[quote]forbes wrote:
Im sorry Pat, but miracles were always first and foremost to validate God’s Word, not for human beneficence. [/quote]
Whether they validate Godâ??s word or not, he does it for us, not for himself. Why would he? Heâ??s God already. He has no need.
I have came across MANY explanations of the vanishing of miraculous powers and gifts. Here is a load full of reading for anyone.
Miracles & Spiritual Gifts: Tongues, Prophecy, Holy Spirit Baptism (this is a series, you can find at the bottom of the page)
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/HaveMiraclesCeased.htm
http://www.bible.ca/su-miracles-today.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tongues-ceased-perfect-come-1Cor13-8-13.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tongues-9-spiritual-gifts-defined.htm
I also wanted to state that I am reading on this and I haven’t just made up my mind completely, but based on the biblical evidence, I believe miracles have ceased.
That does not mean I deny God’s power. But that power that he gave to us temporarily was to serve a purpose, and I feel that purpose has been fulfilled and so therefore miraculous powers are no longer required.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
I have a full day ahead of me and I want to address this in more detail when I get the chance, but I ask you to then tell me what 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 means then?
To me, that which is partial are the miracles (the gifts of the spirit) and that which is perfect is the Bible (which has already come).
Please explain your understanding of this verse. [/quote]
12:8-13 is talking about that the Charismatic gifts will expire when “the perfect comes” (13:10), that is, when the Lord comes again in glory to reveal himself to the Church “face to face” (13:12). [/quote]
Yet it says “these three remain” which implies that of the mentioned gifts, only faith, hope and love remain (when Christ returns faith and hope will be gone, but love will remain forever)
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
I have a full day ahead of me and I want to address this in more detail when I get the chance, but I ask you to then tell me what 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 means then?
To me, that which is partial are the miracles (the gifts of the spirit) and that which is perfect is the Bible (which has already come).
Please explain your understanding of this verse. [/quote]
12:8-13 is talking about that the Charismatic gifts will expire when “the perfect comes” (13:10), that is, when the Lord comes again in glory to reveal himself to the Church “face to face” (13:12). [/quote]
Yet it says “these three remain” which implies that of the mentioned gifts, only faith, hope and love remain (when Christ returns faith and hope will be gone, but love will remain forever)[/quote]
Okay the Author of the Bible says, that the verse is talking about that they will vanish after the second coming of the Lord. It also says that since God is Love, and Faith and Hope are within Love, that those three will remain forever. Once the Second coming happens it doesn’t mean that God will no longer be Love or Charity, it doesn’t mean we will no long have the Faith and it doesn’t mean that we will no longer have Hope in God.
For the mean time I will leave this “miracles” topic alone. If I am wrong, I do not want to be preaching a false doctrine.
It’s refreshing to see a Christian with an open mind on doctrinal matters.
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s refreshing to see a Christian with an open mind on doctrinal matters. [/quote]His mind is open on the right things and in the right way. A blessed state of affairs. If he were open to being convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was not the living Word of God who was in the beginning both with God and God Himself become flesh who dwelt among us that would not be refreshing.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s refreshing to see a Christian with an open mind on doctrinal matters. [/quote]His mind is open on the right things and in the right way and. A blessed state of affairs. If he were open to being convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was not the living Word of God who was in the beginning both with God and God Himself become flesh who dwelt among us that would not be refreshing.
[/quote]
I think open mindedness is a healthy approach toward all subjects. The moment you insist that you KNOW the truth, and refuse to honestly and actively consider other possibilities, you risk entrenching yourself in falsehood and perpetual stagnation. At one point in my life, I KNEW the truth. I’ve since realized how ignorant I am, and I believe that realization is the beginning of true wisdom.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s refreshing to see a Christian with an open mind on doctrinal matters. [/quote]His mind is open on the right things and in the right way and. A blessed state of affairs. If he were open to being convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was not the living Word of God who was in the beginning both with God and God Himself become flesh who dwelt among us that would not be refreshing.
[/quote]
I think open mindedness is a healthy approach toward all subjects. The moment you insist that you KNOW the truth, and refuse to honestly and actively consider other possibilities, you risk entrenching yourself in falsehood and perpetual stagnation. At one point in my life, I KNEW the truth. I’ve since realized how ignorant I am, and I believe that realization is the beginning of true wisdom. [/quote]
I agree with you to a point. Some things the truth has been revealed and thus they are not open for discussion as to their truth. Perhaps their application may be open to discussion, but their truth is not. For example, the 10 commandments (not open for discussion), Jesus is God incarnate (not open for discussion), the interplay of free will, predestination, and God’s foreknowledge (open for discussion), God created all that exists (not open for discussion), how God created all that exists (open for discussion)… You get the idea.
New question.
What came first, the Church or the Bible?
The church formally started in time in Genesis chapter 12.
Clearly, the church came first…but I don’t think the church existed until Christ organized it in the new testament. Israel had a religious society, a temple, sacrifices, feasts, etc. but I don’t consider them to have belonged to the church of Christ.
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Israel had a religious society, a temple, sacrifices, feasts, etc. but I don’t consider them to have belonged to the church of Christ.[/quote]Paul did and so did the writer of Hebrews. Same gospel.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Israel had a religious society, a temple, sacrifices, feasts, etc. but I don’t consider them to have belonged to the church of Christ.[/quote]Paul did and so did the writer of Hebrews. Same gospel.
[/quote]
There’s a difference between the gospel and the church. The church, as organized by Christ, clearly didn’t exist in the old testament (no apostles, no baptism, no sacrament, etc.)
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Israel had a religious society, a temple, sacrifices, feasts, etc. but I don’t consider them to have belonged to the church of Christ.[/quote]Paul did and so did the writer of Hebrews. Same gospel.
[/quote]
There’s a difference between the gospel and the church. The church, as organized by Christ, clearly didn’t exist in the old testament (no apostles, no baptism, no sacrament, etc.)[/quote]The church, as covenanted by the Father and bought by the eternally begotten Son preexisted creation. There cannot be the presence of the saving gospel without the church. The ekklesia, the congregation of holy ones, was founded in time when God covenanted with Abraham to bless all the nations of the Earth in his seed. If you think the saints occupying the hall of faith in Hebrews 11 were not the church you have greatly overestimated you own biblical acumen.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The church formally started in time in Genesis chapter 12.[/quote]
Yeah, if you’re Jewish. Yes it was necessary for Christianity to come from it. But lest we forget the important fact that it took God himself change it. It took God himself to open up salvation through love, faith, mercy and hope. I personally don’t engage in burnt offerings or anything of the like. Quite frankly, he didn’t seem all that pleased with the Hebrews, but he made it work.
To answer Chris’s question directly, the church came first. NT scripture was born of it and the NT is what matters. OT was necessary for the NT, but the NT is what is the case now.
Galatians 3:6-9[quote]<<< 6-Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7-Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8-The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.” 9-So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. >>>[/quote]That’s the gospel and hence the church. Read that whole chapter along with the 4th of Romans where brother Paul specifically uses the as yet non existent rite of circumcision as an example of how ol father Abraham was justified by the same gospel looking forward as we are looking back. Take a look. Just you n the Word. It’s right there, until somebody steals it from you with false authority.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Israel had a religious society, a temple, sacrifices, feasts, etc. but I don’t consider them to have belonged to the church of Christ.[/quote]Paul did and so did the writer of Hebrews. Same gospel.
[/quote]
There’s a difference between the gospel and the church. The church, as organized by Christ, clearly didn’t exist in the old testament (no apostles, no baptism, no sacrament, etc.)[/quote]The church, as covenanted by the Father and bought by the eternally begotten Son preexisted creation. There cannot be the presence of the saving gospel without the church. The ekklesia, the congregation of holy ones, was founded in time when God covenanted with Abraham to bless all the nations of the Earth in his seed. If you think the saints occupying the hall of faith in Hebrews 11 were not the church you have greatly overestimated you own biblical acumen.
[/quote]
The church as established by Christ is not the gospel.
The church as established by Christ is not the saints.
The church is defined and delineated by laws and ordinances.
Jesus said that the laws and ordinances of the old testament were fulfilled in Him. They were done away with. He established new laws and ordinances. He established a new church. The authority structure was different, the laws were different, and the ordinances were different.
You can play semantics about what “church” really means, but nobody can argue that the laws and ordinances established by Christ were very different from those in the old testament.
And regardless, it’s clear that your belief system is a far cry from what Jesus actually taught. You’re like a modern day Saul, in his pharisaical glory, prior to his conversion to the gospel of Christ. Even following his conversion, I think Paul struggled with his pharisaical roots, which is why he was so often at odds with Peter.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Israel had a religious society, a temple, sacrifices, feasts, etc. but I don’t consider them to have belonged to the church of Christ.[/quote]Paul did and so did the writer of Hebrews. Same gospel.
[/quote]
There’s a difference between the gospel and the church. The church, as organized by Christ, clearly didn’t exist in the old testament (no apostles, no baptism, no sacrament, etc.)[/quote]The church, as covenanted by the Father and bought by the eternally begotten Son preexisted creation. There cannot be the presence of the saving gospel without the church. The ekklesia, the congregation of holy ones, was founded in time when God covenanted with Abraham to bless all the nations of the Earth in his seed. If you think the saints occupying the hall of faith in Hebrews 11 were not the church you have greatly overestimated you own biblical acumen.
[/quote]
The church as established by Christ is not the gospel.
The church as established by Christ is not the saints.
The church is defined and delineated by laws and ordinances.
Jesus said that the laws and ordinances of the old testament were fulfilled in Him. They were done away with. He established new laws and ordinances. He established a new church. The authority structure was different, the laws were different, and the ordinances were different.
You can play semantics about what “church” really means, but nobody can argue that the laws and ordinances established by Christ were very different from those in the old testament.
And regardless, it’s clear that your belief system is a far cry from what Jesus actually taught. You’re like a modern day Saul, in his pharisaical glory, prior to his conversion to the gospel of Christ. Even following his conversion, I think Paul struggled with his pharisaical roots, which is why he was so often at odds with Peter.
[/quote]
So, you need a sponsor for RCIA??? 
[quote]forbes wrote:
For the mean time I will leave this “miracles” topic alone. If I am wrong, I do not want to be preaching a false doctrine.
[/quote]
I don’t like discussing miracles either in a forum. It’s agonizing to argue them outside the presence of one.
Do you know who Padre Pio was? BC mentioned him in another thread, I would encourage you to google him. He had the stigmata for most of his life for one, which I would categorize as a miracle. Also, he had some interesting gifts.
He’s 20th century so there is tons of info and pictures. If you want to, look him up. I would be interested to know what you think.