Why have the Sign Gifts Ended

I'm suspicous of the claim that you know Greek grammar,. Did you study how it interacts with semantics? Do you know how the grammar interacts with everything else.

What do you have to say to the specific cases I showed you? If the article in constructions like the one in Mark 16 must refer to a specific word as an antecedent and cannot function as a stand-alone pronoun, then shouldn't the same apply to other verses?

If 'tois' functioning as a pronoun has to agree grammatically with some noun that comes before it, wouldn't the same apply to other verses? Again, in this verse, what does the same word refer back to in the passage?

Acts 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide them that took Jesus.

If 'tois' functioning as a pronoun has to agree grammatically with some plural word earlier in a passage (your argument for Mark 16), then what does it refer to in Acts 1? Did Judas guide the apostles mentioned earlier in the passage? Did he guide the two men that told the apostles that Jesus would return as He ascended? Does it refer to the brethren of Jesus who were with Mary in the upper room?

Why would your grammatical rule apply in Mark 16 and not Acts 1?

This smacks of sophistry to me, btw. One could make the same nonsensical arguments about other passages and come to bizarre conclusions.

For example, one might read this verse,
Matthew 3:7, KJV: "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

And apply your logic and say that αὐτοῖς translated 'unto them' must refer only to the Saducees and not to the Pharisees, because if you go back, that is the closest word in the plural. This would be a case of relying on a stilted view of the grammar without taking the plain sense of the text into consideration.

Your comment shows that you need to do a lot more Bible study.

Actually we do not go looking for God anymore today than did Adam and Eve in the Garden 6000 years ago.

You haven't proven the Greek language operates the way you say. Indeed, you have ignored specific examples that contradict your assertion. Which plural 'antecedents' in Acts 1 were the men who Judas' led to the tomb. if it has to refer back to a plural word earlier in the chapter, then who in the passage arrested Jesus? The apostles? The two men in white clothing at the ascension, or Jesus brothers? If we look in the Gospels, none of those are a good fit. I'd prefer to think that Greek does not follow nonsensical rules that defy the context of the epistles. If your rule doesn't fit for the passages I pointed out, your rule isn't good. Real Greek scholars are supposed to derive their understanding of Greek grammatical rules from the actual usage of the language (in this case by looking at past documents.)

It's fine to see who a pronoun refers to by using grammar. It is not good to try to use Greek grammatical rules in nonsensical ways that do not make sense in context. We can understand what τοῖς is referring to by the context in some cases.

I see you treat references to 'them' in the same nonsensical way you treat Greek grammar. If what you are saying is the case, then every single Old Testament figure mentioned in Hebrews 11 was imprisoned, stoned and sawn assunder, etc. instead of Isaiah being sawn assunder and Jeremiah being imprisoned. How is the idea that Abraham was sawn in two consistent with the Biblical narrative?

36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:

37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;

When 'they' do or experience things, a representative from the group may do it. When 'they' do a bunch of things, one may do one thing and another another thing. So if 'they' speak in tongues, cast out devils, take up serpents, etc., these are activities the group does. It does not follow, necessarily, that each member of the group does each thing in the list.

We also see that the disciples asked why the ointment wasn't sold and the money given to the poor, but John makes it clear that Judas uttered the words.

Paul did not go out looking for snakes. The Bible says not to tempt the Lord thy God. When you read that bit about the Devil telling Jesus to cast Himself down, do you agree with the devil's use of scripture on that?

You are applying your own misinterpretation of scripture to the others. I Corinthians 12 teaches that one gift is given to one and another to another. We should clarify ambiguous passages with specific passages. Mark 16 does not say whether every believer will perform every sign. Some of those (two at least, healing and tongues) are mentioned in I Corinthians 12, and it clarifies that one believer receives one gift and another another.

You are also assuming these things happen purely at will, like Superman choosing to use his heat vision whenever he wants. If we look at the apostles, it wasn't that simple. Peter could walk on water when Jesus told him to and when he did not doubt. But when he doubted he sank. Paul had some sort of infirmity that caused him to first minister to the Galatians, and they would have given him their own eye if they could have. This probably happened around Acts 14 and certainly before he went to Galatia in Acts 16. Paul did miracles on that trip and afterwards. Why didn't he just use his superpowers and instantly heal himself? Peter prayed before raising Dorcas from the dead. Luke pointed out that God did unusual miracles by the hands of Paul in Ephesus. Credit is given to God. It is not treated as something that is solely a superpower of the apostles that they can do at will every time.[/quote][/QUOTE]

Ummm. No I haven't just stated my opinion. I have posted verses of scripture where τοῖς is used as a pronoun and it makes no sense to say that it agrees with some word earlier in the text that agrees with it grammatically. In Acts 1, it's a 'stand-alone' them that refers to them that accompanied Judas, not to some plural noun earlier in the passage.

You have declined to address the evidence and pretended it does not exist. Do you happen to work for a major news network?

That is an unjustified accusation. I posted the words of the hymn to show the inconsistency between those who would sing the hymn and think it a good song, but be anti-experience. But I also showed several scriptures that show us that experience in the faith is a good thing, including a verse that uses the word 'experience' in Romans 5.

I would agree that someone who demands a sign as a confirmation on their faith is on dangerous ground. But I also think it is foolish to think that if someone believes God does signs and wonders, he must be the type who only has faith if he sees a sign. The apostles did signs and wonders, so they certainly believed in them. Would you accuse them of only having faith if they saw signs? Would you say that Paul's approach to faith was dangerous because he wrote I Corinthians 12.

There are Christians who haven't seen the lame walk or the dead raised, but who believe God does such things. Then there are those who say they do not believe God does such things, and the reason is they have not experienced it. Which one best describes you? Doesn't the former sentence describe a right attitude about the subject rather than the latter?

I'm not sure what this really has to do with the discussion or how it supports your point of view. When I read this, what comes to my mind is how you should believe what the Bible teaches about spiritual gifts whether you have had subjective experience with it or not.

Either you misunderstood me, which is possible, or you and I are about as far apart on this issue as we can be.

While we should not seek mere experiences for their own sake, what we do experience should indeed line up with what Scripture is teaching us. If it doesn't, something is wrong.

For example (from the perspective of a hypothetical newer believer): Scripture tells me that God will provide for my needs. If my needs (genuine, not frivolous) are consistently not being met, and I cannot discern any earthly reason for it, then I begin to wonder whether Scripture is true. The nature of the human heart is not the issue; either there is food to eat, or there is not. If I can't see evidence in the real world for God's existence and activity, why would I trust Him with things I can't see and can barely comprehend?

On the contrary, and I have heard many testimonies that align with this, God provides for His children in unexpected, surprising, and even miraculous ways. Cheques show up in the mail at the last minute, strangers drop off meals, bills are reduced or eliminated, an acquaintance gives you a car when you need it most, and on, and on, and on. God is not opposed to His children seeking Him for their needs, and He is still in the business of providing for them.

Scripture tells me that God has given His children certain gifts, and I believe Him. When real-world experiences occur, and I see that they are in line with what Scripture teaches, my belief in Scripture is confirmed. I don't seek to confirm Scripture with experience, but I allow experience to confirm Scripture. There's a big difference.

Yeah ok. And your comment is plainly an attempt to degrade my knowledge of scripture. You are a cessationist so I would expect no less. You really are showing your lack of the Bible with your comments. It's a shame when a person has to somehow attempt to belittle someone in order to state their understanding is the be all and end all of knowledge. It turns people off who otherwise might listen to what you have to offer.

God states:

You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:13 We find the same principal through the entire Bible.

Signs to unbelievers which may well be intended for some believer today who actually are not believing. Tongues are listed as a spiritual gift in the list of the gifts. You choose not to believe for whatever reason, but it is very clear in scripture that they have not ceased and did not cease and they most certainly not for the Apostles only or Paul would not have been writing to an entire congregation.

I can only ask again:

Kindly provide the scripture where you have learned that the sign gifts were a 'package deal' as you put it.

You might take note that Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, notes the disbursement of the gifts...chosen by God and given by His Holy Spirit. In actual fact, it is God who is choosing what gift to give which person. People may have muddled that up, but that is the actual enactment. The other thing you most likely fail to notice, is that a miracle is different from a spiritual gift. I would not pick up a poisonous snake by any means, and for that matter neither did Paul. The snake bit him and he shook it off. I can testify to times God has intervened in certain situations in my life and took care of me in a situation that was dangerous.

As you sadly do not believe the entire NT, your outlook reflects that and your responses will be negative with any regards to what you have turned away from.

You have created a fabrication regarding what you refer to as the sign gifts. I can attest to having the Holy Spirit working at least a couple of them through me, but I would never tempt God and foolishly pick up a poisonous snake. Healing is also a gift and not a do or die occurrence. It seems to me you are dodging what scripture actually says in order to line up your beliefs with either your own understanding or what you have been taught.

I'm surprised that anyone claimed this, in light of 1 Corinthians 12:29-30.

well duh. First time I ever heard of that.

Let's cut through the clutter. Only three gifts have ended. 1 Cor 13:8

Now history from the first century forward confirms that they ended with the completion of the NT.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

A wicked and adulterous generation seekers after a sign, and non will be given but the sign of jonah

i think we fit that generation

Another baseless accusation. You must possess before you can profess. Religious but not regenerated is a widely occupied position in the modern church assembly.

Heresy is substituted for biblical sanctification. No growth proceeds from a diet of heresy. Sound doctrine is needed for growth into maturity in Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Context determines the immersion into water, Holy Spirit or doctrine. The modern conception of baptism meaning water is just that a modern conception arising from the inability of the English translation of the Greek to reveal the intent of the original.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Hardly baseless when you are so against the gifts of the Spirit. And as usual, some truth mixed in to sound 'proper'

What kind of truth proceeds from attacking anything related to 'tongues' or a few other truths in scripture?

Physician heal thyself

The clutter consists of people dissing the gifts. But just 3 of course

I have heard the excuse you offer more times than not. It is what every cessationist is taught and relies on. It is a false interpretation.

Why is it that people are offended and call those who disagree tongues is a gift used today as we see it in many churches as an attack.

has the church gown that weak we can not take criticism?

is our faith in our works, (speaking in tongues etc) or in Christ?

just asking.

Tongues have ended. Tongues are now only an indicator of rebellion against God. Tongues were an indicator of rebellion to the Jews and now they show rebellion in the Gentile church.

Scripture is against the modern conception of tongues. The scriptures teach that there are no new prophets and no new apostles. The bible is complete and all man needs with Holy Spirit's ministering to come to salvation and sanctification.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Those who love Christ and the scriptures understand that your opinion does not trump what God has said. Time to take heed of the scriptures and stop listening to the heresy of modern Pentecostal charismatic teachers.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

How would the gift of interpretation of tongues continue if tongues had ceased?

If you think 'tongues' in I Corinthians refers to translating English into Haitian French or Creole for those who understand it, why would that have ceased?

If you think preaching the word is prophesying, then how can you argue that prophesying has ceased?

You never did answer those questions. Your statements on this topic have been inconsistent with one another on this thread.