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.
Even the Apostles did not do the healing. To attribute the work of God to men is simple to blaspheme the name we are called by. The healing took on the spiritul meaning hid in those parables. Healing a body of death that will only die is not the gospel message. We walk by faith (the unseen, eternal) not after our experiences in this life (that seen,the temporal.
2Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
P
One is David Hogan. Over 300 raised from the dead.
Another is that prophet in Africa. Can't think of his name. ( I want to say Jonah,but that isn't his name).
Hundreds of miracles. Maybe thousands.
Another us myself. I have personally seen 8 or 10.
Part of the problem is our laziness,lack of intensity,lack of seeking the fire of heaven,lack of fasting,and the BIGGIE,namely pure ignorance of heaven,Jesus,and the authority of the believer.
Heck,most have no clue as to the 3 anointings. No clue.
Another is that prophet in Africa. Can't think of his name. ( I want to say Jonah,but that isn't his name).
Hundreds of miracles. Maybe thousands.
Another us myself. I have personally seen 8 or 10.
Part of the problem is our laziness,lack of intensity,lack of seeking the fire of heaven,lack of fasting,and the BIGGIE,namely pure ignorance of heaven,Jesus,and the authority of the believer.
Heck,most have no clue as to the 3 anointings. No clue.
I was in the Pentecostal charismatic movement for a very long time and paid attention to what was going on and have also studied a lot...every time the big workers of miracles have been called out to prove what happened they always fall flat. That movement is full of false spirits and false claims of supernatural acts of God. God is still God and He does do miracles when He wants to. Pentecostals are the most gullible folks I have ever encountered, no one bothers to check out the stories to see if they are true.
M
Why would my comments be "obnoxious"? I think you need to get your own material - lol! And you say it only "seems" obvious to me? I am quoting scripture, for heaven's sake. The people heard the tongues speakers proclaiming the mighty deeds of God in their own language. What in the world are you arguing about?
This is getting a bit silly. You're going in circles and rebutting point-blank scripture and point-blank common sense. Why, for example, would the tongues-speakers have spoken of the "mighty deeds of God" but somehow managed to carefully steer clear of describing the Gospel? It's just nonsense.
But you have a dire need to dismiss the obvious evangelism that was going on by means of "tongues" because that obviously isn't going on today...but then that would mean there had been a 'cessation' of this gift...and that's unacceptable to Charismatics.
And so then you're trying to brush aside the seminal definitions for "tongues" in Acts 2 and then claim this is a different kind of tongues in 1Cor. 14. It is quite amazing to watch you try to doggedly wrestle away from the simple statement in 1Cor. 14...that tongues are to be used as a tool to reach the unbeliever - "tongues are for a sign to unbelievers"...just as it was used in Acts 2.
But let's cut to the chase. What is the bottom-line net effect of the Charismatic/Pentecostal (mis)interpretation of 1Cor.14? Well, because you're claiming this is a non-"earthly language" tongues (or if it is an earthly language, no one in the congregation is understanding it)...this then is what happens in modern-day Pentecostal/Charismatic services:
Somebody gets up in church and begins uttering unintelligible sounds and then someone else gets up and supposedly translates what was said.
If an unsaved individual or non-Charismatic believer sees this...how is it crediting in any way, shape or form? How is it a "sign" to them? It isn't. Not in the slightest. I know. I've sat in services like that. It's nonsense.
One thinks to oneself: "Come on. This silly guy just uttered gibberish and then this other guy falsely claimed to be able to understand it and interpret it for others. How is that crediting? Get me out of here."
This is how it has worked in my case when I have sat in a modern-day Charismatic service: Guy gets up and utters gibberish. Second guy gets up and dubiously claims to "interpret". I excuse myself to "use the facilities" and run for the parking lot. Moments later, the congregation hears tires squealing.
Then here comes the beating you get from the Charismatics/Pentecostals when you express befuddlement: "Oh you didn't get a blessing because you have little faith...because you're unbelieving...because you're unregenerate...because you have sin in your life...etc.".
