Sunday, May 17, 2026

ChatGPT Discussion on My Hybrid Theology of Healing

One can consider this almost a Part 2 to my blogpost:

Jesus and the Gospels' Theology of Healing, An Interaction with ChatGPT

I recommend reading the above blogpost first before reading further.

I got into a discussion with ChatGPT [5/17/2026] on my theology of healing after I asked it to give me 20 prayers based on the following criteria:

//I combine Calvinist theology and Charismatic theology. I believe it's always God's revealed will to heal, even if it's not always God's secret will of decree or intention to heal. On the assumption that the Calvinist God's revealed will is always to heal when there is sufficient amount or quality of faith, and that faith itself [including faith for healing, whether the special gift of faith, or the ordinary grace of faith] is always ultimately the gift of God; compose 2 long prayers for the healing of X. So that person P can pray the prayers for himself [in the first person].//

I then later asked: What do you think about the criteria i gave. is it good Biblical theology, or a twisting of Biblical theology?

THIS IS WHERE THE DISCUSSION BEGAN

ChatGPT:

Your criteria sit in a real and long-standing tension inside Christian theology, especially between Reformed (Calvinist) and Pentecostal/Charismatic traditions. So the honest answer is: it’s not simply “Biblical vs unbiblical,” but it does involve some interpretive moves that are debated, and a couple that many theologians on both sides would flag as theologically risky.

I’ll break it down carefully.

1. The “revealed will vs secret will” distinction (Calvinism)

What you’re using here is very close to classic Reformed theology:

God’s revealed will: what God commands and delights in (e.g., “heal the sick,” love, righteousness).
God’s secret/decretive will: what God actually ordains to happen in history.

This distinction is found in mainstream Calvinist thinkers (e.g., Calvin, later Reformed scholastics, and modern Reformed theology).

So far, you are broadly within orthodox Calvinist logic.

2. “It is always God’s revealed will to heal if there is sufficient faith”

This is where things start to shift.

Biblical tension:

There are passages where healing is clearly connected to faith (e.g., many healing narratives in the Gospels).
But there are also many counterexamples:
- Paul leaves Trophimus sick in Miletus (2 Tim 4:20)
- Timothy has ongoing stomach illness (1 Tim 5:23)
- Paul’s own “thorn in the flesh” is not removed (2 Cor 12:7–10)
- Jesus heals sometimes in response to faith, sometimes sovereignly without explicit faith, and sometimes does not do many miracles in a place because of unbelief (Mark 6:5–6)

Theological issue:

Making “sufficient quality of faith” the condition that aligns God’s revealed will with healing tends to create a functional law:

If healing doesn’t happen, then faith was insufficient.

That is exactly the move many theologians (Reformed and non-Reformed) warn against, because it can:

shift uncertainty from God’s will to the believer’s performance,
and become unfalsifiable (“it didn’t happen, therefore faith was wrong”).

This is where your model begins to drift toward a Charismatic “faith-condition mechanism” view, which is not universally accepted even within Pentecostalism.

3. “Faith is always a gift of God” (Reformed theology)

This is strongly biblical and classically Augustinian/Reformed:

Eph 2:8–9 is often read this way
Phil 1:29 (“it has been granted… to believe”)
John 6 (“no one can come unless drawn”)

So your claim here is internally consistent with Calvinism:

faith is not self-generated
even believing prayer depends on grace

4. The combined system you’re building

What you’re doing is a hybrid:

Calvinist: God is sovereign; faith is gift; providence governs all outcomes
Charismatic: healing is normally God’s will and expected in prayer; spiritual gifts are active; expectancy matters

That combination is not automatically “wrong,” but it creates a structural tension:

The tension:

If healing depends on God’s secret will → outcomes are ultimately unconditional.
If healing depends on sufficient faith → outcomes become conditionally activated.
If faith itself is God-given → the “condition” is also ultimately God-determined.

So your system becomes:

God sovereignly decides both the condition (faith) and the outcome (healing or not healing), while also commanding us to pray as though revealed will is consistently for healing.

That is internally coherent in a Reformed compatibilist sense, but it is philosophically dense and pastorally risky.

5. Where theologians might push back

Reformed critique

Many Reformed theologians would say:

You are importing too strong a “default expectation of healing now” into God’s revealed will.
The New Testament does not teach that God always wills immediate healing when faith is present.

They would emphasize:

God sometimes wills suffering for sanctification, witness, and union with Christ.

Charismatic critique

Many Charismatics would also push back, but differently:

They might agree on expectation of healing
But reject tying it so tightly to “sufficient quality of faith”
Because it can become burdensome and guilt-producing

6. Is it “a twisting” of Scripture?

That depends on what you mean:

If “twisting” means:

“completely outside Christianity or incoherent with Scripture”

→ No, it is not that. It is recognizably built from biblical ideas:

sovereignty of God
power of prayer
healing ministry of Jesus
gift of faith
tension between divine will and human experience

If “twisting” means:

“selective synthesis that creates theological tension not explicitly taught as a system in Scripture”

→ then yes, it does go beyond explicit biblical teaching into synthesis and inference.

But that’s true of all systematic theology, including both Calvinism and Pentecostal theology.

7. The deepest issue in your model

The hardest philosophical pressure point is this:

If God always wills healing in His revealed will, and faith is always His gift, why is healing not uniformly experienced?

Your system answers:

because God’s secret will differs from revealed will

That is a classical Reformed move—but it leaves a pastoral tension:

it preserves God’s sovereignty
but can make experience feel indirectly disconnected from the revealed promise

Bottom line

Your criteria are:

strongly rooted in real biblical themes
partly consistent with Reformed theology
partly consistent with Charismatic theology
but not a standard synthesis in either tradition

So it is not “a twisting” in the sense of being illegitimate, but it is a highly constructed hybrid framework that carries internal tensions you are already implicitly navigating (especially around faith, expectation, and outcome).

If you want, I can also show:

how a strict Reformed theologian would restate your criteria,
how a classic Pentecostal would restate it,
and where each would say the other goes wrong.

AP: //There are passages where healing is clearly connected to faith (e.g., many healing narratives in the Gospels).
But there are also many counterexamples:
Paul leaves Trophimus sick in Miletus (2 Tim 4:20)
Timothy has ongoing stomach illness (1 Tim 5:23)
Paul’s own “thorn in the flesh” is not removed (2 Cor 12:7–10)
Jesus heals sometimes in response to faith, sometimes sovereignly without explicit faith, and sometimes does not do many miracles in a place because of unbelief (Mark 6:5–6)//

That assumes there was sufficient faith for the healing of Trophimus when there might not have been. Or maybe the healing was delayed rather than denied or unanswered. Such that it only took time for the healing to arrive or manifest, as the prophet Daniel's answers to his prayers were delayed and not denied. Same with Timothy's stomach. A case can be made, and I'm sure you're aware of the case, that Paul's thorn wasn't sickness but demonic opposition.

//Theological issue:

Making “sufficient quality of faith” the condition that aligns God’s revealed will with healing tends to create a functional law:

If healing doesn’t happen, then faith was insufficient.

That is exactly the move many theologians (Reformed and non-Reformed) warn against, because it can:

shift uncertainty from God’s will to the believer’s performance,
and become unfalsifiable (“it didn’t happen, therefore faith was wrong”).

This is where your model begins to drift toward a Charismatic “faith-condition mechanism” view, which is not universally accepted even within Pentecostalism.//

But since faith is ultimately the gift of God, healing is not a matter of strict merit, but of grace. Also, Christ himself complained that the Apostles failed to successfully perform miracles of healing and exorcisisms because of a lack of faith. God can condemn people for not performing what ultimately only God could enable them to do [whether of works or faith]. This was the issue during the Reformation. Luther pointed out in his book The Bondage of the Will that God can command things fallen sinful men can't perform of their own ability unassisted by grace.

//Reformed critique

Many Reformed theologians would say:

You are importing too strong a “default expectation of healing now” into God’s revealed will.
The New Testament does not teach that God always wills immediate healing when faith is present.//

Jesus said, if you can believe, all things are possible to those who believe in Mark 9:23. A number of other passages have Jesus saying with faith all things are possible.

//They would emphasize:

God sometimes wills suffering for sanctification, witness, and union with Christ.//

But on Calvinism God also ordains all the sins we commit. Yet that is no excuse to not strive for holiness. In parallel and parity, God may ordain all our sicknesses, but that doesn't give us an excuse not to fight for and believe for our healing. What's true for sanctification ought to be true for healing. Same for evangelism. God ordains all who will actually be saved. Yet, we are commanded to strive to evangelize in such a way as to "save" as many as possible knowing that ultimately God is the one who saves in His sovereignty.

ChatGPT:

You’re building a coherent internal analogy across sanctification, evangelism, and healing, and that’s actually the strongest part of your system. But there are a few important distinctions that Reformed, Pentecostal, and biblical-theological perspectives would all press on—not to dismiss your framework, but to refine where the analogies hold and where they start to stretch.

I’ll respond directly to your main claims.

1. “Delayed vs denied healing” (Trophimus, Timothy, thorn)

You’re right that logically these cases are underdetermined.

Nothing in:

2 Timothy 4:20 (Trophimus left sick),
1 Timothy 5:23 (Timothy’s stomach),
2 Corinthians 12 (thorn in the flesh),

forces the conclusion “God denied healing.”

They could be:

delayed healing,
non-miraculous providential healing,
or cases where healing was not the assigned redemptive path.

So your point stands:
these are not clean counterexamples to “God wills healing” unless one assumes immediacy or universality.

Where interpreters differ is not the data, but the default expectation model:

Reformed readings tend to see these as normalizing non-healing in the apostolic era.
Charismatic readings often treat them as descriptive exceptions, not normative limits.

So this disagreement is really about what counts as “normative expectation” in redemptive history, not just exegesis.

2. “Faith is a gift, so faith-conditioned healing is grace, not merit”

This is a strong and important correction to a common caricature of “faith healing” theology.

You’re basically saying:

If faith is required, it is still grace, because God gives the condition He requires.

That is structurally very close to Augustine and Luther.

And you’re right that this avoids a crude “works-based healing mechanism.”

However, theologians would still press a distinction:

Reformed concern:

Even if faith is a gift, linking it tightly as a conditional trigger for healing outcomes risks shifting the focus:

from God’s sovereign freedom,
to an implied spiritual “operating principle” (faith level → healing outcome).

The issue is not “merit vs grace,” but whether prayer becomes functionally proceduralized.

Even grace can be turned into a system if the causal chain is too tight.

3. “Jesus rebukes lack of faith for failure to heal”

Yes—this is one of your strongest textual supports:

Matthew 17:19–20 (failure to cast out demon due to little faith)
Mark 9:23–29 (“all things are possible for one who believes”)

But notice something subtle in those texts:

The key ambiguity:

Jesus does not say:

“Healing always occurs if faith is sufficient in quantity.”

Instead, the emphasis is:

faith as relationship and reliance, not measurable spiritual quantity
and even the disciples’ failure is corrected not by “reach threshold X,” but by deeper dependence (“this kind comes out only by prayer and fasting” in some manuscripts/traditions)

So the texts support:

faith matters profoundly,
lack of faith hinders,
but they do not clearly define faith as a quantifiable condition that guarantees healing when sufficient.

That’s the interpretive step you are adding.

It is not irrational—but it is extra-systematization beyond explicit wording.

4. “Commanded ideals vs sovereign ordination” (sanctification / evangelism analogy)

This is where your argument becomes philosophically sophisticated, and also where the most important distinction must be made.

You argue:

God ordains everything, including sin and unbelief, yet commands holiness and evangelism; therefore He may ordain sickness yet still command and will healing in the revealed sense.

This is very close to classical Reformed compatibilism.

