Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Divine Healing? | Matthew | inmyheart | 72296 | ||
Jesified, I argue that the biblical evidence affirms that present-day Christians have the same type of divine authority over sicknesses and demons that the apostles had. The authority to heal had never been retracted, but it is available to Christians in every generation. For example, we have a record of the commission of Jesus to all believers: "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well" (Mark 16:15-18). Some have argued that this passage only applies to the apostles, who Jesus was directly addressing. However, it is strange that they would make this claim when none of them hesitates to apply Matthew 28:18-20 to all Christians, where Jesus also commissions his disciples, but without the explicit mention of miracles: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." What is the difference between Mark 16:15-18 and Matthew 28:18-20? If the former only applies to the apostles, then how can we say that the latter does not? This "pick-and-choose" style of hermeneutics reflects not an honest interpretation of the Scriptures, but a hypocritical and disobedient attitude. Mark 16:17 clearly states that miracles will follow "those who believe," with no mention of which generation one must live in, or whether one is an apostle. Another objection raised against this passage in Mark 16 is that it is not supposed to be in the Scriptures at all! Many who hold to this view would assert that the passage was added to the end of Mark by an editor in the second century, and it reflects the common practice at that time. I think that the evidence fails to confirm this, but we will not take the time to explore it in detail. What we may say is that, if this passage was added in the second century, it would not carry the same level of divine authority, but it would still be true for us. This is because the original apostles had died by the second century, and if this passage reflects the common practice of that day, then it is one evidence confirming the fact that miracles were not only meant for the apostles, but also the subsequent generations of Christians. Nevertheless, as I have stated, it seems that the evidence does support the inclusion of this passage in the Gospel of Mark. In the final analysis, it is a devious practice to deny passages that one finds difficult to accept as not applicable, and accept all the others, when all of them have the same standing within the Scriptures. Jesified, you have posted well, keep doing what God has called you to do. 1Cor.15:57-58. God bless |
||||||
2 | Divine Healing? | Matthew | BradK | 72302 | ||
Dear Inmyheart, Let's say that I agree with your position on Mark 16:15-18. As all the signs listed in vs.17-18 are in the same context and apply to us today, what of "taking up serpents" and "drinking anything deadly"? In all honesty, would you or have you done so? Do you have the faith? As I see it, because of the context, ALL of these signs, by your reasoning are still in place? If so, then to be consistent, one would not exclude any of them from current practice. We should see believers(with faith) willing and able to exercise these sign gifts? The challenge I see with this is that we do not see this consistency displayed in the public arena. Why do we not see, the numerous healing ministries on TBN stepping out on "faith" before their audiences to proclaim the entire truth of Mark 16? Speaking the Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
3 | Divine Healing? | Matthew | Jesified | 72333 | ||
BradK, As far as "taking up serpents" and "drinking anything deadly" there is only one example to follow and that is of Paul in Acts 28:3-6. In these verses, Paul is bitten by a snake accidentally. Since this is the only example of "taking up serpents" or "drinking anything deadly" then we must use this as the basis for our interpretation of those parts of Mark 16:15-18. We see two major things here: 1) This was an accident, therefore, it is not scriptural to just pick up whatever snake you want and play with it and say that you won't be harmed by its venom when it bites you. That's just stupid. Now if you are out in the woods or the water or somewhere and you happen to be bit by the snake, then you will not be harmed. 2) If it only applied to the disciples that Jesus was physically talking to at that moment, then this example goes against what scritpure would teach if that were true. Read Acts 7:58. Still under the name of Saul, Paul watched the clothes of the men who were stoning Stephen. He wasn't a disciple yet. This means that if Jesus was only talking to those who were physically present then Paul would be exempt. So it is safe to say that God will protect you if you are bit by accident. It is also safe to say that since Jesus wasn't physically talking to Paul when He said this, that He was talking to all that would come to be His disciples. Therefore, it applies today to you and me just as much as it did Peter, James, John, and the rest. Jesified |
||||||