Some clarification and summary on a few things that I think people are getting hung up on.
One belief we have is that it is God’s will to heal everyone; not that God will heal everyone. A parallel example is that it is God’s will that all would be saved, yet not all will be.
There are things that prevent both from happening, most have to do with the choices that humans are allowed to make. He chooses to give us freedom and a measure of control over our lives and environment; that does not make him less Sovereign. That makes him willing to share control.
We are in a war here in our city. I’m not speaking figuratively when I say this. I’m being very literal. We are not wrestling with flesh and blood, but with the armies of hell. As any good soldier knows, moral is very important. We can not afford to be distracted or to lose faith. So while I know there are cases in the bible and in real life that seem to contradict what we are believing, we choose to focus only on that which we know to be in alignment with our mission. These are found primarily in the life and teachings of Jesus. We also focus on what God is doing, not on what he is not doing. We don’t ignore the facts, but we focus on who he is (a good God) and what he has done. We’ve had tremendous breakthrough for which we are thankful and we have seen God move in mighty ways. That is what we celebrate. We have willfully engaged in this and we have burned the bridge we came across to do so. There is no turning back; we are in this fight to win. Retreat is not an option. No longer will the Philistines taunt God’s people from the other side of the battle. No longer will the champions against cancer be found only in the world and not among the Christian ranks. It bothers me that everyone knows Lance Armstrong and others from the world as the biggest opponents of cancer but not everybody knows if the church is against it or not.
I’ve been feeling increasingly on the defensive as this discussion moves on. Remember, I will never require others to agree with me. However, I will require that they respect my beliefs. If the tone changes from “I don’t understand, tell me more”, to “I’m going to ask questions to prove you are wrong”, then I will disengage. It is no longer productive or enjoyable to continue.
Peace and blessings,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Jon, I appreciate your comments. It has been an interesting topic to say the least. It must also be noted that when you take conventional theology to task, a response (in whatever vain) will be illicited. I ask for your grace with the responders as much as I ask it of those who are responding. When people feel the integrity of scripture is being questioned (ie, when you said Paul is not your example, Christ is; thus saying that the example of God not removing Paul's thorn is not as important as Christ's life) you are, in essence, saying that this scriptiure is not as virtuous as the example of Christ. I have a hard time with this. We believe that all scripture is god breathed and good for teaching, reproof, correction (2 Tim 3:16) and that no scripture is more or less important. Another point is that the example used about Paul was speaking more to the character of God in not healing Paul than it was about Paul himself. Let me know if you have any quesitons with anything I have written and we will talk further. You are my brother and I look forward to the discussion.
Thanks Jake,
I hear what you are saying about eliciting a response with non conventional thoughts, and that was a small part of the motivation of the initial post; that is, introduce something interesting and different. For the record, I don’t think anyone has crossed any lines or done any damage, I could just feel like we were getting close to that so I wanted to reiterate some boundaries. No harm, no foul. :) I will be able to share the most and be the most transparent when I feel the safest. If I feel defensive, it will be more vague and scaled down to protect myself, in which case I think we all lose. Me because I can't speak freely, everyone else because they only get a portion of the response.
SO, moving onward with a clean slate:
Let me address the point about Paul’s thorn again in more detail. First, I concede that at face value it does seem to contradict the point that God wants to heal us all the time because Paul is clearly asking, and God is not silent but gives him a clear response, which sounds like a clear “no. My grace is sufficient”.
However, these are the reasons why I feel this scripture does not take contradict my belief that God wants to heal us all of the time.
