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

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,333.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Not in a good sense.
You will be interested to know that I have done a good, in-depth look at both the Toronto Airport and Brownsville revivals, and I see that many of the manifestations that were a feature of those revivals are not found anywhere in the New Testament. Also, I don't see the crucial elements of the Gospel, ie: repentance from sin, and the fruit of the Spirit, especially self-control. It seems that many of the manifestations lacked self-control, and my view is that if one of the fruit of the Spirit is missing, then the Holy Spirit is not involved. It is also interesting to me when viewing the videos, that only a small proportion of the congregation were rolling on the floor, while the majority were standing there just observing with no evidence that they were influenced, other than looking on with curiosity at the spectacle. I also noticed that the ministry team running the meetings also did not display any of the manifestations. Another thing I did not see were people on their knees crying out to God for mercy, so I conclude that conviction of sin which is the main characteristic of a Christian revival, was missing from these two revivals.

I think to say that the Holy Spirit makes people jerk, wag their heads rapidly from side to side, shake, and roll around their floor like crazy ones, makes the Holy Spirit out to be a complete idiot inspiring people to behave like total idiots.

In my view, when the Holy Spirit is really present in a meeting, there is a deep sense of awe of the presence of God, and a deep conviction that we are sinners deserving of hell, needing Jesus to be our Saviour, culminating in people falling on their knees and faces crying out to God for grace and mercy that He will give them saving faith to be able to embrace Christ as Saviour.

I have been in two meetings like that, and I didn't see anyone jerking, shaking, falling down on their backs. Many who were convicted by the presence of God were on their knees and faces weeping and getting right with God. They were like Isaiah when he saw the Lord high and lifted up, and he cried out, "Woe is me! I am an unclean person with unclean lips, dwelling with people with unclean lips." Peter, when he saw Jesus working the miracle of the catching of the fish said, "Depart from me Lord, I am a sinful man!" This is what the presence of God does to us. It makes us feel our sinfulness, and a sense of awe at God's grace that He had mercy on us and gave us the faith to embrace Jesus as our Saviour.

This is why I don't recognise the Toronto and Brownsville revivals as true revivals inspired by the Holy Spirit.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: swordsman1
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,349
813
Califormia
✟131,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Peter, when he saw Jesus working the miracle of the catching of the fish said, "Depart from me Lord, I am a sinful man!"
Just so you know Peter's reaction was because he joined Jesus earlier and left his commitment and went back to fishing.

Peter was called in Mark 1:17 and Peter's mother-in-law was healed in Mark 1:31. In Luke, Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law in Luke 4:38. This incident where Peter proclaimed "Depart from me Lord, I am a sinful man!" occurred in Luke 5:8.

I would be careful to judge revivals based upon edited video clips. Jesus was also unconventional: put spit mixed with dirt on people eyes and went through the temple like a mad-man with a whip - where else are those in scripture? God commanded Isaiah to walk around naked for three years. Jesus said judge by fruit - and if you are going to judge by fruit you need to do more than take the word from cessationists.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
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.

We don't need videos to prove Jesus's resurrection because the account appears in infallible scripture, which is the highest standard of truth.

How would you convince an atheist that scripture is infallible?

They could only discover that themselves by becoming Christians.

How can you prove these blanket statements?

The bible is God's word. God cannot lie. For proof see Numbers 23:19,Titus 1:2,Hebrews 6:18.

It is common for people speaking on YouTube to lie, be deluded, or be mistaken. Youtube is full of fake news.


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

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

For that happen an atheist would have to become both a Christian and an continuationist (and be gullible enough to believe hearsay - probably unlikely if they were atheists)
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
We don't need videos to prove Jesus's resurrection because the account appears in infallible scripture, which is the highest standard of truth.

You still completely ignored the main point. Why should we expect evidence that would convince an atheist for any specific miracle?

They could only discover that themselves by becoming Christians.

How?

The bible is God's word. God cannot lie. For proof see Numbers 23:19,Titus 1:2,Hebrews 6:18.

The word "Bible" is nowhere found in those passages.

It is common for people speaking on YouTube to lie, be deluded, or be mistaken. Youtube is full of fake news.
How can you prove these blanket statements?

For that happen an atheist would have to become both a Christian and an continuationist (and be gullible enough to believe hearsay - probably unlikely if they were atheists)

Do you mean something like this?

HERE'S WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN AN ATHEIST GETS SURROUNDED WITH 80 PRAYING RUSSIANS!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
You still completely ignored the main point. Why should we expect evidence that would convince an atheist for any specific miracle?

