Does the Church still possess miraculous gifts today?

[KingJ]

Cessationists!

Not all cessationists are 'full' cessationists.

From wikipedia:

Cessationism can be divided into two types. Cessationism asserts that the "sign gifts" such as prophecy, healing, and speaking in tongues, ceased with the apostles and the finishing of the canon of Scripture. They only served as launching pads for the spreading of the Gospel; as affirmations of God's revelation. However, these cessationists do believe that God still occasionally does miracles today, such as healings or divine guidance, so long as these "miracles" do not accredit new doctrine or add to the New Testament canon. Some cessationists believe that the miraculous gifts can take place where the message of salvation is being propagated to a tribe or nation which is unfamiliar with the Gospel. Richard Gaffin and Daniel B Wallace are perhaps the best-known classical cessationists.

Full cessationism additionally asserts that no apostolic miracles are performed by God today. Thus while some cessationists allow for God's miraculous guidance, the cessationist allowance differs from the continuationist in that a cessationist contends that God's miraculous guidance is not through the operation of the Charismatic gifts.

 

[Jun2u]

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 )

The MIRACLES that Jesus performed were:

1 Walked on water.
2 Raise the dead
3 Make a leper whole again...and so forth…and so forth...

The last we know of those who performed such miracles are those done by the Apostles. When the Bible was completed however; we don't hear of anyone else or any congregation doing miracles, the miracles that Jesus performed that is.

The “unknown” tongues phenomenon which were “gifts” written by God extensively in 1Co 12; 13; and 14 were possible because God had more to say and was still adding to the Word however; when the Bible was completed, God said we are not to add to the Bible, and if we did He will add the plagues written in this book (Re 22:18). The plagues written in the Bible is the wrath of God.

The statement you conveyed that tongues cannot be validated if it is unintelligible language is erroneous. If a person receive a message from God in an unknown tongue it must be INTERPRETED by another so that the church can be edified, otherwise if no interpreter the message will not be valid.

I've always maintained that Stan may quote many scriptures but that does not mean he understand what they convey. Case in point is John 14:12 in his post #76. There Jesus is teaching that greater work will we do than what He did. To get truth we must compare scripture with scripture and spiritual things with spiritual. Since the topic of this thread is about miracles I must assume this is the work Stan is referring to. In fact Jesus declared that He was sent by the the Father to preach the kingdom of God Luke 43. Jesus, as the Great Preacher, preached for 3 ½ years yet we know there were only a few who became saved and at least about 500 in Galilee. Then Peter preaches in Acts 2 and 3000 are saved. What happened? WOW! Now we understand what John 14:12 is really teaching! Greater work that the true believers will do had begun..

Jesus was also sent to go to the cross. We can't get into this for it is His work alone.

To God Be The Glory

 

[StanJ]

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?

We have definitely done that, but my point was do you not believe in miracles? It sure seems that you don't understand what they are.

It is well documented that Miracles have greatly exceeded what Jesus did in his short time on Earth so not understanding what you are seeing, leads me to think that you lead a fairly sheltered life or just refuse to see the reality around you.

 

[StanJ]

Jesus was sarcastically clear that only a ridiculously tiny mustard seed is needed to move a mountain.

Jesus was very sincere that Faith the size of a mustard seed could move a mountain if that Faith actually believed the God wanted the mountain to be moved. It appears no matter how sarcastic it sounded, you still didn't get what Jesus was saying. Jesus was never sarcastic. Sarcasm is a human trait, not one that Jesus ever demonstrated, I'm like all your attempts.

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.

Those of us who understand scripture know exactly what prompted Jesus to feed them. How he did seems to be less acceptable to some than most of us. There is no such thing as the gift of picking up snakes but again your sarcasm seems to get the better of you and you end up making no sense whatsoever. FYI Paul didn't pick it up, it clamped onto his hand and he shook it off. Not quite the same thing but then again you continually demonstrate a propensity for misrepresenting scripture.

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!!!

The fact is they are on call just as Paul said. God indeed does signs always has always will. If the station is don't put God in a box what is it exactly are they doing? By saying that he doesn't do that anymore, that's putting him in a box. Nobody exercises gifts in a carnal fashion as is evident by Simon the Sorcerer in Acts. The problem is many try to understand them with their carnal mind and not their spiritual mind and that's where they fall short. To continue to refer to Miracles as magic shows exactly what mind you are using.

 

[KingJ]

1. We have definitely done that, 2. but my point was do you not believe in miracles? It sure seems that you don't understand what they are. -_-

3. It is well documented that Miracles have greatly exceeded what Jesus did in his short time on Earth so not understanding what you are seeing, leads me to think that you lead a fairly sheltered life or just refuse to see the reality around you.

Was the bold really necessary?

1. We have done what exactly?
2. I have said I do in probably every post here. See last paragraph post #80.
3. What miracles? Can you name a few please.

Ironically I don't think you are grasping what exactly a miracle is.

 

[KingJ]

Jesus was very sincere that Faith the size of a mustard seed could move a mountain if that Faith actually believed the God wanted the mountain to be moved. It appears no matter how sarcastic it sounded, you still didn't get what Jesus was saying. Jesus was never sarcastic. Sarcasm is a human trait, not one that Jesus ever demonstrated, I'm like all your attempts.

The point is that faith of a RIDICULOUSLY tiny seed can move a mountain. It could not be a more painfully simple statement. Your twisting of it is insane. '''that faith actually believed in God'''. WHAT?? You cannot please God if you have not been given a measure of faith to.....call Jesus Lord. I would think calling a man who worked the earth 2000 years ago, God of the universe take a little more faith then a mustard seed. I mean according to Rom 1:20 we should all believe in God and His power. There is like this big sun that rises in the east if you look out your window in the mornings. Gravity that keeps us on the ground. Jesus could hence only but be sarcastic in His statement. Much like He is with Matt 6:26.

Yes, He was sarcastic and He has been on other occasions too. Jesus showed many human traits as he was a human. He was just able to do them in a non-sinful manner. http://www.aggiecatholicblog.org/2014/07/jesus-uses-sarcasm-yes-he-does/

5 Times Jesus is Sarcastic​

• Matthew 15:21-28 – Calls the Canaanite woman a “dog”, which was a terribly insulting and would prick the Canaanite woman directly – she was not a Jew, the first group Jesus is sent to.
• Matthew 23 (the entire chapter) – first he says the Jewish leaders are hypocrites and should do what they say, but not what they do. Then Jesus gives the 7 woes (full of sarcasm), then he calls the leaders “snakes, you brood of vipers”
• Mark 12:24 – Jesus asks the Sadducees “are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures of the power of God?” These were leaders who prided themselves on knowing Scriptures, so this was a terribly sarcastic and insulting statement.
• John 9 – the story of the blind man is FULL of sarcasm, but most from the blind man (and his family). Jesus last statement to the Pharisees is very sarcastic too – calling them blind.
• Luke 13:31 – Jesus calls Herod a fox, but he uses the feminine of the Greek word, which means he is calling him a vixen. Now that is an insult!

Those of us who understand scripture know exactly what prompted Jesus to feed them. How he did seems to be less acceptable to some than most of us. There is no such thing as the gift of picking up snakes but again your sarcasm seems to get the better of you and you end up making no sense whatsoever. FYI Paul didn't pick it up, it clamped onto his hand and he shook it off. Not quite the same thing but then again you continually demonstrate a propensity for misrepresenting scripture.

I have no quams with how Jesus chose to feed them. Only with you espousing that the manner in which it was done is something noteworthy. Mustard seed faith moves a mountain. So I guess faith the size of an atom is needed to turn two fish into 5000. I would think a great feat be something other then self mustered positive thoughts the size of an atom, wouldn't you?

So change the example of Paul to a gift. You are dodging.

The fact is they are on call just as Paul said. God indeed does signs always has always will. If the station is don't put God in a box what is it exactly are they doing? By saying that he doesn't do that anymore, that's putting him in a box. Nobody exercises gifts in a carnal fashion as is evident by Simon the Sorcerer in Acts. The problem is many try to understand them with their carnal mind and not their spiritual mind and that's where they fall short. To continue to refer to Miracles as magic shows exactly what mind you are using.

Everyone exercising a gift with the expectation of a sign are on par with Simon the Sorcerer. How are they not? What part of Matt 16:4 is confusing?

There is nothing spiritual to grasp with seeing a man jump out a wheelchair. Not seeing a man jump out a wheel chair but rather healed at a hospital on the other hand.....or heck if no healing at all comes......these actually take faith, trust and being spiritual to grasp / receive God's peace that surpasses all understanding.

I guess you don't listen to poor paupers or preachers in wheelchairs because they have no faith. No spirituality.

