The idea or doctrine of separation from God is often misunderstood within current evangelical Christianity. Make no mistake, humanity continues to make choices to be separated from God, but I would venture to say most Christians have an inaccurate view of this separation. Adam and Eve’s sin separated them from the life that the tree gave but it didn’t necessarily separate them from God. At that moment death was passed on, but not their original sin. And to be clear fellowship with God was also not lost as you often hear! That is the continual message of God to His people. He still desires to walk with them. If you remember in the garden, He didn’t walk with them 100% of the time (Genesis 3 alludes to this.) It is true that Adam and Eve were “removed” from the garden, which was God’s domain; and then placed or led back down to lower or common earth and guards were placed at the entrance as to not allow them back into Eden.
In a basic sense humanity at that moment was separated from God. If my kids are fighting, I separate them (and often relocate them) but that doesn’t mean that my intent is to sever the relationship, I am merely changing their space. After the fall what changed is that from this point on God would have to go to people and meet the people where they were, rather than the people naturally dwelling in God’s sacred space -Eden. Metaphorically, instead of my kids playing in my room I have to go visit them in their room. In this sense there was a type of “separation” but not inability. Perhaps it would make the relationship more difficult but, but the intent certainly was not to sever, quite the opposite actually. This understanding is important when forming your “separation theology” and your basis for understanding the character of God to Humanity.
Similarly, after the fall, to Israel He was a cloud and “walked” with them similar to the way that he walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, that aspect of their relationship to God wasn’t lost, it was always offered and up to humanity to accept or reject. The intent and purpose that God started in the Garden to walk with his royal priesthood didn’t change after the fall, it just “distanced” the plan.
One thing that is very important that few have come to realize is that today, through Jesus we are actually better off or closer is distance or proximity than Adam and Eve were in this sense of walking with God, this is the heart of the new covenant -we have His Spirit residing in us continually as we are His temple. Jesus not only returned us to what we had in Eden but perfected it. Does He come and go such as described in Genesis 3? No, He is always with us, we are promised that time and time again as the core of who and what His Spirit offers to us. We may receive a fresh anointing (and that may be up to your theology here); but make no mistake, He never leaves us. I am not really even comfortable saying that we are or were temporarily separated from God as I truly see the Spirit continually meeting the most broken people in the most broken places. (I will remind you that after the fall God still sent his presence to reside with people.) Today, God and His spirit are continually available to us, but we also still have to make the cognitive choice to enter into that walk. That’s always been the choice of humanity -choose to walk with God or choose to be separated (live divided or rival) from Him. That is the core of our free will. Adam and Eve’s banishment from the garden did a lot of things theologically, but to say that it separated (severed) us from the presence of God, as a lot of doctrines would understand it -seems to be theologically inaccurate. The offer from God to continue fellowship with Him strongly continued after the garden. In fact, that may actually be the central theme of all of scripture!!! One of the main character attributes of God is the desire to continue walking with everyone that would enter into a covenant with Him. He would continue to be faithful to that relationship when others would be unfaithful.
Separation from God is theologically defined as “Hell”. One of the issues that people have a hard time understanding is that our English translations use only one word for “hell” when there are several words that described slightly different contexts of what our one word meant in both the Old Testament and the New Testament in Hebrew and Greek. The great majority of the time we see the English word Hell translated in our Bibles it is the Geek word “Gehenna” describing more of a loose “hell on earth” separation from God. Gehenna was an actual place in the ancient world. The Valley of Hinnom, Gehinnom or Gehenna is a historic valley surrounding Jerusalem from the west and southwest that has acquired various theological connotations, including as a place of divine punishment, in Jewish eschatology. The term Gehenna in the first century was regularly used as an idiom for something like “the other side of the tracks” (Matthew 5, 10, 18, 23 as well as Mark 9 and other places). in this way when the word hell was used it had a metaphorical sense similar to what we might say as “life is hell.” But I also would say we have to be careful here as the implication was that these places were thought of as being “far from God” but that isn’t necessarily accurate. Jesus actually spent a good deal of time in these darker places. In other words, the world would say that God may be separated from these places but God, especially through His son doesn’t seem to be bound by any kind of separation to them. In this sense as I express early, Jesus regularly met people in “their hell.”
There is also a parallel to this way of thinking in most of the early church creeds in the understanding that after Jesus’ crucifixion he descended into the depths to “meet people in their hell” and possibly regain the lost keys of life and offer them to those in that place that was formerly “separated from Him. I would venture to say that Jesus’ theology would be consistent having the same or very similar requirements to these “souls” that we are given in the rest of the scripture and particularly the new covenant. Interesting to think that a large part of Jesus’ mission was to again offer this kind of relational life in the afterworld to those that seemingly rejected it (or had never had the chance perhaps) to now accept that relationship.
In some cases (similar to those listed above) and in the OT, the realm of the dead is the Hebrew word sheol often translated as hell. The New Testament Greek equivalent to sheol is hades. In the New Testament, this is only found a few times such as in Matt 16 when the “gates of Hades” was used as a colloquial Jewish phrase for death and a reference of the fallen spiritual beings in a Deuteronomy 32 worldview sense. Surprisingly, the least used term for Hell in the Bible is the one most people think of the most “as hell”, and is translated as the lake of fire, mentioned only in Revelation 19:20 and 20:10, 14-15, and takes on the traditional view of the “final hell”, for what seems to be the destiny of both fallen spiritual beings (to which it was created by original intent) and human beings that have not chosen to accept and live for God – this is an eschatological state of judgement.
However, in some way, all the translated types of hell seem to describe a condition of being separated from God.
In conclusion, traditionally we have misinterpreted separation to be something that was put between us and our relationship with God in Eden, yet the Bible doesn’t say that. God’s intimate and vivacious pursuit to walk or have intimate relationship with us is tied closely to His character and thus never changes. Through Jesus we are actually closer in proximity to Have His spirit in our Hearts than what was first given at Eden. God’s pursuit to have intimate communion with us is stronger and closer than ever before.
If you grew up in modern evangelical circles, I am sure you were raised in church hearing something like,
Because of the sin of Adam and Eve, you and I now live personally separated from the tree of life and from the presence of God. The whole human race at that moment was flung into the downward spiral of the curse of man and God’s wrath, the weight of their sin and God’s judgement fell on them and therefore continues to fall on us as if we also made the cognitive choice that Adam and Eve made.
