another Faith-healing gone bad

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:14 am

I just don't understand why people who think God will heal them are are looked at as stupid for placing their faith in Him alone.

There's an old anecdote about a man who's neighborhood was caught in the middle of a flood. As the waters rose, he climbed up onto his roof. He was confidant that God would rescue him.

As he sat on the roof, surrounded by flood waters, some neighbors came by in a canoe and offered to give him a lift. "No thanks," he said, "God will rescue me."

The waters continued to rise.

The next day, some firemen came by in a small motor boat and attempted to rescue him, but the man refused. "God will rescue me", he told them.

The waters continued to rise.

By the next day, only the very top of the roof was still above water. The man perched precariously upon it. Suddenly a helicopter swooped down and lowered a rope with a harness. "Grab the rope and tie the harness around yourself!", came a voice from the helicopter's loudspeaker. The man shook his head and waved them off. "God will rescue me!", he shouted.

The waters continued to rise.

The next day the man drowned. He suddenly found himself standing before God. "Hey, what's the deal?" asked the man. "I had faith that you would rescue me and you didn't!"

"I tried to rescue you three times!", said God. "First I sent a canoe, then I sent a motor boat, then I sent a helicopter. Each time you refused the help that I put there for you!"

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

God is not a cosmic ATM that spits out healings if we just use the right formula or have enough faith. That kind of thinking is tantamount to witchcraft--thinking we can make God do what we want Him to. I'm all for praying for miraculous healing, and have seen it work. But God also has given us doctors and medicine. Even Paul had a physician (Luke) who often traveled with him.

These people stood by and allowed a teenage boy to die of a simple urinary tract blockage. They used this boy as a poker chip to try to force God's hand. They are idiots and, because of their intentional neglect of the boy's medical needs, murderers.

Post by **_Steve** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:11 am

I personally share Sean's concerns, although I am not one who refuses medical treatments, when necessary. Mort wrote:

"God is not a cosmic ATM that spits out healings if we just use the right formula or have enough faith."

This is, of course, true, but then neither is modern medicine. Sean's point was that there are a great number of people who die at the hands of doctors to whom they have entrusted themselves, but no one blames them for having trusted incompetent doctors.

I agree that God has provided medical doctors to help sick people, and Jesus even seemed to imply this, when He said, "Those who are well do not need a physician, but those who are sick [do]." On the other hand, it is not easy to know when one should trust a doctor and when one should not. There are some doctors who can not be trusted to show up sober at surgery, and many doctors who use patients as guinea pigs to try out some new drug that the pharmaceutical companies are paying them to push.

There are good doctors, and there are things which doctors are particularly good for (like setting broken bones and surgeries), but there are many ailments for which doctors will offer their recommendations or their interventions, which, in fact, do not require their services. How does one know when to trust an unfamiliar doctor and when to trust one's well-known God? That is not an easy question, but I think I agree with Watchman Nee who observed the strangeness of the fact that the patient who dies while trusting a doctor is always described as being "brave" and "heroic", whereas the man who dies trusting God is regarded a fool.

God does not always heal, but then neither does medical treatment always cure. There are many who would rather entrust their health survival to the hands of God—with full knowledge that death may be His desired outcome—than to blindly trust the recommendations of medical professionals.

I choose a balanced approach, realizing that a physician may sometimes be God's provision for recovery, and at other times, God may wish to heal in other ways—whether natural or miraculous. When we were raising our children, my wife and I would have said we were trusting God for our family health, but we would have taken our children to doctors, if ever we had determined the need for it. More often, herbal remedies were tried first, and their success rendered a doctor's visit unnecessary. In fact, I do not remember ever taking a sick child (we raised five of them to maturity) to a doctor—with the exception of my two-year-old with bronchitis, in 1975—though there were many times that we consulted physician-friends or herb-books about our children's presenting complaints. We never even used medical professionals to intervene at our children's home births.

I admit that we were fortunate—more fortunate than many families we knew—but I can't help thinking that our determining to trust God (and to take the herbal "canoe" that He sent) had a lot to do with this good fortune.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:44 am

God is not a cosmic ATM that spits out healings if we just use the right formula or have enough faith. That kind of thinking is tantamount to witchcraft--thinking we can make God do what we want Him to. I'm all for praying for miraculous

I just take Jesus at his word which is that he never turned down a request for healing , most of the time a healing was conditional on the person's faith and Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Clearly God works through doctor's today almost all the time but His promise is still the same.

"For she SAID , If i touch even his garments i will be made well." Mark 5.28
"And he said to her, Daughter YOUR FAITH has made you well." Mark 5.34

Jesus could have said "Daughter you have been made well because"
1. of God's sovereignty
2. because of God's love
3. because of God's mercy
4. because of my faith

but it was her faith , and this is only one of ten examples with the same theme.

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:49 am

Sean's point was that there are a great number of people who die at the hands of doctors to whom they have entrusted themselves, but no one blames them for having trusted incompetent doctors.

I think the difference, in this case, is that the people who allowed this boy to die had a choice. They could have also sought medical assistance. Their options were not either/or but both/and, yet they chose to limit those options. Many people who seek treatment from doctors also pray--before and during treatment--for a supernatural healing.

Certainly doctors make mistakes, have gaps in their knowledge or, in some cases, are incompetent. But a doctor worth his/her salt is going to seek help from other doctors if he/she is not getting results.

These people doomed that kid by only allowing him the options of supernatural healing or death. Endangering people's lives in order to try to get the hang of the prayer of faith is reprehensible.

