The Will of God, His Sovereignty, and His Word.

2 Tim 3:16 (KJS) 
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 

Hebr 6:18 (KJS) 
That by two immutable things, in which [it was] impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: 

Furthermore, He does not change(Mal 3:6), and He is no respector of persons (Acts 10:34). If it was true for John and Paul, it is true for us. 
God reveals His will in His Word. We all have an opinion about what God is like, and form ideas about what His will is according to that image. But the ultimate source of our knowledge of the will of God is from His Word. Which brings us to the question: 
Is God bound by His own Word? If so, do we understand that He has lost His sovereignty because He stands behind His Word? 
Case in point: 
God says in His word that "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved" (Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, Rom 10:13). Can God change His mind about this, and decide _not_ to save someone who fulfills the requirements of this verse? Can He decide to not honor this saying? Is He bound by this promise? If no, then is it accurate to say "God _cannot_ do this or that?" Has He therefore lost His sovereignty, and therefore His omnipotence? Are we denying His power and glory because we take Him at His Word? 

Of course not! 
Integrity and truthfulness are in Gods nature. He has given us His word, and placed it in a special place for us. 

Psal 138:2 (KJS) 
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for ***thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name***. 

We honor and trust God when we honor and trust His Word. There is more to having faith in God than just believing that He exists and is good. We have many promises and statements in the Word that He wants us to use in our growth and in our relationship with Him. He is revealed to us in His Word. His will is revealed in His word. 
He wants us to believe Him by believing His Word. It is no loss of sovereignty on His part to honor His word toward us when we believe. 
It is not arrogant to say "I am saved" because of what He said. 
It is not arrogant to say "I am healed" because of what He said. 
It is not arrogant to say "I am a member of the body of Christ" because He said so. 
It is not arrogant to say "it is no longer I that live, but it is Christ that lives in me". 
I am just repeating the words that He said. 
I live and move and exist in in Him. This is not me talking. This is Him. 
I am honoring His words. 
 
 

Subject: Will of God (Lord's Prayer) 

I read a commentary on the Lord's prayer, in which the commentator "gutted" the prayer to an extent that it was reduced to nothing. 

In my humble and somewhat uneducated opinion, the analysis that was given did the following: 
1. It either pushed the results of the prayer into heaven, into the future, or into "theology land", where for all intent purposes the results already existed, or would come to pass whether anyone prayed or not, and: 
2. it removed the practicality and vitality of the Lords Prayer, and so the resulting provisions in our lives. 

I wondered: What would be the difference between praying this "gutted" version of the Lord's prayer and not praying at all? 

Much of this is in line with a prevailing mind set: 

1. That God's will is automatically carried out upon the world and in our lives. That what happens in our lives is set in stone, and irreversible. Even if we were to pray, if our prayer were out of line with His preordained will, then He would simply say "no". Therefore prayer is reduced to a devotional exercise of resignation to the preordained, rather than an act of faith toward a God who can and will change the conditions in our lives. Why pray about something that is already Gods manifest will, and will not be changed anyway? 
2. That since the conditions around us and in our own lives are considered God's will manifest, then these conditions are proof and evidence of His will and His nature. 

Sickness and lack must be God's will because of their very existence. Hence sickness and lack are seen as divine intervention in our lives, as the very Hand and forge of God. We desire evidence of His presence and working in our lives, and so we take those things we see and attribute them to Him. In effect we paint God in the image of our own experiences, rather than according to the revelation of Him that we see in the Word and in the life of Jesus. 

Before prayer can be answered, it is a prerequisite for us to know it is His will for us to have the thing we are asking for (1 Jn 5:14-15). Else we cannot "believe" that we received what we ask for *when we pray*. (Mk 11:24). 

The common conception is this: We pray and then *wait to see* if we receive. In doing this we make two errors: 
1. We assume that whatever happens is His doing, and therefore is His will. 
2. Hence we determine His will, and therefore His very nature by the results of our own unbelief. 

In this we are creating a god whose will and nature is defined by our own experiences and unbelief, rather than His Word. 

Will of God -- Healing Ministry 

A letter from a friend: 

There is a fundamental problem with this discussion. I've realized after much study and thought (and prayer) that you see something much different in the words you are reading than I do. It is as if we use the same words but use different dictionaries. I read the lists of references quoted from the Bible and wonder why they are relevant to the discussion. There seems to be meaning in them that has completely escaped me. One of us is confused and perhaps we won't know which until the final judgment. In the meantime we can still enjoy the challenge. This type of discussion provides much inducement to get into my Bible and for this I am grateful.

