Article January 1, 1910 Issue

Mr. Rhodes' position is a frankly indefensible one

Frederick Dixon

London (Eng.) Express

Mr. Rhodes' position is a frankly indefensible one. It consists of the contention that spiritual healing should be employed only for nervous or functional disease—in other words, that it is useless to rely on God to heal organic disease. Dr. McComb has stated this with engaging frankness in the declaration that there were two kinds of leprosy in the East, one infectious and the other not, and that Jesus was careful only to touch the uninfectious kind.

Imagine the man who raised the dead, stilled the tempest, and walked on the sea, drawing the line at organic disease or hesitating to subject himself to infection. I have pointed out to these critics before that the logical sequence of their argument would be that if there were two kinds if leprosy in the East, there must have been two kinds of Eastern water, on one of which you could walk while in the other you would sink. As a matter of fact, Peter did sink in what I suppose Mr. Rhodes would describe as the walkable kind.

The disciples, indeed, did not by any manner of means always succeed in healing the sick, a failure which, in Mr. Rhodes' estimation, would have prevented him from trusting the sick to them. I am afraid that Mr. Rhodes' demand for a qualification of absolute healing would have the immediate result of closing not only the doors of the Church and Medical Union, but of all the physicians and clergymen in the world. Logic manifestly is not Mr. Rhodes' strong point.

Enjoy 1 free Sentinel article or audio program each month, including content from 1898 to today.

Send a comment to the editors
NEXT IN THIS ISSUE
Article
Let me first say, in passing, that there is nothing whatever...
January 1, 1910
Contents

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit