So you also believed Paul could have sent one of his "miracle handkerchiefs" to Timothy and heal him of his stomach conditions with that too?
Spiritual gifts which did NOT cease
- Thread starter Nehemiah6
- Start date
-
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.
So you also believed Paul could have sent one of his "miracle handkerchiefs" to Timothy and heal him of his stomach conditions with that too?
That is why I am asking you.
What about Paul's advice to Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach conditions?
Respectfully, I see this as a conclusion looking for evidence to support it. Nowhere does the text state that the gift of healing was not used in either the case of Epaphroditus or that of Timothy.
What it does say is that Epaphroditus was sick and almost died. Nothing is said of his path to recovery. It is just as reasonable to conclude that Paul or another person laid hands on him and he recovered, as to conclude that Paul didn't, or tried and was unsuccessful.
As for Timothy, his malady was apparently minor, given that Paul advised "a little wine". Again, the text records nothing at all regarding "attempts" at healing.
Paul's own malady was never healed. The man whose hankies had healed others was not healed himself. God's ways are higher than our ways, and we don't get to decide who gets healed and who doesn't. In the absence of clear evidence, let's not draw conclusions that happen to align with a particular agenda.
They always say "Don't make doctrine out of one scripture passage."
So here we have at least 2, if not more scripture passages where Paul did not invoke the "gift of healing", after Acts 28.
But of course, if you want to hold on to the argument from silence, I can understand.
But you can also see you are also using the same "argument from silence"?
No, I'm not. I am refuting the cessationist argument from silence.
I am not claiming that Paul or another disciple did heal or attempt to do so; I'm saying that the text does not say either way, so one cannot draw a firm conclusion. I have said that it is equally possible that they did heal and it is simply not recorded. The possibility that I propose is no more and no less valid than the idea that the ability to heal had faded or disappeared.
Were I to claim that Paul or another did actually heal Epaphroditus, then I would be making an argument from silence.
Paul's own malady was never healed. The man whose hankies had healed others was not healed himself. God's ways are higher than our ways, and we don't get to decide who gets healed and who doesn't. In the absence of clear evidence, let's not draw conclusions that happen to align with a particular agenda.
Good point
I would see the gift of healing as mentioned in Mark 16 as signs that accompanied THEM were a gift given that THEY could heal immediately when THEY lay hands on people . I find it curious why Paul doesn't heal Epaph and Tim . What seems to be happening today is a watering down of the Gift of healing to included 'praying for someone ' 'having enough faith and lengthening someone's leg by repeating " in Jesus name " over and over .Respectfully, I see this as a conclusion looking for evidence to support it. Nowhere does the text state that the gift of healing was not used in either the case of Epaphroditus or that of Timothy.
What it does say is that Epaphroditus was sick and almost died. Nothing is said of his path to recovery. It is just as reasonable to conclude that Paul or another person laid hands on him and he recovered, as to conclude that Paul didn't, or tried and was unsuccessful.
As for Timothy, his malady was apparently minor, given that Paul advised "a little wine". Again, the text records nothing at all regarding "attempts" at healing.
Paul's own malady was never healed. The man whose hankies had healed others was not healed himself. God's ways are higher than our ways, and we don't get to decide who gets healed and who doesn't. In the absence of clear evidence, let's not draw conclusions that happen to align with a particular agenda.
Healing is a gift of the Spirit it is administered by the Spirit at his will not the will of the person.
I agree with you on the praying over and over and someone gradually being healed after medical treatments and whatever else, is not healing being performed through the Gift of Healing. I believe there are several means and various situation by which God heals people. Laying on of hands of the elders, prayer of faith, etc. These are not the same as the Gift of Healing.
However, if it comes through the Gift of Healing then I would think it would be immediate. I don't see the Holy Spirit moving in a person to perform the gift of healing and not being able to perform it right then and there.
We could understand this if a gift is given for a specific task , purpose and time .
this teaching from Perry stone touches on this subject and he mentions his father who was used of God to bring healing to some yet he himself died of a sickness, Perry spoke with him and after thought he mentioned it is often easier to have faith for others than for ourselves, perhaps because we know ourselves well enough that we know why He should not, he goes on to discuss Elisha who had a double portion of Elijah's spirit yet died of a sickness, late a soldier who had been killed was placed on Elisha's bones and was brought to life, as Elisha's bones still had the power of God working in them.
I'm simply surprised Paul did not heal Epaph and timothy ..Its a mystery . Where as in Acts 16 its affirming they would recover by laying hands on them . But then I see the purpose for miracles, healings ect . They were a sign . They were to confirm the message . They were not arbitrary or random .Respectfully, I see this as a conclusion looking for evidence to support it. Nowhere does the text state that the gift of healing was not used in either the case of Epaphroditus or that of Timothy.
What it does say is that Epaphroditus was sick and almost died. Nothing is said of his path to recovery. It is just as reasonable to conclude that Paul or another person laid hands on him and he recovered, as to conclude that Paul didn't, or tried and was unsuccessful.
As for Timothy, his malady was apparently minor, given that Paul advised "a little wine". Again, the text records nothing at all regarding "attempts" at healing.
Paul's own malady was never healed. The man whose hankies had healed others was not healed himself. God's ways are higher than our ways, and we don't get to decide who gets healed and who doesn't. In the absence of clear evidence, let's not draw conclusions that happen to align with a particular agenda.
He did not heal many in certain places because not many came to him in those places ,to be healed . This gets taken out of context to guilt trip people into not questioning things .
Not true, this is what the Bible tells us-
https://www.biblehub.com/matthew/13-58.htm
Berean Study Bible
And He did not do many miracles there, because of their unbelief.
Off you go to ignore you viper.
https://www.biblehub.com/matthew/13-58.htm
Berean Study Bible
And He did not do many miracles there, because of their unbelief.
Off you go to ignore you viper.