 

[StanJ]

Not all cessationists are 'full' cessationists.
From wikipedia:
Cessationism can be divided into two types. Cessationism asserts that the "sign gifts" such as prophecy, healing, and speaking in tongues, ceased with the apostles and the finishing of the canon of Scripture. They only served as launching pads for the spreading of the Gospel; as affirmations of God's revelation. However, these cessationists do believe that God still occasionally does miracles today, such as healings or divine guidance, so long as these "miracles" do not accredit new doctrine or add to the New Testament canon. Some cessationists believe that the miraculous gifts can take place where the message of salvation is being propagated to a tribe or nation which is unfamiliar with the Gospel. Richard Gaffin and Daniel B Wallace are perhaps the best-known classical cessationists.
Full cessationism additionally asserts that no apostolic miracles are performed by God today. Thus while some cessationists allow for God's miraculous guidance, the cessationist allowance differs from the continuationist in that a cessationist contends that God's miraculous guidance is not through the operation of the Charismatic gifts.

That's the same as not all Calvin is there full calvinists. I'm always amazed to help noncommittal some people are too false teaching. Although I greatly respect Dan Wallace when it comes to translating Greek, I have read his article and I find that it does make a lot of assumptions. He himself even admits that you can't have spiritual experiences through exegesis. Faith always comes first in our walk, regardless of what the issue is. It's been amply demonstrated time and time again that God cannot be rationalized nor can the spiritual experience be rationalized. The fact is and regardless of who does it wrong, the gifts of the Holy Spirit exist and He distributes them as He is willing. It's not up to any of us to say when the Holy Spirit is or is not willing, because only he knows.
Last time I looked, God does not report to us we report to Him. To quote Jesus himself, "not my will but thy will be done".

 

[StanJ]

Was the bold really necessary?

1. We have done what exactly?
2. I have said I do in probably every post here. See last paragraph post #80.
3. What miracles? Can you name a few please.

Ironically I don't think you are grasping what exactly a miracle is.

Well, as you did the bold I guess you'll have to answer that question for yourself.

1. Obviously you know how to read and use the internet so look it up for yourself.
2. Well the devil believes in God and trembles so that wasn't my question.
3. I can name quite a few but that's not the point, no matter what I say you'll, discount it and still have the same opinion about miracles.

Apparently not only do you not know what a miracle is you don't know what ironic means either so I see no reason to even try to explain it to you.

 

[OzSpen]

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 )

Well said, Wormwood.

I would add that the gift of tongues is invalidated when there is no interpretation of tongues. However, the Scriptures are clear that the gift of tongues requires the accompanying gift of interpretation to be intelligible for the congregation. I Cor 14:5 (NIV) states:

I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

This is confirmed in 1 Cor 14:13 (NIV), 'the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say'.

There can only be meaning of the gift of tongues in the congregation if it is accompanied by the gift of interpretation. Otherwise, if I don't know the meaning of a language (e.g. the gift of tongues), I'm like a foreigner in that congregation (1 Cor 14:11).

Oz

 

[StanJ]

The point is that faith of a RIDICULOUSLY tiny seed can move a mountain. It could not be a more painfully simple statement. Your twisting of it is insane. '''that faith actually believed in God'''. WHAT?? You cannot please God if you have not been given a measure of faith to.....call Jesus Lord. I would think calling a man who worked the earth 2000 years ago, God of the universe take a little more faith then a mustard seed. I mean according to Rom 1:20 we should all believe in God and His power. There is like this big sun that rises in the east if you look out your window in the mornings. Gravity that keeps us on the ground. Jesus could hence only but be sarcastic in His statement. Much like He is with Matt 6:26.

No, the point is that it's real faith and that when it's real faith it doesn't need to be quantitative but only qualitative. Again something you don't seem to get
You do have a bad habit of misquoting what I say.

Yes, He was sarcastic and He has been on other occasions too. Jesus showed many human traits as he was a human. He was just able to do them in a non-sinful manner. http://www.aggiecatholicblog.org/2014/07/jesus-uses-sarcasm-yes-he-does/

5 Times Jesus is Sarcastic​

• Matthew 15:21-28 – Calls the Canaanite woman a “dog”, which was a terribly insulting and would prick the Canaanite woman directly – she was not a Jew, the first group Jesus is sent to.
• Matthew 23 (the entire chapter) – first he says the Jewish leaders are hypocrites and should do what they say, but not what they do. Then Jesus gives the 7 woes (full of sarcasm), then he calls the leaders “snakes, you brood of vipers”
• Mark 12:24 – Jesus asks the Sadducees “are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures of the power of God?” These were leaders who prided themselves on knowing Scriptures, so this was a terribly sarcastic and insulting statement.
• John 9 – the story of the blind man is FULL of sarcasm, but most from the blind man (and his family). Jesus last statement to the Pharisees is very sarcastic too – calling them blind.
• Luke 13:31 – Jesus calls Herod a fox, but he uses the feminine of the Greek word, which means he is calling him a vixen. Now that is an insult!

Bible says that Jesus was in all ways like we are but sinned not. So you're now saying that Jesus sinned contrary what the Bible says?
The fact that you pulled 5 verses out of context and eisegete them, says much about how you read the Bible. If I thought it would make any difference I would exegete them for you but sadly it won't and I'm sure most who read this see the same thing.

I have no quams with how Jesus chose to feed them. Only with you espousing that the manner in which it was done is something noteworthy. Mustard seed faith moves a mountain. So I guess faith the size of an atom is needed to turn two fish into 5000. I would think a great feat be something other then self mustered positive thoughts the size of an atom, wouldn't you?

I would say you have a lot of qualms but denying it doesn't really make your statement true. If you think the manner in which Jesus did things is not noteworthy then why do you think it's included in the Bible? Apparently you also don't believe what is written in John 20:30-31?
Again faith is not quantitative but qualitative and you comparing it to the size of an atom just shows you have no idea what faith actually is. Even the writers of Star Wars knew what faith was better than you do.

So change the example of Paul to a gift. You are dodging.

The point is it wasn't a gift so why would I change it? Is that what you do you change things in the Bible to suit your own perspective and then use them as a way to support your perspective? How exactly did you learn to read and study the Bible? What am I touching? Is it possible you can't articulate what that is? Or is it that you want to continue to use equivocal language to avoid the actual issue?

Everyone exercising a gift with the expectation of a sign are on par with Simon the Sorcerer. How are they not? What part of Matt 16:4 is confusing?

Again who is everyone and how are they doing this? You make blanket statements that have no basis in reality, and just support you're bent view of miracles.
Jesus was speaking to the same type of people that you appeared to be. Pharisees and Sadducees that didn't believe, where the wicked and adulterous generation. The fact is Jesus prophesied about his death and resurrection, and these so-called spiritual leaders didn't even get it. Did you?

There is nothing spiritual to grasp with seeing a man jump out a wheelchair. Not seeing a man jump out a wheel chair but rather healed at a hospital on the other hand.....or heck if no healing at all comes......these actually take faith, trust and being spiritual to grasp / receive God's peace that surpasses all understanding.

Well maybe not for you but for plenty of people who know and recognize Miracles when they see them it is a great spiritual event. You seem to think that it's all or nothing that we either get Miracles all the time or we never get miracle and that's not what the Bible teaches. Regardless of what the outcome is we must remain faithful and our understanding of God and believe that no matter what the outcome his will is being done. That doesn't mean we dismiss Miracles as unwarranted or 'magic', as you like to refer to them. Quite sad that you vilify people who believe and rejoice in miracles rather than rejoice along with them. I'd say your type of attitude is a greater threat to the body than Miracles ever was.

I guess you don't listen to poor paupers or preachers in wheelchairs because they have no faith. No spirituality.

Well then your guess would be wrong but not surprising seeing as though you seem to feel the healing by the miraculous is not spiritual.
As God is spirit and we worship Him in spirit, then any Miracles that happen because of God, are spiritual and we should rejoice in that fact!

 

[Wormwood]

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?

KingJ, no. I have heard you comment on it before and try to explain your rationale for the word "magic." Its just not how the word is used or understood so your arguments have made little sense to me.

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.

I really dislike these kinds of statements. As a matter of definition, babies and gravity are not "miracles." The word miracle (both in English and Greek) have meanings and they, by definition do not include everyday events and experiences. I understand what you are trying to say, but words have meanings and redefining miracles for everyday events is a discredit to both the English language and the usage of the concept in the NT.

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.

I categorically reject this argument. Jesus' miracles were classified as signs that pointed to the fact that he was the messiah. He did not come merely as an act of social works for people who wandered out in the desert and forgot to pack their lunches. He came to show he was the Son of God and he did that through his teaching, miracles and sacrifice. Suggesting that the real important thing that took place in the feeding of the 5,000 was that hungry people got fed is exactly the OPPOSITE of why Jesus fed them (as seen in John 6). Jesus told them that they were looking for food for their bellies when the real purpose of the miracle was to show that he was something much greater that a free meal ticket.

3. God will perform a sign for those He still wants alive who have no access to hospitals.

No, the signs were not primarily for the benefit of the people. They were to point people to Jesus as the Savior, light of the world, resurrection and the life, the door, the bread from heaven and so forth. To argue that the purpose of healing the blind was primarily for the sake of the blind man rather than to show the world that Jesus was the light of the world is to major in minors in my estimation.

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://thewordonthe...x-faith-healer/.

Yes, I think we are pretty close on our conclusions about gifts (although I am not a cessationist by strict definition), but your rationale behind them is very different from mine.

 

[OzSpen]

The MIRACLES that Jesus performed were:

1 Walked on water.
2 Raise the dead
3 Make a leper whole again...and so forth…and so forth...

The last we know of those who performed such miracles are those done by the Apostles. When the Bible was completed however; we don't hear of anyone else or any congregation doing miracles, the miracles that Jesus performed that is.

The “unknown” tongues phenomenon which were “gifts” written by God extensively in 1Co 12; 13; and 14 were possible because God had more to say and was still adding to the Word however; when the Bible was completed, God said we are not to add to the Bible, and if we did He will add the plagues written in this book (Re 22:18). The plagues written in the Bible is the wrath of God.

The statement you conveyed that tongues cannot be validated if it is unintelligible language is erroneous. If a person receive a message from God in an unknown tongue it must be INTERPRETED by another so that the church can be edified, otherwise if no interpreter the message will not be valid.

I've always maintained that Stan may quote many scriptures but that does not mean he understand what they convey. Case in point is John 14:12 in his post #76. There Jesus is teaching that greater work will we do than what He did. To get truth we must compare scripture with scripture and spiritual things with spiritual. Since the topic of this thread is about miracles I must assume this is the work Stan is referring to. In fact Jesus declared that He was sent by the the Father to preach the kingdom of God Luke 43. Jesus, as the Great Preacher, preached for 3 ½ years yet we know there were only a few who became saved and at least about 500 in Galilee. Then Peter preaches in Acts 2 and 3000 are saved. What happened? WOW! Now we understand what John 14:12 is really teaching! Greater work that the true believers will do had begun..

Jesus was also sent to go to the cross. We can't get into this for it is His work alone.

To God Be The Glory

Jun2u,

Your knowledge of miracles in church history is exceptionally limited. I have refuted your argument in my article, St. Augustine: The leading Church Father who dared to change his mind about divine healing. Versions of my article have been published in the Pentecostal Evangel and Charisma magazines.

I suggest that you become better informed about God's signs and wonders in church history, that contradict your view that 'The last we know of those who performed such miracles are those done by the Apostles'. This statement is factually false.

I provide further evidence in, Are Miracles Valuable?

Irenaeus was born in the first half of the second century (his birth date has been suggested between 115-125) and died towards the end of that century. As one of the first great theologians of the church, he was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. Irenaeus became bishop of Lyons, Gaul (France today).
Irenaeus assures us that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit had not disappeared by the end of the second century. He wrote in a leading refutation of Gnosticism, Against Heresies (written about 180):

“Those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles], so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe [in Christ], and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ” (Against Heresies, 2.32.4).

So Irenaeus knew of the practice of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit in his time - at the end of the 2nd century. Thus, they did not cease with the death of the Twelve and the formation of the New Testament canon of Scripture. It is estimated that the last book of the New Testament was written about AD 95-96 (the Book of Revelation). Thus, Irenaeus refutes John MacArthur’s statement that “once the Word of God was inscripturated, the sign gifts were no longer needed and they ceased” (MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, 1992:199. Irenaeus clearly shows the existence of sign gifts in the church over 100 years after the apostolic age.

I've taken these details from my article: Cessationism through church history.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

Yes, I think we are pretty close on our conclusions about gifts (although I am not a cessationist by strict definition), but your rationale behind them is very different from mine.

I'd say cohesive(WW) vs incohesive(KJ).

 

[KingJ]

The fact is and regardless of who does it wrong, the gifts of the Holy Spirit exist and He distributes them as He is willing. It's not up to any of us to say when the Holy Spirit is or is not willing, because only he knows. Last time I looked, God does not report to us we report to Him. To quote Jesus himself, "not my will but thy will be done".

always entertaining reading your replies.

If you have studied the bible you should know pretty well that God is an open book. He wants us to grasp Him. He does not keep His intentions and plans from us. Calvinism falls on its head because Calvinists hold onto Rom 9 ignoring the rest of scripture. Just as you are holding onto a handful of verses ignoring / rather oblivious to the bigger picture.

Living by faith is God's will for mankind. If signs and wonders were on call....well that would pretty much defeat His purpose.

Unless of course you completely misinterpret ....faith....as you are doing.

I could not agree more with Jesus '''thy will be done''. I am surprised you agree with it. I would think you believe having a gift equals healing despite / over ruling God's will for no healing.

 

[StanJ]

If you have studied the bible you should know pretty well that God is an open book. He wants us to grasp Him. He does not keep His intentions and plans from us. Calvinism falls on its head because Calvinists hold onto Rom 9 ignoring the rest of scripture. Just as you are holding onto a handful of verses ignoring / rather oblivious to the bigger picture.
Living by faith is God's will for mankind. If signs and wonders were on call....well that would pretty much defeat His purpose.
Unless of course you completely misinterpret ....faith....as you are doing.
I could not agree more with Jesus '''thy will be done''. I am surprised you agree with it. I would think you believe having a gift equals healing despite / over ruling God's will for no healing.

I have, which is why I know that God is not an open book unless we know his book, which apparently you don't. That fact has been fairly well-established through all the responses you make. The issue here is not Calvinism. The issue we are now dealing with is your convoluted view what scripture says about miracles and healing. I'm not the only one that really doesn't understand what you're talking about and again if you weren't so incoherent / incohesive it might make more sense, but at this point it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, except maybe to yourself.
Regardless of where you get the view it doesn't negate the fact that you have a hard time verbalizing it at least in writing anyway. Again not only my perspective but the perspective of those on this thread that have said so to you. So what are we to say? Is it that you don't communicate very well or is it that we all don't understand? I think the obvious answer is the former. Jesus said if you ask anything in my name I will do it. Does he when you ask him? Signs and wonders aren't on call, they accompany those that preach the Good News of Jesus, and always have. This is another thing that the Bible confirms and yet you apparently don't believe that either? I'm not really sure exactly what you believe because you seem to vacillate back and forth between one thing and another.
The gift is something you exercise when God gives it to you but you have to actually know when it's being given to you in order to be able to use it. Judging from your responses here on this subject, you wouldn't recognize it at all. Healing is only one gift that God provides, well at least provides it to those who believe His gifts. You apparently don't.

 

[KingJ]

KingJ, no. I have heard you comment on it before and try to explain your rationale for the word "magic." Its just not how the word is used or understood so your arguments have made little sense to me..

Aarons staff turning into a snake = miracle.
Pharaoh's magicians emulating this = magic.

Difference being God's will. People acting outside of God's will and after signs, are after magic. That has been my only point.

It hits home quite hard so I can understand many taking offense.

I really dislike these kinds of statements. As a matter of definition, babies and gravity are not "miracles." The word miracle (both in English and Greek) have meanings and they, by definition do not include everyday events and experiences. I understand what you are trying to say, but words have meanings and redefining miracles for everyday events is a discredit to both the English language and the usage of the concept in the NT.

I disagree 100%. A baby been born is a miracle greater then the red sea parting. Just ask the scientists who are trying to explain the two. How does mass water move in two directions simultaneously? Maybe there was a powerful tornado. How does a baby's heart start beating....uhm no clue at all.

If you want to separate the two miracles we do it like this. Miracle that tickles the ear VS miracle we have grown to accept as the norm.














Miracle = an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

I categorically reject this argument. Jesus' miracles were classified as signs that pointed to the fact that he was the messiah. He did not come merely as an act of social works for people who wandered out in the desert and forgot to pack their lunches. He came to show he was the Son of God and he did that through his teaching, miracles and sacrifice. Suggesting that the real important thing that took place in the feeding of the 5,000 was that hungry people got fed is exactly the OPPOSITE of why Jesus fed them (as seen in John 6). Jesus told them that they were looking for food for their bellies when the real purpose of the miracle was to show that he was something much greater that a free meal ticket.

Lol at the underlined. You are missing the point though. I am not disputing that Jesus did signs for them to believe who He was. The relevance of my line is 1. To better grasp what prompted the miracle and 2. How this applies to us today when we consider scripture that states we will do greater miracles then Him.

1. Yes, their unbelief prompted it. Yes, Him having signs to confirm who He was. Yes, their empty bellies. He chose to turn 2 fish into 5000 VS walking on water.

2. Now the first two points above do not apply to us today at all. Unbelief does not apply as all Christians are given a measure of faith and we all have Rom 1:20. Hence Jesus's sarcasm with faith of a mustard seed. God does not do signs for the wicked Matt 16:4. So we are left with the third only. If we focus on this we see it is simply a need being met. IE blessing someone with a car is a miracle. It takes a heart that defies the rules of selfishness. What is clearly not the miracle / great feat is turning two fish into 5000. As that takes less faith then a mustard seed and would cause self to be puffed up and others to worship man.

Mother Theresa did greater works then Jesus. I also like what JUN2U said about conversions.

No, the signs were not primarily for the benefit of the people. They were to point people to Jesus as the Savior, light of the world, resurrection and the life, the door, the bread from heaven and so forth. To argue that the purpose of healing the blind was primarily for the sake of the blind man rather than to show the world that Jesus was the light of the world is to major in minors in my estimation.

Miracles were done for those who followed Him into the desert. Those who touched Him. Miracles are still done today for these kinds of people.

You are missing the boat if you don't grasp this. Jesus did not pull rabbits out of hats for the Pharisees. If only Pharisees existed in Israel at that time, no miracles would have been done Matt 13:58. He would still have died and resurrected with a bigger evangelising burden left on the disciples.

Matt 16:4 is not negotiable. Not for Jesus during His ministry, not for any prophet at the time and not for anyone today.

Yes, I think we are pretty close on our conclusions about gifts (although I am not a cessationist by strict definition), but your rationale behind them is very different from mine.

I like to think I look at the gifts and miracles in the context of God's whole plan for mankind. IE God has never been into jumping through hoops for mankind. His plan from day 1 has been for mankind to live by faith in an unseen God.

 

[KingJ]

No, the point is that it's real faith and that when it's real faith it doesn't need to be quantitative but only qualitative. Again something you don't seem to get
You do have a bad habit of misquoting what I say.

A Christian has qualitative and quantitative. But anyway, iro the quoted passage you are wrong. Note the underlined for provoking Jesus to a rather sarcastic line. Then the italics that debunks your qualitative point. I do not disagree with your point on quality though. Its just not applicable to the point Jesus is making. Nor to what we are discussing.

17 “You unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” 18 Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed at that moment.

19 Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”
20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

Jesus is teaching us that it takes little to no faith for raising someone from the dead. He is not accusing them, He is teaching them. Though the underlined spells extreme frustration ^_^. Now apply this to your own beliefs on....wanting to see someone jump out a wheel chair. Imagine what Jesus would say to you.

 

[KingJ]

I have, which is why I know that God is not an open book unless we know his book, which apparently you don't. That fact has been fairly well-established through all the responses you make. The issue here is not Calvinism. The issue we are now dealing with is your convoluted view what scripture says about miracles and healing. I'm not the only one that really doesn't understand what you're talking about and again if you weren't so incoherent / incohesive it might make more sense, but at this point it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, except maybe to yourself.
Regardless of where you get the view it doesn't negate the fact that you have a hard time verbalizing it at least in writing anyway. Again not only my perspective but the perspective of those on this thread that have said so to you. So what are we to say? Is it that you don't communicate very well or is it that we all don't understand? I think the obvious answer is the former. Jesus said if you ask anything in my name I will do it. Does he when you ask him? Signs and wonders aren't on call, they accompany those that preach the Good News of Jesus, and always have. This is another thing that the Bible confirms and yet you apparently don't believe that either? I'm not really sure exactly what you believe because you seem to vacillate back and forth between one thing and another.
The gift is something you exercise when God gives it to you but you have to actually know when it's being given to you in order to be able to use it. Judging from your responses here on this subject, you wouldn't recognize it at all. Healing is only one gift that God provides, well at least provides it to those who believe His gifts. You apparently don't.

I don't know what you find so confusing. You believe Christians can do magic, I don't. That's it ^_^.

 

[Wormwood]

Jun2u,

The statement you conveyed that tongues cannot be validated if it is unintelligible language is erroneous. If a person receive a message from God in an unknown tongue it must be INTERPRETED by another so that the church can be edified, otherwise if no interpreter the message will not be valid.

Thanks for your response. The point I am making, is that the "interpretation" cannot be validated if the language is entirely unintelligible by all of humanity. So, I think my point still stands. The gift remains impossible to validate since there can be no objective way to determine if either the "tongues" or the "interpretation" is actually a sign from God or a work of the person's imagination.

I think we are in agreement on the other things you posted.


Oz,

There can only be meaning of the gift of tongues in the congregation if it is accompanied by the gift of interpretation. Otherwise, if I don't know the meaning of a language (e.g. the gift of tongues), I'm like a foreigner in that congregation (1 Cor 14:11).

Yes, I understand that point and why charismatics (sometimes) practice the gift in that way (although many groups, at least here in America, do not generally "interpret" tongues). However, I guess my question to you would be, "If these miraculous gifts are so prominent today, why is the gift of tongues limited to charismatic churches and why is it so prevelant whereas the gifts of miracles seems to be all but absent? I understand those who hold the position that all the gifts are active. Yet I have never seen or heard of a lame man given the power to walk, the blind given sight or the dead being raised in these charismatic circles. However, the miraculous gift of tongues seems to be practiced on a daily basis. Given the fact that Paul indicates that tongues is the least of the gifts, why wouldnt we see more of the latter if we are going to make the case for such gifts? Why is tongues always the debate point?"

My point is that 1. There is no indication in the NT that there were multiple gifts of tongues. Rather, there was one gift and that gift is described in the narrative of Acts 2 as being actual human dialects, not angelic or otherworldly ones. 2. If a person is speaking in a language they had never learned before through a miraculous gift, then they would still be uttering mysteries that they themselves do not understand without an interpreter. 3. Why does someone have to be coached in the gift to receive it when we do not see this as taught either in Acts or 1 Corinthians. Rather, the gift just seemed to fall on people. So why dont we see it falling on non-charismatic churches if the purpose of the gift is to edify the body. Does God not want to edify non-charismatic churches? 4. Why is this gift, that is impossible to verify (since no one can disprove the tongue speaker or the interpreter), so prevalent whereas the other miraculous gifts such as working miracles is so absent? I mean, usually I will hear a charismatic person say, "I heard of a church in Korea that had a dead person raised...." But the point here is, if these gifts are meant to be all functioning in the local body to build them up, why dont we see real cases of the blind receiving sight and the dead raised on a weekly basis if these gifts are to be normative in the Christian life? Why is it only the supernatural gift of tongues is normative and all the other supernatural ones are not?

 

[Wormwood]

Aarons staff turning into a snake = miracle.
Pharaoh's magicians emulating this = magic.
Difference being God's will. People acting outside of God's will and after signs, are after magic. That has been my only point.

KingJ,

I understand what you are trying to say, I just dont think you often communicate it very clearly. For instance, you said the following:

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).

Thus, it comes across that the difference between magic and signs in your mind is the intent of feeding hungry people vs. giving a sign. The fact is that the "miracles" of Jesus were generally signs, and were called signs. They were were not primarily for benevolence purposes, although certainly Christ's compassion played a part of many of them...they still served a bigger purpose than merely doing benevolence work.

Moreover, I think it is a bit overstated to call a person of faith who is trying to be faithful to the Bible a worker of magic. Magic generally entails the consulting of false gods and spirits. I am not comfortable calling someone who is a misguided believer a worker of magic. I think we have all been misguided (and likely still are in many areas) and God sees the heart. Remember, we will be measured by the measure we use.

I disagree 100%. A baby been born is a miracle greater then the red sea parting. Just ask the scientists who are trying to explain the two. How does mass water move in two directions simultaneously? Maybe there was a powerful tornado. How does a baby's heart start beating....uhm no clue at all.

No, KingJ. A miracle, by definition, does not include everyday events (no matter how inspiring or profound). Remember, "miracle" as it is used in the Bible had nothing to do with "scientific laws." The word miracle implies "supernatural" acts...thus acts that go beyond what is natural, normal or a regular occurrence in daily life. In the Greek, the word often translated as "miracle" or "miraculous powers" is dunamis. The word means "powers" and implies the ability to do the impossible. When we start mixing the word "miracle" with common, daily events (no matter how profound) then we end up diluting the words and statements of the Bible.

How this applies to us today when we consider scripture that states we will do greater miracles then Him.

Well, I am more comfortable saying the "greater" works would include the eternal salvation of the lost by the preaching of the resurrection throughout all the world. (Jesus never preached the resurrection)

2. Now the first two points above do not apply to us today at all. Unbelief does not apply as all Christians are given a measure of faith and we all have Rom 1:20. Hence Jesus's sarcasm with faith of a mustard seed. God does not do signs for the wicked Matt 16:4. So we are left with the third only. If we focus on this we see it is simply a need being met. IE blessing someone with a car is a miracle. It takes a heart that defies the rules of selfishness. What is clearly not the miracle / great feat is turning two fish into 5000. As that takes less faith then a mustard seed and would cause self to be puffed up and others to worship man.

Well, my take on the "mustard seed" is that Jesus was encouraging his disciples, not scoffing at them. His statement is calling them to have faith "as a mustard seed" (not "as small as" as some translations render it). The point here is that if you take the tiny faith you have and put it to work, God can turn it into something great. The point was to encourage them to live by faith and trust God to do big things with their small faith, rather than to get them to grit their teeth and conjure up more faith. At least that is my take on the situation.

You are missing the boat if you don't grasp this. Jesus did not pull rabbits out of hats for the Pharisees. If only Pharisees existed in Israel at that time, no miracles would have been done Matt 13:58. He would still have died and resurrected with a bigger evangelising burden left on the disciples.

The miracles were "signs" to reveal the identity of Jesus. Jesus hid his identity from the hard-hearted and unbelieving.