I am your healer

[Bobber]

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.

Well it's great to see at least this is acknowledged.

 

[Bobber]

Oh come off it.

And right back at ya, come off of it Swordman. And no offence.

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're really pushing for this likelihood position aren't you? Doesn't matter how hard you push at it there's NO justification for you suggesting that the people who were sick he was talking about it was likely it was a result from sin. Paul the Apostle NEVER taught that either. It's possible it could be sin related we can see that in 1 Cor 11:30....we don't even have to debate that it says it right out.....but Paul in his writings NEVER took the position physical problems were likely as you've said were caused by sin.

So you have two types of potential people that are sick in James 5. Those who aren't sick due to sin.....just basically living in this fallen world and things that go on with the human body not related to sin.....plus if there has been spiritual activity of sin which has caused it.....God HAS HELP FOR ALL.

And you said sin applying to the same person? Where do you get off even suggesting he was talking to one person? The scripture says is ANYONE sick....that means out of 100 % of people, here's your solution. And I know why you want it to be one person because you want the consideration there might be some or one that needs a sin forgiven you want to sweep the whole passage from vs 14 into that. With all due respect I'd have to say that's a disingenuous way to be interpreting the scripture.

 

[Strong in Him]

Well it's great to see at least this is acknowledged.

I wasn't disputing it - if you notice, I agreed with this back in post #187.

 

[Strong in Him]

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

Well if you acknowledge that is not something that I am doing, why quote my post?

 

[swordsman1]

You're really pushing for this likelihood position aren't you? Doesn't matter how hard you push at it there's NO justification for you suggesting that the people who were sick he was talking about it was likely it was a result from sin.

Of course there is. Again, why else would James, in the same breath, mention sickness and sin applying to the same person?

Paul the Apostle NEVER taught that either. It's possible it could be sin related we can see that in 1 Cor 11:30....we don't even have to debate that it says it right out.

Oh so now you are suggesting that the only sin that can lead to sickness is abuse of the Lord's table? You only have to look at v16 to see that sickness in this passage may be the result of numerous different sins. "Confess your sins . . . so that you may be healed"

.but Paul in his writings NEVER took the position physical problems were likely as you've said were caused by sin.

Just to be clear... I didn't say all sickness is likely the result of sin. I am referring to the sickness James is speaking of here in James 5:15-16.

So you have two types of potential people that are sick in James 5. Those who aren't sick due to sin.....just basically living in this fallen world and things that go on with the human body not related to sin.....plus if there has been spiritual activity of sin which has caused it.....God HAS HELP FOR ALL.

Correct! As v15 includes sin sickness (probably to a high degree considering James' emphasis on sin) the solution for them is not just physical healing (iaomai) but spiritual healing (sozo) which is guaranteed. Of course those with non-sin sickness don't require spiritual healing, they only require the physical healing (iaomai) of v16. But physical healing is not guaranteed ("....that you may be healed")

And you said sin applying to the same person? Where do you get off even suggesting he was talking to one person?

"And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. "

 

[Guojing]

Well if you acknowledge that is not something that I am doing, why quote my post?

You jumped in the middle of the discussion I had with him, and you supported his point.

How do you expect your reader to know you are not arguing the same point?

 

[Guojing]

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

From my exchanges with him, it appears those who believe the same as him, were taught that 1 Corinthians 11:30 justify the use of taking the communion elements and relying on that as a method of healing.

That is standard WOF teaching, made popular by Singaporean preacher Joseph Prince

 

[Guojing]

Of course there is. Again, why else would James, in the same breath, mention sickness and sin applying to the same person?

In the OT, it was always punishment due to disobedience and unbelief but that was under the Law.

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

Once you put yourself in the shoes of a zealous Jew, as James was, it is expected that he will link sin and sickness together.

 

[Guojing]

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.

To think Paul taught us clearly that

1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

But for us in the Body of Christ

2 Corinthians 5:7: (For we walk by faith, not by sight

 

[Guojing]

Doesn't matter how hard you push at it there's NO justification for you suggesting that the people who were sick he was talking about it was likely it was a result from sin. Paul the Apostle NEVER taught that either.

If you are able to rightly divide the word of truth, both your opposing points and his about sickness and sin can be reconciled easily.

In the OT, it was always punishment due to disobedience and unbelief but that was under the Law.

James, being James the Just, is very well aware of that.

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.)

You are correct that " Paul the Apostle NEVER taught that", but that is because he taught us that, But now, God no longer relates to us 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.

Conversely, if we find ourselves getting better, it is NOT because we are currently doing something that pleases God.

That is what I believe Paul is teaching us now when he shared with us Romans 8:18-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:16-18, and when he gave Timothy common sense advice regarding his frequent stomach aliments.

 

[Bobber]

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.

Well first let's establish how many verses in the gospels do we find it says things similar to "according to your faith" or that God expects an insists to see FAITH.

Mk9:29, Matt 5:28, Matt 17:20, Mk 11:24, Matt 9:22, Mk 10:52, Mt 21:21, Lk 17: 6,
Mk 9:23, Lk 7:50, Lk 17:5, Mk 11: 24, Matt 14:31, Matt 9:2 and Mt 13:58

Mt 13:58 I'd say is of particular interest for it even says "And he did not many mighty works there (in his home town) because of their unbelief."

