Faith Healing

[UppsalaDragby]

The purpose of miracles was for revealing Go'ds word and confirmation of that word. So when the word had been completely revealed by the end of the first ventury, then the signs were no longer needed. As the analogy of signs as scaffolding which is used to construct a building but taken away and no longer needed when the building is completed. So the miraculous signs fulfilled thier purpose and went away as Paul said they would.

Ernest, it gets a little tiring in this discussion when I take the time to back up what I say with scripture whereas you simply make claims on the authority of your own beliefs. Where, for example, is your support for the idea that "revelation" came through canonization? Nowhere does scripture speak of any such event. What it does say is this:

"Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but NOW revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him." (Romans 16:25)

John wrote various signs down that occurred over 2000 years ago which can still induce a belief in people today so you cannot, have not given a valid, biblcal reason for signs existing today.

Why do you keep repeating this some faulty logic over and over again? I have already given you a valid rebuttal to this incredibly dense idea. Firstly, not all the gifts were "miraculous signs used to induce belief". Secondly, what evidence can you provide that canonization induces belief?

People come to faith when the gospel is preached to them, not when the entire canon of scripture is read!!! How many non-believers read through the entire Bible before believing?

Again, you continue to read into the text that one cannot say Jesus is Lord except by some miracle of God. If that were the case, then those unable to say "Jesus is Lord" would be unable due to the culpability and fault of God in failing to miraculously allow them. They would be lost failing to confess Jesus, Matt 10:32,33 and thier condemnation would be 100% God's fault, God's blame, God's culpability.

Here are the verses from 1 Cor 12:

"Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

What exactly am I supposted to be "reading into the text"? It is a little comical that you feel free to make up all kinds of things that can't be found ANYWHERE in scripture, and when I point out something that IS in scripture then I am the one reading into the text. Oh the irony!

You also follow up with yet another flawed argument. The fact that God enables someone to believe and confess does not mean that it is HIS fault when they don't. God knows and sees when someone has been brought to repentance and when the time is right he enables them to understand the gospel and utter the confession of faith. Those who are unrepentant and are not willing to believe bear their OWN blame!

But that is not what the verse says nor did I say this. The verse says "Whereby, when ye (Ephesians) read, ye (Ephesians) may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)" Paul, an inspired writer of the bible, received miraculous revelations from God and wrote those revelations down for the EPHESIANS to read and understand.

So? OF COURE you can gain understanding by reading the Bible. But that verse does not say that all a person needs to do is read the Bible in order to understand it, that we no longer need revelation.

So it becomes even more evident that miraculous signs were used to reveal the word of God to inspired men as Paul yet miracles were not needed to read and understand those inspired written words. So when God's word was completely revealed, the signs used to reveal this word ceased leaving us with the written word that we, just as the Epshesians, can read and understand without any miraculous 'illumination'. I can read the Holy Spirit's revealed word and can know and say "Jesus is Lord" with no miraculous intervention at all.

That all sounds nice Ernest, except that what you say is in direct contradiction to what scripture says. And how do YOU know that when you say "Jesus is Lord" and mean what you say that the Holy Spirit is not involved?

As far as the video, it is not up to me to prove or disprove something that you can only CLAIM happened. Nor am I worng simply because I do not go along with the CLAIMS made in the video. Jesus did not resuscitate an unconscience person but went to a cemetery and raised one that was dead for 4 days and stinking, Jn 11:39. What the doctor claimed in the video does not remotely compare to what Jesus did. It is too easy to make claims in a video but it is not easy to go to a cemetery and do as Jesus did, to walk on water, to feed a multitude with only a basket of food. When Jesus performed a miracle there was no doubt a miracle was performed....Jesus did not make claims as the video.

You can keep harping on about the video until the cows come home. Unless you make an effort to address what I have written I will simply keep repeating it:

Firstly, you cannot prove that no one was raised from the dead, so the fact that you claim that it didn't happen does not weigh into this discussion. Secondly, I did not quote Luke 16:31 as proof that anyone was raised from the dead, and neither did I CLAIM that it happened. And thirdly:

"I submitted the video because of YOUR claim that something like that would be on the news, the newspapers, the internet and so on. You then were so foolish as to claim that "there's nothing". I knew that your assertion was wrong because I have seen such things several times - 1. On the news (just check out the video) 2. In the newspapers, and 3. On the internet."

