When was the last time a Christian raised someone from the dead like Paul and Peter did?

A couple of decent examples are St John Bosco (1815-1888) and St Vincent Ferrer (1350 – 1419), though, as the book above alludes, there have been many, many examples throughout time.

I once heard it said when the question was asked, “What is the greatest Spiritual gift”?

The reply, “The greatest Spiritual gift is the one that God uses at one particular moment to minister to an individual”.

I’m not convinced that God requires a particular personality type, does he?

Does God require all his children to be extroverts?

Thanks Mark,

I just ran across that . . . though I'm playing hooky from getting my administrivia ready for my classes this afternoon.

and this from:

http://adrianwarnock.com/2003/04/daniel-ekechukwu-modern-day/

Daniel Ekechukwu- A modern day Resurrection?

April 22, 2003

in misc

X

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe via email or the RSS feed for future updates.

I know, I’m supposed to be a sceptical doctor, trained in the sciences to doubt things supernatual. But a few days ago I blogged I believe in the resurrection and I meant it! I stated a day or two before that in Why Good Friday? that I believed Jesus death had made a difference to me today. So why should I like so many other people have serious doubts when I hear of an account of a resurrection in Nigeria?

In fact on Sunday in church we watched a detailed video account of Daniel Ekechukwu’s story. This is available on sale from CfAN but they had given a number of churches a free copy which we wrote.

The simple facts are that despite the cynicism of this Hummanist sceptic he has to admit that when he investigated the claims he found that there were indeed people in Nigeria claiming the same story of a resurrection.

The story is well documented in The Resurrection of Daniel Ekechukwu

Why do I believe this story may well be true? Firstly there is the following quote.

The escorting angel told pastor Daniel, “If your record is to be called here, you will in no doubt be thrown into hell.” Pastor Daniel immediately defended himself saying, “I am a man of God! I serve Him with all my heart!” But a Bible immediately appeared in the angel’s hand, and it was opened to Matthew 5 where Jesus warned that if one calls his brother a fool he is guilty enough to go into the hell of fire (see Matt. 5:21-22). Pastor Daniel knew he was guilty for theangry words spoken to his wife. The angel also reminded him that Jesus promised that God will not forgive our sins if we do not forgive others (see Matt. 6:14-15) because we will reap what we have sown. Only those who are merciful will obtain mercy (Matt 5:7). The angel told Daniel that the prayers he prayed as he was dying in the hospital were of no effect, because he refused to forgive his wife even when she attempted to reconcile on the morning of his fatal accident.

Pastor Daniel wept at this revelation, but the angel told him not to cry, because God was going to send him back to the earth to grant the rich man’s request (see Luke 16:27-30). A man would come back from the dead and warn people of hell. The angel said that Daniel’s resurrection would serve as a sign

This sounds genuine and not at all like the permissive Christianity that often accompanies Christian preaching today. There is a display of the subjects weakness in not forgiving his wife. Bonke is clearly admitted to have nothing really to do with the miracle as it happened in a basement possibly when he had left the building.

A comparison chart of the different accounts of the stories intended to show that they are false, in fact shows just the sort of minor variation one might expect if the story was genuine rather than the false organised attempt at deception this must be if it is not.

At the end of the day I cannot force you to believe this, but having seen video footage of the reviving corpse and video interviews with the man, his wife, his doctor and his father, there is no doubt in my mind that this is either an elaborate deception (which oddly does not seem to benefit Bonke particularly except for any profits he gets from the video) or a genuine modern day miracle.

I expressed my disgust for the kind of religion that makes God as good as dead a few days ago I want nothing to do with an inactive God. Just maybe this video is to give us just one more demonstration that he is not that at all!!

But as in the biblical story I have little doubt that many people will not believe even if confronted with clear proof that someone was raised from the dead right in front of their eyes!

BLESSED BE THE NAME AND WAYS OF THE LORD.

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

"Ping me if you ever get an answer to your question."

Don't bother. Looks like this has turned into a science fiction threat.

AGREED.

No. He doesn’t require all to be extroverts.

I agree with my teen AoG Pastor . . .

we don’t live by feelings, we walk by faith.

But Praise God for the feelings when they come.

There’s something wrong with a faith where the individual goes berzerk at loud volume with wild physical expressions at a ball game or watching a game on TV . . .

and yet can hardly be motivated to pray at all, or above a whisper—and certainly don’t expect anything MORE dramatic than that, when it comes to God.

There’s something wrong with that kind of spirituality.

Either GOD ALMIGHTY IS WORTHY some emotions and excitement, or he isn’t.

I haven’t found an introverted mother yet, who, rushing into the street to pick up her child hit by a car doesn’t get excited to find the child alive.

DEAD RELIGION IS DEAD RELIGION no matter how you slice it.

Weasel words don’t work for Proddys any more than they work for RC’s.

I should note, my current congregational home is noted for dancing, flag waving . . . even a young adult cartwheeled across the front at God’s insistance . . . . which turned out to confront an atheist who’d just asked God to show he was real by having someone cartwheel across the front.

Yet, on average, I don’t feel a whole lot in most services. I man the used book table in back and somehow rarely seem energized by whatever’s going on.

Occasionally, I’ll feel touched or congruent with moving around a bit . . . maybe a slight dance sort of in place or in a small area in front of the book tables . . .

But I hate sham and going through the motions. So, if it’s not authentic, I don’t.

I agree that there’s a place for ACTING IN FAITH AS THOUGH . . . but unless there’s at least a kernal of leading or authenticity rising up in my spirit—I tend to sit such stuff out.

Praise God for those who feel touched every service. Praise God for those who get excited every service. I’m sometimes a bit covetous of their experiences in The Lord. But I hate phoney and I know God hates phoney so unless and until or except when it’s authentic for me, I’m quiet.

One of my students’ mothers is a keyboardist in our services. Precious woman. She evidently thinks I’m quiet and reserved. Her daughter, my student knows better because of all my outrageous demonstrations and antics in class.

It’s a funny contrast.

I’m not at all against emotional demonstrations or acting out one’s excitement or passion for The Lord. I just don’t want any of it to be phoney or for show before man.

And, usually, I’m rather quiet . . . still . . . with my sound canceling headphones on because of the outrageous amplified volume of the music—104db last Sunday morning. GRRR.

Not at all.

IT’s just that rigid, narrow, proud, pretend tidy little boxed dead religion disbelief and haughty naysaying skepticism doesn’t respect facts much at all.

"I have a decreasing need to beat my head against brick walls."

Sounds like you should have stopped a bit earlier.

Let me quote a concluding paragraph from my dissertation:

Unless religious people today also address issues of corporate structure, objective ethics, public identity, and the transmission of their values to future generations, they will suffer the fate of the losers in Atatürk's culture wars. A transcendent navel view will never suffice as a substitute for a world view, no matter how much it is feagued, overclocked and turbocharged. If people are unable to provide their offspring with explanations for life that are at least as big and comprehensive as all of life, their more thoughtful children will jump ship and join forces with ideologies that do seem to offer answers.

Feague is a legitimate, if archaic, verb that seems to rather precisely fit into our conversation here. Too many of us, I fear, are like the fabled narrow-gauge steam engine with a small boiler -- when it blew its whistle, it stopped moving!

I believe it’s dangerous to judge people based on the level of emotion shown in either direction.

My Dad hated Football (thus never screamed at the TV during a game) nor jumped around during church (though he loved to belt out hymns). Can we really make a judgment on his spirituality based on these factors?

What did Jesus say about the guy who prayed in his closet versus the loud-mouthed Pharisee?

Is Dead Religion measured by the level of emotions or the lack of gratitude?

What weasel words were you referring to?

Historically, I believe that the style of worship had much to do with the existing culture and particular peoples would worship according to their cultural norms and particular biblical emphasis’ although there were always the outliers who would resist the cultural norm.

In America, with the diverse marketplace of religion, people tend towards those churches that match their personality type.

Evidently you still have more of your typical

trademark ‘charitable, warm, fuzzy, sweetness & light’

to assault folks with.

Well, from what I understand (which is little I admit), . . ."

Correct, you don't understand much about Baptists, and neither do most Baptists these days.

The designation "Baptist" is extremely limited, actually.

1. The Bible as the sole and final authority.

2. Each local church is autonomous and independent.

3. The priesthood of EVERY believer, not just a priest class.

4. Two ordinanaces (pictorial; not sacramental): water baptism and the Lord's Supper.

5. Individual soul liberty. Meaning, they don't burn you at the stake if you disagree with them.

6. Separation of church and state. EXCEPT that 90 percent plus Baptists in the USA today have surrendered this distinctive by becoming a STATE church through incorporation and 501(c)(3) registration.

7. Two local church offices: elder and deacon; the presiding elder being the pastor.

You see, these represent a very minor small amount of doctrine. Further, there are churches which hold exactly the same distinctives and would never call themselves "Baptist." Examples might be Bible Churches and Plymouth Brethren Assemblies.

Hence . . . .

There are Pentecostal Baptist and non-Pentecostal Baptists. There are Landmark Baptists and non-Landmark Baptists; Baptist Bride Baptists, and successionist Baptists, and then some Baptists who have some common sense about their history and heritage. There are Calvinistic Grace Baptists, Arminian Free Will Baptists, and anywhere in between Baptists. There are Seventh-Day Baptists, while most are First-Day Baptists. There are Amillennial Baptists, Postmillennial Baptists, and Premillennial Baptists. There are Pre-Tribulational Rapture Baptists, Mid-Tribulational Rapture Baptists, Pre-Wrath Rapture Baptists, and Post-Tribulational Rapture Baptists. There are dispensational Baptists and non-dispensational Baptists. There are King James Bible-believing Baptists and then there are "read anything that has the word "Bible" printed on the cover" Baptists. There are independent Baptists who would never join any kind of supra-church organization, and then there are Baptists who think they have to send money to a headquarters somewhere, shucking out the "autonomy" distinctive above. There are Baptists with women as pastors, and then there are Baptist who read their Bibles and believe God meant what He said. There are Holiness Baptists, and there are some very worldly Baptists.

"Baptist" is NOT the name of a denomination any more than saying "blue eyes" refers to a society. The word "Baptist" gives very little doctrinal information. If someone sees that word, "Baptist" on a sign out front of a building, he can have no way of knowing the details of that church's doctrine until he goes inside and asks the questions directly.

Most Baptist churches, NOR their pastors have any aspiration of controlling OTHER churches.

Too true.

So what does your archaic verb mean?

I don’t know that I had any in mind.

It’s just that we can’t deny the reality of dead religion.

We can’t deny the reality of phoney ‘Pentecostalism.’

We can’t pretend to be passionate about God without that passion leaking out evidentially somehow, somewhere, some time.

Belting out hymns with energy and vigor, qualifies for me.

Sure, culture influences all such greatly.

Nevertheless, people are people.

We are designed as emotional critters. And if the affect is flat—always—vis a vis toward God and worshipping God—SOMETHING’S WRONG.

What’s that joke about 2 Baptists meeting up . . . going back and forth checking out credentials of belief . . . and finally there’s a tiny slight variation between them and the other bonks the 2nd as an infidel.

Too true.

God uses all types of people who are willing to listen to his word and voice. I have known both kinds. Some are out front and everyone knows them and then there are others who are quiet and in the background.

Agreed.