So we can see having faith or exercising FAITH was a major thing or requirement of the Lord to see answers to prayer.

Now I'll say two things here. Because you do not see every place the scriptures say "according to your faith" does not mean the people did not exercise their faith as God most of the time required. I'll back up and say it is in a lot of places. But Jesus message was this.....he went around telling the people, what he said in Lk 4: 18 that he was an anointed, empowered Prophet of God and he was empowered to preach good news to the poor and to preach deliverance to the captives and the recovery of the sight to the blind and to set free the oppressed.

If the people would believe that, he was so empowered which is what anointed means, how did he usually always administer healing? By the laying on of his hands. In other words from the point he'd lay his hands on them from that point they were to believe that power would leave him and effect a cure in their body!
Now look at Lk 4:40 "At sunset, the people brought to Jesus all who had various kinds of sickness, and laying his hands on each one, he healed them."

So many, many, many, many plus even more have asked through the years....Just why is it that FAITH came so easy to most of the people Jesus ministered to. Well they didn't have the wonderment or junk of unbelief Because Jesus boldly told them what he came to do and it was God's will to heal them the took that as substantial info or a guarantee. Such is the reason why the woman with the issue of blood who came to touch just the hem of his garment to get healed was so bold.

She said, "If I just touch the hem of his garment I shall be healed!" Mark 5:28 Not maybe! Not it's possible! She said I shall be whole! People don't do that today when it comes to the elders of their church laying hands on them to pray. They call it arrogant and presumptuous for one to make such a bold assertions almost making it sound like a guarantee. How dare they say "I shall be whole!" ????? And yet what's the language used in Jm 5 : 15 ???? "The Lord Shall Raise Him Up" As I say though. Not allowed to say that today among many churchman. If you do you'll be marginalized as extreme. And people wonder why the don't see much healing today.

One of my next posts....Why didn't God require FAITH in certain cases. No he didn't but there is a reason why. Those are called exceptions to the rule where God in his sovereignty has carried out a special unique thing. I believe I can explain the why of this in some following post.

 

[Bobber]

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.

He did not. He told you EXACTLY what it means.

 

[Bobber]

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.

So you mentioned when Peter preached at the day of Pentecost. You need to consider a great miracle took place which had an influence on the great results. People speaking in tongues from many different languages of the world. The people knew the hadn't learned those language but it was supernatural.

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.

In Wesley's, day, Spurgeon, and Booth and largely Graham's day people were not even believing for miracles and people many people resist the miraculous today.....so how can you know what the difference would be?

 

[Bobber]

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

Oh really. And you can say that when 1 Cor 11: 30 said all along,

"Each one must examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 1 Cor 11:29.30

 

[Bobber]

You jumped in the middle of the discussion I had with him, and you supported his point.

So if he felt at least on that one thing I was right why shouldn't he express it? And these discussions are not just with one person....anyone can jump in.

How do you expect your reader to know you are not arguing the same point?

He said what he said. Sozo means what he said it means. That other poster and I may not agree with all things but on that we do. He actually showed credibility in acknowledging it. So you hold that if anyone makes a good point about anything don't acknowledge it? Always leave the impression they're wrong about all? Guojiing listen....that's not even fair discussion.

 

[Bobber]

"And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. "

Well let's put down the passage SW.

"Is anyone among you sick?"

So when James said this you're holding ANYONE doesn't mean the potential of more than one singular?

"Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them"

So that has to mean one person? Sorry SW but language just doesn't work that way.

 

[Bobber]

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

Sure it CAN mean that but he stated AND IF he has committed sins. Didn't mean they did.

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. Jm 5:15

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Sure it CAN mean that but he stated AND IF he has committed sins. Didn't mean they did.

Yes, if they committed sins. That is correct.

Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man. And the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. ​

James 5:14-16 DRB

This is the practise of Catholic priests to this day; the sick call - either through a family member, or another person, the local parish priest comes and anoints them with oil, he reads the scriptures and prays; and if God is willing, the sick person is healed, their sins forgiven if their were sins in need for confession and forgiveness.

 

[Guojing]

So if he felt at least on that one thing I was right why shouldn't he express it? And these discussions are not just with one person....anyone can jump in.

He said what he said. Sozo means what he said it means. That other poster and I may not agree with all things but on that we do. He actually showed credibility in acknowledging it. So you hold that if anyone makes a good point about anything don't acknowledge it? Always leave the impression they're wrong about all? Guojiing listen....that's not even fair discussion.

Of course he can jump in anytime and express any point he wants. That was not the point I was making.

 

[Strong in Him]

So you mentioned when Peter preached at the day of Pentecost. You need to consider a great miracle took place which had an influence on the great results. People speaking in tongues from many different languages of the world. The people knew the hadn't learned those language but it was supernatural.

But some thought the Apostles were drunk.
Acts 2:41 says, "those who accepted his message were baptised, and about 3,000 were added to their number that day" - not, "all who heard the strange languages repented and were baptised".