The Delayed Reception of the Holy Spirit in Acts 8

The most natural explanation of the delayed gift of the
Spirit is that this was the first occasion on which the gospel had
been proclaimed not only outside Jerusalem but inside Samaria.
This is clearly the importance of the occasion in Luke's unfolding
story, since the Samaritans were a kind of half-way house between
Jews and Gentiles. Indeed, `the conversion of Samaria was like the
first-fruits of the calling of the gentiles'. The nearest
equivalents to the investigation by Peter and John were when the
Gentiles first believed. When Cornelius was converted, the
apostles asked Peter to explain his actions (11:1-18), and when
Greeks turned to the Lord in Antioch, Barnabus was sent there to
reconnoitre the situation (11:20:24). --John Stott

That's the conclusion... here's the argument:
the Samaritans schism had lasted for
centuries. But now the Samaritans were being evangelized, and were
responding to the gospel. It was a moment of significant advance,
which was also fraught with great peril. What would happen now?
Would the long-standing rift be perpetrated? The gospel had been
welcomed by the Samaritans, but would the Samaritans be welcomed
by the Jews? Or would there be separate factions of Jewish
Christians and Samaritan Christians in the church of Jesus Christ?
The idea may seem unthinkable in theory; in practice it might well
have happened. There was a real `danger...of their tearing Christ
apart, or at least of forming a new and separate church for
themselves'.
Is it not reasonable to suggest (in view of this historical
background) that, in order to avoid such a disaster, God
deliberately withheld the Spirit from these Samaritan converts?
The delay was only temporary, however, until the apostles had come
down to investigate, had endorsed Philip's bold policy of
Samaritan evangelism, had prayed for the converts, had laid hands
on them as `a token of fellowship and solidarity', and had thus
given a public sign to the whole church as well as to the
Samaritans converts themselves, that they were *bona fide*
Christians, to be incorporated into the redeemed community on
precisely the same terms as Jewish converts. To quote Geoffrey
Lampe again, `at this turning-point in the mission something else
was required in addition to the ordinary baptism of the converts.
It had to be demonstrated to the Samaritans beyond a shadow of
doubt that they had really become members of the church, in
fellowship with the original "pillars".... An unprecedented
situation demanded quite exceptional methods'.
This seems to be the only explanation which takes account of
all the data of Acts 8, reads the story in its historical context
of the developing Christian mission, and is consistent with the
rest of the New Testament. It is also becoming increasingly
accepted on both sides of the Charismatic divide. Although
J.I.Packer calls it no more than a `guess', he adds that it `seems
rational and reverent'. Similarly, Michael Green sees the delay as
`a divine veto on schism in the infant church, a schism which
could have slipped almost unnoticed into the Christian fellowship,
as converts from the two sides of the "Samaritan curtain" found
Christ without finding each other. That would have been the denial
of the one baptism and all it stood for.
At all events, the action of the apostles appears to have
been effective. Henceforward, Jews and Samaritans were to be
admitted into the Christian community without distinction. There
was one body because there was one Spirit.
To sum up, the Samaritan happening provides no biblical
warrant either for the doctrine of a two-stage Christian
initiation as the norm, or for the practice of an imposition of
hands to inaugurate the supposed second stage. The official visit
and action of Peter and John were historically exceptional. These
things have no precise parallels in our day, because there are no
longer any Samaritans or any apostles of Christ. Today , because
we are not Samaritans, we receive forgiveness and the Spirit
together the moment we believe. As for the laying on of hands,
although it can be an appropriate and helpful gesture in various
contexts, its use as the means by which the Spirit is given and
received lacks authority, whether in episcopal confirmation or in
charismatic ministry, because neither bishops nor pentecostal
leaders are apostles comparable to Peter and John, any more than
Philip was, although directly appointed by them.

