First, we remember that God is healing people all the time. Second, we realize that the question isn’t actually whether God will heal our children but when. And third, we see that praying is about asking God to do now what he will certainly do then: “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). It’s about staring into the furnace, like the three men in Daniel 3, and saying, “Our God is able to rescue us, O king, and he will. But even if he doesn’t, we’re still going to trust him” (Daniel 3:17–18).

Theological Reflection
At some point or other, every Christian with a disability is going to have to figure out how to think about physical healing. In our case, theological reflection on healing has been essential: we help lead a large charismatic church that sees dozens of people physically healed each year; I have talked about God’s healing power in at least three of my books; we both speak at conferences and churches where people get physically healed in response to prayer; and yet we also have two children with special needs who have not been healed, as well as many friends for whom that is also true. All this, in a very good way, has forced us to think carefully about the subject.
When it comes to physical healing, the extremes are relatively easy to see. We have the loony prosperity gospel preachers and their shallow messages of permanent health and wealth for everyone who follows Jesus. Then we have the starchy cynics who think that everyone who claims to have experienced divine healing is either lying or delusional. The first group acts as if God always heals today because the kingdom of God is entirely now; the second group acts as if God never heals today because the kingdom of God is entirely not yet. The biblical picture (to summarize a huge amount of theology in one sentence!) is that it is both now and not yet. We should expect both miracles and disappointments, physical healing and physical death, to form part of our experience until Jesus returns.
So far, so good. But even when people agree on those things, there can still be confusion. We have Tigger types, who bounce around insisting that God will always heal us if we just have enough certainty that he will, and we have Eeyore types, who mope around mumbling that disabilities are just part of the way things are and that asking God to heal us is a waste of time. Being a Winnie-the-Pooh type in the middle, believing that God wants to heal but trusting him when he doesn’t, can be exhausting. The Tigger types make you feel guilty; the Eeyore types make you feel grumpy. And you’re still the one with the disabled child.
So it has helped us to realize that, although we often talk as if there is only one type of divine healing, there are actually four, as far as we can tell. Most people instinctively prefer some to others, but they’re all there.
Type 1
A virus enters my body, and my white blood cells are launched into action like a rabid dog, hunting down the perpetrator to kill it. I cut my hand, and immediately a combination of clotting blood cells and replacement skin cells begin the patch-up job. Every second, as my heart beats, tiny bits of mineral and organic material are sent to parts of the body that need it, performing ongoing repairs that will never finish, like painting the Golden Gate bridge hour after hour, year after year.
Read More
Related Posts:

Defending the inerrancy of scripture can be a challenging task for the unprepared Christian. In the world today, there is no shortage of critical voices speaking out against the authority of scripture. Even within Christendom, some seem determined to undermine the bible’s inerrancy in every instance. Therefore, Christians need to be equipped to defend, not only their faith but also the scriptures on which the only true, ancient religion is based upon.
Due to the narrative-centric nature of the gospels, seeming contradictions can be troublesome for even the most devout of believers. The gospels give us 4 different representations of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Because of this, the same event can be recorded multiple times. What do we do when there appears to be a contradiction between two or more narratives?
A notable example of this can be seen in The Centurion Servant.  If we compare the narratives in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, questions can be raised between the two accounts. Most notable is the role of the “elders of the Jews” and the centurion’s “friends”.  As Vern Sheridan Poythress, Westminster Theological Seminary Professor, rightly points out in his book Inerrancy and The Gospels, “Luke does not indicate that the centurion meets Jesus face to face. By Contrast, in Matthew 8 there is no mention of the intermediaries. What do we say about this difference?” (pg. 19).
Poythress goes on to point out the possible explanations for this seeming contradiction. He guides the reader to think critically about the texts, nuances, authorship, and literary features. He points out that, due to the author’s background and objective, certain emphasis may be added in specific areas. Such instances are not meant to contradict but complement one another. Citing South African Theologian, Norval Geldenhuys, Poythress explains that likely “there were several stages in the encounter between Jesus and the centurion. The centurion first sent elders of the Jews, then sent friends, then came in person (pg. 19). Luke was led to emphasize different aspects of the narrative when compared to Matthew. The example sets the stage for the entire book.
I don’t often read a theology book in a single sitting. However, I did just that with Inerrancy and The Gospels. I highly recommend Poythress’ book to anyone desiring to understand the harmonization of the gospels better. The book is largely broken up into two sections. The first is centered on the basic principles for studying harmonization, and the second examines specific gospel problem texts. I found the principles section to be the most useful part of the book. It creates a brilliant groundwork for the reader to approach the gospels in a logical, practical, and faithful way.
Read More

This eternal blessing in the power and authority of God is what, as the answer says, emboldens, us to speak to the Lord in prayer. We can speak with assurance and grace precisely for the reason that God has established all things for His glory and if that is the case then we have no worry or anxiousness as we come before Him in supplication. We come to our Father who art in heaven and we do so through His Son and the encouragement of the Counselor, daily reminding us of all the things He has done for us.

First of all, I want to thank you for bearing with me through this two-year journey through the Larger Catechism. I hope that these lessons have been a blessing for they certainly have been for me. Here on Thursdays moving forward I’ve bandied about several ideas and I’ve come down to a decision that will have us continue to look at the documents adopted by our Scottish forefathers that we call the Westminster Standards, which include not only these catechisms, but the Sum of Saving Knowledge, Directory of Church Government, Directory of Public Worship, and other literature. The more familiar we become with our heritage the more I think we’ll understand why we are Presbyterians, and convinced ones at that.
However, before we get ahead of ourselves let us look at the last WLC question:
Q. 196. What doth the conclusion of the Lord’s prayer teach us?
A. The conclusion of the Lord’s prayer, (which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. ) teaches us to enforce our petitions with arguments, which are to be taken, not from any worthiness in ourselves, or in any other creature, but from God; and with our prayers to join praises, ascribing to God alone eternal sovereignty, omnipotency, and glorious excellency; in regard whereof, as he is able and willing to help us, so we by faith are emboldened to plead with him that he would, and quietly to rely upon him, that he will fulfil our requests. And to testify this our desire and assurance, we say, Amen
I want to deal with an issue that while seemingly odd, is important to rightly grasping why we say the ending of the prayer and why our Catechism includes it. Some of your copies of God’s word (ESV, NASB, NIV, etc…) are based on a Greek manuscript tradition (the Eclectic or Critical Text) which does not have the this ending to the Lord’s Prayer. In my ESV Study Bible the wording is completely absent, relegated to a footnote. At Bethany we have the NKJV in the pews and that is the version of the Bible that I preach and teach from on Lord’s Day mornings and evenings as well as use in Sabbath School and Wednesday Nights. The NKJV and the KJV are translations which come from the Received Text or the Textus Receptus. This devotional is not the place to get into the reasonings and histories as to whether one is right or not (and by my use of the NKJV I kind of give my position away).
Read More
Related Posts: