In the Old Testament God revealed himself through various names that describe his character and reveal his personality. The name Jehovah was considered by the Israelites to be the most holy name of God. This name reveals God as Creator, being self-existent, self-sufficient, and unchanging.
There are seven compound names of Jehovah that reveal his redemptive nature. Redemption simply means to buy back by the payment of a price. Mankind was brought under the authority of darkness after Adam’s sin, and it was thus necessary for God to send a Redeemer to pay the price for sin and restore mankind to fellowship with his Creator. There are seven compound names of Jehovah in the Old Testament, all of which foreshadow the coming Christ. I will briefly define in basic terms these compound names.
- Jehovah-Raah – The Lord our shepherd
- Jehovah-Jireh – The Lord our provider
- Jehovah-Tsidkenu – The Lord our righteousness
- Jehovah-Shalom – The Lord our peace
- Jehovah-Shammah – The Lord is present
- Jehovah-Nissi – The Lord our protector
- Jehovah-Rapha – The Lord our healer
Most Christians would scarcely disagree that Jesus is presently our shepherd, our provider, our righteousness, and our peace. Most believe that he is with us always, even until the end of the age. They know him as their protector, but when it comes to the question of healing that is quite another matter. Some hold to the idea that healing is only for the soul. Others say that bodily healing passed away with the last apostle, or that healing occurs only in rare and special instances dependent on the unrevealed attributes of God’s sovereignty. In other words, they believe God heals some and not others. Why do Christians adhere to such ideas? I believe it is simply because they do not believe that healing is a benefit of redemption, either because they have not been taught that it is or they have been taught that it is not.
The Redemptive Work of Christ
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time (1 Timothy 2:5, 6).
The price Jesus paid to redeem mankind was his own body. There are various references in the Bible to the redemptive benefits afforded to believers. These benefits are afforded to those who believe on the basis of God’s grace. Access into this grace is only afforded to those who exercise faith, and faith is based on the knowledge of God. For instance, a person could not have faith for the remission of his sins apart from the knowledge that God would grant him that benefit if he sought it. Faith is the result of having heard the word of God which imparts the knowledge of God. It is commonly accepted that redemption includes salvation, in the sense that one is cleansed from sin and its eternal penalty. However, we must ask whether redemption includes salvation from the immediate penalty of sin – sickness and disease. I believe the scriptures answer this question.
Isaiah 53
The 53rd chapter of Isaiah offers perhaps the most vivid and prophetic picture of Christ as Redeemer. For clarity we will examine the entire chapter from Young’s Literal Translation. Pay special attention to verses 4, 5, 6, and 10.
1Who hath given credence to that which we heard? And the arm of Jehovah, On whom hath it been revealed?
2Yea, he cometh up as a tender plant before Him, And as a root out of a dry land, He hath no form, nor honour, when we observe him, Nor appearance, when we desire him.
3He is despised, and left of men, A man of pains, and acquainted with sickness, And as one hiding the face from us, He is despised, and we esteemed him not.
4Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, And our pains — he hath carried them, And we — we have esteemed him plagued, Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5And he is pierced for our transgressions, Bruised for our iniquities, The chastisement of our peace [is] on him, And by his bruise there is healing to us.
6All of us like sheep have wandered, Each to his own way we have turned, And Jehovah hath caused to meet on him, The punishment of us all.
7It hath been exacted, and he hath answered, And he openeth not his mouth, As a lamb to the slaughter he is brought, And as a sheep before its shearers is dumb, And he openeth not his mouth.
8By restraint and by judgment he hath been taken, And of his generation who doth meditate, That he hath been cut off from the land of the living? By the transgression of My people he is plagued,
9And it appointeth with the wicked his grave, And with the rich [are] his high places, Because he hath done no violence, Nor [is] deceit in his mouth.
10And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick, If his soul doth make an offering for guilt, He seeth seed — he prolongeth days, And the pleasure of Jehovah in his hand doth prosper.
11Of the labour of his soul he seeth — he is satisfied, Through his knowledge give righteousness Doth the righteous one, My servant, to many, And their iniquities he doth bear.
12Therefore I give a portion to him among the many, And with the mighty he apportioneth spoil, Because that he exposed to death his soul, And with transgressors he was numbered, And he the sin of many hath borne, And for transgressors he intercedeth.
Upon examination it is clear that the redemptive work of Christ includes healing. Not only was he the just dying for the unjust, by being made sin and taking upon himself it’s due punishment, he was made sick as well (verse 10). There is no distinction made here between Christ our righteousness, Christ our peace, and Christ our healer. They are all one in the same. This was understood by David, who wrote in Psalm 103:1-3,
Bless the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases.
How many of our iniquities does our Redeemer forgive? He is faithful and just to forgive them all. How many of our diseases does he heal? He must of necessity heal them all because Jesus carried them all when he was scourged. To say that he paid the price for some of the sins or some of the diseases is to fail to esteem the sacrifice Christ made.
Both Matthew and Peter made reference to Isaiah 53 in discussing healing.
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses (Matthew 8:17).
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed (1 Peter 2:24).
Notice that Peter quoted Isaiah 53:5 in past tense, indicating that healing was a provision of the redemption paid for by the scourging of Jesus.
Which is Easier?
We know that Jesus was the expressed image of the Father’s personality, that he did nothing of himself but rather was the embodiment of God’s will in action. Keeping this in mind, let us examine what Jesus said when he healed the man borne of four in Mark 2.
5When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?
8And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
9Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
12And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.
The scribes were more hung up on the fact that Jesus forgave sin than they were about his healing the sick. Today, it seems that most Christians have the opposite mentality. They express little doubt about whether they will receive forgiveness for sins on the basis of Jesus’ sacrifice, but when it comes to healing there is doubt. However, Jesus forever settled the question of his identity as both healer and savior when he asked the question of whether it was easier for him to be one versus the other. In truth he is forever the Redeemer in all respects. With him there is no variation, and he is no respecter of persons. All who are redeemed are completely redeemed in every area where redemption has made provision.
Jesus is indeed the Redeemer. He has redeemed us, is redeeming us, and will redeem us at his Second Coming. But, until that last day, we are not completely redeemed or healed or made righteous (except in a strictly spiritual sense). Because of the stain of sin and the fallen creation, God does not fully fix everything in this world. Rather, at the coming of Christ on that last day and on the day of Judgment, all will be repaired and remedied. Until then, we live with affliction, death, disease, evil, sin, etc.
Another way of looking at this is what you imply about the other compound names of God. For example, if on this earth God is already 100% our protector, then why are Christians in China or Nigeria still being killed? I daresay they have more faith than you or I; we live in a cushy Western world where our faith is never tested to the extent theirs is. So, assuming Chinese or Nigerian Christians have faith that can move mountains, why are they still killed if God is our protector? It is precisely because in this fallen world, He always protects spiritually but only protects physically when it corresponds with His will. Likewise when it says God is present, He isn’t present like He will be in heaven. He has somewhat removed His presence on this earth until that last day.
So, similarly, He will heal us completely at the Second Coming.
Roles of Christ are not yet complete
Shepherd - Jesus is ALWAYS there to guide and direct us. His word is a light unto our way and a lamp unto our feet.
Provider - He will provide all our needs, yet Christians CAN starve. What does this mean? If He cares for the sparrow, does this mean He values a starving believer less? No, what this means is that we need not FEAR for our needs because we can trust Christ to meet them, not that we can be assured of personal wealth or even personal survival against starvation, thirst, or exposure.
Righteousness - His acts are counted to us for righteousness, and when we sin His grace abounds. (Not that we should continue to sin though!)
Peace - We are not assured physical peace, and Christians DO die in wars. This “guarantee of peace” seems even more problematic when we consider that believers are engaged in spiritual warfare. This is not a guarantee of peace in this life, but of internal and eternal peace.
Present - He is “present”, but as He told His apostles He “must go” to prepare a place, and will send a “Comforter” in His place. At some future point he will “return”. Again, physical presence is in many ways a delayed promise.
Protector - See Darius’s post.
Healer - God DOES heal believers, and we SHOULD pray for healing. I would go so far as to agree that much illness among believers may result from our failure to pray properly. Paul indicates that church members may become ill from improper worship (taking the communion with an impure heart). That said, like the other promises it is not fully realized physically in this lifetime. We can remain confident that any illness we have WILL be healed, though perhaps only when our body is regenerated into a new form. As with the other promises, God WILL fulfill it physically, but not necessarily immediately.
We still experience effects of sin in this life
And yet believers will continue to sin throughout their current lives. We continue to feel the effects of sin on this world, including things like illness and the mistreatment of men for one another. Just as we will one day be free from pain, we will also be free from illness. At that point, we will be able to fully claim the right to life without illness.
To take this position is to argue that every believers who has starved, died in war, been physically persecuted, or died of disease did so through lack of faith. Quite to the contrary, Jesus warned His followers that just as He suffered in this life, so would they. Most of the apostles were martyred, does this mean they were unprotected? Christ clearly has power in all these jurisdictions, and one day will grant full access to them all, but in this current life we will continue to face tribulations. But for me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
Amen.
Darius
Darius, maybe you could give us some scripture to support your view. Otherwise what you have said is just human logic. Let’s look at 1 Peter 2:24 again.
“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were [past tense] healed.”
According to this scripture, the redemptive benefit of healing is afforded to us now based on the finished work of Christ. Nowhere in the Bible will you find scripture to support the idea that healing is being deferred until Christ’s millennial reign. Yes we will have glorified bodies, but that isn’t really healing.
“So, assuming Chinese or Nigerian Christians have faith that can move mountains, why are they still killed if God is our protector?”
Articles on faith will come later. But it is unwise to judge the character of God on the basis of someone’s tragic experience. That, in itself, is unbelief because it rejects what God says in favor of observation.
“For we walk by faith, NOT by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7).
Sure, faith can be observed but seeing is not believing in the Christian sense.
1 Peter 2 isn’t talking about bodily healing, it’s talking about sin and righteous living.
The healing spoken of in 1 Peter is entirely the spiritual kind. There is no indication that this is speaking of physical healing, nor does it fit with a straightforward reading of the rest of the New Testament.
Articles on faith will come later. But it is unwise to judge the character of God on the basis of someone’s tragic experience. That, in itself, is unbelief because it rejects what God says in favor of observation.
You claim that God is 100% our physical healer, our physical protector, our physical provider and anything lacking is not because God has chosen to withhold it but because of a lack of faith. So I gave an example of Christians who, by and large, have more faith than you or I do, and yet they still suffer greatly in many different ways in this world. You imply that we can hold God hostage to our will for our physical needs as long as we have enough faith, yet that is shown not to be the case among the most faithful Christians around the world. I am certain they would find this idea preposterous, stemming from the West’s lack of real suffering. Furthermore, how does this differentiate from the Prayer of Jabez/Prosperity Gospel foolishness that’s rampant among our churches today? Using your logic, since God is both our healer AND our provider, shouldn’t he make us all rich if we have enough faith and pray fervently? I have a feeling you wouldn’t say that, but you certainly imply it throughout these articles on healing.
Exactly Jew. Chris, you are consistently reading meaning into passages that isn’t there in order to prove your point.
I’m still giving Chris A. the benefit of the doubt. I want to see how he explains the fact that believers do fall ill and get diseases. So far he’s just trying to demonstrate that God promises us healing in this world.
I think we are all holding back from fully “releasing the hounds.”
So far, the case for full healing in this world is weak and requires some novel ways of reading Scripture.
“1 Peter 2 isn’t talking about bodily healing, it’s talking about sin and righteous living.”
It is talking about bodily healing. Its a direct quote from Isaiah 53, which specifically deals with bodily healing.
I’m not sure I follow you. Peter quotes Isaiah and interprets it in the context of sin and righteousness. I’m not convinced Isaiah 53 really is about bodily healing, but that’s irrelevant because Peter is not talking about bodily healing.
Anyway, let’s not get too hung up on 1 Peter 2:24. I think we can all agree that Matthew 8:17 is unambiguously about bodily healing.
http://www.ronrhodes.org/qhealingguaranteed.html
“Furthermore, how does this differentiate from the Prayer of Jabez/Prosperity Gospel foolishness that’s rampant among our churches today? Using your logic, since God is both our healer AND our provider, shouldn’t he make us all rich if we have enough faith and pray fervently? I have a feeling you wouldn’t say that, but you certainly imply it throughout these articles on healing.”
I will reiterate that if I say something that isn’t biblical, you have an obligation to reject it. As far as prosperity goes, the Bible has quite a bit to say about that as well. Read it for yourself and judge accordingly. But this “guilt by association” thing is really the lowest kind of argument one can make. Judge the worthiness of teaching by its biblical content, not whether it can be categorized into some kind of theology that you have a personal grievance with. I will tell you that I credit God with prospering me, not because I agree with every so-called “prosperity preacher” but because Proverbs 3:8,9 says,
9 Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:
10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.
I guess I’m just stupid enough to believe that. If that makes me a “prosperity preacher” then I think I can live with that. I would rather agree with God than disagree with him.
Even better…
http://www.ondoctrine.com/2may0005.htm
So…how many barns and winepresses do you have?
And Jesus said “You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get [your barns]?
“Anyway, let’s not get too hung up on 1 Peter 2:24. I think we can all agree that Matthew 8:17 is unambiguously about bodily healing.”
Well if Matthew was quoting Isaiah 53, can we agree that Isaiah 53 must have been speaking about bodily healing? Otherwise, Matthew was taking some serious liberties a scripture that he said was fulfilled by Christ’s ministry.
*with “a scripture that…”
Well, as is true with almost all Old Testament prophetic texts, they have more than one meaning.
“Well, as is true with almost all Old Testament prophetic texts, they have more than one meaning.”
Yes, some prophetic texts have a dual meaning. But what difference would that make even if that were the case here?
That Peter might be using the other meaning (which would correspond with his surrounding words more than physical healing).
The New Testament writers often took great liberties with the Scriptures. They reinterpreted Isaiah in all manners of ways that modern scholars would be aghast at. They had that authority because they were inspired by God. We don’t have that authority; we can only look at the plain meaning of the text.
So it’s OK that Matthew interpreted Isaiah 53 to refer to bodily healing and Peter used it in a discussion of sin and righteousness. We can consider both of those to be valid readings of Isaiah 53. We can also look back at Isaiah 53 and try to figure out what it meant to the people at the time of its writing. But that’s not particularly instructive in determining the meaning of the Matthew and 1 Peter passages–in those passages, the interpretation of the Isaiah quotation is obvious from the context.
Any of you computer whizes know how to get rid of this stupid Googlebot thing? I think it has something to do with cookies, but I can’t figure out what. It does it in Firefox too, so I know it’s not just my browser. It randomly chooses to sign me in as Googlebot.
Darius
I really have no idea. It’s never happened to me even once.
(this is Colin, my cookies in this Seattle hotel room are all whacked up)
Chris,
Please take about half of Darius’ comments with a grain of salt. He seems to think honest debate is about winning points, stereotyping, ad hominems, strawmen, coalition building and other intellectually dubious tactics. I would give your responses to him the same amount of effort and genuine concern that he employs in first reading and then responding to your posts.
Having said that, I agree with Darius’ first post before he decided to start another witch hunt. Using the attributes of God as a principle means that they need to be applied consistently. I think we see a significant discrepancy between God as a healer and what that means, versus God as our salvation and what that means.
Also, I want to contrast my method with the “team” Darius is trying to build. I, for one, am not “holding back” anything. That would imply I am just waiting for you to finish talking before I ignore everything you say and go off on some planned tirade about Benny Hinn or something. I am actually giving you an honest reading and allowing your views to challenge my own understanding on the subject thus far.
Colin, does it make you feel good to be so condescending? It must, since you do it more than everyone else put together (with gurr8 being the exception). Why not try this, champ: point out where I’m “building a team” as you love to put it, or where I’m making up straw men. How about doing that for once rather than just screaming fire?
Let’s start with one point I tried to make, which you claim is probably a straw man or “witch hunt,” so no intellectual response is required (isn’t that convenient). I mentioned that if you apply Chris’ logic to those other areas, you get the prosperity gospel. What does he do? He says I’m using guilt by association (nevermind I just spent a few comments discussing how his reading was invalid) and then, get this, admits to believing in some form of the prosperity gospel. See, what that means is he just PROVED my point. If we apply his logic to the “provider” name of God, we get the prosperity gospel. If one is to use an argument, one has to understand the full implications of that argument. It would seem that he does, something that you rarely show.
Seriously, why is it that you (or gurr8) always turn things hostile? I guess you like to read hidden meanings and tones into people’s comments (or at least mine). I honestly don’t know what it is, but you love doing it.
Also, I’m just wondering… where exactly IN THIS THREAD did I mention Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen or any of their ilk? I know I’ve mentioned them before in other comments, but where, PRAY TELL, did I hear? You really love throwing out straw men, so perhaps you’re just projecting in your above comment.
“I, for one, am not “holding back” anything. That would imply I am just waiting for you to finish talking before I ignore everything you say and go off on some planned tirade about Benny Hinn or something.I am actually giving you an honest reading and allowing your views to challenge my own understanding on the subject thus far.”
lol! Well, I would say that is the preferred and most honorable way to learn. And I would add that is how I try to read what you write. Much of the Libertarian stuff is quite challenging, even though I naturally lean that way most of the time. I try to be careful not to form an opinion before I carefully consider what is said, and even then I don’t always form an opinion. I actually think its quite liberating to feel free not to have a take on everything.
Let it be known to everyone that I do not claim to know everything about healing. Nor do I feel adequate in answering every question on the subject, but I am fairly confident in those things I do know, having seen the results that the Gospel produces. And I am fully persuaded that there is no Gospel without healing - at least not a biblical one. And if I might digress, I would add that a failure to emphasize healing is largely responsible for the modern church’s failure to reach the lost.
“And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:4,5).
May we never be guilty of marketing an intellectual gospel that merely produces faith in the “wisdom of men”. But let us all strive for true ambassadorship, the fervor and passion for Truth that is backed up by demonstrations of the Holy Ghost in the name of our Christ, producing in men an unquestionable faith in the power of our God.
Darius (Colin again),
I wasn’t joking when I said about half of your comments have the above logical fallacies in them. That’s not meant to be an insult - some people just have trouble debating honestly (Lord knows I do at times). I’m not calling you an idiot or a jerk. I am simply trying to save Chris some time and caution him (since he will post long, referenced responses) in posting responses to comments that have no intention of being exploratory.
I’m not saying you’ve done any of those things specifically in this thread (although you have done some of them in this thread), but that these things indicate that you are choosing (and I believe you are choosing because you are certainly smart and mature enough to not to) to run over ideas by forces other than logic. I’m not saying I or others don’t do this at times - we aren’t robots - I am just saying you should consider your motives when debating. Are you in this to win or to learn? I would argue that the only way to win is to learn. I think if you adopt that attitude more consistently (as you do use it half the time), you are going to find that you benefit yourself and others a lot more.
In light of my last comment, re-reading my first comment has made me realize I was much to “prickly” - I apologize for that.
Part of what irritated me about your comment is the fact that I have been trying to keep things from sounding too “pointed” and thought that so far, I had done a decent job of it on this thread. I was NOT using guilt by association, but rather showing where Chris’s logic would lead when used in another direction regarding the names of God. Perhaps I didn’t say this clearly enough, for which I am sorry. If I had intended ad hominem or guilty by association arguments, I would have definitely included a “Benny Hinn” for good measure.
I don’t mean to sound like I’m “teaming” or forming a “coalition.” However, when someone says something with which I agree or better than I could have said it, I will sometimes affirm such a statement.
As for the topic at hand… I am not finding much to be “learned” when the Scriptures are repeatedly taken out of context to fit some agenda. What I find interesting is how Atanamis is rarely replied to, even though he usually (especially in this case) makes very good comments, usually more eloquent and fleshed out than my own. Instead, he is ignored and, when is the case, I am the one debated. I’m not sure why this repeatedly happens, but I’ve seen it occur on multiple occasions.
That’s curious, Darius. I hadn’t noticed before that Atanamis was ignored. I usually don’t respond to him because I agree with him, but that doesn’t explain the lack of other responses.
Perhaps he’s like dead people on The Sixth Sense…
I do respond to Atanamis almost always, but only when I don’t agree (mostly).
Both you and Chris have mostly ignored him when he’s disputed your articles (which is a lot recently).
“Both you and Chris have mostly ignored him when he’s disputed your articles (which is a lot recently).”
I haven’t intended to ignore anyone. If I have, I apologize. In instances when my response will be too long or I plan to address a certain topic in a later article, I decline to respond.
But to clarify what I meant by the “guilt by association” comment… When you use the term “prosperity gospel” you invoke all of the names you have consistently used in previous discussions, namely Joel Osteen. (He seems to be one of your favorite whipping boys.) So while you may not have used his name in connection with what I wrote this time, you implied an association of theology without bothering to define this theology or explain what is wrong with it. This is unfair because it assumes too much. There may be quite a bit I agree with Osteen about, but the things which I may disagree with him about are overshadowed by the implication that I would somehow be associated with someone you have decided is a false teacher. Not only is this not conducive to learning or fair debate, it is destructive; and it is tantamount to a straw man.
As far as I’m concerned its all water under the bridge. I didn’t mean anything I wrote as a personal insult. Feel free to question me on anything. Feel free to disagree. I would just rather you explain why you disagree on the basis of actual scripture.
I wasn’t insulted by anything you wrote. I just thought you were trying to avoid responding to my point by throwing out the ol’ straw man accusation. Perhaps I assumed too much in using the term “prosperity gospel.” I suppose some on here don’t fully understand what it means or the evil theology it represents. What I meant by “prosperity gospel” is the theology, rampant in the church today, that teaches that God primarily exists to make us healthy and successful in THIS LIFE. Pastors who teach this theology are usually extremely light on scriptural support and rarely teach anything of substance (Joel Osteen is the best example of this, in my opinion). Osteen, TD Jakes, and even sometimes Rick Warren teach a “self-help” gospel where sins, repentance, and the glorification of God is quite low on the agenda and man’s glorification is a high priority. For example, I recently heard Osteen mention how he teaches people to say “I AM” to problems in their life. Basically, people can be their own gods. It was very disturbing.
That “prosperity gospel” is what happens when you take your reasoning on healing and apply it to “God as Provider.” Plenty of verses, when taken out of context and not compared to other portions of Scripture, exist that would seem to support the prosperity theology. Likewise, you have shown us that there are some verses, when you take them out of their original context, that support your healing-on-faithful-demand theology.
What worries me MOST about the healing or prosperity gospels is the inherent selfishness and egocentric ideology behind them. Instead, as a hermeneutical study of the entire Bible shows us, man exists for GOD’S glory, and Christians are to live a simple, sacrificial life (including finances and health). You may not intend it as a selfish idea, but I can promise you that many people will abuse it in that direction.
I am rabidly against the prosperity gospel, the word faith movement and the false teachers that condone these practices. But I have no case for bringing it up here - as all Chris is doing is talking about his views on healing.
I don’t see why it’s so difficult to apply his same reasoning to prosperity. ?? But for the sake of the argument, I won’t mention it again.
“Likewise, you have shown us that there are some verses, when you take them out of their original context, that support your healing-on-faithful-demand theology.”
Maybe you wouldn’t mind telling me which verses were taken out of context. As far as 1 Peter 2 goes, I know Peter only specifically mentions healing in verse 24. However, that is not unlike Isaiah 53 which discusses multiple attributes of the Redeemer throughout the chapter. Therefore, the fact that he mentions other aspects of redemption in the context does not mean he has digressed if he mentions bodily healing in the same context.
As to your characterization of my “healing-on-faithful-demand-theology”, that is quite inaccurate. It seems to assume that one would need to “demand” something from God that the scriptures indicate he is fully willing to provide upon request, that is, as long as you are willing to accept the idea that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Darius, as you are probably aware, I most often have positions similar to your own. Despite this, I have noticed that you at times lean too much on the “logical fallacies” mentioned by Colin. I haven’t see that in this thread, making Colin’s posts… unexpected… but it is definitely something you want to watch. I tend to do the same thing myself, using whatever fallacies I can get away with (though much less so at home now though since my wife took a logic class and can call me out on my fallacies by name).
This is where I get very concerned regarding your doctrine. I am perfectly content to agree that God can and does miraculously heal believers. I am in full agreement that we will one day have every tear wiped from our eyes, and that at this time there will be no more sickness and no more death. I have a major problem with those who will claim that without healing there is no salvation, or will tell me that taking communion will bring healing. These are NOT Biblical concepts, have NEVER been widely accepted by the church, and DO affect the core doctrines of the gospel.
I greatly appreciate your kind words. While I still find myself resorting to logical fallacies at times, I’m trying to work on it. I have found the lack of responses to my comments (both here and elsewhere) to be odd at times, I try to comfort myself in the view that my posts are so perfect as to merit no correction or expansion. This probably isn’t true, but it makes me feel better.
In reality though, Colin and I have had some meaningful dialogs, though his more popular posts get so many responses as to make meaningful dialog difficult. One can normally assume that I disagree with everything cchrisr says, though he and I have so little common ground that discussion is fruitless. For other posters, responding to my comments practically means another blog posting, so I can understand why they might be a little deterred. It is good to know that at least someone is actually reading them though!
“For other posters, responding to my comments practically means another blog posting, so I can understand why they might be a little deterred.”
I have a feeling that you’re probably right. Part of the reason that Chris (and recently Colin) has “ignored” your comments is that they are generally longer than most and take more effort to reply to. Whereas I usually keep my comments shorter. Plus, your comments are, as you said, usually “so perfect as to merit no correction.”
And yes, I completely understand if dialogue between cchrisr and yourself dies out quickly. I too find it nearly impossible to have a fruitful discussion with him, as we come from such polar opposites on basic theology. So if/when he gives no reply to your comments, I chalk it up to that “common ground” dissimilarity.
“I have a major problem with those who will claim that without healing there is no salvation, or will tell me that taking communion will bring healing.”
I never wrote either of those things. Again you have shamelessly misrepresented what I wrote. You may question my doctrine, but I must now question your honesty.
Certainly there are many aspects to salvation, and because one does not enjoy all the benefits made available to believers, that does not mean they are not saved in the eternal sense. Here is the quote you responded to:
“And I am fully persuaded that there is no Gospel without healing - at least not a biblical one. And if I might digress, I would add that a failure to emphasize healing is largely responsible for the modern church’s failure to reach the lost.”
If one reads the story of Christ’s earthly ministry, healing is a very important part of that story. Therefore healing is an important part of the Gospel, wouldn’t you agree? After all, Jesus was and is a healer, right? My opinion that modern evangelistic efforts have failed because of a deemphasis on the healing ministry of Jesus is based on contrasting the results the early church got compared to those today. In quarters where people still fully preach the Gospel, the results are still quite remarkable. Where people have resorted to editing the Gospel to preserve their own traditional views, the message logically has a lesser impact. I leave you with two quotes from the Apostle Paul.
“Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ” (Romans 15:19).
“And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:4, 5).
I apologize for my miscommunication. It was never my intent to suggest that you were saying that, just the wording of your comment that “there is no Gospel without healing” was of concern. I appreciate your clarification that it was not your intent to say that those who do not experience healing are not saved.