North on Charismatics, Calvinism, and Healing. Summarizes my own journey. Let’s put aside all of the “in your face” stuff like prophecy and tongues. I understand the case against continuationism. I really do. (I admit. I don’t understand any case for or against tongues). But where in the New Testament do you get the idea that Jesus will pull the plug on healing once the ink is dry on Revelation?
Cessationists say, “But where is healing today?” To which I say, Look around. The evidence is there if you want to find it. But the case for healing is more than just the overwhelming amount of evidence. It is the nature of the covenant. I love what North writes,
If God heals in history, then He must bring judgment in history. To deny the one is to deny the other. Yet the modern church denies either or both of these aspects of God’s work in history. Churches do not want judgment, for it begins at the house of the Lord (I Peter 4:17). So, they reject the biblical idea of healing. They are consistent — consistently wrong.
The apostle James presupposed something we don’t know. Oil has judicial qualities. It’s not just “advanced medicine.”
Modern charismatics aren’t completely correct, to the extent that they are individualists.
On the other hand, by preaching physical healing through the authority of the church, the charismatics raise a crucial issue: establishing the limits of God’s healing in history. God heals individuals, not cultures, insist the traditional charismatics. By what theology can such limits be placed on God’s healing? Dispensationalism? But dispensationalism denies the legitimacy of all church-invoked, church-administered healing, not just cultural healing. Traditional dispensationalism is in this sense consistent; charismatic dispensationalism isn’t.