These signs will follow them who believe

Yes, they did; but only for a temporary period of time. By the end of the first century the sign gifts had ceased.
DHK

 

Yes, they did; but only for a temporary period of time. By the end of the first century the sign gifts had ceased.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]You know I agree totally with you on this subject.

 

One of the theories I have heard concerning the ending of Mark is that the first circulated version did not include the current ending, that he later added it on when Luke and Matthew had published their gospel accounts. That is only a theory and is neither here nor there since the signs did accompany the apostles particularly since Acts records Paul being bit by a snake and if oral tradition concerning their lives are to believe these signs occurred elsewhere.

 

Then I must be hellbound, because I got sick after drinking a bad dairy beverage once.



My wife must be hellbound, too, because her pet snake (a rosey boa) bit her once. And my wife is from a pentecostal background!!!

 

DHK said...

DHK,

Praise God you and I agree on many many things, but not on this.

My question is, if they ceased in the 1st century, how come they have never stopped.

It would be as if you were saying that after the 1st century the sun stopped giving light. Or after the 1st century snow stopped falling. Or after the 1st century people quit speaking.

All of those things have never stopped happening so one cant say they ceased in the 1st century.

For 2000 years now some born again people have...century after century...been recieving the gift of tongues.

For 2000 years now there have been testimonies from christians who drank something, or accidently fell into something, or had something happen to them that always results in death...but they didnt die.

For 2000 years now christian brothers and sisters have prayed for very sick people and they have miraculously recovered. Amazing the doctors who say "this person should be dead???"

For 2000 years now christians have been casting demons out of people.

Your statement...unless I am misunderstanding what you mean...flies in the face of the evidence.

Am I misunderstanding what you mean?

God bless,

Mike

 

They did, by the end of the first century. History is completely silent on Christians speaking in Biblical tongues after the first century. The only persons that spoke in tongues were various heretical sects until the beginning of the 20th century when the modern day tongues began in America. So, was God silent for 1800 years? And the Holy Spirit unavailble to believers for eighteen centuries? That which goes for "tongues" today doesn't even come close to resembling what is defined as tongues or languages in the Bible.

People didn't stop speaking, but they did stop speaking miraculously in foreign languages. The miraculous sign gift of tongues had ceased.

All of the sign gifts have ceased. "So one can't say.." I just did.
One of the more common examples are faith healers. There are no faith healers today as there was in the first century, and any honest and object observer will admit this. The apostles could heal all that came to them whenever they chose to exercise the gift of healing. It would be akin to the "faith healer" of today to go up and down the corridors of a hospital and heal all that are sick (includinng those that are in the ER). But that just doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because the so-called faith healers are frauds.

I disagree. Since the beginning of the 20th century this fraudulent movement just began.

That is called anecdotal testimony of "what could have happened, should have happened, etc."
We live in a day and age of God's grace. God is still on the throne. He answers prayer. He watches over his children. But the miraculous sign gifts are not in operation today.

And this proves??
No one said that God doesn't answer prayer.

I would rather leave this for another subject.

The evidence points to the cessation of the sign gifts of the Spirit by the end of the first century.
DHK

 

To All,

bmerr here. DHK, for once I think we find ourselves in agreement. Stop the presses!

Concerning the ending of Mark's gospel account, the answer to whether or not the last 12 verses ought to be there lies in the first verse of the book, which reads,

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;"

As we all know, "gospel" means "good news". Now, let's look at the two main views of the ending of the gospel of Mark.

First, what we find in the KJV:

16:20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Next, what some propose the real ending should be:

16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Now honestly, which of these sounds like "good news"?

Also, the purpose of the signs that would follow those who believed is given to us in 16:20:

16:20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

The purpose of the miraculous sign gifts was to confirm the word. The word has long since been confirmed, thus the miraculous sign gifts have long since ended.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

DHK,

Please get a hold of the book "2000 years of Charismatic Christianity". Its very good, and will shed a lot of light on this issue.

With all due respect you have some prejudgices that are clouding your objectivity. One example of this would be that because *some* false believers speak in false tongues, all tongues are false. Or that because *some* faith healers are phony, nobody is healed through prayer anymore.

Its not good at all to "blanket condemn" because of problems with a small minority.

God bless,

Mike

 

They are not false believers. They are the great majority, if not all. I have never witnessed or heard of anyone speaking in a foreign language miraculously given to them of God, an actual foreign language that can be verified by someone from another country for which it would be beneficial. That would be the purpose of tongues wouldn't it? Read the fourteenth chapter of 1Corinthians. If tongues did not edify the church then there were to be not tongues. If there was no understanding tongues was useless. Understanding and edification was key. Paul put strict restrictions on the use of tongues (always a foreign language) which if followed today, no one would speak in "tongues." What goes on in the name of tongues today is completely fraudlent. The Biblical gift ceased long ago.

As regarding healing, you have misunderstood me. I never said healing, per se ceased. I said the supernatural gift of healing has gift. There are no "faith healers" as there were in the first century, today. Point to one. Let me see him heal all that come to him, outside of his own environment. It doesn't exist.
God still heals. As you say, he heals in answer to prayer. I have seen that in my own ministry. But that is far different from the so-called healing crusades of various so-called faith-healers that claim they can heal each one that comes to them.

Is it any wonder that they only heal the "hidden" diseases: headaches, tumors, pain, things that cannot be immediately verified. They never bring someone who is obviously sick (cerbral palsy) to the front, and heal him. No parapelegics, quadrapelegics, etc. I wonder why? It can't be done. They are frauds.

The Bible says "We wait for the redemption of our bodies. Our bodies are in a constant state of decay and degeneration according to the second law of thermodynamics, and especially according to God's curse upon mankind since the fall of man. Sin has taken its toll, and continues to do so.

Why do so many Charasmatics:
wear glasses?
die of cancer?
die of heart disease or failure?
suffer with other diseases such as diabetese, epilepsy, cancer, osteoporosis, etc.

Physician heal thyself.
Faith healers are frauds which cannot heal all diseases, as they claim.
God heals according to His will. His will is sometimes yes, sometimes no, and sometimes later.
It is always according to His will. And it is His will that we must accept for our lives, even as Paul accepted God's will, thorn in the flesh (an infirmity (or sickness), for the rest of his life as God's will for his life. God's grace was sufficient for him. Fanny Crosby was blind for all her life. Why didn't God heal her? She was a great blessing to the world in spite of her blindness.

"We wait for the redemption of our bodies."
DHK

 

You know ascund, I agree with you much, but I would not make that definite distinction between what is justification and what is sanctification. I would rather think of being made a disciple as the (passive) work (of God) of justification; and of both "baptizing" and "teaching" as the (active) work of the Apostles. It till today (I like to blieve) no one else's but the Apostles prerogative! That's what the Scriptures are there for today, in other words. Of course, "baptising" is Jesus' own work through the Holy Spirit of creating the new man whose desire is after God. He does it through the Scriptures - ours of later times' 'Apostle'.

 

Too many typing errors! Here's it again,

You know ascund, I agree with you much, but I would not make that definite distinction between what is justification and what is sanctification. I would rather think of being MADE a disciple, as the (passive) work (of God) of justifying; and of both "baptizing" and "teaching" as the (active) work of the Apostles. It was the Apostles' prerogative to baptise, and till today (I like to believe) it is no one else's but the Apostles' prerogative to "teach"! That's what the Scriptures are there for today, in other words. Of course, "baptising" is Jesus' own work through the Holy Spirit of creating the new man whose desire is after God. He does it through the Scriptures - ours of later times' 'Apostles'.

 

Yes in fact, the Apostles' prerogatives were the "signs of Apostleship" (or of an Apostle). "wonders", "speaking in languages", "healing", baptism with water, AND "teaching" especailly, were exclusively 'Apostolic' 'features' if you would! Other claiming such authoritative attributes are pretentious and false!

 

DHK,

I meant to comment on these specifics earlier from this post, but didnt have time.

Completly false. In addition to heretical groups with false tongues, there has also been born again christians...consistantly for 2000 years now...who have recieved the biblical gift of tongues, exactly as in the 1st century.

Of course not. He still was giving His glossalia to His believers.

Of course not.

The tongues of today is precisely the same type as 2000 years ago. There were two types of tongues in the 1st century. A heavenly language not understood in itself, but in need of an interpreter, and people hearing their own language from people who had never learned it.(such as the day of pentecost)

Both are still being given today. I heard a testimony not long ago of someone who was speaking in tongues...in what he thought was a heavenly language...until someone came up to him afterwards and it was made apparent that it was something different. A man new to this country, a visitor from some African nation, came up to him excitedly and asked him where he learned the language of his homeland? The other man said he didnt know what he was talking about. The visitor said that the brother was praising and glorifying God in in the native language of the visitor.

And of course, the heavenly language of tongues is also given, and is probably the most common here in the USA. I dont know about other countries.

I agree with that to an extent. Generally, this gift does not seem to be given as powerfully as then for the most part. I say for the most part because their have been...at various times during the last 2000 years...specific times when glorious healing has occured. In ways very similar to 2000 years ago.

Not generally, no. I agree. But there have been wonderful outpourings of great healing many times since the 1st century. And if healings occur somewhere less overwhelmingly...lets say 3 people healed at a meeting of 200, would you go to them and say "I'm sorry, but your healing is not legitimate, because it didnt happen as powerfully as in the 1st century"?

Some of them are. Not all. Christ said the tares will always be with us, in amongst the wheat. The general statement you just made has...in effect...slanderously condemned as being of the devil sincere men of God gifted with one of God gifts of the Spirit.

The evidence all around us testifies that they are.

(jumping to your 2nd post now)

Well isnt this an interesting development? Let me repost what I posted from the earlier post...

Back to your current post now...

Thats why God says someone should interpret. And in all the churchs I have ever been in where the gifts are in evidence interpretations are given.

