Cessationism vs. continuationism...does it make any difference?

I have a record of 130 testimonies of people who were miraculously healed of all types of incurable medical conditions in Auckland NZ alone. I have also seen hundreds of testimonies from all around New Zealand of people being miraculously healed. These testimonies go right against your view that divine healing ceased at the end of the 1st Century.

Also, it is quite clear that Paul that prophecy would fail at the end of the church age which hasn't taken place yet, not at the end of the 1st Century.

And James says that when sick people approached the elders for prayer, he says that the Lord will raise them up. Don't forget to include the whole verse when you quote Scripture. It shows that James expected miraculous healing would result from the elders' prayers. If you are going to say that this was meant to be temporary, and does not apply today, then you might as well say the same about everything that James says in his book - that it applied only to 1st century believers and not for today.

The miracles that attended Paul's ministry were in connection with his evangelism of pagans. It is the same today. There are many testimonies of modern miraculous healing of terminal medical conditions that have brought whole families and even communities to Christ.

There is no evidence that Epaphroditus or Timothy were diseased and needed divine healing. Epaphroditus condition was probably through over work and he needed a rest to recover.

What I see is that you began with a premise and fitted the Bible into it, instead of taking a premise out of what the Bible actually says in its proper context.

You are correct, God is healing today in a miracolus way. But almost in connection with Mission. To reveal his power against Satan.
But, the most pentecostals and charismatics today claim these healings for already believers. And this is obvious not true.
It is also obvious that with the time of the Apostel the time of the sign gifts went down.
Nobody knows why, but it happend so.
If people claim we have these gifts today in the same way like in the days of the apostles, they miss to bring the proof. For example, in the charismstics and pentecostal churches nearby i never heared from spectakulär healings and miracles. But we read from Paul and Peter that their healings were made in the town, obvious for others. And they had no newspapers and socialmedia for to spread it.
Would the pentecostals and charismatics teaching about it right, then i would expect this would be to find in mass in newspaper and socialmedia. But this is not. So something is wrong with this teaching.
But God today is indeed healing, indepent of any church ore denomination. Simply in hearing the prayer of the believer. But according His will.

Because signs are linked to the gospel of the kingdom and Israel.

As Israel the nation reject Christ, ending with the stoning of Stephen, both the gospel of the kingdom, and Israel start to fade away, and hence those signs fade away too.

And correspondingly, Peter was prominent in early Acts, but after Acts 15, when he was mentioned in that instance, after that he totally fade away with James the brother of Jesus becoming more and more prominent.

If your toes heal fast or heal slow, you should thank God for it. Paul says with prayer and thanksgiving, make your requests be known to God. Peter says to cast all your cares upon him. If you care enough about your toes to post about them on this forum, shouldn't you ask God to heal them?

What about other needs? If you are short on cash and need to buy something, do you think it is unholy to pray for provision as a 'quick fix.' I've prayed about receiving $400 before, and someone gave it, unsolicited, maybe an hour or so later. I needed money, and God provided.

I mentioned this to Roger, but not in these words. Do you think having sore toes for a long time is more holy than having sore toes for a short time?

You have not bothered to study the references to 'apostles' in scripture before making your decrees. There are 'twelve apostles of the Lamb' whose names are on the foundations of the city in John's vision. The twelve will sit on twelve thrones. But there is also Paul, apostle to the Gentiles. There is also Barnabas. Acts starts calling Barnabas and Saul (Paul) 'apostles' together in Acts 14:4 and 14 after they were sent out by the Spirit to do their ministry. Comparing I Thessalonians 1:1 and 2:6-7 would indicate that his other co-workers who wrote the letter were apostles. The epistle was co-written by Silas and Timothy.

In I Corinthians, Paul wrote about himself and Apollos and referred to themselves as 'we apostles.'

In Ephesians 4, after Christ ascended, He gave gifts, including apostles, unto men. The twelve were appointed before the ascension.

PROPHETS: The apostle John was the last apostle-prophet, and he clearly stated that no prophecies could be further added to the prophetic book of Revelation (the final book in numerical order and chronological order). [/quote]

So don't add to the book of Revelation. There were plenty of prophecies in Old Testament times that were not quoted that were alluded to in scripture. They are not in the Bible. New Testament church prophets like those in Corinth would prophesy, but their prophecies are not all included in scripture. Those prophecies do not have to be added to the book of Revelation. Neither do modern prophecies given by the moving of the Spirit of God.

Your conclusion does not follow, logically. You could also say that since Paul taught that Jesus would come back, we should not be looking for it, but that would also be a foolish argument.

Paul wrote that we prophesy in part, and that when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. He indicates that before the perfect comes, he is like a child in his speech, thought, and understanding, but that he will be like a man in these things when the perfect comes. He writes for now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face, now we know in part, but then we shall know as we are known.

We all still know in part. And many of us who read Paul's letters over and over again gain new insights that Paul clearly had all along as we read his epistles, years after the first time we read them. Having the Bible, the death of the apostles, the church reaching political power in the middle ages--none of these things make us guaranteed to know the doctrine in Paul's epistles better than Paul did. Having the Bible does not put in a place of superior understanding to the apostles who wrote the latter parts of it.

In the first chapter of this epistle, Paul wrote, 'So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was an introduction, and Paul laid out themes he would discuss later in the book. We should take Paul's reference to 'that which is perfect' in light of what he wrote there in 1:7.

Also, compare the topics covered in chapter 13 to themes in the following chapters, as he finishes out the book before he final instructions and greetings.

Chapter 13:
1. tongues.....2. prophecy.....3. the coming of that which is perfect
Chapter 14-15
1. tongues....2. prophecy....3. the transformation of the saints and the resurrection at the coming of Christ.

Why would 'that which is perfect' in chapter 13 refer to some idea not mentioned in the book-- whatever concept you want to plug in-- instead of something Paul actually introduced in chapter one and went into detail on in chapter 15.

If you read the writings of the Pentecostal revival in the early 1900's, they realized that 'tongues' meant languages. So you do not have much of a point here. The emphasis was on human tongues. And some of them, without strong exegetical support, thought that they would be able to go out and evangelize in tongues and that this was their purpose. But Acts 2 does not prove that anyone actually explained the Gospel in tongues. Peter stood up and preached after the disciples spoke of the wonderful works of God in tongues.

Agnes Ozman's testimony is that a tongue she spoke in was identified as Bohemian (now called Czech) by Bohemian Christians within a few days of her first experience with speaking in tongues. If you read The Apostolic Faith newsletter from Azusa Street, it reports testimonies from around the world about the revival, including reports of people hearing languages they knew 'in tongues' like Armenian, Indian languages in Canada. I went through a couple of them and found many testimonies. 'The Comforter has Come' has another similar testimony of this happening at Azusa Street. Val Dez in 'Fire on Azusa' tells of a Russian hearing her language 'in tongues' at the revival. One of the children at the revival who grew up and interviewed with historian Vinson Synon, the video of which is posted on YouTube, said that part of what drew people to the revival is people coming in and hearing their own languages, like Japanese, at the revival.

I have spoken and corresponded with many people who have similar experiences and know people who have heard 'speaking in tongues' that they understood.

So it does happen from time to time. We should not be surprised if others present do not naturally understand in the context of a church meeting, however, because Paul wrote, 'No man understandeth him.'

No it does not. Paul quoted a verse that had to do...in the short term... with God speaking through the Assyrians to Israel being taken away captive, and applied the principle to the unbeliever or unlearned who comes into the church meeting. He did not specify that it was a sign only to unbelieving Jews.

Thee are some people who read the verse that says that tongues are a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not, and conclude that tongues are _only_ for unbelievers. But this is an example of poor, myopic hermenuetics-- interpreting a verse in a way that is not consistent with the rest of the passage. In fact, that interpretation contradicts other verses in the passage and is clearly not Paul's point at all.

And it is very clear from Paul's writings that tongues has a role to play other than as a sign to unbelievers. Tongues is a sign to them that believe not, but that does not mean that is all it does. In chapter 12, tongues is listed among the gifts given to edify the body of Christ. In chapter 14, it edifies the individual believer, but if interpreted, it edifies the assembly. Paul encourages the one who speaks in tongues to interpret that the church may receive edifying.

There are books and web pages that gather quotes from the so-called 'church fathers' and writings from the time period that show that spiritual gifts continue. The references to tongues are far fewer than references to prophecies, healing, and miracles from what I have read. Tongues and prophecy were eventually 'liturgized' and 'clericized' out of the church meetings as more formal, less Biblical, patterns of church took hold when as there was a shift toward clergy performing scripted liturgy as the near exclusive content of church meetings. If there are only sparse references of the gift, it is not proof that it ceased.

Besides, you are assuming that Paul meant that the gift of tongues will cease. As you pointed out, the word means languages. Whether there are languages... they will cease. You take that to mean a gift of the Spirit ceases. Since some of the Corinthians may have thought going on and on in uninterpreted tongues was desirable, Paul may have been saying that when someone speaks in tongues, they eventually quit, which could have been considerd a weakness of the manifestation.

I thank God for everything, good snd the bad as everything comes through him or has to be ok’d by him. He is the Potter and i but the clay, i’m not here spinning around on the wheel telling him what to do, only giving him thanks for what he is doing.

Philippians 2
25 I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need, 26 for he has been longing for you all and has been distressed because you heard that he was ill. 27 Indeed he was ill, near to death. But God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. 28 I am the more eager to send him, therefore, that you may rejoice at seeing him again, and that I may be less anxious.
(ESV)

This is the passage about Epaphroditus' illness. It does not say whether he was healed instantly through the laying on of hands, in response to prayer, whether it was gradual, etc. You are just assuming that and you have no evidence at all either way.

You also seem to be making assumptions about spiritual gifts. You seem to think Paul could just heal people like Superman uses his powers, completely subject to his own will. There is plenty of evidence that the apostles were very much depended on God to keep supplying the miracles.

Consider Acts 4. The apostles had been doing signs and wonders. But for some reason, they prayed for God to stretch forth His hand to heal and to do signs and wonders for Jesus' sake. They were dependent on God to supply the power in each individual case. In the Gospels, some of them could not cast out a demon because they had so little faith. Peter was able to walk on water until he doubted. When he doubted, he sank. Peter also prayed before raising Dorcas from the dead. Paul saw that a lame man hearing his preaching had the faith to be healed, then told him to walk.

For some reason, when Paul first went to the Galatians, he had an infirmity in his flesh. They would have plucked out their own eyes to give them to him. It is most likely the churches in Acts 14 were the churches in Galatia, but Paul taking a trip to that province, mentioned by name, is in Acts 16. So early on in Paul's ministry, Paul had an infirmity, maybe an eye problem.

So someone could say that spiritual gifts ceased, since Paul had that issue, whatever it was. They could say that the great miracles Paul did in Ephesus, and healing all the sick that were brought to him on Malta never happened, since Paul got sick early on. That is the same kind of reasoning people use who take other references to health issues and read it through the unbiblical presupposition that healing as a supernatural manifestation was dying out.

Church history does not support this idea, btw. There are many references to healing and miracles. There is evidence, direct statements, about prophesying occuring during second century church meetings, for example. Justin Martyr wrote of prophets in the church. Ireneaus wrote of brethren healing, speaking in tongues, prophesying, having foreknowledge, and raising the dead. But that is most likely early third century.

You have not presented any kind of Biblical case for cessation of healing or miracles. This is a very weak position on your part. What you have presented are verses that you can 'fit' with cessationism if you assume cessationism.

James says ye have not because ye ask not. Prayer in faith is not the same as being a disrespectful loud mouthed lump of clay.

This is the theory you hold to, the filter through which you interpret scripture, not what the Bible actually teaches. Paul said if any many preach any other gospel, let him be accursed. In Acts 28:31, Paul said that he preached the kingdom of God.

That's the focus of Acts. That does not mean that Peter and his ministry faded away at that time. The remaining twelve apostles laid off on governing the local church so they could focus on being witnesses of the resurrection and prayer. They let James and the elders handle many of the local church matters.

I think Paul is using the term a bit more narrowly, or of 'prophecy per se.' I understand your perspective. If prophecy is Spirit-moved speech, then it can pop up in teaching or exhortation. But on the other hand, Paul treats prophets and teachers as two ministries in I Corinthians 12. Evangelists, prophets, pastors and teachers are three different ministry groups in Ephesians 4. In Romans 12, prophecy, teaching, and exhortation are different gifts. Paul does not roll them all into the same gift.

If what you are saying is true, then pastors should be careful about preaching long sermons and should let others who receive revelations to interrupt their sermons with them, or rather yield the floor to the other sitting by who receives a revelation that Paul refers to in I Corinthians 14:29.

The idea that the long 30 to 45 minute sermons, or more, is sacred, may not be interrupted and is THE way to do church is not in scripture. Paul gives us I Corinthians 14 as pretty much the only lengthy chapter regarding how to administrate 'speaking ministry' in church, and there is no reference to a long sermon and no instruction that an elder, pastor, bishop must do the talking. The teacher is the one gifted to do so.

I am a part of a house church, so the idea of a mutually edifying meeting is a norm. In a lot of house churches, applying what you say to the Bible teaching can work. But I view Paul's use of 'prophecy' as anchored very much in the Old Testament, consistent with its usage in Acts about Agabus, which is consistent with the general pattern of how Old Testament prophets prophesied.

seems like this forum deomonstrated the 'ye of little faith' for those who are cessationists.

its the sick who neer a physcian, not the well.

dont worry about them they already have their reward ànd sore toes dont bother them. They would make terrible medical personal though. Its like the child at a birthday party unhappy that the birthday girl or gets all the gifts, but also refuses to take the goodie bag cos they think they have better things at home.

if you not happy that people are praising God in other tongues or being healed, then be a grump elsewhere.

...that is a nice one for you to bring up, you don’t have true joy, peace, happiness, meaning, hope, and fulfillment in life, because you don’t ask for them but chase after emotionalism’s lies through short lived fireworks like babble, fortune telling and lower back pain fake healings from being worked up into a sweat by your life coaches at the front knocking people to the ground and running around like chickens with their heads chopped off!-)

Are you as ignorant as you make yourself out to be on this forum.

You have already called said someone was like satan for holding to the opinion that 'prophesying' was not only predicting the future, then espoused that opinion yourself. You keep accusing others.

We can have all kinds of ideas about various doctrines, some true, some not, and still be Christians. But as Christians, we should live holy. These accusations of you are not living holy. What kind of fruit is this? You assume things about people based on your very narrow frame of reference, painting with a very broad and inaccurate brush, and then make accusations.

In case you claim to have some kind of divine revelation, you cannot know these things you claim to know about me. You don't know what I ask for in prayer or what I have received. Your posts also show a warped prejudice against healing and other things. I personally have no problem with God healing lower back pain or opening a blind eye.

If you read my posts, you will see that I do not espouse emotionalism. I've posted on the topic. Some church cultures are more 'emotional' than others. Some of that is cultural and is not an issue of proper doctrine. But slandering people is a sin.

You also assume that everyone who believes in this spiritual gifts wants their preachers to be life coaches and likes running around like a chicken with their heads cut off. This, is, again, foolish and myopic, two adjectives that characterize a lot of your posts. Not everyone who believes in spiritual gifts is into seeker sensitive stuff, Word of Faith, or emotionalism. You like John MacArthur. He's into Calvinism. Westboro Baptist hold to Calvinism, so can I conclude that you are busy protesting at homosexual servicemen's funerals?

Your responses for the most part have been idiotic, and you do not address the Biblical issues people bring up to you.

So i am to just stand by as you emotionally trip yourself out and not warn you of Jesus words???
Matthew 7:21-23 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'LORD, LORD,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'LORD, LORD, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

There are certainly gifts of healing as specified in 1 Corinthians 12, and they are given to the body of Christ for strengthening, and not for building up the reputation of any one big-name fellow. Also, we need to bring James 5:14 into the equation to see that the gifts of healing is administered through the elders of the church in response to requests from those who are sick who call upon them. This is the Scriptural way that divine healing is available for Christian believers.

This is different to the signs and wonders, including miraculous healing in connection with mission. This is where the Gospel is preached and the miracles follow to show the power of the Holy Spirit as He works with those who reach out to sinners for Christ.

I agree that those who insist on healing on demand are not being consistent with Scripture. There is nothing mentioned in the book of Acts, or in the Apostle's letters that God, in this respect, is a 'vending machine' where a button can be pushed and out pops the healing.

this is true as those who blasphemy the Holy Spirit. And have a form of godliness BUT DENY the POWER THEREOF.

Including those who are lukewarm

the only reason why God did miracles :

1. To provide to those who served other gods HE is the only One true God
2. He loves and is merciful
3. To Testify to the resurrected Lord Acts 4:33