Cessationism: Have the gifts ceased?

Paul was by no means the last apostle. Timothy and Silvanus also were apostles. Along with quite a number of other people who were named as apostles. When I stopped counting, I had found 22 - but since then other people have added a few more that I hadn't noticed. Of course, there are some who will declare that while the Bible called them apostles, they weren't real apostles. (and then that same "some" will tell you that everything in the Bible is wholly accurate.)

An apostle is attested to be such by the working of power.

Click to expand...

I do enjoy reasoning from the scriptures TC. Now you simply state that Paul was not the last apostle. Wheres your proof. I clearly showed in Acts 1 the requirements to be an apostle. You had to be a actual eyewitness of Jesus. Then Paul clearly states in 1co 15:8 that he was the last one to see Jesus. That makes him the last eyewitness and the last one to be qualified to be an apostle. He even make the comment about being an apostle being born out of due season. Just think about what this means. It is saying that unlike the other qualified apostles that were with Jesus when he was alive, that he was a eyewitness of him after his death. No where will you find Timothy or Silvanus called apostles. Timothy is refered to as a minister and a brother. Silvanus is refered to as a brother also. The word apostle is used in the NT sometimes in a general sense as one sent out. For exaple in Heb 3 Jesus is called an apostle. Would you have us believe that the word apostle here means the same thing as in reference to the 12 and Paul. I dont think that you would. The word is used in a general sense here.

Just because someone had the gift of the Holy Spirit doesnt make them an apostle. I tried to make this clear to by showing you that only the apostles had the ability to impart the gifts of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Notice in Acts 8:6;13 Philip (not the apostle) was doing signs and miracles confirming the word he spoke. When the people believed they were baptized with water. They had only been baptized in the name of Jesus and had not yet received the Holy Ghost. Why? Because Philip was not an apostle so he did not have the ability to impart the Holy Spirit through his hands. You will notice that Peter and John the Apostles were sent to that city and that these people did not receive the Holy Ghost until the apostles laid their hands on them. In verse 18 you see the Simon saw that through the laying on of hands by the APOSTLES that the Holy Spirit was given he tried to buy it from them. Then Peter corects him that he cannot have that ability because it is not his part or his lot (21). Paul being an apostle had this ability. Notice in Acts 19:6 that Paul imparts the Holy Spirit on these men. He also desired to visit the Romans to impart spirtual gifts on them also Rom1:11 We also learn that Tim receive the Holy Spirit from the laying on of the hands of Paul 2Tim 2:6.

Are you still going to claim that we have apostles today? If you do then we should still be having new revealtion given to us today. Lets say that your right for just a second (and no I dont think you are) and that there were 22 + apostles mentioned in the NT and that all of them were qualified to be one. (Barsabas was qualifed to be one but yet the lot did not fall on him and so he did not get to become 1 of the original 12 apostles.) I still want to know is there anyone qualifed today to be a apostle? Please answer this question. I think you know the answer is no. So then you have to come to conclusion that the unity of faith in Eph 4 is talking about fully revealed word. The miracleous has ceased. You will never see a visable miracle or sign like those done in the 1century. Their miracles could not be denied but yet today not 1 single so called miracle is visable something that all see. I dont mean to sound like a broken record but you do not see a withered hand become whole or someone missing a leg come back. No its always some internal thing. Or if someone claims a visable miracle it just never seems to be able to be caught on tape kind of like UFO siteings. There is no need for Gods word to be reconfirmed with sighn and miracles every generation. This is like saying that christ would need to be re crucifed every generation so that they can see it with their eyes. No we live a life based on faith. Those things that are hoped for and not seen.

Not in the least - the one who is missing the point is the one saying that apostles, prophets, teachers and preachers are no longer appointed to show the way to new believers until those new believers (achieve maturity) are able to follow Christ without guidance.

Click to expand...

I dealt with this in post 28.

2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished
unto all good works.