The understanding and edification is there when the tongues are interpreted.

Thats simply not true.

Then why is it still in evidence?

And that was true 2000 years ago. Yet God chose to sometimes heal. Just as He does today.

Because they help us see better.

Because we are not in heaven yet.

Ditto.

Ditto.

Brother, whats the point? 2000 years ago people had eye problems, they caught diseases, and they died from them. Yet God still chose to heal some.

Why are you demanding a higher standard of healing from charismatics and pentecostals today then of those in the 1st century?

God didnt heal all people in the 1st century, only those He chose to heal. And one day those He healed died of something.

Yet now you are discrediting healing today because we still die of deseases someday???

He didnt completly eradicate all disease in the 1st century, yet now you are discrediting todays charismaticas and pentecostals because we still eventually die of diseases???

C'mon, brother.

God bless,

Mike

 

Matthew 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
It doesn't happen today

Acts 5:15-16 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

It doesn't happen today

Where do multitudes come out of every city round about for the purpose of getting healed, and ALL, every one of them do get healed. Not just two or three, but ALL, everone of them get healed. These were the type of crusades that the Apostles were able to have, after the same manner that Christ had.
This does not happen today. The gift of healing has obviously ceased. Certainly two or three by God's grace may be healed today. That is not a demonstration of the Biblical supernatural gift of healing. You are grasping at straws.
DHK

 

DHK,

You quoted this scripture...

And then said...

We are never told that it would.

You quoted this scripture....

And then said...

We are never told it would.

This is what we are told to expect regarding healing...

"(In my name) "they will lay hands on the sick and the sick will recover"

This happens today and it has happened consistently for 2000 years now.

We are not told that all, every one, will be healed. Only that those who are His people...believers...will lay hands on the sick, and the sick will recover.

I have agreed with you, and still do, that generally the gift is not being seen as powerfully as then. I wish it were.

We are not told that it would. We are told...

"they will lay hands on the sick and the sick will recover"

Christians...for 2000 years now...have been laying their hands on sick people, the sick have recovered.

Then why is it still happening?

No...YOU are the one erecting a strawman.

You are claiming that what Christ said would follow His believers is no longer happening because its not always in evidence as powerfully as in the 1st century...

When Christ and the scriptures never say that it would be.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Mike I don't understand why you don't comprehend my point. As I pointed out in the above Scripture, the Apostles had the supernatural gift of healing. It was a miraculous sign gift that was given for the apostolic age (the first century), and that age only. They ceased at the end of the first century. As you agreed with me, we don't see those kind of healings take place any more. Why? No one has the Biblical gift of healing any longer. It was a supernatural sign gift given during the first century. It doesn't happen anymore, has never happened since the end of the first century. You can't point to any place in history other than the Bible where people from cities round about came and ALL were healed. Those things don't happen, because the gift of healing has ceased, along with other miraculous sign gifts.

I never said that healing has ceased. This is the third time I am explaining this to you. I also believe in healing according to the pattern given in James 5. It is Scriptural. Note one interesting fact and compare it to your typical Charismatic preacher of today. The Charismatics typically blame the person not healed saying that "you didn't have enough faith." That is a cop-out. If it is God's will for that person to be healed, and the gift of healing is operative today then the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the "faith healer." Look at what the passage says:

"And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up." (James 5:15).
Whose prayer of faith? Who prayed? The sick or the pastor (faith healer). It wasn't the faith of the sick! It was the faith of the so-called faith healer. To blame the sick that he didn't have enough faith is cruel and demeaning. It is throwing a guilt trip on him. If anyone didn't have enough faith to heal the sick it was the faith healer. But the fact of the matter is: God's will is that not everyone should be healed. Paul wasn't healed (2Cor.12). Trophimus he left sick at Miletus. Timothy had a stomach problem, and wasn't healed. Why wasn't Paul able to heal himself and these others? It wasn't the will of God! It isn't God's will for all to be healed, as so many Charismatics believe, when they assert that healing is in the atonement.
DHK

 

DHK,

Then why are you argueing?

Thats all the passages of scriptures says regarding healing.

Heres the passage again...

"And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."

Christians have been doing that for 2000 years now.

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons;"

Christians have been doing that for 2000 years now.

"they will speak with new tongues;"

Christians have been doing that for 2000 years now.

"they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them;"

Miraculous cases of christians continueing to live after something happens to them that should kill them have been happening for 2000 years now. Including by the way, people who recieve ordinarily lethal snake bites.

"they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.""

Christians have been doing that for 2000 years now.

Point...set...match.

God bless,

Mike

 

I hear they have a lot of horses in Kentucky. Go speak to them, I'm sure they would understand you.

 

prophecynut,

Lots of them. Beautiful horses and fast as well. Along with tons of beautiful scenery and wonderful people.

Thats interesting. Do you know that God once used a donkey to communicate with one of His people?

God bless,

Mike

[ September 10, 2005, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: D28guy ]