Saved And Healed?


                              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.


          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?


                              Phil Scovell


               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 we believe God's

               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

               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

               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

               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

               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

               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: