Word of Faith - a Look at what the Bible says!

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
10,105
988
113
#1
If you wish to talk about opinions, please see the other thread which is going on right now. I want to keep this thread to discuss what the BIBLE says about the Word Faith teaching, and why the Bible says it is wrong.

Again, another copy and paste of something I already wrote, coming from a pamphlet called The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospel by Gordon D. Fee. Gordon Fee is one of the top Bible and Greek scholars in the world. He is also Pentecostal, believes in healing and the gifts of the Spirit. But he does NOT believe in the distorted exegesis of the Bible, and how Health and Wealth teachers have twisted the Bible, as evident from so many posts in this thread.

As far as wealth, Gordon Fee doesn't have a kind word to say about it. It is totally a false doctrine. Having met numerous people who were fleeced by these evil men who preach unconditional wealth, it is not Biblical. I will not deal with it here, although if anyone wants to talk about it, in terms of what the Bible says, please feel free to post Bible verses on it. I do not believe in this false prosperity gospel and I would be willing to post the Scriptures that explain why. (I am NOT saying that God doesn't bless us, but again, it is not part of the atonement or the Bible!)


Regarding healing, Fee titles this chapter "The 'Gospel' of Perfect Health." First, he notes that physical and mental healing of human life is part of the redemptive activity of God. He believes in prayer for the sick, as I do! Christians are subject to decay and death in this present age, and healing is God's gracious activity in the body healed and is a sign of the future already at work in this present age.

If healing is supported by both the Bible and theology and praying in faith for the gracious healing of the sick, then where is the problem? What is the "disease" nature of the "gospel" of total health for Christians?

There are basically some biblical and theological distortions which insist:

1. that God wills perfect health and complete healing for every believer

2. that God has obligated Himself to heal every sickness for those who have faith (unless the sickness is a result of breaking God's "health" laws.)

Integral to this theology is the insistence that faith can "claim" such healing from God, and that any failure to be healed is not the fault of God, but of the one who has not had enough faith. Very often "claiming" healing means to "confess" it as done, even though the symptoms persists.

So the answer to why people are not healed, who have faith, has to lie not in the actual words of the Bible or God himself, but in the way the Bible is being interpreted. As with many half-truths, the "gospel" of perfect health sees to base itself on Scripture. However, the evangelists interpretation is faulty for the following reasons:

1. some poor, or flat-out wrong interpretations of key texts
2. some selective use of texts,
3. a failure to have a wholistic biblical view of things, and especially a failure to understand the essential theological framework of the New Testament writers.

As a result, they tend to repeat the Corinthian error and are unable to hear Paul's answers in 1 and 2 Corinthians as over and against themselves, although these evangelists are unwitting descendants of the false apostles of 2 Cor. 10-13!

"So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong." 2 Cor. 12:7-10


Basic hermeneutics demands the following things:

The aim of all biblical interpretation is the "plain meaning" of the text. This is the "original meaning", that the author plainly intended and that the original readers plainly understood. The Bible is indeed a book for all seasons, because it speaks directly out of our past to our present situation, it does so because it first spoke to them in their situation.

Therefore, the first task of interpretation is NOT to find out what it says to us, but what it originally said to them. God's Word to us is not a new word, never before discovered; rather it must be the very same word he originally spoke back there and then. This is the only legitimate Word to be heard in Scripture.

All this must be insisted upon, because the basic Biblical failure of the "perfect health" evangelists is the interpretation of their primary texts. They simply fail to do adequate exegesis which has to do with determining the meaning of the text in original context.


The arguments for perfect health as God's will for all believers are based on three sets of texts

a. Paul's statement that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law" Gal 3:14, coupled with Deuteronomy 28:21-22 where disease is one of the curses for disobedience of the law.

"The Lord will make the pestilence stick to you until he has consumed you off the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 22 The Lord will strike you with wasting disease and with fever, inflammation and fiery heat, and with drought and with blight and with mildew. They shall pursue you until you perish." Debt. 28:21-22

It is argued from these texts that sickness is a part of the curse of the law, from which Christ redeemed us from.

b. Isa. 53 and the citation of Isa. 53:4 in Matt 8:17 and Isa. 53:5 in 1 Peter 2:24. It is argued from these texts, especially from the change to the past tense in 1 Peter that healing is in the atonement in the same way as forgiveness. (Something that Undergrace has been ably defending!)

c. A whole host of texts that remind us that God honours faith eg. Matt 9:29, Mark 11:23-24, John 14:12; Hebrews 11:6; James 1:6-8


The first set of texts, (a above) can be quickly set aside. This is a typical example of a totally faulty "concordance" interpretation, which finds English "catch" words in various texts and then tries to make them all refer to the same thing. There is not even the remotest possibility that Paul was referring to the curses of Deuteronomy 28 when he spoke of "curse of the law." And "redemption" in Galatians has to do with one thing only - how does one have right standing with God - through faith (= trust in God's gracious acceptance and forgiveness for sinners), or by works of the law (=acceptance by obedience to prescribed rules)? Thus the Holy Spirit could scarcely have inspired a meaning of the text that is totally foreign to the point Paul is making in the context in Galatians.

It is also questionable whether one can rightly argue that the Bible teaches that healing is provided for in the atonement. Historic Pentecostalism does not see healing provided for in the atonement the same way as salvation. Healing is "provided for" because the "atonement brought release from the consequences of sin;" nevertheless, since "we have not yet received the redemption of our bodies" suffering and death are still our lot until the resurrection.


"Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all." Isa. 53:4-6

While there are many texts that show that our sin has been overcome by Christ's death and resurrection, there is in fact no text that that explicitly says the same thing about healing, not even Isaiah 53 and its NT citations.

Matthew's use of Isa. 53:4 does not even refer to the cross, rather the clearly sees the text being fulfilled in Jesus earthly ministry. This is made certain by both the context and by his choice of Greek verbs in his own unique translation of the Hebrew (ἔλαβεν or elaben = he took; ἐβάστασεν or ebastasen = he removed.)

"ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· Αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβεν καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν." Matt 8:17 Greek

"This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.” Matt 8:17 ESV

The citation of Isa. 53:5 in 1 Peter 2:24 on the other hand, does not refer to physical healing. The usage here is metaphorical, pure and simple! In context, in which slaves are urged to submit to their evil masters - even if it means suffering for it - Peter appeals to the example of Christ, which Christians slaves are to follow.

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." 1 Peter 2:24 ESV

This appeal to Christ, beginning at verse 21, is filling with allusions and to citations of Isa. 53 all of which refers to Christ's having suffered unjustly as the source of the slave's redemption from sin. Thus Peter says:

"He himself bore our wounds" (Isa. 53:12) "that we might die to sin."

"By his wounds you have been healed" (Isa. 53:5) FOR you were as sheep going astray. (Isa. 53:6)

The allusions to both verses 5 and 6, joined by FOR (coordinate Conjunction) and referring to "sheep going astray" plus the change to the past tense, all make it abundantly clear that "healing" here is a metaphor for being restored to health from "the sickness of their sins!"

Such a metaphorical use would be natural for Peter, since sin as "wound" "injury" or "sickness" and the "healing" or such "sickness" are thorough going images in the Old Testament. See 2 Chron. 7:14; Psalm 6:2; Isaiah 1:5-6; Jerem. 30:12-13, 52:8-9; Nahum 3:19)

Furthermore , the Old Testament citations in 1 Peter rather closely follow the Septuagint (LXX or Greek translation of the OT) even when this translation differed from the Hebrew; and the Septuagint had ALREADY translated Isa. 53:4 metaphorically!

"He himself bore our sins"
rather than "our sicknesses." I am sure Peter knew both versions and chose the LXX because he knew it was a better version for NT believers and their understanding of Isa. 53:4.

So my point!

Matt clearly saw Isa. 53:4 as referring to physical healing, but as a part of the Messiah's ministry, not the atonement. Peter, conversely, saw the "healing" in Isa. 53 as being metaphorical and thus referring to the healing of our sin sickness. Neither NT reference to healing sees the "healing" in Isa. 53 as referring to physical healing in the atonement.

But what did Isaiah himself intend??

The first reference is certainly metaphorical as the Septuagint, the Targums and Peter recognize. Israel was diseased! She was grievously wounded for her sins (Isa 1:6-7) Yet God would restore his people. There would come one who himself would suffer so as to deliver. Isaiah says of the Messiah "The punishment that brought us peace was upon him and by his wounds we are healed." Since physical disease was clearly recognized as a consequence of the Fall, such a metaphor could also pick up the literal sense and that is what Matthew picked up on.

The Bible therefore does, not explicitly teach that healing is provided for in the atonement. However, the NT does see the cross as the focus of God's redemptive activity.

As far as part c above, ultimately, these rely on a wrong interpretation that healing is part of the atonement. The argument for perfect health, or healing on demand, lies in the joining of healing to the atonement as the basis for demand, and therefore if God has provided for it, he must therefore heal on demand.

Since in fact, there is no connection of the atonement to healing, God is not obligated to provide healing on demand, although I do believe he heals when people pray and it is His will to heal, that he might be glorified.


Jesus has come to save you from your sins. That you can be sure of. God is real. But televangelist, Word Faith prophets, not at all! If you start reading the Bible from cover to cover, over and over yearly or more, you will get a very different theology than these sharks and false prophets paint. I urge everyone to get out a modern translation like ESV or HCSB and read it over and over again. That was part of what helped me heal - just reading the Word of God - in context, and fully! I've read the Bible over 40 times straight through, and most of the NT in Greek and much of the OT in Hebrew. (And the entire bible in French!) I assure you, there is nothing more glorious than feeding on the Word of God. God will minister to you daily as you seek his revealed Word in the Bible, rather than with internet preachers and false prophets.

Here is the verse God gave me that healed my soul in more than one way. It appears in Paul's chapter on justification, and that we all suffer - we live in a fallen world. It has comforted me more times than you can imagine!

"Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." Romans 5:3-5
 
C

CeileDe

Guest
#2
I thought we weren't suppose to attack other denominations?
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
10,105
988
113
#3
No one is attacking denominations! Just false doctrine found in the Word of Faith, false movement.

We won't even get into the fact, that you posted this without reading my post! I know because I was timing how long it took for one of you people to post.

Please read the post, then discuss the BIBLE verses in my post, or any other Bible verses you wish to bring into the discussion. (Preferably in context!)
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
10,105
988
113
#4
Another basic reason why healing is not included in the atonement is simple. Christ died to atone for our sins. We are saved when we believe this. We are never accused in the Bible of not having enough faith or doubting our salvation, if we believe Christ died on the cross for our sins.

But neither healing, nor prosperity is included in the atonement, or it would indeed have to be perfect healing, and every Christian a rich person, from the time they are saved. I think there are enough testimonies on the other thread, including my own concerning how people are not always healed, and how God uses that for good.


So again – we are saved when we believe in the atonement. I would hope that this is generally agreed upon, no matter what their denominational background.

BUT, we are not automatically healed, nor do we automatically become rich when we believe in the atonement. The atonement is about sin, not healing or riches.
 
C

CeileDe

Guest
#5
No one is attacking denominations! Just false doctrine found in the Word of Faith, false movement.

We won't even get into the fact, that you posted this without reading my post! I know because I was timing how long it took for one of you people to post.

Please read the post, then discuss the BIBLE verses in my post, or any other Bible verses you wish to bring into the discussion. (Preferably in context!)
You people? And what people am I? The title says it all.
 

Oncefallen

Idiot in Chief
Staff member
Jan 15, 2011
5,036
730
113
#7
I thought we weren't suppose to attack other denominations?

A) WoF is not a denomination, it is a doctrine

B) Most of orthodox Christianity (including the Admin team of this site) would consider WoF at best to be bad doctrine, and at worst to be outright heresy
 
C

CeileDe

Guest
#8

A) WoF is not a denomination, it is a doctrine

B) Most of orthodox Christianity (including the Admin team of this site) would consider WoF at best to be bad doctrine, and at worst to be outright heresy
Well then I refuse to belong to a bigoted hateful site such as this. Remove me from this hypocritical place.
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
7,660
797
113
#9
Well then I refuse to belong to a bigoted hateful site such as this. Remove me from this hypocritical place.
CelieDe,

It isn't being a hypocrite to simply disagree.

I haven't called you a hypocrite for disagreeing with me.

Sometimes we all just need to relax.
 
C

CharlieGrown

Guest
#10
Well then I refuse to belong to a bigoted hateful site such as this. Remove me from this hypocritical place.
What I can't except is the fact that your willing to go down and out over a concept you're admittedly not well versed in. Stick around there is a lot of good fruit on CC.
 
C

CeileDe

Guest
#11
What I can't except is the fact that your willing to go down and out over a concept you're admittedly not well versed in. Stick around there is a lot of good fruit on CC.
Never said I wasn't well versed in it. I won't belong to anything that purposely attacks others because they don't line up with their own opinions.
 
C

CharlieGrown

Guest
#12
Never said I wasn't well versed in it. I won't belong to anything that purposely attacks others because they don't line up with their own opinions.
If words of opinions are "attacks" there is no safe place. Peace.
 
Nov 22, 2015
20,436
1,401
0
#13
Never said I wasn't well versed in it. I won't belong to anything that purposely attacks others because they don't line up with their own opinions.

We must respect the people that moderate this forum. It is their site and they can decide what they want to say is in their opinion truth. That is their right - this is their place of authority.

If they said it was the admin's view that the 2 witnesses in the book of Revelation were Daffy Duck and Donald Duck - you would have to abide by not saying anything against this view if you wanted to stay on here.

You can always talk about other subjects. Whether one believes in healing or not is a non-essential. Christ Himself is our life.

( for the record I don't believe that CC believes in "the Ducks" theory of the witnesses in Revelation ..frankly I think it's for the birds...:rolleyes: )
 
Last edited:

Blain

Senior Member
Aug 28, 2012
14,755
573
113
#14
I have been curious about understanding the word of faith belief. Now the prosperity gospel name it and claim it thing is not what I want to learn about but from I understand about that doctrine is that God wants you to be rich in money and things he wants you to be healed and have no illnesses no pain nothing basically it makes him sound like a wish maker this is not the wof doctrine I want to understand.

See I know the power of words and I know that faith has the ability to do the impossible when it comes to God and the bible speaks often of our authority in Christ the apostles commanded demons healed and did miracles with touch but there were times when they did it with words alone they knew and understand walked and lived in the authority God gave them.

But they knew where the authority and power came from and never spoke of their own they always were lead by the spirit and I never even saw them use their authority and power for themselves. I am wanting to understand a wof that is always lead by the spirit never speaking of our own voice and always to do God's will if there is such a wof then I very much want to study it
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,303
111
63
#15
We won't even get into the fact, that you posted this without reading my post! I know because I was timing how long it took for one of you people to post.
:D

Please read the post, then discuss the BIBLE verses in my post, or any other Bible verses you wish to bring into the discussion. (Preferably in context!)
No offense but I plan to call it an early night tonight :rolleyes: but I did notice this comment in your post and wonder if could reconcile your comment below with
John 16:23 wherein it is written, 'in that day'

God is not obligated to provide healing on demand


FAITH RULES!!!
Believing is for Losers..
Word Up!​
 

OneFaith

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2016
2,163
317
83
#16
I thought we weren't suppose to attack other denominations?
Attack no, expose yes. God says, "They worship Me in vain, their doctrine is merely human rules." These people following false doctrine will not be saved. It's a Christian"s job to show them the truth that saves, and expose the lies that don't save.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
10,105
988
113
#17
:D
No offense but I plan to call it an early night tonight :rolleyes: but I did notice this comment in your post and wonder if could reconcile your comment below with
John 16:23 wherein it is written, 'in that day'


FAITH RULES!!!
Believing is for Losers..
Word Up!​

Well, I am always very wary of someone distorting of a snippet of KJV. So, I did have to look this one up.

What it says in Greek is: (Posting this for my own reference, not to parade the Greek out!)

"καὶ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἐρωτήσετε οὐδέν· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἄν τι αἰτήσητε τὸν πατέρα δώσει ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου." John 16:23

In English the passage in context:

"When a woman is in labor she has pain because her time has come. But when she has given birth to a child, she no longer remembers the suffering because of the joy that a person has been born into the world. 22 So you also have sorrow now. But I will see you again. Your hearts will rejoice, and no one will rob you of your joy. 23 In that day you will not ask Me anything.
“I assure you: Anything you ask the Father in My name, He will give you." John 16:21-23 HCSB

"1 When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world. 22 So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you. 23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you." John 16:21-23 ESV

First, it is important not to put just the whole verse, but the context. Otherwise, you will end up with a false doctrine. Seven words is NEVER enough to make sound doctrine. Context counts - not just the verses around it, but the entire book of John.

