# John 14 v12 - support for charismatics?



## Eoghan (Aug 1, 2019)

What are the works that Christ is referring to. In dialogue withanother he maintains it must be signs and wonders, I am thinking work as in day-to-day work. By that I understand preaching and converting.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 1, 2019)

The first thing we need to ask is, Who gets to define what "greater" means—God, or man? It is a common theme throughout Scripture that God works mightily through things which, in the world's or man's eyes, seem weak and foolish. Consider the fact that God worked the bringing down of the nation of Egypt through a few Hebrew midwives.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 1, 2019)

Eoghan said:


> What are the works that Christ is referring to. In dialogue withanother he maintains it must be signs and wonders, I am thinking work as in day-to-day work.



If by "greater" Jesus was speaking of miracles like walking on water, raising the dead, multiplying the loaves and fishes, then don't you think the first thing to consider is—are these things happening today? And, are they happening in either greater frequency or still greater miracles? All, except maybe Bennie Hinn, would have to answer in the negative. Then you might ask whether Jesus was wrong, lying, or exaggerating, crazy, or just plain wrong? A false prophet.

By the typo "withanother," did you mean with the other [Apostles]? Or something else?

Was He speaking to only the Apostles? Or was He speaking of the truly more significant miracles of preaching that leads to a whole New Creation? (2 Corinthians 5:17) To the best of my recollection, the disciples never, by there own words, lead anyone to Christ?


----------



## Eoghan (Aug 1, 2019)

In reply I think that while Jesus drew the crowds, they came for the wrong reason. Yes if you could heal people you would draw huge crowds of sick people. They would not come to be cured of sin or have their guilt before God dealt with.
In John 6:26-27 Jesus clearly states that the crowds come not because they see the signs pointing to Him as the Son of God but because they had their bellies filled. They were "rice-bowl believers" before the term was invented.

After performing miracles Christ always had to withdraw, why? Because people were coming for the wrong reasons. They came not begging to be cleansed of sin but leprosy, they didn't want to listen to His words or change their lives they just wanted to be cured. Yes individuals were brought to faith, but once the Holy Spirit came after His ascension whole families came to faith. Tens of thousands put their faith in Christ and were "born again". That spiritual birth and the scale of it is in my opinion the true "work" of Christ. It is invisible and manifests only in changed lives but it is both the fruit and evidence of a true work of the Holy Spirit.

Yes Paul worked miracles yet in his evangelism there was no "power evangelism" after the fashion of John Wimber's book. The power that Paul relied on was the power of the Gospel in sharp contrast to the expected signs and wonders that the unbelieving Jews asked for -

*Jews ask for signs* and Greeks search for wisdom *but we preach Christ crucified*, to the Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness but to those who are the called both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

The only (normative) miracles today are the new birth when someone becomes a Christian, not for wealth, not for health but because a Crucified and Resurrected Christ answers their need of a Saviour.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eoghan (Aug 1, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> By the typo "withanother," did you mean with the other [Apostles]? Or something else?



Hi Ed, I simply meant in dialogue with a minister. He has had charismatic leanings for some time but is now becoming much more public about it. I hope that in bringing things out into the open he sorts things out. As a fellowship we are trying to speak to him as individuals rather than involve Presbytery (at this stage).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Aug 1, 2019)

John Calvin --


> First, we must understand what Christ means; namely, that the power by which he proves himself to be the Son of God, is so far from being confined to his bodily presence, that it must be clearly demonstrated by many and striking proofs, when he is absent. Now the ascension of Christ was soon afterwards followed by a wonderful conversion of the world, in which the Divinity of Christ was more powerfully displayed than while he dwelt among men. Thus, we see that the proof of his Divinity was not confined to the person of Christ, but was diffused through the whole body of the Church.



John Gill -


> meaning, not greater in nature and kind, but more in number; for the apostles, in a long series of time, and course of years, went about preaching the Gospel, not in Judea only, but in all the world; "God also bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost", Heb 2:4, wherever they went: though perhaps by these greater works may be meant the many instances of conversion, which the apostles were instrumental in, and which were more in number than those which were under our Lord's personal ministry: besides, the conversion of a sinner is a greater work than any of the miracles of raising the dead, &c. for this includes in it all miracles: here we may see a sinner, dead in trespasses and sins, quickened; one born blind made to see; one who was deaf to the threatenings of the law, and to the charming voice of the Gospel, made to hear, so as to live; and one that had the spreading leprosy of sin all over him, cleansed from it by the blood of the Lamb yea, though a miracle in nature is an instance and proof of divine power, yet the conversion of a sinner, which is a miracle in grace, is not only an instance of the power of God, and of the greatness of it, but of the exceeding greatness of it: and the rather one may be induced to give in to this sense of the passage, since it is added, as a reason,



Jameson Fausset Brown -


> The substance of this passage is that the Son is the ordained and perfect manifestation of the Father, that His own word for this ought to His disciples to be enough; that if any doubts remained His works ought to remove them (see on Joh 10:37); but yet that these works of His were designed merely to aid weak faith, and would be repeated, nay exceeded, by His disciples, in virtue of the power He would confer on them after His departure. His miracles the apostles wrought, though wholly in His name and by His power, and the "greater" works—not in degree but in kind—were the conversion of thousands in a day, by His Spirit accompanying them.



Matthew Henry -


> That they should do greater works than these. [1.] In the kingdom of nature they should work greater miracles. No miracle is little, but some to our apprehension seem greater than others. Christ had healed with the hem of his garment, but Peter with his shadow (Acts v. 15), Paul by the handkerchief that had touched him, Acts xix. 12. Christ wrought miracles for two or three years in one country, but his followers wrought miracles in his name for many ages in divers countries. You shall do greater works, if there be occasion, for the glory of God. The prayer of faith, if at any time it had been necessary, would have removed mountains.[2.] In the kingdom of grace. They should obtain greater victories by the gospel than had been obtained while Christ was upon earth. The truth is, the captivating of so great a part of the world to Christ, under such outward disadvantages, was the miracle of all. I think this refers especially to the gift of tongues; this was the immediate effect of the pouring out of the Spirit, which was a constant miracle upon the mind, in which words are framed, and which was made to serve so glorious an intention as that of spreading the gospel to all nations in their own language.This was a greater sign to them that believed not (1 Cor. xiv. 22), and more powerful for their conviction, than any other miracle whatever.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 2, 2019)

Eoghan said:


> What are the works that Christ is referring to. In dialogue withanother he maintains it must be signs and wonders, I am thinking work as in day-to-day work. By that I understand preaching and converting.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 2, 2019)

The Lord meant that we could reach out and impact many more, as He was in the physical body at that time and could not outreach to all as we can now.


----------



## Eoghan (Aug 3, 2019)

John Gill is pretty close to John MacArthur. Greater in extent and geater in number. 
*greater* (_meizon G3187_) things John 14v12 bigger i.e. Greater London.

The word greater can simply mean bigger, (Luke 12:18 I will pull down my barns and build greater barns. Mathew 13:32 the greatest amongst the herbs - mustard seed)


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 5, 2019)

Eoghan said:


> John Gill is pretty close to John MacArthur. Greater in extent and geater in number.
> *greater* (_meizon G3187_) things John 14v12 bigger i.e. Greater London.
> 
> The word greater can simply mean bigger, (Luke 12:18 I will pull down my barns and build greater barns. Mathew 13:32 the greatest amongst the herbs - mustard seed)


Jesus has done far more through His church in History in sense of reaching more people than ever could have while here in His localized physical body.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> are these things happening today? And, are they happening in either greater frequency or still greater miracles?



Steve Hays has documented modern miracles accounts. I linked to it in the other day. 

There is a lot of double-entry book keeping going on in these discussions. First, someone says, "Why aren't we seeing them today?" I provide links.
"Yeah, but that can't really happen."

That's why these discussions go nowhere.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus has done far more through His church in History in sense of reaching more people than ever could have while here in His localized physical body.



No one denies that, but that doesn't mean both can't happen.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2019)

Eoghan said:


> The only (normative) miracles today are the new birth when someone becomes a Christian, not for wealth, not for health but because a Crucified and Resurrected Christ answers their need of a Saviour.



Obviously, no one denies the new birth is the most important miracle. But from the narrative itself that is not the issue in discussion. And bringing up "wealth" ties this to the prosperity gospel, which is a completely different issue.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 5, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one denies that, but that doesn't mean both can't happen.


Acts is not normitive for us today, as it reflects the historical transition period from Old to New Covenants.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 5, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Obviously, no one denies the new birth is the most important miracle. But from the narrative itself that is not the issue in discussion. And bringing up "wealth" ties this to the prosperity gospel, which is a completely different issue.


Most of modern Charasimatic theology is health and wealth and word if faith heresies.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Acts is not normitive for us today, as it reflects the historical transition period from Old to New Covenants.



Do you have a verse that says Acts is not normative? Lots of things in Acts are normative for us:
1) Acts 15
2) Acts 20 regarding elders.
3) Numerous commands to repent and believe.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Most of modern Charasimatic theology is health and wealth and word if faith heresies.



So? I'm dealing with logic and exegesis. Since you all like to use the word "normative" a lot, that's where your norms come from. Logic and exegesis.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 5, 2019)

There have been no Apostles since that time in the Church, and they must be here tohave those sign gifts in operation.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> There have been no Apostles since that time in the Church, and they must be here tohave those sign gifts in operation.



This is an assertion.

No they don't. Stephen wasn't an apostle. He did miracles. Philip's daughters weren't apostles. They prophecied.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 5, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> This is an assertion.
> 
> No they don't. Stephen wasn't an apostle. He did miracles. Philip's daughters weren't apostles. They prophecied.


both the offices of the Prophet and Apostle have ceased, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> both the offices of the Prophet and Apostle have ceased, correct?



Apostle, sure. Prophet is a bit trickier. I don't see Philip's daughters as carrying that type of weight if prophet is meant to be some super apostolic office.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 5, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one denies that, but that doesn't mean both can't happen.



Far be it for me to say that miracles don't or can't happen today. There is no agreed-upon dogma of cessationism (except maybe @Dachaser 's) that I know of. I know what people say—as miracles ended with the death of the Apostles and other such things.

*Westminster Confession of Faith*
*Chapter 5 section 3*​iii. God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means,
yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.

Re: David [@Dachaser] Unless I am mistaken, I seem to remember that he doesn't even believe in answer to prayer in any unique way. I no longer interact with David on the subject. But will be happy to do so so if what I remember about his opinion is inaccurate.
Correct me if I am wrong, David.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 5, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> Far be it for me to say that miracles don't or can't happen today. There is no agreed-upon dogma of cessationism (except maybe @Dachaser 's) that I know of. I know what people say—as miracles ended with the death of the Apostles and other such things.
> 
> *Westminster Confession of Faith*
> *Chapter 5 section 3*​iii. God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means,
> ...


I believe that God has ordained that prayers are for us to seek Him, to ask and receive all things in His will for us to obtain. I do not say that God cannot do things now as He did say in Acts, but that was a peculiar time in history, and is not the norm for us to expect today.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 5, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> I believe that God has ordained that prayers are for us to seek Him, to ask and receive all things in His will for us to obtain. I do not say that God cannot do things now as He did say in Acts, but that was a peculiar time in history, and is not the norm for us to expect today.



If this is an accurate statement of your views than I owe you an apology for misrepresenting you. I didn't take the time to look up our past discussions, but I remember (at least I thought I did) you taking a rather strict cessationist's position. Please forgive me if I wronged you.

Although I am not a wild-eyed continuationist hoping to one day walk on water, neither am I a cessationist since the only evidence that exists for miracles ceasing is the observation that they are not happening in the same way as done by Jesus and the Apostles. The single verse that seems to hint at cessationism is Hebrews 1:1-2. But then you have the problem that when Hebrews was written, the Apostle John was still alive. And who knows what the future has in store? I'm kinda an early and latter rain type of guy.

So am I forgiven???


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2019)

Back to the OP, it may or may not support continuationism. The continuationist thesis stands or falls independent of this.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 5, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Back to the OP,* it* may or may not support continuationism. The continuationist thesis stands or falls independent of this.



Jacob, or should I call you Tucker 

I see you referenced the OP, but I can't understand what your comment means.



Eoghan said:


> What are the works that Christ is referring to. In dialogue with another he maintains it must be signs and wonders, I am thinking work as in day-to-day work. By that I understand preaching and converting.



Were you referring to one of my posts? I'm having trouble with the word 'it.' If I am just plain dense, no need to explain.

Thanks,

Ed


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 5, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Back to the OP, it may or may not support continuationism. The continuationist thesis stands or falls independent of this.


You have to really define though what it means to hold to ceasing the gifts then, as I know none who are saying all gifts ceased, just that like me, the signs and wonders did after Apostolic Age!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> You have to really define though what it means to hold to ceasing the gifts then, as I know none who are saying all gifts ceased, just that like me, the signs and wonders did after Apostolic Age!



"hold to ceasing the gifts." You are using a participle/gerund as an infinitive. I don't know what you are saying.

You know what I am talking about. You know I am not saying that the gift of preaching ceased.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> I see you referenced the OP, but I can't understand what your comment means.



I am addressing the claim that John 14.12 supports continuationism. I have never used that verse one way or another. I will say that to change "miracle" from something super-nature to mean "the new birth" is to torture the text.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 5, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am addressing the claim that John 14.12 supports continuationism. I have never used that verse one way or another. I will say that to change "miracle" from something super-nature to mean "the new birth" is to torture the text.



It is a bit of a stretch to me too. I guess the other claims have tried to harmonize the outward miracles with the inward miracle of the new birth because the feared third option would be—Jesus was wrong.
Or, of course, He was only speaking of the Twelve and a few deacons and not to us.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 6, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> "hold to ceasing the gifts." You are using a participle/gerund as an infinitive. I don't know what you are saying.
> 
> You know what I am talking about. You know I am not saying that the gift of preaching ceased.


We would agree that many of the gifts are still in operation, just not the ones that require an Apostles to use them.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> We would agree that many of the gifts are still in operation, just not the ones that require an Apostles to use them.



And I would say that "ones that require an Apostle to use them" is precisely the question that is begged.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 7, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And I would say that "ones that require an Apostle to use them" is precisely the question that is begged.


They were the ones granted by God those sign gifts!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 7, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> They were the ones granted by God those sign gifts!



And that doesn't prove that the gifts were specifically limited to them. I am granted the gift of teaching but that doesn't mean it dies with me. !!!!


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 7, 2019)

I agree with Calvin, Gill, Faucett, and Henry that Christ was addressing his apostles in John 14:12, just as in other of his statements in John about the power, knowledge, and understanding they would receive for witnessing to his death and resurrection after the Spirit was given (the book of Acts being the account of the outworking of the Spirit’s empowering). Getting the context right of many passages of Scripture used by charismatics for claims of continuationism would settle things (if they would listen).


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 7, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Getting the context right of many passages of Scripture used by charismatics for claims of continuationism would settle things (if they would listen).



Getting the context right of many passages of Scripture used by cessationists for claims of cessationism would settle things (if they would listen).

As others, cessationists even, have noted in this thread, I don't use this verse as a proof-text. While there is zero evidence it is limited to the apostles, it is a moot point for me. Neither cessationists nor continuationists can really read their entire theology into that passage, which means that if the passage really did mean what x side thinks it means, it would solve very little.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 7, 2019)

Jacob, Eoghan’s pastor (I think) is using it as a proof text, and my comment was a general one in light of the fact.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 7, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Jacob, Eoghan’s pastor (I think) is using it as a proof text, and my comment was a general one in light of the fact.



If your comment is aimed at his pastor, fine. While I am a continuationist, based off of Eoghan's comments, I do think the pastor-friend should take a step back and study. There are good defenses of continuationism and there are very bad defenses. If this is his argument (and admittedly we only have 1/2 of the conversation), then it is a very weak one.


