A Brief Comparison of Different Christian Approaches To Divine Healing

 

I asked the following question of ChatGPT to find out how it conceives of the differences between the various Christian approaches to Divine Healing and which it perceives to be the "best." As I have said in other blogposts I have my own theological synthesis on Divine Healing. See for example, my blogpost HERE.

 

I asked ChatGPT: 

You understand different approaches to divine healing from a Christian perspective. Whether from an Evangelical perspective, or Charismatic, or Word of Faith, or Pentecostal, or Neo-Pentecostal, to Holiness Movement, etc. Which is best and why?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, I'm familiar with the different approaches to divine healing from a variety of Christian theological perspectives—Evangelical, Charismatic, Word of Faith, Pentecostal, Neo-Pentecostal, Holiness Movement, and others. Each tradition has a particular theology, emphasis, and practice around healing. Choosing which is “best” is complex, as it depends on what you value: biblical fidelity, theological consistency, personal experience, ecclesial tradition, or practical outcomes.

Here's a comparative overview of the major approaches and a discussion about which might be considered “best” based on certain criteria.

---

🔹 1. Evangelical Perspective

• View of Healing: Often cautious or moderate. Believes God can heal, but healing is not guaranteed or always expected. Emphasis on God’s sovereignty.

• Biblical Support: Prayers for healing (e.g., James 5), but no expectation that healing is normative or always available.

• Means of Healing: Prayer, sometimes anointing with oil, pastoral support. Suffering is seen as potentially redemptive.

• Theology: Healing is part of God's providence, not always linked to the atonement.

• Strengths: Theologically careful, avoids emotional manipulation.

• Weaknesses: May downplay the experiential or supernatural dimension.

---

🔹 2. Charismatic & Pentecostal Perspective

• View of Healing: Healing is part of the normal Christian life, empowered by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, especially the “gift of healing.”

• Biblical Support: Strong emphasis on the Book of Acts, Jesus’ ministry, and 1 Corinthians 12.

• Means of Healing: Laying on of hands, spiritual gifts, prophetic insight, congregational prayer.

• Theology: Healing is part of Christ’s atonement and the Kingdom of God breaking into the present.

• Strengths: High expectation of divine intervention; often results in vibrant faith and testimonies.

• Weaknesses: Risk of over-promising healing; discouragement if healing doesn't happen.

---

🔹 3. Word of Faith Perspective

• View of Healing: Healing is guaranteed in the atonement and can be accessed through positive confession and faith declarations.

• Biblical Support: Isaiah 53 (“by His stripes we are healed”), Mark 11:23-24, Romans 10:9-10.

• Means of Healing: Declaring God's Word, rebuking sickness, aligning speech with belief, avoiding “negative confession.”

• Theology: Sickness is often seen as an attack of the enemy or a result of lack of faith or confession.

• Strengths: Bold faith, expectancy, empowerment of believers.

• Weaknesses: Can lead to blaming the sick, spiritual pride, denial of reality, or disillusionment.

---

🔹 4. Holiness Movement Perspective

• View of Healing: Healing often linked with sanctification and personal holiness. God heals as part of making the believer holy and whole.

• Biblical Support: Holistic view of salvation; emphasis on purity and transformation.

• Means of Healing: Prayer, repentance, consecration, sometimes fasting.

• Theology: Healing seen as part of God’s work of sanctifying the believer, but not always guaranteed.

• Strengths: Strong moral and spiritual grounding.

• Weaknesses: May overemphasize moral conditions for healing.

---

🔹 5. Neo-Pentecostal / Third Wave Perspective

• View of Healing: Combines supernatural expectation with balanced theology. Healing is real but not formulaic.

• Biblical Support: Same as Charismatic/Pentecostal, but interpreted with more nuance.

• Means of Healing: Healing prayer, inner healing, deliverance, gentle use of spiritual gifts.

• Theology: Healing is a sign of the Kingdom breaking in; not always predictable.

• Strengths: Balanced view—expectant, yet cautious. Open to mystery.

• Weaknesses: May struggle with clarity on theological boundaries.

---

🏆 Which is Best and Why?

It depends on what you're evaluating:

Criterion	Best Approach	Why
Biblical Balance	Neo-Pentecostal / Third Wave	Integrates Scripture, Spirit, and suffering well.
Expectation & Faith	Word of Faith	High faith in God's power and promises.
Spiritual Maturity	Holiness Movement	Links healing with sanctification and moral growth.
Supernatural Openness	Pentecostal / Charismatic	Welcomes the gifts and works of the Spirit.
Pastoral Sensitivity	Evangelical	Gentle, avoids blame or pressure on the sick.
Experiential Testimonies	Charismatic / Pentecostal	Often accompanied by stories of real transformation.

---

🔍 Final Assessment

If you're looking for a theologically robust and pastorally sensitive approach that still believes in the power of healing, the Neo-Pentecostal / Third Wave model may be the most balanced. It encourages expectancy without presumption, embraces mystery, and recognizes that God's will is sometimes healing and sometimes sustaining grace.

But if you're drawn to bold faith and miracles, Pentecostal or Word of Faith traditions may resonate more—though you’ll want to be discerning to avoid extremes.

---

Would you like a comparison chart or decision-making guide for choosing one for personal study or ministry context?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can Continuationists Legitimately Appeal to Mark 16:17-20 For Their Doctrines Despite The Scholarly Consensus That It Is An Interpolation Rather Than An Original Part Of The Gospel Of Mark?

 
Continuationists are those Christians who believe the charismatic gifts are still being given by God and operate in the Christian church. They include Pentecostals, Charismatics, Third Wavers, Open But Cautious (etc.). There are many speculations and theories as to whether the Longer Ending of Mark [i.e. Mark 16:9-20] is an authentic part of the Gospel of Mark [GMark]. Most scholars argue that it is not an original and viable part of GMark. But it was added to GMark either because the real ending was lost, or because some early Christians thought GMark ended too abruptly and took it upon themselves to give it a "better" ending. Some of these scholars argue that the abrupt ending was intentional because it was meant to spark evangelistic discussions and dialogues in the early church when living eyewitnesses were still alive to talk about the ministry and message of Jesus [GMark being written partly for the purpose of being an evangelistic Gospel]. There are those who attempt to argue for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. Some claiming it may have been added later by the approval of the original author of the Gospel. Or by the early community that originally published GMark.

In this blogpost I will assume for the sake of argument the "worse case senario" that Mark 16:9-20 is an interpolation. When doing apologetics I suggest never to use Mark 16:9-20 or any other unique or unlikely authentic reading and textual variants to prove an apologetical point [e.g. 1 John 5:7; "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16; etc.]. For apologetics I recommend sticking with the Critical Text rather than Majority Text or the Textus Receptus readings. That way we Christians can't be accused of cheating by placing our thumbs on the scale. The Critical Text has less accretions and therefore closer to the original texts.

At the same time, I believe that some readings and variants pop up so early in the Christian Scriptural textual tradition and are so widespread geographically that while they may not be viable [meaning plausibly authentic], they are nevertheless honored by God because they generally reflect the teaching and experience of the early Christians. This is what I believe about the Mark 16:9-20. Even if it were an interpolation, it's so ancient and so accepted as canonical by many copies of the text of Mark that God honors the faith Christian have in it. Including the faith continuationists have in appealing to it to justify their doctrines, practices and appeals to God to manifest His presence and grace through and in powerful miracles, signs and wonders in their lives and ministries. Whoever created the interpolation [if it is an interpolation] must have done it very near the time of the Apostolic Age, and composed it based on the rest of Scripture (given its allusions to other Biblical passages) and the supernatural miraculous experiences of Christians in and soon after the Apostolic Age. 

As a Protestant, I affirm that Scripture is above and superior to Christian tradition, but at the same time, Scripture iss also part of Christian tradition. That's because there is a distinction between Scriptural Christian tradition, and non-Scriptural Christian tradition. In one sense they are one, and in another sense they  must be distinguished. The Longer Ending of Mark may be a case where an extra-Biblical tradition might have entered the Scriptural text, and not be authentic or inspired. It may not be inspired in the highest sense that true Scripture is, but it may be "inspired" in a lower sense. As, for example, the numbering of chapters and verses in the Bible, or how some scholars think the titles to the Psalms aren't original but where added later. But because they have been part of the Scriptural tradition for such a long time, believers often take it for granted that they are in some sense authoritative even if not authentic. I think a similar thing is true or the Longer Ending of Mark. 

In which case, I think it's perfectly legitimate for continuationists to ask God and expect God to show up and perform signs and wonders in their lives in keeping with (and as per) Mark 16:17-20. That the signs described in it, like casting out demons, speaking in tongues, being supernaturally protected from the venom of venomous snakes, not being hurt by poison, and healing the sick, WILL FOLLOW Christian believers. The Bible teaches we are not to tempt or test God. In which case, we should not be handling venomous snakes or drinking poison on purpose. The passage is referring to examples of handling snake by necessity (say in case of emergencies), or of accidental poisoning [e.g. Acts 28:3-6].

Mark 16:9 NASB95
9   [Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.10 She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping.11 When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it.
12    After that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country.13 They went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either.
14    Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.17 These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
19    So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.]