It is now dawning on me this may be the reason you are so doggedly arguing against the simple statement about tongues being a sign to unbelievers in 1Cor.14:22. You're saying it's becomes a 'sign' when they DON'T believe. Well, of course. That fits perfectly...when the unbeliever or non-Charismatic (such as myself) staggers out of your service in a state of befuddlement over the chaos that has transpired. Charismatics can then triumphantly announce; "Aha, see how the wicked have little faith!" If I'm understanding all of this accurately, that is extremely tragic and extremely unjust.
Of course, ALL of Charismatic culture is riddled with self-manufactured guilt, self-loathing, depression, defeatism...over an inability to experience the "miracle gifts", the unintelligible "tongues", the special "visitations", the "anointings" etc, etc.
This is getting a bit silly. You're going in circles and rebutting point-blank scripture and point-blank common sense. Why, for example, would the tongues-speakers have spoken of the "mighty deeds of God" but somehow managed to carefully steer clear of describing the Gospel? It's just nonsense.
But you have a dire need to dismiss the obvious evangelism that was going on by means of "tongues" because that obviously isn't going on today...but then that would mean there had been a 'cessation' of this gift...and that's unacceptable to Charismatics.
And so then you're trying to brush aside the seminal definitions for "tongues" in Acts 2 and then claim this is a different kind of tongues in 1Cor. 14. It is quite amazing to watch you try to doggedly wrestle away from the simple statement in 1Cor. 14...that tongues are to be used as a tool to reach the unbeliever - "tongues are for a sign to unbelievers"...just as it was used in Acts 2.
But let's cut to the chase. What is the bottom-line net effect of the Charismatic/Pentecostal (mis)interpretation of 1Cor.14? Well, because you're claiming this is a non-"earthly language" tongues (or if it is an earthly language, no one in the congregation is understanding it)...this then is what happens in modern-day Pentecostal/Charismatic services:
Somebody gets up in church and begins uttering unintelligible sounds and then someone else gets up and supposedly translates what was said.
If an unsaved individual or non-Charismatic believer sees this...how is it crediting in any way, shape or form? How is it a "sign" to them? It isn't. Not in the slightest. I know. I've sat in services like that. It's nonsense.
One thinks to oneself: "Come on. This silly guy just uttered gibberish and then this other guy falsely claimed to be able to understand it and interpret it for others. How is that crediting? Get me out of here."
This is how it has worked in my case when I have sat in a modern-day Charismatic service: Guy gets up and utters gibberish. Second guy gets up and dubiously claims to "interpret". I excuse myself to "use the facilities" and run for the parking lot. Moments later, the congregation hears tires squealing.
Then here comes the beating you get from the Charismatics/Pentecostals when you express befuddlement: "Oh you didn't get a blessing because you have little faith...because you're unbelieving...because you're unregenerate...because you have sin in your life...etc.".
It is now dawning on me this may be the reason you are so doggedly arguing against the simple statement about tongues being a sign to unbelievers in 1Cor.14:22. You're saying it's becomes a 'sign' when they DON'T believe. Well, of course. That fits perfectly...when the unbeliever or non-Charismatic (such as myself) staggers out of your service in a state of befuddlement over the chaos that has transpired. Charismatics can then triumphantly announce; "Aha, see how the wicked have little faith!" If I'm understanding all of this accurately, that is extremely tragic and extremely unjust.
Of course, ALL of Charismatic culture is riddled with self-manufactured guilt, self-loathing, depression, defeatism...over an inability to experience the "miracle gifts", the unintelligible "tongues", the special "visitations", the "anointings" etc, etc.
A
Matthew 11:25
25 | At that season Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes:
see I have said: perhaps
but why did I say perhaps? because, all gifts are given before the end day, said in
1Corinthians 1:7 so that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ
Apostle speak about waiting, so all gifts are given to the church before the end day,
so if you speak about the salvation at the end day as a gift, I mean at the End, when believers will be caught up in the clouds, it is the last gift before the end
it's is very clear
indeed, when the scripture tells that these all gifts confirm the church unto the end
1Corinthians 1:8
8 | who shall also confirm you unto the end, 'that ye be' unreproveable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(confirm unto the end=>before the end)
so,
if we talk about salvation, it confirm you unto the end
if we talk about miracle, the existence of Apostles in the church, yes they confirm the church unto the end
and so on...
