Is THIS the Protestant interpretation of John 20?!

[exoflare]

Don’t ask me how I found this, but anyway…

newsbusters.org/node/2623

Avatar* Says:
*November 1, 2005 - 19:46
Actually, Jesus gave all believers in him the power to judge:

John 20:23 - If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained

I always wondered how they would possibly try to justify their teachings against that verse, but this takes the cake! They think he’s talking about ALL Christians?? Simply put, W-O-W.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

exoflare

those guys are embroiled in a political, homosexual arguement, if you look at what the one your asking about is saying, hes speaking about the ability to judge the situation, maybe it would be better if he called it discernment. That may of been clearer. But they do not sound like its a calm discussion.

So alls good, no worries

 

[exoflare]

Kitty Chan, you are right. That thread really isn’t the most well thought out in the world. But regardless, I really have wondered for a long time how Protestants get around what Jesus says to the apostles in John 20. I’ve never heard a Protestant try to explain it.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

dont know about getting around but its interesting, hadnt noticed this part, heres some of what I found:

d. He gives authority to announce forgiveness and to warn of guilt, as authorized by the Holy Spirit

i. This lays down the duty of the church to proclaim forgiveness to the penitent believer, and the duty of the church to warn the unbeliever that they are forfeiting the mercy of God

v.23 If a person confesses his sin and turns to Christ. we can tell him that his sins are forgiven by God If he refuses to confess his sin, we can tell him he will face the judgment of God

If you want try the blue letter bible site and there is commentaries, translations etc. The above is from there theres another that I think goes more into what your looking for but there is links in the doc and I dont know how to post that. Just look for the verse and beside is blue squares with the translations etc you can link around in there.

My understanding would have been first judge not, but Im seeing there is more than confessing your own sins to Christ. It would seem to be calling us to tell others to confess their sins, or as the fundys would say repent your sins because they will face God one day.

Its interesting thanks, there is a street church in the city and they started out quietly handing out phamplets etc and they had a small response. When they set up speakers and started calling people just as this verse suggests, telling them they will face God, the church literally in the park grew with leaps and bounds.

There was even the usual fight with anti religious groups saying they could not gather in a park but they won, and Gods Word remains in the park. very amazing but Gods like that.

 

[Contarini]

exoflare:

Don’t ask me how I found this, but anyway…

newsbusters.org/node/2623

I always wondered how they would possibly try to justify their teachings against that verse, but this takes the cake! They think he’s talking about ALL Christians?? Simply put, W-O-W.

W-O-W is hardly an argument.

This is pretty basic. The Holy Spirit is given to all believers. That ought to be uncontroversial.

I have no problem with the proposition that certain people within the Church have received from the Apostles the authority to exercise the power of the keys in specific ways. But the gift of the Spirit belongs to all believers. This is one of the most basic principles of Protestantism (often misinterpreted and caricatured and secularized by terms such as "private judgment’ or “sola scriptura”). And it’s a basic principle of Christianity. Catholics have never wholly denied it, and in the past fifty years or so you have rediscovered many of its implications. But it remains something Protestants grasp much more clearly than most Catholics, as your shocked response to a fairly obvious argument shows.

Edwin

 

[Veritas41]

Contarini:

W-O-W is hardly an argument.

This is pretty basic. The Holy Spirit is given to all believers. That ought to be uncontroversial.

Yes, He is given to all believers, but all believers aren’t given the same authority and gifts. Only to Peter did Jesus give the keys to the kingdom and only to Peter and the apostles did He give authority to bind and loose (and their successors). Only to the apostles (and their successors) did Jesus give authority to forgive or retain sin. Understanding these passages in reference to the Old Testament clearly attests to authority, which not all believers have. Hebrews 13:17 “*Obey *your leaders and *submit to their authority. *They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.” Some have authority within the Church, some don’t, but all have the Holy Spirit.

 

[Contarini]

Right, but this passage is talking about the gift of the Spirit.

We can argue about how that gift is administered. We can agree that there are different vocations and offices in the Church. But you can’t simply say “Jesus breathed on the Apostles and gave them the power to forgive sins, therefore *only *priests and bishops have this power.” That’s a further inference, not simply something you can derive from the text directly.

Edwin

 

[sandusky]

Avatar Says:
November 1, 2005 - 19:46
Actually, Jesus gave all believers in him the power to judge:

John 20:23 - If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained

exoflare:

I always wondered how they would possibly try to justify their teachings against that verse, but this takes the cake! They think he’s talking about ALL Christians?? Simply put, W-O-W.

It is talking about all Christians.

But you must understand what the verse does not give, as well. The verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins, because, as scripture states, only God can forgive sins. But any believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner’s forgiveness by the Father because of the work of His Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God’s forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven.

Jesus was not setting aside the disciples (and their successors) as a “spiritual elite” to deal with the sins of the world. Remember, there were others in the room besides the disciples, and Thomas was missing!

A correct understanding of the Greek text helps us here. Eminent Greek scholar Dr. Julius R. Mantey (now deceased) says of this verse that the correct translation both here and in Matthew 16:19 should be: “Whosoever sins you remit [forgive] shall have already been forgiven them, and whosoever sins you retain [do not forgive] shall have already not been forgiven them.” In other words, the disciples did not provide forgiveness; they proclaimed forgiveness on the basis of the message of the Gospel. Another Greek scholar, Dr. Kenneth Wuest, translates it “they have been previously forgiven them.”

Another Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson says, “What he commits to the disciples and to us is the power and privilege of giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins by God by correctly announcing the terms of forgiveness…Jesus put into the hands of Peter and of all believers the keys of the Kingdom which we should use to open the door for those who wish to enter. This glorious promise applies to all believers who will tell the story of Christ’s love for men.”

 

[Veritas41]

Take a look at Matthew 10:1, “He called his twelve disciples to him and *gave them authority *to heal every disease and sickness.” What did Jesus give them the *authority *to do? To heal sickness and and drive out evil spirits, the very same things Jesus has been doing during His public ministry.

We also see this in Luke 10:16, when Jesus sends out seventy-two disciples, telling them, “He who listens to you *listens to me; *he who rejects you *rejects me; *but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Jesus invests His disciples with His own authority and considers the people’s response to His chosen representatives to be a response to Him.

Matthew 28:18, "Then Jesus came to them and said, “*All authority *in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations. . .and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

So the apostles have been given authority from Christ to do all the things Jesus did in His earthly ministry: preach the Gospel/proclaim the Kingdom of God, heal the sick, exorcise evil spirits, etc.

Now there’s one more thing Jesus did during His public ministry, and that is forgive sins. And it’s in John 20:21-23 that Jesus gives *the apostles *the authority to do on earth what Jesus Himself did on earth – forgive (or not forgive) people’s sins. The apostles are invested with the power and authority to do all that Jesus did on earth. Why? Because Jesus would be ascending to heaven, so He wouldn’t be here on earth in His Body to continue the ministry on earth He had begun. Yes, only God can forgive sins, but we only differ on *how *He does so. He can forgive *through *appointed representatives. Just like our president can negotiate treaties and have dealings with foreign governments through ambassadors who have his full authority to do so. Protestants believe God calls people to Himself through the preaching of the Gospel by intermediaries (otherwise He would just reveal Himself directly to each person instead of sending Christians out to bear witness). If He uses intermediaries to bring people to faith in Him, why not use intermediaries to heal the sick, exorcise evil spirits and forgive sins?

The keys to the kingdom and the authority to bind and loose need to be understood from a Jewish perspective. Go back to Isaiah 22:15-24. Notice the mention of “key to the house of David.” David was king, and the key was a symbol of governing authority. In the Old Testament, the royal steward had authority to govern (“what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open”) in the name of the king and could even govern in the *absence *of the king. Jesus is King, fulfilling the promise of the Davidic covenant, and on His earth He has established His royal steward, the pope and his successors, to govern His kingdom (the Church) on earth.

 

[Milliardo]

sandusky:

It is talking about all Christians.

No, it doesn’t. No Protestant I know of will say he has the authority to retain sins (though many will say they can forgive sins), which is really the point of it all. If no Protestant can say that he has any authority at all to retain sins, inspite of John 20:23, then clearly Protestant notion about it does not mean that such authority is given to all Christians, or else this would be Protestant notion as well, right? But since it isn’t (unless I am missing out on something here), then the claim that it is meant for all Christians falls flat.

 

[sandusky]

Veritas41:

Take a look at Matthew 10:1, “He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to heal every disease and sickness.” What did Jesus give them the authority to do? To heal sickness and and drive out evil spirits, the very same things Jesus has been doing during His public ministry.

Yes, Veritas, those are the sign gifts, and they operated in a specific time frame, and served a specific purpose (Acts 2:22; 2 Cor 12:12; Heb 2:3-4), and when that purpose had been accomplished (the startup of the church) those gifts would cease. That is Augustine’s position as well.

Veritas41:

We also see this in Luke 10:16, when Jesus sends out seventy-two disciples, telling them, “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Jesus invests His disciples with His own authority and considers the people’s response to His chosen representatives to be a response to Him.

This is still true today with every believer. Who is it that sends the evangelizing believer today?

Veritas41:

Matthew 28:18, "Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations. . .and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

So the apostles have been given authority from Christ to do all the things Jesus did in His earthly ministry: preach the Gospel/proclaim the Kingdom of God, heal the sick, exorcise evil spirits, etc.

Again, this is still true today of every believer who evangelizes, with the exception of the sign gifts which were for a specific purpose and at a specific time.

Veritas41:

Now there’s one more thing Jesus did during His public ministry, and that is forgive sins. And it’s in John 20:21-23 that Jesus gives the apostles the authority to do on earth what Jesus Himself did on earth – forgive (or not forgive) people’s sins. The apostles are invested with the power and authority to do all that Jesus did on earth.

As I said in my previous post, only God can forgive sins, scripture is quite clear, and He did not give any one the authority to forgive sins, but to proclaim the forgiveness of sins.

Let’s look at two:

Luke 24:47
47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Acts 13:38
38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,

The apostles understood Christ as I understand Him. God forgives sins, men proclaim the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins. In the book of Acts, we see the apostles, and their associates healing the sick, raising the dead, and proclaiming the forgiveness of sins. Nowhere do they forgive sins on their own authority, but on the authority of the name of Jesus. As Christ told them the forgiveness, and non-forgiveness of sins was already approved in heaven.

That is the same thing with the Gospel call. I proclaim the message, God saves who He will. Even in our proclamation, Christ says it is the Father who “draws,” one to the Son (Jn 644). I do not save anyone, but assist the H.S. in the proclamation of the Gospel, as God does not talk directly to anyone anymore; at least not to my understanding of Holy Writ.

Veritas41:

The keys to the kingdom and the authority to bind and loose need to be understood from a Jewish perspective. Go back to Isaiah 22:15-24. Notice the mention of “key to the house of David.” David was king, and the key was a symbol of governing authority. In the Old Testament, the royal steward had authority to govern (“what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open”) in the name of the king and could even govern in the absence of the king. Jesus is King, fulfilling the promise of the Davidic covenant, and on His earth He has established His royal steward, the pope and his successors, to govern His kingdom (the Church) on earth.

I understand it from the Jewish perspective. I think it a violent leap of logic to claim the power to forgive sins, and to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Everyone who proclaims the terms of salvation, and the forgiveness of sins in Christ’s name uses the keys of the kingdom. When one accepts the terms of the proclamation by faith in Christ, one has the sanction and approval of God the Father.

The more personal we make the words, the nearer the thoughts of Christ, the more ecclesiastical, the further the drift from Christ.

