Is your understanding so much greater than Paul's expressed in I Corinthians and other scripture, that his understanding was like a child's in comparison to yours? Can't you see how arrogant that interpretation is?
-
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.
Is your understanding so much greater than Paul's expressed in I Corinthians and other scripture, that his understanding was like a child's in comparison to yours? Can't you see how arrogant that interpretation is?
Now you want to attack the messenger? Kind of low bow for one of your esteem.
If you find a biblical application arrogant then there is little I can do for you.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
L
ladylynn
Guest
Amen Sissy!!!! Thanks for walking those thoughts out with me. Yes, I know and believe too that Jesus never ever drives the sheep., He always-always goes a head and leads us. Psalm 23 is for us today, not for our funeral! Isn't it interested that God could force us and make us follow but instead He gently leads us and "teaches" us to follow?
Ok now the Holy Spirit speaks not of His own but what He has received of the Father.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Whose messenger are you? Some ignorant fundamentalist preacher'sj, whose high on opinion and low on scholarship? Your interpretation is the problem. It contradicts I Corinthians 1:6.
Hi Wolf,
I have a moment. Let's see how far I get.
Part 1.
Would you be saying that I interpret God's word the way the Jehovah's Witnesses do? I have spent a lot of time with JWs and can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.
There are two problems with this view of yours. If it were true that there is a complete absence of the gifts in church history, this would nevertheless not necessarily mean that the gifts had ceased. This kind of argument is a so-called "argument from ignorance" (argumentium ad ignorantium). It is an informal fallacy of reasoning and has been written about by, e.g., C.S. Lewis. It is a logical fallacy, a Fehlschluss. The lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That is the first problem with it. The second is that you say that only Irenaeus and Tertullian have mentioned tongues. The irony here is that Irenaeus writes of the gift in Against Heresies, Book 5, Ch. 6.1; he is correcting the view that tongues had been superseded! But you are mistaken in thinking that just these two men wrote about tongues. Novatian (210-280AD) did in A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Ch. 29, and The Apostolic Constitutions, church orders written between 375-380AD, also mention them as being normative for the church. I have looked for specific mention of tongues. There are more examples of reference to the continuance of the charismata generally though (as you do at the end of Part 3), of which tongues is one. So Wolf, it is simply not right to claim as you do that there are just a couple of references to tongues in all of church history. If that were the case it would equal evidence of the gift having ceased anyway.
There were figures in church history who were cessationists and others who believed in the continuance of the gifts, just as is the case today.
Part 2.
The first sentence was written by me.
You misunderstand what I had said. I was making the point contained in the last verse you quoted. Tongues plus interpretation are on a par with prophecy.
You reply to my quoting of John Calvin, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and D.A. Carson by saying there is more than one view on this. Of course there is. I was quoting these people because you had mentioned the Reformation and here is a Reformer and two present-day Reformed writers disagreeing with you.
You quote voodoo, Montanism (a number of times), Mormonism, the Quakers, mysticism and others as places where we find tongues being spoken. On this basis we shouldn't teach in church either, because there is such a thing as false teaching. The gift is being either misused in these groups or it is being counterfeited.
Part 3.
This is the argument from ignorance again. Paul wrote his epistles addressing particular issues in the churches he wrote to, so to say that because he doesn't mention this or that therefore it must have ceased is mistaken, to say the least, particularly since he writes in 1 Corinthians "I wish you all spoke in tongues, ... do not forbid [it]" (vv. 5 and 40)!
Tongues is not a gift for all Christians. Some have this gift, others have that. We are a body with differing gifts. It's difficult to miss Paul saying this in his epistle. The spiritual gifts of prophecy and healing are well-documented in church history. In later life, Augustine changed his views on this matter and wrote a lot on healing.
Wolf, Paul had the gift of healing but didn't heal Epaphroditus. Jesus didn't do many miracles in Nazareth because of their lack of faith.
I mentioned minor details. Agabus said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles'" (Acts 21:10-11).
The Jews at Jerusalem didn't bind Paul, the Romans did (v.33 and 22:29). And they didn't deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles - they tried to kill him themselves (21:31). He had to be rescued by the tribune and his soldiers (21:32-33) and even then he had to be carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the crowd (21:35).
Well, Paul does say that tongues are a means for building ourselves up and Jude writes that building ourselves up is precisely what we should be doing. He writes, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God" (v.20). I don't believe that Jude was necessarily referring to tongues here, at all, but Paul does, and who am I to cavil?
As for prophecy, there are things God can speak into our specific situations which are not contained in the Scripture (what Agabus said to Paul was not contained in the Old Testament, for example). It is his business how he speaks to us and I have been extraordinarily blessed and encouraged as he has spoken into my life and circumstances in this way.
I think that's it, Wolf. If I've missed something crucial let me know!
Blessings!
Hi Kohelet, almost raining today - no garden working
Would you be saying that I interpret God's word the way the Jehovah's Witnesses do? I have spent a lot of time with JWs and can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.
No,of course not, this was only an Beispiel. As you now them, then you know that they uses Verses out of the context from the bible to supply there doctrine. Another example i will show.An Carismatic brother told me as christians we have the same task as Jesus have to heal the people. And he gave Math.10 as sripture supply for this. If you read Matth. 10 you see that Jesus gave a certain task, to go to specific people (jews) under specific conditions, for a specific limited time. If we taking one vers out of this whole and denying the other verses, it is an not correct exegese from scripture.
Another example: Pentecostals teaching the baptising with the Holy Spirit is combined with speaking in tongues.(acts 2; acts 10 and acts 19. We read in this passages that the believiers got this without having an action for to get it.
Acts 2,1-4
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them separated tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 10,44-47
While Peter yet spoke these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them who heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?
Acts 19,1-6
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Received you the Holy Spirit when you believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were you baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues, and prophesied.
Non of this verses shows that it was going out from the believers to get the Holy Spirit. It was either came from the Holy Spirit, ore was given through the hands of the Apostels.
To take this verses for to proof that someone who has received the Holy Spirit can speak in tongues, is taking it out of the context. And teaching something what is not said.
In the Pentecostal movement we see the opposit! People prayed and fastet so long as they got it. (whatever they got) And acompanied with signs which we cant find in the bible in combination with receiving the Holy Spirit.
Another example: many useing Joel, 2,28ff, as proof for the pentecostal revival 1906. But if you read the context, thaen you will found that the text is talking to the literal folk of Israel, and thst the circumstances are still not have coming yet.
Of course it was a partfullfilling as Peter mentioned in acts 2, but the final fulfillment will be in future.
Joel 2,27 - 3,3
And you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed. 28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. 30 And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. 31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD comes. 32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD has said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
3 1 For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring back the captives of Judah and Jerusalem, 2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will enter into judgment with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and have divided up my land.
So to say Joel 2 means the pentecostal/charismatic movement today is takeing the scripture out of the context and give him a meaning which is not said.
I hope i could make it clear to you the point i meant.
Well its better to splitt it again
Would you be saying that I interpret God's word the way the Jehovah's Witnesses do? I have spent a lot of time with JWs and can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.
No,of course not, this was only an Beispiel. As you now them, then you know that they uses Verses out of the context from the bible to supply there doctrine. Another example i will show.An Carismatic brother told me as christians we have the same task as Jesus have to heal the people. And he gave Math.10 as sripture supply for this. If you read Matth. 10 you see that Jesus gave a certain task, to go to specific people (jews) under specific conditions, for a specific limited time. If we taking one vers out of this whole and denying the other verses, it is an not correct exegese from scripture.
Another example: Pentecostals teaching the baptising with the Holy Spirit is combined with speaking in tongues.(acts 2; acts 10 and acts 19. We read in this passages that the believiers got this without having an action for to get it.
Acts 2,1-4
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them separated tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 10,44-47
While Peter yet spoke these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them who heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?
Acts 19,1-6
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Received you the Holy Spirit when you believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were you baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues, and prophesied.
Non of this verses shows that it was going out from the believers to get the Holy Spirit. It was either came from the Holy Spirit, ore was given through the hands of the Apostels.
To take this verses for to proof that someone who has received the Holy Spirit can speak in tongues, is taking it out of the context. And teaching something what is not said.
In the Pentecostal movement we see the opposit! People prayed and fastet so long as they got it. (whatever they got) And acompanied with signs which we cant find in the bible in combination with receiving the Holy Spirit.
Another example: many useing Joel, 2,28ff, as proof for the pentecostal revival 1906. But if you read the context, thaen you will found that the text is talking to the literal folk of Israel, and thst the circumstances are still not have coming yet.
Of course it was a partfullfilling as Peter mentioned in acts 2, but the final fulfillment will be in future.
Joel 2,27 - 3,3
And you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed. 28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. 30 And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. 31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD comes. 32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD has said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
3 1 For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring back the captives of Judah and Jerusalem, 2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will enter into judgment with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and have divided up my land.
So to say Joel 2 means the pentecostal/charismatic movement today is takeing the scripture out of the context and give him a meaning which is not said.
I hope i could make it clear to you the point i meant.
Well its better to splitt it again
part 2
There are two problems with this view of yours. If it were true that there is a complete absence of the gifts in church history, this would nevertheless not necessarily mean that the gifts had ceased. This kind of argument is a so-called "argument from ignorance" (argumentium ad ignorantium). It is an informal fallacy of reasoning and has been written about by, e.g., C.S. Lewis. It is a logical fallacy, a Fehlschluss. The lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Thats maby right, but it should wonder that such an important matter was not teached and mentioned! Because arccording ( some) Pentecosatals/Charismatics ) without the baptising with the Holy Spirit combined with speaking in tongues, someone is no real christian.
That is the first problem with it. The second is that you say that only Irenaeus and Tertullian have mentioned tongues. The irony here is that Irenaeus writes of the gift in Against Heresies, Book 5, Ch. 6.1; he is correcting the view that tongues had been superseded! But you are mistaken in thinking that just these two men wrote about tongues. Novatian (210-280AD) did in A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Ch. 29, and The Apostolic Constitutions, church orders written between 375-380AD, also mention them as being normative for the church. I have looked for specific mention of tongues. There are more examples of reference to the continuance of the charismata generally though (as you do at the end of Part 3), of which tongues is one. So Wolf, it is simply not right to claim as you do that there are just a couple of references to tongues in all of church history. If that were the case it would equal evidence of the gift having ceased anyway.
There were figures in church history who were cessationists and others who believed in the continuance of the gifts, just as is the case today.
Well, after the 4th century you find rarely this gifts, out of heretic groups. I mentioned the montanists, because they had a churchsystem and nearly there doctrine had been accept in the church of Rome. So if you found during the churchhistorie (after 4th centurie)the proof for speaking in tongues in the normal church, please let me know.
You misunderstand what I had said. I was making the point contained in the last verse you quoted. Tongues plus interpretation are on a par with prophecy.
OK
You reply to my quoting of John Calvin, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and D.A. Carson by saying there is more than one view on this. Of course there is. I was quoting these people because you had mentioned the Reformation and here is a Reformer and two present-day Reformed writers disagreeing with you.
Where John Calvin taught speaking in tongues and this combined with baptising of the Holy Spirit?
You quote voodoo, Montanism (a number of times), Mormonism, the Quakers, mysticism and others as places where we find tongues being spoken. On this basis we shouldn't teach in church either, because there is such a thing as false teaching. The gift is being either misused in these groups or it is being counterfeited.
Of course I agree, but can you tell me normal churches which taught speaking in tongues combined with been baptised with the Holy Spirit? before 1900! I find not.
"Originally Posted by wolfwint
If we read other letters of Paul we find no more mention about speaking in tongues. And spiritual life of a believer was not depend on speaking in tongues for to have a deeper relationship to god, ore to be empowered for the ministry."
This is the argument from ignorance again. Paul wrote his epistles addressing particular issues in the churches he wrote to, so to say that because he doesn't mention this or that therefore it must have ceased is mistaken, to say the least, particularly since he writes in 1 Corinthians "I wish you all spoke in tongues, ... do not forbid [it]" (vv. 5 and 40)!
So you would say speaking in tongues is nessasarry for to have an deeper relationship with our heavenly father and for to be empowered for the ministry?
That as you rightly saying speaking in tongues is only one gift, which is not given to all. How then the teaching can be right, that all who receaving he Holy Spirit according Acts must can also speak in tongues? as a sign to be baptised with the Holy Spirit?
ok again splitt
There are two problems with this view of yours. If it were true that there is a complete absence of the gifts in church history, this would nevertheless not necessarily mean that the gifts had ceased. This kind of argument is a so-called "argument from ignorance" (argumentium ad ignorantium). It is an informal fallacy of reasoning and has been written about by, e.g., C.S. Lewis. It is a logical fallacy, a Fehlschluss. The lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Thats maby right, but it should wonder that such an important matter was not teached and mentioned! Because arccording ( some) Pentecosatals/Charismatics ) without the baptising with the Holy Spirit combined with speaking in tongues, someone is no real christian.
That is the first problem with it. The second is that you say that only Irenaeus and Tertullian have mentioned tongues. The irony here is that Irenaeus writes of the gift in Against Heresies, Book 5, Ch. 6.1; he is correcting the view that tongues had been superseded! But you are mistaken in thinking that just these two men wrote about tongues. Novatian (210-280AD) did in A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Ch. 29, and The Apostolic Constitutions, church orders written between 375-380AD, also mention them as being normative for the church. I have looked for specific mention of tongues. There are more examples of reference to the continuance of the charismata generally though (as you do at the end of Part 3), of which tongues is one. So Wolf, it is simply not right to claim as you do that there are just a couple of references to tongues in all of church history. If that were the case it would equal evidence of the gift having ceased anyway.
There were figures in church history who were cessationists and others who believed in the continuance of the gifts, just as is the case today.
Well, after the 4th century you find rarely this gifts, out of heretic groups. I mentioned the montanists, because they had a churchsystem and nearly there doctrine had been accept in the church of Rome. So if you found during the churchhistorie (after 4th centurie)the proof for speaking in tongues in the normal church, please let me know.
You misunderstand what I had said. I was making the point contained in the last verse you quoted. Tongues plus interpretation are on a par with prophecy.
OK
You reply to my quoting of John Calvin, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and D.A. Carson by saying there is more than one view on this. Of course there is. I was quoting these people because you had mentioned the Reformation and here is a Reformer and two present-day Reformed writers disagreeing with you.
Where John Calvin taught speaking in tongues and this combined with baptising of the Holy Spirit?
You quote voodoo, Montanism (a number of times), Mormonism, the Quakers, mysticism and others as places where we find tongues being spoken. On this basis we shouldn't teach in church either, because there is such a thing as false teaching. The gift is being either misused in these groups or it is being counterfeited.
Of course I agree, but can you tell me normal churches which taught speaking in tongues combined with been baptised with the Holy Spirit? before 1900! I find not.
"Originally Posted by wolfwint
If we read other letters of Paul we find no more mention about speaking in tongues. And spiritual life of a believer was not depend on speaking in tongues for to have a deeper relationship to god, ore to be empowered for the ministry."This is the argument from ignorance again. Paul wrote his epistles addressing particular issues in the churches he wrote to, so to say that because he doesn't mention this or that therefore it must have ceased is mistaken, to say the least, particularly since he writes in 1 Corinthians "I wish you all spoke in tongues, ... do not forbid [it]" (vv. 5 and 40)!
So you would say speaking in tongues is nessasarry for to have an deeper relationship with our heavenly father and for to be empowered for the ministry?
That as you rightly saying speaking in tongues is only one gift, which is not given to all. How then the teaching can be right, that all who receaving he Holy Spirit according Acts must can also speak in tongues? as a sign to be baptised with the Holy Spirit?
ok again splitt
part 3
Originally Posted by wolfwint
And yes, i expect 100%, if somebody claims to have the gift of healing! Because it was a sign for the unbeliever that God is standing behind the gospel. And what for an witness it is if from 100 sick people which coming to get healed only 2 ore 10 got healed.
Because we found in the gospels and in book of act, that all who came to Jesus ore the Apostels got healed.
Wolf, Paul had the gift of healing but didn't heal Epaphroditus. Jesus didn't do many miracles in Nazareth because of their lack of faith.
Well Kohelet, I agree, Paul could heal Epaphroditus, but he did not. And he could heal Timothys stomach, but he did not. We dont know why he did not. That shows me that healing was not a focus!
Its also right about Jesus service in Nazareth. But i did not said in my post: they healed all! I said that all who came to Jesus and the Apostels got healed. And you can search in the verses. Always it is mentioned (in the Gospels ore in acts)all who came got healed! If you want i can send you the list of scripture.
And this is also the was as we found in James 5. They who are sick should come to the eldest!
The initiative should go out from the sick person.
But today i suppose special in charismatic and pentecostal churches. That the Initiative is coming from the Pastor ore Preacher. Come get healed!
If someone claimed to have the same gift as the apostle had in acts, then all people which comes to him for healing should be healed. Otherwise it is a realy bad witness for God!
I was 20 years involved in mission ministrie in India. Non charismatic ore pentecostal, but Missionays ore churches prayed and mostly the people with hindu background got healed and turned to christ.
I mentioned minor details. Agabus said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles'" (Acts 21:10-11).
The Jews at Jerusalem didn't bind Paul, the Romans did (v.33 and 22:29). And they didn't deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles - they tried to kill him themselves (21:31). He had to be rescued by the tribune and his soldiers (21:32-33) and even then he had to be carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the crowd (21:35).
Thank you for correcting!
Well, Paul does say that tongues are a means for building ourselves up and Jude writes that building ourselves up is precisely what we should be doing. He writes, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God" (v.20). I don't believe that Jude was necessarily referring to tongues here, at all, but Paul does, and who am I to cavil?
So then the poor christians which are not able speaking in tongues! They then cant do what Jude says!
And they are missing to building up himselfes!
Yes, i too dont think that Jude speaks about speaking in tongues!
As for prophecy, there are things God can speak into our specific situations which are not contained in the Scripture (what Agabus said to Paul was not contained in the Old Testament, for example). It is his business how he speaks to us and I have been extraordinarily blessed and encouraged as he has spoken into my life and circumstances in this way.
This I agree; but this is different to the gift of prophecie ore having the rank as prophet in the church.
so far have a blessed weekend
wolf
And yes, i expect 100%, if somebody claims to have the gift of healing! Because it was a sign for the unbeliever that God is standing behind the gospel. And what for an witness it is if from 100 sick people which coming to get healed only 2 ore 10 got healed.
Because we found in the gospels and in book of act, that all who came to Jesus ore the Apostels got healed.
Wolf, Paul had the gift of healing but didn't heal Epaphroditus. Jesus didn't do many miracles in Nazareth because of their lack of faith.
Well Kohelet, I agree, Paul could heal Epaphroditus, but he did not. And he could heal Timothys stomach, but he did not. We dont know why he did not. That shows me that healing was not a focus!
Its also right about Jesus service in Nazareth. But i did not said in my post: they healed all! I said that all who came to Jesus and the Apostels got healed. And you can search in the verses. Always it is mentioned (in the Gospels ore in acts)all who came got healed! If you want i can send you the list of scripture.
And this is also the was as we found in James 5. They who are sick should come to the eldest!
The initiative should go out from the sick person.
But today i suppose special in charismatic and pentecostal churches. That the Initiative is coming from the Pastor ore Preacher. Come get healed!
If someone claimed to have the same gift as the apostle had in acts, then all people which comes to him for healing should be healed. Otherwise it is a realy bad witness for God!
I was 20 years involved in mission ministrie in India. Non charismatic ore pentecostal, but Missionays ore churches prayed and mostly the people with hindu background got healed and turned to christ.
I mentioned minor details. Agabus said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles'" (Acts 21:10-11).
The Jews at Jerusalem didn't bind Paul, the Romans did (v.33 and 22:29). And they didn't deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles - they tried to kill him themselves (21:31). He had to be rescued by the tribune and his soldiers (21:32-33) and even then he had to be carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the crowd (21:35).
Thank you for correcting!
Well, Paul does say that tongues are a means for building ourselves up and Jude writes that building ourselves up is precisely what we should be doing. He writes, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God" (v.20). I don't believe that Jude was necessarily referring to tongues here, at all, but Paul does, and who am I to cavil?
So then the poor christians which are not able speaking in tongues! They then cant do what Jude says!
