You have gone and done it...

Angie and all,

I believe that this is the first time someone has caught this example that Ramm uses. This is amazing isn't it? That the very man who writes to champion the cause against eisegesis, falls into its clutches when interpreting 1 Pet. 2:24. He says that this section does not speak of the healing of believers as a result of the vicarious atonement of Christ. Interesting...Ramm's Dispensational roots are showing here. To him it is impossible to see that healing is for today in this verse because he was taught that healing has passed away as we are in a new dispensation where the Bible is the "perfect" and that healing and other charismatic gifts are no longer needed. So, if one believed that supernatural healing as seen in the ministry of Jesus and the disciples IS still for today, then Is. 53:4-6 and I Pet. 2:24 would actually be perfect Old Testament and New Testament supporting texts wouldn't they??? I love it!!!! Angie, you were taught right girl...and you get an extra point!

Comments? (In addition to your other work, of course...)