- Jul 2, 2018
- 18,580
- 11,385
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Here is the sixth and final point the Cessationists claim prove that
the gift of tongues have already ceased. The whole list is found on post #2073.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6) Current observation confirms that the miracle of tongues has ceased. If the gift were still available today, there would be no need for missionaries to attend language school. Missionaries would be able to travel to any country and speak any language fluently, just as the apostles were able to speak in Acts 2. As for the miracle gift of healing, we see in Scripture that healing was associated with the ministry of Jesus and the apostles (Luke 9:1-2). And we see that as the era of the apostles drew to a close, healing, like tongues, became less frequent. The Apostle Paul, who raised Eutychus from the dead (Acts 20:9-12), did not heal Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25-27), Trophimus (2 Timothy 4:20), Timothy (1 Timothy 5:23), or even himself (2 Corinthians 12:7-9). The reasons for Paul’s “failures
to heal” are 1) the gift was never intended to make every Christian well, but to authenticate apostleship; and 2) the authority of the apostles had been sufficiently proved, making further miracles unnecessary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It will require more than one post to address this mess. Let's work through it one point at a time.
Here's the last one.
"The reasons for Paul’s “failures to heal” are
1) the gift was never intended to make every Christian well,
but to authenticate apostleship; and
2) the authority of the apostles had been sufficiently proved,
making further miracles unnecessary."
How would you answer the Cessationists?
The Apostle Paul's "failures to heal" ?????!!!
I guess we'll have to say it again.
Healing is a partnership between God and those who are willing to pray for the sick.
Ultimately it is God's decision whether to heal or not to heal.
And he can certainly do it without our help.
100 percent of the people we don't pray for don't get healed.
If you want to better that percentage then pray for the sick.
If only 10 percent of the sick you prayed for were healed, would it be worth your while? It would be to those who were healed.
By labeling the Apostles as "healers", which is inferred in their statement,
they are able to isolate the practice of praying for the sick in terms they can confine.
So, here's the question.
What's the difference between praying for the sick and praying for the sick?
When stated that way, there is no difference.
Do the Cessationists believe in praying for the sick? I hope so.
Do they believe that God can still heal the sick? I hope so.
What do they do with this?
James 5:14-15
Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church
to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord.
15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well;
the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.
This is the hands-on sort of healing that they campaign against.
And this is the difference between praying for the sick
and praying for the sick, to them.
Here are the instructions.
- Call the elders of the church. (not the Apostles)
- Have them pray over (lay hands on) the sick.
- Anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord.
Check this out.
Hebrews 6:1-2
Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings
about Christ and be taken forward to maturity,
not laying again the foundation of repentance
from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,
2 instruction about cleansing rites, the laying on of hands,
the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
Here "the laying on of hands" is listed among the
"elementary teachings" about Christ.
How could the Apostle treat it that way if it was a
"sign" gift only for the Apostolic Age?
the gift of tongues have already ceased. The whole list is found on post #2073.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6) Current observation confirms that the miracle of tongues has ceased. If the gift were still available today, there would be no need for missionaries to attend language school. Missionaries would be able to travel to any country and speak any language fluently, just as the apostles were able to speak in Acts 2. As for the miracle gift of healing, we see in Scripture that healing was associated with the ministry of Jesus and the apostles (Luke 9:1-2). And we see that as the era of the apostles drew to a close, healing, like tongues, became less frequent. The Apostle Paul, who raised Eutychus from the dead (Acts 20:9-12), did not heal Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25-27), Trophimus (2 Timothy 4:20), Timothy (1 Timothy 5:23), or even himself (2 Corinthians 12:7-9). The reasons for Paul’s “failures
to heal” are 1) the gift was never intended to make every Christian well, but to authenticate apostleship; and 2) the authority of the apostles had been sufficiently proved, making further miracles unnecessary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It will require more than one post to address this mess. Let's work through it one point at a time.
Here's the last one.
"The reasons for Paul’s “failures to heal” are
1) the gift was never intended to make every Christian well,
but to authenticate apostleship; and
2) the authority of the apostles had been sufficiently proved,
making further miracles unnecessary."
How would you answer the Cessationists?
The Apostle Paul's "failures to heal" ?????!!!
I guess we'll have to say it again.
Healing is a partnership between God and those who are willing to pray for the sick.
Ultimately it is God's decision whether to heal or not to heal.
And he can certainly do it without our help.
100 percent of the people we don't pray for don't get healed.
If you want to better that percentage then pray for the sick.
If only 10 percent of the sick you prayed for were healed, would it be worth your while? It would be to those who were healed.
By labeling the Apostles as "healers", which is inferred in their statement,
they are able to isolate the practice of praying for the sick in terms they can confine.
So, here's the question.
What's the difference between praying for the sick and praying for the sick?
When stated that way, there is no difference.
Do the Cessationists believe in praying for the sick? I hope so.
Do they believe that God can still heal the sick? I hope so.
What do they do with this?
James 5:14-15
Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church
to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord.
15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well;
the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.
This is the hands-on sort of healing that they campaign against.
And this is the difference between praying for the sick
and praying for the sick, to them.
Here are the instructions.
- Call the elders of the church. (not the Apostles)
- Have them pray over (lay hands on) the sick.
- Anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord.
Check this out.
Hebrews 6:1-2
Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings
about Christ and be taken forward to maturity,
not laying again the foundation of repentance
from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,
2 instruction about cleansing rites, the laying on of hands,
the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
Here "the laying on of hands" is listed among the
"elementary teachings" about Christ.
How could the Apostle treat it that way if it was a
"sign" gift only for the Apostolic Age?