Many x44 people have gone through a bit of an exegetical deconstruction of what they have always been told that the Bible says finding out that what they have traditionally been fed and believed likely isn’t the nature of God or what the Bible actually says. Renovation is needed and usually bears fruit and opens the thresholds towards devotion to the Lord. As I agree with a good part of the statements above, I believe such similar statements to be misleading and stunt a person’s road to sanctification. First much of this way of thinking is tied to the pillars of Calvinism. I will mostly quote from R.C. Sproul who is commonly known as the best Theologian to hold to and explain Reformed theology and Calvinism. To be clear I have read every article and book I source completely. My library has as many books defending Calvinism (and likely more), than I own from the free will camps. Before Sproul passed, I knew him personally and greatly respected him and agreed theologically with him in some capacities (such as partial preterism) but unfortunately feel that he was way off on becoming the popular spokesperson for Calvinism. This article is intended to be a “quicker” read, if you are interested in diving into this conversation, I would suggest the X44 Original Sin series here.
To be clear, thinking that every person is somehow under spell handed down to them generation after generation by reformed circles camps own definition is called Total depravity (also called radical corruption and is foundationally tied to the concept of original sin)[1] and asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person is enslaved to sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God, but rather to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to trust God for their salvation and be saved (the term “total” in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as they could be).[2] This doctrine is derived from Calvin’s interpretation of Augustine’s explanation about Original Sin.[3] The singular scripture that is used for this is:
“Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).
We also have an entire x44 series on Atonement and get into regularly why the way the reformed camps use this verse singularly (along with a few others) is neither exegetical nor follows the laws of hermeneutics. Notice that it was death that passed (separated now from the sustaining Tree of Life) or came upon all, not Adam’s personal disobedience. But to remind you of a few basics, Romans 5 needs to be read in context, not simply plucking one verse out to make a doctrine out of it. Scripture seems to teach that sin itself is not inherited (although the consequences for Israel often stretched to 4 generations): “[T]he son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (Eze. 18:20). Everyone is responsible for their own conduct (Rom. 14:12). Sinfulness often begins in one’s youth (Gen. 8:21; Jer. 3:25). Children must reach a level of maturity before they are able to choose good and evil (Isa. 7:15, 16). Little children are held up as models for those who seek the kingdom (Matt. 18:3; 19:14). The human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; it is given by God (Ecc. 12:7; Heb. 12:9).
In our YouTube video ORIGINAL SIN series we addressed how Original Sin (the pre-cursor to Calvinistic doctrines) is not Biblical or Ancient.
The first 400 years of the Church did not believe this.
There is zero evidence that Judaism ever believed this. Modern Messianic Jews do not believe this.
Augustine was the inventor of this doctrine in the 5th century and much of it was due to his importation of his pagan background into Christianity and lack of the knowledge of the Greek language.
NONE OF THESE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AFFIRMED THIS: Clement, the Didache, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, or Justin Martyr
The doctrine came into the church through Augustine of Hippo (396-440 CE) and the doctrine was originally called Concupiscence. Augustine could only read Latin, not Greek, or Hebrew. Augustine came to original sin by reading Romans 5:12 in a bad Latin translation. The original Greek would read: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” Yet his Latin translation said, “all have sinned in Him (Adam)”. Where the Greek says that death has spread to all because all (each) have sinned.
Concupiscence
Concupiscence, according to Augustine, relates to Adam’s sin being transferred through sexual reproduction.
Its root definition is a base sexual desire. We get our word concubine from this.
He believed that through this all men are born with their will, body, and mind corrupt, and this is transmitted sexually. They inherited the sin through the sexual act leading to birth.
He taught that Jesus had to be born of a virgin because he connected this to the sexual act. Therefore, the virgin birth spared Jesus from a sinful nature.
I affirm the virgin birth but Isaiah said this is a “SIGN” and has nothing to do with original sin.
God’s first command to humans to be fruitful and multiply. If sex is in itself a sinful act as reformed theology says than God would be commanding humans to sin.
We also get the doctrine of infant depravity from this, and Pastors today even keep this bad doctrine going:
John MacArthur said, “At no point is a man’s depravity more manifest than in the procreative act…by what he creates. Whatever comes from the loins of man is wicked.”
Augustine of Hippo said, “The only innocent feature in babies is the weakness of their frames; the minds of infants are far from innocent.”
One issue with teaching that sin is inherited is that it means God is then judging you for someone else’s action. That obviously isn’t scriptural. Thinking this way holds you back. In Christ we have life -not death. Once we accept this life here and now and eschatologically to come, we are called and charged to live in holiness separated from any ties of sin. That is what it means to live a life in Sanctification.
FROM HERE I WANT TO SHOW THE PROGRESSION INTO 5PT CALVINISM, but if you already know that, skip down to the next similar starred divider to continue reading:
The next problem with thinking we are bound to the sin ascribed to us that it would mean that we are also then unconditionally elected (also called sovereign election)[4] which asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, his choice is unconditionally grounded in his mercy alone. Some may argue the connection, but if you believe you came into this world already doomed by someone that came before you then you believe at least some part of the decision has been made for you. I do believe in the corruption of the fallen world, but we are called to be delivered and live in freedom. The effects of the death that came in through Adam are not or do not have to be continual towards you. You are only responsible for your choices in terms of life with Jesus. With this you also venture into a very similar doctrine called limited atonement (also called definite atonement)[5] asserts that Jesus’s substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus’s death. This is cosmic lottery language. I can’t find anything in the Bible that goes this way and neither could the early church. These are all modern “inventions” that came from the Reformation.
Thinking this way is also tied to the idea of irresistible grace (also called effectual grace)[6] which asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. Essentially this believes that God created robots and determined their ways before time. It completely discounts the many passages that clearly teach free will. It leaves reformed theologians having to do all kinds of theological gymnastics with verses about free will.
Finally thinking that you are responsible for the sins of the ones that came before you is also ties to a Calvinist doctrine called the perseverance of the saints (also called preservation of the saints;[7] the “saints” being those whom God has predestined to salvation) asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with (1 John 2:19), or, if they are saved but not presently walking in the Spirit, they will be divinely chastened (Hebrews 12:5–11) and will repent (1 John 3:6–9).[8]Most people refer to this as once saved always saved. But in this case, if you believe that sins were tied to you at birth, your theology if it is consistent would also then get to the place of believing that everything was set before you and if that is the case, to be consistent if you were intended by a sovereign God to be saved then how could you lose that? The problem again goes back to the fact that the Bible continually teaches that we are responsible for the decisions we make and even though when we make and allegiant confession our past is made clean, we continue to be held responsible by a just God for decisions thereafter. You can’t make a onetime proclamation and go on living in sin and expect to be saved. The proclamation of life in Christ is ongoing. Ot is a journey, an expedition. This is why I have said many times, if you are going to take on any form of reformed theology it should be one or all of them. Perhaps the worst theology is those that try to adhere to a few points of Calvinism but not all of them.
Here is a better way of thinking about original sin rather than falling into Calvinist doctrines such as the above… (these are borrowed and slightly reworded from my good friend Greg Boyd at reknew.org.
1) I do think it is theoretically possible for an individual to live a sinless life, you do too if you truly believe in the complete humanity of Jesus! Yet, this isn’t inconsistent with admitting that everyone will inevitably sin. Think of it like this. Every car crash (let us assume) is preventable, if only drivers were more careful. Hence, it is theoretically possible that there will be no car crashes anywhere on the earth today — or this month — or this year — or ever. But it is certain there will be car crashes, for which drivers are responsible. The thing is, statistical certainty doesn’t negate individual responsibility. We are responsible for every sin we commit, -we didn’t need to do it. We could have done otherwise. It’s theoretically possible to go the rest of our lives without sinning. Yet, it’s certain that, over our lifetime of decisions, we will sin. I believe most evangelical American Christians are far from this, but we don’t have to be. The worldly entanglement has led way to daily sins. But I do believe we were called and created and expected to do better before the Lord.
2) I see “original sin” as mostly being born into a screwed-up world that is oppressed with fallen powers. This doesn’t make us sin nor are we responsible for the sins before us that contributed to it. Yet, it does render it certain that we will eventually sin (see above). This is, in part, why we need a savior. To be clear one we are dead to our old selves we should not continue to live in sin or the slavery of the world. Paul makes this exceedingly clear.
3) Finally, it is important that we not think about this only in individualistic terms. From a biblical perspective (and now, with much confirmation from science), the human community is, in a sense, one person, extending back to Adam. We were made to live, disciple, and be discipled in the community of those that walk with Jesus. We influence each other, and are responsible, in varying degrees, for one another. So we have collectively gotten ourselves into a situation where we can’t avoid sin, and the responsibility is shared by all of us. This is what Paul means when he says we were in Adam. Yet, we are now placed in Christ — all of us (I Cor. 15:22; Rom 5:14-20). It’s just that we all (including believers) tend to see ourselves and our world as though we were yet in Adam. Transitioning from Adam-thought to Christ-thought is what discipleship is all about. One of my biggest grumbles with evangelical modern church is we don’t disciple to live devotionally to the LORD in communion with the perseverance of the saints.
Getting back to where we started, Adam and Eve’s sin separated them from the life that the tree gave but it didn’t necessarily separate them from God. I have an article on this here.
That is the continual message of God to His people. He still desires to walk with them. God does not remain separated from us, He is always with us, we are promised that time and time again. We may receive a fresh anointing (and that may be up to your theology here); but make no mistake, He never leaves us.
We don’t have to live in depravity or a downward spiral. That is another huge theme of the Bible! God has more for you! Claim him, get into the word, be surrounded with the community of saints, and live and walk with Him every hour of every day! Refuse the world and all that it offers. You were purposed for more! Don’t let Satan sell yourself short! Claim victory and live in perseverance walking with the LORD and those that walk with Him. Seek discipleship and disciple! Live out your kingdom destiny!
God’s wrath in scripture is the handing over of his unrepentant sinful people to what they have coming or what they have earned. It is removing the providential hand from their lives. The weight of your sin and consequences of your decisions are real but you don’t need to and shouldn’t dwell there! Don’t dwell in your sin. Get redeemed! God offers you healing and freedom here and now! Step into it, believe it and live it. You are no longer to be bound to your flesh or former ways of the world. Step into it and live it!
let me articulate a better view:
The sin of Adam and Eve separated humanity from the tree of life but God is still offering the relationship that He had with them in Eden and actually desires a better way, not to just occasionally walk with you as He did with Adam and Eve in Eden, but through Jesus now offers even more, He wants to never leave you, to continually reside in your heart as you become His temple being the very physical manifestation of the presence of God to those you interact with. Yes, the world has been taken over by evil, but you represent light and have the power to make the presence that you fill sacred to make what is broken healed. You are the source of God to renew the Earth. You no longer live under a curse, but the power of the LORD is in you. Choose this day to no longer live in sin and dwell richly in the presence of the LORD. 1 Jn 3:6-9, 1 Jn 5:18, Rom 8:11, Gal 2:20, Col 1:27, I Peter 2:8-9, Eph 3:17, 2 Thess 1:10, 2 Cor 5:17, and so many more passages make all of these things abundantly clear.
Sproul, R. C. (March 25, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Total Depravity”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I like to replace the term total depravity with my favorite designation, which is radical corruption. Ironically, the word radical has its roots in the Latin word for “root,” which is radix, and it can be translated root or core.
^ Steele, David; Thomas, Curtis (1963). The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, Documented. P&R. p. 25. ISBN978-0-87552-444-3. The adjective ‘total’ does not mean that each sinner is as totally or completely corrupt in his actions and thoughts as it is possible for him to be. Instead, the word ‘total’ is used to indicate that the “whole” of man’s being has been affected by sin.
Sproul, R. C. (April 1, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Unconditional Election”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. Unconditional election is another term that I think can be a bit misleading, so I prefer to use the term sovereign election.
Sproul, R. C. (April 8, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Limited Atonement”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I prefer not to use the term limited atonement because it is misleading. I rather speak of definite redemption or definite atonement, which communicates that God the Father designed the work of redemption specifically with a view to providing salvation for the elect, and that Christ died for His sheep and laid down His life for those the Father had given to Him.
Sproul, R. C. (April 15, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Irresistible Grace”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I have a little bit of a problem using the term irresistible grace, not because I don’t believe this classical doctrine, but because it is misleading to many people. Therefore, I prefer the term effectual grace, because the irresistible grace of God effects what God intends it to effect.
Sproul, R. C. (April 22, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Perseverance of the Saints”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I think this little catchphrase, perseverance of the saints, is dangerously misleading. It suggests that the perseverance is something that we do, perhaps in and of ourselves. … So I prefer the term the preservation of the saints, because the process by which we are kept in a state of grace is something that is accomplished by God.
