I Corinthians 1:7 shows that gifts continue

jtown

I have never heard that spin on things. Paul is not one of the 12 according to I Corinthians 15, since Christ appeared to the 12 with Judas' dead before Paul was a Christian.

There were more than 12 apostles in the first century. i believe there have been several apostles throughout history. Some possibilities are men like Patric, apostle to Ireland, and a few others.

 

BobRyan

I see nothing in scripture to limit the 'big miracles' to transitional periods. Jesus said he that believeth in Me, the works that I do, shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do.

Btw, I heard of an account of a missionary in Irian Jaya (on the island of New Guinea) living among a stone age tribe. They really mourned over death and had no hope. One time a boy drowned in a muddy area. The people really mourned over it. The missionary laid hands on him and he came back. The village opened to the Gospel from that day forward.

Before I met my wife, she was on a bus here in Jakarta that had a traffic accident. The bus had hit someone. The driver was really scared. Moved with compassion, she got out of the bus, went over to the guy, and started praying for him out loud in the name of Jesus. She commanded his spirit to come back in his body in the name of Jesus. Just after she did that, the man exhaled and started breathing again. She opened her eyes, and everyone was looking at her, mostly Muslims probably. She told them to get the man a taxi to take him to the hospital and got back in the bus. The person travelling with her was upset saying she could have gotten into trouble doing that. They were on their way to a Bible study.

 

You don't have any scriptural authority to interpret these events as gifts gradually dying out. When it comes to revelation, there is an increase in cases of gifts toward the end of the lives of the 12, as John received a very spectacular revelation toward the end of that era.
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.
So early on, Paul didn't just heal all the time like Superman using his powers. The will of God came into play. The apostles did just always heal based on their own will. In Acts 4, early on, they had to pray for God to grant that signs and wonders be done, and then there was a big batch of them. Peter didn't just run in and raise Tabitha from the dead. He prayed first.
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.

And I see nothing in the II Corinthians passage, many, many years after Paul mentioned his eye problem in Galatians, to think that the 'thorn' was a medical problem. Paul calls it/him/her a messenger of Satan (or angel of Satan) sent to buffet him. The context is about Paul enduring persecution. The 'thorn' could have been a devil sent to stir up persecution. Or perhaps it was a false apostle, a messenger of Satan who stirred up persecution against him.

DHK,
The difference between the two of us on this is that you have to see the word of God in practice to believe it. I believe what it says. I have seen some healing. have I seen a multitude healed? No. Does that mean it doesn't happen? No it doesn't. And God can heal a multitude by the gift of healing if He chooses to, and there is nothing in the Bible to say that He won't. I don't see any scripture that says that DHK has to experience something in order for it to be true. The Bible is enough. I don't need to add your experience to the Bible to make the Bible true.
And you have not answered my challenge to you. Show me in scripture that someone has to heal a whole multitude for it to be the gift of healing. If someone says, "In the name of Jesus Christ, walk" that is not prayer, so how can you call it God healing in response to prayer? On some occasions, Paul healed one person. How can you say that was not the gift of healing?
And I don't think someone has to be as dramatic as the apostles to have a gift of the Spirit.
I would like you to clarify something. I noticed that 'pneumatika' in I Corinthians 12:1 is translated as 'spiritual gift.' Elsewhere, 'charisma' is usually translated as 'gift.' Do you not believe in 'charisma' operating today or 'pneumatika' or both?

This type of thinking is at the root of some heretical beliefs. You know, I ran across a hyperdispensationalist on the Internet once who had his 'time periods' set up so that water baptism was no longer necessary, and was only for the Jews in the early part of the church age. Of course, she didn't have scripture to back up her time periods. Just like you don't have any scripture that shows that God deal differently than he did in the first century, or for gifts of healing or miracles ceasing.

I have heard and read of a similar incident in Timur in the 60's as they crossed a lake to evangelise and did a number of other miracles during a revival. I met a Timurese fellow here in Jakarta a couple of years ago who went to the same neighborhood fellowship with me. He said he did his thesis on this, and had talked with people who saw some of the miracles and gave their accounts of them. I moved and never did get a copy of the thesis, as he had offered.
By the way, have you ever seen someone who did not believe in the continuance of the gifts pray for the sick and that sick person get healed? Have you ever seen a die-hard cessationist elder lay hands on the sick and sick got better? I suppose it could happen, but it would seem people who have faith for these things have a bigger view of God than that.

