Why have the Sign Gifts Ended
- Thread starter Guojing
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S
Well that's not true. I will go by what Paul wrote, since he was an Apostle of Christ, called by Christ and anointed and sent out by Christ.
You on the other hand, are just a major in the cessationist army, and called to sow doubt, disharmony and deception.
Kindly provide the scripture where you have learned that the sign gifts were a 'package deal' as you put it. Doing so, will have you ignoring what Paul wrote in his 1st letter to the Corinthians. Your sarcastic delivery of your particular lack of knowledge is doing nothing for your desire to 'teach' here. However, this is not a classroom but if it were, you would not be graduating.
When people post as you do, with the rhetoric and fake manners, it indicates they believe themselves to be in a superior position wherein they believe only what they have to say themselves is worth reading or listening to. And that is the problem actually. Only you believe you are in that position.
The Bible indicates that it is the Holy Spirit through people and not the person themself who heals and so on.
The following is your sarcastic attempt at belittling people:
1.Now will you please give us the name of the people you have raised from the dead and when did you get snake bitten and have you drank poision dirty water?
2.not only can YOU speak in a noise that no one can understand, and heal the sick, cast out demons and raise the dead.....YOU must also be able to survive a bite from a Cobra, drink bleach water
That is about your post right there.
You on the other hand, are just a major in the cessationist army, and called to sow doubt, disharmony and deception.
Kindly provide the scripture where you have learned that the sign gifts were a 'package deal' as you put it. Doing so, will have you ignoring what Paul wrote in his 1st letter to the Corinthians. Your sarcastic delivery of your particular lack of knowledge is doing nothing for your desire to 'teach' here. However, this is not a classroom but if it were, you would not be graduating.
When people post as you do, with the rhetoric and fake manners, it indicates they believe themselves to be in a superior position wherein they believe only what they have to say themselves is worth reading or listening to. And that is the problem actually. Only you believe you are in that position.
The Bible indicates that it is the Holy Spirit through people and not the person themself who heals and so on.
The following is your sarcastic attempt at belittling people:
1.Now will you please give us the name of the people you have raised from the dead and when did you get snake bitten and have you drank poision dirty water?
2.not only can YOU speak in a noise that no one can understand, and heal the sick, cast out demons and raise the dead.....YOU must also be able to survive a bite from a Cobra, drink bleach water
That is about your post right there.
My knowledge of the Koine Greek is rather extensive. In the past thirty years I have translated a good deal of the New Testament. When applying oneself to this task, you learn a great deal about the language and the Scriptures. I do not like being placed into a position wherein it may sound as if I am boasting. However, I will defend my knowledge.
I do not answer others definitions of a "third class conditional particle". I take into consideration what they may have to say on the subject but in the end, I am responsible for the correct understanding. Like all men, on all subjects, ones conclusions are often skewed by their beliefs. Thus their conclusions are subject to bias. When one gives a definition of a "third class conditional" construction, one must make sure that he/she is not trying to make something fit into their personal belief system. Many so called scholars have a set agenda because they are employed by Universities or Seminaries, which themselves have a set agenda which they (scholars), must follow. I have no such relationship.
Looking at 1 Cor. 13:1-3 again, I have clearly stated how the third class conditional sentences therein should be understood. You say you have contradicted my findings. I say you have proved nothing. By your responses you have proved only that you have a set agenda. You need 1 Cor 13:1-3, to say what you believe it says. For me, it is a singular point in a much larger argument.
Rather than trying to undermine the traditional way of looking at a third class condition, you should be asking yourself the following:
1) If Paul wanted the reader to believe these things were possible by him and/or others in the future, why use a third class condition on all three verses?
2) If a third class condition places what is being said in the mood of "uncertainty", either in the present and/or the future, why then would one try to build a doctrine upon it?
3) If Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, chose the particle "εαν" (Third class particle), placing "uncertainty" on what he was capable of but wanted the reader to believe he was indeed capable of these things (and perhaps others as well), why was he not inspired to use a word like "ἐπειδή" (Translated into English as: Since) or "ἀπό" (Translated into English as: Since now, Even or For), which would have set these statements as "First Class Sentences", in the mood of reality and to be firmly believed without question?
I do not answer others definitions of a "third class conditional particle". I take into consideration what they may have to say on the subject but in the end, I am responsible for the correct understanding. Like all men, on all subjects, ones conclusions are often skewed by their beliefs. Thus their conclusions are subject to bias. When one gives a definition of a "third class conditional" construction, one must make sure that he/she is not trying to make something fit into their personal belief system. Many so called scholars have a set agenda because they are employed by Universities or Seminaries, which themselves have a set agenda which they (scholars), must follow. I have no such relationship.
Looking at 1 Cor. 13:1-3 again, I have clearly stated how the third class conditional sentences therein should be understood. You say you have contradicted my findings. I say you have proved nothing. By your responses you have proved only that you have a set agenda. You need 1 Cor 13:1-3, to say what you believe it says. For me, it is a singular point in a much larger argument.
Rather than trying to undermine the traditional way of looking at a third class condition, you should be asking yourself the following:
1) If Paul wanted the reader to believe these things were possible by him and/or others in the future, why use a third class condition on all three verses?
2) If a third class condition places what is being said in the mood of "uncertainty", either in the present and/or the future, why then would one try to build a doctrine upon it?
3) If Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, chose the particle "εαν" (Third class particle), placing "uncertainty" on what he was capable of but wanted the reader to believe he was indeed capable of these things (and perhaps others as well), why was he not inspired to use a word like "ἐπειδή" (Translated into English as: Since) or "ἀπό" (Translated into English as: Since now, Even or For), which would have set these statements as "First Class Sentences", in the mood of reality and to be firmly believed without question?
I agree with you here, that the "baptism" referred to in Mark 16 and Matthew 28 is water baptism. While baptism is not necessary for Salvation, it is an ordinance of the Lord. It is the very first act of a new believer, out of a clear conscience towards God.
It should also be noted here, this section of Mark's Gospel, Chapter 16:9-20 are highly controversial. Many variant readers, who compare Greek copies against one another, do not agree on the conclusions of which verses should be in the Cannon. Some of the more ancient authorities leave out verses 9-20. Still others say verses 9-20 should be deleted and that additional words should be placed after verse 8. (See footnote in the RSV for ex.). However, verses 9-20 are found in the Textus Receptus, (Received Text), which was used by the King James Bible translators and in the Nestle Text, considered to be more accurate than the Received Text.
Just wanted to pass that a long.
It should also be noted here, this section of Mark's Gospel, Chapter 16:9-20 are highly controversial. Many variant readers, who compare Greek copies against one another, do not agree on the conclusions of which verses should be in the Cannon. Some of the more ancient authorities leave out verses 9-20. Still others say verses 9-20 should be deleted and that additional words should be placed after verse 8. (See footnote in the RSV for ex.). However, verses 9-20 are found in the Textus Receptus, (Received Text), which was used by the King James Bible translators and in the Nestle Text, considered to be more accurate than the Received Text.
Just wanted to pass that a long.
-
1
- Show all
My condolences.
I am a continuationist, and do not believe that Scripture supports any other view. Personal experiences confirm my understanding of Scripture.
I am a continuationist, and do not believe that Scripture supports any other view. Personal experiences confirm my understanding of Scripture.
I can appreciate that. But if that is the case, then I wonder why you attacked my desire to know the truth rather than dealing with the grammatical issue up front.
I appreciate when Greek and Hebrew scholars, in spite of their seminary or university's agenda or their own personal biases are willing to admit when the language is inconclusive. I think this is one of those cases.
I find the idea that the use of the third class conditional as evidence that Paul was saying or implying that he did not speak in the tongues of angels to be rather lacking considering its use in Hebrews 4:13, etc.
I think you are coming at it from the wrong angle. I am always suspicious of the type of reasoning that says, 'Word X is ambiguous between meanings A and B. If Paul had used word Y, then we would be certain then we would be certain be meant A. But he used X, so he did not mean A. ' Sorry if that takes a bit of concentration to digest. But I do not see Paul as coming down definitely on one side or another here in I Corinthians 13, just suggesting a possibility, like an 'if' statement renders it in English. If Hebrews 4:13 does not prove that the author is convinced that the readers would remain steadfast in their confidence to the end, then it does not stand to reason to interpret I Corinthians 13:1 must mean that Paul is saying that he definitely did not speak in the tongues of men and of angels.
I also gather that the KJV's, 'Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels' is an inaccurate translation.
I can use this...'Why didn't Paul say something more clear and definitive' argument to ask you why, if your interpretation is correct, that Paul did not use the second class conditional and make it clear that he did not speak in the tongues of men and of angels.
In I Corinthians 14, Paul contrasts praying in tongues with praying with his mind. If he did not know what language he spoke, he might not know if it were a tongue of men and of angels.
The way you presented the third class conditional as the most uncertain.... could be misconstrued to go beyond a description of a grammatical category to have semantic meanings that might be unjustified.
Can we both agree that 'If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels' (or if we use 'languages' there) that this is a fairly accurate representation of the Greek? Paul does not say that he is speaking in tongues of men and of angels or that he is not in this particular phrase, but saying _if_ he did.
I appreciate when Greek and Hebrew scholars, in spite of their seminary or university's agenda or their own personal biases are willing to admit when the language is inconclusive. I think this is one of those cases.
I find the idea that the use of the third class conditional as evidence that Paul was saying or implying that he did not speak in the tongues of angels to be rather lacking considering its use in Hebrews 4:13, etc.
I think you are coming at it from the wrong angle. I am always suspicious of the type of reasoning that says, 'Word X is ambiguous between meanings A and B. If Paul had used word Y, then we would be certain then we would be certain be meant A. But he used X, so he did not mean A. ' Sorry if that takes a bit of concentration to digest. But I do not see Paul as coming down definitely on one side or another here in I Corinthians 13, just suggesting a possibility, like an 'if' statement renders it in English. If Hebrews 4:13 does not prove that the author is convinced that the readers would remain steadfast in their confidence to the end, then it does not stand to reason to interpret I Corinthians 13:1 must mean that Paul is saying that he definitely did not speak in the tongues of men and of angels.
I also gather that the KJV's, 'Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels' is an inaccurate translation.
I can use this...'Why didn't Paul say something more clear and definitive' argument to ask you why, if your interpretation is correct, that Paul did not use the second class conditional and make it clear that he did not speak in the tongues of men and of angels.
In I Corinthians 14, Paul contrasts praying in tongues with praying with his mind. If he did not know what language he spoke, he might not know if it were a tongue of men and of angels.
The way you presented the third class conditional as the most uncertain.... could be misconstrued to go beyond a description of a grammatical category to have semantic meanings that might be unjustified.
Can we both agree that 'If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels' (or if we use 'languages' there) that this is a fairly accurate representation of the Greek? Paul does not say that he is speaking in tongues of men and of angels or that he is not in this particular phrase, but saying _if_ he did.
I'm thinking of a line in a hymn, 'How I've proved Him 'ore and 'ore.' Is it wrong to sing that?
Doesn't the psalmist model appealing to experience when he writes in Psalm 37:
"25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread."?
And was Peter wrong to write the following?
I Peter 2:3
If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
Paul does not treat experience as a bad thing either. It is presented in a positive light in Romans 5.
3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
It is a normal thing for a Christian who walks in the faith to find the teachings of the Bible to be true in his or her own life, and it is a good thing to testify to that to others.
I do occasionally see cessationists arguing that certain spiritual gifts have ceased based on the fact that they have not experienced these gifts in their own life experience. Lack of experience is no basis for doctrine. But experience that confirms the word of God is a good thing.
Doesn't the psalmist model appealing to experience when he writes in Psalm 37:
"25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread."?
And was Peter wrong to write the following?
I Peter 2:3
If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
Paul does not treat experience as a bad thing either. It is presented in a positive light in Romans 5.
3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
It is a normal thing for a Christian who walks in the faith to find the teachings of the Bible to be true in his or her own life, and it is a good thing to testify to that to others.
I do occasionally see cessationists arguing that certain spiritual gifts have ceased based on the fact that they have not experienced these gifts in their own life experience. Lack of experience is no basis for doctrine. But experience that confirms the word of God is a good thing.
Personally......I do not think that the words of a song replace the Words of God. But that is just where we differ I guess.
I do not know you very well my brother, but may I say to you that you are placing yourself in severe danger by what you are proposing. You as well do not know me but from what I have read of you you seem to be coming from the Pentecostal Charismatic faith of signs and wonders with the evidence of speaking in tongues as a sign of your belief.
Please fill free to reject everything I am about to post and you probably will. However, someone else may need to read what I need to post and maybe it will help them.
Some people such as yourself demand a sign or a miracle or believe that an EXPERIENCE is a confirmation of their faith. That fols is a very dangerous way to live your life.
While some people hold that there are objective truths, others believe truth is relative, but is truth dependent upon circumstances? Can truth be truth if it is relative? Does the truth change with times?
We might say that the sun rose this morning, and it was beautiful. Yes, perhaps it was beautiful, but did the sun really rise? No, it’s just the language that we use to describe it. Most of us know (except for the Flat Earth Society) that the earth moves around the sun, and then this galaxy itself speeds through the universe, so we use language that is sometimes not completely accurate, so to say that the sun rose is subjectively true, but not objectively true, but when we start to make truth subjective, then we might be left with no truth at all.
We need truth. You want your brake fluid level reading to be truthful, don’t you? Surely we’d prefer the “Bridge Out” sign over “Bridge Ahead” sign, wouldn’t we? They say the truth hurts, but lying hurts a lot worse because it hurts everyone around the liar. If you omit something out of your story, what you said might be true, but if we leave out vital information, we can be left with a half-truth, but a half-truth is a whole lie. Thankfully, there is truth out there and it’s found in the Word of God and it is NOT FOUND IN EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCES, but also in the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
I do not know you very well my brother, but may I say to you that you are placing yourself in severe danger by what you are proposing. You as well do not know me but from what I have read of you you seem to be coming from the Pentecostal Charismatic faith of signs and wonders with the evidence of speaking in tongues as a sign of your belief.
Please fill free to reject everything I am about to post and you probably will. However, someone else may need to read what I need to post and maybe it will help them.
Some people such as yourself demand a sign or a miracle or believe that an EXPERIENCE is a confirmation of their faith. That fols is a very dangerous way to live your life.
While some people hold that there are objective truths, others believe truth is relative, but is truth dependent upon circumstances? Can truth be truth if it is relative? Does the truth change with times?
We might say that the sun rose this morning, and it was beautiful. Yes, perhaps it was beautiful, but did the sun really rise? No, it’s just the language that we use to describe it. Most of us know (except for the Flat Earth Society) that the earth moves around the sun, and then this galaxy itself speeds through the universe, so we use language that is sometimes not completely accurate, so to say that the sun rose is subjectively true, but not objectively true, but when we start to make truth subjective, then we might be left with no truth at all.
We need truth. You want your brake fluid level reading to be truthful, don’t you? Surely we’d prefer the “Bridge Out” sign over “Bridge Ahead” sign, wouldn’t we? They say the truth hurts, but lying hurts a lot worse because it hurts everyone around the liar. If you omit something out of your story, what you said might be true, but if we leave out vital information, we can be left with a half-truth, but a half-truth is a whole lie. Thankfully, there is truth out there and it’s found in the Word of God and it is NOT FOUND IN EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCES, but also in the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
Then if I accept your reasoning with the KJV and then apply that same reasoning to 1 Corinthians 14:34, lets see what we then have as I think that everyone agree that chapter 12-14 are "Corrective" chapters on TONGUES. The CONTEXT IS TONGUES...............
ESV.........
"the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. "
American Standard Version
"let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law".
Webster's Bible Translation
Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted to them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Weymouth New Testament
Let married women be silent in the Churches, for they are not permitted to speak. They must be content with a subordinate place, as the Law also says;
King James Bible
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Pick ANY Translation you want to choose and they all say the same thing. Women are not to speak in tongues in church.
NASB Lexicon 1 Corinthians 14:34
NASB ©GreekStrong's Origin - The womenγυναῖκες
(gunaikes)1135: a womana prim. wordare to keep silentσιγάτωσαν
(sigatōsan)4601: to keep silent, to keep secretfrom sigéin the churches;ἐκκλησίαις
(ekklēsiais)1577: an assembly, a (religious) congregationfrom ek and kaleófor they are not permittedἐπιτρέπεται
(epitrepetai)2010: to turn to, entrust, hence to permitfrom epi and the same as tropéto speak,λαλεῖν
(lalein)2980: to talkfrom lalos (talkative)
ESV.........
"the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. "
American Standard Version
"let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law".
Webster's Bible Translation
Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted to them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Weymouth New Testament
Let married women be silent in the Churches, for they are not permitted to speak. They must be content with a subordinate place, as the Law also says;
King James Bible
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Pick ANY Translation you want to choose and they all say the same thing. Women are not to speak in tongues in church.
NASB Lexicon 1 Corinthians 14:34
NASB ©GreekStrong's Origin - The womenγυναῖκες
(gunaikes)1135: a womana prim. wordare to keep silentσιγάτωσαν
(sigatōsan)4601: to keep silent, to keep secretfrom sigéin the churches;ἐκκλησίαις
(ekklēsiais)1577: an assembly, a (religious) congregationfrom ek and kaleófor they are not permittedἐπιτρέπεται
(epitrepetai)2010: to turn to, entrust, hence to permitfrom epi and the same as tropéto speak,λαλεῖν
(lalein)2980: to talkfrom lalos (talkative)
Well that's not true. I will go by what Paul wrote, since he was an Apostle of Christ, called by Christ and anointed and sent out by Christ.
You on the other hand, are just a major in the cessationist army, and called to sow doubt, disharmony and deception.
Kindly provide the scripture where you have learned that the sign gifts were a 'package deal' as you put it. Doing so, will have you ignoring what Paul wrote in his 1st letter to the Corinthians. Your sarcastic delivery of your particular lack of knowledge is doing nothing for your desire to 'teach' here. However, this is not a classroom but if it were, you would not be graduating.
When people post as you do, with the rhetoric and fake manners, it indicates they believe themselves to be in a superior position wherein they believe only what they have to say themselves is worth reading or listening to. And that is the problem actually. Only you believe you are in that position.
The Bible indicates that it is the Holy Spirit through people and not the person themself who heals and so on.
The following is your sarcastic attempt at belittling people:
1.Now will you please give us the name of the people you have raised from the dead and when did you get snake bitten and have you drank poision dirty water?
2.not only can YOU speak in a noise that no one can understand, and heal the sick, cast out demons and raise the dead.....YOU must also be able to survive a bite from a Cobra, drink bleach water
That is about your post right there.
You on the other hand, are just a major in the cessationist army, and called to sow doubt, disharmony and deception.
Kindly provide the scripture where you have learned that the sign gifts were a 'package deal' as you put it. Doing so, will have you ignoring what Paul wrote in his 1st letter to the Corinthians. Your sarcastic delivery of your particular lack of knowledge is doing nothing for your desire to 'teach' here. However, this is not a classroom but if it were, you would not be graduating.
When people post as you do, with the rhetoric and fake manners, it indicates they believe themselves to be in a superior position wherein they believe only what they have to say themselves is worth reading or listening to. And that is the problem actually. Only you believe you are in that position.
The Bible indicates that it is the Holy Spirit through people and not the person themself who heals and so on.
The following is your sarcastic attempt at belittling people:
1.Now will you please give us the name of the people you have raised from the dead and when did you get snake bitten and have you drank poision dirty water?
2.not only can YOU speak in a noise that no one can understand, and heal the sick, cast out demons and raise the dead.....YOU must also be able to survive a bite from a Cobra, drink bleach water
That is about your post right there.
"And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
As Has been shown by the Greek Grammar, the "THEM" in verse 17 is the "antecedent" of the ELEVEN Apostles in verse #14.
Now when you read the literal words found in verses 17-19 do YOU see the words.....Choices????
Does the literal Word of God say that the ELEVEN apostles will be able to EITHER,
Cast out demons,
or they can choose to heal the sick,
or they can choose to drink stagnant poisioned water
or that can speak in a new tongue or they can
choose to handle venomous snakes???
Is that what it says my friend??? NO IT IS NOT! "It says they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
The Sign Gifts given to the apostles were a package deal, not pick or choose what they wanted to do. They could and did do all of those things.
I was NOT being sarcastic at all. I was being totally REALISTIC. Today, people demand that they have the Sign Gifts and all I did was to show YOU that if you can fake speaking in tongues then you should have the ability to kiss a rattelsnake. That is not sarcastic but instead is being truthfull.
If you can do one you can then do ALL the Sign Gifts.
It is just like believing that men can do faith healings. "I believe that Pastor so and so can heal. "
"I have seen Pastor Billy Bob heal many people."
OK.......Enough talk. Lets see it done. Lets see all the Faith Healers go from hospital room to hospital room and empty them and put an end to this Covid-19 pandemic!!!!!!
Why is that not being done today????
-
1
- Show all