I am your healer

[Bobber]

You forgot to also include those bastions of translation accuracy, "The Message" and "The Voice" which also have it as "heal".

So what? They've properly rendered the word as being healed as other translations. Context. He was talking about physical afflictions .Is any sick among you. Such was the context.

Like I said the majority of reputable bible translations render it as "saved".

Good grief. Even saved MEANS healed too. Salvation covers three realms. Paul stated I pray that your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved unto the coming of the Lord. 1 Thess 5:23

Your conspiracy theory that those Greek scholars have deliberately mistranslated it due to their theological bias against the WoF movement is laughable.

Why should it be? Scholars are human beings. They have their bias as well. And laughable you say? Might want to give it some thought if that's what you want to do. Lk 6: 25 Laughing at the thought that Jesus wants to show mercy and compassion towards his people might not be the best thing to do. At least give it some thought.

Even the WoF's favourite, the King James has it as "saved". Was that theological bias too?

How about you set aside your use of the letters, W...o...F......we're talking about healing here. I understand you might like to do this for effect but it's a diversion from the matter under discussion. What the Bible says about healing. Oh and on what basis do you claim the King James is a favorite of those who hold to FAITH? I've known many believers from word of faith and see no evidence they hold to one translation any more than another.

 

[Bobber]

Just because a Greek word can have multiple meanings, it does not allow you to conclude that all of them can be equally valid.

The context of James 5:14,15 was talking about physical healing. Is Any Sick Among You......all the translations that put it down in vs 15 as healed I'm sorry but they were more accurate.

You have been mislead about Greek usage from your WOF pastor.

So how would you know I even have a Word of Faith Pastor? Would it be likewise fair for me to say to you your rejecting what God says about healing Pastor has mislead you? Of course that would be condescending to you treating you like a kid? How about I won't show disrespect to you by making such a claim and you don't do the same to me.

 

[Bobber]

Yes, Psalms 23, like 91 is about Israel during the Tribulation as well.

Sorry Guojing but I think you're losing credibility with the greater Christians community for making such a claim. So what's next? Take Psalm 23 out of funerals.

 

[Guojing]

Sorry Guojing but I think you're losing credibility with the greater Christians community for making such a claim. So what's next? Take Psalm 23 out of funerals.

Many Christians used 2 Chronicles 7:14 and apply it to themselves.

That does not make it the correct application.

 

[Guojing]

The context of James 5:14,15 was talking about physical healing. Is Any Sick Among You......all the translations that put it down in vs 15 as healed I'm sorry but they were more accurate.


So how would you know I even have a Word of Faith Pastor? Would it be likewise fair for me to say to you your rejecting what God says about healing Pastor has mislead you? Of course that would be condescending to you treating you like a kid? How about I won't show disrespect to you by making such a claim and you don't do the same to me.

The idea that sozo can allow one to infer both healing and salvation is a very popular WOF teaching.

But if you disagree, I am fine, let's move on from this.

 

[Strong in Him]

I did for I showed you this. When Paul healed Publius in Acts 28 it got everybody else attention and caused a draw of people to come and hear from Paul.

"...the rest of those on the island who had diseases also came and were healed. . Acts 28: 8

That doesn't actually prove it.
The people came to hear Paul and be healed, it doesn't say that they came to faith. It doesn't say that more unbelievers came to faith after seeing a healing than those who heard the Gospel but saw no healing.

I don't randomly believe it can apply to anyone. I actually believe those outside of the Lord don't have a covenant right to be healed.

None of us have a right to be healed - nor to demand anything else from God.

God in his sovereignty may heal one outside of Christ but generally speaking he doesn't. Also Paul stated in 1 Cor 11:30 reasons why healing won't manifested.

You're still assuming that is about physical healing.

Plus also there is what James 1 states one must BE in faith.....

Jesus healed many people without asking at all about whether they had faith.
The people who were healed in Acts 28 - which you quoted - did not show evidence of faith. They had believed that Paul was a god.

I will say though it is God's perfect will of God for healing to manifest to all of his children if they'll make it possible .

"Make it possible"?
We can't earn healing from God.

 

[Strong in Him]

The idea that sozo can allow one to infer both healing and salvation is a very popular WOF teaching.

Although I am not WOF and disagree with a lot of their teachings, they are correct in this matter.
Sozo means wholeness - complete wholeness and well being for body, mind and spirit. Body = physical health and spirit = salvation, reconciled with the God who created us.

 

[Guojing]

Although I am not WOF and disagree with a lot of their teachings, they are correct in this matter.
Sozo means wholeness - complete wholeness and well being for body, mind and spirit. Body = physical health and spirit = salvation, reconciled with the God who created us.

Sometimes sozo refers to salvation from sins.

Other times, sozo refers to healing from physical diseases.

The surrounding words of each individual case will determine the exact meaning of sozo.

That is how Greek words worked when you translate them into English. You cannot, based on your own whim and fancy, decide for yourself which is which.

 

[Strong in Him]

Sometimes sozo refers to salvation from sins.

Other times, sozo refers to healing from physical diseases.

The surrounding words of each individual case will determine the exact meaning of sozo.

That is how Greek words worked when you translate them into English. You cannot, based on your own whim and fancy, decide for yourself which is which.

I'm not.
I'm saying that I read that the meaning of the Greek word, Sozo, means physical and spiritual wholeness.
I am not "deciding for myself" what it means, and I'd rather you didn't imply that I am.

 

[Bobber]

The idea that sozo can allow one to infer both healing and salvation is a very popular WOF teaching.

But if you disagree, I am fine, let's move on from this.

I don't care if something is Baptist teaching, Pentecostal teaching or whatever you are teaching. We're talking here about what does the Bible say and teach and the subject.

 

[Guojing]

I'm not.
I'm saying that I read that the meaning of the Greek word, Sozo, means physical and spiritual wholeness.
I am not "deciding for myself" what it means, and I'd rather you didn't imply that I am.

You may not be, but Bobber is doing that, that is my objection to his reasoning.

 

[Bobber]

That doesn't actually prove it.
The people came to hear Paul and be healed, it doesn't say that they came to faith. It doesn't say that more unbelievers came to faith after seeing a healing than those who heard the Gospel but saw no healing.

Well here's another item,

But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up. And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive. And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord. Acts 9:40

I mean I don't know how more clear it can be.

"Make it possible"?

Yes to make it possible. One must appropriate the grace of God by FAITH. If they choose not to do so they go without. The Bible is full of such examples. Israel was told to go into the Promised Land and God would be with them. They refused to do so. The wandered 40 years in the wilderness.

We can't earn healing from God.

If one cooperates with carrying out what God said about believing and receiving and one keeps one out of the problems that violating 1 Cor 11:30 makes mention of you do make it possible for God to bring healing.

 

[swordsman1]

So what? They've properly rendered the word as being healed as other translations. Context. He was talking about physical afflictions .Is any sick among you. Such was the context.

The context also tells us what James considered the sickness is likely a result of..v16 "if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another....". ie a spiritual sickness as much as a physical one.

The normal Greek word for heal is iaomai. James uses that word in the next verse, v16 "pray for one another, that you may be healed". If James had the same meaning in mind for v15 why didn't he use that same Greek word there? Why did he use the word that primarily means "saved" and is translated as "saved" in the majority of bible versions? Verse 16 clearly states that healing in not guaranteed, but you sweep that verse under the carpet because it contradicts your WoF interpretation of v15. Instead you latch on to the minority of bible translations because that creates the apparently unconditional promise that all prayers for healing will be granted.

But in doing so you are ignoring one of the most important tenets of bible hermeneutics: scripture must always be interpreted in the light of other scripture. If there is an apparent interpretation of one verse that is clearly contradicted by numerous other verses, then your interpretation of that verse is undoubtedly wrong. There are are a plethora of verses that say that God will not always answer our prayers affirmatively and sometimes allows us to suffer for various good reasons. But instead you sweep all those other verses under the carpet and doggedly hang on to your controversial WoF interpretation of the odd verse that contradicts all the others . And when prayers for healing are not answered you cruelly blame people for not mustering up sufficient faith.