But there is a crucial difference:

A. Sanctification / sin

Biblically:

holiness is universally commanded
sin is universally forbidden
sanctification is explicitly promised as inevitable in the elect (progressively)

So there is a teleological guarantee: sanctification will happen.

B. Evangelism

commanded universally
outcome not guaranteed per individual attempt
but general promise of fruitfulness in God’s mission

C. Healing

This is where the analogy becomes less stable:

healing is commanded/encouraged, yes
but not uniformly promised in the New Testament as an expected outcome of faith in this life

So your analogy works at the level of:

“divine command + divine sovereignty coexist”

But it is weaker at the level of:

“therefore outcomes function similarly across sanctification, evangelism, and healing”

That last step is where most theological disagreement sits.

5. “Mark 9:23 — all things possible for one who believes”

This is a key text, but interpretation hinges on grammar:

Two common readings:

(1) Charismatic/faith-forward reading:

broad principle: faith unlocks divine possibility

(2) Reformed/contextual reading:

“all things possible” is bounded by God’s will
the passage immediately shifts emphasis to prayer dependence, not human capacity

So again, disagreement is not whether faith matters, but:

whether the verse establishes a generalizable mechanism or a case-specific rebuke of unbelief.

6. The deepest structural issue in your model

Your system is internally elegant, but it rests on one central interpretive thesis:

God has a consistent revealed disposition to heal, and deviations are explained primarily by faith conditions (themselves graciously given) or sovereign hidden will.

That produces a coherent framework—but it also creates a philosophical asymmetry:

sanctification → clearly progressive and promised
evangelism → broadly fruitful but not individually guaranteed
healing → becomes the most “conditional” category

So critics worry that healing becomes:

a domain where ambiguity about God’s will is relocated into human faith performance, even if grace is preserved theoretically.

You are trying to avoid that (and you do, formally), but the structure still produces that pressure point.

Bottom line

Your system is:

not a twisting of Scripture in any simplistic sense
a serious synthesis attempt across real biblical themes
closest to a hybrid of Augustinian sovereignty + charismatic expectation

But:

it does go beyond explicit biblical teaching into a theological model of causality in healing
and that model is exactly where Christian traditions diverge

So the disagreement is not really:

“Is this biblical or not?”

It is:

“Is healing governed by the same kind of covenantal promise-structure as sanctification and mission, or does Scripture treat it differently in the present age?”

If you want, I can do something more precise next:

I can reconstruct your view in its strongest possible Reformed form, then show:

where it becomes fully orthodox Reformed,
where it becomes Pentecostal,
and where it becomes a genuinely new hybrid category.

AP: //Reformed concern:

Even if faith is a gift, linking it tightly as a conditional trigger for healing outcomes risks shifting the focus:

from God’s sovereign freedom,
to an implied spiritual “operating principle” (faith level → healing outcome).

The issue is not “merit vs grace,” but whether prayer becomes functionally proceduralized.

Even grace can be turned into a system if the causal chain is too tight.//

But God himself self-imposed these principles, so they don't impinge on God's freedom.

//The issue is not “merit vs grace,” but whether prayer becomes functionally proceduralized.//

But this objection has been raised about all Calvinistic prayers. Critics of Calvinism often rhetoricallhy ask, "Why pray, if God has already ordained what will happen?" But it's precisely because God is sovereign and has ordained both the ends and means that prayer makes sense under Calvinism.

//The key ambiguity:

Jesus does not say:

“Healing always occurs if faith is sufficient in quantity.”//

But that's precise what Jesus is saying. "ALL things are possible to him who believes" (Mark 9:23) "Nothing will be impossible for you" (Matt. 17:20). That even if you have faith the size of a small mustard seed you can move mountains. How could Jesus get angry at His disciples if they disciples had the escape hatch of "well, maybe it wasn't God's will"? No, Jesus placed the fault and the focus on their faith [albeit, faith which is God's gift].

//sanctification is explicitly promised as inevitable in the elect (progressively)

So there is a teleological guarantee: sanctification will happen.//

And the Bible says God forgives all our sins and heals all our diseases (Ps. 103). James says in chapter 5 of his book, "The prayer of faith will save/heal the sick". John says in 3 John 1:2 God wills our health even as our soul prospers. God promises under the Old Covenant that God would take sickness from our presence [Deut. 7:15; Exo 15;25-26; 23:25; passim. And the writer of Hebrews says the New Covenant has greater and better promises. Paul says, all the promises of God are "Yes" and "Amen" in Christ in 2 Cor. 1:20.

//(2) Reformed/contextual reading:
“all things possible” is bounded by God’s will
the passage immediately shifts emphasis to prayer dependence, not human capacity//

And God's revealed will is healing as I cited above from both the OT and NT. You're subtly switching or not realizing you're switching from God's revealed will to God's will of decree and back again. I'm being consistent in the distinctions and applications.

ChatGPT:

You’re pressing the strongest possible version of your synthesis, and it’s good to test it at that level. I’ll respond point-by-point, but I want to be clear at the outset: your position is not incoherent, and it does have real biblical and theological anchors. The real question is not whether it “works at all,” but what kind of system it becomes when all those anchors are pressed together without remainder.

That’s where the tension actually shows up.

1. “If God self-imposes principles, they don’t limit His freedom”

This is broadly correct in classical theology.

Reformed theology actually agrees with you here:

God is free precisely in willing His own decree.
God’s “self-binding” (covenant, promises, ordained means) is not external constraint.

So you’re right that:

divine self-consistency is not a limitation of divine sovereignty.

But there is a subtle distinction Reformed theologians would still maintain:

The distinction:

God is free in ordaining the rule
but once ordained, the rule describes how God ordinarily chooses to act

So the debate is not “does God limit Himself?”
It’s:

what has God actually revealed as the ordinary structure of healing in redemptive history?

That’s where interpretations diverge.

2. “Why pray if God ordained everything?”

You’re also right in the standard Reformed reply:

prayer is a means God ordains to accomplish His ends
not a mechanism that changes God’s mind

So yes:

Calvinism does not reduce prayer to meaninglessness.

However, notice the key difference:

In classical Calvinism:

Prayer is:

participation in God’s ordained causal order

In your model:

Prayer + faith becomes:

participation in a revealed covenantal expectation that includes conditional healing promises

So both avoid fatalism—but they differ on what kind of causal interface prayer is.

One is primarily decretive means
The other is more promissory-covenantal activation

That’s a real structural difference.

3. “Mark 9:23 means all things are possible to believers”

This is the most important exegetical point you’re making.

But the interpretive issue is not whether the words are strong (they are), but what “all things” means in biblical idiom.

Even within Scripture:

“all things” is frequently context-bounded universal language
- e.g. “all things are lawful” (clearly not absolute)
- “all things work together for good” (Romans 8, but defined by context of calling)

So the question becomes:

Does “all things” in Mark 9:23 mean “unrestricted metaphysical possibility,” or “nothing God has promised is impossible to faith”?

Most Reformed and many Pentecostal interpreters choose the second:

“all things” = all things within divine will and kingdom purpose

You are choosing the first in a more maximal form.

That is not irrational—but it is a strong metaphysical expansion of the phrase beyond how most traditions constrain it.

4. “Jesus rebukes lack of faith—therefore faith is determinative”

This is where your argument is strongest rhetorically.

Yes:

Jesus does rebuke unbelief in healing contexts
He does correlate faith and miracle expectation

But the key logical question is:

Does correlation imply universal causation?

Even in the Gospels:

people die who have faith
people are not healed despite faith elsewhere
Jesus Himself does not heal every sick person in Israel

So even if faith is a real condition, the text does not clearly establish:

faith is the sole operative variable determining healing outcomes

It establishes:

faith is a significant relational and spiritual factor in many healings

That distinction is small in wording but large in theology.

5. “Psalm 103 / James 5 / Deut promises / 2 Cor 1:20 = universal healing will”

This is the most important hermeneutical step in your whole argument.

You are doing something very specific:

aggregating covenantal statements about God’s goodness into a universal present-tense expectation of healing

The classical counterpoint is:

A. Psalm 103 (“forgives sins and heals diseases”)

Often read as:

covenantal praise summary
not a universal guarantee of immediate individual experience
parallelism between spiritual and physical restoration in the whole people of God

B. James 5 (“prayer of faith will save/heal the sick”)

Even Pentecostal interpreters debate:

whether this is normative promise
or church practice in specific covenant community context

C. OT healing promises (Exodus, Deuteronomy)

These are explicitly tied to:

Israel’s covenant obedience
land conditions
national covenant structure

So the key theological question is:

Do these promises transfer directly into a universal individual expectation in the New Covenant, or are they fulfilled in Christ in a more complex “already/not yet” form?

You are reading them as:

directly continuous and intensified in Christ

Many Reformed and even many charismatic scholars read them as:

fulfilled in Christ, but not flattened into uniform present-tense physical outcomes

That’s the interpretive fork.

6. “You’re mixing revealed will and decretive will inconsistently”

This is the deepest philosophical issue.

You accuse inconsistency, but the real issue is this:

In Reformed theology:

revealed will = what God commands/approves
decretive will = what God ensures happens

These are not symmetrical domains of equal predictive force.

So when Reformed theology says:

God “wills” healing in His revealed will

it does not automatically entail:

God intends healing as the normal expected outcome of prayer in this age

That’s the missing step.

You are treating revealed will as:

a reliable expectation-generator

Whereas classical Reformed theology treats it as:

a moral directive, not a predictive structure

That is the key divergence.

7. So where does your model actually land?

If I summarize your position fairly:

You are proposing:

God is sovereign over all outcomes (Calvinist)
Faith is required for appropriation of promised healing (Charismatic)
Faith itself is God-given (Augustinian/Reformed)
Scripture reveals a strong pro-healing disposition of God
Therefore healing is normally expected unless faith is absent or God has a hidden purpose

That is a coherent hybrid system, but it is best described as:

“conditional promissory healing expectation within sovereign grace”

It is not:

standard Reformed theology
standard classical Pentecostal theology

It is its own synthesis.

Bottom line (no hedging)

You are not misreading isolated verses in a careless way
You are constructing a maximal consistency reading of healing texts under sovereignty + gift-faith theology
The disagreement with Reformed theology is not primarily exegetical, but about what kind of theological weight “healing texts” are meant to carry in the present age

And the disagreement with most Charismatic theology is:

you make the faith-condition more structurally deterministic than many Charismatics are comfortable with

If you want, I can do something very useful next:

I can reconstruct your position into a formal theological model (almost like axioms + implications) and then show:

where it is internally airtight
where it depends on interpretive assumptions
and where alternative Christian models branch off

That usually makes the real structure much clearer than verse-by-verse debate.

AP: //So the debate is not “does God limit Himself?”
It’s:

what has God actually revealed as the ordinary structure of healing in redemptive history?

That’s where interpretations diverge.//

And I cited Exo. 15:25-26; Exo. 23:25; Ps. 103:1-5; James 5;14ff. 1 John 3:2

//In your model:

Prayer + faith becomes:

participation in a revealed covenantal expectation that includes conditional healing promises

So both avoid fatalism—but they differ on what kind of causal interface prayer is.

One is primarily decretive means
The other is more promissory-covenantal activation

That’s a real structural difference.//

That's not a defect. But a feature that's consistent, an advantage, and one that we find in Scripture. Think of Daniel's prayer for the end of the Babylonian captivity which he based on the prophecy of Jeremiah. Many more examples could be given.

//Most Reformed and many Pentecostal interpreters choose the second:

“all things” = all things within divine will and kingdom purpose

You are choosing the first in a more maximal form.//

Not necessarily. Given that I've established that God's promises healing on the condition of [God given/empowered] faith and/or obedience both in the OT and NT. In fact, it was Jesus who seemed to extend it metaphysically and maximally. To the point of saying one can move mountains by faith, or curse trees so that they die, or walk on water [whom Jesus criticized for sinking due to doubt]. Possibly even calming a storm by a word [since Jesus condemned the disciples for not "dealing" with storm. Or at least not having faith in the storm]. Which is consistent with Elijah's prayer for it to rain.

//But the key logical question is:

Does correlation imply universal causation?//

Jesus said in John 14:12-14 that he who believes in Him would be able to do His works and GREATER.

//Even in the Gospels:

people die who have faith
people are not healed despite faith elsewhere
Jesus Himself does not heal every sick person in Israel//

Lazarus nor his sisters called on Jesus in faith. They left the outcome to Him. They didn't in faith ask for healing. Whereas everyone in the Gospels who came to Jesus with faith for healing were healed. Jesus always treated sickness as an enemy. Jesus healed everyone who came in faith even when they were initially rejected, like the Syrophoenician woman. You say people in the Gospels are not healed despite faith elsewhere. Where? I can't recall any instance. You are correct Jesus doesn't heal everyone in Israel. But that's because not everyone came to Him in faith for healing. Even in the passage where it says Jesus could do no might miracles, except that he healed a few [Mark 6;5 Matt 13:58] it was in the context of the people of His hometown generally rejecting Him. Hence Jesus' statement that a prophet is not without honor except in his own hometown. So, the reason many people weren't healed was because the majority of them didn't come to Him in faith for healing.

//So the key theological question is:

Do these promises transfer directly into a universal individual expectation in the New Covenant, or are they fulfilled in Christ in a more complex “already/not yet” form?

You are reading them as:

directly continuous and intensified in Christ

Many Reformed and even many charismatic scholars read them as:

fulfilled in Christ, but not flattened into uniform present-tense physical outcomes

That’s the interpretive fork.//

Because we don't know what God's will of decree is, we ought to leave it up to God to what degree He fulfills the "already/not yet" sense of His covenants/promises/word. But if we go by the promises themselves, then we seem to be authorized to expect them now. Jesus said, the Kingdom of God is AT HAND. And by implication its benefits. Jesus said, the violent take the kingdom by force. Paul said, "Now is an accepted time. Now is a day of salvation [the Greek can have a wider meaning of healing and deliverance of all sorts]. " Jesus taught persistence and perseverance in prayer. He taught confidence in positively answered prayers when He said, "ask and it will be given to you" and when Jesus said, "you Father knows the things you have need of", regarding the natural things the pagans seek Jesus said "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you," "give us this day our daily bread," and "look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap, nor gather into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?" Jesus said, an all things whatsoever ye ask in prayer, believing ye shall receive [Matt. 21:22].

You respond as you like. You can have the last word.

ChatGPT:

You’re doing something intellectually serious here: you’re not proof-texting randomly, you’re building a canonical “expectation theology” of prayer and healing by stacking covenant promises, Gospel narratives, and kingdom statements into a unified model.

The real disagreement isn’t whether those texts exist—it’s what kind of grammar of expectation they create when placed together.

I’ll respond directly to your main claims.

1. “This is not a defect but a feature: promissory covenant activation”

You’re right that Scripture does contain conditional, participatory structures:

Daniel praying Jeremiah’s prophecy (Dan 9)
Elijah praying promised drought/rain patterns (1 Kings 17–18)
“Ask and it will be given”
“If you abide in me… ask whatever you wish”

So yes:

prayer is not merely passive submission to decree; it is covenant participation in divine intention.

That is biblical.

Where theologians disagree is not whether that exists, but:

whether healing promises operate with the same direct covenantal immediacy as prophetic fulfillment texts like Daniel 9.

Because Daniel 9 is explicitly:

prophecy about timing of exile
not a generalizable template for all covenant blessings

So your move is:

generalize prophetic-covenantal activation into a general theology of healing expectation

That is the key extension.

2. “Faith in the Gospels always results in healing”

This is where your argument is strongest in narrative terms, but still not absolute.

A careful reading shows:

Strong pattern you are correct about:

people who directly approach Jesus for healing in faith are consistently healed
Jesus often highlights faith as instrumental (“your faith has made you well”)

That is real and central.

But the textual pressure points:

The disciples fail in healing/exorcism contexts
- Matthew 17 / Mark 9
- Jesus attributes failure to “little faith” + prayer/fasting deficit
Nazareth limitation texts (Mark 6:5)
- you interpret as “lack of faith prevented approach”
- but the text still says Jesus “could do no mighty work” there—this is stronger than just “few people came”

That creates a theological tension:

the narrative does not reduce all non-healing simply to “lack of petitioning faith”

Even within your reading, you still have to explain:

why corporate unbelief has such a limiting effect on Jesus’ ministry expression

3. “John 14:12–14 and greater works”

This is one of the most theologically loaded texts you’ve used.

There are at least three historic readings:

(1) Charismatic reading (your direction)

believers will perform miracles of similar or greater magnitude

(2) Apostolic/mission reading (very common historically)

“greater works” = global spread of gospel through Spirit after resurrection

(3) Ecclesial reading

“greater works” = cumulative works of the Spirit across the church age

So your reading is not impossible, but it is:

one of several competing interpretations of a highly compressed statement

And notice: even in your reading, it still does not specify:

universal, consistent healing outcomes per prayer of faith

4. “All things whatsoever you ask… believing you receive”

This is the core verse of your model.

The interpretive hinge is:

What governs “all things”?

Even in Scripture itself, “all things” language is regularly:

rhetorically maximal
but contextually bounded by God’s will, wisdom, and kingdom purpose

The Reformed pushback is not denying power of prayer—it is:

refusing to turn promise language into a metaphysical guarantee engine

Your model instead treats these sayings as:

establishing a default expectation regime for kingdom prayer

That is the real divergence.

5. The deepest philosophical difference (this is the real issue)

Your system assumes:

God’s revealed promises define the normal expected causal order of prayer

Reformed theology assumes:

God’s revealed promises define the moral and covenantal posture of prayer, not the predictive structure of outcomes

So both affirm:

God is faithful
prayer is effective
God acts in response to prayer

But they differ on:

Question	Your model	Reformed model
What does promise language primarily do?	establishes expectation structure	establishes relational obedience structure
What does “ask and receive” mean?	normative outcome principle	covenantal encouragement within sovereignty
What determines healing outcomes?	faith + divine will interplay	sovereign decree + means of prayer
Is non-healing primarily explained by faith deficit?	often yes	not necessarily

6. Where your argument is strongest

To be very fair, your strongest theological points are:

Scripture does repeatedly connect faith and healing
Jesus does strongly emphasize expectation in prayer
covenantal blessings are participatory, not passive
prayer is genuinely causal in Scripture, not symbolic
the “already/not yet” is often underweighted in skeptical readings

So your instinct that:

prayer should be expectation-shaped, not resignation-shaped

is absolutely biblically grounded.

7. Where the main unresolved tension remains

Even granting all your texts, the remaining question is:

Does Scripture ever explicitly define a stable rule of healing expectation in the present age that is both universal and immediate when faith is present?

You have assembled:

many strong supporting texts
a coherent covenantal reading
and a plausible charismatic synthesis

But critics would say:

you still have not demonstrated that healing operates as a consistently reliable “faith-condition mechanism” across the whole canonical witness, rather than a powerful but non-uniform aspect of kingdom inbreaking.

That’s the real fork.

Final word (as you invited)

What you’re doing is not careless proof-texting or “twisting Scripture.” It is a maximal coherence reading of biblical promise language under a sovereignty framework, with strong charismatic continuity assumptions.

But the disagreement is ultimately this:

You read promise language as establishing a normative expectation architecture for present healing
Reformed theology reads promise language as establishing a trust architecture within God’s sovereign variability of outcomes

Both are trying to preserve:

God’s goodness
prayer’s real efficacy
and biblical seriousness

They diverge on how tightly Scripture binds expectation to outcome.

That’s the real fault line—not whether the verses are true, but what kind of system of expectation they collectively authorize.

If you want, I can map your view as a formal set of axioms and show exactly where different traditions would “branch off” mathematically.

AP: //If you want, I can map your view as a formal set of axioms and show exactly where different traditions would “branch off” mathematically.//

Yes, do so.

ChatGPT:

Good—this is actually the cleanest way to see what’s going on, because it removes rhetoric and shows where the real “forks” are.

I’ll formalize your position first as a set of axioms, then derive your system, and then show where Reformed, classic Pentecostal, and your hybrid branch off.

I’ll keep it symbolic but readable.

I. CORE AXIOM SYSTEM (Your Model)

Let:

( G ) = God’s nature (good, sovereign, faithful)
( W_r ) = God’s revealed will (commands/promises in Scripture)
( W_d ) = God’s decretive will (what actually occurs)
( F(x) ) = person has faith for petition ( x )
( H(x) ) = healing of condition ( x )
( P(x) ) = prayer for ( x )
( S(x) ) = suffering/illness condition ( x )

Axiom 1 — Sovereignty

[
\forall x: W_d(x) \rightarrow x \text{ occurs}
]

God ordains all outcomes.

Axiom 2 — Goodness / Healing Disposition (Revealed Will)

[
\forall x \in S: W_r(H(x))
]

God reveals Himself as disposed toward healing suffering.

(You ground this in Exodus, Psalms, Jesus’ ministry, etc.)

Axiom 3 — Faith is Required Instrumentally

[
H(x) \text{ is ordinarily accessed through } F(x)
]

More formally:

[
P(x) \land F(x) \rightarrow \text{increased likelihood of } H(x)
]

In your stronger version:

[
P(x) \land F(x) \rightarrow H(x) \quad (\text{normative expectation})
]

Axiom 4 — Faith is God-given

[
F(x) \in \text{Gift}(G)
]

So:

[
\neg autonomous(F)
]

Faith is not human merit.

Axiom 5 — Prayer is covenantal participation in revealed will

[
P(x) \rightarrow \text{alignment with } W_r
]

Prayer is participation in God’s revealed intention structure.

Axiom 6 — Already/Not Yet asymmetry

[
H(x) \in W_r \neq H(x) \in W_d \text{ always}
]

Meaning:

healing is revealed as good/willed
but not always immediately actualized

II. DERIVED STRUCTURE (Your System)

From A1–A6:

1. Healing expectation rule (your key inference)

[
P(x) \land F(x) \Rightarrow \mathbb{E}[H(x)] \uparrow
]

So prayer + faith increases expected realization of healing.

Not absolute necessity, but normative expectation structure.

2. Non-healing explanation function

If ( \neg H(x) ), then:

[
\neg F(x) \quad \text{or} \quad W_d(\neg H(x))
]

So failure is explained by:

insufficient faith (instrumental deficit), OR
hidden decree

3. Prayer becomes “covenantal activation function”

[
P(x) + F(x) \Rightarrow \text{activation of revealed promise}
]

This is your distinctive structure.

III. BRANCH POINTS (Where traditions diverge)

Now we isolate exactly where systems differ.

A. REFORMED SYSTEM

R1 — Divine decree is primary causal level

[
H(x) \leftrightarrow W_d(x)
]

Healing occurs if and only if God decrees it.

R2 — Prayer is means, not conditional trigger

[
P(x) \in \text{means of } W_d
]

So:

[
P(x) \not\rightarrow \text{change in probability of } H(x)
]

Prayer is real, but not conditionally activating.

R3 — Faith is not a mechanical condition

[
F(x) \not\Rightarrow H(x)
]

Faith is relational, not causal trigger.

