A Distinction Between Tongues

None of it stands up. The church would be doing miracles all along if they were still in place. A few fringe groups pretend to have them but none of that stands up either.

If you read accounts from church history, there are many, many accounts of miracles throughout history. Hagiographies often contain them. There could be some embelishments, of course, but there could be genuine history behind it, too. If you are not aware that there are a multitude of claims of miracles throughout church history then you need to do a little research before commenting on the topic.

Many miracles are attributed to St. Patrick like healing the sick and raising various dead people. There are two documents he wrote that historians accept as genuine. One is the Confessio or Declaration. In it, he tells of a vision that led him to leave slavery in Ireland and hearing a voice that led him to return. There is a story of the gates of the city that housed the king of the Picts opening supernaturally for St. Columbo after the king shut them to lock him out from preaching the gospel. If you read about Scotland's early Reformation period, George Wishart, who John Knox travelled with as a body guard of sorts, is said to have prophesied the death of the cardinal who put him to death, along with other supernatural activities. During the time of the Covenanters, you can of Alexander Peden, known as prophet Peden, predicting that John Brown would soon die and knowing it happened though he was miles away and of an Irish nobleman being raised from the dead after Peden prayed next to the body for it for hours.

There are numerous miracles attributed to others as well. For example, resurrections and healings to St. Francis of Assissi. Going much further back, there are miracles attributed to St. Martin of Tours such as raising three people from the dead and converted thousands of pagans. A friend and disciple of Martin recorded many of the miracles he performed.

But it seems like your position is that if you haven't seen them, they haven't happened, as if God had to pass everything by you for it to be real.

When Peter heard of this account, I strongly suspect he sensed that the Jewish nation is determined to reject what the Holy Spirit is doing in Israel through them. The Great Commission that Jesus gave them in Matthew 28 was not going to be fulfilled, the Jewish leaders are committing the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit by rejecting their message, which under the Law of Moses, was an unforgivable sin.

By the time Peter witnessed in Acts 10 that God is granting the Gentiles the Holy Spirit, indicating that God is now saving Gentiles without them having to do what Peter believed must be done in Acts 2:38, that is to repent and be baptized, Peter could sense that God is phasing out the Kingdom gospel to usher in a new program, which we now know as the Gospel of Grace.

It's all hearsay just like today. Based on questionable sources. All churches would be working genuine miracles today if they were for today.

You need to let go of the circular reasoning. If you claim there is no evidence, that's either dishonest or idiotic. Stick with one line of reasoning-- that you do not believe historical testimony about miracles, not that there is no evidence.

Your logic is not sound, either. Scripture teaches that the Spirit gifts men to work miracles as He wills. It doesn't say He works them as you will, and since you will that miracles are all or nothing--either all churches do them all the time, or they never happen at all. There are also a multitude of accounts of miracles and supernatural healings from contemporary times around the world. CBN airs testimonies like this all the time. YouTube probably has thousands of videos of people evangelizing and praying for the sick or commanding healing on the streets, clips of crusades where people testify to healings, and videos of testimonies. Some are recent enough where you could try to fly out to the location and interview the parties involved or follow around those who ministered and see if they are legit.

Personally, I find you a questionable source.

You also need to get a dictionary or take a law class and learn the definition of Heresay. Sulpicius Severus was a source for St. Martin's miracles. Since he was an eye witness, at least the parts he witnessed were not 'heresay.'

Show me one valid miracle as found in Acts. Case settled.

Huh? You can read the book of Acts for yourself.

That's why there are no miracles today. Acts proves there aren't.

Show me where Acts proves there are no miracles today. If that were in Acts, we would not be having this discussion.

Nowhere does the Bible say or teach that God no longer does miracles. It is convenient for you, I suppose, to think the world functions similar to the way atheists and modernists think it does. Just make an exception in your mind for things 2000 years ago, and you can think kind of like them. The Bible says the Holy Spirit gifts members of the body of Christ with gifts including the working of miracles 'as He wills.' It is presumptuous for you to seek to limit how the Lord will act.

I repeat, signs and wonders are done to authenticate the Gospel of the Kingdom.

When Peter heard of this account, I strongly suspect he sensed that the Jewish nation is determined to reject what the Holy Spirit is doing in Israel through them.

By the time Peter witnessed in Acts 10 that God is granting the Gentiles the Holy Spirit, indicating that God is now saving Gentiles without them having to do what Peter believed must be done in Acts 2:38, that is to repent and be baptized, Peter could sense that God is phasing out the Kingdom gospel to usher in a new program, which we now know as the Gospel of Grace.

I don't believe Christ spoke in tongues but since the Holy Spirit was sent to each believer AFTER Christ ascended, and Christ was the one who said He had to leave so the Spirit could be sent....

well duh

One knows authentic healing still occurs because people are still becoming believers. Jesus, Himself said: "...signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Mark 16:15-18

Jesus' statement is confirmed in the Book of Acts. The record provides illustration of Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritan's speaking in tongues. (Acts 2:1, 8: 12-17, 10:44-48, etc.) Paul is used to heal Jews, Gentiles, etc. by laying hands on the sick. (Acts 14:10, 19:11-12, 20:10-12, 28:8) Paul is unharmed after being bitten by a serpent. (Acts 28:5) And, demons are cast out. (Acts 16:18)

Jesus does not lie and He said: "Truly, truly, I tell you, WHOEVER believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son..." John 14:12-13

@Dave-L

I told you about the girl I went to school with who had visibly crossed eyes and wore glasses that magnified the size of her eyes many times over who was healed after an evangelist laid hands on her. This is not hearsay since I could see the evidence of the healing with my own eyes and I am testifying to what I have seen.

I have not seen huge amounts of visibly-obvious healing miracles. I have heard people testify to their deaf ears open. I can't see an eardrum or inner ear from across the room, and I can't see if people were healed of internal problems with their legs, feet, thyroid or whatever. But I could see that the girl's eyes were healed so I told you that testimony, what I witnessed with my owns eyes. If you want to believe people's testimony because it conflicts with the restrictions in your mind that you would want to put on God, that's on you.

The prayer of faith heals. But the signs and wonders were for the Apostles only. To confirm their apostleship.

It's all hearsay just like today. Based on questionable sources. All churches would be working genuine miracles today if they were for today.

Interesting you avoid responding to what I posted.

However, in response to you, signs and wonders are still done because people are still being drawn to the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Secondly, you are doing the same thing the Jewish nation did by rejecting what the Holy Spirit is doing through born again believers today.

Thirdly, God did not change what is expected of all believers. The Gentile population had to be obedient to the same commands given by Peter on the Day of Pentecost. Repentance, water baptism in the name of Jesus, and receiving the Holy Ghost is evidenced in the record, (Acts 10:44-48) albeit in a different sequence.

It is likely God poured out His Spirit first as confirmation to Peter that Gentiles were accepted. One wonders whether Peter would have administered water baptism without this final confirmation from God. Due to God's action, Peter could be assured that to forbid Gentiles access to the water's of baptism was to withstand God Himself.

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit has to do with speaking against the Holy Spirit, not all forms of 'rejecting' the Holy Spirit. Saul of Tarsus held the garments of those who stoned Stephen, and he had 'kicked against the pricks.' He hadn't committed the unpardonable sin because he was pardoned. Your treatment of 'blasphemy' reminds me of St. Augustine's who somehow could argue that all kinds of offenses were blasphemy to argue that it was not possible. It read like excessively long mind-numbing sophistry to me, but effects the thinking of many today on the topic.



This is the problem here-- you are setting yourself up as some kind of authority to cancel out parts of the Bible and add in other parts. Peter never said the gospel changed. In fact, he said in that passage that the promise was to 'them that are afar off' language Paul uses of the Gentiles.

And God did not close the door to the Jews. Romans 11 tells us that blindness in part is happened to Israel. Part were not blind. Peter and Paul were Jews, and so were many thousands of converts. Maybe the largest church/population of Christians in any city at that time was in Jerusalem. There are still Jews who believe in Jesus, and there have been those who have come to faith without history. They are still beloved for the sake's of the fathers. The fullness of the Gentiles shall come in and so Israel shall be saved.

But there is no reason to think the gospel changed. Philip baptized foreigners-- or those that would be called foreigners if they came to Jewish lands. Jesus called a Samaritan he healed a foreigner. Philip baptized them. Paul baptized many, many Gentiles, including the Philippian jailer. He baptized Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanus and many other Corinthians were baptized, also, if not directly by him. Jesus had sent the eleven to the nations and told them to preach, teach, and baptize.

I was at a healing crusade once. Before it started, a woman in my section was being prayed for by people around her and ushers who were laying hands on her. She had an oxygen tank. She lifted up her hands, praising God, without the oxygen and people in my section clapped. I did not see her walk in. The woman next to me did. She said she had walked down the stairs really slowly with the tank when she came in and took her seat. Unlike other sections where similar stuff was going on, I could just walk down to where she was and talk to her, so I did.

She looked like she was about 90. I told her I saw people praying and I saw her stand up and asked her if it was okay if I asked her a few questions. She had a letter from her doctor saying they couldn't give her a heart transplant because of her emphasema. She said she would be out of breath (which she demonstrated by panting) if she took a few steps without the tank before, but now she breathed normally. I asked her if she wanted to see if she could walk I escorted her up and down the steps while our section clapped their hands. Her name was Patricia Waite and I got her phone number. I moved overseas and tried to call her once but Internet calls were lousy in the '90's and I could pick up fragments of a conversation with an older sounding man who seemed frustrated he couldn't hear me.