously about Paul's thorn is because too many people use it to prove that God doesn't always heal, which is odd since the thorn is quite clearly called a "meseenger of Satan" and not a sickness anyway.

 

[TreeOfLife]

You're doing what many on the forum are doing, and that is making a distinction between grace and God's provision where no such distinction exists in scripture. It is not "healing" or "grace", "provision" or "grace". Grace IS healing and provision. I've done nothing to deserve any of it, yet God has graciously given me all I could ever need and then some! The phrasing of my original post about the thorn was such that I believe that God's grace is all-encompassing. When God heals me, He is showing me grace.

That is where we likely will not agree. I believe that God's sufficient grace does not mean "no. Instead, cope with this".

In the past, I've asked God why He has allowed things to happen to me, and the answer was more often than not that I allowed those things to happen. But even in what appears to be my weakest time, with Christ in me, I can RESIST the devil and he flees. I am to resist the devil. I'm not to plead with God to resist him for me.

Lest we forget, Paul's thorn was a messenger of SATAN. God was simply saying to Paul, I've given you the grace (unmerited favor) to deal with this through my Son. That is why Paul said He would more gladly boast in his weaknesses. Because when trials come against me, that is when Christ in me is strongest.

Amen P. This was God's way of saying to Paul "you do it".

 

[psalms 91]

You're doing what many on the forum are doing, and that is making a distinction between grace and God's provision where no such distinction exists in scripture. It is not "healing" or "grace", "provision" or "grace". Grace IS healing and provision. I've done nothing to deserve any of it, yet God has graciously given me all I could ever need and then some! The phrasing of my original post about the thorn was such that I believe that God's grace is all-encompassing. When God heals me, He is showing me grace.

That is where we likely will not agree. I believe that God's sufficient grace does not mean "no. Instead, cope with this".

In the past, I've asked God why He has allowed things to happen to me, and the answer was more often than not that I allowed those things to happen. But even in what appears to be my weakest time, with Christ in me, I can RESIST the devil and he flees. I am to resist the devil. I'm not to plead with God to resist him for me.

Lest we forget, Paul's thorn was a messenger of SATAN. God was simply saying to Paul, I've given you the grace (unmerited favor) to deal with this through my Son. That is why Paul said He would more gladly boast in his weaknesses. Because when trials come against me, that is when Christ in me is strongest.

Absolutely, Amen, may the light shine forth into the darkness.

 

[Tenebrae]

Well whattaya know! We can disagree and be civil about it! And there was much rejoicing...

Thanks for your gentleness in debating, John. Your posts are like a breath of fresh air.

That said, the reason I post so vigorously about Paul's thorn is because too many people use it to prove that God doesn't always heal, which is odd since the thorn is quite clearly called a "meseenger of Satan" and not a sickness anyway.

Actualy I would disagree that it was clearly a messenger of satan

And lest I should be exalted above measurethrough the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Thorn translated

σκόλοψ skolops Perhaps form the base of G4628 and G3700; withered at the front, that is, a point or prickle (figuratively a bodily annoyance or disability): - thorn.

While it suppositin to say what pauls thorn was or wasnt, theres enough in the greek to not make it that clear cut


http://www.christianforums.com/And2...st3363 I should be exalted above measure.5229

 

[probinson]

While it suppositin to say what pauls thorn was or wasnt, theres enough in the greek to not make it that clear cut

Even if that's true and we can't make a clear cut distinction on what the "thorn" really was, why do people use it as the basis for the doctrine that God will not always heal?

Isn't a bit presumptuous to build doctrine on what we THINK the Bible MIGHT be saying?

 

[TreeOfLife]

Even if that's true and we can't make a clear cut distinction on what the "thorn" really was, why do people use it as the basis for the doctrine that God will not always heal?

Isn't a bit presumptuous to build doctrine on what we THINK the Bible MIGHT be saying?

There is absolutely no question that it was a messenger "of satan", the scripture is positively clear about that. So knowing the finer points of what the word "thorn" means is absolutely superfluous.