How else are they going to be convinced?


By trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ

The word "Bible" is nowhere found in those passages.

The Bible is God's word. Those passages prove that God cannot lie.

How can you prove these blanket statements?

You want me to prove that YouTube contains many lies, deluded people, misconstructions, and fake news?

Do you mean something like this?

Sorry I don't have time to watch 20+ min video. Can you summarise the content.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,185
US
✟1,441,619.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
TruthSeek3r said:
You still completely ignored the main point. Why should we expect evidence that would convince an atheist for any specific miracle?

How else are they going to be convinced?

Why do we need to convince atheists of miracles? Should they accept Jesus as Lord because He does magic tricks and might do one for them?

Paul told us that Jews looked for miracles and Gentiles looked for clever philosophies, but he didn't consider either one to be the correct path to faith in Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Why do we need to convince atheists of miracles? Should they accept Jesus as Lord because He does magic tricks and might do one for them?

Paul told us that Jews looked for miracles and Gentiles looked for clever philosophies, but he didn't consider either one to be the correct path to faith in Jesus.

Agree.
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
How else are they going to be convinced?

Some alternatives:
  • A first-hand encounter with the supernatural.
  • God supernaturally encountering them / revealing Himself to them.
You could also add apologetics into the mix. None of these needs "independent verified reports in a reputable journal" or "video evidence of a miracle taking place".

By trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ

And how could an atheist do that?

The Bible is God's word. Those passages prove that God cannot lie.

Again, those passages don't say that "the Bible is God's word".

How would you convince an atheist that the Bible is God's word?

You want me to prove that YouTube contains many lies, deluded people, misconstructions, and fake news?

To be more precise, I want you to prove that the vast majority of testimonies of people that support continuationism are "lies, deluded people, misconstructions, and fake". Yes, I want you to prove that claim, specifically for that population, which is the population of interest in this discussion. Otherwise, I see no reason to accept your claim (for that specific population).

Sorry I don't have time to watch 20+ min video. Can you summarise the content.

In short, an atheist narrates his supernatural encounter with God + demonic deliverance + conversion in a church, including a (totally unexpected) baptism in the Holy Spirit + tongues.
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
TruthSeek3r said:
You still completely ignored the main point. Why should we expect evidence that would convince an atheist for any specific miracle?

Why do we need to convince atheists of miracles? Should they accept Jesus as Lord because He does magic tricks and might do one for them?

Paul told us that Jews looked for miracles and Gentiles looked for clever philosophies, but he didn't consider either one to be the correct path to faith in Jesus.

The thing is that @swordsman1, like atheists, doesn't believe in modern miracles either. He is a full cessationist (of the kind that pretty much doesn't believe in anything supernatural still happening today). And he demands the kind of evidence that an atheist would demand ("independent verified reports in a reputable journal", "video evidence of a miracle taking place", etc.)

He also dismisses all testimonies as hearsay. For him, Craig Keener's two volume work on miracles is hearsay.

By the way, also from Craig Keener: https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Today-Supernatural-Modern-World/dp/1540963837
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ARBITER01
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Some alternatives:
  • A first-hand encounter with the supernatural.
  • God supernaturally encountering them / revealing Himself to them.
You could also add apologetics into the mix. None of these needs "independent verified reports in a reputable journal" or "video evidence of a miracle taking place".

Your question was how would an atheist be convinced a miracle occurred. Not how to convince them God exists. Yes, an encounter with God would achieve that. Apologetics can only go so far. It gives good natural reasons to believe in God. But ultimately there are always holes to be found in apologetic arguments, and atheists are rarely convinced.


And how could an atheist do that?

By hearing and believing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Again, those passages don't say that "the Bible is God's word".

For proof of that look at 2 Tim 3:16

How would you convince an atheist that the Bible is God's word?

They would have to become Christians.

To be more precise, I want you to prove that the vast majority of testimonies of people that support continuationism are "lies, deluded people, misconstructions, and fake". Yes, I want you to prove that claim, specifically for that population, which is the population of interest in this discussion. Otherwise, I see no reason to accept your claim (for that specific population).

Because YouTube testimonies are hearsay. Hearsay is notoriously unreliable evidence. That is why it is inadmissible in the courts.

In short, an atheist narrates his supernatural encounter with God + demonic deliverance + conversion in a church, including a (totally unexpected) baptism in the Holy Spirit + tongues.