----------



## Kinghezy (Aug 8, 2019)

I am not interested in a cessationism versus continuationism debate, but did want to point out that cessationists wouldn't necessarily say the sign gifts are limited to the apostles. Rather, the argument (at least that I have heard) is they are limited to the apostolic age, to attest to the apostles' message as the gospel was in its infancy.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> I am not interested in a cessationism versus continuationism debate, but did want to point out that cessationists wouldn't necessarily say the sign gifts are limited to the apostles. Rather, the argument (at least that I have heard) is they are limited to the apostolic age, to attest to the apostles' message as the gospel was in its infancy.



Strictly speaking, you are correct. I think in this thread we all got sloppy and collapsed the two lines of argument into one. On the other hand, if someone says the supernatural gifts are purely sign gifts (something Paul never says in his lists of spiritual gifts), then they are necessarily tied to the apostolic confirmation.

To which I would point out, what exactly were Philip's daughters "confirming" in the church?


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> I am not interested in a cessationism versus continuationism debate, but did want to point out that cessationists wouldn't necessarily say the sign gifts are limited to the apostles. Rather, the argument (at least that I have heard) is they are limited to the apostolic age, to attest to the apostles' message as the gospel was in its infancy.


Very good point, as God was confirming through the Apostles, but others were also being used in certain gifts. Also,. Must make a distinction between office of Prophets and one able to be used in gift if prophecy, as that gift was used until scriptures were completed. Apostles and Prorphets were to judge spirisl gifts of the signs and wonders type, but neither office still open today!


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> This is an assertion.
> 
> No they don't. Stephen wasn't an apostle. He did miracles. Philip's daughters weren't apostles. They prophecied.


Stephen was associated with the Apostles though not one of them, and prophesying in church was not same as functioning as OT Prophet!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Stephen was associated with the Apostles though not one of them



Even if that is true it is irrelevant, since it depends on premises that I do not grant.


Dachaser said:


> and prophesying in church was not same as functioning as OT Prophet!



Thank you. You just admitted to a major part of Wayne Grudem's book. You are almost to being a continuationist.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> and one able to be used in gift if prophecy, as that gift was used until scriptures were completed.



Do we have any instance in scripture where this gift was used and documented as inspired prophesy?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 9, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Do we have any instance in scripture where this gift was used and documented as inspired prophesy?


The utterances were to be judged by Apostles and Prorphets, but we're not given forth as inspired doctrines, but as edification and exhortations!


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 9, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Even if that is true it is irrelevant, since it depends on premises that I do not grant.
> 
> 
> Thank you. You just admitted to a major part of Wayne Grudem's book. You are almost to being a continuationist.


No, for do not see the gift as giving forth inspired theology, but as more guidance and exhortations and edification!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 9, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> No, for do not see the gift as giving forth inspired theology, but as more guidance and exhortations and edification!



Sort of true. Grudem does not believe that prophets were to give forth inspired _theology_. That's specifically what they aren't giving. The Bible gives theology. Not me. Not an angel from heaven. "Prophesy" and its cognates almost always meant having knowledge you didn't previously have access to. It's nice to say that it means "guidance and exhortation," but that's not what the Greek says.

The NT uses the language of prophets as someone who can predict the future but not have divine authority (Titus 1:12; Luke 22:64; John 4.19).

Some prophecies were intentionally neglected (1 Cor. 14.30). Contrast this with Jehoikam’s disregard for Jeremiah’s prophecy. God gave him a death sentence for neglecting it. If NT prophecies were on the same field as OT, then we should make sure that all of this “potential canon” is gathered for the church. Yet Paul is making sure that isn’t happening. Some prophets won’t even be able to speak


----------



## KGP (Aug 9, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> Or, of course, He was only speaking of the Twelve and a few deacons and not to us.



Recall that John’s gospel portrays vividly Jesus’ conflict with the Scribes and Pharisees and the religious segregation and system they profited so handsomely from without any concern for what God desired.

