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.

Article wrote:
* 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

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

Article wrote:
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.

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.

Article wrote:
All who are redeemed are completely redeemed in every area where redemption has made provision.

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.

Darius

“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.

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.

It is talking about bodily healing. Its a direct quote from Isaiah 53, which specifically deals with bodily 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.

http://www.ondoctrine.com/2may0005.htm

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.

Yes, some prophetic texts have a dual meaning. But what difference would that make even if that were the case here?

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.

Darius

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 wrote:
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.

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).

Chris A wrote:
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.

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.

Darius wrote:
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.

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!

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 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).

Chris A. wrote
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.

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.