I love the stories of people laying the sick in the path of Paul, how just by his shadow passing over the sick they were healed by faith. Yet he was not healed for his thorn in his side.

So the inevitable question is why was Paul not healed? When I am weak He is strong.

The blind man was born blind for the glory of God. There are several stories like that which show a different dimension of the reason for the ills of life.

I also marvel at the stories where not even Jesus could do any miracles to make people whole by their lack of faith.

Mark 6:4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.

Good fruit, bad package - made acceptable to the Father by the righteousness of Jesus. The fruit of abiding in Jesus is a combination of the good, bad, and ugly. Does any of this make any difference when we "visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction"?

PS - I don't understand the whole thing about "the clamors of our fallen nature" (DA 122) staining the fruit the Holy Spirit empowers us to experience. Is it the direct result of us actually knowingly or unknowingly committing sin (cherishing, thinking, speaking, acting selfishly) that causes the stain? Or, is the unholy clamoring of sinful flesh a type of sinning separate and distinctly different from the sinning we ourselves do? If we ourselves cause the stain, Jesus cannot simply make it acceptable to the Father. If the clamoring of sinful flesh causes the stain, Jesus cannot count us guilty of wrongdoing.

MM, you're bringing all that schizophrenic, "I'm not sinning, it's my flesh that is sinning" stuff that we were talking about in your "concerns" thread. I don't want to derail this thread into that topic. I'll only talk about it as it relates to the moral influence vs penal substitution vs healing issue.

You're still not getting what I'm saying. The fruit of abiding in Jesus is all good. The bad and the ugly is all us. When you put them together is when you get the good, the bad, and the ugly. You keep getting confused on that.


Depends what you mean. Through mortal eyes, it all looks the same. When abiding in Jesus, the fleshly lusts which war against the soul are overridden by His Spirit.

But through immortal eyes, which can read the heart, the evils in the heart are as clear as the outward appearance.

1) "A fallen nature is one that is damaged compared with the original." OK - I can accept that.

2) "A depraved nature is a type of fallen nature that suffers from moral damage." So a depraved nature is a subset of our fallen nature? Is that what you are saying?

Is there a "soul" which is separate from the body? No. Man is a whole. The mind is intimately dependent on the body. MM pointed out above a perfect quote of EGW on this from The Desire of Ages, " In our own strength it is impossible for us to deny the clamors of our fallen nature. {DA 122.3} This is exactly right, and what science is showing us. Our the physical and the moral are tightly woven together. And Christ's mission was to restore man: "Our Lord Jesus Christ came to this world as the unwearied servant of man's necessity. He "took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses," that He might minister to every need of humanity. Matthew 8:17. The burden of disease and wretchedness and sin He came to remove. It was His mission to bring to men complete restoration; He came to give them health and peace and perfection of character. {MH 17.1}" How are all the processes of the body controlled? What is the control system that contains all the information for the building up of the body, and controlling all of its chemical processes? It is the genome. Look at the expanded quote from the DA quote above:

• In our own strength it is impossible for us to deny the clamors of our fallen nature. Through this channel Satan will bring temptation upon us. Christ knew that the enemy would come to every human being, to take advantage of hereditary weakness, and by his false insinuations to ensnare all whose trust is not in God. And by passing over the ground which man must travel, our Lord has prepared the way for us to overcome. It is not His will that we should be placed at a disadvantage in the conflict with Satan. He would not have us intimidated and discouraged by the assaults of the serpent. "Be of good cheer," He says; "I have overcome the world." John 16:33. {DA 122.3}

Hereditary weakness - this can be nothing less that the genome. It has to be. And there is abundant science to back this up. A couple of examples, using a buccal swab, one can predict if a person will be selfish or altruistic with 75-80% accuracy, based on alleles that code for oxytocin receptors in the brain. Note, they are not 100%. The genetics gives us the predisposition, they do not force us. But through our fallen nature, Satan works to tempt us. This is just one example. There are many more.

This is not a legal problem. It is a real problem. It is physical. The punishment is not a legally imposed penalty. There is cause and effect.

• There is a divinely appointed connection between sin and disease. No physician can practice for a month without seeing this illustrated. He may ignore the fact; his mind may be so occupied with other matters that his attention will not be called to it; but if he will be observing and honest he cannot help acknowledging that sin and disease bear to each other the relationship of cause and effect. The physician should be quick to see this and to act accordingly. When he has gained the confidence of the afflicted by relieving their sufferings and bringing them back from the verge of the grave, he may teach them that disease is the result of sin and that it is the fallen foe who seeks to allure them to health-and-soul-destroying practices. He may impress their minds with the necessity of denying self and obeying the laws of life and health. In the minds of the young especially he may instill right principles. God loves His creatures with a love that is both tender and strong. He has established the laws of nature, but His laws are not arbitrary exactions. Every "Thou shalt not," whether in physical or moral law, contains or implies a promise. If it is obeyed, blessings will attend our steps; if it is disobeyed, the result is danger and unhappiness. The laws of God are designed to bring His people closer to Himself. He will save them from the evil and lead them to the good if they will be led, but force them He never will. We cannot discern God's plans, but we must trust Him and show our faith by our works. {5T 444.2}

God will NEVER force us to obey Him. How can we then say that the 2nd death is an execution, capital punishment? Is it not! Capital punishment is the ultimate exercise of force. The second death is the wages that SIN pays. Christ came to save us from our sins, not to condemn us. But die we will if we continue in sin, and we need to understand God's role in that death. And just look at the cross! Did the Father execute His son? NO.

Yes.


No, there is no soul which is separate from the body. However, we can be perfect even though our bodies are still damaged. Don't you agree?

Human nature is composed of three aspects: physical, mental, moral. Damage to any aspect = fallen. Damage to the moral = depraved. It is possible to be fallen but not depraved.


You have great faith in science. I know enough science to know that it cannot be completely trusted. It wasn't that long ago when all scientists believed that 186,000 mph + 186,000 mph = 372,000 mph. We now know that isn't quite true. Thousands of years of scientific knowledge tossed aside by a clerk at a patent office.

Just because something is hereditary doesn't mean it's the genome.

Weakness is hereditary.
The genome is hereditary.
Therefore, weakness is in the genome.

The logic is bad.

APL,

I answer your questions to make sure you know what I am saying, whether we agree or not. How about returning the favor? I'm waiting for a response to post #147651 (11/28/12 10:50 AM) quoted below:


Eagerly awaiting your reply.

Hey, I thought you didn't like it when I limited your limited your argument from "nature" to "moral nature" (see post #147036 - 11/16/12 03:09 PM). "Do unto others..." Jesus said.

Is a bullet that fatally wounds a man committing a sin? Is it evil?

How about the cactus that pierces a man's hand, leading to an infection? Or his eye, leading to blindness?