(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)
Welcome
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Response 
We need changed hearts, not miracles. (Wahshing)
Why many kept calling myJesus,a false healer,today? 
It's time to come back from "Experience" to Scriptures! (Christopher Yip)
All those queries and distortions were refuted long ago!Here's more.
"Refuted"? You mean "rancour", don't you? (Christopher Yip)
I oblige You. (FrankieLee)
And I am STILL waiting ... (Christopher Yip)
Please be open and I assume you are reasonable.1. (FrankieLee)
But unfortunately, you are not. (Christopher Yip)
Superficial or deep,at a glance? (FrankieLee)
|
Dear Frank,
I am still awaiting for your evidence. Perhaps in the midst of your rather emotional response, you might have confused the issue. Let me clarify here. Cessationists do not deny that God works miracles, including healing. We also do not deny that He does work those miracles even today. He does it often in answer to prayers, or at other times, on His own initiative. This we do not deny. But what is a miracle? or miraculous healing? When I recover from a flu or a fever, either with or without medication, we all know that it is the body that effects the healing. That is the wonderful way God has made us. The body is capable of healing itself in many ways and even with medication, it is ultimately the body that heals itself. This is the kind of healings Nolen refers to when he talks about non-miraculous healing. Now, if you include such healings effected by the body's own natural function as "miraculous", then indeed, if the body heals itself at exactly the same time a faith-healer pronounces healing on that person, then a miracle of healing has occurred. But is that a miracle? In other words, if the body is going to heal itself naturally given time, the pronouncement of healing by the faith healer adds nothing to it - the person will get heal ultimately by the body's natural function. Hence, it is important to make a distinction between organic and functional diseases. In organic diseases when the organ has withered or died, the body can never heal that and so, any healing is really miraculous. It's like bringing the dead to life, that is, bringing a dead organ back to life. A dead organ can be a stomach or lung rotten by cancer, a hand or leg that is paralysed and withering, an eye that is blind. It would be nothing short of a miracle for these to function properly again. Now, if cessationists believe that miraculous healings do occur today, then there is no need to argue about miracles per se. What we need to look at is not simply the existence of miracles. Let's keep this in mind. It is the occurrence of miracles AS A RESULT OF THE EXERCISE OF THE GIFT OF HEALING that is the issue. Cessationists contend that God, in His sovereign will, can and does perform miracles and healings as and when He so desires and also IN ANSWER TO PRAYERS. What is the difference between answers to prayers and healings by faith-healers or those with the gift? The difference can be easily seen in the New Testament. MacArthur has already given the characteristics of healings by those with the gift of healing, including Jesus and the apostles. We are not aware of any other documentation of miraculous healing done with such spiritual gifts. Hence, when a miracle or miraculous healing (or organic diseases) occur, we look for such characteristics in order to find a match with the biblical gift. AND THE CONCLUSION SO FAR, there is NO GIFT. Miracles or miraculous healings - YES; gift - NO. If a miraculous healing did in fact occur in Kuhlman's rally, and if non-cessationists or charismatics claim that these healings are answers to Kuhlman's prayers, then we have no objections. Anyone can pray for the sick and God decides if He wishes to answer. Perhaps God has answered Kuhlman's prayers for a particular person, fine, thank God for that. It is true that Kuhlman does not claim to heal (which faith-healer does?! of course they don't!), but the issue is did she claim that she had the gift? And did she claim that healing was part of salvation for all people? And if she did, then she should have substantiated her claim, and answered all those who were not healed. As we have seen, there were no conditions attached to healing - Jesus and the Apostles healed at will with their gift, it was immediate and did not relapse, and faith was not a mandatory requirement. If this is the case, Kuhlman could not use the lack of faith as an excuse for failed healings. Please understand clearly the issues at hand. To put it in a nutshell, do this. Make a checklist of the characteristics of biblical healing by the apostles. MacArthur has given such a bullet list. Then compare as many instances of genuine healing by Kuhlman with this checklist. If you find any, let me know. Of course, before you do that comparison, you have to make sure that the healing was genuine and did not relapse. This step cannot be glossed over, Frank. When you narrow down to, say, 5 or 10 such genuine cases, then let us compare with the checklist. Christopher P/S: One more thing. You said, "Kulman always attribute all testimony of healings to God ,and Jesus the healer." Have you thought about this - if Kuhlman attributed the healing to the Devil instead, does it mean that we all should worship the Devil? And who are we to doubt Kuhlman's tribute since she is the only witness. If she says the healing was effected by God, we praise God; if she says it is effected by the Devil, we praise the Devil. It's that simple, right? If Kuhlman's attribution of the healing to the Devil cannot be trusted, then we also cannot trust her attribution to God, can we? As someone else pointed out, even the Devil and his cohorts can perform false miracles and healings in order to deceive. So if Satan worshippers came out and conduct a healing rally in which a healing occur and attribute it to Satan, shouldn't we all worship Satan? And similarly, if some Satan worshipper decided to play punk, to be funny, and attribute the healing to God, how are we to tell the difference? Do you get it? The healing may have occurred but who did it? How are we to tell? Where is the DNA test for this? Finally, you said, "i really wish you could be another Jack Deere,or John Wimber,who were enlighten to the truths of real manisfested presence of God.These theologians had been blessed with this new found reality,and were no more skeptics." But neither could stand up to close scrutiny. Jack Deere had the same problem. He heard from a certain John White that a miraculous healing had taken place and TAKING WHITE'S WORD, he attributed it to God. Now, if White had attributed the healing to something else, to the Devil, or to himself, or to natural phenomenon, what do you think would have been Deere's response?
|
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page