What to tell non-believers about praying?

[Auburn88]

If it isn't always God's will to heal the sick then why does the Bible say, by his wounds we are healed?

Because that isn't all the passage says. The passage you're referring to is Isaiah 53:5 and there is more to that verse than you quote. The context of the verse makes it clear that the author is referring to the forgiveness of sins, not the healing of disease.

Did Jesus die on the cross to only heal some people and not all people?

Neither. He didn't die on the cross to heal anyone of disease, but to purchase the atonement for our sins.

Was their anyone that Jesus did not heal during his ministry? Of course not. He healed all people that came to Him in faith. It is God's will to heal ALL people, but God's power to move depends on people's faith.

Yeah, I was involved in the WoF movement for years, myself. I've seen up close and personal how this lie of the Devil destroys people and destroys people's faith. It's a cruel lie.

Yes, there are many examples in scripture of people who were not healed. Paul is a prime example.

Furthermore, you're commiting a logical fallacy known as "argument from silence". We don't get our doctrine based on what the Bible doesn't say, but from what it does say.

Like you said God's will is for all men to repent, but the Bible says not all will repent. This does not invalidate God's will that He wants all people to repent. Likewise with healing. God wants all people to be healed, but not everyone will be healed because their lack of faith.

It has nothing to do with a lack of faith. You can have all the faith in the world, but if it isn't God's will that you be healed, you're not going to be healed.

The bible says, we receive not because we ask not. If I don't ask, how will I receive? So I must ask.

Actually, the verse you're quoting out of context, James 4:3 disproves your theory.

Had you been honest enough to quote James 4:3 in it's proper context, you would have seen that there is more to it than simply "you have not because you ask not". The second have of the verse, the one you conveniently forgot to mention, says, "...and when you do ask, you ask with the wrong motives", thus clearly showing that it is not enough merely to ask, but that what we ask must be in line with God's will.

But then, like I said, I was involved in the WoF movement for years, so I've seen this sort of scripture twisting before.

 

[BoyRescue]

Because that isn't all the passage says. The passage you're referring to is Isaiah 53:5 and there is more to that verse than you quote. The context of the verse makes it clear that the author is referring to the forgiveness of sins, not the healing of disease.

Neither. He didn't die on the cross to heal anyone of disease, but to purchase the atonement for our sins.

Before sin entered the world there was no death, no sickness, no sorrow,
no dieases, and etc. When Adam and Eve sinned death, sickness, sorrow, dieases, and etc entered the world as a result of their sin. If Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins it would've include death, sickness, sorrow, dieases, and etc. Jesus didn't just die for the forgiveness of sins, but for much more. He died so we may have life abundantly.

Yeah, I was involved in the WoF movement for years, myself. I've seen up close and personal how this lie of the Devil destroys people and destroys people's faith. It's a cruel lie.

Not affiliated or involved with WoF.

Yes, there are many examples in scripture of people who were not healed. Paul is a prime example.

Paul was never sick and needed healing. The thorn in Paul's side is not a
sickness, but a reference to the persecution he was enduring (Numbers 33:55 as a cross reference).

Furthermore, you're commiting a logical fallacy known as "argument from silence". We don't get our doctrine based on what the Bible doesn't say, but from what it does say.

No idea what you mean by "argument from silence."

It has nothing to do with a lack of faith. You can have all the faith in the world, but if it isn't God's will that you be healed, you're not going to be healed.

Faith begins by where the will of God is known. What is the will of God? 3 John 1:2 says, "Beloved, I wish above all thins that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth."

Actually, the verse you're quoting out of context, James 4:3 disproves your theory.

Had you been honest enough to quote James 4:3 in it's proper context, you would have seen that there is more to it than simply "you have not because you ask not". The second have of the verse, the one you conveniently forgot to mention, says, "...and when you do ask, you ask with the wrong motives", thus clearly showing that it is not enough merely to ask, but that what we ask must be in line with God's will.

But then, like I said, I was involved in the WoF movement for years, so I've seen this sort of scripture twisting before.

