Posted on December 12, 2007 09:45
pinakidion:
Length? Who cares about length? RSS feeds make it pretty readable. :)
I agree that there is a lack of faith in the US. I agree that more needs to be taught about faith, not just theology.
At a fundamental level, Steve, you and I practice a different hermeneutic. As such, I think we can quote a lot of Scripture and still speak past each other. Too many things are interconnected in my mind to narrow the scope down to what you are suggesting. Besides, I think that your position leads to Christian Science beliefs and the like. It leads to questions of using medicine at all, visiting doctors, blood transfusions, etc.
There is no verse that states my position directly. In this regard, it is similar to my belief in the Trinity. No verse says "Jesus is God, separate but equal" or "The Holy Spirit is God, separate from the Son and the Father, but still one." My belief in the Trinity comes from Jesus' indirect claims.
1. With all the sick in Jerusalem and elsewhere, God chose to heal a foreigner, Naaman. Naaman was not a man of faith, he was upset at the instructions given. A servant advised him to try dipping in the river 7 times because it wouldn't hurt anything to do so.
Naaman was not healed by his faith, but his obedience. This deals more with question 2, but is fruitful to point out here.
Elisha was given the power to heal only two people. The Shunammite son and Naaman. With all the other sick in Israel, Elisha was not given power to heal any of them. This makes God selective. Does God say, "NO"? It doesn't say. It only shows that God selectively heals.
This leads into question 2. Is faith the criteria that makes God's healing selective? No. Healings have been performed without faith being present. Naaman was not faithful. The Shunammite woman was bitter. The man at the pool of Bethesda was discouraged. The Widow of Nain didn't even ask.
Let's look at the issue a different way, the blind man of Bethsaida required two touches to be healed. Is this because of an incomplete faith the first time? Is this because of an incomplete faith of his friends that begged Jesus to heal him? Why was Jesus' power limited the first time?
Faith is a common element to most of the healings in the NT. I agree with you in that. However, it is not common to all healings. Because it is not common to all healings, I cannot in good conscience teach someone that God wants to heal them (your words) because I do not know the will of God in this matter. I can say that God wants to give them good things and point them to the parable you mentioned. However, I do not consider myself smart enough to read God's mind to know what those good things are.
What is common to all healings in the NT and OT is the sovereign choice of God. For whatever reason, (So that they will know that God is in Israel, confirmation that Jesus' message is from God, convenience, etc.) The Sovereignty of God is more crucial to me. As I read Romans 9 in relation to his Sovereignty and not just salvation, I connect it with the whole question of healings.
In regards to the passage in James, I'm certain that the elders could heal the sick in Jerusalem. I'm sure that when the brothers and sisters confessed their sins, they were able to be healed by the elders. It applies to the recipients of the James' letter.
My church has no elders. Does that mean no one can be healed? I don't think so. The point appears to be that the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective as evidenced by Elijah. Prayers of righteous people have healed my father and others I know. Prayers by these same righteous people have not healed my children. What else can I conclude other than God is selective? I would like to avoid ugly questions like "Am I more faithful about my father than my children?" "Do my children need some sort of faith to be healed? (They are 7 months and 25 months old.) Who sinned? Me or my children?
I do not believe that God puts people in situations where it is somehow their fault that God has not healed certain people. Again, this leads me to the sovereignty of God.
I hope this makes my position clear. I believe I understand yours, but as I said earlier, I cannot agree as I currently understand it.