Is cessation an observation or theology?

[Lamar]

You are clueless as to what tangible supernatural manifestations are.

I know exactly what tangible supernatural manifestations are and they are not what the Pentecostal churches are presenting as such.

How do you know that the gospels are true?

The same reason as you. Because the Gospels are the Word of God.

What we have are eyewitness accounts. Do you doubt them?

I do not doubt the eyewitness accounts in the Bible. Do you?

Everything you read is a personal observation.

Agreed and personal observations outside the Bible are not gospel.

Clearly you are bound by doubt and unbelief.

I believe in a God that I cannot see. Hebrews 11:1

I believe in a resurrected Savior I cannot touch. John 20:29

I walk in a godless world by faith without the need for supernatural assurances. 2nd Cor. 5.7

Clearly Gideon300, you are the one bound by the need to trust your own eyes instead of a faith without sight.

Your condescending attitude shows that you have no idea of what is Spiritual and therefore of God, and what is not.

You see my words as condescending?

And what am I to make of yours?

 

[JimiSurvivor]

Yeah, so I am convinced the mirror in 1 Co 13 is the competed Canon.

a). Our feelings about the correctness of a teaching do not what make it true or false. The only way we can determine the meaning is by using the laws of Hermeneutics. We must understand the words, language and context of what is written, comparing one scripture with related ones.

b). 1 Corinthians 13:8-10…9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the PERFECT (or COMPLETE) comes, the PARTIAL passes away.
The word translated passes away is the Greek word katargeó (καταργέω) which is a compound of kata and argeo;
to be (or to render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively -- to abolish, to nullify, to render ineffective, to bring to an end.
Is this what happened when the Revelation of John was finished and added to the NT? If this were true then Peter's, John's and even Paul's epistles which were partial and incomplete were all nullified and brought to an end?
You may not believe this proposition but this is what logically follows from your premise that the complete and perfect thing was the canon of NT scriptures. I hope you can see now that this premise is false.

c). You said the mirror of 1 Corinthians 13:11-12 represents the completed canon of scripture. If we are consistent, wwe would have to assume that having access to all the NT scriptures should have coincided with the maturing of Body of Christ to the point they went from being children to being spiritual adults
11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
(1 Corinthians 13:11)
Paul admitted that he himself had not ARRIVED at perfection. This indicates that while the Apostle lived he remained an
uncompleted project of the Holy Spirit.

d. Is there any evidence that subsequent generations of believers were able to surpass Paul simply because the Book of Revelation had been added to the corpus of NT books? Simply having access to knowledge does not make a believer spiritually mature. Look at the Reformers - Calvin, Luther and Zwingly. They had the NT books and could read them in the original language yet they went on a campaign to exterminate the Anabaptists. What does that tell us about their own spiritual maturity? Regardless of what they knew, when it came to what they DID they remained abysmally ignorant about all that Paul himself had written about love in:
1 Corinthians 13.

d). Finally, You mentioned the MIRROR of the scriptures citing 1 Corinthians 13:12
12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
To interpret this accurately we must keep in mind that MIRRORS of that time did not yield perfect life-like images. Since they were made of polished bronze mirror reflections they produced were unclear. The word DIMLY used here is in ainigma (αἴνιγμα) which means something obscure and enigmatic rather than clear. It is vastly different from seeing a real face.

 

[CS1]

I know exactly what tangible supernatural manifestations are and they are not what the Pentecostal churches are presenting as such.


The same reason as you. Because the Gospels are the Word of God.


I do not doubt the eyewitness accounts in the Bible. Do you?


Agreed and personal observations outside the Bible are not gospel.


I believe in a God that I cannot see. Hebrews 11:1

I believe in a resurrected Savior I cannot touch. John 20:29

I walk in a godless world by faith without the need for supernatural assurances. 2nd Cor. 5.7

Clearly Gideon300, you are the one bound by the need to trust your own eyes instead of a faith without sight.


You see my words as condescending?

And what am I to make of yours?

LOL you think you are an elite guy. Also you keep saying those of a Pentecostal experience need to see miracles. We do not. That is your ignorance. You believe in a God you can't see because the Holy Spirit opened your understanding unless you think your intellect just suddenly agreed with that Truth.
YOU say you believe in a resurrected Savior you can't touch yet, those in John 20 did see him. Jesus said the work I do you shall do also. Was he lying? You say you walk in a godless world by faith without a supernatural assurance. LOL Oxymoron statement.

Your faith, is from a supernatural source. Via the Holy Spirit and Special revelation the word of GOD.

You are just to full of yourself.

 

[JimiSurvivor]

What is at issue is the validity of the event. If the claimed event did not happen then our perception of the event is moot. This is a common error of logic on this thread.

Example: John 5

Jesus purposely did a tangible physical supernatural manifestation for the masses to witness. This event did happen and so our response is paramount. But modern claims of the same are not happening. They are but claims that they are happening.

If the claims were really happening then you would have a point worth considering.

a). Though you appeal to LOGIC there is nothing LOGICAL about what you have said. Instead, everything you have said here falls into the category of CIRCULAR REASONING which is fallacious and contrary to the principles of logical reasoning.
b). The dictionary, defines circular reasoning as a FALLACY that occurs when the evidence offered to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself. Rather than taking on the hard task of proving whether your premise is true [your premise being that God did not use people to do miracles after the First Century] you simply declare it as a proven fact. In this way you bypass the task of PROVING your views using reasoned arguments based on scripture
c). Assuming (rather than attempting to prove) your premise that the "Age of Miracles" ended with the death of the Apostles,"
relieves you of the burden of having to prove what you claim. Adopting this view as an absolute allows you to reject all exegetical evidence as well as historical and testimonial evidence from post Apostolic Christians to the generations of believers that came after them
d). Next time, before you appeal to logic, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what constitues a logical fallacy.

 

[Lamar]

LOL you think you are an elite guy.

Measured against you most people are elite.

Also you keep saying those of a Pentecostal experience need to see miracles. We do not. That is your ignorance.

Without the constant influx of claimed miracles the Pentecostal movement would cease to exist.

You believe in a God you can't see because the Holy Spirit opened your understanding unless you think your intellect just suddenly agreed with that Truth.

Why do I believe in a God I cannot see? I do not fully understand but Jesus calls it a blessing.

YOU say you believe in a resurrected Savior you can't touch yet, those in John 20 did see him. Jesus said the work I do you shall do also. Was he lying?

This is too mindless for me to respond.

You say you walk in a godless world by faith without a supernatural assurance. LOL Oxymoron statement.

If you cannot understand my comment, I suggest you are a moron.

BTW, this is what I wrote:
"I walk in a godless world by faith without the need for supernatural assurances. 2nd Cor. 5.7"

If you are going to quote someone, do it right.

Your faith, is from a supernatural source. Via the Holy Spirit and Special revelation the word of GOD.

Agreed, but not a physical supernatural manifestation.

And this is what the debate is about.

You are just to full of yourself.

At least I have a reason, what is your excuse?

 

[JimiSurvivor]

Oh please tell me you understand the reference to Mark 2:4 that Lamar is pointing to.

…3 Then a paralytic was brought to Him, carried by four men. 4Since they were unable to get to Jesus through the crowd, they uncovered the roof above Him, made an opening, and lowered the paralytic on his mat. 5When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”…(Mark 2:3-4)
The apparent takeaway here is that, sometimes it is the love and persistent faith of intercessors that God is responding to rather than the relatively weaker faith of the person who has the need. It is harder, at times, for the individual to believe because their suffering has been a continual reminder of their affliction.

This parallels what Paul wrote much later about how the members of the Body of Christ as a whole work together to bring about the good of each individual member. Is there some deeper symbolic meaning to this passage?

 

[JimiSurvivor]

If PRAYING for HEALING and the GIFT of HEALING are categorically distinct, mutually exclusive ways to be healed what would happen if, before the person with the "gift" confers the healing, they, instead, speak a prayer beseeching the Lord to heal the infirm person?. Would the resulting healing not have to be re-classified as healing by a PRAYER OF FAITH, instead of healing through the GIFT OF HEALING?

You see how relying on uncertain theological assumptions can lead to when it comes to interpreting the scriptures? In the text of scripture, Paul never explained in great detail all that is entailed by having a GIFT of HEALING. When people who lack personal experience in bringing healing to others read what Paul did write they often make assumptions that are not stated in the text.

For instance, some assume from scant exegetical evidence that the GIFT OF HEALING is a permanent ENDOWMENT of POWER which the "healer" has on tap to use whenever and on whomever they wish. Unfortunately, this idea is nearly identical to what Simon Magus believed. He viewed God's power as a sort of COMMODITY he could OWN, POSSESS and USE at his discretion. Really, though, the spiritual gifts, just like every blessing of God, are borrowed and must be used only as the Spirit directs if they are to ultimately help anyone.

When confronted by people who believed Peter possessed such a gift, and could use it as he wished, the Apostle rebuked them:
11While the man clung to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and ran to them in the walkway called Solomon’s Colonnade. 12And when Peter saw this, he addressed the people: “Men of Israel, why are you surprised by this? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk?
(Acts 3:11-12)
Peter denied having a resident endowment of healing power which was his to dispense as he wished

According to what we read in the NT the usual place the gifts were manifest was when the Church assembled. During these times, Paul saw the interchange of various gifts of knowledge and power as the different organs of a body contributing to the growth and welfare of the whole. This is why I believe when the Apostle used the plural term GIFTS (of healing) rather than the singular form THE GIFT OF HEALING. When the body assembles gifts are distributed by body members who know how to either pray for healing or to confer it through the laying on of hands.

The gifts were not NECESSARILY assigned permanently. Paul said a believer could pray to receive a different gift (i.e., that God would use him in a different way) and that God might very well answer their desire by giving them additional gifts. Having gifts was not exclusively for a special class of ministers such as an Apostle, Pastor or Elder. Ordinary members of the Body could also have and use the spiritual gifts. The Apostle only advised them to seek the best gifts which were those which would serve the WHOLE BODY rather than an individual. This is why, knowing how to receive and deliver prophesies, that is, how to speak inspired words to edify, exhort, bring comfort and prepare them for impending events.

Of course, prophecy is not a skill that can be learned through taking a course. The know-how consists mostly in how to discern Gods voice and to separate that from the ideas that come out of the imagination. The Didache presents prophecy as a common practice in the Early (post-apostolic) Church. In fact, it alludes to itinerate bands of prophets and apostles and prophets who ministered to various Churches. At that time, these were overseen and judged by local elders.

Evidently no one gave them the memo that, after the deaths of the Apostles, the gifts were supposed to CEASE

 

[CS1]

Measured against you most people are elite.

Without the constant influx of claimed miracles the Pentecostal movement would cease to exist.


Why do I believe in a God I cannot see? I do not fully understand but Jesus calls it a blessing.

This is too mindless for me to respond.


If you cannot understand my comment, I suggest you are a moron.

BTW, this is what I wrote:
"I walk in a godless world by faith without the need for supernatural assurances. 2nd Cor. 5.7"

If you are going to quote someone, do it right.


Agreed, but not a physical supernatural manifestation.

And this is what the debate is about.


At least I have a reason, what is your excuse?

please don't sit down, you'll break your neck.

 

[Dave123]

a). So, if I am reading your post correctly, every individual person in every group that encountered either Jesus OR the Apostles was always healed; including even those who did not believe or ask for it. Is this REALLY your position? Please correct me if I am wrong about what you are saying but it appears to me that your definition of the gift of healing is the divine ability to confer healing on anyone the healer chooses.

I've answered this already. The signs would not confirm the message and the messenger if everyone was not healed. The Word of God said it.

b). When we read about the Gift of Healing some believe understand the GIFT of healing as an endowment given to the person who dispenses healing. HOWEVER, the gift of healing is not a permanant endowment of power given to a Healer. Instead healing is given to the person who is in need of healing.

c). The idea that people are "healers" is like how Simon Magus viewed it.

"The Charismatic movement gained credence and initial acceptance by claiming their gifts were the same as those in Acts. For most people that is why they are credible today." That is, because most people believe the Charismatic movement offers the promise of the same gifts described in the New Testament. "Yet," he says, "Now, when challenged by the obvious fact that their gifts don't meet Biblical standards, one of their primary defenses is to claim that their gifts are not the same as those gifts in the New Testament. Faced with the facts, they have had to revoke the very foundation of their original reason for existence." (Thomas Edgar )That's a pretty devastating admission, really. But many Charismatics have had to come to grips with it and have admitted it."

d). When God brought about healing to someone through Peter and the Apostles they denied possessing the power.
11 While the man clung to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and ran to them in the walkway called Solomon’s Colonnade. 12 And when Peter saw this, he addressed the people: “Men of Israel, why are you surprised by this? Why do you stare at us as if by our own POWER or GODLINESS WE had made this man walk?
(Acts 3:11-12)
This scripture states that Peter had not been given a permanant endowment enabling him to heal anyone he chose to.

Peter healed them all.

Acts 5:12-16 And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon's Porch. so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

It's the faith of the Apostle, Peter, that was the catalyst for this man to be healed miraculously, the mans faith is not even mentioned.

Act 3:6-8 Then Peter said, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." And he took him by the right hand and lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. So he, leaping up, stood and walked and entered the temple with them--walking, leaping, and praising God.

Peter is an Apostle, right?

1 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.

Although Jesus on a few occasions did raise the dead He never said He was here to grant bodily immortality or that we would never die if we put our faith in Him. Besides, while our own Resurrection will be a result of what Jesus accomplished on the cross and by His own Resurrection that event will not take place until the appointed time.

When does our faith become not enough to get healed? Especially since at one time it was enough for some?

 

[Dave123]

Continued.

Do you seem to think the ONLY reason Jesus healed people was to authenticate His Messianic credentials I believe that when Jesus healed people He did so out of His abundant compassion He has for humanity, to show us that He takes an active interest in our lives and desires, at least to some extent, alleviate our suffering?

Jesus died on the cross for that. We receive that healing when we are physically resurrected. We are spiritually raised up when we are placed in Him, and we are physically raised up, in perfect health, the way God originally intended, later. That's what the healing in the atonement did, it's not just spiritual, it's physical. We are spiritually transformed now, and physically transformed in Glory. But if the atonement healing applied today, nobody would ever get sick or die. Nobody, not some not some with elite faith. Nobody. 1 Corinthians 15:35-58, 15:51-53, John 5:28-29, Romans 8:23, Philippians 3:20-21.

Revelations 21:4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."

Jesus primary mission was also to reveal the nature of the Father so we would draw near to Him.
3 Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.
(John 17:3)
....
Although both these accounts say Jesus healed MANY it does not go as far as to say He healed them ALL. Thus Jesus Himself did not meet THE STANDARD of someone who had the true gift of healing.

"Many" means there were a lot of people there. But it does not mean that some were not healed. You're reading that into the text. When did Jesus fail to heal someone, when His desire was to do so? Lets test your hypotheses.

Yes, I have seen how false Healers blame the sick person for not having enough faith to be healed. If they recover these same people will attribute the recovery to their OWN faith.

The word "providence" is used only once in the Scriptures (Acts 24:2), where it refers, not to God, but to the forethought and work of man. By contrast, it seldom means this in current theological discussions which have become dominated by the philosophy of theistic determinism which Augustine imported into Christianity from the dualistic cult of Manichaeism to which he had belonged before his conversion.

He works all things according to the counsel of His will. That's providence. "All things" Jesus never failed.

Can you define the difference between healing that come as an anwer to prayer versus those which comes about because of what the Bible calls "The Gift of Healing?" Isn't it true that prayer can result in miraculous interventions by God? In Matthew 7:7, Jesus said: 7Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.…
Does God typically heal those who do not ask for it and do not seek Him for it and do not even believe it could happen?

Miracle in the Biblical sense of the word...."a miracle is an extraordinary work of God that involves His immediate and unmistakable intervention in the physical realm in a way that contravenes natural processes.

Providence....."Providence is Gods faithful, moment-by-moment control over everything He has made to ensure that everything He has created achieves the end He has chosen."

I'm going to leave you with a personal story. This really happened. I went to a Pentecostal church for years. This idea that a person just needs to have enough faith to be healed is extremely destructive. While people are plowing forward in those churches doing "great things for God", they never look back at the wake of destruction left behind. Watch the back door in those places. There a reason that these churches have a revolving doors. People are leaving broken, many of them called by the Bible twice dead men. Their faith is crushed. I seen lives and faith destroyed from that doctrine. It makes promises that God never made. A man in my church was diagnosed with cancer. Him and his wife prayed fervently both day and night for two years believing. After two years her husband died. She walked. Not just from that church, but I think from everything. No one knows for sure. How shameful. It left her with only conclusion possible by that false doctrine, that her and her husbands faith wasn't good/pure enough. Was it good enough to be saved if it wasn't good enough to be healed? Unfortunately, this is not unique, but is actually the norm. It's almost Manson family like in the way that these members promote these things because I know it's a lie. I've seen it. They all say that great things are happening over there. They're just repeating what they heard. Repeating Charlie. Widows houses are being devoured, and one can only conclude that's the motivation. If the gift of healing were really happening today, we would know it. The first in line would be the billionaires. It's a fraud, and a shameful one at that.

Those churches people only see God in the spectacular. So they need for everything to be just that, spectacular. It's always the waiting for the next "thing" to draw peoples interest. I like Alistair Begg's response to fellow golfers who asked him what His thing was? He replied, "might Jesus be my thing?". The Pastor of the church I attended mostly gave salvation messages. The people would invite the world into our church and he would preach the Gospel to them. Nobody is ever fed the Word of God. Verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book. It's easy for the Pastor, and easy for the people, because they don't need to share the Gospel and convert people outside the church. They just bring them into the church for the Holy Ghost goosebump show, and the Pastor preaches the gospel. It's all emotionalism. Hopping around on stage and getting people worked up on a bunch of false promises that God never made.

We all have the right to cry out to God and ask for healing in prayer when we need it. Sometimes, it's His will, and sometimes it's not His will. It can be miraculous, but mostly, it's going to be through natural means, providence. You don't need a healing guru to do that.

Dave

 

[JimiSurvivor]

Some in this long thread have made inaccurate claims about the beliefs and teachings of certain highly respected Christian leaders Prominent in this was the role played by teachers such as:

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. 349-407 AD) who resided in the Eastern Greek-speaking half of Rome in Constantinople &
AUGUSTINE of Hippo (c. 354 - 430 AD) who resided in the Western Latin-speaking half of Rome in North Africa.

John Chrysostom whose name “Chrysostom,” means “golden-mouthed,” for the widespread admiration of his oratorial skill and biblical expositions. I especially admire his method of teaching the word which was EXEGETICAL (verse-by-verse, chapter-by-chapter)
He had learned this from the Catechistial school based in Syrian Antioch. One thing I appreciate about Chrysostom's is that his native language was the same Koine Greek which the Apostles spoke and wrote.

By contrast, Augustine who came from Western Rome had a limited understanding of Koine Greek. His dominant language was not Greek but LATIN and his method of interpretation was aligned instead with the of the Catechistical School of Alexandria which involved extensive use of ALLEGORY.

Theologian Sam Storms who personally still holds to Reformed doctrine nevertheless had this to say about how Chrysostom and Augustine influenced the debate over Cessationism:

Indeed, before Chrysostom in the east (347-407 a.d.) and Augustine in the west (354-430 a.d.) no church father ever suggested that any or all of the charismata had ceased in the first century. And even Augustine later retracted his earlier cessationism

To clarify, the 3rd century was the period from AD 201 to AD 300 in accordance with the Julian calendar.
So no Church father before Chrysostom and Augustine EVER said the charismata ceased in the first century.
Both Chrysostom and Augustine, seeing the decline of the spiritual gifts speculated that the gifts were passing away. However, after Chrysostom died, Augustine witnessed another revival of faith accompanied by a simultaneous revival of the miraculous charismata which he had previously denied. Augustine was honest enough to publish his change of mind about Cessationism in several books:
One of which was the CITY OF GOD and the other which was titled simply RETRACTIONS I will post some excerps from these works later.

 

[wattie]

a). Our feelings about the correctness of a teaching do not what make it true or false. The only way we can determine the meaning is by using the laws of Hermeneutics. We must understand the words, language and context of what is written, comparing one scripture with related ones.

b). 1 Corinthians 13:8-10…9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the PERFECT (or COMPLETE) comes, the PARTIAL passes away.
The word translated passes away is the Greek word katargeó (καταργέω) which is a compound of kata and argeo;
to be (or to render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively -- to abolish, to nullify, to render ineffective, to bring to an end.
Is this what happened when the Revelation of John was finished and added to the NT? If this were true then Peter's, John's and even Paul's epistles which were partial and incomplete were all nullified and brought to an end?
You may not believe this proposition but this is what logically follows from your premise that the complete and perfect thing was the canon of NT scriptures. I hope you can see now that this premise is false.

c). You said the mirror of 1 Corinthians 13:11-12 represents the completed canon of scripture. If we are consistent, wwe would have to assume that having access to all the NT scriptures should have coincided with the maturing of Body of Christ to the point they went from being children to being spiritual adults
11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
(1 Corinthians 13:11)
Paul admitted that he himself had not ARRIVED at perfection. This indicates that while the Apostle lived he remained an
uncompleted project of the Holy Spirit.

d. Is there any evidence that subsequent generations of believers were able to surpass Paul simply because the Book of Revelation had been added to the corpus of NT books? Simply having access to knowledge does not make a believer spiritually mature. Look at the Reformers - Calvin, Luther and Zwingly. They had the NT books and could read them in the original language yet they went on a campaign to exterminate the Anabaptists. What does that tell us about their own spiritual maturity? Regardless of what they knew, when it came to what they DID they remained abysmally ignorant about all that Paul himself had written about love in:
1 Corinthians 13.

d). Finally, You mentioned the MIRROR of the scriptures citing 1 Corinthians 13:12
12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
To interpret this accurately we must keep in mind that MIRRORS of that time did not yield perfect life-like images. Since they were made of polished bronze mirror reflections they produced were unclear. The word DIMLY used here is in ainigma (αἴνιγμα) which means something obscure and enigmatic rather than clear. It is vastly different from seeing a real face.

Thanks for the reply, that is well thought out and you make good points.

The key thing, isn't that every single believer automatically becomes mature with the complete revelation of God's Word, but that Christianity as a whole had reached a point where the Word is complete, the apostles are finished, early churches established and the Jewish temple is destroyed. So it's a stage of a foundation finished.

Regarding the mirror, even if the point of face to face is actually the second coming, you still have the aforementioned events before then happening which affect the gifts of prophecy, tongues and knowledge.

But the point of the mirror, is that the Word would be the 'perfect law of liberty' which would be the mirror and was in a partial state, (although still as the OT).

So, it's not that it's dimness is being unseen... but partial. It's more about a stage of development than going from unclear to clear. Like a part pizza to a whole pizza. The pieces are still good. Each piece can be savored, but the whole makes it s complete pizza.

 

[JimiSurvivor]

I've answered this already. The signs would not confirm the message and the messenger if everyone was not healed. The Word of God said it.

Actually the particular passages I cited did NOT say everyone was healed, only that many were. Don't you think the Biblical authors knew the difference between ALL and MANY? There are separate Greek words for each term. Must we replace the actual words used in scripture with ones that better fit your pre-suppositions?

"The Charismatic movement gained credence and initial acceptance by claiming their gifts were the same as those in Acts. For most people that is why they are credible today." That is, because most people believe the Charismatic movement offers the promise of the same gifts described in the New Testament. "Yet," he says, "Now, when challenged by the obvious fact that their gifts don't meet Biblical standards, one of their primary defenses is to claim that their gifts are not the same as those gifts in the New Testament. Faced with the facts, they have had to revoke the very foundation of their original reason for existence." (Thomas Edgar )That's a pretty devastating admission, really. But many Charismatics have had to come to grips with it and have admitted it."

It is interesting that you refer to Biblical standards while simultaneously denying the truths and promises contained in the Bible. You sound like someone who has imbibed the reasonings of men like B. B. Warfield who sought to reason away every miracle after the FIrst Century. His collaborator and main source in this endeavor was theologian Conyers Middleton who is now recognized to be a devotee of Enlightenment Philosophy and a Deist.

I have never claimed that the charismata are fundamentally different than what is recorded in scripture. I try to judge what is true or not by what is in scripture Apparently, you do not believe scripture is 16 ....God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.…
(2 Timothy 3:16-17)
This leads me to wonder what your source of truth is.

Peter healed them all.

Acts 5:12-16 And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon's Porch. so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

Sometimes God does heal everyone. However, I have already cited scriptures that show He did not ALWAYS do so You responded with simple denial, even though I posted scriptural evidence to that effect. It sounds to me like you are trying to raise the bar in order to exclude any evidence of BIBLICAL healing in modern times. Tampering with evidence is dishonest as is attempting to subvert a testimony by entering into it your own words and commentary

It's the faith of the Apostle, Peter, that was the catalyst for this man to be healed miraculously, the mans faith is not even mentioned.

So, is it your position that the Apostles were granted special authority to heal anyone at their discretion? What about the occasions when the apostles did not heal their companions when they got sick? For example, once, rather than heal a partner in ministry, Paul left him behind That does not sound very compassionate; especially if Paul possessed the power to do it.
20 Erastus has remained at Corinth, and Trophimus I left sick in Miletus.
(2 Timothy 4:20)

Another one of Paul's companions and friends was Epaphroditis about whom Paul said the following:
…26 For he has been longing for all of you and is distressed because you heard he was ill. 27 He was sick indeed, nearly unto death. But God had mercy on him, and not only on him but also on me, to spare me sorrow upon sorrow. 28 Therefore I am all the more eager to send him, so that when you see him again you may rejoice, and I may be less anxious.…
If Paul's ministerial position as an Apostle or some permanant gift of healing had been granted him why did Paul wait until Epaphrodis was almost dead before intervening?

Why do you refer to miracles 2000 years ago while rejecting the possibility of their ever happening in the here and now? You are a man who believes in old stories that have nothing to do with the reality you live in. This is extremely sad.

 

[GraceFlow76q]

“It’s more of a theological question than an observation.

 

[Gideon300]

I know exactly what tangible supernatural manifestations are and they are not what the Pentecostal churches are presenting as such.


The same reason as you. Because the Gospels are the Word of God.


I do not doubt the eyewitness accounts in the Bible. Do you?


Agreed and personal observations outside the Bible are not gospel.


I believe in a God that I cannot see. Hebrews 11:1

I believe in a resurrected Savior I cannot touch. John 20:29

I walk in a godless world by faith without the need for supernatural assurances. 2nd Cor. 5.7

Clearly Gideon300, you are the one bound by the need to trust your own eyes instead of a faith without sight.


You see my words as condescending?

And what am I to make of yours?

Truthful. And you are still ignorant. I do not "need" miracles in order to believe. I know enough to know that miracles are not the foundation of faith. The revealed word of God brings faith. A man I knew who was checked in DOA to hospital had a number of miraculous healings. He later backslid and died of AIDS.

The OT is full of references to God's willingness and ability to heal. Lord Jesus healed all who came to Him. Even in the OT the dead were raised. Lord Jesus told his disciples to make disciples who would teach the next generation what they had learned. Matthew 28-19 & 20. Somehow, for some unfathomable reason, some claim that God quit the healing and miracle business and left us to suffer without His help.



​

 

[Gideon300]

Thanks for the reply, that is well thought out and you make good points.

The key thing, isn't that every single believer automatically becomes mature with the complete revelation of God's Word, but that Christianity as a whole had reached a point where the Word is complete, the apostles are finished, early churches established and the Jewish temple is destroyed. So it's a stage of a foundation finished.

Regarding the mirror, even if the point of face to face is actually the second coming, you still have the aforementioned events before then happening which affect the gifts of prophecy, tongues and knowledge.

But the point of the mirror, is that the Word would be the 'perfect law of liberty' which would be the mirror and was in a partial state, (although still as the OT).

So, it's not that it's dimness is being unseen... but partial. It's more about a stage of development than going from unclear to clear. Like a part pizza to a whole pizza. The pieces are still good. Each piece can be savored, but the whole makes it s complete pizza.

I'm real glad that I had no church upbringing or theological knowledge before I was born again. I did not have enough knowledge to reject the healing power of God when I was prayed for. So I got healed of two chronic conditions in one day. And several other times as well.

 

[wattie]

I'm real glad that I had no church upbringing or theological knowledge before I was born again. I did not have enough knowledge to reject the healing power of God when I was prayed for. So I got healed of two chronic conditions in one day. And several other times as well.

Well, yeah God does still heal. That's a given. The question is whether its thru gifts given to men, as it was with the apostles or Him independently working His power. Different things. But this has already been hashed out.

 

[EmethAlethia]

A list of what New Testament books and letters that discuss spiritual gifts:

• Matthew c.40-60 (0 verses)
• Mark c.45-60 (0 verses)
• Luke 57-60 (0 verses)
• John c.40-65 (0 verses)
• * Acts 57-62
• * Romans 57 (Possibly third oldest 3 verses)
• * 1 Corinthians 55 (Possibly the oldest 84 verses on gifts)
• * Ephesians 56 (Possibly the second oldest 6 verses)
• 2 Corinthians 56 - 57 (0 verses)
• Galatians 56 -57 (0 verses)
• Philippians 58 (0 verses)
• Colossians 58 (0 verses)
• 1 Thessalonians early 50 (0 verses)
• 2 Thessalonians 50-51 (0 verses)
• 1 Timothy 55 (0 verses)
• 2 Timothy 58 (0 verses)
• Titus 57 (0 verses)
• Philemon 58 (0 verses)
• Hebrews c.67 (0 verses)
• James 40's (0 verses)
• 1 Peter 62-64 (0 verses)
• 2 Peter 65-67 (0 verses)
• 1 John 85-90 (0 verses)
• 2 John 87-93 (0 verses)
• 3 John 90-95 (0 verses)
• Jude 61-62 (0 verses)
• Revelation 68-70 (0 verses)
  

 

[EmethAlethia]

Paul's failure to heal a man of like faith.

I find it interesting that, by the time we get to the writing of this passage, even a man after Paul’s own heart is sick and close to death from sickness. This man’s healing is no longer considered the “norm”, but rather, the rare exception.

Php 2:25 But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need; 26 because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. 27 For indeed he was sick to the point of death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, so that I would not have sorrow upon sorrow.

Here's another one:

2Ti 4:20 Erastus remained at Corinth, but Trophimus I left sick at Miletus.

But here’s where we started just a few short years prior:

Act 5:14 And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number, 15 to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any one of them. 16 Also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all being healed.

Act 28:8 And it happened that the father of Publius was lying in bed afflicted with recurrent fever and dysentery; and Paul went in to see him and after he had prayed, he laid his hands on him and healed him. 9 After this had happened, the rest of the people on the island who had diseases were coming to him and getting cured.

What happened?

 

[EmethAlethia]

Interesting note: While the most verses discussing gifts are found in 1st Corinthians, (3 Chapters)they aren't mentioned at all in 2nd Corinthians.