Why Don’t We See Miracles Like the Apostles Did?
- Thread starter Awakened
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
They did not. They glorified God.
The tongues may have had a part to play by glorifying God, but they were converted by a KNOWN tongue, Aramaic.,
Corinthians 14 was speaking of unknown tongues, glossolalia. They were not spoken TO people, but in front of people. They did not speak their languages as at Pentecost.
not so as to be understood (vv. 7-11).
They said they were mad. Some evangelism, read it without your tinted glasses on.
It only edified believers when interpreted.
The tongue speakers were not preaching the gospel. They were glorifying God. READ it. And they were not glossolalia,
.
where does it say so? They said they were mad.
Because tongues was way of speaking to God? vv.14-19
you're getting there at last. it contradicts your previous words
interpretation not translation,
it was to glorify God not directly to evangelise. The evangelising was in Aramaic.
It doesn't mention glossolalia. Acts 2 and 1 Cor i4 are totally different. ,
which evangelistic comments? They heard them GLORIFYING GOD. Read it without your blinkers on
The tongues may have had a part to play by glorifying God, but they were converted by a KNOWN tongue, Aramaic.,
Corinthians 14 was speaking of unknown tongues, glossolalia. They were not spoken TO people, but in front of people. They did not speak their languages as at Pentecost.
not so as to be understood (vv. 7-11).
They said they were mad. Some evangelism, read it without your tinted glasses on.
It only edified believers when interpreted.
The tongue speakers were not preaching the gospel. They were glorifying God. READ it. And they were not glossolalia,
.
where does it say so? They said they were mad.
Because tongues was way of speaking to God? vv.14-19
you're getting there at last. it contradicts your previous words
interpretation not translation,
it was to glorify God not directly to evangelise. The evangelising was in Aramaic.
It doesn't mention glossolalia. Acts 2 and 1 Cor i4 are totally different. ,
which evangelistic comments? They heard them GLORIFYING GOD. Read it without your blinkers on
M
Acts 2:11 - "we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God".
The mightiest deed of all was the Cross. They are conveying the gospel, therefore. How do you miss that?
The gospel was presented in their tongue and Aramaic. Good grief. The whole experience, hearing the Gospel in their tongue and hearing Peter, contributed to their conversion.
You've just imposed a doctrine out of thin air. We see "tongues" defined in Acts 2. You've pulled this word "glossolalia" out of thin air...and are trying to claim there is a different "tongues". But Paul, in 1Cor.14, is describing the same "tongues" as was seen in Acts 2, when he states (in v. 22) that "tongues are for a sign...to unbelievers". In other words, it is an evangelism tool...exactly as it was used in Acts 2.
In that entire passage (vs. 7-11) Paul is describing how "tongues" are NOT to be used. There is no license in that passage, as Charismatics want to believe, that we should engage in unintelligible gibberish and thereby cause others to view us (as Paul warns) as "barbarians".
Interpreting language is the same as translating language. I'm not following your argument. Nor could I understand any number of your other comments. They were too clipped for me.
The mightiest deed of all was the Cross. They are conveying the gospel, therefore. How do you miss that?
The gospel was presented in their tongue and Aramaic. Good grief. The whole experience, hearing the Gospel in their tongue and hearing Peter, contributed to their conversion.
You've just imposed a doctrine out of thin air. We see "tongues" defined in Acts 2. You've pulled this word "glossolalia" out of thin air...and are trying to claim there is a different "tongues". But Paul, in 1Cor.14, is describing the same "tongues" as was seen in Acts 2, when he states (in v. 22) that "tongues are for a sign...to unbelievers". In other words, it is an evangelism tool...exactly as it was used in Acts 2.
In that entire passage (vs. 7-11) Paul is describing how "tongues" are NOT to be used. There is no license in that passage, as Charismatics want to believe, that we should engage in unintelligible gibberish and thereby cause others to view us (as Paul warns) as "barbarians".
Interpreting language is the same as translating language. I'm not following your argument. Nor could I understand any number of your other comments. They were too clipped for me.
I don't have to see the Bible verified to believe it. So I do not have to see someone raised from the dead in modern times to believe it is the type of thing God does. The Bible already establishes this. I do not have to see the 'working of miracles' in actions believe God does it either. That's the dfference between our beliefs on this. The Bible establishes the fact that these are gifts the the Spirit gives to the body of Christ, so I believe the Spirit works like this. You do not.
You have to see it with your own eyes, apparently. Do you have to put your fingers and your hand on the one effect by the miracle to beleive it?
I don't believe very claim is necessarily true, but since I believe God does these things, I'm open to such testimonies and don't reject them out of hand. I don't think every claim of healing through the laying on of hands, through Youtube, has to be psychosomatic or slight of hand, either.
The burden of proof is on you to show that I Corinthians 12 is no longer true. The idea that God stopped doing miracles through people is not part of the faith once delivered to the saints.
You have to see it with your own eyes, apparently. Do you have to put your fingers and your hand on the one effect by the miracle to beleive it?
I don't believe very claim is necessarily true, but since I believe God does these things, I'm open to such testimonies and don't reject them out of hand. I don't think every claim of healing through the laying on of hands, through Youtube, has to be psychosomatic or slight of hand, either.
The burden of proof is on you to show that I Corinthians 12 is no longer true. The idea that God stopped doing miracles through people is not part of the faith once delivered to the saints.
Last edited:
So you think they were talking about the cross, so that must be the case.
A hypothetical tomato juice lover says the gospels say the apostles drank 'the fruit of the vine' at the last supper. He says, 'The greatest fruit of the vine is tomato juice, so they must have been drinking tomato juice.' How's that for proof?
If they preached the gospel in those languages, why weren't the people baptized until Peter stood and preached, apparently in some common tongue.
Evangelism tool? Read the passage about tongues as a sign. The sign is that when unbelievers respond to tongues in unbelief, it fulfills 'and yet for all that, ye will not hear me.' In Paul's example, one responds to speaking with tongues by saying, 'ye are mad.'
Acts 2 says lalein heteras glossias. The historical Pentecostal position is that these were real languages, and there were those at the Azusa Street revival who testified to hearing their own language 'in tongues' and that is part of what drew the crowds according to the testimony of someone who was there.
A hypothetical tomato juice lover says the gospels say the apostles drank 'the fruit of the vine' at the last supper. He says, 'The greatest fruit of the vine is tomato juice, so they must have been drinking tomato juice.' How's that for proof?
If they preached the gospel in those languages, why weren't the people baptized until Peter stood and preached, apparently in some common tongue.
Evangelism tool? Read the passage about tongues as a sign. The sign is that when unbelievers respond to tongues in unbelief, it fulfills 'and yet for all that, ye will not hear me.' In Paul's example, one responds to speaking with tongues by saying, 'ye are mad.'
Acts 2 says lalein heteras glossias. The historical Pentecostal position is that these were real languages, and there were those at the Azusa Street revival who testified to hearing their own language 'in tongues' and that is part of what drew the crowds according to the testimony of someone who was there.
MatTooFor
Struggling? What do I have to struggle with. My beliefs follow along with the text of scripture. I know it can take some time to process if an idea that one holds to doesn't really work, and it isn't always easy to abandon an idea for another one. But you really don't have any support, from scripture, for the idea that tongues was used as a means of proclaiming and explaining the Gospel.
In Acts 2, there were those who heard speaking in tongues in their own language. Their response was positive. They were amazed. But apparently the other group did not understand the languages. They said the disciples were drunk. For these people, the tongues were of 'men of other tongues and other lips.'
Look at this passage.
I Corinthians 14
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
Look at verse 21. It talks about 'men of other tongues and other lips' not the language you grow up hearing. Of course, if you hear speaking in tongues in your own language, your reaction is not likely to be unbelief. But if you don't know the languages, it will sound like babble. The unbeliever who hears this may say, 'ye are mad', or 'they are drunk on new wine.'