He may well have become a Christian. And if that so then great. But if he is also a continuationist I would say he has been duped in that regard. I see no evidence for the continuation of the charismatic gifts as the bible describes those gifts.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
The thing is that @swordsman1, like atheists, doesn't believe in modern miracles either. He is a full cessationist (of the kind that pretty much doesn't believe in anything supernatural still happening today). And he demands the kind of evidence that an atheist would demand ("independent verified reports in a reputable journal", "video evidence of a miracle taking place", etc.)

He also dismisses all testimonies as hearsay. For him, Craig Keener's two volume work on miracles is hearsay.

By the way, also from Craig Keener: https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Today-Supernatural-Modern-World/dp/1540963837

I believe in healing in response to prayer (but that is not the gift of healing).

I believe God can perform miracles today if he wishes (the gift of miracles would be a person performing miracles). But they seem to be extremely rare. My definition of a miracle is something that defies the laws of nature. I don't know any that I am certain occurred.

I believe God frequently performs acts of providence (what many people would call a miracle). Eg. The church picnic is a rainy day, so they pray for sun, and suddenly the rain stops and the sun starts shining.
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Your question was how would an atheist be convinced a miracle occurred. Not how to convince them God exists. Yes, an encounter with God would achieve that. Apologetics can only go so far. It gives good natural reasons to believe in God. But ultimately there are always holes to be found in apologetic arguments, and atheists are rarely convinced.

Witnessing a miracle first-hand would be an example of my first bullet point:
  • A first-hand encounter with the supernatural.
This could potentially convince an atheist that miracles do happen today. But again, even this would not be an example of the evidence you want ("independent verified reports in a reputable journal", "video evidence of a miracle taking place", etc.)

By hearing and believing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Hearing is trivial, but how could an atheist actually believe the gospel of Jesus Christ?

For proof of that look at 2 Tim 3:16

The word "Bible" is nowhere to be found in 2 Tim 3:16

They would have to become Christians.

How?

He may well have become a Christian. And if that so then great. But if he is also a continuationist I would say he has been duped in that regard. I see no evidence for the continuation of the charismatic gifts as the bible describes those gifts.

Non sequitur. Absence of evidence that meets your personal requirements is not evidence of absence.

From:
  • I see no evidence for the continuation of the charismatic gifts as the bible describes those gifts
it does not follow:
  • But if he is also a continuationist I would say he has been duped in that regard

If you don't see evidence, it does not follow that there is no evidence. If you find the available evidence personally unconvincing, it does not follow that this ex-atheist is duped for having had a charismatic experience. He may very well have had a genuine charismatic experience, and you are unconvinced. There is no contradiction.
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Because YouTube testimonies are hearsay. Hearsay is notoriously unreliable evidence. That is why it is inadmissible in the courts.

What are your thoughts on this article: Eyewitness Testimony is Reliable - creation.com ?

Countering the Assault on Eyewitnesses
by Paul Price

One of my main goals as a CMI writer is to inform the readership on all the most pressing and relevant issues that repeatedly come up in debates, arguments and discussions surrounding creation and evolution. This is so they can give effective answers when engaging in apologetics and evangelism (1 Peter 3:15). In my experience, one such topic that routinely rears itself is the reliability of eyewitness testimony. At first glance, this might seem tangential at best—but if that were so, then we might be puzzled as to why the topic keeps coming up. The answer, of course, has to do with the nature of the debate itself. Understanding the relevance may require a brief explanation.

The biggest clash between creationists and evolutionists really has little to do with the evidence we possess. It has to do with how we interpret that evidence. This ultimately leads to a discussion of epistemology: how we know what we (claim to) know. Without getting tangled up in some of the hairsplitting details and in-house debates, what we can say very simply is that creationists base their knowledge and worldview on Scripture first and above all. Evolutionists work within a naturalistic worldview (the presumption that supernatural events can be disregarded or assumed not to occur).

There are many avenues this disagreement ultimately takes, but one of them is often a debate about the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Secularists and evolutionists want to tell you a story about the past that nobody was there to witness or record. There are no civilizations on our planet with any written historical records of human evolution. All available ancient history agrees on this point: mankind did not evolve from apes, but has always been fully human.1 Evolutionists naturally disagree, and so would like you to believe that their interpretations trump all available historical documentation (including eyewitness reports). This often brings us to a debate about the reliability of eyewitness testimony in general.

A self-refuting evolutionary attack on human minds

The modern consensus is to distrust eyewitness testimony altogether and prefer “forensic evidence” instead (physical clues which are open to interpretation). Take this quote as a representative example of how most modern sources approach this topic:

“The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.”Darwin’s Doubt.
The modern consensus is to distrust eyewitness testimony altogether and prefer “forensic evidence” instead (physical clues which are open to interpretation). Take this quote as a representative example of how most modern sources approach this topic:

“The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.”2 [Emphasis added.]