The book of John is an amazing treatise on Jesus Christ, whom John shows to be God. It is not really about what I can name and claim! Seriously! I am just reading in John in my daily read through the Bible, it exults in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died on the cross for our sins. Over and over, it shows how Jesus is God.

But more specifically, what was Jesus talking about in this passage? Some obscure interpretation of his Words 21 centuries in the future? Something that we can use today, to get whatever we want? Not really. He was talking about a parable of a woman giving birth, with two key words - grief and joy. A parable is a teaching Jesus used to obscure what he was saying to the masses, but then he would explain it to his disciples.

So, when a woman gives birth, she has grief, or sorrow because her hour has come. I can testify to that portion of the Scripture. But, when the child is born, she doesn't even remember her anguish, for she is filled with joy that a human being was born into the world. I totally understand this, having experienced it four joyful times.

Although childbirth was a common eschatological metaphor for "distress" or "tribulation" prior to the Day of the Lord, this probably is just any generic woman giving birth, not an allegorical figure representing Israel or Jerusalem or the people of God.

Yet the parable does involve a comparison between her experience and those of the disciples. The comparison is a simple one - there is grief and then there is joy! But the joy far outweighs the grief.

"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us." Romans 8:18

"For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison," 2 Cor. 4:17


The parable comes as a surprise in one respect, in that the reason for the woman's overwhelming joy is that "a human being" has been born into the world. To be born "into the world" is evidently a good thing, even in the face of all that has been said earlier about the world hating the disciples (John 15:18-25) and rejoicing at their grief. (vs 20)

Jesus immediately makes the application explicit: "And so you have grief now, but I will see you again, and your heart will rejoice and no one takes away your joy from you." (vs. 22).

The promise "I will see you again." vs 22, also recalls Jesus terminology earlier answering the disciples "I am coming back" (14:3) and "I am coming to you" (14:28). In fact, John 14, 15 and 16 are intricately tied to Jesus explaining he has to go, but he will send the Holy Spirit when he leaves for heaven.

Jesus' explanation of the parable in vs 21 continues in vv 22-23, the verse in question which was posted out of context.

Please note, this explanation "you will ask me for nothing" and then "whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you." vs 23. When? In that day! Now this is the crux of the meaning of John 16:23.

Jesus says the disciple will ask no questions, because they have no need to ask. "In that day" they will understand what they do not understand now. Their questions will have been answered. The emphatic "me" ἐμὲ simply identifies Jesus as the Source of truth, who will reveal all things freely without being questioned.

But another type of "asking" is necessary, even commanded! While the disciples will have no more need to ask questions they will always need to "ask" in prayer. Without hesitation Jesus continues with, "Truly, truly I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name he will give it to you."

"Joy" (v22) rests on knowledge, to be sure, but the transition from grief to joy is accomplished only through prayer.

Prayer "in his name" will be answered because it is the prayer of those who know him, and do not have to be told what he would want. The promise of answered prayer is "for that day," when Jesus will see them again, and make himself known to them. Jesus confirms that the transition from "grief" to "joy" is not limited to an eschatological moment, whether the resurrection of Jesus or his final coming, but it is something that happens again and again, above all through the prayers of those who grieve.

So is this passage about asking for whatever we want in Jesus name, and the Father being obligated to give it? Absolutely not! That is a egregious reading of this passage, especially in light of the teachings of Jesus in chapters 14-16. It is about Jesus, and how when we know him, we can come to him, asking in prayer for the things we know he wants us to ask for. Not complete health or great wealth, but a deep and joyous relationship with Jesus through the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus talks about coming in the opening verses of chapter 16.

Finally, I doubt very much Jesus was telling his disciples to name it and claim it, when he finishes chapter with this verse.

“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” John 16:33

He knows the disciples are going to go through some very trying times, and that they need to keep focused on Christ, to find peace when the real trials and tribulations come.

Of course, if you disagree, please feel free to discuss the verse in context, and state exactly your thoughts about what that passage means. I am sure that by looking in context, instead of this truncated view of partial verses ripped out of context, you will gain a much greater understanding of where Jesus is going in John 16.