The sign of the fulfillment 'and yet for all that they will not hear me', in context, has to do with the response of those who do not understand the language.
Centuries before, due to Israel's sin, God let Assyria come in and capture the people of the northern kingdom, marching them off naked into captivity, talking to them in a foreign tongue. The probably said stuff like, "Get back in line!", "March faster!" "Don't look at me! Keep your eyes in front of you!" "Water? This water is for Assyrians. Bwahahaha! You get yours when we stop at a watering hole for the animals."
But the verse also has an application for speaking in tongues. Paul connects the explanation for tongues as a sign in verse 22 with what is translated as 'Wherefore' and it relates back to 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me.'
Struggling? What do I have to struggle with. My beliefs follow along with the text of scripture. I know it can take some time to process if an idea that one holds to doesn't really work, and it isn't always easy to abandon an idea for another one. But you really don't have any support, from scripture, for the idea that tongues was used as a means of proclaiming and explaining the Gospel.
In Acts 2, there were those who heard speaking in tongues in their own language. Their response was positive. They were amazed. But apparently the other group did not understand the languages. They said the disciples were drunk. For these people, the tongues were of 'men of other tongues and other lips.'
Look at this passage.
I Corinthians 14
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
Look at verse 21. It talks about 'men of other tongues and other lips' not the language you grow up hearing. Of course, if you hear speaking in tongues in your own language, your reaction is not likely to be unbelief. But if you don't know the languages, it will sound like babble. The unbeliever who hears this may say, 'ye are mad', or 'they are drunk on new wine.'
The sign of the fulfillment 'and yet for all that they will not hear me', in context, has to do with the response of those who do not understand the language.
Centuries before, due to Israel's sin, God let Assyria come in and capture the people of the northern kingdom, marching them off naked into captivity, talking to them in a foreign tongue. The probably said stuff like, "Get back in line!", "March faster!" "Don't look at me! Keep your eyes in front of you!" "Water? This water is for Assyrians. Bwahahaha! You get yours when we stop at a watering hole for the animals."
But the verse also has an application for speaking in tongues. Paul connects the explanation for tongues as a sign in verse 22 with what is translated as 'Wherefore' and it relates back to 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me.'
M
It was the listening audience that is described as making this comment about the "mighty deeds of God". They can be forgiven for not recognizing the fine doctrinal distinctions at their very first exposure to Christianity. It is quite ridiculous to argue the tongues-speakers were not referring to the Gospel. That they would avoid mentioning Jesus and the cross and salvation. The discussion here is verging on the obnoxious.
Good grief, prez. There was an overall presentation going on. Like a church service or an evangelistic crusade - first, came the miraculous tongues-speaking, then Peter, then came the conversions, apparently.
Well, you're misunderstanding and misinterpreting Paul's quote of Isaiah...because people DID hear tongues and DID convert to the Gospel message...in Acts 2. With your incorrect, hyper-literal interp of Paul's quote of Isaiah, you're creating a contradiction in the Bible:
According to your interp of Isaiah in 1Cor. 14, tongues cannot be used to win people over to the Gospel...but in Acts 2, the gift of tongues WAS being used to win people over.
And part of the problem is that, unfortunately, you're twisting the 1Cor.14 passage: The passage doesn't say tongues are "for a sign of fulfillment of scripture"...rather it say "tongues are for a sign TO unbelievers".
Seriously? You are now having to reach back over a century to find your stories? I can reach back five minutes to find an example of someone practicing the "gift of hospitality": My wife just handed a platter of cookies to my daughter's friend for her to take home.
Good grief, prez. There was an overall presentation going on. Like a church service or an evangelistic crusade - first, came the miraculous tongues-speaking, then Peter, then came the conversions, apparently.
Well, you're misunderstanding and misinterpreting Paul's quote of Isaiah...because people DID hear tongues and DID convert to the Gospel message...in Acts 2. With your incorrect, hyper-literal interp of Paul's quote of Isaiah, you're creating a contradiction in the Bible:
According to your interp of Isaiah in 1Cor. 14, tongues cannot be used to win people over to the Gospel...but in Acts 2, the gift of tongues WAS being used to win people over.
