God’s ability is equivalent to his willingness in the context of a relation of redemption or a mission of redemption. We are not referring to direction in life and ministry, which might be specific to individuals, but to such things as answers and miracles from God. When we are talking about the benefits of redemption and the powers of mission (we can minister healing and prophecy even to unbelievers as a witness to them), the difference between God’s ability and God’s willingness has been exaggerated, even altogether invented.

Christian theology has made such a sharp dichotomy between the two that it has in many ways made God’s ability meaningless. The historic and orthodox cult behaves as if the fact that God is able means nothing, but only the will of God means anything, and we never know the will of God until an event has happened. This, of course, also renders faith meaningless. And this is the real agenda — the cult members have no faith, but they do not want to be exposed.

The Bible writers often identify God’s ability and God’s will. They do not make such a sharp distinction between the two that they always need to say both in order to indicate that something would occur. In many contexts, to state either is to affirm both. They do not refer to God’s ability in a way that the discussion makes no progress until they also refer to God’s will. To affirm that God is able is to affirm confidence in the outcome. Because he is able, it is assumed that the desired result is guaranteed.

For example, Paul wrote, “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (Romans 14:4). The fact that God is able to make a person stand translates into assurance that the person will stand. Paul did not have to add, “if it is his will.” If God can, the man will. But if we take how the cult of unbelief thinks about healing and apply it here, then there would be no basis for assurance. The outcome would still remain open and unknown. By the standard of the historic and orthodox cult, Paul’s statement would be fallacious.

However, it is unlikely that religious scoundrels would glibly throw “if it is his will” at this verse, because it is referring to either something that they are comfortable to affirm, or something where their unbelief and failure can remain hidden. Thus even if they do not believe that God will uphold them as believers, or as it is often the case, even if they have never been genuine believers, they would boldly declare this verse without adding “if it is his will” and remain unexposed. But when it comes to healing, they add “if it is his will.” They say this so that they can exclaim, “God can heal,” as if they have faith, but add, “if it is his will,” for they have no faith.

If they were to be consistent, they would have to say that Paul’s statement provides no assurance of the outcome, although the apostle himself was confident. They would have to say that Paul was mistaken, and call him a theological novice or even a heretic just like they call anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus on healing. Otherwise, they would have to say that, “And he will be healed, for the Lord is able to make him well.” They would have to say that God’s ability guarantees the outcome. But they cannot be consistent, because their theological system is defined by the agenda of unbelief, rebellion, and tradition.