Branch point A:

You vs Reformed differ at:

[
P(x)\land F(x) \rightarrow H(x)?
]

You: yes (normative)
Reformed: no (only decree)

B. CLASSIC PENTECOSTAL SYSTEM

P1 — Healing is generally in revealed will

[
H(x) \in W_r \text{ usually}
]

P2 — Faith is the primary access condition

[
P(x)\land F(x) \rightarrow H(x) \text{ (strong expectation)}
]

P3 — But faith is NOT strictly deterministic

They often include:

[
\neg F(x) \not\Rightarrow \neg H(x)
]

God can override.

Branch point B:

Compared to you:

You: faith is God-given AND structurally necessary in principle
Pentecostalism: faith is important but less systematized as a strict condition

They are more fluid, less axiomatically tight.

C. YOUR HYBRID SYSTEM

We can now define your unique system:

Y1 — Sovereign decree holds ultimate control

[
H(x) \leftrightarrow W_d(x)
]

Y2 — Revealed will expresses normative healing intent

[
W_r(H(x)) = \text{true}
]

Y3 — Faith is divinely generated but conditionally instrumental

[
F(x) = G(x) \land (F(x) \rightarrow H(x))
]

So:

faith is gift
but still functions as condition

Y4 — Prayer is participatory activation of revealed will

[
P(x) \Rightarrow \text{alignment with } W_r
]

Y5 — Normative expectation principle

[
P(x)\land F(x) \Rightarrow \text{expectation}(H(x))
]

Not guarantee in decree, but covenantal expectation structure.

IV. THE SINGLE KEY DIFFERENCE MAP

Here is the entire disagreement compressed:

1. What determines healing?

System	Rule
Reformed	( W_d(x) ) alone
Pentecostal	( P(x) + F(x) + openness of God )
Yours	( W_d(x) ), but normally accessed through ( P(x)+F(x) )

2. What is faith?

System	Nature of faith
Reformed	instrument of assurance, not mechanism
Pentecostal	spiritual catalyst / expectation
Yours	divine gift that still functions as covenantal condition

3. What is prayer?

System	Function
Reformed	means ordained by decree
Pentecostal	interactive spiritual cause
Yours	covenantal participation in revealed will

V. THE REAL PHILOSOPHICAL DIVIDE (MOST IMPORTANT)

Everything reduces to one equation:

Reformed model:

[
H(x) = f(W_d)
]

Pentecostal model:

[
H(x) = f(P(x), F(x), G)
]

Your model:

[
H(x) = f(W_d, P(x), F(x)) \quad \text{with priority hierarchy: } W_d > P+F
]

VI. FINAL STRUCTURAL INSIGHT

Your system is best described mathematically as:

A dual-layer causality model

Layer 1: decretive determination (ultimate reality)
Layer 2: covenantal activation (revealed access path)

So:

[
\text{Reality} = W_d
]
[
\text{Access mechanism} = (P, F)
]

VII. WHY THE DISPUTE PERSISTS

Because each tradition chooses a different “primary layer”:

Reformed: decree layer only is ultimately explanatory
Pentecostal: access layer often functions as operative expectation
Yours: both layers are real, but not symmetric

If you want, I can next:

reduce this into a graph model (nodes + edges of causality), or
show how your model behaves under “failure cases” (why prayer doesn’t produce healing in some instances without breaking your axioms), which is where the real stress-testing happens.

AP: Which would you say is most Biblical? Which would you say is most logical? Are they the same answer to both questions?

ChatGPT:

Short answer: they’re not automatically the same question, and they don’t always get the same answer. “Most biblical” depends on interpretive commitments about how Scripture’s genres and promises function; “most logical” depends on which axioms you start with and how strictly you demand consistency vs flexibility in explanation.

I’ll be direct but careful.

1. Which model is most Biblical?

There isn’t a neutral scoreboard here, because each system is trying to account for different clusters of texts.

A. Reformed model (decree-centered)

Strengths in Scripture:

Strong on divine sovereignty texts (Romans 9, Ephesians 1)
Strong on providence and suffering texts (Job, Joseph, “God meant it for good”)
Strong on cases of non-healing among apostles (2 Tim 4:20; 1 Tim 5:23; 2 Cor 12)
Strong on tension passages (God’s will vs human desire)

Weakness:

Often downplays the expectation intensity of healing promises and some Gospel language (“ask and receive,” healing narratives, etc.)

Biblical “feel”:

very consistent across whole canon
but more “global interpretive control” than explicit healing expectation texts alone would suggest

B. Pentecostal model (expectation / gift activation)

Strengths in Scripture:

Very strong on Gospel healing narratives
Strong on Acts as normative Spirit-filled life
Strong on “ask in faith,” “all things possible,” “lay hands and heal”
Strong experiential continuity with early church

Weakness:

must relativize or reinterpret texts about unanswered healing, Paul’s thorn, delayed outcomes, etc.
sometimes lacks a unified theory of why expectation does not always yield outcome

Biblical “feel”:

closer to narrative immediacy of the Gospels/Acts
but less stable across entire canon unless carefully qualified

C. Your hybrid model (decree + covenantal expectation + faith-as-gift)

Strengths:

preserves sovereignty texts and healing expectation texts
preserves faith-as-gift theology (Augustinian/Reformed backbone)
preserves real causal role of prayer (biblically necessary)
explains both success and non-success cases without denying either category

Weakness:

relies heavily on layering (two-level causality: decree + revealed covenant)
requires careful definition of “normative expectation” vs “guarantee”
not explicitly systematized in Scripture as a single unified model

Biblical “feel”:

arguably closest to the full tension of the canon
but least explicitly stated as a formal system

So which is “most Biblical”?

If you mean:

“Which best accounts for the whole Bible without flattening tensions?”

👉 Your hybrid model is arguably strongest.

If you mean:

“Which most closely matches explicit doctrinal emphasis in a single interpretive tradition?”

Reformed wins on coherence with sovereignty texts
Pentecostal wins on immediacy of healing narratives

So the honest answer is:

“most biblical” depends on whether you prioritize narrative expectation, doctrinal synthesis, or canonical tension-preservation.

2. Which model is most logical?

Now we switch categories. Logic is not about “biblical feel,” but about:

internal consistency
explanatory simplicity
avoiding ad hoc adjustments
predictive clarity

A. Reformed model — LOGIC SCORE: very high

Why it is logically strong:

single primary causal level (God’s decree)
no need to infer hidden variables like “faith level thresholds”
no ambiguity about why outcomes differ (decree explains all)
minimal causal complexity

Cost:

prayer becomes harder to interpret intuitively (but still coherent as means)

👉 Logically: very clean, very parsimonious

B. Pentecostal model — LOGIC SCORE: moderate

Strengths:

intuitive experiential model (faith → expectation → outcome)
aligns with lived prayer experience

Weaknesses:

must frequently explain failures via:
- “lack of faith”
- “timing”
- “God’s higher will”
- “unknown blockage”
tends toward explanatory elasticity

👉 Logical issue is not contradiction, but variable explanatory rule-switching

C. Your hybrid model — LOGIC SCORE: high but complex

Strengths:

resolves biggest contradiction:
- God is sovereign and prayer is causally meaningful
explains both:
- healing occurring (faith/covenant activation)
- non-healing (decree layer override)
avoids reducing prayer to either illusion or mechanism

Weakness:

two-layer system introduces:
- potential “explanatory shielding” (decree can always override expectation layer)
- complexity in predicting outcomes

👉 Logical profile:

internally consistent, but structurally more complex than Reformed model

3. Are “most biblical” and “most logical” the same?

Not necessarily.

Because they measure different things:

Criterion	Biblical “best fit”	Logical “best fit”
Priority	fidelity to texts in tension	parsimony + consistency
Strength	preserving scriptural diversity	minimizing causal assumptions
Risk	over-systematizing Scripture	under-representing textual tension

In practice:

Reformed model
- most logically tight
- sometimes compresses biblical tension
Pentecostal model
- most experiential and narrative-aligned
- sometimes logically “elastic”
Your model
- best at preserving both tension and coherence
- but pays for it with structural complexity

4. Final direct answer

If I had to answer your question plainly:

Most logically consistent (by classical standards):
👉 Reformed model
Most textually “surface-level intuitive” for healing passages:
👉 Pentecostal model
Most comprehensive across whole canon without discarding major tensions:
👉 your hybrid model

5. The key insight (this matters more than the ranking)

The real issue is this:

Scripture does not present itself as a single resolved axiomatic system for healing; it presents a tension field between sovereignty, promise, faith, suffering, and timing.

So every model is doing one of three things:

flattening tension (Reformed)
privileging expectation (Pentecostal)
layering tension into a dual-causality system (yours)

If you want, I can take your hybrid model and stress-test it against:

“why didn’t Paul heal Timothy?”
“why did Jesus not heal in Nazareth?”
“why do faithful prayers sometimes not heal?”

and show whether your axioms survive those cases without adding hidden assumptions.

AP: yes

ChatGPT:

Good—this is where your system actually gets tested, because a model isn’t really meaningful until it handles failure cases without quietly changing its rules midstream.

I’ll take your hybrid axioms and stress-test them against the main “problem texts.” I’ll keep it strict: no hand-waving, just whether your system can absorb the data without breaking consistency.

0. Your model (compressed reminder)

You effectively have:

Layer 1 (decretive)

[
H(x) \leftrightarrow W_d(x)
]

God ultimately determines outcomes.

Layer 2 (revealed / covenantal mechanism)

[
P(x) + F(x) \rightarrow \text{expected } H(x)
]

Faith + prayer are the normative access route.

Key tension rule:

When no healing occurs:
[
\neg H(x) \Rightarrow W_d(\neg H(x)) \ \text{OR} \ \neg F(x)
]

So explanation is always preserved.

TEST CASE 1: Paul and Timothy (1 Tim 5:23)

Timothy has frequent illnesses; Paul advises wine, not healing.

Problem:

No recorded healing miracle is applied.

Stress test under your model:

Option A: lack of faith

You could say:

Timothy did not exercise healing-faith

⚠️ Problem:

Text gives no indication faith is the issue
introduces an invisible variable

Option B: decretive override

God did not will healing in decree layer

✔️ Fully consistent with your system

BUT:

It has a consequence:

the “faith → expectation of healing” rule becomes non-diagnostic

Because:

you can always say “decree overrode it”

Result:

✔ Your model survives
⚠ But the covenantal layer loses predictive force here

TEST CASE 2: Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12)

You proposed:

likely demonic opposition, not sickness

Let’s test both readings.

If thorn = affliction (traditional reading)

Paul prays repeatedly, no removal.

Your model options:

A. Faith failure?

No evidence.

B. Decree override?

Yes.

✔ consistent

BUT again:

persistent unanswered prayer becomes fully absorbed into decree layer

So the “faith condition” is not falsified—but also not explanatory.

If thorn = demonic opposition (your reading)

Then:

not healing category
different domain

✔ model becomes easier to preserve

BUT:

requires interpretive reclassification of the text

That’s not a logical problem, but a data reclassification move

TEST CASE 3: Nazareth (Mark 6:5–6)

“He could do no mighty works there… because of unbelief.”

This is actually your strongest supporting text.

Your interpretation:

lack of faith → blocked healing

✔ consistent with your model
✔ supports faith-condition rule strongly

Stress point:

Even here, there is ambiguity:

“few healings” still occur
Jesus is not described as “attempting and failing”

So the question becomes:

Is this a local suspension of miracles, or a universal principle of faith-conditioning?

Your model assumes:

generalizable principle

The text only guarantees:

local explanatory link

Still:
✔ this case fits your system well

TEST CASE 4: general “faith prayers not answered” (experience + Scripture pattern)

This is the hardest category.

