Miraculous healings today

[Philip]

I don't need to move the goalposts, as they are VERY high, but standing still. But the kick is easy if the evidence is made very clear and true. But there remains a vast gap between what is asserted about these gifts and what I've seen. But if I've not seen them, 1) it makes me think they are very obscurely used, 2) almost secretly so, 3) that those instantly healed have not shouted their joy to all that would listen, 4) that if such gifted people have prolifically and INSTANTLY healed, and in some of the extraordinary ways as the Apostles did, then it is exceptionally strange that these aren't widely known. And for anyone to assert that this is because that people don't want to believe it (and we're speaking of Christians, here), or that their faith isn't great enough, that their church quit preaching truth, etc. - they have no credibility. If this were happening, widely, across the entire Church - this wouldn't even be a debate!

[Jac3510]

Are you going to be consistent, and attack Kurieuo for "questioning the integrity" of other Christians, because of his post here?

Or is it just me that you feel like attacking today?

Why, yes, Rick. If you are going to act like my six year old daughter and ask whether or not her little sister is in trouble for doing the same thing she just got in trouble for, then fine. I find K's qualifying language disheartening as well and for the same reason. It's a sad commentary on how we view our fellow believers. I hope you feel better not being singled out.

I don't need to move the goalposts

I didn't ask if you needed to. I quite agree you don't need to. I asked if you were. You asked for one video. I pointed to one video. And now you are asking for more videos. That is, by definition, moving the goalposts--when you ask for evidence for a claim and someone provides it and then you change the level of evidence necessary to a further level. That's exactly what it seems to me that you've done.

[crochet1949]

There Are spiritual gifts and every believer Will be given one at least by the Holy Spirit at the time they are saved.

There was a gentleman in our church who had a significant medical problem. The 'next' alternative was surgery. There was a healing service -- the laying on of hands and applying oil. God DID choose to heal the man and it was acknowledged during a church service. God was being given the glory. The man who was healed was there giving his testimony of the experience of being healed.

God Does hear and answer prayer -- people Can pray that someone Will be able to get pregnant -- and then the pregnancy takes place -- give God the glory. That does Not mean that someone has the gift of healing and his personal prayers resulted in the pregnancy. Unless the person praying was the husband of the woman and God decided to grant them, as a couple, a child.

And That might be where some confusion occurs. God Does Answer Prayer for someone's healing. But that is not the gift of healing being observed.

And, now, I've finally located the passage in 1 Corinthians 13 vs 8 "Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears."

[Jac3510]

Thank you, crochet. I think the passage you cited is actually pretty good evidence that the gifts are still active today. The imperfect (in this context, prophecy, etc.) will pass away when the perfect comes. I don't see much perfect having come yet, do you?

[RickD]

Philip is not moving the goalposts. If he asked for proof that people have the gift of healing today, all that video shows, if true, is that God healed. I didn't see it proving someone has the gift of healing.

[Jac3510]

Give us a name - just ONE name - of anyone with such a gift, with the ability to perform an instant such transformation or healing, or multiple names of those that have received such an instant miracle, from someone claiming such a gift.

I gave one name, as requested. He didn't ask for the name of one person who has multiple documented instances of such healings. He asked for the name of one person who made the claim and a documented case of a healing. That was provided. If he now wants to say more than one name with one documented case is necessary, then he's moving the goalposts.

But, again, I'm not asking for your opinion anymore, Rick. You made it clear you weren't interested in further discussing these matters with me in this thread.

-----------------------------

As for my own thoughts on the subject . . .

I think this thread has demonstrated the sad division of the church around healing. I fully grant that there are charlatans. There always have been. Look to Simon Magus in the NT for an old example. So fakers and abusers have been around since the beginning of the church. Further, I take it that it goes back in Judaism long before that, because the Jewish response to Jesus wasn't that he was faking His miracles but rather that He did so by a demonic power. That suggests that they were acquainted with miracle workers in their day. So the question isn't whether or not some people have received any sort of healing. The question, as far as I see it, is the source of healing, how and where it comes from, who it comes through, and its purposes.