Yes the word there is profitable. However this verse summerizes the self sufficentcy of the scriptures. Notice in verse 17 that the scriptures make the man of God Complete/perfect throughly furnished. Now if we are throughly furnished by the word of God then why in the world would we need miralces and signs in addition to word of God?

You know TC you I was just adding that 1 verse in John to the numerous other verses I had listed showing the self sufficentcy of the bible. I did not imply or even hint at that all you need is the book of John by itself. See look at post 34 and you will see all the scriptures I gave. You did not answer my qustion about a person being on a island just with a bible.

TC are you willing to state that the word of God without miracles and sign being performed today make the bible incomplete? In other words would say that I am lost and that I cant know that the bible is true because I have not seen a miracle or a sign other than those I read about in the Bible?

I would like you to be specific TC what do belive prohesey means? I would like for you tell me this before I start discussing Joels prophecy.

Andrew,

Do you actually believe Wigglesworth brought his wife back from the dead as he said he did??

Andrew I already dealt with that it post 28. You are just side steping around what I presented. I was really hoping that you would answer my questions. I would like for you to deal bibilical with what I have presented. At least answer these few questions for me.

Do we still have qualifed Apostles today?
Since you brought up the prophet thing do you belive that we still have prophets today that funtion the same way as in the 1st century?

I will take a look at that guys testimoney.

I do enjoy reasoning from the scriptures TC.

Click to expand...

Really? I haven't seen any evidence of that to date.

Now you simply state that Paul was not the last apostle. Wheres your proof. I clearly showed in Acts 1 the requirements to be an apostle. You had to be a actual eyewitness of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy wrote to the Thessalonians - later stating "as apostles we could have been a burden to you." (1 Thessalonians 2:6)

Then Paul clearly states in 1co 15:8 that he was the last one to see Jesus. That makes him the last eyewitness and the last one to be qualified to be an apostle. He even make the comment about being an apostle being born out of due season.

Click to expand...

Is it written somewhere that no-one in all history would ever again, while he yet lived, see Jesus? No? Didn't think so. I note that in the same passage Paul also states that he persecuted the church. Is that too, a requirement that must be met before one can become an apostle. Or is it that the passage does no more than show that he too was a sinner in the past, and that through the grace of God he became an apostle?

Just think about what this means. It is saying that unlike the other qualified apostles that were with Jesus when he was alive, that he was a eyewitness of him after his death.

Click to expand...

Unlike the other qualified apostles who were before him, yes. And of course, he was pointing out that he was in no way inferior to the "super apostles" - which I take to mean, a reference to those who had actually walked with the Christ while he yet lived - and claims made by others about their superiority as a result.

The word apostle is used in the NT sometimes in a general sense as one sent out. For exaple in Heb 3 Jesus is called an apostle. Would you have us believe that the word apostle here means the same thing as in reference to the 12 and Paul. I dont think that you would. The word is used in a general sense here.

Click to expand...

Hebrews shows that Jesus is the apostle and high priest of our confession. This is used to support the argument that "apostle" doesn't always mean "apostle"? If so, "high priest" doesn't always mean "high priest" - the argument is specious.

In verse 18 you see the Simon saw that through the laying on of hands by the APOSTLES that the Holy Spirit was given he tried to buy it from them. Then Peter corects him that he cannot have that ability because it is not his part or his lot

Click to expand...

Which version of the Bible does that come from? The reason is stated clearly enough in every version I have read, that Simon was in error because he had tried to BUY the authority.

Yes the word there is profitable. However this verse summerizes the self sufficentcy of the scriptures. Notice in verse 17 that the scriptures make the man of God Complete/perfect throughly furnished. Now if we are throughly furnished by the word of God then why in the world would we need miralces and signs in addition to word of God?

Click to expand...

Yes, yes. And referring to the armour of God, the feet are shod with the word (from memory.) A man without footwear is not completely furnished - but supplying him with boots won't make him complete if he doesn't have a shield.

I still want to know is there anyone qualifed today to be a apostle? Please answer this question. I think you know the answer is no.

Click to expand...

Incorrect - the answer is (how odd) no - if one is to take the "qualified" as meaning "established as," but there are some who are called to be apostles. It seems though, that there is a lead time between between being called and being chosen. Again, referring to Paul - was he an apostle before he saw the Christ? (according to my understanding of your understanding, the answer would have to be no.) But there is no denying that he was called to that rank.

The miracleous has ceased. You will never see a visable miracle or sign like those done in the 1century.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, I have already seen such. (though not on the same scale, admittedly) - if I hadn't seen for myself, I would not have committed to the Christ.

It seems that you are sincere, so perhaps a more orderly approach is in order - if we take the points one by one, both of us would most likely benefit from the exchange.

First point: Which scriptures do you see as pointing to the requirement that an apostle must necessarily have seen the Christ. You may have stated your understanding previously, but if so, it has been lost in all the words.

Ok lets begin with the first point.
Acts 1:20-22 teaches us the qualifications to be an apostle. First he must of been with them at the time of Jesus baptism to the time of his accension. 2nd he must be a witness of his resurection.
What about Paul?
Why did Jesus appear personally to Saul of Tarsus? The answer is in Acts 22:15, where Ananias told Saul that he (Saul) was to be the Lord's witness. In Acts 26:16 Paul quotes the Lord on this occasion as stating exactly why he appeared to Saul: "But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness ..." In order to be an apostle, Paul had to be a witness of the fact that Jesus is alive from the dead. Paul's argument to the Corinthians for the authenticity of his apostleship went like this: "Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are ye not my work in the Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1). Later in the same epistle he affirmed: "And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time" (Acts 15:8). So anyway you look at it you have to be an eyewitness of Jesus in order to be an apostle.

Does this answer your 1st point?

Your still being to vague for me Andrew. Please in detail so that I can understand it plainly tell me what modern day apostles can and cant do? For example can the provide new revelation today. If not why not? Do they have the ablility to impart spiritual gifts through the laying on of their hands? If not why not? Can the remit and retain sin today? If not why not? Can they do signs and miracles to back up their word everywhere they go? If not why not. Since an apostle has to be an eyewitness of Jesus do the modern apostles today claim they have seen Jesus?

Please explain to me what a prophet is and can do today? can the do the same thing as the 1st century prophets? If not why not?

I look forward to your detailed answer on these.

OK - that at least gives us a point to work on. I'll have a dekko at the passages and get back to you on them.

Now, I'll have to go into brief details regarding what has happened in the past 20 years or so.

A man phones his friend, who tells him that he must go to his home and visit his father on the weekend, and also tells him under no circumstances to neglect that visit, because he will otherwise regret not going for the rest of his life. He also is told that he must make the most of his time with his father while he is there. The man goes to his home as instructed, and leaves on good terms Sunday night to return to the city. The following day, his father took ill and by the Wednesday (I think it was) had died.

A woman asks this same friend, "what will happen if I do not do what you advise" - He replies, you will not stay with your partner, he will not have you... you fear that you will lose him if you do what is right - I tell you the truth, you CAN NOT keep him by unrighteous means. You will live only for a short time in the place you are going to after your relationship ends. You will move to a hill near an arched stone bridge... not by your own choice, another will force it (etc and so forth). You will never go to live in the state that you want to live in. A few weeks later, the woman was told by the friend - the time is at hand, all that I have said has come to pass. The woman's relationship ended, she moved in with her brother - who a week later decided to move house to the hills and just beyond an arched stone bridge. Having nowhere else to go, the woman had to go with her brother.

Or take the case of another young woman - who was told by this friend. You think that you are going to enjoy your licentiousness, but I speak for God. You will not turn twenty, and you are already a mother - not 5 months shall pass, and you will be pregnant. He also told her also: that she would contract chlamydia: after she first discovered that she was pregnant, that she was at risk of suffering pre-ecclampsia, both of which came to pass. This particular young women was given no less than a dozen prophecies, but of course ... like the church had always taught, God doesn't do such things in this age: there are no apostles any more: if fortune telling was real, why isn't this man rich? etc so forth and so on ad nauseam. She could not believe what she was being told was true; the man talking to her could not possibly exist. Only with the last prophecy she was given did she finally come to believe, and acted on it to prevent what would have otherwise followed.

