Didn't say that nor was it implied. Simply that Calvin's teaching went to far on the subject of Depravity. Calvin spoke of Depravity as if man's whole being was totally Depraved. This is to far. Man is capable of good deeds, charity and love. But because of the "fall", he exists now as spiritually depraved ("dead" in the Scriptures), to spiritual things until he/she is Born Anew.
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.
They had to believe to. My point is the message they heard preached was the Gospel, not later theological discussions.
It depends on the topic. There is a lot of content to go through, but Calvin certainly does let readers know when he is supposing certain things. And I was being gracious about some of Augustine's allegorical interpretations and theological suppositions. I am not saying it was all bad. I did not mean it in a disrespectful way. If all of the concepts they explored were required to be believed for one to be saved, then the saints in the churches in the first century would not have been saved.
When threads veer off topic, sometimes I am selective about what I respond to. That doesn't justify lying about my beliefs.
It depends on the topic. There is a lot of content to go through, but Calvin certainly does let readers know when he is supposing certain things. And I was being gracious about some of Augustine's allegorical interpretations and theological suppositions. I am not saying it was all bad. I did not mean it in a disrespectful way. If all of the concepts they explored were required to be believed for one to be saved, then the saints in the churches in the first century would not have been saved.
When threads veer off topic, sometimes I am selective about what I respond to. That doesn't justify lying about my beliefs.
Number 7 is probably the most relevant of them all. If anyone is a member of a denominational church, it stands to reason that you are only going to hear the interpretation of that denomination so you are automatically shut off from the whole counsel of God.
I doubt if any denominational church will give its members an overview of what is taught acrossd the spectrum as it does not want the members to make up their own mind. As far as they are concerned there is only one truth and that is the one they teach so why bother with looking at the full spectrum.
I am thankful for my six years at university because in the subjects I studied, the lecturers wanted information on more than one point of view. I didn't lose marks because I didn't present only the prevailing view.
I doubt if any denominational church will give its members an overview of what is taught acrossd the spectrum as it does not want the members to make up their own mind. As far as they are concerned there is only one truth and that is the one they teach so why bother with looking at the full spectrum.
I am thankful for my six years at university because in the subjects I studied, the lecturers wanted information on more than one point of view. I didn't lose marks because I didn't present only the prevailing view.
I agree with the point you made here:
"They had to believe to. My point is the message they heard preached was the Gospel, not later theological discussions."
But as previously stated, who gave them the ability to hear the Gospel? Everyone present heard the Gospel proclaimed but not all believed. Who gave them (the believers), the ability to hear and discern the spiritual message? As compared to those who only heard the words and discerned nothing.
You say this is off topic - maybe as to the title of the thread - but can any of God's word be off topic, since the Scriptures are so intertwined. What one believes about one subject is related to another subject, until the whole counsel of God has been brought in.
"They had to believe to. My point is the message they heard preached was the Gospel, not later theological discussions."
But as previously stated, who gave them the ability to hear the Gospel? Everyone present heard the Gospel proclaimed but not all believed. Who gave them (the believers), the ability to hear and discern the spiritual message? As compared to those who only heard the words and discerned nothing.
You say this is off topic - maybe as to the title of the thread - but can any of God's word be off topic, since the Scriptures are so intertwined. What one believes about one subject is related to another subject, until the whole counsel of God has been brought in.
I listed several but only ONE is actually needed to confirm......right??
Congratulations on your education! That is something to be proud of and it show up in the way you post.
I agree with your comment........"it stands to reason that you are only going to hear the interpretation of that denomination so you are automatically shut off from the whole counsel of God."
THAT is exactly what I see on the forums I post on and may I say to you that IMPO, that is the failure of the Church itself.
When ANY church, or denomination contaminates or changes or adds to the written Word of God, they have then become open to the Judgment of God just as you and me would open up ourselves to.
What God says is "Always" more important than what any church or denomination teaches.
But that is jst me.