So first off, again, I am not a cessationist. Anybody who says that there was a gift of healing in the NT times that is no longer active today is, I think, just not taking the text very seriously. I tend to think that they are reading their experience back into it (pretty standard eisogesis--it's amazing how easy it is to do). The text Crochet quoted I think gives us good biblical reason to think any such gifts are still active. Since the perfect has not yet come, then such gifts have not ceased.

I think the mistake most people make here is that they equate "the gifts of healing" with what the Apostles did. And I would just ask for any textual evidence for that--as if Peter or Paul had "the gift of healing" described in 1 Cor 12. Beyond the superficial similarity that Peter and Paul healed and Paul mentions "healing," what basis is there to say that Paul has the same idea in mind?

I think not. A worthwhile textual note in 1 Cor 12:9, 28, 29 is that that Paul does not speak of "the gift of healing" but rather "gifts of healing." Its in the plural. In all instances that Paul talks of so-called "the gift of healing," he always uses it in the plural. Never the singular. In fact, nowhere in all the Bible do we have a mention of a "gift of healing." Further, in the context, we see that Paul talks about a person receiving a word of knowledge or a word of wisdom or a prophecy, etc. But the gifts of healing and the workings (also plural) of miracles . . . seems to me like Paul isn't talking about some single, abiding gift that someone uses whenever they want. For instance, I don't think someone has "the" gift of tongues, where they can exercise this gift whenever they want. Or let's use one a little less divisive. I doubt that someone has "the" gift of prophecy, where someone can just up and prophesy whenever they want. Rather, when God gives them a word, they speak it.

And I think it's that way with gifts of healing. Each instance of healing is a gift, which means there is no specific ability to give out whereby one can heal whomever they choose whenever they want. If God heals through me in this case, I was given the gift to heal in that case. I may never heal again, just like there were people who spoke only one prophecy (which was a gift, obviously) and never spoke it again. So having said that, I think both cessationists and pentecostals are wrong when they try to identify someone with this special gift that they can sort of whip out whenever they like. Always, in every case, it is God who works through a particular person at a particular time in a particular way. Sometimes it is to share a prophecy. Other times it is to demonstrate a great act of faith. Sometimes it is to share a tongue. Other times it is to heal.

And that gets into the idea that, when God heals, it wasn't the person that healed but God who did it by prayer. Now, I don't deny that sometimes God answers a prayer and heals someone. But I don't think that's the only way God heals. I think the video linked is a great example of something I've seen many, many times. I think that there are times that God uses a specific individual to heal someone else. No one--certainly no one in my denomination--would say that the person is the one who did the healing on account of their gift anymore than someone would say that a person prophesied on their own power or any other such thing. Apply that to ANY gift, and I think you'll see that, in my view anyway, it is silly to object to a gift of healing because it was God and not the person that heals. We recognize that in ALL gifts. But are there some people who lay their hands on someone and ask God to heal, and God does? Absolutely. Just as there are, again, some people who just have this amazing faith. But all Christians have faith! Yes, but God grants as a gift some a special measure in some specific circumstance, and that for the edification of the church.

And that last line is important. I don't think that gifts of healing are given by and large for evangelistic purposes. And this gets at some of the arguments above about why people who God uses this way aren't out there being famous. It's done for the edification of the Body of Christ. I'm not saying, to be clear, that people can't be and aren't saved by witnessing such a miracle. Some have been. But look at the NT itself. That's not what causes people to believe. But it is a way for God to manifest His power in the Church and for her sake. It's a present day reminder that God is the Savior of the whole person, not just this ghosty thing we call a soul. Sometimes, God demonstrates His power over death even today in this fallen world, which is but a taste of the final victory of death we will all see "when the perfect comes."

I think that's a much more consistent view of the gifts of healing. I think the other two extremes--cessationism on one hand and pentecostalism on the other--simply don't do justice to the text as it is written or to biblical theology more generally.

[RickD]

Philip wrote:
Give us a name - just ONE name - of anyone with such a gift, with the ability to perform an instant such transformation or healing, or multiple names of those that have received such an instant miracle, from someone claiming such a gift.

