You will strain at a gnat to try to prove your point. The Book of Revelation has nothing to do with the gifts of the Spirit. I think you know that. So why bring another red herrring into this discussion? What gift of the Spirit was John exercisin? None! God was giving him revelation--the last book of the completed canon. This had nothing to do with the gifts of the Spirit.
[/quote[
You come across as someone who is not paying enough attention, or who is willfully dodging the point. John received a prophetic revelation. The whole book of Revelation is supernatural. John saw Christ in His experience. This is not consistent with the idea that by the end of the apostolic era, supernatural gifts had died down to a trickle. The book of Revelation is explosively supernatural, not a little trickled. It also refers to future prophesying and prophets.
You have this idea that gifts gradually died off in the first century. You eisegete the idea into scripture by showing:
1. A lot of gifts (miracles, etc.) early on.
2. An incident of Paul not healing a couple of people, including himself, later on.
I counter this showing:
1. An incident early on where Paul did not heal himself (eyes in Galatians)
2. Evidence that the apostles prayed because they thought there needed to be more signs and wonders--early on. Evidence that they didn't just turn miracles on and off purely at will, but depended on God to grant them.
3. The fact that the book of Revelation shows a 'spike' of spiritual gifts at the end, due to the nature of the book.
I could also show you where Acts says that God granted extraordinary miracles be done through Paul's hands. On certain occasions, God did this. Generally, though, Paul preached the Gospel with signs and wonders. Paul says he did them from Jerusalem to Illyricum (when Romans was written, with no indication that they were dying off.)
You base your idea that gifts gradually died out based on a couple of examples. My counter-examples destroyed your argument.
I wrote
>>Also, Paul DID NOT HEAL HIMSELF EARLY ON when he had the eye problem mentioned in Galatians. Galatians is most likely a very early epistle, written before the events of Acts 15. That seems to be the majority view among Bible-believing commentators these days from what I've read. Paul was among the Galatians because of an infirmity, and if they could, they would have plucked out their own eyes and given them to him. He probably had an eye disease. <<
Again another red herring. This also had nothing to do with the gifts of the Spirit. It was a special circumstance. Read the context. Paul had just stated that God had taken him up to the "third heaven," where he saw things that were unlawful for him to speak of. In other words he saw things similar to what John wrote about. And lest he be proud and puffed up about this great experience God humbled him with this physical affliction which he refers to as a thorn in the flesh. Read the conclusion.
Interesting tactic. If you can't answer a point, call it a red herring. You could at least bother to look up the passage. I am not referring to the thorn passage. I am referring to the book of Galatians, as I said before. You are referring to II Corinthians, written many, many years later. So you are not familiar with the context.
The II Corinthians passage says the thorn was a messenger of Satan, and yes it was to keep him humble. But 'keep him humble' does not always mean 'disease.' The context deals with persecutions Paul faced. Going to jail and being beaten can keep you humble, too.
And Paul does not clearly state that he was the man shown the third heaven.
Please, focus on the issue here. You brought up the thorn as evidence that miracles, etc. supposedly died out. This is not evidence that miracles died out. Even if it were a sickness, it would simply show that healing, miracles, etc. ARE SUBJECT TO THE WILL OF GOD. They were subject to God's will early on, too. I showed this by referring to Paul's sickness EARLY IN HIS MINISTRY during the first missionary journey when, as many scholars believe, he visited the Galatians for the first time.
The fact that the apostles felt there was a need for God to do signs and wonders, early on in Acts 4, shows they did not just turn them on and off. They were dependant on God. Sometimes God had them 'heal them all.' That was up to God.
I agree with that. There were only certain times in their ministry when they used these gifts. The Charismatics don't agree. Look at the Charismatics today. "Come and get your miracle today." (Literature I received in the mail)
I did not send you that literature, so put up the straw man and let's talk about the Bible.
Note, though, that Jesus taught that all things are possible to him that believes. There are many things God is willing to do if we seek Him with faith.
Everyone should speak in tongues.
All should prophesy.
--The above statements are heretical even in Biblical times, much less in our age when the gifts have ceased.
Sloppily worded perhaps. Paul said I would that you all spake with tongues, but rather that you prophesied. He also said to covet to prophesy. Moses wished that all God's people were prophets and that God would put His Spirit on all of them.
Satan imitates the things that are of God, and deceives the very elect.
Your statement looks a lot more heretical to me than the ones from the Charismatic literature you just quoted, especially if you mean decieved unto damnation. The Bible says if it were possible, they would decieve the very elect. It does not say the elect can or will be decieved.
I wrote
So this idea that Paul's ability to do signs just waned away at the end isn't accurate. The will of God came into play from early on until late in his ministry.
This is an usubstantiated claim.
What is unsubstantiated? You are the one without any scripture to back up his views. The Bible says nothing about the apostles' gifts waning over time.
As time went on in Paul's ministry he prayed for individuals--Timothy, Epahproditus, Trophimus, himself included, and many others. Some of them were healed and some were not. He spent much time in prison. There was no prison doors miraculously opening as in the case of Peter in Acts 12.
Haven't you read about the earthquake and the prison doors opening in Philippi, after Paul and Silas had already been beaten? So at least on one occasion, there was a prison-break miracle. In the case of Paul, he was invited out of the cell by the jailer.
Paul rightly points out in 2Cor.12:12 that signs, wonders, and mighty deeds were the signs or marks of an apostle. But your unbelief keeps you from believing the straightforward statement of the Word of God.
I believe II Corinthians 12:12. I asked you earlier to explain what you think this means. It has nothing to do with the argument you are trying to make.
If you are implying that since signs and wonders and mighty deeds were marks of an apostle, that only apostles did miracles, you contradict the book of Acts and I Corinthians 12. Either interpret II Corinthians 12:12 in a sensible manner, or reject parts of the canon.
The way I interpret it, I do not accept that someone is an apostle if he has not done signs, wonders, and mighty deeds. But I also recognize that the scripture says that 'he that believes' in Jesus will do the works that Jesus did, and even greater works.
Paul writes to the Galatians: See how large a letter I have written you, referring to the large letters that he wrote in. He wrote the letter himself, not using an emmanuensis. His letters were big because his eyesight was poor.
Could Paul have had poor eyesight? Possibly? If he did, would that mean his thorn was his eyesight? Not necessarily. If Paul wrote big, does that mean he had poor eyesight? No. Some people right big. And maybe that was one way of recognizing Paul's writing.
raise: :Fish: