“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” (Hebrews 9:27)

“In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:17). “There shall be no more death” (Revelation 21:4). Between these two statements in the Scripture lie all the efforts of science to increase the life span, the consummation of civilization, the endeavors to build a better world, and all the joys and sorrows of billions of individuals that eternity alone has the record of. Hidden between the covers of this record book is the story of the whole human race cursed by the fall of the first parent Adam. The surging, aimless mass of lost humanity has been impelled by fear–fear of the dark, fear of disease, fear of the supernatural, fear of the unknown, fear of death. The fear of death is but the apogee of all fears. Men avoid it, hate it, fight against it. The undertaker uses every artificial means at his disposal to cover the fact of it. Yet the fact of death remains and will remain until that day when, through the glorious power of Christ who was triumphant over death, the scroll of heaven will be rolled back, the saints of God shall enjoy the blissful ages of eternity, and “there shall be no more death.”

The Certainty of Death
The valley of the shadow of death is the longest valley in the world. It began with Adam and has continued through six thousand years of human history. Men like to postpone that dreadful moment when they must pass through the dark valley, but death underscores each life and refuses to accept the person of any man. Death does not take into account whether we have been profitable or detrimental to society. Every step that we take brings us nearer to the grave, and it is but a matter of time until we must bid farewell to every earthly tie. With all of the wisdom of the medical profession and the use of scientific discoveries, we must agree with the wise preacher of old who said; “For the living know that they shall die” (Ecclesiastes 9:5).

The Bible contains much warning about death, speaking as frequently on this subject as it does about any other. In the garden of Eden where death had never entered, Adam and Eve were instructed by God to refrain from the forbidden fruit with the accompanying warning:
In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Genesis 2:17).
We know that they did eat; and at the very moment the judgment of God passed upon them, their bodies commenced the process of death and decay. “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died” (Genesis 5:5).

There is no escaping death. Try as hard as we can, the rider on the pale horse will pay his visit to each of us. He is blind to all tears and deaf to all prayers and pleadings. He must come to us, for he is sent by appointment. “It is appointed unto men once to die.” It is the judgment of the Almighty, it is by divine appointment. The death-bed, the crepe, the funeral, the grave, and the broken-hearted sighs and tears of the bereaved all tell us that “man dieth.”

The Cause of Death
Where did death originate? We acknowledge the sovereignty of God, but must we accept the theory that every event of man’s life, including the manner and time of his death were minutely fixed by God before creation? We answer that we can find no sound basis for such a dogmatic view. (God is sovereign to be certain, but He created man a free agent with the will to decide for himself. In his primitive state in the Garden of Eden, man had never seen anyone die. He never looked on while another gasped for breath and failed to find it.)
The first time that the subject of death is mentioned in the Bible is given as a warning to our first parents. There man in his primitive state was enjoying blissful communion with God:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Genesis 2:16-17).
Adam knew that he was alive, but he was a stranger to the subject of death until he heard this word from the Lord. Now he is on his own. He has a knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. He knows that to obey God will mean continuous and unending life and to disobey will bring the sentence of death. The power of choice and the right to decide is now left with man. However, Satan would not allow the situation to go unchallenged. Though he taunted and tempted Eve he could not force her to eat the fruit. Both she and her husband partook of it by their own choice, and in so doing they incurred the displeasure of the Lord. The warning He gave was plain: “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Being holy and righteous in all of His judgments, God could do nothing other than pass the sentence of death. Hence Adam listened to what the consequences of his own wrong-doing had brought upon himself:
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return (Genesis 3:19).

Since sin must be punished by death, Jesus went to the cross and died as the punishment for sin and thus at the same time offered Himself as the satisfaction for sin. Peter declares that “Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh” (1 Peter 3:18). Here we are told that Christ was put to death for sins “that He might bring us to God.” Those who fall asleep in the Lord take the upward course to Heaven and to God. Having accepted Jesus Christ as their Sin-Bearer and Saviour from sin they are brought to God by virtue of His sacrificial and vicarious death. Believers are able to say: “The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). As Jesus hung dying upon the Cross, He was the true sin-offering for His people. We were, by nature, on the downward course, doomed to be separated from God; but Jesus, by virtue of His death, provided a new destiny. Dr. Harry Rimmer has said, “When Jesus died to change the trend of human thought, He also died to change the road of human history. Through a false philosophy, mankind was pursuing a fatal destiny. The impact of the cross bent human history out of the course in which it was flowing, and directed mankind toward God.” Whenever a true believer dies he is said to have fallen “asleep” (1 Thessalonians 4:13, 15; 1 Corinthians 15:6), and immediately his soul takes the upward course to be with the Lord.

But what course does death pursue in the case of an unbeliever? We have already stated that the only other course remaining is the declining path into eternal death. Once again we must make an assumption, that of belief in a literal place of endless torment for all who reject the atoning work of Christ when He died on Calvary’s Cross.

Since the death of Christ paid for the believer the punishment of sin, and death to him is a pleasant ascension into the Father’s presence, it follows that the death of the unbeliever is an unpleasant descent away from the presence of God. When the unbeliever gives up the ghost, breathing his last breath, he passes from this world into a spiritual and eternal death and Hell. Both are conscious, but death was forced to pursue a different course for each. Both the rich man and Lazarus died in the story told by our Lord. Lazarus was carried into Abraham’s bosom while the rich man was sent to Hell (Luke 16:19-24).

Whenever we are seeking to find out the ORIGIN of something, we are asking the question, “Where did it begin?” “How did it all begin?” “How did it originate?” “Where did it come from?”

In this post we are concerned about the origin of man. How did man begin? How did the human race get started? Who are my ancestors? One of the most important questions facing every man, woman, boy and girl is the question WHERE DID HUMANS COME FROM? How did man originate?

Of course, this question can be answered very simply by all of us. Each person can say, “I came from my parents, and I originated from them.” But, where did your parents come from? “They came from my grandparents!” And where did your grandparents come from? “They came from my great grandparents!” These answers are all true, but they do not get us back to the very beginning. We know who our parents are and who our grandparents are, etc., but WHO WERE OUR FIRST PARENTS? If we could climb into a time machine and go back in time to the very beginning, what would we find?

Has Man Always Been Around?

Today everyone agrees that there was a time when there were no men on earth and a time when there was no earth! Even those who do not believe the Bible believe these facts.

All would agree that there was a time when man was not here. Today there are billions of men and women and children on planet earth. How did mankind come into existence? How did man originate? WHERE DID I COME FROM?

Today there are basically two ideas about how man began. Only one of these ideas is correct. The other is false. One of those ideas is that man evolved from lower forms of life. This idea is taught in most schools and in most books and magazines. Many people believe this evolutionary theory.

The Theory of Evolution

It is important to understand what the theory of evolution says about the origin of man since so many people believe this theory. Evolution is commonly taught in public schools and in colleges, and is strongly promoted by the media.

Evolution teaches that man has gradually evolved from lower animals (such as apelike creatures) in a slowly changing process that has taken millions of years. Thus, the evolutionists would say that man is nothing more than a highly intelligent animal. They teach that man is very similar to the gorilla, except that man is smarter!

Let’s think very carefully about this theory. If man has evolved from some apelike creature, then where did that creature come from? Remember that to find the origin of something, you need to go back to the very beginning (all the way back to the starting point).

Here is how the evolutionists tell the story of man:

In the beginning, about four billion years ago, the air is unfit to breathe. The young earth is without life. The sun beats down; storms lash the coasts; volcanoes pour hissing lava into the ocean’s waters. These natural jolts fuse simple molecules into more complex ones. Amino acids are formed, then interact with each other, and primitive protein is fashioned, perhaps as a worm-like molecule. Somehow the right molecules get together and the first living cell appears. This first living cell is the great ancestor of all plants and animals on earth, including man. From this first cell, all other forms of life evolved. This tiny first living cell is the father of us all!

How did man come from this first cell? (Remember, there are more cells in the human body than there are people in the world.) Here’s the story: As time went on, this first cell developed into amoeba-like organisms and other primitive creatures that could survive in the ocean. After millions of years, these creatures evolved into fish. Some of these fish developed lungs so that they could survive outside of the water. Gradually they began to make their way onto land as the first amphibians. These amphibians then evolved into reptiles and the earth soon became populated with great dinosaurs. Some of these reptiles started to develop legs that could move around better, and these creatures became what we today would call mammals. Other reptiles developed wings and flew away to become birds.