Jac wrote:
I gave one name, as requested. He didn't ask for the name of one person who has multiple documented instances of such healings. He asked for the name of one person who made the claim and a documented case of a healing. That was provided. If he now wants to say more than one name with one documented case is necessary, then he's moving the goalposts.

Was there something in the video I may have missed, that showed the person(s) who prayed over the lady have a gift of healing? Or that they claim to have a gift of healing?

Again, Someone praying over someone, resulting in a healing, doesn't necessarily mean the person doing the praying has a gift of healing.

But, again, I'm not asking for your opinion anymore, Rick. You made it clear you weren't interested in further discussing these matters with me in this thread.

You really want to go there?

[Kurieuo]

Give us a name - just ONE name - of anyone with such a gift, with the ability to perform an instant such transformation or healing, or multiple names of those that have received such an instant miracle, from someone claiming such a gift.

As for my own thoughts on the subject . . .

I think this thread has demonstrated the sad division of the church around healing. I fully grant that there are charlatans. There always have been. Look to Simon Magus in the NT for an old example. So fakers and abusers have been around since the beginning of the church. Further, I take it that it goes back in Judaism long before that, because the Jewish response to Jesus wasn't that he was faking His miracles but rather that He did so by a demonic power. That suggests that they were acquainted with miracle workers in their day. So the question isn't whether or not some people have received any sort of healing. The question, as far as I see it, is the source of healing, how and where it comes from, who it comes through, and its purposes.

So first off, again, I am not a cessationist. Anybody who says that there was a gift of healing in the NT times that is no longer active today is, I think, just not taking the text very seriously. I tend to think that they are reading their experience back into it (pretty standard eisogesis--it's amazing how easy it is to do). The text Crochet quoted I think gives us good biblical reason to think any such gifts are still active. Since the perfect has not yet come, then such gifts have not ceased.

I think the mistake most people make here is that they equate "the gifts of healing" with what the Apostles did. And I would just ask for any textual evidence for that--as if Peter or Paul had "the gift of healing" described in 1 Cor 12. Beyond the superficial similarity that Peter and Paul healed and Paul mentions "healing," what basis is there to say that Paul has the same idea in mind?

I think not. A worthwhile textual note in 1 Cor 12:9, 28, 29 is that that Paul does not speak of "the gift of healing" but rather "gifts of healing." Its in the plural. In all instances that Paul talks of so-called "the gift of healing," he always uses it in the plural. Never the singular. In fact, nowhere in all the Bible do we have a mention of a "gift of healing." Further, in the context, we see that Paul talks about a person receiving a word of knowledge or a word of wisdom or a prophecy, etc. But the gifts of healing and the workings (also plural) of miracles . . . seems to me like Paul isn't talking about some single, abiding gift that someone uses whenever they want. For instance, I don't think someone has "the" gift of tongues, where they can exercise this gift whenever they want. Or let's use one a little less divisive. I doubt that someone has "the" gift of prophecy, where someone can just up and prophesy whenever they want. Rather, when God gives them a word, they speak it.

And I think it's that way with gifts of healing. Each instance of healing is a gift, which means there is no specific ability to give out whereby one can heal whomever they choose whenever they want. If God heals through me in this case, I was given the gift to heal in that case. I may never heal again, just like there were people who spoke only one prophecy (which was a gift, obviously) and never spoke it again. So having said that, I think both cessationists and pentecostals are wrong when they try to identify someone with this special gift that they can sort of whip out whenever they like. Always, in every case, it is God who works through a particular person at a particular time in a particular way. Sometimes it is to share a prophecy. Other times it is to demonstrate a great act of faith. Sometimes it is to share a tongue. Other times it is to heal.

And that gets into the idea that, when God heals, it wasn't the person that healed but God who did it by prayer. Now, I don't deny that sometimes God answers a prayer and heals someone. But I don't think that's the only way God heals. I think the video linked is a great example of something I've seen many, many times. I think that there are times that God uses a specific individual to heal someone else. No one--certainly no one in my denomination--would say that the person is the one who did the healing on account of their gift anymore than someone would say that a person prophesied on their own power or any other such thing. Apply that to ANY gift, and I think you'll see that, in my view anyway, it is silly to object to a gift of healing because it was God and not the person that heals. We recognize that in ALL gifts. But are there some people who lay their hands on someone and ask God to heal, and God does? Absolutely. Just as there are, again, some people who just have this amazing faith. But all Christians have faith! Yes, but God grants as a gift some a special measure in some specific circumstance, and that for the edification of the church.

And that last line is important. I don't think that gifts of healing are given by and large for evangelistic purposes. And this gets at some of the arguments above about why people who God uses this way aren't out there being famous. It's done for the edification of the Body of Christ. I'm not saying, to be clear, that people can't be and aren't saved by witnessing such a miracle. Some have been. But look at the NT itself. That's not what causes people to believe. But it is a way for God to manifest His power in the Church and for her sake. It's a present day reminder that God is the Savior of the whole person, not just this ghosty thing we call a soul. Sometimes, God demonstrates His power over death even today in this fallen world, which is but a taste of the final victory of death we will all see "when the perfect comes."

I think that's a much more consistent view of the gifts of healing. I think the other two extremes--cessationism on one hand and pentecostalism on the other--simply don't do justice to the text as it is written or to biblical theology more generally.

I feel I'm qualified to add my summation on the matter, born out of personal experience, much personal soul searching, and dare I say it, God-given wisdom.

I've experienced many church-named prophets and healers growing up, including my own Mum and Dad. In fact, it was my experience that many Christians (of which I'm familiar) strongly chased after these "experiential gifts of the spirit" -- it's like all Pentecostals strive for in their groups, a higher spirituality so that they are seen as special.

Now, you may come back from that, but fact of the matter is, if you don't associate as Pentecostal, but believe in miraculous healing and the like today, then you are in fact Pentecostal. You may disregard tongues even, nonetheless if you're not cessationist, then you're Pentecostal, perhaps more on the left end then far right.

So, as far as Rick being skeptical, such is healthy. I know many Christians who have claimed such gifts, proclaimed Christ was working through them and the source was God, nonetheless the "special" vessel was them. It is seen as a "spiritual badge" of God's approval of a person. And this, people strive for and seek after it, like one might their own earthly father who never gave them the love, approval and validation they needed as a child.

Many even fully believe in their own experiences and experiential gifts like healing, prophesying, tongues and interpretation thereof and the like. Note that other gifts of the spirit Paul lists in 1 Cor 12:8-11:

• 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith [d]by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of [e]healing [f]by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the [g]effecting of [h]miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

Spiritual experiences and gifts like healing should be respected no more than intellectual gifts better equipped for teaching. Sadly, many Christians seek after spiritual experiences, the songs become about God revealing Himself to us rather than true worship and thanksgiving.

Given many Christians believe they have this or that, someone being skeptical (like RickD) means nothing to the credibility of the Christian since such Christians often themselves fully believe. So Rick asking for evidence rather than opinion, is quite a valid and doesn't mean he's calling them a liar.

Jac, note in your first video, the couple found it significant to go to the source of the person who preaching healing, this person was considered a vessel of God's healing power. That is common, and I think sad because it places a person's hope in another person (who they often see as more spiritual and blessed by God), rather than in Christ Himself. This is just one pitfall. A second is that Christians then pursue experiences of God, and it is here many feel let down, feel back-slidden or God doesn't love them (if experiences aren't received) -- nothing is further from the truth. And a third, is that many Christians, often with a narcissistic streak, take advantage of others through such.

Take it or leave it from a Christian who grew up on this stuff. There is a lot of destruction caused, placing these spiritual experiences of God before good teaching and just being thankful for what we do know God has done. It was quite painful coming away from such, realising there were natural explanations for spiritual highs and many religious experiences had, though such doesn't discount God was indeed at work. Furthermore, Christianity has no corner on religious experience. Muslims have theirs, Buddhists theirs and then many other religions have spiritual experiences. So then, what makes Christian forms more significant than others?

God developed me in a more rational direction after prayer to reveal Himself fully to me. I've mentioned before on the board, how I prayed for evidence that I could not deny. There was once I felt God ministering to me what gift, and I\d responded wisdom. JWs crossed my path, challenging my beliefs, and reading a book here and there I discovered the prophecies in OT for the first time, by myself, in Daniel. The hairs stood on end as I discovered other prophecies, indeed the very foreshadowings found in Leviticus that Christ fulfilled. I then developed an appetite for reason and theology, apologetical books became a staple for a number of years, and I guess even today.

No one here would probably suspect today, I was akin to those kids in the Jesus Camp movie (though such is extreme even by Pentecostal standards). Kurieuo, he's too rational right? No, God balanced me out, gave me the sustenance and rational base I didn't have to level out my very experiential Christianity. So then, do I deny my experiences? No. I don't even deny the experiences of many Pentecostal Christians.

What I've come to see is God works with our beliefs and so comes to people differently. God didn't wait for us to change our ways and turn from our sin to forgive and love us. Christ died while we were sinners. God meets us wherever we're at, that includes using our beliefs to meet us. Perhaps that is why you hear of more supernatural events in third-world countries, because many in such places carry very spiritual and supernatural beliefs. Similarly that'd mean for Christians who are very experiential, God likely loves them through experience. To those more rationally inclined, God guides in truth and logical arguments, good theology. God will use whatever He has access to and use it for good.

So getting back to your couple, they believed. It was on account of their belief and faith, and prayer to Christ, that God obliged and healing happened. It just so happens, the person they went to, had no special gift really. I don't believe they did. Yet, God is utilising Christian beliefs, and those who fully believe in such, including no doubt the one they visited for prayer to be healed. This then acts as a kind of confirmation bias, yet, it is more the case that God is just using the tools available to Him.

The irony here is that those who believe in the gifts, will more likely get to experience and see such gifts than those who do not believe. God meets us all where we are at. Yet, then, there's enough to suggest that God doesn't act like a genie, but God does so according to His will sometimes working something extraordinary, sometimes not. Nonetheless, those of very Pentecostal persuasion, will and do I believe, personally experience God more than those Christians who aren't such inclined. It makes sense when you think about it. And those who are more rationally inclined, to such God gives them gifts of wisdom and knowledge.

It is worth noting, as I became more informed and theologically grounded, I despaired for a number of years because my spiritual experiences declined. Nonetheless, I still feel God, often through posts and talking with others. Posting often makes me feel closer to God. It's different now. Yet, then, I still get to feel Him and know He is there, feel Him ministering to me. My Christianity is just now different in other ways -- sometimes similar ways, but certainly much different from my younger adolescent years.

Finally, I'm sure many will disagree with my summations above, or parts thereof. That's fine, if you disagree. I can be wrong, but then, much of what I say has been born out of my own experiences of such, soul searching, and learning. So I'm at least qualified I think, if nonetheless wrong here or there.

[Jac3510]

if you don't associate as Pentecostal, but believe in miraculous healing and the like today, then you are in fact Pentecostal. You may disregard tongues even, nonetheless if you're not cessationist, then you're Pentecostal, perhaps more on the left end then far right.

I don't understand what you are saying here. To be clear, are you saying that because I'm not a cessationist, then I am, in fact, Pentecostal?

[Kurieuo]

if you don't associate as Pentecostal, but believe in miraculous healing and the like today, then you are in fact Pentecostal. You may disregard tongues even, nonetheless if you're not cessationist, then you're Pentecostal, perhaps more on the left end then far right.

I don't understand what you are saying here. To be clear, are you saying that because I'm not a cessationist, then I am, in fact, Pentecostal?

At Pentecost (Acts 2), if the Holy Spirit never ceased with gifts working alongside Christians, then etymologically, yes. Traditionally, as Pentecostals are understood today, perhaps not so much.

[Jac3510]

Haha, okay. I've been called a lot of things in my life, but never a Pentecostal. I guess I'm a charismatic, too, because the root of that word means "gifts." Right.

[Kurieuo]

Haha, okay. I've been called a lot of things in my life, but never a Pentecostal. I guess I'm a charismatic, too, because the root of that word means "gifts." Right.