On the authority of God’s word, I can assure anyone, based on belief in Christ, that there sins are forgiven, and I can assure anyone, based on rejection of Christ, that if they stay in that rejection, there sins will not be forgiven.

 

[Lazerlike42]

sandusky:

The more personal we make the words, the nearer the thoughts of Christ, the more ecclesiastical, the further the drift from Christ.

Protestant Biblical interpretation preaches just about above all else the importance of context. Why is it that when it comes to this verse the context (that Christ was speaking to the Apostles alone) is ignored?

On the authority of God’s word, I can assure anyone, based on belief in Christ, that there sins are forgiven, and I can assure anyone, based on rejection of Christ, that if they stay in that rejection, there sins will not be forgiven.

If this is what Christ meant, why didn’t He just say it, instead of saying it in such a roundabout way that no Christian for 1500 years came to this understanding of it, and that I still can’t see how the text could possibly mean this?

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42:

Protestant Biblical interpretation preaches just about above all else the importance of context. Why is it that when it comes to this verse the context (that Christ was speaking to the Apostles alone) is ignored?

What is the context of the passage?

Lazerlike42:

If this is what Christ meant, why didn’t He just say it, instead of saying it in such a roundabout way that no Christian for 1500 years came to this understanding of it, and that I still can’t see how the text could possibly mean this?

What is your complete understanding of the passage in light of your theology?

 

[Contarini]

Milliardo:

No, it doesn’t. No Protestant I know of will say he has the authority to retain sins (though many will say they can forgive sins), which is really the point of it all. If no Protestant can say that he has any authority at all to retain sins, inspite of John 20:23, then clearly Protestant notion about it does not mean that such authority is given to all Christians, or else this would be Protestant notion as well, right? But since it isn’t (unless I am missing out on something here), then the claim that it is meant for all Christians falls flat.

In what sense does anyone have the power to retain sins? In what sense does a bishop or priest have the power to “retain” sins? Surely in no other sense than in proclaiming what God has already decided. A literal meaning of the text applied to the Catholic clergy would be that God automatically ratifies any disciplinary decision of a bishop/priest of the Catholic Church. But no one claims this. Catholics don’t claim that if a corrupt priest grants absolution unjustly, or refuses it without good reason, God will save or damn accordingly. The only meaning of the text that truly differs from the Protestant sense is a monstrous one.

There are therefore only two possible meanings to this text, as I see it:

1. It refers to human proclamation of what God has already decreed. In this sense all believers can remit or retain sins–they can declare the Word of God whether privately or publicly, with its implications for the conscience. In other words, if someone comes to me and says, “Is it OK for me to move in with my girlfriend even though I’m not ready to marry her,” and I say, “no, I’m afraid I don’t think this is according to God’s law,” then I’m “retaining” the person’s sin.

I’m not disputing that a priest in the confessional exercises this ministry in a particularly authoritative way. In the Episcopal Church a layperson can hear confessions but can’t use the declarative absolution–they must simply pray that God will forgive the person’s sin. But as I said, no informed Catholic believes that if a priest makes a mistake and refuses to absolve someone, God will send the person to hell. At least I’ve never met a Catholic who believed that, and I sincerely hope I never do.

1. It may refer to ecclesiastical discipline. This is indeed given only to those who hold authority in the Church. (Although you’d hardly know it from the way lay Catholics on the Internet denounce as heretics Catholics in perfectly good standing.) But it derives from the gift of the Spirit given to all believers. And in an emergency laypeople might be called upon to exercise it, or something like it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

sandusky:

Yes, Veritas, those are the sign gifts, and they operated in a specific time frame, and served a specific purpose (Acts 2:22; 2 Cor 12:12; Heb 2:3-4), and when that purpose had been accomplished (the startup of the church) those gifts would cease.

The Church is always being “started up.” There is no limited time frame for the gifts. To suggest that there is does violence to Scripture, and none of the texts you cite limit the gifts in that way. They suggest that the gifts point toward the credentials of Christ and the apostles. But there is no mention of a “limited time frame.” You are assuming this.

