HEALING
BY FAITH.
BY M.E. CULVER.
As cases of healing, in
answer to “the prayer of faith,” are becoming more and more frequent, there is
much comment on this subject, which is a hindrance to many, and does much
toward keeping them from accepting and enjoying what our loving Father offers
us. These comments, the opposition with which we meet, come from every
direction, and it may be profitable to consider some of these, as they have
recently come under our notice. May we, as Christians, learn what truth is, as
taught in God’s word, and not be unduly influenced by what others may say, but
consider God’s word authority enough, and no longer think it strange that God
should fulfill that word,- His own sure word of promise - which shall not fail
though heaven and earth should pass away.
Among articles,
commenting on faith-cure, I wish especially to notice two or three.
The first is an extract
form a religious paper. At the beginning it quotes Jss. 5:15, and then states,
that “this promise is proved to be just as true and sure as are others in God’s
word. Yet the prayer is not always answered by healing;” and then further
states: “At first, the inevitable effect of this seeming failure, is a sense of
discouragement and questioning of the Lord’s dealings with us. We ask
ourselves, whether, after all, it is best to offer this prayer. Why not leave
it simply in the Lord’s hand, without this positiveness
of appeal for healing, which faith it will
be done implies?”
What has been quoted
above is an expression of the experience and thought of many sincere seekers
after the truth concerning this matter. But why
should we “leave it without the positiveness which faith that it will be
done implies?”
We must not forget that
it is the prayer of faith that is
answered by healing. All discouragement is from Satan. The counsel of our lord
is, “be strong and of good courage,”
and discouragement is only one of the fiery darts, which are to be quenched by
the shield of faith, which we are commanded to take; and as for “questioning
the Lord’s dealings with us,” the doubting soul may do that, but a trusting
one, never. WE cannot trust Him, at the same time question His dealings with
us. Let us examine ourselves to see whether we asked in faith. We will find it
better to ask if it was the prayer of
faith, than to “ask ourselves whether it is best for us to offer this prayer.”
When God has said, “the prayer of faith shall save the sick,’ why should we
conclude it is best that we should not offer this prayer? I imagine Satan would
be well pleased to have us come to such a conclusion. In Luke xiii: 16, we read
of a woman whom he had bound eighteen years, and he would delight to bind
people today, and to do it, he needs only to persuade them that they should not
offer this prayer.
Many people argue, that
God is glorified by those who suffer from disease and sickness; but we read of
this woman in ver. 13, that “she was made
straight and glorified God.” It
was when she was healed that she glorified God.
Again, I ask, why should we be content without the
positiveness which faith it will be done implies? Faith that it will be done is
a necessary condition of the fulfillment of the promise. We must be positive
that God’s word is truth, and when EH says, “Ask and ye shall receive,” it is
our privilege to be positive that it means just what it says, and when it says,
“the prayer of faith shall save the sick,” we may, and ought to be positive
that it will; and not only that it will save a few of the sick but “any among
you.” If we have the positiveness of faith that it will be done, and the spirit
of trust which will not doubt and question, the cases in which the prayer is
not answered by healing will be less frequent.
The editor of another
paper of the same character, in an article bearing the title “The Prayer of
Faith,” says, “The Bible abounds with precepts which are not to be interpreted
literally,” and further, to illustrate, he gives an account of a maniac who
chopped off his right hand because it offended him, and then says, “he was
another of these literalists.” He also states, that to interpret, literally, “Whatsoever
ye shall ask in My name that will I do,” is to fall into a literalism almost as
absurd, and certainly more harmful, than that of the lunatic who cuts off an
offending hand. He then supposes a very sick child and the mother praying for
its recovery, pleading this promise, and then says, “No, mother, you have no
right to believe that your child will certainly get well. You have no have no
right to suppose that the Lord of life and death will bid them to be obedient
to your desires. This is not faith; it is superstition, or presumption.”
All this from a minister
of the Gospel of Him who “took our infirmities and bare our sickness,” and who
healed all that were sick;” whose command today to His ministers to preach the
Gospel is no more empathetic than his command to them to heal the sick. When He
sent out the twelve, He sent them to preach and to heal the sick.-(Luke 9:2)
After this, He appointed other seventy and said unto them: “Into whatsoever
city ye enter, heal the sick that are therein.” After His resurrection, when He
gave the command to go and teach all nations, He says this teaching should be
for all nations to observe what he had previously commanded the disciples, and,
as we have already seen, He had commanded them to heal the sick, consequently
all nations are not taught to observe all the things which He commanded the
disciples unless His command to heal the sick is observed and taught.
In the closing verses of
the 16th of Mark, we find this command more definitely expressed. H
here tells them to “preach the Gospel toe every creature,” and one of the signs
that should “follow them that believe,” was that they should lay hands on the
sick and they should recover. Then we are told that they went forth and
preached, and the Lord confirmed the word with signs, one of which was the
haling of the sick.
From all the accounts
given us in the Acts of the Apostles, we find that they preached Christ, and
healed the sick. They preached, and the signs which Christ had foretold,
followed. It is therefore evident that they understood Christ’s commands and
promises literally, and it was
neither absurd nor harmful. As they understood, so they acted, and the sick
were healed through faith. In Acts 14:9, we are told that one man was healed when he had faith to be healed; and in
Acts 3: 12, 16 we are expressly told that it was through faith that healing was accomplished. We have no reason to
suppose they though it presumption or superstition to believe that in answer to
faith the sick would certainly recover; and what proof is there, or what is there
that would in any way indicate that Christ’s directions were not to be followed
literally, when we see such results? We need not go back to the time of the
disciples to see the results of taking literally His promise that we shall receive
if we ask, even though the thing we ask is health. There are many today, and we
need not go far to find them, who are in perfect health in consequence of faith
in the literal meaning of “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name that will I do.”
If the command to preach
the Gospel is for us to follow literally now, why should not the command to
heal the sick be the same? They were given by Christ, at the same time, to the
same persons. IF the preaching of the Gospel yet continues, why should not “the
signs following” continue? What authority has anyone to preach the Gospel,
because Christ commanded it, and take no notice whatever of the other portions of the same commands?
[To be concluded.]
