B. B. Warfield's Book "Counterfeit Miracles"

[RamistThomist]

Perhaps by the time of the Epistles the apostolic gifts were winding down. Moreover, nothing therein suggests Paul actually set about to heal Trophimus.

Worth a read:
https://answersingenesis.org/education/spurgeon-sermons/1444-the-sick-man-left-behind/

That's certainly possible, but it is an argument from silence. It's assuming the very thing we need to prove. And if he had the opportunity to heal but chose not to, it's hard to see how the charge against modern day charismatics (e.g., "You never see them at hospitals") doesn't also apply to him.

Of course, I don't believe that those who can heal today are always obligated to heal at every opportunity with 100% accuracy.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That's certainly possible, but it is an argument from silence.

Evidence of absence is not necessarily absence of evidence to the contrary.

Why are we compelled to assume that Paul's leaving someone sick implies some failure to heal over the more plausible that he simply did not make an attempt to do so in the first place?

 

[RamistThomist]

Evidence of absence is not necessarily absence of evidence to the contrary.

Why are we compelled to assume that Paul's leaving someone sick implies some failure to heal over the more plausible that he simply did not make an attempt to do so in the first place?

Why are we compelled to assume that a modern day healer's leaving person x implies some failure to heal over the more plausible attempt that he simply did not make an attempt to do so in the first place?

That leaves us with two horns of a dilemma:

Horn 1: The apostles weren't always able to heal.

Horn 2: the apostles weren't always obligated to heal.

Horn 2 is the kicker. It means that many pop arguments against charismaticism's healers fall.

 

[earl40]

And I am glad you are taking Mac's argument to the conclusion. He is forced to condemn his hero Lloyd-Jones. Mind you, it isn't that MLJ is wrong. He's amil, after all. Rather, as Mac stated elsewhere, he is "the lowest of the low."

Was that charge against the person or the teaching?

 

[RamistThomist]

Was that charge against the person or the teaching?

I can't access my blog at work, from which I quoted Mac, but I am almost certain he used the personal pronoun "who."

 

[earl40]

I can't access my blog at work, from which I quoted Mac, but I am almost certain he used the personal pronoun "who."

I saw your blog and he was not calling Jones what you said he did. He was calling the Copeland's and the Benny Hin's the low of the low.

 

[Taylor]

I saw your blog and he was not calling Jones what you said he did. He was calling the Copeland's and the Benny Hin's the low of the low.

I think Jacob’s point is that the implication of such accusations is not what JM himself would affirm or want.

 

[Dachaser]

I thought this was a weak point in the book because of its embarrassing irony. MacArthur calls out continuationist teachers for giving credence to the wackos; MacArthur is a dispensationalist.

But regarding cessationism vs. continuationism, I don't think it is unfair to lump it all together. Continuationism is error whether espoused by Lloyd-Jones or Wilkerson. That doesn't mean all continuationist teachers are equally false.

I do also think that one must define what is meant by saying gifts have ceased, as we still hold with gifts such as teacher and giving as for today, and also that God can still heal or do miracler in rare times, based upon His own Will. Some would use ceasing to mean that nothing is allowed for today.

 

[RamistThomist]

I saw your blog and he was not calling Jones what you said he did. He was calling the Copeland's and the Benny Hin's the low of the low.

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/TM13-18/an-appeal-to-charismatic-friends

Number seven, by asserting the gift of healing has continued to be present, the continuationist position affirms the same basic premise that undergirds the fraudulent ministry of charismatic faith healers. If you say the gift of healing is still around, and you say it whimsically, there’s no evidence it’s around, either experimentally or biblically, but if you say it’s still around, then you have just validated healers.

Therefore, by Mac's reasoning, MLJ is in the same camp as Benny Hinn.

 

[Dachaser]

Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20). If Paul had infallible healing power, he should have healed him.

That would just prove that the gift to heal had then ceased for Paul.

 

[RamistThomist]

That would just prove that the gift to heal had then ceased for Paul.

No, it wouldn't. That still begs the question that the apostles were always able to heal infallibly. There is no evidence that the gift dried up. You need to provide the quotes from Scripture that it ceased.

 

[Dachaser]

Evidence of absence is not necessarily absence of evidence to the contrary.

Why are we compelled to assume that Paul's leaving someone sick implies some failure to heal over the more plausible that he simply did not make an attempt to do so in the first place?

Or that the gift to heal had already ceased at that time?

 

[Dachaser]

No, it wouldn't. That still begs the question that the apostles were always able to heal infallibly. There is no evidence that the gift dried up. You need to provide the quotes from Scripture that it ceased.

What was the main reason that Jesus gave those sign gifts to His Apostles then?

 

[RamistThomist]

What was the main reason that Jesus gave those sign gifts to His Apostles then?

To show mercy and the in-breaking of the kingdom.

 

[Dachaser]

To show mercy and the in-breaking of the kingdom.

I always thouht it was to fulfill OT prophecies of persons with strange language being a witness to the Jews, and to also make the claims of Jesus as the Messiah to be seen as legit. It was to confiem His person and ministry, before the scriptures were given in full to us now.

 

[RamistThomist]

I always thouht it was to fulfill OT prophecies of persons with strange language being a witness to the Jews, and to also make the claims of Jesus as the Messiah to be seen as legit. It was to confiem His person and ministry, before the scriptures were given in full to us now.

Are you talking about tongues or miracles? It sounds like tongues, but the focus of the thread is miracles.

But even if it were to confirm Jesus' person and ministry, there is no logical connection between the last jot of ink on Revelation 22 being dry and the miracles' ceasing.

If all of the miraculous is a sign to confirm Jesus' ministry, then we have some really odd situations:

*Paul says prophecy is a sign for believers, but why would believers need a sign that Jesus is God? They already know that.

I have more notes on whether all miracles = signs/that confirm Jesus' ministry. It's pretty clear that's false. I'll supply more later. Jesus doesn't need his ministry confirmed. He is the one confirming us.

I think you all are trying to say that every miracle = proof that Jesus is God or Christianity is true. I think that, too, is problematic but it is a lot better claim than the first one.

 

[Dachaser]

Are you talking about tongues or miracles? It sounds like tongues, but the focus of the thread is miracles.

But even if it were to confirm Jesus' person and ministry, there is no logical connection between the last jot of ink on Revelation 22 being dry and the miracles' ceasing.

If all of the miraculous is a sign to confirm Jesus' ministry, then we have some really odd situations:

*Paul says prophecy is a sign for believers, but why would believers need a sign that Jesus is God? They already know that.

I have more notes on whether all miracles = signs/that confirm Jesus' ministry. It's pretty clear that's false. I'll supply more later. Jesus doesn't need his ministry confirmed. He is the one confirming us.

I think you all are trying to say that every miracle = proof that Jesus is God or Christianity is true. I think that, too, is problematic but it is a lot better claim than the first one.

God confirmed that Jesus was the promised Messiah, and that the Gospel was true by the sign gifts in operation, but the Lord now has firmly eslablished that Jesus is the Lord since the time of the scriptures being recorded down for us. This means that God's main method of operation is now the preaching and teaching of the scriptures, and not the sign gifts as the normal operation method.

 

[Tom Hart]

Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20). If Paul had infallible healing power, he should have healed him.

And you take this to mean that the apostles' ministry, with respect to healing, was effectively the same as John Wimber's? Come on. At least the apostles' had some miraculous healings on their record.

I cannot say why the apostles did not heal in all cases. It's an interesting question. (It's certainly not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament that they visited any leper colonies.) I would only assume it is because miraculous healings and other miracles were extraordinary and served a special purpose (giving force to the apostles' preaching).

 

[RamistThomist]

And you take this to mean that the apostles' ministry, with respect to healing, was effectively the same as John Wimber's?

No. I am saying the same charge applies to Paul that applies to Wimber, if people want to go that route.

 

[RamistThomist]

God confirmed that Jesus was the promised Messiah, and that the Gospel was true by the sign gifts in operation, but the Lord now has firmly eslablished that Jesus is the Lord since the time of the scriptures being recorded down for us. This means that God's main method of operation is now the preaching and teaching of the scriptures, and not the sign gifts as the normal operation method.

There is not a single argument in that post. Just a string of assertions.

 

[Tom Hart]

No. I am saying the same charge applies to Paul that applies to Wimber, if people want to go that route.

You said,

The apostles weren't always able to heal with 100% accuracy, and once you grant that fact, there is little difference between their healing ministry and John Wimber's.

I push back against this statement because I see no scriptural warrant for holding that such a man as John Wimber (or any other faith-healer) should be placed in the same category as Paul the Apostle.

The same charge does not apply because
a) John Wimber (as no apostle) has no miracles to his name, and
b) such healing gifts have ceased.

No doubt you think that I take that second point for granted. (Probably the first as well.) Likewise, it seems to me that you take continuationism for granted if you are willing to say that a modern faith-healer's ministry can be judged as little different from an apostle's because both were seemingly unable to produce miracles 100% of the time. (And again, even less than 100% is still a better record than Wimber's 0%.)

As I mentioned above, I would think there are reasons unknown to us why Paul would not miraculously heal Trophimus or Timothy. I would certainly not say that Paul is therefore able to be judged the same way as Wimber et al.

Finally, the standard by which to judge a supposed prophet/miracle-worker is given, I think, in Deuteronomy 18:20-22.

 

[RamistThomist]

I push back against this statement because I see no scriptural warrant for holding that such a man as John Wimber (or any other faith-healer) should be placed in the same category as Paul the Apostle.

I don't think any of us are in the same category as Paul.

a) John Wimber (as no apostle) has no miracles to his name, and

Numerous people in the Vineyard attest otherwise.

b) such healing gifts have ceased.

Assertion.

 

[Tom Hart]

Numerous people in the Vineyard attest otherwise.

Assertion. Give some evidence.

Assertion.

Not really. I think the Scriptures are clear enough. I'm sure you're familiar with the arguments. But right now I have to change my son's diaper.

 

[RamistThomist]

Assertion. Give some evidence.

http://focushr.sermondrop.com/sermons/7040-6-Demonisation-John-Wimber-

 

[Tom Hart]

http://focushr.sermondrop.com/sermons/7040-6-Demonisation-John-Wimber-

Could you explain a bit about what this is?

 

[RamistThomist]

Could you explain a bit about what this is?

If it is what I recall, Wimber is giving his story of healing ministries and deliverance within the Vineyard.

 

[earl40]

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/TM13-18/an-appeal-to-charismatic-friends



Therefore, by Mac's reasoning, MLJ is in the same camp as Benny Hinn.

If you read this you are making a wrong assumption. Here we have JM describing his continuationist friends....."Who are my continuationist friends? People who are my friends, real friends of mine whom I respect, who have made great contributions to the church, the body of Christ, who’ve taught all of us, who’ve taught me, who’ve ministered alongside me, hand-in-hand with me, with whom I’ve prayed, sometimes for hours and hours, with whom I’ve spoken, and talked, hammered out convictions. But they call themselves “continuationists” because they want to give place to the charismatic movement."

You have made the jump in assuming JM thinks these "friends" are in the same camp as the Copeland's and Hinn's of the world. Yes he is saying they, his friends reformed continuationists, are essentially teaching the same as the crazy charismatics, but in saying the "lowest of the low" are people like Piper and ML Jones are not what JM said, and he (JM) defined his terms.

 

[Tom Hart]

If it is what I recall, Wimber is giving his story of healing ministries and deliverance within the Vineyard.

OK... And why should I believe it? I grew up in Pentecostalism. I have enough experiences with made-up healings.

 

[RamistThomist]

OK... And why should I believe it? I grew up in Pentecostalism. I have enough experiences with made-up healings.

Believe if you want to. Doesn't matter to me. You asked for examples and evidence. I gave it. That's all there is to it.

 

[Tom Hart]

Believe if you want to. Doesn't matter to me. You asked for examples and evidence. I gave it. That's all there is to it.

A claim is not evidence, no matter how sincere.