In 1Corinthians 1:6-8be and read it carefuly,Paul is not talking about a particular gift, he is talking about every gift for church1Corinthians 1:7
7 | so that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Thank you, but I tell you the same thing
Mark 12:24
24 | Jesus said unto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God?
25 | At that season Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes:
see I have said: perhaps
but why did I say perhaps? because, all gifts are given before the end day, said in
1Corinthians 1:7 so that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ
Apostle speak about waiting, so all gifts are given to the church before the end day,
so if you speak about the salvation at the end day as a gift, I mean at the End, when believers will be caught up in the clouds, it is the last gift before the end
it's is very clear
indeed, when the scripture tells that these all gifts confirm the church unto the end
1Corinthians 1:8
8 | who shall also confirm you unto the end, 'that ye be' unreproveable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(confirm unto the end=>before the end)
so,
if we talk about salvation, it confirm you unto the end
if we talk about miracle, the existence of Apostles in the church, yes they confirm the church unto the end
and so on...
In 1Corinthians 1:6-8be and read it carefuly,Paul is not talking about a particular gift, he is talking about every gift for church1Corinthians 1:7
7 | so that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Thank you, but I tell you the same thing
Mark 12:24
24 | Jesus said unto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God?
A
Romans 8:32
32 | He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?
so if you have never see miracles like Apostles did, it's because, you have never see God, you are far away from God or just, you don't know Him, because of your sins,
Isaiah 59:2
2 | but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, so that he will not hear.
or because where you are is far away from the Truth, your preacher not teach you how to be healed, how to get miracles because he doesn't know how, also like you
Luke 6:40
40 | The disciple is not above his teacher: but every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher.
If you are near unto God, Romans 8:32 tell you will be given all things,...miracles,healing,liberty,...
Matthew 6:33
33 | But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
32 | He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?
so if you have never see miracles like Apostles did, it's because, you have never see God, you are far away from God or just, you don't know Him, because of your sins,
Isaiah 59:2
2 | but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, so that he will not hear.
or because where you are is far away from the Truth, your preacher not teach you how to be healed, how to get miracles because he doesn't know how, also like you
Luke 6:40
40 | The disciple is not above his teacher: but every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher.
If you are near unto God, Romans 8:32 tell you will be given all things,...miracles,healing,liberty,...
Matthew 6:33
33 | But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
I'm assuming Plainguy is starting from the same premise that I start with that I Corinthians is an inspired book of scripture and is profitable for doctrine, along with the rest of the books of the New Testament. I've offered scripture to support my view. He theoretically accepts scripture as true.
Think in terms of a logical syllogism.
They heard the people speak of the mighty deeds of God in their language. But they believed after hearing the gospel preached in the regular way, in a language the preacher understood.
I'm not saying God couldn't have someone actually explain the gospel 'in tongues.' We just don't have any clear example of it in the Bible. Assuming that was the case and having scripture that teaches it aren't the same thing.
You are the one being silly. You argue for something you don't have evidence for stating that it is 'common sense.' How long do you think they spoke in tongues? I imagine it happening for a short while, long enough to gather a crowd and get the people's attention, but not long enough to explain the Gospel. while Peter's sermon lasted longer. You may imagine lengthy speaking in tongues. And you know what? Neither of us know. I imagine they were saying the kind of stuff we read in the Psalms. Maybe you imagine a Billy Graham sermon, in tongues. You don't have any proof of your imaginings. I can't prove mine. We just know what is actually written down in the Bible. We don't know more. You should not base doctrine on ideas from your imagination that the scripture does not say,
I wouldn't say evangelism can't or never has taken place in tongues. I would just say the fact that scripture doesn't show that it took place says something, that we shouldn't make doctrine out of the idea. Just like miracles, tongues got people's attention, and then they heard and believed the message. People didn't get saved just by seeing miracles without someone actually proclaiming the Gospel to them.
Jack Hayford, a pastor in California, had a testimony of sensing the Spirit direct him to speak in tongues to a man he was sitting next to on an airplane. The man was a native American from a certain tribe. Feeling a bit uncomfortable as to how to approach this, he said he was able to speak some words he thought might be in the man's language. He did so, and the man said he was speaking an older dialect about light coming down from above. He then explained to him what speaking in tongues was. He'd offered the man a Bible and some apologetics type literature before he spoke in tongues, but the man turned him down. Afterward, he said he changed his mind and would accept the literature (which was sent by mail.)
No I'm not. But I would imagine your interpretation might lead to this. I suspect you haven't actually sat down and really thought through the argument in I Corinthians 14, based on your posts, and dealt with the verses at the nitty gritty level of detail. That is why I asked you to write up your commentary/interpretation of the verses about tongues as a sign.
You know, there are words before 'tongues are for a sign to unbelievers'. I interpret that phrase consistent with the verse it is in, the verse before it, and the verse after it. In context, it is about unbelievers not hearing God through speaking in tongues. Have you ever read the verse before it and the verse after it? Have you actually spent a few minutes thinking through Paul's argument? Why don't you pray for understanding, and then read through Paul's argument here, instead of ripping a verse totally out of context and giving it a meaning different from what Paul does, in context.
[quote[But let's cut to the chase. What is the bottom-line net effect of the Charismatic/Pentecostal (mis)interpretation of 1Cor.14? Well, because you're claiming this is a non-"earthly language" tongues (or if it is an earthly language, no one in the congregation is understanding it)...this then is what happens in modern-day Pentecostal/Charismatic services:[/quote]
I pointed out the straw man in the last post. The Pentecostal position has been, historically, and I would assume still is in most cases, that tongues are real languages. Some tongues may be tongues of angels, or that is a possibility. But real languages none-the-less.
No one in the congregation understands and the tongue needs to be interpreted if it is to edify the church. Do you disagree with Paul on that? Have you actually sat down and read I Corinthians 14 carefully enough to realize that this is what it teaches on the subject? I quote verses to you, but if you don't read them carefully enough, you aren't going to get it. Pray for understanding as well.
Did you say they were mad?
If the unbeliever responds to unbelief, that fits the 'tongues are for a sign' passage. If the unlearned person reacts with unbelief and says 'ye are mad' that fits the passage as well. It's the tongues to which many people respond with unbelief, rather than the interpretation.
Interpretations can be quite powerful. I think it was an interpretation. It could have been a prophecy. Back when I was a teenager, one answered what I had just been thinking. There are also cases where two people get the exact same interpretation. One person gives it first, and the other one had the same thing. The same sort of thing can happen with prophecy. Prophecies can also mention a word of knowledge someone else got before he could share it. I've experienced that. Prophecies can also mention details of an individual's life that the person prophesying could not naturally know. I've seen quite a bit of that.
I think if you drove off during the service, no one would say anything like that to you.
If you have a problem with what the passage actually says, then take that up with Paul and the Holy Spirit. I didn't write the passage. I wonder if you have actually read it before you posted. I'm asking you to write your interpretation verse by verse so you'll actually consider the flow of the argument and how one verse fits with another.
I've probably spent two years in churches that were called 'charismatic' other than guest ministry, and quite a bit more among Pentecostals and other evangelicals, but I've never heard a Charismatic say that quote.
And if you read the passage, Paul is arguing for the benefits of prophecy when compared to speaking in tongues.
Maybe you could find a church like that if you looked around. I believe in these things, but I see no need to feel guilt over not having a particular gift. I should be thankful for the gifts I function in, but I pray for others as well.
I'm not saying God couldn't have someone actually explain the gospel 'in tongues.' We just don't have any clear example of it in the Bible. Assuming that was the case and having scripture that teaches it aren't the same thing.
You are the one being silly. You argue for something you don't have evidence for stating that it is 'common sense.' How long do you think they spoke in tongues? I imagine it happening for a short while, long enough to gather a crowd and get the people's attention, but not long enough to explain the Gospel. while Peter's sermon lasted longer. You may imagine lengthy speaking in tongues. And you know what? Neither of us know. I imagine they were saying the kind of stuff we read in the Psalms. Maybe you imagine a Billy Graham sermon, in tongues. You don't have any proof of your imaginings. I can't prove mine. We just know what is actually written down in the Bible. We don't know more. You should not base doctrine on ideas from your imagination that the scripture does not say,
I wouldn't say evangelism can't or never has taken place in tongues. I would just say the fact that scripture doesn't show that it took place says something, that we shouldn't make doctrine out of the idea. Just like miracles, tongues got people's attention, and then they heard and believed the message. People didn't get saved just by seeing miracles without someone actually proclaiming the Gospel to them.
Jack Hayford, a pastor in California, had a testimony of sensing the Spirit direct him to speak in tongues to a man he was sitting next to on an airplane. The man was a native American from a certain tribe. Feeling a bit uncomfortable as to how to approach this, he said he was able to speak some words he thought might be in the man's language. He did so, and the man said he was speaking an older dialect about light coming down from above. He then explained to him what speaking in tongues was. He'd offered the man a Bible and some apologetics type literature before he spoke in tongues, but the man turned him down. Afterward, he said he changed his mind and would accept the literature (which was sent by mail.)
No I'm not. But I would imagine your interpretation might lead to this. I suspect you haven't actually sat down and really thought through the argument in I Corinthians 14, based on your posts, and dealt with the verses at the nitty gritty level of detail. That is why I asked you to write up your commentary/interpretation of the verses about tongues as a sign.
You know, there are words before 'tongues are for a sign to unbelievers'. I interpret that phrase consistent with the verse it is in, the verse before it, and the verse after it. In context, it is about unbelievers not hearing God through speaking in tongues. Have you ever read the verse before it and the verse after it? Have you actually spent a few minutes thinking through Paul's argument? Why don't you pray for understanding, and then read through Paul's argument here, instead of ripping a verse totally out of context and giving it a meaning different from what Paul does, in context.
[quote[But let's cut to the chase. What is the bottom-line net effect of the Charismatic/Pentecostal (mis)interpretation of 1Cor.14? Well, because you're claiming this is a non-"earthly language" tongues (or if it is an earthly language, no one in the congregation is understanding it)...this then is what happens in modern-day Pentecostal/Charismatic services:[/quote]
I pointed out the straw man in the last post. The Pentecostal position has been, historically, and I would assume still is in most cases, that tongues are real languages. Some tongues may be tongues of angels, or that is a possibility. But real languages none-the-less.
No one in the congregation understands and the tongue needs to be interpreted if it is to edify the church. Do you disagree with Paul on that? Have you actually sat down and read I Corinthians 14 carefully enough to realize that this is what it teaches on the subject? I quote verses to you, but if you don't read them carefully enough, you aren't going to get it. Pray for understanding as well.
Did you say they were mad?
If the unbeliever responds to unbelief, that fits the 'tongues are for a sign' passage. If the unlearned person reacts with unbelief and says 'ye are mad' that fits the passage as well. It's the tongues to which many people respond with unbelief, rather than the interpretation.
Interpretations can be quite powerful. I think it was an interpretation. It could have been a prophecy. Back when I was a teenager, one answered what I had just been thinking. There are also cases where two people get the exact same interpretation. One person gives it first, and the other one had the same thing. The same sort of thing can happen with prophecy. Prophecies can also mention a word of knowledge someone else got before he could share it. I've experienced that. Prophecies can also mention details of an individual's life that the person prophesying could not naturally know. I've seen quite a bit of that.
I think if you drove off during the service, no one would say anything like that to you.
If you have a problem with what the passage actually says, then take that up with Paul and the Holy Spirit. I didn't write the passage. I wonder if you have actually read it before you posted. I'm asking you to write your interpretation verse by verse so you'll actually consider the flow of the argument and how one verse fits with another.
I've probably spent two years in churches that were called 'charismatic' other than guest ministry, and quite a bit more among Pentecostals and other evangelicals, but I've never heard a Charismatic say that quote.
And if you read the passage, Paul is arguing for the benefits of prophecy when compared to speaking in tongues.
Maybe you could find a church like that if you looked around. I believe in these things, but I see no need to feel guilt over not having a particular gift. I should be thankful for the gifts I function in, but I pray for others as well.
Justification for not providing any name(s) perhaps ? No worries. Can't say I blame you. I've researched this topic very thoroughly long before this thread appeared. I have yet to find one authentically documented case of one being raised from the dead by anybody. So yeah ... I'd say it's bullhockey.