Prosperity Preaching Is Not Christian (Osteen)

DFW Catholic ^ | 11.5.2014 | Vincent Ryan Ruggiero

[Gamecock]

Pastor Joel Osteen’s TV ad announcing his new show on Sirius Radio begins with the promise, “We can have victory every single day.” Next come scenes of his pastoral team on stage during a church service, followed by a long shot of the congregation that looks as if it was filmed in the Super Bowl with every seat filled. (He reportedly has the largest congregation in the United States.)

Finally, he comes back on screen and declares to the audience, “There is a power in you greater than any power that comes against you.”

After seeing the ad for about the 200th time, I sent the following email message to some friends:

I’ve seen the Osteen ad many, many times and my reaction has been the same each time—I have felt a powerful urge to convert . . . . . . to Buddhism!

What made me descend to such curmudgeonly pique? Was it because Osteen’s face appears locked in a smile that shouts “insincere” (at least to me) or because he and his wife call to mind the 1970s and 80s preaching duo of unhappy memory, Jim and Tammy Bakker? Was it because Osteen’s trademark black hair is beautifully coiffed and boasts innumerable curls in the back? Might I be jealous of that?

The honest answer to all three questions is “yes.” But there is another, more substantive reason for my negative reaction. It is that Osteen’s message is presumptuous and misleading, not to mention smarmy and glib. (I know, I know, smarminess and glibness are not serious flaws, so let’s put them aside.)

First, presumptuous. The line “you have power in you greater than any power that can come against you” obviously refers to more than simple talent and potential and probably to more than being created in the image and likeness of God. The most likely intended meaning is the gift of the Holy Spirit that Christians call grace.

The problem, however, is his notion that this “power” (grace) is automatically in us by virtue of our being alive. In contrast, Christianity teaches that grace is a gift that God gives us but does not force upon us. We either accept it or reject it, and that choice determines whether we experience its power. This crucial fact Osteen seems to ignore when he presumes that everyone possesses grace automatically.

Now let’s consider misleading. At the heart of Osteen’s message is the promise of daily success in life: “We can have victory every single day.” Surely he is not referring to the victory of being received into paradise, which comes only once (if we are lucky), after death. What then does he mean? I consulted Osteen’s website for the answer and found this:

You have been blessed for unprecedented success. God has healing with your name on it, new dreams with your name on it [sic], promotions with your name on it [sic]. You are a child of Almighty God. He has already gone before you and lined up promotion, victory, and favor in your life.

With the exception of healing, these things come under the heading “worldly success,” so that is what Osteen must mean by “victory.” Oddly, however, he denies that this is his meaning. For example, he has said, “If prosperity means God wants us to be blessed and healthy and have good relationships then yes, I’m a prosperity teacher. But if it’s about money, no, I never preach about money . . .”

Osteen is being disingenuous. His themes may technically not be about money, but they are about “promotion,” “favor,” “abundance,” etc., so they might as well be about money. Consider a more specific example from Osteen’s Message # 619, “It’s Already Yours”:

Psalm 8:5 says, “You have crowned him with favor and honor.” What does this mean for you today? It means right now, there are blessings with your name on them—healing, promotion, good breaks, houses, businesses, contracts—that already belong to you. The question is, when are you going to go get what’s already yours? [Bold added]

The word “money” doesn’t appear in this passage, but the words in bold certainly stand for financial success and that spells financial prosperity, also known as money.

At this point readers who embrace Osteen’s “prosperity gospel” would no doubt respond “What’s wrong with saying God rewards those who love him with prosperity?” My first impulse is to respond, “If there is nothing wrong with the prosperity gospel, why is Osteen so determined not to be associated with it?” But here is a more meaningful response:

What is wrong with prosperity preaching is that it grossly distorts the Christian message.

To begin with, Isaiah didn’t prophesy a prosperous Christ but a suffering servant who would be “despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.” (Isaiah 53: 3)

Then, too, Jesus was born in a stable and lived a modest life with Mary and Joseph, so it is a reasonable assumption that neither Joseph nor Jesus was the sort of carpenter whose work brought that age’s equivalent of Ethan Allen or Thomasville prices.

In the most famous of all sermons, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, not a single one of the blessings mentioned suggests daily victory of any kind, let alone financial victory. They speak instead of daily spiritual stress, mourning, hunger, and persecution. The fact that Jesus called those who suffer these burdens “blessed” is best understood as a promise of eventual consolation or reward beyond this vale of tears.

