Does the Church still possess miraculous gifts today?

[Jun2u]

I have no idea what you mean by Israel being related to the local congregations of our time? There's only one church and its head is Jesus Christ.

You read my post #48 didn't you? Did I not speak of the events that took place with Ancient Israel and Judah, how they were enamored and was destroyed by the Assyrians and Babylonians? Did I not say that these events are akin to the local congregations of the world because they are enamored and entranced by this phenomenon of speaking in “unknown” tongues which was possible before the Bible was completed, and that they are a direct violation of Revelation 22:18 after the Bible was completed? So how can you say you are not aware that the events that took place with Ancient Israel and Judah is not related to the churches of today that feature signs and wonders?

Revelation 22:18 is about the Book of Revelation the last revelation of Jesus Christ it is not about the Bible.

Here lies the error of your misunderstanding of the many scriptures and doctrines you have taught throughout these forums about the things of God. I was waiting for you to give this answer that Revelation 22:18 only pertains to the Book of Revelation. Sad, as you are still enamored and adheres to signs and wonders as many do that belong to a false church that feature speaking in “unknown” tongues.

The fact is, if we add or take away chapters or verses from the Book of Revelation, we have NOT only done this to the Book of Revelation but to the Bible itself!! The Book of Revelation does not STAND alone or APART from the Bible!

Is this what you have to show for 45 years of studying the Bible that the plagues written in scriptures are still hovering over your head? I say this kindly because Revelation 22:18 is a very ominous warning to those who believe that God still is bringing revelations in the form of messages through signs and wonders after the Bible has been completed.

Sorry, I do not subscribe to commentaries from scholars as their best work, no matter how holy it might seem, is still tainted by sin.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Wormwood]

Stan,

I have been busy and havent had much time to read lengthy articles on these issue. First, I generally try to deal in quotes from books by publishers (which is what I try to provide you with) rather than online blogs. Anyone can write a blog and I have seen many bloggers cited on here quoting people without a shred of credentials to their name. Publishers are safest because they actually have to verify and put their name behind the credentials and statements of the author they publish. In any event, I have also read numerous liberal theologians and their opinions. I will look at your blogs because you have asked me to, but that is why I generally do not put much stock in online authors, fyi.

Here is what the article you posted said about the long ending of Mark:

This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus.

This seems to validate pretty much what I said...the ending is bogus. Then the author says this:

Since Matthew, Luke and John come so much later and clearly reflect the period after 70 CE when all of the first witnesses were dead–including Peter, Paul and James the brother of Jesus, they are clearly 2nd generation traditions and should not be given priority.

Do you understand what this author is proposing? This author is claiming that the Gospel of Peter is more legitimate than the other Gospels in the NT. He is also saying that the other Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses (contrary to church history claims and the internal evidence of the Gospels themselves). Moreover, it seems evident to me that this person denies the reality of the resurrection. He is arguing that the actual sightings of the risen Christ from the tomb is a tradition that came much later and is different from the understanding that Paul and Mark had about the nature of the resurrection.

Stan, I am baffled you would cite such a person and their views. This guy is about as liberal as they come and denies the historical portrait the NT gives us of Jesus and believes Jesus' extended family created a royal dynasty just before the destruction of the Temple in 70AD!

What would bring you to read and accept the positions of such a person? Did you just stumble across this guy on the internet or are you actually a fan of his books and teachings? Essentially, this guy rejects the bulk of the NT as having any accuracy at all and believes the apocrypal work, The Gospel of Peter, to be more accurate than the other three Gospels.

There is a reason Mark ends as it does and its not in any way a knock against the physical resurrection of Christ nor does it undermine the other three Gospels. I dont have time to get into the themes of Mark right now, but suffice it to say, other than this author's claim that the long ending was not written by Mark, I wouldnt accept a single thing this person says. He is a false teacher.

 

[StanJ]

You read my post #48 didn't you? Did I not speak of the events that took place with Ancient Israel and Judah, how they were enamored and was destroyed by the Assyrians and Babylonians? Did I not say that these events are akin to the local congregations of the world because they are enamored and entranced by this phenomenon of speaking in “unknown” tongues which was possible before the Bible was completed, and that they are a direct violation of Revelation 22:18 after the Bible was completed? So how can you say you are not aware that the events that took place with Ancient Israel and Judah is not related to the churches of today that feature signs and wonders?

Yes I did, which is why I asked you what I did. All you're doing now is repeating yourself. If it didn't make sense the first time how do you figure it's going to make sense a second time? Your view of the Bible as being a complete book when Revelation was written is in error. The warning in Revelation pertains to nothing more than the Book of Revelation that John wrote. It is the end of our current canon of scripture because it was basically the last book of scripture written. Somehow you seem to think that all the books of the Bible were written as one book, and of course you would be wrong. God's covenant with Israel was the Old Covenant we as Christians today are not subject to that Covenant as we are under the New Covenant. What don't you get about the distinction between the two?

Here lies the error of your misunderstanding of the many scriptures and doctrines you have taught throughout these forums about the things of God. I was waiting for you to give this answer that Revelation 22:18 only pertains to the Book of Revelation. Sad, as you are still enamored and adheres to signs and wonders as many do that belong to a false church that feature speaking in “unknown” tongues.

So you're basically admitting to working and waiting to ambush people? I guess if you're going to use that as an MO then you should basically have some ammunition to back up your fallacious assertions. As it is you have no credulity here whatsoever.

The fact is, if we add or take away chapters or verses from the Book of Revelation, we have NOT only done this to the Book of Revelation but to the Bible itself!! The Book of Revelation does not STAND alone or APART from the Bible!

Of course it stands alone, that's why it's called The 'Book' of Revelation. What do you not get about that. The Bible is a compilation of books each one written on its own. You apparently have no concept whatsoever of how the Bible came together?

Is this what you have to show for 45 years of studying the Bible that the plagues written in scriptures are still hovering over your head? I say this kindly because Revelation 22:18 is a very ominous warning to those who believe that God still is bringing revelations in the form of messages through signs and wonders after the Bible has been completed.

Am I to take from this response that you are the Preterist? If not then you're coming here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Sorry, I do not subscribe to commentaries from scholars as their best work, no matter how holy it might seem, is still tainted by sin.

Apparently you don't subscribe to anything but your own understanding which sadly is seriously lacking in any kind of validity. Try actually executing the scripture and making a point rather than just ranting.

 

[StanJ]

I have been busy and havent had much time to read lengthy articles on these issue. First, I generally try to deal in quotes from books by publishers (which is what I try to provide you with) rather than online blogs. Anyone can write a blog and I have seen many bloggers cited on here quoting people without a shred of credentials to their name. Publishers are safest because they actually have to verify and put their name behind the credentials and statements of the author they publish. In any event, I have also read numerous liberal theologians and their opinions. I will look at your blogs because you have asked me to, but that is why I generally do not put much stock in online authors, fyi.
Here is what the article you posted said about the long ending of Mark:

As you've taken this totally out of context and don't show what you're actually referring to then I can only assume you deliberately picked this one item to deflect about? As a moderator, this is a tad disingenuous of you because you know how this site works and how you should actually quote, cite or provide a link to what you're talking about. As I have admitted many times, my memory is not very good, and taking things out of context doesn't really help to provide for any kind of productive discussion. You should also know that when you put things in a quote box it means it is not carried forward to the reply and therefore ends up being totally out of context as well.

Do you understand what this author is proposing? This author is claiming that the Gospel of Peter is more legitimate than the other Gospels in the NT. He is also saying that the other Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses (contrary to church history claims and the internal evidence of the Gospels themselves). Moreover, it seems evident to me that this person denies the reality of the resurrection. He is arguing that the actual sightings of the risen Christ from the tomb is a tradition that came much later and is different from the understanding that Paul and Mark had about the nature of the resurrection.

The point was to show that there are other opinions out there as you insisted that there were not. What's a good even further off track by debating whether or not this person's opinion is valid or not. If you don't like his opinion and let him know and discuss it with him. As far as I'm concerned he points out some very valid concerns. Whether you agree with them or not is not the issue. If you don't want these type of references or resources cited then don't use any and debate the issues yourself on its own merit with your own knowledge which is basically what we should be doing anyhow.

Stan, I am baffled you would cite such a person and their views. This guy is about as liberal as they come and denies the historical portrait the NT gives us of Jesus and believes Jesus' extended family created a royal dynasty just before the destruction of the Temple in 70AD!

And I am baffled by your lack of context as to what is actually being said and what you are alluding to. You continue to go more and more of course without giving with the issue of the thread.

There is a reason Mark ends as it does and its not in any way a knock against the physical resurrection of Christ nor does it undermine the other three Gospels. I dont have time to get into the themes of Mark right now, but suffice it to say, other than this author's claim that the long ending was not written by Mark, I wouldnt accept a single thing this person says. He is a false teacher.

And apparently you would rather call somebody a false teacher then prove your own opinion, but again not the issue. You either accept the Bible, as quoted, as being total or not. If not then there's no reason to debate with you as you will only accept what you will only accept. Your MO seems to be to drag out long tangents and never really make a point. If you don't want to exercise the gifts of the Spirit in your own life then that's your choice. The fact that you depend on your own understanding, albeit severely lacking, to decide what you will and won't accept from God is also your choice. As for me, I choose to practice what I see in the NT. I don't need to mentally rationalize it to do it, I just need to exercise my faith in God that he will supply my every need.

 

[Wormwood]

As you've taken this totally out of context and don't show what you're actually referring to then I can only assume you deliberately picked this one item to deflect about? As a moderator, this is a tad disingenuous of you because you know how this site works and how you should actually quote, cite or provide a link to what you're talking about. As I have admitted many times, my memory is not very good, and taking things out of context doesn't really help to provide for any kind of productive discussion. You should also know that when you put things in a quote box it means it is not carried forward to the reply and therefore ends up being totally out of context as well.

Stan, I have limited time. I have a full time job, a wife and seven...yes seven children. This form of quoting is fastest for me. I assure you that the quotes I use are almost always in response to your comments directly preceding mine. I hope that makes things simpler for you. I dont know how I am deflecting...I am telling you why I dont spend much time clicking links and reading online theological blogs. I tend to quote books and provide their biographical information alongside the quote. That is how research papers are done. If you want to make a point, you should make your point and provide supporting material yourself rather than just links to long papers, blogs and articles for me to research your point for you. Again, my background is academic. In academic circles, we make our points and substantiate them by referencing the quotes ourselves. Not mad about it, just pointing out why our approaches are different.

The point was to show that there are other opinions out there as you insisted that there were not.

I dont doubt there are different opinions. There are varying opinions on just about everything. However, as a conservative Christian who takes the Bible seriously, I thought we would focus our discussion around scholars we both trust who also take the Bible seriously.

Sorry, I have to go!

 

[StanJ]

Stan, I have limited time. I have a full time job, a wife and seven...yes seven children. This form of quoting is fastest for me. I assure you that the quotes I use are almost always in response to your comments directly preceding mine. I hope that makes things simpler for you. I dont know how I am deflecting...I am telling you why I dont spend much time clicking links and reading online theological blogs. I tend to quote books and provide their biographical information alongside the quote. That is how research papers are done. If you want to make a point, you should make your point and provide supporting material yourself rather than just links to long papers, blogs and articles for me to research your point for you. Again, my background is academic. In academic circles, we make our points and substantiate them by referencing the quotes ourselves. Not mad about it, just pointing out why our approaches are different.

Tomayto / Tomahto. I'm just saying if you read the links and you'll probably get what I was trying to convey or at least the point I was trying to get by but in any event yes with 7 kids you definitely are busy. I only had 4 and was barely ever home.

I dont doubt there are different opinions. There are varying opinions on just about everything. However, as a conservative Christian who takes the Bible seriously, I thought we would focus our discussion around scholars we both trust who also take the Bible seriously.

I agree, so let's pick a few. By the way I found Douglas Moo on my Facebook today. I was thinking of Friending him but then he's not really my friend.
He must be a friend of a friend or something because I wouldn't see him on Facebook otherwise. My security settings are pretty high.

 

[KingJ]

Stan, I have limited time. I have a full time job, a wife and seven...yes seven children.

Wow. Congrats. That's truly impressive.

 

[Wormwood]

but in any event yes with 7 kids you definitely are busy. I only had 4 and was barely ever home.

Haha, well my wife is the true hero of the story . My oldest is 12 and youngest is 9 months. It is wild, but every day is an adventure!

By the way I found Douglas Moo on my Facebook today. I was thinking of Friending him but then he's not really my friend.

That is awesome. I have some people I have friended who were either professors of mine or people who are scholars I highly admire. Most of these scholars have a personal FB account and then a public figure account. I have found many of them are great about answering questions and posting additional links to articles and blogs they or their colleagues have written. It is very helpful.

I was taking some challenging classes once from a more liberal theological school and was coming across some unsettling material. I starting reading a book by G.K. Beale and began emailing him about concepts he had written about and further insights to address some of the liberal views I was reading. He was very friendly and was more than eager to point me to additional books and materials to aid my study.

 

[StanJ]

Haha, well my wife is the true hero of the story . My oldest is 12 and youngest is 9 months. It is wild, but every day is an adventure!

My brother-in-law has seven or eight I can't quite remember but he had his over the span of about 20 years. I think he has 5 boys and 3 girls and that doesn't include the miscarriages they had which was about four five and they lost a twin. Some people are just like bunny rabbits. My wife does a tubal ligation after our fourth and final in 1988.

That is awesome. I have some people I have friended who were either professors of mine or people who are scholars I highly admire. Most of these scholars have a personal FB account and then a public figure account. I have found many of them are great about answering questions and posting additional links to articles and blogs they or their colleagues have written. It is very helpful.

I have been communicating with him by email for a few years now but I don't do it very often. Just when I really need some help with the translation for rendering the just doesn't make any sense to me. He is always very gracious.

I was taking some challenging classes once from a more liberal theological school and was coming across some unsettling material. I starting reading a book by G.K. Beale and began emailing him about concepts he had written about and further insights to address some of the liberal views I was reading. He was very friendly and was more than eager to point me to additional books and materials to aid my study.

Dr. Moo is like that as well, always very helpful.

 

[Wormwood]

Dr. Moo is like that as well, always very helpful.

Haha. Its also very helpful to start with something like, "I recently purchased your book and had a question..."

 

[StanJ]

Haha. Its also very helpful to start with something like, "I recently purchased your book and had a question..."

Funny you should say that because one time I emailed him he said to me you should get this book on 2nd Peter and Jude!

 

[OzSpen]

Haha. Its also very helpful to start with something like, "I recently purchased your book and had a question..."

Don't try that one with Dr Wayne Grudem? I asked for some information to clarify what he had written in his Bible Doctrine book (an abridged version of his Systematic Theology). I received a note back from his assistant to say that Dr Grudem was too busy to interact on that information.

Oz

 

[Wormwood]

Ahh, that is sad. Oh well, never hurts to try .

 

[StanJ]

Ahh, that is sad. Oh well, never hurts to try .

You're right it really is up to the person to decide whether or not they want to help. Not a matter or issue of right or wrong in my opinion.

 

[KingJ]

If you don't want to exercise the gifts of the Spirit in your own life then that's your choice.

What Christian would not want to exercise the gifts of the Holy Spirit though?

Lets look at the gifts of the spirit.