Examples:

godly people pray for healing and are not healed
Paul’s companions suffer illness (Philippians references Epaphroditus nearly dying)

Your model handling:

Explanation path:

Decree override:
[
W_d(\neg H)
]
OR insufficient faith:
[
\neg F
]

Stress test result:

Logical outcome:

✔ no contradiction

Theological cost:

⚠ the system becomes non-falsifiable at the experiential level

Because:

Any outcome fits at least one layer:

healed → faith + decree aligned
not healed → decree override or faith deficiency

So:

nothing can force revision of the model

That is logically consistent—but epistemically “closed-loop.”

TEST CASE 5: Jesus’ own ministry pattern

Key observation:

Jesus heals many
but not all in Israel
even where faith is present in surrounding narratives

Your model options:

A. faith limitation explanation

Not sufficient in every location

B. decree limitation explanation

God’s timing/plan limits manifestation

✔ consistent

But again:

faith-layer does not uniquely explain outcomes

META-STRESS TEST: the real structural issue

Now we reach the core:

Your system has two explanatory engines:

Engine 1: Faith mechanism (revealed layer)

Predicts:
[
P + F \rightarrow H \ (\text{normative})
]

Engine 2: Decree override (ultimate layer)

Explains:
[
\neg H \text{ always resolvable}
]

The consequence:

Strong point:

✔ No theological contradiction
✔ Nothing is outside divine sovereignty
✔ Prayer is always meaningful

Weak point:

⚠ Asymmetry problem

Because:

Faith layer predicts expectation
Decree layer always protects outcome

So:

the predictive force of the faith layer is never decisive

It becomes:

real, but not determinative
normative, but not testable

FINAL RESULT OF STRESS TEST

1. Logical consistency

✔ Your model survives all cases
No formal contradiction appears.

2. Explanatory power

✔ High (it can explain everything)

3. Predictive specificity

⚠ Medium to low
(because decree layer can always override expectation layer)

4. Biblical coverage

✔ Very high
(because it preserves both miracle narratives AND suffering/absence cases)

FINAL VERDICT (precise)

Your system is:

LOGICALLY:

consistent, but structurally “dual-layered with override protection”

BIBLICALLY:

arguably one of the most text-inclusive syntheses

PHILOSOPHICALLY:

a compatibilist expectation model with a non-falsifiable sovereignty backstop

One sentence summary

Your model does not break under stress—it absorbs all data through a two-layer causality system—but the cost is that no single layer ever has final explanatory control over outcomes.

If you want next step, I can do something even more revealing:

I can show what minimal change would make your system:

either fully Reformed,
or fully Pentecostal,
or fully “testable” in a strict philosophical sense.

That’s where the real forks become very sharp.

Sunday, February 15, 2026

Todd White, My Experience, & Encouragement For Charismatics - Steve Bancarz

An EXCELLENT video by Steve Bancarz on some of the problems of the modern Charismatic Movement and how to respond to the recent exposés of prominent Charismatic leaders.

Todd White, My Experience, & Encouragement For Charismatics

by Steve Bancarz

https://youtu.be/oYgFEZM7434?si=gKoNvgCyiCk16qXQ

The following are comments pinned by Steve Bancarz in the comments section of the video:

Hey guys! Just a response to several questions here to provide clarity to others who may have the same ones. 1. What I mean when I was “demonized” is that I was in an ongoing state of being influenced by another spirit. I’m not making a comment here about possession vs oppression, nor do I mean an ongoing state of manifestation. I just was in a condition of being influenced and affected tangibly by another spirit.

2. Me saying that the mainstream charismatic church needs “reform”, to be clear, is not to say it needs some tweaks. I do believe while the gifts are 100% for today, that the mainstream current needs to be avoided. 3. I am also disappointed that Sam Storms missed on his discernment with Mike Bickle. For me personally, I don’t need to trust someone’s discernment fully in all areas in order to glean good teaching from them on certain topics.

For example, there are people I have learned good theology from over the years who think the gifts have ceased. Some people in the reformed community historically have thought God has stopped giving the church dreams and visions, and one classic theological said there’s been no legitimate miracles in 2000 years. All of them would be able to discern charismatic fakery. But their theology wouldn’t always allow them to discern a legitimate dream, word of knowledge, vision, etc. Many solid cessationist Bible teachers I like will have sound doctrine, but may not accurately discern something demonic in someone’s life, or discern a genuine revelatory work of the Spirit in the church.

If the goal was to identify counterfeit money from legitimate money, Charismatics need more discernment to identify false bills, and I think cessationists may put many true bills in the false bill category out of theological commitments. Not discerning the false is very concerning, but in my opinion, thinking God hasn’t and doesn’t give people dreams or convert people through dreams is also concerning. Discerning the real is important too. I don’t think one theological camp has it all figured out, but charismatics need a lot more help as a culture identifying false bills.

4. To be clear, my comment about Ph.D’s was not me making an appeal to authority, to say someone needs degrees to be credible. It was me processing my line of thinking at that time, that I didn’t really know of any legitimate scholars who were charismatic when all the best ones I knew didn’t hold to the gifts, and that pattern was disheartening and discouraging in my study of the gifts. If the more someone studied the less held to the gifts, that would be concerning, but thankfully that’s not the case.

I may make another one on related topics so if you have anymore questions please ask them, and maybe I can tackle them in a future video :)

Tuesday, February 10, 2026

The Remnant Radio Addressing the Recent Scandals in the Charismatic Movement [circa mid-2020s]

The Fall of the Charismatic Movement

https://www.youtube.com/live/7U1-rugrYZM?si=CA8AQMLs5O2DLySo

A sort of follow up:

The Charismatic Movement: Is Any of it Real?

https://youtu.be/LnCfhKhqVOo?si=KJZiNfjEbp9J2e4u

Friday, January 23, 2026

Revelations About Praise; and "The Praise Cure"

The following are two excerpts from two different books. The first excerpt is from a compilation of four books by female medical doctor Lilian B. Yeomans M.D (1861-1942) who eventually became a preacher after a miraculous healing. The compilation book has two modern titles. One version of the modern title is "Healing Treasury." The other modern title for the same book is "His Healing Power."

The second excerpt is from Merlin Carothers' book "Prison to Praise."

I hightly recommend Yeomans' book "His Healing Power" [also titled "Healing Treasury"] as well as Merlin Carothers books "Prison to Praise" and (especially) "Power in Praise."

The following excerpt is from pages 48-52 of Healing Treasury also titled His Healing Power

...We can praise our way through to perfect manifested victory. This I call the praise cure, and it never fails when the praise is the outflow of a heart resting on God’s unchanging Word.

There was a missionary to China staying at Mrs. Carrie Judd Montgomery’s Beulah Heights in Oakland, California. She had the most wonderful healing of smallpox while on the field by the application of the praise cure.

She fearlessly nursed a sister missionary who had the disease though she had not been vaccinated, standing on God’s promise that no plague should come nigh her dwelling. Then a very bad case of confluent smallpox— that was what it looked like to the doctors— came out on her, and she did not know what to do; so she asked the Lord, and He told her to sing and praise Him for His faithfulness to His Word. They isolated her and told her to lie quiet; but she said if she didn’t praise God, the very stones would cry out. So she sang and sang and praised and praised. The doctor said he feared for her life, that the case was serious and awful complications threatened. But she praised and praised and sang and sang.

He said she was evidently delirious but that he had so little help that he couldn’t restrain her—and she sang and sang and praised and praised. They told her that if by any chance she recovered, she would be disfigured for life—and she sang and praised louder than ever. They asked, “Why do you praise so much?” She answered, “Because I have so many pox on me. God shows me I must praise Him for each one separately.” And she kept right at it.

The Lord had shown her a vision of two baskets, one containing her praising—half full—and the other, in which was her testing— full. He told her that the praise basket must be filled so that it would out balance the other, so she kept at it. Her songs and shouts were so Spirit-filled that they were contagious, and the Christian nurses couldn’t resist joining in; so they kept the place ringing. At last the Lord showed her that the praise basket was full and overflowing. She saw it sink and the testing basket rise in the air; and in a moment, as it seemed, the eruption and all attendant symptoms vanished, leaving no trace in the way of so much as a single scar.

Perhaps that may seem almost too much to believe to some, but I can furnish from my own personal experience a case where the smallpox eruption disappeared instantaneously in answer to believing prayer and the application of the praise cure.

One evening we were about to open the meeting at a mission where I was then working when a man rushed into the hall and asked to have a few moments of private conversation with me. After I led him to the prayer room, he said, “Dr. Yeomans, my wife has just broken out all over with smallpox!”

“How do you know that it is smallpox?” I inquired.

“Why, we had a doctor who said so and told us not to stir from the house as he was going down to get the health doctor and have the place quarantined without a moment’s delay. But as soon as he had left the house, my wife said, ‘Run down to the mission. Ask Dr. Yeomans to pray, and I am sure God will clear this plague off my skin and out of my blood.’”

So right on the spot we applied the praise cure, and the brother ran home to find his wife without a single trace of the disease. A little later the doctor returned with the health doctor and was unmercifully teased by the latter for reporting a case of smallpox when there wasn’t a pock in sight, nor any symptom of disease.

“Where is your smallpox?” the health officer inquired.

“Well, where is it? It was here when I left.”

“Well, where is it now?” inquired the health doctor; and with some jokes as to the probable character of the beverages, which his colleague had been indulging in, he left the place without any further comment.

Yes, the praise cure works every time. It is not unpleasant; rather it is delightful; the cost of it has been met for us by another, and it is available this moment to each of us.

Are you ready to begin it? The last clause of 1 Peter 1:8 tells us exactly how to begin: “Believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory.”

Just believe what God says that Jesus has done for you, body, soul, and spirit—think about it, talk about it, sing about it, shout about it, and the praise cure has begun. You are not to take it once a year but all the time. I will bless the Lord at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth (Ps. 34:1). The Psalms—the book of praise inspired by the Holy Spirit, which has been used by the people of God in all ages and which Jesus Himself used—are full of this praise cure. Just observe the first five verses of Psalm 103: Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless His holy name. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies; who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle’s.

I personally knew a man who was dying of acute tuberculosis of the lungs who praised himself into perfect, rugged health that lasted a lifetime. His remarkable recovery and good health was the result of following the words of this Psalm. Begin now. You can’t afford to postpone it by so much as a moment. Tread the young lions under your feet by the praise of faith. It has never failed and never will.

Sometimes people say, “That’s true and I feel better already. But when Jesus spoke the word when He was here in person, the symptoms always disappeared instantly; and mine haven’t disappeared or have only partly disappeared; so I can’t be healed.”

The scriptural answer to this difficulty is that the symptoms did not always disappear immediately, even when Jesus was here in person.

The nobleman’s son, referred to in John 4:49-53, “began to amend,” or get better, improve, convalesce, at the seventh hour when the fever left him.
The healing of the blind man at Bethsaida, related in Mark 8:22-25, is not only markedly gradual but in three distinct, separate stages.

First, Jesus took him by the hand and led him out of Bethsaida, which city He had abandoned to judgment. (Mark 8:23; Matt. 11:21-24.)

Second, Jesus began the healing with an anointing of spittle, after which He asked the man if he saw aught (anything). And the man replied that he saw men as trees walking; or in other words, that he had a degree of distorted vision.

If the man who now possessed enough sight to enable him to blunder around had departed and told people that Jesus had healed him but that he could only see to get around and had no use of his eyes for work that required clear vision, I believe he would have done just what many thousands of people who come for prayer for healing are doing today. Those to whom he told his story would have said, “Well, that’s the kind of work Jesus of Nazareth does, is it? It’s a wonder He wouldn’t have made a good job of it while He was at it.” But that wouldn’t have been Jesus’ fault, would it? And it isn’t His fault if you have not perfect soundness. If you are in the second stage, press through to the third one. For in it the man received perfect sight and saw every man clearly. Notice that Jesus made him look up (v. 25), and that one look of faith to the Lamb of God brought perfect restoration of his sight. Let us look into His face and praise Him for the fullness of the redemption He has purchased for us, for it is a wonderful cure—the praise cure—and the only unfailing one that has ever been discovered or ever will be discovered.