Disgraceful theological tactics.

 

[Strong in Him]

Well here's another item,

But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up. And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive. And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord. Acts 9:40

I mean I don't know how more clear it can be.

But that wasn't the passage that you quoted.
It still doesn't prove that a) people had lasting faith or b) that they only came to faith through the miracle and could not have come to faith otherwise.

Yes to make it possible. One must appropriate the grace of God by FAITH. If they choose not to do so they go without.

There are many examples of people being healed without faith being involved, or asked for. Mark 1:33-34. Jesus healed many who had various diseases - no mention of asking them how much faith they had.
There are other examples of Christians, evangelists even, who prayed with faith, had many others praying with faith, and yet were not physically healed.

The Bible is full of such examples. Israel was told to go into the Promised Land and God would be with them. They refused to do so. The wandered 40 years in the wilderness.

Yes, they showed fear and did not trust God - what's that got to do with healing?

If one cooperates with carrying out what God said about believing and receiving and one keeps one out of the problems that violating 1 Cor 11:30 makes mention of you do make it possible for God to bring healing.

I don't know why you keep saying this; it says nothing of the sort.

There is a book called Awaiting the healer in which the author writes about trip to a Katherine Khulmann conference. She had many signs which encouraged her that she should make the trip to America, from NA, in her wheelchair. She had many praying for and with her, including Katherine - yet she was not healed. While in the healing meeting she heard a non believer who, in his pain, was cursing and blaspheming God's name. Marje - the author - felt sorry for him because he would not be healed - yet he was.

God sometimes heals where there is no faith. It may not be the usual, or general, way, but it happens. It did in the NT, it sometimes does now.
So it is just not correct to state that God "cannot" bring healing if the "conditions are wrong", or the sick person does not make healing possible. If what you are saying were true, there would never be any examples of non Christians being healed.

 

[Bobber]

The context also tells us what James considered the sickness is likely a result of..v16 "if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another....". ie a spiritual sickness as much as a physical one.

He DID NOT say that sickness is likely a result of committing sin! He did not say that! You're making that up. And you showed disdain to my posting at the end of your post claiming I was engaging in disgraceful theological tactics? Perhaps Swordsman you might want to check yourself on that. Look at the verse below. It DID NOT say James considered the sickness a likely result of sin....it states, AND IF (let me say it again AND IF) and if does not signify a person has probably sinned.! I understand though why you want to force it into that mode.

You wanting to somehow spiritualize everything to push for a conclusion that it's somehow not even talking about physical sickness.....Oh it's just something spiritual! Sorry but that's baloney! Now the verse below is James 5:14, 16. You can read it yourself....And if, or IF the one does not mean likely. Now I'll also quote 1 Cor 11:30 below after the James 5 verse which I suggest will confirm my position.

Are any of you sick? You should call for the elders of the church to come and pray over you, anointing you with oil in the name of the Lord. Such a prayer offered in faith will heal the sick, and the Lord will make you well. And if you have committed any sins, you will be forgiven.16Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. James 5: 14,16

Now let's look at the below,

For if you eat the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ you are eating and drinking God’s judgment upon yourself. 30That is why many of you are weak and sick and some have even died.1 Cor 11:29

First there we're seeing he's talking about the physical body. Some are weak and sick and even have died. Why? Because of sin. But it did NOT say they're ALL are sick and weak for this reason.....it says MANY. As a side note here even Paul saying this today he'd be shown disdain for even suggesting he knows that sin COULD cause affliction. Today people refuse to have that in their teaching package.

Many leaders today never even want it to be suggested that a person should do this type of inventory upon themselves.....that would be considered, "Oh so you're blaming a sick one?" But nobody is blaming anybody or anything! But God does want at least the full spectrum of truth to be taught from the pulpit.....why potentially are people weak and sickly. Not allowed to do so in many circles today in this I"m OK you're OK make everyone feel good society! But God mercifully want's to help people out of their problems....and so we should not serve as a hindrance to that end!

