THE LECTRONIC IBRARY ECHANGE DENVER, COLORADO BBS: 303-935-6323 ============================== SAVED AND HEALED? By Phil Scovell ============================== This booklet is not copyrighted. It may be reproduced if such reproduction is done in the spirit in which it was given. It may not be reproduced and sold at any price nor may it be used in any way other than for its intended purpose. This notice must likewise be posted with any reproductions and the text cannot be altered in any way. Additional copies are available upon request from THE EKKLESIA. It is also available on computer disk in wordperfect and ASCII formats along with a number of other articles. Braille and audio cassette versions are also available free to anyone blind. Call toll free: 1- 800-426-2466 Extension 210959. ********** THE EKKLESIA P.O. BOX 19454 DENVER, COLORADO 80219 FORWARD There are many questions about bodily healing in the minds of most Christians. Such is probably true because of all the sickness and disease which is experienced by so many professing Bible Believers. Most proclaim a Gospel void of any healing; except, of course, on those rare occasions when God feels sorry for one of His own suffering children. The sovereignty of God is generally blamed as the cause for all such sickness and disease and if that doesn't work, well then; God is just trying to teach you a lesson. Take my word for it, sickness, disease, terminal illness, and bodily infirmities - blindness, paralysis, pain, loss of limbs mental illness - are all poor teachers. Oh, and let's not forget the ultimate schoolmaster; which, if we are to believe the afore mentioned, should make us super Christians...DEATH! Now there's a good way to learn...just kick the bucket and see how much smarter you become. Most such Bible inconsistencies on the subject of bodily healing are taught by those who have no such need of healing, and they simply want the rest of us who do to feel better. I don't want to feel better, I want to be whole; especially if the Bible teaches it and if Jesus in fact gave His life for it. Why did I take several hours writing the following letter? In another words, what's the purpose? I personally believe perhaps it is time that men such as Dave Hunt - The Seduction Of Christianity- and John Macarthur - The Truth About Tongues - be exposed for what they really are..."Denier's of the truth." I have been called a heretic, unholy, unspiritual, unscriptural, mentally unbalanced, and even accused of being demon possessed because I believe in bodily healing, the gift of tongues, and miracles. I personally believe it is time we begin to stand upon the authority of God's Word and speak out against these who deny the power of God and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. That's why I wrote to the Radio Bible Class. I also need to make one thing crystal clear before presenting the following letter. I am not suggesting that every Pentecostal and Charismatic teacher, evangelist, healer, pastor, so-called prophet or apostle, is Scriptural or even of God. I've been a Baptist nearly all my life, and I can't even assure you that all Baptists are Scriptural. I am saying, however, it is time we stand on God's Word and His Word alone. I am personally sick and tired of both Charismatics and noncharismatics alike sighting examples of those who have been, and those who haven't, as proof the Bible is true. WAKE UP! The Bible, God's eternal Word, is the only proof. The question is...do we believe God's Word? Although the following is not comprehensive, it will answer a number of questions most have on the subject of bodily healing. My letter was mailed just as it is printed here to the Radio Bible Class staff. No response has been received, but at such time one is offered, it will likewise appear with this letter. I trust the reader will conclude that the doctrine of bodily healing is at least worthy of prayerful consideration in light of Biblical revelation. JULY 1989 Radio Bible Class Department W Grand Rapids, Michigan 49555 Dear RBC Friends, I have listened to the Radio Bible Class programs since childhood. I have fond memories of waking Sunday mornings to my parents listening to RBC. The "Daily Bread" likewise has been a part of my Christian heritage. I appreciate so much the strong Biblical stand and the faithfulness of the RBC ministry over the years. I am especially proud of RBC for not soliciting financial support over the radio as is commonly practice by so many Christian programs today. Such a testimony of faithfulness is impeccable and honors the Lord. Although I am not a regular listener nor a financial supporter of the ministry, I felt challenged to write after today's program. I originally considered mailing a financial gift along with my letter but later decided against it for two reasons; First, I did not want RBC to feel as though I were trying to solicit the reading of my letter by paying for it. Secondly, I realized that RBC would not financially support me if discovered we differed doctrinally on the issue of Biblical healing. Please accept my apology if I am incorrect in either of these assessments. Before continuing, I would like to preface my remarks by sharing with you something of a personal nature. My wife and I are both totally blind. We have been married for seventeen years and ar nearly forty years of age. We have three children; ages six, ten, and twelve; all three children see normally. This information is actually unimportant to the nature of my comments