While sickness may very well be “of the devil,” I don’t think you make a good case for it here. Luke 13:11 reads there was a woman who had had a disabling spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not fully straighten herself. When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said to her, “Woman, you are freed from your disability.” Now, Jesus doesn’t appear to address a demon like He usually did when tossing out evil spirits. Furthermore, we have to consider the context of the society at the time. They considered all sickness to have spiritual roots, as they had little concept of diseases, infections, or basic scientific explanations for bad health. So to say that a woman had a “disabling spirit” is to use the terminology of the day, much like an African tribesman might even today refer to a broken leg as a bad spirit.

As for “healing all who were under the power of the devil,” this could easily be refering to ONLY those who were demonically possessed and required “healing.”

Just a thought on that particular point…

look at Luke 13:11 in context, paying special attention to what Jesus said in verse 16.

11And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.

12And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.

13And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.

14And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.

15The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?

16And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

17And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

Chris Austere wrote:
I contend that healing is just as much a part of the Gospel as forgiveness of sin.
…
It is no secret to us that sickness and disease are the beginnings of death. Some of the more serious diseases – heart disease, AIDS, cancer, etc. – are often considered to be potentially fatal.

How many of the people you have seen healed would you expect will never die? Physical death in ALL forms is the result of a lack of healing, since “healing” can recover any wound, any illness, any disorder. To consistently hold your position that God guarantees healing REQUIRES that you believe God guarantees physical immortality to all believers.

That this is untrue can be validated simply by looking at the history of the church. There has not been a single report of any person in Scripture or otherwise since Elijah who did not eventually die a physical death. Scripture seems to indicate that the NEXT time this will happen is during the rapture. Have you known anyone who you would agree “fully trusted in God” that then died? If so, how did this person die, and why didn’t God heal them? Was it solely do to their lack of faith?

I fully agree that illness and death are the result of sin in the world. I also fully agree that Jesus has authority over them, just as He had the authority to tell the water to become wine. I won’t even argue that God does not impart physical miracles of healing today, or that we should not pray to God for healing. What I WILL deny is that God guarantees to heal all our physical ailments, to always provide food and shelter, or to make us wealthy and happy in this life. For a believer, we live in a fallen world in which we are subject to the damages of sin. Most men will one day die a physical death, whether they believe in Christ or not, and when they do Christ will have broken no promise to heal all ailments and give us a “wonderful life”.

Darius said:
Since Chris hasn’t completed this series, I will withhold much commenting on it and give him the benefit of the doubt (though I know I will likely disagree strongly with him in the end :). That said, I agree completely with Atanamis’ comment.

The problem with the premise is that it is trivially falsifiable by observation of reality. One might as well claim that a true believer in Christ will be entirely sinless! No believer in history has ever demonstrated the claimed quality, and if they HAD done so it would be unimaginably noteworthy. The Bible might guarantee certain kinds of healing of which I am unaware, but it is absolutely impossible for it to guarantee ALL types of healing. My question isn’t why this kind of healing isn’t more common, but rather why has this type of healing never occurred in the history of the Christian church. Once that question is answered, we can move on to others.

Atanamis,

I will address this later in the series.

Why do you assume this type of healing never occurred in the history of the church? Indeed, it did. It is still occurring because Jesus is still alive.

Chris Austere wrote“My question isn’t why this kind of healing isn’t more common, but rather why has this type of healing never occurred in the history of the Christian church. Once that question is answered, we can move on to others.”

Why do you assume this type of healing never occurred in the history of the church? Indeed, it did. It is still occurring because Jesus is still alive.

Yes, after having first dying and leaving a corpse. I realize that Christ’s death was an exceptional case (since he HAD to “die” to defeat death), but then I also fully agree that all believers will receive a bodily resurrection which will result in an “incorruptible” body that will not get sick and will not die. My point was that only two people in history have done this without first leaving a corpse. Those two people are Enoch and Elijah. I also believe this will happen again in the Rapture. Now either every other believer is history simply had too little faith, or God does NOT guarantee unlimited health to His followers. I assume you are taking the first option, that only Enoch and Elijah had the needed faith to avoid all illness in this body?

Note, I understand that this series is incomplete, but I wanted to lay down the essential first problem of your claim. If you can satisfactorily address this issue, you will have earned the right for me to consider your other claims.