Yes.

"The newsflash I have for you is that you will not be able to find it unless you are willing to allegorize plain and purposeful words of Scripture, ignore the great themes of the Scriptures, and try to convince people of this forum, as you did in your previous post, that a kingdom does not require a king, a kingdom, and subjects to rule over. It is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard coming from a supposed learned man."

I call it a boundless hermeneutc. The only rule that it abides by is force the Scriptures to agree with my theological bias.
_________________________________________
Murray writes:

"Here they are in real heresy. In this position they are in a way one with the liberals and social gospellers."

This is coming from one who takes an axe to God's word. The irony of it all.

________________________________________
Pia wrote:

""historical-grammatical method of interpretation "

With respect, that is what we use..."

If that's the case, I do that every time I get up to preach. What do you know, I am a prophet.

You have just fallen into the same error of the Calvinist. You have just created a definition that does not exist any dictionary in the world. Every phrophetic utterance in the Scriptures has always been new revelation. Besides all the prophecies that I have heard from your pentecostal groups can hardly be called a mere interpretation of the old. They have all been new extra-biblical information. So even if your definition were correct, it surely is far from what is happening today.

Can you tell me where in the Bible or in any dictionary does your definition of prophecy exists?

"This is an ongoing prophecy from Joel, and will continue until the time of the end. Why do you take part of it and reject part?"

How you figure it is an ongoing prophecy is quite suspicious. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. The Old Testament had an ending, the signs gifts had an ending as well. How you object to one ending and the other not demonstrates your bias disposition.

You mean the kind that ignores all the rules of language, considers Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21 in the same context, and redefines words with definitions that do not exist anywhere except in the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist.

No thanks, save the Red Koolaid for yourself.

Unfortunately, your hermeneutic goes to the dispensational extreme of making the OT void for faith and practice. Everything that we have in the NT is an extension of Old Testament principles. This includes, the tithe, my friend.

The tithe is one of the few things in Scripture that transpasses dispensational boundaries. Before the law came around, the tithe unto God was already in place. So we are not speaking of a dispensational truth that existed only for Israel. Like the establishment of government, it is an act of worship instituted before the creation of Israel that recognizes the government of God in our lives.

Secondly, the tithe has been raised to a moral level in the prophets. Not bringing the tithe (and offering to God) constituted theft on the part of an individual. The moral implications was so great that God placed a curse on those that should dare to rob him. We rob God when we withhold a specific amount. That specific amount is 10%. There is no way around it.

Only in the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist.

So it can be proven from Mark 16, the totality of Scripture, and from your own personal testimony that it is not the purpose (nor the will of God) for the sign miracles to continue unto this present age. The Word of God has been written, the canon has been closed, and we have everything we need for faith and practice.