Unbelievers Turn To Christ When Witnessing A Miracle While Professing Christians Argue About It

[Guojing]

We have the account of the gospels so we know what was given to the disciples by simply reading the Gospels. The Matthew 28:16-28 text is a closing statement to not just Jesus' ministry but to the book itself. It acts as a benediction that pulls the reader in challenging them to keep and follow all what Christ instructs (which was presented in the gospel of Matthew) From a literary perspective this reaches outside the pages. The last line being strongest saying "surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" which implicitly puts the commandment valid to the same length of time. That last line changes the perspective to outside the immediate context.

I'm interested in the application you understand from the text and since you enjoying bringing it up the application of Noah and the Ark as well. Or do you reject all applications outside the immediate context and audience?

So was that a yes or no to my question, "Can we follow ALL those teachings?" to you? You seem to want to avoid answering that question?

I used the ark because its convenient, everyone understands instinctively its not for them.

Instead of the ark example, I could also use Matthew 19:28 as another example of another promise that "everyone understands instinctively its not for them".

 

[DamianWarS]

So was that a yes or no to my question to you? You seem to want to avoid answering that question?

I used the ark because its convenient, everyone understands instinctively its not for them.

I could also use Matthew 19:28 as another example of another promise that "everyone understands instinctively its not for them".

It's a yes but you seem to be baiting me, if you have something to say just say it. Since I've been direct can you return the favour and since I'm repeating myself I'll just quote what I said:

I'm interested in the application you understand from the text and since you enjoying bringing it up the application of Noah and the Ark as well. Or do you reject all applications outside the immediate context and audience?

I'm getting the sense you do reject all applications outside of the immediate context/audience. Is this a fair representation of your understanding of all what seems to be non-pauline epistles?

 

[Guojing]

It's a yes but you seem to be baiting me, if you have something to say just say it. Since I've been direct can you return the favour and since I'm repeating myself I'll just quote what I said:

I'm interested in the application you understand from the text and since you enjoying bringing it up the application of Noah and the Ark as well. Or do you reject all applications outside the immediate context and audience?

I'm getting the sense you do reject all applications outside of the immediate context/audience. Is this a fair representation of your understanding of all what seems to be non-pauline epistles?

I would appreciate a clear yes the next time. I can't read your mind so I want to be clear where you stand, it is hardly a bait.

So what about Matthew 10:5? You know you cannot follow that correct?

I already answered your point about the ark. I was just using that out of convenience.

And if you remember, I also gave to you an example of David and the 5 stones, as an example of how silly it can be if we allow anyone to just spiritualize any parts of the Bible.

 

[bbbbbbb]

They sing Psalms 91 for sure, but I am currently attending a Word of Faith church, so that is to be expected.

Its hard to find a church that rightly divides the word of truth. I do understand why though, people are attracted to signs and wonders.

Why only one of the 150?

 

[Guojing]

Why only one of the 150?

Do you want me to remember every single psalm my church sings? I am sure there are many more, including the ever popular Psalms 23. =)

 

[DamianWarS]

I would appreciate a clear yes the next time. I can't read your mind so I want to be clear where you stand, it is hardly a bait.

So what about Matthew 10:5? You know you cannot follow that correct?

I already answered your point about the ark. I was just using that out of convenience.

And if you remember, I also gave to you an example of David and the 5 stones, as an example of how silly it can be if we allow anyone to just spiritualize any parts of the Bible.

I'll have to insist, as you have to me, for a clear yes or no that you do not see any application outside of of the immediate context/audience with regards to the passages in questions or generally non-pauline scripture.

Regarding Matthew 10, as I have stated before, I read the Gospels through missional lens and Mathew 10 certainly is one of those. You're using isolated verses however as a strawman which to me shows a disregard to the context and scripture your quoting and unfortunately tends to be discrediting nor does it give me confidence in your methods.

I am genuinely confused by how you approach scripture. I don't know if you're being cryptic on purpose but some transparency would help.

 

[Guojing]

I'll have to insist, as you have to me, for a clear yes or no that you do not see any application outside of of the immediate context/audience with regards to the passages in questions or generally non-pauline scripture.

Regarding Matthew 10, as I have stated before, I read the Gospels through missional lens and Mathew 10 certainly is one of those. You're using isolated verses however as a strawman which to me shows a disregard to the context and scripture your quoting and unfortunately tends to be discrediting nor does it give me confidence in your methods.

I am genuinely confused by how you approach scripture. I don't know if you're being cryptic on purpose but some transparency would help.

My point regarding Matthew 28 and Matthew 10:5 is that Matthew 28 was a command specifically to the 12 for them to follow.

It is not a command for anyone else.

You can believe that you are obeying Matthew 28:18-20 using your, to quote from you "missional lens" but don't kid yourself, you are not obeying it as how the 12 would have understood it.

As for your question, anyone can apply any passage out of its context if they wish to for their own personal opinion and personal doctrine, as long as they are aware of what they are doing.

But such applications are not to be established as doctrine for anyone else.

Hope that answers your question. In case you are still unclear, my answer is No, I do not "reject all applications outside the immediate context and audience".

 

[DamianWarS]

As for your question, anyone can apply any passage out of its context if they wish to for their own personal opinion and personal doctrine, as long as they are aware of what they are doing.

But such applications are not to be established as doctrine for anyone else.

How is your method of scripture also not affected by your opinion or help feed your personal doctrine?

Hope that answers your question. In case you are still unclear, my answer is No, I do not "reject all applications outside the immediate context and audience".

Your methods for understanding scripture are still not clear to me. What do you see of value outside the Pauline epistles? And I don't mean chapter and verse I mean what can we hope to understand and apply through these scriptures responsibility? Is doctrine on the list when you read the Gospels?

 

[Guojing]

How is your method of scripture also not affected by your opinion or help feed your personal doctrine?

Your methods for understanding scripture are still not clear to me. What do you see of value outside the Pauline epistles? And I don't mean chapter and verse I mean what can we hope to understand and apply through these scriptures responsibility? Is doctrine on the list when you read the Gospels?

I am sharing my point of view about scripture, I am fine if people disagree and have a different view. I was answering your point about "You're using isolated verses however as a strawman which to me shows a disregard to the context and scripture your quoting and unfortunately tends to be discrediting nor does it give me confidence in your methods."

As for your 2nd paragraph, knowing God's history with the nation Israel is valuable for me. For one thing, I understand how the books after Pauline letters, Hebrews to Revelation, would come to play during the Tribulation period for Israel

 

[DamianWarS]

I am sharing my point of view about scripture, I am fine if people disagree and have a different view. I was answering your point about "You're using isolated verses however as a strawman which to me shows a disregard to the context and scripture your quoting and unfortunately tends to be discrediting nor does it give me confidence in your methods."

As for your 2nd paragraph, knowing God's history with the nation Israel is valuable for me. For one thing, I understand how the books after Pauline letters, Hebrews to Revelation, would come to play during the Tribulation period for Israel

Alright, thanks for sharing your understanding of scripture.

 

[jamiec]

1. The mindset of first century people concerning miracles, etc. was much different from that of modern people. We do have more information to go on today.

2. The conversions today that are attributable to an unexplained religious healing are much more limited than what we think happened in antiquity when Christianity conquered a pagan empire in surprising fashion.

As an example of that, there is the incident in St Mark 9.14-29, which looks uncommonly like a description of an epileptic fit. As EFs result from recognised and (very often) medically treatable causes in the brain, it is not plausible to treat them as results of demonic possession. Epilepsy is far better understood than it was even 100 years ago, let alone almost 2000.

An unexplained healing, however great a relief for the patient, is not necessarily miraculous.

 

[chad kincham]

Correct. I am not an Apostle of Christ therefore I don't preach the Gospel as an Apostle, therefore I don't manifest those gifts.

Wrong scenario - doing miracles and manifesting gifts of the spirit were never just for the apostles only:

Jesus did His miracles through the (Dunamis - miracle working Holy Ghost power) power of the Holy Spirit, Acts 10:38.

The 125 people at Pentecost received the same HS Dunamis power that Jesus healed the sick with, per Acts 1:8.

Peter said on Pentecost day, that the same gift of the HS that manifested that day, was for “us, our children those afar off, EVEN TO AS MANY AS GOD SHALL CALL” Acts 2:38-39 - thus as long as God is saving and calling people, that same Dunamis power (miracle working dynamic HS power) is for us.

Stephen, not an apostle, who was “full of faith AND POWER (Dunamis) did great miracles among the people. Acts 6:8

These facts are why Jesus said that those who believe in Him can do the same works He did, John 14:12, and said those who believe shall lay hands on the sick and heal them - the HS gift is for all who are afar off, and last as long as God is calling anyone - the spiritual gifts have always been for believers, not just 12 apostles.

Cessationists have a flawed scenario to explain why they have no operation of the gifts of the spirit, such as that they were only temporary, to explain the lack of gifts in their churches.

 

[Guojing]

These facts are why Jesus said that those who believe in Him can do the same works He did, John 14:12, and said those who believe shall lay hands on the sick and heal them - the HS gift is for all who are afar off, and last as long as God is calling anyone - the spiritual gifts have always been for believers, not just 12 apostles.

So if a believer takes those promises, say the one found in Mark 16:17-19, lay hands on the sick, but they are not healed, does that mean he did not really believe?