I personally think this verse is at least alluding to the undoing of that false religion and the final breaking of its power over God’s people, both to ensnare the Jew and keep out the gentile. Christ’s conflict with the enemies of God and his faithfulness to death laid the foundation for it’s overthrow in so many ways, and set in motion it’s destruction.

Yet it was those hearing Christ’s words here that would be the ones to finish the fight so to speak, to finish work and by their faith and the public witness/testimony of Christ by the power and blessing of the Spirit that that mountain that had so captivated them was finally thrown into the sea.

Not that this would be the only referent in the text, it has broad profitable application. But the non violent (on the Christian side) overthrow of a thoroughly self serving Jewish religious system that is in bed with the Roman Empire at or nearing the height of it’s power and influence is an absolute dynamite of a work.

I think the work Christ was doing that he referred to was simply contending for faith in the living God against the enemies. On earth, Christ never saw his work come to fruition; though he knew it would through the Apostles work under the reign Of Christ through the power of the Spirit.


Works I (Christ) have been doing = contending for faith and righteousness against the enemies of God, ultimately dying in (apparent) failure (in an outward visible sense) as his enemies mocked and crucified him.

Works Christ is doing that the Apostles would also do = contending for faith and righteousness against the enemies of God (and many also being killed at their hands)

Greater works than these that the Apostles would do = contending unto the achieving of real, outward, visible, historical victories for the kingdom of God through the gospel, displacing the rulers and powers of darkness.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 9, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sort of true. Grudem does not believe that prophets were to give forth inspired _theology_. That's specifically what they aren't giving. The Bible gives theology. Not me. Not an angel from heaven. "Prophesy" and its cognates almost always meant having knowledge you didn't previously have access to. It's nice to say that it means "guidance and exhortation," but that's not what the Greek says.
> 
> The NT uses the language of prophets as someone who can predict the future but not have divine authority (Titus 1:12; Luke 22:64; John 4.19).
> 
> Some prophecies were intentionally neglected (1 Cor. 14.30). Contrast this with Jehoikam’s disregard for Jeremiah’s prophecy. God gave him a death sentence for neglecting it. If NT prophecies were on the same field as OT, then we should make sure that all of this “potential canon” is gathered for the church. Yet Paul is making sure that isn’t happening. Some prophets won’t even be able to speak


Prophets of God spoke inspired revelations from God, but those with gift of prophesy did not!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 9, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Prophets of God spoke inspired revelations from God, but those with gift of prophesy did not!



Did those with the gift of prophecy speak knowledge that God revealed to their minds!


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Did those with the gift of prophecy speak knowledge that God revealed to their minds!


That would be the word of knowledge, but prophesy in Acts was Holy Spirit moving upon someone to speak for edification, exhortation, but not to give forth inspired as He did with the Prophets of OT.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> That would be the word of knowledge, but prophesy in Acts was Holy Spirit moving upon someone to speak for edification, exhortation, but not to give forth inspired as He did with the Prophets of OT.



That's specifically not what the word or its cognates mean, plain and simple. By the time of the NT the word _prophetes_ means one who has supernatural knowledge. That's it. I don't use the word "inspired" because it has such a slippery meaning. Further, the word _prophetes_ doesn't have to mean divine authority, as evidenced below (The Talmud references are in Hebrew-Aramaic, obviously, but they show the overlap of concept):

*a philosopher is called a _prophet _of immortal nature (Dio Chrysostom).
* In the Babylonian Talmud (b.Sot. 13a) Rebekah prophecies as prediction, not authority.
*Miriam (b. Meg. 14a) does the same. As does Hannah (same reference).
*Josephus says John Hyrcanus is a _prophetes_, not because he had divine authority, but because he predicted the future (_Ant. _13.299-300 and _Wars _1.68-69).
*Philo refers to dreams as prophecies (_Spec Leg_ 1.219).
*Paul quotes Epimenides who quoted "a prophet of their own," and that pagan certainly didn't speak with the authority of God!
*The High Priest's assistants slapped Jesus and said "prophesy," to which Jesus and they clearly meant "give knowledge beyond the sense-perception."
*The woman at the well said Jesus was a prophet because she recognized he had knowledge beyond sense-perception.

