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

Status
Not open for further replies.
This really isn't that hard to reconcile. In Acts 2, an interpreter was not needed since they were speaking the languages of those nations, so of course they understood. In 1 Corinthians, it would seem the foreign language was not known in the congregation, therefore it required interpretation in order to be profitable to them. Paul likely spoke tongues in both contexts, in missionary encounters with those who did not speak his language, and in a corporate worship context when there was an interpreter.

Regarding your earlier question of how the gift of tongues confirmed the apostolic testimony, it was not necessarily the message of any particular tongue that confirmed the testimony, but the new presence of the gift itself (again Hebrew 2:3-4). It was a new sign (along with many others) accompanying and confirming the new revelation of the gospel. But it still had to be used according to God's purpose, not for various recipients to show off.
The main purpose of the sign gifts were to confirm Jesus as Messiah, and that the Gospel was true, butthat was just during the transisition period recorded in Acts.
 
Yes we do. It's called church history. And even if we didn't have church history documentation, that would be irrelevant, since it is an exegetical question.
We do not have reliable source showing to us God kept distributing the sign gifts to His body though.
 
We do not have reliable source showing to us God kept distributing the sign gifts to His body though.

Yes we do. Athanasius's On the Incarnation for one. Gregory Thaumaturge is another. Gregory of Nazianzus received visions. Augustine, himself a cessationist, documents case after case in City of God.

This is basic church history.

Unless you mean reliable = infallibly inspired, in which case most of human knowledge isn't reliable.
 
My position would be that the sign gifts were given to the Apostles in order to validate the Person of Jesus , and the Gospel message as being from God, so if still was in operation, the mission fields shoud be the only place where God might be alllowing those sign gifts to be in operation for the expressed purpose to confirm Jesus as Lord and Gospel as true, but even then they would shortly wane and cease.

I know that is your position. My position is the negation of your position, but I doubt you find that proposition compelling. The point of a logical argument is to build a case from premises. For example:

Major Premise: Paul said the gifts would continue until Jesus returns (1 Cor. 1:7).
Minor premise: the erroneously-called sign gifts are gifts.
Conclusion: They continue.
 
The main purpose of the sign gifts were to confirm Jesus as Messiah, and that the Gospel was true, but that was just during the transition period recorded in Acts.
David, I'm not sure what the point of this post was, or the point of several of your last posts. You are merely repeating yourself or repeating what others have already said, not contributing anything new to the discussion. I would encourage you to just sit this one out now, and watch others interact about it. You've already made your positions known. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's hard to interact on this thread when it is filled with posts that are not helping it along. Blessings brother.
 
David, I'm not sure what the point of this post was, or the point of several of your last posts. You are merely repeating yourself or repeating what others have already said, not contributing anything new to the discussion. I would encourage you to just sit this one out now, and watch others interact about it. You've already made your positions known. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's hard to interact on this thread when it is filled with posts that are not helping it along. Blessings brother.

And on that note, I'm probably tapping out. I'm not sure what new post or argument I could make (and that's probably true for any thread that's nine pages long!)
 
Yes we do. Athanasius's On the Incarnation for one. Gregory Thaumaturge is another. Gregory of Nazianzus received visions. Augustine, himself a cessationist, documents case after case in City of God.

This is basic church history.

Unless you mean reliable = infallibly inspired, in which case most of human knowledge isn't reliable.
I am just saying that while the Lord can and has at times still done healings amd miracles, there have been no documented miracle workers/healers in the way of theApostles themselves in church history.
 
David, I'm not sure what the point of this post was, or the point of several of your last posts. You are merely repeating yourself or repeating what others have already said, not contributing anything new to the discussion. I would encourage you to just sit this one out now, and watch others interact about it. You've already made your positions known. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's hard to interact on this thread when it is filled with posts that are not helping it along. Blessings brother.
I was under the impression that the traditional Reformed view in regards to the supernatural gifts as evidenced by the Apostles ceased after John passed away, is that not the historical reformed viewpoint on this issue?
 
I was under the impression that the traditional Reformed view in regards to the supernatural gifts as evidenced by the Apostles ceased after John passed away, is that not the historical reformed viewpoint on this issue?
Yes, but everyone in this thread already knew that, and you already stated that several times. Jacob was asking more specific exegetical questions to get down to the roots of that tradition, and why it is (or isn't) justified. Simply repeating the obvious doesn't help the discussion at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top