Commissioned to heal

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Commissioned to heal

Post by steve7150 » Sun May 09, 2010 1:45 pm

As a result, none of us does everything that Jesus did. Hands, feet and eyes do not all have the same function. "To one is given...[this gift]; to another is given...[that gift]." Healings, in fact, are mentioned as being among those gifts that "to one is given" and not to another.




Yes Paul said healing is a gift but he also said faith is, as well as praying in tongues yet you have said anyone can pray in tongues as well as have faith therefore Paul must be referring to these gifts benefiting the rest of the body of Christ.
As far as what the Holy Spirit may do in a person , it's not as if Jesus mentioned a correlation between faith and healing once or twice, he repeatedly made this connection and it was the Holy Spirit that effectuated the process. The crux of the issue IMO is whether this connection is limited to his ministry or not. If it was to demonstrate he was the Messiah only, it seemed to draw few people in the end.Was Jesus special ? , of course he was very special yet he did become like us in a human body that got tired and hungry and possibly could have become sick with an illness yet it presumably never did. Did God divinely protect his health or was it the Holy Spirit combined with Jesus perfect faith? As far as the Holy Spirit raising him , as you know it also says God raised him and he said he raised himself.
As far as the state of health of people in heaven "There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain (Rev 21.4)." The only reason i mentioned it was because if one believes it is God's will for people to be sick and in pain, why would Jesus pray for God's will in heaven to come to earth?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Commissioned to heal

Post by steve » Sun May 09, 2010 3:44 pm

As far as the state of health of people in heaven "There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain (Rev 21.4)."
I don't believe that Jesus' reference to "heaven" has anything to do with the eschatological state after the resurrection, as you apparently see it. I do not expect to be in heaven after the resurrection, and Jesus' listeners had no reason to think (as we do) of heaven as a place where people live after they die—especially not after the resurrection. There is no mention of heaven that way in their Old Testament, nor, in any direct sense, in the teachings of Jesus. We do get the idea, I think, of heaven as the place of intermediate rest for the saints between the time of death and the time of the final resurrection—but primarily in Paul's writings—which Jesus would not expect his early disciples to have read.

I don't think the petition, "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," had even the slightest reference to "heaven" as the blissful state of those who have died (which would be the only way it would have any relevance to our present topic of healing), but rather as the place where God is always glorified and His will is always done. Since any people who may be in heaven are apparently lacking their physical bodies, we might wrongly conclude (if we are thinking that everything about heaven is to be experienced now in our experience) that we are praying to become disembodied spirits now on earth, as we shall be in heaven.
The only reason i mentioned it was because if one believes it is God's will for people to be sick and in pain, why would Jesus pray for God's will in heaven to come to earth?
There will be no trials of any kind for us in either heaven or in the resurrection—hence, no sickness either. Do you think, then, that God's will is for us to have no trials on earth? What do you suppose that our tenure on earth is for? If one has no adequate theology of "trials" (a major Christian concern throughout both Testaments), then he will have no possibility of gaining biblical perspective on sickness and disease, since the Bible speaks of such as trials (e.g.,Gal.4:13-14). We are told to rejoice in such trials (James 1:2-4; 1 Peter 1:6-7; Rom.5:3). We whould not be able to (nor commanded to) do this if they are contrary to the will of God for our lives. For example, we are never urged to rejoice in our sins.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Commissioned to heal

Post by steve7150 » Sun May 09, 2010 8:44 pm

There will be no trials of any kind for us in either heaven or in the resurrection—hence, no sickness either. Do you think, then, that God's will is for us to have no trials on earth? What do you suppose that our tenure on earth is for? If one has no adequate theology of "trials" (a major Christian concern throughout both Testaments), then he will have no possibility of gaining biblical perspective on sickness and disease, since the Bible speaks of such as trials (e.g.,Gal.4:13-14). We are told to rejoice in such trials (James 1:2-4; 1 Peter 1:6-7; Rom.5:3). We whould not be able to (nor commanded to) do this if they are contrary to the will of God for our lives. For example, we are never urged to rejoice in our sins.
steve






Of course i understand we go through trials and that God works out all things for the good to those that love him .Also much of the beautitudes concern the blessings received as we go through tribulations. However i don't think God gives children brain cancer or gives elderly people alzheimers to build their character, i think these are the results of living in a fallen world. Jesus said that human fathers being evil still give good gifts to their children so how much more will our Heavenly Father do. Additionally the way Jesus portrayed God in the parable of the Prodical son , just does'nt give the impression of a father who puts illness on his children, at least to me.
As far as your understanding of the Lord's prayer goes and what he may have had in mind to his listeners , they knew enough to understand that God's will is a good thing to pray for and that it did not include striking them with illness.

Jess
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:38 pm

Re: Commissioned to heal

Post by Jess » Sun May 09, 2010 9:57 pm

I must admit that over the years I have trended towards the idea that "healings" does refer to the actual event and not to the individual providing the miracle, not counting the special commissionings by Jesus mentioned above. I see Paul in Acts 28:8 "healing" Publius' father. A verse later in Acts 28:9 I see Paul (and probably Luke too since he was a physician) "curing" people who were coming to them. I am told the Greek word for healing in verse 8 is the same that is used for other miraculous healings that occur in the NT while the word for "being cured" in verse 9 typically denotes healing by natural means such as with medication, etc. If he had a "gift of healings" why not use it on all who came to them? I also see Paul in 2 Tim 4:20 saying that he left Trophimus sick at Miletus. If he had the gift of healing why was Trophimus not healed? I can't imagine Paul not praying for his recovery but he evidently wasn't made well, either by miraculous or by natural means. Paul had also healed the lame man (Acts 14:10) and the slave girl with a spirit of divination (Acts 16:18).

I have to conclude at the very least that Paul understood that God in His wisdom chose when and where to heal miraculously. The fact the "Gifts of Healings", as Steve states above, is mentioned in the plural, leads me to conlude it probably pertained to the event and not the individual. I am certainly open to enlightenment however. :-)

In Him,

Jess

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Commissioned to heal

Post by steve » Mon May 10, 2010 1:00 am

Additionally the way Jesus portrayed God in the parable of the Prodical son , just does'nt give the impression of a father who puts illness on his children, at least to me.

As far as your understanding of the Lord's prayer goes and what he may have had in mind to his listeners , they knew enough to understand that God's will is a good thing to pray for and that it did not include striking them with illness.
I think you are seeing illness—especially serious illness—as being in a separate class of trials that are too painful or vexing for a good God to wish for His children. I have encountered this reasoning before from other Christians, but I have never been able to understand the rational basis for seeing it this way. I, for one, would much rather have suffered a prolonged physical illness than the emotional body-blow that blindsided me in my wife's departure from our family. The latter was a trial. The former would also be a trial. Both eventualities are painful situations beyond the control of the sufferer. Both challenge faith, call for fortitude, and teach lessons of submission and trust. In other words, both are "trials" in all the important senses of that concept.

Though some Christians teach that God does not ever want us to endure sickness, no biblically informed person would argue that God does not wish for any Christians to endure other kinds of trials, like persecutions, martyrdom, etc.—which can often be much more painful that many sicknesses would be. Jesus' conversation with Peter, at the end of John's Gospel, gives the clear impression that Peter's eventual martyrdom (in contrast to the prospect of John's never dying) was a matter entirely of God's will for those two men, respectively (John 21:23). It seems clear that the same God represented in the story of the prodigal son actually does lead his children through painful (and even deadly) experiences. What is there about that story (or any other biblical teaching about God) that would represent, as consistent with the character of God, the allowance in His children's lives every form of excruciation and death, except for those forms that involve microbes or physical injuries?

Consider the following list of trials that godly people have had to endure—some of them qualifying as "sickness;" some of them not in any sense "sickness;" and some of them "borderline" between the two. Consider the difficulty in deciding between those on the list that qualify as things a loving Father might choose as instruments of instruction, testing and improvement of His children—and which things would totally be unacceptable:

Long-term incarceration in a disease-infested third-world prison
A really ugly nose, a cleft palate or other disfiguring and unattractive natural features
Dismemberment or blindness resulting from torture by interrogators
Lung cancer from doing missionary work in highly polluted regions of China
Loss of reputation due to slander
Death by firing squad (involving organ damage and blood loss from bullet wounds)
Malaria from mosquito bite
Accidental or malignant decapitation
Loss of marriage due to spouse's adultery
Stubborn teenage acne
Infection from wounds received during torture
Starvation due to persecution
Automobile accident resulting in internal injuries
Diabetes
Leprosy contracted while serving lepers
Loss of home and all possessions due to natural disaster
Broken bones from being stoned to death
Death in one's sleep by failed 90-year-old organs
Lung failure from smoke inhalation while burning at the stake
Food poisoning from contaminated food
Pneumonia from exposure after shipwreck
Getting mugged and beat up by street thugs
Downs syndrome
Albinism
Paralysis from spinal fracture
Bankruptcy resulting from employee embezzlement

If one wishes to say that physical illness can not be included among the trials that God might wish to use in the believer's life—I would be interested in knowing which of the above list are and which are not consistent with the doctrine of God's goodness and love to His children. How many of them fall under the rubric of "sickness" (i.e., how about broken bones, starvation and organ failure)? I would also like to know in what sense the "kosher" trials differ from those that God would never choose to allow in the life of a believer—and why He would permit the ones He permits and would forbid the ones He would forbid. From where I sit, prior to hearing this explanation, the difference seems entirely arbitrary.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Commissioned to heal

Post by steve7150 » Mon May 10, 2010 8:06 am

If one wishes to say that physical illness can not be included among the trials that God might wish to use in the believer's life—I would be interested in knowing which of the above list are and which are not consistent with the doctrine of God's goodness and love to His children. How many of them fall under the rubric of "sickness" (i.e., how about broken bones, starvation and organ failure)? I would also like to know in what sense the "kosher" trials differ from those that God would never choose to allow in the life of a believer—and why He would permit the ones He permits and would forbid the nes He would forbid. From where I sit, prior to hearing this explanation, the difference seems entirely arbitrary.







Jesus went through much persecution but i don't remember him getting ill to demonstrate a lesson to the people. In the beatitudes i don't recall him mentioning illness as a blessing from God. IMO since we live in a fallen world we have all kinds of tribulation which man has brought upon himself by giving the devil a strong foothold. Yes God allows the devil to exist because overall it must be worth the price yet i just don't think God makes people ill.
In Acts 10.38 Jesus healed everyone oppressed by the devil, not struck with illness by God. I acknowledge that through an illness we can come to the end of ourselves and become closer to God just as through any tribulation. However so much illness seems to be just random with no redemptive purpose that i can see. So many elderly parents get alzheimers and die a slow torturous death , just as painful for the children as the parents. Did God cause that to teach a lesson? How about kids who get brain cancer and die in front of their parents, another lesson from God?
My mother died of tongue cancer and at the end she said she accepted whatever God's will was so possibly through the illness she drew closer to Him but do i think God gave her the cancer? No i think she got it because she had been a cigarette smoker.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Commissioned to heal

Post by steve » Mon May 10, 2010 11:54 am

In Acts 10.38 Jesus healed everyone oppressed by the devil, not struck with illness by God.
We need to avoid a one-dimensional theology, unless there is a one-dimensional god and a one-dimensional spiritual reality that we are trying to understand. I consider that the spiritual world, and the God who created and governs it, are not less complex than the physical world and the people in it. Thus it seems much too shallow to ask: Did God do this, or did the devil? The most ancient theological document known to man even knew better than to pose such a simplistic either/or question to the complex matter of human suffering and sin. Would you say that Job's sufferings (which included loss of loved ones, loss of property and loss of health) were God's will or the devil's will? Who sent the evil spirit to King Saul? Would that be the same God who drove the spirit away when David played the harp?
Jesus went through much persecution but i don't remember him getting ill to demonstrate a lesson to the people.
Nor does it mention Him ever scratching his knee in a fall, as a toddler, nor getting a splinter or hitting his thumb with a hammer in the carpenter shop. Yet I can not find, in these omissions, some basis for a doctrine that Christians are exempt from these things. Why would God only exempt us from certain pains and sufferings and not from others? That is the question in the last paragraph of my last post (which you cited), which I was seeking to hear you answer. You did not answer any part of my question. I really would be interested in knowing what you or anyone else may give in response.

This is not a sparring match...it is a sober discussion seeking to understand sacred truths. The point is not to win an argument by rhetoric, but to eagerly cross-examine our own propositions, and those of others, which undergird our respective opinions, and to see whether they might be flawed, so that we can move forward toward a better grasp of the things of God. When boxing, it is advantageous to dodge incoming blows, and then to then seek to deliver one's own blows. In searching for truth, we do not make it our aim to win an argument by avoiding the questions that challenge our theology. We look straight on at the most challenging questions, ask honestly whether they can be answered with integrity, or whether they may serve to correct our present inadequate viewpoints. Your answer dodged my question, and presented no new light. I am under the impression that the challenges I raised in my last post are unanswerable by anyone holding your position. If I am wrong, then please answer the challenge. If I am right, then why not come over to the right side of the topic?
In the beatitudes i don't recall him mentioning illness as a blessing from God.
True. Nor did He mention gas chambers, firing squads, being fed to the lions, or being burned at the stake. All of these involve death by destruction of organ systems—just as cancer, AIDS, diabetes, Alzheimer's , etc., do. If you say that the violent deaths in the former list are all instances of being persecuted (something that Jesus did endorse and experience), but that sicknesses are not brought upon people by human malice, and therefore cannot bring glory to God, I believe you are being too narrow in your thinking. Why should persecution from the devil, in the form of sickness, not be regarded as potentially as glorifying to God as is persecution from the devil through people? If you wish to say that God has found no way to glorify Himself in the disabilities of Joni Ericson Tada or Nick Vujicic (and many other disabled saints that I have known), then you and I are looking at different realities indeed.
I acknowledge that through an illness we can come to the end of ourselves and become closer to God just as through any tribulation. However so much illness seems to be just random with no redemptive purpose that i can see.
Faith is the evidence of things not seen. I did not claim that I can see how every disaster, holocaust, plague, war, economic reversal, etc., specifically works out for the good, or how it furthers God's purposes in the lives of everyone involved. In this, you and I share common ground. Both of us can say, "so much illness seems to be just random with no redemptive purpose that I can see." The difference is, I can see in my lack of understanding an opportunity to trust in the character of God and in His promises. I can see in it an opportunity to glorify God in stepping forward to minister to the suffering, and even to learn the lessons of resignation to the will of God that disappointment and confusion can bring. These challenges to our faith do not only come in the form of sickness that seems random and purposeless, but with many other disasters and crimes from which innocent victims suffer, which have no relationship to sickness.

So my challenge to someone with your viewpoint remains: Your theology apparently leaves no room for God to make use of seemingly random sickness, but it is able to accommodate equally random aggression, hatred and violent attacks on Christians by evil people? I am looking for some biblical or rational justification for such an artificial dichotomy. For example, I once suffered great discomfort when I contracted the giardia parasite from a contaminated water source. I found it most displeasing to me. But given the choice, I would choose giardia over 14 years of intermittent torture in a Communist prison. But your theology will allow me to suffer the latter, but not the former. My question remains—Why?
So many elderly parents get alzheimers and die a slow torturous death , just as painful for the children as the parents. Did God cause that to teach a lesson? How about kids who get brain cancer and die in front of their parents, another lesson from God?
You might be surprised by many of the answers you would get to this question from many of those very parents, if they were here to answer you. I know from experience that many of them would answer without hesitation that they learned the deepest lessons of their entire Christian lives while enduring the lingering illness of a child or an aged parent. God is a great economist. I am sure that He can bring many lessons out of any suffering, as well as fulfilling its purpose of testing us to see if we will remain steadfast in our faith and loyalty to Him.

I would make one clarification of what I understand to be the biblical teaching. You asked, "Did God cause that..." I am not suggesting that God is necessarily the cause of Christians' sufferings—whether it be of sickness, persecution, natural disaster, or whatever. But I am of the view that God does not always wish to remove the suffering, because of its potential to serve a larger purpose.
My mother died of tongue cancer and at the end she said she accepted whatever God's will was so possibly through the illness she drew closer to Him but do i think God gave her the cancer? No i think she got it because she had been a cigarette smoker.
I am terribly sorry for your poor mother's suffering. I am glad, however, that she found herself drawn closer to God through it. I would imagine that God, who seeks to make the most out of all things, also intended to bring you and others closer to Him through it. Unfortunately, that does not usually happen unless family and friends of the sufferer can also see (even if only by faith) God's sovereign intentions in His providences. Your mother may have gotten cancer as a result of smoking (I will take your word for it), but once she had it, the ball was in God's court. He could heal her or not, and it sounds like her faith was in Him.

There is no disaster in dying with our faith in God. In fact, Paul said that such an outcome is "far better" that an extension of life here on earth(Phil.1:23). I have always believed this, and, if I were to have a deadly illness, I would not have any compelling desire to have my life here prolonged (in fact, I do not presently have any illness, and I still have no compelling desire to have my life here prolonged). For forty years, I have longed for nothing so much as to be in the presence of Jesus. If sickness should start me sliding more quickly toward that blissful end, why would I wish for God to interfere with that?

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Commissioned to heal

Post by steve7150 » Mon May 10, 2010 7:51 pm

Why would God only exempt us from certain pains and sufferings and not from others? That is the question in the last paragraph of my last post (which you cited), which I was seeking to hear you answer. You did not answer any part of my question. I really would be interested in knowing what you or anyone else may give in response.







It's a good question that i never thought about but what strikes me is that before sin Adam and Eve had perfect health because God wanted it for them , yet God allowed them to be tested or to put it another way "persecuted" by Satan. God could have tested them by smiting them with an illness and seeing if they would remain loyal to him yet that was not his will. His will was to test them by Satan's persecution against them through deception. God gave Adam and Eve dominion over the earth and that was a promise from God. I'm guessing that having dominion does not fit with being ill, but apparently God decided that this dominion should be challenged by Satan.
Jesus said "blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness , for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5.10 However Jesus made no mention of illness being a blessing or a woe which is interesting because everyone who has ever lived is affected by illness yet not everyone is impacted by persecution. If sickness is from God and is for a blessing there is no way Jesus would omit this point because as i said, everyone is affected by sickness.
BTW you made several statements which i take issue with but one in particular was "your theology leaves no room for God to make use of seemingly random sickness" this despite the fact i had explicitly said my mother drew closer to God through illness and i acknowledged several times many people do draw closer to God by coming to the end of themselves through illnesses.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Commissioned to heal

Post by steve » Tue May 11, 2010 2:56 am

Oh. Then you do believe that God can use sickness to bring someone closer to God—but it is just contrary to His will to do so? I have to confess, I am getting further from grasping your reasoning, not closer.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Commissioned to heal

Post by steve7150 » Tue May 11, 2010 8:59 am

Oh. Then you do believe that God can use sickness to bring someone closer to God—but it is just contrary to His will to do so? I have to confess, I am getting further from grasping your reasoning, not closer.
steve






IMO the answer is Rom 8.28. I'll be bowing out now, thank you for the dialogue and blessings to you and yours.

Post Reply

Return to “Missions & Evangelism”