Results 101 - 120 of 126
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: atdcross Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 163987 | ||
Having some spare time, I hope it is okay that I take the opportunity to share some insights supporting the view that physical healing is included in the atonement. I would like to respond (in 2 parts) to certain verses posted by Kalos (ID#160440). Part 1. As I discussed previously (ID#161083), to limit the reference in Isa 53 to spiritual healing only is not just inconsistent with the text, it also would make Matthew’s use of the text erred since he sees Jesus physically healing the sick as fulfillment of Messianic activity. Now the question of whether physical as well as spiritual healing is in the atonement can be answered by determining when in his life Jesus, according to Isaiah, bore our sickness and the chastisement that made him whole, and was bruised for our healing. Was it not at the same moment he was “Smitten and afflicted by God,” when he was “wounded because of our sins, crushed because of our "iniquities,” and “the Lord visited on him the guilt of us all” (cf. Tanakh)? Was not that moment at the Cross? At the Cross, Isaiah prophesied that he was punished for “our sins” and “our sickness” (v.4a; 5a, Tanakh). If "transgressions" and "iniquities" set the context for spiritual healing, then “disease” (v.3b; 10a), and “sickness” (v.4a) should also set the context, which would, therefore, suggest both spiritual and physical healing is considered. Again, this is not to say that healing is guaranteed (and neither do I mean that a person will necessarily, although possible, never be sick all throughout his life). Even forgiveness is not guaranteed or automatic just because Jesus Christ died on the Cross for sinners and neither for a believer who sins refusing to repent (Matt 6:15; 19:35). However, physical healing for the sick, like forgiveness, is provided. As I see it, in Timothy’s case, the “sickness” concerned his diet; a change in diet was the reason for his stomach having problems. Once Timothy followed Paul’s advise, it is assumed in the text, he would be cured. Therefore, this verse cannot be used to support the idea that God intends some to be sick. Regarding Trophimus, even if admitting the apostle was not able to secure a healing for him, should that one occasion in itself nullify the many verses that say God desires and promises, can and does heal and that such healing is provided in the atonement as Isaiah 53 suggests? Epaphroditus, true was sick, but he was healed as v.27 suggests: “…God had mercy on him…I sent him…” Whether or not he was healed by Paul’s hand is irrelevant. The fact is, Epaphroditus was healed. Should we assume that the Psalmist, who declared, “[God] heals all your diseases” (Psa 103:3), was not inspired but rather mistaken? Job, it is true, was sick but God healed him completely. In any case, is there the suggestion that Job’s case is, rather than unique, the same as every believer who suffers? I do not think it is; Job is the exception to the rule. |
||||||
102 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 163990 | ||
Part 2. With respect to the apostle Paul, to say that his “thorn in the flesh” was sickness is merely speculation, at least, according to my reference readings. It cannot be determined what he actually meant by the phrase. There are different interpretations other than that it was a physical sickness. Regarding the apostle’s “bodily illness” in Galatians: (1) The NAS margin has literally, “weakness of the flesh.” (2) The Greek word translated “infirmity,” as gathered from a few references, seems not to necessarily mean “physical sickness” (cf. Rom 8:26; 15:1; 2 Cor 11:30; 12:5,9; Heb 5:2; 7:28) (3) I assume the certainty of meaning would need to be gathered by the context and in Galatians it is vague. (4) Could this mention of an “infirmity” refer to something acquired from being persecuted and not so much a sickness as a physical deformity? I admit, God can heal deformities but if obtained for the sake of Christ, it may remain on him as proof of his struggle for the gospel (Gal 6:17). Yet, even if it is admitted that Paul makes reference to being sick, all it shows is that believers can get sick (something that is not denied). It does not support the idea that Father (1) desires his children to be sick, (2) does not intend for all to be healthy, (3) will not heal in answer to prayers of faith. In John 11:4, it was not the sickness that resulted in death itself that exhibited God’s glory but the act of healing (v.45; 12:9,17). The quote, “I'm just saying that after we've asked for healing, we need to submit to God's sovereign will”, is obviously at odds with the Biblical writer who declared, “Is any sick among you? …let the [elders] pray over him…and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord will raise him up…” (Jam 5:14-15; cf. Matt 7:7-11). James seems to suggest it is always God’s will to heal, therefore, after we’ve asked, we are not told to “submit to God’s sovereign will”; we are commanded to believe God will answer (Mark 11:24; Heb 11:6). To believe God is submission required. Again, I offer these observations not for the purpose of provoking debate, argument, or bad feelings but just to share my faith with others of God’s family. And, as Kalos took the time and effort to respond to my posting, I only felt to exhibit its value by a more thoughtful answer, with all due respect, however contrary it may be, in return. |
||||||
103 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 163994 | ||
Thanks BradK for your input. I do not see where Scripture disallows it but that is not to suggest any silence confirms it. I do not see where the Bible, especially in Isa 53 and the Gospels and Acts, is silent on the subject. I am not familiar with Bosworth. And there are certain views Gill and Spurgeon hold that I do not think the Church Father's agree with; nor do I think the Church Fathers were doctrinally correct in every instance. First of all, let me clarify that I did not mean to suggest that the purpose for the atonement was physical healing. Christ atoned for our sins in order to make the "whole man wholly" restored to God in every way, first, for our sins and, second,in order that we might obtain the blessings of God (all this would result in God receiving glory, which is the preeminent goal of salvation). If you will note in the reading of the Gospels, that in every case where forgiveness was administered by Christ, physical healing occured; and in every place where physical healing occured, forgiveness of sin is clearly implied as being given. But, maybe it would be misleading to suggest that physical healing is in the atonement. Rather, maybe we can say that man's wholeness, spiritually and physically, mentally and emotionally is found through faith in the work of Christ on the Cross. But, unfurtunately, that may diminish somewhat the explicit significance, which the Gospels seem to place on physical healing (and demonic deliverance). Second, I did not mean to imply that we need not physically deteriorate and die. The "wages sin is death" and no one can avoid it. I also doubt if anyone of 80 years is as vigorous as in is twenties. But although we must die, that does not mean we have to die physically sick or mentally diseased, slowly and painfully, or, maybe, even, outside of persecution, tragically and violently (Psa 91; 103:4-5). Therefore, I cannot disagree with Spurgeon that sin is "deadly." However, the Psalmist still declares that along with God forgiving all my sins, he also heals all of my diseases. For me, it is not so much trying to figure out whether or not God desires to heal and heals - for me, that is a given in the Bible - but to believe him at his Word that he does heal irrespective of what position the Church Fathers, Gill, or Spurgeon held (along with 2000 years of Church History). |
||||||
104 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 163995 | ||
Thanks BradK for your input. I do not see where Scripture disallows it but that is not to suggest any silence confirms it. I do not see where the Bible, especially in Isa 53 and the Gospels and Acts, is silent on the subject. I am not familiar with Bosworth. And there are certain views Gill and Spurgeon hold that I do not think the Church Father's agree with; nor do I think the Church Fathers were doctrinally correct in every instance. First of all, let me clarify that I did not mean to suggest that the purpose for the atonement was physical healing. Christ atoned for our sins in order to make the "whole man wholly" restored to God in every way, first, for our sins and, second,in order that we might obtain the blessings of God (all this would result in God receiving glory, which is the preeminent goal of salvation). If you will note in the reading of the Gospels, that in every case where forgiveness was administered by Christ, physical healing occured; and in every place where physical healing occured, forgiveness of sin is clearly implied as being given. But, maybe it would be misleading to suggest that physical healing is in the atonement. Rather, maybe we can say that man's wholeness, spiritually and physically, mentally and emotionally is found through faith in the work of Christ on the Cross. But, unfurtunately, that may diminish somewhat the explicit significance, which the Gospels seem to place on physical healing (and demonic deliverance). Second, I did not mean to imply that we need not physically deteriorate and die. The "wages sin is death" and no one can avoid it. I also doubt if anyone of 80 years is as vigorous as in is twenties. But although we must die, that does not mean we have to die physically sick or mentally diseased, slowly and painfully, or, maybe, even, outside of persecution, tragically and violently (Psa 91; 103:4-5). Therefore, I cannot disagree with Spurgeon that sin is "deadly." However, the Psalmist still declares that along with God forgiving all my sins, he also heals all of my diseases. For me, it is not so much trying to figure out whether or not God desires to heal and heals - for me, that is a given in the Bible - but to believe him at his Word that he does heal irrespective of what position the Church Fathers, Gill, or Spurgeon held (along with 2000 years of Church History). |