But back now to comparing 1 Cor 11: 29,30 with James 5 :14,15 James is saying pretty much what Paul stated. And Paul did not say a person is likely to have sinned being the reason someone is sick and weak and have died. And I have to mention this....I don't think it's a coincidence that Paul added and have died. God probably knew the day would come when people would even try to spiritualize even what Paul stated.....that weak and sickly is a spiritual thing not physical. To have said "died" confirms beyond question we're talking about physical sickness here!

So James is saying the same thing that Paul stated. There are people who are physically sick but there's potentially different reasons why BUT God has healing for them all. That's what James is saying. IF ones, and I repeat IF ONES have committed sins.....not that they're likely to have had, (which you put down) but IF they had they will be forgiven which will open the door for them to be healed as well.

So my point Swordman. You're wanting to someway or somehow make it seem like James wasn't even talking about physical sickness at least that's my take on your writing. If I'm wrong on that then I apologize.....If I'm right on that then sorry but you're WRONG. It's very clear that you're mistaken.

 

[Bobber]

But that wasn't the passage that you quoted.
It still doesn't prove that a) people had lasting faith or

So I demonstrated to you that when Tabitha was raised from the dead and it became known it lead people to faith so now you say it doesn't prove it was a lasting faith? Well that's not the point. It led them to faith! As to trying to prove how long it did so? I don't have to prove anything as to what you'd like me to prove. The point is the miracle led them to FAITH. Perhaps you should just admit this?

And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord. Acts 9"40

b) that they only came to faith through the miracle and could not have come to faith otherwise.

And I'd say to that good grief. Look at how the passage is constructed. . It's tells of the miracle and the great result. You're creating unnecessary hypothetical scenarios well maybe they would have come to faith without it? That is certainly not the direction that the flow of the passage takes us to. The correlation is clear! Miracle happened. People came because of it to believe in the Lord. I'd check yourself SIM. Why do you so passionately want to downplay that miracles bring people to faith? Are you sure it's not just for the reason that you want to justify the present church world of not seeing many and wanting to put forth we don't need them? It's clear, the miraculous bring people to God. How about you don't deny it.

There are many examples of people being healed without faith being involved, or asked for. Mark 1:33-34.

And I"'ll deal with this later.

 

[swordsman1]

He DID NOT say that sickness is likely a result of committing sin! He did not say that! You're making that up. And you showed disdain to my posting at the end of your post claiming I was engaging in disgraceful theological tactics? Perhaps Swordsman you might want to check yourself on that. Look at the verse below. It DID NOT say James considered the sickness a likely result of sin....it states, AND IF (let me say it again AND IF) and if does not signify a person has probably sinned.! I understand though why you want to force it into that mode.

Oh come off it. Why else would James, in the same breath, mention sickness and sin applying to the same person, if he wasn't considering the likelihood of that sickness being the result of sin?

You wanting to somehow spiritualize everything to push for a conclusion that it's somehow not even talking about physical sickness.....Oh it's just something spiritual! Sorry but that's baloney!

That's a lie. Did I not say in my last post, "a spiritual sickness as much as a physical one."?

First there we're seeing he's talking about the physical body. Some are weak and sick and even have died. Why? Because of sin. But it did NOT say they're ALL are sick and weak for this reason.....it says MANY. As a side note here even Paul saying this today he'd be shown disdain for even suggesting he knows that sin COULD cause affliction. Today people refuse to have that in their teaching package.

Many leaders today never even want it to be suggested that a person should do this type of inventory upon themselves.....that would be considered, "Oh so you're blaming a sick one?" But nobody is blaming anybody or anything! But God does want at least the full spectrum of truth to be taught from the pulpit.....why potentially are people weak and sickly. Not allowed to do so in many circles today in this I"m OK you're OK make everyone feel good society! But God mercifully want's to help people out of their problems....and so we should not serve as a hindrance to that end!