1. There is too much “lack” to it. Meaning, there are a tremendous lack of details about what Paul is talking about. He isn’t specifically saying, I asked God to remove my gout, or my arthritis, fevers or ulcers, or anything physical at all. For all we know, he could be using a figure of speech. You’ve heard the phrase, “so and so, or such and such is a thorn in my side” Does that mean a person or thing is physically in your body causing pain? Of course not, it is a figure of speech. In fact, the context suggests that it would have been something of a spiritual nature, since the whole reason for the thorn was the visions, and paranormal activities surrounding Paul. I propose that since he also refers to thorn as a messenger of Satan, that it was really demon continually presenting to Paul a false message of either fear, doubt, or accusation that Paul had to continually battle in his mind, standing on the truths of Christ that he so brilliantly presents in each of his letters to the church. Anyone who has heard one of those false messages from the devil consistently, whether it is about a past sin, failure, or other traumatic event knows how wearying that can be, and why we would ask God to remove that from our lives.
please check out some biblical commentary on this section that supports this: http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=47&c=12&com=mhc
2. There is also the “lack” of supporting verses. This is the only verse in the whole Bible that supports the proposed line of thinking that God doesn’t want to heal us every time. Meanwhile, you have every listed miracle of Jesus (and books of unlisted healings enough to fill the earth the gospels say) that say he does want to heal you every time. I would rather categorize this verse of Paul along the lines of Romans 5:3-6. How affliction, trials, battles if you will, create endurance, hope, etc when we trust in God and stand on his strength, or the several other verses in the epistles that talk about trials and tribulations and how that works for good. That is a definite theme of the letters in the New Testament that i feel is also presented here, not a "new and different" line of thinking saying God doesn't want to heal.
3. In the worst case scenario for my theory that it was a physical ailment that God chose not to heal him from, God does give the reason why Paul has it, to keep him humble because of all of the revelation, visions, supernatural activity surrounding him. I don’t know how many people you know who have experienced what Paul did, but I can say I have never had to worry about God using that reason on any of the people I’ve prayed for. It is safe to say the common Joe who is sick doesn’t have to worry about God keeping him humble because he has shown him what he showed Paul. So you could argue God only says no to keep you humble when he shows you the kind of revelations he showed Paul. Again, I don’t really think this is the case, but I’m trying to do a good exegesis here and point out the context for an alternate theory.
I hope that clears up some of issues with “the Paul not my example statement”. I apologize for not explaining that more thoroughly the first go round.
Peace,
Jon
First, let me apologize that I am cutting in on the end of this discussion, however, it did cause me interest.
It seems to me that one of the central underpinnings of the "Health Gospel" as I have studied it(I don't mean that detrimentally, just not sure what to call it) is that sickness is different from other trials/tribulations. I don't think that that distinction holds.
What is it about sickness that is bad? Is it the pain? Trials and tribulations have that. Is it death? Trials/tribulations do that also. Is it the lessening of the quality of life? Trials and tribulations do that also. In Heaven, there will not be any trials and tribulations, just like there wont be any sickness, so one would have to argue that the eradication of trials and tribulations is also God's will for the earth. In short, I am unsure how one can make a distinction between sickness and any sort of suffering, trial, or tribulation.
If this is the case, then there are many problems with this position:
1. God is now limited in a way that I am uncomfortable with. God cannot use sickness, trials, or tribulations for his purposes anymore. When Israel disobeyed, God used other nations, famine, sickness, and death to both punish and cause repentance. They were his chosen people and yet he allowed them to suffer and die in order to further a greater cause. Even those who were obedient to God suffered during these times.
2. On a smaller scale, God cannot use sickness/tribulations to further his cause individually. Maybe the only thing a person needs in order to come to Christ is to almost die of cancer. Maybe they need to watch a family member die of cancer and give a Christian witness during that time. By praying for a cancer free zone, it seems that those prayers are praying that things such as these don't happen. It seems to say that we know that God can't possibly use cancer for good, so we are praying that it is gone. Again, limiting God in a way I am uncomfortable with.
There are more, but I think this will do it for now. I hope that those issues spur more thought and, especially, more searching of the Scriptures.
As a side note, here are some verses where Jesus' willingness to always heal is somewhat in doubt:
Matt 15:41: Jesus initially refuses to heal a woman's daughter of possession. Only after she argues with him does he agree to do so. Now, if we have a story about such a time, one wonders if other such incidents happened in Jesus' life. It appears that the disciples weren't shocked that he initially answered so.
John 11:14-15: Jesus let Lazarus die of a disease. He did it so that people "may believe." Here we see God using sickness and death in a way that has a greater purpose - so that we may believe. He does eventually raise Lazarus, but the point still stands that Jesus used sickness and death for his glory.
Mark 1:37-38 - Here Jesus spends a day healing people and then rises early the next morning to start preaching again in another place. Simon tells him that people are still looking for him, most likely in order to continue the healing he did the night before. Jesus tells him, however, that he must move on, for he came to preach in other places. In essence, he is here sending people away who want healing because he must do other things.
Finally, I do not agree that this is a unimportant issue, for these sort of questions impact immensely how we pray, how we view the nature of God's goodness, his sovereignty, and, in the end, how we deal with death, sickness, and pain. These questions are immensely practical and theological. I am happy that there is a place where they can be discussed. I hope this discussion is pushing us all to the Bible to see what that says rather than what pastors, theologians, or other bloggers say.
Welcome Seth,
Thanks for joining the discussion. I welcome your input. I really love the points you made, my favorite was that there are no trials and tribulations in heaven, so there shouldn't be any here on earth. I'm going to chew on that one for awhile because I find it very interesting.
In the meantime, I'll try to address the questions you posed. Mainly I want to address the question of "what is the difference between sickness and suffering and regular old trials and suffering?" I believe I have an answer- Jesus died to pay for one of them (sickness) and not for the other. (trials) I mentioned in some other place the scripture from Isaiah 53:3-5, where it describes the Messiah and what he was going to do. Healing you from sickness was one of the things mentioned. That is reaffirmed in 1 peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. Also, in Psalms 103 says:
Praise the LORD, O my soul,
and forget not all his benefits-
3 who forgives ALL your sins
and heals ALL your diseases,
4 who redeems your life from the pit and crowns you with love and compassion, 5 who satisfies your desires with good things so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's.
I especially want to highlight two things in those scriptures so they don't go unnoticed. In Peter, notice the tense, he uses past tense to say we have been healed. That is crucial, now, post resurrection, because Jesus already paid for it. How can he decide to not buy something he already bought. It is too late, it is already paid for. The work was done, it is accomplished, it is finished. That is why we don't have to wonder now, each time we pray, if it is his will, because that part has been settled.
As for the other one, the Psalms says ALL, not some, not a few, but ALL our sins and ALL our sickness.
As for trials (non sickness) what Jesus does say is that we can expect MORE of that kind! The epistles back that up. That is why I liked your point about no trials in heaven, but lots of them on earth, like I said, I need to ask Jesus about that. I don't know why that is, the only answer is what Paul says, that it builds endurance and refines our faith. Maybe it comes down to timing on that one, the fact that we are still in a war, and the enemy is still free to cause problems. Until Jesus comes back, free will unleashed will cause trials for everybody.
I also want to clarify something else, God is never loses in any scenario. All things work together for good for those who love the Lord is CRUCIAL. That is why I said at some point in the beginning of this discussion that we can embrace our losses when they happen, because all things work together for good for those who love the Lord. The more the enemy messes with God's people, the more God rises up to defend them and pour out his love for them. It is a vicious cycle for the enemy. He tries so hard to hold God's people back and kill and destroy them, but everything he does just turns out to be better for God's people in every way. The picture I love to think about here, and it might sound silly, but it works for me, is when Darth Vader kills Obi Wan Kenobi. I love Ben's line, "if you kill me, you will only make me more stronger, more then you can even imagine. That is how it is for us who love the Lord." Does that address your question? Would you like me to address the sidenotes? Let me know, and once again, thanks for joining.
Peace,
jon
Post a Comment