which follow, but I think you will find it interesting in light of what I am about to say. I was saved in an Evangelical Free Church at the age of five and shortly thereafter attended independent Baptist churches. I also attended a (GARBC) Bible college and later worked as an assistant pastor in a Baptist Bible Fellowship church in western Colorado. My Father, before his death in 1963, preached throughout central Iowa in farming communities. Largely, therefore, my background has been independent Baptist. I share this so that a better understanding of the nature of my letter may be perceived. Upon waking this morning, June 18, I turned on the radio while making coffee and as I tuned the radio, I stopped on the familiar voice of Brother Paul Van Gorder. The RBC broadcast I began listening to was on Denver's KPOF. Since I only heard perhaps the final ten or twelve minutes of the program, and because I wanted to be sure and hear it in its entirety, I later caught it again on KRKS at 3:30 P.M. I recorded it the second time in order that I could refer to it without error. I know that my letter will not change your interpretation of the question of Biblical healing nor mine; but I felt led to at least write and comment on one area of disagreement. Today's broadcast was on the subject of "Is Healing In The Atonement?" I do not intend to address this question directly in my letter. Frankly, it should make little difference to one in need of bodily healing, whether or not healing is in part of, or associated with, or in fact of, atonement. Of course, to deny such is to say Jesus died only for things spiritual; excluding the material and physical. If such were true, why did He suffer physically? Was the physical suffering of our Lord Christ symbolic? The first reference quoted on today's program was Matthew 8:17. Asis generally the case by those who have chosen to believe that healing is somehow not important, or at least, not worthy of concern, the explanation was offered that the fulfillment of Christ baring our sicknesses and diseases took place, not at the cross, but rather during His life on earth. I agree. However, I, nor does the Scriptures, limit this "fulfilled prophecy" to those three and one half years of His ministry upon earth. If, for example, a king commanded a servant to dig a well at a certain time in the future and he did so, would the well cease from serving its purpose once the command had been fulfilled - obeyed? Nor does The Well [Christ the Lord] cease from fulfilling Matthew 8:17 today since He is still "The Well.". It was also suggested that chapter 8 and 9 of Matthew were the works of Christ to Israel and Israel alone. This implies that Jesus ministered only to Israel while upon earth? One might ask, "Is all Israel saved today?" If not, is not our Lord still presenting Himself as Messiah both to the Jew and Gentile? As I will make note of in a moment, Peter, when preaching to the house of Cornelius, proved the message of salvation and healing had come to gentiles as well. Brother Van Gorder mentioned in his teaching that 1 Peter 2:24 had nothing to do with physical healing; rather forgiveness of sins. Apparently, from his teaching, he believes that all such references to "healing" in the New Testament, when in context with forgiveness of sin, is metaphorical. I do not suggest that metaphoric and symbolic language is not employed in Scripture, but I truly question that such is the case in 1 Peter 2:24. I am not skilled nor trained in Greek but I do use a Strong's concordance as many Christians. I am likewise sure that you are aware that the Greek word for "healed" used by Peter, "by whose stripes ye were healed," is (cured). How can we be "cured" of our sins? Are we not rather "forgiven?" After hearing the broadcast today, I sat down at my computer and began to study. Using a Bible text and Greek program, I examined the word "healed" which Peter used to see if indeed he, Peter, was speaking metaphorically or symbolically. I think you will find, as I did, the usage of the word interesting; to say the least. According to the Strong's concordance, the word translated "healed" in I Peter 2:24 is used twenty-eight times in twenty-seven verses in the New Testament. The King James translators used it eighteen times as "healed," six times as "heal," once as "made," once as "maketh," once as "whole," and once as "healing." In all but five cases, the word is used in direct reference to a physical healing and or to one being freed from demon possession or oppression. One might also observe, however, that in most cases of demon oppression and possession, the victims are also physically effected and often suffer various illnesses. Such is mention often in New Testament records; thus unnecessary to report here. Although perhaps superfluous, here is a list of every reference in which the Greek word for "cured," used by Peter in I Peter 2:24, was used in direct reference to a physical healing: Matt. 8:8, Matt. 8:13, Matt. 15:28, Mark 5:29, Luke 5:17, Luke 6:17, Luke 6:19, Luke 7:7, Luke 8:2, Luke 8:47, Luke 9:2, Luke 9:11, Luke 9:42, Luke 17:15, Luke 22:51, John 4:47, John 5:13, Acts 3:11, Acts 9:34, Acts 10:38, Acts 28:8, and Jam. 5:16. I find it interesting that the greatest number of references fall within the Gospel of Luke; the physician. This leaves five references which are questionable as to their usage as "cured." It can be noted that three of the questionable references which remain, [Matt. 13:15, Luke 4:18, and John 14:20], are