Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | No healing? why? | 2 Cor 1:4 | inmyheart | 73060 | ||
(Con't Pt. 3) The implication is that when we think of God, and when we are considering a particular instance of illness, we must begin with the biblically informed assumption that it is God’s will to heal. We must think of healing as God’s normal desire rather than the rare exception. Since, as we have seen, God has also revealed himself previously to Moses as "I am whom I am" – that is, one who is eternal, self-existent, and immutable— if his nature was to heal then, it is his nature to heal now. To say that his nature is to heal physical bodies then, and to heal spiritual lives now is to avoid the issue, and to betray God’s revelation on his own nature. God is not obligated to re-state his name and apply it to physical healing again if there is no indication that he has changed. What he has said stands forever. Anyone who says that God is now either not disposed to heal, or not disposed to heal physical bodies, is essentially challenging God’s truthfulness and his immutability – an impious charge, and one that is contrary to biblical and experiential evidence. Also, any doctrine that seems to contradict God’s healing nature must be challenged, and we will see that most likely it has either been stated wrongly, or that the doctrine is mistaken, or that it does not contradict God’s healing nature when examined closely. Nevertheless, any teaching that insinuates an unwillingness on God’s part to heal has to be questioned harshly before being accepted, if at all. It is due to a lack of information and understanding concerning this aspect of God’s nature that many contemporary Christians do precisely the opposite, in that they readily welcome teachings that are against God’s healing grace, but challenge and question teachings that promotes the same. Since God’s very nature is to heal us, our disposition should be to see him as healer, not the one who afflicts (Job 37:23). Most Christians take the name of God’s enemy seriously— his name is "Satan," meaning "the adversary," and also the "devil," meaning "the accuser, the slanderer." Due to the biblical revelation concerning Satan’s names and the descriptions of his nature (John 8:44), Christians rightly believe that it is his nature to accuse, deceive, and to be against every person, object, or value that God favors. He is the adversary of God, and he accuses God’s people "day and night" (Revelation 12:10). If we acknowledge that the Bible reveals something of Satan’s nature through his names, how much more should we take its revelation seriously when it teaches us about the nature of God through his names? We must take God’s names seriously, and not challenge or question what he has revealed as his nature, but accept that he is disposed to heal, and not to afflict. It is the "thief" who comes to "to steal and kill and destroy," but Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, has come so that we "may have life, and have it to the full" (John 10:10). God bless, praying that this information has been helpful. |
||||||
2 | No healing? why? | 2 Cor 1:4 | EdB | 73071 | ||
inmyheart Well written, and for the most part correct. Again I do not believe many would argue that God heals. The problems becomes who decides when, where and how? God or man Today much of the teaching on healing attempts to place man in charge and God the one that responds. God is in control and He and He alone will decide when, where and how each of us will receive what He desires for us. The choice other than having faith in God is not man’s, but rather God’s. I have seen God heal miraculously. I have seen him heal through others. And I have seen Him heal through the hands of doctors and surgeons. To limit God and say he has to heal miraculously, right now as I pray for healing, and in this place is where we have a difference between fact and fiction. The other fallacy is to say God always has to heal as we desire. Some time it evidently serves God purpose not to heal. Why? Most of the time we have no idea why. Sometimes it seems glorify God better, examples; David Ring Joni Eareckson Tada and even Billy Graham. I once saw and heard a man sing of God’s love and His healing power from a wheel chair. I can attest I will care that picture of love into eternity it made such an impression. Lastly I would ask what is most important, healing or salvation? If it is salvation, then I ask, why do we have all this talk about healing? Some will say because miracles proves God’s existence. If you need miracles to prove God exists then where is the faith? Besides look at the children of Israel, they saw more miracles at the hand of God in the Exodus than any group of people before or since. Yet in most cases, in as little as three days, they were in doubt. I have often said to myself if I walked through the Red Sea on ‘dry ground’ with water stacked up on either side that would be convincing proof. However it wasn’t the Children of Israel were doubting God three days later. Look at how many saw Jesus perform one miracle after another yet when the time came they cried, “let His blood be on us and our children.” Yes God is still in the healing business, He just does it His way to His pleasure not at our command. EdB |
||||||