In theology people are going to interpret passages differently...
This article has 7,330 words and will take most people 39 minutes to read.
My good friend Dr. Steve Cassell and I see 99.9% of theology very similarly. But occasionally we take slightly diverging views. I have said this before, but much of our relationship would look like an ongoing respectful healthy argument to most people. This may be described as a Mars Hill brotherhood. Perhaps you might say iron sharpening iron except that term is often used amongst disagreements which I do not think really summarizes our spiritual conversation. Steve and I have a healthy banter in which we work through all kinds of theologies going back and forth. Steve came from a word-of-faith background, and I came from a more traditional yet also spirit-filled background. Steve has been personally influenced by and is a regional representative for Andrew Womack Ministries International (AWMI.net). Both Steve and Andrew hold a minor view, not only recognizing that the cross brings spiritual healing (as nearly every Christian would confer) but also complete physical healing and health. Steve also sees the power to heal as similar to any other gift and I see it as possibly more of something God sets aside or “grants” to some extent; meaning you have it, or you don’t. Some people call this an anointing. Although this is another debated subject that you can read on here. In this case, I hold the mainstream view on healing and Steve holds a minor view.
Some of the minor views that we both hold would be to believe in conditionalism rather than the significantly more accepted view on ‘Hell’ of Eternal Conscious Torment. We also both see Heaven as an intermediate state with the final eschatological state or place for those with God as being a recreated Heaven and Earth (which most theologians I know would agree with, but your normal everyday church pew Christian doesn’t think this way.) We both do not hold a physical ‘rapture’ view of the ‘End Times’.
We also do not hold to any of the normal interpretations of the Calvinism TULIP. Most mainstream churches are going to agree with 2-3 Calvinist positions on this yet probably would not openly consider themselves Calvinist. We wouldn’t accept any of the TULIP views at least to the degree that a reformed church or Calvinist would present them. I could go all day on interpretations like this, but I think you get the point.
Today, I have invited Steve to join me in this article to explain and define our perhaps slight differences in terms of God’s healing power. To be clear we both believe and operate in faith for God’s healing power. Jesus said that believers will lay hands on the sick, and the sick will recover (Mark 16:18). (But our interpretations differ, will all sick recover or just some?) We both train the body of Christ so that they can do the work of the ministry in this area (Eph. 4:11-12). The day of the one-man show in the body of Christ needs to come to an end, and we are literally seeing that take place all around us in our respective opportunities of ministry. Steve and I experience firsthand miracles nearly every day that some people have never experienced (or even seen) once in their lifetime. In fact, we both expect God to do these things and in faith know that He does and will. In many ways we are expectant and in tune with the healing power of Jesus every hour of our lives. We experience nearly the same healing experiences day in and day out in the kingdom and yet explain the theology of what has taken place through different interpretive lenses. We both believe that everyone is called to heal in Jesus’ name and that in that sense it is a spiritual gift. Yet, I would believe that God chooses to empower some as anointed to truly have a more powerful version of this gift while others likely won’t get there. Perhaps that is a developed spiritual gift like any other, but some people seem to have it and others don’t.
This theological difference comes to fruition in varying ways. When someone comes to me and asks that we pray for healing for them or someone else I often feel the spirit telling me right away that they will be healed or that we need to simply pray for God’s will. If I feel the spirit telling me they are going to be healed then I simply declare it in Jesus’ name, and they are healed. I can probably count the times on one hand when this didn’t come to fruition and I can’t tell you why, but I am also not hung up on it. As you can imagine, this is confusing to people asking for me to heal them or simply pray for healing. “Why did Doc Ryan pray and heal one person and then the next person in line he simply shared perhaps a theology of trusting in the Lord, faith, timing, sovereignty, why God may not choose to intervene, or even ministry through brokenness?”
Dr. Steve on the other hand seems to strongly believe that if the person that comes to him has the faith to be healed, they will be (since he also leads by that faith.) In fact, sometimes I see Dr. Steve as being so set apart as God’s healing agent that perhaps God tips His hat to Dr. Steve and allows Steve to command healing even when that may not have been the plan of God. (Oh boy…. this just set off a bunch of peoples alerts on what they think of the sovereignty of God and changeability might or should be.) I would say this is very similar to those that we see in scripture that have the intimacy to wrestle with God and God actually has honored their requests and seemingly delayed or changed his mind as a result of empowering them to actually harness the manifestation of God’s power in them. You might recall in Exodus 32 when Moses pleaded with God so that he would not destroy the people he had saved. The Lord told Moses he would not take out his wrath on Israel. Moses immediately picked up the two stone tablets the Lord had given to him earlier, with the Ten Commandments on them, and returned them to his people. (you may want to look at this wording again) God may even endow His power and doesn’t necessarily keep track or intervene in every situation but allows the person to represent Him in this way. The disciples seem to have been given powers yet come back telling Jesus they couldn’t heal some. Jesus was even unable to heal at one point in Matthew 13 and Mark 6. So, what are all the dynamics of healing?
I have invited Steve to chime in on this article and have noted his comments in blue:
Hello Expedition 44 peeps! Dr. Steve here…
Doc Ryan is accurate in everything he has portrayed about our covenantal relationship and my beliefs. I am interjecting in this place and will do this periodically throughout the article to clarify or exegete my position. This is my first place to interrupt quickly. The first sentence of the last paragraph stating my faith for believing in a 100% manifestation for everyone who approaches me in faith (please note ‘IN FAITH’) comes from ‘watching’ the ministry of Jesus. There was never a time or a person who was turned away when they approached Him in humility and faith. It is a bit simplistic just to base a theology on a truth like that, but I tend to be a smidge more simple regarding actual interactive ministry. Theology is infinitely complex because the One we study (-ology, from the Greek ‘logos’) is infinitely complex. But the Gospel is simple and should remain that way. The way Jesus did the actual ministry (adding in the progressive developing aspects of the ekklesia and ecclesiology of the Epistles and Acts) is what I target as a carbon copy (same with Doc Ryan).
Hebrews 1:3a – ‘The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature…’
Hebrews 13:8 – ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.’
We both Agree with Andrew Womack when he says, “One of the worst doctrines in the body of Christ is the belief that God controls everything that happens. Fundamentalists/Evangelical Christians believe that God either controls or allows everything and that Satan has to get His permission before he can do anything.” That’s a convenient theology because it absolves the individual of any personal responsibility. God’s will doesn’t automatically come to pass. We have to believe and cooperate with God to receive what He has provided and in some cases, “covenanted” for us.
But from there Steve and I slightly part ways. AWMI and Steve would continue…
___________________////___________________
Andrew’s theology regarding healing is often referred to as “the finished work of the cross.” Personally, I cringe at this simply because I never like to give merit to the cross. (IMHO, this is a Calvinist phrase usually tied into the doctrine of limited atonement, so we often don’t use this phrase.) Steve has actually changed his verbiage over the years to say, “the finished work of Jesus.” I don’t want to wear a crucifix or even entertain much observance of the cross because I want to focus on the resurrection and ascension that gave life. Yes, the cross was part of the plan, so this isn’t a huge problem for me, but I prefer to focus on the victory of the stories in Jesus -not dark places that were traveled on the way to victory. It is similar to someone sharing a testimony… don’t spend an hour on the muck that you lived in (sounding like you are almost bragging about it) and 5 minutes on the redemption, flip it around. There is a place for the cross but the focus of nearly all of the NT after the Gospel is on the resurrection and what that means for “salvation” and life in Christ here and now but also to come. I do realize that seeing a cross can point people to the victory of Jesus which is why I have a cross at the “range” where we have TOV and have for many years.
Steve here again… Doc Ryan is right again. I have adjusted my language due to the expansion of my revelation on the atonement. The aggregation of information and bringing in the vast matrix of typological precursors from the Old Testament sources has expanded how I understand the atonement to be. (To expand your understanding, see Expedition 44 series on ‘Atonement’ HERE.) Yet knowing that each facet of that atonement process was known, calculated, and used for human redemption is stronger in me today than before. I see that the stripes Jesus took for our healing (1 Peter 2:24) have an even stronger application knowing that Jesus’ atonement was sufficient in all areas, for all people, for all time.
___________________////___________________
With that let’s jump in, Healing is already an accomplished work according to I Peter 2:24,
“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”
STEVE: The term ‘healed’ is in the simple past tense (aorist indicative passive). RYAN GREEK 101: The Aorist is used for past time and portrays perfective aspect (portraying the action as a bounded whole, or in summary fashion without reference to the way it unfolds in time). As a Passive tense, the subject is the patient of the verbal action: “he was eaten,” “they were killed.” Grammatically in this verse we both agree healing is an action that took place and happened once, the action itself (the cross) theologically doesn’t need to continue or happen again. What it “accomplished” is good for all of time.
The real question then is whether the implication is spiritual and/or physical healing. To this, Steve would say that Jesus isn’t healing people today— that “work” was accomplished 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem when He took those stripes on His back. He hasn’t, and won’t, receive any more stripes. People today only receive through faith what has already been accomplished by Jesus thousands of years ago. (To be clear I -Ryan agree with this in a sense of spiritual healing, we have everything we need, and we aren’t looking for any other continued work of Jesus to make healing possible.)
Andrew would continue, the Scriptures don’t tell us to pray for the sick, in the sense that we are powerless to minister healing to them. It’s just the opposite: Jesus told US to HEAL the sick (Matt. 10:1, 8; Luke 9:1, and 10:9). There’s a big difference between asking the Lord to heal people and healing them. Since Jesus is with us and will never leave me nor forsake us (Heb. 13:5), Steve would then assert that I can say with the Apostle Peter, “Such as I have give I thee” (Acts 3:6). ON the other hand, some would say that none of us has authority to heal a body, only the Creator does (Acts 3:12–13). I do not generally recommend articles from Desiring God as they tend to have a reformed bend to them, but in the spirit of reading another perspective, you might enjoy this post.
Steve here… There is a bit of a semantic point I must make. I (Steve) cannot heal anyone, ever. My confidence and power come from the designated authority granted unto me by the Great Commission and the infilling of the Holy Spirit which is where I parallel Peter’s ideology. I have the power because I have the Creator in me and His known will is to heal (Matt 8:3) congruent with His universal command to heal in the Commission. RYAN – Yes but we both agree that power is endowed to us. We are the hands and feet and physical manifestation of Jesus.
To continue, Andrew (and Steve) would say that this is what Peter said when he ministered to the lame man in Acts 3. Peter didn’t pray for this man. He didn’t say, “O God, we can do nothing without You. Please heal this man if it is Your will.” They would say and I would agree that it’s always God’s will to heal (3 John 2). We don’t ask and then wait and see. That’s not believing His Word. Instead of beggars, we need to become believers who, knowing God’s will, use our authority to heal. I believe that at least some of us (and all of us who claim Jesus to some extent) have this endowed gift from God or physical power given to us.
Steve again… I do not believe this to be a ‘some of us’ condition. The argument over the ‘have and have nots’ has raged in Christianity for far too long. I believe that there is no clergy and laity (a stale old power trip to repress the masses), no less anointed or more anointed (because when you have the Spirit of Christ you have ALL the anointing), no age limit (our children’s church sees healing all the time), and no gender category (my wife Kay is equally effective as I am). The language of ‘gift’ is usually where the disqualification seeps into one’s identity with the thought, “I just do not have that gift.” But if you were to exegete the word ‘gift’ you would see it is a derivative of ‘charis’ (grace). John tells us (John 1) that Jesus was the fullness of grace and truth. When you have Jesus you have the fullness of the Godhead in your Earthly existence and you are complete in Him (Col 2:9-10). RYAN: Steve says this really well!!! I agree, but obviously some gifts are matured and or used or even granted by God more than others.
So where do I/we slightly diverge? I would say a few things to clarify Andrew Womacks statements, and Steve actually agrees with almost everything I would assert here… We personally don’t (regularly) see through the eyes of God, although occasionally some gifted people can and do (seers). His ways are higher than ours. Hebraically it would be very selfish to think that we can request what we want “over” a God who knows more than I do. In other words, to assert that I know that healing is best in every situation is out of my pay grade. Yes, Jesus believes in healing and might endow that power to me but it also might not be in God’s “timing” or order. This could explain why sometimes God doesn’t seem to allow healing through those that were formerly given and proved to have had such things.
Steve here… My perspective is God wants people healed more than I ever could. God loves people more than I ever could. God wants people, all people, everywhere to call upon the name of the Lord for salvation (sōthēsetai, sozo) (Rom 10:13). I do not believe that God ‘wills’ some people for damnation and others for salvation and would see that known will to apply to a lesser form of ‘salvation’ in the manifestation of healing. If God loves every person enough to provide eternal salvation for them, surely His love would surpass the smaller expression of salvation in physical (or emotional) healing (Rom 8:11 and 8:32). RYAN: Well, this falls into the classic, God has the power and God has the desire so why aren’t all things and all people simply reconciled? They aren’t.
Some healing is eschatological in my view. God has created and continues to operate according to His order. We may think we know that, but I don’t think we always do. I think the ancient word order is the best way to say God’s “decisions” may be influenced by a plethora of other conditions. I see this more like the modern word algorithm. Many things come into play that may determine the will of God for any particular person or situation. There are several Biblical words for order and Jeff Benner helps us out with understanding them, but in this case, I would point you to consider the Hebrew root סדר, which again has the root דר (dar) within it. As an example, the verb סדר is found in Job 10:22; A land of darkness is like a darkness of death and without order, and the light is like darkness. This imagery is reminiscent of Genesis 1 where the heavens and the earth were in total darkness, a state of chaos. The creative power of God then “ordered” the world into a state of “order.” [1] Some things are just “above us” and I do not think we will understand them until we reach an eschatological time of understanding spiritually. I see us as watching that movie of our pasts with new eyes perhaps in heaven. My book This is the Way of Covenant Discipleship expounds on this more.
To continue both Andrew and Steve would say that they have prayed for thousands of people across the globe, and they have yet to see every person healed. It might be a problem in the heart of the one receiving prayer, or it might be something they don’t understand in regard to that particular person. But one thing they would exert or say they know for sure—it’s not God. – Personally, I would disagree. I think God’s order may be bigger than what Steve or Andrew see and believe. I also think a fallen world comes into play here. Some things are just broken and can’t be fixed this side of “death.”
Steve again… I agree with Doc Ryan that our cosmos is jacked up beyond repair in some places (human government, death, the Laws of Entropy) and is groaning with pain until the Sons of God releases it in the Eschatological Day of the Lord. (What a day that will be! Come Lord Jesus come!) But I would not classify healing here. I do not believe that what the forces of deception started through the nahash in the Garden of Eden are greater or stronger than what the Son of Man lifted up on the cross (John 3:14-15) redeemed. What Jesus accomplished in the Garden of Gethsemane is greater than what the snake did in the Garden of Eden. Jesus was the victor in the battle of the Gardens… Ryan – Amen!
___________________////___________________
An excursus on James 5:13-16: Healing, Illness, and Resurrection
Above we see that Andrew Womack says that we should not pray for the sick but simply heal them. James 5:13-16 seems to contradict this line of thought.
13 Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer offered in faith willrestore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.
In this pericope, there are 2 separate words for “sick”. In verse 14 it is astheneo. this is a word used for sickness 18 times in the NT, and most of the LXX usage of the word is for someone who is feeble or sick. In this verse in James, the elders are asked to “pray” over him.
The second word translated as sick in verse 15 is kamonta. This word is not about illness but about being weary. In this context, it is weary from sin. So this could be sin that has led to sickness when you combine the two in the context and links back to “suffering” in verse 13 which leads off the passage.
The solution is prayer and confession in verse 16. Confession and forgiveness bring healing (is this physical healing or spiritual healing?) Now the question is about whether this is only about sin that has led to illness that has to be prayed for to bring healing or all illness? Isn’t all illness, disorder, and weariness a result of the Fall? So shouldn’t we pray for all of it?
God desires to bring about new creation in all of us! As Romans 8:19-25 states all of creation is waiting for the sons of God to be revealed and this revealing is communicated as healing through our resurrection (the redemption of our bodies). Paul explains elsewhere in 2 Corinthians 5 that this is a distinction between an earthy tent (our current body) versus a building from God (our resurrected bodies). Similarly, he speaks in 1 Corinthians 15:36 of the need to die to be resurrected because a seed does not produce life unless it dies. So if Jesus “purchased” full healing in this life what is the purpose of the resurrection of the body? If Jesus’ healing was the resurrection, why wouldn’t ours also be? Maybe the healing in this life is spiritual (and resuscitation of life), but actual true healing is in their resurrection.
Steve again… This is a place I will deviate from Doc Ryan a smidge as well. I teach in our covenant community (Beloved Church) that sickness and disease have been defeated through the atonement, but that does not assert that the aging process of time has been canceled. Just as one must fight for holiness against sin (which was FULLY defeated in the atonement) one must fight the temptation for sickness and disease attacking one’s flesh because it was equally defeated. Our enemy is a persistent cuss and will try and enslave us with the defeated force of sin and will equally try to kill us with the defeated forces of sickness, disease, strife, pride, and all the other tricks up his slimy sleeve.
___________________////___________________
The next issue that similarly we don’t see eye to on is healing through the atonement. It might be good to simply first read the AWMI statement on this here. I am going to be quoting several things from this post. [2] Andrew Wommack also has a more in-depth book on this subject called, “God Wants You Well”, and I would suggest reading it regardless of your view. (NOTE: I have more books on my bookshelf that I don’t agree with than I do, this is a good measure of truly searching for spiritual truth.) I also love AWMI and believe we can learn a great deal from them and as believers need to support His ministry; I just don’t see eye to eye on this one small part of his overall theology which has come to be what he is largely known for.
Andrew (AWMI) would say that Jesus has already “purchased” healing for us. In theology, this is referred to as the ransom theory of atonement. I believe in a ransom theory in terms of Jesus “freeing the slaves” in an exodus sense of freedom, but within most ransom theories of atonement (and specifically the way that AWMI often uses it) the statements bring connotations of purchasing or buying back something. I don’t see God needing to purchase anything back from Satan (as this would put Satan with equal authority to God or having divine “rights”), or Jesus needing to buy something from God for us (Jesus and the Father are one). Moses didn’t “pay” for the Israelites from Pharoah, he simply took back what some might say was rightfully His. This seems to be more of a spiritual war than what we would describe as a purchase agreement by most people’s standards. Some would argue that this is also an example of simply letting God fight all of our battles, as Jesus also seems to allude or suggest to His followers.
Continuing, AWMI would assert that in Matthew 8:17, it says that these healings that took place were the fulfillment of the prophecy spoken by Isaiah, “With his stripes we are healed.” Andrew would interpret that this was the fulfillment that ‘He Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses’ essentially alluding to that being at the cross Jesus healed our physical sicknesses, hurts, and pains. Jesus healed people physically to fulfill the scripture that says we are healed by His stripes.
