She wouldn't be suffering death at all if it was not for Adam. The proximate cause of death was ushered into humanity by Adam, was paid for by Jesus and needlessly paid for again by the child. Jesus suffered this sickness so the child wouldn't have to, or do you think Jesus didn't suffer this particular sickness?
Forgive me for using a legal term. (I just became an attorney.) Proximate causation means that there may have been many particular causes for an event, but the last cause, the closest cause in time is the proximate cause.
The proximate causation of her death is not the fall. There are many causes since then. One cause may be that she---the little girl---wanted to go home.
Nonsense. The point was that man's conduct was very much at the bottom of the child's death.
And if this girl wanted to go home, then her desire would have been the proximate cause.
Perhaps you may consider what Jesus sacrificed for us so we would live free from sickness in the here and now. Perhaps you'd like to consider that by your theory, Jesus is a receptor of persons in that he wants some in heaven early so they don't have to run the race the rest of us have to run here.
It depends on how you define the word "early."
Your use of the word "early" implies that there is a perfect time for a person to die and go to Heaven. Correct? I hope I am not reading too much into what you are saying.
Well, then... what was the perfect time for this little girl to go to Heaven? Should it have been age 90? What about age 80? 70 maybe? 45? How about 32?
Many have used Psalm 90's "threescore years and ten" as the base line for how long all persons should live. A proper exegisis of this scripture would not yield such an analysis. Otherwise, Jesus would have been crucified at age 70, and not 33.
There is no precise passage in the Bible whereby God promises a person a definite length of time on Earth. In fact, James tells us not to boast about the future because we may die tomorrow. (James 4:13-16.)
If then the Bible does not promise any of us another day on Earth, how do you define what it means to be "in heaven early"?
In the case of this little girl, can you say for an absolute certainty that this was not her time?
So you are saying that she went to heaven while she was yet alive in her body and decided to stay. I'm sure as a WOFer, you have scripture to support this.
I don't know for certain that this is what happened. I know it happened to my nephew. As to scripture, I do recall numerous occasions whereby people went to Heaven while still alive. The entire book of Revelation is ipso facto proof of that.
That is what the Holy Ghost is for. Have you met Him?
Yeah, we're tight. I mean, its not like I am on his speed dial or anything, but we've been buds for eighteen years or so.
As for seeing situations the way God sees them, God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. By definition, He sees things that we do not.
For example, with close to 6 billion people on this planet, God knows the hearts and prayers of people in countries I have never heard of.
Therefore, even if I were to have angelic visions of Heaven and were to converse with God at a level in which Benny Hinn could only dream, I still would not be able to see every situation from God's vantage without becoming omniscient myself.
The fact is, I can only see situations from God's perspective if God chooses to reveal the same to me. Since God has not revealed the circumstances surrounding the death of this little girl, I am not competent to judge whehter anyone lacked faith.
Actually the unsaved Jew doesn't understand the Word better than we do as they have missed the main point. We are saved and they are not.
Which is my point.
The Jews were taught to memorize the entire Torah by the time they turned 13. They had the Word in their heart, but they relied upon faulty interpretations of the Word.
Now if God's chosen people---who actually memorized entire books of the Bible---could misunderstand his message, then how much easier would it be for people who have been grafted into the vine to miss it?
I'm sure you're not sure.
That's right. I don't know for sure what the Bible says about eschatology.
I used to think that I had all the answers. I've learned over the years that I don't.
You can have faith that you are healed of a sickness and not enough faith to believe, and by believing, receive your healing. When your faith is elevated to the point you believe, then you will be healed.
That seems very circuituitous.
You are saying that faith and belief are not the same thing.
If this were true we would have no reason to develop our faith.
On the contrary. Our faith will develop when we hear the Holy Spirit give us more spontaneous personal promises.
You knowledge of the situation has no bearing on what the Bible says about healing. Jesus suffered sickness and disease so the child wouldn't have to.
Well, is she suffering now?
Thank you for your accusation and erroneous judgment of my motivation here, i.e. accusing me of being judgmental. I'm not judging anybody personally. I'm telling you that Jesus had already suffered this child's sickness so that the child wouldn't have to, but she suffered and died from it any way. I'm telling you this was not God's will for her life and since God did all he needed to do for the girl to be healed, then that leaves the rest of it with man.
So which man failed?
Assuming, arguendo, that there was a failure, who is the one who failed?
If, let's say, 10 people were praying a hypothetical sick person. Now, lets say that 9 people had faith nothing wavering, but 1 person had doubt and unbelief. Would this one person's doubt and unbelief be stronger than the faith of the nine?
Conversely, if 9 people had doubt and unbelief, but only 1 person had true mountain moving faith, would this person's faith be enough to counter the doubt and unbelief of the other nine?
I guess, at the end of the day, we have to ask which is stronger, doubt or faith?
Now, moving back to the particular girl in question. There were thousands of people who were praying for this girl. Perhaps many of them were not praying for her every night before they went to bed, but at ICBM, she was the subject of many prayers by folks like Hinn, Roberts, Copeland, Dollar, et. al.
Now I suppose in any crowd there are always doubters. And to the extent that they were praying, I suppose that God wasn't listening.
But I find it hard to believe that in a crowd of several thousand tongue-talking, Word of Faith, charismatics that there wasn't just one person--just one person--with faith nothing waivering. Moreover, I would think that God--the healing God that he is--would only need one person to "stand in the gap" and interceed for this girl, if in fact, He truly wanted to heal her physically.
Ergo, we have only two possibilities....
(A) God wanted to take her home, either because it was His Will or because it was her desire; or
(B) The entire ICBM conference lacked the requisite faith to move God into healing this girl right then and there.
Assuming that (A) is out of the question, then (B) presents an interesting constuct, to wit: what we as WoF charismatics call "faith" may not be "faith" at all. There may be something more to faith than we are willing to admit.
Now, since I took a great of deal time to properly answer your post, I ask you to take a few minutes and address each one of my points specifically. Please state specifically if you agree or do not agree with each point. My points are stated as absolutes and as such, if you disagree in any way with a point, then you don't agree. Please give explanation for those points you don't agree with.
This reminds me. I have to submits some Requests for Admissions to an opposing party in a lawsuit this week. Thanks for the reminder.
1. Jesus suffered all sickness and disease so we wouldn't have to.
Answer: The Bible says that "by his stripes we are healed." The word "healed" is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as: "to restore to health or soundness; cure".
In order to restore someone to health--in order for a person to be cured--a person must first become sick. Persons who have never been sick can hardly be called "the healed." Therefore, in order for us to experience the healing found in Jesus' stripes, we must first experience sickness (at least once in our lives).
So, I would disagree with your premise that we are not supposed to ever experience sickness. Because, if we never experienced sickness, we could never experience healing.
2. Jesus made healing from all sickness and disease available to us all.
Answer: I agree with that.
3. The sickness didn't come from God.
Answer: To say that sickness never, ever comes from God is simply not true. If that were true, then God would hardly be able to pour plagues on humanity like he does in the Book of Revelation. (See Revelation 15:1 "I saw in heaven another great and marvelous sign: seven angels with the seven last plagues--last, because with them God's wrath is completed.")
Be that as it may, I would hardly think that God would pour cancer on his own child.
4. God wanted her healed.
Answer: If God truly wanted her healed, out of the thousands of persons who were praying for her, don't you think that God could have found just one person with the requisite level of faith to pray for her healing?
5. It wasn't God's fault that the child was sick.
Answer: The word "fault" implies wrongdoing. Even if God did cause her to become sick, it would not be his "fault" because He is never in the wrong.
6. It wasn't God's fault that the child wasn't healed.
Answer: The word "fault" implies wrongdoing. Even if God chose not to heal her, it would not be his "fault" because He is never in the wrong.
7. God placed the child's welfare primarily in the hands of the parents.
Answer: True. I suppose you are implying that the parent's were primarily to blame. So much for not judging anyone in particular.
8. The people who said she would live simply missed it which just goes to prove that no one is infallible except God.
Answer: True. But if man is fallible, is it not possible that our entire paradigm concerning faith and healing needs updating? Maybe there is something more that we are not willing to accept.
9. Just because we don't know the answer, doesn't mean that the answer isn't knowable, however I think the possibilities have now been narrowed sufficiently to take a shot at the few possibilities left.
Answer: I think I have already addressed this comment in previous answers.