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.
Miracles have a hidden spiritual purpose of announcing the gospel ( hid from the lost.) He did not perform a miracle for any other reason .Remember without parables Christ spoke not .And the use of miracles is no exception but the rule.
Attributing the miracle to men simply blasphemes the Holy name we are called by.
Attributing the miracle to men simply blasphemes the Holy name we are called by.
Yes, this is true but please consider He still healed a few. I am always amazed at how people point to the quantity of people He didn't heal as opposed to the few He did heal. So even among disbelief He was still able to heal some. We ought to recognize the lesson here that yes there is a correlation between belief and results.
However, in all these instances it is often people seeking the Lord to be healed and in their faith they were healed. Are people seeking shittim to be healed? Or is shittim seeking to heal others? The difference is that instead of their faith being in action it is your faith in action. Instead of their faith making them well, having taken action with it, it is your faith allowing for them to be made well as God responds to your active faith.
I'm wasn't pointing to the people He did not heal. There must have been a reason He was directed to go there and heal those who were healed. In my own experience on one occasion I was prompted to pray for a persons healing, when starting to pray in the fellowship area of the church the direction was then given to locate to the sanctuary, three of us, all possessing faith, did so and watched him be healed, to the glory of G-d. Whenever we are a part of His supernatural work it is best to step back and seek what He is teaching in that act, He is constantly stretching us as we grow in Him.
However, in all these instances it is often people seeking the Lord to be healed and in their faith they were healed. Are people seeking shittim to be healed? Or is shittim seeking to heal others? The difference is that instead of their faith being in action it is your faith in action. Instead of their faith making them well, having taken action with it, it is your faith allowing for them to be made well as God responds to your active faith.
I'm wasn't pointing to the people He did not heal. There must have been a reason He was directed to go there and heal those who were healed. In my own experience on one occasion I was prompted to pray for a persons healing, when starting to pray in the fellowship area of the church the direction was then given to locate to the sanctuary, three of us, all possessing faith, did so and watched him be healed, to the glory of G-d. Whenever we are a part of His supernatural work it is best to step back and seek what He is teaching in that act, He is constantly stretching us as we grow in Him.
I know my challenge to actually sit down and read I Corinthians 14:21-23, then quote the verse and write your commentary on it and how it fits into your view may be tough for you.
It is a lot easier to pull five words out of verse 22 and argue they mean something that does not fit with Paul's argument at all.
For some people, it is hard for them to consider that they may be wrong.
This post ^^ ... from somebody who wrote the following in post # 312. If you don't mind, I'll pass.
"This is the sort of thing that happens when unbelievers hear foreign tongues 'in tongues'. The 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.
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."
"This is the sort of thing that happens when unbelievers hear foreign tongues 'in tongues'. The 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.
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."
If he has some ignorance of a topic and you don't, what do you have that wasn't given to you by God? How can you berate someone's ignorance if your wisdom on the matter was a gift? The answer is that you can't. The only way you CAN is if it wasn't a gift from God but is instead some knowledge given you from men. Because the knowledge taught from men puffs up but the wisdom from God, in love, builds up ourselves, and then others.
Acts 28:8
And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him.garee wro
garee wrote,
You may be able to see some allegory or symbols in the miracles of Jesus, as Paul does with the ministry of Moses. But the miracles of Jesus happened, and so did the miracles Moses performed. And the apostles went on to do miracles. So did two of the men chosen to feed the widows. In I Corinthians 12, the working of miracles is one of many manifestations of the Spirit given to individuals in the body of Christ for the common good. This is not contrary to walking by faith, and not by sight.
In Hebrews 11, many of the men who were examples of faith were men who had faith first, and then saw or would see what they believed for later. The same happens with those who see miracles. They believe first, and see God work afterward. If you see God work afterward, that does not mean you are walking by sight. But some people won't believe until they see first.
And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him.garee wro
garee wrote,
You may be able to see some allegory or symbols in the miracles of Jesus, as Paul does with the ministry of Moses. But the miracles of Jesus happened, and so did the miracles Moses performed. And the apostles went on to do miracles. So did two of the men chosen to feed the widows. In I Corinthians 12, the working of miracles is one of many manifestations of the Spirit given to individuals in the body of Christ for the common good. This is not contrary to walking by faith, and not by sight.
In Hebrews 11, many of the men who were examples of faith were men who had faith first, and then saw or would see what they believed for later. The same happens with those who see miracles. They believe first, and see God work afterward. If you see God work afterward, that does not mean you are walking by sight. But some people won't believe until they see first.
You'll pass on actually reading the verses in question which contradict your theory, and explaining the verses and how they relate to your theory. If your objective is to avoid ideas that contradict what you already believe or not to lose face by being wrong in a discussion, I understand why you will pass.
