Should Christians use other miracles to convert others?

[Quantum Weirdness]

For example, the levitation of St Joseph of Cupertino.
Thoughts?

I'm thinking about this because, from what I've read, it seems a strong miracle case (although I will admit that I have read little)

[tabibito]

The question would be - how could they be so used?
It would be necessary for the person telling the story to be considered wholly reliable before his statements would be deemed at all credible.
Even then, it is third party witness (hearsay).
The miracles confirmed in the Bible as true, performed by Christ and the founding apostles, and the resurrection itself are not deemed credible: how much less so miracles that don't even have the stamp of Biblical approval?

[Cow Poke]

I catch flack for this, but I believe it ultimately comes down to the power of the Holy Spirit who draws, convinces, convicts and leads a sinner to repentance.

I guess I'm old fashioned -- just preach Jesus, Him crucified, buried and risen again, and give a consistent testimony. But, of course, there's always somebody "looking for a sign".

[KingsGambit]

Why not just go for the resurrection of Christ? There's some pretty strong evidence for it and unlike the other case you mention... it has strong bearing on whether Christianity is true.

Of course, as CP says, only the Holy Spirit can convert, and we can't just expect to tell people about this and instantly convert them. But it might be a start.

[tabibito]

While the resurrection is indeed the most significant of the miracles, and having wider reaching effects than any other, the miracles performed by Christ each form parts of the gospel. And the authority exercised by the founding disciples (not only the apostles) is by no means irrelevant to the gospel.

[mossrose]

I catch flack for this, but I believe it ultimately comes down to the power of the Holy Spirit who draws, convinces, convicts and leads a sinner to repentance.

I guess I'm old fashioned -- just preach Jesus, Him crucified, buried and risen again, and give a consistent testimony. But, of course, there's always somebody "looking for a sign".

Yeah. Christians don't convert anybody. We simply relay the gospel, as stated by CP.

And frankly, I don't think we should be seeking signs. That is what the Word of Faith movement does. Everything has to be a miracle or sign, and that just is not how God works in this day and age, because we have complete revelation in the person of Jesus and in scripture.

[Spartacus]

Don't be disingenuous about evangelization. Unless you yourself can offer a compelling explanation for why miracles happen outside of what you perceive as THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, your rhetorical ethos goes down the tubes.

[tabibito]

Don't be disingenuous about evangelization. Unless you yourself can offer a compelling explanation for why miracles happen outside of what you perceive as THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, your rhetorical ethos goes down the tubes.

?

[Spartacus]

?

If you can shrug your shoulders and get on with your life without these miracles challenging the way you think, you give your audience every excuse they need to do the same.

[tabibito]

If you can shrug your shoulders and get on with your life without these miracles challenging the way you think, you give your audience every excuse they need to do the same.

Why would I do that? People don't readily accept the witness of the Bible - chances that they would accept a witness from other sources in support of Christianity is pretty remote.

And .................... one true church? ....................... woddat?

[Thoughtful Monk]

I catch flack for this, but I believe it ultimately comes down to the power of the Holy Spirit who draws, convinces, convicts and leads a sinner to repentance.

I guess I'm old fashioned -- just preach Jesus, Him crucified, buried and risen again, and give a consistent testimony. But, of course, there's always somebody "looking for a sign".

[Obsidian]

His point is that it doesn't make sense for a non-Catholic to appeal to a Catholic miracle. And I agree.

[KingsGambit]

His point is that it doesn't make sense for a non-Catholic to appeal to a Catholic miracle. And I agree.

I do too. Thus the thread I started awhile back about whatever happened at Fatima and what the implications of it would be if it could be demonstrated to be an authentic miracle.

[Darth Executor]

I do too. Thus the thread I started awhile back about whatever happened at Fatima and what the implications of it would be if it could be demonstrated to be an authentic miracle.

God can use pagans for His glory too, I don't see the problem.

[Cow Poke]

While the resurrection is indeed the most significant of the miracles, and having wider reaching effects than any other, the miracles performed by Christ each form parts of the gospel. And the authority exercised by the founding disciples (not only the apostles) is by no means irrelevant to the gospel.

Yeah, but you can't be saved without believing in the resurrection. I know of no scripture that says you must believe Jesus turned water into wine to be saved.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

But I get what you're saying.