That is Augustine’s position as well.

Augustine said this at one point, in *On True Religion. *But by the time he wrote *City of God *he changed his mind on the basis of his own experience.

Edwin

 

[Veritas41]

Are you saying there is no longer any use for exorcism or healing? I looked up every passage you cited in your post, and not a single one even hints at what you’re suggesting.

Look at John 20:21-23 with the passages in Luke and Acts you cited. They speak of proclaiming forgiveness. Proclaiming forgiveness and *forgiving *sins are two different things. I can tell someone their sins can be forgiven in Christ, but I don’t have the authority from Christ to actually forgive their sins on His behalf.

“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. *If you forgive anyone his sins, *they are forgiven; *if you do not forgive them, *they are not forgiven.” The only other time in Scripture when God breathes on someone is in Genesis, where it is says God breathed life into Adam. So Jesus is doing something more here than just telling the apostles they’re simply going to proclaim forgiveness. Why would He need to “breathe” on them to do that? God’s breathing into Adam brought spiritual and physical life, Jesus’ breathing the Holy Spirit onto the apostles signifies His life given through the sacrament of reconciliation. Jesus tells the apostles “if you forgive” and “if you do not forgive.” He doesn’t say, “proclaim forgiveness.”

Nowhere do they forgive sins on their own authority I never said the apostles forgave sins on their own authority – my whole argument is that they received the authority to do so from Christ Himself, just like they received authority to heal, preach and cast out evil spirits and govern the Church.
That is the same thing with the Gospel call. I proclaim the message, God saves who He will. The Gospel call isn’t the same as authority to forgive, heal or exorcise evil spirits. Any Christian can share the Gospel, and as a Christian I have done that. However, I have never exorcised an evil spirit or healed someone of illness or forgiven their sins. You speak of “assisting” the Holy Spirit. Does He *need *our assistance, or does He *condescend to allow us to share in His work of salvation? *What is the difference between bringing the knowledge of Christ through intermediaries and bringing His forgiveness through intermediaries?

Jesus spoke to Peter in the second person *singular when giving Peter the keys. Only *Peter received the keys, and as understood from the Old Testament, the keys symbolized authority to govern with the authority of the King. If you look at binding/loosing, please note that the binding/loosing is done *first *on earth and is *followed *by a reciprocal binding/loosing in heaven – implying infallibility, since God cannot ratify error. Are all Christians infallible?
Forgiveness is an on-going need for the believer. Note Matt. 6:14-15, “For *if you forgive men *when they sin against you, *your heavenly Father will also forgive you. *But if you do not forgive men their sins, *your Father will not forgive your sins.” *If forgiveness of sins is just proclaimed because all sins past, present and future are immediately wiped out, this passage makes no sense. 1 John 1:9, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." John is addressing Christians. See also James 5:15-16. The more personal we make the words, the nearer the thoughts of Christ, the more ecclesiastical, the further the drift from Christ.
I’m just taking His Word at face value. How is forgiveness of sins through an intermediary less “personal” than hearing the Gospel through an intermediary rather than “directly” from God? I think it’s highly personal actually. I get to interact with another human being and actually *hear *the words of absolution spoken over me. I have to face my sins more honestly and thoroughly than if I confess them on my own. What did Jesus say in Luke 10:16? “He who listens to you *listens to me.” *Jesus speaks to us *through others. *How can you separate the members of His Body from Christ Himself? You are pitting Christ, the Head, against His own Body. It isn’t an either/or dichotomy but both/and. I have grown closer to Christ as a Catholic --much closer than I ever was as a Protestant.

 

[sandusky]

Contarini:

The Church is always being “started up.” There is no limited time frame for the gifts. To suggest that there is does violence to Scripture, and none of the texts you cite limit the gifts in that way. They suggest that the gifts point toward the credentials of Christ and the apostles. But there is no mention of a “limited time frame.” You are assuming this.