And fourthly, where did the vido CLAIM that what happened portrayed an exact replica of what Jesus did? Strawman much?

Your response in no way refutes Jn 20:30,31.

It wasn't written to refute John 20:30,31, it was written to refute the things that you are reading into the text. Let's look at the text itself:

"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book."

Well there you go. If a written account of miraculous signs was enough to induce faith and thereby make the miracles themselves redundant, then why did Jesus perform others that were NOT written? So rather than support your claims, this verse shows that they don't even make sense.

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

To this you argue that the words "are written" is in the perfect tense denoting an act in the past with a continuing effect, and I have no problem with that. But is there anything there that indicates that spiritual gifts would cease? No, and neither does John say that his words alone were sufficient to replace either miracles or Spiritual gifts. Miracles occured in peoples lives in RESPONSE to belief. And do you have any support for the idea that Spiritual gifts were being practices BEFORE one comes to faith?

I didn't think so.

So, I am NOT arguing with John as you falsely claim, but with you.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Ernest, it gets a little tiring in this discussion when I take the time to back up what I say with scripture whereas you simply make claims on the authority of your own beliefs. Where, for example, is your support for the idea that "revelation" came through canonization? Nowhere does scripture speak of any such event. What it does say is this:

"Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but NOW revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him." (Romans 16:25)


Why do you keep repeating this some faulty logic over and over again? I have already given you a valid rebuttal to this incredibly dense idea. Firstly, not all the gifts were "miraculous signs used to induce belief". Secondly, what evidence can you provide that canonization induces belief?

People come to faith when the gospel is preached to them, not when the entire canon of scripture is read!!! How many non-believers read through the entire Bible before believing?


Here are the verses from 1 Cor 12:

"Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

What exactly am I supposted to be "reading into the text"? It is a little comical that you feel free to make up all kinds of things that can't be found ANYWHERE in scripture, and when I point out something that IS in scripture then I am the one reading into the text. Oh the irony!

You also follow up with yet another flawed argument. The fact that God enables someone to believe and confess does not mean that it is HIS fault when they don't. God knows and sees when someone has been brought to repentance and when the time is right he enables them to understand the gospel and utter the confession of faith. Those who are unrepentant and are not willing to believe bear their OWN blame!


So? OF COURE you can gain understanding by reading the Bible. But that verse does not say that all a person needs to do is read the Bible in order to understand it, that we no longer need revelation.


That all sounds nice Ernest, except that what you say is in direct contradiction to what scripture says. And how do YOU know that when you say "Jesus is Lord" and mean what you say that the Holy Spirit is not involved?


You can keep harping on about the video until the cows come home. Unless you make an effort to address what I have written I will simply keep repeating it:

Firstly, you cannot prove that no one was raised from the dead, so the fact that you claim that it didn't happen does not weigh into this discussion. Secondly, I did not quote Luke 16:31 as proof that anyone was raised from the dead, and neither did I CLAIM that it happened. And thirdly:

"I submitted the video because of YOUR claim that something like that would be on the news, the newspapers, the internet and so on. You then were so foolish as to claim that "there's nothing". I knew that your assertion was wrong because I have seen such things several times - 1. On the news (just check out the video) 2. In the newspapers, and 3. On the internet."

And fourthly, where did the vido CLAIM that what happened portrayed an exact replica of what Jesus did? Strawman much?


It wasn't written to refute John 20:30,31, it was written to refute the things that you are reading into the text. Let's look at the text itself:

"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book."

Well there you go. If a written account of miraculous signs was enough to induce faith and thereby make the miracles themselves redundant, then why did Jesus perform others that were NOT written? So rather than support your claims, this verse shows that they don't even make sense.

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

To this you argue that the words "are written" is in the perfect tense denoting an act in the past with a continuing effect, and I have no problem with that. But is there anything there that indicates that spiritual gifts would cease? No, and neither does John say that his words alone were sufficient to replace either miracles or Spiritual gifts. Miracles occured in peoples lives in RESPONSE to belief. And do you have any support for the idea that Spiritual gifts were being practices BEFORE one comes to faith?

I didn't think so.

So, I am NOT arguing with John as you falsely claim, but with you.

But you have backed nothing up with scripture, at least not accurately with scripture. Examples:

(1) I explained that in 1 Cor 13 and Eph 4 Paul was speaking about hose gifts Christ gave and that those gifts would last till there was a unity/perfection of God's written revelation. You have yet proven otherwise. I won't go back thru all the posts and look, but if I recall correctly you tried once to imply that "perfect" referred to Christ in 1 Cor 13:10. But that cannot be correct for "perfect" is contrasted to what was 'in part" implying that Christ was once imperfect only to be made perfect sometime in the future. So we are still left with no correct, biblcal explanation from you as to what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 13 and Eph 4.

(2) 1 Cor 12:3 you are implying only the miraculous into the context. All the verse is saying is that no one can say "Jesus Is Lord" unless he gets that information from the Holy Spirit. One could, as the inspired writers of the bible, receive that information by miraculous revelation and write it down for those who are uninspired (as all of us today are uninspired) can read and understand it non-miraculously. Yet there are no miraculously inspired writers alive today, so we must all get our information that "Jesus is Lord" from the Holy Spirit through His written word non-miraculously. Again, I read the Holy Spirit's written word and learned and can say "Jesus is Lord" by receiving that information from the Holy Spirit in written form, NOT miraculously.

If it takes a miracle of God for one to say "Jesus is Lord" then it is God's fault for those who do not.


Your explanation:
"The fact that God enables someone to believe and confess does not mean that it is HIS fault when they don't. God knows and sees when someone has been brought to repentance and when the time is right he enables them to understand the gospel and utter the confession of faith. Those who are unrepentant and are not willing to believe bear their OWN blame!"


If the only way I can believe and confess is if God enables me, then if God does not enable me to believe and confess, that is God's fault - 100%.
Jesus condemned those dsciples in the boat with Him for their "little faith". If they could only have faith by God enabling them, then Jesus should have directed His condemnation to God for God's failure to give those disciples sufficient faith. You cannot put God 100% in control but then blame man when things go out of control.......very Calivinistic of you. Again, on one hand you say "...God enables someone to believe" but then you say "Those...not willing to believe bear their OWN responsibility..." How can they bear responsibility when they had no responsibility in it to begin with? It would be all God's responsibility in either enabling or not enabling people to believe.



All I have to say about the video is that it proved nothing, it certainly did not prove any miracle, that the claim being made.


Jn 20:30,31 If those miracles need to be repeated today to induce people to believe, then there was no reason for John to write them down so they could continue to induce a belief in people today. You are essentially telling John he wasted his ink and paper writting them down for we have them today to induce a belief in people. So you are refuting and arguing against the very reason John wrote them down. Just because John did not write down ALL the signs Jesus did does not prove your point either. John's point is that the ones he did write down are sufficient enough to continue to induce a belief in people.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

But you have backed nothing up with scripture, at least not accurately with scripture. Examples:

(1) I explained that in 1 Cor 13 and Eph 4 Paul was speaking about hose gifts Christ gave and that those gifts would last till there was a unity/perfection of God's written revelation. You have yet proven otherwise. I won't go back thru all the posts and look, but if I recall correctly you tried once to imply that "perfect" referred to Christ in 1 Cor 13:10. But that cannot be correct for "perfect" is contrasted to what was 'in part" implying that Christ was once imperfect only to be made perfect sometime in the future. So we are still left with no correct, biblcal explanation from you as to what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 13 and Eph 4.

I have already pointed out that neither 1 Cor 13 nor Eph 4 even mentions scripture. This you continually ignore and try to put the burden of proof on me to disprove something that isn't even in scripture! You have taken the liberty to add something that is not there, which is something that we should never do.

Your logic is also, once again, completely flawed. 1 Cor 13 is NOT saying that perfection is "in part"! It says that "WE know in part and WE prophesy in part". Notice what Paul writes in verse 12, it is just ONE MORE thing that totally demolishes your argument:

"Now I know in part; THEN I SHALL KNOW FULLY, even as I am fully known."

The apostle Paul was beheaded in Rome in A.D. 67, decades before the book of Revelation was written! Obviously, when perfection comes - when we are united with Christ at the ressurrection - we will KNOW FULLY!

(2) 1 Cor 12:3 you are implying only the miraculous into the context. All the verse is saying is that no one can say "Jesus Is Lord" unless he gets that information from the Holy Spirit. One could, as the inspired writers of the bible, receive that information by miraculous revelation and write it down for those who are uninspired (as all of us today are uninspired) can read and understand it non-miraculously. Yet there are no miraculously inspired writers alive today, so we must all get our information that "Jesus is Lord" from the Holy Spirit through His written word non-miraculously. Again, I read the Holy Spirit's written word and learned and can say "Jesus is Lord" by receiving that information from the Holy Spirit in written form, NOT miraculously.

Anyone who thinks that all they need in order to understand scripture is a fallible human brain is a very confused individual, which is exactly what is reflected in your posts. The verse in question says nothing about bible writers. Again you have to insert things that are not there. What the verse says is "NO ONE" can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit. Case closed!

If it takes a miracle of God for one to say "Jesus is Lord" then it is God's fault for those who do not.
Your explanation:
"The fact that God enables someone to believe and confess does not mean that it is HIS fault when they don't. God knows and sees when someone has been brought to repentance and when the time is right he enables them to understand the gospel and utter the confession of faith. Those who are unrepentant and are not willing to believe bear their OWN blame
If the only way I can believe and confess is if God enables me, then if God does not enable me to believe and confess, that is God's fault - 100%.

That is your opinion, not what scripture says. I thought this was about you using scripture to show that my position is not "accurate". You also assume that believing and confessing are the ONLY things involved. What about repentance? If someone refuses to repent, is that God's fault too? What if someone isn't poor in spirit and doesn't inherit the kingdom of heaven, is that also God's fault? What if they are too proud to come to Jesus, is that God's fault? Who, among those who came to Jesus did he reject?

Jesus condemned those dsciples in the boat with Him for their "little faith". If they could only have faith by God enabling them, then Jesus should have directed His condemnation to God for God's failure to give those disciples sufficient faith. You cannot put God 100% in control but then blame man when things go out of control.......very Calivinistic of you. Again, on one hand you say "...God enables someone to believe" but then you say "Those...not willing to believe bear their OWN responsibility..." How can they bear responsibility when they had no responsibility in it to begin with? It would be all God's responsibility in either enabling or not enabling people to believe.

You are assuming that EVERYTHING that is faith related is enabled by God. God plants the seed, but we are responsible to see that it grows. The parable of the sower illustrates this. But this is drifting away from what we were originally discussing.

All I have to say about the video is that it proved nothing, it certainly did not prove any miracle, that the claim being made.

Firstly, you cannot prove that no one was raised from the dead, so the fact that you claim that it didn't happen does not weigh into this discussion. Secondly, I did not quote Luke 16:31 as proof that anyone was raised from the dead, and neither did I CLAIM that it happened. And thirdly:

"I submitted the video because of YOUR claim that something like that would be on the news, the newspapers, the internet and so on. You then were so foolish as to claim that "there's nothing". I knew that your assertion was wrong because I have seen such things several times - 1. On the news (just check out the video) 2. In the newspapers, and 3. On the internet."

Jn 20:30,31 If those miracles need to be repeated today to induce people to believe, then there was no reason for John to write them down so they could continue to induce a belief in people today. You are essentially telling John he wasted his ink and paper writting them down for we have them today to induce a belief in people. So you are refuting and arguing against the very reason John wrote them down. Just because John did not write down ALL the signs Jesus did does not prove your point either. John's point is that the ones he did write down are sufficient enough to continue to induce a belief in people.

Since you have ignored my previous response to this and just repeat the same argument again, I will post my response once again:

Is there anything there that indicates that spiritual gifts would cease? No, and neither does John say that his words alone were sufficient to replace either miracles or Spiritual gifts. Miracles occured in peoples lives in RESPONSE to belief. And do you have any support for the idea that Spiritual gifts were being practices BEFORE one comes to faith?

 

[Floyd]

Yes Earnest, I agree.
The problem here is massive misteaching, which the "god of this world" is happy to propagate!
The healing gifts were for the Apostles of the Acts period; and ceased at Acts 28.
This is discussed in detail in our Paper " What really happened at Pentecost".
This can be see at : www.revelationsmessage.co.uk under the heading of Subjectindex.
Regards.
Floyd.

 

[child of fire]

I'm sure that's what it's called. It's when parents refuse to take their very sick child to the doctor because by asking for a professional doctor to cure their child would be doubting in God's ability to heal them. Many children have died because of this. From things that in the 21st century in a first world country where we can actually deal with diseases.


I've never personally met anyone who would do such a thing, so what are your views on this?


And while we are at it, whose against having people get vaccinated? For whatever reason.

i have heard of these sorts- i would ask them what if the treatment is Gods answer to your prayer for healing?