I just take Jesus at his word which is that he never turned down a request for healing , most of the time a healing was conditional on the person's faith and Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Clearly God works through doctor's today almost all the time but His promise is still the same.

The people of 1st century Judea didn't have many options, medically speaking. They couldn't run down to the Emergency Room or the neighborhood clinic and get some antibiotics or have surgery.

Also, these people in Gladstone did ask Jesus for healing and didn't get it. Why? Was it because they didn't use the right formula? They weren't able to produce enough of their own faith? Their theology had flaws in it?

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:43 am

Also, these people in Gladstone did ask Jesus for healing and didn't get it. Why? Was it because they didn't use the right formula? They weren't able to produce enough of their own faith? Their theology had flaws in it?

As i said God usually works through people , in this case that would be doctors. God did give the Word of God through people then why not healing through doctors?

And this formula as you put it was given by Jesus,
fear not
doubt not
only believe
your faith has healed you.

Post by **_Homer** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:08 pm

I will have to agree with Danny (Mort) on this one. Here locally we are very familiar with this problem.

We have a congregation here in our small town that is generally referred to as The Church of the First Born, although I think it is part of The General Assembly of the First Born. They do not believe in using any medical treatments, rely on what I believe to be an egregious misunderstanding of James 5:14-15, and have had some dead children as a result. They have been prosecuted for failure to give proper care to the children that died of treatable causes.

They are a Pentecostal group. They are good and sincere people.

TK asked:

Christopher- Do you think these people are true Christians? If not, it might explain their lack of success in healing, or perhaps they are very successful and we only hear of the tragic failures. do you have any insight on this?

I do not think the faith of the similar goup here in our town can be questioned, they are are simply misguided. We are well acquainted with them. One of our elders is neighbors with an elder of theirs, and another is a contractor who has worked for me twice.

Steve wrote:

I agree that God has provided medical doctors to help sick people, and Jesus even seemed to imply this, when He said, "Those who are well do not need a physician, but those who are sick [do]." On the other hand, it is not easy to know when one should trust a doctor and when one should not. There are some doctors who can not be trusted to show up sober at surgery, and many doctors who use patients as guinea pigs to try out some new drug that the pharmaceutical companies are paying them to push.

When we make use of physicians, the vast majority of whom I believe to sincerely want to help their patients, we should educate ourselves about the treatments we receive so that we can partner with them in obtaining a favorable outcome. They are human and do not know everything.

Steve also wrote:

I admit that we were fortunate—more fortunate than many families we knew—but I can't help thinking that our determining to trust God (and to take the herbal "canoe" that He sent) had a lot to do with this good fortune.

You are indeed unusually fortunate. In our family, I seriously doubt that, apart from modern medicine, I, my wife, both our sons, or one granddaughter would be alive today. It is eye opening to visit an old cemetary and see the gravestones of the many children who died without the medical treatments available today. What anguish for so many parents! Through the gift of God, we have made so many discoveries.

Steve mentioned the herbal "canoe". What of the discovery of pencillen, a naturally occuring antibiotic that has saved innumerable lives? And digoxin, a widely used heart medicine, derived from the foxglove plant. And Taxol, a derivative of the bark and needles of the yew tree, used in chemotherapy for treatment of cancer. I'm sure a very long list could be made. God put these things here for our use, and He gave us the intellect to discover and invent many more.

What puzzles me is this. If we should not seek help that is available for an illness or an injury, but simply say "if God wants me well, He will heal me. I will just pray and tust Him". Then why not just trust Him and pray for the food we need to eat? Why work? Why do I bother to plant a garden? It seems to me that refusing medical help that is available and expecting God to heal is "putting God to the test" (Matt. 4:6-7).

Do not get me wrong. I believe all healing is a gift of God, whether through ordinary means or a miracle. But I believe the old gospel song writer Albert E. Brumley got it right:

"Daily I'm working, I'm praying too, and glory to God, I'm going through".
(from "He Set Me Free")

Danny hit the nail squarely on the head:

I think the difference, in this case, is that the people who allowed this boy to die had a choice. They could have also sought medical assistance. Their options were not either/or but both/and, yet they chose to limit those options. Many people who seek treatment from doctors also pray--before and during treatment--for a supernatural healing.

OK, done with my rant, Thanks

Post by **_Homer** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:32 pm

A member of the local Church of the First Born has, for some time, been losing his sight to cataracts. Saturday I saw him walking his dogs, using a small "feeler" pole to enable him to walk along the sidewalk. One of our elders, who knows the man, informed me the man is now on disability, supported by the taxpayers. Since his disability is due to a treatable cause, I am wondering if this is a sin (living off the taxpayers)? Doesn't seem quite right. Any thoughts?

Post by **_Suzana** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:00 pm

You are right, it doesn't seem quite right.
On the other hand, wouldn't it be covered by laws governing freedom of religion? And presumably this man was himself a tax-payer previously.
Our tax dollars regularly contribute to things we may not agree with, but are in line with others' religious beliefs - eg. providing services for abortion on demand.

Some more random thoughts:

- your question I think opens up Pandora's box - what about other causes of disability/illness that are not only treatable, but are preventable?

If an obese person (where weight gain was preventable) develops diabetes, should treatment be withheld?
What about cancer due to smoking? Skin cancer due to deliberate sun baking, despite warnings?
-Is it a sin then to seek treatment, and have a disability pension in advanced stages?