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

[Puritan Sailor]

I think I can agree with that, though I think the "apostolic healing by command" wasn't 100%.

Another exegetical issue to work through though is the timing of James. It was likely an earlier epistle. The later epistles like Timothy and Titus do not stress healing at all. One would think Paul should have addressed it as he sent these men to further establish the churches. The same with other later epistles from Peter and John. I'm not saying healings didn't happen, but the emphasis certainly is not there like it was in the immediate years following Pentecost. Just one more exegetical dimension to work through...

 

[RamistThomist]

Another exegetical issue to work through though is the timing of James. It was likely an earlier epistle.

Maybe, but that argument cuts both ways. Hebrews wasn't the last book, so that means that the verses in chapter 1 don't prove prophecy stopped, since there is at least one more prophecy to come (probably two, if we count Jude).

The later epistles like Timothy and Titus do not stress healing at all. One would think Paul should have addressed it as he sent these men to further establish the churches.

Argument from silence

 

[Tom Hart]

Probably the fact I wasn't speaking or uttering anything at all.

Because epistemologically it is a self-defeating question. It's what philosopher Roderick Chisholm called "the problem of criterion." I am not obligated to keep on giving justifications for my beliefs (which in turn will force me to give justifications for my justifications, and on to infinity).

If I am to know how I know something, I must have both an object of knowledge (p, word of wisdom in this case) and a criterion to validate p (we will call q.). I must also have something else: r, the fact that p satisfies q.

But this raises a problem. One can now ask “How do you know q and r?” What justifies my choosing this as a criterion? I must now satisfy the conditions with q’ and r’. But that isn’t good enough. How do I know q’ and r’? I must now satisfy those new conditions with q” and r”.

But to point towards an answer: I had asked God a question and immediately, before I had a chance to reflect on anything, a distinct proposition was in my head. The proposition glorified God, attacked Satan’s kingdom, and furthered my trust in Jesus. If that isn’t a sufficient criterion, nothing is.

A thought popped into your head as an answer to prayer?

I believe that God does indeed give distinct answers to prayer. It has happened sometimes that as I have been praying I come to some solution or decision, or a greater sense of assurance, etc.

I am a cessationist, but I do believe that God answers prayer.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it is possible that we are closer on this issue than it would at first seem. I would not place this sort of answered prayer in the same class as a healing miracle or Agabus-like prophecy, however.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Probably the fact I wasn't speaking or uttering anything at all.

But to point towards an answer: I had asked God a question and immediately, before I had a chance to reflect on anything, a distinct proposition was in my head. The proposition glorified God, attacked Satan’s kingdom, and furthered my trust in Jesus. If that isn’t a sufficient criterion, nothing is.

This makes it more clear - God answers prayer and providentially guides us by His Spirit, it's marvellous in it's own way, but not the same thing as the gifts the early church had. I don't mean that they were not guided in this way, just that we cannot equate this with the gifts of healing, prophecy, tongues, etc.

 

[RamistThomist]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it is possible that we are closer on this issue than it would at first seem.

That's where most people are on the issue. The Strange Fire types have muddied the water by saying there is Macarthur on the one side and Benny Hinn on the other. In terms of NT scholarship, however, most people are closer to Carson.

I would not place this sort of answered prayer in the same class as a healing miracle or Agabus-like prophecy, however.

I wouldn't, either. But I also would't place Agabus's prophecy in the same class as Elijah's.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Maybe, but that argument cuts both ways. Hebrews wasn't the last book, so that means that the verses in chapter 1 don't prove prophecy stopped, since there is at least one more prophecy to come (probably two, if we count Jude).

I never said Hebrews was the last book. That was someone else. I think the contribution of Hebrews is that it explains the divine purpose of the sign gifts for confirming the apostolic testimony. I agree with you that it doesn't provide a hard date for when they ceased.

Argument from silence

A fairly loud silence though if you are going to argue for robust continuation of healings as part of ordinary church life, rather than just sporadic occurrences throughout the rest of church history. Further, to say the miracles continued in the same intensity (or should continue) as the earlier books is also an argument from silence. Again, I said this was one exegetical piece of the argument, not the whole.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think the contribution of Hebrews is that it explains the divine purpose of the sign gifts for confirming the apostolic testimony.

The difficulty with that is its hard to see how Philip's daughters confirmed the apostolic testimony. Maybe they did, but it's not immediately clear.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The difficulty with that is its hard to see how Philip's daughters confirmed the apostolic testimony. Maybe they did, but it's not immediately clear.

God didn't just confirm the testimony through the miracles but through distributing the prophetic gifts. The very act of their prophecy was an act of divine confirmation proving the fulfillment of Joel 2 among other things (as Peter made clear in Acts 2).

Hebrews 2:4 "God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."

The gifts provided divine confirmation just as much as the miracles did.

 

[RamistThomist]

God didn't just confirm the testimony through the miracles but through distributing the prophetic gifts. The very act of their prophecy was an act of divine confirmation proving the fulfillment of Joel 2 among other things (as Peter made clear in Acts 2).

Hebrews 2:4 "God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."

The gifts provided divine confirmation just as much as the miracles did.

But by that same logic, any of the gifts could do that but they haven't expired

 

[Puritan Sailor]

But by that same logic, any of the gifts could do that but they haven't expired

Perhaps, but the context seems to emphasize the extraordinary signs and gifts tied to the new revelation, not the gifts dealing with ordinary Christian piety and ministry. The extraordinary delivery at Sinai (alluded to in vs. 2) had ongoing significance even though the extraordinary circumstances ceased which brought about the original message. Hebrews seems to be making a similar case for the new revelation, extraordinary circumstances through which the message was delivered and confirmed, but with ongoing significance for those who hear the message later even after those extraordinary circumstances have passed on. The pastoral epistles, Peter, and John seem to give the same impression, emphasizing ordinary gospel ministry rather than the extraordinary signs or gifts through which the gospel originally came.

Again, just thinking out loud with you here... I appreciate you asking hard questions and pressing on the common assumptions.

 

[Dachaser]

I agree with this post. I just used James to push back against the idea that the only healings in the NT were apostolic-office healings tied with sign gifts.

During the time of James, God would still heal if He chose to by answering the prayer made in faith, but does not mean that the Apostolic Gift was still now in operation.

 

[Dachaser]

In James it is promised, and of course we may pray for others today but not guaranteed, as it was during the time when James was written.

We can still do the same today then, but up to the Lord to answer yes or no, correct?

 

[Dachaser]

How do you reconcile the emboldened part of your post with Mk. 9:14-29 (or do you make a distinction between the healing of 1) physical ailments due to genetic/physiological issues and 2) demon-possession, which causes physical ailments, such as being deaf and dumb)?

I see the Lord Jesus and His Apostles doing healings that involved both demonic issues and strictly physical ailments.

 

[Dachaser]

Out of curiosity, do you think Hebrews was the last book written in the NT?

The Book of the Revelation was the last canon Book recorded down for us.

 

[Dachaser]

But by that same logic, any of the gifts could do that but they haven't expired

The speaking in tongues and the sign gifts fulfilled OT scriptures and were also used to confirm the work and ministry of Jesus Christ.

 

[Dachaser]

Perhaps, but the context seems to emphasize the extraordinary signs and gifts tied to the new revelation, not the gifts dealing with ordinary Christian piety and ministry. The extraordinary delivery at Sinai (alluded to in vs. 2) had ongoing significance even though the extraordinary circumstances ceased which brought about the original message. Hebrews seems to be making a similar case for the new revelation, extraordinary circumstances through which the message was delivered and confirmed, but with ongoing significance for those who hear the message later even after those extraordinary circumstances have passed on. The pastoral epistles, Peter, and John seem to give the same impression, emphasizing ordinary gospel ministry rather than the extraordinary signs or gifts through which the gospel originally came.

Again, just thinking out loud with you here... I appreciate you asking hard questions and pressing on the common assumptions.

Jesus Himself seemed to be hinting at what would be happening after the Apostolic Age was over, as He told them blessed are those who would hear and not see, but believed the message.

 

[RamistThomist]

The speaking in tongues and the sign gifts fulfilled OT scriptures and were also used to confirm the work and ministry of Jesus Christ.

When Paul spoke in tongues where he was only edifying himself, as he admits, how was that a sign confirming Jesus?

 

[RamistThomist]

The Book of the Revelation was the last canon Book recorded down for us.

I know.

 

[RamistThomist]

During the time of James, God would still heal if He chose to by answering the prayer made in faith, but does not mean that the Apostolic Gift was still now in operation.

Is that like your conclusion or your premise?

 

[Dachaser]

When Paul spoke in tongues where he was only edifying himself, as he admits, how was that a sign confirming Jesus?

The tongues used by God in Acts were a sign to the Jews that the gentiles were now also being saved by same messiah, Jesus Christ.

 

[Dachaser]

Is that like your conclusion or your premise?

Asking for clarrification as to if that promise was just for that time or for today also?

 

[RamistThomist]

Asking for clarrification as to if that promise was just for that time or for today also?

You are just stating that line. I know that's what you believe. You said it a hundred times on this thread. I am not sure why you are saying it again. An argument has premises that support a conclusion. You are just stating the conclusion as though that solved the problem.

 

[RamistThomist]

The tongues used by God in Acts were a sign to the Jews that the gentiles were now also being saved by same messiah, Jesus Christ.

When Paul was only edifying himself, how could that be a sign to the Jews? Wouldn't their being saved also edify them?

 

[earl40]

We can still do the same today then, but up to the Lord to answer yes or no, correct?

I do not believe we ought to oil up the head like James instructed. Our Lord today works through ordinary means, unlike the promises in James.

 

[RamistThomist]

I do not believe we ought to oil up the head like James instructed. Our Lord today works through ordinary means, unlike the promises in James.

For what it's worth, the elders of my then-church poured oil on a family member of mine and the doctors were afterwards able to diagnose the problem.

 

[earl40]

When Paul spoke in tongues where he was only edifying himself, as he admits, how was that a sign confirming Jesus?

Where are you getting this?

 

[earl40]

For what it's worth, the elders of my then-church poured oil on a family member of mine and the doctors were afterwards able to diagnose the problem.

I am happy the Dr. found out what was wrong, but I know it had nothing to do with oil on the head.

 

[Dachaser]

I do not believe we ought to oil up the head like James instructed. Our Lord today works through ordinary means, unlike the promises in James.

What in the text though specified that we are no longer to follow that procedure for today with the church Elders?

 

[RamistThomist]

I am happy the Dr. found out what was wrong, but I know it had nothing to do with oil on the head.

That's a good example of your theory getting in the way of a) what the text actually says and b) the facts.

 

[RamistThomist]

Where are you getting this?

1 Cor 14:4. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

If tongues in this case were a sign to confirm Jesus, it's hard to see how they only edify the tongue-speaker.