-Hermeneutically I can’t do that for several reasons. I would say that most Christians do this though. I wouldn’t assert that is what the text says, I would say that is personally eisegeting the text to say something that I wouldn’t naturally read into it. Some would say we don’t have the interpretive right to make those deductions from the text (We get into some of this in this post). But if we look at this verse in context it is before Jesus even went to the cross. The effects of the ministry of the servant brought healing (not just the death on the cross). Yes, there is spiritual healing, but I don’t see the text providing all physical healing. By this measure, it would seem that no one should ever physically die. That assumption that God’s healing at the cross not only gives everlasting spiritual life but everlasting physical life here on earth obviously isn’t the case.
Steve again… This is one of the places where I think theology can get in the way and overcomplicate a simple truth. In the first sixteen verses of Matthew 8, we see a leper healed (an impossible healing by Hebraic standards) specifically because Jesus expresses it is His will for healing. Then we have a disgusting uncircumcised gentile who should have no access to the God of the Jews but Jesus makes it clear He is atoning for ALL people by healing the centurion’s slave (Slave! Another disqualified person!) without question or stipulation. Next, we have Peter’s mother-in-law (I thought a Pope could not be married… hmmm…) who gets healed simply because she was in the same house as Jesus. A woman! A mother-in-law (yikes)! Without requesting! Hard to get away from the interpretation of anybody, anytime conclusion. Then, like a cherry on top, the next part of the narrative is verse 16: “When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to Jesus, and He drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.” They just brought the masses… sinners, unrighteous, rejects, sick-from-birth folks, demon-filled mentally ill peeps, and then like an exclamation point Matthew throws in the “ALL” word to just mess with his readers. It is not coincidental that after all that, Matthew specifically tells us why, under the unction of the Holy Spirit, all of these diverse types of healings were done: This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took on our infirmities and carried our diseases.” This just seems too clear to miss Matthews’s doctrine of healing being stated, to me. Matthew seems to unabashedly call Jesus the Isaiah 53 suffering servant and part of His ministry was to defeat disease. The educated second-temple Jews reading this would have known the messianic profile that included authority over demonic beings would also include power over physical sickness/disease. RYAN: Jesus certainly had and has power of sickness and disease but when he was on earth, He didn’t seem to physically heal everyone he came in contact with, some were healed, and some weren’t. He was specific with some in healing and the woman who touched His cloak found this power but not everyone around Him or came to him was healed.
SCHOLARLY NOTE ON WHY ISAIAH 53 MAY BE A STRETCH: Using Isaiah 53 in this way as I alluded to is also hermeneutically not very acceptable by the measure of most scholars. Although I will say it is arguable. I will keep this brief, but the intended audience wouldn’t have read it this way. You have to backread this kind of messianic physical healing into the story. Several issues come into play here. Critical scholars are unified in thinking that this part of Isaiah (chs. 40-55) was not written by Isaiah of Jerusalem in the 8th century BCE, but by a different author in the mid-6th century BCE, after exile into Babylon. [3] It is to be remembered that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible are speaking to their own contexts and delivering a message for their own people to hear, about their own immediate futures… they aren’t telling fortunes, that was considered divination. There is a place for prophetical prediction but not as much as people entertain IMHO. The suffering servant here might have messianic implications but that can be problematic that not all of the personal attributes in IS 53 can describe Jesus. As an example, some of the things just aren’t true to Jesus. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future, they are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered – although he “will be” vindicated. Does this mean it ALSO can’t represent a future Messiah? Well to some hard-line scholars and methods of interpretation, the answer might be YES. For at least hundreds of years, Jews never interpreted this passage as referring to a future messiah. To be clear, I am not saying that it can’t have Messianic implications. But it is a very difficult passage and what I am saying, is that within the textures of interpretation, you never draw a major doctrine from a difficult passage that can’t be easily supported elsewhere. The problem is that seems to be exactly what AWMI has done with this passage.
I do agree with a lot of what Andrew says, I think his determination of the Greek word sozo is accurate, and I agree that “Healing is just as much a part of what Jesus came to accomplish in your life as forgiveness of sins.” I also agree when he says that “God is not the author of sickness in your life.” However, what I have a hard time with is his conclusion then that “God would not want you to live in sickness.” I believe some things on this earth are simply effects of a broken world. The ditch this digs is that AWMI seems to be teaching that if you have everything in spiritual order you will never be sick. So then when sickness comes you are continually questioning God on what is wrong with you or your faith, or your devotion, or your heart. You must not be experiencing healing because of your actions or lack of them. I don’t believe that. Some things are just a result of a broken world that eschatologically will eventually be healed in Jesus – but not everything will be healed here or now. We are in a state of transformation called sanctification, but Andrew would say that on earth is possible to attain that “complete” sanctification in physical healing and I would disagree – we physically die here on earth. To me, that seems pretty simple and evident and possibly even un-arguable.
Steve again… and I will dare to argue the inarguable just for a moment of healthy banter with Doc Ryan. I completely agree that we will die here on earth, and that is something that will happen to all of us. I would just argue the assumption that one must become sick, diseased, infirm, infected, and unhealthy to die. The New Testament makes a strong distinction between the death of an unbeliever and the ‘falling asleep’ of the believer. It is just personal conjecture to imply that God needs us to get eventually sick in order to die so that we can then have access to our resurrected (celestial) bodies. I believe that sickness is as much an enemy of God’s will in a person as sin is. Sin means to ‘miss the mark’ and being sick misses the mark of the creative intention of our bodies through the ‘very good’ (Gen 1:31) declaration of scripture… even science would capitulate to the truth that our bodies were designed to fight all sickness, disease and mutation. I love how God can make narcissistic scientists squirm with His infinite wisdom. RYAN – I wouldn’t see most sickness as associated or deemed as sin, but would also agree it can be a result of sin in your life.
Andrew says it is ‘false teaching’ to claim that “God is the One who causes people to die” or to say that God “puts sickness on you to humble you for some redemptive purpose and to perfect you through all this suffering” and I agree! I think that is a poor ditch that Calvinism and reformed theology continue to put people in. God is “TOV” His character doesn’t generally “DO” that people; although there may be situations where He may “USE” such things to His workings or divine order.