All of this clearly refutes the idea that prophet just means exhorter.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's specifically not what the word or its cognates mean, plain and simple. By the time of the NT the word _prophetes_ means one who has supernatural knowledge. That's it. I don't use the word "inspired" because it has such a slippery meaning. Further, the word _prophetes_ doesn't have to mean divine authority, as evidenced below (The Talmud references are in Hebrew-Aramaic, obviously, but they show the overlap of concept):
> 
> *a philosopher is called a _prophet _of immortal nature (Dio Chrysostom).
> * In the Babylonian Talmud (b.Sot. 13a) Rebekah prophecies as prediction, not authority.
> ...


The office of the Prophet ceased after Apostolic era,and the gift to propesy was not the same as one being a Prophet. Prophets spoke infallible words if the Lord, while ones with gift to prophesy did not!
We are to seek the truth if the scriptures, not the words of fallible people exercising their gifts!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> The office of the Prophet ceased after Apostolic era,and the gift to propesy was not the same as one being a Prophet. Prophets spoke infallible words if the Lord, while ones with gift to prophesy did not!
> We are to seek the truth if the scriptures, not the words of fallible people exercising their gifts!



You didn't read a single thing I said.


----------



## Phil D. (Aug 10, 2019)

Scripture does seem to distinguish between Prophets, of which John the Baptist was the last (Luke 16:16; Hebrews 1:1-2), and prophets, which continued into the NT church (Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 14:3).

Similar circumstances seem to apply to Apostles (Mark 6:7; Revelation 21:14) and apostles (cf. Ephesians 4:11; Acts 14:14), Of course regarding Acts 14:14, the overall evidence appears to indicate that Paul was an Apostle (1 Corinthians 15:7-8), while Timothy was seemingly an apostle.

Just an observation...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> Scripture does seem to distinguish between Prophets, of which John the Baptist was the last (Luke 16:16; Hebrews 1:1-2), and prophets, which continued into the NT church (Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 14:3).
> 
> Similar circumstances seem to apply to Apostles (Mark 6:7; Revelation 21:14) and apostles (cf. Ephesians 4:11; Acts 14:14), Of course regarding Acts 14:14, the overall evidence appears to indicate that Paul was an Apostle (1 Corinthians 15:7-8), while Timothy was seemingly an apostle.
> 
> Just an observation...


The OT Prophets and NT Apostles had unique callings and giftings, not to be continued and repeated moving forward. The CHURCH was built upon Jesus, and the theological foundations were laid by Prophets and Apostles!


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You didn't read a single thing I said.


I did, but why does God still need to confirm with gifts what has already been firmly established?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> I did, but why does God still need to confirm with gifts what has already been firmly established?



If you had read what I wrote, you would have realized that I refuted what you were saying about prophecy.

I deny that the gifts sole purpose was to confirm something. That it did so is true, but you keep assuming that's the whole point. It's not.

Let's take your line of reasoning a step further: why does God need me to evangelize since he has already predestined everything?

If you read 1 Corinthians you will realize that Gifts are not given to authenticate a message (at least not primarily). Gifts are other-directed. They are for service.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> The OT Prophets and NT Apostles had unique callings and giftings, not to be continued and repeated moving forward. The CHURCH was built upon Jesus, and the theological foundations were laid by Prophets and Apostles!



That has nothing to do with what he said. He notes how the term prophet isn't univocal. These gifts weren't solely used by the apostles. And if prophet is interchangeable with apostle, then you need to admit that Philip's daughters were apostles.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2019)

Back to the original post: the verse describes the worker as "he who believes in me," which doesn't limit it to the apostles. Now, I am not saying this necessarily means magical gifts. It might just mean that granny is really good at organizing pot luck fellowships. Admittedly, that's not in the text.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2019)

As to working miracles: Paul’s actual word is “powers,” which has a very different nuance. It’s also why the Eastern fathers called miracle workers “thaumaturge,” which is much closer in concept to the original. This is a superior way of thinking since it cuts off at the knees the modern secular worry: "Can we believe in miracles because Mr Hume said we couldn't?"


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If you had read what I wrote, you would have realized that I refuted what you were saying about prophecy.
> 
> I deny that the gifts sole purpose was to confirm something. That it did so is true, but you keep assuming that's the whole point. It's not.
> 
> ...


The sign that Apostles were gifted to do were for confirmation though, and those ceased, but the rensing gifts still continued forward!


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> As to working miracles: Paul’s actual word is “powers,” which has a very different nuance. It’s also why the Eastern fathers called miracle workers “thaumaturge,” which is much closer in concept to the original. This is a superior way of thinking since it cuts off at the knees the modern secular worry: "Can we believe in miracles because Mr Hume said we couldn't?"


They were gifted to do miracles, while we are not, but God can still preform them as He sees fit to do them per His will.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Back to the original post: the verse describes the worker as "he who believes in me," which doesn't limit it to the apostles. Now, I am not saying this necessarily means magical gifts. It might just mean that granny is really good at organizing pot luck fellowships. Admittedly, that's not in the text.


The context refers to the Apostles if that time and setting.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> The context refers to the Apostles if that time and setting.



No it doesn't. It says "he who believes," which is open ended.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> They were gifted to do miracles, while wearenot, but God can still them as He sees fit to do them per His will.



You realize that not once in this discussion have you offered an argument for that saying? You just keep repeating it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> The sign that Apostles were gifted to do were for confirmation though, and those ceased, but the rensing gifts still continued forward!



I have no idea what this means


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 10, 2019)

Folks slow down, and David, clean up your posts so folks can understand what you are saying.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No it doesn't. It says "he who believes," which is open ended.


Jesus was addressing His Apostles, as the ending o if Mark Gospel seems to be referring to what the Apostles themselves did during the time of Acts, and not to be seen as continuing for all of Church history going forward.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You realize that not once in this discussion have you offered an argument for that saying? You just keep repeating it.


Writer of Hebrews affirms that the Apostles confirmed to them by signs and wonders, but did not include himself able to do them, do evidently no longer required to be done moving forward. Hebrews2:4


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I have no idea what this means


God can still do miracles and so called signs today as He chooses, but none of us today are gifted to do such as Apostles were by God.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> God can still do miracles and so called signs today as He chooses, but none of us today are gifted to do such as Apostles were by God.



This is an assertion. You have yet to deal with the lexical arguments.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Did those with the gift of prophecy speak knowledge that God revealed to their minds!


Every reason to believe so.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Writer of Hebrews affirms that the Apostles confirmed to them by signs and wonders, but did not include himself able to do them, do evidently no longer required to be done moving forward. Hebrews2:4



The problem is that numerous non-apostles "worked powers" (literal Greek).

The gifts (which the the writer never calls the miracles) are not for authentication, but edification. That's completely irrelevant to the author of Hebrews' claim.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus was addressing His Apostles, as the ending o if Mark Gospel seems to be referring to what the Apostles themselves did during the time of Acts, and not to be seen as continuing for all of Church history going forward.



Which makes Paul's inclusion of the "working of powers" in the gifts of the Spirit passages contradictory to your above statement.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2019)

I'm out.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 10, 2019)



Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> This is an assertion. You have yet to deal with the lexical arguments.





BayouHuguenot said:


> This is an assertion. You have yet to deal with the lexical arguments.


You still see Apostles among us today?


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The problem is that numerous non-apostles "worked powers" (literal Greek).
> 
> The gifts (which the the writer never calls the miracles) are not for authentication, but edification. That's completely irrelevant to the author of Hebrews' claim.


The ones gifted to be the Apostles confirmed, while the others used them to edify.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2019)

Hebrews claims those gifts were used to confirm, as did Mark!


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which makes Paul's inclusion of the "working of powers" in the gifts of the Spirit passages contradictory to your above statement.


All spiritual gifts were in use at that time, but not all are today in the Body of Christ.


----------