Notice the evolutionary slant taken here: since we allegedly evolved, we mustn’t take human sense perception and memory as objectively accurate. They only serve to help us survive! The reductio ad absurdum should be jumping right off the page. This is a classic example of the double-edged sword that cuts anyone trying to wield it. What about the Judge or jury who listen to evidence in court and then have to provide a verdict? What about the scientists who are witnessing and recording the results of their experiments? Are their memories not biased and malleable as well? Nearly all we do in society, and in our daily lives, depends upon the assumption that our sense perception and our ability to recall the past is substantially accurate. Certainly, the enterprise of science, conducted exclusively by human scientists, depends upon this assumption! New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham, looking at eyewitness testimony in the Bible pointed out that:

“An irreducible feature of testimony as a form of human utterance is that it asks to be trusted …. It is also a rather neglected fact that all history, like all knowledge, relies on testimony …. We need to recognize that, historically speaking, testimony is a unique and uniquely valuable means of access to historical reality”.3
Interestingly, it is a biblical worldview which gives proper grounding here. Because God created us, and God intends us to understand the world around us (and to properly remember the past and learn from it), we can use this assumption to guide us in most cases. Conversely, if we are merely the result of unguided “natural selection”, we have no proper grounding for these assumptions. This is Darwin’s Doubt.
The modern consensus is to distrust eyewitness testimony altogether and prefer “forensic evidence” instead (physical clues which are open to interpretation). Take this quote as a representative example of how most modern sources approach this topic:

“The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.”2 [Emphasis added.]

Notice the evolutionary slant taken here: since we allegedly evolved, we mustn’t take human sense perception and memory as objectively accurate. They only serve to help us survive! The reductio ad absurdum should be jumping right off the page. This is a classic example of the double-edged sword that cuts anyone trying to wield it. What about the Judge or jury who listen to evidence in court and then have to provide a verdict? What about the scientists who are witnessing and recording the results of their experiments? Are their memories not biased and malleable as well? Nearly all we do in society, and in our daily lives, depends upon the assumption that our sense perception and our ability to recall the past is substantially accurate. Certainly, the enterprise of science, conducted exclusively by human scientists, depends upon this assumption! New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham, looking at eyewitness testimony in the Bible pointed out that:

“An irreducible feature of testimony as a form of human utterance is that it asks to be trusted …. It is also a rather neglected fact that all history, like all knowledge, relies on testimony …. We need to recognize that, historically speaking, testimony is a unique and uniquely valuable means of access to historical reality”.3
Interestingly, it is a biblical worldview which gives proper grounding here. Because God created us, and God intends us to understand the world around us (and to properly remember the past and learn from it), we can use this assumption to guide us in most cases. Conversely, if we are merely the result of unguided “natural selection”, we have no proper grounding for these assumptions. This is Darwin’s Doubt.

Defending the reliability of eyewitness testimony

A team of researchers published a paper rebutting the popular anti-eyewitness view in 2018 (Wixted et al). Their summation of how we arrived at this place ran as follows:

“At least until the 1970s, and to some extent still today, the legal system operated as if the testimony of a credible and confident eyewitness was essentially infallible. Experimental psychologists in general (and Elizabeth Loftus in particular) awakened the legal system to the fact that eyewitness memory is malleable and is therefore not immune to contamination. It was a groundbreaking development that inspired new recommendations about forensic interviews and eyewitness identification procedures … Despite these positive developments, we submit that the once surprising revelation about the malleability of eyewitness memory has led to a severe overcorrection such that the field now regards eyewitness memory not only as potentially unreliable but also as inherently unreliable. In our view, the evidence does not support this idea and instead clearly refutes it.”4
As it turns out, the majority of the focus for the many articles and papers documenting the alleged unreliability of eyewitness testimony is on cherry-picked examples where the witnesses have been tampered with and/or memories have been contaminated. When these factors are removed, it turns out that (unsurprisingly) eyewitness testimony tends to be reliable:

“In federal trials involving eyewitness-identification evidence, should juries be told that eyewitness memory is inherently unreliable even if the DOJ guidelines were followed? That seems inappropriate to us. Instead, just as is true of trials involving DNA evidence, the jury should hear arguments about whether proper testing protocols were adhered to so the jury can make an independent judgment about the reliability of the evidence. When memory is not contaminated and proper testing procedures are followed, eyewitness memory is clearly reliable. In our opinion, the cause of justice is not served by suggesting otherwise.”4

I would take it a step further and suggest that truthful, confident and unadulterated eyewitness testimony (direct evidence) is a more reliable form of evidence, since circumstantial evidence (including forensic evidence) must necessarily be interpreted by people who didn’t actually witness what they are claiming occurred—a process that inevitably introduces bias. An eyewitness has a mental picture of what happened that they saw firsthand. As long as this mental picture is transmitted honestly and without contamination, it really is somewhat akin to having a video of the event—albeit transmitted to us imperfectly through language, rather than being able to view the video ourselves. This, including being able to convey the emotions felt at the time of the event, is still much more powerful than any speculation or inference could ever be. People may also be surprised to know that everything presented in a court relies on people’s testimony, from the collection, storage, and handling of material or forensic evidence, to the arrest, interview and charging a suspect.5

The Bible’s eyewitnesses

The easiest example in the Bible of eyewitness accounts is in the New Testament. For example, Peter wrote, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16). So not only do we have Peter’s own letters, but we also have Peter’s gospel, or his eyewitness testimony of the life of Jesus Christ, which was written down for us by Peter’s interpreter Mark (the “Gospel of Mark”).Jesus taught a young earth and special creation! Mark 10:6 quotes Jesus, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’” Despite many attempts to obfuscate by Christians promoting compromise views, this verse clearly contradicts both evolution and an old earth. Since as Peter held, Jesus is God, then Jesus’ words clearly take precedence over any human claims to the contrary.

What about the Old Testament? Does Genesis represent an eyewitness account of things like Creation, the Flood and the Tower of Babel? Indirectly, we have strong reason to accept this history regardless, since Jesus affirmed them. Speaking independently of that, however, we can say there is still some internal evidence to suggest that ancient eyewitness reports were preserved in Genesis. Naturally, Moses could not have been an eyewitness to any of these things himself, but in the case of Genesis, there is good reason to believe Moses was an editor, not the sole author, of Genesis. There are internal clues that suggest Moses was drawing upon much more ancient source materials (which are lost to us today). For example, Moses made editorial comments in places like Genesis 26:33. Genesis 10:19 reads as if it were written by someone living at the time of Sodom and Gomorrah.7 For reasons like this, we have evidence that Genesis does preserve some very ancient accounts of the early history of our planet, even though Moses himself was not there to witness it.

Don’t eyewitnesses often contradict each other?

Skeptics routinely bring up alleged contradictions in the eyewitness accounts (both in general, and in the case of the New Testament particularly), as proof that such testimony is unreliable. However, it’s actually the opposite: if all the witnesses to an event give an identical testimony, there is reason to suspect collusion. Apparent contradictions are an indicator of honest independent testimony, as detective J. Warner Wallace writes:

“If there’s one thing my experience as a detective has revealed, however, it’s that witnesses often make conflicting and inconsistent statements when describing what they saw at a crime scene … The more witnesses involved in a case, the more likely there will be points of disagreement … The apparent contradictions are usually easy to explain once I learn something about the witnesses and their perspectives (both visually and personally) at the time of the crime.”8

Imagine the gospels were all indistinguishable with no apparent contradictions or differences of any kind. Would the skeptics not then take that as an opportunity to claim collusion, or to claim that a single author manufactured them all, rather than them being independent testimonies? Tails we lose, heads they win. Don’t play that game! Of course, it is important to highlight that any of the alleged contradictions are resolvable with a closer look at the text, and that they in fact provide an incredible coherence on the events observed.

Strictly speaking, Christians do not have to depend upon a defense of the reliability of human eyewitness testimony in order to uphold the Bible. We believe the Bible is supernaturally inspired by God and is therefore inerrant. Given supernatural inspiration, the reliability of natural human eyewitnesses becomes technically irrelevant. However, this is not a belief shared by many of our evolutionist opponents (including many people claiming to be Christians, unfortunately). For this reason, it is still helpful for us as apologists to consider and address this topic effectively without solely depending on an appeal to inspiration and inerrancy.
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I believe in healing in response to prayer (but that is not the gift of healing).

Why do you believe in healing in response to prayer but not in the gift of healing?

I believe God can perform miracles today if he wishes (the gift of miracles would be a person performing miracles). But they seem to be extremely rare. My definition of a miracle is something that defies the laws of nature. I don't know any that I am certain occurred.

Would you count a healing in response to prayer as a miracle that defies the laws of nature?

Have you ever prayed for someone to get healed?

I believe God frequently performs acts of providence (what many people would call a miracle). Eg. The church picnic is a rainy day, so they pray for sun, and suddenly the rain stops and the sun starts shining.

