In the book The Gospel in Twenty Questions, Paul Ellis says things like, "The word save first uttered by the angel is the Greek word sozo, which means to deliver or protect, heal or preserve. It means to make whole. Jesus, the Savior from heaven, came to make broken people whole. How could this not include healing and deliverance? Forgiveness from sin is wonderful, but it's only part of the package. ... If you don't know Jesus heals, you are missing out on some of his benefits. You're not getting the full bang for his buck" and "We have lived with sickness and death for so long that it has become normal, but Jesus did not accept sickness as normal" and "So why are we unsure about his will for the sick? His will is that we heal them."
Ellis admits, "Hand on heart, I have to admit we don't see such miraculous healings [sic] every time we pray." Is that not a contradiction? "God wants you to be healed; He wants to make you whole. But we only experience His healing every once in a while." If that is the case, then how can you say it is wrong to pray and say, "If it's your will..."? If you only periodically witness such miraculous healing, does that not indicate that it does indeed depend on whether God is willing or not? Otherwise, would you not see more healing miracles?
Not only that, but this kind of teaching borders on legalism and is void of grace. Read Andrew Farley's books some time, or any of the other grace preachers. If sozo and the Gospel message does entail physical healing, then telling people in order to receive such they need to ask with complete faith without doubting even the slightest, you have entered the realm of legalism. Now, even though I know that God can do such things and I believe He can do such things, that doubt I can sense in the back of my mind in my subconscience is forever keeping me from experiencing such miracles. Am I supposed to some how control this doubt that is in my subconscience? If so, how in the world do I accomplish this? Based on the typical grace teachings, if it is not about me being perfect or doing perfect things or any of that, how is it that my faith has to be absolutely perfect in order to witness such miracles? How is this any different than telling people "you must be holy!"?
On top of that, telling people that God wants you healthy and that you should always ask with faith and without doubting, this is part and parcel with the Health-Wealth-and-Prosperity nonsense. What happens when you have people who believe what you are telling them, exercise precisely this kind of faith, and yet nothing ever happens?!? You have sold them a bill of goods that your words cannot deliver on. They will either believe themselves to be faithless and think they do not have enough faith, or they will malign God somehow because of your promises and end up walking away from the faith. Not to mention the fact that our faith should never be contingent upon whether such miracles ever happen or not; that is not why we have faith!
Finally, did Paul lose faith later in life? Was he not able to heal himself from an affliction he had later in life? Did the first, second, and third century Christians lose faith or not have enough faith, because it appears that they were unable to do the things that we read of in the book of Acts (which is a transitional book, by the way, and not one where we should derive any theological beliefs from)?