On the other hand, in his book, Andrew also asserts that the cross redeems believers from financial poverty. In 2 Cor 8:9, Paul says that Jesus became poor so that through his poverty believers might become rich. Wommack takes Paul literally here which I don’t agree with entirely although this is another conversation on the retribution principle and prosperity which I do somewhat see a place for. But here as it relates to this conversation, AWMI would say that Jesus’ death and resurrection provide for Christians ‘forgiveness of sins, healing, deliverance, and prosperity’ in this life (p. 20). The main issue with this kind of thinking as I have alluded to earlier is, if God intervenes for all believers to be completely well in this lifetime, why are so many seemingly devout believers that are not “well” or not rich?
Steve again, quickly… This is a slippery slope that can engulf some believers. We cannot and should not ever determine God’s will based on the experiences of some, and even the experiences of the masses. God always has had and will have a remnant of people who have experiences others do not and will not. Just because every believer does not experience peace, or joy, or forgiveness does not mean that they cannot. Prosperity and health are available to all, but not all will accept (or even know) that it is for them, just like other great and precious promises annotated throughout scripture.
___________________////___________________
To be clear here are specifically the things that I think Andrew’s theology on healing is a bit off:
He argues that illness and even death (p. 88) can be overcome in this age. I would say that is a poor hermeneutical claim. In fact, I might say that many verses seem to say the opposite, that God will swallow death and wipe away all tears after this life (Isa 25:8). I would also assert that this world is broken and is wasting away (2 Cor 4:16), and only at the coming of Jesus will we receive resurrection bodies (1 Cor 15:23). That’s why Paul says we are waiting for the redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:23). It seems clear that the Bible indicates that in this present physical world men are appointed by God to die (e.g., Ps 90; Heb 9:27). Wouldn’t Andrews theology have more people living physically forever or being taken up into the cloud or whirlwind without actually experiencing physical death? Wouldn’t we have at least a handful of people each one of us knows experiencing this? But we don’t.
Steve here… Andrew does not believe death as a whole is to be overcome in the age, just death that is contrary to God’s plan for a person, more specifically, premature or wrongfully caused death. Otherwise, the many commands (and Jesus’ examples) to raise the dead are nonsequiturs and unrighteous. Why make the command (not request) to ‘raise the dead’ if death was supposed to just be? RYAN – Raising the dead is a possibility within God’s will but not for everyone who is in God’s will.
Wommack argues that Christians are redeemed from sickness and poverty but not from persecution. I see tribulation as being very key to a person’s ongoing process of sanctification. I don’t think Jesus causes the hardship but uses it in a sense of refining us. It also is going to reflect back on the idea of the prosperity gospel. As I do believe that God desires for us to experience all of the Joy he offers, some of it may not be experienced physically here on earth. I would not say that Paul was prosperous by the world’s definition after his conversion encounter on the road. If persecution exists wouldn’t sickness be part of that? Wommack answers that God allows the persecution of Christians because he loves the persecutors and wants them to repent (pp. 76–77). But Luke 22:42 suggests another reason: Jesus understands that his crucifixion is the will of God. God did not want Jesus ‘well’—God allowed (and some will even say “willed” without necessarily taking on Calvinist notions,) Jesus physically dead in order to accomplish His great redemptive purposes (Isa 53:6; Rom 8:32; Luke 22:42; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28). If God in His wisdom allowed the suffering and death of his own Son, can he not allow suffering and sickness for the followers of His Son in order to accomplish his sovereign purposes? Andrew might argue a substitutional atonement theory here, that Christ took this on so that we wouldn’t have to; but I don’t think that is a good view. I think I can lightly agree to a metaphorical extent that Jesus’ death and resurrection served as a “substitute for us” but even thinking this way carries some implications that are hard to reconcile. I think Boyd can help us with this consideration. [4]
Steve again… I think this argument could be settled by the clear deviation of persecution and tribulation. Persecution that we are all universally subject to, and should even rejoice in when afflicted with, is a directed assault against us for the purpose of hindering or stopping the advancement of the Gospel or the Kingdom. Tribulation is the general agitation of life that affects the believer and unbeliever alike. A lost sinner can be tribulating because he is human, but they cannot be persecuted for righteousness sake. As ministers of reconciliation, we will suffer persecution and we are not redeemed from it because we were specifically PROMISED it by our Lord.
Finally, many Christians testify that much (or even most) of their growth in holiness has occurred through suffering (cf. Ps 119:67, 71). However according to Wommack, although someone may learn character-transforming lessons through illness, that was not God’s plan which would imply that God shouldn’t or wouldn’t allow or use it. I agree that I doubt it was his plan, but I do see God using it.
Steve again… I agree as well. God’s perfect plan is for us to learn everything through the Spirit and the scriptures, but because we miss the perfect all too often God has this loving and merciful backup plan of redeeming our mistakes into a beautiful and powerful lesson that is called a ‘testimony’.
___________________////___________________
Despite where you land here, I think it is important to understand that we need to live in unity as believers regarding the way we see healing work. One night at TOV, I said something to the extent of, “Regardless of your theology of healing, join with me in praying within the Will of God that this person may be healed.” The scripture seems to show that through prayer God’s will may be swayed towards the hearts of those that are intimate with Him. I think we can all pray for healing and/or just heal if we believe God works in us that way, but I also think it is important to realize that one person’s views on healing aren’t undeniably proven through scripture. There are different valid interpretations and we need to honor and respect people who may feel differently, uniting on what we can agree on.
Perhaps through His order, God has already taken into account these requests and has accounted for them in faith. As we will never truly know the answer to this debate on this side of heaven, we are charged to grow deeper as disciples and pray for such things. In the end, regardless of your thoughts, we all can agree that eventually every believer will be brought to complete healing in Jesus.
Steve here in finality… My love and unity with Doc Ryan is greater today than yesterday even as we have engaged in the polemics of this deep and vast subject. A major reason for that is we have determined our covenantal love and Christian honor for one another greatly exceeds our doctrinal differences. In our unity, we both agree that God heals and that we love people enough to want them to experience that blessing. In our humility, we will both adamantly assert that MANY folks do not get healed and we do not know why. Yet that does not dissuade us from pressing into the heart of God, it moreso invigorates us towards God, His heart, and His truth. Division is demonic, diversity is divine. We pray that is your conclusion as well. RYAN – Amen and well said brother!
This article was primarily written by Dr. Will Ryan, responded to and edited by Dr. Steve Cassell, and edited in part by Dr. Matt Mouzakis.
EXPEDITION 44 