Yes, well, I consider myself Pentecostal and charismatic. Unlike you though perhaps, was raised around those who are clearly such according to stereotype, but then, people's perceptions of what I'd be if I told them such would be quite wrong. Martin Lloyd Jones, for example, says quite charismatic things, such as seeking the Holy Spirit for direction albeit he's very much of a Reformed theology and evidently had a more rationalised Christianity.

[Jac3510]

Maybe it's an Australia v America thing. Or maybe it's just the part of the country I'm in. I'm only a two hour drive from Tulsa, which is home to Rhema Bible College, which is the epicenter of the Word of Faith heresy. So words like Pentecostal and charismatic have certain connotations for me that maybe they don't for you. To be clear, if your definition of a Pentecostal (or charismatic) is simply one who thinks that the Holy Spirit is still giving gifts to the Church today, then I don't see how anyone isn't a Pentecostal. Even cessationists tend to think that some gifts are still active (e.g. helping and service and other such things).

Anyway, arguments about labels aside, my whole problem with the debate between cessationists and Pentecostals is that I think they're all working off an incorrect assumption in the first place--namely, that to get "a gift" is something akin to getting a special talent at your baptism that you always have. But I don't think that position can be sustained by a textual analysis or really hangs well with a full orbed ecclesiology. So I say there has never been a "gift of tongues" or "gift of prophecy" or "gift of healing" that cessationists insist the HS stopped giving.

So what's the label for someone who think there never was such a gift. Acharists?

[Kurieuo]

Maybe it's an Australia v America thing. Or maybe it's just the part of the country I'm in. I'm only a two hour drive from Tulsa, which is home to Rhema Bible College, which is the epicenter of the Word of Faith heresy. So words like Pentecostal and charismatic have certain connotations for me that maybe they don't for you. To be clear, if your definition of a Pentecostal (or charismatic) is simply one who thinks that the Holy Spirit is still giving gifts to the Church today, then I don't see how anyone isn't a Pentecostal. Even cessationists tend to think that some gifts are still active (e.g. helping and service and other such things).

Anyway, arguments about labels aside, my whole problem with the debate between cessationists and Pentecostals is that I think they're all working off an incorrect assumption in the first place--namely, that to get "a gift" is something akin to getting a special talent at your baptism that you always have. But I don't think that position can be sustained by a textual analysis or really hangs well with a full orbed ecclesiology. So I say there has never been a "gift of tongues" or "gift of prophecy" or "gift of healing" that cessationists insist the HS stopped giving.

So what's the label for someone who think there never was such a gift. Acharists?

I've noticed America does take things to higher extremes with regard to anything, though many looked to people like Smith Wigglesworth and Asuza Street while growing up.

Glossolalia (tongues), or prophecies and healing, I think that God does work such. But then, whether someone has such a "gift" they can call upon at will, no. In your terms, I suppose that'd make me not charismatic or Pentecostal?

[Jac3510]

No. In American congregations, you wouldn't be considered Pentecostal. They tend to believe, with regard to tongues, that it's just a gift you have, that you can just start praying or speaking in tongues. They tend to believe that if you have the gift of healing, then so long as the other person has faith, you can just heal them. Prophecy, same general idea.

I just think we're all approaching the question all wrong. Even the term "sign gift" meant to supposedly distinguish one class of gifts from another is, in my view, unbiblical (much like the attempted distinction between the moral and ceremonial law). Yes, Paul says that tongues are a sign to unbelievers (1 Cor 14:22), but that doesn't make tongues a "sign gift" essentially, nor does it mean that such a category exists at all. So like so many things, I think we're dividing over a non-issue, and people get all worked about about a non-argument. It's like one camp insisting the world is made of fire and the other than it is made of water. Neither are right because the basic premise underlying each is incorrect. But, as you said, we're good at that in America. We divide up into camps really quickly and I think that, above all, tends to run us to extremes. It doesn't take long before people start working out the logical implications of some position and next thing you know they develop parties (political, theological, whatever) around those implications and then the group loyalty thing becomes the really important dynamic, and that whether we want to admit it or not. It's in our DNA.

But now I'm far afield, so I'll just stop he