Not quoting out of context. If you read my first post I mentioned that a person's motive should not be to convince someone that prayer works. Indicating that if you pray with wrong motives you won't receive answered prayers.

If you want to believe that God's will is to do nothing then so be it. I on the other hand will believe that with God nothing is impossible.

 

[Auburn88]

Before sin entered the world there was no death, no sickness, no sorrow,
no dieases, and etc. When Adam and Eve sinned death, sickness, sorrow, dieases, and etc entered the world as a result of their sin. If Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins it would've include death, sickness, sorrow, dieases, and etc. Jesus didn't just die for the forgiveness of sins, but for much more. He died so we may have life abundantly.

Then why do saved people die?

Not affiliated or involved with WoF.

Funny, the heresy you're promoting sounds an awful lot like theirs.

Paul was never sick and needed healing. The thorn in Paul's side is not a sickness, but a reference to the persecution he was enduring (Numbers 33:55 as a cross reference).

No, actually, it was a disability which we believe to be blindness. That's why he had to dictate his epistles.

No idea what you mean by "argument from silence."

I just explained it to you.

Faith begins by where the will of God is known. What is the will of God? 3 John 1:2 says, "Beloved, I wish above all thins that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth."

That's a greeting, not a doctrinal statement.

Not quoting out of context.

Yes, you did. You chose to only quote the first half of the verse in order to make it look as though the only reason that prayers are not answered is that they're not prayed. You purposely left out the second half of the verse which explains that the reason that prayers are not answered is that they do not correspond with God's will.

If you want to believe that God's will is to do nothing then so be it.

Gee, why am I not surprised that all you have in your bag of tricks is straw men?

 

[BoyRescue]

Then why do saved people die?

Your question is irrevelant to the OT.

Funny, the heresy you're promoting sounds an awful lot like theirs.

Sorry, to disappoint you.

No, actually, it was a disability which we believe to be blindness. That's why he had to dictate his epistles.

No biblical support to back up your claim that he was "blind."

That's a greeting, not a doctrinal statement.

It is a doctrinal statement. Let me break it down for you. I said: "Faith begins where the will of God is known."

The Bible says in Romans 10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

So where does faith begin? It begins by hearing and hearing by the word of God. The will of God is known in the word of God.

Then I said: "What is the will of God? 3 John 1:2 says, "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth."

Then I used the word of God to define the will of God which is 3 John 1:2.

Yes, you did. You chose to only quote the first half of the verse in order to make it look as though the only reason that prayers are not answered is that they're not prayed. You purposely left out the second half of the verse which explains that the reason that prayers are not answered is that they do not correspond with God's will.

Auburn, I sense you had some bad experiences and maybe even some bitterness with WoF. I'm truly sorry about what happened, but unfortunately I'm not associated with them. If you want to accuse me of "purposely" trying to quote out of context do as you wish. For I am not here to convince you otherwise. However, I do want to emphasize again that although I did not quote both scriptures I did mention both scriptures in different postings on this thread. Be blessed.

 

[Auburn88]

In other words, you can't answer a simple question. All you can do is to make personal attacks.

 

[CFDavid]

No biblical support to back up your claim that he was "blind."

I think the reference is to a passage where he says (I'm paraphrasing), "See how large I write with my own hand!" (Galatians 6:11) -- and that the greeting and/or the way he writes is his "distinguishing mark" (2 Thes 3:17). I think the implication is not that he was blind so much as that his sight was failing.

But we don't know if that's the thorn in his side or not; what the "thorn" was, specifically, is never mentioned. He's usually reluctant to discuss adversity specifically -- his "out of his mind" passage to the Corinthains notwithstanding -- so it's hard to know exactly what the problem or weakness was. Perhaps he wished he were a better speaker, and he considered that a stumbling block for many; it's certainly something he addressed, and would be as much a legitimate concern for a travelling evangelist in his day as would dimness of sight.

 

[BoyRescue]

I think the reference is to a passage where he says (I'm paraphrasing), "See how large I write with my own hand!" (Galatians 6:11) -- and that the greeting and/or the way he writes is his "distinguishing mark" (2 Thes 3:17). I think the implication is not that he was blind so much as that his sight was failing.

