More 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...

More 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)
Re:

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

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. ++The dictionary I referred to is clearer. What is edifying to one is a sign to another. It depends on whose angle you are really looking from. As far as I am concerned, I see signs and wonders and miracles as a package thing, with no necessary neat lines of demarcation. 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? ++Like I said, it is always faith being present, either on the recipient (the woman with the bent over back) or the asker (Jairus pleading for his daughter’s life). I do not limit it to just the recipient. Scriptures support this position. ++ 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. ++Not at all, it just underscores the fact that dead people or demon-possessed people cannot exercise faith. That’s just being logical. It doesn’t prove your point at all. 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? ++Then what about the instances where recipients’ faith were present? Are you saying that such Scriptures do not throw light on Mark 6:5? Unless these healed folks were dead (obviously not) or demon-possessed (not implied anywhere) I believe my stand has more basis than yours in regards to Mark 6:5. 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. ++I don’t know about you, but it is clear to me that those who came to Jesus certainly had faith in Him to be healed. If they had no faith why would they even bother to come to Jesus? Bottom line, faith is present. Of course God is faithful even when we are faithless. God in His grace can do great works even when we are doubtful, but not without being chastised by God for being of little faith, as we often read in the Bible. This become lessons of learning for us to trust God more and not to doubt. You cannot legitimately point to these instances and claim validity for the no-need-faith-on-recipient’s-part theory. Because the point is that these people should have faith in God in the first place! God did not say He dispensed with their lack of faith. He worked in spite of their lack of faith to show them how they ought to have trusted in Him in the first place. So God still desires that people have faith in Him though our faithlessness will not thwart His sovereign plans. 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. ++I will not guess why some people are healed while some are not in today’s healing rallies. God can look at man’s hearts and the condition of their souls to pour forth blessings or to withhold them. Every man has to search his own heart and to ask God for His purposes in trials. I know there are some who teach that even in the apostolic era gifts are beginning to cease because Paul could not remove the thorn in his flesh which they believe is a kind of physical infirmity. But this people failed to see that God gave a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with the completion of the canon or any ceasing of gifts. ME: Without faith, it is impossible to please God - what is the context here? Miracles or salvation? Aren't you misquoting? ++It is you who have not read Hebrews 11. The context is about what God did to those who came to Him in faith. God rewarded them for their faith, whether it be Abel’s more excellent offering, Noah’s saving of his own household, Abraham’s journey to the promised land, Sarah’s pregnancy and so forth. What have I misquoted? Prove my error. ++ 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. ++So if someone who is godly and humble is used by God mightily to work miracles, you would not view it as the gift of miracles, because you have already deemed it to be a thing of the past? ++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"? ++No, but what does it say? And how does Warfield not beg the question in his own book? ++ The author documented the existence of such gifts up to the 4th century. ME: Gifts or simply miracles in answer to prayers? ++Just spiritual gifts, gifts that are necessary to the building up of the Body of Christ. The author did not break up the gifts into categories to deal with them. He is treating the spiritual gifts as an entire category. ++ 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. ++Have already done so. In fact, Powell seems to take a rather near the fence position, arguing for the cessation of apostles and prophets (and their workings) but otherwise allowing for other nonapostolic manifestations of spiritual gifts. Or do cessationists argue for only the passing of some gifts but not others? Then you should not be called cessationists. Moreover, I questioned whether the distinction between signifying and edifying gifts is helpful at all or is it just a word-play to augment the cessationist position. ++ 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. ++Have done so but still conclude that he has made no strong case for cessation from the Bible. Powell himself said this “Of the three representative texts used for cessationism ONLY ONE HAS ANY MERIT. Ephesians 2:20 seems to imply that the apostles and foundational prophets would pass away. The foundation metaphor can have this implication. One has to be careful, though, in concluding that this is Paul's view. His eschatological outlook and eager expectation for the imminent return of Christ may have prevented him from really entertaining this view. He knew Christ could tarry if He so chose, but did not seem to think it would be long. Therefore, if Christ tarried, the apostles and foundational prophets would pass away by default. But this does not necessarily mean the miraculous gifts would pass away with them.” ++ 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. ++I don’t have to make any untenable assumption. Rare means rare. Ceased means ceased. Rare means hard to find or not very common. Ceased means no longer existing or that something has stopped. Or do you have some other private interpretation of the words rare and ceased? If something has ceased, and by your theory, it should be about 400AD, then it means it is no longer in operation now. But if it is still existing, then it has not ceased. You put yourself beyond examination by defining cessation so broadly as to allow for total ceasing and partial ceasing and even non-ceasing. In closing, I quote Powell’s own conclusion: “What, then, are we to conclude. First Corinthians 1:4-8 and 13:8-13 seem to suggest that the all gifts are to continue until the Second Coming of Christ. Ephesians 2:20 suggests that the apostles and prophets have ceased. The silence of the New Testament on the calling of succeeding apostles also suggests this. While there may be others in the church with the gift of prophecy, they may not be prophets in the same sense as in Ephesians 2:20; 3:5. With regard to the other miraculous gifts, we can conclude that the apostolic manifestations passed away with the apostles. However, we noted above that there were nonapostolic manifestations of these gifts and our conclusions about them should be more reserved. The former primarily signify while the latter primarily edify. The manifestations of miracles and healings were probably rare in the local church to begin with, so the paucity of evidence in history should not surprise us. As far as the revelatory gifts are concerned it appears that revelations which are doctrinal or universally moral and associated with the canon have ceased. However, noncanonical revelation involving applicatory or circumstantial content that relates to individual or local church experience may still be possible.” ++It therefore seems to me that Powell is not so much arguing for the cessation of gifts as much as the cessation of certain expression of the miraculous and revelatory gifts, especially those closely linked with the apostles and prophets in the first century. For example, the gift of miracles still exists but not in the intensity with which the apostles carried it out. The gift of prophecy still exists but not that which pertains to doctrinal revelation. Now if that is the case, then I am quite in agreement as I believe too that we no longer have Apostles with us to give new revelation. Rather we have apostles of the missionary/itinerant church planter category. These missionaries built on the foundation already laid down in the first century. Gifts of miracles may or may not accompany their work. In any case, miracles are not like hat-tricks to impress people, but works of God to accomplish certain intended purposes. So just because one has the gift of miracle does not mean he can go round overriding nature and draw believers into God’s kingdom. Such a person would be close and sensitive to God’s leading to be used by God to accomplish miracles that bring glory to God.