And part of the problem is that, unfortunately, you're twisting the 1Cor.14 passage: The passage doesn't say tongues are "for a sign of fulfillment of scripture"...rather it say "tongues are for a sign TO unbelievers".
Seriously? You are now having to reach back over a century to find your stories? I can reach back five minutes to find an example of someone practicing the "gift of hospitality": My wife just handed a platter of cookies to my daughter's friend for her to take home.
[QUOTE=MattTooFor;2940279]listeningaudience that is described as making this comment about the "mighty deeds of God". They can be forgiven for not recognizing the fine doctrinal distinctions at their very first exposure to Christianity. It is quite ridiculous to argue the tongues-speakers were not referring to the Gospel. That they would avoid mentioning Jesus and the cross and salvation. The discussion here is verging on the obnoxious.[/QUOTE]
Comments like this one verge on the obnoxious for me. You are arguing for something that seems obvious to you, but the my position is in line with what we actually can support from the Bible. You describe my approach as too 'literal.' Your is based on guesses and assumptions.
The problem with your position is that it creates a contradiction, or at least a problem, when we look at I Corinthians 14. Paul is not writing about someone speaking in tongues and individuals understanding the language. Rather, he writes that when someone speaks in tongues 'no one understandeth him'. Whatever is spoken in tongues has to be interpreted... through a spiritual gift...for the audience to understand.
If speaking in tongues is supposed to be a tool to communicate the Gospel to others, and that is the primary or sole use of it, why, when we get into a passage that goes into some detail about speaking in tongues, do we see the opposite?
1. Other people do not understand speaking in tongues.
2. It has to be interpreted for the church to understand it.
3. Unbelievers who hear speaking in tongues think you are mad.
4. The sign of tongues has to do with 'and yet for all that, ye will not hear Me.'
None of the actual details in the I Corinthians 14 passage actually fit your theory. I'm interpreting Acts 2 and I Corinthians 14 as consistent with one another. You read a theory into Acts 2, but what do you do with I Corinthians 14? You take 'tongues are for a sign to them that believe not' and think that fits into your theory. But if you look at it in context, the sign has to do with unbelievers hearing tongues and not believing. It fulfills a verse about God speaking through men of other tongues, and people not hearing.
This is the sort of thing that happens when unbelievers hear foreign tongues 'in tongues'. They verse Paul quotes has to do with people hearing languages they don't know and responding in unbelief. It doesn't describe those in Acts 2 who heard their own languages, though it may fit some of those who thought the apostles were drunk.
Speaking in tongues drew attention, like signs did in some cases, but people were saved after actually hearing the Gospel preached. What we don't have in scripture is someone actually doing the evangelism 'in tongues.'
No I am not. Your interpretation doesn't fit I Corinthians 14 at all. Go through the relevant verses starting with the Isaiah quote down to 'ye are mad' and explain how it fits into your interpretation. Have you done this in your mind? How does that all fit together with your assertions about speaking in tongues.
Now, you are being overly rigid in your application of scripture. When Israel was unbelieving in the Old Testament, there was still a remnant. In Acts 2, those who thought the apostles were drunk did not know the languages. These were foreign tongues to them. They responded with unbelief. The men who understood the languages would not have thought of them all as tongues from men of other tongues and other lips, since they spoke one of the languages themselves.
That's not 'twisting'. That's looking at the point Paul actually makes himself in the actual passage. If you think Paul is twisting scripture, then you need to rethink your approach to hermeneutics. Spend a bit of time meditating on the passage.
By the way, this is an interpretation of the passage from history:
from
http://www.patristics.co/2016/07/01/what-is-speaking-in-tongues/
I brought up the historical Pentecostal partly because we have someone arguing that I Corinthians 14 tongues aren't real languages. (Both Acts 2 and I Corinthians 14 are 'glossalalia' in Biblical terminology, though not in some of the terminology used in certain disciplines since the 1800's). I've mentioned more recent examples either in this thread or in other threads that are fairly recent on the forum.