 

I've run accross Independant Baptists and some from the ('Plymouth') Brethren movement who believe in apostles as church planters. I see the role more that way, though I'd be hesitant to accept that someone was an apostle who had not done signs and wonders.
I once moderated a church planting list of predominantly house church people. There were a number of church planters on there. A lot of people in the house church movement have really gone to radical extremes in doing things Biblically. They meet in homes, have meetings where 'every one of you' can use their gifts in their meetings based on the guidelines in I Corinthians 12, getting rid of just one sermon per meeting. They also have accepted the role of the church and plural elders in a congregation instead of the pastoral system. A lot of them, that is. There is such an openness to just going with what the Bible says. Therefore, a lot of them believe in apostles ministering today. If someone is an apostle, they don't think of him as a superhuman person who they all have to flock around. The ones on the list seemed to think of apostles more like church planters sent by God, usually recognized by the saints.
There were several church planters on the list. I asked if any of them were apostles, and if they had ever done signs and wonders. Two or maybe three said yes. They had done signs and wonders in their ministries. One of them is well-known in missions circles among for planting churches and doing 'coaching' for church planters who work in the Mslim world. He is probably not well known outside of those missions circles and the house church movement, however.
I wouldn't be surprised if I know a few apostles. I may have had one spend the night in my house a week or two ago. He is from a 'Baptistic' denomination. One way he wins people to the Lord, particularly guys who've been to Mecca, is ministering to them until their cancer, crippled condition, etc. is healed and then sharing the Gospel with them and their families. He has won people in the part of this country that most resembles Saudi for being closed to the word, or used to before a year and a half ago.
By the way, Bob, it is a blessing to hear your testimonies of howyou ahve seen God work.

 

And this is exactly why it cannot refer to the completed canon. The coming of the perfect was something Paul would experience himself. Also, if you say having the canon is being perfect/mature, then that makes Paul like a child in comparison to you, because you have the canon, and you do not.

And if we know the NT scriptures are authoritative because they came to us through apostles, and the apostles had a childish understanding because they did not have the scriptures, then why would they be so authoratative. Martin Lloyd Jones realized this flaw in reasoning and pointed this out in one of his articles, though not in the same words.

God did confirm the word with signs and wonders. But the Bible does not teach that this is _the purpose_ of signs and wonders. And it certainly does not say that this is the purpose of the I Corinthians 12 gifts.

I Corinthians 12 and the subsequent passages tell us that these gifts are 'to profit withall' and to edify the body of Christ. The body of Christ is still here and still needs edifying. Therefore, it does not make sense that the purpose of the gifts has ceased.

Signs bore witness to the word over and over again in the record of scripture. The idea that signs would confirm a specific set of books is not found in scripture. That is a doctrine not based on scripture, so you should reject it if you want to be sola scriptura. If it is not a doctrine that has no scriptural basis, show me the scripture that says that signs were to confirm the books of the New Testament.

Clearly there is a difference from the listeners perspective between Peter saying, the message I preach to you was confirmed by all the miracles Jesus did, and Peter actually doing a miracle. There is a difference between Paul saying the word he preached was confirmed by Jesus' miracles and the miracles that occured in the early days of the Jerusalem church, and Paul actually doing miracles. Do you expect people hearing about the miracles of scripture having the same effect as their seeing miracles today? It does not have the same effect, but not everyone demands to see a miracle before they believe. And many who saw what Jesus did still did not believe.

Paul wrote that verse about studying in a time when there was revealed knowledge. Jude wrote that verse about the faith having been delivered to the saints before the New Testament scriptures were complete, and during a time when there was revealed knowledge.

I met an evangelical believer from Corinth a few years ago who would diagree with you.

The epistle was written to all of us, too, if you will check the beginning of it.

 

I wrote,
Originally Posted by Link
You don't have any scriptural authority to interpret these events as gifts gradually dying out. When it comes to revelation, there is an increase in cases of gifts toward the end of the lives of the 12, as John received a very spectacular revelation toward the end of that era.

 

I wrote

DHK wrote

Where do I argue from experience? I argue from scripture. You argue from experience.
You say we don't see everyone healed like in Acts 5, and therefore argue that the gift of healing is gone. You have not seen it. You have not experienced it.
I ask you for scripture that shows that the gift of healing ceased, and you give me lame arguments like the fact that Paul did not always heal everyone. You have yet to show a scripture that shows that the gifts of healing or miracles ceased.

First, quote me and show me where I said that.
What I would say is that God could speak in such a way now if He so chose. There is no scripture that says He will not.
You say He does not. But you have no scripture to back you up. You have a theology that limits God's sovereignty based on your own opinion and not scripture.

I don't say He does or does not. I say God is God and He can do that if He wishes. He never promised not to. What you see is irrelevant to what God can do. God can do a lot of things DHK has not seen.

I say God can do so if He wishes.

I say, God can still work miracles He chooses. The fact that your experience is lacking, and you depend on experience for your belief system on matters like this, does not make the Bible any less true.

The irony here is I am backing up my arguments with scripture, and you are backing yours up by dismissing things you have not experienced.
The Bible says God gives gifts of the working of miracles and healing to the church. It also shows miracles being done when the Gospel was brought to a new area. If not a single person in a whole country does a miracle for 100 years, that does not mean that God does not give the gift. If the Bible says the Spirit gives the gift as He wills, then we need to believe the scriptures. You obviously have a problem with that. You have not produced any scripture that says that the gifts of healing and working of miracles have ceased, and yet you do not believe they operate.
The Bible also shows us that we are to desire spiritual gifts, and Christ taught His disciples to pray for what they wanted. So God can answer prayers in faith for gifts of the Spirit as well.
By the way, it is not true that experience has nothing to do with our faith. Have you experienced being born again? Romans 5 shows us that experience in the faith is a good things. God can use experiences to mold us and strengthen our faith. We should not base doctrine on our intepretation of experience. But we should not reject things the Bible teaches are real just because we haven't experienced them.

The 'Charismatic movement' is diverse like the 'dispensational movement.' There are plenty of born again charismatics built on the foundation of Christ, just as there are Baptists. And there are some who go to Charismatic churches, or Baptists churches, who do not have true faith in Christ. So your wide-brush attempts at painting movements border on slander if they do not cross the line.
Besides, the Bible says 'if so be ye have tasted, that the Lord, He is gracious...' We are to experience God and His grace, not just read about it.

What is your Biblical criteria for identifying whether something is a healing or a miracle? In Acts 5, when they were all healed, how can you say that was not also a miracle? If someone is healed by a miracle, how can you say it was not also a healing?
If you don't even have criteria for this, how can you set up Acts 5 as the standard for what the gift of healing is and insist that only those who heal them all have it?
Since you don't have any scripture to back up the idea that the gift of healing has ceased, the only way for you to logically argue that they have ceased with integrity is to research every single claim that is made and ever has been made. Of course, your results would not be conclusive. I have never exercised these particular gifts and I do not make it a habit to collect data on them. Find someone who does collect data on them and go interview some people.

I have not heard reports of these particular miracles. I have heard reports of others. I have seen some other manifestations of the gifts, particularly words of knowledge, some that were rather spectacular. Gifts don't have to be spectacular, but they should be done in a way that is edifying.
If you don't see a demonstration of something for yourself, do you not believe in it? Did you see Jesus raised from the dead? What would you say to an unbeliever who said he would not believe in Jesus' resurrection unless he saw the risen Christ? Is not seeing something grounds for rejecting Biblical truth?
I wrote,

DHK responded

I suspect you have not thought the issue through yet. Romans 12 lists several 'gracious bestowals', or 'gifts' (charismata) including teaching. I do not think the passage calls them 'pneumatika.' Do you see a distinction?
I Corinthians calls those nine gifts 'charismata' as well.

 

The problem is that the scripture you give does not support your views. And you cannot answer my points when I point out the flaws in your reasoning. For example, you can't explain away the fact that the apostles being marked by signs, wonders, and mighty deeds does not exclude non apostles from using gifts of the Spirit. The fact that God confirmed the word to the Hebrews through signs wonders and mighty deeds is not an argument against the continuation of the gifts. etc.

DHK,
This is not something I base theology on. Just something I wanted to ask. It seems like a lot of those who pray the 'prayer of faith' have a pretty big view of God and how He can operate in this world. But God is a lot bigger than my experience and I acknowledge that. I am glad to be proven wrong, however.
Btw, what would you say to someone who said he did not believe you and dismissed the healings you have seen that were healed as either lies or coincidence?

Take your own advice. If you have not seen God do something, particularly something that lines up with the word, that does not mean God does not do such things. Notice, I am the one here basing my belief in the continuance of the gift of healing on the word. Your biggest argument against it is that you just don't see these things these days.