1st glance this looks good

There May be More Than One Way to God by John Hendryx

Particular Redemption and Scripture

Particular Redemption, by Shane Rosenthal

John Stott on Signs & Wonders in Acts

Perhaps the three most notable features of Luke's narrativein Acts 3 and 4 are (i) the spectacular healing miracle and prayerfor more, (ii) the Christ-centred preaching of Peter, and (iii)the outbreak of persecution. Because Peter's testimony to Christhas already been considered in some detail during the exposition,and because we will revert in the next chapter to the subject ofpersecution, we will concentrate now on the other topic ofmiracles.The current controversy over signs and wonders should notlead us into a naive polarization between those who are for themand those who are against. Instead, the place to begin is the widearea of agreement which exists among us. All biblical Christiansbelieve that, although the creator's faithfulness is revealed inthe uniformity and regularities of the universe, which are theindispensable bases of the scientific enterprise, he has alsosometimes deviated from the norms of nature into abnormalphenomena we call `miracles'. But to think of them as `deviationsof nature' is not to dismiss them (as did the eighteenth centurydeists), as `violations of nature' which cannot happen, andtherefore did not and do not happen. No, our biblical doctrine ofthe creation, that God has made everything out of an originalnothing, precludes this kind of scepticism. As Campbell Morgan putit, `granted the truth of the first verse of the Bible, and thereis no difficulty with the miracles'. Moreover, since we believethat the miracles recorded in the Bible, and not least in Acts,did happen, there is no *a priori* ground for asserting that theycannot recur today. We have no liberty to dictate to God what heis permitted to do and not to do. And if we have hesitations aboutsome claims to `signs and wonders' today, we must make sure thatwe have not confined both God and ourselves in the prison ofWestern, rationalistic unbelief.The popular exponent of `signs and wonders' teaching todayis John Wimber of the Vineyard Fellowship in California. He andKevin Springer have summarised his position in *Power evangelism*(1985) and *Power healing* (1986). Although it is impossible to dojustice to it in a few sentences, its leading ideas are (i) thatJesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, demonstrated its arrival bysigns and wonders, and means us similarly both to proclaim and todramatize its advance; (ii) that signs and wonders were `everydayoccurrences in New Testament times' and `a part of daily life', sothey should characterize `the normal Christian life' for us too;and (iii) that church growth in the Acts was largely due to theprevalence of miracles. `Signs and wonders occurred fourteen timesin the book of Acts in conjunction with preaching, resulting inchurch growth. Further, on twenty occasions church growth was adirect result of signs and wonders performed by the disciples.John Wimber argues his case with sincerity and force. Butsome unanswered questions remain. Let me ask three, especially inrelation to our study of the Acts. First, is it certain that signsand wonders are the main secret of church growth? John Wimbersupplies a table of fourteen instances in the Acts in which heclaims, signs and wonders accompanied the preaching and `producedevangelistic growth in the church'. One or two cases areindisputable, as when the Samaritan crowds `heard Philip and sawmiraculous signs he did' and so `paid close attention to what hesaid' (8:6,12). In a number of other cases, however, theconnection between miracles and church growth is made by JohnWimber not by Luke. For example, to take the only two cases hegives from the chapters we have so far considered, there is noevidence from the text that the Pentecostal phenomena of wind,fire and languages (2:1-4) were the direct cause of the threethousand converts of verse 41, nor that the healing of thecongenital cripple (3:1ff.) was the direct cause of the increaseto five thousand (4:4), as John Wimber's Table claims. Luke seemsrather to attribute the growth to the power of Peter's preaching.In this sense all true evangelism is `power evangelism', forconversion and new birth, and so church growth, can take placeonly by the power of God through his Word and Spirit. (eg. 1 Cor.2:1-5; 1 Thess. 1:5)Secondly, is it certain that signs and wonders are meant byGod to be `everyday occurrences' and `the normal Christian life'?I think not. Not only are miracles by definition `abnorms' ratherthan norms, but the Acts does not provide evidence that they werewidespread. Luke's emphasis is that they were performed mostly bythe Apostles (2:43; 5:12), and especially by the apostles Peterand Paul on whom he focuses our attention. True, Stephen andPhilip also did signs and wonders, and perhaps others did. But itcan be argued that Stephen and Philip were special people, not somuch because the apostles had laid hands on them (6:5-6) asbecause each was given a unique role in laying the foundation ofthe church's world-wide mission (see 7:1ff. and 8:5ff.). Certainlythe thrust of the Bible is that miracles clustered round theprincipal organs of revelation at fresh epochs of revelation,particularly Moses the lawgiver, the new prophetic witnessspearheaded by Elijah and Elisha, the Messianic ministry of Jesus,and the apostles, so that Paul referred to his miracles as `thethings that mark an apostle' (2 Cor, 12:12). There may well besituations in which miracles are appropriate today, for example,on the frontiers of mission and in an atmosphere of persuasiveunbelief which calls for a power encounter between Christ andAntichrist. But Scripture itself suggested that these will bespecial cases, rather than `a part of daily life'.Thirdly, is it certain that today's claimed signs andwonders are parallel to those recorded in the New Testament? Someare, or seem to be. But in his public ministry by turning waterinto wine, stilling a storm, multiplying loaves and fishes, andwalking on water, Jesus gave a preview of nature's final, totalsubservience to him - a subservience which belongs not to the`already' but to the `not yet' of the kingdom. We should not,therefore, expect to do these things ourselves today. Nor shouldwe expect to be miraculously rescued from prison by the angel ofthe Lord or to see church members struck dead like Ananias andSapphira. Even the healing miracles of the Gospels and the Actshad features which are seldom manifest even in the signs andwonders movement today.Let me come back to the Acts to illustrate this, and takethe healing of the cripple as my example. It is the first andlongest miraculous cure described in the book. It had fivenoteworthy characteristics, which together indicate what the NewTestament means by a miracle of healing. (i) The healing was of agrave, organic condition, and could not be regarded as apsychosomatic cure. Luke is at pains to tell us that the man hadbeen a cripple from birth (3:2), was now more than forty years old(4:22), and was so handicapped that he had to be carriedeverywhere (3:2). Humanly speaking, his case was hopeless. Doctorscould do nothing for him. (ii) The healing took place by a directword of command in the name of Christ, without the use of anymedical means. Not even prayer, the laying on of hands oranointing with oil were used. True, Peter gave the man a helpinghand (3:7), but this was not part of the cure. (iii) The healingwas instantaneous, not gradual, for `instantly the man's feet andankles became strong', so that he jumped up and began to walk(3:7-8). (iv) The healing was complete and permanent, not partialor temporary. This is stated twice. The man has been given `thiscomplete healing'. Peter said to the crowds (3:16), and laterstood before the Council `completely healed' (4:10, 1978 editionof NIV). (v) The healing was publicly acknowledged to beindisputable. There was no doubt or question about it. Thecrippled beggar was well known in the city (3:10, 16). Now he washealed. It was not only the disciples of Jesus who were convinced,but also the enemies of the gospel. The as-yet-unbelieving crowdwere `filled with wonder and amazement' (3:10), while the Councilcalled it `an outstanding miracle' which they could not deny(4:14,16).If, then, we take Scripture as our guide, we will avoidopposite extremes. We will neither describe miracles as `neverhappening', nor as `everyday occurrences', neither as `impossible'nor as `normal'. Instead, we will be entirely open to the God whoworks both through nature and through miracle. And when a healingmiracle is claimed, we will expect it to resemble those in theGospels and the Acts and so to be instantaneous and complete cureof an organic condition, without the use of medical or surgicalmeans, inviting investigation and persuading even unbelievers. Forso it was with the congenital cripple. Peter took his miraculoushealing as the text of both his sermon to the crowd and his speechto the Council. Word and sign together bore testimony to theuniquely powerful name of Jesus. The healing of the cripple's bodywas a vivid dramatization of the apostolic message of salvation.--John Stott, from his commentary on Acts 3-4

Jesus Enters Our Sadness

Henri Nouwen writes, "For in our suffering, not apart from it, Jesus enters our sadness, takes us by the hand, pulls us gently up to stand, and invites us to dance. We find the way to pray, as the psalmist did, ‘You have turned my mourning into dancing' (Psalm 30:11), because at the center of our grief we find the grace of God."

When you don't feel worthy to come to God, remember...

Come ye sinners, poor and wretched, weak and wounded sick and sore.

If you tarry 'til your better, you will never come at all.

Not the righteous, NOT the righteous! Sinners, Jesus came to call. (old hymn)

just sent this to yahoo group

Hello Friends,

 

Hoping on this Tuesday morning that you are safe and getting back to something like normal life.  If you need assistance of any sort, please contact the church office (379-4949) or Frank Stankunas (258-3241) or Jason MacGregor (359-6603).

 

<> I will be meeting with anyone who is available tomorrow at Hope Community Church (corner of Tower & SW 24^th) for prayer and sharing and mutual encouragement.  Children are welcome at this 45 minute meeting.  The genesis of this was:

a.) Thinking some just might need to receive prayer following Jeanne

b.) We’ve missed our Sunday gathering 2 of last 4 weeks

c.) There’s a lot to pray about (besides Hurricane stuff)

 

So, if you can come out, come on.  If you can’t, and this is totally understandable, no guilt. 

 

<> Now, on to SUBJECT 2, reminders:

1.) Women’s bible studies are meeting per usual today, 9:45am and 7:30pm.

2.) There is a meeting to discuss family business this Sunday (October 3) at 6pm.

 

 

<>Quote from Women’s Curriculum:

The gospel humbles me out of my pride, showing me that I am a sinner. But it also values me out of my fear, showing me what Jesus was willing to do for me.

 

just sent this to yahoo group

Hello Friends,

 

Hoping on this Tuesday morning that you are safe and getting back to something like normal life.  If you need assistance of any sort, please contact the church office (379-4949) or Frank Stankunas (258-3241) or Jason MacGregor (359-6603).

 

<> I will be meeting with anyone who is available tomorrow at Hope Community Church (corner of Tower & SW 24^th) for prayer and sharing and mutual encouragement.  Children are welcome at this 45 minute meeting.  The genesis of this was:

a.) Thinking some just might need to receive prayer following Jeanne

b.) We’ve missed our Sunday gathering 2 of last 4 weeks

c.) There’s a lot to pray about (besides Hurricane stuff)

 

So, if you can come out, come on.  If you can’t, and this is totally understandable, no guilt. 

 

<> Now, on to SUBJECT 2, reminders:

1.) Women’s bible studies are meeting per usual today, 9:45am and 7:30pm.

2.) There is a meeting to discuss family business this Sunday (October 3) at 6pm.

 

 

<>Quote from Women’s Curriculum:

The gospel humbles me out of my pride, showing me that I am a sinner. But it also values me out of my fear, showing me what Jesus was willing to do for me.

 

Resources for Suffering from Redeemer Manhattan

|| R E D E E M E R Presbyterian Church ||

Wind of Terror, Wind of Glory -

Wind of Terror, Wind of Glory - Christianity Today Magazine

Gospel-Driven Accountability

REAL INTIMACY:
AN ALTERNATIVE TO ACCOUNTABILITY


Accountability is often based on questions that touch only on external behaviors. For example: Have you looked at pornography? Have you masturbated? Have you thought about doing either? And, have you lied about the previous questions? If relationships are going to help bring maturity, we must enter a process that goes beyond externals and simply measuring up to a standard. Such questions fail to penetrate the internal functioning of the deceitful heart. To care deeply by asking tough questions gives the opportunity of establishing real intimacy. The questions are not a check-up, but a process for growth and intimacy. Real intimacy is learning to love well. Loving well is not manipulation for positive answers, it is a process of maturing. You should be pursuing feedback from others to begin to discover the arrogance and deceit of your own heart (Mk. 7:20-23.) The process is more for the purpose of developing humility and godliness than demonstrating or achieving successful relationship.

The Right Questions: 1

How would your friends, relatives, and/or spouse answer the following? If the answers are consistently positive, then either your friends, relatives, or spouse have been dishonest, you are deceiving them, or you have been glorified.

1. Am I open to honestly acknowledging sin in my relationships with you/family/friends?

2. Do I regularly ask for your feedback regarding my relational weaknesses and deceitfulness?

3. Do you see me openly and honestly facing my personal struggles?

4. Do you see me pursuing God as a man/woman who is hungry and starving?

5. Am I too focused on the externals of godliness and not on a commitment to love God and others?

Continue To Ask Yourself:

1. Who am I? Describe difficult events and circumstances that have impacted your relationship with God and others. What emotions, thoughts, and desires are you left with as a result of events in your life?
2. Where am I? How do these events affect your relating to others? What relational patterns have developed as a result of these events?

3. Who am I in my marriage, family, or among friends? If I invite honesty, what am I like to live with?

4. Are you a person of integrity? What questions do you want others to ask you? What questions would God ask you?

5. What things do I take more seriously than God?

6. Am I responding out of worry or fear to my circumstances or out of a deep growing faith in God?

7. Can I honestly say to my spouse or best friend that I hope only in God? Would they believe me?

Suggestions:

1. When you pray, work at seeing the bigger issues of redemption and not your own circumstances.

2. Think about the price Christ paid for you to have access to God?

3. When you pray, be aware of your motives—to get God to do things your way or to get you to do things His way.


Ó 1997 by Dr. Harry W. Schaumberg. For information on STONE GATE Resources and Brief Intensive Counseling call toll-free: (888) 575-3030. Email: stonegater@cs.com. Web Site: www.stonegatersources.com. This information may be copied without further permission if done so in it’s entirety and included this copyright information.