Is that so.

Have you been to any good healings lately, Edwin?

Honestly, I need a total joint replacement in my right shoulder, and I’m tired of fighting worker’s compensation. Give me the name of your healer; it would be worth a round trip ticket to get this taken care of.

Maybe I can talk him into coming out here and healing the people in the handicapped ministry I’m involved in, does he cure people with cerebral palsy?

When Epaphroditus was sick, did Paul heal him?

What about Timothy’s stomach affliction? Did Paul heal that, or prescribe wine? Seems the gifts were no longer in use.

Get real Edwin. Nobody has healed like Christ and the apostles since Christ and the apostles. Those gifts are over.

Where do you go when you get sick, Edwin? To your elders or your doctor?

Give me some scriptural commands concerning our dealings with demons?

 

[exoflare]

sandusky:

Where do you go when you get sick, Edwin? To your elders or your doctor?

I’m curious, what is your interpretation of James 5:14?

I know it doesn’t have to do with your question directly, but I was reminded of that verse just now.

 

[exoflare]

Contarini, sandusky:

I’m trying to get to the root of your whole argument here. Are you claiming that between every Christian who has ever lived (aside from Jesus himself), none has ever received a different type of authority than any other one?

 

[sandusky]

Veritas41:

Are you saying there is no longer any use for exorcism or healing? I looked up every passage you cited in your post, and not a single one even hints at what you’re suggesting.

That is probably my fault; I have assumed that you are with me in my thinking and understanding what scripture is saying, so let me explain.

Acts 2:22
*22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— *

2 Corinthians 12:12
*12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.

Hebrews 2:3-4
3 how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard,
4 God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.

The key point of those passages is to explain the purpose of those gifts: They attested to the fact that Jesus was sent by God (Acts 2:22, Heb 2:3-4); they were signs of true apostles (2 Cor 12:12).

IOW, those gifts were not given to the church in general but to Jesus, and to true apostles, as verification of the authority they had in Christ.

Remember, the Jews always wanted a sign (Mt 12:38; 16:1; Mk 8:11; Lk 11:16; Jn 2:18; 6:30; 1 Cor 1:22).

And it worked:

John 3:1-2
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews;
2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”

Again, the various gifts called, “signs, wonders, miracles,” of which I would certainly include healings, casting out demons, as well as, future prophetic utterances, new revelations, or as it was called, “knowledge,” and tongues are were special gifts worked through Christ, and the apostles, and some other of Christ’s disciples. They were not given to the general church body, but instead, those listed in Romans 12:3-6; 1 Cor 12:4-12. And don’t get carried away with the mentions of healings and miracles in 1 Cor 12, as those gifts were probably still operative at that time, but are no longer.

For example:

Philippians 2:25-27
25 But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need;
26 because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick.
27 For indeed he was sick to the point of death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, so that I would not have sorrow upon sorrow.

Here Paul relates to the Philippians that Epaphroditus was sick to the point of death. Notice that Paul does not say, “I had no thoughts of sorrow at losing Epaphroditus, but instantly healed him." He says instead, that God had mercy on Epaphroditus, and on Paul, sparing him also sorrow upon sorrow. Paul was distressed at Epaphroditus’ illness. Why would he be distressed, if he could heal him with his gift of healing?

Similarly, Paul says of Timothy’s stomach ailment:

1 Timothy 5:23
23 No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

Paul urges Timothy to take wine for his stomach, and other ailments. If Paul was still able to heal, why doesn’t he just heal Timothy?

As far as the gifts of future prophecy, knowledge, and tongues, Paul says that the first two will be done away, and that tongues, will literally “stop themselves,” (1 Cor 13:8).

I ask you, Joan, when did you last witness a complete regenerative healing? And, when you contract a deadly illness, such as cancer, will you go to your priest, or bishop for healing, or will you go to your doctor?

I am not ruling out praying for others to be healed. I do believe that God is moved to heal at the supplication of His saints, but not always.

(continued)*