smith wigglesworth

:roll: Has anyone heard of Smith Wigglesworth and his ministry at the turn of the century? My question is is was he for real, can't find much on the internet in regards to his ministry or even basic critiques about the man himself. To me his ministry and the things he had accomplished(tons of miraculous healings) seem to bizarre for me to believe, but i talk to other people who feel that all that was done in his ministry was true......

I believe Smith Wigglesworth was for real, but I've only read a few books about his life. I was impressed with the love he had for soulwinning and for young people. The only negative thing I can say about the books I've read on him are that they might have gone a little overboard on emphasizing signs and wonders.

What little I know is that my wife loves him, she is really big on healing, probably has a half dozen of his books....I have yet to read any of his stuff, but will say that my first 'impression' was to write him off because of some of the things I had 'heard' in connection with some of 'word of faith' teachers. But, as in most things I am begining to learn to be a good Berean and "see if these things are true", that is, do they square with scripture as far as what is being taught...What really shut my mouth was hearing Leonard Ravenhill make mention of him and A.W. Tozer (men who I have high esteem towards) in the same breath, if I am not mistaken, and that caused me to realize that I was taking others opinions at face value without looking into it myself.Anybody else out there? How about Kathreen Kullman(Spelling?), John G. Lake, A.B.Simpson,?I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that there is a thread woven through some of these men, don't know if it's by era, thought, affiliation...seen some other posts linking names together, but maybe somebody here could flesh it out better._/crsschk\\_

Yes, I'm always curious about those who overemphasize gifts of the Spirit like healing.Sometimes I'm cautious to endorse certain preachers because of all the crazy stuff that's been going on with the Assemblies of God (my denomination) and the Toronto/Brownsville thing.But yes, I believe it's always good to test the spirits to see if they be of God before we make our own judgements.I've heard some bad stuff about Katherine Kullman and John G. Lake, and I've only seen a small video clip of Katherine Kullman, so I can't really say what I think about them.I think healing is good, but the main focus of any ministry should be salvation and discipleship, and training mature believers to make disciples.

Of all the "healing ministry" people, Smith Wigglesworth is the one that I have the most agreement with.

If God says that he can and will heal us and we know that he has the ability, and it is our position to believe that we can be healed, what happens if that physical healing doesn't occur....who is at fault (if anybody) is it the believer who did'nt have enough faith or is it Gods will alone that a healing may not come. I've wondered this for a very long time.....I had a good brother in the Lord that died of Luekemia over a year ago, he believed that God would heal him, to the point that he never made any final arrangements about any of his finances (fearing this was doubt in his belief). He did die, and left a huge mess for his wife financially as well as a big hole of doubt as to what went wrong. The premise that she felt was their faith may not have been as strong as it should have been, resulting in guilt and condemnation for herself. It is Gods desire that we be healed but what if it does'nt happen who is at fault?

This is exactly the problem that I have with this whole issue, may I come along side you as opposed to offering up an incomplete answer.Purpose.That's what comes to mind.Best I can tell, God always does things for a purpose and we don't always know what that purpose is.Surely, we have our part to do in being obedient and living a life that is pleasing to our Lord, having faith (Hebrews 10:6).But, does doing all that guarentee our 'healing'?Look at Job, he was a man who "there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil"(Job 1:8)After all he had gone through, in the end the Lord restored everything and then some.But, like the leepers who were cleansed, the blind man who's sight was restored, the cripples, the 'demoniac', all of these were 'healed' for a time and yet all of them still died.So ultimately what is of the most importance in being 'healed'? And, just what exactly is/was provided for us all in the verse that a lot of teaching seems to tell us is 'provided for', namely Isaiah 53:5 "And by His stripes we are healed"Since sickness is a result of the original sin and sin has been passed down to us all from Adam on....ultimately, we can never be totally 'healed' until we get to glory and have escaped these natural, decaying skin suits that we are trapped in.In the mean time for many of us (all) will be suffering to some extent or another. A lot of it is due to our own doing, (sin, trying to break fixed laws like gravity) some by no fault of own ( being in a building that get's hit by an airplane). And some of it even for Jesus sake, which is glorious to some of us, to be counted worthy to suffer for Him.There is a lot more questions than answers for sure, and we could be 'healed' of some physical infirmity for awhile and still end up with our soul being cast into hell. Ultimate healing has to be the that Christ took on the penalty for our transgressions and provided the "purpose" for all that come to faith in Him, His death= our healing.The whole assumption that lacking enough faith is the reason why some do not get 'healed' of a particular problem is ludicrous and it makes that 'holy indignation' rise up in me.It is one of the reasons I have such a hard time with these false prophets laying guilt trips on people with false hopes and in many cases destroying their faith, because they didn't have enough faith to 'receive their healing'."Can" and "Will"Those two are what I usually come back to. This verse is what always springs to mind on this issue.Daniel 3:16,17 (Regarding whether they would bow down and worship the gold idol) "O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up."To my way of thinking, this is the the idea behind how we are to approach the issue."Can" God 'heal, or deliever' that's absurd to think otherwise, but "will" He in every instance?Is there really something in scripture that makes us think we can hold Him to it, because He 'promised it' and we just have to "believe" or have enough "faith" and He is obligated to do what WE want? And of course the flip side would be that we are just making a convient excuse, letting God off the hook so to speak, when He dosen't 'heal' by saying "if it be thy will".Yeah, I know what James 5:13 and following says, depending on which version your reading from. But can we issolate one verse from scripture and make a whole doctrine out of it ?(same goes for the Daniel verse I quoted, I know) Seems best to me that we adhere to what is said as a whole in scripture, do our part, pray and 'let God be true and every man a liar".If it is Gods will to be 'healed' temporarily, you can be assured that it will happen, if not than we have to assume He has His reasons for not granting it.Since when did we become the ones who dictate to God what He is to do? I have never been able to grasp that concept. Besides, the most important "healing" we can ever receive is the precious healing of salvation that will outlast any temporal, earthbound suffering we may have to endure. The real healing is eternal.I remember reading about a woman who was dying of cancer and she warned those around her not to tell her daughter that she 'would' be healed, even though she had the faith to believe she could be. She was more concerned that if her daughter was led to believe that she 'would' be healed and she ended up being taken from this earth, that her daughters faith would be destroyed.I think she had the right perspective.I know the lid is off the can of worms now and will gladly and humbly accept reproof and correction from those who are more knowledgeable on this subject._/crsschk\\_

I have in my collection of books one by a man named Donald Gee. He was instramental in helping the Assemblies of God develope their systematic theology, including that on divine healing. He later wrote a book called "Trophimus I Left Sick--Our Problems With Divine Healing" He was trying to get the church to take a more balanced look at healing. It was published in the 50's when men like Oral Roberts and A. Allan were holding large "Healing" meetings. Here is a small section of that book; I hope it helps: Was there some failure in Trophimus that necessitated Paul leaving him at Miletum sick? Had Trophimus been guilty of some disobedience to the Divine will? Or did Trophimus simply lack faith? Those who want, somehow or other, to fit in this verse about the illness of Trophimus with their own doctrines of Divine healing are tempted to assert that he MUST (emphasis original) have failed somewhere. But that is the worst possible way of interpreting the Scriptures. There is nothing whatever in the statement, or in its context to suggest anything spiritually or morally wrong about Trophimus. Assumption here is completely gratuitous. Part of the unfortunate manner in which faith in Divine healing sometimes has been sincerely promulgated by strong-minded personalities is this continual suggestion that failure to get healed is rooted in some deep spiritual failure in the one who is sick. The attitude has added mental suffering to physical suffering, and in extreme cases turned belief in Divine healing into a scourge rather than a privilege, and a burden rather than a relief. That it possesses an element of truth need not be denied. Even in natrual healing the patient has responsibilities. But to hold a doctrine of Divine healing that acts like a lash upon the heightened susceptbilities of the weak and sickly, surely comes near being a travesty of the compassion with which our Lord viewed the multitudes of sick folk that crowded around Him on earth. Let there be confession of all known faults; let there be humble prayer for light on any hindrance to healing that obedience can remove; let faith be strengthened by the promises of the word of God and the testimonies of those Divinely healed; but let all this be done in love.... If no apparent reasons for failure to receive supernatural healing are made clear to the conscience or mind of the sufferer we have no recourse but to leave the case in the hands of our Heavenly Father--without condemnation of ourselves or others.

Excelent!Much better stated.Thanks Hulsey

I think it very significant and worthy of mention that, although Smith Wigglesworth was a believer in what he called "divine health," he suffered badly with kidney stones for many years. Those who had roomed with him on the road testified to his rolling around on the floor in agony all night as a result of passing the horrible stones. He could have had surgery for them, but he had heard from the Lord that he was not to "have a knife touch his body." Ultimately, after several years and much suffering, he emerged from his trial.The "divine health" spoken of by such men as Smith Wigglesworth and George Warnock is different from that spoken of by modern Word-Faith teachers, which is more akin to Christian Science or Eastern occult practices. They (Wigglesworth and Warnock, that is) believe that we should be free from the curse of sin in our bodies and that this includes disease, etc. BUT they also point out that God will allow disease to afflict even his chosen people for his purpose. Elisha, for example, died of an illness. Warnock deals with this issue in one of the sermons online (quite well and much better than I could do), but I can't remember which one ... when I find it, I'll reference it.

I,d really appreciate it ....thanks jason

This is from an article at gospelcom.net:Faith healing refers to healing that occurs supernaturally, as the result of prayer rather than the use of medicines or the involvement of physicians or other medical care. But while faith healings do take place today just as they did in the early Christian church, the teachings of some churches, movements and individuals on this subject amount tospirutual abuse.Legitimate churches and movements do not equal using drugs or receiving proper medical attention with unbelief, insufficient faith, or otherwise sinning against God.The Bible does show incidences of faith healing. However, the Bible does not condemn, forbid, or even discourage the use of medicines or other proper medical care. Matter of fact, Luke, who wrote theGospel of Luke was a doctor.A few years ago in Florida, a 2-year-old-boydied from 432 yellow jacket stings because his parents were members of areligious group that distrusts doctors. They were arrestedformanslaughter and child abuse.In Denver, a baby died of cardiac arrestafter an infectious disease was not treated.Hisparentswere members ofa strict fundamentalist sect with members who use prayer to heal and do not believe in doctors or medicine.The apostle Paul advised Timothy to use some wine for his stomach problems. Note that Paul does not criticize Timothy for his ''frequent illnesses.'' Nor does he even suggest that Timothy's illnesses indicate a spiritual problem such as lack of faith. Instead, Timothy is seen as a spiritual leader and a good example to all. This is from The Complete Book of Bible Answers, by Ron Rhodes:There are numerous verses in Scripture which substantiate the view that physical healing in mortal life is not guaranteed in the atonement and that it is not always God's will to heal. The apostle Paul couldn't heal Timothy's stomach problem (1 Timothy 5:23) nor could he heal Trophimus at Miletus (2 Timothy 4:20) or Epaphroditus (Philippians 3:25-27). Paul spoke of "a bodily illness" he had (Galatians 4:13-15). He also suffered a "thorn in the flesh" which God allowed him to retain (2 Corinthians 12:7-9).God certainly allowed Job to go through a time of physical suffering (Job 1--2). In none of these cases is it stated that the sickness was caused by sin or unbelief. Nor did Paul or any of the others act as if they thought their healing was guaranteed in the atonement. They accepted their situations and trusted in God's grace for sustenance. It is noteworthy that on one occasion Jesus indicated that sickness could be for the glory of God (John 11:4).

I don't think it's exactly the same section on healing/sickness that I was thinking of (which I have not found yet), but Warnock addresses sickness/healing in the body in "Preparing a Sanctuary for God" about 59 minutes in ... his point in this sermon relates to the fact that we are all a part of one body and that we may suffer sickness not for our own lack, but for the lack of others.That is, because the body is lacking elsewhere, we suffer (both spiritually and physically). This goes a little bit with what Paul says about his own sufferings ... "[my sufferings] are for your sake." I do think there is a lot of truth to this, although there is more depth as well as to why there is sickness and sometimes no healing (and healing other times). I will try to find the other section still, as it is a bit more complete in my recollection.

That's interesting. I need to check out that message. Maybe when he said "we are all a part of one body and that we may suffer sickness not for our own lack, but for the lack of others" he was talking about intercession.I've read a few books on intercession that define it as feeling what others are feeling so that we can understand better how to pray for them.And it's been mentioned that this kind of thing may sometimes take on physical aspects.Paul said "[my sufferings] are for your sake." Jesus suffered the ultimate intercession for us through the work he did on the cross.It's not always all glory and joy. Prayer is work, and sometimes it means suffering. What are your thoughts on this?

I'm quite certain that he was not speaking of intercession here. About that -- while God may allow suffering to increase empathy, "intercession" is "standing in the gap for someone else," not feeling another's pain. I think Oswald Chambers says it well when he says that intercession that is based on how someone else feels is not true intercession -- it is only true intercession when it is based upon how GOD feels and upon his word. The other is simply the flesh masked as intercession and actually can tend to oppose the will and plan of God. (You can probably tell that I am not too big a fan of most modern "intercession" manuals.)This is more along the lines of "when one member suffers, we all suffer" and "that is why many in the body are sick and some sleep."Keep up the conversation ...

I have been reading the posts about Smith Wigglesworth and healing and found the discussion to be intelligent and interesting. My wife has been sick with what we believe is fibromyalgia these past few years. For this reason, we have been very interested in the topic of healing and I have read numerous books and given a good deal of thought to the subject. We go to a church that teaches that "healing is part of the atonement" and I do believe that the power of God demonstrated in acts of healing, deliverance and other miracles by Jesus and His followers represents the ideal that we as believers are supposed to be living in (Mark 16: 17, 20). Yet even so, as has been pointed out in this discussion, sometimes God does not heal. Even Paul and some of his colleagues sometimes were not healed -and of course it is presumable that they had prayed for their own healing (*I'm not sure though that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" is a good example to use of this because it is difficult to determine whether this refers to physical sickness. Bosworth's book "Christ the Healer" makes a good case that this passage refers to a satanic spiritual attack rather than a physical illness). In any case, there are biblical, historical and contemporary examples of non-healing. Probably every believer has a story of someone they know who was not healed despite apparent sincerity and faith. Wigglesworth had a son who died prematurely--and as was mentioned here too--he was not healed immediately of his gallstones. So I believe that the fact that people sometimes are not healed after praying for healing poses a difficult problem for those of us who do believe in God as healer and His willingness to heal--and I count myself as one of these. But if someone is not healed, I agree with others here who state that we ought not to add condemnation to their physical suffering by blaming them for their lack of faith. It may be lack of faith, or it may not. I have recently come across a very powerful chapter on sickness in Watchman Nee's book, "The Spiritual Man". He states a view that is similar to the one that Andrew Murray has in his treatment of the subject titled "Divine Healing". And that is that God, while not being the direct cause of sickness nevertheless in His sovereignty allows it, at times, for His purposes. I think that Job is an example for us here, in that he was "blameless", yet suffered illness and other calamities and still maintained his faith. By the end of the book, Job also seemed to get a revelation about God and about himself that was truly life changing. Perhaps he could not have achieved this in any other way. My reading of Nee and Murray is that they teach that God may allow sickness for a time, but does not delight in our suffering and is most willing to heal us. Therefore their advice is to seek God and his lessons for them during the season of sickness and to believe that God will heal when the lessons are learned, and that it would be God's preference for us is that we learn whatever lesson we need to learn sooner, rather than later. Is this a totally satisfactory answer? No--because it still does not answer the lack of healing in certain instances, or why sometimes God may allow a tragedy, like the death of a child. I believe that, like Wigglesworth, we ought to be in love with God and His Word, get mad at the devil for his treacherous attacks, and believe God for healing and miracles wherever and as often as possible, that God might be glorified and that people would come to saving faith in Jesus. But we can also learn to accept, with a sense of peace and ultimate hope, when we don't have all the answers, knowing that God is good and ultimately works all things together for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8: 28).

As for Paul's "Thorn in the Flesh," I think it can be established beyond a reasonable doubt that it was blindness (although not 100% blindness):Galatians 4:13-15 "but you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time; and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself. Where then is that sense of blessing you had? For I bear you witness, that if possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me."Galatians 6:11 "See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand."From these Scriptures, we see that Paul had had an illness that had caused problems with his eyes ... and his eyes had apparently not been healed by the time he wrote this letter because he wrote "large letters," as any person with very poor eyes would have to do.Note that in a number of his letters, Paul says that the letter was dictated and written by the hand of someone else ... up till the greeting, where he apparently had a distinctive handwriting that would authenticate the letter as having been from Paul. Chances are that this was a result of the same thing -- he couldn't see well enough to write extended letters, but wrote the greetings himself in distinctively "large letters."1 Cor 16:21 "The greeting is in my own hand -- Paul."Colossians 4:18 "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. Remember my imprisonment. Grace be with you."2 Thessalonians 3:17 "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write."Philemon 1:19 "I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand, ..."

Dear Jason:Thanks for your response. It may indeed be the case that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was a physical problem that had something to do with his eyes. The verses you quote could be interpreted that way; yet they are possible alternate explanations.In my post, I wasn't really concerned with the issue of whether Paul's thorn was physical or not; if Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was a physical ailment, it is just one more example of the mystery of God not healing one who asked to be healed.My post was more of a reflection asking: why is it that some people don't get healed? Does God want to teach us something through a season of illness? Maybe so. Yet I find the accounts of men such as Wigglesworth encouraging and inspiring. In the face of illness, they wanted to relieve human suffering in order to spread the love and glory of Jesus. Like them, we can choose to believe that our good God is willing and able to heal and then ask Him for healing--even if experience shows that sometimes God may not heal.

My question brothers is why God chooses to heal at all? Yes, because he is opposed to see us suffer, but is'nt it also to show His soverignty(spelling?). Why did Christ raise Lazarus from the dead, he was His friend, ultimately Christ knew he would have been better off in heaven, but yet he chose to raise him up.....so why? I feel that healing is possible to be demonstrated through the believer as in the case of Wigglesworth, and also to those that believe God can heal them alone. Wigglesworth healed(through the power of God) many that may have not had an ounce of faith to believe, and their are people who never required someone with the gift of healing and relied on God alone to heal them. Ultimately it is our responsibility to believe that He can and will heal us either on this earth or when we are gaurenteed through His word to be given a new body on the other side - - either way we win or rather the battle has already been won by His blood...