 

Cee

Senior Member
May 14, 2010
2,169
471
83
#18
James says even if we ask for wisdom without faith we won't receive it. So are you proposing that faith has nothing to do with receiving from God?
 

wanderer6059

Senior Member
Oct 27, 2013
1,282
54
48
#19

A) WoF is not a denomination, it is a doctrine

B) Most of orthodox Christianity (including the Admin team of this site) would consider WoF at best to be bad doctrine, and at worst to be outright heresy
et tu brute lol i feel like everyone here and the admins even loth me.
 

wanderer6059

Senior Member
Oct 27, 2013
1,282
54
48
#20
If you wish to talk about opinions, please see the other thread which is going on right now. I want to keep this thread to discuss what the BIBLE says about the Word Faith teaching, and why the Bible says it is wrong.

Again, another copy and paste of something I already wrote, coming from a pamphlet called The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospel by Gordon D. Fee. Gordon Fee is one of the top Bible and Greek scholars in the world. He is also Pentecostal, believes in healing and the gifts of the Spirit. But he does NOT believe in the distorted exegesis of the Bible, and how Health and Wealth teachers have twisted the Bible, as evident from so many posts in this thread.

As far as wealth, Gordon Fee doesn't have a kind word to say about it. It is totally a false doctrine. Having met numerous people who were fleeced by these evil men who preach unconditional wealth, it is not Biblical. I will not deal with it here, although if anyone wants to talk about it, in terms of what the Bible says, please feel free to post Bible verses on it. I do not believe in this false prosperity gospel and I would be willing to post the Scriptures that explain why. (I am NOT saying that God doesn't bless us, but again, it is not part of the atonement or the Bible!)


Regarding healing, Fee titles this chapter "The 'Gospel' of Perfect Health." First, he notes that physical and mental healing of human life is part of the redemptive activity of God. He believes in prayer for the sick, as I do! Christians are subject to decay and death in this present age, and healing is God's gracious activity in the body healed and is a sign of the future already at work in this present age.

If healing is supported by both the Bible and theology and praying in faith for the gracious healing of the sick, then where is the problem? What is the "disease" nature of the "gospel" of total health for Christians?

There are basically some biblical and theological distortions which insist:

1. that God wills perfect health and complete healing for every believer

2. that God has obligated Himself to heal every sickness for those who have faith (unless the sickness is a result of breaking God's "health" laws.)

Integral to this theology is the insistence that faith can "claim" such healing from God, and that any failure to be healed is not the fault of God, but of the one who has not had enough faith. Very often "claiming" healing means to "confess" it as done, even though the symptoms persists.

So the answer to why people are not healed, who have faith, has to lie not in the actual words of the Bible or God himself, but in the way the Bible is being interpreted. As with many half-truths, the "gospel" of perfect health sees to base itself on Scripture. However, the evangelists interpretation is faulty for the following reasons:

1. some poor, or flat-out wrong interpretations of key texts
2. some selective use of texts,
3. a failure to have a wholistic biblical view of things, and especially a failure to understand the essential theological framework of the New Testament writers.

As a result, they tend to repeat the Corinthian error and are unable to hear Paul's answers in 1 and 2 Corinthians as over and against themselves, although these evangelists are unwitting descendants of the false apostles of 2 Cor. 10-13!

"So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong." 2 Cor. 12:7-10


Basic hermeneutics demands the following things:

The aim of all biblical interpretation is the "plain meaning" of the text. This is the "original meaning", that the author plainly intended and that the original readers plainly understood. The Bible is indeed a book for all seasons, because it speaks directly out of our past to our present situation, it does so because it first spoke to them in their situation.

Therefore, the first task of interpretation is NOT to find out what it says to us, but what it originally said to them. God's Word to us is not a new word, never before discovered; rather it must be the very same word he originally spoke back there and then. This is the only legitimate Word to be heard in Scripture.

All this must be insisted upon, because the basic Biblical failure of the "perfect health" evangelists is the interpretation of their primary texts. They simply fail to do adequate exegesis which has to do with determining the meaning of the text in original context.


The arguments for perfect health as God's will for all believers are based on three sets of texts

a. Paul's statement that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law" Gal 3:14, coupled with Deuteronomy 28:21-22 where disease is one of the curses for disobedience of the law.