This is all right there in the verses in question I Corinthians 14 verses 21 through 23. If you want to maintain your current position and think you are right, then maybe avoiding the argument Paul makes, just taking out 'tongues are for a sign' and sticking your head in the sand may be the way to go. The 'tongues are for a sign' verse is wedged in there in a passage about unbelievers not believing when they hear speaking in tongues.
I'll concede that last bit may be one of the weaker arguments in the thread, though it may be true. I don't hold to a wooden position that any unbelievers who ever hears speaking in tongues is not going to ever believe the Gospel, just as it would be foolish to think that anyone who hears speaking in tongues would be guaranteed to be a Christian. The passage says tongues are a sign to them that believe not.
One type of sign is a prophecy that comes to pass. In I Corinthians 14, those who respond to tongues with unbelief fulfill the prophecy that says 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me.'
Last edited:
Have you been reading the exchanges on this thread .. or picking up and joining in just now ? I'm very conscious of the fact that there will always be disagreement on topics such as this. That's not what tipped the scales for me. What irks me most is a bystander piping in late in the game with a snide remark because they have mistaken kindness for weakness .. and then childishly scamper off with their self perceived victory c/w accolades from their likeminded "friends". I couldn't care less who agrees or disagrees with my position on the matter. That's not for me to sort out. But I remain steadfast in believing that claims of miracles today not substantiated (i.e.. raising the dead) bring no glory to God ... but instead have the reverse effect. Sometimes the only thing "remaining open to it for the sake of unity" means is that such a person is double-minded .. non-committal .. afraid to say what they really think .. hedging their bets, so to speak. I have repeatedly said that God can do anything He wills. That's a far cry from claiming that I can raise the dead because I have trusted in Him for my salvation. Even at that, it is not out of line for anybody to ask for proof of such claims. Christ and His apostles words were proved by their deeds. Should we expect any less today ? False claims accomplish the opposite and denigrate the truth of God's power and majesty. God doesn't need our "help" to prove His worth and power.
plainguy,
What I see you doing here is arguing against what the Bible teaches. When you are shown you are wrong and challenged to explain verse-by-verse how your interpretation fits with the verses that contradict it, you back out of the conversation and insult the other party (myself.)
It doesn't matter if miracles these days are substantiated according to your standards. You are not God, and your opinion is of very limited value. But you hold yourself back by not believing the scriptures on the issue, and maybe other people you influence. If you believed what the Bible taught, you would allow for the possibility of God working Biblical-style miracles through individuals.
Many people do come to Christ through healings, dreams, visions, prophecies, and a number of other things. If you read a little along the lines of practical missiology, you might see that a large percentage of former Mu ham mad dans and people from Jewish backgrounds came to Christ after experiencing a dream or vision. Plenty of these things still occur today. Your rejecting the teaching of scripture does not change that.
If you were interested about reading more, I haven't gotten around to it, but the Bible scholar Keener recently wrote a 1000+ page book, Miracles, which documents quite a number of cases both historical and modern. It started as a footnote to counter to assertions of those who said that the accounts of miracles in scripture were later embellishment, arguing that in historical and contemporary accounts, people reported miracles in their own day. That turned into a book on Miracles.
What I see you doing here is arguing against what the Bible teaches. When you are shown you are wrong and challenged to explain verse-by-verse how your interpretation fits with the verses that contradict it, you back out of the conversation and insult the other party (myself.)
It doesn't matter if miracles these days are substantiated according to your standards. You are not God, and your opinion is of very limited value. But you hold yourself back by not believing the scriptures on the issue, and maybe other people you influence. If you believed what the Bible taught, you would allow for the possibility of God working Biblical-style miracles through individuals.
Many people do come to Christ through healings, dreams, visions, prophecies, and a number of other things. If you read a little along the lines of practical missiology, you might see that a large percentage of former Mu ham mad dans and people from Jewish backgrounds came to Christ after experiencing a dream or vision. Plenty of these things still occur today. Your rejecting the teaching of scripture does not change that.
If you were interested about reading more, I haven't gotten around to it, but the Bible scholar Keener recently wrote a 1000+ page book, Miracles, which documents quite a number of cases both historical and modern. It started as a footnote to counter to assertions of those who said that the accounts of miracles in scripture were later embellishment, arguing that in historical and contemporary accounts, people reported miracles in their own day. That turned into a book on Miracles.
Let's simply part ways on this topic. I concede to my ignorance in not knowing what "the unbelievers heard foreign tongues in tongues" means .. and I also admit to not understanding that those at pentecost who "heard the tongues in their own languages didn't think of them as tongues because they spoke that language". I am contemplating how an unbeliever at pentecost could be expected to believe a message that was spoken in a language they didn't understand ? But please ... don't reply to this inquiry. We've conversed enough for the time being. Our exchanges would prove fruitless.