Jesus quoting from the book of Isaiah concerning Messiahship. It could be suggested that such is only symbolic, therefore, and has nothing to do with literal physical healing. If such were true, however, why did Jesus send out His disciples to preach the Gospel of the kingdom with the power and authority over demons and the power to heal the sick (Luke 9:1-2). Why not just send them out to preach the Gospel? Furthermore, Jesus seemed to equate the preaching of the kingdom of God and healing as part of the same message (Luke 9:11). Since many refuse to believe that healing is really a viable part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I say this at risk of being challenged. One must note, however, that wherever Jesus preached His Gospel of the kingdom of God, He also took time to heal. He, in fact, constantly made reference to the Messianic passages in Isaiah to demonstrate He was indeed that Messiah come to save and to heal. Must we conclude He only came to heal for three and a half years? Could this perhaps be the reason for the three references made by Matthew, Luke, and John? Could it be that Jesus the Messiah came to preach and to heal, to forgive sins and cure, to save from sin and deliver from bodily infirmities? My personal opinion is that Jesus taught constantly that He was the Messiah and quoted from Isaiah's writings perpetually as He healed the sick; thus confirming His authority as healing Messiah. Was, therefore, His power and authority as Messiah restricted to His short time upon earth? When Peter was sent by God to Cornelius to preach the Gospel, Peter told them that Jesus had come as the One anointed with the Holy Ghost and power and "Healed/cured" all the were oppressed of the Devil (Acts 10:38). Peter equated the ministry of Christ with the message of Christ I.E. He saves from sin and heals the body. Again, the point perhaps could be made with this reference that the word "healed" is in reference to demonic activity. I again suggest, however, that a single reading of the gospel records show that demons are often, although perhaps not always, associated with physical infirmities. Jesus said He came to bring life and life more abundantly, not to take it away. Where is it recorded that Jesus was only Messiah to Israel and that no others would, or could, be healed by His power? If one chooses to believe indeed His healing ministry is exclusive, that is to Israel only, one would have to conclude that very little of the four Gospels are applicable to Christians today. We cannot overlook, however, Peter's direct reference to Christ as Healer as he preached, not to the Jews, but to the gentiles. Are not gentiles the seed of Abraham if they have confessed Christ as Lord? The point was also made on the broadcast, referring to Matthew 10, that Jesus sent His disciples to the lost sheep of Israel; not to the gentiles or the Samaritans. Yet Jesus was found in Samaria preaching His Gospel [John 4] and healing the ten lepers - Samaritans (Luke 17:11-16).. Could this possibly mean that they, the disciples, were sent (first) to the lost sheep of Israel? Did not Christ send them to the whole world later in Matthew 28? Isn't that what Peter was doing at the house of Cornelius - preaching the whole Gospel to the whole world? There is a reference which seems to have no direct association to physical healing; yet the Greek word "cured" is used in Hebrews 12:13. Although I spent time examining this verse in context and believe I can most certainly make the case that even this verse is in reference to physical healing, it would take several pages to do so, and since my purpose is not argumentation, but representation; I will refrain. If I were, however, to accept Brother Van Gorder's teaching that sickness was brought against the Jews to whom James wrote, and that such sickness was the chastisement of the Lord for sins committed, I could easily prove this reference in Hebrews was in the context of healing, since Hebrews 12 is dealing with the chastisement of God. By the way, I do not believe Scripture attributes God authorship of sickness. I will, instead, give ground in this particular case and say it could be symbolic. The most difficult verse, for some, to accept in reference to physical healing is I Peter 2:24. For those who do not believe that healing includes, indeed is inseparable from, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, proving I Peter 2:24 is definite rather than symbolic or metaphoric is impossible. If, on the other hand, Peter indeed was quoting the book of Isaiah, as Jesus so often did when He preached and healed, then Peter's reference is understandable and should be, indeed must be, accepted literally. Again I emphasize, we are not "cured/healed" of sins; only forgiven; unless, of course, Peter spoke symbolically. Brother Van Gorder also taught from James 5 concerning anointing the sick with oil. The implication was, however, that sickness is a result of personal sins. Fortunately, James confirmed that the one being prayed for and anointed would receive forgiveness of sins "if" [not (are)] any were committed. The statement was made that the practice of anointing the sick with oil in James was to Jewish Christians when they were being chastised by the Lord for sins committed. This implies such is not applicable for today's Christian and God places sickness on some if they have sinned. If this is true, the entire epistle of James should only be read and applied to Jews converted to Christ? I must admit that this teaching is a new one - one I have never encountered. If it is true, I for one would be thankful. The last thing I desire is to experience sickness and disease given by God. Unfortunately I have not heard all the broadcasts on the subject of healing which Brother Van Gorder aired. I did note that nothing was mentioned in the program today that those who do believe and teach that healing is not only for today but indeed is part of one's salvation; are teaching heresy. For this I am grateful. We agree, however, that salvation is the most important aspect of one's personal relationship with God. It would be far better for one to be born again than healed. Even greater, in my opinion, would be both I.E. saved and healed. I acknowledge that much of the Pentecostal and Charismatic teachings on the subject of healing have muddy the waters of Biblical understanding. I know, on the other hand, that Brother Van Gorder, as well as the RBC staff as a whole believe that God does heal today. Could perhaps the question actually be "how" and when does He heal today? Could this actually be where we differ? As I and many listeners surely noted, Brother Van Gorder presented his teaching on healing admirably. I believe I can, and have, done likewise. In another words, Scriptural evidence is available on both sides of this issue. We both, however, agree that salvation is not by works but by confession in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Is it not interesting to note, however, that salvation is by confession of Jesus as Lord and that such a confession is by choice? Could it likewise be stated that healing is also a confession; a confession of choice? I noticed that Brother Van Gorder stated, apparently in support of his teaching, that many Christians have been not only anointed with oil but prayed over who never improved. I, on the other hand, know dozens of Christians, some afflicted with incurable diseases, who have been healed when anointed with oil and prayed for in faith. I myself have been healed dozens and dozens of times, along with my wife and children, from various illnesses; sometimes even instantly. Do such testimonials, therefore, confirm God does or does not heal today? The answer, of course, is "no!" Only God's Word confirms whether or not something is true. If one chooses to believe God does not heal, nor that it is a part of his salvation, the only loss is one's own faith that he can be healed by God. Likewise, if one does choose to believe that such is the case and stands upon the authority of God's Holy Word in what he believes, can it be considered heresy, false doctrine, unscriptural, or even wrong to do so? My greatest concern is that some three or four broadcasts have been devoted to the teaching that healing is not part of atonement, and that, evidently, one should not be concerned with such doctrine. Will RBC now spend at least one broadcast in encouraging listeners to exercise faith for even the impossible I.E. the healing of the sick? I am greatly concerned that such will not be the case; yet we both agree that nothing is impossible with God, do we not? If we encourage Christians not to believe, can, or will, they be healed? We know they will not, nor can they be, unless they believe and exercise faith; for it is impossible to please God without faith. Shall we preach only part of the Gospel? Sure, salvation is enough; but what if there's more? Will we some day be found guilty of only preaching part of our Lord's Gospel? Have your broadcasts on healing encouraged listeners to believe God? Will listeners be challenged to step out by faith and trust God for more? Brother Van Gorder said he knew of many Christians who had been prayed for, anointed with oil, and received the laying on of hands, yet they remained sick. The inference being; they believed! May I respectfully point out that simply believing God for healing is not enough. I have sat in many homes presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost and heard them confess belief, yet refused to exercise faith by confessing Christ as Lord. James even said the devils and demons believe but they have no hope of regeneration. Although I have had the privilege of bringing many to Christ, far more have refused to accept Christ as Lord and many to this day, I'm sure, remain lost in their sins. Does this perhaps suggest that not everyone confessing Christ as Lord will be born again? After all, if Jesus saves, should not everyone be saved? Should I stop preaching the Gospel of Christ because some are not born again? Of course not! Jesus saves everyone and anyone who confesses Him as their Lord. Some, however, choose not to confess Him as Lord; yet they believe the truth of the Gospel. Why, then, must we conclude, when others are not healed, that Christ doesn't always heal? Can't His Word be trusted? Is it not true many say they are Christians when in fact they are not? Could it not also be true many confess they are believing God to answer a prayer when, in fact, they are not? May I also point out that sincerity is a poor substitute for faith? The problem, therefore, is not belief but faith and the confession thereof. Many Christians, as I did for years, substitute confidence for faith. They begin to believe God for something because they see it in His Word. As they believe, circumstances, other teachings and opinions on the subject, and the inability to apply that truth rightly begins to shift the balance of spiritual understanding. eventually, they confess that "Well, it just wasn't God's will because it didn't work." Such a confession is the evidence of faithlessness and demonstrates a lack of commitment. If this were a so-called Christian who eventually confessed "Well, God didn't really save me. I'm not going to Heaven. I don't believe any more," we would probably agree he had never really been born again in the first place. Why are not the same rules applied to those who forsake their confession in healing? It is similar to writing a check on ones personal checking account. You may believe there is money in the bank to cover that check but the check bounces. What one believed, therefore, wasn't based upon direct knowledge; therefore no faith - credibility. A few months ago my mother-in-law passed away and went home to be with the Lord. She had been a successful Iowa farmer most of her life and left a sizable inheritance. Her desire was for our nearly forty year old house to be remodeled when she died. My wife and I went to the bank and deposited the inheritance check we had received. The official at the bank, with which we talked, informed us that they indeed would honor the deposit but if we began to write checks without waiting ten days for clearance, they could not guarantee our checks. They even called the bank in Iowa to certify the check's validity; yet because they did not know my mother-in-law personally, and since they were unwilling to trust the word of the Iowa bank, they would not commit themselves, or the bank, to definite action. We didn't wait! We didn't wait because we were not banking on what they were able to guarantee but what my wife's mother could guarantee. We knew how much she had when she died, We knew the amount of the inheritance, and We knew what we believed. The same is true with our Lord. If we truly know Him and what He left when He died in our place, we can believe and draw on that inheritance today. In another words, faith and belief harmonize. In a real sense, my mother-in-law lives today through the use of the inheritance she left. Such should also be true in the life of every Christian today. Does He, Jesus, live in us and through us today? Are we using the inheritance He left us? Should I forego writing checks on our inheritance because others have bounced checks in the past? Should I, for that matter, refuse to write checks today if I have bounced checks myself? By the way, none of our checks bounced; we had faith, you see? Do you? Did those prayed for and anointed to whom Brother Van Gorder referred? How about those who did the praying and anointing? Did they believe? With all do respect, I wouldn't want Brother Van Gorder to anoint me with oil, lay hands on me, and pray for me to be healed if I were sick because from his own confession on the broadcast, he does not believe. Without belief, faith will not work. I have certainly taken a great deal of your time already but may I briefly share my testimony? As I mentioned, I am totally blind. I also have artificial eyes. Can God heal me? As brothers and sisters in Christ and as Bible believers, the question certainly isn't "can God!" He can, I'm sure we agree, do anything. He is the Creator God! Thus, the question is "will He?" You choose to believe He won't. I choose to believe He will. What if I spend my entire life believing and yet nothing happens? Well, we both agree, no doubt, that some day I will receive full use of my physical body again. In fact, we will receive new bodies! If we both stand before our Lord some day, and we most surely will, how will we be viewed by our Lord - I who stood in belief in His Word, or another who stood in unbelief? I wonder whom God will choose to honor. It won't make any difference then, one may say, since I'll be given a new body. That's true! It does, however, make a difference now, because I'm blind. Jesus said we were to pray, His will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. If I were in Heaven with Him right now, I would be able to see. If I do not pray for His "will" to be done now on earth as it is presently in Heaven, I am in unbelief, and more seriously, in disobedience. Again, I choose, as I have with my salvation, to believe God and I choose to confess such with my mouth. Thank you for your time. This has been, i know, a ridiculously long letter, and I don't expect a response of any kind. Frankly, I'll be surprised if my letter is read in its entirety. I know you have better things to do than to read and responde to such correspondence; especially when it differs with the ministry's doctrinal position. Somehow I felt the necessity in my heart to share my testimony. If someone chooses, however, to responde, I will have no problem getting someone to read your letter. I can, of course, listen to a cassette recorded response or, since I use a talking computer, I could even read a word processed letter in either Wordperfect 4.2 or ASCII format on a 3.5 inch DSDD disk. My hope is, however, that RBC will prayerfully consider giving thought to teaching at least once on how and why Christians should believe and exercise faith. We need, in today's church, to believe God for so much. Please consider it for the sake of those who need it the most. Thank you again. Complete In Him, Phil Scovell ======================================== THE EKKLISIA P.O. Box 19454 Denver, Colorado 80219 ****************************** UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY EKKLESIA; AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT.