Objection: We Need BALANCED Teaching on Healing, Not Oversimplifications

Well, you can’t argue with that statement, can you?  Of course, we want to be balanced and we don’t want to oversimplify anything.

The problem always comes with the objector’s definition of BALANCED, which is inevitably your faith balanced by his unbelief.  Then there is his definition of OVERSIMPLIFICATIONS, which usually means preaching simple truth that a small child could grasp rather than making everything complicated and throwing in all kinds of if’s and and’s and but’s about Paul’s thorn and Timothy’s stomach and whatever.

The gospel is not rocket science that you need a seminary degree to believe and act on.  Some people just like complications because complications make those people feel superior to people who have a simpler understanding of things.  The message of the gospel is not complicated – we WANT to make it as simple as possible.  God is good and the devil is bad.  That’s simple truth.

I maintain that we actually need less BALANCED teaching about healing and more RADICAL, UNBALANCED teaching!  We need to teach that it is ALWAYS God’s will to heal and that ANYONE can be healed of ANYTHING – NOW.  I’m not going to balance that with the objections cited in this book, which don’t hold up under scrutiny anyway.  We need to teach that ALL of us should be doing the works that Jesus did and greater, because that’s what He said about it.  I’m not going to “balance” statements like these – what are you going to “balance” them with other than unbelief?  I’m not going to complicate things either.  Which part of “They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover” don’t we get?  Jesus didn’t attempt to “balance” that, so neither should we.