Why do you believe that?
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Hearing is trivial, but how could an atheist actually believe the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Well after hearing the gospel, they will either obtain faith or not (Rom 10:17).

The word "Bible" is nowhere to be found in 2 Tim 3:16

Bible = scripture


By hearing and believing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Non sequitur. Absence of evidence that meets your personal requirements is not evidence of absence.

From:
  • I see no evidence for the continuation of the charismatic gifts as the bible describes those gifts
it does not follow:
  • But if he is also a continuationist I would say he has been duped in that regard

If you don't see evidence, it does not follow that there is no evidence. If you find the available evidence personally unconvincing, it does not follow that this ex-atheist is duped for having had a charismatic experience. He may very well have had a genuine charismatic experience, and you are unconvinced. There is no contradiction.

If there is evidence of spiritual gifts as the bible describes those gifts, then show it to me.

All that I have seen so far either doesn't match the description of those gifts, or there is no proof only hearsay.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
What are your thoughts on this article: Eyewitness Testimony is Reliable - creation.com ?

Countering the Assault on Eyewitnesses
by Paul Price

One of my main goals as a CMI writer is to inform the readership on all the most pressing and relevant issues that repeatedly come up in debates, arguments and discussions surrounding creation and evolution. This is so they can give effective answers when engaging in apologetics and evangelism (1 Peter 3:15). In my experience, one such topic that routinely rears itself is the reliability of eyewitness testimony. At first glance, this might seem tangential at best—but if that were so, then we might be puzzled as to why the topic keeps coming up. The answer, of course, has to do with the nature of the debate itself. Understanding the relevance may require a brief explanation.

The biggest clash between creationists and evolutionists really has little to do with the evidence we possess. It has to do with how we interpret that evidence. This ultimately leads to a discussion of epistemology: how we know what we (claim to) know. Without getting tangled up in some of the hairsplitting details and in-house debates, what we can say very simply is that creationists base their knowledge and worldview on Scripture first and above all. Evolutionists work within a naturalistic worldview (the presumption that supernatural events can be disregarded or assumed not to occur).

There are many avenues this disagreement ultimately takes, but one of them is often a debate about the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Secularists and evolutionists want to tell you a story about the past that nobody was there to witness or record. There are no civilizations on our planet with any written historical records of human evolution. All available ancient history agrees on this point: mankind did not evolve from apes, but has always been fully human.1 Evolutionists naturally disagree, and so would like you to believe that their interpretations trump all available historical documentation (including eyewitness reports). This often brings us to a debate about the reliability of eyewitness testimony in general.

A self-refuting evolutionary attack on human minds

The modern consensus is to distrust eyewitness testimony altogether and prefer “forensic evidence” instead (physical clues which are open to interpretation). Take this quote as a representative example of how most modern sources approach this topic:

“The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.”Darwin’s Doubt.
The modern consensus is to distrust eyewitness testimony altogether and prefer “forensic evidence” instead (physical clues which are open to interpretation). Take this quote as a representative example of how most modern sources approach this topic:

“The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.”2 [Emphasis added.]

Notice the evolutionary slant taken here: since we allegedly evolved, we mustn’t take human sense perception and memory as objectively accurate. They only serve to help us survive! The reductio ad absurdum should be jumping right off the page. This is a classic example of the double-edged sword that cuts anyone trying to wield it. What about the Judge or jury who listen to evidence in court and then have to provide a verdict? What about the scientists who are witnessing and recording the results of their experiments? Are their memories not biased and malleable as well? Nearly all we do in society, and in our daily lives, depends upon the assumption that our sense perception and our ability to recall the past is substantially accurate. Certainly, the enterprise of science, conducted exclusively by human scientists, depends upon this assumption! New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham, looking at eyewitness testimony in the Bible pointed out that:

“An irreducible feature of testimony as a form of human utterance is that it asks to be trusted …. It is also a rather neglected fact that all history, like all knowledge, relies on testimony …. We need to recognize that, historically speaking, testimony is a unique and uniquely valuable means of access to historical reality”.3
Interestingly, it is a biblical worldview which gives proper grounding here. Because God created us, and God intends us to understand the world around us (and to properly remember the past and learn from it), we can use this assumption to guide us in most cases. Conversely, if we are merely the result of unguided “natural selection”, we have no proper grounding for these assumptions. This is Darwin’s Doubt.
The modern consensus is to distrust eyewitness testimony altogether and prefer “forensic evidence” instead (physical clues which are open to interpretation). Take this quote as a representative example of how most modern sources approach this topic:

“The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.”2 [Emphasis added.]

