I spent a little time recently refreshing my memory of the various scriptures which support the practice of glossolalia. Jesus told the disciples, ...wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. (Acts 1:4-5) In Acts 2, we learn that the disciples were gathered together on the Day of Pentecost. Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. This was not a one-time occurrence. Peter traveled to Joppa to speak to God-fearing gentiles. Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. The gentiles, interestingly, received the infilling of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues when they believed the Gospel message of Jesus the Redeemer, and this preceded their water baptism. Later on, Peter recounted the experience to the Jewish believers: Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Act 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? Peter specifically links the Pentecost upper-room experience to the experience of the gentile believers; he said they were one and the same: the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Another passage in Acts is worthy of note on this subject. Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Act 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Act 8:19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. Act 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. In this instance, some people became believers and were baptized, but they were not immediately filled with the Holy Spirit. Yet we know that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is promised to all believers. This suggests that the indwelling and the filling are not the same thing and do not always take place at the same time; one can become a Christian and receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, but not yet be filled (as to overflowing) with the Holy Spirit. Additionally, we may notice that the infilling of the Holy Spirit was deemed important enough in the Apostles' minds that they sent Peter and John specifically for the purpose of facilitating the reception. Moreover, we see that when these believers received the infilling, the evidence was somehow very visible (or audible), for Simon observed it and coveted the ability to impart the same; it seems reasonable to infer that this visible or audible evidence of the infilling was either glossolalia or prophecy, with the former being the more likely considering the overall context of Acts. Paul taught the Corinthian believers concerning gifts of the Holy Spirit, one of which is the gift of tongues. 1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 1Co 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 1Co 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 1Co 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 1Co 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. .... 1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 1Co 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 1Co 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. At this point in the letter, Paul has listed 9 spiritual gifts from the Holy Spirit which are to be used by the recipients. But now Paul expounds (in Ch. 13, the 'Love Chapter') upon the relative importance of these gifts; specifically, he states that walking in love is more important than any of them. And then, in Chapter 14, he explains that most of the other spiritual gifts are of greater value than the gift of tongues. Even so, Paul states in verse 4 that speaking in tongues is spiritually edifying. In verse 14, he teaches the Corinthian believers that praying in a tongue is not fruitful to the natural understanding but is a prayer from the spirit; this shows that he is not referring to a mere foreign language but to a heavenly prayer language that comes not from the human mind but from the Holy Spirit. 1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. Paul also tells the Corinthians that he himself engages in this practice “more than you all” (verse 18). Then he instructs them on the proper, orderly way to have tongues during a church service. 1Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Paul concludes this lesson on tongues with this admonition: 1Co 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 1Co 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order. Paul makes two important points here. First, speaking in tongues is not to be forbidden. Second, speaking in tongues is included in his concept of a decent, orderly church service. I write this not to advocate the practice but to increase understanding, so that those who do not speak in tongues may know the reasons why those who do engage in glossolalia have a Bible-based reason for the practice, and so that love and non-judgmentalism may win out over any hostility. What God has done before, He surely can do again. Discussion moved into its own thread.
Quoting verses from scripture unfortunately does nothing to vindicate today’s practice. What evidence can you adduce that the glossolalia of the Scriptures has something in common with today’s practice? People again and again have failed to produce anything of the kind. The most obvious observations add up to a conclusion that the two practices have nothing in common: 1) people who engage in this practice can’t understand each other, or even understand themselves 2) outwardly, purely on aesthetic grounds, it can sound demonic 3) it has emerged only in the 20th century, precisely during the weakest and most corrupt era of the Church, when she no longer knows herself and tries to substitute forfeit practices instead of her pure and genuine worship and piety.
Stalwart, you bring up some interesting points. I might ask in return, what evidence would you offer to show that the glossolalia of Scriptures has nothing in common with today's practices? The negative of "something in common" is "nothing in common." For the sake of discussion, let's take a closer look at the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2: Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Act 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. Act 2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Act 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Act 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Act 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. Act 2:12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: Act 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: Act 2:19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: Act 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. We see two groups of listeners in the crowd that gathered: those who heard their own native tongue, and those who heard gibberish. Note that both types of listeners were hearing the same stuff. The common objection I've seen is: these believers spoke in known tongues, whereas nowadays we hear unknown tongues that sound like gibberish. This might not be an accurate assessment. The objector will assume that one believer spoke in 'known language A,' a second spoke in 'known language B,' and so on, such that each person heard some uneducated Galilean or another speaking in his native tongue. This is a relatively "natural" interpretation. But that's not the circumstance recorded here. This glossolalia was entirely supernatural. Each listener heard every Galilean speaking in the listener's native tongue. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language (verse 6). And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? (verse 8). The Egyptian heard all the Galileans speak in his language, but the Asians heard them all speaking in their language, all at the same time. And at the very same time, the doubters and scoffers (entrenched religious leaders, most likely) heard them speak what sounded like gibberish: Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine (v. 13). God truly worked a wondrous, supernatural sign before the multitude that day! This interpretation of Acts 2 is the most consistent with the other passages on the subject. For if the Pentecost glossolalia were just straight-up enablement of humans to speak in a known tongue with which they themselves were unfamiliar, why would Paul teach the Corinthians that tongues were 'unfruitful to the understanding' without someone possessing the gift of interpretation being present to give the interpretation? And in Acts 8, Peter verbally taught the gentiles the Gospel of Christ, so they all already understood the same language; why must we assume that the gentiles who believed suddenly spoke in a different, known language as opposed to an unknown, heavenly language (to which an interpetation was provided)? Now, to your specific points, numbered 1 through 3: 1. Largely you're right, although sometimes the person with the message in an unknown tongue also receives and gives the interpretation. To which one might ask, how do we know they're not just making it up? Well, they might be.... if it's not truly from God, they are indeed making it up. Spiritual discernment is necessary. The congregation should have enough mature believers who know how to hear what the Holy Spirit is witnessing to their spirits about the message, and to 'judge the spirit.' 2. Yup, it certainly can sound demonic, or at least suspect. If it's not of God, it certainly should sound suspect! Yet let's not forget that the "real deal" on that Day of Pentecost also sounded to the scoffers like a bunch of drunks. 3. We can't say for sure that "tongues died out" until the 20th Century. We don't actually know for absolute fact that glossolalia was never practiced among any of the believers during the intervening years. We only know that nothing (as far as I'm aware) was written concerning the practice. A good many heterodox and heretical beliefs and practices tried to enter the church during the late 1st Century and the 2nd Century, which prompted Irenaeus to write Against Heresies; did Irenaeus, then, condemn the practice of speaking in tongues? Well, actually the practice was already in the church from its earliest formation, and Paul said that we should not forbid speaking in tongues. Some would say that Irenaeus didn't condemn tongues because it had already died out, but it's equally possible that he didn't condemn it because he knew there was nothing wrong with it. We believe the Bible, right? Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation... (Article 6). The writings of the early church and the early councils inform our understanding of the Bible, but they do not and cannot supplant what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that glossolalia was a relevant and spiritually beneficial practice during the earliest days of the church (when some of the Twelve yet lived). I am unaware of any later 'early church' writings or council rulings which would set the practice aside; do you know of any? Blessings, brother!
Let me address all these verses in a simple manner: they are not substantially different from as many other verses where the Apostles heal the lepers, the sick, and raise the dead. We cannot do that today, and the "faith healers" who have claimed to do so were all exposed as charlatans. In other words we see a substantially unique series of abilities among the Apostles and their contemporaries, which was not seen ever again, neither from the Church Fathers, nor in the middle ages (with the apocryphal claims also being attributed to fraud), neither in the Reformation era (the faith healers and Quakers being typically branded as dangerous, and heretics), and finally not in the present day. The interpretation of the passages you offer is non-traditional, and doesn't fit the natural construction of the verses. Traditionally, glossolalia of the New Testament has been interpreted as people speaking to each other in a language they didn't have natural knowledge of. In other words, 1) they understood this language, or else we can't say they spoke; and 2) the other party understood what they said. But even if we take for a moment your very favorable interpretation of the NT glossolalia, it fails on the most surface evidence. You say, "why must we assume that the gentiles who believed suddenly spoke in a different, known language as opposed to an unknown, heavenly language (to which an interpetation was provided)?" -but it cannot be said that the modern practitioners 'speak' anything, because speaking by definition requires understanding what you're saying. At most we can say that they are mumbling, muttering, babbling gibberish, which even they don't understand, and nor does anyone else around them. -and we know for a fact that their babble has no interpretation. If anyone could actually interpret these modern practitioners, their claims would have a semblance of merit. The traditional Anglican interpretation for why all of the Apostolic Gifts are not seen any more is that they were uniquely granted to the Apostolic generation in order to grow the Church, and have it deeply rooted. Here is the locus classicus for where in the Scriptures it says that the Apostolic gifts will not remain: St. Paul: "Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away." -1. Corinthians, 13:8
I have always understood 1 Cor. 13:8 as referring to the next life; the need for tongues, prophecies, and gaining knowledge will cease to exist when we are in our incorruptible bodies and with the Lord forever, but His love is everlasting and will never pass away. I think Paul was stressing the importance and permanency of love, whereas the interpretation you suggest moves the emphasis away from love (in the "love chapter," no less!) and onto temporal things. And verse 10 points out: But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. The "perfect" is eternity with God, and it has not yet come, so these gifts are not yet done away with. Can you give me any references within the accepted body of Anglican doctrine (the 39 Articles, BCP, etc.) which mandates this interpetation that "all of the Apostolic Gifts are not seen any more"? I would like to read what they say. I was under the impression that Anglicanism was a bit more broad than that, but I might stand corrected. Plainly the objection is not the glossolalia per se, but cessationism versus continuationism. This calls for a transition in the discussion. 1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 1Co 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 1Co 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 1Co 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 1Co 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. Cessationism requires us to assume that: (1) this instruction was meant to be valid only until the last Apostle of that time period died, and therefore (2) God feels that the benefit of these gifts to the believers was of limited duration (the church no longer needs them). Why would Paul give a detailed teaching on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and fail to mention that the church had better hurry up and use them before they expired in a few decades? Forgive my levity, but did God hand the 1st Century believers a "get healed free" coupon with an expiration date? Why are these gifts of the Spirit taken away from future believers, even though all future believers (including us) are indwelt by "that one and selfsame Spirit"? Is humankind in any less need of healings, miracles, words of knowledge, and words of wisdom than the 1st Century humans? Or, has the Holy Spirit changed since that time? Did He stop talking to believers, stop giving them counsel, stop providing for them? (Indeed not, for God is unchanging.) Cessationism also calls for the conclusion that there are no more apostles, prophets, or teachers. 1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 1Co 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 1Co 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts... However, we are not yet made perfect, but apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. are given until we are. Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Again, why did Paul exhort the believers to "covet earnestly" these enablements of the Holy Spirit, while failing to tell them that the Holy Spirit would stop helping the church in this manner the moment John dies on Patmos? I agree that some 'faith healers' have been frauds. Is it valid to assume from this fact that all are frauds? Is every healing and every miracle we hear of in this modern age automatically assumed to be fake? Are we among those who "have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof"? Or to take this a step further, is it valid to conclude that no prayers for healing are answered any longer? It might be a bit of a distortion to state that 'the Apostles healed the lepers and the sick and raised the dead,' for mortal man has no such power; rather, let us recognize in truth that God healed the lepers and the sick and raised the dead through either faith-filled prayers or special giftings. Now, if we postulate that God no longer does these things through giftings (enablements) of the Holy Spirit, has God also stopped working through the faith-filled prayers of His children on earth? If so, why do we bother praying for anyone's needs? It seems, as a matter of observation, that those who say the Spiritual gifts ceased are very often those who feel most skeptical concerning God's willingness to heal in answer to prayer in the modern age. When Jesus told the disciples that ...these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues... they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover, why didn't He say that "these signs shall follow the believers for the next 60 years, but then they shall cease"? If authority over demons, speaking in tongues, speaking prophecies, and healings have passed away, has God become distant and withdrawn, leaving us to fend for ourselves? Are the demon-possessed simply out of luck ever since Apostle John passed away? It seems as though cessationism would call for a 'yes' response to these questions. In addition to all of the above, cessationism seems to demand a conclusion that we are no longer living in the "last days." Act 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: This raises the question: what earthly days are later than the "last days," anyway?? I've recounted elsewhere on the forum concerning the time I prayed for a woman with a badly sprained ankle. As she turned away to hobble (supporting herself by the pews) back to her seat, I felt strongly in my spirit that I should tell her to walk normally on the ankle (but being inexperienced in such things I feared to say it, but the pastor had the same urge and shouted, "Walk on it, sister!") I later realized that this was a 'word of knowledge,' received by both of us from the Holy Spirit, and it was a key to the manifestation of the lady's complete healing in less than 1 minute. So I guess I didn't get that 'cessationist' memo in time.... I'd like to recommend to any and all Christians a book entitled Smith Wigglesworth, Apostle of Faith by Stanley Frodsham. Wigglesworth was the sort of man who strived to please God and to live in union with the Holy Spirit; he was wont to stand on a street corner and wait until the Spirit told him exactly which person he should witness to, and only then would he step out in obedience and address the individual. Would that we all were so attuned to the Holy Spirit's leading.
I'm sure there was something in historic Anglicanism on this, but my point just referred to all major churches at the Reformation, and how they dealt with quakers, shakers, and faith healers. I don't think it's a debate on cessationism, at least I didn't intend it to be as such. I fully affirm that there can be healings and miracles taking place today (something cessationism doesn't allow.) I read your testimony of a miraculous healing, and I take its truth at face value, so again, no bones from me on that one. But just because you were involved in a faith healing, does not make you a faith healer, if that makes sense. You do not have this power intrinsic to your nature as the Apostles had; it happened only once, despite all the other times you prayed for similar results. God used you as a vehicle to obtain his goal. That is very different from what we call the Apostolic Gifts, namely innate capacities that people could invoke at will. The Apostles could call on them at any time they wanted to, and the gifts worked 100% of the time, in proof of divine inspiration. You don't have the Apostles proclaiming loudly that they were going to heal someone as the proof of the Gospel, meanwhile crossing the fingers behind their backs and knowing that the last 100 times they said this it didn't work. No, they could command this power at will. And all those who pretend to command it today (you and I can agree) are frauds. In the same way, those who spoke with glossolalia in the New Testament could command that power at will; those who pretend to do it today (we have to agree) are frauds. We have to, because 1) they don't know what they're saying, 2) their audience doesn't know what they're hearing, 3) it sounds demonic. I fully allow that true NT-style glossolalia could miraculously occur today, a divine communication that is established between two people even without a bond of a shared language, or with a miraculous use of a language previously unknown. All I am saying is today's 'speaking in tongues' is not like that. The Apostolic Gift, in the NT era, could be called on at will like an intrinsic power/capacity, while those today can't even communicate with each other accidentally. Plus, it would've looked and sounded very different from those who 'speak in tongues'... For one, it would not sound guttural, I am sure of that. In heaven we will hear the choirs of the heavenly angels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cn7ZW8ts3Y Not this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phvpFNUx5Hg
As lovely as 'Spem' is (thanks for that link), I suspect that the singing in heaven will make even that wonderful piece sound comparatively shabby. We have so much to look forward to! Any "faith healer" who would claim the ability to invoke healing power at will is a fraud. Is that what some of them claim? I don't know this for a fact. Evidence? I think most so-called "faith healers" are labeled as such not by themselves but by outside observers. The ministers in question do not claim to have such an ability. Even those who have (or believe they have?) the gift of healing will, to my knowledge, state openly that the gift is only occasionally activated by God and that most of the time they're simply acting in faithful obedience to the Bible instruction to 'lay hands on the sick' with hope and a sense of faithful expectation. Some of them may indeed go too far with the 'expectation,' but I've never heard of one who would make a guarantee. For that matter, I don't think the 12 Apostles could make any guarantees. I don't think they could "command this power at will." I don't think anyone ever could, except Jesus... and even Jesus didn't in some cases even though He could have. Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. Mar 6:4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. Mar 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. Mar 6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching. Unbelief seems to have been (and still is) the most significant hindrance to receiving healing. Most of the time in the N.T. accounts of healings, the person being healed had faith to be healed. Prominent examples are the bleeding woman who touched the hem of Jesus' prayer shawl and the Centurion who asked Jesus to "just say the word and my servant will be healed." Jesus commended people like these for their great faith, and He told them it was done in accordance with their faith. It seems highly unlikely that every single person whom the 12 Apostles prayed for received healing or a miracle or whatever. The writers recorded only success stories, but this should not be assumed to imply that the Apostles had a 100% success rate with intercession. Rather than view the Apostles as, shall we say, "super-Christians" with heroic abilities, I tend to view them as men sent out by God as missionaries to spread the Gospel. The word apostolos basically means "sent ones." God did confirm their preaching of the Gospel message with frequent signs, wonders and miracles, but God could do this by bestowing multiple gifts of the Spirit upon each Apostle. God the Holy Spirit dispenses any gifts to individuals as He wills, and it seems very likely that He would give more of His gifts to the Apostles because they showed themselves "faithful in much" (see the parable of the talents)... much more likely than that He would give any man carte blanche 'power at will'. The Holy Spirit sort of 'activates' (for lack of a better term) a gift of healing, a gift of miracles, a gift of prophecy, or a gift of tongues at the times and places of His choosing; the rest of the time any Christian (Apostles included) could then (and today can) only walk in faith and obedience, with no ability to 'summon' the gift, but I we shouldn't assume that the Holy Spirit is all finished with activating the gifts as He wills for the benefit of those He loves. In the N.T. record, the twelve Apostles were not the only ones to operate in the Spirit's gifts. Stephen and Philip the Evangelist seem to have had the gifts of healings and of miracles. A great number of non-apostles received the gift of prophecy. The gifts of the Spirit were not given strictly to validate Apostolic ministry, but were given to edify and meet physical, spiritual, and temporal needs of His children. As long as Christians continue to have needs, I believe that God will continue to provide for us (within the confines of His overarching will, bearing in mind that He knows everything and we don't) not just through Spiritual gifts but through all the ministry offices such as teachers, pastors, evangelists, and apostles. I can understand why a person who looks at apostles as recipients of 'power at will' would conclude that there never were any more such apostles, and that therefore things are vastly different since the Twelve went to heaven. I just don't think of them in that light. Nor do I think that people with the gift of tongues in the 1st Century had the ability to speak in tongues without an unction supplied by the Spirit for that moment in time when He willed them to so speak. And it should be the same for us today. Now, do folks sometimes get carried away and try to operate in a Spiritual gift at a time when they are not anointed to do so? Yes, I'm sure this happens. Yet we all miss God's directions frequently in our daily walk, and not just with regard to gifts of the Spirit. We mess up, we find out we messed up, and we learn (hopefully) to be more receptive to (and wait for!) the Spirit's leading. Perhaps it's better to try and fail than to never try at all, for if we never try we never get to learn from our mistakes. And those of us who see and recognize the mistakes of others probably should cut them some slack for trying; better to judge not than to be judged. "Love covers a multitude of sins." I'd better stop now; it's past bedtime and I think I've begun to ramble....
Sometime in the night this story from Acts 14 came to mind, and it's a good example. Act 14:6 They were ware of it, and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about: Act 14:7 And there they preached the gospel. Act 14:8 And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked: Act 14:9 The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, Act 14:10 Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked. The crippled man heard the Gospel, probably from the lips of Paul or of Barnabas. Something or someone drew Paul's attention to the crippled man, and Paul stared intently at him. Paul perceived that the man had faith for healing. Paul commanded the man to stand up, and he not only stood but walked and jumped, healed! Some observations: Plainly, hearing the Gospel is important in helping one's faith to increase. The Gospel message preached by Paul and Barnabas, and heard by this crippled man, must have included some teaching about Jesus' willingness to heal all those who came to him in faith for healing. What drew Paul's attention to that man, out of all the people he might have looked at? Was the Holy Spirit communicating to Paul? How did Paul "perceive that the man had faith for healing?" One cannot very well see "faith for healing" with the eyes. Could Paul have received a word of knowledge ("This man believes I will heal him") and a word of wisdom ("Tell him to stand on his feet") from the Holy Spirit?
I hope you're not serious, friend? This is what 99% of faith healers are like, mostly pentecostal 'ministers' (ie. laymen performing tricks): Benny Hinn is incredibly notorious, surely you've heard of him? Oral Roberts: Caption: "Richard Roberts teaches us how to lay hands on the sick so they recover." I could give you 100s more just on Youtube alone. Literally 99% of faith healing looks like this. That's a horrible thing to say. So if someone didn't get healed, it's they who are the problem, not that the 'healer' was a charlatan? I hope you strongly reconsider this whole position. Broadly speaking, all of those, including St. Stephen and St. Philip, can be considered as apostles. The 12 Apostles were not exclusively titled 'The Apostles' in the Scriptures, but merely "The Twelve". Calling them 'The Apostles' came later as an unhistoric medieval corruption of the New Testament. All major figures of the New Testament era are considered the apostles. For example Phoebe was considered an 'apostle' which women's ordination advocates jump at using to validate their error, but she was never one of The Twelve (the bishops), or The Seventy (the presbyters), or one of the deacons. All of the major figures of the New Testament were considered apostles, which was seen separate from the institution of The Church, as limited to The Twelve and The Seventy, and their deacons. So the entire apostolic generation, ie. the generation which closes with the death of the last of the Twelve, were considered to have had the Apostolic Gifts. And they did not look like the fraudulent and demonic Benny Hinn. The simple facts are these: there were no faith healers in the whole history of Christianity, until the 20th century when the Church became corrupted almost beyond any recognition in her beliefs, doctrines, discipline, and piety. There was no understanding of people having what you'd call the Spiritual Gifts, for 2000 years. John Jewel in your signature was famous for crushing the heretics who tried to speak in tongues or perform healings in the 16th century. In other words, it is only after we've lost all belief in traditional Christian and Anglican piety, discipline and doctrine, that faith healers have multiplied themselves and polluted the pristine name of Christianity with their fictions. Has faith healing occurred in these 2000 years? Sure. I will 100% accept that, and it has been recorded, as a miraculous show of God's power, in no way attached to the person who did it. Was it ever 'on command' even so much as to blame the recipient if the healing didn't 'succeed'? NEVER. And why? St. Paul says it very clearly: at the close of the apostolic era, the gifts of tongues, etc, will cease.
My question was whether any "faith healers" claim to have the ability to invoke healing power at will. Your response was to post video clips. So I watched the first one, and nowhere in it did I hear anyone claim they could invoke healing power at will. The next one was rather long, so I skipped it and watched the first Benny Hinn clip; once again, Hinn never makes any such claim (but the video did cause me to hum and sing that song, "He's the savior of my soul," most of the evening). I don't have time to watch the others right now, but if there's a place in one of them wherein a minister states the claim in question, please note the time stamp location in the clip so I can go right to it. In regard to my statement that unbelief seems to be the greatest hindrance to receiving healing, you replied: I'm afraid my comment was misunderstood. Unbelief (i.e., lack of faith) is only one of several hindrances; others include unforgiveness, unconfessed sin, God's will concerning a specific circumstance, and so on. No, I'm neither implying nor saying that the sick person automatically is "the problem" if they don't get healed, but I am saying that if a person simply does not believe that God will heal him, most likely he's correct. But on the other hand, if a person believes that God is the Healer, that His general will is to heal people, and that God still heals people today, that person is in a much better position to receive healing than the one who does not believe any of that. You are correct, Stalwart, that it would be horrible to say to someone, "You wouldn't be sick if you just had faith." That is detestable. Yet there is nothing wrong with teaching someone what Scripture says concerning healing and God's will to heal as demonstrated by Him (indeed it is wise and good to do so, and when Jesus "could do no mighty work" in His home town and marveled at their unbelief, He proceeded to remedy that unbelief by going around and teaching). It seems strange to think, on the one hand, that many people (not just the 12) may be considered to have received the apostolic anointing from God, but on the other hand to insist that God never so anointed anyone after, oh, 90 or 100 A.D. Now this is rather interesting. I would like to read what Jewel wrote concerning the practices of glossolalia and healing in his day; if anyone can provide reference to the actual document and, preferably, location within the document, I most certainly will look at it. But in the meantime, after being disappointed by the video (non)-evidence, forgive me if I am a bit skeptical about this. Additionally, I note that in post #7 above, you stated that glossolalia emerged "only in the 20th century," but now you state that the practice was known in the 16th Century. Is it possible that God's gift of tongues never ceased after all, but has been grossly misunderstood in the latter years? And I agree wholeheartedly with this! I'm unable to agree with your interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:8, but I've already explained that so I won't repeat. Have a blessed day.
A few scriptures concerning the healing work done by Jesus, lest there be any doubt that one's faith for healing often plays a significant role in one's reception of healing: Mat_9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. Mat_9:22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour. Mat_9:29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you. Mat_15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. Luk_18:42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee. It should come as no surprise, for we know that we are saved by God's grace through our faith in Him. If God is pleased to grant grace for eternal life through faith, why wouldn't He also grant grace for good health through faith? Heb_11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
I'm really surprised that you're siding with Benny Hinn on this one. If you don't think that by his peacock posture, his grandstanding, his parading of people down the 'stage', all of whom he 'heals' like clockwork, represents a horrific testimony to the nature of Apostolic faith healing, then I don't know what would convince you. I completely deny that God in every case wills to heal someone. How can you know God's will on anything (apart from the salvation of mankind)? Also, we know that God has told us that "in this world there will be suffering". We are told to take on the cross, and learn to appreciate and enjoy suffering. To promise people that God wants them to have physical comforts, aren't you just promising the prosperity Gospel? We know that there have been heretics in all centuries of the Church. Heresy was understood not just as some "Episcopal-Church-minimum-heresy" type thing of only denying the Trinity, but covered a huge range of beliefs, and not only beliefs but behaviors. You can just look at the many heretics who were (lamentably) burned at the stake in the 16th century, in Anglican, Roman Catholic, and continental Protestant countries, many of them not for things they've said, but for claims and powers they ascribed to themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witches_of_Belvoir "She never hurt any body, but did help divers persons that were stricken or fore-spoken (bewitched): and that her Spirit came weekly to her, and would tell of divers persons that were stricken and fore-spoken: and she saith that the use which she had of the Spirit, was to know those did which she had undertaken to amend and she did help them by certain prayers which she used. ... Margaret and Philippa Flowers were tried ... and found guilty, and Margaret was hung at Lincoln castle on 11 March 1619." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Boyman "Boyman was alleged to have predicted the death of the regent" -- here a woman was considered to be a witch, and executed, merely for claiming to predict the future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Jones_(Puritan_midwife) "2. She practising physic, and her medicines being such things as, by her own confession, were harmless, — as anise-seed, liquors, etc., — yet had extraordinary violent effects. 3. She would use to tell such as would not make use of her physic, that they would never be healed; and accordingly their diseases and hurts continued, with relapse against the ordinary course, and beyond the apprehension of all physicians and surgeons. 4. Some things which she foretold came to pass accordingly; other things she would tell of, as secret speeches, etc., which she had no ordinary means to come to the knowledge of. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Albrecht_Adelgrief "He asserted that seven angels had come down from heaven and given him the commission to banish evil from the world.... He was arrested at Königsberg (Królewiec), accused of witchcraft, and condemned to death with all his writings suppressed." It's not my interpretation, it has always been everyone's interpretation; it's been the whole Church's interpretation, for 2000 years. It is the teaching of the Church. We find it among the Church Fathers, who were the closest to the actual/literal apostles and understood the local Greek and Latin natively; the teaching of the medievals; the teaching of Romanists and ALL of the Reformers, which they were willing to enforce at the threat of life itself; down to the 20th century's corruption of the Church's belief in her own doctrines, starting with the Azuza Street Revival, in the year 1906, in San Francisco.
Who said I was siding with him? It helps if both parties in a discussion stay on track. You said faith healers claim to possess power at will. This is a very specific claim. I asked for evidence. You produced no such evidence, but diverted the issue to the unsavory appearance of faith healers. I called out the fact that you produced no evidence. You continue with the unsavory appearance issue. If you want to debate this point further then please answer with proof of your claim, otherwise a dropped argument is a lost argument. I don't have any disagreement with you on the unsavory appearances. I have made no attempt here to defend any particular faith healers. I don't have a high opinion of, nor do I like, Benny Hinn, so I have no reason to defend him; but that wasn't the issue!!! I agree completely with this, and I have so stated several times... in this thread and in others. I'll look at the remainder of your reply later; I have to get some work done right now. Really, it seems that my viewpoint seems to be getting mixed up with the viewpoints of other, more extreme people.
Stalwart, would you be so kind as to state your definition of a "faith healer"? If we are both on the same page about this moniker, we'll be less apt to talk past each other. As I've written before, I think this term is applied to certain persons by outside observers. The persons in question rarely, I suspect, apply the moniker to themselves.
I wrote: ↑ I'm unable to agree with your interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:8 Oh, if you find among the early Church Fathers the statement that the Spiritual gifts ceased, please provide the documentary evidence. Yet again we have a broad assertion being made with no references to back it up. I'm not aware that the early Fathers said yea or nay on the subject, but I'm open to reading what they had to say if they really did say something. As for "the teaching of the medievals" and "the teaching of Romanists and ALL of the Reformers," since when do Anglicans include those teachings as doctrine? I thought Anglicans followed the Bible, as enlightened by "500 years and 5 Councils." If I wanted to follow the teaching of the medievals and Romanists, I'd still be a Roman Catholic. Let's have a look at 1 Cor. 13:8 in its setting within the chapter, to gain a better view of what's being discussed. 1Co 13:4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 1Co 13:5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 1Co 13:6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 1Co 13:7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 1Co 13:8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 1Co 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 1Co 13:10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. Notice that the primary thrust here is to show the overarching importance of our love walk. In that vein, we are told one of the reasons why love is so much more important than the gifts, to wit: "love never ends." God's love is everlasting, and our love for God and for our fellows will likewise endure. By contrast, the Spiritual gifts will end. When will they end? Verse 10 tells us, "when the perfect comes..." In verse 12 Paul adds that this time (when the perfect comes) will be the time when we see (impliedly, see God) "face to face," the time when we "shall know fully" our Lord and Creator even as we are now "fully known" by Him. Could "the perfect" have been when the Church came to maturity and unity in the 2nd. Century, as some would claim? The Church's lack of unity and lack of spiritual maturity throughout the ages has been self-evident. Could "the perfect" have been the New Testament? Well, did the Council that chose which books were Canonical (and which were not) somehow cause Paul to "know fully" what he did not previously know? Of course not; Paul had gone home to the Lord years before that. To read it thusly, Paul would have had to be saying that the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and word of knowledge -- gifts provided by the Holy Spirit Himself for our benefit -- were childish. (Besides, which translation is the "perfect" one? What is so perfect about it, when people have trouble agreeing on what this passage means or how that word should be translated? The N.T. is wonderful, excellent, completely finished being written, and the best thing we have for learning about God and the Gospel; but... perfection? Only God Himself is perfect.) Therefore, if the early Fathers had something to say about this, I would want to read their reasoning. I would want to understand their astute theological argument why they chose to disregard the context surrounding verse 8; then, if it made sense, I would be persuaded to agree. But absent any such evidence, this cessationist view of verse 8 (and that is exactly what it is) appears quite simply to be the cessationist's word against God's Word.
I'd like to share a good report! My wife likes to play online games with some friends on the web, and they have a chat channel so they can talk while they play. They live all over the country, but the 'net makes the world a smaller place, doesn't it? One of the guys broke his foot really badly almost 2 years ago and the foot lost all sense of feeling (hard to walk when you can't feel if your foot is down to the floor yet). Another fellow had a pocket in the back of his throat that trapped food and gave him a lot of trouble with swallowing. This latter guy went in for surgery a week ago to repair it. He's a Christian, so he was looking to God for a good outcome on the surgery. Anyway, the other evening they were chatting about the surgery, the man said it went fine and he was doing really well, and he talked about how grateful he was to God for his quick recovery. He and my wife and a couple others got to swapping stories about God's goodness and what He's done for them, and about times when God has healed them or others they know about. The man with the bad foot isn't a Christian (although he was raised in a Christian family he became a skeptic), but he was hearing all of these testimonies. Suddenly the man got excited and said his foot felt hot! And feeling came back into the foot! He started walking on it and laughing about how much of a relief it was to have sensation in that foot again; after all this time he'd sort of forgotten what a chore it was to walk without being able to feel where his foot was in relation to the floor. And this experience has him thinking seriously about God now, obviously! This reminds me of a Scripture. Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Or to put it more plainly: Faith comes through hearing the message about God the Son. This skeptic heard Christians talking about God's healing power, and then he received healing from God. No properly-ordained minister prayed for him. In fact I don't know if any of the people in the chat room were praying directly for him right then (if they were, it wasn't audible). None of the other people actually were speaking directly to him. Yet the Holy Spirit was present, no doubt drawing the man toward faith. And when he started to believe that, hey, maybe God is real and maybe He still heals people today...the power of God was present to heal the man. Glory to God!
I need to correct a statement I made in post #13. I completely agree with Stalwart's statement, "I completely deny that God in every case wills to heal someone." However, concerning Stalwart's next sentence, "How can you know God's will on anything (apart from the salvation of mankind)?" my answer is that we can know much about God's will by reading the Bible. For example, we can clearly see in the Word that God wills for us to not sin, to walk in love toward others, to love Him wholeheartedly, to not take the 'mark of the beast' (Revelation), to worship no other gods, and on and on. When it comes to healing, the Bible teaches us a great deal about God's will in general that His people be healthy. Exo_15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee. Psa_103:3 Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; Psa_147:3 He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds. Psa_107:20 He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions. Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Mat 8:16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: Mat 8:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. Jesus is the image of the Father. He said, "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father." Jesus only and always did what the Father would have Him do (John 5:19,30; John 12:49-50). By His actions, He showed us the Father's will. Whenever people came to Jesus for healing, He healed them. More than once we read that a multitude came to Him and He healed them all. (Matt. 8:16, 12:15, 14:14, 15:30, 19:2). Jesus demonstrated the will of the Father. Jesus showed us the compassion both He and the Father have for the infirm, but He didn't stop with feelings of compassion; He acted on the people's behalf and healed them of their infirmities. When Jesus sent others out to spread the Good News about Him, He told them to heal the sick as well. Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. And we are told in James 5 that we should pray for the sick and should expect the prayer of faith to save them (impliedly from infirmity). All of these scriptures (and many more) show us God's will that, as a general proposition, He wants us to be well rather than sick. Can we know for certain His specific will concerning a certain person's condition at a certain time? No, the Bible does not teach us this. However, it does teach us to pray in faith (believing, expecting) for the person's need to be met. This prayer is an act of obedience as well as an act of faith. It is God who heals; we who pray are merely His faithful, obedient servants. We should not be discouraged by the lack of sure knowledge concerning the specifics, but we should pray anyway. Nor should we feel as though there is any burden or pressure upon us to "perform healing," for God is the healer, not us, and He knows what He is doing. Now, suppose we've prayed and the person feels no change in condition. Suppose they want to know why they don't perceive any healing. We might answer them by suggesting some of the many reasons and possibilities. The person may have unforgiveness or may be unrepentant of some sin. The infirmity may be caused by an unclean spirit for which fasting is necessary (Matt. 17:21). The person may not believe that God still heals today. Or he may be wavering between two opinions on the matter (James 1:6-8). Or God wishes the healing to take place in a gradual manner (recovery can be a process). Or God wants the healing to take place at a different time for some reason (such as, so a specific witness to the healing sees it and is moved toward faith in Christ). Or it may be something else. The human mind can't think of every possible hindrance. If you look at the above possibilities, how many of them can be affected by some response of the infirm person? Only the ones dealing with possible unforgiveness, unrepentance, lack of faith for healing, or wavering (weak) faith for healing. (The latter two could really be lumped together.) When