Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | Aspiring Overseer | 70711 | ||
Steve, God's Word has gone into all the earth, yet still many disbelieve. God's hope is for all to be saved, yet most will not seek Him. As for healing,we absolutely know that there was 100 percent sucess. Here are but two of many examples: Matt 8:16-17 16And when evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed; and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were ill NAS Acts 5:16 16And also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits; and they were all being healed. NAS All those that were brought before Jesus or the Apostles were healed. If miraculoous gifts exist today, should not those who have this ability perform the same deeds as the 1st century church? AO |
||||||
2 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 70739 | ||
Hi, AO and Merry Christmas; IMHO, you're contradicting yourself. You have said that "Once it was obvious throughout the world that His word was the truth, there was no need for the confirmation." and "God's Word has gone into all the earth, yet still many disbelieve." If this is true and "God's hope is for all to be saved", then isn't there still a need for confirmation? I'm not suggesting that confirmation can only come from miraculous signs. I'm simply saying the need still exists, so you can't use its absence as proof that miraculous gifts no longer exist. I agree that there was 100 percent success in healing that was consistent with God's will - God cannot fail. But there is no evidence that all requests were granted. If the Bible records only instances where the answer to a request for healing was "yes", that does not prove that there were no instances where the answer was "no". Either there were no such instances or they weren't recorded - we don't know which. I'm as skeptical as anyone when I see a big-name faith healer on TV. I'm not sure what to make of people in an interdenominational setting speaking in a language that is unfamiliar to me. But I do know that God is not limited by reasonable inferences along the lines of "if A were true than we would expect B". If God chooses to heal someone through a TV faith-healer, he'll do it with 100 percent success. I don't think God is so predictable that I can confidently say he'll never make that choice. After all, could there have been a more surprising choice than Jesus? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
3 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | Aspiring Overseer | 70754 | ||
Steve, If God desires all to come to the knowledge of the truth, but knows that most will not, where is the contradiction? Christians walk by faith, not by sight. He expects those that follow Christ to do so not because of miracles, but through the evidences He has left us in His word. Just because the entire world population is not Christian does not mean they do not already acknowledge God's word as the truth. Many will never acknowledge it, even if you or I were to interpret each other's tongues or healed their friend's and family of grave illnesses. God still hopes that they would be saved, but He knows that most will not. Regardless, He does not withhold salvation from anyone who loves Him. His word is available to anyone who desires it on this Earth. All they must do is ask for help. Regarding healing, let’s take a look again at one of the verses found in the NT: Acts 5:16 16And also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits; and most were being healed. NAS Wait a minute!!!!! Actually, please forgive my literary license. It actually reads: Acts 5:16 16And also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits; and they were all being healed. NAS Regardless of the translation, the language is very clear; everyone, who came to be healed, was healed. There were no exceptions, at least not that I have found. If you know of something I have missed, please let me know! Hope you're having a great Christmas, AO |
||||||
4 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 70768 | ||
Hi, AO; "If God desires all to come to the knowledge of the truth, but knows that most will not, where is the contradiction?" There is no contradiction in what God has said. I simply cannot agree with your original assertion that "Once it was obvious throughout the world that His word was the truth, there was no need for the confirmation". The Bible does not say this. Paul says in Romans 1 that God's truth has always been evident. But nowhere does the Bible say that at some point in time the validity of God's word had become obvious throughout the world. As for healing, I agree that everyone we know of who requested healing (or had it requested by someone else) was healed. But you are still promoting an argument from silence. For example, the Bible provides no examples of Roman gladiators who were saved by faith in Christ. That doesn't prove that there are no retired Roman gladiators in Heaven; it proves that the Bible doesn't say anything about it one way or the other. Likewise, the Bible provides no examples of requests for healing being denied. That doesn't prove that none were denied; it proves that the Bible doesn't say anything about it one way or the other. It's easy to imagine a Pharisee striding up to Peter and demanding healing as a sign - perhaps a Pharisee whose demand for a sign Jesus had already refused. And it's easy to imagine Peter also declining. Did it happen? I don't know; it could have. The Bible doesn't say it did so I can't prove that it did. But the Bible doesn't say it didn't so you can't say that the Bible has ruled it out. That would be another argument from silence. It might make for an interesting discussion (or not), but it's nothing that we can draw any theological conclusions from. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
5 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | Aspiring Overseer | 70776 | ||
Steve, Requests for healing being denied would be quite significant, would they not? All sin is equal in God's eyes, so there is no logical reason for scripture to address a person's occupation with regard to their salvation. There would be a need to demonstrate the withholding of healing, however, if it was conditional upon who asked or how they asked. If the silence argument were to be valid, it would need to be in alignment with the nature of God. The fulfillment of the Old Covenant was an event that required miracles to confirm the validity of the change. Withholding those miracles would have been inconsistent with His purpose and contrary to His Word. Additionally, and back to our original discussion, the silence position does not explain why miraculous healing can not be conducted with 100 percent success today. Are sick children in our hospitals in the same basket as an "imagined Pharisee" demanding healing as a sign? Let's reason together and look at scripture logically. From that framework, continued miraculous gifts do not exist today and can only be weakly supported by adding to scripture. Their purpose was fulfilled with the arrival of the written word. P. S. I am short on time, but will put some more thought to the validity question you pose at a later date. AO |
||||||
6 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 70780 | ||
Hi, AO; You've provided some well-reasoned speculation with many appeals to logic but few to Scripture. But let me focus on this statement: "the silence position does not explain why miraculous healing can not be conducted with 100 percent success today". I don't know what you mean by "success". If you mean that a healing is accomplished every time a human wills it to be so, then, no, it is not 100 percent successful now nor has it ever been. If you mean a healing is accomplished every time God ordains it then, yes, the success rate is no less than 100 percent. To answer your followup question 'Are sick children in our hospitals in the same basket as an "imagined Pharisee" demanding healing as a sign?' Ultimately, yes. They like we are fallen creatures in a fallen world. They have no guarantee of health and no hope for Heaven apart from Jesus. And if God wills any of them, Pharisee or hospitalized child, to be healed, they will be healed - 100 percent of the time. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
7 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | Aspiring Overseer | 70821 | ||
Steve, For clarification,we are talking about healings ordained by God. The question is: Does the NT give any examples of these as not being successful? If it does not mention any, then why? What does a healer and a healee (forgive my terminology) need for efective healing to occur? AO |
||||||
8 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 71029 | ||
Hi, AO; I'm sure there is no instance of a healing ordained by God failing his intention. We might think of Jesus' healing of the blind man in Mark 8:22-26 as "failing" the first time, but I'm sure things went as Jesus intended and the man was ultimately healed. There is the instance in Matthew 17:14-20[21] of the disciples failing to cast out a demon but, again, the demon was ultimately cast out. So perhaps God's intention was briefly thwarted but it was finally achieved. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||