When people came to Jesus they were all healed. Same with the Apostles.
a). So, if I am reading your post correctly,
every individual person in every group that encountered either Jesus OR the Apostles was always healed; including even those who did not believe or ask for it. Is this REALLY your position? Please correct me if I am wrong about what you are saying but it appears to me that your definition of the
gift of healing is the
divine ability to confer healing on anyone the healer chooses.
b). When we read about the Gift of Healing some believe understand the GIFT of healing as an endowment given to the person who dispenses healing. HOWEVER, the gift of
healing is not a permanant endowment of power given to a Healer. Instead healing is
given to the
person who is in need of healing.
c). The idea that people are "healers" is like how Simon Magus viewed it.
d). When God brought about healing to someone
through Peter and the Apostles they denied possessing the power.
11 While the man clung to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and ran to them in the walkway called Solomon’s Colonnade. 12 And when Peter saw this, he addressed the people: “Men of Israel, why are you surprised by this? Why do you stare at us as if by our own POWER or GODLINESS WE had made this man walk?
(
Acts 3:11-12)
This scripture states that Peter
had not been given a permanant endowment enabling him to heal anyone he chose to.
And remember, all who were healed, even miraculously, eventually died. Did their faith run dry?
Although Jesus on a few occasions did raise the dead He never said He was here to grant
bodily immortality or that we would never die if we
put our faith in Him. Besides, while our own Resurrection will be a
result of what Jesus accomplished on the cross
and by His own Resurrection that event will not take place until the appointed time.
The gift of healing was, as the Bible explains, to verify the message and the messenger.
Do you seem to think the
ONLY reason Jesus healed people was to
authenticate His Messianic credentials I believe that when Jesus healed people He did so out of His abundant compassion He has for humanity, to show us that He takes an active interest in our lives and desires, at least to some extent,
alleviate our suffering?
Jesus primary mission was also to reveal the nature of the Father so we would draw near to Him.
3 Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.
(
John 17:3)
And those who had the true gift did heal all who came to them. That's the standard. What the modern day faith healers has done is put the burden of proof on the believer to have "enough faith", when in fact the true gift of healing through human agency verified the message and the messenger, not the believers faith.
You claim that the Biblical
STANDARD for deciding whether miraculous healings are the result of the operation of
TRUE GIFT of healing is whether or not EVERY individual in a given group of sick and infirm people is
healed?
Let us test your hypothesis against the testimony of scripture:
Then He healed MANY who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He did not allow the demons to speak, because they knew Him (
Mark 1:32-34)
And that very hour He cured MANY of infirmities, afflictions, and evil spirits; and to many blind He gave sight. Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them.”
(
Luke 7:21-22)
Although both these accounts say Jesus healed
MANY it does not go as far as to say He healed them ALL. Thus Jesus Himself did not meet
THE STANDARD of someone who had the
true gift of healing.
If they put the burden of proof on your faith and not their results, it's a fraud.
Yes, I have seen how false
Healers blame the sick person for not having enough faith to be healed. If they recover these same people will attribute the recovery to their OWN faith.
Everyone has the right to ask God to heal them, and if He does, it's usually through providence, that being non miraculous means.
The
word "
providence" is used only
once in the Scriptures (
Acts 24:2), where it refers,
not to God, but to the
forethought and work of man. By contrast, it seldom means this in current theological discussions which have become dominated by the philosophy of
theistic determinism which Augustine imported into Christianity from the dualistic cult of Manichaeism to which he had belonged before his conversion.
Sometimes God does heal miraculously in answer to PRAYER, but that's not the gift of healing.
Can you
define the difference between healing that come as an
anwer to prayer versus those which comes about because of what the Bible calls "
The Gift of Healing?" Isn't it true that prayer can result in miraculous interventions by God? In Matthew 7:7, Jesus said: 7
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.…
Does God
typically heal those who
do not ask for it and
do not seek Him for it and do not even
believe it could happen?
Acts 3:6-8 even those who didn't ask for it.
The text has nothing to say about whether the lame man had prayed for relief or how much he had done so over the years. I think it is reasonable to assume that he had given the profound limitations his impairment had imposed on his life. Still it is not a stretch to deduce his condition was often on his mind. The point is that when Peter commanded him in the name of Jesus to rise and walk he did not resist by saying "But, sir, I cannot walk" Instead, he believed and rising to his feet. He walked. Desperation usually present before people are willing to believe.