1




Dan Allender, “Humility; Antidote to Shame,” Perspective, vol. 2, no. 1 (1987,) page 42.

Larger Catechism

Question 135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.
Question 136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge;all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

Finding Mercy in the Fury of the Storms - from Orlando PCA

Finding Mercy in the Fury of the Storms - byFaith Online

We are flesh of Jesus' flesh and bone of His bones

What does it mean to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink His shed blood?
First, to accept with a believing heart all the suffering and the death of Christ, and so receive forgiveness of sins and life eternal.[1] Second, to be united more and more to His sacred body through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us.[2] Therefore, although Christ is in heaven[3] and we are on earth, yet we are flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones,[4] and we forever live and are governed by one Spirit, as the members of our body are by one soul.[5]

[1] John 6:35, 40, 50-54. [2] John 6:55, 56; I Cor. 12:13. [3] Acts 1:9-11; 3:21; I Cor. 11:26; Col. 3:1. [4] I Cor. 6:15, 17; Eph. 5:29, 30; I John 4:13. [5] John 6:56-58; 15:1-6; Eph. 4:15, 16; I John 3:24.

Hurricane Charley Relief efforts, Aug24

MNA DISASTER RESPONSE
(As of 8/20/04)


MNA Disaster Response Director and Administrative Assistant, Ron and Judy Haynes, are on site for Hurricane Charley. The initial staging area is at the Covenant Life Presbyterian church, 8490 McIntosh Road, Sarasota, Florida 34238. The telephone number is 941-926-4777.
Ron and Judy are initially working with PCA pastors in the areas of North Port, Arcadia, Wauchula and Cape Coral. The damage in those areas is extensive and as the needs are identified, volunteer teams are being mobilized and deployed. We have been given word that the Central Florida area doesn't need help.
The immediate needs as of today are for chainsaw crews, roofing crews and general cleanup crews. We can use administrative help, painters, couriers, handy people, etc.
The following materials are needed:


Ice
Gas cans and gas
bug spray
hand sanitizer
work gloves
diapers
baby formula
rubbermaid containers
heavy duty trash bags
tarps
Band-Aids
First Aid Cream
Anti-itch cream
Dry milk
Crackers
Individual servings of canned fruit and applesauce
Small servings of peanut butter
and probably many more things that we haven't thought of
Roofing paper
Size 8 nails
Battery operated alarm clocks (w/batteries)
Rolls of Heavy Plastic
Hygiene Products
Black Hair products




Any money collected should be sent to Mission to North America (MNA), 1700 N. Brown Rd., Suite 101, Lawrenceville, GA 30043. MNA does not keep any of the money for any purpose. We are setting up an account here locally where the money designated for disaster will be placed for quick disbursement.
The Southwest and Sun Coast presbyteries are approving the disbursements.
There are 2 accounts at MNA, one is the general disaster fund and the other is our account, Ron Haynes. We are raising support for this program and are at 39% so we are always welcoming new support partners. One other thing is the offer that has come in to do a video of this disaster and the PCA relief effort. It shouldn't cost more than $3000, if anyone would like to designate some funds for that.
Please email us at - rhaynes@pcanet.org if you would like to volunteer. We need to know the following:
How many are coming?
Do you have any special skills?
When are you arriving?
How long will you be staying?
Do you need housing?
God has blessed us with a beautiful staging area. We have sleeping areas (cots), showers and meals provided. Please bring a sleeping bag, air mattress (if needed) and bedding.
God bless you as you prayerfully consider how you can help in this effort.
Ron Haynes
Director-MNA Disaster Response

