Why have the Sign Gifts Ended

  • 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.

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
Do you think TULIP Calvinists who believe in total depravity are unsaved, then?
Didn't say that nor was it implied. Simply that Calvin's teaching went to far on the subject of Depravity. Calvin spoke of Depravity as if man's whole being was totally Depraved. This is to far. Man is capable of good deeds, charity and love. But because of the "fall", he exists now as spiritually depraved ("dead" in the Scriptures), to spiritual things until he/she is Born Anew.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
My response was to this comment by you:

"They were saved by hearing the Gospel preached, the Gospel we read in the New Testament, not the theological musings and debates of Augustine in the 300s or Calvin in the 1500s."
They had to believe to. My point is the message they heard preached was the Gospel, not later theological discussions.

You implied the salvation points brought to light by men like Augustine and Calvin were mere "musings". A disrespectful comment to be sure.
It depends on the topic. There is a lot of content to go through, but Calvin certainly does let readers know when he is supposing certain things. And I was being gracious about some of Augustine's allegorical interpretations and theological suppositions. I am not saying it was all bad. I did not mean it in a disrespectful way. If all of the concepts they explored were required to be believed for one to be saved, then the saints in the churches in the first century would not have been saved.

You also ignored the point I was making, in regards to those saved, being brought in by the Lord. Therefore, I posed the previous questions, in the form of indictments, for you to answer.
When threads veer off topic, sometimes I am selective about what I respond to. That doesn't justify lying about my beliefs.
 

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2013
1,987
372
83
Good point and thank you for the post.

In a perfect world, every believer would dutifully study the Bible in prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit’s illumination. As can be clearly seen, this is not a perfect world. Not everyone who possesses the Holy Spirit actually listens to the Holy Spirit. In the real world today just as 2000 years ago there are "Make-believers' instead of believers as everyone who says he is a born again Christian certainly is not.

There are Christians who grieve God . Ask any educator—even the best classroom teacher has his share of wayward students who seem to resist learning, no matter what the teacher does. So, one reason different people have different interpretations of the Bible is simply that some do not listen to the Teacher—the Holy Spirit. Following are some other reasons for the wide divergence of beliefs among those who teach the Bible.

1. Unbelief .....
Matthew 7:22-24
" Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

2. Lack of training.
2 Peter 3:16
" as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."

3. Poor hermeneutics.
Much error has been promoted because of a simple failure to apply good hermeneutics (the science of interpreting Scripture). Taking a verse out of its immediate context can do great damage to the intent of the verse. Ignoring the wider context of the chapter and book, or failing to understand the historical/cultural context will also lead to problems.
Accepting "Denominational" dogma above written Scripture leads to false understandings.

4. Ignorance of the whole Word of God.
Apollos was a powerful and eloquent preacher, but he only knew the baptism of John. He was ignorant of Jesus and His provision of salvation, so his message was incomplete. Aquila and Priscilla took him aside and “explained to him the way of God more adequately” in Acts 18:24-28. After that, Apollos preached Jesus Christ. Some groups and individuals today have an incomplete message because they concentrate on certain passages to the exclusion of others. They fail to compare Scripture with Scripture.

5. Selfishness and pride.
Sad to say, many interpretations of the Bible are based on an individual’s own personal biases and pet doctrines. Some people see an opportunity for personal advancement by promoting a “new perspective” on Scripture. (See the description of false teachers in Jude’s epistle.)

6. Failure to mature.
When Christians are not maturing as they should, their handling of the Word of God is affected. “I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly” = 1 Corth. 3:2-3. An immature Christian is not ready for the “meat” of God’s Word. Note that the proof of the Corinthians’ carnality is a division in their church (verse 4).

7. Undue emphasis on tradition.
Some churches claim to believe the Bible, but their interpretation is always filtered through the established traditions of their church. Where tradition and the teaching of the Bible are in conflict, tradition is given precedence. This effectively negates the authority of the Word and grants supremacy to the church leadership.
Number 7 is probably the most relevant of them all. If anyone is a member of a denominational church, it stands to reason that you are only going to hear the interpretation of that denomination so you are automatically shut off from the whole counsel of God.