"The Lord will make the pestilence stick to you until he has consumed you off the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 22 The Lord will strike you with wasting disease and with fever, inflammation and fiery heat, and with drought and with blight and with mildew. They shall pursue you until you perish." Debt. 28:21-22

It is argued from these texts that sickness is a part of the curse of the law, from which Christ redeemed us from.

b. Isa. 53 and the citation of Isa. 53:4 in Matt 8:17 and Isa. 53:5 in 1 Peter 2:24. It is argued from these texts, especially from the change to the past tense in 1 Peter that healing is in the atonement in the same way as forgiveness. (Something that Undergrace has been ably defending!)

c. A whole host of texts that remind us that God honours faith eg. Matt 9:29, Mark 11:23-24, John 14:12; Hebrews 11:6; James 1:6-8


The first set of texts, (a above) can be quickly set aside. This is a typical example of a totally faulty "concordance" interpretation, which finds English "catch" words in various texts and then tries to make them all refer to the same thing. There is not even the remotest possibility that Paul was referring to the curses of Deuteronomy 28 when he spoke of "curse of the law." And "redemption" in Galatians has to do with one thing only - how does one have right standing with God - through faith (= trust in God's gracious acceptance and forgiveness for sinners), or by works of the law (=acceptance by obedience to prescribed rules)? Thus the Holy Spirit could scarcely have inspired a meaning of the text that is totally foreign to the point Paul is making in the context in Galatians.

It is also questionable whether one can rightly argue that the Bible teaches that healing is provided for in the atonement. Historic Pentecostalism does not see healing provided for in the atonement the same way as salvation. Healing is "provided for" because the "atonement brought release from the consequences of sin;" nevertheless, since "we have not yet received the redemption of our bodies" suffering and death are still our lot until the resurrection.


"Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all." Isa. 53:4-6

While there are many texts that show that our sin has been overcome by Christ's death and resurrection, there is in fact no text that that explicitly says the same thing about healing, not even Isaiah 53 and its NT citations.

Matthew's use of Isa. 53:4 does not even refer to the cross, rather the clearly sees the text being fulfilled in Jesus earthly ministry. This is made certain by both the context and by his choice of Greek verbs in his own unique translation of the Hebrew (ἔλαβεν or elaben = he took; ἐβάστασεν or ebastasen = he removed.)

"ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· Αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβεν καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν." Matt 8:17 Greek

"This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.” Matt 8:17 ESV

The citation of Isa. 53:5 in 1 Peter 2:24 on the other hand, does not refer to physical healing. The usage here is metaphorical, pure and simple! In context, in which slaves are urged to submit to their evil masters - even if it means suffering for it - Peter appeals to the example of Christ, which Christians slaves are to follow.

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." 1 Peter 2:24 ESV

This appeal to Christ, beginning at verse 21, is filling with allusions and to citations of Isa. 53 all of which refers to Christ's having suffered unjustly as the source of the slave's redemption from sin. Thus Peter says:

"He himself bore our wounds" (Isa. 53:12) "that we might die to sin."

"By his wounds you have been healed" (Isa. 53:5) FOR you were as sheep going astray. (Isa. 53:6)

The allusions to both verses 5 and 6, joined by FOR (coordinate Conjunction) and referring to "sheep going astray" plus the change to the past tense, all make it abundantly clear that "healing" here is a metaphor for being restored to health from "the sickness of their sins!"

Such a metaphorical use would be natural for Peter, since sin as "wound" "injury" or "sickness" and the "healing" or such "sickness" are thorough going images in the Old Testament. See 2 Chron. 7:14; Psalm 6:2; Isaiah 1:5-6; Jerem. 30:12-13, 52:8-9; Nahum 3:19)

Furthermore , the Old Testament citations in 1 Peter rather closely follow the Septuagint (LXX or Greek translation of the OT) even when this translation differed from the Hebrew; and the Septuagint had ALREADY translated Isa. 53:4 metaphorically!

"He himself bore our sins"
rather than "our sicknesses." I am sure Peter knew both versions and chose the LXX because he knew it was a better version for NT believers and their understanding of Isa. 53:4.

So my point!

Matt clearly saw Isa. 53:4 as referring to physical healing, but as a part of the Messiah's ministry, not the atonement. Peter, conversely, saw the "healing" in Isa. 53 as being metaphorical and thus referring to the healing of our sin sickness. Neither NT reference to healing sees the "healing" in Isa. 53 as referring to physical healing in the atonement.