Or take the Bible study group, which had confirmed at times to the members individually, and as a group at other times, by affirmation from God, that what they were being taught was true: that the man they were looking to as their facilitator actually could demonstrate that he had God's authority to teach the gospel. Every key point made at every study session for the six months that he was with them was confirmed by the Holy Spirit, one way or another.

Try telling the members of that study group that God no longer cares enough to perform signs and wonders, and try telling them that the man himself does not exist. Would any one of them declare that signs and wonders from God no longer occur? No matter what is claimed as being "based on scripture" - these have their faith firmly grounded on the evidence of miracles. Anyone trying to make the scriptures say that signs and wonders, apostles and prophets no longer exist will get short shrift.

If you mean add another book to the Bible or another chapter to Acts, NO. But if you mean give us a fuller understanding of certain scriptures with the help of the Holy Spirit, YES. But so can the ordinary Christian, as long as he is dependent on and open to the Holy Spirit. If you mean reveal something that God is about to do, YES.

Click to expand...

Thank you you just proved that Apostles are no longer here today. Notice Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the
mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my
knowledge in the mystery of Christ )
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of
men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and
prophets by the Spirit;

Here you see that Apostles could write down that which they received by revelation. This of course if evident as Paul wrote a major portion of the NT. I also want you to notice that if WE READ these words which were written we can UNDERSTAND the apostles knowledge in the mystery of Christ. So you see the completed word that we have today is all one needs to have in order to understand the word of God. Oh yeah before I forget, you say that apostles today can not add to the bible or write new revealtion that has not yet been revealed. Why not? Where is your bible verse or verses that show that apostles have lost their abilty to write new revelation? Another important question that goes along with the charcteristics of a apostel. Do modern day apostles have the ability to bind and loose as the 1 century apostles did? (Mat 16:19;18:18)

YES. But so can Pastors and evangelists. Remember, they dont own the gifts. It's up to God who he wants to give it to. The Apostles certainly did not lay hands and impart gifts becos they felt like it or liked the guy's face, but becos the obeyed the leading of the Holy Spirit. If they or anyone does it on their own initiative, nothing will happen.

Click to expand...

Really? where is your bibical proof of this? I have not been able to find a example anywhere other than the Apostles being able to impart spirtual gifts. Remember how gave the example of Philip in Acts 8 and how he was not able to impart spiritual gifts to those people there and how it was that the apostles had to go there and lay their hands on them before the received the spirtual gifts?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Like the Catholic priests? I dont believe the apostles of the NT forgave sins as if it was them who died on the cross.

Click to expand...

This is another characteristic of being an apostle. Notice John 20:23 "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." So I ask you again do the modern day apostles have this ability?

They cant make miracles happen to back up what they say but God can back up what he's telling them to say with signs and wonders. ie they are just instruments for God. IOW this working of miracles is not limited to apostles. eg you saw Peter Youngren preach to thousands the Gospel, and God confirm the Gospel preached (not Peter Youngren) with miraculous healings. Read Wigglesworth, John G Lake, TL Osborn.

Click to expand...

I have never stated to the best of memory that the miracles were limited only to apostles. Philip in Acts 8 confirmed what he was preaching by miracles. The prohets Judas and Silas also confirmed their words in Acts 15.

I think Thunderchild has answered this and said that the Bible never said one has to have seen Jesus (whether in flesh or vision) to be an Apostle. Firstly, there are people today who have seen 3D visions of Christ. Secondly, rem the verse that says "He gave gifts to the church, some to be apostles, pastors...". The church was born on the day of Pentecost, many days after Jesus had ascended to heaven. So how can Paul write that Christ gave gifts to the new birthed church, which would include apostles, if an apostle had to have seen Jesus? Unless of course you now mean only visions.

Click to expand...