But back now to comparing 1 Cor 11: 29,30 with James 5 :14,15 James is saying pretty much what Paul stated. And Paul did not say a person is likely to have sinned being the reason someone is sick and weak and have died. And I have to mention this....I don't think it's a coincidence that Paul added and have died. God probably knew the day would come when people would even try to spiritualize even what Paul stated.....that weak and sickly is a spiritual thing not physical. To have said "died" confirms beyond question we're talking about physical sickness here!

So James is saying the same thing that Paul stated. There are people who are physically sick but there's potentially different reasons why BUT God has healing for them all. That's what James is saying. IF ones, and I repeat IF ONES have committed sins.....not that they're likely to have had, (which you put down) but IF they had they will be forgiven which will open the door for them to be healed as well.

So my point Swordman. You're wanting to someway or somehow make it seem like James wasn't even talking about physical sickness at least that's my take on your writing. If I'm wrong on that then I apologize.....If I'm right on that then sorry but you're WRONG. It's very clear that you're mistaken.

Well done, you are proving my point. Sin is indeed one of the many reasons people are not be healed. That was included in my list of reasons in post #109. But that is the only one where the person is to blame. In all the others God allows the person to suffer for good reasons. I don't see any verse that says people remain sick because they failed to muster up enough faith to be healed. So if someone remains sick after prayer you shouldn't just ask if there is any unconfessed sin, but you should also tell them God is maybe allowing the suffering because: it may not be Gods will for you to be healed (1 John 5:14); God may want you to rely more upon him (2 Corinthians 12:7-9); God may have a purpose for your suffering (Luke 22:42); God may be wanting to produce perseverance (James 1:2); God may be testing you (1 Peter 4:12); God is driving you into his word (Psalm 119:67-75), etc.

Seeing as you acknowledge there are reasons for people not being healed, then you have just proved my argument - James 5:15 is not an unconditional promise of healing. Something we all know anyway from experience of praying for the sick. There are many reasons why people are not healed, and failure to muster up faith is not one of them.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This bizarre theory is in the scripture and is held as true by millions of people.

Presumably you're not replying to my post despite including it at the head of your post.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The context of James 5:14,15 was talking about being healed of diseases. And then it went of to say AND...

The "and" is about the sins that caused the illness that is healed by confession to the elders and the prayers of the elders.

 

[Strong in Him]

So I demonstrated to you that when Tabitha was raised from the dead and it became known it lead people to faith so now you say it doesn't prove it was a lasting faith? Well that's not the point. It led them to faith!

Some people come to faith after seeing miracles, yes.
Some people go on in that faith, become followers and don't fall away like the seed that fell on rocky soil, yes.
Some people see a miracle, come to faith and then themselves become evangelists/healers/miracle workers, yes.
I didn't say otherwise.

I was challenging the statement - which wasn't even made by you - that "miracles produce more faith than if they didn't happen," post #15.
I have seen no evidence that MORE people come to faith after seeing a miracle, than come to faith after "only" hearing the Gospel.
Many people came to faith after Tabitha was raised from the dead - yes; praise God. Was the number who believed after that miracle greater than the number who came to faith after hearing Peter preaching at Pentecost or hearing Paul preaching the Gospel? Because if not, then you can't use it as evidence to back up the claim.
Over the years, have more people become Christians after seeing miracles than became Christians in John Wesley's/Charles Spurgeon's/William Booth's/Billy Graham's day? If not, the statement, "miracles produce more faith than if they didn't happen", is incorrect.

Miracle happened. People came because of it to believe in the Lord. I'd check yourself SIM. Why do you so passionately want to downplay that miracles bring people to faith?

I don't. Read what I said.
The statement was "miracles produce MORE faith than if they didn't happen." No one has proved that MORE people have come to faith after seeing a miracle than those who came to faith through only hearing the Gospel. You'd have to take the testimonies of ALL believers throughout history, ask "did you come to faith after seeing a miracle or through "just" hearing the Gospel" and count up the answers, before you could make such a statement.

And maybe it is being pedantic, but I still think my comment about a lasting faith is valid.
How many of the Hebrew slaves saw the 10 plagues of Egypt, saw God part the Red Sea, received manna from heaven? How many REALLY believed - enough to trust God and go into the Promised Land?