But what did Isaiah himself intend??

The first reference is certainly metaphorical as the Septuagint, the Targums and Peter recognize. Israel was diseased! She was grievously wounded for her sins (Isa 1:6-7) Yet God would restore his people. There would come one who himself would suffer so as to deliver. Isaiah says of the Messiah "The punishment that brought us peace was upon him and by his wounds we are healed." Since physical disease was clearly recognized as a consequence of the Fall, such a metaphor could also pick up the literal sense and that is what Matthew picked up on.

The Bible therefore does, not explicitly teach that healing is provided for in the atonement. However, the NT does see the cross as the focus of God's redemptive activity.

As far as part c above, ultimately, these rely on a wrong interpretation that healing is part of the atonement. The argument for perfect health, or healing on demand, lies in the joining of healing to the atonement as the basis for demand, and therefore if God has provided for it, he must therefore heal on demand.

Since in fact, there is no connection of the atonement to healing, God is not obligated to provide healing on demand, although I do believe he heals when people pray and it is His will to heal, that he might be glorified.


Jesus has come to save you from your sins. That you can be sure of. God is real. But televangelist, Word Faith prophets, not at all! If you start reading the Bible from cover to cover, over and over yearly or more, you will get a very different theology than these sharks and false prophets paint. I urge everyone to get out a modern translation like ESV or HCSB and read it over and over again. That was part of what helped me heal - just reading the Word of God - in context, and fully! I've read the Bible over 40 times straight through, and most of the NT in Greek and much of the OT in Hebrew. (And the entire bible in French!) I assure you, there is nothing more glorious than feeding on the Word of God. God will minister to you daily as you seek his revealed Word in the Bible, rather than with internet preachers and false prophets.

Here is the verse God gave me that healed my soul in more than one way. It appears in Paul's chapter on justification, and that we all suffer - we live in a fallen world. It has comforted me more times than you can imagine!

"Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." Romans 5:3-5
FINALLY!!!!! what i wanted my thread t be!!!! ok i'll start angi and ill post my healing scriptures in a bit once i have typed it out!

Faith, is a firm persuasion in what God has promised. It is boldly going before the Father and as His child making our request know, knowing that He will meet our needs.

now this is the anchor verse here at Rhema.

Mark 11:22-24King James Version (KJV)


22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

ok so first lets break down some of these words!


pistis: faith, faithfulnessOriginal Word: πίστις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: pistis
Phonetic Spelling: (pis'-tis)
Short Definition: faith, belief, trust
Definition: faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness.


kardia: heartOriginal Word: καρδία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: kardia
Phonetic Spelling: (kar-dee'-ah)
Short Definition: the heart, inner life, intention
Definition: lit: the heart; mind, character, inner self, will, intention, center.


pisteuó: to believe, entrustOriginal Word: πιστεύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: pisteuó
Phonetic Spelling: (pist-yoo'-o)
Short Definition: I believe, have faith in
Definition: I believe, have faith in, trust in; pass: I am entrusted with.


lambanó: to take, receiveOriginal Word: λαμβάνω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: lambanó
Phonetic Spelling: (lam-ban'-o)
Short Definition: I receive, take
Definition: (a) I receive, get, (b) I take, lay hold of.


pas: all, everyOriginal Word: πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: pas
Phonetic Spelling: (pas)
Short Definition: all, the whole, every kind of
Definition: all, the whole, every kind of.

Ok so first, the contextual usage for removing the mountain in this verse is to accomplish most difficult, stupendous, incredible things. now Faith is the first aspect, and it is in what God says in His word and His will, and believing it is true. next is the heart our inner being, out mind, and we are to hold firm to what the Word says and not be persuaded against what are faith is in. next is belief, belief also comes with the aspect of being entrusted with what we receive by faith and to protect it and guard it. next is to receive it is a bold and courage movement, there is a great part we play in taking hold of what we are in faith for. next is the usage of desire... this is probably the hardest verse in the passage.this is a better breakdown of the wordage.

3956/pás ("each, every") means "all" in the sense of "each (every) part that applies." The emphasis of the total picture then is on "one piece at a time." 365 (ananeóō) then focuses on the part(s) making up the whole – viewing the whole in terms of the individual parts.

in faith ALL of the PROMISES of God are brought into reality.

Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV)

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.