And they are missing to building up himselfes!
Yes, i too dont think that Jude speaks about speaking in tongues!
As for prophecy, there are things God can speak into our specific situations which are not contained in the Scripture (what Agabus said to Paul was not contained in the Old Testament, for example). It is his business how he speaks to us and I have been extraordinarily blessed and encouraged as he has spoken into my life and circumstances in this way.
This I agree; but this is different to the gift of prophecie ore having the rank as prophet in the church.
so far have a blessed weekend
wolf
Hi Kohelet, almost raining today - no garden working
Would you be saying that I interpret God's word the way the Jehovah's Witnesses do? I have spent a lot of time with JWs and can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.
No,of course not, this was only an Beispiel. As you now them, then you know that they uses Verses out of the context from the bible to supply there doctrine. Another example i will show.An Carismatic brother told me as christians we have the same task as Jesus have to heal the people. And he gave Math.10 as sripture supply for this. If you read Matth. 10 you see that Jesus gave a certain task, to go to specific people (jews) under specific conditions, for a specific limited time. If we taking one vers out of this whole and denying the other verses, it is an not correct exegese from scripture.
Another example: Pentecostals teaching the baptising with the Holy Spirit is combined with speaking in tongues.(acts 2; acts 10 and acts 19. We read in this passages that the believiers got this without having an action for to get it.
Acts 2,1-4
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them separated tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 10,44-47
While Peter yet spoke these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them who heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?
Acts 19,1-6
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Received you the Holy Spirit when you believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were you baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues, and prophesied.
Non of this verses shows that it was going out from the believers to get the Holy Spirit. It was either came from the Holy Spirit, ore was given through the hands of the Apostels.
To take this verses for to proof that someone who has received the Holy Spirit can speak in tongues, is taking it out of the context. And teaching something what is not said.
In the Pentecostal movement we see the opposit! People prayed and fastet so long as they got it. (whatever they got) And acompanied with signs which we cant find in the bible in combination with receiving the Holy Spirit.
Another example: many useing Joel, 2,28ff, as proof for the pentecostal revival 1906. But if you read the context, thaen you will found that the text is talking to the literal folk of Israel, and thst the circumstances are still not have coming yet.
Of course it was a partfullfilling as Peter mentioned in acts 2, but the final fulfillment will be in future.
Joel 2,27 - 3,3
And you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed. 28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. 30 And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. 31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD comes. 32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD has said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
3 1 For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring back the captives of Judah and Jerusalem, 2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will enter into judgment with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and have divided up my land.
So to say Joel 2 means the pentecostal/charismatic movement today is takeing the scripture out of the context and give him a meaning which is not said.
I hope i could make it clear to you the point i meant.
Well its better to splitt it again
Wolf, I'm not as interested in knowing what your charismatic brother says as I am in having you answer my post.
Not maybe, it is right. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The matter was taught and mentioned. Irenaeus taught it in his Against Heresies, as I have mentioned. It is contained in The Apostolic Constitutions and in Novitian's Treatise, as I have mentioned. Church Fathers did teach it. Whereas you want to see evidence in the (supposed) absence of teaching, you are ignoring other evidence when I provide it.
So we "rarely" find it - but find it nevertheless. Why should we find this surprising? Paul describes it in 1 Corinthians 12:28 as the least of the gifts. You seem to want to give it prominence it doesn't have so that you can say we don't hear much about it therefore it has ceased. Ben Witherington, in the blog I mentioned, wrote, "And of course, if you are a student of church history, you know perfectly well that the Holy Spirit has not run out of unction to function. Those spiritual gifts have been poured out in every century since the second century until now." He writes a moment later, "We might as well just accept it [the growth of the movement] and come to grips with it, even if it isn't our cup of tea."
Wolf, it is clearly not your cup of tea. But countless people are being brought into the kingdom through various pentecostal or charismatic churches and movements. I would hesitate to fight it if I were you, for fear you're fighting against something God is doing.
Wolf, are you being serious? It wasn't that long ago that we discussed this. Calvin, Lloyd-Jones and Carson argued that the idea that "the perfect" applies to any time between the early church and the age to come as "stupid" (using Calvin's expression).
Tongues are not always accompanied by baptism with the Holy Spirit. Not everyone has the gift.
It is a useful gift, since it builds up the person using it, according to Paul.
Acts is not "teaching". It is narrative. We find the teaching in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
Where do we read that Epaphroditus didn't ask Paul to pray for healing for him? As for Timothy, Paul offered him advice. Perhaps this indicates that Timothy told him of his stomach problems. I wouldn't be dogmatic about this though; we're not told one way or the other. Do you have evidence that either or both of them didn't?
There's more ways of building ourselves up than by tongues, though that is one means. Cultivating an intimate relationship with the Lord and maturing in the things of God isn't dependent on tongues.
Agabus had the gift of prophecy. We weren't discussing the rank of prophet in the church, were we?
Wolf, I suggest we leave this now. The argument is becoming circular. You have your opinion and I have mine. Thanks for an interesting exchange. Perhaps someone reading this has found it helpful.
Originally Posted by notuptome
Then you do not believe 1 Cor 13:8 the three sign gifts ceased the rest of the gifts continue but the sign gifts ended with the completion if the NT cannon of scripture.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Is your understanding so much greater than Paul's expressed in I Corinthians and other scripture, that his understanding was like a child's in comparison to yours? Can't you see how arrogant that interpretation is?
I would agree with notuptome. My two cents...
First they served as a purpose to full the prophecy of Isaiah 28. Signs as that seen, that cause us to wonder, the faith principle. They are designed for the those who rebel showing they did not believe the word of God prophecy. Prophecy is designed for those who did believe God according to His prophecy.. 1Co 14:22
Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe
Tongues are a direct revelation from God inspired in heaven as scripture, prophecy. It is not something we do. He does the interpreting so men can hear it in their language. Peter spoke the words that God put on his lips.God did the interpreting that cause the salvation of 3000
It is one of the manners he brought new revelations when we had them in part. The perfect or complete has come with the last chapter called Revelation.
The possibility of another new revelation is sealed up till the end of time. The warning not to add to the book of prophecy, the Bible must be trusted or it simply opens up the air way for the father of lies working in respect to lying signs and wonders which brings a strong delusion form God so that men can believe the lie.
If any man say today;Lo is Christ thus sayeth the Lord.... knowing the Lord is not adding to His word at the most it makes it to no effect . This is in regard to a tongue that we do not understand or one we can. We are not to believe them.
In that way the elect will not be deceived through the use of false prophets bringing false prophecy.
There is no reason to believe we can or would desire any new revelations ,as if their was a law missing from His book the bible by which we could know him more intimately as evidence of something we can perform.. .
The commandment at the end of prophecy is not to add it is our perfect safeguard.
Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
That is not the point Paul draws out of Isaiah 28:11.
Paul goes on to give an example of all in a church speaking in tongues and unbelievers saying 'ye are mad.' That's a sign. When unbelievers hear tongues, 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me.' That prophecy is fulfilled when unbelievers hear speaking in tongues-- and that fulfilled prophecy is a sign.
In this day and age, there are still plenty of people who do not believe. There are even Jews who do not believe. Isaiah 28 is not an argument for tongues ceasing.
When the perfect comes, the Paul's understanding will be so complete that the type of understanding he had when he wrote I Corinthians will be like a child. Do you think your own understanding is so more complete than the understanding the apostles in the first century that theirs is childish in comparison to yours? Your interpretation of 'the perfect' in I Corinthians is only a few hundred years old.
Do you get that from a reference to time being allotted for 'seal'ing 'up vision and prophecy'? Prophecies continued to be given after Jesus died and rose from the dead, so I don't see how you can use that passage to argue for cessationism. After Christ fulfilled prophecy, He ascended and gave prophets to men.
This sounds like a weird, but sadly too common, of a passage at the end of the book of Revelation. If someone receives a prophecy now, that doesn't mean he's adding to the book of revelation, unless he actually adds it to the book of Revelation.
In Old Testament times, not every prophecy from God was added to the Bible. If not all prophecies were put in the Bible then, why would giving a prophecy now be adding to the Bible? That doesn't make any sense at all.
If you know your Bible well, you can probably think of several prophecies and revelations from God that are alluded to in scripture, but aren't included. We read one prophecy of Samuel when he was a child. But apparently he gave numerous prophecies. His words did not fall to the ground and he was accepted as a prophet in Israel. Saul's servant knew he could inquire of the Lord through Samuel to find lost donkeys. But we don't have in the Bible all the other requests of people asking about lost, sheep, oxen, and donkeys (thanks be to God) during the time of Samuel. No doubt, he received many such requests and he may have received revelation from God about it. Inquiring of the LORD through a prophet was specifically permitted in Deuteronomy.
Samuel told Saul he would meet prophets. He did, and they prophesied. What did they prophecy? Show me the prophecies in the Bible. We don't know. The Bible doesn't say because their prophetic utterances aren't recorded in scripture. Saul prophesied, but his prophecies aren't recorded in scripture.
The Bible makes reference to the book of Iddo the Seer, but this book is not included in the Bible and nor are his prophecies. Micaiah had prophesied some stuff about Ahab that he didn't like before the one we read about in scripture. ("He never prophesies anything good about me.") Those previous prophecies are not recorded in scripture.
Paul wrote of a man caught up into the third heaven (which many commentators believe was Paul himself). He saw things that were not lawful to utter. So he got this revelation, but it wasn't included in scripture. The seven thunders said something, but John was not permitted to write it in the book of Revelation.
And the two witnesses prophesy AFTER the last 'amen' in the book of Revelation, but what they say isn't recorded in scripture.
It makes a lot more sense to take scriptural commands and instructions at face value instead of coming up with really complicated, convoluted interpretations to do away with spiritual gifts so we can arrive at a comfortable arrangement where we only have our Bible and our minds and we can know everything and have everything with that. The Bible doesn't teach this arrangement which is so comfortable to the western post-Enlightenment mind.
Rather, we read in I Corinthians that the Spirit gives gifts like the word of knowledge, prophecy, and tongues and interpretation to the church. The Bible commands, Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good. How can someone who believes modern prophecies are from the flesh and/or the devil not help but despise a prophesying when he hearts one? He hears 'thus saith the Lord' and he shuts down. He doesn't prove all things. He rejects the prophecy out of hand. This isn't obedience to the apostolic command.
