Comments on: Bibilical Bodily Healing VII: Faith Defined

By: Jew

Jew — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:09:14 +0000

Chris A, I think you’re really on to something here. Great article. I don’t feel qualified to respond in detail because I haven’t studied the nature of faith and promises, so I don’t have enough knowledge to offer a meaningful comment.

By: Atanamis

Atanamis — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:40:11 +0000

Looks good from my first reading. I’ll have to read it again a couple more times to be sure that I understand what you are saying completely, but for not it definitely looks valid.

By: Jew

Jew — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:48:06 +0000

Chris A said: “Many err in that they assume that whatever God promises automatically materializes. Nothing could be further from the truth. God promised Israel a land flowing with milk and honey, but did all of them enter into that land? No. Why? Because of unbelief (Hebrews 3:19). Therefore it requires faith to receive of what God has provided for his children.”

If you’re saying that what we do (our faith) affects what God permits to happen in this world, isn’t that getting a bit close to open theism? Or maybe I’m misinterpreting you completely.

By: Chris Austere

Chris Austere — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:02:37 +0000

“If you’re saying that what we do (our faith) affects what God permits to happen in this world, isn’t that getting a bit close to open theism? Or maybe I’m misinterpreting you completely.”

If I were to comment on Open Theism, a theology I know very little about, that would open the door for others to agree or disagree about what I have written on the basis of their own Arminian or Calvinist prejudices. Rather than taking that route, I think it’s best for all of us to go to the source - the Bible. I would rather a person agree or disagree because they have searched the scriptures. I have found that people will fight you tooth and nail to defend their preconceived notions. Others will wholeheartedly take your side to prove their loyalty to a theology. This is the opposite of humility and is not conducive to our apprehending of the Truth.

By: Colin

Colin — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:18:48 +0000

^^^ wisdom I could learn from right there.

By: Darius T

Darius T — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:27:49 +0000

Agreed… now back to what Jew asked, are you an Open Theist? j/k

By: Chris A

Chris A — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:39:10 +0000

“Agreed… now back to what Jew asked, are you an Open Theist? j/k”

Not that I know of.

By: Atanamis

Atanamis — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:43:37 +0000

Doctrinal “platforms” are only useful in the sense of summarizing interpretations we hold. For example, I can list out points A-F, H-N, and P-Z individually, or I can say I hold to the alphabet doctrine, with the exception of G and O, which I believe to be invalid. Once the exceptions take more time to explain than the commonalities, use of the “base doctrine” becomes useless. Nobody should ever look to these sets of doctrine as an authority in lieu of Scripture.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:11:04 +0000

Faith without works is a dead faith. But, unfortunately, many have seized upon Weymouth’s translation where he used the phrase “actions that correspond” and have turned our actions into a 1-to-1 correspondence.

So, for instance, if you’re believing for the healing of diabetes than throw away your insulin. If you are believing for the healing of your eyes than your “corresponding action” is to throw away your glasses.

Such theology is guilty of taking “a” truth and making it “the” truth at the expense of the hearer.

Actions will always be involved with healing but what those actions should be are between the believer and the Holy Spirit. Many have done things which almost killed them because of a presumptuous position.

Like other areas, every believer needs God’s wisdom in order to know exactly what course of “action” to take.