I understand where you are comeing from but notice this verse in 1cor 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
So you see the apostles were the First in the church and the First to witness of Jesus as they were baptized in the Holy Spirit that day. Now TC is going to work on what I presented as a qualification to be an apostle. As far as I can tell there isnt anyway around it. See notice the qualifcations here in Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation
be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick
let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us
all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day
that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a
witness with us of his resurrection.

Seems clear to me that you had to be an eye witness of Jesus to be qualified. Now you think about it. There were only the 12 apostles which represents the same number of tribes of Isreal. Then you have the special case of Paul that seen the lord and got his direct revelation from him. Because Paul is the representive of the gentiles. His main purpose was to teach the gentiles the mystery of christ. Please tell me Andrew what do you believe is a qualification for an apostle today?

All the things you mentioned about a prophet with execption of telling the future can be done by any christian. Now I do know of many different stories of fortune tellers and the likes that predict things and some of them come true even though they are not christians? Does this make them a prophet? You see a lot of so called prophets make perdiction of the 2nd comming yet they always fail. Of course I know that you probably belive these instances of future telling that you have heard, but once again there is no way for me to confirm them or deny them. You know that I belive that prophecy has ceased and did so before the end of the 1st century.

Now here are a few verses that I just noticed. I am going to put them out here for comments. I am not going to be dogmatic about these because I have not studied them enough to see how strong they are.

Do think this verse would limit profits to the 1st century.
luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the
day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of
Jerusalem. Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify;
and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and
persecute them from city to city:

Or how about this for limiting the apostles to the 1st century.
1Cor 4:9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as
it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto
the world, and to angels, and to men.

Oh one finally thing. It seems to me that also a qualification of an apostles it that they would have to be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Even assuming that the arguments for the cessation of apostleship had something of validity, those arguments would say and do nothing regarding the prophets.

Act 1: 21-23, 25-26

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. ... And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell,

Click to expand...

The one to be appointed as replacement for Judas had to be chosen from among those who were with the apostles from the time that Jesus of Nazareth walked the Earth - well, not really - this is recorded to be the decision of those present, not a pre-requisite for apostleship. It was Judas's office as an apostle that was to be filled, not the office of apostle per se. The very fact that Paul, an apostle, was NOT among that number proves that there was no broader application.

An apostle must bear witness to Christ's resurrection - must a person have seen the Christ in order to bear that witness? Hardly - the preaching of the gospel includes that witness, whether the preacher has seen the Christ or not. it is clear that Paul did in fact see the Christ. It SHOULD be clear (assuming it is necessary for an apostle to have seen Jesus) that Jesus is quite able to make himself seen of a person who did not walk with him during his earthly mission.

In order to be an apostle, Paul had to be a witness of the fact that Jesus is alive from the dead. Paul's argument to the Corinthians for the authenticity of his apostleship went like this: "Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are ye not my work in the Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1).

Click to expand...

There is a difference between witness and eye-witness. I don't see anything in the Bible requiring that a person be an EYEwitness. As to Paul's statements regarding the evidence of his apostleship, you are quite correct - they were arguments in support of PAUL'S apostleship. Or will someone claim that Cephas was not an apostle, because the Corinthians are not Peter's work in the Lord? That too, according to the logic being applied, would be a pre-requisite for apostleship.

Later in the same epistle he affirmed: "And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time"

Click to expand...

Who was the last person to have seen you? Last of all, you were seen by that person - until the next time someone sees you, that is. The assumption that, to be an apostle, a person must have seen Jesus, stands unproven. The assumption that "last of all" means that no-one will ever again see Jesus is shown to be inconclusive at best, even without resorting to a concordance to see what that "last" might mean. WITH recourse to a concordance, that assumption is disproven - last (eschatos) - last (in time or place) in the sense of contiguity: that is, last of all (the list provided) or last among all those who have been named.

Andrew - Where does it say that additional scriptures cannot be written?

All scripture is inspired by God. A person who writes, say, a sermon, under God's inspiration - which is useful for teaching and which meets all the other requirements listed for scripture, quite clearly has written a scripture. 

The fact is that the apostles and prophets and healers can do those things - as is written for the fourth on the list of those appointed in the church - workers of signs and wonders (not those through whom signs and wonders are worked). Even as a preacher or teacher does the teaching or preaching, so too with the higher gifts and ranks. What they cannot do is claim is that they do such things by their own power or authority. Or did Jesus say "the things that I do, I shall continue to do through you, because I go to the Father."

Certainly an apostle would have to be baptised into the Holy Spirit. It is one part of the believers baptism.

I dont have much time to respond today but I would like to say a few quick things. First off I have not said or implied that prophets have the same qualifications as the apostles did. The discussion is not about prophets but about the apostles. I also did not state that only apostles could write the NT. I also did not state that only the apostles could do signs and miracles. I really wonder if you guys are even reading my post. I do not think that it is a streach whatsover in Act 1 to show the qualification of an apostle. Judas is the only spoken of that was suppose to be replaced. You should take carefull note that he was to be replaced not succeeded. When James gets killed you do not see him getting replaced or succeeded. If you had read my post carefully you would see why Paul being an exception because he got his revealation directly from Jesus. Jesus did not just appear to Paul just one time but mulitiple times. In fact during the 3 year time that Paul disappears it is believed that he was walking with Jesus during this time. Of course this is only an assumption. But you can not deny that Paul listed being a eye witnesss of Jesus as one of his qualifcations as being an apostle. Now when I said the Paul said he was the last to Jesus you tried to bring up a way out for this not to mean last. Well I looked it up and found the exact same use of this word with the same grammatic context and found this word to be able mean what exactly what it says last. See Mark 12:22; 12:6.

Now when I asked the question, if apostles are still here today then we should still have new reavelation and they could write it down for all of us to read do you agree? Of course you did not answer this question at all. You just try and say well when someone preaches a sermon that they are speaking by the inspearation of God. That does not answer the question. Of course someone can study the bible and put together a message from the word but they are not adding anything to the bible or offering a new revealation. At best they might give you their view on a scripture then try and say that the HS told them what that means. Oh while I am thinking about it the gift of the Holy spirit is shown to be given by the laying on of the hands of the apostles. The Apostles were the only ones to receive the HS Baptims on the day of Pentacost. Cornilus family was a very speacial circumstance. They receive the HS baptism from heaven like the apostles received directly from heaven. It was only like it because it came from heaven and through the apostles hands. This was to fufill Joels prophecy about the HS spirit being poured out on flesh, in other word jew and gentile. This was done to that God now approved gentiles to hear the word of god and to be saved just like the Jew.

I still want you to answer these question.
Is the bible we have today complete?
Do you belive that new revealtion can be added to the bible?
Is it possible with the bible by itself to learn who the son of god is, the plan of salvation, and how to live a faithful life until death?
What are the qualifications to be an apostle?
Do you believe someone like myself is lost because I dont believe that there prophets and apostles today or that there are miracles, prophecy, or tounge speaking today?

TC if I remember right you do believe that one must be baptized in water before they are saved. So would you say that one could not receive the HS nor work miracles by the will of the HS unless they were baptized?

Almost forgot. Do you belive that apostles can bind and loose today? Cant the remit and retain sin today?

It would be nice if you actually answered my questions this time instead of side steping around them. I think you know good and well that we dont have apostles today that can bring us new revealtion by what the hear from the Holy Spirit. I also think you know that the bible is complete and contains everything we need to know to be christians. I have given scripture after scripture that backs up what I am saying in the previous post. I am just going by the bible alone. I do not have some miraceleus indweling of the Holy Spirit telling me how do say this or to say that. Because I belive that Holy Spirt works through the word today. The more we implant the word into our hearts the more the HS will lead us, correct us and convict us. You see the miracles swindel down as the books get closer and closer to 70AD In fact Paul tells Timothy to teach other men the word of God so that they can teach it to others. There would be no need in this if the HS was still around teaching a guiding people into all truth in a miracelous sense. Why do think we are told to study to show thy self approved? Well that enough for now. I wrote far more than I had planned on.