I doubt if any denominational church will give its members an overview of what is taught acrossd the spectrum as it does not want the members to make up their own mind. As far as they are concerned there is only one truth and that is the one they teach so why bother with looking at the full spectrum.

I am thankful for my six years at university because in the subjects I studied, the lecturers wanted information on more than one point of view. I didn't lose marks because I didn't present only the prevailing view.
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
They had to believe to. My point is the message they heard preached was the Gospel, not later theological discussions.



It depends on the topic. There is a lot of content to go through, but Calvin certainly does let readers know when he is supposing certain things. And I was being gracious about some of Augustine's allegorical interpretations and theological suppositions. I am not saying it was all bad. I did not mean it in a disrespectful way. If all of the concepts they explored were required to be believed for one to be saved, then the saints in the churches in the first century would not have been saved.



When threads veer off topic, sometimes I am selective about what I respond to. That doesn't justify lying about my beliefs.
I agree with the point you made here:

"They had to believe to. My point is the message they heard preached was the Gospel, not later theological discussions."

But as previously stated, who gave them the ability to hear the Gospel? Everyone present heard the Gospel proclaimed but not all believed. Who gave them (the believers), the ability to hear and discern the spiritual message? As compared to those who only heard the words and discerned nothing.

You say this is off topic - maybe as to the title of the thread - but can any of God's word be off topic, since the Scriptures are so intertwined. What one believes about one subject is related to another subject, until the whole counsel of God has been brought in.
 

Major

Active member
Dec 12, 2020
885
183
43
Number 7 is probably the most relevant of them all. If anyone is a member of a denominational church, it stands to reason that you are only going to hear the interpretation of that denomination so you are automatically shut off from the whole counsel of God.

I doubt if any denominational church will give its members an overview of what is taught acrossd the spectrum as it does not want the members to make up their own mind. As far as they are concerned there is only one truth and that is the one they teach so why bother with looking at the full spectrum.

I am thankful for my six years at university because in the subjects I studied, the lecturers wanted information on more than one point of view. I didn't lose marks because I didn't present only the prevailing view.
I listed several but only ONE is actually needed to confirm......right??

Congratulations on your education! That is something to be proud of and it show up in the way you post.

I agree with your comment........"it stands to reason that you are only going to hear the interpretation of that denomination so you are automatically shut off from the whole counsel of God."

THAT is exactly what I see on the forums I post on and may I say to you that IMPO, that is the failure of the Church itself.

When ANY church, or denomination contaminates or changes or adds to the written Word of God, they have then become open to the Judgment of God just as you and me would open up ourselves to.

What God says is "Always" more important than what any church or denomination teaches.

But that is jst me.
 

Budman

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2014
4,153
1,999
113
Why don't you go to the hospital and tell the administrators you want to meet with all the people with Covid-19 to pray for them and see of they will let you back there. You could try with non contagious conditions like broken legs and see if they will let you in.

Why even go there? Why not use your gift of healing and simply claim it done from the comfort of your house? Just like Hinn, Copeland, and the rest of the charlatans do.

Why couldn't Paul heal Timothy's stomach issues? Why didn't Timothy heal Paul's affliction?

Why do faith healers always run to the doctor instead of another faith healer when they themselves get sick?
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
Why even go there? Why not use your gift of healing and simply claim it done from the comfort of your house? Just like Hinn, Copeland, and the rest of the charlatans do.

Why couldn't Paul heal Timothy's stomach issues? Why didn't Timothy heal Paul's affliction?

Why do faith healers always run to the doctor instead of another faith healer when they themselves get sick?
Where do I say I can heal people?

What is your point? That you don't believe God heals today and that you don't think God healed through Paul or Timothy?

Paul had some kind of infirmity that caused him to spend time among the Galatians, and they would have given him their own eyes. So maybe he had an eye problem. This was probably around Acts 14, since some of those churches were in the province of Galatia. Yet Paul and Barnabas were doing signs among the Gentiles that they reported in Acts 15. In Acts 16, they took the decision of the council to various places including Galatia, and Paul went on to do extraordinary miracles and to heal all who were brought to him on an island after this ailment.