Congratulations on your education! That is something to be proud of and it show up in the way you post.
I agree with your comment........"it stands to reason that you are only going to hear the interpretation of that denomination so you are automatically shut off from the whole counsel of God."
THAT is exactly what I see on the forums I post on and may I say to you that IMPO, that is the failure of the Church itself.
When ANY church, or denomination contaminates or changes or adds to the written Word of God, they have then become open to the Judgment of God just as you and me would open up ourselves to.
What God says is "Always" more important than what any church or denomination teaches.
But that is jst me.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Why even go there? Why not use your gift of healing and simply claim it done from the comfort of your house? Just like Hinn, Copeland, and the rest of the charlatans do.
Why couldn't Paul heal Timothy's stomach issues? Why didn't Timothy heal Paul's affliction?
Why do faith healers always run to the doctor instead of another faith healer when they themselves get sick?
-
1
- Show all
Where do I say I can heal people?
What is your point? That you don't believe God heals today and that you don't think God healed through Paul or Timothy?
Paul had some kind of infirmity that caused him to spend time among the Galatians, and they would have given him their own eyes. So maybe he had an eye problem. This was probably around Acts 14, since some of those churches were in the province of Galatia. Yet Paul and Barnabas were doing signs among the Gentiles that they reported in Acts 15. In Acts 16, they took the decision of the council to various places including Galatia, and Paul went on to do extraordinary miracles and to heal all who were brought to him on an island after this ailment.
Do you think the apostles could heal and do miracles automatically at will like Superman using his X-Ray vision? If so, why did Paul have an infirmity early in his ministry, and do great miracles after this point? Why did the twelve pray for God to stretch forth His hand to do heal and to do signs and wonders in Acts 4 if they could do them completely at will?
What is your point? That you don't believe God heals today and that you don't think God healed through Paul or Timothy?
Paul had some kind of infirmity that caused him to spend time among the Galatians, and they would have given him their own eyes. So maybe he had an eye problem. This was probably around Acts 14, since some of those churches were in the province of Galatia. Yet Paul and Barnabas were doing signs among the Gentiles that they reported in Acts 15. In Acts 16, they took the decision of the council to various places including Galatia, and Paul went on to do extraordinary miracles and to heal all who were brought to him on an island after this ailment.
Do you think the apostles could heal and do miracles automatically at will like Superman using his X-Ray vision? If so, why did Paul have an infirmity early in his ministry, and do great miracles after this point? Why did the twelve pray for God to stretch forth His hand to do heal and to do signs and wonders in Acts 4 if they could do them completely at will?
-
2
- Show all
S
If you read the context of 2 Cor 11 and 12 you will easily see that Paul described his many persecutions as his infirmity that he would glory in. Not sure why people don't take him at his word and try and come up with another application to the word infirmity than the one he specifically used several times in that context. It is undeniable once you read chapter 11 first and mark where he uses the word infirmity. And then when he brings it up again he would naturally assume that the reader knows that he is still talking about the same infirmities he described in detail. Nothing about the eyes except maybe a black eye from being stoned.
His point is that God still heals today but it is no longer guaranteed to happen. And there is no one with the "gift of healing" today.
Paul in his letters to the Body of Christ, never taught us, even once, to use the favorite "incantation" of the Word of Faith churches, "By his stripes you are healed".
Paul in his letters to the Body of Christ, never taught us, even once, to use the favorite "incantation" of the Word of Faith churches, "By his stripes you are healed".
I'm not quite sure your point. Are you trying to say Paul was never sick?
This is a verse from chapter 12.
10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
Paul does not equate infirmity with persecution, but includes them in a list alongside persecutions. My understanding is that it refers to a 'weakness'-- which can mean sickness. A closely related word is used of Lazarus and of the sick calling for the elders of the church.
It may be that an injury could be a 'weakness' also.
This is a verse from chapter 12.