Comments like this one verge on the obnoxious for me. You are arguing for something that seems obvious to you, but the my position is in line with what we actually can support from the Bible. You describe my approach as too 'literal.' Your is based on guesses and assumptions.
The problem with your position is that it creates a contradiction, or at least a problem, when we look at I Corinthians 14. Paul is not writing about someone speaking in tongues and individuals understanding the language. Rather, he writes that when someone speaks in tongues 'no one understandeth him'. Whatever is spoken in tongues has to be interpreted... through a spiritual gift...for the audience to understand.
If speaking in tongues is supposed to be a tool to communicate the Gospel to others, and that is the primary or sole use of it, why, when we get into a passage that goes into some detail about speaking in tongues, do we see the opposite?
1. Other people do not understand speaking in tongues.
2. It has to be interpreted for the church to understand it.
3. Unbelievers who hear speaking in tongues think you are mad.
4. The sign of tongues has to do with 'and yet for all that, ye will not hear Me.'
None of the actual details in the I Corinthians 14 passage actually fit your theory. I'm interpreting Acts 2 and I Corinthians 14 as consistent with one another. You read a theory into Acts 2, but what do you do with I Corinthians 14? You take 'tongues are for a sign to them that believe not' and think that fits into your theory. But if you look at it in context, the sign has to do with unbelievers hearing tongues and not believing. It fulfills a verse about God speaking through men of other tongues, and people not hearing.
This is the sort of thing that happens when unbelievers hear foreign tongues 'in tongues'. They verse Paul quotes has to do with people hearing languages they don't know and responding in unbelief. It doesn't describe those in Acts 2 who heard their own languages, though it may fit some of those who thought the apostles were drunk.
Speaking in tongues drew attention, like signs did in some cases, but people were saved after actually hearing the Gospel preached. What we don't have in scripture is someone actually doing the evangelism 'in tongues.'
No I am not. Your interpretation doesn't fit I Corinthians 14 at all. Go through the relevant verses starting with the Isaiah quote down to 'ye are mad' and explain how it fits into your interpretation. Have you done this in your mind? How does that all fit together with your assertions about speaking in tongues.
Now, you are being overly rigid in your application of scripture. When Israel was unbelieving in the Old Testament, there was still a remnant. In Acts 2, those who thought the apostles were drunk did not know the languages. These were foreign tongues to them. They responded with unbelief. The men who understood the languages would not have thought of them all as tongues from men of other tongues and other lips, since they spoke one of the languages themselves.
That's not 'twisting'. That's looking at the point Paul actually makes himself in the actual passage. If you think Paul is twisting scripture, then you need to rethink your approach to hermeneutics. Spend a bit of time meditating on the passage.
By the way, this is an interpretation of the passage from history:
from
http://www.patristics.co/2016/07/01/what-is-speaking-in-tongues/
I brought up the historical Pentecostal partly because we have someone arguing that I Corinthians 14 tongues aren't real languages. (Both Acts 2 and I Corinthians 14 are 'glossalalia' in Biblical terminology, though not in some of the terminology used in certain disciplines since the 1800's). I've mentioned more recent examples either in this thread or in other threads that are fairly recent on the forum.
Last edited:
Tongues (a sign against the rebellious) are for those who believe not. Prophecy for those who do believe(have the faith of Christ which alone comes from hearing God.
Speaking or hearing a tongue (another language) is not performed by the speaker. Peter spoke in his own language as he was moved as a spiritul gift (not seen) by the Spirit of Christ. And as a gift others heard the gospel in their own language.
We do not attribute the work of God to men, That would be blasphemy.
Now concerning spiritual gifts,(not seen) brethren, I would not have you ignorant.1 Corinthians 12
It is not for those who do believe prophecy (have the faith of Christ which comes by hearing God turning it into dumb idols is what we do have today.