Do you think the apostles could heal and do miracles automatically at will like Superman using his X-Ray vision? If so, why did Paul have an infirmity early in his ministry, and do great miracles after this point? Why did the twelve pray for God to stretch forth His hand to do heal and to do signs and wonders in Acts 4 if they could do them completely at will?
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Where do I say I can heal people?

What is your point? That you don't believe God heals today and that you don't think God healed through Paul or Timothy?

Paul had some kind of infirmity that caused him to spend time among the Galatians, and they would have given him their own eyes. So maybe he had an eye problem. This was probably around Acts 14, since some of those churches were in the province of Galatia. Yet Paul and Barnabas were doing signs among the Gentiles that they reported in Acts 15. In Acts 16, they took the decision of the council to various places including Galatia, and Paul went on to do extraordinary miracles and to heal all who were brought to him on an island after this ailment.

Do you think the apostles could heal and do miracles automatically at will like Superman using his X-Ray vision? If so, why did Paul have an infirmity early in his ministry, and do great miracles after this point? Why did the twelve pray for God to stretch forth His hand to do heal and to do signs and wonders in Acts 4 if they could do them completely at will?
If you read the context of 2 Cor 11 and 12 you will easily see that Paul described his many persecutions as his infirmity that he would glory in. Not sure why people don't take him at his word and try and come up with another application to the word infirmity than the one he specifically used several times in that context. It is undeniable once you read chapter 11 first and mark where he uses the word infirmity. And then when he brings it up again he would naturally assume that the reader knows that he is still talking about the same infirmities he described in detail. Nothing about the eyes except maybe a black eye from being stoned.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
Where do I say I can heal people?

What is your point? That you don't believe God heals today and that you don't think God healed through Paul or Timothy?

Paul had some kind of infirmity that caused him to spend time among the Galatians, and they would have given him their own eyes. So maybe he had an eye problem. This was probably around Acts 14, since some of those churches were in the province of Galatia. Yet Paul and Barnabas were doing signs among the Gentiles that they reported in Acts 15. In Acts 16, they took the decision of the council to various places including Galatia, and Paul went on to do extraordinary miracles and to heal all who were brought to him on an island after this ailment.

Do you think the apostles could heal and do miracles automatically at will like Superman using his X-Ray vision? If so, why did Paul have an infirmity early in his ministry, and do great miracles after this point? Why did the twelve pray for God to stretch forth His hand to do heal and to do signs and wonders in Acts 4 if they could do them completely at will?
His point is that God still heals today but it is no longer guaranteed to happen. And there is no one with the "gift of healing" today.

Paul in his letters to the Body of Christ, never taught us, even once, to use the favorite "incantation" of the Word of Faith churches, "By his stripes you are healed".
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
If you read the context of 2 Cor 11 and 12 you will easily see that Paul described his many persecutions as his infirmity that he would glory in. Not sure why people don't take him at his word and try and come up with another application to the word infirmity than the one he specifically used several times in that context. It is undeniable once you read chapter 11 first and mark where he uses the word infirmity. And then when he brings it up again he would naturally assume that the reader knows that he is still talking about the same infirmities he described in detail. Nothing about the eyes except maybe a black eye from being stoned.
I'm not quite sure your point. Are you trying to say Paul was never sick?

This is a verse from chapter 12.
10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Paul does not equate infirmity with persecution, but includes them in a list alongside persecutions. My understanding is that it refers to a 'weakness'-- which can mean sickness. A closely related word is used of Lazarus and of the sick calling for the elders of the church.

It may be that an injury could be a 'weakness' also.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
His point is that God still heals today but it is no longer guaranteed to happen. And there is no one with the "gift of healing" today.
Do you have any scripture at all that indicates that I Corinthians 12 is no longer valid?

How would you know that that is his point? Isn't that a point you are making?

Paul in his letters to the Body of Christ, never taught us, even once, to use the favorite "incantation" of the Word of Faith churches, "By his stripes you are healed".
I don't go to one of those churches. But I notice that Matthew 8 quotes from Isaiah 53 about physical healing.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,353
13,723
113
His point is that God still heals today but it is no longer guaranteed to happen. And there is no one with the "gift of healing" today.
Where in Scripture is healing "guaranteed to happen"?

Where does it say in Scripture that the "gift of healing" is the ability to heal any infirmity at will?

Just because you aren't aware of anyone who has the gift of healing, it is not proof that nobody has it.

Paul in his letters to the Body of Christ, never taught us, even once, to use the favorite "incantation" of the Word of Faith churches, "By his stripes you are healed".
Agreed.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
Where in Scripture is healing "guaranteed to happen"?

Where does it say in Scripture that the "gift of healing" is the ability to heal any infirmity at will?

Just because you aren't aware of anyone who has the gift of healing, it is not proof that nobody has it.


Agreed.
Acts 3:1-7
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
Do you have any scripture at all that indicates that I Corinthians 12 is no longer valid?

How would you know that that is his point? Isn't that a point you are making?



I don't go to one of those churches. But I notice that Matthew 8 quotes from Isaiah 53 about physical healing.
Matthew 8 is in time past, when the gospel of the kingdom is still valid, together with their signs and wonders. So the point I made about Paul remains true.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
Nothing in that passage responds to either of my questions.
The healing was guaranteed to happen then because the Holy Spirit performed that healing as a sign to the nation Israel

Israel as a nation has been lame from birth and rejected the covenant, and they just killed their Messiah.

But the good news, or the gospel that Peter preached to Israel is this, if they were to repent for all those sins, they can look forward to entering the promised kingdom when Jesus returns for them in the 2nd coming, jumping and with great joy, just like this lame man they just witnessed who was also lame from birth.

A beautiful sign for the nation Israel and fits well with what Peter would later preached to Israel in Acts 3:19-21.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
I'm not quite sure your point. Are you trying to say Paul was never sick?

This is a verse from chapter 12.
10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Paul does not equate infirmity with persecution, but includes them in a list alongside persecutions. My understanding is that it refers to a 'weakness'-- which can mean sickness. A closely related word is used of Lazarus and of the sick calling for the elders of the church.

It may be that an injury could be a 'weakness' also.

If you did not follow my suggestion and read Chapter 11 first then you would have missed what I said was obvious and undeniable.

Check this out:
24Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 25Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. 28Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. 29Who is weak, and I am
not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? 30If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.
(Remember there were no chapter divisions in Paul's original Letter so you want to keep his train of thought as you continue.)
1It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) 4How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 5Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.

Now don't you think that Paul was talking about the same thing in verse 5 as he was in verse 30? I think it is the most natural interpretation to think that Paul intended the reader to understand that "mine infirmities" was the same kind. There were Jewish Pharisees that followed him where ever he went and stirred up persecution. That is probably what he was talking about.

As to whether Paul ever got sick he probably did.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
If you did not follow my suggestion and read Chapter 11 first then you would have missed what I said was obvious and undeniable.

Check this out:
24Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 25Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. 28Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. 29Who is weak, and I am
not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? 30If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.
(Remember there were no chapter divisions in Paul's original Letter so you want to keep his train of thought as you continue.)
1It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) 4How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 5Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.

Now don't you think that Paul was talking about the same thing in verse 5 as he was in verse 30? I think it is the most natural interpretation to think that Paul intended the reader to understand that "mine infirmities" was the same kind. There were Jewish Pharisees that followed him where ever he went and stirred up persecution. That is probably what he was talking about.

As to whether Paul ever got sick he probably did.
The word translated 'infirmity' means weakness, but it also refers to sicknesses and such-- maybe injuries also...I'm not 100% sure about that. In Galatians 4, we read,

12 Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all.
13 Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.
14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.

Do you think the Lazarus' infirmity that lead to his death was a sickness or persecution? Does James 5 tell persecuted saints to call for the elders of the church to anoint them?
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
The healing was guaranteed to happen then because the Holy Spirit performed that healing as a sign to the nation Israel
Can you show us where the Bible makes this point?
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
Matthew 8 is in time past, when the gospel of the kingdom is still valid, together with their signs and wonders. So the point I made about Paul remains true.
I really don't know why these arbitrary distinctions and categories appeal to you. In Acts 28:23, the 'kingdom of God' was still a valid topic to be preached.


And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.


And that was Paul doing that. Paul wrote that if anyone preach any other Gospel, let him be accursed. Hyperdispensationalists have these categories they put different scriptures in, a filter through which they interpret the scripture. And there is no reason to think the filter is inspired.