There were no miracles taking place after the last person died upon whom one of the apostles had laid hands upon.
1) Paul laid hadns upon Timothy givng Timothy a gift. This was limited to tha apostles. No one today has any gift much less thierefore lay hands upon another and pass on a gift they do not have to begin with.
What elaborate lengths you go with to discount the direct teaching of scripture on spiritual gifts. I Corinthians 12-14 contains didactic teaching of scripture. We can learn, also, from examples and accounts in Acts and other places in scripture. But what does I Corinthians 12 teach? That spiritual gifts are given as the Spirit wills. I Corinthians 14:13 tells the one who speaks in a tongue to pray that he interpret. If you naturally know two languages, you can naturally interpret. But if you speak in a language you do not know by a gift of the Spirit, then you need a gift of the Spirit to interpret. The one who speaks in tongues can PRAY for a gift of the Spirit. The verse does not say, "Wherefore let him who speaks in an unknown tongue pray that an apostle will come to town and lay hands on him that he may interpret." No, the gifts are given as the Spirit wills, and the Spirit is not bound to only operate through apostles.
In fact, there were men prophesying and working miracles BEFORE any of the Twelve apostles came on the scene. In Mark, we see that there were men performing miracles who did not follow with the apostles, and the apostles forbade them. Jesus told them not to forbid these men. Where did these men get this miraculous power? The apostles had not laid hands on them? Jesus shows us in that passage that casting out demons is a sign/miracle. Yet men could do this without the laying on of hands of an apostle.
Elisha prophesied and raised the dead. He did this without the laying on of hands of an apostle. God was not constrained to only give the ability to prophesy or do miracles to those on whom the apostles hands were laid before the ascension, and He never limited Himself in this way in scripture. You are holding to a man-made doctrine that contradicts scripture.
And it very clearly contradicts scripture because Timothy had a charisma, a spiritual gift in him that he received THROUGH PROPHECY with the laying on of hands of the elders. So a spiritual gift can be conveyed to an individual through a prophecy. Notice that elders laid hands on Timothy.
This contradicts your whole theory/
Saul of Tarsus was made an apostle
without the laying on of hands of the apostles and laid hands on others who received spiritual gifts.
This proves your theory false.
Cornelius and those present with him spoke in tongues without the laying on of hands of the apostles
This disproves your theory.
And do you believe in the laying on of hands, for example, on elders? If so, why would you acknowledge it at all? The laying on of hands pre-dates the apostles. Joshua was filled with the Spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. Moses was a prophet. Not one of the apostles. In Acts 13, prophets and teachers separated Saul and Barnabas for the work, laying hands on them. After that, Luke starts calling them both 'apostles.'
God CAN impart gifts through the laying on of hands of the apostles. He is clearly not limited to only operating through this method.
2) Acts 8:17,18 gifts were passed by the laying on of aposltes hands. No apostles today passing on any gifts.
Acts 8 talks about receiving the Spirit. The gift here is the gift of the Spirit. It doesn't talk about 'charismata.'
Be that as it may, sure, gifts can be imparted through the laying on of hands of the apostles. But scripture is 100% clear that gifts can also be IMPARTED WITHOUT the laying on of hands of the apostles. You are constructing an elaborate, clearly false, argument, to justify disbelieving and disobeying I Corinthians 12-14 and other passages of scripture on spiritual gifts.
3) Ananias may have had been given a spriitaul gift of healing, but he was not an apostle and could not pass on the Holy Spirit. Saul was not yet baptized and not a Christian and therefore would have miraculously received the HS after he was baptized, Gal 1;1,11,12 by Christ and went about preaching, Acts 9:20.
Cornelius and those with him were baptized with the Holy Spirit after hearing the Gospel, but before their water baptism. Peter quickly had them baptized.
4) bible teaches miracles were for specific purpose and time, which they fullfilled 2000+ years ago therefore have ceased, vansihed away.
There are multiple purposes for miracles:
To bear witness to the word to those who see the miracles.
That those who hear might believe, in some cases.
So that the thing the miracle does can be done (e.g. so that the blind man can see, etc.)
People still need to hear and believe the word of God. There are still people with blind eyes and other problems.
5) baptism with the Holy Spirit in Acts 10 is the same as Acts 2 are are the only two places baptism with the HS occurs in the NT where God baptized men without the intervention of the hands of man.
Look at what the word 'baptism' actually means. Instead of treating 'baptism with the Holy Spirit' as some kind of variable in an algebraic equation to look for in scripture, consider what the word means. It gives us a picture of someone being immersed, soaked with the Spirit of God.
Look at the terminology used in Acts 2. We read that they were
filled with the Holy Spirit. Peter spoke of
receiving the Holy Spirit. Other passages refer to it as being
baptized with the Holy Spirit. Notice how Luke uses these phrases to describe the same occurrence. There are other passages about being filled with the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10, men were baptized with the Holy Spirit, and we read that the Holy Ghost fell on the men there.
These different phrases are used interchangeably to describe the same events. There are other passages that talk about being filled with the Holy Spirit. In Act8, we read about the Samaritans being baptized with water first, but later Peter and John came, and they
received the Holy Spirit-- again terminology used in Acts 2.
Take a look at Acts 2, at the actual words that Peter said. Actually read what he said. The disciples were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues. From other verses we know that they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. What did Peter say about it?
Acts 2:16
"[SUP]
16 [/SUP]But
this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;"
My question is, what is this? He was referring to the outpouring of the Spirit and what was going on with the disciples speaking in tongues. Peter continues to quote form Joel.
[SUP]
17 [/SUP]And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
[SUP]
18 [/SUP]And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
Look at the actual verses and what they say. It's about the Spirit being poured out on all flesh, a prediction of people, not just the 12, seeing visions and having dreams and prophesying.
And who can experience this outpouring of the Holy Ghost:
Acts 2
[SUP]
38 [/SUP]Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[SUP]
39 [/SUP]For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Read this in the context of the promise of the Spirit described in the prophecy of Joel. Peter isn't changing the subject. This is all part of one message. The quote from Joel led up to this promise of the Spirit.
6) In the NT God use signs to reveal the NT word and He did so with signs and miracles and after that word was completely revealed with John penning Revelaton,[/quote]
The book of Revelation disproves this theory, since the two witnesses are predicted to prophesy and do miracles at a future date-- after the 'amen' is written in the book of Revelation. No matter what your eschatology, it happens after the book is finished.
those sign fulfilled thier purpose and ceased, 1 Cor 13; Eph 4.
We still know in part, or you would never have any theological disagreements with a fellow believer. We are still in the 'in part' time. In the future, when the perfect comes, Paul's speech, knowledge, and understanding at the time he wrote I Corinthians will seem like a child's in comparison to his speech, knowledge, and understanding after the coming of the perfect. Paul died before the canon was complete. He won't experience 'the perfect' spoken of until the resurrection. Paul's death did not cause the perfect to come, which we know since scripture continued to be written and Paul had visions and prophetic messages in Revelation after Paul's death.
Ephesians 4 talks about apostles and prophets being give until we reach the full measure of the stature of Christ. I've never read anyone try to spin it into a cessationist passage. I don't see how you can use a single verse to that end.
Jn 20:30.31, John wrote signs down, he said these "are written they you mihgt believe" in the perfect tnese meaning those signs CONTINUE to induce a belief in people today as they did 2000+ years ago when actually performed. So God need not to repeat those signs today for people to believe in. People can read those sign John wrote down and believe in those written down signs. Saying signs are needed today defeats the entire purpose of John writing them down.
The last sentence is bad reasoning. John's Gospel ends before the day of Pentecost. If signs performed after that time defeat the purpose of John writing the ones he wrote in the epistle, then the miracles of the apostles in Acts defeat the purpose of writing down the signs of Jesus. So you should reject either the Gospel of John or anything written after it if you want to be consistent with your theory.
But you don't have to be consistent with that theory because it doesn't make sense. John's Gospel can still record signs that lead people to faith. But it is still true that seeing a miracle and reading about it is different. Some people won't believe unless they see signs and wonders. Some people are like Thomas. To others God just grants grace to see a miracle and believe that way. We can't judge a man's heart as especially hard before conversion just because he was won through something supernatural. It does seem like Saul of Tarsus may have been a bit hardened before his conversion, though.
John 20
[SUP]
27 [/SUP]Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
[SUP]
28 [/SUP]Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
[SUP]
29 [/SUP]Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Thomas saw numerous signs that John wrote about, with his own eyes, and still wouldn't believe the resurrection until he saw it.
And there are many who profess to be Christians now who have what the Bible says about spiritual gifts and miracles and refuse to believe what the scripture says can actually happens if they haven't seen it with their own eyes.