If you don't want to converse, that is up to you.
By "a foreign language 'in tongues'" I meant a foreign language spoken by supernatural means through the Spirit, what we call 'tongues' in this discussion. The usual way people speak foreign languages are by learning them as a child or through practice or study.
The Jews from the various parts of the world mentioned in Acts 2 did understand the disciples speaking in tongues in their own languages. But in I Corinthians 14, which dealt with the manifestation of the Spirit of speaking in tongues in the church, when a man spoke in tongues no one understood him. The gift of interpretation was needed to understand it.
If you want to understand speaking in tongues, you should actually try to understand I Corinthians 14, not just assume speaking in tongues in the passage is all wrong because the Corinthians were out of order. You should seek to understand what Paul says. You should not rip 'tongues are for a sign to them that believe not' out of the context of the argument Paul makes without seeking to understand it. Paul writes that in the context of discussing unbelievers responding to speaking in tongues with unbelief.
By "a foreign language 'in tongues'" I meant a foreign language spoken by supernatural means through the Spirit, what we call 'tongues' in this discussion. The usual way people speak foreign languages are by learning them as a child or through practice or study.
The Jews from the various parts of the world mentioned in Acts 2 did understand the disciples speaking in tongues in their own languages. But in I Corinthians 14, which dealt with the manifestation of the Spirit of speaking in tongues in the church, when a man spoke in tongues no one understood him. The gift of interpretation was needed to understand it.
If you want to understand speaking in tongues, you should actually try to understand I Corinthians 14, not just assume speaking in tongues in the passage is all wrong because the Corinthians were out of order. You should seek to understand what Paul says. You should not rip 'tongues are for a sign to them that believe not' out of the context of the argument Paul makes without seeking to understand it. Paul writes that in the context of discussing unbelievers responding to speaking in tongues with unbelief.
M
Well no --they came to belief after the entire presentation. There were the evangelization efforts of the tongues-speakers, who delivered messages in foreign languages...and Peter's message. It all worked together. It is nonsensical to claim the tongues-speakers did not contribute to the evangelization effort.
Besides there being no argument against the simple fact that the "mighty deeds of God" obviously also includes the work of the Cross.....there is also the biblical fact that "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable...for instruction in righteousness."
In other words, ALL scripture is leading man to God and to salvation. All scripture is fundamentally evangelistic. Therefore, the hairs you're trying to split in Acts 2 do not exist. You are contradicting Scripture.
And no matter how badly you turn 1Cor.14 on its head...Paul, in very plain wording, is instructing that you NOT behave in such a way as to cause people to say "you're mad". It is a sign of classic Charismatic/Pentecostal irrationality....that they think it is a badge of distinction when people are tragically driven away from spiritual inquiry into, most times, permanent apostasy.
They walk away, shaking their heads in dismay over the inappropriate behavior of wailing, screeching, moaning, gibberish-spouting (etc)...and then the Pentecostals triumphantly declare (as I said before) "Aha, see how the wicked have little faith!". You make the disingenuous claim that you haven't heard that exact "quote" - lol. You yourself have stated variations of that quote right here in this discussion.
Yes, I double-checked v.22 and, lo and behold, it's still there, amazingly enough...and telling us that the ability to speak miraculously in various human languages is "a sign to unbelievers" who, when they would hear their own language spoken, became convinced of the Gospel, as they were in Acts 2...in contrast to the craziness and gibberish modern-day Pentecostals are perpetrating.
Besides there being no argument against the simple fact that the "mighty deeds of God" obviously also includes the work of the Cross.....there is also the biblical fact that "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable...for instruction in righteousness."
In other words, ALL scripture is leading man to God and to salvation. All scripture is fundamentally evangelistic. Therefore, the hairs you're trying to split in Acts 2 do not exist. You are contradicting Scripture.
And no matter how badly you turn 1Cor.14 on its head...Paul, in very plain wording, is instructing that you NOT behave in such a way as to cause people to say "you're mad". It is a sign of classic Charismatic/Pentecostal irrationality....that they think it is a badge of distinction when people are tragically driven away from spiritual inquiry into, most times, permanent apostasy.
They walk away, shaking their heads in dismay over the inappropriate behavior of wailing, screeching, moaning, gibberish-spouting (etc)...and then the Pentecostals triumphantly declare (as I said before) "Aha, see how the wicked have little faith!". You make the disingenuous claim that you haven't heard that exact "quote" - lol. You yourself have stated variations of that quote right here in this discussion.
Yes, I double-checked v.22 and, lo and behold, it's still there, amazingly enough...and telling us that the ability to speak miraculously in various human languages is "a sign to unbelievers" who, when they would hear their own language spoken, became convinced of the Gospel, as they were in Acts 2...in contrast to the craziness and gibberish modern-day Pentecostals are perpetrating.