We walk by faith not after some religious work we could do.(walking by sight)
1Co 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 1Co 12:1
The law is not subject to change it must be applied, or men will be speaking to the air, rather than the oracles of God the gospel of salvation.
1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, "not to them that believe", but to them "that believe not:" but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
Speaking or hearing a tongue (another language) is not performed by the speaker. Peter spoke in his own language as he was moved as a spiritul gift (not seen) by the Spirit of Christ. And as a gift others heard the gospel in their own language.
We do not attribute the work of God to men, That would be blasphemy.
Now concerning spiritual gifts,(not seen) brethren, I would not have you ignorant.1 Corinthians 12
It is not for those who do believe prophecy (have the faith of Christ which comes by hearing God turning it into dumb idols is what we do have today.
We walk by faith not after some religious work we could do.(walking by sight)
1Co 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 1Co 12:1
The law is not subject to change it must be applied, or men will be speaking to the air, rather than the oracles of God the gospel of salvation.
1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, "not to them that believe", but to them "that believe not:" but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
Waking up on the green side of the grass is a miracle.
Yes miracles (God exercising His authority) are miracles, nothing more and nothing less, God is God, nothing less.
I would agree keeping in mind that without parables, Christ, as the word of God spoke not, hiding His face, the spiritual understanding from natural man. He did not just perform a miracle to show of his power. They had spiritual meaning attached to them, everyone of them.
For instance John the Baptist in doubt (not unbelief as in no faith) required an answer from Christ if He was the right one, therefore using different metaphors to represent the gospel the unseen eternal, Christ answered.
Luke 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
T
he poor in spirit are those who are spiritually bankrupt, without Christ. the same applies to the spiritually blind as well as deaf.
Isaiah 29:18 And in that day shall the deaf "hear the words of the book", and the eyes of the blind "shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness".
Isaiah 35:5 Then the eyes of the blind s"hall be opened", and the ears of the deaf "shall be unstopped".
Lepers again represent natural unconverted men dead in their trespasses and sins without hope and without God in this present world. We can see that in Exodus as one of the signs against the rebels.(Prophecy for those who do believe).
Exo 4:6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
The lame are those who do not walk (understand ) by faith (the unseen) .
2Samuel 5:6 And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither. And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.
The blind and lame used to represent the unbelievers that will not enter heaven .
The dead are raised as an example of the coming resurrection. When all Christians will be raised on the last day
Yes miracles (God exercising His authority) are miracles, nothing more and nothing less, God is God, nothing less.
I would agree keeping in mind that without parables, Christ, as the word of God spoke not, hiding His face, the spiritual understanding from natural man. He did not just perform a miracle to show of his power. They had spiritual meaning attached to them, everyone of them.
For instance John the Baptist in doubt (not unbelief as in no faith) required an answer from Christ if He was the right one, therefore using different metaphors to represent the gospel the unseen eternal, Christ answered.
Luke 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
T
he poor in spirit are those who are spiritually bankrupt, without Christ. the same applies to the spiritually blind as well as deaf.
Isaiah 29:18 And in that day shall the deaf "hear the words of the book", and the eyes of the blind "shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness".
Isaiah 35:5 Then the eyes of the blind s"hall be opened", and the ears of the deaf "shall be unstopped".
Lepers again represent natural unconverted men dead in their trespasses and sins without hope and without God in this present world. We can see that in Exodus as one of the signs against the rebels.(Prophecy for those who do believe).
Exo 4:6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
The lame are those who do not walk (understand ) by faith (the unseen) .
2Samuel 5:6 And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither. And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.
The blind and lame used to represent the unbelievers that will not enter heaven .
The dead are raised as an example of the coming resurrection. When all Christians will be raised on the last day
D
Not true from an entirely different concept -- debating.
In a debate, the person who says something is true must prove it, not the person who says it doesn't exist. AND that's the trick. Plainguy has appealed out of laziness. He knows he doesn't have to put in any effort whatsoever. And even when we go pull out the evidence, all he has to do is say he doesn't agree with the findings. Also the scheme of atheists.
It's crap, but it works.
In a debate, the person who says something is true must prove it, not the person who says it doesn't exist. AND that's the trick. Plainguy has appealed out of laziness. He knows he doesn't have to put in any effort whatsoever. And even when we go pull out the evidence, all he has to do is say he doesn't agree with the findings. Also the scheme of atheists.
It's crap, but it works.
Tongues are a manifestation of the Spirit give to those who rebel for the common natural man (no faith) . Prophecy for those who believe(have faith) for the common good .
We walk by faith the unseen, not by sight after some religious work we perform.
Tongues cannot be for the common good and those who do not know Christ at the same time . How could we serve two masters? Tongues and prophecy?
We walk by faith the unseen, not by sight after some religious work we perform.
Tongues cannot be for the common good and those who do not know Christ at the same time . How could we serve two masters? Tongues and prophecy?
Last edited:
I get so wearied by you guys sometimes (and you by me sometimes, I am sure). But I especially get wearied after He brings some time of refreshment for us in each other and then we begin to slip back into our old ways of arrogance and presumption and walking the way the "polite" world does instead of walking in the Spirit. It's like we do it to ourselves on purpose that we lose what we gained in love in order to walk a different way.
But in this thread you have been doing pretty good.
I define presumption as...that attitude of mind (though in speech we deny it) that almost everyone in here needs our teaching because of their error. It is presumption to not be able to see that we have a lot to learn and it is presumption to think another man is in a ditch and we can pull him out when we ourselves are in the directly opposite ditch on the other side of the road. We presume to know everything about God based on what we have been taught by men when it takes a consistent walking in the Spirit in love for increasingly longer periods of time to even SEE our presumptuousness. In other words, the result of being taught doctrines by men (and this is whether they're true or not) is to breed presumptuousness. This is because knowledge puffs us up but love builds us up as the apostle said.
I think it is best to mostly just assume that we are in the presumptuousness of our fathers most of the time. And so we go far in one direction and another goes far in the other direction and both are ignoring whatever verses the other brings up instead of truly considering them. If they seem to be verses in opposition to one another, we should be puzzled and listen much more closely than we do to the opposite ones so that with the Spirits' help and the help of each other, we arrive at the unity in the middle, which takes both sides into account and struggles with that puzzle rather than struggling with each other.
If we do that WHILE bearing with one another in patience, love, meekness, lack of presumption, and a desire to understand the tensions between verses, the Holy Spirit comes to our aid and brings that unity and view that is not lopsided one way or the other.
Okay, back to your regularly scheduled program.
Love one another.
But in this thread you have been doing pretty good.
I define presumption as...that attitude of mind (though in speech we deny it) that almost everyone in here needs our teaching because of their error. It is presumption to not be able to see that we have a lot to learn and it is presumption to think another man is in a ditch and we can pull him out when we ourselves are in the directly opposite ditch on the other side of the road. We presume to know everything about God based on what we have been taught by men when it takes a consistent walking in the Spirit in love for increasingly longer periods of time to even SEE our presumptuousness. In other words, the result of being taught doctrines by men (and this is whether they're true or not) is to breed presumptuousness. This is because knowledge puffs us up but love builds us up as the apostle said.
I think it is best to mostly just assume that we are in the presumptuousness of our fathers most of the time. And so we go far in one direction and another goes far in the other direction and both are ignoring whatever verses the other brings up instead of truly considering them. If they seem to be verses in opposition to one another, we should be puzzled and listen much more closely than we do to the opposite ones so that with the Spirits' help and the help of each other, we arrive at the unity in the middle, which takes both sides into account and struggles with that puzzle rather than struggling with each other.
If we do that WHILE bearing with one another in patience, love, meekness, lack of presumption, and a desire to understand the tensions between verses, the Holy Spirit comes to our aid and brings that unity and view that is not lopsided one way or the other.
Okay, back to your regularly scheduled program.
Love one another.