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

[TruthSeek3r]

Jesus said Thomas could now believe because He was now standing physically right in front on him and could put his hands in his wounds. Notice Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for not believing the disciples testimony.

One could argue from the long ending of Mark (verse 14) that this sort of disbelief was certainly rebuked by Jesus. But even if Jesus didn't rebuke Thomas specifically (John 20 is silent on this specific aspect), his disbelief was certainly not praised. On the contrary, Jesus declared quite explicitly a blessing for those who do not see and yet believe (“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”). In other words, if a genuine Christian, a brother or sister in the faith, comes to you and shares with you a sincere testimony, I don't think Jesus would be happy with you offhandedly dismissing everything they say.

People are now can believe in the resurrection without physically seeing Christ because it is recorded in scripture.

Some people do. Some people don't. Doubting Thomas's are still around, and in those cases, more dramatic forms of conversion may be necessary. I can share tons of testimonies to support this if you want. Oh, wait, never mind, you will dismiss them offhandedly too.

I believe the miracles in scripture because the Bible is absolute truth.

And your proof is ...? Your personal experience? How can I know, from my perspective, that you are not deluded?

That is from the disputed long ending of Mark which most scholars reject as being Mark's words, but rather a later addition by a scribe.

Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

Wait ... didn't you believe that the Bible was God's word because the Holy Spirit told you so?

But now you are saying that a portion of the Bible is NOT God's word because of a majority opinion of scholars. So how is it? Is it the Holy Spirit or the scholars who decide what is inspired and what is not?

Can you share with us what exactly the Holy Spirit told you? Can you share your testimony?

Anyways, even if Mark 16:9-20 was canonized later, it doesn't follow that it is not inspired. In fact, one could argue that if God allowed this later addition, this is strong evidence that He wanted it to be part of the canon because its content was inspired. Thus, even if you manage to prove that Mark 16:9-20 is in fact a later addition, you would still need to prove that it was not inspired.

That verse is not referring to believing a human testimony of miracles.

John 3:9-15 (ESV)

9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

The expression heavenly things certainly appeals to the supernatural. Jesus is calling out the Israelites on their skepticism, who won't believe even the earthly things, let alone the heavenly ones. And miracles are undoubtedly heavenly.

This is John stating that what has been written in his gospel is true.

Because he is a firsthand witness, and he is sharing his testimony with us. This is a clear defense of the value of testimonial evidence when it comes from a credible firsthand witness.

But Christians already know that.

How do you define "knowledge"?
How do you define "belief"?
How do you know that Christians "know" that the Bible is God's word?

If you define knowledge as absolute certainty, that's demonstrably false. Lots of Christians base their belief in the Bible on probabilistic/abductive arguments from the field of Christian apologetics. These arguments are not formal proofs (as in mathematics or logic), therefore they don't provide absolute certainty. The best historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus do not provide absolute certainty. Not every Christian claims 100% certainty.

By the way, I felt inspired to post this thread, check it out: How should Christians determine which parts of the Bible are divinely inspired?

And more often that not the Jews did not believe the witness of the apostles. Those who did believe their witness did so by virtue of the fact they were apostles. I would have no problem believing the testimony of an apostle because they are authoritative spokesmen for Christ and spoke God's word.

That's not entirely accurate. A clear counterexample is Philip, who was a deacon, NOT an apostle.

Acts 6:1-6 (ESV)

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.​

And the we read about Philip:

Acts 8:4-13 (ESV):

Philip Proclaims Christ in Samaria
4 Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. 5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ. 6 And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs that he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed. 8 So there was much joy in that city.

Simon the Magician Believes
9 But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. 10 They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called Great.” 11 And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.​

That is referring to testifying in a court of law.

So what? That's still Jesus encouraging Paul (and every Christian reader) to proclaim their testimony. What Jesus never said was "and by the way, make sure you bring peer-reviewed journal articles and Nobel Prizes to back up your miraculous claims".

The man was told to evangelise about Christ. And, as we know, even that does not guarantee the listeners will believe in Him. More often than not they don't.

And unbelief is wrong. So this doesn't help your case.

23 But Jesus said to him, “‘If You can?’ All things are possible for the one who believes.” 24 Immediately the boy’s father cried out and said, “I do believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:23-24 NASB)

"this gospel"

So what? It's still testimonial evidence being promoted. The gospels are literally first/second/third hand testimonies written down.

That is referring to charges brought in a court of law.

So what? That's still the epistemological value of testimonial evidence being defended. Testimonies are valuable.

Your first underlined part I addressed in my previous post. The second underlined part (a different event) is referring to Jesus himself speaking.

So what? The passage provides clear example of how the testimony of firsthand witnesses of miracles can be valuable for bringing people to salvation. If someone comes to you and shares what God has done in their life (as the Samaritan woman did), you shouldn't dismiss what they say offhandedly. That kind of dismissive attitude is never praised nor taught in the Bible.

That verse is not referring to believing a human testimony of miracles.

The text is addressing testimonies in general, and miracles are certainly part of the testimony of those who have personally experienced them. The Bible is replete with examples of people who were firsthand witnesses of miracles. Similar stories have been reported throughout church history. For those individuals, the word of their testimony includes miracles.

I see nowhere in scripture that says we should blindly believe the hearsay stories of other normal humans.

Finally a point in which we agree. Sure, we shouldn't blindly believe anything someone says. But we shouldn't offhandedly dismiss what they say either. So what should we do? Should we remain agnostic and only believe what they say when they present a peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal? Should we only believe them when they come to us with a Nobel Prize?

When should we consider someone to be trustworthy? The Bible talks about the fruit of the Spirit, and the fact that only good trees produce good fruit consistently. We need to pay attention to the fruit of the person, their character, their sanctification. Not to peer-reviewed articles and Nobel Prize-worthy publications.

Scientists might say that don't know the explanation, but they cannot deny a miracle occurred if presented with sufficient evidence.

There is no "sufficient" evidence in science to "prove" that a miracle occurred. Science is not about proofs. You cannot prove anything in science. Science is only about testing and disproving hypotheses, or failing to disprove the strongest ones. But there is never a point when you can say that "sufficient evidence" has been inspected. There is always room for changing your mind about anything provided that new evidence comes along.

I highly recommend you read this answer. Here is a quote:

Can science confirm a miracle?

Science does not prove things (like math or logic can, using axioms). Science disproves things. The current scientific consensus consists of hypotheses that have been extensively tested and nobody has been able to disprove them. Information that is as-yet-undiscovered always holds the possibility of overturning present-day consensus.

At best, then, scientific inquiry could show that state A (pre-miracle) & state B (post-miracle) are different, and that our present knowledge of natural laws does not explain how we got from A to B. The more I study both science and theology the more I am persuaded of the truth of this statement:

Perfect science and perfect theology agree perfectly. It is our imperfect understanding of both that creates the illusion of conflict.​

Subsequent testimonies are hearsay.

Call them whatever you want, but the Bible clearly encourages believers to share their testimonies.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

I am not sure what you keep driving at here.

You accept that all Christians are convinced the bible is God's word. Do you want to know how I can be sure it the Holy Spirit who produces that conviction, rather than some other force? If so I've already answered that question in post #255.

In post #255 you said:

What other explanation is there for all Christian inherently knowing that the Bible is God's word? Something supernatural is obviously going on. Unless you want to attribute it to the Flying Spaghetti Monster then it must be the Holy Spirit.​

Answer: again, this presupposes as a premise that Christians "know" (with absolute certainty) that the Bible is God's word, a premise which you have not proved yet. In fact, it's very likely that millions of Christians believe in the Bible and God because of tradition, religious education, culture, upbringing, etc. There are also Christians who believe because of apologetics, but apologetic arguments never claim absolute certainty.

Moreover, this argument is very fallacious. Mormons and Muslims could offer similar arguments:

• All Mormons inherently know that the Book of Mormon is God's word. Something supernatural is obviously going on.
• All Muslims inherently know that the Quran is God's word. Something supernatural is obviously going on.

You also said:

I could also quote 1 Cor 2:12-14
What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.​

Answer: this passage is not talking about a specific canon, nor does it promise that every Christian will experience a revelation of the true canon of Scripture.

None of those verses say "It's the Holy Spirit who has to give you the discernment to acknowledge the authenticity of a miracle, not the scientific method."

• That the scientific method is not necessary is trivially true. The scientific method didn't even exist at the time.
• The Holy Spirit is the one who guides the Christian. He can certainly reveal/confirm whether or not a miracle comes from Him.

But you quote scripture as an authority which you expect other people to accept as absolute truth and thus proof of your arguments. It hypocritical of you to do so, while you yourself do not believe that scripture is God's word nor an absolute source of truth.

Otherwise when you quote scripture as proof, we can just as easily say to you "How do you know that is truth?", as you say when scripture is presented to you as proof.

Again, I don't need to believe it is absolutely true. If my opponent believes it is absolutely true, then I can leverage this fact to show them how their own position is self-contradictory.

The inner witness of the Holy Spirit is not a "burning in the bosom". There is no physical sensation whatsoever. It is just a conviction that the Bible is God's word.

And the proof? Where is it? How do you know there is no emotional experience?

 

[swordsman1]

In post #255 you said:

What other explanation is there for all Christian inherently knowing that the Bible is God's word? Something supernatural is obviously going on. Unless you want to attribute it to the Flying Spaghetti Monster then it must be the Holy Spirit.​

Answer: again, this presupposes as a premise that Christians "know" (with absolute certainty) that the Bible is God's word, a premise which you have not proved yet. In fact, it's very likely that millions of Christians believe in the Bible and God because of tradition, religious education, culture, upbringing, etc. There are also Christians who believe because of apologetics, but apologetic arguments never claim absolute certainty.

Moreover, this argument is very fallacious. Mormons and Muslims could offer similar arguments:

• All Mormons inherently know that the Book of Mormon is God's word. Something supernatural is obviously going on.
• All Muslims inherently know that the Quran is God's word. Something supernatural is obviously going on.

You also said:

I could also quote 1 Cor 2:12-14
What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.​

Answer: this passage is not talking about a specific canon, nor does it promise that every Christian will experience a revelation of the true canon of Scripture.

• That the scientific method is not necessary is trivially true. The scientific method didn't even exist at the time.
• The Holy Spirit is the one who guides the Christian. He can certainly reveal/confirm whether or not a miracle comes from Him.

Again, I don't need to believe it is absolutely true. If my opponent believes it is absolutely true, then I can leverage this fact to show them how their own position is self-contradictory.



And the proof? Where is it? How do you know there is no emotional experience?

One could argue from the long ending of Mark (verse 14) that this sort of disbelief was certainly rebuked by Jesus. But even if Jesus didn't rebuke Thomas specifically (John 20 is silent on this specific aspect), his disbelief was certainly not praised. On the contrary, Jesus declared quite explicitly a blessing for those who do not see and yet believe (“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”). In other words, if a genuine Christian, a brother or sister in the faith, comes to you and shares with you a sincere testimony, I don't think Jesus would be happy with you offhandedly dismissing everything they say.



Some people do. Some people don't. Doubting Thomas's are still around, and in those cases, more dramatic forms of conversion may be necessary. I can share tons of testimonies to support this if you want. Oh, wait, never mind, you will dismiss them offhandedly too.



And your proof is ...? Your personal experience? How can I know, from my perspective, that you are not deluded?



Wait ... didn't you believe that the Bible was God's word because the Holy Spirit told you so?

But now you are saying that a portion of the Bible is NOT God's word because of a majority opinion of scholars. So how is it? Is it the Holy Spirit or the scholars who decide what is inspired and what is not?

Can you share with us what exactly the Holy Spirit told you? Can you share your testimony?

Anyways, even if Mark 16:9-20 was canonized later, it doesn't follow that it is not inspired. In fact, one could argue that if God allowed this later addition, this is strong evidence that He wanted it to be part of the canon because its content was inspired. Thus, even if you manage to prove that Mark 16:9-20 is in fact a later addition, you would still need to prove that it was not inspired.




John 3:9-15 (ESV)

9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

The expression heavenly things certainly appeals to the supernatural. Jesus is calling out the Israelites on their skepticism, who won't believe even the earthly things, let alone the heavenly ones. And miracles are undoubtedly heavenly.



Because he is a firsthand witness, and he is sharing his testimony with us. This is a clear defense of the value of testimonial evidence when it comes from a credible firsthand witness.



How do you define "knowledge"?
How do you define "belief"?
How do you know that Christians "know" that the Bible is God's word?

If you define knowledge as absolute certainty, that's demonstrably false. Lots of Christians base their belief in the Bible on probabilistic/abductive arguments from the field of Christian apologetics. These arguments are not formal proofs (as in mathematics or logic), therefore they don't provide absolute certainty. The best historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus do not provide absolute certainty. Not every Christian claims 100% certainty.

By the way, I felt inspired to post this thread, check it out: How should Christians determine which parts of the Bible are divinely inspired?



That's not entirely accurate. A clear counterexample is Philip, who was a deacon, NOT an apostle.

Acts 6:1-6 (ESV)

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.​

And the we read about Philip:

Acts 8:4-13 (ESV):

Philip Proclaims Christ in Samaria
4 Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. 5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ. 6 And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs that he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed. 8 So there was much joy in that city.

Simon the Magician Believes
9 But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. 10 They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called Great.” 11 And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.​

So what? That's still Jesus encouraging Paul (and every Christian reader) to proclaim their testimony. What Jesus never said was "and by the way, make sure you bring peer-reviewed journal articles and Nobel Prizes to back up your miraculous claims".



And unbelief is wrong. So this doesn't help your case.

23 But Jesus said to him, “‘If You can?’ All things are possible for the one who believes.” 24 Immediately the boy’s father cried out and said, “I do believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:23-24 NASB)


So what? It's still testimonial evidence being promoted. The gospels are literally first/second/third hand testimonies written down.


So what? That's still the epistemological value of testimonial evidence being defended. Testimonies are valuable.



So what? The passage provides clear example of how the testimony of firsthand witnesses of miracles can be valuable for bringing people to salvation. If someone comes to you and shares what God has done in their life (as the Samaritan woman did), you shouldn't dismiss what they say offhandedly. That kind of dismissive attitude is never praised nor taught in the Bible.



The text is addressing testimonies in general, and miracles are certainly part of the testimony of those who have personally experienced them. The Bible is replete with examples of people who were firsthand witnesses of miracles. Similar stories have been reported throughout church history. For those individuals, the word of their testimony includes miracles.


Finally a point in which we agree. Sure, we shouldn't blindly believe anything someone says. But we shouldn't offhandedly dismiss what they say either. So what should we do? Should we remain agnostic and only believe what they say when they present a peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal? Should we only believe them when they come to us with a Nobel Prize?

When should we consider someone to be trustworthy? The Bible talks about the fruit of the Spirit, and the fact that only good trees produce good fruit consistently. We need to pay attention to the fruit of the person, their character, their sanctification. Not to peer-reviewed articles and Nobel Prize-worthy publications.


There is no "sufficient" evidence in science to "prove" that a miracle occurred. Science is not about proofs. You cannot prove anything in science. Science is only about testing and disproving hypotheses, or failing to disprove the strongest ones. But there is never a point when you can say that "sufficient evidence" has been inspected. There is always room for changing your mind about anything provided that new evidence comes along.

I highly recommend you read this answer. Here is a quote:

Can science confirm a miracle?

Science does not prove things (like math or logic can, using axioms). Science disproves things. The current scientific consensus consists of hypotheses that have been extensively tested and nobody has been able to disprove them. Information that is as-yet-undiscovered always holds the possibility of overturning present-day consensus.

At best, then, scientific inquiry could show that state A (pre-miracle) & state B (post-miracle) are different, and that our present knowledge of natural laws does not explain how we got from A to B. The more I study both science and theology the more I am persuaded of the truth of this statement:

Perfect science and perfect theology agree perfectly. It is our imperfect understanding of both that creates the illusion of conflict.​

Call them whatever you want, but the Bible clearly encourages believers to share their testimonies.

Okay.

 

[swordsman1]

One could argue from the long ending of Mark (verse 14) that this sort of disbelief was certainly rebuked by Jesus. But even if Jesus didn't rebuke Thomas specifically (John 20 is silent on this specific aspect), his disbelief was certainly not praised. On the contrary, Jesus declared quite explicitly a blessing for those who do not see and yet believe (“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”). In other words, if a genuine Christian, a brother or sister in the faith, comes to you and shares with you a sincere testimony, I don't think Jesus would be happy with you offhandedly dismissing everything they say.



Some people do. Some people don't. Doubting Thomas's are still around, and in those cases, more dramatic forms of conversion may be necessary. I can share tons of testimonies to support this if you want. Oh, wait, never mind, you will dismiss them offhandedly too.



And your proof is ...? Your personal experience? How can I know, from my perspective, that you are not deluded?



Wait ... didn't you believe that the Bible was God's word because the Holy Spirit told you so?

But now you are saying that a portion of the Bible is NOT God's word because of a majority opinion of scholars. So how is it? Is it the Holy Spirit or the scholars who decide what is inspired and what is not?

Can you share with us what exactly the Holy Spirit told you? Can you share your testimony?

Anyways, even if Mark 16:9-20 was canonized later, it doesn't follow that it is not inspired. In fact, one could argue that if God allowed this later addition, this is strong evidence that He wanted it to be part of the canon because its content was inspired. Thus, even if you manage to prove that Mark 16:9-20 is in fact a later addition, you would still need to prove that it was not inspired.




John 3:9-15 (ESV)

9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

The expression heavenly things certainly appeals to the supernatural. Jesus is calling out the Israelites on their skepticism, who won't believe even the earthly things, let alone the heavenly ones. And miracles are undoubtedly heavenly.



Because he is a firsthand witness, and he is sharing his testimony with us. This is a clear defense of the value of testimonial evidence when it comes from a credible firsthand witness.



How do you define "knowledge"?
How do you define "belief"?
How do you know that Christians "know" that the Bible is God's word?

If you define knowledge as absolute certainty, that's demonstrably false. Lots of Christians base their belief in the Bible on probabilistic/abductive arguments from the field of Christian apologetics. These arguments are not formal proofs (as in mathematics or logic), therefore they don't provide absolute certainty. The best historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus do not provide absolute certainty. Not every Christian claims 100% certainty.

By the way, I felt inspired to post this thread, check it out: How should Christians determine which parts of the Bible are divinely inspired?



That's not entirely accurate. A clear counterexample is Philip, who was a deacon, NOT an apostle.

Acts 6:1-6 (ESV)

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.​

And the we read about Philip:

Acts 8:4-13 (ESV):

Philip Proclaims Christ in Samaria
4 Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. 5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ. 6 And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs that he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed. 8 So there was much joy in that city.

Simon the Magician Believes
9 But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. 10 They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called Great.” 11 And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.​

So what? That's still Jesus encouraging Paul (and every Christian reader) to proclaim their testimony. What Jesus never said was "and by the way, make sure you bring peer-reviewed journal articles and Nobel Prizes to back up your miraculous claims".



And unbelief is wrong. So this doesn't help your case.

23 But Jesus said to him, “‘If You can?’ All things are possible for the one who believes.” 24 Immediately the boy’s father cried out and said, “I do believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:23-24 NASB)


So what? It's still testimonial evidence being promoted. The gospels are literally first/second/third hand testimonies written down.


So what? That's still the epistemological value of testimonial evidence being defended. Testimonies are valuable.



So what? The passage provides clear example of how the testimony of firsthand witnesses of miracles can be valuable for bringing people to salvation. If someone comes to you and shares what God has done in their life (as the Samaritan woman did), you shouldn't dismiss what they say offhandedly. That kind of dismissive attitude is never praised nor taught in the Bible.



The text is addressing testimonies in general, and miracles are certainly part of the testimony of those who have personally experienced them. The Bible is replete with examples of people who were firsthand witnesses of miracles. Similar stories have been reported throughout church history. For those individuals, the word of their testimony includes miracles.


Finally a point in which we agree. Sure, we shouldn't blindly believe anything someone says. But we shouldn't offhandedly dismiss what they say either. So what should we do? Should we remain agnostic and only believe what they say when they present a peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal? Should we only believe them when they come to us with a Nobel Prize?

When should we consider someone to be trustworthy? The Bible talks about the fruit of the Spirit, and the fact that only good trees produce good fruit consistently. We need to pay attention to the fruit of the person, their character, their sanctification. Not to peer-reviewed articles and Nobel Prize-worthy publications.


There is no "sufficient" evidence in science to "prove" that a miracle occurred. Science is not about proofs. You cannot prove anything in science. Science is only about testing and disproving hypotheses, or failing to disprove the strongest ones. But there is never a point when you can say that "sufficient evidence" has been inspected. There is always room for changing your mind about anything provided that new evidence comes along.

I highly recommend you read this answer. Here is a quote:

Can science confirm a miracle?

Science does not prove things (like math or logic can, using axioms). Science disproves things. The current scientific consensus consists of hypotheses that have been extensively tested and nobody has been able to disprove them. Information that is as-yet-undiscovered always holds the possibility of overturning present-day consensus.

At best, then, scientific inquiry could show that state A (pre-miracle) & state B (post-miracle) are different, and that our present knowledge of natural laws does not explain how we got from A to B. The more I study both science and theology the more I am persuaded of the truth of this statement:

Perfect science and perfect theology agree perfectly. It is our imperfect understanding of both that creates the illusion of conflict.​

Call them whatever you want, but the Bible clearly encourages believers to share their testimonies.

Okay.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Because that is what all Christians inherently believe. If you don't believe me start a poll here asking 'Do you believe the Bible is God's word? Yes or No.'

I actually went ahead and started a poll myself: How sure are you that the Bible is God's word?

The results so far are interesting, here is a screenshot:

Only 36.8% claim absolute certainty from the Holy Spirit. Does that mean that 63.2% of the voters are not truly Christian?

 

[swordsman1]

I actually went ahead and started a poll myself: How sure are you that the Bible is God's word?

The results so far are interesting, here is a screenshot:

View attachment 315249

Only 36.8% claim absolute certainty from the Holy Spirit. Does that mean that 63.2% of the voters are not truly Christian?

That wasn't the poll I asked you to start. If it was just a simple "Do you belieive the Bible is Gods word? Yes or No.", rather than the myriad of options you gave, I think the results would be rather more clear cut.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

That wasn't the poll I asked you to start. If it was just a simple "Do you belieive the Bible is Gods word? Yes or No.", rather than the myriad of options you gave, I think the results would be rather more clear cut.

My version of the poll is more fine-grained and informative. A blanket "yes or no" overlooks the nuances of what it means for someone to believe X. Not everyone claims 100% certainty from revelation from the Holy Spirit (however that works), which was the claim in dispute.

 

[swordsman1]

My version of the poll is more fine-grained and informative. A blanket "yes or no" overlooks the nuances of what it means for someone to believe X. Not everyone claims 100% certainty from revelation from the Holy Spirit (however that works), which was the claim in dispute.

That is my point. You are dividing all the people who beleive the Bible is Gods word into different groups. It is quite understandable that not everyone would tick the Holy Spirit box. Firstly they may not realise it is the Holy Spirit who is produces their conviction. And secondly the way you have worded it makes it sound like some kind of one-off revelatory experience, which it us not. So your poll is useless for determining whether all Christians beleive the bible is Gods word. If you want an accurate poll then use my wording, with perhaps a definition of Bible as the books as penned by the original authors (to avoid muddying the waters with different translations or additions as you have done).

 

[TruthSeek3r]

That is my point. You are dividing all the people who beleive the Bible is Gods word into different groups. It is quite understandable that not everyone would tick the Holy Spirit box. Firstly they may not realise it is the Holy Spirit who is produces their conviction. And secondly the way you have worded it makes it sound like some kind of one-off revelatory experience, which it us not. So your poll is useless for determining whether all Christians beleive the bible is Gods word. If you want an accurate poll then use my wording, with perhaps a definition of Bible as the books as penned by the original authors (to avoid muddying the waters with different translations or additions as you have done).

At least 4 people have voted that they are not entirely sure, although they know good arguments to be highly confident. So that alone already proves that not everyone is 100% sure. But feel free to post a new thread with a different poll if you want.

To your point though, someone just explained to me their position better and inspired me to add a 9th option to the poll:

"100% sure, because I believe the HS gave me childlike faith to trust the canon by the Church Fathers"

 

[swordsman1]

At least 4 people have voted that they are not entirely sure, although they know good arguments to be highly confident. So that alone already proves that not everyone is 100% sure. But feel free to post a new thread with a different poll if you want.

It depends how much doubt and what the reason is. They may be fully convinced but have a tiny seed of doubt when they read the long ending of Mark or a dubious translation or listen to atheist argumements against the bible. I know I got very confused when I first read through Mark's gospel as a new believer.

If you are just relying on what little external evidence there is, you will be knowhere near "highly confident" the bible is Gods word, it is so weak.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

If you are just relying on what little external evidence there is, you will be knowhere near "highly confident" the bible is Gods word, it is so weak.

From this I gather that you don't see much value in Christian apologetics then? Do you see any value in defending the Christian faith through intellectual arguments based on eyewitness testimony, history, archeology, philosophy, modern evidence of the supernatural, etc.?

 

[swordsman1]

Correct, those arguments are full of holes. Convincing people to beleive in Christianity on external evidence alone is a fruitless exercise. The only possible exception would be a belief in the existence of a God due to the amazing complexity of nature, especially the chemistry of life. But even then the evolutionist will fight it tooth and nail. Trying to convince people of the existence of God through hearsay evidence of miracles is particularly futile, as I think I've shown! The atheist will rip apart that argument every time. Same for trying to convince someone to beleive the Bible is Gods word on the sparse external evidence alone. Believing the bible requires an inward movement of the Holy Spirit as does putting your trust in Christ for salvation.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Trying to convince people of the existence of God through hearsay evidence of miracles is particularly futile, as I think I've shown!

My last attempt: Jesus's Ministry

Same for trying to convince someone to beleive the Bible is Gods word on the sparse external evidence alone. Believing the bible requires an inward movement of the Holy Spirit as does putting your trust in Christ for salvation.

Likewise with miracles. Miracles are works of the Holy Spirit, so it makes sense that the human vessel through which the Holy Spirit performs a miracle must be open to the possibility in the first place, through an inward movement of the Holy Spirit.

Anyway, it should be pretty clear by now that we won't change each other's mind, so let's just agree to disagree.

Cheers.

 

[FredVB]

What miraculous occurrences come from God will further the gospel and faith in it, with salvation coming to more with them. Anything else among people not involving that is probably something else, and not that which is from God.

 

[ARBITER01]

Likewise with miracles. Miracles are works of the Holy Spirit, so it makes sense that the human vessel through which the Holy Spirit performs a miracle must be open to the possibility in the first place, through an inward movement of the Holy Spirit.

It's why GOD chose faith.

You can try to help all you want, but many will just move the goal posts on you. They gotta have faith to receive such things.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

What miraculous occurrences come from God will further the gospel and faith in it, with salvation coming to more with them. Anything else among people not involving that is probably something else, and not that which is from God.

Jesus said that in the end times, false prophets will arise performing false signs and wonders, so much so that it could deceive even the elect if that was possible. This means that we need to be very careful about signs and wonders and test all things to ensure that these come from God. If people have the notion that all signs and wonders and the supernatural is automatically from God, they might find themselves horribly deceived and having a truckload of trouble.

The test concerning signs and wonders is, who is being glorified through them? The risen glorified Jesus Christ, or someone else? There will be many "Christs" (Kristos means "anointed one") coming into the world, and are already here (a prominent healing preacher saying "touch not my anointed" meaning not to criticise his false ministry, otherwise "you will be cursed of God". There are many current false prophets and teachers who claim a special "anointing" on their ministries. In effect, they are claiming to be a Christ, an "anointed one". Therefore we need to be sober and vigilant about these things.

 

[RickReads]

Jesus said that in the end times, false prophets will arise performing false signs and wonders, so much so that it could deceive even the elect if that was possible. This means that we need to be very careful about signs and wonders and test all things to ensure that these come from God. If people have the notion that all signs and wonders and the supernatural is automatically from God, they might find themselves horribly deceived and having a truckload of trouble.

The test concerning signs and wonders is, who is being glorified through them? The risen glorified Jesus Christ, or someone else? There will be many "Christs" (Kristos means "anointed one") coming into the world, and are already here (a prominent healing preacher saying "touch not my anointed" meaning not to criticise his false ministry, otherwise "you will be cursed of God". There are many current false prophets and teachers who claim a special "anointing" on their ministries. In effect, they are claiming to be a Christ, an "anointed one". Therefore we need to be sober and vigilant about these things.

A person who believes they have an anointing is simply believing they have received their ordained portion of the Spirit of Christ. It is not claiming to be a Christ by any means.

For somebody who throws the word context around as much as you do you certainly are pretty liberal in declaring the context to be whatsoever your personal interpretation of scripture is.

You are quick to criticize anyone who believes they understand the gospel yet you elevate your own views as absolute truth.

 

[FredVB]

What miraculous occurrences come from God will further the gospel and faith in it, with salvation coming to more with them. Anything else among people not involving that is probably something else, and not that which is from God.

Jesus said that in the end times, false prophets will arise performing false signs and wonders, so much so that it could deceive even the elect if that was possible. This means that we need to be very careful about signs and wonders and test all things to ensure that these come from God. If people have the notion that all signs and wonders and the supernatural is automatically from God, they might find themselves horribly deceived and having a truckload of trouble.

The test concerning signs and wonders is, who is being glorified through them? The risen glorified Jesus Christ, or someone else? There will be many "Christs" (Kristos means "anointed one") coming into the world, and are already here (a prominent healing preacher saying "touch not my anointed" meaning not to criticise his false ministry, otherwise "you will be cursed of God". There are many current false prophets and teachers who claim a special "anointing" on their ministries. In effect, they are claiming to be a Christ, an "anointed one". Therefore we need to be sober and vigilant about these things.

That is indeed understood. God is glorified with actual miracles from God, know one else, so that Christ is trusted. That is how furthering the gospel and faith with it for salvation coming to more happens. It is all absent from whatever is shown from false prophets and teachers.

 

[swordsman1]

• See and examine what kind of evidence?

• Seen and examined by whom?

• What percentage of the world population would be able to see and examine this evidence?

• Why?

Independent verified report in a reputable journal, video evidence of the miracle taking place, etc. available to anyone who wishes to examine it.

So are you happy with these statistics? Are you happy with miracles that only a tiny fraction of the human population can directly verify?

The proportion is far higher than that. The event is recorded in infallible scripture, so anyone who believes the bible (billions of people) would have access to bullet proof evidence.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "setting the world on fire". Would you count the "Pentecostal revival" as an event that set the world on fire as well?

Not in a good sense.

So, in a way, it sounds like you're sympathetic to atheists. If atheists are justified in their skepticism, then what would you do in order to change their minds? How would you go about convincing an atheist that Christianity is true?

Pray that the Lord would open their eyes.

What kind of standard allows you to do both things simultaneously?

The standard of truth.
For Christians the standard of truth for the bible is 100%
For a YouTube video claim of miracle, pretty close to 0%

Can an atheist use the same standard and reach the same conclusions?

No. They would have to become a Christian to be convinced the bible is true.

Sure. There are two posts of mine on that thread you haven't addresses yet: post #361, post #362. Feel free to resume the discussion by posting answers to both.

Our discussions back then were becoming very long and rather tedious. I skimmed through those last posts of yours and estimated they would take me about 2 hours to go through it all and answer, so I left them. If I find the time and willpower I may eventually get round to answering them.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Independent verified report in a reputable journal, video evidence of the miracle taking place, etc. available to anyone who wishes to examine it.

And why should this specific kind of evidence be available for any specific miracle? This kind of evidence is "apples to oranges" (a phrase you like to use) when compared to the evidence for Jesus' resurrection:

• We don't have independent verified reports in a reputable journal for Jesus' resurrection
• We don't have video evidence for Jesus' resurrection taking place

So Jesus' resurrection (the example you appealed to on the other thread as an example of the kind of evidence you want) fails to meet these requirements. You want the sort of evidence that would convince an atheist, yet Jesus' resurrection lacks the sort of evidence that would convince an atheist. Therefore, Jesus' resurrection is NOT a good example of an event supported by the kind of evidence that would convince an atheist (which you want).

I fail to see how God is expected to provide evidence meeting the requirements you listed above for any specific miracle. Not even Jesus' resurrection meets these requirements.

The proportion is far higher than that. The event is recorded in infallible scripture, so anyone who believes the bible (billions of people) would have access to bullet proof evidence.

How would you convince an atheist that scripture is infallible?

Pray that the Lord would open their eyes.

Oh, I see. God would need to intervene supernaturally.
How about a continuationist praying that the Lord would open a cessationist's eyes?

The standard of truth.
For Christians the standard of truth for the bible is 100%
For a YouTube video claim of miracle, pretty close to 0%

How can you prove these blanket statements?

No. They would have to become a Christian to be convinced the bible is true.

But ... couldn't a continuationist say the same thing?

"No. They would have to become a continuationist to be convinced continuationism is true."

Our discussions back then were becoming very long and rather tedious. I skimmed through those last posts of yours and estimated they would take me about 2 hours to go through it all and answer, so I left them. If I find the time and willpower I may eventually get round to answering them.

Understandable.