******************************* 
(2.) Jesus was the will of God in Flesh. He only and always did the will of the Father. He was the manifestation of the will and Word of God. Look at the manifest will of God: 

Matt 8:16 (Jesus) -snip- ***healed all that were sick*** 

Luke 4:40 -snip- ***he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them***. 

Luke 9:11 (Jesus) -snip- *** healed them that had need of healing***. 
******************************** 

To which another friend responded: 
>>>So far so good. This all refers to Jesus's earthly ministry. This was a demonstration of his authority and power.<<<<< 

I understand what you are saying, but I think we have to read a little further. I do not think that this just pertains to the ministry of Jesus. Nor do I think that He healed people because He was only trying to demonstrate His authority and power. He healed because He saw the suffering and pain and had compassion. Compassion, I believe, was the driving force behind the ministry of Jesus. Of course this had the effect of demonstrating His power and authority. But I believe that part of peoples misunderstanding about the will of God can be seen in this misconception. God is not trying to "prove" anything. All the good things He does are manifestations of His love and goodness toward us. He has not stopped loving us or being good. So my understanding of why it is always God's will to heal is based on these facts: 

God is a _rewarder_ (not a tormentor) of those who diligently seek Him. The Gospel is good news, not bad news. 
Salvation means to deliver, save, and heal; not to oppress, damn, and sicken. 

And consider the following: 
 

(1.) God does not change. His will was the same before, during, and after the ministry of Jesus. The ministry of the Lord was the will of God toward all men, not just those who lived in that day, and in that land. 
(2.) In the book of Acts, luke writes that the Gospel of Luke was a record of all that "Jesus began to do and teach..". Hence it is reasonable to say that what He was doing and teaching would continue, not only in the book of Acts, but throughout the church age. There is evidence of this in the book of Acts, where healing continued (and as in my point about the same "Gospel of the kingdom" being preached until the end of the age). 

Acts 5:16 There came also a multitude [out] of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and ****they were healed every one**** 

(3.) In Mark 16, the scripture reveals that one of the signs following those who believe will be that they will lay hands on the sick, and the sick will recover. The only requirement given is that they be believers. We are no less believers today than they were in 33 AD. 
 

I have never quite understood what "spiritual healing" is. I have never been healed spiritually. I have been born again, but I do not understand how that could be seen as spiritual healing. I am not sure what part of the reborn spirit would need to be healed, how it could be sick, or with what sickness.

Again>>> Where is it implied that the term "healed" in many of these passages refers to anything other than healed of our sins?<<<< 

I think the connection between "healing" and "physical healing" is fairly evident. We would no more say "healed of our sins" than we would say "forgiven of our sicknesses". The reference I quoted is: 

Isai 53:5 
But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and ***with  his stripes we are healed***. 

Isai 53:4 (YLT) 
Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, And our pains--he hath carried them, And  we--we have esteemed him plagued, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 

This verse is quoted in Matt 8, where it is identified as a reference to physical healing: 
 

Matt 8 (KJS) 
16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with [his] word, ***and healed all 
that were sick***: 
17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,  Himself took our infirmities, and bare [our] sicknesses. 

So the passage in Is 53 is referring to both salvation from sins _and_ salvation from sickness. 

You continue: 
>>>As stated elsewhere, healing of physical infirmities was a sign of the apostles authority. If someone is claiming to provide healing today, are they claiming the same authority as the apostles?>>> 

I do not see any evidence that healing was intended to be a sign of the apostles authority. It was a sign of God's love for the sick. Our salvation is based on what Jesus did for us in saving us from our sins and sickness. The same gospel that saved us from our sins saves us from our sickness. (The significance of the "body of the lamb" is the topic of another post...) No one would claim that that only apostles can preach salvation from sins, so why would we assume that only apostles can provide healing? They were both provided for under the same sacrifice of Jesus. We are healed because Jesus took our sicknesses on the cross in his body in the same way he bore our sins. We cannot separate these and say one is relevant today but the other is passed away. If salvation from sin is still in effect, then so is salvation from sickness. 

>>> What is the relevance of the change in tense? <<< 

Isaiah was standing in spirit before the cross and proclaiming "by His stripes you _are_ healed_". Peter (in about 65 AD?) was looking back in time at something that has already occurred. Our sicknesses, like our sins, had already been paid for. Hence: "by His stripes ye _were_ healed..". He could have also said "by His blood your sins_were_ washed". We would not pray today and ask Jesus to die on the cross again and save us. Our sins have been dealt with already. So to have our sicknesses. You _were_ legally healed at Calvary. 