Notice the evolutionary slant taken here: since we allegedly evolved, we mustn’t take human sense perception and memory as objectively accurate. They only serve to help us survive! The reductio ad absurdum should be jumping right off the page. This is a classic example of the double-edged sword that cuts anyone trying to wield it. What about the Judge or jury who listen to evidence in court and then have to provide a verdict? What about the scientists who are witnessing and recording the results of their experiments? Are their memories not biased and malleable as well? Nearly all we do in society, and in our daily lives, depends upon the assumption that our sense perception and our ability to recall the past is substantially accurate. Certainly, the enterprise of science, conducted exclusively by human scientists, depends upon this assumption! New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham, looking at eyewitness testimony in the Bible pointed out that:

“An irreducible feature of testimony as a form of human utterance is that it asks to be trusted …. It is also a rather neglected fact that all history, like all knowledge, relies on testimony …. We need to recognize that, historically speaking, testimony is a unique and uniquely valuable means of access to historical reality”.3
Interestingly, it is a biblical worldview which gives proper grounding here. Because God created us, and God intends us to understand the world around us (and to properly remember the past and learn from it), we can use this assumption to guide us in most cases. Conversely, if we are merely the result of unguided “natural selection”, we have no proper grounding for these assumptions. This is Darwin’s Doubt.

Defending the reliability of eyewitness testimony

A team of researchers published a paper rebutting the popular anti-eyewitness view in 2018 (Wixted et al). Their summation of how we arrived at this place ran as follows:

“At least until the 1970s, and to some extent still today, the legal system operated as if the testimony of a credible and confident eyewitness was essentially infallible. Experimental psychologists in general (and Elizabeth Loftus in particular) awakened the legal system to the fact that eyewitness memory is malleable and is therefore not immune to contamination. It was a groundbreaking development that inspired new recommendations about forensic interviews and eyewitness identification procedures … Despite these positive developments, we submit that the once surprising revelation about the malleability of eyewitness memory has led to a severe overcorrection such that the field now regards eyewitness memory not only as potentially unreliable but also as inherently unreliable. In our view, the evidence does not support this idea and instead clearly refutes it.”4
As it turns out, the majority of the focus for the many articles and papers documenting the alleged unreliability of eyewitness testimony is on cherry-picked examples where the witnesses have been tampered with and/or memories have been contaminated. When these factors are removed, it turns out that (unsurprisingly) eyewitness testimony tends to be reliable:

“In federal trials involving eyewitness-identification evidence, should juries be told that eyewitness memory is inherently unreliable even if the DOJ guidelines were followed? That seems inappropriate to us. Instead, just as is true of trials involving DNA evidence, the jury should hear arguments about whether proper testing protocols were adhered to so the jury can make an independent judgment about the reliability of the evidence. When memory is not contaminated and proper testing procedures are followed, eyewitness memory is clearly reliable. In our opinion, the cause of justice is not served by suggesting otherwise.”4

I would take it a step further and suggest that truthful, confident and unadulterated eyewitness testimony (direct evidence) is a more reliable form of evidence, since circumstantial evidence (including forensic evidence) must necessarily be interpreted by people who didn’t actually witness what they are claiming occurred—a process that inevitably introduces bias. An eyewitness has a mental picture of what happened that they saw firsthand. As long as this mental picture is transmitted honestly and without contamination, it really is somewhat akin to having a video of the event—albeit transmitted to us imperfectly through language, rather than being able to view the video ourselves. This, including being able to convey the emotions felt at the time of the event, is still much more powerful than any speculation or inference could ever be. People may also be surprised to know that everything presented in a court relies on people’s testimony, from the collection, storage, and handling of material or forensic evidence, to the arrest, interview and charging a suspect.5

The Bible’s eyewitnesses

The easiest example in the Bible of eyewitness accounts is in the New Testament. For example, Peter wrote, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16). So not only do we have Peter’s own letters, but we also have Peter’s gospel, or his eyewitness testimony of the life of Jesus Christ, which was written down for us by Peter’s interpreter Mark (the “Gospel of Mark”).Jesus taught a young earth and special creation! Mark 10:6 quotes Jesus, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’” Despite many attempts to obfuscate by Christians promoting compromise views, this verse clearly contradicts both evolution and an old earth. Since as Peter held, Jesus is God, then Jesus’ words clearly take precedence over any human claims to the contrary.

What about the Old Testament? Does Genesis represent an eyewitness account of things like Creation, the Flood and the Tower of Babel? Indirectly, we have strong reason to accept this history regardless, since Jesus affirmed them. Speaking independently of that, however, we can say there is still some internal evidence to suggest that ancient eyewitness reports were preserved in Genesis. Naturally, Moses could not have been an eyewitness to any of these things himself, but in the case of Genesis, there is good reason to believe Moses was an editor, not the sole author, of Genesis. There are internal clues that suggest Moses was drawing upon much more ancient source materials (which are lost to us today). For example, Moses made editorial comments in places like Genesis 26:33. Genesis 10:19 reads as if it were written by someone living at the time of Sodom and Gomorrah.7 For reasons like this, we have evidence that Genesis does preserve some very ancient accounts of the early history of our planet, even though Moses himself was not there to witness it.

Don’t eyewitnesses often contradict each other?

Skeptics routinely bring up alleged contradictions in the eyewitness accounts (both in general, and in the case of the New Testament particularly), as proof that such testimony is unreliable. However, it’s actually the opposite: if all the witnesses to an event give an identical testimony, there is reason to suspect collusion. Apparent contradictions are an indicator of honest independent testimony, as detective J. Warner Wallace writes:

“If there’s one thing my experience as a detective has revealed, however, it’s that witnesses often make conflicting and inconsistent statements when describing what they saw at a crime scene … The more witnesses involved in a case, the more likely there will be points of disagreement … The apparent contradictions are usually easy to explain once I learn something about the witnesses and their perspectives (both visually and personally) at the time of the crime.”8

Imagine the gospels were all indistinguishable with no apparent contradictions or differences of any kind. Would the skeptics not then take that as an opportunity to claim collusion, or to claim that a single author manufactured them all, rather than them being independent testimonies? Tails we lose, heads they win. Don’t play that game! Of course, it is important to highlight that any of the alleged contradictions are resolvable with a closer look at the text, and that they in fact provide an incredible coherence on the events observed.

Strictly speaking, Christians do not have to depend upon a defense of the reliability of human eyewitness testimony in order to uphold the Bible. We believe the Bible is supernaturally inspired by God and is therefore inerrant. Given supernatural inspiration, the reliability of natural human eyewitnesses becomes technically irrelevant. However, this is not a belief shared by many of our evolutionist opponents (including many people claiming to be Christians, unfortunately). For this reason, it is still helpful for us as apologists to consider and address this topic effectively without solely depending on an appeal to inspiration and inerrancy.

Rather than spending 15 mins reading that lot, could you summarise the content?
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Why do you believe in healing in response to prayer but not in the gift of healing?

Because God is all powerful and says that if we pray for healing, and it is His will, the person will be healed (1 John 5:14-15). He can either heal providentially or miraculously (the former being far more common).

The gift of healing would be someone who can heal a person without the need to pray. Just by a command or a touch. I've never seen anyone do that today.


Have you ever prayed for someone to get healed?

Yes.

Why do you believe that?

Because God is all powerful, and is able to direct nature, control the future, open doors, etc.
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well after hearing the gospel, they will either obtain faith or not (Rom 10:17).

What determines whether they will obtain faith or not?

Bible = scripture

Any proofs? Any proofs that what the author of 2 Tim 3:16 had in mind was a yet inexistent canon that would be compiled centuries later?

By hearing and believing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What determines whether they will obtain faith or not after hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ?

If there is evidence of spiritual gifts as the bible describes those gifts, then show it to me.

There are two main sources of evidence:
  • Direct experience (you would have to experience it yourself)
  • Indirect testimonial evidence (i.e. direct experience from someone else)
All that I have seen so far either doesn't match the description of those gifts, or there is no proof only hearsay.

If you find testimonies unconvincing, you could try out asking God to give you a first-hand direct experience of some charismatic gift (so that you don't have to rely on second-hand experience)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
What determines whether they will obtain faith or not?

Matthew 13:1–23

Any proofs?

Definition of BIBLE

Any proofs that what the author of 2 Tim 3:16 had in mind was a yet inexistent canon that would be compiled centuries later?

Scripture is scripture whenever it was written.

There are two main sources of evidence:
  • Direct experience (you would have to experience it yourself)
  • Indirect testimonial evidence (i.e. direct experience from someone else)

Well I haven't experienced charismatic gifts myself. And hearsay is not convincing evidence.

If you find testimonies unconvincing, you could try out asking God to give you a first-hand direct experience of some charismatic gift (so that you don't have to rely on second-hand experience)

Spiritual gifts are not obtained by asking. They are distributed according the sovereign will of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:11).
 
Upvote 0