one teaches about these possible hindrances to healing, in no way is it meant to belittle or blame the infirm person. Yet some will 'take it the wrong way' and incorrectly assume it's being stated that 'it's their fault they are not healed.' Not so. However, these things should be taught so the person can examine himself and take corrective steps if necessary (i.e., repent, or forgive, or learn more about God's general will concerning healing). We can't have faith to receive what God has for us until we know what God's will for us is. Just as a person's faith to be born again comes through hearing or reading the Good News of Jesus' redemption and the free gift of salvation, one's faith to be healed comes through hearing or reading scriptures that teach about God's healing power and will. Now, forgive me if I tread on a few toes, but I would like to ask some questions of the reader. What do you personally believe concerning God's willingness to heal? When was the last time you heard a homily on this subject? When was the last time you made a study of the scriptures that teach us about this subject? Have you been under the impression that God hardly ever wants to heal people in this church age? The reason I ask is this: if much of the church world has been taught that healing is not for today, might that help explain why so few are healed today? First, the sick person who assumes healing passed away with the Apostles may not bother to even ask God for healing; second, the person might not really expect to receive an answer to prayer but is merely a 'wishful thinker.' How likely is he to receive healing? Not very. He who comes to God (be it for eternal life, for healing, for daily providence, or whatever) must believe that God is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6). He who prays must not be of two minds or wavering (James 1). Jesus taught that we should expect to receive what we pray for (Matt. 7:7-11). If the church teaches its people that healing 'just doesn't happen nowadays, and hasn't for centuries,' should we be surprised that healing doesn't happen nowadays? Relating this to the Gifts of the Spirit: if the church teaches its people that the Gifts have passed away (or severely lessened in magnitude and frequency), and if Christians no longer "earnestly covet the best gifts" (1 Cor. 12:31), should we be surprised that we no longer observe the Gifts in operation the way we read of them in the Bible? The Holy Spirit changes not. But people have changed. Could that be the true explanation?
Someone who creates an impression that he can cause healings at will. Yes I had covered those under the general rubric of salvation of mankind. That's not what I was referring to. Rather, how can you know God's will other than what's written in the Scriptures, in a personal manner, that God wants me to be healed? What if he doesn't. What if he wants you to bear the cross, and learn to find consolation in suffering? The idea that God wills all people to be healed, wishing to maximize their physical comfort as much as possible is the Prosperity Gospel. Either you offer them physical comfort, which is a grievous error, or you allow that God could want suffering for them. So how can you know God's will for their healing to be successful or not? This is the very presumption which modern faith healers undertake without so much as a second thought. I think we have completely different observations: I see the church world being inundated with faith healers. Just see the countless videos online, see the countless "healing" services even in Episcopal churches, in the Roman Catholic churches, in the Methodist churches, and especially in all the innumerable charismatic and pentecostal churches. Literally everywhere you turn, people are offering healing, and informing people about 'healing'. And yet you are completely correct: "so few are healed today". That's because the 'healers' are pretenders, and have little to do with the process. Those who are healed, receive this blessing from God by the mediation of random men who puff themselves up with this power, forgetting that they are servants, not masters, in the House of the Lord. Forgetting that the age when men had this Gift at command had ceased with the death of the last Apostle, 2000 years ago.
What are those healing services about, anyway? By the way I do not have a problem with the anointing of the sick with oil or praying for the healing of people; I consider these to be decent actions and they also represent the ancient traditions of the Church. But they do not represent “faith healing” in that they are not intended to supplant medical care. Fun fact: the Copts and the Russians (historically all Byzantine-rite Eastern Orthodox) provide holy oil to the entire congregation on the last day of Lent, the Friday before Lazarus Saturday and Palm Sunday. The Greek practice, or rather the practice contained in the disagreeably revised Violakis Typikon, is to now do this on Holy Wednesday, which is convenient, but which tends to cause parishes to neglect one of the very important Bridegroom Matins services and also to neglect to serve the Presanctified liturgy. The manner in which the oil is blessed is unique to the Coptic and Byzantine liturgical uses and is very dissimiliar to that of the Western (Roman/Gallican/Sarum/Lutheran/Anglican), West Syriac, East Syriac, Armenian and Ethiopian rites. There are a few minor differences between the Coptic and the Byzantine liturgies but both are centered around seven Gospels, seven Epistles and seven prayers. It’s a really beautiful service because it features so much scriptural content. The modularity adds to this and is evocative, from a Western perspective, of the Service of Nine Lessons and Carols. Faith healing strikes me as being conversely something which is extremely perniciously evil, because it discourages people from seeking proper medical treatment, especially Christian Science. But I do believe God will miraculously heal people even now when it is according to His will.
I have some rather detailed comments in mind, but it's the busiest week of the year for me and I'm waiting until the weekend, or next week. For now I'll just say that the ministers and activities in those videos have nothing in common with Christian Science, nor do they try to discourage traditional medical treatment.