The only place in Scripture where Jesus and prosperity are mentioned together is when Satan offers it to Him—“The devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. ‘All this I will give you,’ he said, ‘if you will bow down and worship me.’” (Matthew 4: 8-9) In rejecting Satan’s offer Jesus did not condemn prosperity, to be sure, but He certainly didn’t laud it either.

Jesus did, of course, tell his disciples that they could achieve anything if they had sufficient faith. For example, he said that they could move a mountain. (Matthew 21: 21-22) But in the next breath He added that the way to do so is to “ask in prayer, believing,” underscoring that the power obviously resides in God rather than in us.

Jesus often reminded his disciples that the way to follow him was to deny themselves and take up their crosses every day. (Matthew 10:38 and 16:24, Luke 9:23, Luke 14: 27 and 18:18-22) The references to crosses obviously did not concern daily victories but, on the contrary, disappointments and sufferings. In our time those would include unemployment, accidents, the wounds of war, deadly diseases, emotional disorders, and the infirmities of old age.

Jesus provided the supreme example of suffering courageously as He prayed, sweating blood, in the Garden of Gethsemane, was mercilessly scourged at the pillar and humiliated by the Roman soldiers, crowned with thorns, and nailed to a cross. Moreover, in the final throes of suffocation and exsanguination, He felt forsaken by God.

Down through the centuries, the message that has framed the Christian perspective on living has been Jesus’ words, “take up your cross and follow me.” His disciples were the first to do so, and every one of them suffered a violent death. The early Christians were required to practice their faith in secret or face imprisonment and death. And Christian martyrdom continues in our time. In 2013 alone, 2,123 Christians were murdered for practicing their faith.

Promising daily victory and worldly success insults all those who maintain their faith in Jesus despite suffering and disappointment. Rather than raising their spirits and giving them hope, it tempts them to think, “If I am not prospering, maybe God doesn’t love me.” Worse, it tempts the wealthy and successful to believe that they really are more virtuous and deserving than the poor and thus to adopt the attitude of the Pharisee: “God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.” (Luke: 18:11)

Whenever I hear Osteen or others preach the prosperity gospel, I am reminded of Jesus’ advice to the young man who lived honorably and wondered what more he could do to achieve an even better spiritual state. Jesus did not tell him to claim and enjoy the first century equivalent of “promotion[s], good breaks, houses, businesses, contracts.” Instead, he advised him to “go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” (Mark 10: 21-22)

The prosperity gospel is understandably appealing in this self-absorbed age, but because it replaces the cross with a dollar sign, it bears no resemblance to the Gospel of Jesus.

[flaglady47]

“If it were not for the separatists and protestants, you’d still be hearing mass in Latin and looking at Latin bibles, and having no idea whether what you heard was remotely Biblical! Ever been even a little curious why the RC fought so hard to keep the Bible out of the common tongue (especially English)?”

Funny you say the above, as there has been a movemeny back to the traditional Latin Mass. When the Latin Mass was the default, you could go into any Catholic church anywhere in the world and know exactly what was going on during Mass. Now that the new Mass (Novus Ordo) is the default, the Mass is given in many tongues and the unity of the service that always existed prior to Vatican II, now doesn’t.

I might add that even with the Latin Mass, the English translation is right next to it in the printed word so everyone knows what the translation from Latin is. As Catholic children they all grew up with knowing what the Latin Mass meant in English or any other mother tongue of countries around the world,from the gitgo.

[flaglady47]

“The religion I follow isn’t a clone of Catholicism. It’s based on the Bible (with a capital B).”

Who were the stewards of that Bible, organized its chapters and decided what should be in the Bible, and what writings shouldn’t appear, if not the Catholic Church? It sure wasm’t the Protestants, as they didn’t even exist until medieval times beginning with Martin Luther who believed himself Catholic up until his death.

Then the various Protestant church sects began to grow like weeds. Now there are hundreds of them. Which one of them is the true way amongst the Protestant religions. Which sect has the correct interpretation of the purloined from the Catholic religion Bible?

[Springfield Reformer]

I still remember like it was yesterday this conversation I heard on the radio decades ago. Some radio preacher was talking to a caller who was blind, and had prayed for healing, and he was telling her she was at fault for not assuming God would certainly heal her, that she should act as if He had, to show her faith. And it made me angry. It is nothing but spiritual abuse to browbeat someone over a decision that can only be made by God. Perhaps God will heal the blindness, and perhaps greater faith is needed. But to actively lie to oneself in the name of faith? If the healing hasn’t happened, it hasn’t happened. Pretending it has would be the absolute worst way to deal with it.

Not to leave things on the downside, I also recall a story I heard (also on the radio), told firsthand by the Baptist missionary to whom it happened. He was in Mogadishu, a missionary to Muslims, with little to show for it. But then he befriended a local imam. The imam offered to let him speak at his mosque (that in itself something of a miracle), and he did. After his talk, a father brought his little girl to the front and asked the missionary if Jesus could heal her. He was carrying her in his arms. Her legs were withered, and she couldn’t walk.

The missionary answered that yes, Jesus can heal her, but we don’t know what His will is. The girl’s father resigned himself to that answer, thanked the missionary, and turned to leave. As he was walking away, the little girl looked steadfastly at the missionary and began to urge her father to put her down. When he did so, she walked. The mosque erupted in praise to the name of Isa (Arabic for Jesus), and many conversations followed. Eventually, the imam converted and became a Christian.

The point is, when God wants to act, there is no stopping Him, and there is no hiding from the reality of His miraculous intrusion into the humdrum of our ordinary lives. But it is always to a purpose, to glorify God, and to set the name of Jesus above every name. He denied healing of Paul three times over that “thorn in the flesh,” to the purpose of demonstrating to Paul the sufficiency of His grace. Yet He healed the man born blind.

God does as He sees fit. It is a grave error to turn Him into some impersonal force that can be manipulated to our private benefit. Those who teach such things will share in the reward of all the false prophets that have gone before them.

Peace.

SR

[BykrBayb]

You sure have a big ego for such a little person. You can’t even compose a message to post on the Internet without interjecting your misplaced sense of superiority over anyone who isn’t you, yet you try to credit your church with writing The Holy Bible, and stick your nose in the air as if you had something to do with it. News Flash kid, God Himself is The Author. It would serve you well to stop lashing out at Him, and start obeying His commands.

[Springfield Reformer]

Who were the stewards of that Bible

For the first 160 years or so, the stewards of Scripture were generic Christians, Pre-Catholic, Pre-Protestant.  None of the uniquely Roman Catholic distinctives had surfaced yet. Nevertheless, Polycarp, as early as the first quarter of the Second Century, was using nearly the same collection of New Testament Scriptures we use today.  The later addition of chapters and verses is a triviality, with no authority of divine inspiration.  They aren't in the original and they can be downright misleading in where they break the material.  The Bible is God's work, not man's.  If one group or another had the use of it for a while, or provided navigational aids, that does not secure the validity of that organization. Remember in the book of Revelation how the assemblies listed, which we know were all at one time true to the faith, were at risk of losing their candlestick, the representation of the presence, blessing, and authority of Jesus.  None of those churches were told, "But because you are of Rome, of the chair of Peter, you don't need to worry about your candlestick being taken away."  No such thing.  It was what then? Faithfulness to the first love of Christians of all ages, Jesus the Christ, and His Gospel of redemption. Faithfulness, not pedigree.  Pedigree was the error of the Pharisees, who also were, for a time, the stewards of Scripture.  But Jesus communes with those who worship Him, not in Jerusalem, or Rome, or Geneva, but in spirit, and in truth.

Peace,

SR

[Elsie]

How did Judas die?

 

 

The Book says that he hung himself...

 

Matthew 27:3-5

 Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, ⁴ saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” ⁵ And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.

 

It also says...

 

Acts 1:18-19

Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

 

(Nothing here about MANNER of death.)

[Elsie]

Actually, it's in there.

Didja know that there are MULTITUDES of LDS groups?

Didja know that ONE of them gets really huffy if any of the others are called MORMONs?

---

With the Mormons (to be precise, the members of The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - based in Salt Lake City) intent on being called “Christians” after so many years of eschewing that word, and despite the fact that there are so many fundamental theological differences between Christianity and Mormonism, I often wonder: 

How do members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints feel about calling the members of its various spin-off sects Latter-Day Saints, Christians, or Mormons? Or about those sects calling themselves Mormons or Latter-Day Saints? (There was an earlier campaign by LDS to have journalism style books use the word “Mormon” to refer only to LDS, and not RLDS, FLDS, or other LDS sects).

For a man who bragged about holding things together, Joseph Smith, Jr. doesn’t appear go have done a good job of it during his lifetime. Wycam Clark’s “Pure Church of Christ” spun off in 1831. This trend continued. There were six LDS sects spawned in the 1830s, eight in the 1840s, two in the 1850s, and seven in the 1860s.