 

DHK wrote

DHK
Again, the verse still says anything about gifts ceasing. It tells us that they that heard the Lord and preached the word to 'us' (apparently the group the readers and writer were a part of) with signs, wonders, and gifts of the Holy Ghost.
1. It does not say anything about gifts only being for the immediate readers. In fact, we know from other scripture that the apostles and others did signs, wonders, and exercised gifts of the Spirit to groups other than the Hebrews.
2. It does not say that these things were restricted only to those who heard the Lord. Other scripture shows that the Corinthian church also had gifts of the Spirit. Are you saying this passage contradicts I Corinthians 12? Please do not ignore the question.
I wonder how you can honestly hold to the idea that this passage says anything against the continuing of the gifts. You aren't just sticking to your guns so as not to conceed a point, even when you realize you are wrong, are you? If you are being sincere, please consider enrolling in a Logic 101 class or reading a book on logic. If this is the best argument you can come up with for gifts ceasing, that is pretty pitiful.
This is the first time I recall seeing you make the MacArthur time period argument for gifts ceasing. Your reasoning has some major flaws.
1. It rests on human opinion. Scripture does not say that miracles, etc. were only for these time periods. This requries your human opinion and interpolation to fill in the gaps.
So you end up rejecting direct teachings and even commands about gifts of the Spirit in scripture in favor of human opinion. (E.g. the teaching that the Spirit gives the gifts as He wills, despise not prophesyings, commands to desire the gifts.)
2. You don't give any reasons why miracles would only be in these periods. You certainly don't give any reasons from scripture. You get the reasons from your own opinions. MacArthur argued that miracles were only for times of revelation. The problem is that scripture was apparently not being written, much anyway, in Elijah and Elisha's time, as their stories were written some time later.
3. It totally disregards the fact that there is a difference between the New Covenant and Old Covenant.
Christians now have the indwelling Spirit. The relationship of Israel in the OT and the Holy Spirit was different from that of the saint in Christ and the Spirit.
The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. Peter described what was happening and explained that in the last days, God would pour out His Spirit on all flesh, and that various groups of people would prophesy, see visions, dream dreams, etc. We see the Spirit poured out, with gifts, in Acts 2. Decades later, we see that the saints still were receiving gifts of the Spirit. We see doctrinal teaching that these gifts are given according to the Spirit's will. And we see Revelation talking about two witnesses late in the age, before the Lord's return, prophesying.
We live in an age characterized by the work of the Spirit in the church, including working through gifts of the Spirit. This is what the Bible shows us.
Your interpretations just don't line up with the record of scripture. If you see the two witnesses as in the future, then you should realize your eisegetion of scripture that have the gifts ceasing in the first century contradict other scripture and should be rejection.

You accuse me of twisting scripture. Hebrews 1 says that God has spoken to us 'by His Son.' Are you saying that the Son is the completed canon of scripture? If that is what you mean to say, that is borderline blasphemous if it does not cross the line. Christ, and not the scriptures, are the ultimate Revelation of God to man.
Do you believe in a quadrinity with the Bible as the fourth member?
Hebrews makes a lesser to greater argument. God has spoken in a greater way now than before. This is not a passage that argues that God no longer spoke through prophets. Instead, we see that when Christ ascended, he received gifts for men and gave gifts unto men, including the gift of 'prophets' which he gave to the church. See Ephesians 4 and the passage from the Psalms quoted therein. Acts shows that there were prophets after the ascension.
God speaking through Christ is greater than God speaking through the prophets in the Old Testament. This passage has nothing to do with the idea that the canon replaced gifts. Please do not try to twist scripture to back up your views. Please stop quoting scripture that is irrelevant to your argument and then arguing as if the scripture you quote backs up what you are saying.
It is clear from scripture that not all revelation from God is recorded in scripture. Christ is the ultimate revelation of God to man, yet from John we know that not all of His acts are in scripture. John did not write down a thunder peal, and Paul wrote of a man who got revelation in the third heaven that was not lawful to be utterred. The OT mentions prophecies not included in the OT.

The irony here is that it is you, and not me, who is requiring a sign. I believe in miracles because the Bible says so. You require to see them by yourself, instead of just believing what the word says.
There is a difference between requiring a sign and praying for signs and wonders for a godly purpose. Those who demanded a sign from Christ 'required a sign.' The apostles prayed for God to do signs and wonders for the sake of Jesus (Acts 4) and God answered them. Their motivation was righteous, not evil and adulterous. So while the evil and adulterous seek a sign, it is illogical to conclude that all who seek a sign are evil and adulterous. Witches brush their teeth, but if you brush your teeth, that does not make you a witch.
If I tell you about supernatural things I have witnessed, no doubt you will use that as an excuse to say I base doctrine on experience. I believed the word, and I saw some of the kinds of things the word talks about. You refuse to believe the word on these things, and refuse to believe them unless you see them for yourself. If you saw, would you even believe?