Saturday, November 22, 2014

Do Miracles Still Happen?

Compare and contrast this:

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/does-rcsproul-believe-miracles/

with this:

http://youtu.be/txDJsFgSoUI



And as a follow up:


Please pray for Bishop Robert J. Baker, Bishop of Birmingham in Alabama. The Bishop is currently praying for a miracle through the intercession of Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen for his health. If you click on this link you will find the official prayer to obtain a favor through the intercession of Sheen in 12 different languages.

English: Eternal Father, You alone grant us every blessing in Heaven and on earth, through the redemptive mission of Your Divine Son, Jesus Christ, and by the working of the Holy Spirit.
ARCHBISHOPSHEENCAUSE.ORG




12 comments:

PeaceByJesus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PeaceByJesus said...

I wish this blog had an edit feature. Or that I would always do my proof reading before I post!

James Swan said...

PeaceByJesus said...
I wish this blog had an edit feature. Or that I would always do my proof reading before I post!


Simply re-write your comment, then delete your previous comment.

PeaceByJesus said...

R.C., do you believe that miracles happen today?” If you want me to give the simple answer, the answer is no.

If they’re saying to me, “Do you believe that God is still working in the world supernaturally?” Of course I do.

I don’t believe in the tight kind of miracle in the very narrow sense where a miracle is defined as a work that occurs in the external perceivable world; an extraordinary work in the external perceivable world against the laws of nature, by the immediate power of God; a work that only God can do,

Even some of the marvelous signs in the New Testament wouldn’t qualify as a miracle in this tight definition. So why do we labor so hard for this tight definition? For this reason: if anybody can perform miracles, if a person who’s not an agent of divine revelation can perform a miracle, then obviously a miracle cannot certify an agent of revelation. Let me say it again...I don’t expect miracles, because I don’t expect to find Apostles running around todayhttp://www.ligonier.org/blog/does-rcsproul-believe-miracles/:

While the Scriptures speak of "miracles and wonders and signs," (Acts 2:22) and also that Paul "special miracles," (Acts 19:11-12) these even include healing. And which atheists (true to form) assert can have natural explanations for (spontaneous healing).

Thus in his narrow definition Sproul seems to be contrary to the scope in Scripture as to what may constitute a miracle, while his basis for this strict definition also appears to be an error.

For it was not only apostles whom the Holy Spirit records as doing miracles, but the deacons Stephen and Phillip. (Acts 6:8; 8:6)

While they preached the word of God, in preaching the gospel i would not say that they were agents of divine revelation any more than all the church did in Acts 8:4.

And 1Cor. 12:29 speaks of "workers of miracles" as a office in addition to apostles. And certainly speaking in an unknown but real language which the Corinthians were affirmed by Paul as doing would be a miracle.

Moreover the first 3 miracles thru Moses were duplicated by the magicians, and in Revelation 16:14 the spirits of devils are working miracles.

It appears Sproul has engaged in one of the two typical reactions to fabrication and competition. One is to open the door so wide that the flesh and the devil can freely operate, and the other safe, but sterile way is to exclude miracles completely.

Though i hardly would be seen as a miracle worker, even if i knew of none, i would still hold that God can and does do as He ever did, despite so many imitations and false claims.

And while we have a canon of the assured word of God as the supreme standard, yet miracles, though extra-ordinary, still can be warranted as efficacious in giving more grace by attesting to the gospel message, as in NT times. And indeed, which message speaks of miracles, and faith in the God of them.

Moreover, God not only does such miracles for attestive purposes, but because it is His nature as the living God.

While fabrications abound, evil is overcome by Good, and we dare not place Acts in a museum if we claim to be part of the church of the living God of Acts.

Yet the amount of superficiality, hype and the specious claims of God working makes some today ask,

"where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt?" (Judges 6:13)

I would even say the new birth is something miraculous, and here are many well done videos of God's extra-ordinary grace, even if some of the things from the source may be chaff.

PeaceByJesus said...

Simply re-write your comment, then delete your previous comment.

Thanks.

guy fawkes said...

Ever hear of Fatima, Guadalupe or Lourdes?
Miracles by definition must be discernible to the senses.
"Miracles" of grace, as real as they may be, don't really meet the definition.

PeaceByJesus said...


Thanks. BTW, I can sympathize with the partial paralysis of your fingers (if that is the art you meant) that you had mentioned on another thread.

With me it must be arthritis, as my fingers are too stiff to move independently enough to type well, requiring me to lift my hands up to hit each key, an even then the landing is often not where i wanted, resulting in me having to correct many or most words i type (thank God for autospell checking).

But such and far harder things can be the other side of faith, overcoming such by finding grace to handle infirmities (rather then giving in to grumbling, though i too often do), knowing God is glorified when we do what we can with what we have, and can multiply it.

And that this reproves those who have greater ability and do little, or suppose greater natural ability is the cause behind Christian success.

In the Hall of Faith some by faith "quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens."

While also by faith "others were tortured...and..had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment... they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. (Hebrews 11:34-38)

Both are overcomers in the kingdom of God, operating according to to will of God.

But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. (1 Peter 5:10)

guy fawkes said...

PBJ,
"It means the hierarchical structure of Rome is invisible in the NT."

There is indeed a hierarchical structure in the NT. Paul's letter to Timothy reveals 4 generations of Bishops.

You seem to focus on "supreme exalted infallible".
Is Jesus supreme exalted and infallible? Did he give this status to the Church that was going to speak for him, preserve his teaching and constitute his bride and body down through the ages after his Ascension?
If not, why did Christ start a Church? What is it for? Who needs it?

How do you know there was to be no "such line". What does Church history say? Read the Fathers.


"Instead, Peter fades from view after Acts 15,"

The two major Apostles, Peter and Paul, represent the new Romulus and Remus. They are the two Apostles of Acts. John, James, Barnabas, Silas, play minor roles.
Are you saying Paul ruled the universal Church?"in which James gives the definitive sentence,"

James did not establish doctrine. He established a temporary pastoral discipline that is no longer binding to today. I Ever eat a blood rare steak? )
Peter established the infallible doctrine still binding today, that Gentiles can enter the Church as Gentiles.



"And after that he is simply listed second as one of those who appeared to be pillars,"

Actually, James prefaced his remarks with, "Okay, you have heard what Simon had to say,...". Then tacked on his rules about scandalizing Jewish Christians. This was his concern as he was the local Bishop of the Jewish congregation in Jerusalem.


"and with zero evidence of their apostleship being perpetuated,"

PBJ, please notice the book of Acts does not even mention Peter and Paul as being dead yet.


"even after the apostle James died,"

Interesting point. Notice that James' death did not shake up the Church but Peter's incarceration sure did.

"(Acts 12:20 except in the position of elders, not hierus=priests."

Yes and those elders performed priestly functions not allotted to the general Christian population. They anointed, they absolved from sin, they prayed over the sick, the rules and, according to Jude, they seem to have burnt incense which was a form of sacrifice.

"The ordination of elders and deacons is the only ordination seen in the life of the church."

You forget Matthias took Judas' episcopate.

"Really? The EOs will be very surprised to know that they agree that Peter occupied this Roman exalted infallible office, which is part of the "special instruction, authority and powers" you define office with, unless you want to use "office" without distinction like a cult does with God. ."

Actually, EO does say Peter was chief. Plus, some of the greatest defenders of the Papacy were eastern Fathers like Chrysostom.


"More sophistry. "Indefectible" is carefully left undefined,"

Well then let me define it for you here and now. It means the Church was given a mission by Christ and a promise of success in carrying out that promise.
If the Church can fail, then Christ fails. And you have absolutely no way of know true doctrine from heresy. Any appeal to the perspicuity of scripture falls flat on its face as defectible Church wouldn't even be able to tell you, with any certitude, just which of the books floating around constitute scripture or make any pronouncements on the Holy Ghost, the Trinity or anything else.

"but since "Church" means Roman, it is assumed you mean that you want James to agree the Roman church will"

Brilliant deduction. Maybe tweek it to say "Church" means biblical/Papal. Roman is an adjective given us by Protestants.

"But both what "church" means and indefectiblity and whether she has ever become corrupt in faith or in morals is autocratically determined by her!"

And who else? Christ did establish the Church, didn't he?

guy fawkes said...

PBJ ( cont)

"Thus while it is clearly manifest that the church of Rome is something critically different from what the NT church was originally,"

Question begging, pure and simple.

"part of her aberrational nature is that of autocratically declaring herself assuredly infallible, thus excluding any judgment of her as being aberrational."

The Church was indefectible ( and knew it ) and the Pope was infallible ( and knew it ) long before any official definition was needed. ( As to just why the Pope decided to define Infallibility in 1870 would lead us astray from the topic ).

"Morever, while you reject the Biblical definition of the church"

No sir. You do that.


" the history of Rome manifests... gross widespread corruption and immorality.'

This reveals an ignorance of the worlds largest charitable organization, running more orphanages, hospitals and schools than you could count, PBJ.
And it is the ONLY body, Christian or otherwise, hold up the sanctity of marriage today. I don't want to go off on a tangent but since you want to throw mud, your denomination, whatever it may be, sanctions the sin of Gen 38:10.

You finish with,

"Paper professions..., nor does organized structure establish authenticity."

And DISorganized structure ( Protestantism ) does not either.

guy fawkes said...

PBJ,

To be merciful to others who may be reading what we say to each other, maybe we could limit the size of our posts?
That means leaving out unnecessary asides, attacks and assertions that really have nothing to do with the topic?

guy fawkes said...

PBJ,
Just as a quick aside, in that "Hall of Faith", you mention that "others were tortured". They were tortured and refused to be released looking forward to a the resurrection.
Th word used here for "torture" is found in only one other place in the entire Bible. In Maccabees the mother and her 7 sons chose not to eat pork and be released from being tortured to death as they were awaiting the resurrection.

I've got a lot more such references not found in your Protestant Bible proving the Evangelists used all of the OT and not just your 66 books.

Stephen Galanis said...

So to be quite clear, you accept 2 Maccabees (and the story you reference is 2 Macc 7, for those who want to look it up) is historically accurate?

You're happy to base your arguments on this book in which, according to a letter in chapter 1, Antiochus IV is killed in a temple ambush ("hewed in pieces", head chopped off etc.), but of illness in chapter 9?

And if Matthias' took Judas' episcopate, can you tell us who is that office today? It feels like that argument is a bait and switch. If you tell us Acts 1 is an example of an apostolic office falling vacant and being filled, it's at least a little dishonest that the Catholic church has made no effort at all in keeping that practice up. How many apostolic sees are in communion with the Catholic church today? If the apostles bothered to replace Judas for the reasons Catholicism says... shouldn't there still be 12? Why did it stop? Who came after Matthias?

Aside from that, I think there's been significant drift from the question of "do miracles still happen?"