Originally Posted by Connie

But the only scripture that seems to me to solidly say the gifts were only for the apostolic generation is 2 Timothy 4:20 where Paul says he left Trophimus sick, since surely he would have healed him if he could have. Otherwise the scriptures used on both sides of this issue don't seem to me to be conclusive.

Connie, this is for you, (since others don't like commentary) if you want the entire article let me know. I only copied the part that relates to your post.

Originally Posted by Way of Life Encyclopedia

HEALING
There are some who teach that healing is promised to the Christian in this life because of Calvary. This is based on a faulty interpretation of Isa 53:5, "with his stripes we are healed." The primary meaning of this passage is that we are healed from sin through Christ's death. This is what 1Pe 2:24 says. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." The Apostle Peter applies Isa 53:5 to salvation from sin.

Other important teachings relative to physical healing:

1. THE PHYSICAL ASPECT OF SALVATION PERTAINS TO RESURRECTION; it is a future hope not a present reality. "And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body" (Ro 8:22-25). The Christian has eternal life; his sins are forgiven; his name is written in Heaven; he is a child of God. Even so, the Christian lives in a body that is under the curse of death (Ro 8:10). It is at death or at the Rapture that the Christian will gain liberty from this body of death and will have the perfect physical healing and wholeness that is so intensely desired.

2. THE HEALING MINISTRY OF CHRIST WAS UNIQUE-TO PROVE HE WAS THE MESSIAH. "But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me" (Joh 5:36; see also Joh 10:25,37-38; 14:11; 15:24; 20:30-31). These verses leave no doubt as to the purpose of Christ's miracles. They were not done as examples of what every Christian can and should do, but to demonstrate that He was the promised Holy Son of God. This explains why no one before or since Christ has ever been able to perform the healings He performed. He healed every type of disease, cast out every type of devil, raised the dead, and He did these miracles repeatedly, at will. He healed perfectly. He never failed to heal those who were brought to Him. Not once did He fail; there was no kind of disease He could not heal. Who can say that today?

3. THE HEALING MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES WAS UNIQUE-TO AUTHENTICATE THEIR WORK. "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds" 2Co 12:12; See also Mr 3:14-15; Ac 2:43; 4:33; 5:12,15; 19:12).

Note that the miracles of the Apostles were special and were for the purpose of marking them as the Apostles of Christ. They had miracle-working power to authenticate their unique ministries. That is what Scripture says. All Christians could not do the sign miracles of the Apostles. The only exceptions were a few men upon whom the apostles had laid hands. There was no general miracle-working experience among the first churches. If there had been, Paul could not have pointed to his miracle-working ability as a special sign. His would have been just another miracle-working Christian ministry if all could have performed such things; but all could not. If all could have performed miracles as a matter of course, the Christians would not have called for Peter to come and raise Dorcas from the dead (Ac 9:36-42). Peter's miracle that day was the "sign of an apostle."

It has never been God's will for all Christians to be running around performing sign miracles and healing everyone. That has never been the case, and will never be the case in this age. Don't be deceived. Don't seek that which God has NOT promised and thereby leave yourself open to the deception of the devil.

Jesus warned that an evil generation seeks a sign (Mt 12:39). Let's not be identified with evil. Let us seek those humble things which God HAS promised and which He wants to do in and for and through us to the glory of Christ. Let us seek to live holy, gentle lives; to preach the Gospel and see souls saved and lives changed for the glory of God; to be looking and longing for Christ's return; to be obedient, fruitful Christians.

The way a wrong spirit gets shown here is in not treating your opponent as acting in good faith, as also trusting the Holy Spirit, as having come to his views as honestly and Biblically as you have. I don't remember if you, Beth, were particularly guilty of this, but it seems to happen a lot at this forum. My remark included many threads here, though, not just this one. I remember that Pastor Mikie left for a while because of the "hateful" attitude toward him as a believer in the gifts for today and I could only agree that he was right about that attitude, and I was glad when he returned. And I certainly don't except myself since I have lost my temper on another thread.

I very much appreciate David Cloud's study of this topic, Beth, and his commentary at his website was a big part of my finally freeing myself from any lingering doubts about the validity of the gifts for today. But mostly what I personally needed to see was the extent of demonic activity in the gifts movement as the arguments about scripture had never seemed conclusive to me, but Pastor Cloud does show the purpose of the sign gifts from scripture in what you quote above and that is very convincing.

Originally Posted by Connie

The way a wrong spirit gets shown here is in not treating your opponent as acting in good faith, as also trusting the Holy Spirit, as having come to his views as honestly and Biblically as you have. I don't remember if you, Beth, were particularly guilty of this, but it seems to happen a lot at this forum. My remark included many threads here, though, not just this one. I remember that Pastor Mikie left for a while because of the "hateful" attitude toward him as a believer in the gifts for today and I could only agree that he was right about that attitude, and I was glad when he returned. And I certainly don't except myself since I have lost my temper on another thread.

I was hoping for a specific example.

I certainly don't have a problem with Pastor Mikie personally. I think he has been very polite. There are many problems in the Pentecostal movement and the majority here will point out those problems. I have seen most politely disagree with his posts. To some disagreement no matter how polite will be offensive to them.

For instance Revangelist called us some sort of a name that I don't even know the meaning, I can't even remember the spelling. I was surprised because we were just pointing out facts, no personal attacks. I don't think this is fair. instead how about attacking the argument made by his opponents. Or if we are so different in our interpretations then just tell us how you interpret the verses that we point out.

I think if Pentecostals want to talk about the KJB, they should keep their post to that subject. Not, "I want to talk about this topic re: KJB, and just to let everyone know, I'm Pentecostal and only want to talk with those that Pentecostals."

If it weren't for that, we would be talking about the Nelson scandal. If he wanted to keep to that topic and not preach his Pentecostal beliefs then no one would be debating him.

I know 1 Cor 14:2 is a popular verse with Pentecostals. Since it was brought up that we just interpret scripture differently, I wonder how Pentecostals interpret the following passage.

1 Corinthians 14:20-22 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

I believe that since we have the entirety of God's Word, we should read God's Word and listen to the preaching of God's Word, (to prophesy today is to preach the Word of God, no knew revelations).

We can find all of the answer's needed in God's Word, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We don't need anything else. Those that won't listen to prophecy, they want a sign instead.

Beth, I don't think revangelist was insulting you. The word I believe you are refering to is "inveterate" which means:

1. Firmly and long established; deep-rooted.
2. Persisting in an ingrained habit; habitual.

Originally Posted by Pastor Mikie

Beth, I don't think revangelist was insulting you. The word I believe you are refering to is "inveterate" which means:

1. Firmly and long established; deep-rooted.
2. Persisting in an ingrained habit; habitual.

OK, that doesn't sound so bad. I do think it would be better to address the arguments made though.

could you address the post I made right before your last post? If we say we just interpret the Bible differently, I'm curious how we do this?

In answer to you question, "If we say we just interpret the Bible differently, I'm curious how we do this?":

I was looking at some biographies about people like "Billy Graham", "Rex Hombard" and "D. James Kennedy". These men have been mightily used of God to bring people to the Lord. One was a Baptist, the other a Pentecostal, and another a Presbyterian (Dr. J. Vernon McGee was also a Presbyterian and mightily used of God).

All of these men had one thing in common: They interpreted the Bible differently on many issues. They agreed that the only way of Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. These were intelligent men who spent hours studying and praying. They came to different conclusions about the Gifts of the Holy Ghost and eternal security.

Also, Beth, I believe a descent job was done addressing the arguments made. I don't believe they were accepted, not that they weren't addressed.

Originally Posted by Pastor Mikie

In answer to you question, "If we say we just interpret the Bible differently, I'm curious how we do this?":

I was hoping that instead of just saying that we interpret scripture differently that you guys could tell us how you interpret a specific passage that to many of us seems clear in the meaning.

I specifically asked to have this passage interpreted.

1 Corinthians 14:20-22 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.