Do those responsible for the “Mormons are Christians” campaign consider these denominations to be Mormons or Latter-Day Saints? Surely many of these denominations are much closer to mainstream LDS than LDS is to Christianity. Many stick to Smith’s teachings and old temple endowment ceremonies.

Short Creek Community
Latter Day Church of Christ
Apostolic United Brethren
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness [sic] of Times
Church of the Lamb of God
Church of the New Covenant in Christ
Confederate Nations of Israel
Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
School of the Prophets
Centennial Park
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Kingdom of God
True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days
The Church of the Firstborn and the General Assembly of Heaven

Blackmore/Bountiful Community
Restoration Church of Jesus Christ
Order of Enoch
Aaronic Order
Zion’s Order, Inc.
Perfected Church of Jesus Christ of Immaculate Latter-day Saints
Church of Jesus Christ (Bullaite)
Community of Christ
Church of Jesus Christ (Toneyite)
Independent RLDS / Restoration Branches
Church of Jesus Christ Restored 1830
Church of Christ (Lion of God Ministry/Clarkite)
Church of Jesus Christ (Zion’s Branch)
Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Church of Christ (Temple Lot) (Hedrickite)
Church of Christ (Fettingite) (Hedrickite)
Church of Christ at Halley’s Bluff (Hedrickite)
Church of Christ (Restored) (Hedrickite)
Church of Christ “With the Elijah Message” (Hedrickite)
Church of Christ (Hancock) (Hedrickite)
Church of Christ (Burtite) (Hendrickite)
Church of Israel (Hendrickite)
Church of Christ with the Elijah Message (The Assured Way of the Lord) (Hendrickite)
The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)
Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)
True Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)
Restored Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)
Holy Church of Jesus Christ (Strangite)
Church of Jesus Christ (Drewite) (Strangite)
True Church of Jesus Christ Restored (Strangite)
Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Whitmerite)

Or these defunct sects:

Pure Church of Christ (Clarkite)
Independent Church (Hotonite)
Church of Christ (Boothite)
Church of Christ (Parrishite)
Alston Church
Church of Christ (Chubbyite)
Church of Jesus Christ, the Bride, the Lamb’s Wife
Church of Christ (Pageite)
True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (this one was particularly curious - started by William Law, editor of The Nauvoo Expositor, just one of many sects started in opposition to plural marriage)
The Church of Zion (Godbeite)
United Order Family of Christ
Church of the Potter Christ
Church of the Firstborn (Morrisite)
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Gibsonite)
Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Most High
Church of the Christian Brotherhood
Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion (Rigdonite) Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)
Primative Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)
Church of Christ (Aaron Smith)
Church of the Messiah (Adamsite)
Church of Christ (Wrightite)
Church of Christ (Whitmerite)
Church of Christ (Brewsterite)
The Bride, the Lamb’s Wife
Congregation of Jehovah’s Presbytery of Zion
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Gladdenite)
Independent Latter Day Saints of Nigeria
Independent Latter Day Saints of Ghana
Apostolic Divine Church of Ghana

Are members of those LDS groups “Mormons”? “Latter Day Saints?” “Christians?”

Do the folks in Salt Lake City have a problem with any of those groups, who believe in the restoration of the original church by Joseph Smith, calling themselves Mormons or Saints?

Most of these divisions in the Latter-Day Saint movement occurred over the issue of polygamy or succession of the Prophet. Sects broke off when Joseph Smith was still alive, and when Brigham Young was named prophet, because they didn’t believe in the practice of plural marriage – either publicly, or in some cases when it was practiced in private and denied in public.

Of course, there was the great split between Rocky Mountain Saints and Prairie Saints, when LDS members couldn’t agree on a successor prophet to Smith, Jr., and the church went to Utah, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania under Brigham Young, Sidney Rigdon (senior member of the First Presidency), James Strang, Lyman Wight, Alpheus Cutler, William Smith, David Whitmer (a BOM witness), or Joseph Smith III (son of Joseph Smith, Jr.). Almost all of these individuals still has multiple sects in existence that date to an 1844 decision about who should be the next President/Prophet of the church.

The Prairie Saints split into sects over the issue of whether Smith practiced polygamy. Rocky Mountain Saints had many, many spinoff sects after the 1890 Manifesto – groups that still practice plural marriage.

======================================================================================================================================================

Thanks to ScoutMaster for all the hard work here!

[Elsie]

Didja know that ONE of them gets really huffy if any of the others are called MORMONs?

---

Media Letter   

26 June 2008 — Salt Lake City  (http://newsroom.lds.org/additional-resource/media-letter)

*The following is a letter from Elder Lance B. Wickman, General Counsel of the Church to publishers of major newspapers, TV stations and magazines. It was sent out on Tuesday, June 24, 2008.

---

---

---

Recent events have focused the media spotlight on a polygamous sect near San Angelo, Texas, calling itself the “Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” As you probably know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has absolutely no affiliation with this polygamous sect. Decades ago, the founders of that sect rejected the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, were excommunicated, and then started their own religion. To the best of our knowledge, no one at the Texas compound has ever been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Unfortunately, however, some of the media coverage of the recent events in Texas has caused members of the public to confuse the doctrines and members of that group and our church. We have received numerous inquiries from confused members of the public who, by listening to less than careful media reports, have come to a grave misunderstanding about our respective doctrines and faith. Based on these media reports many have erroneously concluded that there is some affiliation between the two – or even worse, that they are one and the same.

Over the years, in a careful effort to distinguish itself, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has gone to significant lengths to protect its rights in the name of the church and related matters. Specifically, we have obtained registrations for the name “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” “Mormon,” “Book of Mormon” and related trade and service marks from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and corresponding agencies in a significant number of foreign countries.

We are confident that you are committed to avoiding misleading statements that cause unwarranted confusion and that may disparage or infringe the intellectual property rights discussed above. Accordingly, we respectfully request the following:

1. As reflected in the AP Style Guide, we ask that you and your organization refrain from referring to members of that polygamous sect as “fundamentalist Mormons” or “fundamentalist” members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
2. We ask that, when reporting about this Texas-based polygamous sect or any other polygamous group, you avoid either explicitly or implicitly any inference that these groups are affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
3. On those occasions when it may be necessary in your reporting to refer to the historical practice of plural marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that you make very clear that the Church does not condone the practice of polygamy and that it has been forbidden in the Church for over one hundred years. Moreover, we absolutely condemn arranged or forced “marriages” of underage girls to anyone under any circumstances.

Stated simply, we would like to be known and recognized for whom we are and what we believe, and not be inaccurately associated with beliefs and practices that we condemn in the strongest terms. We would be grateful if you could circulate or copy this letter to your editorial staff and to your legal counsel.

We thank you for your consideration of these important matters.

Sincerely,

Lance B. Wickman

General Counsel

[Elsie]

What is the ‘rule’?

I left my bible on the table.

vs

I left my Bible on the table.

[Elsie]

Notice how practically nobody is addressing the issues raised in the article, but only slamming the author’s religion?

Slamming?

Pointing out that what he SAYS does not square with what the Book says?

[Elsie]

There is a subset in the diagram of False Teaching:

OlsteenISM.

[BykrBayb]

If you’re talking about your Bible, then it’s Bible. If you’re talking about something that isn’t actually a Bible, but is merely an authoritative book about some subject, for example your bible of knitting techniques, then it’s bible. When it is the actual title, it is a proper noun, and should be capitalized.

[Scoutmaster]

Simply for historical accuracy, that list does not include the polygamous Strackites (the group is also called "The Prophet"), founded in 1976 with Earnest Strack as its 'prophet.' Most Strackites live in the general area of Springville, UT, near Provo.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints do not recognize the Strackites as Mormons, just as the LDS does not recognize any of the fundamentalist polygamist groups and I would never use the term LDS to apply to the Strackites. I believe Strack was excommunicated but I cannot find that record.

Strack owned Grandpa's Used Books, across the street from the old BYU social hall. Strack was part of the 'Mormon Underground' in the 1970s-1980s, distributing photocopies of old journals and LDS records during the 'openness' period when Leonard Arrington was the church historian. Strack is the source of many of the old documents that are no longer available for reviewal but exist in digital or photocopy form, either openly, under the counter, or clandestinely, depending on the document.

The Seventh East Press was allowed to print its magazine out of Grandpa's, so it's obvious Strack was not mainstream LDS.

Then Strack went all "I'm The Prophet" and "Let's go polygamy."

I only bring this up because of the recent 'family found dead' story from Springville. Benjamin Strack, the father in the family of five found dead in their home in Springville, UT in late September of this year, was the son of the late Earnest Strack.

[Scoutmaster]

Compiling that list was not hard work. It's history available from various sources and I may have added a recent polygamous group or two.

That history is not intended to reflect or comment upon the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

[cva66snipe]

Many years ago likely about 50 my wife knew a woman with cancer which her grandmother helped care for. Earlier the woman after a diagnoses wrote a letter to a certain Oklahoma {healing} preacher as he called himself and was told she was healed. The woman took him at his word and when it became worse it was too late. Charlatans forget the part where The Lord instructed those he healed to go show themselves to the physicians {priest}. Yea I know it also had another meaning but it proved the healing had happened.

No person unless told to by GOD himself should tell another person that their lack of faith prevents their healing. The reason is no man can read another persons heart. Christ said "Oh you of little faith" because He had the power and authority to discern it. Those words used loosely by Christians to ones struggling and barely holding on can do extreme damage that is hard to undo.

When someone becomes seriously ill or paralyzed they often become very vulnerable to seeking out cures. Many may seek out the ones who prey on ones such as them because they have heard they can heal. Yes some money takers go as far as staging healings and when the truly in needs turn is up to see them the service is ended. Most never make it to where the public can even see them in such services.

I do believe in Divine Healing though. I believe in the laying on of hands by believers for healing or even when someone is down and out. I also believe the answer given may not be the one sought but rather an answer given to strengthen the persons faith for what they are to face.

The child you mention being healed is believable. It was a one on one situation with her and The Lord and the missionary was truthful. But if I saw preacher Jones lining up persons and all of them jumping up healed? My smell test radar would go off. In short while our prayers are heard and answered yes, no, or wait, I do not believe any one man holds the abilities { healing gifts given to the Disciples/Apostles from Christ by Divine instruction} is held by anyone today. Rather the answers to the healing comes from Christ through prayer. If Pastor Smith says hey your mortgage payment is paid I would be skeptical unless Pastor Jones or the church paid it. Then again some think The Lord is gonna give them a winning Lottery Ticket. I see one guy on late night stations running a service where debts are paid off. Nah, I don't think so. That is not to say acts of charity don't happen or persons are that some persons aren't prompted by the Lord to help even a stranger they don't know. By a weekly show of it Nope.

I had an uncle who had a large family and most of the time despite his high craft skills he was making minimal wages with a sick wife. He often did not have the months rent. He said "The Lord will provide". He borrowed the money from his B.I.L. which was his B.I.L.'s next mortgage payment. Some how the money came to my uncle to repay it before the other persons mortgage payment was due. He had faith. So did the lender. Still does and eventually a job opened up where his future was secure. The B.I.L. who loaned the money soon was in a position of not rich but rather did not have to worry about fiances and was able to help others out more without it hurting him if it could not be repaid. Sometimes the obvious stuff gets ignored. Not a prosperity teaching as such rather family caring for family as GOD expects. If GOD so wills something be done it will be so despite our deeds.

[metmom]

It occurred to me one day, as I was thinking over the issue of healings not occurring today as they are recorded to have happened in Scripture.

God never performs miracles for the sake of performing miracles. The miracles were always connected with the message, and usually to verify the message.

Paul said that the message of the gospel was not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Miracles are not for entertainment, or our creature comforts. They are to testify to the power of God and validate the gospel message.

I also hear that they are much more common overseas, where people don’t have recourse to human solutions to problems, as in with medical care and healing. Just an observation, because believe me I have heard more than my share of accusations of having lack of faith for healing.

[cva66snipe]

Life is full of miracles. We the carnal minded humans have become complacent to them :>} Our spiritual minds witness them. Surgeries, communications, travel methods never before possible, Language barriers broken through out the world, our food, air, our very lives are all GOD's miracles. To me one of the most prevalent miracle today is some whacked out zealot from the middle east hasn't pulled the nuclear trigger so to speak.

Prosperity? Many early believers had next to nothing. Others were rich. Even at that some even lost that as well. Our human wants often are not in the same realm as GOD's purpose or will and we easily forget it. A person has to step back and say Lord I don't understand this situation but I trust you with it. Thy will be done.

[daniel1212]

You should like Walter Martin's broadcast on healing. It may come up in one of the weekly series here .

He said that as i recall, "I prayer for some people and they were healed. I prayed for others and they got sicker. I prayed for some and they died! We serve a sovereign God..."

As he was walking away, the little girl looked steadfastly at the missionary and began to urge her father to put her down. When he did so, she walked. The mosque erupted in praise to the name of Isa (Arabic for Jesus)

To the glory of the one true God! Lots of good video testimonies of God's grace overall here .

[jimmyray]

QUOTE: "Go it. See above post if interested."

Excellent post, that!

[editor-surveyor]

He obviously hasn’t the slightest idea what Grace is all about!
.