Where did man come from? One of these early mammals was known as a tree shrew. He was not much larger than a squirrel and in many ways looked like a squirrel. This creature lived in trees and gradually evolved into primitive monkeys and other apelike creatures. From these apelike creatures there evolved two major groups: 1) the great apes that we can see in zoos today, such as the gorilla, orangutan, gibbon and chimpanzee; 2) a creature who came down from the trees and who started walking upright (all monkeys and apes walk on all fours). He is now known as MAN!

Our father (that first living cell) would have been very proud of us if he could have seen how far we have come these past millions of years!

That’s a great theory!!! Not!

As we launched our church this weekend our first big question was on ‘Life’ where did it all begin, The Bible teaches us clearly that we were created in the image and likeness of God Gen 1:26-27. Evolution is a theory based not on proof but upon little evidence certainly not enough to be convicted of in a court of law.

Many atheists see the theory of evolution and their argument of the age of the planet as bullets against believers yet in their arrogance they deny the Creator and cannot accept that we are created by intelligent design. The idea that all this happened as an accident and this is what has evolved requires more faith than it does to believe in the existence of God!

My further study leads me into our understanding of ‘penal substitution’. This has been amongst evangelicals very controversial and after much prayer, study and reflection my position remains unchanged. Christ paid the ‘penalty’ for sin, for the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). To fully comprehend the gravity of penal substitution one must grasp the severity of sin. It’s plain within the text of scripture that sin is an offense to God that can only be removed by someone/something being punished and paying the penalty of death for their sin. The sacrifice of animals (Heb 10) was a foreshadow of what was to come in the act of the cross and in the atonement of Christ.

To suggest that Jesus died as a mere example or that he died for the expiation of sin alone does not do justice in relation to the necessity of God’s anger and wrath towards sin. At the cross the wrath of God was satisfied that a price had been paid for sin not just in the present but in the future for all who by conviction of His Spirit accept the atoning work of Christ, repent and become a disciple of the risen Christ. What many fail to realize is that Christ’s blood is ‘divine’ and by it we are continually cleansed from sin (Heb 9:22).

This short conclusion is not of course entertaining other aspects that surround the argument as I would be here all night! ie. satisfaction theory. However I firmly believe that Christ paid the penalty for my sin and the death he died was in my place as the substitutionary sacrifice.

I must leave it there as Im at a conference of Evangelists and tea with be served up in 15 minutes!

I’m still flooded with incredible passion and desire to drown myself in the doctrine of the atonement. I posted what I consider to be a really statement of controversy in stating that ‘I do not believe that healing was and is in the atonement’. (See previous posts on the blog for full study).

What has gripped me today as I have been praying and studying is the ‘necessity of the atonement’, In other words, ‘was it necessary for Christ to die? And why?

The Atonement was not necessary or otherwise one would have to conclude that God was/is subject to humans consequences. God did not ‘need’ to save anybody. He refused to spare the angels that sinned and cast them into hell until pending judgement 2 Peter 2:4.

We could then conclude that the atonement is not absolutely necessary until God in His love decided to save us/people and as a ‘consequence’ (key word) of His love then the atonement becomes a “consequent absolute necessity”.

So then Christ had to die to pay the price that God’s justice demanded. I will endeavour to cover this area in the next post.

We covered the main Scriptures that are asserted to prove that healing is in the atonement. Concerning Scripture, we found the verses that were appealed to were saying something other than what was claimed. We found that “healing” was in reference to sin-sickness and not physical sickness. We also found that there was not a singular direct reference that asserts that healing is in the atonement.

History has also proven fatal to their theory. The early church did not associate the atonement with physical healing, and they knew the teaching of the apostles and early bishops. They knew the language and the events of their day, but they did not see this as essential to the Gospel. Everywhere you look, the Gospel has everything to do with the forgiveness of sins, and not the healing of all by faith i the atonement. Forgiveness and reconciliation is the theme of the Gospel. Physical healing, while a blessing from God, is not the Gospel in the truest sense.

Experience appeals to the “plain evidence” of healing at crusades. It is supposed to prove their case, but upon an examination of this “plain evidence,” all it does is raise doubts and seems to prove that no one has this special gift of healing today but rather it is a sovereign work of God. If someone had the gift, or everybody that believed and had faith for healing were flawlessly healed, then we could present irrefutable scientific proof, but this is not so. If one had the gift, or an infallible formula, this could be proved. Why hasn’t anyone stepped up to the plate to settle the issue? To me, it is for one obvious reason…. when put under objective scrutiny, they cannot heal anybody. The fact that it cannot be demonstrated, or the fact that there is not a single soul that can pass the challenge, proves one thing; it shows me that this doctrine will remain a battle of the words and wishful interpretation. As we stand back in awe as God heals through prayer regardless of a special man’s hand.

What options are we reduced to if someone is not healed?

1. The person has less that sufficient faith. (Faith is a personal power)

2. The people laying on hands and praying did not have faith. (Pass the deficiency here)

3. That healing in the atonement is not a promise. If anyone is healed, it is because of God’s grace; it is the result of a prayer that is answered according to the will of God.

Paul was correct in accepting that God does not always will to heal. This asserts that healing is not in the atonement.

Finally, have you considered how contrary the gift of healing is if healing were already provided in the atonement? If we already have sure healing by faith, the gift of healing would be utterly redundant. The one receiving healing through a faith healer would still have to have the same amount of “adequate faith” as they would if they were to be healed by faith through the atonement alone. So why do we need a faith healer? It does not make good sense to have both in the Bible. If one is “healed” by a person, then what cause are we to give the credit to? The gift, or the atonement? Those in the modern healing movement can’t seem to make up their minds! Why is it that we do not need a man as a mediator to administer the benefit of salvation through the atonement, and we somehow think that we need elders, apostles, and those with the gift of healing to administer a benefit that is already ours by faith through the atonement?

Conclusion

If God does not always will to heal, then why does God allow us to suffer?

I don’t know if we can adequately understand the reasoning for suffering beyond the fact that mans suffering has been brought upon itself as a race, and that God is all love, but yet allows man to suffer.

I see disease, infirmity, and death, and God’s willingness not to heal all, as placing the emphasis on our existence where it should be; eternity. Everyone who was healed in the Bible still died. God may show His hand at times to confirm His presence, but where we spend eternity is what really matters. Physical life is probationary and a preparation for the next. Long physical life may have its blessings, but it cannot compare to heaven and eternity. If I die tomorrow it does not matter as long as I am to be with the Lord. If God chooses to allow me to be inflicted with an infirmity, it should cause me to rely on Him even more, especially in light of His love and eternity.

Healings build my faith, but so does the courage and faithfulness I see in those who cling to God with full hope of heaven within their suffering.

May God grant you peace of mind that He is in control. He is our Healer.

My final installment before my summary on the question ‘Is healing in the atonement’? Takes a look at it from the experiential basis. This is the category in which monumental claims are made. “Experience” is hard to disprove. I cannot claim that your experience is not true, but what I can do is weigh it against Scripture, history, and reason. I do not discount experience as being valid to the discussion, but any truth must be evaluated and vindicated by all four principles to some degree. When this issue is brought up and people try to prove it, the issue of experience always seems to work its way in. They ask, ” What about all the evidence?” “Have you ever been to a healing service?” “I have, and I’ve seen…….” Once again, I cannot argue with the fact that they had an experience, but the question is, is that experience a Scriptural experience? We must also consider the fact that while “whatever is true works; not everything that works, is true.” Just because something appears to work, does not necessarily guarantee that it is Biblical or seated in truth. It is equally true that because I have not witnessed something, it does not make it untrue. The question arises, do our “experiences” validate truth? Or does truth validate experiences? While experience plays an important part in our walk with God, it cannot replace Scripture, history, and reason. Some seem to have gone to the extent of saying, “I do not care what the Bible says, I’ve had an experience!” When experiences between people disagree, then more adequate means of determining what is true is required. At times, extraordinary claims have been made, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof! We cannot passively accept every claim because it is wrapped in the name of Jesus! Just because many people believe, it does not make it true.

What about those healings we see at services and on television? I will readily admit that many people get healed today as I have been used in at my previous church Renewal Christian Centre, but it has little to do with a certain person laying hands on them, or the amount of their faith, but everything to do with the will of God. God is still working in the lives of believers. I do not believe that healing has any part in the atonement and I also do not believe that it is God’s will to always heal. Salvation from sin and the consequences of eternal separation from God is the emphasis of the atonement throughout the entire Bible, and there are Biblical examples of people who God did not heal.