Global Missions Conference, College Students

PCA Global Missions Conference

Global Missions Conference

PCA Global Missions Conference

Try again

Ransom fellowship, Babylon series

Good,Challenging Stuff on living faithfully

Check on this

FranklinCovey > Training

Come to Jesus, Mindy Smith's hauntingly beautiful song

Come To Jesus"Oh, my baby, when you're olderMaybe then you'll understandYou have angels that stands around you shoulders'Cause at times in life you need a loving handOh, my baby, when you're prayin'Leave your burden by my doorYou have Jesus standing by your bedsideTo keep you calm, keep you safe, Away from harmWorry not my daughters,Worry not my sonsChild, when life don't seem worth livin'Come to Jesus and let Him hold you in His armsOh, my baby, when you're cryin'Never hide your face from meI've conquered hell and driven out the demonsI have come with a life to set you freeWorry not my daughters,Worry not my sonsChild, when life don't seem worth livin'Come to Jesus and let Him hold you in His armsOh, ohOh, ohYeah, yeah, yeahOh, my baby, when you're dyingBelieve the healing of His hand Here in Heaven we will wait for your arrivalHere in Heaven you will finally understandHere in Heaven we will wait for your arrivalHere in Heaven you will finally understandWorry not my daughters,Worry not my sonsChild, when life don't seem worth livin'Come to Jesus and let Him hold you in His arms

