My Response

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

My Response

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

"Impartation" theology
Re:

For those interested only - On Cessationism. (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Miracles still exists. It takes faith to believe
Re:

Cannot be...
Re:

Just because there are counterfeit currencies doesn't mean the real ones aren't legitimate. (SK)
Re:

How do these "miracles" disprove cessationism? (eom) (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Adoi...since when is cessation a proven doctrine for all denominations? n/t (SK)
Re:

Which one? (GiGi)
Re:

I only know of those denominations that know the Truth and walk in the truth.... (SK)
Re:

... as defined by YOU, SK? (if I may add)(still in satori mode ;-)) (eom) (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Since you don't like my version, ask RTC! He's specializes in Church history. (SK)
Re:

Clarification. (Christopher Yip)
Re:

My input (RTC)
Date: 2001, Jul 03
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

++What do you mean by apostolic era and sign gifts? A clear definition will go a long way to clarify the issues. I presume that by apostolic era you mean the time of the apostles, till the death of John. Or does it extend to a few more years until after their direct disciples are dead, like Polycarp?
ME: That would be an adequate definition.
++And how does one distinguish between a sign, a wonder, and a miracle? Is a miracle not a sign in a sense? ... OK, having said that, I am of the opinion that the statement “Sign gifts have ceased but not miracles” is not quite correct.
ME: Yup, miracles are signs in a sense but not always. If performing miracle is indeed regarded as a GIFT, then we ask ourselves what is the purpose of the spiritual gifts besides sign? It is for the edification of the church. Hence, miracles are not ALWAYS for sign. Therefore, the statement remains correc - sign GIFTS have ceased but not miracles. Anyway, this is only ONE statement on my position and if these 7 words cannot convey my entire position, please don't fault it. Look at the rest of Powell's article.
++I disagree. All the references you give had the element of faith, either in the recipient or in the person asking for help.
ME: All the miracles I mentioned were performed by Jesus. I think there is nothing really to say about faith on Jesus the healer's part. I said the three categories show that RECIPIENT'S faith is not a NECESSARY element in miracles or healing. If it were NECESSARY, it would have to be present in EVERY instance. What is the non-cessationist position on this? Is recipient's faith necessary or not?
++ The only exceptions were those where it is absurd for those who were dead or had their faculties impaired by demons to have faith in response to Jesus.
ME: This underscores the fact that miracles are INDEPENDENT of the recipient's faith.
++ And Mark 6:5 mentioned nothing about those who were healed, but if Scripture should interpret Scripture, these few who were healed also had faith in Jesus.
ME: You are not using Scriptures to interpret Scriptures. How could you since there ARE instances where recipient's faith was not present? What is the Scriptures here?
Instead, the verse does not directly state that healing depended on their faith. Neither does it imply or state that Jesus tried to heal them but failed because of their lack of faith. On the contrary, some were healed. Those who came to Jesus for healing were healed. Perhaps due to hostility, only a few came to be healed. Certainly the open disbelief shown by these people cannot be compared with the attitude of those who come to be healed but do not receive healing in present-day healing meetings. Jesus never attempted to heal and then failed.
++ If the verse “without faith it is impossible to please God” is true, I believe then that there is not just one common element (sovereignty of God) but that faith is necessary too, whether in recipient or in the person(s) representing the recipient of the miracle.
ME: Without faith, it is impossible to please God - what is the context here? Miracles or salvation? Aren't you misquoting?
++ Miracles do happen but it is not because of someone with the gift of miracles, but God responding to prayers of faithful saints. Is that your view too?
ME: Yup.
++I referred you earlier to the book “Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church”, available from SKS. The main point of the book is not that God withdrew the gifts, but that increasing institutionalism crowded out and quenched the workings of spiritual gifts in the church.
ME: Good theory but begging the question. Have you read BB Warfield "Counterfeit Miracles"?
++ The author documented the existence of such gifts up to the 4th century.
ME: Gifts or simply miracles in answer to prayers?
++ I believe that the Bible in no way hint that the church need no spiritual gifts for the building up of the body.
ME: Read Powell.
++ There is no biblical teaching, explicitly or implicitly, that gifts will cease with the completion of the canon as none of the writers of the NT had any such conception of a completed canon when they were penning the letters to the churches.
ME: Read the other arguments.
++ It may be rare to know of someone who has certain gifts of the more spectacular kind, but rarity does not imply cessation.
ME: Why not? Do you begin with the assumption that rarity does not mean cessation? Cessation by definition already mean either rarity or extinction.
Christopher