Miracle workers who couldn't heal themselves!!!

So you don't believe the story of the boy with a demon? that means you don't believe "if thou canst only believe, all things are possible to him that believeth"

why didn't Jesus? or Paul? why didn't Jesus raise everybody from the dead? you'll see from Acts that on Paul's last journey he healed everyone on the Isle of Melita [rather God healed thru Paul] even aprons taken from his body.

Ireneus witnessed all manner of miracles in his day.

Many are healed ...

thar'e a whole parcel of preachers preaching salvation and nobody gets saved ... loads come forward to be "prayed" and they still don't get saved. All that gets swept under the carpet in evangelical churches.

when someone steps forward to be healed you can't sweep it under the carpet.

Many are healed ...

thar'e a whole parcel of preachers preaching salvation and nobody gets saved ... loads come forward to be "prayed" and they still don't get saved. All that gets swept under the carpet in evangelical churches.

when someone steps forward to be healed you can't sweep it under the carpet.

"TV evangelists" are shysters, diverting money from poor people, while teaching miracles, healings, & the like are guilty of 2 major sins: 1. Teaching false doctrine to the max, and 2. Even worse, spreading unbelief among true christians. This is why some on here don't believe in much of anything.
The same people who say that all scripture is true claims God don't do what He used to do, believing early church fathers & denominational teachers over the Word of God. They inadvertently become unbelieving, spreading unbelief to the rest of the body of Christ, making themselves false teachers like the ones they accuse.

No one here brother, friend are mocking Our Lord. We are looking at us mere carbon life forms. Many false claims are made about miracles. When investigated, it never adds up.

We must learn to discern (with the help of the Holy Spirit.) Soon there will be more wolves than sheep!

"TV evangelists" are shysters, diverting money from poor people, while teaching miracles, healings, & the like are guilty of 2 major sins: 1. Teaching false doctrine to the max, and 2. Even worse, spreading unbelief among true christians. This is why some on here don't believe in much of anything.
The same people who say that all scripture is true claims God don't do what He used to do, believing early church fathers & denominational teachers over the Word of God. They inadvertently become unbelieving, spreading unbelief to the rest of the body of Christ, making themselves false teachers like the ones they accuse.

The Healing Myth: A Critique of the Modern Healing Movementbooks.google.com › books
J. Keir Howard · 2013

There was a great deal of “hype,” not only in the advertising brochures, but also on the first day of the conference. Initially Wimber gave the impression that it is commonplace for non-Christians who attend his church in Yorba Linda, California, to be converted one day, and the next to be out on the street casting out demons and healing the sick without even knowing John 3:16 (Wimber’s illustration, not mine.) Yet on the second day of the conference there was almost a complete reversal of this impression, with Wimber acknowledging that they see many who are not healed and that some people for whom they pray, die rather than recover. ...
To become sidetracked on signs and wonders is to be entranced by sensationalism and is not something which Jesus encouraged; in fact it was something which he discouraged probably because he was only too aware that people would seek him for the wrong reasons. Such an overdue concern with miraculous signs reminds one of Augustine’s comment: “Jesus is usually sought after for something else, not for his own sake.”

A third disturbing aspect of the conference was the strong anti-intellectualism which Wimber exhibited from time to time. His insistence that “At some point critical thinking must be laid aside” is nothing less than dangerous. Wimber several times equated critical thinking with unbelief, and his apparent inability to distinguish the two is most disturbing. At one point he asked: “When are we going to see a generation who doesn’t try to understand this book [the Bible], but just believes it?” In effect, this is saying “When are we going to see a generation that believes my interpretation of this book without question?” This strongly anti-intellectual strain which shows through in Wimber is typical of nineteenth century American revivalism and is just the sort of thing that evangelicalism has been trying to live down in the twentieth century. It disparages God’s gracious gift of our mind and reflects ill on a creator who chose to endow us with the ability to think critically.

At the same time as he disparaged the intellect, Wimber attempted to use intellectual argument to convince his listeners of his case. In a lecture on “world views” Wimber attempted to argue that the Western “Worldview” is the product of Platonic dualistic thinking, first introduced into Western theology by Augustine. Its growing acceptance “during the 17th and 18th centuries” caused a “new science based on materialistic naturalism” to emerge which resulted in a “secularization of science and a mystification of religion.”1 Wimber seems to have little appreciation that throughout the centuries Christians have struggled with these questions; for most in his audience this grossly-simplified explanation is enough. There was no acknowledgment of the extent to which Western thinking is rooted in a Biblical understanding. At this point it would be worthwhile asking if Wimber has given serious thought as to how other “world views” have affected his own, particularly when it comes to the methodology presented as regards to healing. In the seminar on healing, one of the phenomena one was instructed to look for was “hot-spots,” a buzz-word in the New Age thinking emerging in California, which has a hearty blend of Oriental mysticism and Eastern religion.

Aside from these questions about Wimber’s grasp of intellectual questions, there are some serious difficulties in his theology for a thinking evangelical. In the fist place, his use of Scripture is highly problematic. His starting place seems to be his own experience and Scripture is drawn in to proof-text his own position. This was particularly seen in his teaching methodology regarding healing. People were taught a theology of healing based on the observation of phenomenological responses (shaking, stiffening, respiration, laughter, fluttering of eyelids, etc.) and were encouraged to use such subjective criteria as the basis on which to evaluate spiritual responses.

A second theological difficulty is Wimber’s radical Arminianism (some might well argue it
https://www.equip.org/articles/assessing-the-wimber-phenomenon/

You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions. Your starting point is the belief that the Pentecostal interpretation of scripture is the correct one. That leaves you in a bind: If that interpretation is correct, then we must do miracles today. When no genuine miracles can be produced, they must be manufactured by any means necessary. This opens the door to all kinds of hocus pocus.

If there really are miracle workers out there, why is it all we have are a lot of stories and no substance? Until you address the problem of your faulty interpretation of scripture there's no hope for you.

Jesus came to cure the disease of sin.
Physical diseases needs doctors and nurses.[/QUOTE

Like the ones that created and administered the poison ykw?
That mistaken belief is why the "church" has failed.
"By His stripes we were healed"

Like the ones that created and administered the poison ykw?
That mistaken belief is why the "church" has failed.
"By His stripes we were healed"