Of the following spiritual gifts, which ones are still available and which ones have ceased?

[Bible Highlighter]

What would you say to Christians who also claim to have had spiritual experiences, including supernatural experiences with the sign gifts? Are they deluded?

I have a good friend who is Pentecostal. So I do leave room for some mystery in that I could be wrong and some Christians may be operating by the sign gifts by God today (Except the gift of apostleship of course; For Paul is called the last apostle). I also lean heavily in that prophecy has ceased, as well. For we are not to add to God’s Word. Nobody can add new words to the Holy Bible. Therefore, I believe the safer play is to encourage believers to not seek after the sign gifts (Just in the event that the sign gifts have in fact ceased). For I am led to the conclusion by Scripture that the sign gifts have ceased. But I don’t want to speak against God and His miracles or works today (if the sign gifts have continued).

See, if we were to take a step back and really think about the grand scope of our entire life, the thing is that sign gifts is not all that important for us believers today. We learn in Matthew 7 about those who were able to cast out devils in Christ’s name and they prophesied in His name, but yet they were cast out because they worked iniquity. So I believe we should focus our entire being on God’s grace, and in living holy for the Lord Jesus Christ (in giving Him all the glory). Looking for miracles just sort of can take us away from all that. Yes, I believe there was a purpose and a place for the sign gifts for the early church, but that is most likely not the case today.

I mean, take for example the gift of tongues: Most today do not regard that gift as it is recorded in Scripture by the early church. Many think tongues can include a private prayer language when that is not what tongues is actually about.

Also, there are also clearly false miracles in the churches today and those who look like they are possessed by devils. People who shake their heads uncontrollable, etc.; Just check out this video here:

So we have to be careful in being able to discern the truth.
For someone can get caught up in the wrong crowd if they think the sign gifts have continued. This is why the safer play is to focus on the more important matters like loving God and others (According to God’s Word). We should pray, and build our relationship with the Lord and in living for Him. It is difficult enough to pick up our cross, and deny ourselves, and to follow Jesus daily along with the challenges of every day life. Miracles? If God wants to give me one, I will not refuse such a miracle, but my focus is on glorifying His Word by my life and by preaching it.

 

[swordsman1]

I already provided links. Here are again:
- A Remarkable Case of a Peer-Reviewed Modern Miracle | Sean McDowell

'Complementary Therapies in Medicine' is not exactly a scientific journal. It is a journal for people seeking information on ideas regarding unorthodox complimentary therapies.

"Complementary Therapies in Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed journal that has considerable appeal to anyone who seeks objective and critical information on complementary therapies or who wishes to deepen their understanding of these approaches."
​

So I'm not surprised they published an article on prayer. The journals I would like to see credible evidence of miraculous healing are proper medical journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine or The Lancet.

It seems this journal requires the authors to pay $1800 to have an article published with them. For that kind of money I expect they would approve and publish all sorts of rubbish. Any dubious article can then claim to have been published in a peer reviewed journal.

The authors are not independent scientists or medical professionals, they all work for Global Medical Research Institute, a pro-miracle Christian organization that seeks to "bridge the gap between science and faith". So no bias there then!!! On their website there is the following request: “If you have experienced a medically inexplicable miracle in the course of a Christian Spiritual Intervention, we would love to hear more about it.” So if you were apparently healed they want to hear from you, but if your healing prayer was not answered (as the vast majority aren't) they are not interested. This sort of fishing for positive results is thoroughly unscientific and casts significant doubt on their credibility. For a piece such as this to be taken seriously the authors need to be the independent medical experts, not miracle hungry charismatics!

As the title says it is simply a "Case Report", a look at a single case. It is not an in-depth scientific study to determine whether a miracle occurred. In fact they caution themselves that such a conclusion is not warranted...

They fully concede that "the placebo effect cannot be completely ruled out" ie an improvement that occurs solely because of the belief in faith healing. It is well known that gastroparesis is often associated with psychosomatic problems. So the sudden easing of symptoms after going forward for prayer at an emotional faith healing service expecting to be cured is not surprising. Just as sufferers of backaches, migraines, depression, and other psychosomatic illnesses often report to be "miraculously" healed at such events. What we never see is paraplegics getting up out of their wheelchairs, immediately and completely healed of their condition. In fact, usually they are quietly directed away from the stage to the back of the auditorium where they depart feeling bitter, disappointed, and betrayed by Christianity.

The article also admits there are "no medical records for a gastric emptying study post-healing" - so we only have a hearsay report that the person is cured. In fact no doctors reports are cited anywhere in the study so we have no idea how severe or even how genuine the medical case is, nor what their thoughts were on the case. The only citation is an oral statement by the teenager himself. The circumstances of the healing seem to be based on this oral account alone. ie it is hearsay, with no hard independent medical evidence provided. Yet again we are expected to take people's word for it.

They also admit "there is a lack of evidence-based reasoning" in their study, which means they are relying on assumption and speculation rather than proper scientific methods.

Finally they concede that "Further study is warranted" before any conclusions regarding the proof of spontaneous miraculous healing can be made.

At the end I notice the authors thank "Bethel Church in Redding, California for providing infrastructure, resources, and support to conduct this research" which gives us an indication of the associations, background, and motivation of those behind this study.

Bethel Church (Redding, California) - Wikipedia​

Bethel Church focuses on miracles. It teaches that all miracles described in the Bible can be performed by believers today and happen regularly, including faith healing of everything from curing cancer to regrowing limbs, raising the dead, speaking in tongues, casting out demons and prophecy.[5][2][6] Services may have congregants laughing uncontrollably, lying on the floor,[7] shaking, staggering, screaming,[5] and dancing, which they teach are signs of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Leaders claim to have witnessed angels appearing and "balls of electricity" that throw people into the air.[5]
One of the most well-known phenomena is a cloud of what is claimed to be gold dust or gold glitter that has been seen falling from the roof of the auditorium.[5] The church has uploaded videos to its YouTube channel, calling it a "glory cloud".[8]​

- Study of the therapeutic effects of proximal intercessory prayer (STEPP) on auditory and visual impairments in rural Mozambique - PubMed

Once again the principle author is not a medical professional but works for same pro-miracle Christian organization as the previous paper.

The link you provided was just a summary, so I cannot comment on the specifics of the paper. It seems to be based on eyesight and hearing tests on 24 individuals in Mozambique before and after prayer for healing and claims there was "significant improvements". That hardly sounds like miracles were occurring. An 'improvement' is not what I would call a miracle, so this study is probably irrelevant as far as our discussion is concerned.

I notice there have been reviews heavily criticizing the research....

A truly dreadful study into the effects of prayer

Proximal Intercessory Prayer | NeuroLogica Blog

The study had no control group, it was not double-blinded, the tests were subjective, carried out in noisy environments, susceptible to the demand effect, etc, etc.

I also notice the study was carried out in association with the ministry of Heidi Baker. She was a leader at Bethel Church, and is now their missionary in Mozambique. Her "ministry" is likewise miracle-obsessed wacky charismatic. You can look up her antics at Bethel on YouTube. So again, not exactly an unbiased study is it.

Also see the answers to this question. I hope it helps.

Unless I missed something I don't see any links to peer reviewed material on that thread apart from the above.

The thread mentions Craig Keener's book Miracles. I have a copy of that book. It is full of hearsay.

 

[swordsman1]

It's great to see you up and running again on the forum. I had a long break from it until a couple of months ago when I got reinstated. I wondered what had happened to you when I didn't see any posts from you until now. Having said that, I don't have anything to contribute to this thread, so I'll let you guys argue it out further and I'll just sit back and watch the fun.

Hi Oscar. Hope you are well.

No, I don't come on as much nowadays. There are not so many topics on the charismatics gifts on the general theology boards, and of course I am not allowed in the spiritual gifts 'safehouse'. I enjoyed our friendly sparring matches. I have however been duelling with advocates of baptismal regeneration, word of faith, and saturday sabbatarianism recently.

 

[swordsman1]

As I already said, I prefer to use abductive reasoning and to think in terms of "what is more probable" given the current evidence we have. If I had to compare the hypotheses H1 = "Christianity is a scam" and H2 = "Christianity is true", my current personal impression would be that H2 seems to be more probable than H1.

Call it whatever you like. But you are clearly not convinced that Christ rose from the dead, only that it PROBABLY occurred, and that Christianity may therefore be a scam.

It's quite clearly a gotcha question, otherwise you wouldn't be dodging it so persistently ... Look, it is very simple: you brought up courts of law in the first place as an example of how one should judge the evidence. Yet, paradoxically, courts of law would most probably reject the miracle claims in the Bible. So we have a problem: on the one hand you seem to want me to think like a court of law, yet on the other hand, when it comes to the Bible, you do not want me to think like a court of law. So how is it? Do you want me to think like a court of law or not? Are you suggesting that I should have a double standard?

How can I be dodging the question when the answer to your rhetorical question is clearly implied in the question itself - "If a court of law would never accept 1st century claims of miracles to be true either, then why should I?". The implied answer is No you shouldn't.

I never asked you think like a court of law. That is your reason for not believing the scriptural accounts, not mine.

Rather than keep trying to wriggle your way out, wouldn't it be simpler to just retract your rhetorical question as I first suggested? We all make gaffs from time to time. I was quite happy to admit I used the wrong name of the fallacy you employed earlier in this thread.

Again, you seem to be using a black-or-white, all-or-nothing mode of thinking. I instead use abductive/probabilistic reasoning. I believe that you can make a probabilistic case for both modern and Biblical miracles. Both pieces of evidence complement and support each other. Modern miracle reports make Biblical miracle reports more likely and vice versa. I will quote once again the preface of Keener's book Miracles : 2 Volumes: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts: https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-volumes-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-ebook/dp/B007KOI2PY, because I think it states this idea very well:

Most modern prejudice against biblical miracle reports depends on David Hume's argument that uniform human experience precluded miracles. Yet current research shows that human experience is far from uniform. In fact, hundreds of millions of people today claim to have experienced miracles. New Testament scholar Craig Keener argues that it is time to rethink Hume's argument in light of the contemporary evidence available to us. This wide-ranging and meticulously researched two-volume study presents the most thorough current defense of the credibility of the miracle reports in the Gospels and Acts. Drawing on claims from a range of global cultures and taking a multidisciplinary approach to the topic, Keener suggests that many miracle accounts throughout history and from contemporary times are best explained as genuine divine acts, lending credence to the biblical miracle reports.

You may wish to give unsubstantiated stories by strangers on the internet a high probability of being true. I don't. Only a gullible fool would do so imo. Hearsay has been shown to be inherently unreliable. People can be mistaken, people can exaggerate, people can lie. That's why no court of law will accept it as evidence.

I never claimed that actual alien abductions didn't happen.
I never claimed that actual alien abductions did happen either.
I never claimed either possibility to be true.

Once again, the way you speak seems to reveal a black-or-white mode of thinking. Instead, I prefer to remain open to both possibilities while simultaneously focusing on developing a sense of which of these two hypotheses is more likely to be true. It all boils down to doing your best to estimate the probability of each hypothesis on the basis of the evidence you currently have. The estimations of these probabilities might change as new evidence comes along. This is an ongoing learning process.

Well you've read the stories of UFO abductions. I gave you links to about a dozen a while back. There are plenty more beside. Using your abductive/probabilistic reasoning you must by now have come to a conclusion as to whether there really are, in all probability, aliens flying around the world in UFO's performing experiments on people. So, are there?

Do you always request hard evidence from anyone who tells you anything?

If your mother pays you a visit and tells you that a dog from a random stranger defecated in her front yard last week, would you look at her in disbelief and demand live recordings of the dog actually defecating on the exact day your mother claimed the dog allegedly did so, plus indisputable evidence that the dog belonged to some random person unknown to your mother?

Bad example. On this thread you are not asking me to believe a mundane everyday observation by someone who I have known and trusted my whole life. You are asking me to believe unsubstantiated fantastical stories by strangers on the internet. Chalk and cheese.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

'Complementary Therapies in Medicine' is not exactly a scientific journal. It is a journal for people seeking information on ideas regarding unorthodox complimentary therapies.

"Complementary Therapies in Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed journal that has considerable appeal to anyone who seeks objective and critical information on complementary therapies or who wishes to deepen their understanding of these approaches."
​

So I'm not surprised they published an article on prayer. The journals I would like to see credible evidence of miraculous healing are proper medical journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine or The Lancet.

It seems this journal requires the authors to pay $1800 to have an article published with them. For that kind of money I expect they would approve and publish all sorts of rubbish. Any dubious article can then claim to have been published in a peer reviewed journal.

The authors are not independent scientists or medical professionals, they all work for Global Medical Research Institute, a pro-miracle Christian organization that seeks to "bridge the gap between science and faith". So no bias there then!!! On their website there is the following request: “If you have experienced a medically inexplicable miracle in the course of a Christian Spiritual Intervention, we would love to hear more about it.” So if you were apparently healed they want to hear from you, but if your healing prayer was not answered (as the vast majority aren't) they are not interested. This sort of fishing for positive results is thoroughly unscientific and casts significant doubt on their credibility. For a piece such as this to be taken seriously the authors need to be the independent medical experts, not miracle hungry charismatics!

As the title says it is simply a "Case Report", a look at a single case. It is not an in-depth scientific study to determine whether a miracle occurred. In fact they caution themselves that such a conclusion is not warranted...

They fully concede that "the placebo effect cannot be completely ruled out" ie an improvement that occurs solely because of the belief in faith healing. It is well known that gastroparesis is often associated with psychosomatic problems. So the sudden easing of symptoms after going forward for prayer at an emotional faith healing service expecting to be cured is not surprising. Just as sufferers of backaches, migraines, depression, and other psychosomatic illnesses often report to be "miraculously" healed at such events. What we never see is paraplegics getting up out of their wheelchairs, immediately and completely healed of their condition. In fact, usually they are quietly directed away from the stage to the back of the auditorium where they depart feeling bitter, disappointed, and betrayed by Christianity.

The article also admits there are "no medical records for a gastric emptying study post-healing" - so we only have a hearsay report that the person is cured. In fact no doctors reports are cited anywhere in the study so we have no idea how severe or even how genuine the medical case is, nor what their thoughts were on the case. The only citation is an oral statement by the teenager himself. The circumstances of the healing seem to be based on this oral account alone. ie it is hearsay, with no hard independent medical evidence provided. Yet again we are expected to take people's word for it.

They also admit "there is a lack of evidence-based reasoning" in their study, which means they are relying on assumption and speculation rather than proper scientific methods.

Finally they concede that "Further study is warranted" before any conclusions regarding the proof of spontaneous miraculous healing can be made.

At the end I notice the authors thank "Bethel Church in Redding, California for providing infrastructure, resources, and support to conduct this research" which gives us an indication of the associations, background, and motivation of those behind this study.

Bethel Church (Redding, California) - Wikipedia​

Bethel Church focuses on miracles. It teaches that all miracles described in the Bible can be performed by believers today and happen regularly, including faith healing of everything from curing cancer to regrowing limbs, raising the dead, speaking in tongues, casting out demons and prophecy.[5][2][6] Services may have congregants laughing uncontrollably, lying on the floor,[7] shaking, staggering, screaming,[5] and dancing, which they teach are signs of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Leaders claim to have witnessed angels appearing and "balls of electricity" that throw people into the air.[5]
One of the most well-known phenomena is a cloud of what is claimed to be gold dust or gold glitter that has been seen falling from the roof of the auditorium.[5] The church has uploaded videos to its YouTube channel, calling it a "glory cloud".[8]​

Once again the principle author is not a medical professional but works for same pro-miracle Christian organization as the previous paper.

The link you provided was just a summary, so I cannot comment on the specifics of the paper. It seems to be based on eyesight and hearing tests on 24 individuals in Mozambique before and after prayer for healing and claims there was "significant improvements". That hardly sounds like miracles were occurring. An 'improvement' is not what I would call a miracle, so this study is probably irrelevant as far as our discussion is concerned.

I notice there have been reviews heavily criticizing the research....

A truly dreadful study into the effects of prayer

Proximal Intercessory Prayer | NeuroLogica Blog

The study had no control group, it was not double-blinded, the tests were subjective, carried out in noisy environments, susceptible to the demand effect, etc, etc.

I also notice the study was carried out in association with the ministry of Heidi Baker. She was a leader at Bethel Church, and is now their missionary in Mozambique. Her "ministry" is likewise miracle-obsessed wacky charismatic. You can look up her antics at Bethel on YouTube. So again, not exactly an unbiased study is it.



Unless I missed something I don't see any links to peer reviewed material on that thread apart from the above.

The thread mentions Craig Keener's book Miracles. I have a copy of that book. It is full of hearsay.

Great skeptical analysis of both articles. Exactly the kind of critical thinking and skepticism I would expect from a scientific-minded atheist, agnostic or naturalist.

I'm curious though, do you apply the same standards to miracle claims in Scripture? How come atheists would agree with your analysis of these modern miracle reports but would disagree with your analysis of Biblical miracle reports? At times you sound like an atheist but at times you don't. Are you employing a different methodology? Would you be so kind to explain your epistemology?

By the way, the following are some additional articles/books I'd be quite interested to know your thoughts on:

• Case report of instantaneous resolution of juvenile macular degeneration blindness after proximal intercessory prayer - ScienceDirect
  
• https://www.amazon.com/-/Lee-Strobel/dp/0310259185
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Medical-Doctor-Says-Yes/dp/B007RXEG58
  
• The answers to this other question.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Call it whatever you like. But you are clearly not convinced that Christ rose from the dead, only that it PROBABLY occurred, and that Christianity may therefore be a scam.

If you want to see it that way, cool. What about you though? Are you 100% convinced that Christianity is true? If so, how? How did you reach that 100% level of confidence? What was the thing that fully convinced you and why?

I never asked you think like a court of law. That is your reason for not believing the scriptural accounts, not mine.

You were the one who started talking about courts of law in the first place to justify your overall disbelief toward eyewitness testimony.

Would you say that courts of law follow reasonable methods of investigation? Do you apply those methods of investigation to the scriptural accounts?

You may wish to give unsubstantiated stories by strangers on the internet a high probability of being true. I don't. Only a gullible fool would do so imo. Hearsay has been shown to be inherently unreliable. People can be mistaken, people can exaggerate, people can lie. That's why no court of law will accept it as evidence.

Here we go again with courts of law. I will repeat my question:

Would you say that courts of law follow reasonable methods of investigation? Do you apply those methods of investigation to the scriptural accounts?

Well you've read the stories of UFO abductions. I gave you links to about a dozen a while back. There are plenty more beside. Using your abductive/probabilistic reasoning you must by now have come to a conclusion as to whether there really are, in all probability, aliens flying around the world in UFO's performing experiments on people. So, are there?

I already addressed the first case you shared in post #44, but in short, I don't see any obvious way to estimate the sincerity of the witness. But assuming that you already went through some of those cases yourself, in which one would you say that the witness shows most clearly (1) evidence of sincerity and (2) no signs of unreliable memory or compromised mental faculties?

Bad example. On this thread you are not asking me to believe a mundane everyday observation by someone who I have known and trusted my whole life. You are asking me to believe unsubstantiated fantastical stories by strangers on the internet. Chalk and cheese.

Are you saying that your mother couldn't possibly lie or be mistaken? As you said in an earlier post:

"Hearsay has been shown to be inherently unreliable. People can be mistaken, people can exaggerate, people can lie. That's why no court of law will accept it as evidence."​

In the absence of irrefutable hard evidence, how could you possibly know that your mother is not lying to you when she tells you something that recently happened to her last week?

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Therefore, I believe the safer play is to encourage believers to not seek after the sign gifts (Just in the event that the sign gifts have in fact ceased).

Assuming that the sign gifts have ceased, then what are the people in the Spirit-filled / Charismatic / Sign Gifts sections of the forum experiencing?

See, if we were to take a step back and really think about the grand scope of our entire life, the thing is that sign gifts is not all that important for us believers today. We learn in Matthew 7 about those who were able to cast out devils in Christ’s name and they prophesied in His name, but yet they were cast out because they worked iniquity. So I believe we should focus our entire being on God’s grace, and in living holy for the Lord Jesus Christ (in giving Him all the glory). Looking for miracles just sort of can take us away from all that. Yes, I believe there was a purpose and a place for the sign gifts for the early church, but that is most likely not the case today.

What are your thoughts on demon possessions? Do they still occur? Should Christians cast out devils today?

Here is an interesting anecdote by John Piper (a Baptist preacher):

Have You Exorcized a Demon?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Assuming that the sign gifts have ceased, then what are the people in the Spirit-filled / Charismatic / Sign Gifts sections of the forum experiencing?

If they are shaking their heads uncontrollably, and convulsing on the ground, and screaming, or barking like dogs it’s not God operating in their life. God is not the author of confusion. In the Bible, we know that if a person was demon possessed, they could be in convulsions.

I would encourage you to check out the video I provided to you before called “Kundalini Warning.”

Anyways, if they are not acting like that and they are more controlled, I honestly cannot say because I do not want to speak against the working of God and condemn myself (just in case I am wrong). But I also cannot unlearn what I know by Scripture. We are not talking about just one or two verses here, but we are talking about many. In other words, there is a strong case for Cessationism with Scripture if a person is open to it. But I am careful to not be too overly dogmatic whereby I could accidentally speak against any potential true working of God.

What are your thoughts on demon possessions? Do they still occur? Should Christians cast out devils today?

I imagine it is possible based on my own experience. For what I do know is that I have detected a demonic presence (not possession) and I was able to cast them out in the name of Jesus.

Here is an interesting anecdote by John Piper (a Baptist preacher):

Piper is a Calvinist and he believes God ordains evil (Which is obviously wrong). He also holds to the unbiblical view of Unconditional Election along with the other imaginary points of Calvinism. Unconditional Election is falsely suggesting that God elects (forces) some to be saved and others by default to not be saved. In other words, in this false worldview: God creates life for the specific purpose of torturing that life for all eternity (and the individual had no choice or say so in the matter to change that fate). While there are many Baptist churches that are not Calvinistic, many I have talked with in both camps believe in Once Saved Always Saved or a sin and still be saved type belief (Which again is a violation of basic morality). So I strive not to listen to their rantings on YouTube.

Cessationism is popular among Calvinists, and it just so happens to be one of the beliefs most Calvinists hold to that I agree with. But their core beliefs is utter rubbish and nonsense. All one has to do is read 2 Thessalonians 2:10 or Jonah 3 to refute Calvinism.

Have You Exorcized a Demon?

While we may need to deal with situations whereby we have to encounter spiritual darkness, I think it is best that we as Christians should strive to draw near to God (Who is light), and to think and focus on that which is good or loving (in God’s Word).

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
(Philippians 4:8).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Call it whatever you like. But you are clearly not convinced that Christ rose from the dead, only that it PROBABLY occurred, and that Christianity may therefore be a scam.

If you want to see it that way, cool. What about you though? Are you 100% convinced that Christianity is true? If so, how? How did you reach that 100% level of confidence? What was the thing that fully convinced you and why?

No, it’s not cool that he should believe that you deny the resurrection. A person is not a Christian if they deny the resurrection or they are not 100% convinced Christianity is true. No Christian would want another thinking it is “cool” that the resurrection is not true or that Christianity is not true. That would mean you are an agnostic if such were the case. So I am puzzled by your words here. Are you saying that the resurrection is not true? Are you saying that Christianity is not 100% true? If not, then why would you think it is cool for another to think otherwise?

I accepted Jesus in 1992 as my personal Lord and Savior.
Out of curiosity, in what year did you accept Jesus Christ? And how did it change your life? Do you see the Bible as God’s perfect Word for us today?

 

[TruthSeek3r]

No, it’s not cool that he should believe that you deny the resurrection. A person is not a Christian if they deny the resurrection or they are not 100% convinced Christianity is true. No Christian would want another thinking it is “cool” that the resurrection is not true or that Christianity is not true.

I never denied the resurrection. I never claimed that the resurrection didn't happen.

Are you saying that the resurrection is not true?

No.

Are you saying that Christianity is not 100% true?

That's a broad question. What version of Christianity are we talking about?

Same question back to you. Are you 100% convinced that Christianity is true? If so, how? And which version of Christianity?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I never denied the resurrection. I never claimed that the resurrection didn't happen.

No.

Then why would you say it is cool for another to think that you don’t believe in the resurrection?
For me: I would affirm to others that I believe the resurrection if they are in doubt that I believe it. I would not say it is cool if they think I don’t believe in the resurrection. That could potentially suggest that I am not 100% in agreement with the resurrection. But I am in 100% agreement with the resurrection and so I would never allow for anyone to think it is cool that I don’t believe it.

That's a broad question. What version of Christianity are we talking about?

There is only one true version of Christianity. This would be the Christianity by the apostles according to the Scriptures (the Holy Bible). No added fillers or additions. Just the pure Word of God in following it as it reads.

Same question back to you. Are you 100% convinced that Christianity is true? If so, how? And which version of Christianity?

I already answered this in post #145.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@TruthSeek3r

I accepted Jesus in 1992 as my personal Lord and Savior.
Out of curiosity, in what year did you accept Jesus Christ? And how did it change your life? Do you see the Bible as God’s perfect Word for us today?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@TruthSeek3r

Do you see churches who shake their heads uncontrollably, and convulse on the ground while screaming, and barking like dogs as a bad thing?

 

[swordsman1]

You were the one who started talking about courts of law in the first place to justify your overall disbelief toward eyewitness testimony.

Yes, in relation to modern hearsay testimonies I said - "If the courts will not accept hearsay accounts, then why should I?" Meaning of course that I shouldn't accept hearsay.

But it was you then mimicked my rhetorical question and applied it to scripture - "If the courts would not accept biblical accounts, them why should I?" Meaning of course that you shouldn't accept the biblical accounts.

Which is a very strange thing for a Christian to say and why I asked if you wanted to retract it.

Would you say that courts of law follow reasonable methods of investigation?

Yes. The courts should not accept hearsay. People can be mistaken, exaggerate, or lie.

Do you apply those methods of investigation to the scriptural accounts?

No. God's word is infallible.

I already addressed the first case you shared in post #44, but in short, I don't see any obvious way to estimate the sincerity of the witness. But assuming that you already went through some of those cases yourself, in which one would you say that the witness shows most clearly (1) evidence of sincerity and (2) no signs of unreliable memory or compromised mental faculties?

Why not? You have no trouble estimating the witnesses of claimed charismatic miracles, and it seems to always be affirmative. Yet, the miracle testimonies you've linked to, and expect me to believe, are no different to the testimonies of UFO abductions I've supplied.

In post #44 you refused to accept the UFO abduction testimony because it was a written account, and you couldn't see the woman's facial expressions and body language. In that case you must also dismiss all the written testimonies of miracles you have supplied.

Are you saying that your mother couldn't possibly lie or be mistaken? As you said in an earlier post:

"Hearsay has been shown to be inherently unreliable. People can be mistaken, people can exaggerate, people can lie. That's why no court of law will accept it as evidence."
In the absence of irrefutable hard evidence, how could you possibly know that your mother is not lying to you when she tells you something that recently happened to her last week?

I would have no reason to disbelieve my mother because I have known and trusted her all my life, I know she is not deluded or lying to me, and the thing she is describing in nothing out of the ordinary.

I cannot say the same about the hearsay testimonies of miracles by strangers on the internet.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yes, in relation to modern hearsay testimonies I said - "If the courts will not accept hearsay accounts, then why should I?" Meaning of course that I shouldn't accept hearsay.

But it was you then mimicked my rhetorical question and applied it to scripture - "If the courts would not accept biblical accounts, them why should I?" Meaning of course that you shouldn't accept the biblical accounts.

Which is a very strange thing for a Christian to say and why I asked if you wanted to retract it.




Yes. The courts should not accept hearsay. People can be mistaken, exaggerate, or lie.



No. God's word is infallible.



Why not? You have no trouble estimating the witnesses of claimed charismatic miracles, and it seems to always be affirmative. Yet, the miracle testimonies you've linked to, and expect me to believe, are no different to the testimonies of UFO abductions I've supplied.

In post #44 you refused to accept the UFO abduction testimony because it was a written account, and you couldn't see the woman's facial expressions and body language. In that case you must also dismiss all the written testimonies of miracles you have supplied.



I would have no reason to disbelieve my mother because I have known and trusted her all my life, I know she is not deluded or lying to me, and the thing she is describing in nothing out of the ordinary.

I cannot say the same about the hearsay testimonies of miracles by strangers on the internet.

Just to add a bit information into this very complicated, many faceted, and confusing mix:
The soldiers at the tomb and the religious leaders knew of a certainty that the resurrection of Christ happened (including of course the other 400 people who saw the resurrected Christ). That is why the religious leaders went to great lengths to pay the soldiers off to keep them silent about what they witnessed, and to spread the lie that the disciples had stolen and hidden the body.

Someone else commented that Calvinism is mainly cessationist. Maybe so, but from my extensive reading of Calvin's New Testament commentaries, including Acts and 1 Corinthians, I don't believe he was an cessationist in the sense of the modern term of it. The reasons he gave for why the spiritual gifts ceased was quite different to what modern cessationists teach. So, I think that he believed that the sign gifts had ceased, but he wasn't a cessationist. From what I see in his commentaries, he believed that it was the church's own fault that the gifts declined and ceased.

By the way, I have viewed many of Justin Peter's videos and quite enjoyed them. He speaks a lot of practical sense, and I accept everything he says about the modern word-faith Charismatic. It is certainly not what I signed up for in the AOG church where I received Christ in 1966!

 

[TruthSeek3r]

@swordsman1, I think you overlooked post #165 in which I responded to your analysis of the two articles about modern miracles. I would really appreciate it if you take a look at it.

Yes. The courts should not accept hearsay. People can be mistaken, exaggerate, or lie.

No. God's word is infallible.

Then the natural follow-up question would be: how do you know the Bible is God's word? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Why not the Quran or other sacred books?

Of course you were not born "knowing" that the Bible is God's word; that's a belief you had to have acquired at some point during your life. When was the first time you realized that the Bible is God's word? What convinced you? How did that happen?

Why not? You have no trouble estimating the witnesses of claimed charismatic miracles, and it seems to always be affirmative.

That's because you will only see me sharing examples which I already believe to be more or less credible. Of course there are crazy Charismatic folks out there who don't look as credible to me, and I won't be sharing those examples here for obvious reasons.

Yet, the miracle testimonies you've linked to, and expect me to believe, are no different to the testimonies of UFO abductions I've supplied.

For the sake of time, which one of those testimonies of UFO that you linked to do you consider to be the most worthwhile?

In post #44 you refused to accept the UFO abduction testimony because it was a written account, and you couldn't see the woman's facial expressions and body language. In that case you must also dismiss all the written testimonies of miracles you have supplied.

It depends. If it is a second hand report obtained by a investigative journalist who personally interviewed the original witnesses, and if there are good enough reasons to believe that the investigative journalist is sincere and credible, then I'd still consider the written report to be worthwhile. Since I trust the investigative journalist, I would expect there to be a good chance that he or she probably did a good responsible job at interviewing the witnesses. If, on the other hand, there are good enough reasons to distrust the journalist or whomever is gathering the reports, then the reports themselves would become less credible. If there are no good reasons to either trust or distrust the journalist or equivalent person, then I would still assign some minimal credibility to the report, but that would definitely need to be weighted against more credible sources.

Another way to gain trust in a written report is by interacting with the authors, just like what we are doing here right now. For example, you can find lots of astonishing supernatural stories on forum sections such as 'Spirit-filled / Charismatic' or 'Sign Gifts', many of which are told by users who have been around for years. You can chat with those users, get a sense of their character, credibility, fruits, etc. Oscar, for example, is a continuationist and claims to have had firsthand personal experience with the sign gifts.

I have also personally chatted with a few YouTubers who posted supernatural testimonies on YouTube, and they seemed to be reasonable credible people to me.

I would have no reason to disbelieve my mother because I have known and trusted her all my life, I know she is not deluded or lying to me, and the thing she is describing in nothing out of the ordinary.

I cannot say the same about the hearsay testimonies of miracles by strangers on the internet.

But what if another person reads your mother's testimony, someone who has no prior knowledge about your mother? Say, your mother posts her testimony online and a random stranger comes across it. Would this random stranger be rational in believing your mother? Would he be rational in disbelieving her?

What if you record a video of yourself alongside your mother supporting her testimony, and upload it to YouTube or a similar platform? What if this random stranger watches your video in which you and your mother share the testimony? Would it be rational for this random stranger to believe or disbelieve you?

 

[TruthSeek3r]

There is only one true version of Christianity. This would be the Christianity by the apostles according to the Scriptures (the Holy Bible). No added fillers or additions. Just the pure Word of God in following it as it reads.

But then you face the issue of denominational assumptions and interpretations.

• Are Catholics right?
• Are Eastern Orthodox right?
• Are Biblical Unitarians right?
• Are SDAs right?
• Are Mormons right?
• Are Pentecostals right?
• Are Continuationists right?
• Are Cessationists right?
• Is any other option right?

Which of the options above would you say is 100% right?

I already answered this in post #145.

So your 100% confidence comes from a "conversion experience" + apologetics, right?
Which of the two was the main contributing factor? When did you reach the 100% confidence level for the first time?

@TruthSeek3r

I accepted Jesus in 1992 as my personal Lord and Savior.
Out of curiosity, in what year did you accept Jesus Christ? And how did it change your life? Do you see the Bible as God’s perfect Word for us today?

As my username clearly suggests, I'm a truth seeker. Christianity seems to be in my opinion the closest to the truth, from what I've been able to investigate so far.

@TruthSeek3r

Do you see churches who shake their heads uncontrollably, and convulse on the ground while screaming, and barking like dogs as a bad thing?

Yes, I'm well aware of the Toronto Blessing and the whole Kundalini Spirit controversy. My conservative take is that discernment is always key, that you can't put God in a box and that everything has be judged on case-by-case basis. That said, seeing people go crazy and barking like dogs definitely raises red flags for me.

 

[swordsman1]

Then the natural follow-up question would be: how do you know the Bible is God's word? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Why not the Quran or other sacred books?

Of course you were not born "knowing" that the Bible is God's word; that's a belief you had to have acquired at some point during your life. When was the first time you realized that the Bible is God's word? What convinced you? How did that happen?

I believe the Bible is God's word by the Holy Spirit convincing me it is so.

As the Westminster Confession explains....

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our heart. (I.5)​

And J I Packer....

God authenticates Holy Scripture to us as his Word—not by some mystical experience or secret information privately whispered into some inner ear, not by human argument alone (strong as this may be), nor by the church’s testimony alone (impressive as this is when one looks back over two thousand years). God does it, rather, by means of the searching light and transforming power whereby Scripture evidences itself to be divine. The impact of this light and power is itself the Spirit’s witness “by and with the Word in our heart.” Argument, testimony from others, and our own particular experiences may prepare us to receive this witness, but the imparting of it, like the imparting of faith in Christ’s divine Saviorhood, is the prerogative of the sovereign Holy Spirit alone. ​

The illumination of the Spirit witnessing to the divinity of the Bible is universal Christian experience, and has been so from the beginning, though many Christians have not known how to verbalize it or to handle the Bible in a manner consistent with it.​

It depends. If it is a second hand report obtained by a investigative journalist who personally interviewed the original witnesses, and if there are good enough reasons to believe that the investigative journalist is sincere and credible, then I'd still consider the written report to be worthwhile. Since I trust the investigative journalist, I would expect there to be a good chance that he or she probably did a good responsible job at interviewing the witnesses. If, on the other hand, there are good enough reasons to distrust the journalist or whomever is gathering the reports, then the reports themselves would become less credible. If there are no good reasons to either trust or distrust the journalist or equivalent person, then I would still assign some minimal credibility to the report, but that would definitely need to be weighted against more credible sources.

Are all the written testimonies of miracles you supplied on this thread, and expect me to believe, also interviews by credible investigative journalists? I think not. So therefore you are surely guilty of double standards.

How often do Christian missionaries report occurrences of miracles while on the mission field?

Has anyone claimed to have had a "Damascus Road" calling to ministry, which later received trust and ministerial support from fellow Christians?

Are there any documented cases of Xenoglossy (i.e. "Acts 2:1-13 type" tongues, understood by a foreigner) in recent history (19th century on)?

Message in tongues + interpretation verified by an outsider fluent in both languages?

Of the following spiritual gifts, which ones have you personally witnessed or experienced?

Of the following spiritual gifts, which ones are still available and which ones have ceased?

Looking back I see you have actually posted far more YouTube testimonies of miracles, so I will look up some YouTube testimonies of UFO abductions and post them here for your reaction (there are plenty of those too). Then we can compare your standards for those too.

But what if another person reads your mother's testimony, someone who has no prior knowledge about your mother? Say, your mother posts her testimony online and a random stranger comes across it. Would this random stranger be rational in believing your mother? Would he be rational in disbelieving her?

If my mother claimed to have witnessed a supernatural miracle and posted details online, I would fully expect a stranger reading it to be sceptical.

What if you record a video of yourself alongside your mother supporting her testimony, and upload it to YouTube or a similar platform? What if this random stranger watches your video in which you and your mother share the testimony? Would it be rational for this random stranger to believe or disbelieve you?

Ditto. I would fully expect a stranger viewing it to be sceptical.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I believe the Bible is God's word by the Holy Spirit convincing me it is so.

As the Westminster Confession explains....

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our heart. (I.5)​

And J I Packer....

God authenticates Holy Scripture to us as his Word—not by some mystical experience or secret information privately whispered into some inner ear, not by human argument alone (strong as this may be), nor by the church’s testimony alone (impressive as this is when one looks back over two thousand years). God does it, rather, by means of the searching light and transforming power whereby Scripture evidences itself to be divine. The impact of this light and power is itself the Spirit’s witness “by and with the Word in our heart.” Argument, testimony from others, and our own particular experiences may prepare us to receive this witness, but the imparting of it, like the imparting of faith in Christ’s divine Saviorhood, is the prerogative of the sovereign Holy Spirit alone. ​

The illumination of the Spirit witnessing to the divinity of the Bible is universal Christian experience, and has been so from the beginning, though many Christians have not known how to verbalize it or to handle the Bible in a manner consistent with it.​

Are all the written testimonies of miracles you supplied on this thread, and expect me to believe, also interviews by credible investigative journalists? I think not. So therefore you are surely guilty of double standards.

How often do Christian missionaries report occurrences of miracles while on the mission field?

Has anyone claimed to have had a "Damascus Road" calling to ministry, which later received trust and ministerial support from fellow Christians?

Are there any documented cases of Xenoglossy (i.e. "Acts 2:1-13 type" tongues, understood by a foreigner) in recent history (19th century on)?

Message in tongues + interpretation verified by an outsider fluent in both languages?

Of the following spiritual gifts, which ones have you personally witnessed or experienced?

Of the following spiritual gifts, which ones are still available and which ones have ceased?

Looking back I see you have actually posted far more YouTube testimonies of miracles, so I will look up some YouTube testimonies of UFO abductions and post them here for your reaction (there are plenty of those too). Then we can compare your standards for those too.



If my mother claimed to have witnessed a supernatural miracle and posted details online, I would fully expect a stranger reading it to be sceptical.



Ditto. I would fully expect a stranger viewing it to be sceptical.

This may give you a bit of a chuckle, but my attitude toward miracles is being more influenced by my reading of Calvin's commentary on Acts, than any other source (and that includes Charismatic sources).

I believe that miracles, especially of healing do happen today, but not in the way many Charismatics say they do. What we see in Acts, through the ministry of Paul, that all the healing miracles reported were in the context of him preaching the Gospel to the unsaved pagans, and that his preaching of the Gospel was confirmed by the healing miracles that took place as he preached it. I couldn't find any references in the book of Acts where healing miracles took place in Christian meetings. They all happened out among the unsaved.

Oh yes. There was one. The young man who fell while Paul was teaching. He was either badly injured or killed, but Paul ministered healing to him. That was as the result of an accident and not the healing of a medical condition.

 

[swordsman1]

This may give you a bit of a chuckle, but my attitude toward miracles is being more influenced by my reading of Calvin's commentary on Acts, than any other source (and that includes Charismatic sources).

I believe that miracles, especially of healing do happen today, but not in the way many Charismatics say they do. What we see in Acts, through the ministry of Paul, that all the healing miracles reported were in the context of him preaching the Gospel to the unsaved pagans, and that his preaching of the Gospel was confirmed by the healing miracles that took place as he preached it. I couldn't find any references in the book of Acts where healing miracles took place in Christian meetings. They all happened out among the unsaved.

Oh yes. There was one. The young man who fell while Paul was teaching. He was either badly injured or killed, but Paul ministered healing to him. That was as the result of an accident and not the healing of a medical condition.

I agree that the purpose of miracles in the 1st century was to authenticate the early church leaders and the message their brought. However I don't believe miracles are still necessary today, even on the mission field. By their miracles the apostles have now been fully authenticated as truly God's messengers, along with their writings, the bible, which is all we need to develop our faith. If people want to see evidence of miracles to prove that Christianity is true they only have to read the first 5 books of the New Testament.