Saved And Healed?
By
Phil Scovell
Copyright (C) 1997/2003
By Phil Scovell
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction of the following is granted by the copyright holder,
Phil Scovell, if such reproduction is done in the spirit in which
it was given. It may not be reproduced and sold for financial
gain without written permission of the copyright holder: Phil
Scovell. Electronic formats may be distributed freely but this
copyright notice must remain with each copy and the text cannot
be altered in any way. For convenience, this copyright
notification may be placed at the end of the document if
reproduced electronically.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Phil Scovell
840 South Sheridan Boulevard
Denver, Colorado 80226-8017
Toll Free: 888-936-0001
Voice: 303-936-2188
Fax: 303-936-1841
Email: Phil@RedWhiteAndBlue.ORG
Web: WWW.RedWhiteAndBlue.ORG
SAVED AND HEALED?
By
Phil Scovell
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. As is 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
Go To HOME: The Zeneith Tube Website: RedWhiteAndBlue.org