If any man say today;Lo is Christ thus sayeth the Lord.... knowing the Lord is not adding to His word at the most it makes it to no effect . This is in regard to a tongue that we do not understand or one we can. We are not to believe them.
In that way the elect will not be deceived through the use of false prophets bringing false prophecy.
There is no reason to believe we can or would desire any new revelations ,as if their was a law missing from His book the bible by which we could know him more intimately as evidence of something we can perform.. .
The commandment at the end of prophecy is not to add it is our perfect safeguard.
Look at Jesus' other sayings. He says that he that receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward. He said, as recorded in Matthew 23, "Behold I send unto you prophets and wise men and scribes...."
The passage you quote and Matthew 7 warn against false prophets. So a proper Biblical understanding takes all of Jesus words into account. There are true prophets, and there are false prophets. This is the Biblical way to understand it. Paul says that Jesus ascended and gave prophets until we all reach the full measure of the stature of Christ. So there were prophets given after the ascension. The book of Acts also tells us there were prophets in the church. We see the same in I Corinthians. They were to allow the prophets in the church to minister.
The Bible teaches 'Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things.' It does NOT teach that all prophecies are false, so just reject them. The cessationist idea is way off in the ditch, rejecting true prophecy. The other side of the ditch would be accepting all prophecies including false prophecies. In the middle, on the road, is 'despise not prophesyings. Prove all things.'
I can't find a good Biblical case that the 'rules of the game' here in the last days has changed between the time of Paul and our time as far as spiritual gifts go. I Corinthians 1:6 says 'So that ye come behind in no gift waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.' Certainly, that includes the very gifts he would address in the epistle.
While we are waiting for Jesus to come back, we should not come behind in tongues, prophecy, or any of these other spiritual gifts.
Hi brother in Christ, thanks for the reply.
I think today because all believers as a kingdom of priests are considered prophets when they prophecy ,which is simply to declare the existing will of God, as it is written . We declare that which is written by not adding to it .
There simply is no outward evidence that could prove God is with us, this includes an unknown, un-inetpreted tongue .
Those unbelievers could have been gentiles. The sign was to the Jew according to the flesh. They would say others were mad because there was no interpreter. Not because other were not Jews. .
The sign was in respect to the unbelieving Jew. That prophecy through another tongue, language because of the reformation could now come by a Gentile until he finished bringing new revelations..
Tongues is not something we do to begin with. None of the work is accredited to the believer. It was God who interpreted His prophecy in respect to other languages... as long as God was still brining new that would be added to the Bible. .
Speaking to them in a unknown language would change nothing. Isaiah 28 is not an argument for tongues ceasing. That warning came later. Do not add to that which is written.
Again it was prophecy, the interpretation not coming from sinful man.
Yes that prophecy to them was fulfilled and two fold .The whole of prophecy was fulfilled when God decided he would bring no more new prophecy and added a warning no to add to it, seeing it is sealed to the end of time. . God is no longer bringing any nw prophecy in any manner to include a tongue.
The understanding is not in respect to Paul. it would seem you are not mixing faith in what you do hear from the scriptures.
I offer my private interpretation as a personal commentary as to what I believe God is teaching me just as any man. My faith is not in respect to the apostles. My interpretation is no older than from the day I was first given as faith by which I could believe God. it would seem you might have an improper definition of an apostle. All believers that God sends are considered apostles. We therefore I believe are not to have the faith of Christ, which comes from hearing God in respect to the apostles. Scriptures refers to that as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
1Co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
The warning at the end of the book which show the new revelations are not to be expected show us we have the perfect or complete will of God. The idea of placing the apostles as equal to rises above that which is written.
We have the perfect will of God with no laws missing by which we could know him better. Prophecy has ceased which means tongues which is prophecy has also ceased. Now that the perfect, complete will of God has come.
Today after any of the manner he used to bring new prophecy to include a tongue, if any man says Lo is Christ, thus sayeth the Lord, we are to believe not.
I
f we do try the spirits to see if they are of God or of men .We can see that Mohamed is a false s prophet without even reading his false prophecy the Koran.
Now that the perfect has come it guards us from false prophecy ,that spreads its ISIS lies..
I think today because all believers as a kingdom of priests are considered prophets when they prophecy ,which is simply to declare the existing will of God, as it is written . We declare that which is written by not adding to it .
There simply is no outward evidence that could prove God is with us, this includes an unknown, un-inetpreted tongue .
Those unbelievers could have been gentiles. The sign was to the Jew according to the flesh. They would say others were mad because there was no interpreter. Not because other were not Jews. .
The sign was in respect to the unbelieving Jew. That prophecy through another tongue, language because of the reformation could now come by a Gentile until he finished bringing new revelations..
Tongues is not something we do to begin with. None of the work is accredited to the believer. It was God who interpreted His prophecy in respect to other languages... as long as God was still brining new that would be added to the Bible. .
Speaking to them in a unknown language would change nothing. Isaiah 28 is not an argument for tongues ceasing. That warning came later. Do not add to that which is written.
Again it was prophecy, the interpretation not coming from sinful man.
Yes that prophecy to them was fulfilled and two fold .The whole of prophecy was fulfilled when God decided he would bring no more new prophecy and added a warning no to add to it, seeing it is sealed to the end of time. . God is no longer bringing any nw prophecy in any manner to include a tongue.
The understanding is not in respect to Paul. it would seem you are not mixing faith in what you do hear from the scriptures.
I offer my private interpretation as a personal commentary as to what I believe God is teaching me just as any man. My faith is not in respect to the apostles. My interpretation is no older than from the day I was first given as faith by which I could believe God. it would seem you might have an improper definition of an apostle. All believers that God sends are considered apostles. We therefore I believe are not to have the faith of Christ, which comes from hearing God in respect to the apostles. Scriptures refers to that as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
1Co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
The warning at the end of the book which show the new revelations are not to be expected show us we have the perfect or complete will of God. The idea of placing the apostles as equal to rises above that which is written.
We have the perfect will of God with no laws missing by which we could know him better. Prophecy has ceased which means tongues which is prophecy has also ceased. Now that the perfect, complete will of God has come.
Today after any of the manner he used to bring new prophecy to include a tongue, if any man says Lo is Christ, thus sayeth the Lord, we are to believe not.
I
f we do try the spirits to see if they are of God or of men .We can see that Mohamed is a false s prophet without even reading his false prophecy the Koran.
Now that the perfect has come it guards us from false prophecy ,that spreads its ISIS lies..
In Azuza St. (Los Angeles) believers filled with the Holy Spirit would speak previously unknown national languages, and people from other nations would be converted immediately.
<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">[video=youtube;Q8Kjc6Qdtko]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Kjc6Qdtko[/video]
<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">[video=youtube;Q8Kjc6Qdtko]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Kjc6Qdtko[/video]
part 3
Originally Posted by wolfwint
And yes, i expect 100%, if somebody claims to have the gift of healing! Because it was a sign for the unbeliever that God is standing behind the gospel. And what for an witness it is if from 100 sick people which coming to get healed only 2 ore 10 got healed.
Because we found in the gospels and in book of act, that all who came to Jesus ore the Apostels got healed.
Wolf, Paul had the gift of healing but didn't heal Epaphroditus. Jesus didn't do many miracles in Nazareth because of their lack of faith.
Well Kohelet, I agree, Paul could heal Epaphroditus, but he did not. And he could heal Timothys stomach, but he did not. We dont know why he did not. That shows me that healing was not a focus!
Its also right about Jesus service in Nazareth. But i did not said in my post: they healed all! I said that all who came to Jesus and the Apostels got healed. And you can search in the verses. Always it is mentioned (in the Gospels ore in acts)all who came got healed! If you want i can send you the list of scripture.
And this is also the was as we found in James 5. They who are sick should come to the eldest!
The initiative should go out from the sick person.
But today i suppose special in charismatic and pentecostal churches. That the Initiative is coming from the Pastor ore Preacher. Come get healed!
If someone claimed to have the same gift as the apostle had in acts, then all people which comes to him for healing should be healed. Otherwise it is a realy bad witness for God!
I was 20 years involved in mission ministrie in India. Non charismatic ore pentecostal, but Missionays ore churches prayed and mostly the people with hindu background got healed and turned to christ.
I mentioned minor details. Agabus said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles'" (Acts 21:10-11).
The Jews at Jerusalem didn't bind Paul, the Romans did (v.33 and 22:29). And they didn't deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles - they tried to kill him themselves (21:31). He had to be rescued by the tribune and his soldiers (21:32-33) and even then he had to be carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the crowd (21:35).
Thank you for correcting!
Well, Paul does say that tongues are a means for building ourselves up and Jude writes that building ourselves up is precisely what we should be doing. He writes, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God" (v.20). I don't believe that Jude was necessarily referring to tongues here, at all, but Paul does, and who am I to cavil?
So then the poor christians which are not able speaking in tongues! They then cant do what Jude says!
And they are missing to building up himselfes!
Yes, i too dont think that Jude speaks about speaking in tongues!
As for prophecy, there are things God can speak into our specific situations which are not contained in the Scripture (what Agabus said to Paul was not contained in the Old Testament, for example). It is his business how he speaks to us and I have been extraordinarily blessed and encouraged as he has spoken into my life and circumstances in this way.
This I agree; but this is different to the gift of prophecie ore having the rank as prophet in the church.
so far have a blessed weekend
wolf
I only know That I have seen God Heal and know HE does Heal today and if healing only one was all HE did if only one was raised from the dead it is more then enough reason for me to Praise HIM Salvation is the greatest miracle Yet Jesus Healed all and YET I to read where it says HE could do no mighty works because of Their Unbelief . God does Heal today and HE also doesn't heal today why I don't know BUT as JOB said in all I will Bless the Lord who are we to put a number on Gods power as if to say God you only healed one and not all as we wanted. The Bible shows us that after Jesus performed many miracles people walked away from HIM, after they ate the happy meal why? they got the sign they wanted, they got the belly full, it was because they could not handle the truth of HIS words. And left Him In Matthews: Jesus told the Disciples you can leave too. Peter said "Lord where are we to go" ? You hold the words of Eternal life..... seeing the POWER of God in action and not have any change in your life means nothing.