Pages

Sunday, January 26, 2014

The healing debate


I listened to the White/Brown debate on healing. It's a ramshackle debate. Sometimes White and Brown debate each other, sometimes they debate the moderator, sometimes they field questions from audience.

In general, I thought Brown had the better of the argument, but there are some tensions in his position–which I will get to. 

i) White appeared to come into the debate to dispute a position other than Brown's position. The majority position: it is always God's will to heal.  

That lack of preparation was a weakness in the debate. Apparently, White hadn't studied Brown's position. 

ii) In his opening statement, Brown said the gifts continue to eschaton (1 Cor 13).

The gifts are not reserved for the apostles, but for the common good. The list (1 Cor 12:28) separates the gift of healing from apostles. He later added that in the NT we see non-apostles performing miracles. 

He denied healing on demand. Healing is not automatic. For in that very letter, Paul mentions sick churchgoers at the same time the gifts were flourishing.

iii) In his opening statement, and later on, White argued that over the course of NT church history, we seen the gifts petering out. He compared Acts 3, where some people are healed by Peter's shadow, with the Timothy's chronic illness, and the further fact that Paul didn't (couldn't?) heal Trophimus. He also stressed Paul's incurable "thorn in the flesh." 

White discerns a transitional phase even during NT times. He appealed to the Pastorals, where Paul is writing to the next generation, looking beyond the apostolic period. White noted that in the Pastors, provision is made for windows. But if the charismatic position is correct, why didn't God simply resurrect their late husbands?

White appealed to the evidential value of miraculous healing to divinely accredit the apostles. 

White also said, throughout the debate, that God is free in the exercise of his gift of healing. We can't command the power of God. 

iv) Brown countered that if Book of Acts is trying to show us that the gift of healing was on the wane, why, in last chapter, does it record Paul healing every sick person brought to him on Malta? That's hardly a decrease. 

Brown mentioned the Timothy was gifted through the imposition of hands, as well as guided by prophetic words. So Brown sees the Pastorals as charismatic. 

Brown appealed to categorical promises like Jn 14:12 and Jas 5:14-16. 

He reminded White that there were sick churchgoers in Corinth. So we don't see the gift fading away. Rather, it was never automatic.  You don't push a button and it happens.

And he reminded White that in 1 Cor 12:28, healing is not an apostolic gift.

Brown said resurrections are very rare even in the NT. That's the exception, not the rule. 

In general, I think his pushback was strong. Not only did he counter White's argument, but he already anticipated some of White's objections in his opening statement. Because, apparently, White hadn't boned up on Brown's specific position in advance, White was recycling stock cessationist objections to continuationism which failed to anticipate or target Brown's actual position. 

v) There are other tensions in White's argument. 

a) White's appeal to divine freedom is at odds with his cessationism. For if cessationism is true, then that's a case of divine self-limitation rather than divine freedom. Although God is still free to heal directly, he is no longer free to heal by empowering a second party to heal the sick. 

b) Likewise, the appeal to divine freedom is at odds with White's appeal to a pattern whereby healers or gifts of healing peter out during the course of NT history. For if God retains the freedom to heal or refrain from healing, then it's unpredictable. God is free to gift someone to be a healer at any time and place. 

vi) But there were also tensions in Brown's position. He says we should build our position on revealed promises rather than experience. And he rejects the caveat that we should pray conditional prayers for healing ("If it be your will"). Rather, we should pray with expectant faith. 

Problem is, Brown's prooftexts create an expectation. They are predictive. "Do this, and that will happen." 

There's nothing wrong with judging by experience if they promise a particular experience. 

Conversely, if, when we practice Jas 5, the patient isn't usually healed, then it's wishful thinking to pray for healing with expectant faith. That's a false expectation. And that invites disillusionment when our hopes are dashed. 

So Brown has difficulty finessing his prooftexts with reality. That should cause him to reconsider his interpretation. 

vii) The issue of whether God wills or sends illness cropped up throughout the debate. One question from the audience challenged White's appeal to Paul's thorn in the flesh. This came from Satan rather than God. 

White countered that Satan's intentions can't be the ultimate explanation. Why would Satan do something to Paul to keep him from boasting. He wants to trip him up. 

Behind Satan's agenda is God's ulterior agenda. God is using Satan. Satan is the unwitting instrument. Satan intends to do harm, but God intends to do good. Satan ends up doing God's will, in spite of Satan's malicious intent. God's beneficial intent overrides Satan's malicious intent. And that was in the cards all along. 

viii) On a related note, Brown argued that if God wills sickness, then a prayer for healing runs counter to God's will. 

That's one of the old uncomprehending objections to Calvinism. 

a) To begin will, God wills sickness as a means to an end, not an end it in itself. Not illness for the sake of illness, but to facilitate some second-order good–either for ourselves or another. 

b) We don't know ahead of time if God has willed to answer our prayer. Perhaps our illness has served its divinely-appointed purpose. God predestined our illness, but if he answers our prayer, that's a predestined answer to prayer. So there's no inconsistency here. Indeed, that's one way of discovering God's will. 

45 comments:

  1. White hadn't boned up on Brown's specific position in advance....

    That's very rare for Dr. White. He's known for being aware of his opponents' positions. He considers it the height of respect for someone to actually study and know what his opponent actually subscribes to. White actually reads their books and listens to their lectures. He mentioned that regarding (or actually IN) his debates with men like Price, Ehrman, and Crossan (et al.). I suspect he didn't study because he doesn't see Brown as a true adversary, but a fellow Christian debating an in-house issue. Brown does have a book on healing and has a 16 part series of lectures on it too.

    i) White appeared to come into the debate to dispute a position other than Brown's position. The majority position: it is always God's will to heal.

    Here's where Calvinists should be the first to ask, "In what sense is it or could it be God's will to heal?" Unlike charismatics, Calvinists have an understanding of the different senses of God's will. Most Calvinists have 2 or 3 distinctions [1. decretive, 2. prescriptive/preceptive and revealed, 3. dispositional]. I have ">five distinctions as a Calvinist. I believe that it's God's prescriptive and revealed will to always heal on the condition that we have faith for healing, even if it's clearly not God's will of decree to always heal. I've explained my position more fully HERE.

    White also said, throughout the debate, that God is free in the exercise of his gift of healing. We can't command the power of God.

    White also repeatedly affirmed in the debate that God uses means. If he were consistent, then God may use the means of our striving to grow in faith for healing to be the occasion(s) in which God grants/grows that kind of faith. Just as God uses our striving for holiness as a means to become more holy. If White were consistent in the other direction, then we shouldn't pursue holiness, but rather wait to be zapped "if God sovereignly chooses" to sanctify us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. iii) In his opening statement, and later on, White argued that over the course of NT church history, we seen the gifts petering out. He compared Acts 3, where some people are healed by Peter's shadow, with the Timothy's chronic illness, and the further fact that Paul didn't (couldn't?) heal Trophimus. He also stressed Paul's incurable "thorn in the flesh."
      AND
      He reminded White that there were sick churchgoers in Corinth. So we don't see the gift fading away. Rather, it was never automatic. You don't push a button and it happens.

      If I recall, I think Brown also appealed to the fact that Paul mentioned his sickness in the book of Galatians. Implying that since Galatians was one of (if not "the") the earliest Pauline epistles, healing wasn't automatic at the height of charismatic activity in the Apostolic Church either. I would also point to the deaf-mute demoniac as an example of failed prayer on the part of the apostles/believers (Matt. 17:14-21; Mark 9:14-29). Clearly, healing/deliverance wasn't always automatic and that sometimes persistent prayer is needed. Hence James allusion to Elijah's persistent prayer for rain in the context of praying for healing (James 5:14-18).

      vii) The issue of whether God wills or sends illness cropped up throughout the debate. One question from the audience challenged White's appeal to Paul's thorn in the flesh. This came from Satan rather than God.

      Brown denied that sickness comes from God. But then qualified it by 1. affirming God can bring sickness as a chastisement for sin; 2. affirming there are mysterious cases like Job who wasn't particularly sinful. IMO, the Bible clearly teaches that sometimes sickness is a case of punishment for sin (e.g. the Egyptians cf. Exo. 15:26c), as discipline from a loving Heavenly father and for the sake of purifying and strengthening faith (e.g. Job 1:20-22; 2:9-10; 23:10; 42:11b), or for the purpose of a merciful death. For example Abijah, Jereboam's son, died of his sickness rather than living long enough to see calamitous times because God had mercy on the child (1 Kings 14:1, 13; see esp. v. 13; cf. Isa. 57:1 KJV). Sometimes the sickness is "unto death" (John 11:4) and may be meant by God to enable someone to prepare for death and get his house in order (think of Jacob's sickness and how he had time to bless his children; Gen. 48-49). I'm sure there are other reasons God sends sickness.

      Behind Satan's agenda is God's ulterior agenda. God is using Satan. Satan is the unwitting instrument. Satan intends to do harm, but God intends to do good. Satan ends up doing God's will, in spite of Satan's malicious intent. God's beneficial intent overrides Satan's malicious intent. And that was in the cards all along.

      As a Calvinist I agree with that. Unfortunately, some Calvinists misapply God's sovereignty by inferring (often subconsciously) that because everything that happens does so by God's unconditional plan we don't have to oppose those things. But that's to confuse God's will of decree and God's prescriptive will. There are evil things God decrees which we are to oppose because they go contrary to God's revealed prescriptive will. That includes demonic opposition (James 4:7ff). Sometimes sickness has a demonic origin (or is aggravated by it). If God's revealed will is healing, then we should be opposing that as well. IMO we should be opposing Sin, Sickness, and Satan (or "Disobedience, Disease, and Demons" if one really likes alliteration) because all three are contrary to God's revealed will.

      Delete
    2. "So Brown has difficulty finessing his prooftexts with reality. That should cause him to reconsider his interpretation."

      Yes, there are psychological and pastoral issues to deal with when it comes to dashed expectations and hopes. That's something all continuations have to better address. Even Calvinistic continuationists. I do have tentative views on that.

      White noted that in the Pastors, provision is made for windows. But if the charismatic position is correct, why didn't God simply resurrect their late husbands?

      But many of the pioneeers of divine healing have addressed that. I'm not sure if I totally agree with their answers.

      A.B. Simpson said in his book The Gospel of Healing (chapter 3):

      But we are told, if these things be so, people should never die. Why not? Why should faith go farther than the Word? Anything beyond that is presumption. The Word places a limit to human life, and all that Scriptural faith can claim is sufficiency of health and strength for our life-work and within its fair limits. It may be longer or shorter, but it need not, like the wicked, fail to live out half its days. It should be complete, satisfying, and as long as the work of life is yet undone. And then, when the close comes, why need it be with painful and depressing sickness, as the rotten apple falls in June from disease, and with a worm at the root? Why may it not be rather as that ripe apple would drop in September, mature, mellow, and ready to fall without a struggle into the gardener's hand? So Job pictures the close of a good man's life as the full maturity of "the shock of corn that cometh in its season."

      F.F. Bosworth wrote in his book Christ the Healer (chapter 3):

      Now I hear someone say, "If healing is for all then we shall never die."Why not? Divine healing goes no further than the promise of God. He does not promise that we shall never die, but He says, "I will take sickness away from the midst of thee ... the number of thy days I will fulfill" (Ex 23:25-26) "The days of our years are threescore years and ten" (Psa. 90: 10). "Take me not away in the midst of my days" (Psa. 102:24). "Why shouldst thou die before thy time?" (Eccl. 7:17) Then some one may ask, Well, how is a man going to die? "Thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust" (Psa. 104:29). The Rev. P. Gavin Duffy writes on this point, "He has allotted to man a certain span of life, and His will is that than at it is life shall be lived out. I want you to recall that all those He called back from the dead were young people who had not lived out their fulness of years; and in that very fact we may well see His protest against premature death . . . Of course, we must not expect that the old shall be physically young, but if the allotted span has not been spent we have a right to claim God's gift of health; and, even though it be past, if it be His Will that we should continue here for a time longer, it is equally His Will that we should do so in good health."

      Andrew Murray gave his answer in all of CHAPTER 13 of his book Divine Healing.

      Delete
    3. I wrote concerning Dr. White "I suspect he didn't study because he doesn't see Brown as a true adversary, but a fellow Christian debating an in-house issue."

      I probably should have said that Dr. White didn't study because he probably suspected that he and Dr. Brown's views were similar enough that it didn't merit such study. Also, the debate was ORIGINALLY supposed to be on the topic of claimed "Divine Healers", rather than the topic of "divine healing." So, Dr. White may not have had the time to study Dr. Brown's position since the debate topic changed.

      Delete
    4. The link to my FIVE Distinctions of God's Will wasn't posted correctly. Here's the link again.
      http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/11/distinctions-in-gods-will-from.html

      I want to say more regarding death and the Christian. I quoted Simpson, Bosworth and linked to Murrry's response. Here's what (anecdotally) Smith Wigglesworth said when asked how long he expected to live. He reportedly quoted and stood on the promise of Ps. 90:10a, "The days of our years are threescore years and ten" (i.e. 70 years). Then when he lived past 70 years old, he was asked again and he quoted Ps. 90:10b, "and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years" (i.e. 80 years). When he lived past 80 years, he was asked again, and he said "when he was satisfied with a long life" alluding to Ps. 91:16.

      Obviously, these same Christians believed that martyrdom can cut a life short. But in that case, it wasn't sickness that killed them. It was for the name and honor of Christ.

      Delete
    5. I realize I should have quoted Andrew Murray instead of just linking to his CHAPTER 13 to answer the following:

      White noted that in the Pastors, provision is made for windows. But if the charismatic position is correct, why didn't God simply resurrect their late husbands?

      Here's an excerpt from chapter 13 of his book Divine Healing:

      ...To the first objection it is easy to reply. Scripture fixes seventy or eighty years as the ordinary measure of human life. The believer who receives Jesus as the Healer of the sick will rest satisfied then with the declaration of the Word of God. He will feel at liberty to expect a life of seventy years, but not longer. Besides, the man of faith places himself under the direction of the Spirit, which will enable him to discern the will of God if something should prevent his attaining the age of seventy. Every rule has its exceptions, in the things of heaven as in the things of earth. Of this, therefore, we are sure according to the Word of God, whether by the words of Jesus or by those of James, that our heavenly Father wills, as a rule, to see His children in good health that they may labor in His service. [bold added by me]

      Delete
    6. On prep, Dr White wrote: I have not had time (as most of my time since last night’s debate has been spent in airports, airplanes, and I just now got to a hotel to get some sleep before an early AM flight home, Lord willing!) to look at much of the commentary on the encounters, but I did see one comment that I wish to respond to. Steve Hayes wrote a review of the healing debate, and one thing he said truly bothered me. He wrote, “Apparently, White hadn’t studied Brown’s position.” Even though this was arranged in amazingly short order (especially for an international trip), I did the following in preparation: I listened to a nearly 2 hour sermon on healing MB delivered in Brownsville years ago; I read Hyper-Grace and Authentive Fire, his two newest books; and I read the vast majority of Israel’s Divine Healer, including all the material relevant to our debate. I do not know how someone could have been more diligent, in fact, to know what Michael’s position actually was.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Thanks Thomas Keningley for the information. I take back most of what I wrote about Dr. White's apparent lack preparedness. Except when I wrote:

      Also, the debate was ORIGINALLY supposed to be on the topic of claimed "Divine Healers", rather than the topic of "divine healing." So, Dr. White may not have had the time to study Dr. Brown's position since the debate topic changed.

      Delete
  2. the question is, it seems to me, what is "faith" or "believing" for healing?
    Is faith psychological certainty that God will heal me for sure;
    or
    is faith trusting God and loving Him even if He does not heal me?

    God is able - Daniel 3:17-18, but if He does not deliver us, we will not worship the statue, etc.

    Even if He doesn't heal me, I will still love Him and worship Him and trust Him that He knows best.

    How does one know what "expectant faith" is exactly? That seems wrong, to expect that I will be healed - dashed expectations are painful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think is mere psychological certainty. As a Calvinist, I believe It's something spiritual that God grants which can manifest in psychological assurance or confidence, but doesn't necessary have to.

      I've collected some quote from George Mueller HERE that also include one's regarding faith. I agree with his distinction (in a modified form) between the "grace of faith" and the "gift of faith." I think the both the "grace of faith", not just the "gift of faith" can operate for healing. He did not believe that the "grace of faith" can operate for healing even if it should for things like material provision from God. However, if he were consistent he would have to have said either 1. that both kinds of faith can operate for healing and provision; Or 2. only the "gift of faith" can for both healing and provision. He would have to since, there are promises in the Bible that encourage us to strive for 1. expectant faith for healing AND provision, as well as 2. statements in Scripture (not to mention examples) where it affirms the fact that God is sovereign over sickness and poverty and that sometimes the righteous suffer from sickness and poverty. That's why I think my view is more consistent than Mueller's. If we were to take Mueller's view to it's logical outcome, then any Christian who ever suffers want/lack would be guilty of 1. lack of faith and/or 2. obedience. Which would be the corresponding opposite error of some charismatics who believe sickness in a Christian is ALWAYS a matter of either a lack of faith and/or disobedience.

      Mueller wrote:
      For instance, the gift of faith would be needed, to believe that a sick person should be restored again, though there is no human probability: for there is no promise to that effect; the grace of faith is needed to believe that the Lord will give me the necessaries of life, if I first seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness: for there is a promise to that effect. (Matt. vi. 33.) [bold added by me]

      I agree with early 20th century "faith healer" (for lack of a better phrase) that faith is a gift of God and not merely psychological assent. He seemed to only believe in one kind of faith. But I think what he was speaking of, while true of both kinds of faith, is especially true of the "gift of faith." I posted his book on my blog. The Real Faith by Charles S. Price

      Price's book is recommended by Vincent Cheung (another Calvinist) whose views on divine healing is very similar to mine. He has written three books on divine healing which I've linked to HERE. Only his latest version is on his website. But two previous versions are also link on my blog.

      Delete
  3. Sometimes sickness has a demonic origin (or is aggravated by it). If God's revealed will is healing, then we should be opposing that as well.

    Many Charismatics start talking to the devil and to sicknesses in the middle of prayer to God the Father or Jesus the Son, with "you cancer you, you devil you, I bind you and cast you out in Jesus name", etc. - I find that very irritating and awful and distracting, and even goofy, if not blasphemous, to start talking to the devil in the middle of prayer. I don't see that in the Bible anywhere.

    IMO we should be opposing Sin, Sickness, and Satan (or "Disobedience, Disease, and Demons" if one really likes alliteration) because all three are contrary to God's revealed will.

    I can see opposing sin and Satan's temptations, but I cannot see "opposing sickness", etc. - Paul humbly ASKED that the thorn in the flesh be taken away, and God seems to say, "no" because "My grace is sufficient for you", etc. 2 Cor. 12:7-10. I don't see how you can say that sickness is opposed to God's revealed will. John 9:3 and John 11:4 also indicate those sicknesses were God's will.

    It is obvious that it was God's will for Paul to have the thorn in the flesh, like Job - God allowed Satan to buffet them both to keep them from pride. Same with Peter in Luke 22:31-32.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think when you're praying to God, focus on God.

      But both the Bible and many conservative theologians and pastors affirm that there are times when it is appropriate to address demons directly (e.g. in cases of deliverance from evil spirits). I don't see why that can't be applied to demonic temptations. Jesus often spoke to and rebuked demons that were causing sicknesses in others or who were tempting Him personally (e.g. in Christ's trial in the wilderness [Matt. 4//Luke 4]; when Satan was, in essence, speaking through Peter [Matt. 16:23]).

      The Lord Jesus said He had given authority to His disciples so that demons were subject to them (the 70 disciples and not just the 12 apostles; Luke 10:17-20). Paul spoke to and commanded an evil spirit in Acts 16:18. Does such authority still reside in some modern believers? Wayne Grudem and Gerry Breshears are juts two of many conservative theologians who think so.

      The question then is whether it is permissible to speak to sickness or not. Well, Jesus rebuked a fever (Luke 4:39). There's no indication that a demon was involved. Sometimes Jesus rebuked sicknesses which were also somehow linked to demons (e.g. Mark 9:25). I assume that sometimes the sicknesses were either directly caused by demons or the origin was natural but aggravated and made worse by demons. I think it's reasonable to think that even in modern times some sickness are demonically influenced. Can a demon cause sickness in a Christian? That's like asking whether Christians can be demon possessed or demonized. Without arguing for it here, I personally believe that believers can be demonized, even though they cannot be possessed (i.e. owned by) demons since God owns the Christian.

      Jesus referred to a "daughter of Abraham" as having been bound by Satan with a sickness (Luke 13:16). Jesus' use of the phrase "daughter of Abraham" might imply that Jesus considered her a true believer in the God of Israel (a daughter of Abraham by faith and not just physically). This might suggest a believer can be demonized. Admittedly, she was not a "Christian" at that time.

      Jesus rebuked the wind and waves and apparently expected the disciples to have done the same since He rebuked them for small faith. Jesus also rebuked a fig tree and told the disciples that they could do the same. Jesus also said that one could speak to a mountain and move it. Whether Jesus was referring to a literal mountain or figuratively of problems, most sick people would consider their sicknesses as problematic.

      So......It seems to me that if one isn't sure whether a demon is involved in a sickness or not, it wouldn't hurt to speak to any possible demons. Or to a sickness even if there's no demon involved.

      Delete
    2. ...Paul humbly ASKED that the thorn in the flesh be taken away,...

      I think the context of that passages is best interpreted to mean that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" is demonic opposition and persecution (see chapter 14 of F.F. Bosworth's book Christ the Healer)

      I don't see how you can say that sickness is opposed to God's revealed will. John 9:3 and John 11:4 also indicate those sicknesses were God's will.

      It seems we're using the phrase "God's revealed will" in different ways or definition. I may be wrong, but I think I'm using the phrase in the way Calvinists usually do. Here's a link to my blog post where I describe my view of the 5 Distinctions or Kinds of God's Will from a Calvinist perspective. As I understand it (or at least define it) God's revealed or prescriptive will is God's general will. In John 9:3 and 11:4 Jesus revealed [i.e. disclosed] God's will of decree. In that sense it was "revealed", but not the "revealed will of God" in the sense of God's general will and requirements. Remember that I've clearly stated that sometimes it's God's will of decree that some people be sick for various reasons. Applying my 5 distinctions of God's will to these passages, both John 9:3 and 11:4 fall under distinction #1 and #2.

      It is obvious that it was God's will for Paul to have the thorn in the flesh, like Job - God allowed Satan to buffet them both to keep them from pride. Same with Peter in Luke 22:31-32.

      Again, I think you're not making the right distinctions in God's will. For example, God's revealed prescriptive will is that we always overcome temptation and never sin. Yet, the Bible also teaches that we will never be completely free from sin in this world before the return of Christ or before our own death. Why? Because God has decreed and intended that we don't. But the mere fact that we know that God has decreed and intended that we never reach full sanctification in this world has no bearing on whether we're obligated to obey the command to strive for holiness. We are obligated. The same thing goes for sickness and our opposition to it.

      Delete
    3. ...I can see opposing sin and Satan's temptations, but I cannot see "opposing sickness"...

      Jesus' lifestyle while on earth revealed God's prescriptive will. Christ is our perfect example and model. Christ revealed the Father's prescriptive willingness to be gracious (John 14:8-9). He always treated sickness as an enemy. Jesus was always willing to heal those who came expectantly to Him for healing. When a leper came to Jesus asking Him to heal him if it was His will, Jesus said "I will." Jesus never stopped and prayed to find out whether God wanted the person sick or not. Jesus never made anyone sick. The only exceptions I can think of in the Gospels are:

      1. The case of the Syrophoenician woman. But she was not in covenant with God as a Gentile and Jesus wasn't sent to the Gentiles at that time. Yet, despite that, she still got her daughter's healing.

      2. Those in Jesus' own home town. I interpret those passages to mean that few came to Jesus for healing. It wasn't that their faith hindered His power to heal. Rather, they lacked the faith to approach Him for healing, and therefore Jesus didn't and "couldn't" heal them. Since, Jesus generally wanted, as a bare minimum enough faith from people that they come to Him. He didn't chase sick people to heal them. Those there are some examples of Christ healing sovereignly without the person coming to him (e.g. the invalid in John 5:5ff).

      3. The case of Lazarus. Notice that neither Lazarus, Mary or Martha asked Jesus to heal Lazarus. Much less ask with expectant faith. They left it up to Jesus to decide what to do. Yes, they did that by God's sovereign will of decree, but that has nothing to do with God's revealed will (as I said above). God allows, even intends us to sometimes be ignorant of or not be persuaded of certain theological truths. For example, God sees fit to allow some Arminians to not be convinced of unconditional election. Probably for His greater glory and the greater good of those individuals. Similarly, God sometimes sees fit to not allow people to understand God's general willingness and readiness to heal. God is Lord over our knowledge, as well as our faith for various things. There are different kinds of faith and different kinds of faith for different things. Mueller understood the difference between the gift of faith and the grace of faith. Also, he had developed faith for provision but not for healing.

      The following books clearly demonstrate that God's general will is to heal. All of these books can be accessed and read on my blog HERE. Divine Healing by Andrew Murray; The Ministry of Healing by A.J. Gordon; The Gospel of Healing by A.B. Simpson; The Lord for the Body by A.B. Simpson; Christ the Healer by F.F. Bosworth.

      Delete
    4. Typo correction:

      Those there are some examples of Christ healing sovereignly without the person coming to him (e.g. the invalid in John 5:5ff).

      "Those there are..." should be "THOUGH there are..."

      Delete
  4. I caveated my statements ("apparently").

    Given what he now says about his preparation (which I'm happy to accept), I find it odd that his performance was so poorly calibrated to engage his opponent.

    And it's still a fact that much of the time he was attacking a position other than Brown's. Was that intentional or unintentional?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr White said: "Of course I addressed the wider and more popular view prevalent in Charismatic circles, and pointed out how often MB differed with it. But for crying out loud, we were on a Charismatic television channel and were taking calls and emails from the audience! How could you not address those very issues?"

      I haven't seen the debate yet, so I haven't the foggiest. These were just comments that I observed he had made on his blog, which seemed relevant to what you and Annoyed had said. From what he said it seems that it was deliberate that he made some responses to other positions.

      See http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2014/01/25/james-white-debates-michael-brown-in-spain/

      Delete
    2. Sure, he can use the occasion to cast a wider net. But it's generally considered a failure when a debater fails to address the specific position of his opponent, and instead spends his time shadowboxing with a position other than his opponent's. That's a standard way of assessing a debate performance.

      It's fine if, in addition to rebutting Brown, White took the occasion to rebut other views, but because he concentrated on other views, most of his objections to Brown fell flat.

      Delete
    3. Steve, Why don't you challenge White to a debate?

      Delete
  5. If anyone missed the debate and wants to watch it, here are the links to PART ONE and PART TWO.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think the context of that passages is best interpreted to mean that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" is demonic opposition and persecution (see chapter 14 of F.F. Bosworth's book Christ the Healer)

    I cannot see that as the correct interpretation. It seems like something painful that God allowed sovereignly that Paul was to endure by grace. The purpose "to keep me from exalting myself" repeated twice makes it clear as to the main purpose. God gives grace for us to endure pain and suffering because a gracious attitude is a more powerful witness. Joni Eareckson Tada's godly testimony is "power manifested in weakness". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94uqMo68ZDo

    Thanks for all your other comments and how serious and thorough you are in thinking about these issues.

    I can see rebuking demons IF demons actually manifest themselves, in the course of ministry, as Jesus and the apostles did.

    but if we don't know what is behind a sickness, (could be natural under God's providence in creation, God directly sending it; or from Satan) it does not seem right to just start rebuking fevers and headaches, as my Charismatic friends do so often. Jesus rebuked the wind and the waves, yes; but that is historical narrative and He is the creator. I cannot see that as something we have authority to imitate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bosworth shows how in the OT "thorns in the side" referred to opposition by personalities (i.e. the pagan tribes who would oppose and tempt the people of God). Also, my views aren't affected even if Paul's thorn was sickness since I believe God does does sometimes send sickness for various reasons. I just think Paul makes it clear that the "messenger" is literally an angel. An evil angel sent by God's permission to oppose him. I've read that in the Greek the messenger is called a "he" not an "it". So, it makes sense it's a literal demonic personality and not an impersonal sickness. Only a Greek scholar can say whether that makes a difference or not in this situation. I'm not a scholar. In that passage Paul talks about how God's power is perfected in his weakness. Many think that refers to some sickness. But in the previous chapter, Paul talks about his weakness and it's not in the context of sickness, but of the trials, troubles and persecution he experienced in the ministry.

      ...but if we don't know what is behind a sickness, (could be natural under God's providence in creation, God directly sending it; or from Satan) it does not seem right to just start rebuking fevers and headaches

      Whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). So, if one has a nagging doubt or scruples, they shouldn't do it. BTW, I'm a Calvinistic continuationist (even "charismatic"). And though my fellow charismatics don't always do so, we ought to believe that it is ultimately God who does the healing or miracle. Therefore, God understands what we mean (along with our theology) even if we make a mistake. My original point was that Jesus sometimes spoke to inanimate objects or nature and also (incredibly) encouraged the disciples to do so as well. Remember, Jesus said that if we had the faith, we too could (if it be in God's purpose/will/intention) to curse a fig tree (Matt. 21:20-22 cf. Mark 11:20-24). Notice that in that passage Jesus was referring to a literal fig tree (an inanimate object). Then He goes on and talks about moving "mountains". It makes most sense (at least to me) that Jesus is also talking about a literal mountain there since he was also talking about a literal fig tree. That's unlike Matt. 17:20 where it's understandable for people to interpret the "mountain" there as figurative.

      I cannot see that as something we have authority to imitate.

      I guess It boils down to whether we interpret Jesus literally in Matt. 21:20-22 cf. Mark 11:20-24 and whether it also applies to (all or some) modern Christians. One could argue that Jesus was being literal but it only applied to Jesus' immediate disciples. Though, I don't interpret it that way.

      Delete
  7. It seems to me Paul's thorn in the flesh is similar to the physical, financial, & emotional suffereings that God allowed into Job's life, as in Job chapters 1-2. The "thorn in the flesh" points to something physcial and painful, it seems; and "weakness" is used to describe physical sicknesses.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jesus rebuked the wind and waves and apparently expected the disciples to have done the same since He rebuked them for small faith.

    Or it was their "littleness of faith" in the one in the boat with them, who is the creator of the wind and waves and has authority over them. I don't think Jesus expected them to rebuke the waves or wind; I cannot see that at all.
    Jesus also rebuked a fig tree and told the disciples that they could do the same.

    that seems to be teaching a lesson on the lack of fruit and lack of repentance in our lives - "bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance" (Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20) - we are to "rebuke" lack of repenance and lack of reality in our lives. The "Mountain" in that context (Mark 11, Matthew 21) seems to be the mountain of the temple (Micah 4; Isaiah 2, Isaiah 56 - the foreigners who want to know the true God and come to the temple; "the mountain of the house of the Lord") that should have been "a house of prayer for all the nations" - Jesus turns over the money-changers, etc.

    Jesus also said that one could speak to a mountain and move it.

    The way those verses are so abused (Mark 11:22-25); there needs to be a lot more teaching on the context of the temple, the lack of fruit, judgment on Israel and the Pharisees (Matthew 21:43-45), "My house shall be a house of prayer for all the nations", etc. before I would accept any meaning that emphasizes our authority to "speak to thinkgs like sicknesses", etc.
    Whether Jesus was referring to a literal mountain or figuratively of problems, most sick people would consider their sicknesses as problematic.

    Prayer is humility and asking God to remove it and heal it; the over-all emphasis in Scripture seems to be humilty and asking God, and a humble spirit under His sovereignty - not "speaking to it". "May Your will be done" Matthew 6:10; "May Your will be done, not mine" - Luke 22:42 - seems to be the emphasis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Jesus expected them to rebuke the waves or wind; I cannot see that at all.

      Jesus reaction seems to be similar to when the disciples wondered whether Jesus was talking about literal bread when He said to beware of the leaven of the Scribes, Pharisees and Herod (Matt. 16; Mark 8).

      8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, "O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread?9 Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered?10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? - Matt. 16:8-10

      Yet, notice what Jesus originally told them "They [the hungry multitude] need not go away; YOU give them something to eat.." (Matt. 14:16; Mark 6:37; Luke 9:13). Jesus may have been expecting them to perform a miracle of feeding the multitude. Jesus ended up doing it Himself, but used the disciples to distribute it.

      BTW, I don't deny, but actually affirm, that the cursing of the fig tree was symbolic of God's judgment on the nation of Israel. But I also think Jesus was being literal when He spoke about faith there.

      Prayer is humility and asking God to remove it and heal it; the over-all emphasis in Scripture seems to be humilty and asking God, and a humble spirit under His sovereignty - not "speaking to it". "May Your will be done" Matthew 6:10; "May Your will be done, not mine" - Luke 22:42 - seems to be the emphasis.

      I agree prayer requires humility. I have no problem praying "if it be thy will" if we mean if it be thy sovereign will of decree. Since, it's not always God's sovereign will of decree to do so. But I think we can ALSO pray, "according to you revealed will that the sick be healed". IMO, God's revealed will is clearly health. Sickness is a manifestation of the punishment for sin. Not necessarily our sin, but at the very least the sin of Adam and Eve. Christ came to bring redemption as "far as the curse is found."

      Even D.A. Carson and Wayne Grudem agree that healing is in the atonement. And they rightly state that the final and ultimate healing comes at glorification. Healing now is like sanctification, it's can be progressive and can fluctuate.

      Delete
    2. D.A. Carson wrote:

      It is also argued that because "there is healing in the atonement," as the slogan puts it, every believer has the right to avail himself or herself to the healing benefit secured by the cross. Sadly, noncharismatics have sometimes responded to this by denying that there is healing in the atonement – a position that can be defended only by the most strained exegesis. Of course there is healing in the atonement. In exactly the same sense, the resurrection body is also in the atonement – even though neither charismatic nor noncharismatic argues that any Christian has the right to demand a resurrection body right now. The issue is not "what is in the atonement," for surely all Christians would want to say that every blessing that comes to us, now and in the hereafter, ultimately flows from the redemptive work of Christ. The issue, rather, is what blessings we have a right to expect as universally given endowments right now, what blessings we may expect only hereafter, and what blessings we may partially or occasionally enjoy now and in fullness only in the hereafter.

      Wayne Grudem wrote:
      All Christians would probably agree that in the atonement Christ has purchased for us not only complete freedom from sin but also complete freedom from physical weakness and infirmity in his work of redemption. And all Christians would also no doubt agree that our full and complete possession of all the benefits that Christ earned for us will not come until Christ returns: it is only "at his coming" (1 Cor. 15:23) that we receive our perfect resurrection bodies. So it is with physical healing and redemption from the physical sickness that came as a result of the curse in Genesis 3: our complete possession of redemption from physical illness will not be ours until Christ returns and we receive resurrection bodies...When people say that complete healing is 'in the atonement,' the statement is true in an ultimate sense, but it really does not tell us anything about when we will receive 'complete healing' (or any part of it).

      Quotes taken from Biblical Healing (2012 edition) by Vincent Cheung pages 9-10

      Delete
    3. The way those verses are so abused (Mark 11:22-25); there needs to be a lot more teaching on the context of the temple, the lack of fruit, judgment on Israel and the Pharisees (Matthew 21:43-45)

      I don't think your interpretation rules out a secondary interpretation that includes my understanding. See Vincent Cheung's chapter 5 of his book Invincible Faith. Chapter 5 is titled, "Faith to Move Mountains". He's a Calvinistic continuationist like myself.

      But let's say my interpretation is wrong in Matt. 21:43-45 and Mark 11:22-25. What do you do with these other passages that deal with faith and/or prayer?

      Matt. 17:14-21 (eps. verse 20); Mark 9:14-29 (esp. verse 23); Luke 17:5-6; John 14:12-14; 15:7, 16; 16:23-24; Matt. 7:7-11; Luke 11:5-13; 18:1-8; 1 John 3:21, 5:14-15

      My interpretation of Matt. 21:43-45 and Mark 11:22-25 is consistent with the expectant faith encouraged in those passages I just cited.

      Also, you haven't addressed the "gift of faith." It's logically possible to hold to a position that people should never pray with expectant faith unless and until one has received the gift of faith for such a miracle. That was George Mueller's view regarding healing.

      Mueller wrote:

      "It pleased the Lord, I think, to give me in some cases something like the gift (not grace) of faith, so that unconditionally I could ask and look for an answer. The difference between the gift and the grace of faith seems to me this. According to the gift of faith I am able to do a thing, or believe that a thing will come to pass, the not doing of which, or the not believing of which would not be sin; according to the grace of faith I am able to do a thing, or believe that a thing will come to pass, respecting which I have the word of God as the ground to rest upon, and, therefore, the not doing it, or the not believing it would be sin. For instance, the gift of faith would be needed, to believe that a sick person should be restored again, though there is no human probability: for there is no promise to that effect; the grace of faith is needed to believe that the Lord will give me the necessaries of life, if I first seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness: for there is a promise to that effect. (Matt. vi. 33.)"
      http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26522/26522-h/26522-h.htm

      Delete
    4. In your view, is the mulberry tree in Luke 17:5-6 symbolic of something and not literal? If so, what is it symbolic of?

      5 The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!"6 And the Lord said, "If you had faith like a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you.- Luke 17:5-6


      Notice that Jesus uses the phrase "faith like a grain of mustard seed" there just like in Matt. 17:20.

      He said to them, "Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you."- Matt. 17:20

      I don't think the previous verses, Luke 17:1-4, necessarily rule out the possibility that Jesus is speaking literally. Especially in light of the fact that Scripture repeated encourages us to grow in faith. While our experiences should inform our interpretation of Scripture, it shouldn't nullify Scripture's teaching. Often, we lower Scripture's meaning because our lives do not reflect what Scripture expects of us. We all do this. Yet there are Christians, from all Christian traditions and denominations, down through the centuries who seem to have experienced greater things than we 21st century Christians normally do. I'm including Reformation and Calvinistic believers.

      See for example:

      A Reformation Discussion of Extraordinary Predictive Prophecy Subsequent to the Closing of the Canon of Scripture by the Session of the PRCE


      The charismatic covenanters


      John Calvin Apparently Received a Word of Knowledge from God


      Extraordinary Gifts and Church Officers

      And more generally of Christianity....

      The Ministry of Healing by A.J. Gordon


      The Suppressed Evidence: Or, Proofs of the Miraculous Faith and Experience of the Church of Christ In All Ages

      Delete
  9. In your view, is the mulberry tree in Luke 17:5-6 symbolic of something and not literal? If so, what is it symbolic of?

    in verses 1-4 - they wanted increased faith to be able to forgive people who hurt them, and keeps doing it seven times over. Apparently, they were saying, "Wow; that takes a lot of faith to forgive people who hurt us over and over and You have told us we must forgive them. That takes a lot of faith; increase our faith.!"

    5 The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!"6 And the Lord said, "If you had faith like a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you.- Luke 17:5-6

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that's the obvious immediate application. But again, that doesn't rule out an interpretation that's to be applied to miraculous answer to prayer.

      Delete
  10. These verses - Matt. 17:14-21 (eps. verse 20); Mark 9:14-29 (esp. verse 23); - do seem to say that the "mountain" is the sickness/disease in those contexts. But those are for sure at that time, as historical narrative, Jesus expected them to exercise faith and ask God for healing, etc. But I just don't understand how that kind of thing works in practical ministry. How far ? How long do we keep praying? repeating the same request? more fervency? more loud praying and begging and crying? People say big things in emotional highs and say things like, "I know for sure that God is going to heal you", etc. It didn't happen. It is devastating for someone who is quadraplegic. Of course, I have believed God for miracles many times before, after reading Jack Deere's book, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit and Wayne Grudemn's material (you have mentioned some of this above, along with D. A. Carson. Carson's book, Showing the Spirit, (A theological exposition of 1 Cor. 12-14 - a very good book). But after several years of that; I went back to the cessationist position. (Never saw God do any thing miraculous.) The overzealous Charismatics in our group caused harm by raising the expectations too high. It is depressing for those whose expectations don't get met. The whole thing of "expectant faith" is too subjective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. How far ? How long do we keep praying? repeating the same request? more fervency?

      I think expectant faith based on God's revealed will should always be balanced by the slight reservation of "if it be thy will." By "Will" I mean #1 and #2 in my five distinctions, namely God's will of decree and God's will of intention. That can help prevent devastating disappointment. Also, as one prays such prayers, God is free at any time to grant the "gift of faith" which is a supernatural endowment that externally comes upon someone to believe great things and/or answer to prayers. Mueller and others have discussed that kind of gift.

      How long to pray? So long as there is hope. To take healing as an example, so long as the person is alive. But since we don't know what God's actually going to do (apart from an extra-biblical revelation, which I believe still occur), I think we should also be wise to prepare for death as well. Some charismatics have been so "confident" that someone was going to be healed that things like wills weren't written and other forms of unpreparedness.
      Even then, I don't rule out resurrections. However, past 4 days (as in the case of Lazarus), I would advise people to let the person go. However, it's still not beyond the realm of possibility since even Abraham was ready to accept the resurrection of Isaac even after he was burnt to ashes. In those instances, I would say "according to your faith let it be unto you."

      The problem is that most charismatics believe in self-generated faith. In Calvinism, faith is the gift of God. Whether it's the initial faith for justification, daily faith, faith for sanctification, faith for healing, the growth of faith, even the decrease of faith is ultimately in God's control. Even though, we're called to do what we can to use means to increase faith (e.g. Scripture, prayer, fellowship, worship etc.).

      George Mueller prayed for the conversion of 5 individuals daily for 52 years till the day of his death. The first got saved after 18 months. Five more years a 2nd was saved. Six more years, a 3rd was converted. The last two weren't saved until after he died. I think we should strive for that kind of perseverance in prayer. We grow into it. So we shouldn't have any sense of condemnation or pressure. C.S. Lewis wrote "As a great Christian writer (George MacDonald) pointed out, every father is pleased at the baby’s first attempt to walk; no father would be satisfied with anything less than a firm, free, manly walk in a grown-up son. In the same way, he said, ‘God is easy to please, but hard to satisfy.’ "

      Mueller wrote:
      It is not enough to begin to pray, nor to pray aright; nor is it enough to continue for a time to pray; but we must patiently, believingly continue in prayer, until we obtain an answer; and further, we have not only to continue in prayer unto the end, but we have also to believe that God does hear us and will answer our prayers. Most frequently we fail in not continuing in prayer until the blessing is obtained, and in not expecting the blessing.

      Delete
  11. ALSO pray, "according to you revealed will that the sick be healed". IMO, God's revealed will is clearly health.

    I cannot see it; we pray for people all the time with cancer, etc. and eventually, the cancer takes them out. Just don't see too many miraculous stuff take place. The Charismatics/Pentecostals get excited and jump up and down and scream, etc. and believe and make statements of certainty; and those don't pan out either. ( In my experience) - I know that is not good to go by experience, but . . . that's reality. The Scriptures are true; but this is one area that I am mystified by, because usually Calvinists don't write the way you have on this.
    Sickness is a manifestation of the punishment for sin. Yes, and we all live in a fallen, broken world and we get sick and we all are going to die. Sometimes God heals, many times through doctors, etc. and sometimes by miracles. But not as much as the NT days, it seems to me.
    Not necessarily our sin, but at the very least the sin of Adam and Eve. Christ came to bring redemption as "far as the curse is found."
    True that our healing is in the atonement, but usually we don't see physical healing until glorification in heaven.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...I am mystified by, because usually Calvinists don't write the way you have on this.

      The following Calvinistic continuationists have differing views on the degree of expectation we can or should have for healing. But all of them have a higher expectation than what's normally taught among cessationistic Calvinists.

      Andrew Murray, Wayne Grudem, Sam Storms, A.J. Gordon, Matt Slick, Vincent Cheung, Johanes Lilik Susanto . I've got links to some of their writings on healing HERE. While John Piper is also a Calvinistic continuationist, he seems to have the regular kind of expectation for healing as most other Calvinists. I'm not sure where James K. A. Smith stands as a Calvinistic Pentecostal scholar who teaches at Calvin College. I would assume he'd be in the former group and not with Piper.

      Yes, and we all live in a fallen, broken world and we get sick and we all are going to die. Sometimes God heals, many times through doctors, etc. and sometimes by miracles. But not as much as the NT days, it seems to me.

      Agreed. Except for the last line. Miracles are happening globally everywhere except in Western countries where the doubts of secularism has infected the thinking of many Christians. Many of the Calvinists I mentioned above have argued that when there have been lesser miracles it's been due to unbelief on the part of Christians. I would agree, but would also say that that too is under God's sovereign control. Now is a time when God seems to be sovereignly raising the level of faith among many Christians globally. Even among Calvinists. Amazingly, there's a growing number of people who consider themselves "Reformed Charismatics" when just a few decades ago that phrase would have been an oxymoron.

      True that our healing is in the atonement, but usually we don't see physical healing until glorification in heaven.

      You can't get an "ought" from an "is." For example, it is a fact that we DO sin daily, but we shouldn't infer from that fact that we *ought* to. Even if, statistically speaking, most people don't get healed, we shouldn't set the bar there.

      "You know however that our duties by no means depend on our hopes of success, but that it behooves us to accomplish what God requires of us, even when we are in the greatest despair respecting the results."
      -John Calvin, letter to Phillip Melanchthon, March 5 1555

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. But not as much as the NT days, it seems to me.

      There may be a reason for this in the Western world where it's much easier to document miracles.

      In THIS DEBATE, Hugh Ross (astrophysicist, apologist, and pastor) says that his Church is in between CalTech and JPL so there are a lot of scientific and engineer minded people who attend his church. In his church they practice praying for the sick by the elders. As they did, they approached it scientifically. They noticed that when they were in the habit of announcing healings from the pulpit (presumably on Sundays) there were significantly fewer healings then when they kept it completely secret when people were healed. Ross connected that with the multiple times Jesus would sometimes tell the people He healed not to tell anyone about it.

      Roger Sapp (charismatic teacher with Master of Divinity and Doctor of Philosophy degrees) noticed a similar phenomenon in his healing ministry. Ross and Sapp interpret that phenomenon slightly differently. But I suspect that beyond the problem of unbelief in the Western church, another major reason (among many other reasons) why God doesn't perform very dramatic and undeniable miracles is because it would interfere with God's providential plan for the world. But since we don't know what that plan is, or if or when there will be a dramatic change in the way God providentially operates, we are therefore free to pray with hope.

      For example, hypothetically let's say Post-millennnialism is true and that God plans to convert the majority of the world by the year 2214 right before the return of Christ. That's 200 years from now. God may use documented healings of amputees and other signs and wonders 50 years before the return of Christ. In which case, we're living 150 years too early. And so, God may not perform such documented miracles until then. But we don't know that. For all we know, God plans to start performing such miracles next year. Or the next time you or I pray for someone.

      Speaking of Roger Sapp, here's a link to my blog where I list some of his BOOKS and AUDIO/VIDEO. There are a few charismatic "healers" (for lack of a better word) that I personally believe consistently and genuinely operate in the supernatural by God's power. He's at the top of that list.

      Delete
  12. I remember as a young Christian, the guy who discipled me read a lot of the George Meuller's stories of answered prayer - it was amazing. I don't see how a normal person can live at level of intensity and lack of structure/organization. If they are all true, he had an amazing life of faith and prayer.

    John Piper seems to have the right balance. I can appreciate his method of ministry and he has the right balance.

    Sam Storms is probably the most forceful Calvinist in arguing for continuationism, and IF I recall correctly, he takes a view similar to John Wimber, - that is not enough to be open to spiritual gifts, but one has to then "take risks" and have special times of "after-glow" or "carpet time" - lots of waiting and praying and tonuges and then saying what comes to mind to others, etc. (prophesy). I totally disagree with that - it seems too much trying "to make things happen".

    Storms vs. MacArthur - now that would be a real debate on the spiritual gifts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd rather see Sam Storms vs. Phil Johnson. MacArthur is a great Bible teacher, but Johnson is more intellectually and theologically minded.

      Delete
  13. "the gift of faith" - I can that as a special gift given to some on some occasions; yes. Seems to me I remember lots of examples of that in the George Meuller stories. That seems to be what 1 Cor. 12:9 means. But every believe has some measure of faith. "I believe You, Lord, that You are able to heal; please I humbly ask you to heal this person in the powerful name of Jesus Christ." Matthew 9:28 - Jesus asked the man, "Do you believe I am able to do this?" Daniel 3:17-18 - "Our God is able to deliver us" but if He doesn't . . . we still will not bow down to the idol, etc.

    I believe God is able - but if He doesn't heal me, I will still love and praise and cling to Him; I will fight bitterness and complaining in my heart if He does not heal me. May Your will be done.

    Those mustard seed and remove mountain passages are big challenges to me, after I study the context and other passages on God's sovereignty, and get rid of the word of faith movement type interpretations, they are still a great challenge as to what exactly do they mean.

    The subjective nature of the whole thing makes it very difficult in practical application.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But every believe has some measure of faith.
      I agree. I think that's what Rom. 12:3 implies.

      "I believe You, Lord, that You are able to heal; please I humbly ask you to heal this person in the powerful name of Jesus Christ." Matthew 9:28 - Jesus asked the man, "Do you believe I am able to do this?" Daniel 3:17-18 - "Our God is able to deliver us" but if He doesn't . . . we still will not bow down to the idol, etc. I believe God is able - but if He doesn't heal me, I will still love and praise and cling to Him; I will fight bitterness and complaining in my heart if He does not heal me. May Your will be done.

      Great prayer. I would pray that kind of prayer also believing that God is disposed to healing the sick. That barring any overarching providential purposes, God is willing, ready even desirous to heal the sick. Christ reveals the Father's heart and during His earthly ministry He often had mercy and compassion on people for their salvation (e.g. Matt. 9:36), healing (Matt. 14:14) and bodily needs (Matt. 15:32). By God's prescriptive will, He's ready to heal upon the condition of "sufficient" faith. By God's dispositional will, He is by nature a God who delights to bless. As Thomas Watson wrote that God is like a bee in that, "The bee naturally gives honey, it stings only when it is provoked..." It's God's nature to be gracious, generous, compassionate, kind etc.

      BTW, George Mueller was apparently a Calvinist. See HERE and HERE.

      Delete
    2. The subjective nature of the whole thing makes it very difficult in practical application.

      Agreed. But we both know that living the Christian life isn't supposed to be easy.

      Mueller wrote:
      Think not, dear reader, that I have the gift of faith, that is, that gift of which we read in 1 Corinthians 12:9, and which is mentioned along with “the gifts of healing,” “the working of miracles,”prophecy,” and that on that account I am able to trust in the Lord. It is true that the faith, which I am enabled to exercise, is altogether God's own gift; it is true that He alone supports it, and that He alone can increase it; it is true that, moment by moment, I depend upon Him for it, and that, if I were only one moment left to myself, my faith would utterly fail; but it is not true that my faith is that gift of faith which is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12:9....It is the self-same faith which is found in every believer...for little by little it has been increasing for the last six and twenty years.

      He was either right or wrong. I suspect he's right about how by God's grace (and obviously in God's foreordination), we can and should increase the "grace of faith."

      Delete
  14. I was glad that Dr. White approached it the way he did. He needed to speak against the common views and word of faith views to the general audience, while at the same time he knew M. Brown's very nuanced position. The issues of time and audience and the nature of TV and the way the moderators had it structured, made that necessary.

    They needed more time to cover things more fully, but overall, it was good debate.

    The atonement debate illustrated that even more. People wanted to talk about Predestination /election more, probably because the atonement focus went over their head and that is like skipping algebra and going to Calculus - they needed to cover algebra more in depth before going to Calculus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I see now what Dr. White was trying to do. He wasn't just trying to address Brown's view, but realized that he was before a charismatic TV audience and so took that opportunity to help balance out the unbalance or erroneous views of the people watching.

      I tried watching the atonement debate, but couldn't finish it. I don't see the point of debating that topic before such an audience. It's pointless IMO. It would have been better if they did debate predestination rather than the more advanced topic of Limited Atonement. Something which even many Calvinists have doubted, rejected or modified. I personally think Limited Atonement makes a lot of logical and theological sense, but the Bible is underdetermined on the topic. I lean toward it, but not dogmatic on it.

      they needed to cover algebra more in depth before going to Calculus.

      Well put.

      Delete