MINDY SMITH LYRICS - Come To Jesus

MINDY SMITH LYRICS - Come To Jesus

Stott on Signs/Wonders in Acts

Perhaps the three most notable features of Luke's narrative
in Acts 3 and 4 are (i) the spectacular healing miracle and prayer
for more, (ii) the Christ-centred preaching of Peter, and (iii)
the outbreak of persecution. Because Peter's testimony to Christ
has already been considered in some detail during the exposition,
and because we will revert in the next chapter to the subject of
persecution, we will concentrate now on the other topic of
miracles.
The current controversy over signs and wonders should not
lead us into a naive polarization between those who are for them
and those who are against. Instead, the place to begin is the wide
area of agreement which exists among us. All biblical Christians
believe that, although the creator's faithfulness is revealed in
the uniformity and regularities of the universe, which are the
indispensable bases of the scientific enterprise, he has also
sometimes deviated from the norms of nature into abnormal
phenomena we call `miracles'. But to think of them as `deviations
of nature' is not to dismiss them (as did the eighteenth century
deists), as `violations of nature' which cannot happen, and
therefore did not and do not happen. No, our biblical doctrine of
the creation, that God has made everything out of an original
nothing, precludes this kind of scepticism. As Campbell Morgan put
it, `granted the truth of the first verse of the Bible, and there
is no difficulty with the miracles'. Moreover, since we believe
that the miracles recorded in the Bible, and not least in Acts,
did happen, there is no *a priori* ground for asserting that they
cannot recur today. We have no liberty to dictate to God what he
is permitted to do and not to do. And if we have hesitations about
some claims to `signs and wonders' today, we must make sure that
we have not confined both God and ourselves in the prison of
Western, rationalistic unbelief.
The popular exponent of `signs and wonders' teaching today
is John Wimber of the Vineyard Fellowship in California. He and
Kevin Springer have summarised his position in *Power evangelism*
(1985) and *Power healing* (1986). Although it is impossible to do
justice to it in a few sentences, its leading ideas are (i) that
Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, demonstrated its arrival by
signs and wonders, and means us similarly both to proclaim and to
dramatize its advance; (ii) that signs and wonders were `everyday
occurrences in New Testament times' and `a part of daily life', so
they should characterize `the normal Christian life' for us too;
and (iii) that church growth in the Acts was largely due to the
prevalence of miracles. `Signs and wonders occurred fourteen times
in the book of Acts in conjunction with preaching, resulting in
church growth. Further, on twenty occasions church growth was a
direct result of signs and wonders performed by the disciples.
John Wimber argues his case with sincerity and force. But
some unanswered questions remain. Let me ask three, especially in
relation to our study of the Acts. First, is it certain that signs
and wonders are the main secret of church growth? John Wimber
supplies a table of fourteen instances in the Acts in which he
claims, signs and wonders accompanied the preaching and `produced
evangelistic growth in the church'. One or two cases are
indisputable, as when the Samaritan crowds `heard Philip and saw
miraculous signs he did' and so `paid close attention to what he
said' (8:6,12). In a number of other cases, however, the
connection between miracles and church growth is made by John
Wimber not by Luke. For example, to take the only two cases he
gives from the chapters we have so far considered, there is no
evidence from the text that the Pentecostal phenomena of wind,
fire and languages (2:1-4) were the direct cause of the three
thousand converts of verse 41, nor that the healing of the
congenital cripple (3:1ff.) was the direct cause of the increase
to five thousand (4:4), as John Wimber's Table claims. Luke seems
rather to attribute the growth to the power of Peter's preaching.
In this sense all true evangelism is `power evangelism', for
conversion and new birth, and so church growth, can take place
only by the power of God through his Word and Spirit. (eg. 1 Cor.
2:1-5; 1 Thess. 1:5)
Secondly, is it certain that signs and wonders are meant by
God to be `everyday occurrences' and `the normal Christian life'?
I think not. Not only are miracles by definition `abnorms' rather
than norms, but the Acts does not provide evidence that they were
widespread. Luke's emphasis is that they were performed mostly by
the Apostles (2:43; 5:12), and especially by the apostles Peter
and Paul on whom he focuses our attention. True, Stephen and
Philip also did signs and wonders, and perhaps others did. But it
can be argued that Stephen and Philip were special people, not so
much because the apostles had laid hands on them (6:5-6) as
because each was given a unique role in laying the foundation of
the church's world-wide mission (see 7:1ff. and 8:5ff.). Certainly
the thrust of the Bible is that miracles clustered round the
principal organs of revelation at fresh epochs of revelation,
particularly Moses the lawgiver, the new prophetic witness
spearheaded by Elijah and Elisha, the Messianic ministry of Jesus,
and the apostles, so that Paul referred to his miracles as `the
things that mark an apostle' (2 Cor, 12:12). There may well be
situations in which miracles are appropriate today, for example,
on the frontiers of mission and in an atmosphere of persuasive
unbelief which calls for a power encounter between Christ and
Antichrist. But Scripture itself suggested that these will be
special cases, rather than `a part of daily life'.
Thirdly, is it certain that today's claimed signs and
wonders are parallel to those recorded in the New Testament? Some
are, or seem to be. But in his public ministry by turning water
into wine, stilling a storm, multiplying loaves and fishes, and
walking on water, Jesus gave a preview of nature's final, total
subservience to him - a subservience which belongs not to the
`already' but to the `not yet' of the kingdom. We should not,
therefore, expect to do these things ourselves today. Nor should
we expect to be miraculously rescued from prison by the angel of
the Lord or to see church members struck dead like Ananias and
Sapphira. Even the healing miracles of the Gospels and the Acts
had features which are seldom manifest even in the signs and
wonders movement today.
Let me come back to the Acts to illustrate this, and take
the healing of the cripple as my example. It is the first and
longest miraculous cure described in the book. It had five
noteworthy characteristics, which together indicate what the New
Testament means by a miracle of healing. (i) The healing was of a
grave, organic condition, and could not be regarded as a
psychosomatic cure. Luke is at pains to tell us that the man had
been a cripple from birth (3:2), was now more than forty years old
(4:22), and was so handicapped that he had to be carried
everywhere (3:2). Humanly speaking, his case was hopeless. Doctors
could do nothing for him. (ii) The healing took place by a direct
word of command in the name of Christ, without the use of any
medical means. Not even prayer, the laying on of hands or
anointing with oil were used. True, Peter gave the man a helping
hand (3:7), but this was not part of the cure. (iii) The healing
was instantaneous, not gradual, for `instantly the man's feet and
ankles became strong', so that he jumped up and began to walk
(3:7-8). (iv) The healing was complete and permanent, not partial
or temporary. This is stated twice. The man has been given `this
complete healing'. Peter said to the crowds (3:16), and later
stood before the Council `completely healed' (4:10, 1978 edition
of NIV). (v) The healing was publicly acknowledged to be
indisputable. There was no doubt or question about it. The
crippled beggar was well known in the city (3:10, 16). Now he was
healed. It was not only the disciples of Jesus who were convinced,
but also the enemies of the gospel. The as-yet-unbelieving crowd
were `filled with wonder and amazement' (3:10), while the Council
called it `an outstanding miracle' which they could not deny
(4:14,16).
If, then, we take Scripture as our guide, we will avoid
opposite extremes. We will neither describe miracles as `never
happening', nor as `everyday occurrences', neither as `impossible'
nor as `normal'. Instead, we will be entirely open to the God who
works both through nature and through miracle. And when a healing
miracle is claimed, we will expect it to resemble those in the
Gospels and the Acts and so to be instantaneous and complete cure
of an organic condition, without the use of medical or surgical
means, inviting investigation and persuading even unbelievers. For
so it was with the congenital cripple. Peter took his miraculous
healing as the text of both his sermon to the crowd and his speech
to the Council. Word and sign together bore testimony to the
uniquely powerful name of Jesus. The healing of the cripple's body
was a vivid dramatization of the apostolic message of salvation.
--John Stott, from his commentary on Acts 3-4