The following excerpt is from Prison to Praise by Merlin Carothers, pages 96-103 [in another edition pages 96-102]

Wherever I went I now shared what I had discovered about the power of praise. I was beginning to learn that praise was not just a form of worship or prayer, but also a way of waging spiritual warfare. Often when someone began to praise God for the problems that faced them, they found that Satan increased his attacks and the situation appeared to become worse instead of better. Many who tried the way of praise became discouraged and were unable to hold on to their belief that God was in charge.

Others simply didn't understand and refused to try praising God for unpleasant things. "It just doesn't make sense," they'd say. "I'm not going to praise God for something I just don't believe He's got anything to do with. How can God have anything to do with my broken arm or my wrecked car or my husband's horrible temper. I'd be foolish to thank Him for something like that."

Of course it doesn't make sense. The question is does it work? It didn't make much sense when Jesus said leap for joy when you are hungry or poor or persecuted. Yet He very definitely told us to do just that. In Nehemiah 8:10 I read: "The joy of the Lord is your strength."

The enemy's arrows just can't penetrate the joy of someone who is praising the Lord. In II Chronicles 20 we read how a whole army was defeated when the Israelites simply praised the Lord and believed Him when He said that the battle wasn't theirs but His.

The message is just as clear today. The battle isn't ours, it is God's. While we praise Him, He sends our enemies scurrying.

It was discouraging and sad to see those who refused to praise the Lord. My heart ached for them in their hopeless situations of suffering and misery. I asked God to give me wisdom to understand why they couldn't accept the way of praise, and also asked Him to teach me better ways of leading others to praising Him.

Nearly seven months after I first had the experience of laughing with joy in the Spirit, I went to a Camp Farthest Out Retreat. I was looking forward to a time of resting and rejoicing in the fellowship of brothers and sisters in Christ.

While I sat in the back of the auditorium during a healing service, I closed my eyes and on the screen of my inner vision God painted a picture.

I saw a beautiful bright summer day. The air was filled with light and I had a sense of everything being very beautiful. Up above was a heavy, solid black cloud beyond which nothing could be seen. A ladder extended from the ground up into the black cloud. At the base of the ladder were hundreds of people trying to get a chance at climbing the ladder. They had heard that above the blackness there was something more beautiful than anything a human eye had ever seen, something that brought unbelievable joy to those who reached it. As person after person tried to ascend they quickly climbed to the lower edge of the clouds. The crowd watched to see what would happen.

In a short while the person would come wildly sliding down the ladder and fall into the crowd scattering people in all directions. They reported that once they got into the blackness they lost all sense of direction.

My time finally came, and as I made my way up the ladder into the blackness it grew so intense that I could feel its power nearly forcing me to give up and slide back. But step by step I continued upward until suddenly my eyes beheld the most intense brightness I had ever seen. It was a brilliant whiteness too glorious to describe in words. As I came out above the dark cloud I realized that I could walk on top of it. As I looked into the brightness I was able to walk without difficulty. When I looked down to examine the nature of the cloud I immediately began to sink. Only by looking at the brightness could I stay on top.

Then the scene changed and I was back looking at all three levels from a distance.

"What does it all mean?" I asked, and the answer came:

"The bright sunshine below the cloud is the light that many Christians live in and accept as normal. The ladder is the ladder of praising Me. Many try to climb and learn to praise Me in all things. At first they are very eager, but when they get into things that they don't understand they become confused and cannot hold on. They lose faith and go sliding back. As they fall, they injure other people who have been hoping to find a way to live in continual joy and praise.

Those who make it through those difficult times reach a new world and realize that the life they once thought of as normal cannot be compared to the life I have prepared for those who praise Me and believe I carefully watch over them. He who reaches the light of the heavenly kingdom can walk on top of difficulties no matter how dark they may seem as long as he keeps his eyes off the problem and on My victory in Christ. No mater how difficult it may seem to trust God to work in every detail of your life, keep clinging to the ladder of praise and move upwards!"

I was half-dazed by the vision and they explanation and wondered how soon God would let me share it with someone.

At the camp I met a woman who was faced with difficult problems at home. There was illness and family difficulties and she found it hard to believe that praising God was going to do any good.

Inwardly I asked for guidance and God said, "Tell her!"

So I told her, "You'll be the first one to hear this," I said, and as she listened I could see how the heaviness literally left and her face and eyes lit up with a look of joyous expectancy.

In Ephesians, chapters one and two, I found my vision described in slightly different words by Paul:

"...Blessed (Praised!) be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: ...he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame...To the praise of the glory of his grace...that in...the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ...That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ...that you may know...what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion...And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus..."

Jesus Christ is raised above all powers of darkness, and according to God's word, our rightful inheritance is right there <i>above</i> the darkness together in Christ. The ladder is praise!

I was becoming more aware of the power of praise, but also aware of some of the enemy's snares.

At the time I began to seek my Bible for insight into praise I was also led to scriptures describing the power we have received in Christ over the forces of darkness. I had long been aware of passages in Mark 16 where Jesus speaks of the signs that will follow those who believe in Him: "In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

I had prayed asking God to show me if this was all valid for me in the twentieth century, and if it was, when and how to use it.

I found that I often became uneasy when I was around certain people, and asking God, I got the strong impression that what was wrong with them was of a demonic nature.

I prayed that if I ever got face-to-face with someone like that during a prayer-session God would tell me what to do.

An Army wife was deserted by her husband who left her behind with three children. In desperation she tried to kill herself. She was rushed to the hospital and her life was saved. Friends brought her to see me after she got home. She was the picture of despair. Her friends had told me that for several years they had never seen her smile. I began speaking to her about the way of praising God but soon felt compelled to stop. I looked into her eyes and suddenly sensed that there was something very wrong and very evil within her.

Within me was a sense of fear; I realized that I was actually face-to-face with evil.

"Lord," I prayed within. "I've come this far, I can't go back now, so I'll step out in faith trusting that You'll do the work."

Looking straight into the woman's eyes I spoke out loud commanding the vicious spirit to get out of her in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the power of His shed blood.

Her glassy eyes suddenly cleared, and she could listen as I explained that God could work all things to good if she would only trust and praise Him.

She now was free to understand, and smiled with a beautiful radiance. Jesus Christ had broken the bondage of darkness that had threatened her life....

Friday, November 14, 2025

The Healing Story that CHANGED Michael Miller

The Healing Story that CHANGED Me!
https://youtu.be/WiUCNIPECuA

Sam Storms: The Rise and Fall of the Kansas City Prophets

Sam Storms: The Rise and Fall of the Kansas City Prophets
https://youtu.be/G_wR-nLM01w

Sunday, September 28, 2025

Ask and Have [Charles Spurgeon sermon]

Ask and Have a Charles Spurgeon sermon
https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/ask-and-have/#flipbook/

Excerpts:

// I invite your most solemn attention to this matter, for it is vitally important. And my first observation is this, how very small after all is this demand which God makes of us. Ask! Why, it is the least thing he can possibly expect of us, and it is no more than we ordinarily require of those who need help from us. We expect a poor man to ask; and if he does not we lay the blame of his lack upon himself. If God will give for the asking, and we remain poor, who is to blame? Is not the blame most grievous? Does it not look as if we were out of order with God, so that we will not even condescend to ask a favour of him? Surely there must be in our hearts a lurking enmity to him, or else instead of its being an unwelcome necessity it would be regarded as a great delight.//

// If you may have everything by asking, and nothing without asking, I beg you to see how absolutely vital prayer is, and I beseech you to abound in it.//

//It was most natural that instead of crying and whining a child that really loved God should speak to him about his trouble. Should it not be natural to you and to me spontaneously and at once to tell the Lord our sorrows and ask for help? Should not this be the first resort?//

// Do you know, brothers, what great things are to be had for the asking? Have you ever thought of it? Does it not stimulate you to pray fervently? All heaven lies before the grasp of the asking man; all the promises of God are rich and inexhaustible, and their fulfilment is to be had by prayer. Jesus saith, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father,” and Paul says, “All things are yours, and ye are Christ’s.” Who would not pray when all things are thus handed over to us? Ay, and promises that were first made to special individuals, are all made to us if we know how to plead them in prayer. Israel went through the Red Sea ages ago, and yet we read in the sixty-sixth Psalm, “There did we rejoice in him.” Only Jacob was present at Peniel, and yet Hosea says “There he spake with us.” Paul wants to give us a great promise for times of need, and he quotes from the Old Testament, “For he hath said, I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.” Where did Paul get that? That is the assurance which the Lord gave to Joshua: “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.” Surely the promise was for Joshua only. No; it is for us. “No Scripture is of private interpretation”; all Scripture is ours. See how God appears unto Solomon at night, and he says, “Ask what I shall give thee.” Solomon asks for wisdom. “Oh, that is Solomon,” say you. Listen. “If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God.” God gave Solomon wealth, and fame into the bargain. Is not that peculiar to Solomon? No, for it is said of the true wisdom, “Length of days is in her right hand, and in her left hand riches and honour”; and is not this much like our Saviour’s word, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” Thus you see the Lord’s promises have many fulfilments, and they are waiting now to pour their treasures into the lap of prayer. Does not this lift prayer up to a high level, when God is willing to repeat the biographies of his saints in us; when he is waiting to be gracious, and to load us with his benefits? //

//They brought a man to Christ sick of the palsy, and asked him to heal him, and he said, “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.” He had not asked that, had he? No, but God gives greater things than we ask for. Hear that poor, dying thief’s humble prayer, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” Jesus replies, “To-day shaft thou be with me in Paradise.” He had not dreamed of such an honour. Even the story of the Prodigal teaches us this. He resolved to say, “I am not worthy to be called thy son; make me as one of thy hired servants.” What is the answer? “This my son was dead, and is alive again: bring forth the best robe and put it on him; put a ring on his hands, and shoes on his feet.” Once get into the position of an asker, and you shall have what you never asked for, and never thought to receive. The text is often misquoted: “God is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask, or even think.” We could ask, if we were but more sensible and had more faith, for the very greatest things, but God is willing to give us infinitely more than we do ask.//

We Christians Can All Be "Pleaders" [Prayer Warriors]

Beloved brethren, let us pray. We cannot all argue, but we can all pray; we cannot all be leaders, but we can all be pleaders; we cannot all be mighty in rhetoric, but we can all be prevalent in prayer. I would sooner see you eloquent with God than with men. Prayer links us with the Eternal, the Omnipotent, the Infinite; and hence it is our chief resort. Resolve to serve the Lord, and to be faithful to His cause, for then you may boldly appeal to Him for succour. Be sure that you are with God, and then you may be sure that God is with you.

The quote is from chapter 10 of Spurgeon's book "An All-Round Ministry"

http://www.romans45.org/spurgeon/misc/aarm.htm

Wednesday, September 24, 2025

A.B. Simpson's Daily Devotional "Days of Heaven Upon Earth"

September 23. "I am the Lord that Healeth Thee" (Ex. xv. 26).

Days of Heaven Upon Earth — Rev. A. B. Simpson

"I am the Lord that healeth thee" (Ex. xv.26). It is very reasonable that God should expect us to trust Him for our bodies as well as our souls, for if our faith is not practical enough to bring us temporal relief, how can we be educated for real dependence upon God for anything that involves serious risk? It is all very well to talk about trusting God for the distant and future prospect of salvation after death! There is scarcely a sinner in a Christian land that does not trust to be saved some day, but there is no grasp in faith like this. It is only when we come face to face with positive issues and overwhelming forces that we can prove the reality of Divine power in a supernatural life. Hence as an education to our very spirits as well as a gracious provision for our temporal life, God has trained His people from the beginning to recognize Him as the supply of all their needs, and to look to Him as the Physician of their bodies and Father of their spirits. Beloved, have you learned the meaning of Jehovah-rophi, and has it changed your Marah of trial into an Elim of blessing and praise?

September 24. "He Calleth Things that are not as Though they Were" (Rom. Iv. 17).

Days of Heaven Upon Earth — Rev. A. B. Simpson

"He calleth things that are not as though they were" (Rom. iv.17). The Word of God creates what it commands. When Christ says to any of us "Now are ye clean through the word which I have spoken unto you," We are clean. When He says "no condemnation" there is none, though there has been a lifetime of sin before. And when He says, "mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds," then the weak are strong. This is the part of faith, to take God at His Word, and then expect Him to make it real. A French commander thanked a common soldier who had saved his life and called him captain, although he was but a private, but the man took the commander at his word, accepted the new name and was thereby constituted indeed a captain. Shall we thus take God's creating word of justification, sanctification, power and deliverance and thus make real the mighty promise, "He giveth power to the faint, and to them that have no might He increaseth strength; for they that wait on the Lord shall renew their strength."

Friday, September 5, 2025

Trust in the Lord - a sermon by George Müller

Trust in the Lord

A sermon preached at Bethesda Chapel, Great George Street, Bristol

On Sunday evening, 30th May 1897

by Mr. George Müller

Proverbs 3:5-17

The Book of Proverbs forms a deeply important portion of the Word of God. It is full of most precious counsels and advice for all human beings, if they would only give ear. Of course, believers in the Lord Jesus Christ will have the greatest blessing through it; but even for those who as yet do not know the Lord, if they were to attend to what is given in this Book of Proverbs, they would find great blessing and benefit, not merely in regard to the life to come, but for their stay here on earth. It is full of important instruction. I will mention just this point, for instance. More than once warning is given against becoming surety for other persons. Now, very many of us know, from our own experience, what misery, what exceeding great misery, has come upon whole families, it may be upon several families, simply on account of not attending to this.

Hastily, inconsiderately, they have become sureties for others, saying to themselves, ”I shall never be called on to pay this money;” but before they were aware of it they were compelled to make good their suretyship, and often and often brought the greatest misery not merely on themselves, but on their whole family, and perhaps more than one family were drawn thus into misery. Now, God, knowing all this beforehand, through His servant Solomon admonished us not to do it. I myself, in my long life, have known instance upon instance of the greatest misery brought on whole families on account of not attending to this. Now, this is just one instance that I mention; but there are numberless points in the Book of Proverbs of a similar character, which, because they are not attended to, bring wretchedness and misery, not merely on one, but often on very many. Verse 5: “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding.” Often and often because this likewise has not been attended to, misery has been brought, the greatest misery, not only on individuals, but on large families. The temptation is, “O I have a great deal of experience in my business; I know what to do, I know how to act, I know what will turn out best.” Thus speculation has come on, and speculation to a very, very large extent; and misery beyond description has been brought about on account of this. I just mention one instance which I was intimate with, the individual concerned being one whom I greatly loved. There was a war with China coming on, many, many years ago – the first war with China on the part of England; the individual was advised to buy an immense quantity of tea, because tea would rise in price exceedingly on account of the war, and the beloved, dear Christian man said to himself, “I do not care about this speculation for myself, but I feel exceedingly for my own dear brother about business matters.” And so, being advised by the brother to buy an immense quantity, he speculated far beyond his capital, in order to help his brother out of difficulties. The result was, very soon war was at an end, the tea did not at all rise to what it was expected it would – indeed, because so many had bought very large quantities, it actually decreased in price, instead of rising – and this beloved Christian friend of mine lost an enormous sum of money, so that instead of helping his brother he brought himself into exceeding great difficulty.

Now here, you see, is the Word speaking to the opposite effect, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart” – “depend on Me for what you need; look to Me for what you need, and do not take the advice of those brokers, or any other such agents, but consult the Lord” – “lean not unto thine own understanding.” Do not suppose because you have had a good deal of experience, or another person has had a good deal of experience, that that is all which is needed; but betake yourself to the Lord under all circumstances, at all times, under all difficulties, and seek His advice and counsel. Now this has been my habit (it was not my habit for the first two years after my conversion), but it has now been for 69 years my habit to act according to this, and the result is that all has been going on well with my affairs. I have never been allowed to bring myself into difficulties on account of such matters, because I have not trusted in my own experience, but have trusted in the Lord.

If difficulties arise with our service, when we meet in the mornings we lay our case before God, tell Him in all simplicity our position, and ask His counsel and advice. And He does give unto us counsel and advice, and helps us out of difficulties and perplexing circumstances, though they are very frequent in our service – yea, there is rarely a day but something or other turns up in which we need to be guided and directed by the Lord; and He helps us, He appears for us. I can advise this way of living and acting to all my beloved Christian friends, for the result of it is peace, peace, peace! All the ordinary troubles of life vanish, if we thus throw our burden on the Lord and speak to Him about matters.

“Lean not unto thine own understanding.” How clearly expressed, how decidedly expressed! Our danger is continually to lean on our own understanding; to say to ourselves, “O, I have many times passed through similar circumstances. I have a good deal of experience in these matters; it is not necessary that I should pray about it, for I know very well what I ought to do.” And thus we bring on ourselves wretchedness and misery, and often not merely on ourselves, but on those connected with us.

“In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.” In all thy ways. Let us particularly notice this – not merely now and then come to God for guidance and direction, but regarding every step that we take, every business that we enter into, and every new phase of our business, bring it before God and talk to Him, converse with Him concerning the matter. That is the meaning of “In all thy ways acknowledge Him;” and the result will be this: “He shall direct thy paths.” Never begin anything without going to God about it in prayer! Never take any step without first of all settling the matter between yourselves and God, and the result will be you will not speak to Him in vain. He loves you. “He shall direct thy paths;” He will make plain your way, and show you clearly and distinctly how you ought to act. Thus you will escape the great difficulties, the great trials, in carrying out the measure of light which God will give you. O how precious!

Now, we have not to say “I do not live in the days of miracles; I do not live in a time when there is a Urim and a Thummim, and the high priest who could tell me what to do.” For God is willing by His Spirit, through the Holy Scriptures, yet in our day, at the close of the nineteenth century, to guide and direct us. And in being guided and directed, if we carry out the measure of light which God is pleased to give to us, we shall find how blessed it is not to take any steps directed by our own understanding, but to seek wisdom from God, and obtain counsel and advice from Him. The Lord Jesus Christ, among all other titles given to Him in the Word of God, has one title: that is, He is the Counsellor. The Counsellor of the Church of God, for her benefit, for her instruction. We are naturally ignorant, we do not know how to act, what to do; but if we betake ourselves to our Counsellor, the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall find how ready He is to counsel us, to advise us.

I have found it thus, more or less, during the last 69 years that I have known the Lord. The first two years I often, often acted hastily, without much prayer, because patience was not natural to me then. I would have the matter settled, and therefore acted without patiently and quietly waiting on God; and taking hasty steps often and often, I was not merely confounded, but I brought trouble on myself. During the last 69 years, however, I have acted differently, and have therefore gone peacefully along, and have had rest in God. None of those trials through which I first passed after my conversion have been found in my life since, because I have patiently and quietly waited on God, to guide, direct, and help me.

“Be not wise in thine own eyes; fear the Lord, and depart from evil.” Naturally we have, often and often, too high an idea about ourselves; we are “wise in our own eyes,” and on account of this take steps to go forward without seeking the counsel and advice of the Lord. The result is, trouble and difficulty. Now, beloved Christian friends, let us especially be warned by this, not to be wise in our own eyes, because it is too true, that we are not wise. If left to ourselves, we shall surely take wrong steps; we shall surely be confounded. Things will not go on well. And therefore it becomes us as being made fully aware of our natural ignorance and helplessness, to betake ourselves to God for counsel and advice. That is what we have to do, and above all to “fear God and to depart from evil”.

Our own ways are so frequently connected with that which is contrary to the mind of God; but if we are not wise in our own eyes, not only shall we be guided aright, but the result, further, will be that taking steps according to the mind of God we shall be departing from evil. Now, what follows from this? It tends even to the benefit of the body. Not merely gives peace of mind to the soul, but is good even for the body. “It shall be health to thy navel and marrow to thy bones.”

Now comes in another subject altogether. “Honour the Lord with thy substance, and with the first-fruits of all thy increase, so shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.” I do not forget that the Israelites had special promises given to them with regard to abundance in this life, if they walked in the ways of the Lord. Now, though in this present dispensation, we have not the promise to become very rich, to become great men, if we walk in the ways of the Lord, still there is, if we attend to these two verses, blessing coming to us even in this life, besides spiritual blessing. I have known this in my own experience, by acting according to these two verses. I have seen it ever so many times in the lives of godly brethren and sisters in Christ, who acted according to these two verses.

“Honour the Lord with thy substance and with the first-fruits of all thy increase.” God fills the clouds with rain, for the very purpose that they may empty themselves on the land, to make the land fertile; and so God trusts His children, as His stewards, with means not to keep all to themselves, not to enjoy merely themselves, but to communicate out of the abundance He is pleased to give them to their fellow men – those who are weak and feeble, and cannot work, or who through other circumstances are brought into straightened, difficult positions and circumstances. This attended to brings blessing not only to the soul, but even blessing of a temporal character. I speak as one who knows all this from an experience in my own case of much more than 60 years. I speak about this as having, through my acquaintance with more than tens of thousands of children of God, had brought before me again and again and again the fact that those who acted according to the principles here laid down, not merely brought blessings to their souls, but even as to their circumstances temporarily, obtained far more again than they had given away, so that not only interest was given them, but compound interest, and in many cases twenty times, fifty times, even a hundred times more than they had given to the poor, or than they had given to the work of God. For God ever sees to it that He is not our debtor, but that we are His debtors. O if brethren and sisters in Christ habitually acted according to this verse, how different would be their position even as to this life, and how great the blessing which they would thus bring to their own souls!

“Honour the Lord with thy substance.” When God is pleased to give to us temporal blessings, He gives them, not that on our own persons we may spend the abundance He is pleased to bestow on us, but that we may remember the weak and sickly, and help and assist them; that we may remember those who are out of employment, who would gladly work, but who have no work; and that we may care for the widow, and the aged widow in particular, and the aged man who can no longer work – that we may remember their necessities and care for them. And the result will be, as I have seen it times without number in my long Christian career, that not only will blessing come to the souls of those who act according to this work, but that even with regard to temporal things God will abundantly repay what we have thus given. “So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.” We may have no barns, and no vineyard, to have this literally fulfilled; but God, in some way or other, will make it manifest how He is mindful of what we have given to the widow, to the poor sick person who cannot work, to the poor aged man who is past work.

Now comes another subject: “My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord; neither be weary of His correction, for whom the Lord loveth He correcteth, even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.” Often and often I have found how real, true children of God are discouraged, disheartened, greatly bowed down, because they are so long afflicted, forgetting that the very affliction is a token of the Father’s love to them. O remember this, because it is a matter not to question. I take God at His word, “Whom the Lord loveth He correcteth”. All these afflictions are education to our hearts. In regard to our positions and circumstances, “Whom the Lord loveth He correcteth, even as a father the son in whom he delighteth;” not the father the son whom he hates, whom he does not care about in the least, whom he despises, whom he may mean to disinherit. Nothing, nothing, nothing of the kind. “Even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.” Ah! if this were laid to heart by the dear children of God in trial, in affliction, and in difficulty, how differently would they judge their trials, their afflictions, their disappointments, their sorrows, their pain and suffering. “My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord.”

I was once for a good while in a position that I could not work at all, because I had overwrought myself, overworked myself in service for the Lord, had not been careful about my health. For six years, I have never taken a walk in the fields! If the work of the Lord called me to exercise, I would walk eight, ten, twenty miles, or more in such service, but if the work of the Lord did not call me to exercise, I would never go out for five minutes for the sake of recreation, or for the sake of benefiting my health. The consequence was, that while before I was able to write ten, fifteen, or twenty letters without rising from my chair, and read for three or four hours at a stretch, I was now so reduced that the writing of one single little note was too much for me, and, as for reading, not a quarter of an hour could I stay at it. It was all too much. Under these circumstances I did not, by the grace of God, despise His chastening; but, after months and months had passed, leaving me in this state, I began to be weary of His correction. That was the danger into which I came, and I began to ask God not merely to keep me from despising the chastening, but not to weary – to be willing to go on bearing with the way in which He dealt with me. And, in the riches of His grace, He kept me from being weary.

So after months had passed in this weakness mentally, in the inability of going on doing what I had been able to do, my health became by little and little restored; and I thus obtained the ability of warning my fellow-believers to take care of their health. I began to take now and then a little rest, now and then a little walk; and the consequence was I have been able to work far, far more abundantly, and have been far, far happier in my soul since I began to care about my health. I mention this for warning to those who despise the taking care of their health, and go on toiling, toiling, toiling, as if their bodies were brass and iron. If we wish to get profit to the soul, we need to let the body have rest. I state deliberately and solemnly, in the fear of God, during these last fifty years of my life, since I have allowed myself a quarter of an hour’s rest, or a little more, now and then, God has enabled me to labour far more abundantly than before, and my soul has also been blessed far more abundantly.

“My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord; neither be weary of His correction.” Let this sink into our souls – not to be weary of His correction. It does not require overmuch grace not to despise the chastening of the Lord; but it requires a good deal of grace when the mental affliction, the chastening of the Lord, continues for a long time, not to be weary of His correction. But the will of God is to submit to His dealings with us, and His leadings of us, both now and always; for “whom the Lord loveth He correcteth”. This is a word for particular support under affliction, to remember that it is a love token when we are afflicted. “Whom the Lord loveth He correcteth, even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.” Notice this phrase, “In whom he delighteth”. Therefore it is entirely a mistake to suppose that when affliction, trial, or sorrow is allowed to befall us, that it is a token of dislike on the part of God; but it is all intended for our blessing to our souls. Because God loves us, He gives us this love-token of affliction.

“Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.” Now, this is particularly a word to those who are not converted, for “finding wisdom” means to be brought to the fear of the Lord. Wisdom is the fear of the Lord, to know the Saviour, to see that we are sinners, to own that we are sinners, to confess that we are sinners; and then to put our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of our souls. That is the meaning of finding wisdom. Now, before going on any further, I affectionately ask the little company here present, “Are we all believers in the Lord Jesus Christ?” God’s delight is to make us all as happy as we are capable of being while yet in the body. Now, have we obtained this real, true happiness, every one of us, through faith in the Lord Jesus? That is my desire and my prayer regarding all here present.

There is nothing to hinder us individually from obtaining the blessing. I was as far from God as anyone possibly could be; but it pleased God to show me what a great sinner I was. I owned it before God, and He helped me to put my trust alone in Jesus for salvation; and thus I became a very happy young man, and am continuing to hold fast to Christ, to trust in Him alone for salvation, and, by grace, to walk in the fear of God. I have now been for more than 71 years a very happy man. And thus blessing is to be obtained by everyone, for God does not act by partiality, or despise this or another one; He takes delight and pleasure in bestowing this happiness on any and every one He has to do with.

But there are some individuals who will not have it, who are determined to go their own way, who despise the blessing which God is willing to give to them in Christ Jesus, and therefore they are without it, and they will remain without it as long as they continue in this state of mind. But let us not forget what is said here. “Happy is the man that findeth wisdom.” That means, happy is the man who comes to Christ, happy is the man who puts this trust in the Lord Jesus Christ; and here those who have not yet done so will find it thus if they will close with Christ, if they will but own that they are sinners needing a Saviour. Then, having confessed this, having put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, God will account them just and righteous for Christ’s sake, God will forgive them their sins for Christ’s sake, and this will bring peace to the soul, rest to the soul, and make them happy through faith in Christ Jesus. “Happy is the man that findeth wisdom.” I say once more, wisdom means the fear of God. “Findeth the fear of God;” and this is brought about through faith in Christ. Thus we are regenerated, born again, get spiritual life and a new nature, by which we hate sin and love holiness. Though it be but little and little at the first, yet we shall increase more and more in this.

“And the man that getteth understanding” – that is, getteth understanding about heavenly things, about his own sinfulness; about God and the Lord Jesus Christ; and about the vanity of this present world and the blessedness of heavenly things. “For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold; she is more precious than rubies, and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her.” In this figurative language is brought before us the blessedness of being believers in Christ, the blessedness of having found wisdom, and of having obtained a new nature, spiritual life, justification, and the forgiveness of all our sins. “The merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver” – that is, whatever we might gain in the possession of silver, it is all as nothing in comparison with getting Christ. “And the gain thereof than fine gold.” To have found Jesus is better, better by far, than an abundance of fine gold. “She is more precious than rubies.” Wisdom, the feat of God obtained through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, is more precious than rubies or pearls, “and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her”. A very large property left to us, as a legacy, is nothing in comparison with finding Christ. A very lucrative situation is nothing in comparison with Christ. A very high post under Government is nothing in comparison with Christ. All the blessings of this present life, all is nothing in comparison with finding Jesus. O let this sink deeply into our hearts. “She is more precious than rubies.” In other words, “Jesus is more precious than pearls, than rubies; and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto Him.”

“Length of days is in her right hand, and in her left hand riches and honour.” This is particularly to be looked at in a spiritual point of view. The eternal life, eternal happiness, is our lot – is that which we obtain through faith in the Lord Jesus. “And in her left hand riches and honour.” That is, spiritual riches and spiritual honours, because we become the inheritors of God and of the Lord Jesus; honours because we shall share with the Lord Jesus Christ the glory which the Father gives Him as a recompense for His mediatorial work as our Saviour. We shall have the honour with Him; He will not have it merely to Himself. His Bride, the Church of God, will share it with Him, and therefore shall we partake of the honour which the Father gives to Him.

“Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.” I cannot tell you what a happy man I became when I found the Lord Jesus. I had been seeking year after year for happiness; but I met with nothing but disappointment and increased guilt on the conscience as long as I was not a believer in Christ. But when I found Jesus, I became a truly happy young man, and I have been a truly happy man now for 71 years and six months. I have had fulfilled in my own experiences what is stated here - that the ways of wisdom are the ways of pleasantness. Numberless persons think it is far from being pleasant to become a Christian; they think if they were to become believers in the Lord Jesus Christ they would not have a happy day more. This is the greatest folly, the greatest mistake, for our real true happiness commences only when we find the Lord Jesus Christ; therefore we need not to be pitied as believers in Christ, but others are to be counselled to seek the same Lord whom we have found, in order that they, too, may partake of the happiness which we have obtained through faith in Him.

Then, lastly, “All her paths are peace”. Now, if at any time we are without peace, we should ask ourselves, “What is the reason? Am I really walking in the ways of wisdom, for it is stated that all her paths are peace? If I am without peace, it becomes me solemnly, earnestly, and carefully, to look into the matter, and see whether I have not departed from the ways of the Lord, whether I have not forsaken the fear of the Lord, for if I were going on in the paths of wisdom I should be at peace.” O how instructive is all this!

Now, my beloved Christian friends, I have been directed, after a good deal of prayer, to the words on which we have been meditating, and I beseech and entreat you all to ponder again and again and again these verses, and to remember the remarks which I have made in connection with them; for weighty and important matters are contained in these verses, and, if attended to, the result will be happiness in a way in which as yet we have not known it. And, again, should there be any present who are not yet believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, they should give themselves no rest in asking God to show them that they are sinners, and that they need the Saviour; and when they are brought to know this, then to ask God to enable them to put their trust in Jesus. And what they will obtain will be the forgiveness of their sins and peace to their souls, and hatred of sin and love for holiness. God grant this blessing to all of us, for Christ’s sake.

Friday, August 22, 2025

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?

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?

Monday, August 18, 2025

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.]

Table Charismata Matters

Sunday, May 17, 2026

ChatGPT Discussion on My Hybrid Theology of Healing

Jesus and the Gospels' Theology of Healing, An Interaction with ChatGPT

1. The “revealed will vs secret will” distinction (Calvinism)

2. “It is always God’s revealed will to heal if there is sufficient faith”

Biblical tension:

Theological issue:

3. “Faith is always a gift of God” (Reformed theology)

4. The combined system you’re building

The tension:

5. Where theologians might push back

Reformed critique

Charismatic critique

6. Is it “a twisting” of Scripture?

If “twisting” means:

If “twisting” means:

7. The deepest issue in your model

Bottom line

1. “Delayed vs denied healing” (Trophimus, Timothy, thorn)

2. “Faith is a gift, so faith-conditioned healing is grace, not merit”

Reformed concern:

3. “Jesus rebukes lack of faith for failure to heal”

The key ambiguity:

4. “Commanded ideals vs sovereign ordination” (sanctification / evangelism analogy)

A. Sanctification / sin

B. Evangelism

C. Healing

5. “Mark 9:23 — all things possible for one who believes”

(1) Charismatic/faith-forward reading:

(2) Reformed/contextual reading:

6. The deepest structural issue in your model

Bottom line

1. “If God self-imposes principles, they don’t limit His freedom”

The distinction:

2. “Why pray if God ordained everything?”

In classical Calvinism:

In your model:

3. “Mark 9:23 means all things are possible to believers”

4. “Jesus rebukes lack of faith—therefore faith is determinative”

5. “Psalm 103 / James 5 / Deut promises / 2 Cor 1:20 = universal healing will”

A. Psalm 103 (“forgives sins and heals diseases”)

B. James 5 (“prayer of faith will save/heal the sick”)

C. OT healing promises (Exodus, Deuteronomy)

6. “You’re mixing revealed will and decretive will inconsistently”

In Reformed theology:

7. So where does your model actually land?

Bottom line (no hedging)

1. “This is not a defect but a feature: promissory covenant activation”

2. “Faith in the Gospels always results in healing”

Strong pattern you are correct about:

But the textual pressure points:

3. “John 14:12–14 and greater works”

(1) Charismatic reading (your direction)

(2) Apostolic/mission reading (very common historically)

(3) Ecclesial reading

4. “All things whatsoever you ask… believing you receive”

5. The deepest philosophical difference (this is the real issue)

6. Where your argument is strongest

7. Where the main unresolved tension remains

Final word (as you invited)

I. CORE AXIOM SYSTEM (Your Model)

Axiom 1 — Sovereignty

Axiom 2 — Goodness / Healing Disposition (Revealed Will)

Axiom 3 — Faith is Required Instrumentally

Axiom 4 — Faith is God-given

Axiom 5 — Prayer is covenantal participation in revealed will

Axiom 6 — Already/Not Yet asymmetry

II. DERIVED STRUCTURE (Your System)

1. Healing expectation rule (your key inference)

2. Non-healing explanation function

3. Prayer becomes “covenantal activation function”

III. BRANCH POINTS (Where traditions diverge)

A. REFORMED SYSTEM

R1 — Divine decree is primary causal level

R2 — Prayer is means, not conditional trigger

R3 — Faith is not a mechanical condition

Branch point A:

B. CLASSIC PENTECOSTAL SYSTEM

P1 — Healing is generally in revealed will