1. Word of knowledge, 2. Word of wisdom, 3. Prophecy, 4. Faith, 5. Healing, 6. Working of miracles, 7. Discerning of spirits, 8. Different kinds of tongues, 9. Interpretation of tongues

Which one exactly would a Christian not want? opcorn:

I don't think you properly grasp that you are pushing the magic side of God's miracles.

The desire to see someone jump out a wheel chair VS the desire to see someone healed. The desire to see demons flee VS the desire to see someone set free. Faith to trust God in hard times VS faith to hover at the pulpit. Magic VS Miracle . Grasp this and you will grasp the truth to cessationism.

Christianity 101 is to love others. Love does not puff up at all 1 Cor 13:4. There is a reason Matt 7:22 Christians will not be in heaven. Just whispering to someone that you have the gift of healing for example is incriminating. You do not have the gift / a gift. You operate in a gift as the Holy Spirit needs you to. When scripture says 'desire the gifts of the Spirit', it may as well say desire helping others. IE Desire feeding 5000 empty bellies VS seeing two fish become 5000.

Do you believe people are healed at healing crusades? If so, please explain how exactly most / all there in attendance are not guilty of looking for a sign Matt 16:4.

 

[StanJ]

What Christian would not want to exercise the gifts of the Holy Spirit though?

Apparently you.

Don't you accept or believe John 14:12?

 

[KingJ]

Apparently you.

Don't you accept or believe John 14:12?

Well I grasp that the greater work we will do is feed 6000 empty bellies VS 5000 (work of actual value). Not make two fish turn into 7000 (sign / magic).

So, right back at you. What have you done / do do / would consider to be a greater work then Jesus? Having the gift of healing and healing all the sick magically at hospital? Have them all jump out their beds?

 

[OzSpen]

What Christian would not want to exercise the gifts of the Holy Spirit though?

Cessationists!

 

[Wormwood]

KingJ,

I am not sure what exactly you are arguing, but it comes across pretty poorly. It sounds like you are saying that the miraculous works of the Bible were almost illegitimate and at least inferior to mere social works that any person (including the non-Christian) can do. I agree with you that we should not be sign-seeking people who are looking for the next emotional high or the next miraculous work to validate our faith. Yet, the miracles of the Bible were powerful signs that were extremely important to the life of the Church and if God choose to perform a sign today, it wouldnt be a bad thing. The questions we have been seeking to answer are, "Are miraculous gifts to be expected in the life of the average local congregation? And if so, why is it that a congregation has to be coached into expecting and experimenting with such gifts in order to actually receive them when we see no such teaching or precedent in the NT? And finally, Why is it that some miraculous gifts such as tongues (which cannot be validated if it is a unintelligible language) seem so prevalent, but other miraculous gifts (which can be validated, such as giving sight to the blind or making the dead rise) seem so absent in these same gift-possessing churches?" I have sought to answer these questions based on my experiences and understanding of the Bible...and Stan has yet to be convinced I have a clue. LOL (jk Stan )

 

[KingJ]

KingJ,

1. I am not sure what exactly you are arguing, but it comes across pretty poorly.
2. It sounds like you are saying that the miraculous works of the Bible were almost illegitimate and at least inferior to mere social works that any person (including the non-Christian) can do.
3. I agree with you that we should not be sign-seeking people who are looking for the next emotional high or the next miraculous work to validate our faith. Yet, the miracles of the Bible were powerful signs that were extremely important to the life of the Church and if God choose to perform a sign today, it wouldnt be a bad thing.
4. The questions we have been seeking to answer are, "Are miraculous gifts to be expected in the life of the average local congregation? And if so, why is it that a congregation has to be coached into expecting and experimenting with such gifts in order to actually receive them when we see no such teaching or precedent in the NT?
5. And finally, Why is it that some miraculous gifts such as tongues (which cannot be validated if it is a unintelligible language) seem so prevalent, but other miraculous gifts (which can be validated, such as giving sight to the blind or making the dead rise) seem so absent in these same gift-possessing churches?" I have sought to answer these questions based on my experiences and understanding of the Bible...and Stan has yet to be convinced I have a clue. LOL (jk Stan )

1. Is this conclusion based solely on the post above or on post # 2 of this thread too / first time you reading a post from me on this subject?
2. What I am saying is that God prefers to not do any ''miraculous to the eyes'' work. We have the miracle of babies, a sun and gravity to marvel at. God put us on earth when He is in heaven so that we can live by faith. Stan and many more have interpreted faith and the gifts of the spirit 100% wrong. A completely carnal and vein interpretation of the scriptures. We need increased faith for say a gift of healing. Uhm, no, Jesus was sarcastically clear that only a ridiculously tiny mustard seed is needed to move a mountain. We need faith to trust in God when times are not so dandy. That is true faith.

A gift is never given to puff up. 1 Cor 14:1 starts with following in love before desiring gifts. Scripture is crystal clear that love does seek to puff self up 1 Cor 13:4. We desire the gift of healing because we want to see someone helped. Not because it is on the shelf to be picked up. A block on our to do list ticked. Now if we desire healing for the person we will not give two hoots as to how God undertakes to bring it about. Grasping what living by faith is should prepare us for the least impressive path to healing. God is like a rich man that does not want to boast / show off in as much as is possible.

Social works are good. Anyone helping orphans are involved in religion undefiled James 1:27. The issues surrounding this are endurance / doing the minimum to appease your elders / not get stoned for missing friday prayers http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/islamic-state-executes-teen-for-missing-friday-prayers.

What prompted Jesus to turn two fish into 5000 was seeing 5000 hungry bellies. We marvel at the two fish becoming 5000 but not at the empty bellies filled. God parted the red sea for the Jews because there was no ''lessor'' miraculous alternative. Paul did not die when snakes bit him because God still wanted to use him 1 Cor 5:11. If Paul believed as Stan does that he has '''the gift''' of picking up snakes and not being bitten, he would die from tempting God. This is perhaps the chief issue. When Christians believe they have a gift on call, they tempt God. Instruct healing to leave when it is not His will. Chase demons out when it is not His will. No Christian and no prophet has / had a gift on call like Samson.

3. God will perform a sign for those He still wants alive who have no access to hospitals. Grasping God's motivation is hardly rocket science. God will NOT ever perform a sign for those seeking one. This is what is clearly not sinking in the minds of many claiming to have gifts. If God had to part the red sea today.....the Christian that marvels at that has failed a Christian test.

4. I have agreed with most of your arguments. It is insanity that we have to coach people into praying in tongues. Or do such https://thewordonthewordoffaithinfoblog.com/2009/05/26/ex-faith-healer/.

5. Praying in tongues is a stand out gift. Rather complex imho. It is a gift that can be done in the quiet of our home, before God. No tempting. No vanity. No sign to appease any tickling ears. I prayed in tongues all night when I was first saved. Nobody tricked or trained me in it. What I am against is those who pray publicly and often. Or the crazy / parroted interpretations I hear. In big churches I fail to see how it is not vanity. Small groups of saved believers gathering for prayers, different story. So, I can just speak from personal experience on that. I always ask for two interpretations when I know the interpretation is nonsense. Interpreting it is not on call. You have to be deep in prayer. Away from vanity and tempting God. If it does not come naturally, it does not come naturally. If you do not understand what is being said, you do not understand what is being said. To pray when you don't know what you are saying is insanity. To suggest someone has not got the Holy Spirit if they cannot pray in tongues is insanity.

Just as the gift of healing comes when there is a valid need / in God's will / no tempting / no vanity ....likewise the gift of tongues.

So to conclude, I believe in the gifts and us operating in them. Nobody can put God in a box. I disagree with them being on call. God does not do signs. Fullstop. Cessationists do not put God in a box. We just grasp that there was / is a time and a place for signs. I have not met a single cesstionist that does not believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Just not in them being gifts in the manner a carnal mind grasps them to be. IE NO SUCH thing as ANYONE healed at a healing crusade!!!