||||||
105 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 163996 | ||
BradK, Oops! Sorry for the double-posting. Can't figure how that happened. I must have clicked twice without realizing it. | ||||||
106 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164005 | ||
Hi CDBJ, Regarding the wages of sin, the context was sickness leading to physical death and, I was under the impression that in the discussion spiritual death was already assumed. Your comment, "We can be born twice and die once, because Jesus was born once and died twice" is well put. Someone said Jesus experienced on the Cross what he never experienced before - death - in order that we may experience what we have never experienced - eternal life. |
||||||
107 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164011 | ||
Hi Mark I disagree that my position “would necessitate that we would all be completely, permanently healed and healthy from the moment we are born again” because: (a) we are not totally released from the possibility of committing sinful acts or engaging in sinful thoughts and desires; (b) we are not “completely and permanently spiritually alive”; (c) Jesus’ death did not yet fully and automatically do away with demonic rule and activity (Eph 2:2; 1 Jn 5:19). It seems to me that if Jesus’ Messianic activity “does not set a standard”, then (a) one could legitimately argue that Jesus’ moral character as holy does not set a standard because “it was before the cross”; (b) it is at odds with Jesus’ command to “Go into all the world” and, among other things equally important, “cast out demons” and “lay hands on the sick” (Mark 16:15ff; cf. Jam 5:14; Matt 10:8; Luke 9:2; 1 Cor 12:9). There are other reasons why your statement seems to be erred but I only have time to submit two. Even Jesus went without experiencing hunger; his fridge was not always filled but God did sustain him physically. In any case, I do not understand what God’s material provision has to do with healing. It is one thing to be hungry and another thing to be sick. As far as Lazarus and the blind man, there was no godly purpose for their illness but there was a godly purpose in Jesus healing them. From my perspective, the related texts show that illness has no Godly purpose and that is why God desires to heal. Healing has a godly purpose. If you get sick God does not have to say, “Oops!” It is not at all his fault that you got sick. We are predestined to be made into the image of Christ. It does not say we are predestined to be sick. My perspective upon what we learn from Job is different. However, because we are told to remember Job and emulate his perseverance in suffering, does not mean everyone Christian (or the majority) is sick because their integrity is directly challenged by Satan; not unless he can be described as a man who is “blameless, upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil” and “there is no one like him on the earth” (Job 1”1,8). I disagree that God desires us to be sick because sickness serves no purpose (unless it is within the context of judgment); that’s why He desires to heal. |
||||||
108 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164015 | ||
CDBJ, Typographical error. I meant to say, even Jesus experienced hunger. I ain't perfected perfection, yet... |
||||||
109 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164021 | ||
CDBJ, to continue... I agree we get sick; nevertheless, it is not God’s desire that we are sick and that is why healing is made available to us. Allow me to clarify that I am not saying we never get sick or that we are totally free from it. I am saying that God intends and desires us to be in good physical health and, along with forgiveness (spiritual good health), has provided bodily, mental, and emotional healing. In addition, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. If that was your perception of my post, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I am only sharing what I believe God has shown me. One final note: Because no one is a picture of health and celebrating their 200th birthday does not mean that healing and health is not God’s desire for us (Jer 29:11; 3 John 2). I appreciate your objections and hope no offense has been taken. |
||||||
110 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164024 | ||
Hi Brad, Thanks for discussing the issue with the goal of enhancing understanding rather than prove a point. I hope my way of addressing the issue has exhibited the same temper as you have. |
||||||
111 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164029 | ||
CDBJ, I apologize that this subject has caused you to be sick and will refrain from discussing it with you so as not to aggravate your illness. With your permission, I will pray that God heals you from getting sick any further and delivers you from hypertension. Your friend... |
||||||
112 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164063 | ||
Hello Mark, John 11:3-4: I understand what is stated but it is the intended meaning that is important and, on the basis of other verses and God’s revealed character (at least, to me), what is for the glory of God is not the sickness but the healing. The emphasis is on the healing/resurrection of Lazarus, not his sickness/death (cf. v.40-42). One comments that Jesus “does not connect his ministry to the sickness by affirming ‘that the Son of God may be glorified by it’…Jesus will be glorified when he raises Lazarus from the grave because of the manifestation of His omnipotent power as deity.” Another says, the “...the glory of God is...his activity.” In John 9, Jesus dismisses the question as irrelevant. The “works of God” are not revealed in the man’s malady but in Jesus’ power to heal. Eph 2:5 – That the work of the Cross for salvation is complete and final does not necessarily mean that our experience is also. Although we have the fullness of Christ in us, there are moments where we are apt(not necessarily) to stumble. Also, “bad things” do occur against God’s will (Luke 13:34). Whether or not there is purpose in suffering is not the focus my point. My point is that suffering is not Father’s will or intention for his children (Jer 29:11). Sickness, in particular, has no purpose at all except to disrupt God’s will for us. My general reading of the Bible does not see suffering or sickness itself as good, especially good for God’s children (or anyone else). Suffering and sickness are enemies of God and must be defeated and overcome. Suffering does not necessarily result in blessing; therefore, the blessing is not in the suffering/sickness but in overcoming it. And although suffering is bad and not God’s intention, suffering for the sake of Christ is a reality not to be denied and something to embrace for the purpose of overcoming the evil world and exhibiting Jesus Lordship over all. Sometimes the falsity of a doctrine is not so much in the teaching itself as in the spirit one approaches and presents it to others. |
||||||
113 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164075 | ||
I appreciate your concern in your attempts to correct what you believe is erroneous doctrine. However, with all due respect and as much as I would like to agree in order to preserve a common viewpoint, I am unable to on the basis of your judgment regarding what does or does not agree with scripture. Advocates of the Watchtower would advise me the same way upon the basis of what they judge to be divine revelation. However, I am responsible to hear God and act according to the dictates of my conscience before him. If I have erred, I trust his voice will tell me where I have gone wrong (it would not be the first time). In the meantime, we (Father and I) discuss the issue from time to time and seem to be basically on the same page for now. As such, it seems my view does not so much conflict with the Bible as it seems to do with your judgment of what is a correct understanding of it. In any case, thank you for the advice. |
||||||
114 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164077 | ||
Mark, If I have given you the impression that I am arguing with you, that was not my intention and I apologize for the anything I have stated that may have sounded argumentative. My goal on these boards is not to try a prove that my views are correct and others are wrong but just to share how I believe God has spoken to me and be encouraged with how god has spoken to others. |
||||||
115 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164081 | ||
Oops #2, aagh! my posting (#164077) should have been directed to BradK and not Mark, sorry (my left eye got crossed with my right eye)...sorry, Mark... | ||||||
116 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164083 | ||
Mark...this is Mark, right? No BradK...right? Oh, yeah...the bottom is signed Mark...so I am responding to Mark...anyway... Regarding my statement in John 11:3-4, you failed to mention that I stated I interpreted the text in relation to other verses and the revelation of God’s character therein. In any case, I am not on this board to prove my point but merely to share the things Father has spoken to me about (Rom 14:22). I apologize, Mark, that my view of your position is Biblically untenable to my mind. |
||||||
117 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164084 | ||
I'm laughing, Mark, because of my typograhical error. I should have typed, "I apologize, Mark, that YOUR view of MY position as being erroneous is Biblically untenable to my mind." Good night, buddy... |
||||||
118 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165908 | ||
Hi Shythiyl, I apologize, but I don't understand your comment. |
||||||
119 | Sickness Brings God Glory? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165914 | ||
Thanks for your response, Mark. Please allow me to leave a response also for "other readers to ponder". Please note, although we may know where each other stands, there is no problem (on my part, at least), since no one is trying to convince the other, to exchange views on the different texts that support each other's position. 1. In accordance to Eph 5:20, does anyone ever thank God that children are being raped, that the cancer patient is going through pain? 2.If (1) sickness is God's will for believers and (2) sickness brings God glory, why (1) pray for healing in the first place, and (2) if we do get healed, why not pray we get sick again? 3. The good things that come out of affliction (1) do not come out automatically, (2) depend on the person's response. Suffering can either bring a person nearer or further from God. Believing that God's intention is that his children be healthy is not a matter of "humanity" but a matter of God's word (Psalm 103:3; 3 John 2; Malachi 4:2; Matthew 7:11). From my perspective, believing God's desire is to heal all who are sick (Jesus' practice in the Gospels) and for us to be healthy is, at least, one thing that "the Sovereign Lord has determined will make me like Jesus". There are many verses in the Bible where God grants healing. In all seriousness (there is no sarcasm intended at all), (1) I have not yet found a verse in the Bible where God promises sickness. (2) Matt 4:23 does not read that Jesus went making people sick. |
||||||
120 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165922 | ||
Not being a scholar of the language, allow me to explain my point of view, which does not necessarily disagree with your view except in your definition of hatred as "a strong dislike" or "not emotional hatred." It seems a correct understanding of this verse may center on the word translated "hate". Robertson: "Hateth...An old and very strong verb...to hate, detest. The orientals use strong language..." (Word Pictures). Evans: "This may be an example of the Semitic expression of preference," however, "it may also express Luke's rigorous outlook" (Saint Luke). Liefeld: "It is important to understand the ancient Near Eastern expression without blunting its force" (Expositor's Bible Commentary). The word translated "hate" is the same used in Matt 5:43; 24:10; Luke 6:22,27; John 3:20; 7:7; 15:23; Rom 9:13; Rev 2:6,15 (cf. Young, Strong). Vine: "to hate...(a) of malicious and unjustifiable feelings...(c) of relative preference..." (Dictionary) Lenski: "Instead of leaving [the Greek word] in its true sense 'to hate' it is generally reduced, even 'watered down till the point is gone'." (St. Luke's Gospel; his further remarks are quite interesting, which is somewhat a different perspective than what we are discussing but it makes good sense to me). The point is that, according to above references, Luke chose to use a very strong Greek word (as it seems the English translation rightly conveys) to express Jesus' teaching. I concede that Luke's readers may have recognized that the verse spoke of preference but that just proves the point; they knew not to take it literally. There was an intended meaning in the word "hate" other than as stated. Therefore, it seems, Luke did not intend for his readers to understand Jesus "exactly" from what was stated via the normal meaning of the Greek word "hate" but some other meaning is intended. A mere conjecture is offered with reference to Jesus' use of the Aramaic since I do not know what word he used (only because I don't know Aramaic). However, if it was equivalent to the strength of the Greek word, the same can be said: Jesus knew exactly what he was saying but exactly what he meant was something different from what was exactly stated. The fact that his hearers readily knew he took the word to mean something other than what its literal meaning might suggest only supports this view. Please note, Mark, with all due respect, you apprehended the text not on the basis of the word itself but on the basis of (1) a form of teaching understood within the culture; (2) other relevant verses that bring light Luke's understanding of Jesus' statement; (3) in relation to other texts about the command to love, which I am not against doing. However, as far as I can tell, you did not come to understand what Jesus meant by the "plain reading" of the word "hate," which is, as Robertson states, in Greek is a "very strong verb...to hate, detest." One last point. Again, I think we make the Western mistake of dichotomizing persons, a thing it seems unheard of in the Eastern world like "emotional" hatred; if one "hated" or "loved" it was understood as being done with one's whole person. I hope I explained my point clearly. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |