Posted on December 11, 2007 15:27
Steve Sensenig:
I have been away from the computer for most of the afternoon and evening, so I am behind on comments. I'm sorry, guys.
I simply responded with another post because I had way too much to say to both the comments here and the comments on my blog.
Sorry about that.
Posted on December 11, 2007 21:32
Scott:
Well then you're fired. ;-)
Posted on December 11, 2007 22:24
pinakidion:
Steve: I'm answering here because this is my friend Scott's site and the source of the original question.
Before responding, brother Steve, I feel it necessary to say that tone doesn't always come across in comments. I want to be clear, but not antagonistic. I do not agree with you in some points, but it does not mean that such an issue needs to divide. You have very good-naturedly asked men and women of faith to think. I have, but have arrived at different conclusions than you. That's not always a bad thing and it doesn't mean that I am right.
1. Those of you who believe that God is not always willing to heal, can you explain to me the basis for that belief?
In Luke 4, Jesus says
I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.
From a modern perspective it is from observation. Faithful men and women have prayed and believed for healing and it did not come. Sometimes it did come and I rejoiced with them. My father has been healed. Other friends and family have also. Some have not and I mourn their loss. On a personal note, my two children have not been healed despite the prayers and faith of many.
This has lead me to Romans 9 where the clay cannot ask the potter, "Why did you make me this way?". This would be depressing had it not been preceded by Romans 8:28. I take great comfort that all things will work out for the good.
2. Those of you who believe that faith is not an important part of receiving a healing, can you explain to me how you answer the numerous times (and they are quite plentiful — just read through the first four books of the New Testament) that Jesus mentions faith with regard to the healing?
Intentionally or not, you are presenting this as an all or nothing statement. The Widow of Nain's son was healed without faith, but through compassion of our Lord. The fortune telling spirit of the slave girl was cast out when her owners clearly didn't want her to be 'healed'. This means that until these two exceptions are addressed,it cannot be said that faith is a requirement of healing. Address these two clear examples first.
3. Those of you who believe that the completion of the canon supplanted the healings and miraculous events of the first century, can you explain the basis for that belief, please?
I don't believe this totally. As I mentioned, there was a resurrection during Iraneus' time (although that was before the canon was set.) I'm just answering here for completeness.