10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
Paul does not equate infirmity with persecution, but includes them in a list alongside persecutions. My understanding is that it refers to a 'weakness'-- which can mean sickness. A closely related word is used of Lazarus and of the sick calling for the elders of the church.
It may be that an injury could be a 'weakness' also.
The healing was guaranteed to happen then because the Holy Spirit performed that healing as a sign to the nation Israel
Israel as a nation has been lame from birth and rejected the covenant, and they just killed their Messiah.
But the good news, or the gospel that Peter preached to Israel is this, if they were to repent for all those sins, they can look forward to entering the promised kingdom when Jesus returns for them in the 2nd coming, jumping and with great joy, just like this lame man they just witnessed who was also lame from birth.
A beautiful sign for the nation Israel and fits well with what Peter would later preached to Israel in Acts 3:19-21.
Israel as a nation has been lame from birth and rejected the covenant, and they just killed their Messiah.
But the good news, or the gospel that Peter preached to Israel is this, if they were to repent for all those sins, they can look forward to entering the promised kingdom when Jesus returns for them in the 2nd coming, jumping and with great joy, just like this lame man they just witnessed who was also lame from birth.
A beautiful sign for the nation Israel and fits well with what Peter would later preached to Israel in Acts 3:19-21.
S
If you did not follow my suggestion and read Chapter 11 first then you would have missed what I said was obvious and undeniable.
Check this out:
24Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 25Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. 28Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. 29Who is weak, and I am
not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? 30If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.
(Remember there were no chapter divisions in Paul's original Letter so you want to keep his train of thought as you continue.)
1It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth 4How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 5Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities. Now don't you think that Paul was talking about the same thing in verse 5 as he was in verse 30? I think it is the most natural interpretation to think that Paul intended the reader to understand that "mine infirmities" was the same kind. There were Jewish Pharisees that followed him where ever he went and stirred up persecution. That is probably what he was talking about.
As to whether Paul ever got sick he probably did.
If you did not follow my suggestion and read Chapter 11 first then you would have missed what I said was obvious and undeniable.
Check this out:
24Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 25Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. 28Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. 29Who is weak, and I am
not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? 30If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.
(Remember there were no chapter divisions in Paul's original Letter so you want to keep his train of thought as you continue.)
1It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth 4How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 5Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
Now don't you think that Paul was talking about the same thing in verse 5 as he was in verse 30? I think it is the most natural interpretation to think that Paul intended the reader to understand that "mine infirmities" was the same kind. There were Jewish Pharisees that followed him where ever he went and stirred up persecution. That is probably what he was talking about.
As to whether Paul ever got sick he probably did.
Check this out:
24Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 25Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. 28Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. 29Who is weak, and I am
not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? 30If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.
(Remember there were no chapter divisions in Paul's original Letter so you want to keep his train of thought as you continue.)
1It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth 4How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 5Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities. Now don't you think that Paul was talking about the same thing in verse 5 as he was in verse 30? I think it is the most natural interpretation to think that Paul intended the reader to understand that "mine infirmities" was the same kind. There were Jewish Pharisees that followed him where ever he went and stirred up persecution. That is probably what he was talking about.
As to whether Paul ever got sick he probably did.
12 Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all.
13 Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.
14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
Do you think the Lazarus' infirmity that lead to his death was a sickness or persecution? Does James 5 tell persecuted saints to call for the elders of the church to anoint them?
I really don't know why these arbitrary distinctions and categories appeal to you. In Acts 28:23, the 'kingdom of God' was still a valid topic to be preached.
And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
And that was Paul doing that. Paul wrote that if anyone preach any other Gospel, let him be accursed. Hyperdispensationalists have these categories they put different scriptures in, a filter through which they interpret the scripture. And there is no reason to think the filter is inspired.
And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
And that was Paul doing that. Paul wrote that if anyone preach any other Gospel, let him be accursed. Hyperdispensationalists have these categories they put different scriptures in, a filter through which they interpret the scripture. And there is no reason to think the filter is inspired.