Both seem to be out of context.

Galatians 6:11 - "Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand."

This is his "distinguishing mark" which is also mentioned in 2 Thess 3:17. This is to verify that it is indeed the Apostle Paul that is writing the letter and not someone else. This is in no way indicating to the Galatians that he has a disability of sight.

Read any commentary report about 6:11 and you'll see most scholarly experts do not believe it's in regards to his disability to sight as you mentioned.

2 Thess 3:17 - "I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write."

The key word is "greeting." In "greetings" you don't greet with your disability of sight, but a greet. Another key phrase is - "This is how I write." This is to let the Thessalonians recognize how it is from Apostle Paul by his handwriting. He was basically writing 3:17 to indicate it as a stamp of his "distinguishing marks" in all his letters. This is not to indicate to the Thessalonian churches that he had a disability of sight, but stamp of approval.

But we don't know if that's the thorn in his side or not; what the "thorn" was, specifically, is never mentioned. He's usually reluctant to discuss adversity specifically -- his "out of his mind" passage to the Corinthains notwithstanding -- so it's hard to know exactly what the problem or weakness was. Perhaps he wished he were a better speaker, and he considered that a stumbling block for many; it's certainly something he addressed, and would be as much a legitimate concern for a travelling evangelist in his day as would dimness of sight.

Interpret the scripture with scripture. Look at all the words for "thorn" in the bible and see what it refers too.

 

[CFDavid]

What's your interpretation?

 

[CFDavid]

Read any commentary report about 6:11 and you'll see most scholarly experts do not believe it's in regards to his disability to sight as you mentioned.

It's interesting, because in doing a quick online search of commentaries, almost all suggest that poor eyesight or even blindness (which I don't believe) is a possible answer. Having others write on his behalf is one piece of evidence, though really all that means is that Paul had a secretary here and there, but one commentary also points out Galatians 4:15. “I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.”

I'd forgotten that one, but it's certainly interesting.

The reason why I think the large handwriting indicates an impairment is pretty simple: People with failing eyesight prefer large print, not only for reading, but for their own writing. Think of how many people with poor sight use all caps or set their font sizes extra large. I think, also, of Matisse, as he was going blind, painting paper in extra bright colors and making large cutouts which assistants could pin to the wall while he lay in bed.

It's pretty much guesswork, and I assume it's not essential, or God would've made sure the answer was plain as day. But if I were teaching a class and this came up, I'd be perfectly fine with saying that failing eyesight is one of many things the thorn in his side may have been.

I'm still interested in what you think it is; there are some other theories out there I've seen now which look interesting as well.

 

[Auburn88]

It's interesting, because in doing a quick online search of commentaries, almost all suggest that poor eyesight or even blindness (which I don't believe) is a possible answer.

With the exception of one or two that theorize that his affliction was arthritis, every one I've seen says blindness.

 

[CFDavid]

I read one interesting theory which posits "guilt." I hadn't heard that one before.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Getting back to the OP's question:

How do you convince him to pray?

O taste and see that the LORD is good;
How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!
Psalm 34:8

The best way would be to let him see for himself.

God is not a genie to be commanded, but a loving Father who you can come to and ask for what you want. Clearly, every father knows that children don't always know what's truly best for themselves (can I have ice cream for breakfast?? pleeeeeeeese? - no son, eat your eggs), so the answer won't always be "yes." But sometimes it will. And in ways that defy coincidence.


7. "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.8. "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.9. "Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone?10. "Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he?11. "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!
Matthew 7:7-11

 

[BoyRescue]

What's your interpretation?

WHAT IS THE THORN IN THE FLESH REFERRING TO?

2 Corinthians 12:7

And lest I should be exalted above measure through 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.

It is a common mistake to assume that the thorn in the flesh was disease or ailment that Satan gave him. But there is obviously symbolism involved here (since it's not a literal thorn), and when symbolism is involved, we have to let God's Word itself interpret the symbolism. We cannot privately interpret, make assumptions, or guess at what it might mean. We compare scripture with scripture to discern God's truth.

Joshua 23:13

Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

God is not using this language of scourges in their sides and thorns in their eyes to signify some bodily disorder (as man would assume today) God is using them to illustrate that the people of these other nations will be entanglements for the Lord's people, to trouble them and cause them to fall. In the book of numbers, God uses the same language, but switches the use of the thorn to the side, and scourges to the eyes.

Numbers 33:55

But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.

A thorn in your side "is" a thorn in the flesh. And contrary to popular belief, it's not a physical ailment, it's people who if left among the Children of God, would vex or trouble them. This is what the thorn in the side "signifies" in God's Word. Paul, being a man of knowledge of scripture would be very familiar with these terms and God's use of them. He is indeed inspired by God to use this term to signify people who trouble the children of God. The Judaizers, who were the enemies of God, were a thorn in the side of Paul, because they hated him for teaching against their doctrines.

Joshua 23:13

Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.


These were the men who vexed the Lord's people, and whose god was not the true God. They would be a snare and trouble to God's Children. In fact, we use very similar language to describe those who vex us today. For example, we would say someone is, "a burr in our saddle." Another term we use is to say someone is, "a pain in the neck." These colloquial phrases convey the exact same meanings as Paul's thorn in the flesh. They don't mean we have some sickness, and they don't convey that we have literal pains in our necks. Likewise, Paul obviously isn't talking about a literal thorn sticking out of his flesh. He was simply using a common expression of those days, just as they are used in our day.

Judges 2:3

Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.


These were the men who vexed the Lord's people, and whose god was not the true God. They would be a snare and trouble to God's Children. In fact, we use very similar language to describe those who vex us today. For example, we would say someone is, "a burr in our saddle." Another term we use is to say someone is, "a pain in the neck." These colloquial phrases convey the exact same meanings as Paul's thorn in the flesh. They don't mean we have some sickness, and they don't convey that we have literal pains in our necks. Likewise, Paul obviously isn't talking about a literal thorn sticking out of his flesh. He was simply using a common expression of those days, just as they are used in our day. It is a common mistake to assume that the thorn in the flesh was disease or ailment that Satan gave him. But there is obviously symbolism involved here (since it's not a literal thorn), and when symbolism is involved, we have to let God's Word itself interpret the symbolism. We cannot privately interpret, make assumptions, or guess at what it might mean. We compare scripture with scripture to discern God's truth.

WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE THORN?

2 Corinthians 12:7

And lest I should be exalted above measure through 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.

Those who believe that this was an illness are not carefully following the characteristics of this thorn. First, it is a thorn that even they realize is not literal, therefore it's symbolism must be prescribed by what is in scripture. And throughout scripture it is defined as men who trouble God's people. The second characteristic is that it is defined as the Messenger of Satan. And the third characteristic is that it was sent to buffet Paul. Is there any biblical instances where God says illness buffets anyone? No, this is not illness, that's those people who hated Paul and his teachings, and did everything in their power, including beating him, to stop him. The same Judaizers that persecuted and buffeted Christ.

Matthew 26:67

Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,

1 Corinthians 4:11

Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;

2 Corinthians 11:25

Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;

Paul was likewise despised and buffeted by the messenger of Satan. To him, they were thorns in his flesh who constantly vexed, reviled and persecuted him. These cast him into prison, and they beat him, and followed him from city to city. They made Paul's life very difficult.

 

[CFDavid]

...so you're saying that Paul's thorn (singular) in the flesh were people (plural) who caused him trouble?

It's an interesting interpretation, but it doesn't really resonate with me.

John MacArthur has said he believes that any scripture has only one correct interpretation, but I just don't agree with that on the something like this. Unity in essentials; liberty in non-essentials, as they say.

Nice discussion!

 

[BoyRescue]

...so you're saying that Paul's thorn (singular) in the flesh were people (plural) who caused him trouble?

It's an interesting interpretation, but it doesn't really resonate with me.

The great thing is I'm not even interpreting it, the bible is interpreting it! I'm simply being the vehicle to provide the scriptures to interpret the scriptures!

Glad to see we agree to disagree. Nice discussion as well!