it implies either and is an assumption to establish it in either direction because we have no idea if he later recovered completely -we have already established that ..
Whether he recovered later isn't the point, the point is whether or not God healed him. And, given Paul advised him to resort to secular remedies for his "frequent infirmities" it is pretty clear that God did not heal him.
your still attempting to establish a doctrine opposing faith in God with whom "all things are possible" and you building it your own assumptions in one ambiguous verse which is not about healing .
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm countering the stance that "God always heals" with the opposing stance that "God does not always heal". This is a very distinct stance to "God never heals". Just as "God never heals" can be easily blown apart by finding one single example where God did heal, so "God always heals" can be blown apart by finding one single example where God did not heal. And one such example is that of Timothy. Unless you can explain Timothy's situation it stands as proof that "God always heals" is false. And yet "God does not always heal" which, in the context of my stance, might be reworded "God does heal but not all of the time", isn't blown clean out of the water by any individual example.
in the face of everything Else the word of God sates about healing .
... and therein lies the problem. The Word of God does talk about healing but Timothy's situation is an inconvenient truth to those who would focus on only some of the Word to claim that God always heals. I'm sure we would both agree that "God never heals" is not a theory that can be supported by Scripture. The only way you can get "God always heals" is to ignore the parts of Scripture where God does not heal, for example in the case of poor Timothy. So let's quit pretending you're the one looking at the big picture because "God always heals" requires Timothy's plight to be ignored, whereas "God heals but not all the time" is consistent with the examples in Scripture where God did heal people while also being consistent with the case of Timothy and what we can see around us.
If a theory can only survive by ignoring counterexamples and focussing on the "everything else" then it's not much of a theory. Most theories, however loopy, can survive being tested against data points that support them. It's only when we look at the big picture that we find the inconvenient counterexamples, and a theory can only be considered sound if it works with the inconvenient data points as well as the convenient ones. To ignore Timothy's plight, as you seem intent on doing, is pretty much to say that "God always heals, except in the cases where he doesn't". Do excuse me if I struggle to have much faith in a "promise" like that. It would be akin to me promising a friend who is about to move "of course I'll help you shift stuff, of course you can borrow my truck, assuming I feel like helping on the day". How much comfort what a promise like that offer you, if you were looking to move house?
you discourage faith by doing so . i read your words and i go my way with diminished hope and my faith undermined .
If I discourage faith in blind hope in promises that were never made then I'm very pleased to diminish such faith, because it is misplaced. It does nothing to the faith of those who are not healed to be endlessly promised "God always heals" when it is abundantly clear in their day-to-day life that God does not always heal. As it happens in church this morning a lady spoke, very emotionally, about her family's situation. I won't go into detail to avoid identifying them but essentially her daughter is critically ill in hospital and although she is improving she is expected to remain in hospital for a considerable amount of time and at present nobody knows what her life will look like when she comes home (the situation isn't so grave that her never coming home is considered likely, but you never know). Her words echoed the words of Habakkuk - she said that whatever happened to her daughter she wanted to proclaim and praise the name of Jesus. Of course she would like to see her daughter healed, and the church continues to pray for the young lady in question. But the faith is still there - even if God does not heal her daughter this woman will still worship him. It's much like Habakkuk, much like Daniel facing the lions, much like Shadrach Meshach and Abednego facing the fiery furnace. But according to some they lack faith. Go figure.
im not encouraged to stand firm no mater what my body may experience or my eyes may see .. your words lower my gaze from the lord jesus and encourage me to trust in the flesh .
In which case I would have to ask how well-placed your faith really is. When you see a promise of God that can be counted upon (which refers to every promise God actually made to us) then stand on it and have faith in it. When you have a promise that God never made but can be kinda-sorta-inferred by cutting and pasting Scripture like a ransom note, I really hope I shake your faith in such a non-promise hard enough to make you look more closely at it. Certainly I make no apology for following the Scriptural call to "test all things, hold fast what is good" which itself implies "get rid of what is not good".
all based on what the eyes see instead of FAITH -for faith does not live by what is seen but by what the lord says .. and he says "whatever you ask in my name according to my will.. i will do it " . -so you present me with a choice . listen to you doubting unedifying words which discourage faith-or listen to the word of God . i choose the word of God because he says " I am the LORD, who heals you."
So we're back to the "ask in my name" mantra, and back to the idea that healing some of the time can be extrapolated into healing all of the time. And we get another healthy dose of doublethink, because all these grand promises were apparently made with no conditions and yet somehow none of them applied to poor Timothy.
So what was the problem with Timothy? Did he lack faith? Was he unrighteous? Did he fall foul of some hidden precondition? Did Paul forget to pray for Timothy? Did God forget he made a promise where Timothy was concerned? Did early scribes cut the bit that said "... except for Timothy, the promises don't apply to him" from the early manuscripts? Or is the belief that God will heal everybody misguided? I know which one my money is on.