>>>>> Also, what does being rescued from the Mosaic Law have to do with healing of one's physical body?<<<<
 

Deut 28 lists the blessings and curses that will come upon all who do not do what is written in the law. We have been redeemed from the curse of the law. Gal 3:13. 
 

>>>I believe in God's power to heal. <<< 

This is good. Do you believe healing belongs to you as the scripture teaches? There are many people who believe in God's power to save. It does them no good because they do not know that salvation belongs to them by virtue of the cross of Jesus. They do not mix their knowledge with faith. Faith is believing that you have something even if you cannot see it. Healing is ours, not because of what we see, but because we believe the saying of God: "By His stripes you were healed". If we were healed, then I am healed. 

>>I don't believe in faith healers, I do believe in divine healing.<<< 

I do not know what you mean by "faith healers". This is usually a derogatory term used by unbelievers about any Christian who believes in divine healing. But God heals people who have faith. There is evidence that there are those who He cannot heal because of their unbelief. So it is paramount that we try and bring people to the place where they will believe, instead of causing them to doubt. 

>>If the activity does not glorify God then it is suspect. Is the practitioner or God being glorified? <<<< 
Very true, and I would have to say that anyone who believes in the Word for healing would be glorifying God. 

Psal 106:12 (KJS) 
Then believed they his words; they sang his praise. 

True! 

>>>The apostles needed signs of authority such as healing to demonstrate their authority since the cannon of scripture was not yet complete. <<< 

I have to repeat my earlier statement that God's primary purpose in healing is the healing itself. He wants to reduce the suffering and pain. This is my image of God, and what is the basis of my faith. 

>>>The promises of health are for eternity, not necessarily for this life. Remember, we will be resurrected with imperishable bodies (1 Corinthians 15:51-57).<<< 

But if we have imperishable bodies then... why will there be a need for healing? Healing is needed today, in this life, while we have bodies which are in need of healing. 

>>The Lord will chastise those he loves to bring them to repentance. This means that God does bring affliction on some for his purposes. Hosea 6:1 "Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up."<<<< 

Yes, but read the complete verse. If you insist that this means sickness, then you must also insist that it mean "he will heal us". 

>>> God allowed Satan to afflict Job (Job 1:12) whom God had already said was a righteous man (Job 1:8). This is certainly an example of God chastising a righteous (faithful) man to bring him to repentance and a closer relationship with God. Job complained but never said that God did not have the right to afflict him and in the end, Job, in the presence of God, saw his corrupt nature (Job 40:4-5), as did Isaiah (Isaiah 6:5), and repented. Job was indeed bound up by the Lord who more than replaced all that Job had lost by his being smitten by Satan (with God's permission).<< 

Quite so, but again. If we are to use this as an example, let us remember that he was healed and restored! His sickness was the result of a direct attack by satan, and with God's permission. Today, all authority has been given to Jesus. He has delivered this authority to His body the church. Can we truly say that we are in the same situation as Job? Was he living under the save saving and healing gospel that we are? If he had been a member of the body of Christ, would he have been subject to satan? Has not Christ subdued satan, and redeemed us from any attack by satan? I think these are scriptural statements. He was indeed a righteous man. But we are righteous with the righteousness of God. 

>>> God broke Jacob's leg to get his attention (Genesis 32:25). Another example of God making someone sick. Jacob was a man of faith (Hebrews 11:21).<<< 

Again. This is the exception and not the rule. If we are to compare ourselves to Jacob and Job, then we should expect the same miracles and experiences they had. I have never wrestled with God. But I suspect I would also get something broke if I did. If you have wrestled with God, we will understand your broken condition. 

>>Paul was given (made sick) a thorn in the flesh to keep him honest (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). And he was NOT healed.<<< 

I posted a rather long post on this subject a while ago proving that this thorn was an angel from satan sent to rise up persecution against him. There is no mention of sickness in the passage. And I think it was for boasting. 

>>> Hebrews 12:6-8 (KJV) "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."<<< 

We are not to believe that He chastises just for the sake of doing it. There is a reason. Of course the answer to all chastisement is to do as the Lord says, and repent. It is not to go on doing whatever it is you are being scourged for. It you will repent, He will forgive and heal. You are implying that the reason people are sick is because the Lord is correcting them for some wrong. I have caught the devil for implying this in the past. People do not like to be told that their sickness is a result of sin. There are many scriptures that confirm this idea. And the thing to do is repent, ask for forgiveness, and be healed. 

SEND ME AN E-MAIL MESSAGE

Return To Defense of Faith