I doubt that much of what I see on television has much to do with reality. My doubts come from personal observation, and that is why I doubt what I see. First, it is a sideshow. Money, not more of Christ is at the centre of it. If greed is an indicator, I would have more faith in healing in the name of Mary at Lourdes than I would have in Benny Hinn. Secondly, how many of these people in wheelchairs do you know? Are they genuinely medically disabled and cannot leave the chair? Are they missing both legs? After they receive healing, are they back in the chair and ready for the next “healing” service? This is the norm of what I have seen. Most of what takes place in these services is the “healing” of inorganic and not organic diseases. What I mean by inorganic is, headaches, deafness in one ear, assorted pain. Something that a non-medical professional cannot observe or prove. I have known people with organic (real, observable and documented maladies) that go forward in these services and get “healed.” They have called me with the testimony that they are completely healed! But upon in-depth questioning , I always find that they have not really been healed at all. All they are doing is “claiming” healing. They trudge on in this sick fantasy because some crackpot has convinced them that the power to wellness is in this mental trickery. They have been convinced that the power to get healed is within themselves, and not God. Healers who want your money will say that this “claiming” to be healed is faith. Other’s who see someone confessing a non-existent healing rightfully call it what it is – psychotic behavior!

Many of these circus performers in crusades make a big deal of knocking people down over and over, as if that were something spiritual, or even Biblical! There are few if any real successes in these healing services. The vast majority leave in worse shape than they had come in, their hopes dashed that God did not honor their faith and take them out of that wheelchair. Those that would promote that these great healings are taking place are theological wrecking balls, witnesses not to Christ, but to the insanity of being a “Christian.” How many avoid Christ because this is what they know of Christianity? With all of the hype, begging for cash, and heretical teaching that I see, it only makes me wonder as to how much of the healings that are taking place are nothing more than “claims” of healing, or mere momentary psychological suggestion or auto-suggestion. If there is any healing taking place, it is in spite of what is going on, and it is truly the grace of God reaching out to a hurting and desperate believer.

What does the Bible say about healing? I raise the question once again, do our “experiences” validate truth? Or does truth validate experiences?

We have the example of Jesus. When He healed, He did so immediately and completely. He did not heal those that were not medically confirmed as sick, but those that had a long record known by all. The apostles were able to heal everybody, completely and immediately, without progression. (Acts 5:12-16, 9:34.) This is the gift of healing, anything less than the Biblical account is a counterfeit. As far as I can tell, no man has the gift of healing today (this would make then faith healers). In Scripture we see that all were healed without exception, which is certainly not something we see today. If anyone believes that they have the gift of healing, let them start in the terminal ward with cancer patients, in front of medical doctors and the media. Start there and work down until all are cleared out of the building. Then they can go to the morgue and raise the dead. Do this, and I cannot help but concede that they have the Biblical gift of healing. Once again at this stage before I’m stoned I must emphasis I do believe in physical healing!

To say that healing is in the atonement is to say that it is available by faith, just as truly as forgiveness of sins are. This condemns Paul and Timothy as inadequate representatives of the Gospel. James’ epistle, considered by most as being one of the earliest, would have been likely known to be in existence by Paul and others. With this being so, and if this was taken as a promise of healing, (the prayer of faith shall save the sick,) then why didn’t Paul use his power to heal Timothy, (like he did in Acts 28:9), and why didn’t he go to the elder with a “prayer of faith and get himself infallibly healed? Why didn’t the other apostles rebuke Paul for his insufficient faith? Why wasn’t he rightfully mocked, “Physician, heal thyself!” Why didn’t Paul rebuke Timothy to get his act together and have faith, when he instead gave the advice to “take a little wine for thy stomach’s sake?” With such poor examples of healing faith, why would we even accept the writings of Paul?

Paul had his “thorn in the flesh,” which was a physical ailment. He was not healed. (2 Corinthians 12:7-10.) Paul wrote to the Galatians, “Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.” (Galatians 4:13) Now, if healing is in the atonement, it is part of the gospel. How could Paul be believed if healing is provided by faith as part of the atonement while he remained yet unhealed? Paul did not tell Timothy to have faith, he told him to take wine for his stomach. (1 Timothy 5:23.) It seems that God is more interested in our spiritual well-being than He is our physical well-being.

There are amazing claims made by those who propagate this doctrine. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof! The fact that sickness and death effects even the most ardent and faithful should be enough for anyone to wake up and see the obvious truth that healing in the atonement is a wishful fallacy. Either it proves that this doctrine is a farce, or it is proof that all people, including false “teachers” do not have adequate faith to receive this healing. If this is so, we must discard this wishful thinking, or we are reduced to questioning whether anyone has ever had adequate faith for healing or salvation!