PDA

View Full Version : Freak challenges "The Plot" over miracles



Pages : [1] 2 3

1Way
January 9th, 2004, 04:43 PM
This is messed up. I don't know what happened, but this post is not what I want to be the first post, the second post is what I want to be as the first post.
???



Please read the follow post where this debate began. I can't quote the whole thing without nearly recreating it myself since the quote feature is buggy and does not allow you to quote beyond the first quote in the post, and his post has many quotes that are thus missing all together. This bug has been a problem for TOL for some time, good luck sir Knight getting it fixed.

Click here for that post. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=433048#post433048)

Freak - You said
I'll give you one area, where a group of us posters (Gavin, Godrulz, myself, etc), have challenged Bob and/or those who agree with him on (the issue of spiritual gifts/miracles) and we have yet been challenged. So you have found the problem with Enyart's teaching, what is it, or better yet, where, I have the Plot and read the parts about miracles and such.


You said

Scripture has stood the test of time. Elevate Holy Scripture to it's rightful place, 1Way. As Jesus once said, "Thy Word is truth." The Plot or any other book for that matter would not be considered inerrant or infalliable. Are you always this errant in your judgments? I agree that The Word is truth and that any other book is fallible. Such false assumptions are purely condemnable, you should be ashamed. God calls us to have one faith and of one mind and "attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the knowledge of the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ," so surely you are not saying that it is wrong to assume that we can have a biblically correct faith. In other words, the bible is right and true, right, but man's faith can not be right and true even though God's teaches that it should be that way, and yes, even God knows that we are fallible. So just because one can be extreme confident in our faith that has been directed by God's word, gives noone, not even yourself the right to just openly charge blasphemous charges for having a biblically faithful faith. So lighten up, least we use your judgment against yourself for pretending like your right because you understand God so well. Which is what I am doing but you condemn be for it.

You didn't learn that lesson very well from before did you. I remember how you are, so quickly being the hypocrite.

You said

No. The Bible is about God's plan of redemption for all of humanity through the Son of God-the Lord Jesus (see Luke 24:27)-- not just for "corporate Israel." You are the contentious one. I did not say nor mean nor imply it was just for Israel, and that was not my point. When you consider every teaching in the bible, or just count the pages in the bible, God spends the vast majority of it dealing with Isreal and not the entire world. The "storyline" of the bible is spent mostly dealing with Israel, and frankly, your unwilling acknowledgement of that fact upon an initial mention helps clarify your bias away from the biblical truth and towards your preconceptions. But, while there's life, there's still hope, you too can change for the better by allowing God to mold and shape you into being more like Him.

1Way
January 9th, 2004, 05:10 PM
Please read the follow post where this debate began. I can't quote the whole thing without nearly recreating it myself since the quote feature is buggy and does not allow you to quote beyond the first quote in the post, and his post has many quotes that are thus missing all together.


Wait, you don't have to go to the origonal pages if you don't want to, just look below at the following post where Turbo helped me to repost his post here!

Click here for that post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=433048#post433048) :readthis:

Don't click that if you don't want to, see his post in the next post.


Freak - You said
I'll give you one area, where a group of us posters (Gavin, Godrulz, myself, etc), have challenged Bob and/or those who agree with him on (the issue of spiritual gifts/miracles) and we have yet been challenged. So you have found the problem with Enyart's teaching, what is it, or better yet, where, I have the Plot and read the parts about miracles and such.


You said

Scripture has stood the test of time. Elevate Holy Scripture to it's rightful place, 1Way. As Jesus once said, "Thy Word is truth." The Plot or any other book for that matter would not be considered inerrant or infalliable. Are you always this errant in your judgments? I agree that The Word is truth and that any other book is fallible. Such false assumptions are purely condemnable, you should be ashamed. God calls us to have one faith and of one mind and "attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the knowledge of the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ," so surely you are not saying that it is wrong to assume that we can have a biblically correct faith. In other words, the bible is right and true, right, but man's faith can not be right and true even though God's teaches that it should be that way, and yes, even God knows that we are fallible. So just because one can be extreme confident in our faith that has been directed by God's word, gives no one, not even yourself the right to just openly charge blasphemous charges for having a biblically faithful faith. So lighten up, least we use your judgment against yourself for pretending like your right because you understand God so well, which is roughly what I was doing when you condemned me for it.

Disagree, test, compare scripture with scripture, make friendly edifying challenges, but don't play the hypocrite or make false charges. :shocked: Obfuscation will get you nowhere. ;)

You said

No. The Bible is about God's plan of redemption for all of humanity through the Son of God-the Lord Jesus (see Luke 24:27)-- not just for "corporate Israel." You are the contentious one. I did not say nor mean nor imply it was just for Israel, and that was not my point. When you consider every teaching in the bible, or just count the pages in the bible, God spends the vast majority of it dealing with Israel and not the entire world. The "story line" of the bible is spent mostly dealing with Israel, and frankly, your unwilling acknowledgement of that fact upon an initial mention helps clarify your bias away from the biblical truth and towards your preconceptions. But, while there's life, there's still hope, you too can change for the better by allowing God to mold and shape you into being more like Him.
This should be fun, probably more so if we don't have to contend with false charges, but rather with biblical content. As far as I know, no one has listed the miracles and chronicled the biblical results on the people as thoroughly as Enyart did. Do you maintain that he missed some miracles, or? Also, you might start by addressing Bob's definition of what a biblical miracle really is. Do you agree with his use of the term? :think:

The ball is in your court :jump: , what exactly is wrong with Bob Enyart's teaching about miracles? :confused:

:cloud9:

:1Way:

:devil:

1Way
January 9th, 2004, 05:13 PM
This is Freaks post that started this topic so that you don't have to jump all over the place.

Thanks to Turbo for handing me the completed post, coding and all, excellent timing.

:turbo: :BRAVO: :bow: :thumb:

***This is Freak's post***



Originally posted by Freak
Allow me to preface this by saying I agree with most of what Bob has written but in some areas he's way off base and in error, in light of God's revealed truth. In order to not mislead anyone, correction is called for, 1Way.


I must have tested out the various teachings within The Plot, after about 8333 thoughtful time intensive posts, many of which represent a different topic or subject or point of view on a similar topic, I have yet to find ANY significant problem with the teachings of the Plot. I'll give you one area, where a group of us posters (Gavin, Godrulz, myself, etc), have challenged Bob and/or those who agree with him on (the issue of spiritual gifts/miracles) and we have yet been challenged.


And consider that one of my most primary goals has been to openly present these teachings to see how they may be shown to be wrong! And time and time again, the bible teachings within the Plot stand the test of time and extreme scrutiny. Scripture has stood the test of time. Elevate Holy Scripture to it's rightful place, 1Way. As Jesus once said, "Thy Word is truth." The Plot or any other book for that matter would not be considered inerrant or infalliable.


The biggest problem I see with folks who oppose the (like minded) teachings from The Plot, is that they suffer from not first having a solid overview of the entire bible WITHOUT holding onto manmade presuppositions at the same time. This is what we would say about you. Imagine that.


The main story line of the bible is NOT about us, it's about corporate Israel.. No. The Bible is about God's plan of redemption for all of humanity through the Son of God-the Lord Jesus (see Luke 24:27)-- not just for "corporate Israel."

Freak
January 9th, 2004, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
Freak - You said So you have found the problem with Enyart's teaching, what is it, or better yet, where, I have the Plot and read the parts about miracles and such. Yes. Enyart is in error regarding the issues of miracles and spiritual gifts. His chapter 11, in the book "The Plot," titled "Details Galore" details his view on miracles.

I have responded...

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11278


I agree that The Word is truth and that any other book is fallible. With that being said we can conclude human authors can be in error regarding their understanding of Holy Scripture. We see clearly that Bob is in error regaring the issue of miracles & spiritual gifts in light of revealed truth as found in Holy Scripture.


The "storyline" of the bible is spent mostly dealing with Israel, The story line is God redeeming mankind not simply Israel.


But, while there's life, there's still hope, you too can change for the better by allowing God to mold and shape you into being more like Him. I have been justified by Jesus Christ and will one day be glorified. It is my prayer that God would humble you so that you might be justified by faith in Jesus Christ. Amen.

Knight
January 9th, 2004, 06:47 PM
To the best of my knowledge Freak has never read "The Plot".

Have you Freak?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Freak
January 9th, 2004, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Knight

To the best of my knowledge Freak has never read "The Plot".

Have you Freak?

Please correct me if I am wrong. I have read portions of it.

Freak
January 9th, 2004, 06:49 PM
Btw, 1Way I responded to your post here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11971

Knight
January 9th, 2004, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Freak

I have read portions of it. So... you read chapter one?

Knight
January 9th, 2004, 06:51 PM
Why are there two of these threads?? :D

Knight
January 9th, 2004, 06:53 PM
Hey Freak.. can you post your response in this thread and I will delete that duplicate thread. Thanks!

Turbo
January 9th, 2004, 07:01 PM
:freak: Freak... nevermind. I just merged the threads.

:knight: Knight, Please do not delete one of the first two (nearly identical) posts. 1Way wanted to replace one of them with a copy of Freak's post from the other thread.

:1Way: 1Way, please delete some PMs so I can resend that message.

Knight
January 9th, 2004, 07:03 PM
:up:

drbrumley
January 9th, 2004, 07:35 PM
He has probably read what is available online at Bob's web site. Which isn't much. But that is ok.

Leo Volont
January 9th, 2004, 07:45 PM
Jesus said "the word is truth".

I would guess not.

Also, Protestant philosophical ignorance is always quite monumental. "The Word" does not mean scripture, as it is used in the scripture -- translating the "Word" to mean 'scripture' is a corruption of the original sense. When John used the term, he was saying "Logos".

Logos is not scripture. Logos is a philosophical term which refers to 'ideals' which are concepts with their own ethereal bodies. Picture an idea with its own spiritual existence, and you have a Logos. A magazine, a detective story, or a bible is not a Logos.

So if Christ did say that the Logos was Truth -- well, it would have pointed him out as a Neo-Platonist. Christ was a leader, no? But this would have made him a follower of Plato. And besides, it would have been a philosophically silly thing to say -- the Logos as Truth is a tautalogy. Little Idea Bodies floating around are evidence of their own Reality -- their own Truth, that is, if you take enough drugs and alcohol to be able to see them.

That the Scripture is Truth is an invention of those who were successful in getting Paul's body of works canonized. If one can define 'all' scripture as truth, this makes the works of Paul equal to the words of Christ. Paul becomes God. Any religious doctrine which creates an end result where Paul becomes God, is not only wrong, but wrong to a silly degree.

Even the Gospels, where the ignorant fisherman resort to using their own minds to create explanatory narrative (the first chapter of John) flirt with ridiculous error. After 3 years of preaching, you think one of them would have kept a notebook and simply published an unembellished "Words of Christ". No. This was not done. Apparently the straight words of Christ did not fit the political and social agenda of the Faction which won control of the Early Church. Peter and Paul did not need the Truth. They had the Power.

drbrumley
January 9th, 2004, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Leo Volont

Jesus said "the word is truth".

I would guess not.

Also, Protestant philosophical ignorance is always quite monumental. "The Word" does not mean scripture, as it is used in the scripture -- translating the "Word" to mean 'scripture' is a corruption of the original sense. When John used the term, he was saying "Logos".

Logos is not scripture. Logos is a philosophical term which refers to 'ideals' which are concepts with their own ethereal bodies. Picture an idea with its own spiritual existence, and you have a Logos. A magazine, a detective story, or a bible is not a Logos.

So if Christ did say that the Logos was Truth -- well, it would have pointed him out as a Neo-Platonist. Christ was a leader, no? But this would have made him a follower of Plato. And besides, it would have been a philosophically silly thing to say -- the Logos as Truth is a tautalogy. Little Idea Bodies floating around are evidence of their own Reality -- their own Truth, that is, if you take enough drugs and alcohol to be able to see them.

That the Scripture is Truth is an invention of those who were successful in getting Paul's body of works canonized. If one can define 'all' scripture as truth, this makes the works of Paul equal to the words of Christ. Paul becomes God. Any religious doctrine which creates an end result where Paul becomes God, is not only wrong, but wrong to a silly degree.

Even the Gospels, where the ignorant fisherman resort to using their own minds to create explanatory narrative (the first chapter of John) flirt with ridiculous error. After 3 years of preaching, you think one of them would have kept a notebook and simply published an unembellished "Words of Christ". No. This was not done. Apparently the straight words of Christ did not fit the political and social agenda of the Faction which won control of the Early Church. Peter and Paul did not need the Truth. They had the Power.


Originally posted by Leo Volont

blah, blah, blah blah and blah

Berean Todd
January 9th, 2004, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Leo Volont

Jesus said "the word is truth".

I would guess not.


Hey, idiot, that shows how much you know the Word of the Lord Jesus Christ right there. Try this one on for size.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your Word is truth.

SOTK
January 9th, 2004, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Berean Todd

Hey, idiot, that shows how much you know the Word of the Lord Jesus Christ right there. Try this one on for size.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your Word is truth.

:darwinsm:

Freak
January 10th, 2004, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by 1Way
This should be fun, probably more so if we don't have to contend with false charges, but rather with biblical content.

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. 1Way, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc????

The Holy Scriptures don't seem to make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13).

Homework for 1Way:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the apostles, as you claim, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.


Also, you might start by addressing Bob's definition of what a biblical miracle really is. Do you agree with his use of the term?

According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
Date: 12th century
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

According to this definition a miracle would include the new birth. Christ indwelling the believer is a "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs." Christ intervened in human affairs and manifested an extraordinary event--the new birth.

So what miracles would you like to keep and which ones would you like to throw out?

New birth?
Healing of the broken heart?
Physical healing?
Deliverance from demons?
Opening closed wombs?


:1Way:

:devil: No need to enjoy the dancing devil, 1Way. He's been defeated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Freak
January 10th, 2004, 03:54 AM
It might be better if I debate the man (Bob) formally, if he's interested. We can do a Battle Royale regarding this issue. Why do I need to discuss the book with a reader when I can debate the subject with the author himself.:think:

Lucky
January 10th, 2004, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by Freak

It might be better if I debate the man (Bob) formally, if he's interested. We can do a Battle Royale regarding this issue. Why do I need to discuss the book with a reader when I can debate the subject with the author himself.:think:
I think that's a good idea. I've seen several attempts from you to try to debate this with him. But I haven't seen any response from this so-called "Poster of the Year." As willing as his sheep are to defend him, it would be nice to hear from the man himself. :up:

Freak
January 10th, 2004, 04:29 AM
Bob himself stated: "Miracles foster unbelief." That's absolute nonsense. The miracle of the new birth fosters belief. Scripture recounts the strengthening of the church when the lost is converted. Furthermore...one has to believe in a miracle --the resurrection of Jesus to experience salvation.

Due to Christ's greatest miracle--raising from the dead--we find justification--He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Freak
January 10th, 2004, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by Lucky

I think that's a good idea. I've seen several attempts from you to try to debate this with him. But I haven't seen any response from this so-called "Poster of the Year." As willing as his sheep are to defend him, it would be nice to hear from the man himself. :up: :chuckle:

Leo Volont
January 10th, 2004, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by Berean Todd

Hey, idiot, that shows how much you know the Word of the Lord Jesus Christ right there. Try this one on for size.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your Word is truth.

This is Christ Jesus's Prayer to God the Father. Yes, in the Case of God the Father -- His Logos is Truth.

Now, what is your point? Do you mean to refute me that 'Word' indeed does, in some moronic way, mean 'scripture', or even that Jesus ever said His own verbalizations were 'Words of Truth' -- an assertion only a liar needs to make -- which is why Paul practically wore out the phrase.

Leo Volont
January 10th, 2004, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by Freak

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.



According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
Date: 12th century
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

According to this definition a miracle would include the new birth. Christ indwelling the believer is a "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs." Christ intervened in human affairs and manifested an extraordinary event--the new birth.

So what miracles would you like to keep and which ones would you like to throw out?

New birth?
Healing of the broken heart?
Physical healing?
Deliverance from demons?
Opening closed wombs?



Paul wrote 14 books without once quoting Jesus.

Paul invoking Jesus to further his own agenda seems more in the order of the way Zionists invoke God, and the Political Right Wing invoke Religion -- jaded and cynical ploys to gain popular confidence. Even as a young child who read a chapter of the Bible every night, I was struck by the apparent sleaviness of Paul. There had never been two more different beings on this Earth -- Christ and Paul. An eleven-year-old could see it.

Paul had no miracles. He did freak some poor old man out in Cypress and the guy had a stroke. He was leader of a Jewish Community who made inquiries into Christ, and Paul's reception of him almost killed him. That is Paul's big 'miracle'.

No, miracles must be measured in Vatican terms -- Providential and Inexplicable. I see that Protestants want to now count 'feeling good in sin' to be one of their miracles. Well, your 'feeling good in sin' is not a Miracle of God, but a consolation of Satan. Satan is giving you a reward for your labors in his behalf.

There may have been some miracles connected to Paul. Often Scourges of God -- those given Satanic Powers in order to Test the World -- are given Protection until their Destiny is fulfilled. Thus the door of the Jail falls open so that Paul can be allowed to continue with his temptations to evil. History if full of the Miraculous Survival of Extraordinary Evil. George Washington's cloak after the Battle of Brandywine had seven or eight bullet holes. Napoleon Bonaparte stood on the bridge of Arcola while not another French Soldier in a hundred was not instantly felled by the continuous fusillade. In the Old Testament it is said that God uses Sin to punish the guilty. So it was that God gave a certain protection to Paul's program of Anti-semitism, where he was able to stir up so much hate and reaction in the Roman Empire and Judah, that the destruction of Jerusalem in 71 A.D. became inevitable. Then there was the canonization and institutionalization of Paul, whereby death and destruction could be periodically unleashed anytime in history just by citing a few quotes behind a resurrected satanic doctrine.

godrulz
January 10th, 2004, 08:42 AM
"The Plot" has much interesting or helpful information. It should not be the standard or 'acid test' of orthodoxy or fellowship. Some of its premises and conclusions are suspect.

The supernatural God has not sent His Church out against the supernatural enemy with carnal weapons. The Holy Spirit continues the works of Jesus today through His church with manifestations of power, gifts, healings, etc. He is not dead, but an anti-charismatic theology is.

God is glorified and people are edified and the enemy is nullified.

Freak
January 10th, 2004, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

"The Plot" has much interesting or helpful information. It should not be the standard or 'acid test' of orthodoxy or fellowship. Some of its premises and conclusions are suspect. For people like 1Way The Plot is the standard by which they test fellowship. Others on TOL have seen this reality.


The Holy Spirit continues the works of Jesus today through His church with manifestations of power, gifts, healings, etc. He is not dead, but an anti-charismatic theology is.

God is glorified and people are edified and the enemy is nullified. Amen and Amen! :up:

Servo
January 10th, 2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Freak

It might be better if I debate the man (Bob) formally, if he's interested. We can do a Battle Royale regarding this issue. Why do I need to discuss the book with a reader when I can debate the subject with the author himself.:think:

That would be an interesting Battle Royal. I e-mailed Bob, and I am sure Knight will let him know.

Servo
January 10th, 2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Freak

Bob himself stated: "Miracles foster unbelief." That's absolute nonsense. The miracle of the new birth fosters belief. Scripture recounts the strengthening of the church when the lost is converted. Furthermore...one has to believe in a miracle --the resurrection of Jesus to experience salvation.

Due to Christ's greatest miracle--raising from the dead--we find justification--He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Freak, you really have no idea what you are talking about here.

The chapter in "The Plot" about miracles is about miracles (each miracle is listed) as they occurred in the Bible and what the general public response was. The chapter is not about Christ being raised from the dead and if that was a miracle or not.

You should really make an effort to understand what you are criticizing before you criticize it.

Freak
January 10th, 2004, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

The chapter in "The Plot" about miracles is about miracles (each miracle is listed) as they occurred in the Bible and what the general public response was. Bob has stated that he believes miracles, "foster unbelief." This is absolutely bizarre thinking. For as I mentioned, the miracle of the new birth encourages the Body not discourages them.


The chapter is not about Christ being raised from the dead and if that was a miracle or not. Why not? He's talking about miracles and yet he fails to mention the greatest of miracles--the miracle of the new birth through the belief in the resurrection of Jesus. How sad.

:down:

Servo
January 10th, 2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Freak

Bob has stated that he believes miracles, "foster unbelief." This is absolutely bizarre thinking. For as I mentioned, the miracle of the new birth encourages the Body not discourages them.

Why not? He's talking about miracles and yet he fails to mention the greatest of miracles--the miracle of the new birth through the belief in the resurrection of Jesus. How sad.

:down:

Again, Freak it would help if you knew what you were talking about.

Zakath
January 10th, 2004, 01:58 PM
It would be interesting to see Enyart defend his great literary work... :think:

Freak
January 10th, 2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

Again, Freak it would help if you knew what you were talking about. Enyart believes miracles fosters unbelief. That's what he believes. He's wrong and I'm willing to defend my position. Will he? :chuckle:

Freak
January 10th, 2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

It would be interesting to see Enyart defend his great literary work... :think: It should be very interesting. :chuckle:

drbrumley
January 10th, 2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Freak

Bob himself stated: "Miracles foster unbelief." That's absolute nonsense. The miracle of the new birth fosters belief. Scripture recounts the strengthening of the church when the lost is converted. Furthermore...one has to believe in a miracle --the resurrection of Jesus to experience salvation.

Due to Christ's greatest miracle--raising from the dead--we find justification--He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Freak,

Had we been living in Egypt when the Exodus was taking place, or Isreal when our Lord Jesus was walking, we would have been aware of supernatural gifts. In this time we live, most except Charasmatics believe and rightfully that supernatural gifts are not happening today.

I will contend with you that the answer supernatural gifts are not happening is because the answer has to be dealt dispensationally.

Sir Robert Anderson addressed himself to this in his book, The Silence of God, and gave a very satisfactory answer to why outward, physical miracles do not occur today, based largely upon the dispensational character of God's dealing with the nation of Isreal.

Miracles consist in either the manifestation or the control of power in the physical world beyond human capability. It is not breaking of the laws of nature, but rather the excercising of supernatural power or control over those laws. In Bible times God chose to work through physical miracles and signs and wonders with His people Isreal (Exodus 7-12; 1 Corinthians 1:22). Having cast that nation aside during this present dispensation, He no longer works in this way, as Paul makes plain in 1 Corinthians 13:8. Christ appealed to His mighty works as one of the witnesses of His Deity (John 5:36). These miracles reveal both the power of God and His goodness, as He healed the sick, opened blind eyes, raised the dead, and delivered His saints from prison.

Lucky
January 10th, 2004, 04:18 PM
I find it interesting that one of the benefits of an OV-like God is that he can answer prayer. Yet if miracles were wisked away like they say, what's the use?
:kookoo:

drbrumley
January 10th, 2004, 04:20 PM
Cause God answers a prayer makes it a miracle?

Lucky
January 10th, 2004, 04:28 PM
Why pray for someone's health, if you don't think God has the power to heal them?

It's so funny to see "miracles-are-dead" folks pray and ask God for things that would obviously be miracles. It's good to see the real faith they have in God through those prayers. Too bad they don't get their theology to match up.

1Way
January 10th, 2004, 04:35 PM
I think that Freak is lying (to a large degree). I asked him to point out exactly what, and better, exactly where the problem is with His teaching in The Plot about miracles. To date he has names the chapter and it's subtitle and one single claim, nothing more. Furthermore, I asked Freak to begin the discussion with his evaluation of Bob's definition of a biblical miracle, and not to my surprise, he has not. If Freak has read what Bob wrote about the issue, then I see no reason why he is running away from it like he has been doing. I have read The Plot and so far I can tell that Freak has not, also, I can tell by the way Freak has begun this debate that he is ignorant of what Bob actually teaches in chapter 11.

But all that may be besides the point, consider...

I have watched Freak opperate in another thread where he defended a poster who's main argument was not an argument, but simply a claim which he keeps repeating over and over and over again. The claim is that he is right and I am wrong about the correct meaning of a particular text within a particular verse. I consistently point out the utter futility and contradictory nature of such a non-argument, and Freak just gave the other poster his unqualified approval dispite his view being one contradictory and irrational mess. "I" can not, actually, "no one" can argue or reasonably discuss a matter (to a productive redemptive end) with someone as willfully ignorant and irrational as that.

On the bright side, let this be a lesson to us all, if you run into a "wise guy" who will not stray from unreasonable irrationality, like pretending that a claim repeated somehow advances the discussion/debate in a reasonable rational way, then just realize that you can not win a debate with stupid. If someone does not have the room in themselves to allow for a reasonable rational cross examination and debate, then such is the case and no amount of persuasive language and biblical apologetics can have any good effect on an irrational unreasonable soul. Sure, while there's life there's hope, but while there's no humlity to objectively review an issue, there is no way for the truth to have it's way. Those who are lost and end up in hell, won the battle, they resisted the truth until the very end, and they never once humbled themselves, instead, the truth lost and they won the battle for their soul. Same way with sin and pride in a Christian's life, the truth has no place where it is not welcome.

For those who decide to pursue dispite such grand problems, and without Freaks repentance, I hope you realize that it is futile to let the fool dictate the rules of engagement. Do not answer a fool acording to his folly. Only the truth can set him or anyone free, and the truth can not even do that if he is unwilling to be truthful and reasonable and rational in the first place, being nicer than God helps no one.

Best wishes, but be mindful of the truth of the matter.

1Way
January 10th, 2004, 04:40 PM
Lucky - If miracles have ceased like the bible and reality teaches, then the truth about the open view is totally beside the point. If, as we say that miracles are not for today, then the thing to do would be to

- trust the truth of the matter

and if you don't fully understand it,

- find out what you need to learn so that you can understand it.

Do you have any guesses why it is that it would be a good and godly thing to not do miracles in this dispensation? :think:

drbrumley
January 10th, 2004, 04:43 PM
1Way,

I think Freak hasn't read the Plot either, but be that as it may, what do you expect from someone who applies what was for Isreal and the Dispensation of the Kingdom Offered and applies it to today in our present Dispensation of Mystery or Grace (whatever word you like in this case). I have found most Christians are so stuck on Acts 2 being the beginning of The Church which is the Body of Christ, that they refuse to even look at the evidence presented.

Lucky
January 10th, 2004, 04:46 PM
:sheep: :sheep: and more :sheep:

:chuckle:

If Enyart ever defends himself successfully with this matter, I will be very impressed. But I don't want to seem like I'm backing up Freak too much, he can be a real nutcase sometimes. :freak:

Lucky
January 10th, 2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Lucky - If miracles have ceased like the bible and reality teaches...
Your presupperpartitions are wrong. :p

The debate on miracles is something I have actually gone through many times. But with all the arguments I've read, I have not seen a good enough argument based on the Bible to prove miracles, etc. are over.

Do you have any guesses why it is that it would be a good and godly thing to not do miracles in this dispensation?
Nope. I'm sure you do.

drbrumley
January 10th, 2004, 04:56 PM
Do you even understand dispensations Lucky? Serious question, not mocking you.

Lucky
January 10th, 2004, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Do you even understand dispensations Lucky? Serious question, not mocking you.
Fair question.

Yes I do, to a certain extent. Don't ask me where I "rightly divide" in the NT, though. I haven't studied that in great detail yet, so I'm not sure where I stand and I'm not even sure where OV-ers stand. Do enlighten...

1Way
January 10th, 2004, 05:28 PM
Lucky - and all - This is what I posted at the bottom of my second post, I thought it was the bottom of my first post, but somehow now it's the bottom of my second one.

Consider
As far as I know, no one has listed the miracles and chronicled the biblical results on the people as thoroughly as Enyart did. Do you maintain that he missed some miracles, or? Also, you might start by addressing Bob's definition of what a biblical miracle really is. Do you agree with his use of the term? And if possible, lets not get too subjective, lets let God's word rule over our faith. For those who promote miracles are for today, they will tend to list example after example as though their subjective (and likely biased) witness should determine the truth of the matter.

Also, I would like to make a point about the nature of unstable man, and I will use myself as a primary example. Since my example is not in the bible and I will only apply it for what it is worth, please consider the following. You can not trust man any where near like you can trust God and His word.

For example, and I realize that this is an extreme case, but, when I was young, I was playing in the backyard of one of my neighbors. There was three of us and a younger girl, but she was not part of our game. We were playing jarts, and it was just me and my neighbor boy who was just one year older than me, and I'd guess that we were about 8 or so at the time, and the third guy was a friend of the neighbor boy's older brother, he may have been 4-5 years older or so. Anyway, at one point, my neighbor bent over to pick up my jarts while my teammate got the crazy idea of trying to throw one of his jarts into his circle! I was horrified, but just prior to him doing it, he clued me in about what he was going to do. I guess I didn't catch it right away and something went wrong in my mind, but more of that latter. Well this guy threw the jart way up high and it landed right in the knee of my neighbor. And by that time I was really shocked. It could have been waaaaay worse and it did not give him any serous problems, but,,, the story continues after I went home. I remember doing the dishes and feeling strange and bothered about what had happened to my neighbor, and finally I told my mother about it, and she became very angry with me. I told her that I was the one who threw the jart. After my neighbor got home from the hospital my mother took me over there and made me apologize for what I had done. It was one of the weirdest things that I've ever experienced, and I was feeling really guilty about it all too. They just looked at me strangely and said that I didn't do it, it was the other boy who was gone by then. At first I didn't believe them, and then they finally convinced me about what had actually happened.

Somehow I had transferred my horror and shock and dismay, through my neighbors complete ignorance of what was about to happen, and blamed my self for not doing anything about it. I can still see him there, bending over picking up the darts right before he threw it. He was bent over picking up my jarts when the other guy threw his, only when I think about it, I mostly don't know who's jarts were who's, and to make matters worse, he (the older boy) had been making me laugh almost the entire time, so when he clued me in to his stupid idea, I was caught unawares and was actually laughing about it while he did it!!!! That is a twisted thought. Such a traumatic experience threw me for a loop as I am a really emotive or sensitive person when it comes to other people's feelings, and was perhaps as impressionable as I would ever be, and it really bothered me about what had just happened. For the most part, I was unable to reconcile my thoughts and my feelings and my actions with what actually happened, and to make matters worse, right after it happened, I was alone to walk to my house in this state of shock and emotional upheaval and disbelief. I really don't know exactly how I got things so mixed up, but psychologists tell us that under certain high stress situations, our fight or flight survival mechanisms can induce some strange effects on our psyche if we have no means of fight or flight. Since considering this phenomenon I give the likelihood of the validity of abuse victims suppressing their abuse memories, or turning them into something that it was not in order to protect themselves at the time of the abuse.

The point should be clear, we are prone to error, even able to make completely wrong assessments. I've heard people say for example that they were entertained by an angle, perhaps you have heard this story too. One minute they were they, and then right after I turned and looked back, they were gone, I mean gone, no where in sight and there was no where for them to have hid in that short of a period of time. Thus it must have been an angel. It's called being human, we make mistakes, honest mistakes. So we need to examine what is and is not a miracle, and by what evidence we can trust to validate a miracle if we are going to get anywhere.

1Way
January 10th, 2004, 05:46 PM
Lucky - The OV has no voice on the matter. You must come to understand that the OV is not a theology per say, it dramatically affects one's theology, no doubt, but it says nothing about many theological issues like this one for example.

Also, you seem like a fairly intelligent and reasonable person. But I must say that you display a large, albeit a common ignorance over things that you do not agree with. When if you give it just a half a thought, you can never really disagree with something that you don't really understand very well. :think: You know about dispensations but you don't know about any practical use for them, which restated means that you don't know anything practical or substantial about dispensations. Same with the OV. You wonder what the OV has to say about miracles for today, yet it can have nothing to say about it since that issue is outside of it's sphere, although I imagine that you may have simply wondered what we think about the issue, I would not argue either way. People are self promoters. We live in a society where we have to do that on almost a constant basis, otherwise, if we don't, we would likely get run over by masses which are more than willing to step all over you to give them some momentary advantage if you give them just half a chance. However, in God's eyes and in His kingdom, humility and a soul willing to stand corrected is never trampled underfoot, but rather is honored and exalted in a most wonderful way. Promote your ignorance through humility and you may be astounded at the spiritual real world results, of course, given the right environment exists.

Thank you for sharing about your lack of knowledge in these areas that for some strange reason, you have found yourself in "disagreement".

Jabez
January 10th, 2004, 06:18 PM
What is being debated?Miracles?

godrulz
January 10th, 2004, 07:12 PM
Classic Pentecostals (my roots) are usually Arminians. Open Theism could be seen as a subtype of Arminianism. Many Pentecostals lean to Open Theism, and affirm that miracles happen today. Other Open Theists are from traditions that dispensationalize them away.

I agree with Freak on miracles. I agree with Enyart of Open Theism. Regardless of our beliefs, they should be defensible from Scripture, and not just anecdotal experience (though there are hundreds of millions of charismatic/Pentecostals who know the person and work of the Holy Spirit today).

Freak would have to read "The Plot" since it attempts to build a case line by line. If there are wrong assumptions and proof texts out of context, some conclusions will be off (though the journey seems to be compelling or consistent).

I found myself agreeing with some, but not all of the 2 columns Enyart came up with (disagree with = no miracles, no baptism, and unconditional eternal security for the modern believer). I am still reading the book.

Servo
January 10th, 2004, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Freak

Enyart believes miracles fosters unbelief. That's what he believes. He's wrong and I'm willing to defend my position. Will he? :chuckle:

Homework for Freak: (I am sure everybody hates it when Freak posts that)

Read "The Plot"!

Freak
January 10th, 2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

Homework for Freak:
Read "The Plot"! Homework for Shimei:

Read the Bible. Imagine that. :chuckle:

I'll get to 2Way's posts later tonight...

Freak
January 10th, 2004, 07:46 PM
2Way, instead of babbling (and the same goes for drnonsense) deal with my earlier posts:

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. 1Way, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc????

The Holy Scriptures don't seem to make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13).

Homework for 1Way:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the apostles, as you claim, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.



According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
Date: 12th century
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

According to this definition a miracle would include the new birth. Christ indwelling the believer is a "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs." Christ intervened in human affairs and manifested an extraordinary event--the new birth.

So what miracles would you like to keep and which ones would you like to throw out?

New birth?
Healing of the broken heart?
Physical healing?
Deliverance from demons?
Opening closed wombs?

Servo
January 10th, 2004, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Freak

Homework for Shimei:

Read the Bible. Imagine that. :chuckle:

I'll get to 2Way's posts later tonight...

Ok Freak, lets see:


Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise.

And

Proverbs 13:16
Every prudent man acts with knowledge, But a fool lays open his folly.

prudent=:1Way:

fool=:freak:

Lucky
January 11th, 2004, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

And if possible, lets not get too subjective, lets let God's word rule over our faith.
:up: Awesome! I'll just skim down to the part where you discuss the Bible and not your subjective experience...


:darwinsm: Oh, I guess your intro was just a joke then. You sure had me fooled. I was hoping for at least a scripture reference. :kookoo:

Lucky
January 11th, 2004, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

Lucky - The OV has no voice on the matter.
Thank you kindly for sharing that. You have to realize that OV is something new to me, as well as much of the theological jargon not seen anywhere in scripture, which is what I'm used to studying. It's gonna take a while before I know what which jargon matches what beliefs.


Thank you for sharing about your lack of knowledge in these areas that for some strange reason, you have found yourself in "disagreement".
Now that's a broad statement that might confuse people. When it come to dispensations, I'm no beginner, yet I'm no where near expert. When it come to miracles, well, I've read a whole lot on that before! And that my friend is where I disagree with you - on miracles. I consider dispensations a different topic. And of course, one I have no idea where you, the other OV-ers, and/or the other Enyartists stand.

(BTW, please do not take offense at my use of "Enyartist" or "Enyartism." I'm in no way trying to be derogatory.)

Freak
January 11th, 2004, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Freak,

Had we been living in Egypt when the Exodus was taking place, or Isreal when our Lord Jesus was walking, we would have been aware of supernatural gifts. Are you so dense to actually believe the garbage that comes out of your mind? We are aware of spiritual gifts via the revealed Word of God. Were you aware of this?


In this time we live, most except Charasmatics believe and rightfully that supernatural gifts are not happening today. Prove that. You base this on what evidence? Besides, I'm not a charismatic (I attend an Anglican Fellowship) and yet I believe in all of the spiritual gifts, due to the fact that we are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. 1Way, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc????

Furthermore...the Holy Scriptures don't seem to make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).



Sir Robert Anderson addressed himself to this in his book, The Silence of God, and gave a very satisfactory answer to why outward, physical miracles do not occur today, This is your problem...you trust man over God. Scripture speaks of God giving His spiritual gifts to His people to minister to the hurting (See Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42).



Miracles consist in either the manifestation or the control of power in the physical world beyond human capability. It is not breaking of the laws of nature, but rather the excercising of supernatural power or control over those laws. Allow me to educate you...

According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
Date: 12th century
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

According to this definition a miracle would include the new birth. Christ indwelling the believer is a "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs." Christ intervened in human affairs and manifested an extraordinary event--the new birth.


Christ appealed to His mighty works as one of the witnesses of His Deity (John 5:36). These miracles reveal both the power of God and His goodness, as He healed the sick, opened blind eyes, raised the dead, and delivered His saints from prison. Are you dumbed down to the point of not being able to understand Scripture?

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

Freak
January 11th, 2004, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

Only the truth can set him or anyone free, and the truth can not even do that if he is unwilling to be truthful and reasonable and rational in the first place, being nicer than God helps no one. "Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say."

This has been 1Way's problem.

"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

Since 1Way is deaf to the things of God one could conclude that he doesn't belong to God. See the last of what Jesus said: The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.

Can you hear, 1Way? I'm afraid you have duped yourself to believing a lie which has led to your spiritual deafness.

I think I have witnessed enough of you're handling of this debate. It's pathetic. :down: I think I'll await for someone else to debate this issue with me or Bob.

godrulz
January 11th, 2004, 04:16 AM
Freak and 1Way are brothers in Christ (miracles are not a salvific issue). Speak the truth in love.

Freak
January 11th, 2004, 04:26 AM
Originally posted by godrulz
I agree with Freak on miracles. I agree with Enyart of Open Theism. Regardless of our beliefs, they should be defensible from Scripture, and not just anecdotal experience (though there are hundreds of millions of charismatic/Pentecostals who know the person and work of the Holy Spirit today). My position (or should I say our position) is defensible from Scripture, as I have pointed out. I have not defended my position on the basis of anecdotal evidence. This is clear. :up:

Furthermore..I agree that this isn't a salvation issue. But, I do believe it affects how one ministers and is able to minister....

Delmar
January 11th, 2004, 05:35 AM
Dear Freak,Dear 1Way my brothers

Let's please take a step back from both of your definition's of maracles and see if we can reach at least one simple basic area of agreement.
Jesus Christ is right now in the buisness of healing broken hearts and broken lives.

Freak
January 11th, 2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by deardelmar

Dear Freak, Dear 1Way my brothers

Let's please take a step back from both of your definition's of maracles and see if we can reach at least one simple basic area of agreement. I already gave you the definition of a miracle.

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
Date: 12th century
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

According to this definition a miracle would include the new birth. Christ indwelling the believer is a "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs." Christ intervened in human affairs and manifested an extraordinary event--the new birth. So miracles do still occur in our day.


Jesus Christ is right now in the buisness of healing broken hearts and broken lives. Amen and Amen!:thumb:

drbrumley
January 11th, 2004, 03:38 PM
Wrong wrong and more wrong

Freak
January 11th, 2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by deardelmar

Dear Freak,Dear 1Way my brothers

Jesus Christ is right now in the buisness of healing broken hearts and broken lives.

Amen and Amen!



Originally posted by drbrumley

Wrong wrong and more wrong :rolleyes:

drbrumley
January 11th, 2004, 03:56 PM
Another attempt at applying what someone says to where it doesn't belong,

Good job Freak:thumb:

drbrumley
January 11th, 2004, 03:57 PM
How soon I forget, Freak is a master of the "out of context game"

Freak
January 11th, 2004, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley
Good job Freak:thumb: Thanks but answer my questions, that I asked earlier.


Originally posted by drbrumley

Freak,

Had we been living in Egypt when the Exodus was taking place, or Isreal when our Lord Jesus was walking, we would have been aware of supernatural gifts. Are you so dense to actually believe the garbage that comes out of your mind? We are aware of spiritual gifts via the revealed Word of God. Were you aware of this?


In this time we live, most except Charasmatics believe and rightfully that supernatural gifts are not happening today. Prove that. You base this on what evidence? Besides, I'm not a charismatic (I attend an Anglican Fellowship) and yet I believe in all of the spiritual gifts, due to the fact that we are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. Brumely, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc????

Furthermore...the Holy Scriptures don't seem to make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).



Sir Robert Anderson addressed himself to this in his book, The Silence of God, and gave a very satisfactory answer to why outward, physical miracles do not occur today, This is your problem...you trust man over God. Scripture speaks of God giving His spiritual gifts to His people to minister to the hurting (See Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42).



Miracles consist in either the manifestation or the control of power in the physical world beyond human capability. It is not breaking of the laws of nature, but rather the excercising of supernatural power or control over those laws. Allow me to educate you...

According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
Date: 12th century
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

According to this definition a miracle would include the new birth. Christ indwelling the believer is a "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs." Christ intervened in human affairs and manifested an extraordinary event--the new birth.


Christ appealed to His mighty works as one of the witnesses of His Deity (John 5:36). These miracles reveal both the power of God and His goodness, as He healed the sick, opened blind eyes, raised the dead, and delivered His saints from prison. Are you dumbed down to the point of not being able to understand Scripture?

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

drbrumley
January 11th, 2004, 04:02 PM
Im working on it Freak in myword processer. Ill get back to this rest assured

Freak
January 11th, 2004, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Im working on it Freak in myword processer. Ill get back to this rest assured Great.

Lucky
January 11th, 2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Im working on it Freak in myword processer. Ill get back to this rest assured
:chuckle: I have to do that too, when responding to super long posts, i.e. 1Way's. :D

Delmar
January 11th, 2004, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Wrong wrong and more wrong

Since you didn't quote I think I'm not sure who and what this was in response to.

Freak
January 11th, 2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by deardelmar

Since you didn't quote I think I'm not sure who and what this was in response to. :crackup:

1Way
January 11th, 2004, 07:21 PM
DearDelmar - I don't believe that I've given a statement for a definition of what a miracle is. I agree that Freaks charge of me not being saved deserves a sharp rebuke, but I think that before anyone delves into a debate, the terms of the debate should be settled and used consistently for everyone's benefit.

I disagree with Freaks definition of what a maracle is, but I'm prepared to defend that view from scripture. And I do now know why Freak is laughing at your statement, I think you asked a very important question, although I think the answer is that drbrummley was disapproving of Freaks definition, not your concern for healing within the body of Christ. People are broken and hurting and a godly concern is raised towards unity and restoration, thanks for the kind words.

I like Enyart's definition "much" better, but I am wondering why Freak has not yet attacked it since he has supposedly read what Bob wrote on this issue. :think: I must leave and prepair for another weaks work, perhaps someone here would be so kind as to challeng Freak into faithfully representing Bob's definition on what a miracle is, and then challenge Freak to explain what is wrong with it. :)

See you all most likely next weekend. Blessings :1Way:

godrulz
January 12th, 2004, 12:36 AM
Enyart's definition of 'miracle' and page # in "Plot" for context?

Does he believe in the possibility of 'divine healing' for people of today?

Freak
January 12th, 2004, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

DearDelmar - I agree that Freaks charge of me not being saved deserves a sharp rebuke, Share your testimony of how you were saved by Christ. Please be my guest.


...but I think that before anyone delves into a debate, the terms of the debate should be settled and used consistently for everyone's benefit. I agree.


I disagree with Freaks definition of what a maracle is, but I'm prepared to defend that view from scripture.

Earth to Mars...

It's not my defintion, it's the dictionary's.

According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
Date: 12th century
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs


I like Enyart's definition "much" better, In terms of defining a word I'd rather stick with a dictionary then Enyart.

Freak
January 12th, 2004, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

Enyart's definition of 'miracle' and page # in "Plot" for context?

Does he believe in the possibility of 'divine healing' for people of today? Don't you have a copy of the book? Have you read chapter 11 yet?

Delmar
January 12th, 2004, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by Freak

Share your testimony of how you were saved by Christ. Please be my guest.

I agree.



Earth to Mars...

It's not my defintion, it's the dictionary's.

According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
Date: 12th century
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

In terms of defining a word I'd rather stick with a dictionary then Enyart.

Here is the problem with that. I do know that Bob believes Jesus Christ is Changing lives today. So according to the "dictionary definition" he does believe in miracles.

In his writings Bob uses a different definition. More Than one dictionary does exsist after all. It is therfore apropriate to look at his writtings in light of the definition he provided. Not to do so distorts his meaning.

Zakath
January 12th, 2004, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by deardelmar
Here is the problem with that. I do know that Bob believes Jesus Christ is Changing lives today. So according to the "dictionary definition" he does believe in miracles.
OK.


In his writings Bob uses a different definition. More Than one dictionary does exsist after all. It is therfore apropriate to look at his writtings in light of the definition he provided. Not to do so distorts his meaning. It would reduce the confusion greatly if you'd just share what Enyart's definition of "miracle" is. Cite "The Plot" book, if possible. :D

Freak
January 12th, 2004, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Zakath
It would reduce the confusion greatly if you'd just share what Enyart's definition of "miracle" is. Cite "The Plot" book, if possible. :D Exactly..it's like I'm playing hide & seek with these people. It's become a beating. :nono:

Delmar
January 12th, 2004, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

OK.

It would reduce the confusion greatly if you'd just share what Enyart's definition of "miracle" is. Cite "The Plot" book, if possible. :D

Not trying to be vague. My copy of the book is on loan so I would have to paraphrase from memory. If I remember correctly in order to qualify as a miracle it would involve suspending the laws of the physical universe and would therefore not include spiritual and emotional healing.

godrulz
January 12th, 2004, 08:08 PM
The issue is probably about physical healing or creative miracles.

Rationalism will negate the supernatural power of God in one's mind and theology.

As for us Pentecostals who know the person and work of the Spirit:

Acts 4:29-31 "Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus. After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the Word of God boldly."

Ps. 68:28 "Summon your power, O God; show us your strength, O God, as you have done before."

Be glorified O Supernatural God.

Delmar
January 13th, 2004, 03:51 PM
Be glorified O Supernatural God.

Amen to that but God dosn't need to jump through anyones hoops to be glorified!

godrulz
January 13th, 2004, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by deardelmar

Amen to that but God dosn't need to jump through anyones hoops to be glorified!

Correct. God demonstrates His supernatural power to destroy the works of Satan, to meet needs, to demonstrate His love, etc. In this He is glorified. It is His nature to be and do the supernatural.

Delmar
January 16th, 2004, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by Freak

Exactly..it's like I'm playing hide & seek with these people. It's become a beating. :nono: I'm not trying to beat any Christian brother.

1Way
January 17th, 2004, 02:04 PM
This is getting out of focus. Freak "supposedly" disagrees with Enyart's view on miracles, which necessarily means that he first understands his view on them, yet, he has shown no evidence that he even knows Bob's definition for what a miracle is! This sort of problem should "not" be overlooked, as I believe deardelmer was willing to do by letting the cat out of the bag. :nono: I wish you had not done what you did at this time prior to Freak accurately representing Bob's definition. Point being, which should be obvious, if your debate/discussion opponent, is fundamentally being dishonest/or insincere or otherwise devious to your face, then further discussions blindly trusting their future honesty is simple foolishness.

For Freaks sake, a dictionary is not "the" ultimate authority for matters of eternal truth, however, God's word is, and that is where Bob Enyart bases his understanding of what a miracle is, ,,, unlike yourself and that dictionary you honor. And, even if your dictionary claims some amount of biblical direction, then we still have to deal with the fact that one man's authority does not ultimate righteousness make. Lets say that you have two authorities, or two dictionaries, or two bible students or two reference works, and they each define what a miracle is, and they are each different! So by using your argument, you are stuck using both yet that is impossible since they do not agree. So by my reasoning, and frankly I believe God's reasoning, we should be ready to apologetically demonstrate our faith/understanding despite and because of our many disagreements. Or am I wrong, does God say in His word to use your dictionary as the absolute truth of the matter?

As for me, I don't mind the "claimed" beating Freak is receiving because of his views. My opposition to Freak is because of his false teachings which go against the truth, combined with my non-hypocritical love. And as to me responding to Freak's challenge, you have won no amount of personal respect and mutual fellowship or trust with me enough for me to feel the need to share my personal testimony with you on the basis of you judging that I am not saved. Instead, since you are suggesting of me being so much in need of accountability, why don't you lead the way,,, brother (in Christ), and account just why you "seem" to see such a lack of Christ in me and my life so that your claims might become remotely understood and apologetically demonstrated. As for me, I understand that the bible does not teach us to attack/challenge a self claimed brother's salvation based on anything less than false savlic grounds. I am lead by the HS and just because I do not follow blindly your set of beliefs, does not mean I am not saved. :nono:

Frankly, using your own unreasonable arguments against yourself, if you were privy to the leading of the HS in your life, then you should at least be able to see the sanctification work of the HS in me, but you don't, so the question naturally arises, what is "your" problem. See the complete lack of apologetics and biblical support that can be blindly railed against someone without any reasonable need, when it's all fundamentally based upon your own personal assumptions. Same with your unreasonable unfounded unbiblical charges against me. Let me qualify, I am "not" attacking/challenging your salvation, just exposing the lack of reasonableness with your personal attacks against me, as well as the (potential of) hypocrisy that you employ when one but considers that you may be wrong and I am actually saved, you would then obviously not be lead by the HS to condemn and judge me as you have. You and your judgments are not the center of truth in this galaxy, so lets get biblical and Christlike and lets start enjoying these issues instead of mud slinging this :eek: , and dancing around that. :devil:

Namely, if you don't know or can't accurately represent Enyart's understanding of what a miracle is, then, just admit it and move on.

If you don't have a single argument against his understanding of what a miracle is, because you don't know what it is, then just admit it and move on.

If you do understand and can accurateyl represent Bob's understanding of what a miracle is and have just been stonewalling for whatever reason, then just admit that and move on.

If it's something else, then just admit that and move on.

If you have nothing good to say, then just admit that and move on.

If you have something good so say, then just say it, and move on.

We are all waiting for you to finally get on with the actual reason we are all here. Please, by all means, get on with it.

1Way
January 17th, 2004, 02:30 PM
Also, consider this, this entire thread has been started at the simple mention of Freak that he has presented reasonable contentions against Bob Enyart's views on miracles. I appreciated his concerns and thoughtfully started this thread to pursue these "claimed" objections against what Bob teaches about miracles. To date, other than subjectively saying what Freak believes is true about miracles, he has not provided one single argument against what Bob believes! And that was the whole entire reason for this thread, for Freak to demonstrate how Bob is wrong in his understanding/teaching about miracles!!!

And all the while, instead of Freak being forthright and presenting point counterpoint argumentation, instead he had engaged in mud slinging, even blaming us for being the problem while he is claimed to be biblically correct.

It's time the truth of a matter be paid attention to.

People rant and rave and claim all matter of things all day long! Yet you simply ask them to present something of substance so that the discussion/debate might become understood and dealt with, and they allow a thread to grow to 83 posts while providing nothing to deal with other than tangent issues and repeat claims.

To Freak's behalf, he has presented what he believes, but in relation to the fact of what this thread is all about, that is nothing much more than repeating the original claim, that Bob Enyart is wrong, and he is right. Yes Freak, we know that about you, that is the reason for this thread, to deal with this issue amongst so many brethren and over open bibles and the leading of the HS.

So, how many more posts must we endure before you finally make your first tangible argument against what Bob believes about miracles?

You do have an argument don't you?

Delmar
January 17th, 2004, 02:32 PM
I must have missed the place where freak challenged your salvation. Was it in the original thread?

1Way
January 17th, 2004, 03:32 PM
Sorry deardelmer - I think I sort of mixed you up with godrulz, you both presented good points in a related issue. It was this thread in post 56 and see godrulz post for a mild rebuke and consider my heartfelt desire for broken relationships to have Christ's healing in them, and so I confused your remark as being contextually linked to Freaks error, also in part because of the proximity of your post to that issue, it was your first post immediately after those posts, so I assumed the contextual link.
:) As harsh as I am, I'd much rather have a respectful and friendly discussion over open bibles and willing humble hearts and minds. The old, I'm right and your obviously wrong bit, is old hat and not very interesting, nor reasonable, nor biblically apologetic, nor Christlike to name a few.

Thanks for asking, "hopefully" we will be able to hold Freak accountable long enough to get somewhere with all this. I wouldn't mind us handing the definition to him AFTER discerning his understanding first. It is my experience, and I think this is taught in scripture, that it is foolishness to let foolishness direct the course of a discussion. If Freak does not even know the understanding that he says is wrong, then such is pure foolishness and we should not go along with/aid/permit such things.

Something about not responding to a fool according to his folly.

:1Way:

Delmar
January 17th, 2004, 05:34 PM
I prefer to reserve the term fool for God haters and pro-aborts which would not include Freak.

Delmar
January 17th, 2004, 05:37 PM
Oh did I leave out terrorist apologists they are FOOLS big time.

1Way
January 17th, 2004, 09:57 PM
deardelmer - I don't find your opinion of the proper use of the word fool (along with harsher words/judgments) to be biblically convincing. Although your personal comfort level and judgment skills and mine may simply be that much different, but I don't think you are just suggesting that you are not as much as matured in your judging skills as I am. Except in your last post though, you seem to want to call "someone" a fool for being a "terrorist apologetist", whatever and whoever that is. Sounds like your qualification for who deserves to be called a fool is a bit sketchy to say the least.

What would you call a person who judges something that he does not understand, yet puts off as though he does, is that person wise or foolish to judge in such a way?

How about to raise a manmade authority, like a dictionary over (and by implication above) what God teaches on an issue, would that be wise or foolish?

As to biblical examples of a godly use of the word fool, one is enough to correct your errant and somewhat subjective standard. Paul called "beloved brethren" fools for being swindled into believing something they should not, even though they were rank amateurs at wielding their newly delivered faith, they had no longstanding history and tradition to help guide them away from false teachings, and during that time, the longstanding historical faith (of the previous but dying out dispensation) was basically the group that what swayed them into their foolishness ("the men who came from James" for example). Wouldn't you agree that Paul was right for loving them the way he did? If words like fool and swine and destructive dog are only for the most desperate and gross sinners, as generally depicted by your examples, then I guess Paul and Christ need some careful correction for railing against the beloved brethren, like say when Jesus called Peter Satan, it seems by your (somewhat ambiguous) standards you would not approve, and, although I can't tell for sure by your lack of clarity, it might be that your willingness to judge against me, the one promoting a bible based apologetic, and I'm arguably being nicer than Paul and especially Jesus was, perhaps you would have opposed them too. ?

Terrorist apologists are "big time fools", but not people like Freak by letting 83 and growing posts go by without making a single counter point argument against Enyart's teaching, and I'm the one promoting apologetically demonstrating your faith, so naturally I wonder who or what you are referring to(?) as being "a big time fool", who is this God hater/pro abort level wicked one? Please explain, I am sorry but I do not understand what you have in mind when you say these things, especially the terrorist comment, and if it does not apply to me, then why bring it up?

Should I take back my appreciation of your comment that I thought was in support of my desire for Christ being the healer in our lives and relationships, because you did not mean to aid us in that way as I thought you were? I explained my confusion about your remark because by your recent remarks you are not supporting me and now by these remarks, perhaps you are attacking me rather harshly. Do you think that Freak was right for challenging my salvation or what, I answered your question about all that, please don't leave me in the dark about what you meant. Otherwise I will have to withdraw my appreciation for your welcomed comment simply because I was wrong about what you meant.

godrulz
January 17th, 2004, 10:19 PM
I thought Freak stated he was gone for 2 weeks and could not respond while away? Are you sure he questioned your salvation, or was it a rash hyperbole? (post # for either of the above?)

1Way
January 17th, 2004, 11:33 PM
godrulz - You too? Man, sorry for being so confused. Please explain your post #57 then in light of what you just said. I have not questioned Freaks salvation, but he had just challenged mine in the previous post 56.

Challenging one's salvation using hyperbole or not, is still challenging one's salvation. But lets take another look at what Freak actually said in post 56.
Originally posted by Freak

"Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say."

This has been 1Way's problem.

"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

Since 1Way is deaf to the things of God one could conclude that he doesn't belong to God. See the last of what Jesus said: The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.

Can you hear, 1Way? I'm afraid you have duped yourself to believing a lie which has led to your spiritual deafness.

I think I have witnessed enough of you're handling of this debate. It's pathetic. :down: I think I'll await for someone else to debate this issue with me or Bob. I was being more gracious than I should have been. Please forgive me for assuming better behavior from Freak. He plainly claimed that I am not saved, no doubts about it. Also, stating a claim in the form of a question does not invalidate the claim. Consider.

Why are you so dumb? Can you stop being that stupid? Do you know how dumb you are? Etc. etc., to ask me if I can hear God while trying to establish that I am not a part of God's saved people, I am deaf to God, etc. is a mute question. The assertions that I am not saved are numerous, and from bible sitations where there is no ambiguity as to what context the deafness supposedly meant.

That is so strange, because I thought you both were correcting his error and unfounded personal attacks against me, yet evidentally you were not aware of the nature of his attacks against me. :think: Oh well, live and learn, I've made much worse mistakes myself.

godrulz
January 17th, 2004, 11:40 PM
I was not clear on what Freak had said. Assuming your understanding of his context and motives are correct, Freak's position is indefensible and he needs to repent and ask your forgiveness. God is the Judge of hearts and it is evident that 1Way is a believer (as is Freak). I think we all need more humility, maturity, and character development (fruit of the Spirit and grace).

Delmar
January 18th, 2004, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

deardelmer - I don't find your opinion of the proper use of the word fool (along with harsher words/judgments) to be biblically convincing. Although your personal comfort level and judgment skills and mine may simply be that much different, but I don't think you are just suggesting that you are not as much as matured in your judging skills as I am. Except in your last post though, you seem to want to call "someone" a fool for being a "terrorist apologetist", whatever and whoever that is. Sounds like your qualification for who deserves to be called a fool is a bit sketchy to say the least.

What would you call a person who judges something that he does not understand, yet puts off as though he does, is that person wise or foolish to judge in such a way?

How about to raise a manmade authority, like a dictionary over (and by implication above) what God teaches on an issue, would that be wise or foolish?

As to biblical examples of a godly use of the word fool, one is enough to correct your errant and somewhat subjective standard. Paul called "beloved brethren" fools for being swindled into believing something they should not, even though they were rank amateurs at wielding their newly delivered faith, they had no longstanding history and tradition to help guide them away from false teachings, and during that time, the longstanding historical faith (of the previous but dying out dispensation) was basically the group that what swayed them into their foolishness ("the men who came from James" for example). Wouldn't you agree that Paul was right for loving them the way he did? If words like fool and swine and destructive dog are only for the most desperate and gross sinners, as generally depicted by your examples, then I guess Paul and Christ need some careful correction for railing against the beloved brethren, like say when Jesus called Peter Satan, it seems by your (somewhat ambiguous) standards you would not approve, and, although I can't tell for sure by your lack of clarity, it might be that your willingness to judge against me, the one promoting a bible based apologetic, and I'm arguably being nicer than Paul and especially Jesus was, perhaps you would have opposed them too. ?

Terrorist apologists are "big time fools", but not people like Freak by letting 83 and growing posts go by without making a single counter point argument against Enyart's teaching, and I'm the one promoting apologetically demonstrating your faith, so naturally I wonder who or what you are referring to(?) as being "a big time fool", who is this God hater/pro abort level wicked one? Please explain, I am sorry but I do not understand what you have in mind when you say these things, especially the terrorist comment, and if it does not apply to me, then why bring it up?

Should I take back my appreciation of your comment that I thought was in support of my desire for Christ being the healer in our lives and relationships, because you did not mean to aid us in that way as I thought you were? I explained my confusion about your remark because by your recent remarks you are not supporting me and now by these remarks, perhaps you are attacking me rather harshly. Do you think that Freak was right for challenging my salvation or what, I answered your question about all that, please don't leave me in the dark about what you meant. Otherwise I will have to withdraw my appreciation for your welcomed comment simply because I was wrong about what you meant.

Like I said I didn't see the text where Freak called your salvation into question. Untill I do please pardon me if I don't jump on the bandwagon with you and call him fool. My comments about pro-aborts God haters and "terrorist apologetist" were simply meant to show you which kind of people I would be quicker to judge.


Ok I just saw the post you were talking about and I do see why you were offended. Oh BTW I was never attacking you.

1Way
January 18th, 2004, 02:06 AM
godrulz - You said
Assuming your understanding of his context and motives are correct, I agree that sometimes people do not accurately express what is in their heart, they do not always truly express their intentions, however, to place much doubt on one's expressions as not being according to their intentions, can quickly represent a nasty charge (to some extent) of self delusion or purposeful deceit or something of the like. I tend to trust that what one says is what they meant to say and is not incongruent with their heart nor their willful intentions. As a general rule, people speak their minds, not otherwise. I grant that mistakes happen, but consider the form of the post I quoted in it's entirety from Freak, that it is not one of ambiguity nor confusion. Lets not place more suspicion upon Freak than what seems reasonable. I suggest that he most likely said what he meant and intended to say.

Thanks for helping me understand your views and what you had in mind when you said what you said.

As to all this being a fitting moment for your remark for all needing more humility and growth and such, on one hand, of course "everyone" needs to become more like Christ, we have not arrived yet, but on the other more contextually pertinent hand, don't lump the unrighteous with the righteous, the good with the bad. For myself, it is child's play to be able to avoid the sort of error that Freak exhibits. That may not make me mature, but it also does not mean that's a sign that I need to mature either. It seems to me that such a moment calls for us to pray to God to better understand Him and His word, to seek God's leading in making wise godly judgments and decisions, and to do right and risk the rest.


Freak first stating my problem of me not being saved in "several" clear and contextually developed charges as presented from scripture, and then for him to ask me if I have the problem of not being saved, is on the face of it disingenuous, and is about as phony of a way of acting "objective" as one could be. First, if I am not saved, but I am deluding myself into believing that I am anyway, then I am the last person to trust concerning the truth of that matter. So really, Freak's accusations do not allow his question to be very honest and sincere. Secondly, if his questioning my salvation was sincere, then necessarily his charges against me saying that I am not saved were not sincere. So one of the two are not nearly as genuine and truthful as the other. And thirdly, which of the two communications, the charges or the question did he accentuate with time and support from scripture? He focused on the not saved allegations, while posing his question as an out incase folks like you would suggest that his primary judgment against me is unfounded and should require asking for forgiveness, but then he could always say, no no, really I was not that certain he is not saved, after all I asked him if he was or not, thus demonstrating my uncertainty...

I think that it takes a certain amount of willful ignorance to not to clearly observe and understand these things, if you only give it some careful attention.

And remember, if Freak will be as he has been, then his excuses or rational for his actions may be as deceptive and dubious as is this communication. If you can't be trusted in the first place, how can you trust him to follow up in an upright manor later? Sure, anyone can repent and truly be sorry, but until he does repent, what he has said is condemnable and should be condemned so as to give him the best chances at standing corrected. If you are too shy from saying, your wrong, and you tend to hold out for the good in people, then you are being nicer than God, let His ways direct yours and whenever wrong is being done, don't look the other way and act like you can't tell what is going on, step bravely between them and their error/sin because you care enough to oppose unrighteousness even if you would rather take a nicer approach.If you are too quick to judge against someone, then you will be wrong more often than you should be, but at least you are trying to do the right thing and as long as you respond to those failures appropriately, then no harm should remain.

And don't forget, since you are not claiming infallibility, and you are careful not to overstate your case, then if you happen to be wrong in your judgments, then simply be glad of it that a wrong was set aright and stand corrected while at the same time comfort yourself with the knowledge that you demonstrated non-hypocritical love. That is godly love, and the HS comforts and commends those who abide in Him and His ways, even though we are just human judges.

Thanks for understanding the severity of the problem. And here's hoping for a wrong set upright.

Judge with righteous judgment, let your love be without hypocrisy, don't mix good with bad, light with darkness.

1Way
January 18th, 2004, 02:58 AM
deardelmer - Excelent, and thanks for the update, and sorry for being unsure and all, yet I still find the comment about being a terrorist apologetist to be somewhat ambiguous especially as compared to your other statements. Actually, I view Freak as being a terrorist poster. And so do others here on this thread. It was drbrumley who pointed this out in his posts 63 and 64, which is a clear example of Freak ripping the context to the extent that would make it appear that drbrumley was disagreeing with something goodly and good from deardelmer, instead of actually disagreeing with Freak for his error of defining what a miracle is. That is perversion, and willful perversion at that! Drbrumley said
Another attempt at applying what someone says to where it doesn't belong,

Good job Freak :thumb: and
How soon I forget, Freak is a master of the "out of context game" Try asking Knight if such behavior is consistently Freak's motif. deardelmer, you should have been upset with Freak for making your words part of Freak's perversion of what Drdrumley said. But then again, I think you said that you did not understand what was being said about all that. I wish you would go back and take a fresh look at how Freak maliciously used you to help make brother drbrumley look bad.
And remember, they don't say, ripping or chopping the words out of context for no good reason, it is precisely because doing so is violence to the meaning originally offered that we say ripping the words out of context. And the last I considered it, a terrorist uses violence in a cowardly unrighteous way, and ripping the context is about as cowardly and unrighteous as one can get.

I have a pretty good sense of what Freak has been saying lately, in this thread and in others, so the context of his behavior may be somewhat fuller with me. And just to clarify one more thing, actually, I am not so much offended at Freak suggesting that my problem in life is that I am not saved, like I say, his posts are exemplary of a person who's judgments are, shall we say, full of bologna. When I consider all that Freak has said towards me in the last few weeks or so, I am more offended at his entire message of unrighteous animosity and false judgments. Sort of like one of the best arguments for the deity of Jesus Christ is not any one single message, but that His entire message was so ego centric and fully beyond what any lesser being should ever dream of teaching about himself. With Freak, his personal animosity towards me is consistent and replete, and he tops it off a good deal of irrationality, like when he teamed up with Jerry against me where they constantly attempt to make

a claim

into a support argument,

and at the same time, turn the fact that we disagree about what the same text actually means, into them simply letting scripture mean what it plainly says and me editing it to suit my theology. Yet when you take their own reasoning and direct it at them, it would make them wrong and me right which fully invalidates their whole point and their argument is thus not much more than simply saying, I'm right and your wrong, and then repeating that same motif over and over as though shear repetition should further support their views. It is one gross deal, and Jerry even ended up saying that he purposefully never even attempted at dealing with my arguments because he thinks that I start out by editing scripture and thus I deserve none of his respect that would be required to entertain my views. Such behavior is contradictory foolishness and strife and backbiting and sometimes worse.

So Freak doesn't like it that I have exposed him for such things in that other thread and as most people know, I don't pull punches especially when the wrong is so obvious, so the fact that he is now found kicking below the belt and fighting like a woman is to be expected from such a person doing such things.

Stupid is as stupid does.

I wish I could paint a better picture, but I'd rather speak the truth in non-hypocritical love. Poor Freak, 80 some posts and he just cant get up the nerve to actually begin the debate, he can make claims all day long, but when it comes down to actually demonstrating how Enyart was wrong, he's no where to be found, even after 80 some posts!!!

Freak
January 18th, 2004, 03:56 AM
I'm off to Europe tommorrow but wanted to respond to 1Way's wordy nonsense.


Originally posted by 1Way

This is getting out of focus. Due to you.


Freak "supposedly" disagrees with Enyart's view on miracles, "Supposedly," huh? I'm quite clear on this issue. I disagree with Bob's view of miracles for its unBiblical.

Bob has stated on this forum the following:

"Miracles foster unbelief."

Source: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3679&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

This is clearly in error. For the following reasons:

We know from Scripture that the miracle of the new birth fosters belief not unbelief. Scripture recounts the strengthening of the church when the lost is converted. Furthermore...one has to believe in a miracle --the resurrection of Jesus to experience salvation.

Due to Christ's greatest miracle--raising from the dead--we find justification--He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.


For Freaks sake, a dictionary is not "the" ultimate authority for matters of eternal truth, Lie! I believe Holy Scripture and the revelation of Jesus Christ is our ultimate authority not a dictionary. Will you retract your lie?


however, God's word is, and that is where Bob Enyart bases his understanding of what a miracle is FYI, the Scripture defines a miracle as such:

Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Jesus tells us a miracle would include the delivering of a person from demons. These miracles still occur in our day...for God gives His church gifts (such as the gift of miracles) to rescue those in darkness.

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. 1Way, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc????

The Holy Scriptures don't seem to make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13).

Homework for 1Way:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the apostles, as you claim, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.


My opposition to Freak is because of his false teachings which go against the truth, Clearly you are deceived. I believe in the triune nature of God, the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, justification is by faith alone in Christ, the inerrancy of Scripture, etc...

These beliefs are core beliefs that do not go against the truth, 1Way. You have spoken lies. That is why I stated this to you:

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Your lies speaks clearly to me and to all. You lie about me for it's your very own nature to lie. Pathetic. :down:


And as to me responding to Freak's challenge, you have won no amount of personal respect and mutual fellowship or trust with me enough for me to feel the need to share my personal testimony with you on the basis of you judging that I am not saved. 1Way continues to respond to this thread by spreading lies and misinformation. The reason he doesn't respond to my challenge is rather simple: He can't!!! :crackup:

Freak
January 18th, 2004, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

Actually, I view Freak as being a terrorist poster. Whatever. :down:


With Freak, his personal animosity towards me is consistent and replete, and he tops it off a good deal of irrationality, like when he teamed up with Jerry against me where they constantly attempt to make. Yes, I'm getting tired of your wordy posts that bore me. Take up the challenge or shut up.


So Freak doesn't like it that I have exposed him for such things in that other thread and as most people know, I don't pull punches especially when the wrong is so obvious, People are seeing you that spend considerable time on this thread attacking me and not dealing with my challenge as stated at the very beginning.

1Way, start here...

Bob has stated on this forum the following:

"Miracles foster unbelief."

Source: http://www.theologyonline.com/forum...mp;pagenumber=1

This is clearly in error. For the following reasons:

We know from Scripture that the miracle of the new birth fosters belief not unbelief. Scripture recounts the strengthening of the church when the lost is converted. Furthermore...one has to believe in a miracle --the resurrection of Jesus to experience salvation.

Due to Christ's greatest miracle--raising from the dead--we find justification--He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Jesus defined a miracle: Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Jesus tells us a miracle would include the delivering of a person from demons. These miracles still occur in our day...for God gives His church gifts (such as the gift of miracles) to rescue those in darkness.

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. 1Way, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc????

The Holy Scriptures don't seem to make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13).

Homework for 1Way:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the apostles, as you claim, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

1Way
January 18th, 2004, 04:47 AM
Freak, have you considered writting devotions, your sentiments are just so chuck filled with ,,,

That is not a challenge, that is you ignoring what Enyart teaches about what a miracle really is. It's the old apples and oranges game, you say a miracle is one thing and he says it's another. That is the start of your disagreement and so far you are unwilling to deal with that fact. Until the issue of what a miracle really is, is settled, arguing that miracles are for today is a mute issue since you are using the term to mean something different than the way Bob and many others like him use it.

Your argumentation is again in the form of name it and claim it. You used the dictionary to define what a miracle is, and Bob used the bible, I did not lie about you doing that, but I am glad you have researched the bible over this issue. But doing so does not rescue you from just claiming that your definition of what a miracle is, is right and Bob's is wrong. That sort of argumentation amounts to nothing more than saying I am right and you are wrong. And so here we are again, waiting for you to finally make your point against Bob's point about what a miracle really is.

If you are not willing to deal with this disagreement first, then you are begging the entire question of what a miracle is, and thus this debate can not progress since the primary article in dispute is not even understood to be the same item.

That, is the reason I have not been able to progress beyond exposing your rampant ill behavior, not because I couldn't, but because I am not irrational and ill willed like you are, I am rational and realize that for two parties to argue a point, the point must first be accurately understood by both sides. Here let me draw a picture for you.

A fosters faith
vrs
A does not foster faith

But you won't let us go there, instead you are stuck with

non A fosters faith
vrs
A does not foster faith

Can this issue be any easier to grasp? You must deal with the disparity of your understandings of what a miracle is, without such a discussion, no reasonable rational debate about "miracles" can happen. Did you learn new math? Because I sense a deep abiding confusion in your illogic.

godrulz
January 18th, 2004, 04:53 AM
Is the problem with God's miracles (do not limit the supernatural God), or the condition of man's heart (reject truth and light)?

The preaching of the Word (death and resurrection of Christ) fosters belief, but are signs and wonders not confirmatory according to Scripture (point to Him)?

I still do not know Enyart's definition of 'miracle'. Does it include anything supernatural like divine healing, for example (can and does God heal people today)?

Freak
January 18th, 2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
Until the issue of what a miracle really is, is settled, arguing that miracles are for today is a mute issue since you are using the term to mean something different than the way Bob and many others like him use it.

Jesus defined a miracle: Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Jesus tells us a miracle would include the delivering of a person from demons. These miracles still occur in our day...for God gives His church gifts (such as the gift of miracles) to rescue those in darkness.


You used the dictionary to define what a miracle is, and Bob used the bible, I used a dictionary and Scripture. You still haven't finished your homework. I know why you haven't.


but I am glad you have researched the bible over this issue. Thanks. Scripture is quite clear! I pray one day your eyes would be opened to the truth.


That, is the reason I have not been able to progress beyond exposing your rampant ill behavior, not because I couldn't, but because I am not irrational and ill willed like you are, Surrrrreeeee....:kookoo:

Freak
January 18th, 2004, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

Is the problem with God's miracles (do not limit the supernatural God), or the condition of man's heart (reject truth and light)?

The preaching of the Word (death and resurrection of Christ) fosters belief, but are signs and wonders not confirmatory according to Scripture (point to Him)? :thumb:


I still do not know Enyart's definition of 'miracle'. Does it include anything supernatural like divine healing, for example (can and does God heal people today)? I have quoted directly from Enyart, in what he views miracles of doing---fostering unbelief. I have defined miracle from Scripture and from the dictionary. 1Way, on the other hand, continues to take us down the road of Freak-bashing. 1Way instead of creating wordy posts, answer these questions...

Bob has stated on this forum the following:

"Miracles foster unbelief."

Source: http://www.theologyonline.com/forum...mp;pagenumber=1

This is clearly in error. For the following reasons:

We know from Scripture that the miracle of the new birth fosters belief not unbelief. Scripture recounts the strengthening of the church when the lost is converted. Furthermore...one has to believe in a miracle --the resurrection of Jesus to experience salvation.

Due to Christ's greatest miracle--raising from the dead--we find justification--He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Jesus defined a miracle: Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Jesus tells us a miracle would include the delivering of a person from demons. These miracles still occur in our day...for God gives His church gifts (such as the gift of miracles) to rescue those in darkness.

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. 1Way, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc????

The Holy Scriptures don't seem to make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13).

Homework for 1Way:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the apostles, as you claim, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

1Way
January 18th, 2004, 01:51 PM
godrulz - You said
I still do not know Enyart's definition of 'miracle'. Does it include anything supernatural like divine healing, for example (can and does God heal people today)? Until we all have the same understanding of what a miracle is, then our responses to what "it" is will vary necessarily and to my understanding, especially after hearing those already presented, dramatically.

This is a thread devoted to Freaks allegation that Enyart is wrong about his views on miracles, yet, other than explaining why Freak thinks he is right, he has not yet, even after 97 posts, presented a single argument as to what is wrong with what Enyart teaches about miracles. Enyart does not teach about miracles according to Freaks definition, nor perhaps many other definitions, Enyart taught about miracles meaning something very specific. He went to great pains to define what a miracle is, so as to make his teaching's foundation be clear and biblically accurate.

It is wrong to let an ill willed mud slinging hot head like Freak direct the course of a discussion when you are not even talking about the same issue, yet you speak as though you are. The level of willful ignorance and selfrighteous pride he asserts as truth, is astounding. Please do not join him in goading others to present the definition that Bob Enyart puts forth, because then Freak will have won and dictated the course of this debate/discussion and allowed to to progress/be aided by people who are not redemptively holding him accountable for behaving as he has.

I reiterate the exact nature of the problem Freak seems unwilling to deal with, although everyone is waiting for the debate about


A tends not to produce faith
vrs
A tends to produce faith


The truth of the matter is that Freak has not yet allow the debate to be anything other than


A tends to not produce faith
vrs
nonA tends to produce faith


You understand this problem/issue of incompatibility, don't you?

I appreciate your curiosity and expressed willingness to find out what Bob teaches is a miracle, but until Freak, who is the main person at focus of this thread, allows this topic to get topically relevant, he is simply being the divisive subversive ill willed strife slinging immature person that he continues to be. Do not overlook nor support someone who is acting so grossly ungodly swimming in sin. That would be being nicer than God, and we don't want to do that.

You also said

The preaching of the Word (death and resurrection of Christ) fosters belief, but are signs and wonders not confirmatory according to Scripture (point to Him)? That seems like a nice but overly positive reflection. If the truth of the matter is, that all have the opportunity to get saved, many agree that is accurate, and people know a great deal about God through various forms of revelation (which I believe the bible teaches that all have heard the gospel message), and we know that the clear majority end up in hell, so for us to say that the preaching of the Word fosters belief is on the face of it, a dubious statement. I'd say that faith can and may foster faith, that man reaching man with God's message of salvation is the best way for folks to believe, but to say that it fosters belief is actually a far cry from the truth.

And that brings us to Enyart's methodology concerning the claim that miracles tend to not produce faith. He does not do as people here have done, instead, he lists EVERY miracle along with the effect concerning faith in the people who the bible mentions were effected by the miracle. Now, that is some serious bible study. He did not pick and choose certain miracle passages, he examined them all, and guess what he did? He simply took score of the positive and non-positive faith causing results of these miracles, and low and behold, the biblical record is unambiguous, miracles do NOT tend to foster faith.

So after someone somehow can make Freak realize that he is not allowing the debate to be other the same contested idea, this is not actually two threads over two different notions of what a miracle is, then after we finally get a handle on what a miracle really is, we would then necessarily need to point out where Bob Enyart misreported all the bible's miracles along with their effect on people concerning a positive faith growing experience. I do not remember the ratio, or the percentage, I'm not even sure he had to go that far, because it seemed to me that after you get part way through the bible, the message becomes droned into you over and over and over again. But, off hand, I would say that the bible's testimony about the positive effects of producing faith in men, are in lower than 5-10 percent of the time. You see, even if it was nearer to fifty percent of the time, it would be dubious of people to claim that biblical godly miracles tend to cause faith in men. It's a landslide, miracles do not tend to foster faith. Oh, and that brings upon yet another very crucial idea, what is faith? When we but carefully consider the nature of what faith is, that biblical idea ALSO lends to the idea that miracles should not tend to foster it, in fact, the nature of a miracle tends to eliminate what faith requires in order for biblical faith to be real and true.

Bob really has gone to great lengths to establish his point that miracles do not tend to foster faith, and he does so by simply observing the bible's testimony over these things, and so, until we FINALLY hear from Freaks corner what is wrong with all this that Bob has put forth, then we have no idea what Freak and his kind thinks is wrong with what BOB HAS TAUGHT. We know what Freak thinks is right, but that is not what this thread is about, he was supposed to show what is wrong with what Bob teaches.

godrulz, although I do wish you would show a bit more backbone and discernment and thus caring about Freak concerning his ongoing (i.e. not repentant, even defiant) ill will and slanderous behavior, I do very much appreciate the way you have been leading towards an open honest discussion even over issues that we have a stark disagreement over. When I consider you in these things, I can easily imagine us (and the others aside from Freak) sitting down "together" and opening up our bibles and caringly searching these things out in a good and godly way, even knowing that we may not agree (on everything) every step of the way, but your personal willingness to make whatever positive edifying discoveries is exemplary and I am personally encouraged by your lead. Thanks for being as cooperative and helpful as you have been.

Peace :)

May the "truth" guide you, on your way, and may your love abhor that which is evil, which necessarily includes unrighteousness and ungodliness.

1Way
January 18th, 2004, 01:59 PM
Freak - Until you can deal with the contradictory nature of the following, your claims fall due to your manifest unwillingness to even address what Bob actually teaches. If you can not and will not accurately represent what Bob teaches, then why don't you just admit it that you don't know what he teaches, instead, because you simply disagree with some of his conclusions, you are only willing to share that much. i.e. you lied when you said that you were willing to demonstrate what is wrong with ENYART'S teachings on miracles, you only want to show what you think is right quite irregardless of the truth about what Bob actually teaches. You wont even deal with the incompatibility of your views over what the bible demonstrates a miracle really is.
Here, let me draw the picture for you, again.

A tends not to produce faith
vrs
A tends to produce faith


The truth of the matter is that Freak has not yet allow the debate to be anything other than


A tends to not produce faith
vrs
nonA tends to produce faith


If you have anything to say about Bob's definition of what a miracle is, please don't wait until another hundred posts go by before you make your first actual "on topic" argument.

1Way
January 18th, 2004, 02:12 PM
The topic is not somehow redefined by you, just because you would like it to be, listen to Freak explain what he believes about miracles. The topic actually is, Freak exposing what is wrong with what Bob Enyart teaches about miracles, i.e. not what freak thinks is a miracle, but what Bob E. accurately teaches is a miracle.

Name it and claim it is soooooo wrong, you can't just go around defining things and ignoring the truth of the matter that Bob E defined things differently than you have. Get right, deal uprightly and with the truth on your side.

Does that reality have room in your life? Can you deal upright with the truth?

Freak
January 18th, 2004, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Freak - Until you can deal with the contradictory nature of the following, your claims fall due to your manifest unwillingness to even address what Bob actually teaches. 1Way, your wordy posts are wasteful. Perhaps this time around you'll do your assigned homework...

I'll quote from Bob and allow you to look at the very source...

Bob has stated on this forum the following:

"Miracles foster unbelief."

Source: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3679&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

This is clearly in error. For the following reasons:

We know from Scripture that the miracle of the new birth fosters belief not unbelief. Scripture recounts the strengthening of the church when the lost is converted. Furthermore...one has to believe in a miracle --the resurrection of Jesus to experience salvation.

Due to Christ's greatest miracle--raising from the dead--we find justification--He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

FYI, the Scripture defines a miracle as such:

Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Jesus tells us a miracle would include the delivering of a person from demons. These miracles still occur in our day...for God gives His church gifts (such as the gift of miracles) to rescue those in darkness.

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. 1Way, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc????

The Holy Scriptures don't seem to make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13).

Homework for 1Way:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the apostles, as you claim, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

Freak
January 18th, 2004, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

The topic is not somehow redefined by you, just because you would like it to be, listen to Freak explain what he believes about miracles. Actually, Wrongway, it's not about how I view/define miracles but rather how does Jesus view/define miracles.

FYI, the Scripture defines a miracle as such:

Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Jesus tells us a miracle would include the delivering of a person from demons. These miracles still occur in our day...for God gives His church gifts (such as the gift of miracles) to rescue those in darkness.


The topic actually is, Freak exposing what is wrong with what Bob Enyart teaches about miracles Mission accomplished. :p

1Way
January 18th, 2004, 05:47 PM
Freak is the freak, he said
Actually, Wrongway, it's not about how I view/define miracles but rather how does Jesus view/define miracles. And he said that, in the thread created especially for him to expose how it is that Enyart's teaching "as (accurately) espoused in The Plot": is in error concerning miracles. The reason for this thread was not, lets all watch as Freak tares about Enyart by ignoring what Bob even says a miracle really is, and also watch as Freak ignores the biblical reasoning for his conclusion that miracles do not tend to foster faith. i.e. Enyart lists every miracle and makes note of ever response concerning it's effect of faith in man. Freak never even touches what Bob teaches, he is just saying that he disagrees with Bob's conclusions.

Like duh, Freak, we all know you disagree already, ,,, :eek:

Here is the title of this thread
Freak challenges "The Plot" over miracles

Perhaps Freak never ever had any intentions of demonstrating how Enyart's teachings are wrong. Perhaps he was lying the entire time. By his actions, who knows for sure if it was always deceipt or just deceipt after the fact of realizing that he has no arguments against what Bob actually teaches? Freak is self deluded and steeped in error. I hope everyone with a modicum of respectful intelligence castigates him for this grossest of errors, pretending like he need not accurately represent a view that he says is wrong.

I have no problem with you having your own ideas about miracles, but, the fact remains that the reason this thread was even created was not for you to simply share your ideas on the matter, it was to debate/expose/refute/oppose Enyart's teachings on miracles. You were to show how what Enyart DOES teach is wrong, not how what Enyart does NOT teach is wrong.

drdrumley was right, Freak is the master as the out of context game. And the violence to the truth just goes on with little opposition, except from me and a scarce few others. Praise god for the righteous minority!
Abhorance to those who do not walk uprightly in the truth. :nono:

Here is the title that Freak wishes was the truth in reality
Freak ignores "The Plot" over miracles

What a freak.

1Way
January 18th, 2004, 06:30 PM
Here is the link to his first challenge,
click here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=433048#post433048) his post 7,
and here is the link to my response graciously starting up a thread just so that Freak could challenge the teachings from The Plot over miracles. click this (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=433186#post433186) my post 16.

Just so everyone can see what Freak originally said when I graciously started this thread for him. Examine the following, and remember, no one incited him to make the following statement, he did so of his own freely twisted accord.
:1Way: said
I must have tested out the various teachings within The Plot, after about 8333 thoughtful time intensive posts, many of which represent a different topic or subject or point of view on a similar topic, I have yet to find ANY significant problem with the teachings of the Plot. Freak said
I'll give you one area, where a group of us posters (Gavin, Godrulz, myself, etc), have challenged Bob and/or those who agree with him on (the issue of spiritual gifts/miracles) and we have yet been challenged.

And so this was my response to what I naturally assumed was an honest sincere challenge from Freak against the teachings within The Plot.

Freak - I started a new thread on the topic just for your challenge that way we can keep this thread from straying the topic.

Click here

Thanks, looking forward to your posts. Yet to date, Freak has not made one single argument as to what is wrong with Enyart's teachings about miracles except to disagree with his conclusions. So apparently he lied when he said that he has challenged what Enyart teaches about miracles. Obviously by now, we all know that Freak disagrees with Bob's conclusions, but we don't know what he thinks is wrong with Bob's actual teachings and support reasoning since he never sites them along with contextual accuracy, and then attempts to refute them, never once!!! :freak:

EVERYONE.
Am I the only one in the universe who clearly understands the difference between disagreeing with a conclusion, and refuting a teaching? You must accurately understand and represent the idea you wish to refute otherwise, if refutation of a teaching is as Freak would like it to be, then anything you don't happen to agree with, you can just say it's wrong, show your side of the issue, and then claim, see, I've refuted the view that I have not even dealt with.

:doh: :freak: :madmad: :dunce: :mad: :eek: :doh: :freak:

godrulz
January 18th, 2004, 09:58 PM
Is there a possibility of miscommunication here?
(I have not grasping this debate totally).

Perhaps Enyart's article makes a valid point, that despite the supernatural miracles of God in the past (and by extension, the present), hard-hearted people still will not believe. Jesus alluded to this and acknowledged that if they did not believe Moses and the miracles He did, they would not believe even if He rose from the dead. Jesus did not negate miracles and did not cease destroying the works of Satan supernaturally.

Perhaps Enyart is too narrow or wrong in his understanding of the nature and purpose of miracles and is missing the forest for the trees. Miracles can be valid for today AND still foster unbelief.

Is divine healing a miracle? Yes. People are healed by God today (Enyart is blatantly wrong and guilty of unbelief if he denies this).

1Way
January 19th, 2004, 12:48 AM
godrulz - I never would have guessed that someone as honorable as you would lead in going off topic right at the moment when the most help was needed getting this thread back on topic. Yes, you are not understanding what is going on. It's not like you said, about his "article", it's about Bob's teachings about miracles as expoused in "The Plot".

Do you understand the difference between a dissagreement and refuting someone's teaching? Or was my last two posts wasted on you also?


You must accurately understand and represent the idea you wish to refute otherwise, if refutation of a teaching is as Freak would like it to be, then anything you don't happen to agree with, you can just say it's wrong, show your side of the issue, and then claim, see, I've refuted the view that I have not even dealt with.
You keep forgeting that foundational issues matter. Before you judge a matter, like the nature of miracles for example, it would be ,,, a really "good" idea for you to first understand, ,,, what a miracle is. I suggest that basically all definitions presented so far, are faulty or underdeveloped. Until this issue of letting Bob's teaching of what a miracle is becomes accurately represented, attacks/doubts against his teaching are void of understanding and folks are more like freaks as they just spout their own opinions instead of actually dealing with what Bob actually taught.

Godrulz, was there something that I said in my previous 2 posts that you have a problem with? Why take the focus off track when the opposite is what is needed? Why are you "wondering" astray instead of standing up for the truth of the matter, namely, that Freak is NOT dealing with what Bob teaches about miracles, instead, he is even ignoring what Bob says a miracle is! That is a recorded verifiable fact of reality, that is the truth of the matter. So don't ignore it and the wrong doing that such wholesale obfuscation represents. And least of all, don't essentially do what Freak hs been doing. (Or is there some problem with my last two posts?)

Freak
January 19th, 2004, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

And so this was my response to what I naturally assumed was an honest sincere challenge from Freak against the teachings within The Plot. Yes, the truth in light of God's revealed Word has been brought front & center. Bob Enyart has been found to be in error regarding this issue as Enyart teaches that "miracles foster unbelief." This generalization has been exposed as being untrue and lacking any Scriptural merit.


Yet to date, Freak has not made one single argument as to what is wrong with Enyart's teachings.. You got to be kidding. Your father, the devil, has truly blinded you, 1Way. Perhaps you can start here...

I'll quote from Bob and allow you to look at the very source...

Bob has stated on this forum the following:

"Miracles foster unbelief."

Source: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3679&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

This is clearly in error. For the following reasons:

We know from Scripture that the miracle of the new birth fosters belief not unbelief. Scripture recounts the strengthening of the church when the lost is converted. Furthermore...one has to believe in a miracle --the resurrection of Jesus to experience salvation.

Due to Christ's greatest miracle--raising from the dead--we find justification--He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

FYI, the Scripture defines a miracle as such:

Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Jesus tells us a miracle would include the delivering of a person from demons. These miracles still occur in our day...for God gives His church gifts (such as the gift of miracles) to rescue those in darkness.

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. 1Way, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc????

The Holy Scriptures don't seem to make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13).

Homework for 1Way:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the apostles, as you claim, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.


...about miracles except to disagree with his conclusions. Yes, I disagree with Enyart's conclusions because the Holy Scripture militates against his view.


So apparently he lied when he said that he has challenged what Enyart teaches about miracles. You're very own nature is one of lies. For example you stated about me:

"For Freaks sake, a dictionary is not "the" ultimate authority for matters of eternal truth,"

The truth:I believe Holy Scripture and the revelation of Jesus Christ is our ultimate authority not a dictionary. Will you retract your lie?

1Way continues with the lies:

"My opposition to Freak is because of his false teachings which go against the truth,"

Clearly you are deceived. I believe in the triune nature of God, the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, justification is by faith alone in Christ, the inerrancy of Scripture, etc...

These beliefs are core beliefs that do not go against the truth, 1Way. You have spoken lies. That is why I stated this to you:

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Your lies speaks clearly to me and to all. You lie about me for it's your very own nature to lie. Pathetic.


Obviously by now, we all know that Freak disagrees with Bob's conclusions No kidding bright eyes. :kookoo: Get off the Plot reading and get into God's Word.

Freak
January 19th, 2004, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

godrulz - I never would have guessed that someone as honorable as you would lead in going off topic right at the moment when the most help was needed getting this thread back on topic. Yes, you are not understanding what is going on. It's not like you said, about his "article", it's about Bob's teachings about miracles as expoused in "The Plot". Would Enyart's articles on TOL be consistent with his teachings in the Plot regarding this topic? :crackup:

Freak
January 19th, 2004, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by godrulz
Perhaps Enyart is too narrow or wrong in his understanding of the nature and purpose of miracles and is missing the forest for the trees.

Is divine healing a miracle? Yes. People are healed by God today (Enyart is blatantly wrong and guilty of unbelief if he denies this). :thumb: :up:

Freak
January 19th, 2004, 01:44 AM
I'm outta here....heading off to Europe in the morning...:bannana:

godrulz
January 19th, 2004, 11:21 AM
Grasping at straws:

Why would God do miracles if they lead to darkness and unbelief? God does what is wise, holy, right, loving, and for the highest good and glory of Himself, and the highest good of man.

None of us are anti-supernaturalists (like atheists).

Why the attack on the supernatural power of God? This strikes me as grieving and quenching the Spirit.

It is one-sided to say that miracles foster unbelief. There are other passages that show faith and miracles fostered belief and salvation for some individuals.

Just because all the lepers were not thankful, does not mean that the others were not impacted and transformed by the miracle.

1way: mild rebuke accepted...I support the intent of the thread running its course on track, and will try to listen rather than speak before reading "The Plot."

:shut:

Chileice
January 19th, 2004, 03:03 PM
Wow! One Way and Freak going head to head (I think it's their heads :-)0 Ah just think how much fun they could have with Veridicus and Sozo on this thread.

1Way
January 19th, 2004, 07:11 PM
Ok, gig's up, I'm quite satisfied after attempt after repeated umpteen attempt to get Freak to put up an argument "against at least one of Bob Enart's teachings". Again, this is NOT about disagreeing with conclusions or claims, this was supposed to be about Freak exposing the error of what Bob actually teaches (esp. from The Plot) and he never gave one single example nor argument against Bob's "teaching", he just demonstrated that he disagrees with Bob, like as though we did not already know that.


Here's some examples of disagreeing with a claim and rebutting an argument


disagreeing with a claim


Bob says A is true

Freak says A is not true, I think B is true, examine B is taught here and here and here in the bible, therefore A is not true.


Using the above method would not likely settle or rebut anything, unless the opponent would just show up and admit he was wrong. And I do admit that sometimes you can refute A by simply establishing B, but then usually such occasions would happen where A and B are more simple issues where especially A is not accompanied with multiple or strong support arguments. Normally speaking, a teaching is strongly connected to it's support arguments so you have to deal with them in order to get anywhere.



rebutting a teaching

Bob says A is true
Freak says wrong, B is true
Freak rebuts Bob by first systematically and accurately exposing whatever arguments Bob has in support for his claim, for example.
Freak says
Bob says that A is true because of argument A1, A2, and A3, and also Bob claims that A4 further demonstrates why A is true although in a more round about way, but helps round out the teaching to demonstrate even more biblical consistency. He would state A1 accurately and not violate it's context, and then proceed to expose it's weakness or error or falsehood or mistake, whatever. Then same with A2 thru A4 and so on. If you NEVER do that, then we would never know what is wrong with what Bob "actually" teaches. Foundational issues matter.



Freak errors from not respecting the bible on many fronts, not the least of which is how to treat one another when we have disagreements.



When it's an important and disputed matter, God teaches the establishment of the truth by multiple or corroborating witnesses. This support the whole idea that the truth is whole and not partial. For example, while Freak has said his side of the issue, that does not mean he has established the truth of the matter, even though he as presented more than one support for his views. When the truth surfaces even in the presence of your advisory/opponent, then the matter is at least more likely to have been established in truth and certainly not according to a personal (one sided) agenda.

De 19:15 "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.

Of course, you can not establish anything if you don't have an objective hearing of both or all sides of the issue, so necessarily you need understanding prior to judgment. And our Christian faith is one of a great amount of knowledge and understanding in the Lord, we should not fear having our faith cross examined, instead we should welcome it with an open readiness.

Col 2:2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, and attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the knowledge of the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ,

And when it comes to teaching learning and sharing our faith in God, we are taught to do so with humility and respect, demonstrating our claims and faith from scripture.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;


Thanks for hanging in there everyone, Freaks behavior is repulsive enough for the next few months so I'll leave him alone to stew in his pot of gross. If godrulz or anyone else who would like to raise the level of discussion to something like what the topic supposedly entails, I'd be glad to have them fill in. But don't forget the two lessons Freak helped us learn, and that is there is a difference between disagreeing and rebutting, and there is a difference between a teaching and a claim or conclusion of a teaching.

Sorry to have to dwell on these elementary immature ideas, but if that is where it's at, then deal with it and move on.


Hello Chileice - Actually, Freak is opposing not very much, and exposing more of his ignorance and error than anything. Freak's main thing is the "contextual violence" game. But, as they say, I have only just begun. With few exceptions, it's been quite disapointing, especially the way Freak non-argues just about everything. Name it and claim it is such lazy foolishness, it's hard to enjoy. So far we've learned that a teaching is not the same as a claim/conclusion, and that rebutting a teaching is not the same as disagreeing with a teaching. But don't tell Freak that, he demonstrates the opposite with Freakish style and flare, and he thinks I'm a liar and not saved. What a deal.

1Way
January 19th, 2004, 07:37 PM
godrulz - Wondering out loud.

Why would a man expect to get a solid answer about what God does prior to doing a thorough examination of God's word over the issue.

In a world of unbelief and sin, miracles validate God's messengers which is especially useful while God is in teaching development mode. Like the times prior to the completion of scripture, and the lessons God wants to teach from each dispensation. If God did not miraculously intervene at all, then anyone could attempt to be God's chosen person or people, and such a thing would obviously be foolish and unwise. Thus it is of no surprise that the main and most obvious reason for most miracles is to validate or authorize God's chosen leader. While it's easy to dismiss the local but evangelical Mormons or JWs who claim to be on God's side, when the earth opens up and swallows hundreds or thousands of your opposition exactly during the pinacle of your conflict, you know who is on God's side and who is not. The point is hard to miss, if you give it but some thoughtful attention. (shaking my head, trying to hide my smirk, why he says)

We are not attacking the supernatural power of God in any way shape or form. Granted that we are right, it is those who misrepresent God's miracles that are actually doing the harm. Of course you are not meaning to beg the question so we move on.

It's one sided to judge a matter prior to hearing it, and that is what you are doing, however tentatively. It is good to be honest and open about our presuppositions, yet at the same time, hold them loosely enough to let the truth be our guide. Not that Enyart's teaching is itself truth, but he teaches from the bible, taking it's testimony and without ambiguous interpretations. The evidence is in my opinion overwhelming and biblically sound. Like I said, Bob lists EVERY single miracle and the response of man concerning faith whenever it is mentioned. And every miracle, of course would include all your passages where miracles supposedly fostered belief. So your claim of Bob being one sided is not remotely an accurate one.

Right, anyone can argue from silence, but Bob and I believe God did not do that. Weigh the evidence first, understand the teaching prior to making your judgments!

LOL - Wow, excellent, and thanks for the comment and brotherly considerations. Although I suspect that some of those words you are holding back would not all fall within the confines of so much humility and acceptance towards me. I am, and somewhat have already been trying to observe your comments as being tentative and not as judgmental as they sometimes appear to be, because for one thing, I figured that after I spend too much time raking you over the coals, you just give in so that we can move on. LOL Don't keep quiet for me, just hold on loosely to your presuppositions, and if necessary, let them go whenever the truth humbles and naturally replaces that which is not true.


I hope you will see how simple it all really is.

A big thanks to deardelmer and godrulz for allowing me to keep Freak's feet to the fire by not letting the cat out of the bag about just one of Bob's teachings too quickly (his definition of what a miracle is.)! Too bad Freak remains so ill willed and confused.

I wont be very detailed early on, and who knows, after the early exchanges, the point might be sufficiently made...

Anyone wanting to contribute Bob's definition about what a miracle is would be excellent food for thought. I won't be around until next weekend, this is my last full time week at work as a truck driver! But boy do I wish I didn't mess up like I did being so late this morning. ughhh

1Way
January 19th, 2004, 08:18 PM
Perhaps Enyart's most impressive argument is demonstrated by listing every miracle in the bible along with the effect that it had on people if discernable. That made for a huge collection, but the point of all that is remarkably simple, miracles do not tend to foster faith. It was a landslide, even with the most outragious and awesome miracles, the overwhelming response was more unbelief.

Bob also deals with the issue of what faith really is. And this point is also remarkably simple. Unlike some issues, faith has an exceptionally clear and quite comprehensive definition. Consider that faith is

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Now, imagine yourself doing something that you experience everyday, like geting in your car and driving to work, or opening up your mouth and eating your dinner, or sitting at your computer and dealing with the endless supply of godly issues from God's word at TOL. Now, during your experience, I mean right in the middle of you experiencing ,,, whatever, like lets say you are driving to work, and you are thinking about what I am saying right now, and you consider your car and the street below and that your mind is cognizant of what is going on, but guess what, none of this is a matter of faith! None, not at all, right?

But why? Because faith requires an element of something hoped for, not something you are seeing and experiencing. Do you have "faith" that your car is on the road and the road is on the ground and your tires are attached to your drivetrain and suspension? No, you consider these things as a matter of fact, not a matter of faith. Same with miracles, it takes exactly zero amount of faith to accurately experience a miracle. The fact of a miracle may be accurately known and reported from unbelieving cities and towns as the bible teaches! So attributing a miracle to God takes whatever observation skills that is common to man, primarily eyes and ears etc. it's not a matter of the heart. (Remember, we are talking about a genuine biblical miracle, not some well intended report that aunt Julie was blessed with a miracle when her tests came back negative.)



The message of a miracle. Miracles mostly do not say anything, they mostly just validate the messenger or peson or people of God, although often the miracle is used in conjunction with whatever dealings God is having with man and thus they may carry profound and clear implications. Now if miracles always taught a lesson on their own, then we might be able to expect faith being excercised in conforming our faith to that message. But, overall, the communication of a miracle is to say something on the order of, Moses is on God's side, and when God makes the most undeniable miracles, such factual knowledge pretty much eliminates exercizing faith, instead, it's obviously an excercise in eyesight and hearing and memory recall, etc.



What I think people who are saved today think is that it would be awesome to experience God's miracles, boy wouldn't that energize the body of Christ right out of their comfort zone and get people on fire for Christ!

I can relate to that desire, even today, I don't think I'll ever loose my fascination for the things of God and how awesome His mighty works can be. But that does not overturn the nature of miracles and faith as already mentioned. And frankly, the faith people would say would be amplified, would not be about the miracles, it would be about the God who does them, the being who remains not seen and who remains hoped for.



Lastly, but not least, God Himself teaches that even raising people from the dead will not cause faith in God. Faith in God is a much deeper and more personally relational issue which involves trust and respect and hope etc. Trust Jesus, don't go against Him.



Other than listing every single miracle and the results as testified in scripture, and giving Enyart's defintion of what a miracle actually is, I guess I've presented my understanding of the main arguements for why Bob Enyart concludes that as a general rule, miracles do not foster faith in God.

:o

godrulz
January 19th, 2004, 10:55 PM
Is it a cosmic leap to go from 'miracles do not foster faith in God' (which is at least true much, but not all of the time), to miracles cannot and do not happen today?

Does it have to be either/or and not both preaching the gospel and signs following?

Is the book of Acts closed, or just the beginning of His works through the church?

Is the ministry of Jesus by the Holy Spirit through the church finished, or will the whole world be filled with books of the things He continues to do through us?

I am surprised at the classic Baptist arguments about the closed canon and cessation of the gifts coming from one who is a competent Bible teacher. Time for a Pentecostal perspective (experientially and exegetically)?

1Way
January 20th, 2004, 08:16 PM
godrulz - So what of the arguments that have been placed before you, , , about miracles generally causing faith or unbelief, do you have ANY contextually relevant comments? Or was what I put forth "somehow" not worth even a mention? From my perspective, I presented an accurate view from scripture. Do you have any scriptural grounds to argue against what I have offered thus far?

It is a cosmic leap to go from miracles do not tend to foster faith in God to miracles happen today.

(Philosophical when you should be biblical)
godrulz, you constantly focus on man's viewpoint to compare and consider what is right. In Jesus' day, that would probably mean that you would be like one of the mainstream sects or religious camps, like the Pharisees or Sadducees or Essines (spl?) or whatever, but even if you were more non-denom, it would be YOU who would have been saying, gee, I wonder if the Pharisees have it right or the Sadducees about this Jesus thing. Although the Essines have some interesting views, the scribes I tend to hang with the most tend to be more influenced by bla bla bla of some manmade philosophy, yet the Sadducees seem to corner the market on bla bla bla of some manmade philosophy. The words of life are found in the BIBLE, not philosophy books!

The overwhelming majority of your ponderings would have Christians everywhere move on from the bible into more "advanced" areas of research.

The bible is sufficient, it excepts you to have one mind and one faith and that you be a part of a united body of believers. Stop the insanity of following the herd which represents a thousand different ways. It's salt yourself with God's word, not man's, your life is directed by God and His word, not mans, the way of salvation is by God's single word, not mans, eternal truth comes from God, not man, treasure the things of God, not the things of man. Honor, respect, glorify, understand, read, have your joy, in God and his word, not man. I keep looking for you to respond to biblical teachings, but when you examine biblical teachings, your most common response is something like, this is too dispensational, or, do you mean to infer an irrevocable metaphysical change :eek: as opposed to an ongoing give and take relationship, and the common baptist response seems wanting. That is you, comparing man with man about the things of God, and I know you should know better. Stop worrying (so much) about what everyone else thinks, start dealing with eternal truth as A workMAN (singular tense, not mob rule historical view tense) unashamed rightly divided.

If anything I have said is not grounded tightly in scripture, then please dismiss it as dubious when it comes to godly advice/thinking. Your joy may be complete, your understanding full even of the mysteries of God, but that will only happen "God's" way and by "His word". Don't be one of the ever seeking never finding, the truth is right there in front of you, if you will only accept and honor it.

:think:

freelight
January 20th, 2004, 10:57 PM
Hello 1Way,


I have read some of the thread and the last page to get a gist of your position. I have not read Mr. Enyarts works despite his rumored fame with some on TOL.

So it is being proposed that 'miracles do not foster faith'. Your commentary on Mr. Enyarts view is notable. I can see his point..........as per scriptural example. However.....I am sure that some miracles then and now as transpiring in peoples lives have been faith-fostering events...which have contributed at least some measure of good...which in turn may have inspired faith in the individual and others. Of course...... a miracle is something that transpires and is made evident by ones senses .....and after the fact needs no faith to be. In such cases........these miracles are wonderful relievers for the most part - and at that may inspire some thanksgiving....then life goes back to normal......until the need for another miracles comes along - but with or without miracles.....we walk by faith, not by sight. So...miracles are wonderful...and surely God is alive and able to do miracles in our midst! True faith in the Living God hopes in the total substance of Deity....and draws the powers of the Invisible as being evidencial. God is omnipotent.....and even so...we with the Spirit of God and the Name of Christ....can go forth and be used of God in signs, wonders and miracles - these things are natural fruits of walking in the Spirit - tokens of the anointing.

Surely.......while these wonders happen in our midst......is it faith that we preach, live and teach among the assembly. Faith will ever be the essential in our relationship with the Father. Faith may inspire and initiate miracles in our midst....but the additional gifts from above.....are only the physical manifestation of faith sometimes granted by divine providence or spiritual laws. Still.....manifestations or not.....we abide in the faith of God......no matter the conditions.

I am not sure if Enyart holds that miracles have ceased.....but I do not hold to such. Of course special miracles may have been ushered at pivotal times early in the dispensation of grace, - Jesus life and ministry, the apostles ministry, the outpourring of the Spirit.........but there is never to be a ceasing of Gods immanent and dynamic presence in our midst. Still the glory of the Spirit of Christ dwells in His body......and in Christ the Spirit is given without measure. Faith can assess the impossible and the realm of the miraculous being a catalyst for such wonderful works of the Lord. Such is the nature of faith and its dynamics. We cannot limit God by our astute theological minds...when the dynamic of the Spirit is by far greater. The Spirit of truth must lead the Way.......in all things as we progress in grace and ascend to greater heights in Christ.

Indeed faith shall ever be essential. Miracles which God can and does surely bring to pass today may transpire thru faith or apart from it........but these are hardly our focus. These things happens by Gods grace...and certain laws relative to faith. But faith is ever the essential, the substancial. We ever walk by it......in the midst of miracles or not. To this view I agree.


In our estimation of Gods power relative to faith....let us not forget that the letter kills....and the Spirit gives life.


paul


www.freelightexpress.com

1Way
January 20th, 2004, 11:27 PM
I may be wrong, but I think you misunderstand God's intended message about the letter kills. You are probably thinking that means in gernal terms, paying too much attention to God's word instead of God via His spirit. That is not what it means.


2 Corinthians 3
3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4 Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! The letter is contextually developed in reference to the law of God. Like at the garden God placed two trees, one represents God and the other His law, God's people need God not His law for the focus of our faith and guidance. It is a more difficult issue dealing with when or if miracles have stopped for a while. But I hope you would agree that God's word is the ultimate specific guide for these sorts of matters, not what some person feels God leading them to believe otherwise. In fact, scripture teaches that we are supposed to have the full assurance of understanding about God and Jesus Christ, even the mysteries of them. Wouldn't you agree?

freelight
January 21st, 2004, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

I may be wrong, but I think you misunderstand God's intended message about the letter kills. You are probably thinking that means in gernal terms, paying too much attention to God's word instead of God via His spirit. That is not what it means.





)============ Hi 1Way,.............interestingly you have chosen to bypass my former content...and address only my last sentence. While Paul may mean the letter of the Law in his address.......it also covers all letters/words/writings....that are not quickened by the Spirit. Yes, Gods word (bible - a collection of books) when taken as mere letters without Spirit-inspiration, impartation and enlightenment......are as dead...and therefore cannot give life. Only the Spirit of God can....for the Spirit is Life. I just thought end with that thought because it is important. Jesus told his disciples to be led and guided by the Spirit of truth. One can cling to dead words or even scripture reading without the Spirit. In that case....it is more or less a dead exercise....however intellectually stimulating. So it stands......the letter kills....the Spirit gives Life.



Originally posted by 1Way

The letter is contextually developed in reference to the law of God. Like at the garden God placed two trees, one represents God and the other His law, God's people need God not His law for the focus of our faith and guidance.



)========== I am not sure I agree percisely....but see your comparison with the trees (we are actually covering the issue of the trees in another post here at TOL). I would say that honor of God correlates to honor of His laws...and vice versa. God still has laws....and laws rule the universe and the consciousness of Man. When we abide in God.......we naturally abide in His Law or laws. We fulfill the Law, the Law...being Love.






Originally posted by 1Way

It is a more difficult issue dealing with when or if miracles have stopped for a while. But I hope you would agree that God's word is the ultimate specific guide for these sorts of matters, not what some person feels God leading them to believe otherwise. In fact, scripture teaches that we are supposed to have the full assurance of understanding about God and Jesus Christ, even the mysteries of them. Wouldn't you agree?



)============= indeed.......scripture serves as a guide. Scriptures however are limited in some respects in their guidance....as some portions were written according to the culture, needs, situations of their times. We must always interpret inspired writings with the freshness of the Spirit and progressive revelation/light.....for the Spirit of God is ever quickening to us the Heart & Soul of the Father. Still I say...the Spirit of truth is to lead one......and such leading will not violate scriptural principle or spiritual law/ethic.

Indeed.......we are to be stewards of the mysteries......but to be such oftimes takes a revolutionary approach...that can carry one beyond comfortable, man-made orthodox bounderies, traditions, ideologies. 'Where the Spirit of the Lord is....there is liberty.' I do agree that the Spirit may lead us into all truth - into all mysteries.....ever unveiling light.


paul

godrulz
January 21st, 2004, 06:04 PM
Scripture is primary. It is self-evident that God would not do miracles in the past or present if they would only lead to condemnation and a hardening of the heart. Miracles are an expression of the love and goodness of God. He is glorified and we are edified.

John Wimber's Vineyard (with all its flaws and quirks) established a biblical basis for 'power evangelism', healing, miracles. They saw these things because they did not philosophically rationalize and compartamentalize Scripture.

As a Pentecostal, it is clear in Scripture that there is no reason to say the supernatural was a negative thing or ceased. If I ever sound logical or philosophical, it is an objection to errors in thinking about Scripture that are philosophical in nature. There is a Christian philosophy that every Bible interpreter operates from. There is also a pagan philosophy that is erroneous.

Scripture simply does not explicitly teach that God is now confined to naturalistic methods because of a dispensation or 'unbelief' response. Logically, if miracles lead to unbelief, so does preaching the Gospel! Miracles and preaching can also lead to faith and life (both/and, not either/or).

I have listed verses that support the gifts of the Spirit and healing for the post-resurrection of Christ Church. This is not philosophical, it is the Word.

Delmar
January 21st, 2004, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

Scripture is primary. It is self-evident that God would not do miracles in the past or present if they would only lead to condemnation and a hardening of the heart. Miracles are an expression of the love and goodness of God. He is glorified and we are edified.


Did God harden Pharohs heart? How if not by a miracle?

1Way
January 23rd, 2004, 09:14 PM
freelight - You said
)============ Hi 1Way,.............interestingly you have chosen to bypass my former content...and address only my last sentence. While Paul may mean the letter of the Law in his address.......it also covers all letters/words/writings....that are not quickened by the Spirit. Yes, Gods word (bible - a collection of books) when taken as mere letters without Spirit-inspiration, impartation and enlightenment......are as dead...and therefore cannot give life. Only the Spirit of God can....for the Spirit is Life. I just thought end with that thought because it is important.
I try to let nominal subjective or dubious issues alone I call it redeeming the time, you call it interesting and treat it with some contempt.

As to your comment on the scripture that I tried to correct you on, sorry, but if God can not convince you of the error of your ways, neither can I, please reconsider God on this issue.

What exactly were you thinking when you began defending yourself against the teaching from scripture? That you know better than God? God's word is written in letters that as you say, which were given life from God, but then you contrasted the ability of God's word AGAINST God! That is tremendously bad and is a perfect contradiction. God says, God I say, God says that if people do not get saved, it's because they have no room for the truth in them! God interchanges Himself with the truth on an almost constant basis throughout scripture. In fact, His NAME is The Truth, already. Give me a break, contrasting God against His word, you can not have God/Spirit and not His truth, you always have to have them both or you honestly have neither of them.

God said by His word that the gospel (message) is the power unto salvation, which is another word for eternal "life".
Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. There is no contrast between God and His word that you portray. If man will reject God's word, then He is rejecting God, if man rejects God then He is also rejecting His word, there is no difference.

You do on to say
Jesus told his disciples to be led and guided by the Spirit of truth. One can cling to dead words or even scripture reading without the Spirit. In that case....it is more or less a dead exercise....however intellectually stimulating. So it stands......the letter kills....the Spirit gives Life. Not true, except where you quoted scripture, that part is true and denies your view. The spirit of truth is like saying that when God speaks, we expect Him to speak the truth, same with His written word too. So if you believe that God is true, then if you want to remain consistent, then you have to grant that His word is true also, and you have grant truth and authority and honor and respect just as much to His word as you do to Him. You can't be honest and true and good and righteous and contradict any of that with your words or other actions. Your argument is self refuting, all you have to do is switch the objects of spirit and letters to see how your own argument refutes your view. Here, since you did not think of this before I am pointing this out, I'll demonstrate it for you.

Jesus told his disciples to be led and guided by the Spirit of truth. One can cling to a dead faith in God or even scripture reading without the Spirit of truth. In that case....it is more or less a dead exercise....however emotionally or personally stimulating. So it stands......the Spirit without truth kills....the Spirit gives Life.
You deftly go on to say
)========== I am not sure I agree precisely....but see your comparison with the trees (we are actually covering the issue of the trees in another post here at TOL). I would say that honor of God correlates to honor of His laws...and vice versa. God still has laws....and laws rule the universe and the consciousness of Man. When we abide in God.......we naturally abide in His Law or laws. We fulfill the Law, the Law...being Love. AND I HAD JUST QUOTED TO YOU THE CONTEXT OF WHAT GOD SAYS ABOUT HIS LAW, consider again, or in your case, consider beyond a vague superficial inaccurate understanding, the following.
2 Corinthians 3
3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4 Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! God says here that the ministry of the law of God (engraved in stone, written in ink, etc.) was a ministry of death and condemnation, and that the ministry of the Spirt is way way more glorious. But in your eyes, they should be the same.

And remember, the law is not made for the righteous man, but for the wicked (is the law really for you and you for honoring the law like you do God?), it's direct effect is death and condemnation, but can lead men to escape it's wrath whenever they repent and turn to God for forgiveness, so it's indirect effect is to point men to God or face hell. To suggest that grace believers should put God on the same level of honor as the law, especially in this dispensation of grace, is contradictory nonsense.

Seek and prefer a ministry of life and righteousness, not death and condemnation. And if you don't like my presentation, then read for comprehension 2Cor 3:3-9 while remembering that God probably meant what He said there.


However, you also said
Still I say...the Spirit of truth is to lead one......and such leading will not violate scriptural principle or spiritual law/ethic. which is my view in a nutshell, that God and the word of God never contradict nor conflict and the authority and truthfulness of each are the same, and it can be no other way. Otherwise you are not worshiping God in truth "and" in spirit, you can "never" ditch either and have the other, "NEVER". Don't contrast against the two, they are always in harmony and unity.

Lastly, you are wrong to argue about the law of God as being that which kills by saying that it also means anything else other than the law. If you want to speak about honoring anything that is not godly and good, then just say that such a thing is not godly or not good or whatever, don't say, the spirit gives life but the letter kills like as though any focus off of God is inferred by that teaching, it is not, it is describing God's law constantly and without exception.

I have God's word and I have yours. Since yours does not line up with scripture, ,,, you can guess the rest from here.

Now, lets see if you can apply what you preach. If you love and honor God, and since you know He is truthful and good, since He plainly used the teaching of "the letter kills but the Spirit gives life" as a reference of contrast between His law and Himself, it is wrong for you to go against God on this issue who teaches that the letter is a reference to His law and not anything else, yet you take the phrase the letter kills to also mean anything that is not given life by God, i.e. when you read the newspaper that is written by atheists and moral morons, about the score of some sporting event, that will minister death and condemnation to you, or if you read a dictionary or look up a phone number in a phone book, or when you do a calculation on a calculator and read the answer, all such communications which were not quickened by God, will produce or minister death and condemnation to you the recipient. Can you say opps, I overstepped the wisdom of God and His word, sorry I'm wrong and God is right.

Don't exceed the wisdom of scripture, trust me ;) , your not that wise. "The letter" means "the law of God", it does not mean whatever else you want to read into it in order to make your dubious statement more righteous. You tried to debunk my view on miracles with a mild retort that ended up being an inaccurate understanding of what God actually taught. Live and learn and respect God more next time.

Two main points, God and His word have exactly no conflicting or higher and lower truth value, if God is true, then so are His words. Secondly, don't overstep and possibly correct scripture. If you want to say something other than "the letter kills", then use different words to represent that, don't misrepresent God by twisting His words out of context. "The letter kills" strictly means "God's law kills", not otherwise. Oh, one more, next time, I'd emphasize the "comprehension" part of "reading for comprehension", doing so may produce many excellent dividends for you for the rest of your life!

And may the truth set you free, :doh: there God goes again, messing up by equating Himself with truth. Where were you when God was messing all this up?!? :darwinsm:

1Way
January 23rd, 2004, 09:51 PM
deardelmer - :thumb: Looking forward to godrulz responses.

Here's my added comment.

godrulz - You said
Scripture is primary. It is self-evident that God would not do miracles in the past or present if they would only lead to condemnation and a hardening of the heart. Miracles are an expression of the love and goodness of God. He is glorified and we are edified. So then why did God express the gospel message and make it the way of salvation since it mostly leads to condemnation and hardening of hearts? If "always producing condemnation and hardening of heats" is a bad thing, then so is doing that most of the time, right? And most people go to hell so most reject the gospel unto salvation, so by your reasoning, why did God even express the gospel unto salvation when doing so would have such terrible results? See the fallacy of your thinking? Do right, and risk the consequences, don't consider, ya, but perhaps many people will not respond well. Do right and risk the consequences brother, don't worry about the historically accepted views = majority view, orthodox view, just find out what is right, and then do it.

Secondly, no one is saying that miracles can only produce a bad effect, you are distorting the issue somewhat. When someone already has faith in God, more evidence seen or unseen of God is grounds for validating our faith in Him, and such things may be edifying, that is why when Christians study science we often are brilliantly reminded of the brilliance of God for example, so lets not carry this criticism too far. Miracles themselves do not tend to foster faith, but to those who already have faith, any evidence of God at work would only reinforce the faith that you "already" have. Creating faith is not what miracles tend to do.

Thirdly, miracles are not as you said, unqualified or without exception, an expression of the love and goodness of God. Or do you consider genocide and the slaughter of entire nations including men women and children, an expression of God's love? How about His justice instead? And how about the fact that the overwhelming majority of the time, miracles were done to do neither show His love nor His justice, but to validate His spokes person/people as being from God. Miracles do not glorify God per say, and they do not edify per say, God says that it is en evil and perverse generation that seeks a sign (=miracle), and that even raising the dead will not make men believe. Your ideas contradict God's, but then again, if you don't rightly understanding the (entire) context, you are prone to such errors. Don't remain in so much contextual violence, conform, not conflict with God's word. :D

deardelmer is doing a great job exposing a weakness in your presupposition. Looking forward to your serious consideration of his provocative question.

freelight
January 24th, 2004, 03:55 AM
My comments are interspersed within the entire commentary/quote below - each crow is accompanied by a single paragraph in response -





Originally posted by 1Way


I try to let nominal subjective or dubious issues alone I call it redeeming the time, you call it interesting and treat it with some contempt.

As to your comment on the scripture that I tried to correct you on, sorry, but if God can not convince you of the error of your ways, neither can I, please reconsider God on this issue.

What exactly were you thinking when you began defending yourself against the teaching from scripture? That you know better than God? God's word is written in letters that as you say, which were given life from God, but then you contrasted the ability of God's word AGAINST God! That is tremendously bad and is a perfect contradiction. God says, God I say, God says that if people do not get saved, it's because they have no room for the truth in them! God interchanges Himself with the truth on an almost constant basis throughout scripture. In fact, His NAME is The Truth, already. Give me a break, contrasting God against His word, you can not have God/Spirit and not His truth, you always have to have them both or you honestly have neither of them.



:crow: )=========Hello 1Way,................you have begun with misunderstanding...and continue on with it thru-out your post.



God said by His word that the gospel (message) is the power unto salvation, which is another word for eternal "life". There is no contrast between God and His word that you portray. If man will reject God's word, then He is rejecting God, if man rejects God then He is also rejecting His word, there is no difference.

You do on to say Not true, except where you quoted scripture, that part is true and denies your view. The spirit of truth is like saying that when God speaks, we expect Him to speak the truth, same with His written word too. So if you believe that God is true, then if you want to remain consistent, then you have to grant that His word is true also, and you have grant truth and authority and honor and respect just as much to His word as you do to Him. You can't be honest and true and good and righteous and contradict any of that with your words or other actions. Your argument is self refuting, all you have to do is switch the objects of spirit and letters to see how your own argument refutes your view. Here, since you did not think of this before I am pointing this out, I'll demonstrate it for you.

quote:
Jesus told his disciples to be led and guided by the Spirit of truth. One can cling to a dead faith in God or even scripture reading without the Spirit of truth. In that case....it is more or less a dead exercise....however emotionally or personally stimulating. So it stands......the Spirit without truth kills....the Spirit gives Life.




:crow: )============= Your example above is a twisting of my original words and therefore cannot be oficially endorsed. My original thesis remains.





You deftly go on to say AND I HAD JUST QUOTED TO YOU THE CONTEXT OF WHAT GOD SAYS ABOUT HIS LAW, consider again, or in your case, consider beyond a vague superficial inaccurate understanding, the following. God says here that the ministry of the law of God (engraved in stone, written in ink, etc.) was a ministry of death and condemnation, and that the ministry of the Spirt is way way more glorious. But in your eyes, they should be the same.

And remember, the law is not made for the righteous man, but for the wicked (is the law really for you and you for honoring the law like you do God?), it's direct effect is death and condemnation, but can lead men to escape it's wrath whenever they repent and turn to God for forgiveness, so it's indirect effect is to point men to God or face hell. To suggest that grace believers should put God on the same level of honor as the law, especially in this dispensation of grace, is contradictory nonsense.

Seek and prefer a ministry of life and righteousness, not death and condemnation. And if you don't like my presentation, then read for comprehension 2Cor 3:3-9 while remembering that God probably meant what He said there.




:crow: )============ It appears your misunderstanding continues. God is lawful......His laws are eternal. The Spirit of God allows us to obey, follow the laws of God - the laws of the Spirit, the laws of Life. Even Paul whose letters you champion as if what he speaks is actually God speaking.....speaks of the LAW of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus....as operative. Jesus teaches if one is to enter into Life.......let him observe and keep the Law. Pauls contrastive, illustrative language of the law being a ministry of death....is dead letters - on stone or paper - it can also refer to other letter forms or religious rote. The emphasis is that true life and vitality is wrought thru the ministry of the Spirit of the living God - the SPIRIT IS LIFE. Words in and of themselves cannot save or impart life.....apart from the dynamic of Spirit. Spirit is not only LIFE...but TRUTH. Therefore Jesus says the Spirit of truth...shall lead you into All Truth.


However, you also said which is my view in a nutshell, that God and the word of God never contradict nor conflict and the authority and truthfulness of each are the same, and it can be no other way. Otherwise you are not worshiping God in truth "and" in spirit, you can "never" ditch either and have the other, "NEVER". Don't contrast against the two, they are always in harmony and unity.




:crow: )============= indeed,........if words are inspired by the Spirit.....then they cannot contradict the Spirit....for they are in accord - from one source. We dont follow words though - or letters for that matter. Words, letters, books serve to guide our soul to the dimensions where we can open our understanding to the Spirit of God for enlightenment and impartation of Life.



Lastly, you are wrong to argue about the law of God as being that which kills by saying that it also means anything else other than the law. If you want to speak about honoring anything that is not godly and good, then just say that such a thing is not godly or not good or whatever, don't say, the spirit gives life but the letter kills like as though any focus off of God is inferred by that teaching, it is not, it is describing God's law constantly and without exception.

I have God's word and I have yours. Since yours does not line up with scripture, ,,, you can guess the rest from here.

Now, lets see if you can apply what you preach. If you love and honor God, and since you know He is truthful and good, since He plainly used the teaching of "the letter kills but the Spirit gives life" as a reference of contrast between His law and Himself, it is wrong for you to go against God on this issue who teaches that the letter is a reference to His law and not anything else, yet you take the phrase the letter kills to also mean anything that is not given life by God, i.e. when you read the newspaper that is written by atheists and moral morons, about the score of some sporting event, that will minister death and condemnation to you, or if you read a dictionary or look up a phone number in a phone book, or when you do a calculation on a calculator and read the answer, all such communications which were not quickened by God, will produce or minister death and condemnation to you the recipient. Can you say opps, I overstepped the wisdom of God and His word, sorry I'm wrong and God is right.

Don't exceed the wisdom of scripture, trust me ;) , your not that wise. "The letter" means "the law of God", it does not mean whatever else you want to read into it in order to make your dubious statement more righteous. You tried to debunk my view on miracles with a mild retort that ended up being an inaccurate understanding of what God actually taught. Live and learn and respect God more next time.



:crow: )=========== what I have written stands. Let the reader discern.



Two main points, God and His word have exactly no conflicting or higher and lower truth value, if God is true, then so are His words. Secondly, don't overstep and possibly correct scripture. If you want to say something other than "the letter kills", then use different words to represent that, don't misrepresent God by twisting 'His words' out of context.


:crow: )========== 'His words'? I would'nt call Paul God.


"The letter kills" strictly means "God's law kills", not otherwise. Oh, one more, next time, I'd emphasize the "comprehension" part of "reading for comprehension", doing so may produce many excellent dividends for you for the rest of your life!



:crow: )============= well of course....the context of Pauls speech....about the 'letter' is primarily speaking of the laws of Moses - the principle is what I am espousing - that the law apart from the Spirit kills. The Spirit of the living God is vital and necessary.....for Life. THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE. The SPIRIT....being ministered to hearts...written within.....God putting His LAW(s) into mens hearts...and quickening them by His Spirit......is the giving of Life. Gods Law, ethic has not been abandoned, taken away or destroyed - it has been established.



And may the truth set you free, :doh: there God goes again, messing up by equating Himself with truth. Where were you when God was messing all this up?!? :darwinsm:



:crow: )============ true,....God is Spirit, Spirit is truth; Spirit is Life. Logically....words spoken and inspired by God.....are spirit-ual, truth consisting and life-giving.

Again....we repeat for those who have ears to hear......and eyes to see - THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE.


paul

godrulz
January 24th, 2004, 10:05 AM
1way:

Justice and wrath flow out of the love of God and His holiness.

The problem is not the Gospel or miracles, which are inherently good; the problem is man, and his hard heart and unbelief.

The wicked generation seeks signs with the wrong motive and a heart that will not respond intelligently to the evidence. We need to seek the Giver, not the gift. Again, this is not an argument against the merits of the gospel or miracles, but a rebuke of man's blindness and selfishness.

1Way
January 24th, 2004, 11:27 AM
godrulz - Good point about a bad attitude is not a good thing, but I disagree with the teaching you carefully slipped in there.

You said
The wicked generation seeks signs with the wrong motive and a heart that will not respond intelligently to the evidence. I agree that the problem is with man and not God and His miracles, but we are not talking about having a good or bad attitude about these things, we are talking about the tendency of faith or more unbelief when man experiences a miracle and a resurrection of the dead.

I don't know where you got the idea that the teaching about the wicked generation seeks signs is about a bad attitude and not the fact that miraculous signs do not tend to foster faith, other than from your manmade PRESUPPOSITIONS, but it's not accurate to scripture, other than the limited yet accurate observation that ANY unfaithful response to God represents a bad motivation or an unyielding heart. ANY unfaithful response, ANY. But that is NOT what this teaching about a wicked generation is teaching, it's just as God said, that it is wicked to seek after signs especially if you consider the fact that all the miracles in the bible loudly proclaim that they do NOT tend to foster/create faith.

(Considering the 1) wicked gen seeking signs and the 2) unbelief from a resurrection teachings.)
And don't you see the irony and exceedingly wild understatement that God is brilliantly using here? Even if I raise "a" man from the dead, they still will not believe, a wicked and perverse generation seeks "a" sign, come on already, don't you see the dramatic parallels that is going on? Jesus Christ is the most infamous sign giver if there ever was one! No one has ever produced more signs and miracles authenticating Himself on an almost constant basis within His somewhat short 3 year earthly ministry! And consider "the" focal point of all humanity, the most important event that EVER took place, is the death burial and self-resurrection of Jesus Christ! He spoke of miraculous signs as not causing faith, and even raising "a" man from the dead will not cause people to believe, as though His entire ministry did not (and would not) already scream these facts on a constant basis!!! God says without ambiguity only disparaging things saying, they will not believe, and it is evil and wicked to seek such things, as to the likelihood that miracles and even resurrections may cause faith.

You may not "like" God's wisdom and understanding in these things, and you may wish to overlook Christ's life and ministry and THE single most important event EVER, but instead, you should take a few deep breaths, examine the absolute truth over these issues, and humble yourself and your faith to conform to the truth of these matters.

I believe if Jesus heard your retort that the problem was not that they were seeking a sign and would not believe even for a resurrection, but that they were just seeking a sign with the wrong motivation and they were without faith even if a man rose from the dead because of a wrong motivation, He would harshly rebuke you for thinking that you know better than He, and that those two teachings, which are as clear as day, pale in contrast to everything that Jesus did, and the overwhelming majority of the people who experienced these things, hated God. Don't you see, Jesus if the most important person ever, yet He did not even lift up Himself when attacking people for seeking "a" sign, and for unbelief even if "a" man was raised from the dead, because Jesus did the most and best signs possible and He resurrected Himself don'tcha know, and the world still hated God in response. So again I remind you that your idea that God should not have done (whatever) miracles if it tends to produce so much unbelief goes against scripture in so many ways.

Accept, don't reject, the truth!

Don't undermine what Christ did in His three year ministry and death and resurrection, the MOST LOVING AND CARING AND MIRACULOUS EVENTS EVER mostly caused hardening of hearts and unbelief in God.

I hope that you learn to see your own subjective presuppositions.

1Way
January 24th, 2004, 11:49 AM
freelight - What I have written stands. Let the reader discern. :eek:

The amount of subjectivity and counterpoint unresponsiveness you contribute represents an impasse. You can not just claim away the things you do, your lack of refutation is constant but your claims predominate, while my arguments refuting yours remain in tact, and with little exception no concrete effort has been made to dismantle them, you mostly just pretend like they have not destroyed your view by a faithful conforming to God's word. Willful ignorance is an iron clad case, you can not win an argument with stupid, it's just not possible. Don't play the claim game of contextual ignorance of the truth of a matter, deal upright with the truth and respond apologetically instead.

Are you ignorant, just can't deal with what has been set before you as contrary to scripture, ok, remain that way then. Scripture wins, the truth prevails. Until your ready to address my arguments and refutations in any sort of meaningful (point counterpoint) way, sorry for the time wasted.

godrulz
January 24th, 2004, 12:01 PM
Why does 1way always dogmatically assert that his views are always right, and everyone else is stupid, ignorant, and foolish?

The tendency to always want to be right and assume everyone else is wrong is pathological (I wrestle with this myself).

freelight
January 24th, 2004, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

Why does 1way always dogmatically assert that his views are always right, and everyone else is stupid, ignorant, and foolish?

The tendency to always want to be right and assume everyone else is wrong is pathological (I wrestle with this myself).



)=========== Hello godrulz,.............the responses presented by 1Way speak for themselves. He will not see the spiritual truths or perspectives shared....but inverts them and reinterprets them within his own world system of dogmatic interpretation...according to his version of understanding...passing such off as 'truth'. :rolleyes: Well....the tone of his posts so far....are pious, self elevating...and serve his own religious views.

For those who cannot see the essential truth that THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE.....then what can be said about them? Instead they will resort to intellectual trifles...and straining at gnats in the meantime oblivious to the obvious truths as presented by their fellows.

Those who do not abide in the SPIRIT....shall be more or less bound by their intellectual paradigms - for 'where the Spirit of the Lord is....there is liberty'.

It is wonderful to know that know....in the Spirit of the Lord....I AM free.


peace,


paul

1Way
January 24th, 2004, 11:20 PM
Thats right. Lash out at me, while my testimony stands on solid ground. Who am I to please men rather than God? Or are judgments against me the way the judgment should flow.

Freelight - Excuse me, but we did not disagree about the Spirit giving life bit, we disagreed about what "the letter kills" means. You ,,, ,,, person. :rolleyes:

godrulz
January 24th, 2004, 11:32 PM
It is not so much what you say, but how you say it. It comes across as a thinly veiled arrogance. I understand that Enyart's style is sometimes bombastic and cutting. This is inappropriate when dealing with fellow believers over controversial, non-essential issues.

I am all for being passionate for truth and against error, but even Jesus commended before He rebuked (Rev. 2;3). The exhortation is to speak the truth in love (I Cor. 13= this involves patience, kindness, humility, understanding...it is not proud, etc.). Give respect to earn respect (I am preaching to myself too). Put downs come across as childish. Deal with adults like adults. We do not need to be brow beaten. Life is hard enough. There are other less intellectual boards that demonstrate love and grace despite disagreement. We have different personalities, but this is no excuse to live in the flesh, rather than the spirit.

Knowledge is more potent if combined with wise character.

Please do not punch me in the gut?

:angel:

freelight
January 25th, 2004, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

Freelight - Excuse me, but we did not disagree about the Spirit giving life bit, we disagreed about what "the letter kills" means. You ,,, ,,, person. :rolleyes:


)=========== Hi 1Way,..........understood. It should be becoming obvious that I hold to a more metaphysically broad understanding of certain concepts found in scripture and other inspired writings....which I share freely - I realize sometimes others come from different perspectives and this is fine - its all about exploration and sharing these understandings with one another.

I share that the letter is death only when it has no spirit-life vitality. I have read the word 'letter' as being not only the Law(s) of Moses....but any written or inscribed words which are intended to be laws(principles) of God to man. Assuming these laws are truly inspired principles......they are only 'living' when they are activated in the heart of man by the living Spirit. The Spirit grants illumination, knowledge and Life. For instance the primary 10 commandments - these are eternal principles....and become life-sustaining principles when quickened and made alive in the heart and soul of Man. As disciples of the Christ...this is important and vital.....to abide in His quickening Spirit.

The new covenant is the transfer of the laws of God from tablets of stone...to hearts of flesh - where God writes his laws in our inward parts - these are enlivened and lived thru us...by the Spirits inspiration and power. When we walk in the Spirit....we fulfil the LAW! We abide in the Life, Love, Light and Power of the Living ONE. As we are perfected in Love....and walk in the Spirit.....we abide and live righteously within the laws of God...the laws of Life....the laws of the Spirit. Christ in us...enables us to fulfill the requirements of righteousness....as we fulfill the LAW of Christ...thru the ministry of bearing one anothers burdens.....Loving one another as Christ loves us. This kind of at-one-ment...comes from loving service and righteous action....mediated thru grace. It is doing the Fathers will.

There are the penalties of breaking these primary laws (as espoused in the 10 )...which is sin. It is only in the transgressing of the Laws where there is death. The laws remain and such principles are as eternal as God is eternal - these laws govern all of life and death - all states/conditions of being. The new covenant is a transfer of the law from static to dynamic....as ministered by the Spirt. The laws of God are eternal. Therefore in the true spiritual sense......it is true that by living the laws of God....one has Life. This principle is thru-out the scriptures. One lives these laws and does no sin.....only by abiding in the Spirit of God....who inspires one to live lawfully according to divine principle. Of course it is only God who can live out His own laws in us......as the Spirit inspires our thoughts and actions. This is the inner dynamic of the law...working within us to live righteously. Thru this process of sanctification......we are becoming more and more perfected and sinless. This is the process of becoming more Godlike.....attaining to laws of perfection and eternal progress.


paul

godrulz
January 25th, 2004, 01:54 AM
I am more comfortable becoming Christ-like in moral character, rather than God-like in metaphysics (nature) like the Mormons teach. God is God and we are creatures in His moral and personal image.

freelight
January 25th, 2004, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

I am more comfortable becoming Christ-like in moral character, rather than God-like in metaphysics (nature) like the Mormons teach. God is God and we are creatures in His moral and personal image.


)========== Hi GR,.................yes....I know your perspectives....as we have shared ours in the past. I uphold a kind of metaphysics...which is a sharing of divine nature - of course the moral character aspects are a natrual offspring of our Christ-like condition - we share in His divine Life. You also know I do not hold to the classical lds view of godhood....but tout my own brand of metaphysics...nonetheless :)

Consider that when we put on immortality.....this immortality is derived from God - it is a substance of divinity - Gods own Immortality. God alone has immortality......but we will put on this divine-nature-substance....and become incorruptible - we will share of His essence.

Does this make us God? - of course not. God will always be God. And we will always have this wonderful endowment..which is a part of our nature....as a divine grant-generation of the Spirit. We will be one with God....even as Christ is one with God - again...this may be on a lesser degree of harmonization or Deity-likeness....but we will have immortality! God-reality and divine glory will be all the more real to us.......and we will have a sharing in the divine LIFE.....as immortal.

We shall put on immortality.


paul

godrulz
January 25th, 2004, 11:47 AM
We are in the image of God and have a spirit that will endure forever. We are everlasting (beginning, no end), whereas God is from everlasting to everlasting (eternal). If we do not maintain a metaphysical distinction between the uncreated Creator and His creation, we open the door to pantheism and other heresies.

Blessings as you travel the road of your spiritual journey to know and love Him.

1Way
January 25th, 2004, 12:20 PM
godrulz - You said
It is not so much what you say, but how you say it. It comes across as a thinly veiled arrogance. I understand that Enyart's style is sometimes bombastic and cutting. This is inappropriate when dealing with fellow believers over controversial, non-essential issues. I do not remotely care about Bob's personal style, I care about conforming my life to Jesus. Arrogant is a bit week, I'd say down right rude sometimes. And I am not that way when it comes to non-essentials, I'm that way when the stakes are high, like opposing a high handed sin, presuming that the truth of a matter, does not matter, or that twisting the truth is ok. etc. God is truth, we are to honor and love the truth, that is what God says characterizes those who humble themselves before God unto salvation. And from where I am standing, such things are eternally important and worthy of escalating opposition for the sake of all that is good and right and holy.

Unless you have some specific example of me doing wrong, I will turn your general subjective comment upon yourself. You have a habit of ignoring and disrespecting the truth of a matter, like now, instead of establishing the truth of the matter, you hold in the highest degree, your own personal subjective opinion, when you have every opportunity to do the opposite. This may be viewed as a desire to cause strife and contention, but I wouldn't go that far with you, because you mix your subjectivity with a certain amount of desire to share and learn. And, upon occasion, you actually thank me even when I am harsh with you, and in so doing, you have even if rarely, extended a mature and humble spirit towards the correction that we trust was based in God by His word/teachings.

This is not about the whole nicer than God issue, one that you and I don't agree on, so if you will be so kind as to allow my message to be what it is, and deal with it instead of our differences of opinion about Christian morality, perhaps we'll be fine. Until you are ready to apologetically deal with whatever issue, your claims and judgments remain somewhat subjective and unsubstantiated, even though I'd like nothing better than to go over whatever contentions you have with me example by example to establish the truth of the matter instead of resting upon a disgruntled personal opinion.

Please do not punch me in the gut.

I have (Christ's) love for you, ,,,

I stand in the way of error and contradiction and a demonstrative steadfast focus off of Christ and on man, precisely because I care for you, not otherwise. And same with any other time I harshly oppose someone, it is the many false teachings that people keep defending that are destructive, not the truth and a focus on God and His word. If my treatment of you makes you feel as deeply and personally as I think you have conveyed, then ,,, good, ,,, I am doing what I intended on doing. You see, I want to redeem the time, as we all know, we may not have another tomorrow, so I focus on eternal truth as though it's the last thing I will ever say before I get to heaven. That way you will have the best testimony I have to offer towards faith in God and His word, and I will have a good conscience knowing that I did not smooth over the truth in hopes of slowly and gently honoring and exhorting in truth by the spirit of God. Because we may not have another chance to do this, or more likely, someone else who is just visiting this site will not take the time to follow our discussion to it's conclusion. So, I don't want you or anyone else feeling good about themselves while destructive ideas are flowing freely in you and are being promoted to others as well.

Don't disconnect the bad feeling (guilt from being wrong) from the truthful message that condemned you for being in the wrong in the first place. It is so common for a protagonist like yourself to wait long after something offensive happens to say something like: you know, generally speaking, you are too harsh and mean to me and others, I am not mentioning any particular examples so that you could defend your self even if you wanted to, I don't want to focus on that truth in reality stuff, I just want to complain and make you look like the bad guy so that perhaps then I will feel better about myself.

I never judged against you without a good reason and without your best interests in mind and without God's direction/teaching. And sure I am not perfect and get some things wrong, but you should be able to see that my goal is not to harm you, but to aid and build you up according to God and His word.


====================================

Freelight - Maybe that means all that to you, but it does not mean all that to me. So by your own unreasonable argumentation, you self refute. See what subjectivism gets you? Standing on the truth of a matter is far more satisfying, if you have that much room in your heart. More to the point. Its not all about searching and sharing, God's word, which is absolute eternal truth, and is the only righteous way of life and the only way to life eternal, God's word condemns your notion of constant searching and learning and sharing. You are supposed to conclude and stand on the firm unchanging foundation of the truth, the rock of offense, and if you don't not accept the exclusivity of God and His word, then you are plainly wrought in error and ungodliness.

You wouldn't even stand corrected let alone apologize for errently charging
For those who cannot see the essential truth that THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE.....then what can be said about them? Instead they will resort to intellectual trifles...and straining at gnats in the meantime oblivious to the obvious truths as presented by their fellows. Unless your way of standing corrected and apologizing for your false accusation is by replying to my correction by saying, "understood". Well understand this, I hear and comprehend you too, but I don't hear you admit that you treated me wrongly, nor that you take back your false accusation which is what you should do when exposed for doing wrong.

The absolute truth of the matter is, the letter kills is an unambiguous reference to God's law/commandments that He gave to Israel and is the most striking covenantal aspect in their relationship with God. I agree that God has superseding commandments given to Paul for this superseding dispensation of grace, but that is not what we are talking about. The truth is, the letter kills means that in this dispensation, the covenantal law of God (obey my laws and you shall live...) is what kills and condemns. There is NO difference in trusting God and in trusting God's word. But I've argued and demonstrated and explained all that, so futility rains while the truth of the matter is far from you. Again, if you want to make some other reference to doing wrong, that is perfectly fine, but don't misrepresent God and His word as you keep doing.

freelight
January 25th, 2004, 01:34 PM
My comments below - just follow the crows :) - each response is one paragraph only.





Originally posted by 1Way


Freelight - Maybe that means all that to you, but it does not mean all that to me. So by your own unreasonable argumentation, you self refute. See what subjectivism gets you? Standing on the truth of a matter is far more satisfying, if you have that much room in your heart. More to the point. Its not all about searching and sharing, God's word, which is absolute eternal truth, and is the only righteous way of life and the only way to life eternal, God's word condemns your notion of constant searching and learning and sharing.


:crow: )============Hi 1Way,..............Jesus taught his disciples to always ask, seek and knock - for only those who do...will keep receiving, finding and having the doors open to them. Of course those who hold a closed system and narrowed view of 'Gods word'(theology) will not like that idea. Those who know the progressive nature of revelation understand this concept. Also,....only God knows each heart.....and judges each accordingly.


You are supposed to conclude and stand on the firm unchanging foundation of the truth, the rock of offense, and if you don't not accept the exclusivity of God and His word, then you are plainly wrought in error and ungodliness.

You wouldn't even stand corrected let alone apologize for errently charging

quote:
"For those who cannot see the essential truth that THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE.....then what can be said about them? Instead they will resort to intellectual trifles...and straining at gnats in the meantime oblivious to the obvious truths as presented by their fellows."

Unless your way of standing corrected and apologizing for your false accusation is by replying to my correction by saying, "understood". Well understand this, I hear and comprehend you too, but I don't hear you admit that you treated me wrongly, nor that you take back your false accusation which is what you should do when exposed for doing wrong.


:crow: )============= The above was simply a generalized statement that you took personally....not an accusation as you insinuate. I will not apologize for I have done nothing wrong. I will not nit-pick over what 'letter' means as we have covered that issue and our understandings on it. Each are entitled to their view. I merely shared my perspective on it....and this was criticized by you. I saw the continuing on of this point kinda redundant......in light of the essential emphasis of my commentaries....which are that the Spirit gives LIFE. Those who are spiritual would rejoice in this fact/reality of life in the Spirit....and would not be so prone to go on about a doctrinal issue which in my opinion is secondary to this and more or less an 'intellectual trifle'. I do not get so caught up in the correctness or orthodoxy of a rigid doctrinal/theological system which claims to be 'Gods word' on the matter....and all else are 'error' and 'ungodliness'. Those with a higher perspective might call this folly....and religious ignorance....disguised by zeal.



The absolute truth of the matter is, the letter kills is an unambiguous reference to God's law/commandments that He gave to Israel and is the most striking covenantal aspect in their relationship with God. I agree that God has superseding commandments given to Paul for this superseding dispensation of grace, but that is not what we are talking about. The truth is, the letter kills means that in this dispensation, the covenantal law of God (obey my laws and you shall live...) is what kills and condemns. There is NO difference in trusting God and in trusting God's word. But I've argued and demonstrated and explained all that, so futility rains while the truth of the matter is far from you. Again, if you want to make some other reference to doing wrong, that is perfectly fine, but don't misrepresent God and His word as you keep doing.



:crow: )=========== God remains true to His native and divine Presence amid all the theological ventures of Man. God and his logos is only misrepresented by those who are unspiritual and cling to their interpretations of scripture over spritual wisdom and understanding. Only those who are led of the Spirit....think and act as sons of God.

1Way
January 25th, 2004, 03:53 PM
NOTICE -- This is an updated and improved post, my internet connection is giving me fits, so I apologize for the mistake and delay in correcting my partial post. Please re-read this post to get back up to speed with what I am saying. Thanks.

So you continue to set the authority of the Spirit over and against the word of God.

You said
God and his logos is only misrepresented by those who are unspiritual and cling to their interpretations of scripture over spritual wisdom and understanding.
Here is my version which does not contrast God's spirit and God's word, but rather unifies them.

"God and his logos is only misrepresented by those who are unspiritual or untruthful, they cling to their interpretations of scripture over and against spritual wisdom and truth of the matter."
Your idea is that as long as your spiritual your all right, mishandling the truth is not as important as mishandling the Spirit. You could not be more wrong. If you mishandle God's word, then you mishandle God, and visa versa.

Jesus said, you are of your father the devil, because you have no room in your hearts for the spirit, or wasn't it for my word? It's God's word, that is what Jesus said determines if you are of God or not. He equated the truth from God, with God Himself! This equation of the truth with God is rampant throughout scripture, even God's name is The Word, and The Truth just to point out how fully and boldy God denies your view.

As to seeking and learning, I did leave that issue rather wide open and should have been more careful and narrow minded. This is what prompted me to respond as I did.

Freelight - Excuse me, but we did not disagree about the Spirit giving life bit, we disagreed about what "the letter kills" means. You ,,, ,,, person. :rolleyes: )=========== Hi 1Way,..........understood. It should be becoming obvious that I hold to a more metaphysically broad understanding of certain concepts found in scripture and other inspired writings....which I share freely - I realize sometimes others come from different perspectives and this is fine - its all about exploration and sharing these understandings with one another. I just shared the truth of the matter, even though you were propagating a lie about me not understanding the concept that the Spirit gives life. I did not make your accusation personally against me, you did. And it is yet another lie for you to suggest that you did not intend that remark to be understood against me. But forget that, you are not sorry and I can't make you treat me with honesty and respect. Even if you somewhat would like to retract your charges against me, what I said represented the truth of the matter, namely that we disagreed about what the Letter kills means, and that we agreed!!! on what "the Spirit gives life" means. So if you agree that that is the case, then you had no business retorting as you did, and so I just pointed that out and hoped for better from you.

Back to my point, I was presenting cold hard truth, the truth in reality, our disagreement was NOT about the Spirit gives life, it was about the letter kills, but you don't seem to accept that perspective very much, you like to avoid the clarity that only standing on the truth avails. You like a more broad approach, a metaphysically broader understanding of certain concepts (retranslated, a different understanding or approach to spiritual truth) which are found in scripture AND as you suggest, other INSPIRED writings... which is a direct attack on the authority and exclusivity of scripture, and was why I pointed out the exclusivity of God's eternal truth, yet you have only failed to respond to that issue. So you are basically attacking absolute and/or eternal truth, suggesting a broader metaphysic and other inspired writings beyond scripture, and these ideas you share freely, (the old open minded bit, trash in trash out, truth in truth out), willingly accepting different perspectives (but not mine you don't, not Christ's you don't, you say you must have more than the scriptures, but God condemns such a thought as holding any other authority against God's word). So different perspectives are not fine, you do not accept different perspectives like you say you do, you almost constantly reject mine and now I see you reject God's exclisivist teachings as well, at least I'm honest and say that I reject most perspectives and only accept the truth of a matter and that God's word is the final authority, scripture that is, not otherwise.

You go on to say that it's all about exploring and sharing these understandings with each other. And given my attempt at establishing the truth of the matter, and your refusal to acknowledge the truth of the matter, and lifting up false claims that are outside of scripture and placing them in line with scripture, you are ever searching and seeking and exploring and sharing but not limiting your faith to the authority and sufficiency and exclusivity of scripture, all of which seems very much like what God condemns as follows.


2 Timothy 3:5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. And since you are seeking the truth from other places besides God's word and esteeming these other so called inspired writings on the same level and authority as God's word, i.e. the letter may be God's Mosaic law, and it may also be other laws which meaning is taught in other writings. You will NEVER stand firmly on the truth with that sort of nonsense, you will ever be searching and never able to come to the knowledge of the TRUTH. And for everyone's benefit, here is Jesus demonstrating my point more eloquently than I.
John 8:37 "I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with[12] your father."

39 They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father."

Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. 41 You do the deeds of your father."

Then they said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father--God."

42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."

Here is another example of you dealing wrongly with the truth. You said
I share that the letter is death only when it has no spirit-life vitality. I have read the word 'letter' as being not only the Law(s) of Moses....but any written or inscribed words which are intended to be laws(principles) of God to man. The truth in reality is that we are not dealing about wether or not you read something else somewhere else, the truth of the matter is that we were talking about the truth that was expressed in God's word concerning what He meant when He said that the letter kills. You plainly referenced God's word when you said that the spirit gives life, but the letter kills, but then when I exposed how you were wrong about what that means, you now say that you are actually referring to something else. You are one unstable truth opposing unit.

You are perverse and do not deal uprightly with the truth, you even deny the truth and opt for a broader journey, I trust and expose the truth, and reject me ways even though you say that you are accepting of any "perspective", you mean any but "the" one way "the" one truth "the" one life in Christ Jesus and the one word of life, the one word of God, the holy scriptures which are able to make one wise unto salvation (2Tim 3:15), that perspective is just a bit too confining and exclusivistic for you, you need a broader metaphysic, a more all inclusive mind set, and wider arena for spiritual truth.

So which is it? Christ and His word only? Or is that not suitable or comprehensive or satisfying enough for you?

freelight
January 25th, 2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

So you continue to set the authority of the Spirit over and against the word of God.




)=============== 1 Way,............The Spirit of God is Life. The Spirit of God is what is to be followed - the Mind of God. Of course.....any words or logos that is God-inspired....will be in accord with the Spirit. I have never denied the word or logos of God...for such is essential for communicating the Mind of God to us. Again we go back to ' the letter kills, the Spirit gives Life.' A mere book, bible(collection of books), writings, codes, letters, alphabet, symbols, script, etc.....have no power in and of themselves to give LIFE! There are merely containers, pointers, symbols to convey thoughts, images, meanings, ideas unto our consciousness....that we may receive their impressions and interpret them thereby. Your bible cannot save you. Sure....books, writings may have been inspired by God and codified and heralded as 'Gods word' - good and well. If you have inspired writings, books, scriptures....this does not give you salvation. Only by receiving the words, logos of the SPIRIT(God) can they be QUICKENED to you as LIFE....thru the written codes or otherwise. Sure, the logos and mind of God is expressed thru scripture...........but until God makes these words alive in your consciousness.....and impresses them upon the tablets of your heart.....they are mere intellection. With this....we see varying levels of inspiration and enlightenment within the dynamic of such an exchange.

God is LIFE....and those abiding in GOD....have Life NOW.


paul

1Way
January 25th, 2004, 06:45 PM
God is true, His name is "The" Word, not the Words in different writings here and there, He is "the" way, "the" TRUTH, and "the" life, He is not the truths as ascribed by various systems of belief, He is not just the life as you keep focusing on to promote your perspective and demote mine.


Do you affirm that Jesus Christ is "the only" way to God,
that He and His teachings are what constitute the only way, the only truth and the only life eternal, and no other,
and that by no other name (that can be named) can man be saved?
Do you hold any other writing at the same level of authority as the holy scriptures (meaning the protestant bible as generally accepted in the Christian churches, i.e. not the JW's New World translation, or the book of Mormon or the Koran or any other so called "inspired spiritual" writing)?


Freelight - Please deal with my post and stop the ambiguity, you are not moving towards clarity, you are avoiding the reason we are discussing things. You DID NOT say what you are now saying, here is a rundown about what we have been talking about. If I wanted to hear your freeform monologue about your strange beliefs, it would be only after several million years in the next life and I have already pondered the theory of relativity as it applies to time/space travel, only after that would I possibly be interested. Here is the contextual development of our discussion, please do not stray.

you quoted God's word,
I corrected your wrong understanding which was somewhat shrewd of me to catch your mistaken "understanding", seeing how you did not share it at that time, but your contextual use was clear enough for me
you then went about defending your errant view and since then you have never dealt uprightly with that matter of truth
You then made matters worse by saying that actually you read it elsewhere other than God's word that the letter kills so that the letter kills can mean what God's word says it means, and it can mean what God's word does not say it means, which is you lifting some other authority on the same level as God's word in order to maintain your view that the letter kills can mean something other than what God says it means.

Now you say
I have never denied the word or logos of God...for such is essential for communicating the Mind of God to us. I just showed you how you denied God and His word by superseding His word with your own manmade authority in a vain attempt at correcting or modifying scripture. And I objected when you did the in the first place, and I continue to do so now. You plainly said that God inspired other writings other than the scriptures, and even if you didn't say that much, you uses another authority other than the bible to augment what the bible says by adding your point that the letter kills means more than just the Mosaic law.

My best advise to you is to read God's word with an ear towards comprehension, and if you still come away thinking that there are other writings that you can use on the same level or to add to the teachings of the scriptures, then you are one deluded and truth opposing fool.

God's word, which is meaningful and is the way of life eternal, is TRUE, it is not just ink and paper, and it does have the power to convert the soul upon hearing and believing. God does not teach that a special unction is required to understand and place faith in His truth, His method is hearing (receiving) and believing (trusting). When people preach the gospel which is the power unto salvation, they do not deliver God to people, they deliver the truth about Him, and it is that truth that can cut asunder to the heart and soul that ends up setting us free, never the lie, always the truth. God uses the things that are not, to bring to naught the things that are, God saves people by faith, and faith is applied conceptually, and sure, the object of our faith is in God, but God is the gift that we get upon being saved, He is not the message which converts the soul, His truth about Him is the message by the hearing and believing that one may become saved, and then after faith comes, as a part of salvation, we receive the HS, but remember, that was not true for many thousands of years! Man used to be saved without God living in them, so we are special in that regard.

God is not truth itself, truth is a concept, God is a living being, but the truth about God according to the gospel unto salvation has the power to convert and thus save the sole, not apart from God, but not apart from the truth about God either. The truth, and God are in no way in competition for authority, and words on paper is not the intent of what scripture means! It's the meaning that the words convey, my paper and leather bible, can not save me, but the message and way and power unto eternal life is in the word of God. Your arguments are like a white washed tomb, on the superficial appearance, it looks ok, but concretely it is full of dead man's bones, because you constantly demote or even doubt the authority of scripture, like when you tried to correct it with another authority that you would not name for some probably shameful reason.

godrulz
January 25th, 2004, 08:08 PM
1Way:

Thank you for speaking into my life and sharing yours with others.

I do not know your heart and am not your Judge, so I do not presume to be accurate in all my ideas.

There is a way to effectively communicate so the recipient will receive rebuke or truth. Argumentum ad hominem or name-calling is not worthy of fellow believers who are adults in dialogue about Open Theism issues, for example.

I have a righteous indignation with those who deny the Deity of Christ or propagate Mormonism, etc. here. A harsher tone may be more appropriate for those with a hard heart or deceptive spirit.

For those of us with a love for truth, Christ, and His church a less condescending tone would be appreciated.

We all have different personality types, but they should be tempered by the Spirit and character of Christ rather than our flesh or ego.

Why not attack and oppose the false ideas, rather than slander people's intelligence and motives (which you cannot accurately assess on the internet)?

Back to the issues at hand and I will :shut:

freelight
January 25th, 2004, 09:28 PM
Dear 1Way,

As I have read your concentrated efforts to make your point while assuming that I have made some effort to demote your view(which is not the case)....I am finding this entertaining. This is not about 'you' or 'me'....but the essence of true understanding of spiritual liberty....which I have shared amply about - this liberty being IN the Spirit of the Lord.

I have already shared and expounded on that only the Spirit gives life as is supported by the scritpures and spiritual logic. THE SPIRIT OF GOD GIVES LIFE. The repeating of this essential truth.....may only bear fruit for those who can spiritually apprehend.



paul


:crow:

1Way
January 26th, 2004, 12:34 AM
Well Freelight, if you are right and God is with you, then please answer the following, after all, God teaches us to give the reasons for the hope that we have ...
Do you affirm that Jesus Christ is "the only" way to God,
that He and His teachings are what constitute the only way, the only truth and the only life eternal, and no other,
and that by no other name (that can be named) can man be saved?
Do you hold any other writing at the same level of authority as the holy scriptures (meaning the protestant bible as generally accepted in the Christian churches, i.e. not the JW's New World translation, or the book of Mormon or the Koran or any other so called "inspired spiritual" writing)? Perfect love casts out all fear, so don't be afraid of some words on your computer monitor, they will not send you to hell. Please, tell the truth about your faith by answering those simple questions.

godrulz
January 26th, 2004, 12:53 AM
I would add which Christ do you believe in? There are counterfeit Christs who are not the one revealed in Scripture. He is Almighty God, not a creature or mere teacher.

freelight
January 26th, 2004, 01:46 AM
1Way asks -

quote:

Do you affirm that Jesus Christ is "the only" way to God,

that He and His teachings are what constitute the only way, the only truth and the only life eternal, and no other,

and that by no other name (that can be named) can man be saved?



:crow: )============= He claimed to be 'the' Way (to the Father).


Do you hold any other writing at the same level of authority as the holy scriptures (meaning the protestant bible as generally accepted in the Christian churches, i.e. not the JW's New World translation, or the book of Mormon or the Koran or any other so called "inspired spiritual" writing)?



:crow: )============== the protestant Bible as now compiled claims its own level of authority and such is held more or less by her endorsers. I do hold other inspired writings as being supplemental to the Bible and am not limited to that which has been canonized by the protestants.


Perfect love casts out all fear, so don't be afraid of some words on your computer monitor, they will not send you to hell. Please, tell the truth about your faith by answering those simple questions.


:crow: )============why should I be afraid? I felt no need to answer your 'set up' questions per my last post.....knowing well what your answers and reactions are going to be. Nevertheless......here you go.




paul

1Way
January 26th, 2004, 02:25 AM
godrulz - You said
1Way:

Thank you for speaking into my life and sharing yours with others.

(1) I do not know your heart and am not your Judge, so I do not presume to be accurate in all my ideas.

(2) There is a way to effectively communicate so the recipient will receive rebuke or truth. (3) Argumentum ad hominem or name-calling is not worthy of fellow believers who are adults in dialogue about Open Theism issues, for example.

(4) I have a righteous indignation with those who deny the Deity of Christ or propagate Mormonism, etc. here. A harsher tone may be more appropriate for those with a hard heart or deceptive spirit.

(5) For those of us with a love for truth, Christ, and His church a less condescending tone would be appreciated.

(6) We all have different personality types, but they should be tempered by the Spirit and character of Christ rather than our flesh or ego.

(7) Why not attack and oppose the false ideas, rather than slander people's intelligence and motives (8) (which you cannot accurately assess on the internet)?

Back to the issues at hand and I will :shut:
(1) God teaches that you should know a man's heart by what comes out of it. God says that you should judge all things. It is good to be humble and admit your faults, but this is a bit much, you have given me this same argument for months now, yet, when you finally build up the nerve, you presume a very great deal in your harsh judgments against me. If you never really stand corrected in these faults, then I suppose that the truth of the matter is that your now less harsh words are not as meaningful as your actions/deeds.

(2) God does not usually teach such niceties, it's usually just do right and risk the consequences, the impetus for a right response is the more important focus. Jesus did not exemplify this nicer than God idea, He was hotly rejected by the vast majority even though He arguably was smarter and wiser than me. ;) Maybe you think that when Jesus made people want to kill him by speaking the truth in love, you imagine that he was really a nice guy who never offended anyone, as though killing a miracle worker is top priority for most of God's chosen people. Come on godrulz, Jesus was intensely rude and harsh, Paul the same, the great men of God, the same! Especially in the face of wickedness and presumptuous sin.

(3) Right, until doing things that the Lord HATES, like causing unnecessary strife, a false witness (slander), etc. etc. etc., rescue your love from sinful hypocrisy, abhor that which is evil and stop being nicer than God, its wrong on so many levels including being impossible anyway. The attempt at being nicer than God is really politically correct selfishness and self righteousness, it's the desire to be accepted and to be viewed as right or authoritative. Its good to be accepted and authoritative, but not while trying to be nicer than God

(4) Wow, so you practically have to be a heretic to get some harshness out of you, well, actually that is not true, you just got done chewing me a new one, and I don't think you consider me a heretic or such, you mostly just don't like my style. So add it's ok to be rudely harsh if you don't like their style.

(5) Ah, yes, but then again, so would the devil. He would just love it if we would all feel less bothered by the more "trivial" yet numerous sins in our lives. Maybe we should all gain a sense of brotherly appreciation and acceptance even when we find false teachings and error, as long as it's nothing like outright heresy, we should rather wink as the flood of more common and less gross sins slowly but surely destroy ourselves and those around us. Also, lets us forget altogether, that the less severe and wicked sins have a flip side, they usually are that much easier to avoid and stand corrected once pointed out. If you were to say confront someone who molests children, then that would be a very complex and time consuming deprogramming effort, but if it's just a touch of selfishness or pride, there is not much to do other than to point it out and be done with it. Unless the offender is not repentant, then the severity grows in part because the ease of correction amplifies the fact that they did not repent when everyone knows they should. Such a blatant rebellion is perhaps not the most wicked sort of sin, but it may represent pure pride and self righteousness, and those are two of the most self deluding of sins. If you let them foster in your life, just about any sin can grow protected by these so called not so gross, not so heretical sins.

Sin is destructive, and if you care about righteousness and life, oppose sin even if you have to sacrifice some popularity. To not oppose sin, in essence, is sin itself. Stop trying to be nicer than God.

(6) Good point, i.e. don't be nicer than God, and keep your love from hypocrisy, abhor that with is a higher up heresy, opps, I think it actually said, all that is evil. Not most evil, not the most evil things, not just the clearly evil things, it's, that which is evil. Don't try to be nicer than God. Sin and evil is an equal opportunity destroyer. Love everyone without hypocrisy and sin.

(7) LOL, that is funny. I do, but after an offense/sin happens, it would be unloving for me to be nicer than God, so I address the error. You are confusing, you say you should not be my judge, you don't know my heart, yet when you do judge me, its like all hell breaks loose and judgment and condemnation becomes you. Perhaps you should stive for more of a balance there.

(8) Wow, that is confusing, are you telling me that you seriously and harshly judged me as you did,,, in ignorance? Of course not, you know my heart and what sort of man I am, somewhere else you just judged Z Man as a save soul. God's word says that as a man speaks, so is he, and from the abundance of the heart a man speaks, and a good man brings forth good things, and an evil man evil things. The bible teachings that you were taught since you were probably a little kid, tell you over and over and over and over again to judge people and how to do it rightly. The internet may be one of the best places to judge someone. People love to hide behind their social skills, they use laughter and subtle affirmations to gain favor in others. But on the internet, espeically in these proving grounds, practically all you have is people's hearts of faith being pored out for everyone to examine. Here's a good rule of thumb that should help you with all this. Most people speak their minds, some hide their heart better than others, but sooner or later, the heart is revealed by our communicated thoughts. Maybe I'm wrong and people are more deceptive and dishonest than that, but I doubt it. Yes man is sinful and unstable, but he also like to affirm what is in his inner man, evil people like to promote their evil and to have it accepted, same with the righteous, they like to promote righteousness and to have it accepted. So the general idea is that the internet, especialy on a theology forum, is a particularly good place to get to know people. Ever tried Paltalk? They have Christian rooms and talk about an intense way to deal with issues of faith. The personal side of voice chat is more highlighted while the intellectual side is somewhat lessoned.

I wouldn't have half the room to judge against you, if you only were not a mild hypocrite. If you only consistently taught that it's ok to judge all evil, then perhaps most of this issue would be settled.

So from my perspective your temper tantrum was brought about by you "trying to be" nicer than God as well as me "not being" nicer than God. Such combinations naturally produce interpersonal problems sooner or later. Live and learn.

1Way
January 26th, 2004, 02:49 AM
freelight - You said
Originally posted by freelight

1Way asks -

quote:

Do you affirm that Jesus Christ is "the only" way to God,

that He and His teachings are what constitute the only way, the only truth and the only life eternal, and no other,

and that by no other name (that can be named) can man be saved?



:crow: )============= He claimed to be 'the' Way (to the Father).

That is not the question, I am asking you what you affirm as true or not. Anyone can make a claim, but only you can decide what to trust and believe. Please answer the question.

Do you hold any other writing at the same level of authority as the holy scriptures (meaning the protestant bible as generally accepted in the Christian churches, i.e. not the JW's New World translation, or the book of Mormon or the Koran or any other so called "inspired spiritual" writing)?


:crow: )============== the protestant Bible as now compiled claims its own level of authority and such is held more or less by her endorsers. I do hold other inspired writings as being supplemental to the Bible and am not limited to that which has been canonized by the protestants.

Care to dare to share? What other writings do you trust as spiritual truth on the same level as God's word? Is there a higher writen authority than the scriptures?


Perfect love casts out all fear, so don't be afraid of some words on your computer monitor, they will not send you to hell. Please, tell the truth about your faith by answering those simple questions.


:crow: )============why should I be afraid? I felt no need to answer your 'set up' questions per my last post.....knowing well what your answers and reactions are going to be. Nevertheless......here you go.

I don't know why you tend to hide the truth of your beliefs, perhaps you are somewhat ashamed of them, who knows. The expressions of our faith that we are dealing with here and now are at the heart of the very issues of our eternal life and well being? I mean, if you are right or if you are wrong, heaven and hell may weigh in the balance, or at the least eternal rewards and consequences of some sort. These letters and words will not condemn you, or acquit you, but the ideas that they represent will condemn or acquit you. Unless you are just being dishonest about everything, which does not seem reasonable to me, I trust you are speaking your mind and from your heart.


paul

godrulz
January 26th, 2004, 03:49 AM
I did not expect a diatribe and dissection from a simple exhortation. Perhaps you need a life.

Jesus had authority and perfection to rebuke the hard-hearted with judgment. To the broken and hurting He demonstrated love and mercy. Yes, we do have authority as believers, but watch the presumption. The believers here need encouraging and not the same attitude as the unbelievers. Why drive the sincerely searching away by rudeness equating your spiritual maturity with Jesus and Paul? Jesus was a master communicator. You come across as a mix of flesh and spirit (as I do, no doubt). Effective communication principles are not antithetical to biblical principles.

I can imagine that you might be a brutal shepherd/pastor brow beating the immature sheep in the name of self-righteousness. Love and tenderness are appropriate for the sincerely searching who do not have the intellectual prowess that you do. Save the rhetoric for the mockers and deceivers.

Once again, time for me to:shut:

freelight
January 26th, 2004, 01:11 PM
1Way writes:

That is not the question, I am asking you what you affirm as true or not. Anyone can make a claim, but only you can decide what to trust and believe. Please answer the question.



:Poly: )============ Well, yes - of course my upbringing, training, affiliations, mentoring have all been Christ-centered (of varing traditions). I have personally found Christ to be the way, truth and life - the light of the world....the quickening Spirit - the divine Logos - the Anointed One. My perception of the Christ may be of wider expansions than some orthodox believers....but to each his own theosophy. Christ in us the hope of glory...shall awaken in us by His grace in due time - the Daystar.


1Way :

Care to dare to share? What other writings do you trust as spiritual truth on the same level as God's word? Is there a higher writen authority than the scriptures?


:Poly: )========== I said some writings I hold as 'suplemental' - they do not necessarily 'supplant' the Bible. I find the Apocrypha, intertestamental books, lost books of the Bible, dead sea scrolls material, some gnostic texts and other more modern day revelations as part of the supplementation to ones spiritual journey and soul-knowledge. I do have a website which is only a foretaste of my explorations - there are some links, articles and a section on mormonism - this may give you a glimpse of my 'theology' - I am evolving and shall be adding more as the commentaries come.

www.freelightexpress.com

*Or check bottom of post....where the posters web address is accessible.




1Way:

I don't know why you tend to hide the truth of your beliefs, perhaps you are somewhat ashamed of them, who knows. The expressions of our faith that we are dealing with here and now are at the heart of the very issues of our eternal life and well being? I mean, if you are right or if you are wrong, heaven and hell may weigh in the balance, or at the least eternal rewards and consequences of some sort. These letters and words will not condemn you, or acquit you, but the ideas that they represent will condemn or acquit you. Unless you are just being dishonest about everything, which does not seem reasonable to me, I trust you are speaking your mind and from your heart.


:Poly: )=========== I have hidden nothing not relative to the specifics of our dialogue...and am not ashamed for being true to the revelations and insights given me by Spirit. Again, it is not a matter of if I'm right or If I'm wrong - or if I'm going to hell or heaven - these are petty religionist terms for the most part - my sharings here are explorations and tended for expansion of consciousness - the progression of light. Our previous and current discussions so far.....are the sharing of ideas and interpretations and it would behoove each to try and see the perspectives and viewpoints of the others....to encourage a fruitful dialogue - one that tends towards cooperation and greater understanding. I have learned and gleaned from many sources, teachers and teachings....while the Bible and my judeo-christian heritage has served as the premise and kernel of my own spiritual awakeneing. I am obviously however not bound by a narrow interpretation of 'Gods word' as some die-hard fundamentalists and evangelical zealots define such. My freedom and liberty of soul and spirit extends beyond such narrow definitions. It all comes back to my emphasis shared thru-out...that Jesus taught his disciples that the Spirit of truth would lead, guide and teach them - ALL TRUTH. Somehow some dont understand this emphasis and importance , of following the Spirit of truth, which DOES NOT negate or disqualify the written word - but does imply the the written word be realized, senses, understood and illumined by/thru the Spirit. The Spirit of truth alone can guide one into the essence of truth that any text or other medium may provide for our souls enlightenment and nourishment - still....it is the Spirit of God...that is revealing to us the Mind of God....within letters or without letters. God who is Light...is ever unfolding His light in us...as we open to His Light...and allow the Christ to shine within us. This is the anointing of truth....that teaches us all things - things that man cannot divulge to the innermost places of the soul. This is the gnosis that leads the way towards communion and at-one-ment with the Father. This is the inspiration and guidance of the divine Law Supreme which is Love...which fulfills ALL.


shalom,


paul

Freak
January 28th, 2004, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by godrulz to 1way

I did not expect a diatribe and dissection from a simple exhortation. Perhaps you need a life. That's funny. 1Way is simply a babe in Christ still needing milk.


I can imagine that you might be a brutal shepherd/pastor brow beating the immature sheep in the name of self-righteousness. Love and tenderness are appropriate for the sincerely searching who do not have the intellectual prowess that you do. Save the rhetoric for the mockers and deceivers. 1Way could learn much from the way you have handled these issues, my friend. :thumb:

1Way
January 28th, 2004, 11:34 PM
Freak and all interested parties

This is a repost from post 118, to confront Freak with the truth of the matter. As to godrulz, Iíve been disappointed in him for a near complete lack of biblical authority and teachings for his view. Not that he hasnít presented any, but that in light of the bible arguments Iíve given him about miracles and also about not being nicer than God, he seems for the most part, aversive to them. Godrulz has not been exemplary, but if that is true, then you are far worse off. But, life remains thereís still hope, so play hide and seek, or deal with Godsí word that denies your view that miracles tend to produce faith.


Ok, gig's up, I'm quite satisfied after attempt after repeated umpteen attempt to get Freak to put up an argument "against at least one of Bob Enart's teachings". Again, this is NOT about disagreeing with conclusions or claims, this was supposed to be about Freak exposing the error of what Bob actually teaches (esp. from The Plot) and he never gave one single example nor argument against Bob's "teaching", he just demonstrated that he disagrees with Bob, like as though we did not already know that.


Here's some examples of disagreeing with a claim and rebutting an argument


disagreeing with a claim


Bob says A is true

Freak says A is not true, I think B is true, examine B is taught here and here and here in the bible, therefore A is not true.


Using the above method would not likely settle or rebut anything, unless the opponent would just show up and admit he was wrong. And I do admit that sometimes you can refute A by simply establishing B, but then usually such occasions would happen where A and B are more simple issues where especially A is not accompanied with multiple or strong support arguments. Normally speaking, a teaching is strongly connected to it's support arguments so you have to deal with them in order to get anywhere.



rebutting a teaching

Bob says A is true
Freak says wrong, B is true
Freak rebuts Bob by first systematically and accurately exposing whatever arguments Bob has in support for his claim, for example.
Freak says
Bob says that A is true because of argument A1, A2, and A3, and also Bob claims that A4 further demonstrates why A is true although in a more round about way, but helps round out the teaching to demonstrate even more biblical consistency. He would state A1 accurately and not violate it's context, and then proceed to expose it's weakness or error or falsehood or mistake, whatever. Then same with A2 thru A4 and so on. If you NEVER do that, then we would never know what is wrong with what Bob "actually" teaches. Foundational issues matter.



Freak errors from not respecting the bible on many fronts, not the least of which is how to treat one another when we have disagreements.



When it's an important and disputed matter, God teaches the establishment of the truth by multiple or corroborating witnesses. This support the whole idea that the truth is whole and not partial. For example, while Freak has said his side of the issue, that does not mean he has established the truth of the matter, even though he as presented more than one support for his views. When the truth surfaces even in the presence of your advisory/opponent, then the matter is at least more likely to have been established in truth and certainly not according to a personal (one sided) agenda.

De 19:15 "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.

Of course, you can not establish anything if you don't have an objective hearing of both or all sides of the issue, so necessarily you need understanding prior to judgment. And our Christian faith is one of a great amount of knowledge and understanding in the Lord, we should not fear having our faith cross examined, instead we should welcome it with an open readiness.

Col 2:2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, and attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the knowledge of the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ,

And when it comes to teaching learning and sharing our faith in God, we are taught to do so with humility and respect, demonstrating our claims and faith from scripture.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;


Thanks for hanging in there everyone, Freaks behavior is repulsive enough for the next few months so I'll leave him alone to stew in his pot of gross. If godrulz or anyone else who would like to raise the level of discussion to something like what the topic supposedly entails, I'd be glad to have them fill in. But don't forget the two lessons Freak helped us learn, and that is there is a difference between disagreeing and rebutting, and there is a difference between a teaching and a claim or conclusion of a teaching.

Sorry to have to dwell on these elementary immature ideas, but if that is where it's at, then deal with it and move on.


Hello Chileice - Actually, Freak is opposing not very much, and exposing more of his ignorance and error than anything. Freak's main thing is the "contextual violence" game. But, as they say, I have only just begun. With few exceptions, it's been quite disapointing, especially the way Freak non-argues just about everything. Name it and claim it is such lazy foolishness, it's hard to enjoy. So far we've learned that a teaching is not the same as a claim/conclusion, and that rebutting a teaching is not the same as disagreeing with a teaching. But don't tell Freak that, he demonstrates the opposite with Freakish style and flare, and he thinks I'm a liar and not saved. What a deal.

1Way
January 28th, 2004, 11:40 PM
This is from post 119, Enjoy! And note the roar of silence in refutation and error exposing. Nothing substantial has been presented yet, except for an associated (and noteworthy) issue that has not yet really been pursued (yet?), namely that aside from miracles tending to cause more unbelief, what about the issue of whether or not miracles are going on today or not.
Perhaps Enyart's most impressive argument is demonstrated by listing every miracle in the bible along with the effect that it had on people if discernable. That made for a huge collection, but the point of all that is remarkably simple, miracles do not tend to foster faith. It was a landslide, even with the most outragious and awesome miracles, the overwhelming response was more unbelief.

Bob also deals with the issue of what faith really is. And this point is also remarkably simple. Unlike some issues, faith has an exceptionally clear and quite comprehensive definition. Consider that faith is

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Now, imagine yourself doing something that you experience everyday, like geting in your car and driving to work, or opening up your mouth and eating your dinner, or sitting at your computer and dealing with the endless supply of godly issues from God's word at TOL. Now, during your experience, I mean right in the middle of you experiencing ,,, whatever, like lets say you are driving to work, and you are thinking about what I am saying right now, and you consider your car and the street below and that your mind is cognizant of what is going on, but guess what, none of this is a matter of faith! None, not at all, right?

But why? Because faith requires an element of something hoped for, not something you are seeing and experiencing. Do you have "faith" that your car is on the road and the road is on the ground and your tires are attached to your drivetrain and suspension? No, you consider these things as a matter of fact, not a matter of faith. Same with miracles, it takes exactly zero amount of faith to accurately experience a miracle. The fact of a miracle may be accurately known and reported from unbelieving cities and towns as the bible teaches! So attributing a miracle to God takes whatever observation skills that is common to man, primarily eyes and ears etc. it's not a matter of the heart. (Remember, we are talking about a genuine biblical miracle, not some well intended report that aunt Julie was blessed with a miracle when her tests came back negative.)



The message of a miracle. Miracles mostly do not say anything, they mostly just validate the messenger or peson or people of God, although often the miracle is used in conjunction with whatever dealings God is having with man and thus they may carry profound and clear implications. Now if miracles always taught a lesson on their own, then we might be able to expect faith being excercised in conforming our faith to that message. But, overall, the communication of a miracle is to say something on the order of, Moses is on God's side, and when God makes the most undeniable miracles, such factual knowledge pretty much eliminates exercizing faith, instead, it's obviously an excercise in eyesight and hearing and memory recall, etc.



What I think people who are saved today think is that it would be awesome to experience God's miracles, boy wouldn't that energize the body of Christ right out of their comfort zone and get people on fire for Christ!

I can relate to that desire, even today, I don't think I'll ever loose my fascination for the things of God and how awesome His mighty works can be. But that does not overturn the nature of miracles and faith as already mentioned. And frankly, the faith people would say would be amplified, would not be about the miracles, it would be about the God who does them, the being who remains not seen and who remains hoped for.



Lastly, but not least, God Himself teaches that even raising people from the dead will not cause faith in God. Faith in God is a much deeper and more personally relational issue which involves trust and respect and hope etc. Trust Jesus, don't go against Him.



Other than listing every single miracle and the results as testified in scripture, and giving Enyart's defintion of what a miracle actually is, I guess I've presented my understanding of the main arguements for why Bob Enyart concludes that as a general rule, miracles do not foster faith in God.

:o

1Way
January 29th, 2004, 12:23 AM
Godrulz Ė In post 125, you said
(1) Scripture simply does not explicitly teach that God is now confined to naturalistic methods because of a dispensation or 'unbelief' response. (2) Logically, if miracles lead to unbelief, so does preaching the Gospel! Miracles and preaching can also lead to faith and life (both/and, not either/or).

(3)I have listed verses that support the gifts of the Spirit and healing for the post-resurrection of Christ Church. This is not philosophical, it is the Word. (1) Scripture does not explicitly teach how God could create the world when prior to the world, there was nothing (known) besides God to create from or with. Much the same with the Trinity, these sorts of issues must be carefully examined because they are not obvious nor explicitly stated. Yet the trinity is a righteous teaching despite the extra work required to understand it. Same with the shift demonstrated by God when He started the dispensation of Grace. As far as an unbelief reason for God no longer doing miracles, that is somewhat funny. No godrulz, we are not saying that it took God over 4,000 years to realize or teach that lesson. Itís a bible wide fact of reality, there seems to be no reason to teach anything else about miracles other than that they tend to not foster faith.

(2) I agree that like miracles, preaching and teaching also have a somewhat low percentage of success, but, preaching Godís word does invoke the issue of faith, and men preaching and evangelizing and teaching have undoubtedly been the number one method that God has used to produce new faith in God for the last 2,000 years. Man delivering the message of salvation to man is His number one evangelization method, and it is the most effective, despite the fact that most still go to hell, it sure is better than miracles in terms of winning people to God. Even Godís elect and chosen people, the vast majority of them went to hell and I am sure no other nation had nearly as much exposure to God and His miracles than them.

(3) The fact that miracles happened after the resurrection is contended by no one. It is purely philosophical to assume that because that is true, therefore miracles are still happening today. The dispensation of grace did not start until at least one year after the day of Pentecost (via esp. parable of the fig tree w/out fruit), and even after that, God was not completely done with the dispensation of Law, and even Paul did miracles early on in his ministry, so the dividing line is not at the cross by any stretch.

More notable is the fact that miracle accounts dramatically dropped off as time progressed, and most of the disciples ended up being terribly persecuted and martyred, yet early in those days, even prisons could not hold them back because of the miraculous intervention going on. Something drastic changed concerning miracles even in that first century, also, as there is a large change as compared to the way the bible says it will be once the end times kicks into gear. So the comment about post resurrection miracles is particularly weak especially when compared to all above, and is actually fitting for the ďmiracles are not for todayĒ camp. Sorry, please try again.

freelight
January 29th, 2004, 01:41 AM
Nonetheless,..............with God ALL things are possible....and faith granted by God has power to do beyond what the mortal mind can imagine. The power and glory of God are just as real and vital today as ever before.......because GOD IS. Jesus words still ring in the ears of those who will hear -

" Have faith in God (or 'have the faith of God'),
Truth, truth I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be removed and be cast into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart, but believes those things he says will come to pass, he will have whatever he says.
Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe you receive them, and you will have them."

-Mark 11: 22-24

Miracles may still happen without the cooperation of man as in days past....but in this dispensation....God calls upon the mans cooperation and his dynamic exercise of faith....to bring forth the work and glory of God in the earth today. Therefore.....we can exercise our God-inspired faith to bring forth every-day miracles. Thru this dynamic of faith....abiding in the hearts of Gods people......miraculous things transpire thru the power of God working thru faith. Since faith is the generative power of God bringing forth all things....it is only logical that such power in action shall bring forth divine generations.

Any may choose to believe God is restricted now...but this does not stop the true faith of real believers who flow in the power of God.....abiding in their faith....and living their faith today. This kind of life puts no limits on faiths power...because Jesus himself taught that this kind of miraculous faith and its efficacy is enforce always....as long as their are those who will believe......and receive.

Each man will receive what his faith will afford him - and so.....'let it be according to your faith'.....is a universal principle for your meditation.


paul

Freak
January 29th, 2004, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

Freak and all interested parties

This is a repost from post 118, to confront Freak with the truth of the matter. The truth is found in Holy Scripture, 1Way.

We know from Scripture that the miracle of the new birth fosters belief not unbelief. Scripture recounts the strengthening of the church when the lost is converted. Furthermore...one has to believe in a miracle --the resurrection of Jesus to experience salvation.

Due to Christ's greatest miracle--raising from the dead--we find justification--He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Despite this, 1Way's hero has stated:

"Miracles foster unbelief."

Source: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3679&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

This is clearly in error. For the following reasons:

The Scripture defines a miracle as such:

Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Jesus tells us a miracle would include the delivering of a person from demons. These miracles still occur in our day...for God gives His church gifts (such as the gift of miracles) to rescue those in darkness.

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. 1Way, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc????

The Holy Scriptures don't seem to make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13).

Homework for 1Way:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the apostles, as you claim, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

Servo
January 29th, 2004, 09:31 AM
:1Way: = :box: & :first:

Freakazoid = :freak: & :hammer:

godrulz
January 29th, 2004, 10:47 AM
Miracles may have tapered off, but church history records pockets of the miraculous throughout the centuries. We also have Constantine and a progression to the Dark Ages including the decline of Christianity in general. God poured out His Spirit and the gates of hell did not prevail against the church. The history of revivals show that God has always had a remnant (contrary to JW/Mormon belief in the need for a modern resortation of the Gospel). The Reformation, printing press and Bible, Wesleys, Azusa Street (Pentecostal revival in the 1900s), etc. show that God is active in preserving His truth and raising up warriors. Smith Wigglesworth, David DuPlessis (Mr. Pentecost'), Reinhard Bonnke, etc. see and saw the power of God manifest through their ministries. Exegetically and experientially, there is no reason to conclude that the supernatural God no longer does supernatural things due to an arbitrary view of dispensationalism or the tendency for miracles to produce unbelief.

Even the Anglican C.S. Lewis argued for the rationality of miracles in 'Mere Christianity' and other books. Apart from a multitudinous amount of anecdotal stories, Scripture reveals a God who does the supernatural as part of His love, goodness, power, plan, and nature.

If miracles seem to wax and wane or you do not experience them, it is due to unbelief and rationalism, not God deciding to be a naturalistic God. Hundreds of millions of Pentecostal-charismatics know and experience the gifts of the Spirit and miracles. Jesus did do miracles as part of destroying the works of the devil and evil from sin. There were towns were He could not or would not do them due to their unbelief. This was not God's unwillingness, but man's rejection of Truth.

Which camp are you in? The naysayers who compartmentalize Scripture with a questionable hermeneutic, or those who want to experience all that God has for His people and a sin and Satan oppressed world.

The Society for Pentecostal Studies is a scholarly body who have a wealth of credible information to support a Pentecostal hermeneutic.

Freak
January 29th, 2004, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

Miracles may have tapered off, but church history records pockets of the miraculous throughout the centuries. We also have Constantine and a progression to the Dark Ages including the decline of Christianity in general. God poured out His Spirit and the gates of hell did not prevail against the church. The history of revivals show that God has always had a remnant (contrary to JW/Mormon belief in the need for a modern resortation of the Gospel). The Reformation, printing press and Bible, Wesleys, Azusa Street (Pentecostal revival in the 1900s), etc. show that God is active in preserving His truth and raising up warriors. Smith Wigglesworth, David DuPlessis (Mr. Pentecost'), Reinhard Bonnke, etc. see and saw the power of God manifest through their ministries. Exegetically and experientially, there is no reason to conclude that the supernatural God no longer does supernatural things due to an arbitrary view of dispensationalism or the tendency for miracles to produce unbelief.

Even the Anglican C.S. Lewis argued for the rationality of miracles in 'Mere Christianity' and other books. Apart from a multitudinous amount of anecdotal stories, Scripture reveals a God who does the supernatural as part of His love, goodness, power, plan, and nature.

If miracles seem to wax and wane or you do not experience them, it is due to unbelief and rationalism, not God deciding to be a naturalistic God. Hundreds of millions of Pentecostal-charismatics know and experience the gifts of the Spirit and miracles. Jesus did do miracles as part of destroying the works of the devil and evil from sin. There were towns were He could not or would not do them due to their unbelief. This was not God's unwillingness, but man's rejection of Truth.

Which camp are you in? The naysayers who compartamentalize Scripture with a questionable hermeneutic, or those who want to experience all that God has for His people and a sin and Satan oppressed world.

The Society for Pentecostal Studies is a scholarly body who have a wealth of credible information to support a Pentecostal hermeneutic. Very true. :up:

Freak
January 29th, 2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

:1Way:
Freakazoid I can see you have nothing to say. The usual from you. :crackup:

Freak
January 29th, 2004, 03:59 PM
Miracles still occur.

Q. Were there miracles on the set of THE PASSION during filming?

(A) Mel Gibson states in an interview, "There have been a lot of unusual things happening, good things like people being healed of diseases, a couple of people have had sight and hearing restored, another guy was struck by lightning while we were filming the crucifixion scene and he just got up and walked away."

http://www.passion-movie.com/english/faq3.html

1Way
January 29th, 2004, 05:59 PM
In the midst of personal opinions and third party claims, The bibleís teachings about miracles tending to not foster faith remain untouched, even now ignored. Try this idea out and see if you wont find it a blessing. Respect and conform to, not ignore and sometimes go against, Godís word, ALL of it, even the bibleís teachings that Bob points out to support his views that tend to refute yours.

3rd time running, second repost. When will they stop running! :darwinsm: Remember, this was supposed to be Freak demonstrating what is wrong with Bobís teachings about miracles, yet to date he has not presented one single counterpoint, just counter claims and disagreements.


This is from post 119, Enjoy! And note the roar of silence in refutation and error exposing. Nothing substantial has been presented yet, except for an associated (and noteworthy) issue that has not yet really been pursued (yet?), namely that aside from miracles tending to cause more unbelief, what about the issue of whether or not miracles are going on today or not.
Perhaps Enyart's most impressive argument is demonstrated by listing every miracle in the bible along with the effect that it had on people if discernable. That made for a huge collection, but the point of all that is remarkably simple, miracles do not tend to foster faith. It was a landslide, even with the most outragious and awesome miracles, the overwhelming response was more unbelief.


Bob also deals with the issue of what faith really is. And this point is also remarkably simple. Unlike some issues, faith has an exceptionally clear and quite comprehensive definition. Consider that faith is

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Now, imagine yourself doing something that you experience everyday, like geting in your car and driving to work, or opening up your mouth and eating your dinner, or sitting at your computer and dealing with the endless supply of godly issues from God's word at TOL. Now, during your experience, I mean right in the middle of you experiencing ,,, whatever, like lets say you are driving to work, and you are thinking about what I am saying right now, and you consider your car and the street below and that your mind is cognizant of what is going on, but guess what, none of this is a matter of faith! None, not at all, right?

But why? Because faith requires an element of something hoped for, not something you are seeing and experiencing. Do you have "faith" that your car is on the road and the road is on the ground and your tires are attached to your drivetrain and suspension? No, you consider these things as a matter of fact, not a matter of faith. Same with miracles, it takes exactly zero amount of faith to accurately experience a miracle. The fact of a miracle may be accurately known and reported from unbelieving cities and towns as the bible teaches! So attributing a miracle to God takes whatever observation skills that is common to man, primarily eyes and ears etc. it's not a matter of the heart. (Remember, we are talking about a genuine biblical miracle, not some well intended report that aunt Julie was blessed with a miracle when her tests came back negative.)



The message of a miracle. Miracles mostly do not say anything, they mostly just validate the messenger or peson or people of God, although often the miracle is used in conjunction with whatever dealings God is having with man and thus they may carry profound and clear implications. Now if miracles always taught a lesson on their own, then we might be able to expect faith being excercised in conforming our faith to that message. But, overall, the communication of a miracle is to say something on the order of, Moses is on God's side, and when God makes the most undeniable miracles, such factual knowledge pretty much eliminates exercizing faith, instead, it's obviously an excercise in eyesight and hearing and memory recall, etc.



What I think people who are saved today think is that it would be awesome to experience God's miracles, boy wouldn't that energize the body of Christ right out of their comfort zone and get people on fire for Christ!

I can relate to that desire, even today, I don't think I'll ever loose my fascination for the things of God and how awesome His mighty works can be. But that does not overturn the nature of miracles and faith as already mentioned. And frankly, the faith people would say would be amplified, would not be about the miracles, it would be about the God who does them, the being who remains not seen and who remains hoped for.



Lastly, but not least, God Himself teaches that even raising people from the dead will not cause faith in God. Faith in God is a much deeper and more personally relational issue which involves trust and respect and hope etc. Trust Jesus, don't go against Him.



Other than listing every single miracle and the results as testified in scripture, and giving Enyart's defintion of what a miracle actually is, I guess I've presented my understanding of the main arguements for why Bob Enyart concludes that as a general rule, miracles do not foster faith in God.

:o

1Way
January 29th, 2004, 07:05 PM
Godrulz


1Way = A bible derived hermeneutic
manrulz = a Pentecostal hermeneutic


You said
Miracles may have tapered off, but (1) church history records pockets of the miraculous throughout the centuries. (2) We also have Constantine and a progression to the Dark Ages including the decline of Christianity in general. (3) God poured out His Spirit and the gates of hell did not prevail against the church. (4) The history of revivals show that God has always had a remnant (contrary to JW/Mormon belief in the need for a modern resortation of the Gospel). (5) The Reformation, printing press and Bible, Wesleys, Azusa Street (Pentecostal revival in the 1900s), etc. show that God is active in preserving His truth and raising up warriors. Smith Wigglesworth, David DuPlessis (Mr. Pentecost'), Reinhard Bonnke, etc. see and saw the power of God manifest through their ministries. (6) Exegetically and experientially, there is no reason to conclude that the supernatural God no longer does supernatural things (7) due to an arbitrary view of dispensationalism or the tendency for miracles to produce unbelief.

(8) Even the Anglican C.S. Lewis argued for the rationality of miracles in 'Mere Christianity' and other books. (9) Apart from a multitudinous amount of anecdotal stories, Scripture reveals a God who does the supernatural as part of His love, goodness, power, plan, and nature.

If miracles seem to wax and wane or you do not experience them, it is due to unbelief and rationalism, not God deciding to be a naturalistic God. Hundreds of millions of Pentecostal-charismatics ...

The Society for Pentecostal Studies is a scholarly body who have a wealth of credible information to support a Pentecostal hermeneutic.

(1) Church history is the location of the purest and total collection of false Christian doctrine in the universe. But then you have God's word with no such problems. So where should we be focusing on for righteous teaching, God or man? But wait, godrulz rests the direction and support for his faith in the church in one breath, and the next he ...

(2) says that it demonstrates that the history of man is unstable and should not be trusted. :radar: You'd think that he would run to God's word and not look back, but instead, ,,, well, look for yourself.

(3) He uplifts the church. God's word is somehow missing as the source of eternal truth and matters for faith and living. But perhaps he will focus back on God again in his next thoughts.

(4) Manmade history, oh. But I thought he had been arguing against the error of resting too much upon man's thinking, so we should focus back on God, but so far every argument he makes rests upon the word of man instead.

(5) More manmade history and consensus, leaning on what seems right in the eyes of men.

(6) Oh boy, he used the term exegetics, what a relief, I thought he was never even make a single bible argument/teaching. Notice also that godrulz evidentially confuses the supernatural with the miraculous. At least he said the word, exegetically though. :thumb:

(7) So godrulz is reviewing The Plot with from a supposed objective non-biased perspective, so of course the view is arbitrary and the fact that miracles tend to produce unbelief is somehow beside the point. We argued that Jesus teaches that it is a wicked generation who seeks a sign and that EVEN if a man be raised from the dead, they would NOT believe. Jesus was undermining His entire ministry, which was more miraculous than anything ever, i.e. Jesus was saying, hello, wake up out there, I am going to raise myself from the dead and even after I do that, watch the response of the people, they will not believe. But the Freaks and those who focus on man avoid such bible teachings from our Lord and Savior, after all they have the truth of the matter established by God's people and the history that some men choose to honor over other views over the same time periods.

(8) Perhaps, but CS Lewis's view of God's so called miraculous intervention was no such thing. For Lewis, God never changes in any way what so ever, such that prayers or petitions for God to intervene are futile because everything is set into one unchangeable foreknown outcome, whatever happens is absolutely what must happen, God is not even effected by love. So if he supports miracles, it's only of a fake nothing will change preprogrammed way. But what do you expect when you lean on man for your understanding instead of God?

(9) Translated, God's word on this issue may be dismissed as being anecdotal and thus of little use. But wait, here's an allusion to God's word, that anecdotally inferior book that the church seems so fond of for some reason. Does God do anything that is not as part of His love, goodness, power, plan, and nature? No? So this argument is not even a helpful claim. And again, the supernatural is not the topic. So godrulz remains consistent on one thing, a tremendous near sighted focus on man instead of God's word.

Would someone please tell me why I went to this much trouble to respond? What point counterpoint bible teaching was promoted or refuted or accurately responded against? Also, does anyone remotely see my attempt at modeling point counter-point arguments? Not that I have any bible arguments to counter, just pointing out a nonstop focus off of God and upon the lush gardens of false doctrine.

Servo
January 29th, 2004, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

:1Way: = :box: & :first:

Freakazoid = :freak: & :hammer:




Originally posted by Freak
I can see you have nothing to say. The usual from you.


Give us something to respond to and maybe I will say something.

godrulz
January 29th, 2004, 09:25 PM
A Pentecostal hermeneutic is a biblical hermeneutic. Church history is not all pagan, but HIS STORY. The book of Acts and the Gospels are open-ended with God continuing the ministry of Jesus through the Church by the Holy Spirit.

The church is flawed, but still the chosen vehicle to express Christ in the world. It is the family and army of God, warts and all.

My beliefs are primarily rooted in the authority of Scripture. It is self-evident that the works of Christ did not cease, but were continued by the Holy Spirit through His people in the Church Age.

We must not put experience above the Word (some Pentecostals have), yet we should not rationalize away the Word due to our lack of personal experience with the reality of God's power in our midst.

I do not want to be part of a church that is all head and no heart, having a form of godliness, but denying His power. Legalistic, self-righteous churches fill the land and breed similar believers. We need Truth and Spirit. They are not mutually exclusive.

Freak
January 30th, 2004, 03:47 AM
Perhaps Shimei would be better equipped to handle this subject then Wrongway, who has consistently shown himself, as one who would rather trust anything but the Scriptural teaching, in regards to the subject of miracles.
Originally posted by 1Way

In the midst of personal opinions and third party claims, The bibleís teachings about miracles tending to not foster faith remain untouched, even now ignored. Perhaps this time around, the spinless 1Way will deal with the truth of Scripture or perhaps Shimei will attempt to answer my concerns...

We know from Scripture that the miracle of the new birth fosters belief not unbelief. Scripture recounts the strengthening of the church when the lost is converted. Furthermore...one has to believe in a miracle --the resurrection of Jesus to experience salvation.

Due to Christ's greatest miracle--raising from the dead--we find justification--He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Despite this, 1Way's hero has stated:

"Miracles foster unbelief."

Source: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3679&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

This is clearly in error. For the following reasons:

The Scripture defines a miracle as such:

Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Jesus tells us a miracle would include the delivering of a person from demons. These miracles still occur in our day...for God gives His church gifts (such as the gift of miracles) to rescue those in darkness.

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. 1Way, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc????

The Holy Scriptures don't seem to make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13).

Homework for 1Way:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the apostles, as you claim, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

Freak
January 30th, 2004, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

A Pentecostal hermeneutic is a biblical hermeneutic. Church history is not all pagan, but HIS STORY. The book of Acts and the Gospels are open-ended with God continuing the ministry of Jesus through the Church by the Holy Spirit.

The church is flawed, but still the chosen vehicle to express Christ in the world. It is the family and army of God, warts and all.

My beliefs are primarily rooted in the authority of Scripture. It is self-evident that the works of Christ did not cease, but were continued by the Holy Spirit through His people in the Church Age.

We must not put experience above the Word (some Pentecostals have), yet we should not rationalize away the Word due to our lack of personal experience with the reality of God's power in our midst.

I do not want to be part of a church that is all head and no heart, having a form of godliness, but denying His power. Legalistic, self-righteous churches fill the land and breed similar believers. We need Truth and Spirit. They are not mutually exclusive. Excellent...but too bad that this will fall on deaf ears...

1Way
January 30th, 2004, 05:08 AM
I'm gonna wig out here, so stand clear

Freak, you quoted and addressed some things I said, that much is true, but the part you quoted, was my greeting you moron you, it held NOTHING of arguments for supporting what Bob taught about miracles. Again, until you do what you said you would do, I am not interesting in dodging the entire reason for the thread which was your unsolicited claim that Bob teaches wrongly about miracles. We are going to stick to that task until you either refute his teachings or admit that you were blowing everyone a big fat false statement.

Freak, if you are still currently demon possessed, get yourself out of yourself so that you can actually deal with the very thing YOU said you would do.

Here, let me turn up the volume so that the Freak inside you might be able to hear it this time.

IF YOU THINK YOU CAN SHOW THAT WHAT BOB ENART TEACHES ABOUT MIRACLES IS WRONG, THEN STOP WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME AND DO IT ALREADY.


(Paint by numbers directions for the obfuscationally enslaved)
COPY AND PASTE THE PORTIONS OF MY POST THAT REPRESENT MY EFFORTS AT REPRESENTING WHAT HE TAUGHT. THEN, IN A POINT BY POINT COUNTER POINT FASHION, REFUTE HIS TEACHINGS, DEMONSTRATE THE ERROR OF THEM, THEY ARE RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU ALREADY. FREAK!

And no, you can not do it any other way, or is copy and paste and point counter point just too hard for you to do? If you don't do that much, we all know that you will re-word and re-spin what Bob says, so copy, paste, and make counter points towards refutation.

THIS IS YOUR THREAD, TO REFUTE BOB'S TEACHINGS ON MIRACLES, DO IT, GO ON, ACTUALLY DO IT.

Freak
January 30th, 2004, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by 1Way
Again, until you do what you said you would do, I am not interesting in dodging the entire reason for the thread which was your unsolicited claim that Bob teaches wrongly about miracles. Bob has stated, "Miracles fosters unbelief." I have proven that is not the case. I fully understand you're mentally and spiritually challegened but come on...


Freak, if you are still currently demon possessed, get yourself out of yourself so that you can actually deal with the very thing YOU said you would do. They accused Jesus of the exact same thing, of being demonized. You have actually placed yourself within the enemy's camp.



IF YOU THINK YOU CAN SHOW THAT WHAT BOB ENART TEACHES ABOUT MIRACLES IS WRONG, THEN STOP WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME AND DO IT ALREADY. I already have. Now deal with my points or else admit you're unable too fraud. :down:

godrulz
January 30th, 2004, 10:13 AM
Since when is not agreeing with Enyart's view of miracles a sign of demon possession?

I wonder if miracles sometimes foster unbelief (Enyart correct) and sometimes foster faith (Freak correct)? Even if Enyart's premise is correct, it does not have to negate the validity of miracles, but confirms that man's heart is hard.

I am not sure either side has presented a definitive answer to this thread.

1WAY: Is there any way I can hold to most of "The Plot" and still believe or conclude that the charismata are valid for today and that the 'uncircumcision' are not unconditionally eternally secure (OSAS)? These are the 2 points of his list of doctrines that I disagree with (I believe gifts are for today and believers can turn apostate). If his interpretation system makes it impossible to believe differently on these 2 points, then I would find the fault with the system and his conclusions rather than the Word properly interpreted.

You say you do not quote "The Plot", but only believe the Bible. It is apparent to us that "The Plot" is the filter or theological glasses that you screen interpretation through. Most people would not come up with the arbitrary, rigid system independently (though much of it is reasonable).

Apart from 'miracles', is divine healing available today? A.B. Simpson (Alliance), Baptists, Catholics, etc. (non-charismatic/Pentecostal groups) believe in divine healing even though on paper they reject other spiritual gifts like tongues. Does your church pray for the sick or was James only for the Jewish believers (elders anoint with oil and pray)? If the principle of James does not apply, then you effectively take scissors to the NT and make God's Word void for us on hundreds of passages (my gut says this is wrong; I would rather reject this conclusion from Enyart- circ. vs uncirc. relevance- than water down the Word of God).

These are sincere questions to help me understand your viewpoint lest I misunderstand it and reject a 'straw man'. Your insights are appreciated.

1Way
January 30th, 2004, 02:19 PM
(New improved less problematic version, note changes via italics, I am sorry for being too harsh in name calling.)

manrulz - You said
Since when is not agreeing with Enyart's view of miracles a sign of demon possession? The level of willful ignorance that is required to make this statement, if you are being serious, is staggering. It's not because he disagrees with anyone that I "blew a flewy" trying to get Freak to actually respond, it's because he is not actually responding as he said he would in the first place.

I am wanting Freak to simply do what he said he WOULD in fact do, and that was to challenge/dismiss/argue against and thus because their positions were basically in direct opposition, refute Bob's teachings. The ONLY point he has accurately reflected about Bob's teaching is A CLAIM, not any arguments, just one claim, that miracles tend not to produce faith. A claim is not a supporting argument, a disagreement with a claim is not a refutation. This is basic IM NOT A MORON 101!

As to
I wonder if miracles sometimes foster unbelief (Enyart correct) and sometimes foster faith (Freak correct)? Even if Enyart's premise is correct, it does not have to negate the validity of miracles, but confirms that man's heart is hard. First part not so good, last part mostly good. Enyart does not negate the validity of miracles comma, but confirms that man's heart is hard is an exceedingly accurate statement. Now lets top that tid bit of truth with at least two others. Jesus flat out taught that miracles are not a faith producing element, He said that a wicked generation seeks a sign and that even raising the dead will not cause belief, like what, Jesus had not given them a zillion enough signs already, including raising people from the dead? And secondly, God teaches that faith is the substance of thins hoped for, and things not seen. An undeniable miracle automatically eliminates the generation of any new faith because it takes exactly zero amount to receive it. In the case of the thousands of people who wanted to see Jesus, He practically judged them all that really, the just all wanted to be fed to their filling from a magical mysterious amount of food that would barely feed Jesus and His crew! Jesus speaks contemptuously about it when people wanna see a miracle, that is His unambiguous message. So yes, man generally has a hard rebellious heart, and more importantly, God knows that miracles don't generate new faith because considering the truth of the fact of the matter, it is great wickedness to seek a sign after all God has and at that time, would end up doing. Secondly, the use of spiritual and godly faith is eliminated when you take all it's qualities away, things hoped for and things not seen (experienced).

Translated, stop believing man's lies and error about this and any other issue, start dealing upright like a bible believing man of God by conforming your faith to His word instead of what seems right in the eyes of man.


I am not sure either side has presented a definitive answer to this thread. Right, Jesus is a tough thinker and not very persuasive, His messages are often said to be clouded with an unreasonable amount of confusion and otherwise dubious thinking. Ok, that was over the top, but you are absolutely NOT dealing with the bible's teaching about faith and miracles by saying that.

You humbly said
1WAY: Is there any way I can hold to most of "The Plot" and still believe or conclude that the charismata are valid for today and that the 'uncircumcision' are not unconditionally eternally secure (OSAS)? In an exceedingly twisted way, sure. Nothing in The Plot requires full consent to it's teachings just God's teachings. I absolutely am not a Plotist, nor an Enyartian, etc. I agree with Bob and practically everything I've ever heard from the guy, with at least one exception, where I was able to get him to thank me for helping him not go too far with one particular teaching about God changing and Jesus Christ becoming righteous after taking on the sins of the world. Bob demonstrates great humility and a ready eagerness to stand corrected if need be, and I was greatly honored to have effectively reversed one of his conclusions, yet that only slightly effected his overall teaching, so, I'm no biblical slouch myself! Cool hu? If you want to see my disagreement, it's over in the BEL forum, perhaps the only thread (or 2 or 3) that I started, it's easy to find, something like, did Jesus really change when declared righteous. Bob agreed that he went too far. Excellent deal!

You said
These are the 2 points of his list of doctrines that I disagree with (I believe gifts are for today and believers can turn apostate). You mean you can loose your salvation in this dispensation, we OSAS believe people can turn apostate, even have NO faith in God and still be saved. Well, just so you know, from my understanding of the Plot, if you don't accept the differences between this dispensation and the rest, i.e. the different house rules including different gospel requirements, then you are chucking one of the two most fundamental or broad teachings in the book. I list his main teachings as follows.


The Plot boiled down to just one lesson.
First understand the whole bible, plot and plot twists so that the more narrow and smaller teachings will all fit into place naturally. Don't violate any part of the context.

The Plot boiled down to just 2 practical applications.

Israel and the body of Christ are two very different groups of believers representing different dispensations and different covenants and even different gospels.

God does not know the future exhaustively, thus classical Augustinian (individual) predestination is all wrong, God predestine Christ and what He would accomplish with whosoever would believe.


Now, that endorsed by me, that is my evaluation of the most significant teachings and practical results of what the Plot teaches. As to your issue with miracles, the problem is almost a non-issue except that false teaching is always damaging to some extent, because miracles are not happening today, so we're right and people who say they are happening are deluded and demonstrate poor judgment, but fortunately, many people intuitively understand the difference between a biblical miracle and the hokey stuff that people come up with for the last nearly 2,000 years. Miracles require absolutely no amount of faith to believe and accurately report them. See God's word for more.

But to mix law and grace, circumcision with uncircumcision, Jew and Gentile, keeping the law and not keeping the law, OSAS and a conditional salvation, is a rather grand concession against the Plot.

No offense godrulz, but, you have not just occasionally demonstrated your problems with dealing uprightly with the truth of a matter, you have shown an unyielding ability to miss or neglect the truth, in order to protect your own presuppositions. And sometimes you do so in an amazingly obvious sense. So, I don't think that you have a good grasp of what Bob is teaching, and in many ways, you have a poor understanding. So I would not concern yourself with what seems right in your own eyes, first deal with the truth of the matter that you seem unwilling to deal with. Just like in this post, God teaches without ambiguity that you and Freak and the miracles are for today crowd are wrong when they suggest that they tend to foster/generate (new) faith. God's word on that score is that they won't believe, miracles are not an issue of faith, they are an issue of being conscious.
You said
If his interpretation system makes it impossible to believe differently on these 2 points, then I would find the fault with the system and his conclusions rather than the Word properly interpreted. Good thinking, your right, Bob does not teach in competition to or above God's word, He just reflects it accurately so that you don't end up violating any part of it. And Bob nor the bible says that you must conform to every single teaching perfectly or you can not be a true believer. But, the very nature of what you are asking betrays a very serious lack of understanding on your part in the first place. godrulz, I've known you for a long time. The truth of the matter is, you have displayed practically no working knowledge of the teachings within the Plot. You are probably playing with it with no more serious effort than you do God's word. And I say that with the deepest conviction for my deepest concern for your own well being. You are obstinate omitted too gratuitous... I'm not sure that you have learned much of anything, you still violate the nicer than God stuff, you don't see the gigantic and consistent differences between the circ and the uncirc, (in my eyes) you just can't seem to conform your faith to the teachins of Christ about miracles and faith, and you can't tell that Freak is a moron not because he disagrees with me, but because he does not even attempt to do what he said he would do. So, (omitted) you are the problem with your lack of understanding, not the truth of the matter that is plainly set before you.

(Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrsss manrulz!) (Everyone, give manrulz a warm welcome!)
And then next you demonstrate you in a snapshot, this is absolutely perfect(ly you). You said
(1) You say you do not quote "The Plot", but only believe the Bible. (2) It is apparent to us that "The Plot" is the filter or theological glasses that you screen interpretation through. (3) Most people would not come up with the arbitrary, rigid system independently (though much of it is reasonable).
(1) The bible is the authority and man can and should accurately reflect it's teachings.

(2) Wrong, the Plot teaches the bible, the bible is true, my understanding of the bible is absolutely based upon it's teachings. The bible is even where I get my interpretational methods, I've demonstrated this constantly, and you've falsely charged against this so we disagree.

(3) But this is perfectly you. You think your right becuase, it goes against what most men think. You are (omitted) never learning just how deeply your heart is entrenched in this false notion of trusting in men instead of in God. I have never met anyone in all these years who claims to be a christian and follows after man's thinking as much as you display. Perhaps others do it way more than you do, but your honesty and desire for godly humility betrays the truth of the matter on a purely constant basis. You deserve (the judgment against you) for trusting in man instead of God. You have a hard heart (omitted). Jesus can say right to your face, THEY WILL NOT BELIEVE, FAITH IS ABOUT THINGS NOT SEEN, THINGS HOPED FOR, MIRACLES ELIMINATE THE USE OF FAITH ALL TOGETHER. And your response would be, but most people say that faith tends to foster miracles, cant it be that they are both true in different ways? I think I know better than God, because after all, man agrees with me.

I'll stop now,,, and let you soak in your manmade mess, and frankly, I (am upset with you, I care about you, this is a serious problem), I am sick and tierd of you saying, thanks for helping me stand corrected on these important issues, only to watch you repeat the same mistakes over and over again and then seeking my response or acceptance. It's too much like a circular event, and I don't like getting dizzy.

(Please) sit down, come to grips with this unrelenting self determined focus on man, pray to God to help YOU with your unbelief, until you are rid of THAT, you will continue to be plagued. Exhault in your weeknesses that Christ might have His way, you are wrong and He is right, men are not trustworthy compaired to Him. Love and obey and worship Him, not man.

Thanks for saying the words of that you appreciate my insights, but compared to everything you have resonded to, those are some fairly empty words, your life contradicts those words and I care about your life and the truth of the matter. I appreciate you, that is why I show my love without dissimilation, you have a serious problem, by the leading of the HS and the teaching of God, you can become set free. Until then, you are trapped in error and confussion while the key is in your hand. (omitted) Set yourself free, you know the truth, all you have to do, is accept it, the key is completely "useless" until you "use" it.

godrulz
January 30th, 2004, 02:40 PM
It still sounds like if we disagree with your views on a few areas that we must be fleshly and not of God. I believe there are alternate ways to understand Jesus' statements and rebukes for those who are seeking miracles (e.g. wrong motives, not that miracles are not a blessing of God).

'Moron, knucklehead'...sticks and stones may break my bones, but names...just show your lack of integrity and intelligence.

The supernatural devil still deceives with counterfeit demonstrations of power while God is now impotent due to dispensational theology? I think not. Why grieve and quench the Spirit by attributing the modern move of God to the flesh or the devil? Your theology is wrong, not the works of God. There is more of God outside the box you have put Him in. "Your God is too small" - J.B. Phillips.

Be reminded that I have just started "The Plot" and go page by page looking up any supporting verses that seem chopped out of context or based on only the NKJV when other translations have a different twist. It is not that I do not understand "The Plot". It is that I just started it so I do not know most of its content.

I still am confused with why you get personal with anyone who does not see peripheral issues as you do? Is it due to bad potty training? insecurites? arrogance? being a trucker instead of a trained theologian with the tools to rightly divide the Word?:confused:

1Way
January 30th, 2004, 03:15 PM
godrulz - Names do not invalidate any message, nor the messenger, God's word is chuck full of such things used in a righteous way. I did not have to call you names, you (ommitted), to demonstrate your (ommitted another charge) and steadfast worship of man's ideas. Take out the names and the truth of how (ommitted) you can be remains just the same even though I never said the word (ommitted), or whatever.

(My appologies for going to far in my already harsh rebuke, the name calling (sentiment) was over the top, please accept my appology for being too harsh on you, and thanks for your demeaner even through this problem, it seems God's grace is well with you. And thanks Knight for plainly helping me see my mistake.)

You said
I still am confused with why you get personal with any one who does not see peripheral issues as you do? Right, Jesus teaches that dealing upright with the truth is the way of life eternal, that is NOT some unimportant peripheral issue, it is the essense of God and all He stands for. Go back to sleep, your just dreaming all this truth in reality stuff.

manrulz sleeps, he is golden, nothing can overturn the authority of manrulz.

godrulz
January 30th, 2004, 04:20 PM
We both understand God's sovereignty and rule the same way (Open Theism). Why denigrate my declaration that God Rules in a mocking way by stating that man rules? I submit to the Lordship of Christ. You are not my Judge since you do not know the heart. Based on our disagreement about OSAS and miracles does not mean that I believe man rules anymore than your rejection of Calvinism and extreme sovereignty means that man rules, not God.

Incidently, I would like some opinions on this:

Is anyone offended that I do not capitalize G in godrulz? It is not disrespect, but ease of typing for my email address (so I do not have to tell people "G"). It is also a modern convention/fad to not capitalize first and last names (real estate advertizers, etc.). I do not think God is legalistic, and "God" is not capitalized all the time (except start of sentence) in the original Koine Greek (theos) and Hebrew (I think). Should I capitalize it, or is it understood that I mean GOD, not false gods? (I have had many people/unbelievers appreciate my punk phrase 'godrulz'...I got it from a Christian music groups lapel pin "God rules!" or a bumper sticker thing that said "God rules". I changed the end to z to be cool. The world says things like rock and roll rules).

Freak
January 30th, 2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

I still am confused with why you get personal with any one who does not see peripheral issues as you do? Is it due to bad potty training? insecurites? arrogance? being a trucker instead of a trained theologian with the tools to rightly divide the Word?:confused: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: You'll have to excuse 1Way he's a idiot.

Freak
January 30th, 2004, 04:29 PM
Perhaps this time around, the spinless 1Way will deal with the truth of Scripture or perhaps Shimei will attempt to answer my concerns...

We know from Scripture that the miracle of the new birth fosters belief not unbelief. Scripture recounts the strengthening of the church when the lost is converted. Furthermore...one has to believe in a miracle --the resurrection of Jesus to experience salvation.

Due to Christ's greatest miracle--raising from the dead--we find justification--He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Despite this, 1Way's hero has stated:

"Miracles foster unbelief."

Source: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3679&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

This is clearly in error. For the following reasons:

The Scripture defines a miracle as such:

Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Jesus tells us a miracle would include the delivering of a person from demons. These miracles still occur in our day...for God gives His church gifts (such as the gift of miracles) to rescue those in darkness.

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. 1Way, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc????

The Holy Scriptures don't seem to make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13).

Homework for 1Way:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the apostles, as you claim, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

freelight
January 30th, 2004, 04:44 PM
Dear 1Way,

Instead of go on and on with your religiously crafted phariseeical babble - why not address Freaks scriptural evidence that he provides in post #160 & 170 ???? Its sad to see your posts which are a frantic attempt to prove Bobs and/or your views as somehow biblically superior when there are other scriptures that show that miracles contributed to the faith and testimony of Gods power in the midst of the people. Now why dont you give your pious heretic hunting mind a rest....and answer Freaks posts and his scriptural references. Bobs statement may have some truth....particularly in OT times...but as a whole...it cannot be said to be absolutely true. Much of this is pretty petty anyway...as those of us who do believe in Gods power and charismas of the Spirit are satisfied to have such faith...while non-believers can go ahead and babble all they want about how/why God no longer does miracles. Suit yourself - but address the scriptures Freak listed to be FAIR - can u handle that?


Tired of the vanity being spouted from those who limit their faith in God and are bound by their own dispensational prisons, entangeled in their own web of theology and narrow interpretations and claims of what is Gods Word. Your tone is rotten and I think the whitewash on your tomb needs a new paint job. This is sad. :cry:


*disclaimer - I usually do not and dont believe I have ever responded like this to anyone on TOL before.....but after reading enough of your postings....I felt such was due. It really might be time to expand your mind a little and stop holding onto your self-righteous ways and manners - also the air of superiority and pride is a sin and not the Spirit of our Lord Christ. God is Love...and those who are born of Him express their lives by LOVE!

Wake up.


paul

Freak
January 30th, 2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by freelight

Dear 1Way,

Instead of go on and on with your religiously crafted phariseeical babble - why not address Freaks scriptural evidence that he provides in post #160 & 170 ???? Its sad to see your posts which are a frantic attempt to prove Bobs and/or your views as somehow biblically superior when there are other scriptures that show that miracles contributed to the faith and testimony of Gods power in the midst of the people. Now why dont you give your pious heretic hunting mind a rest....and answer Freaks posts and his scriptural references. Bobs statement may have some truth....particularly in OT times...but as a whole...it cannot be said to be absolutely true. Much of this is pretty petty anyway...as those of us who do believe in Gods power and charismas of the Spirit are satisfied to have such faith...while non-believers can go ahead and babble all they want about how/why God no longer does miracles. Suit yourself - but address the scriptures Freak listed to be FAIR - can u handle that?


Tired of the vanity being spouted from those who limit their faith in God and are bound by their own dispensational prisons, entangeled in their own web of theology and narrow interpretations and claims of what is Gods Word. Your tone is rotten and I think the whitewash on your tomb needs a new paint job. This is sad. :cry:


*disclaimer - I usually do not and dont believe I have ever responded like this to anyone on TOL before.....but after reading enough of your postings....I felt such was due. It really might be time to expand your mind a little and stop holding onto your self-righteous ways and manners - also the air of superiority and pride is a sin and not the Spirit of our Lord Christ. God is Love...and those who are born of Him express their lives by LOVE!

Wake up.


paul Excellent. :thumb:

1Way
January 30th, 2004, 04:59 PM
Will someone make Freak understand the difference between disagreeing with a truth claim, and refuting the claims support argumentation?

This is not Freak's occasion for a monologue, he was supposed to counter Bob's teaching, which is more than just a claim, Bob's teachings all have, "support argumentation" and a contextually developed (consistent) line of reasoning. If you never 1) represent Bob's teaching accurately, then you can NEVER accurately oppose it, you can disagree with his conclusion, but so can anyone, even a three year old can do that, yet no refutation or resolution (typically) comes simply from a disagreement, usually resolution happens because of refutation such that the idea is established as wrong, BOB's idea is established as wrong, not the messed up subjective errant thinking about one of his claims.

It is getting obvious that Freak doesn't even know what Bob teaches, I should never have had to offer my understanding for Freak to respond to, he should have accurately represented Bob's views in the first place so that he could then dismantle them for all to see. Instead, it's 180 posts later and Freak still has not presented one single counterpoint to ANY of Bob's "teachings", instead, he has only disagreed with one of his claims. If he has disagreed with more claims, I don't know for certain, I don't read his obfuscation because it is, obfuscation. Until Freak does what he said he was going to do, there is no point in going any further. He hasn't even dealt with Bob's definition for what a miracle is, so Freak has not even stepped up to square one of this so called refutation of Bob's teachings.

Freak
January 30th, 2004, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

It is getting obvious that Freak doesn't even know what Bob teaches, Lie. I quoted from him and provided my source.


Instead, it's 180 posts later and Freak still has not presented one single counterpoint to ANY of Bob's "teachings", Lie. I have pointed out the Scriptural evidence why the man is in error.


He hasn't even dealt with Bob's definition for what a miracle is, so Freak has not even stepped up to square one of this so called refutation of Bob's teachings. I have provided the Biblical view of a miracle and have provided ample Scriptural evidence for why I believe Bob is in error.

Others besides myself see you, 1Way, as being a arrogrant, prideful, fleshly man who is incapable of dealing with the truth...sad but quite true. :down:

Here's your homework...go back to post #170 and deal with my points.

godrulz
January 30th, 2004, 06:04 PM
If someone calls you a donkey you can dismiss it. If many people perceive that you are a donkey, it might be worth looking in the mirror to see if there is any resemblance. 1Way has been told by various people that his methods and character could use fine-tuning.

Moron: "foolish, a mentally retarded person with IQ ranging from 50-70, an adult with intelligence of 8-12 year old; an obsolescent term for retardation... a very foolish or stupid person" (Webster)

I have 12 years of honors schooling and 7 years of post-secondary honors education, including a B.Th. I have thousands of books and have studied theology for 25 years. I was in pre-med (boasting sarcastically like Paul did with his detractors...I have more to boast of...but consider this dung compared to knowing Christ).

There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Education does not ensure discernment or correctness, but it does help one think critically and weigh evidence.

Do I really fit the label "moron" which was started by a psychologist as a technical term?

I do think that Freak and I need to study "The Plot" to credibly deal with the gist of its teachings.

Freak
January 30th, 2004, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

If someone calls you a donkey you can dismiss it. If many people perceive that you are a donkey, it might be worth looking in the mirror to see if there is any resemblance. 1Way has been told by various people that his methods and character could use fine-tuning. Let's pray that 1 Way will see the error of his ways.


I do think that Freak and I need to study "The Plot" to credibly deal with the gist of its teachings. Look I'm not interested in exgeting The Plot. I know what the man basically believes and this is what we are discussing. Enyart teaches that the gift of miracles (and that miracles fosters unbelief) have ceased with the closing of the Canon of Scripture. This I know and this I know to be in error.

1Way
January 30th, 2004, 10:44 PM
Freak you said
Enyart teaches that the gift of miracles (and that miracles fosters unbelief) have ceased with the closing of the Canon of Scripture. This I know and this I know to be in error. That is better stated, Enyart claims ... You are disagreeing with two of his claims. I submit that you do not understand why Bob teaches what he does. And it's not realy as much the closing of the cannon, altough that much is pretty accurate, it's also greatly having to do with the beginning of this dispensation and the ending of the last one.

A truth claim is not the entire teaching, it's just the result of a teaching, not the teaching itself. So does Bob's teachings stand without meaningful opposition, or are you going to pick up you mouse and copy and paste and refute away?

Servo
January 30th, 2004, 11:31 PM
Freakinfraud,
You are basically too stupid and/or arrogant to debate with. You are nothing more than a fool to poke fun at.

I admire 1-Way's posts and he is doing a great job. I believe others will learn from his posts and all the more if they put you on "ignore". Meaning, people are better off reading a post where they might learn something instead of wasting time scanning your repeated dribble. We all know the verses that you will continually quote. Now if you only understood CONTEXT. 1-Way has been very patient with you and you do your usual dodge and turn technique.
1-Way seems determined to get an actual answer with you, but the best I think he can do is post some great teaching material from which others can learn. He will eventually realize that trying to have an actual conversation with you is a waste of time.

Freak
January 31st, 2004, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

Freak you said That is better stated, Enyart claims Finally some progress...


... You are disagreeing with two of his claims. That is correct.


I submit that you do not understand why Bob teaches what he does. Oh, but I do hence my problem with his teaching in this area as it doesn't line up with Scripture.


And it's not realy as much the closing of the cannon, altough that much is pretty accurate, Ah! Good. So you admit I'm "pretty accurate" in understanding Bob's view on this subject. Let's start there...

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. 1Way, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc???? If they do then you have to agree that the present church has these gifts which include the gift of miracles.

1Way, it appears the Holy Scriptures do not make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13). Were you aware of this????

Homework for 1Way:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the Scriptures, as they ceased at the closing of the Canon, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question. The church is still present and there is no reason to believe He doesn't give His church gifts that include the gifts of miracles.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?


it's also greatly having to do with the beginning of this dispensation and the ending of the last one. Under the New Covenant, the superior covenant, we are taught numerous times of the reality of spiritual gifts and miracles. In fact...

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.


So does Bob's teachings stand without meaningful opposition, or are you going to pick up you mouse and copy and paste and refute away? Already have. :p

Freak
January 31st, 2004, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

Freak my dear friend whom I support,
:chuckle: Why don't you go off and play with some of your friends...I'm trying to show 1Way his error. :D

drbrumley
January 31st, 2004, 02:36 PM
I just feel so bad to see good people put the cart before the horse. Freak has done it, DeeDee did it when we discussed her Preterism and many others. Kevin from a time ago did it as well. Sheesh, if our theological seminaries are putting out people to preach and reach the lost, you would think they would get it right.

:cry:

But since I just got off work and read the thread somewhat, I will respond in a few.

And I'm glad to be back. Not that any of you even knew I had left.:chuckle:

Freak
January 31st, 2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

I just feel so bad to see good people put the cart before the horse. Freak has done it, DeeDee did it when we discussed her Preterism and many others. Kevin from a time ago did it as well. Sheesh, if our theological seminaries are putting out people to preach and reach the lost, you would think they would get it right.
This coming from a guy who denies the Holy Scriptures. :rolleyes:

drbrumley
January 31st, 2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Freak

This coming from a guy who denies the Holy Scriptures. :rolleyes:

Excuse me!!!!!!!

Freak
January 31st, 2004, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Excuse me!!!!!!! Yes, you have denied the Holy Scriptures when it comes to understanding this subject of miracles & spiritual gifts. :down:

drbrumley
January 31st, 2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Freak

Yes, you have denied the Holy Scriptures when it comes to understanding this subject of miracles & spiritual gifts. :down:


:nono: Your a :crackup: :freak:

Freak
January 31st, 2004, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

:nono: Your a :crackup: :freak: You're a pathetic so-called believer. What about dealing with the truth. You said about a week or so ago that you would deal with my points. You haven't. I know why you haven't---because the truth of Scripture has spoken in my favor! Case close!

drbrumley
January 31st, 2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Freak

You're a pathetic so-called believer. What about dealing with the truth. You said about a week or so ago that you would deal with my points. You haven't. I know why you haven't---because the truth of Scripture has spoken in my favor! Case close!

FYI, I said I was working on it on my word processer and I'll get to this. I said this on 1-11. Then I had some personnal issues I had to deal with and haven't been on hardly at all except for some driveby posts. Also, If I recall, you had said you were leaving for an extended time. So I didnt pay much attention to this thread. So now, you pathetic piece of humanity, I have lost any and all respect for you. Is this what you do at home? Attack?If not, don't do it here! I will respond to your assertions on miracles tonight. I promise. If that is not good enough for you, then you aren't worth talking to in the first place.

In Christ,
DRBrumley

Clete
January 31st, 2004, 03:29 PM
What kind of miracles are you all talking about exactly?
I haven't read all 190+ posts nor do I have any intention of doing so but just from reading the last several posts I think it to be a safe assumption that the disagreement revolves around the occurrence of supernatural physical miracles.
If my assumption is correct, I think that the dispute can be settled more conclusively by the presentation of clear evidence. You guys could go on forever quibbling about which verses of Scripture should be paid closer attention to and how those Scriptures should be interpreted but you will never get any closer to resolving the issue because none of you are interesting in learning anything on this issue but instead want merely to try to present to everyone else how wrong they are.
So here's the challenge...

If supernatural physical miracles are happening today then there should be evidence to support that claim.
God has never done any miracles in a closet. Even the ones Jesus performed that He specifically said that He didn't want publicized had so many witnesses that they could not be kept secret.
So show me the evidence.
Not anecdotal evidence but real, undeniable, clearly documented evidence that I can independently verify through convention means.
The lack of such expository evidence would be proof that supernatural physical miracles do not happen today.

Resting in His sufficient Grace,
Clete

1Way
January 31st, 2004, 04:10 PM
Shimei - Bless your soul, you blessed mine. Thank you and I fully agree. It is a riot about Freaks so called challenge against Bob's teachings. Even though I had to present Bob's teachings in a vein hope of getting Freak to respond to them, it's been 200 posts and Freak has not made one single argument against his teachings. He has argued why he disagrees with some of Bob's claims, but hasn't even addressed what he actually teaches. To Freaks credit, it is possible to make a general reference to someone's teaching and refute it in a logical and appropriate way, but Freak doesn't even use the same definition for what a miracle is AND he has not established which is right by doing a point, counter-point refutation.

Freaks argumentation boils down to name it and claim it. He does not show a practical working knowledge of the difference between such tremendously complex and sophisticated ideas as

a truth claim -vrs- an entire teaching including support reasoning
a disagreement with a truth claim -vrs- and a refutation of a teaching

With Freaks style of refutation, the JW's are right because they say we are wrong, and they can show reasons why they are right all day long. I will not entertain obfuscation as a replacement for Freak doing what he said he would do. Well, perhaps sometime I will, since Freak probably will never actually do what he said he would do. I'm sure that Freak understands part of what Bob teaches, especially if he read the online material, I would have no problem advancing if Freak would just first demonstrate an accurate working knowledge of what he is going to say is wrong. If you do not know what you are opposing, then you are just an ignorant person, spouting off what you think is right making any sort of sound refutation impossible.

Also, as to the teachings that Bob has given via my presentation, no one has remotely dented them in the least. Freak is a coward, and is willfully blind. But, such things are pretty evident. Thank you kindly for standing up for the truth. Maybe we will have to change the subject of this thread to something like

Freak disagrees w/Bob on miracles, but he can not represent his teachings beyond simple claims

subtitle
It's just an excuse for Freak to monologue what he thinks is right in his own eyes, so the challenge (refutation) against Bob's teachings was a complete lie. What I don't understand is, how can anyone live with themselves acting the way he does. For him, he can lie right to your face a hundred times in a row :freak: :sozo2: :readthis: , and at the same time, put on the biggest display of religious trumplery possible.

Wouldn't it be like inconceivable for him to stop all this bologna and actually do what he said he would do?

Clete - I thik we mostly agree, but you may have overstated the futility factor of the efforts given. At least on the issue of miracles tending to generate faith or not. By Bob's teaching about faith, that it's about things not seen, and things hoped for, miracles require or excercize exactly zero amount of faith to affirm a miracle. Also, Jesus's teachings on the topic are purely against his side so the bible does have conclusive things to say on this issue. The futility enters not in Bob or myself or Jesus arguing these points, it's in Freaks total aversion to the truth of the matter.

Your idea sounds great though, unsubstantiated claims (compared to the biblical results of most recorded miracles) is a solid argument that miracles have ceased for about 2,000 years. Good luck getting any different results from the Freak. You will need it.

godrulz
January 31st, 2004, 04:52 PM
Clete: There are books, biographies, autobiographies, ministries, medical files, etc. that document God's miracles (I have listed some previously). You need to flow in Pentecostal circles or look harder. The evidence is out there (I hope if you saw it you would not attribute it to the devil?!).

1Way: I do not remember if you answered my recent query about divine healing? I pointed out non-Pentecostal/charismatic denominations who pray for the sick and see God heal their members or the lost. Does your church pray for the sick and see people healed? If so, is healing a miracle category? If not, then maybe your doctrine needs changing to impact your praxis.

Is obfuscation your favorite word?
Should you get so discombolutated (my showy word of the day) when your brothers and sisters in Christ do not buy into every detail of your church's theology and practice? The Holy Spirit seems to have more tolerance as He uses and blesses the Body of Christ across all denominations. There are few things worse than a 'Christian Pharisee'. Diversity within unity, not cultic uniformity (not at the expense of essential truth).

Clete
January 31st, 2004, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
The futility enters not in Bob or myself or Jesus arguing these points, it's in Freaks total aversion to the truth of the matter.
This is the point I was making in a nutshell.

I agree that the Bible comes down on one side or the other of this issue. Miracles are either happening today or they are not. You will never convince either Godrulz or Freak that your Biblical position is correct because their stance on this issue is not based on exclusively Biblical material. They are both quite convinced that they have experienced miracles and they are quite content to believe the testimony of their experience over any Biblical material that you or anyone else can bring to bare. It is because of this that I wish to test to see whether such "experiences" have any substance or if these Christian brothers have been tricked by their senses and emotional states of mind.


Originally posted by godrulz
Clete: There are books, biographies, autobiographies, ministries, medical files, etc. that document God's miracles (I have listed some previously). You need to flow in Pentecostal circles or look harder. The evidence is out there (I hope if you saw it you would not attribute it to the devil?!).

It is no where near good enough to simply say that a book exists or that so and so said this or that. This is what is called hear say, or at best it is anecdotal evidence. What I want is substantive evidence, evidence that can be verified by people who are not charismatic or perhaps not even Christians, people who do not have an axe to grind on this issue. It shouldn't be that difficult to find someone who lost a hand in a work related accident who has been restored, or someone who had one glass eye who can now see out of two eyes, or perhaps someone who was dead that I could call on the phone and talk to. Of course you would need to provide their name and information about how to contact them.
It can't be that difficult, there are dozens and dozens of miracles every day according to Bonnke, Wigglesworth, Hinn, and the like all I want is undeniable proof that even one single miracle has occurred in your life time.
If you are not able to prove that they have occurred then why do you believe that they do occur?

And as for attributing it to the devil IF I see it....
Let's cross one bridge at a time shall we?
Show me first, then we'll talk about who gets the credit.

Resting in His sufficient Grace,
Clete

godrulz
January 31st, 2004, 09:52 PM
There are few things worse than a Pentecostal who puts experience above the Word in formulating a doctrine (charismatics can be charismaniacs with the heresies we come up with). My understanding of Scripture supports the continuation of miracles. Ancedotes are secondary. I have not personally experienced profound creative miracles, but there are secular doctors who have the CT, X-ray, or MRI evidence to show creative miracles have happened (even though they hesitate to give God the glory).

There is nothing explicit in the simple reading of Scripture to preclude God's supernatural intervention through the ages. A dispensational system is an artificial template that forces this conclusion, rather than simple exegesis of relevant passages.

Even if I never heard of a modern miracle or experienced one, I would still argue from Scripture that we can and should see them.

There are other explanations of miracles including: demonic, illusion, fraud, deception, psychosomatic/psychological, coincidence, etc. The counterfeit only proves that there is a genuine.

Clete
January 31st, 2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

There are few things worse than a Pentecostal who puts experience above the Word in formulating a doctrine (charismatics can be charismaniacs with the heresies we come up with).
Agreed! :thumb:


My understanding of Scripture supports the continuation of miracles.
So what? My understanding supports otherwise, as does the absence of any physical evidence to the contrary which you yourself admit should exist.


Anecdotes are secondary.
Ask any scientist in any field of empirical study and he will tell you that anecdotal evidence is precisely the kind of evidence that one must completely ignore. It is totally useless in an effort to determine objective truth because it is, by definition, subjective in nature.


I have not personally experienced profound creative miracles, but there are secular doctors who have the CT, X-ray, or MRI evidence to show creative miracles have happened (even though they hesitate to give God the glory).
Although I have no doubt that you believe this to be true, the fact remains that you are completely unable to produce this evidence for inspection. The same is true of whomever it was that told you that such evidence exists.
And why the crap does everybody always want to get some fancy CT scan, X-ray, or MRI data anyway? Just show the film for goodness sakes! Where is the film showing someoneís severed hand being instantly reattached? And not at some idiotic Benny Hinn revival miracle sale, but at some work site somewhere or at a hospital? Where's the video tape of someone healing a small child who has a bloated belly from not having eaten for two weeks? Where is the tape of a Down's Syndrome child who's genetic dysfunction was repaired instantaneously?


There is nothing explicit in the simple reading of Scripture to preclude God's supernatural intervention through the ages. A dispensational system is an artificial template that forces this conclusion, rather than simple exegesis of relevant passages.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
And even if it did, Dispensationalism isn't the only model that discounts the occurrence of modern day supernatural physical miracles.
Just imagine, you have an opportunity here to categorically disprove Dispensationalism! All you have to do is prove that undeniable, supernatural, physical miracles happen today!


Even if I never heard of a modern miracle or experienced one, I would still argue from Scripture that we can and should see them.
Why?
If an argument from Scripture showed that we should see purple Geese flying over head at Noon on every third Thursday of the month and we in fact did not see any purple Geese as argued, then either the argument is wrong, or the Bible is wrong, or both.
In this case your argument from Scripture demands that "we can and should see" miracles happen. The fact is, however, that we do not. Therefore, either your argument is wrong, or the Bible is, or both.

Which is it?

Neither?
Then show me the miracle.


There are other explanations of miracles including: demonic, illusion, fraud, deception, psychosomatic/psychological, coincidence, etc. The counterfeit only proves that there is a genuine.
No one is suggesting that there is no such thing as miracles or that God is incapable of performing them, just that He has chosen for good reason not to do so for the time being.

Resting in His sufficient Grace,
Clete

P.S. I have to say that debating with you feels a bit weird! I'm used to being on your side of whatever issue is being debated. It strikes me as interesting because most theological issues stem from only a hand full of certain core believes and I'm not sure how one could be both a Charismatic and an Open Theist. The two seem somewhat incompatible. Not because they directly conflict with one another but simply because the two positions usually grow out of two entirely different theological world views. It's sort of like getting plums from a peach tree!
Very weird!
FUN! But very weird! :freak:
I look forward to your next post!
God Bless!

freelight
February 1st, 2004, 12:02 AM
Hello all,

It is amazing that some do not appear to believe that with God ALL things are possible....and that Jesus said that our faith in God...which is the faith of God (of the His eternal substance).....can avail to move mountains, inspire miracles or be the springboard to bring forth supernatural wonders. ALL things are possible to Him who believes. It is more foolish to restrain oneself to confining God with his own theological construct based on his lack of faith....rather than exercise ones faith in the Spirit of God which is without measure and has no mortal limits. As a disciple of the Anointed One.....I avail myself of the Spirits power....thru faith....who is the ever-present Reality Being....whose glory is preeminent. Assuming that miracles no longer happen because one does not see them is part of the manifestation of faithlessness. Miracles happen more or less...and in manifold degrees every day if we have an eye to see them. It is ones faith that opens the horizons and grants the believer to enter into the pleasures of God...which abound with signs, wonders and miracles at every turn. It would seem fundamentally absurd to presume to be a believer and not believe God for the 'all' that faith can acquire....as purported by Jesus. Faith in God avails one to all the Spirit-resources of the Father....and in such FAITH....are the latent possibilities of ALL things. To those who do not limit God with their minds...but avail their hearts full of faith and see with the eyes of the Spirit and speak those things which their faith decrees - these ones will have whatever they say....in accordance with Gods will! This is the teaching of Jesus...and all the learned dispensational theologians and wanna-be scholars cannot refute it. Each one will have according to his faith - this is a law.

It is this substance that your arguments can never nullify...though you neatly craft, organize and dispensationalize the workings of God according to your own reasons.

Faith is the substance....and he who would please Deity must have this generation of faith. Limiting God like you do...is a manifestation of faithlessness however justified by your own logics. The Christos has the Spirit of God without measure...and we are his divine body - the Head and the body are ONE. We have as our spiritual heritage and grant the fullness of God. If your faith cannot accept such as truth...then it will not be to you. Again...we see the law of faith.........and that with God All things are possible....and faith in its most atomic, essential and dynamic force as originated and inspired by God himself in the human heart has indefinite power to realize the manifestation of Gods Will...and his glory in the earth,...in all time and eternity.


Therefore it seems those of your school while professing faith are actually restricting it to your own qualifications and carnal reasonings which require no faith at all! Your faith is in your pre-selected theology but does not reflect faith in the Unlimited power of divine faith which is the substance of God.




paul

Clete
February 1st, 2004, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by freelight

Hello all,

It is amazing that some do not appear to believe that with God ALL things are possible....and that Jesus said that our faith in God...which is the faith of God (of the His eternal substance).....can avail to move mountains, inspire miracles or be the springboard to bring forth supernatural wonders. ALL things are possible to Him who believes. It is more foolish to restrain oneself to confining God with his own theological construct based on his lack of faith....rather than exercise ones faith in the Spirit of God which is without measure and has no mortal limits. As a disciple of the Anointed One.....I avail myself of the Spirits power....thru faith....who is the ever-present Reality Being....whose glory is preeminent. Assuming that miracles no longer happen because one does not see them is part of the manifestation of faithlessness. Miracles happen more or less...and in manifold degrees every day if we have an eye to see them. It is ones faith that opens the horizons and grants the believer to enter into the pleasures of God...which abound with signs, wonders and miracles at every turn. It would seem fundamentally absurd to presume to be a believer and not believe God for the 'all' that faith can acquire....as purported by Jesus. Faith in God avails one to all the Spirit-resources of the Father....and in such FAITH....are the latent possibilities of ALL things. To those who do not limit God with their minds...but avail their hearts full of faith and see with the eyes of the Spirit and speak those things which their faith decrees - these ones will have whatever they say....in accordance with Gods will! This is the teaching of Jesus...and all the learned dispensational theologians and wanna-be scholars cannot refute it. Each one will have according to his faith - this is a law.

It is this substance that your arguments can never nullify...though you neatly craft, organize and dispensationalize the workings of God according to your own reasons.

Faith is the substance....and he who would please Deity must have this generation of faith. Limiting God like you do...is a manifestation of faithlessness however justified by your own logics. The Christos has the Spirit of God without measure...and we are his divine body - the Head and the body are ONE. We have as our spiritual heritage and grant the fullness of God. If your faith cannot accept such as truth...then it will not be to you. Again...we see the law of faith.........and that with God All things are possible....and faith in its most atomic, essential and dynamic force as originated and inspired by God himself in the human heart has indefinite power to realize the manifestation of Gods Will...and his glory in the earth,...in all time and eternity.


Therefore it seems those of your school while professing faith are actually restricting it to your own qualifications and carnal reasonings which require no faith at all! Your faith is in your pre-selected theology but does not reflect faith in the Unlimited power of divine faith which is the substance of God.




paul
Blah, Blah, Blah!!!

God never directs us to check our brains at the door of the church! He says, "Come, let us reason together."
If you can't reply to a logical argument then just say so. But don't give me all this nonsense about how only those who believe miracles happen actually see them happen and that logic is somehow antithetical to faith. Do you suppose that it was faith that caused the Pharisees to see that Lazarus had been raised from the dead? Was it faith that caused the lawyers to give Jesus a hard time about having healed the lame on the Sabbath day?
While it can be argued that it takes faith to perform miracles, it can not be argued that it takes faith to witness them or to investigate evidence of there having happened.
And to complete the quote that you almost used in you post, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen." "Hoped for" not "acquired". "Not seen" not "witnessed". Miracles are antithetical to true faith because they are proof that God exists. With proof, faith is no longer required and "without faith it is impossible to please God."

Resting in His sufficient Grace,
Clete

godrulz
February 1st, 2004, 12:34 AM
Pentecostals are generally classical Arminians. Myself and others see Open Theism as a sub-type of Arminianism (emphasizes free will and denies extreme predestination and other Calvinistic ideas). I know some Open Theists here do not see any relationship between Arminianism and Open Theism, but they are certainly closer to each other than Calvinism and Open Theism. Open view is an alternative view between the 2 extremes.

There is a difference between hearsay or an anecdotal story, and a scientifically verifiable, documentable miracle. I am surprised that a servant of the Most High God would be skeptical about a miracle (not from the Virgin Mary). I take it for granted that the average believer knows someone who was healed supernaturally. Whether a tumor shrinks instantly or a hand grows back (your criteria seems to require dramatic evidence...those cases are isolated...like eyes appearing in empty sockets), a miracle is a miracle, nothing else. God is God, nothing less. People are people, nothing more.

I must have missed the proof-texts that necessitate the passing of miracles. Can you refresh my memory (I hope it is not in I Cor. 13- favorite Baptist closing of the canon argument)? Or is it based on layers of argument from "The Plot"?

Why limit the sovereign God?

If Scripture really did teach what you say, then a verifiable miracle would have to be attributed to Satan (who can counterfeit miracles) or rationalized away with a naturalistic explanation or exposed as a fraud.

I also missed the specious reason that God supposedly has stopped doing miracles for the time. I think I am an eschatological dispensationalist, but do not see this as precluding the Pentecostal revival that is happening worldwide (fastest growing and largest group within Christianity). What exactly is the reason from Scripture that God has stopped being supernatural (which is 'natural' for Him)? Satan wields supernatural weapons; the church is not left to seminars, videos, and organizational business models. Our weapons are mighty in this spiritual warfare.

I realize you feel you have a system that categorizes beliefs logically with necessary conclusions. In the absence of this, I have concluded that Pentecostalism is biblical, Open Theism is cogent, OSAS is Calvinistic, 'original sin' is Augustinian, etc.

My sincere desire is to be biblical and open to revision as the Word impacts my mind and heart.

godrulz
February 1st, 2004, 12:42 AM
Miracles are the exception rather than the rule. God confirmed His Word with signs following in the NT. In cultures that worship false gods, the true God still demonstrates His power to validate the Gospel message (sometimes, not always). If Jesus wants to give a vision to Paul or a Muslim to aid their conversion, so be it. Remember Elijah and the prophets of Baal (I Kings?). God delights in revealing His power and glory to all men in all ages. The OT God is the same as the NT God. He is not a dispensationalist (no offense intended...I believe in a variation of dispensationalism).

freelight
February 1st, 2004, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Why?
If an argument from Scripture showed that we should see purple Geese flying over head at Noon on every third Thursday of the month and we in fact did not see any purple Geese as argued, then either the argument is wrong, or the Bible is wrong, or both.
In this case your argument from Scripture demands that "we can and should see" miracles happen. The fact is, however, that we do not. Therefore, either your argument is wrong, or the Bible is, or both.

Which is it?

Neither?
Then show me the miracle.


No one is suggesting that there is no such thing as miracles or that God is incapable of performing them, just that He has chosen for good reason not to do so for the time being.

Resting in His sufficient Grace,
Clete


)========== Hi Clete,.............so you need scientific proof that God does miracles. You want the visible evidence, tangible proof, of Gods miraculous power. Isnt that evidence of the lack of faith? What is faith? Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT SEEN. So you want proof that God does extraordinary miracles. That is not an exercise of faith. One may contemplate his own being and all creation around him within and without as the Miracle of God.

By similar reasoning above....we can assume that God doesnt exist because we cant see Him! Can He be scientifically proven? Well,.....this is a whole nother topic - but I hope some can see that the nature of faith by virtue of its substance in God......has unlimited powers. True faith in God must draw all of the potentialities and realities of the Fullness of God into being! For God Alone is the ONE Reality in which all things/beings abide. There is only One Spirit. Faith by virtue of it being of Gods substance has eternal, unlimited and even infinite possibilities which can be secured, apprehended and realized within the powers granted within the generation of faith...which Jesus says that a believer can have as an actuality - a current and experiencial posession.

{Jesus teaches on faith - Matt. 8:13; 9:29; 21:22 Mark 9:23; 11:20-26 }

The substance of faith which Jesus teaches cannot be derided by the faithless....for those of the faith of God have the substance. All that is in God...all that IS.....is in the substance. May this inspire the 'religious' to discover what faith really is.


paul

1Way
February 1st, 2004, 12:57 AM
godrulz - You said
Even if I never heard of a modern miracle or experienced one, I would still argue from Scripture that we can and should see them.

There are other explanations of miracles including: demonic, illusion, fraud, deception, psychosomatic/psychological, coincidence, etc. The counterfeit only proves that there is a genuine. I think that is a bit of an overstatement or an over confidence. We all know that the issue of miracles happening today is not clearly or easily determined from scripture. So if you did not experience a bible teaching, and the teaching is at best controversial, you should not (just) argue it because you find support reasoning in the bible, instead you should prove it in the light of those who believe the exact opposite yet also want to stand on the truth of the matter. i.e. Do an objective thorough cross examination. You think your right, we think were right, but lets not get to carried away with what we think and with what is established from scripture.

The idea that counterfeits only proves the genuine is not a given, because everything you listed may all be genuine. In fact, because of this statement, you may be highlighting the fact of your biased prejudice. Well, I would not include being demonic the way you did, I suggest that such a thing is not happening today, and more to the point, it is not a naturalist explanation. For you to say that
illusion, fraud, deception, psychosomatic/psychological, coincidence, etc. The counterfeit only proves that there is a genuine. means that you may be guilty of dismissing the evidence before even reviewing it for credibility! Clete and thousands of others take a more objective approach to such matters and say essentially, show me, establish the truth of the matter, it must be credible, and it must pass the muster of bible scrutiny. Those so called frauds may be genuine, in fact they those things are to be expected to occur naturally, so instead of making broad generalizations, you should take the evidence into careful consideration.

My understanding of a clearly validated miracle is when believers and non-believers alike corroborate the account in such a way that the miracle is obvious. And even for the many miracles (in the bible) that were not witnessed by heathen, we know that if they were experienced by unsaved people, that as long as they were being honest, they would attribute the event as being a miracle, such is the convincing nature of a biblical miracle.

It's a common even among the unsaved world to joke that they understand the difference between the natural and the miraculous. For example, if someone thinks they are too cool for school, they might say of that person that they think they can walk on water. A biblically accurate miracle is just that obvious, and is nothing like the common stories about some third party story about something that can not be verified or can be easily explained by natural causes. Lets say that 5,000 were fed from 5 dinners worth, then such a dramatic natural impossibility multiplied by the attestation of thousands who were almost certainly not for Jesus in any sort of conflicting personal bias way, because Jesus said that they do not follow because of Him, it was because of the food, then you have the makings of a certain miracle. It's one thing to have fables within a biased fringe group, its a whole different ball game when the evidence is virtually undeniable.

Last but not least, would someone please give Bob Enyart's definition for what a miracle is. Only after we have established what a miracle actually is can we assume we know what each side is referring to, the definitions and implications are very divergent. Understanding before judgment.

1Way
February 1st, 2004, 02:35 AM
godrulz - I am sorry for letting my emotions get the best of me in that I went a overboard with the name calling (posts 175, 177), even if I am mostly right about the seriousness of your problem/error, that is no excuse to over state the case. Please accept my apology.

You often model the sort of open sincerity that most only pretend to have, thank you for that, for your overall personal friendliness, and appreciation for the things of God. I pray that your receptiveness towards God's teachings grows in all areas of faith and life. As to little g godrulz, I never gave it a second thought, always seemed fine with me. Computer logins and handles are easier to express without the added caps. And, if anything a bit of intrigue can become an extra excuse to witness the truth. Sort of reminds me of GODISNOWHERE. Provocative, and cleverly disguised.

Just don't ask me to go to a Benny Hinn bible study or a big tent miracle meeting. It's not going to happen.

drbrumley
February 1st, 2004, 02:40 AM
1Way,


would someone please give Bob Enyart's definition for what a miracle is


From the Plot
An event that supercedes natural or supernatural law

Hope this helps!!!!!!

In Christ,
DRBrumley

Freak
February 1st, 2004, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

This is the point I was making in a nutshell.

I agree that the Bible comes down on one side or the other of this issue. Miracles are either happening today or they are not. You will never convince either Godrulz or Freak that your Biblical position is correct because their stance on this issue is not based on exclusively Biblical material. Not based on Biblical material. Huh? Are you completely blind? All I have done is resort to Holy Scripture in regards to this issue...

Let's start there...

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. Clete, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc???? If they do then you have to agree that the present church has these gifts which include the gift of miracles.

Clete, it appears the Holy Scriptures do not make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13). Were you aware of this????

Homework for Clete:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the Scriptures, as they ceased at the closing of the Canon, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question. The church is still present and there is no reason to believe He doesn't give His church gifts that include the gifts of miracles.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

Under the New Covenant, the superior covenant, we are taught numerous times of the reality of spiritual gifts and miracles. In fact...

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

Freak
February 1st, 2004, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Hope this helps!!!!!!

In Christ,
DRBrumley Acording to Jesus a miracle is this:

Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.

Delmar
February 1st, 2004, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by 1Way



Just don't ask me to go to a Benny Hinn bible study or a big tent miracle meeting. It's not going to happen.

Oh come on it would be fun! We could sit in the back and throw pop corn.

drbrumley
February 1st, 2004, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Freak

Acording to Jesus a miracle is this:

Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.

Same thing as defined in the Plot, Freak. Whats your point?

In Christ,
DRBrumley

Clete
February 1st, 2004, 09:29 AM
Freak,
In response to this...

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I agree that the Bible comes down on one side or the other of this issue. Miracles are either happening today or they are not. You will never convince either Godrulz or Freak that your Biblical position is correct because their stance on this issue is not based on exclusively Biblical material.

You said this...

Originally posted by Freak
Not based on Biblical material. Huh? Are you completely blind?
Blah blah blah...

I didn't say that it wasn't Biblically based, I said that it was not exclusively Biblically based.
If this web site hasn't proven anything else, it has proven that the Bible can be made to say nearly anything, especially if one is willing to be ingenuous in their pursuit of the truth. Fortunately, however, you have chosen a topic that has more than one means by which the truth of it can be verified. If your argument from Scripture is correct then physical proof of miracles should be plentiful and obvious.

So the "homework" you presumed to be in a position to assign is unnecessary. Even if I were to complete your assignment, it wouldn't convince you anyway because like I said, you have more invested in this than a simply Biblical argument.
You, however have a more difficult assignment...
SHOW ME THE MIRACLE!
You could even perform one if you like. Just be sure to document it in some independently verifiable way.

Resting in His sufficient Grace,
Clete

Clete
February 1st, 2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by freelight

)========== Hi Clete,.............so you need scientific proof that God does miracles. You want the visible evidence, tangible proof, of Gods miraculous power.
NO!
I never said I needed any evidence of God's miraculous power!
What planet are you on?
I do not and have not ever denied that miracles are possible and in fact have occurred. One can not be a Christian and deny the miraculous for to do so would be to deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I simply do not believe that you or anyone else can prove their Biblical position that miracles are occurring today by a presentation of physical evidence. And if there is no evidence that a thing happened then how am I to believe that it did? That goes for the resurrection as well, by the way, for which there is literally a mountain of evidence.



Isnít that evidence of the lack of faith? What is faith? Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT SEEN.
Yes, I already pointed this out to you! Did you read my post or just react to it? Miracles are seen and as such do not engender faith in those who see them. This is one of the primary reasons why God isn't doing them today. God loves us very much and wants for us to have faith. The more miracles that occur, the less likely that faith becomes.



One may contemplate his own being and all creation around him within and without as the Miracle of God.
No this is not a miracle. It may be in a manner of speaking but this is paramount to saying that everything that happens is a miracle which would remove all meaning from the word "miracle".


By similar reasoning above....we can assume that God doesnít exist because we cant see Him! Can He be scientifically proven?
No such assumption can be made because there is gobs and gobs and scientifically valid evidence that He does indeed exist.
Don't believe me?
:readthis: Read this! (http://www.theologyonline.com/banners.php?op=click&bid=7) :readthis:


The substance of faith which Jesus teaches cannot be derided by the faithless....for those of the faith of God have the substance. All that is in God...all that IS.....is in the substance. May this inspire the 'religious' to discover what faith really is.
This makes no sense in this context. It sounds like you are saying that the creation is evidence for a creator which is true of course but what does that have to do with whether or not God is performing miracles today?

Resting in His sufficient Grace,
Clete

godrulz
February 1st, 2004, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

godrulz - I am sorry for letting my emotions get the best of me in that I went a overboard with the name calling (posts 175, 177), even if I am mostly right about the seriousness of your problem/error, that is no excuse to over state the case. Please accept my apology.

You often model the sort of open sincerity that most only pretend to have, thank you for that, for your overall personal friendliness, and appreciation for the things of God. I pray that your receptiveness towards God's teachings grows in all areas of faith and life. As to little g godrulz, I never gave it a second thought, always seemed fine with me. Computer logins and handles are easier to express without the added caps. And, if anything a bit of intrigue can become an extra excuse to witness the truth. Sort of reminds me of GODISNOWHERE. Provocative, and cleverly disguised.

Just don't ask me to go to a Benny Hinn bible study or a big tent miracle meeting. It's not going to happen.

Thank you for your words of wisdom (godrulz) and humility. I think God is as concerned with our character as He is with our theological excellence. It is good to have the freedom to be ourself (unique personality) and to have a Christ-like heart.

I was feeling rebuked by the Spirit to try to edify (build up) in all things where possible, rather than tear down or disrespect. I support strong convictions and understand the passion for truth against error. I think I am stubborn and can be argumentative with an arrogant bent when I feel I am right. Being sleep deprived or stressed does not help me either. I am a sponge and sincerely do not want to believe any error in theology or health quackery, etc.

I am not a Benny Hinn fan and find many American evangelists over the top and contrary to the conservative Canadian way. The power of God can come in a whisper and does not need all the histrionics and dramatics that draw attention to men. God seems to use us despite our rough personalities (cf. The 12).

Clete
February 1st, 2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by godrulz
My sincere desire is to be biblical and open to revision as the Word impacts my mind and heart.
This attitude is obvious in your all of your posts which just makes it all the more surprising to me that you come down on this side of this issue. Be that as it may, I respect your position even though I believe it to unfounded both Biblically and otherwise.
You have not missed anything as far as proof texts or any other Biblical argument from me as I have made almost none. My argument rests solely on the lack of physical evidence for physical miracles happening today. If your Biblical position is correct then such evidence will be available. I believe this to be axiomatic. Therefore since we know that the Bible is not flawed in any way then if such physical evidence does not exist then your Biblical position is wrong.

Resting in His sufficient Grace,
Clete

godrulz
February 1st, 2004, 10:30 AM
Clete: I tell atheists to draw a circle. Even Einstein admitted he knew only a tiny amount of all possible knowledge. Mr. Atheist, is it possible that outside of your knowledge (represented by a dot in the circle) of the universe, that God exists? Answer: Yes, it is possible. An atheist cannot disprove the existence of God without being an omniscient god themselves.

Mr. Clete: If the circle represents all the acts and ways of God today, churches, believers, unbelievers, etc. and the dot in the circle represents your awareness of what is happening in churches, Christianity and individual lives...is it possible that God is doing mighty things that you are not aware of? Yes, it is. Who said that there has to be millions of front page news stories of dramatic miracles to prove that God still does miracles? There are thousands of believers around the world who have verifiable healings or evidence of miracles. Some are documented by secular media or medical journals, but not all.

The question in circles that believe in the power of God for today is: why do we not see more miracles in North America (cf. to 3rd world countries...faith, rationalism, trust, availability of alternatives, etc.) and why is not everyone healed? There are no simple answers to these complex issues (involves faith, nature of creation, enemy, free will, sovereignty, etc.).

It just seems strange that there are believers that do not recognize that God heals today, that demon possession is real and cannot be dealt with by psychiatrists, and that God can and does intervene supernaturally as it pleases Him (there are reasons why He would not normatively intervene).

I am still waiting for a simple answer on if Enyart's followers believe that healings happen today (do you pray for the sick that doctors cannot help?), what you would do for a demonized person (who told Satan he has to play on a dispensational chart?), and what are the key verses to establish an anti-supernatural position for the Church today? Perhaps the issue is not an interpretation or intellectual issue (same goes for atheism), but a moral issue of unbelief and doubt in the Living God and a North American reliance on the arm of the flesh, rather than the power of God.

godrulz
February 1st, 2004, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

This attitude is obvious in your all of your posts which just makes it all the more surprising to me that you come down on this side of this issue. Be that as it may, I respect your position even though I believe it to unfounded both Biblically and otherwise.
You have not missed anything as far as proof texts or any other Biblical argument from me as I have made almost none. My argument rests solely on the lack of physical evidence for physical miracles happening today. If your Biblical position is correct then such evidence will be available. I believe this to be axiomatic. Therefore since we know that the Bible is not flawed in any way then if such physical evidence does not exist then your Biblical position is wrong.

Resting in His sufficient Grace,
Clete

This sounds like an argument I would expect from a skeptic who does not know God and His Word. Philosophically, it could have value, but see my other post a minute ago. I contend that the evidence is out there. Miracles do wax and wane in church history as do revivals in the church and spiritual awakenings in society. God is sovereign, but man can and does limit the outpouring of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in our lives, churches, and society. This fits with an Open Theist world view. cf. Chronicles condition...IF my people humble themselves and pray....THEN... Church history and the modern Pentecostal movement attest to the workings of God...

i) Do miracles happen today in my limited sphere of knowledge?

No....therefore,

ii) the Bible must be interpreted to mean that miracles have ceased for this generation.

(I hope this is not your reasoning, because you have the cart before the horse).

Would a better approach be:

i) What does the Bible explicitly teach about miracles, healing, etc. for the church and world (life and ministry of Christ, OT, Book of Acts, epistles, Church History)? I expect a Scriptural argument (like the closing of the canon/apostolic validation), not an experiential one...doctrine before practice.

ii) Is there evidence to support the ongoing ministry of Christ through the Church by the Spirit? (I believe there is). If we are not seeing evidence of this, is it because we have not searched out all sources of this evidence or have not personally experienced it or know someone who has (I know people that were healed when medicine could not give them hope)? Is it because we are not believing God and His Word and quenching and grieving the Spirit because we have bought into the Western scientific mindset of touch, taste, feel, hear, see (materialism...only matter is real...no room for spiritual or Divine)?

This I know...Jesus is God with a face....His life and ministry reflect the heart and ways of the Father. His power, compassion, love, healing, miracles have not ceased to be replaced by the arm of the flesh. Man still has tremendous needs, demons are still active in the warfare, and God still is glorified when He supernaturally intervenes in our world (He is not a passive Deist God). We may not be intellectual atheists, but it is possible to be a functional atheist, living as if God does not exist or care. I would be reticent to limit God based on a desire to hold to a pre-conceived theology (extreme dispensationalism that puts God in our limited box...again, we need a Scriptural argument since Jesus reveals that He came to destroy the works of sin and Satan...they are still ongoing, hence, His ministry through the Church should still be ongoing).

You know Jesus as Lord, Savior, Provider, King. Pentecostals want all men to also know Him as Healer and Deliver from the power of sin and Satan. I mentioned Gospel for Asia before. They are a non-Pentecostal missions organization that reports of the Gospel being preached with villages in India coming to Christ because the Word is confirmed with signs following. When the village Hindu priest is healed or delivered from the power of Satan, just like in the Gospels and Acts, many come to Christ. Perhaps your problem is that you live in the North American academic and affluent comfort zone and need to be exposed to the spiritual warfare that is waged in 3rd world countries and our streets. All the teaching and $ in the world will not free a man from demon possession or heal an incurable disease. This is the domain of Jehovah- Rophi ( Exodus 15), the Lord who Heals (He is still in the biz, bud).

1Way
February 1st, 2004, 10:49 AM
DrBrumley - Excellent. We understand what those words imply, but I think most people do not, especially those like Freak who pretend to know what Bob teaches, but really only have a superficial understanding.

Please (everyone) help us illustrate very plainly this correct answer (or watch patiently as DrBrumley will naturally develop it) so that everyone may clearly understand what Bob is saying the bible teaches about the nature of what a miracle really is. This issue is a very important one, and helps us get into a seriously humbling and biblically conforming mindset when it comes to making claims about the things of God.

You get an A for correctness and an A+++ for the art of brevity. (chuckles) Keep up the good work.

godrulz
February 1st, 2004, 10:57 AM
I think we can all agree on a definition of a miracle. Is not the question whether God is doing them since the book of Acts?

1Way
February 1st, 2004, 11:11 AM
godrulz - Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and caring respose. Please reread posts 175 (mostly the lower portion) and 177 to see significant corrections. And again, thanks goes to Knight (and the HS of course) for helping me see my error, grace is well with Knight. Building up, and tearing down (each other), those are interesting ideas, yet not always exclusive to each other. In fact, often they are positively mutually inclusive. Even for, especially for me.

May we continue to see Christ working in us to His glory.



As to your last question, sure, I "IMAGINE" that we CAN have a common understanding, BUT, until we get to the point of understanding the differences involved, it is impossible to move on without multiplying the confussion. We are using at least two very different understandings of what a miracle is, if not more. That much has been only constantly demostrated in this thread by everyone.

Understanding comes first, one doable step at a time.

Perhaps we should start with you, how does that definition correct or change your previous conceptions? :D (Because the differences are significant, and the meathod of honorably seeking the truth from God's word is exceedinly noteworthy!)

godrulz
February 1st, 2004, 11:23 AM
I apologize for my laziness, but I do not think I have a good grasp of the issues of this thread (I am jumping off on a tangent perhaps) or the definitions. I would be curious of what word studies of 'miracles', 'healing', etc. would turn up. There must be a distinction between a miracle (perhaps creative miracle or intervention) and a physical healing of the body (that does not involve restoration as much as dealing with illness?).

"An event that supercedes natural or supernatural law"? Is that our working definition from Enyart? It is reasonable to assume that there is more than one way to define miracle based on a composite of word studies and context from Scripture (dictionaries define words with different word orders, but mean the same general thing).

I believe a miracle does suspend or supercede the normative natural law, but please clarify the last part...what does it mean to supercede a supernatural law (this seems to be a redundant statement)?? I agree with the first part, but this definition may not be exhaustive. A crane or God can move a car off the ground...it is a miracle when God does it; it is a law of nature when man does the same thing.

1Way
February 1st, 2004, 11:47 AM
godrulz - As to
"An event that supercedes natural or supernatural law"? Is that our working definition from Enyart? It is reasonable to assume that there is more than one way to define miracle based on a composite of word studies and context from Scripture (dictionaries define words with different word orders, but mean the same general thing). From memory, perhaps 4-5 years ago, I think that definition is correct, yet it is highly underdeveloped in terms of what does that mean. And yes, there are way too many ways to define what a miracle is, that is a huge part of the problem. We need to have a more united and biblically comprehensive understanding which has been largely passed over by many and mainstream authorities/traditions. I have a sense for it, but I am not (currently) prepared to expose it without reconsidering the information involved, that is why I am currently seeking everyone elses help on this. I'm not even sure if this was best illustrated in the written Plot, or the audio tapes. Yet the meaning and demonstration of a good bible honoring search for the truth is crucial to this entire endeavor. I really hope someone will illustrate and develop what Bob says a miracle really is and what it is not, and the biblical principles that govern these findings. It really shows a deeply devotional side of Bob's ministry and thoughtfulness prior to putting his teachings on paper.

I'm thinking of my dear old favorite, the truth in context. We can be almost right in a foundational idea, and the error is just multiplied as we errantly move on under a weak foundation.

I'll see if I can do justice to this development, but it would so encouraging to see others be so understanding prior to judging against his view (Like Freak for example). I think that is why the Dr. has not yet spilled the beans, but only opened the can, shrewd the wise Dr. is. :o

You said
please clarify the last part...what does it mean to supercede a supernatural law (this seems to be a redundant statement)?? Exactly to the point. God's ways are extremely ordered and conventional despite them being greater than our ways, they are also highly understandable at least on a fundamental basis. We say God is good and wise, not just because the bible says so, but because of His awesome ways in creation for example. We also say God is intellectual, personal, moral, social, creative, etc. etc. etc. And we say all these not just from a head knowledge of reading His word, but because He demonstrates His qualities in reality. Same sort of comprehensive discernment is involved in this sort of search for what a miracle really is. Go beyond the superficial, and get to the heart of it all.

As for me, until I locate this excellent treatment of what a miracle really is, I do not want to mess it up, I have never heard anyone put it as well as he did, and I know I would not do it justice prior to doing a formal review. This will be a great exercise. Perhaps you might be of some service yourself? I am pretty sure this teaching is in the written Plot.

Freak
February 1st, 2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

So the "homework" you presumed to be in a position to assign is unnecessary. But it is necessary if you want the Scriptural evidence for miracles for today.

You, however have a more difficult assignment...
SHOW ME THE MIRACLE! How do you define a miracle? Would you consider the new birth in Christ a miracle? What about the casting out of demons? Emotional healing? Physical Healing? The opening of a closed womb?


You could even perform one if you like. Just be sure to document it in some independently verifiable way. I have performed many, in fact hundreds. In light of what Jesus tells us in Mark 9 concerning what is a miracle, I have seen hundreds.

By the way, deal with the Holy Scriptures...

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. Clete, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc????

The Holy Scriptures don't seem to make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from other when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13).

Homework for Clete:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the apostles, as you claim, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God, as you claim, and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

Freak
February 1st, 2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
As for me, until I locate this excellent treatment of what a miracle really is, I do not want to mess it up, I have never heard anyone put it as well as he did, and I know I would not do it justice prior to doing a formal review. This will be a great exercise. Perhaps you might be of some service yourself? I am pretty sure this teaching is in the written Plot. Jesus gave us a excellent treatment what He would consider a miracle in Mark 9:

Acording to Jesus a miracle is this:

Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.

1Way
February 1st, 2004, 02:06 PM
That is presumptuous to think that God may not have a significantly broader and more comprehensive developement of what miracles are than what you keep presenting. You don't understand what Bob teaches beyond a suferficial understanding, so cool your jets already.

Do you have ANY problems with Bob's definition as recently repeated? Can you develope what Bob means about supernatural and natural laws?

freelight
February 1st, 2004, 02:48 PM
It still amazes me that some 'believers' :ha: do not have the faith to believe God for miracles (some which fall into answers to prayer)...because they no longer see any miracles happening around them. What kind of 'faith' community do you belong to? Perhaps it is not a faith community and your 'church' is not a vibrant center of Gods power effective enough to touch, transform, heal and rejuvenate lives. The same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead is alive and well today and vibrant in the body of Christ - for those who allow the quickening power of the Spirit to operate. Needs of all kinds exist in the church and the world - and that is why God poured the power of His Spirit on the church - that we may in His name do the works of God. Jesus said signs would follow believers and taught that faith has the power to do what could be defined as miracles. I listed these verses in a previous post. So...you would choose to deny Jesus and his teachings. Amazing......and then claim your dispensational 'truth' as to limit God because you no longer see evidence of miracles around you - some faith eh. But you believe the miracles of the past and those recorded from the past just because they are written down to have actually happened - but you didnt see them - you believe them anyhow - now thats faith! Maybe if you belonged to a more vibrant fellowship of faith-filled believers and tradition of prayer, faith and the power of God you would see what could be termed miracles in your midst - these do not have to be huge miracles such as the parting of the Red Sea or having it rain frogs, even raising the dead .....however many enhancements of natural law take place such as in accelerated healings and answers to prayer all the time! The power of prayer and dynamics of faith have even been proven clinically in scientific studies in the growth of living things and the recovery of sick people. It is unfortunate that some have no sense of the power of God or the metaphysics of faith and the power of Spirit. And to call yourselves christians! This is sad. You claim to have faith in God...but it is limited and qualified by your custom theology. Therefore Jesus says....'let be according to your faith' (or lack thereof!). Those who have faith will bear the fruit of that faith.
My experience and calling has shown me that your view is constrictive and does not harness the full powers of God that He has anointed His church to exercise in the earth. Your experience has shown to you that God is now impotent and has withdrawn His miracle powers - however millions of believers who have experienced Gods intervention/presence have faith otherwise...that God is alive and well today and quickening by His Spirit - he lives and moves among the assemby of the faithful.....who are filled with the fullness of God and the Holy Spirit. You can choose to deny Jesus and his teaching......and keep your religious views as 'authority' above them - but I would think twice about your so-called faith and identification as a 'christian'.

That being said.....we have already went over Bobs logic about miracles not producing faith - thats old hat. Miracles do not necessarily happen to get others to have faith...but are the products, fruits, manifestations of FAITH! God works thru FAITH!
Particularly in the NT or dispensaton of grace. Time to look at spiritual truth instead of your systematic theology. THe Spirit still gives Life.

You still have yet to face the reality of the scriptures Freak has posted many times and question the potency of your own faith as those who need prayer come to you to be helped - I suppose you might tell them.....God no longer heals or does miracles...so bear your burden and you 'might' be saved. God works thru natural laws and can supercede them or enhance them as thru the laws of faith, prayer and consciousness. These are metaphysical realities for those who can perceive them.

Its just sad that some call themselves christians and dont believe as Jesus believed......and discount his teaching on faith. It makes no sense.....to serve an impotent God and a powerless Christ.....while living a religion that puts limits on the power of faith (this faith being of God).


May God awaken faith in His church!


paul

godrulz
February 1st, 2004, 04:44 PM
I might not agree with other areas of Freelight's views, but like the heart of the above post.

Possible dilemmas:

- If one is convinced or becomes convinced that miracles/healings/deliverances happen today, it would be hard to accept the premise of "The Plot" (supposed overview that resolves all doctrinal conflict).

- If I am to accept the premise and conclusions of Enyart, then I have to go against my Scriptural and experiential convictions about OSAS and the charismata.

- Since "The Plot" is one of thousands of good books, I will likely accept much of its teachings while finding fault with other areas (the two above...the net result is that the book has strengths and weaknesses in its logic and interpretation of Scripture).

Freak
February 1st, 2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

I might not agree with other areas of Freelight's views, but like the heart of the above post.

Possible dilemmas:

- If one is convinced or becomes convinced that miracles/healings/deliverances happen today, it would be hard to accept the premise of "The Plot" (supposed overview that resolves all doctrinal conflict).

- Exactly. :up: Scripture is very clear and yet you still have some denying the truth. Go figure.

Freak
February 1st, 2004, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by freelight

It still amazes me that some 'believers' :ha: do not have the faith to believe God for miracles (some which fall into answers to prayer)...because they no longer see any miracles happening around them. What kind of 'faith' community do you belong to? Perhaps it is not a faith community and your 'church' is not a vibrant center of Gods power effective enough to touch, transform, heal and rejuvenate lives. The same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead is alive and well today and vibrant in the body of Christ - for those who allow the quickening power of the Spirit to operate. Needs of all kinds exist in the church and the world - and that is why God poured the power of His Spirit on the church - that we may in His name do the works of God. Jesus said signs would follow believers and taught that faith has the power to do what could be defined as miracles. I listed these verses in a previous post. So...you would choose to deny Jesus and his teachings. Amazing......and then claim your dispensational 'truth' as to limit God because you no longer see evidence of miracles around you - some faith eh. But you believe the miracles of the past and those recorded from the past just because they are written down to have actually happened - but you didnt see them - you believe them anyhow - now thats faith! Maybe if you belonged to a more vibrant fellowship of faith-filled believers and tradition of prayer, faith and the power of God you would see what could be termed miracles in your midst - these do not have to be huge miracles such as the parting of the Red Sea or having it rain frogs, even raising the dead .....however many enhancements of natural law take place such as in accelerated healings and answers to prayer all the time! The power of prayer and dynamics of faith have even been proven clinically in scientific studies in the growth of living things and the recovery of sick people. It is unfortunate that some have no sense of the power of God or the metaphysics of faith and the power of Spirit. And to call yourselves christians! This is sad. You claim to have faith in God...but it is limited and qualified by your custom theology. Therefore Jesus says....'let be according to your faith' (or lack thereof!). Those who have faith will bear the fruit of that faith.
My experience and calling has shown me that your view is constrictive and does not harness the full powers of God that He has anointed His church to exercise in the earth. Your experience has shown to you that God is now impotent and has withdrawn His miracle powers - however millions of believers who have experienced Gods intervention/presence have faith otherwise...that God is alive and well today and quickening by His Spirit - he lives and moves among the assemby of the faithful.....who are filled with the fullness of God and the Holy Spirit. You can choose to deny Jesus and his teaching......and keep your religious views as 'authority' above them - but I would think twice about your so-called faith and identification as a 'christian'.

That being said.....we have already went over Bobs logic about miracles not producing faith - thats old hat. Miracles do not necessarily happen to get others to have faith...but are the products, fruits, manifestations of FAITH! God works thru FAITH!
Particularly in the NT or dispensaton of grace. Time to look at spiritual truth instead of your systematic theology. THe Spirit still gives Life.

You still have yet to face the reality of the scriptures Freak has posted many times and question the potency of your own faith as those who need prayer come to you to be helped - I suppose you might tell them.....God no longer heals or does miracles...so bear your burden and you 'might' be saved. God works thru natural laws and can supercede them or enhance them as thru the laws of faith, prayer and consciousness. These are metaphysical realities for those who can perceive them.

Its just sad that some call themselves christians and dont believe as Jesus believed......and discount his teaching on faith. It makes no sense.....to serve an impotent God and a powerless Christ.....while living a religion that puts limits on the power of faith (this faith being of God).


May God awaken faith in His church!


paul :up: :thumb: :up:

1Way
February 1st, 2004, 05:50 PM
That is presumptuous to think that God may not have a significantly broader and more comprehensive developement of what miracles are than what you keep presenting. You don't understand what Bob teaches beyond a suferficial understanding, so cool your jets already.

Do you have ANY problems with Bob's definition as recently repeated? Can you develope what Bob means about supernatural and natural laws?

Freak
February 1st, 2004, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

That is presumptuous to think that God may not have a significantly broader and more comprehensive developement of what miracles are than what you keep presenting. I think miracles are broader then simply the casting out of demons...but let's start with that, in light of what Jesus said in Mark 9.


You don't understand what Bob teaches beyond a suferficial understanding, so cool your jets already.

Yet you told me:

quote:
And it's not realy as much the closing of the cannon, altough that much is pretty accurate,

Ah! Good. So you admit I'm "pretty accurate" in understanding Bob's view on this subject. Let's start there...

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. 1Way, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc???? If they do then you have to agree that the present church has these gifts which include the gift of miracles.

1Way, it appears the Holy Scriptures do not make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13). Were you aware of this????

Homework for 1Way:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the Scriptures, as they ceased at the closing of the Canon, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question. The church is still present and there is no reason to believe He doesn't give His church gifts that include the gifts of miracles.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

Under the New Covenant, the superior covenant, we are taught numerous times of the reality of spiritual gifts and miracles. In fact...

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

1Way
February 1st, 2004, 07:22 PM
godrulz - I am still waiting to find out if you will journey in God's word to find the treasure and gold I told you about. I need to know if you can and will do it, or if you wont or need help. Please let me know :1Way: or another. Thanks. Here's the link. Click here to go for the gold! (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=445933#post445933) Happy digging!

Clete
February 1st, 2004, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Freak

But it is necessary if you want the Scriptural evidence for miracles for today.
How do you define a miracle? Would you consider the new birth in Christ a miracle? What about the casting out of demons? Emotional healing? Physical Healing? The opening of a closed womb?
Anything that can not happen without the direct intervention of God would be a miracle. However, for the sake of this conversation it is not useful to include things like salvation or most of the other things you've listed because most of them simply can not be verified in any meaningful way. Emotional healing for example would be especially hard to confirm because how would you be able to show that the "illness" was genuine in the first place. This is true of nearly every so called miracle that Televangelists have ever performed; They supposedly heal some sickness or injury that can not be verified to have ever existed in the first place. Why don't we ever see anyone who's lost their hair due ot chemo therapy come up on the stage and be healed, then walk away with a full head of hair that everyone in the audience just watched grow out of their head? Why do we never see someone who is mangled with arthritis come up on stage and be healed to the point that they can juggle bowling pins again?
If any supernatural miracles are happening at all then surely these type are happening as well, so why isn't there even one single shred of verifiable evidence that such miracles happen today?
Why?


I have performed many (miracles), in fact hundreds. In light of what Jesus tells us in Mark 9 concerning what is a miracle, I have seen hundreds.
Prove it.
That all I ask. If the miracles were creative supernatural physical miracles then that shouldn't even be difficult at all. If you have in fact performed hundreds of them then you should have a whole filing cabinet full of such verifiable documentation.
So I say it again; if what you say is true...
Prove it!


As for the repeated section of your post I will repeat my response.

If your Biblical position is correct as to the occurrence of modern day, creative, physical miracles then there will be definitive, verifiable, physical evidence of such miracles. If such evidence does not exist then your position is wrong and in need of modification. Conversely, if such evidence can be produced and verified then it is my position that is in need of modification.
This should be the easiest time you ever had of proving somebody wrong Freak! Just produce the evidence that what you are saying is true and poof you win your first debate! ;)


Resting in His sufficient Grace,
Clete

Freak
February 2nd, 2004, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Anything that can not happen without the direct intervention of God would be a miracle. That would include the new birth in Jesus Christ, santification, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc...


However, for the sake of this conversation it is not useful to include things like salvation or most of the other things you've listed because most of them simply can not be verified in any meaningful way. Can't be verified? Huh? We are given tests in Scripture to see whether one is in Christ.


Emotional healing for example would be especially hard to confirm because how would you be able to show that the "illness" was genuine in the first place. Clete, you really haven't thought this through have you? Any healed rape victim would tell you that he/or she's violation that caused the brokenness of the spirit/or heart was quite genuine. Would you deny this? The testimony of Scripture tells us that, "He (God) heals the brokenhearted." This, my friend, is emotional healing--the healing of the heart. It is a supernatural miracle--for it comes from God.


This is true of nearly every so called miracle that Televangelists have ever performed; You watch too much television. I can't comment on tele-evangelists due to the fact I rarely watch tv.


If any supernatural miracles are happening at all then surely these type are happening as well, so why isn't there even one single shred of verifiable evidence that such miracles happen today?Why? I could give you testimony after testimony but you would simply mock it. So, let's turn to the Word of God and see what God's Word has to say about the giving of the gift of miracles to His church to use, to bring healing to those who are sick...

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. Clete, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc???? If they do then you have to agree that the present church has these gifts which include the gift of miracles.

Clete, it appears the Holy Scriptures do not make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13). Were you aware of this????

Homework for Clete:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the Scriptures, as they ceased at the closing of the Canon, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question. The church is still present and there is no reason to believe He doesn't give His church gifts that include the gifts of miracles.


Prove it. Scripture is my proof that God does miracles for He gives the gift of miracles to His Body. Scripture tells us that this true.


That all I ask. If the miracles were creative supernatural physical miracles then that shouldn't even be difficult at all. If you have in fact performed hundreds of them then you should have a whole filing cabinet full of such verifiable documentation.
So I say it again; if what you say is true...
Prove it! My proof is rooted in Scripture not in experience. But, I do have number of videos of demons being cast out. I'll send one to you if you'd like.



If your Biblical position is correct as to the occurrence of modern day, creative, physical miracles then there will be definitive, verifiable, physical evidence of such miracles. If such evidence does not exist then your position is wrong and in need of modification. Since Scripture is not good enough for you. Here is one example I came across recently:

Were there miracles on the set of THE PASSION during filming?

(A) Mel Gibson states in an interview, "There have been a lot of unusual things happening, good things like people being healed of diseases, a couple of people have had sight and hearing restored, another guy was struck by lightning while we were filming the crucifixion scene and he just got up and walked away."

http://www.passion-movie.com/english/faq3.html


Conversely, if such evidence can be produced and verified then it is my position that is in need of modification.
This should be the easiest time you ever had of proving somebody wrong Freak! I have already accomplished it. You're sounding more like an atheist then a Christian who constantly demands the evidence of the reality of Jesus Christ in our modern day.


Just produce the evidence that what you are saying is true and poof you win


Resting in His sufficient Grace,
Clete I already have. Scripture, my standard for truth, has clearly spoken.
Under the New Covenant, the superior covenant, we are taught numerous times of the reality of spiritual gifts and miracles. In fact...

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

Clete
February 2nd, 2004, 07:34 AM
Freak,

I'm very disappointed and a bit angry.

Why do you even bother spending the time to write these posts if you have no real intention of actually engaging the debate?
You know full well the points I was getting across in my last post and yet you chose to respond as though I was making an entirely different point and you completely ignore the thrust of my argument.
I have already clearly stated that I do not deny that miracles are not only possible but have in fact happened and that things like being saved while miraculous are not useful in this discussion because it is obvious that those things happen and they are therefore not the sort of miracles that are in dispute. Further, as you pointed out this type of spiritual miracle can indeed be verified by spritual means (Biblical evidence). My entire point is that physical miracles should be verifiable by physical evidence.
Now I know that you were already aware of this before you wasted my time with your last post because nobody can be that stupid. Therefore, since you obviously cannot or will not engage me directly then I will leave you with a very clear choice to make.
Either...
1. Present to me evidence that I can personally verify that creative physical miracles are occurring today. OR...

2. Don't respond to me at all.

Put up or shut up! I will not respond to you any further otherwise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Freak
February 2nd, 2004, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Freak,

I'm very disappointed and a bit angry. Don't let that sun set before putting away that anger of yours.


Further, as you pointed out this type of spiritual miracle can indeed be verified by spritual means (Biblical evidence). My entire point is that physical miracles should be verifiable by physical evidence. And this was my point you failed to see, my friend. Physical miracles, along with spiritual miracles, can be verified by spiritual means--Scriptural evidence. If the Revealed Word of God speaks of the possibility of miracles occuring, which it does, then whom am I to challenge God on this?

Clete, you acknowledge that spiritual miracles occur today due to God's Word view on this issue. I would submit that the same could be said about physical miracles--a miracle is a miracle--it is, what you refer to as a "direct intervention of God."


Either...
1. Present to me evidence that I can personally verify that creative physical miracles are occurring today. OR...

I already gave you one example. But here's another one:

http://latc.com/2003/09/24/community/news01.html

Shelton's 38 years in the military included two years in Vietnam and service in the 173rd Airborne Brigade and Green Berets. In addition to having been an adviser to the president and a member of the National Security Council, he has been awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the Purple Heart and six Distinguished Service Medals. He has been decorated by 15 foreign governments and knighted by Queen Elizabeth.

His 6-foot-6-inch military bearing and commanding presence at the Celebrity Forum belied his recent personal battle. Only months after his retirement, following 400 parachute jumps from 30,000 feet, the former special ops soldier fell from a ladder outside his home, landed with his head caught in a chain-link fence and was partially paralyzed from the neck down.

The man was "partially paralyzed" from the neck down....but....his faith in God allow him to see a healing miracle....

The doctor told Shelton he would never walk or use his hands again. Shelton said he checked the doctor's name tag for "God"; he didn't see it. Eighty-four days later he walked out on his own, and he is now close to 100 percent recovered. The unfortunate experience taught him an invaluable lesson -- "the importance of faith, family and friends when the chips are down."

Freak
February 2nd, 2004, 08:54 AM
Were there miracles on the set of THE PASSION during filming?

(A) Mel Gibson states in an interview, "There have been a lot of unusual things happening, good things like people being healed of diseases, a couple of people have had sight and hearing restored, another guy was struck by lightning while we were filming the crucifixion scene and he just got up and walked away."

http://www.passion-movie.com/english/faq3.html

Sozo
February 2nd, 2004, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Now I know that you were already aware of this before you wasted my time with your last post because nobody can be that stupid.

How long have you been here Clete?

Freak
February 2nd, 2004, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Sozo

How long have you been here Clete? Care to take a jab at this since no one has (help 1Way out):

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. 1Way, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc???? If they do then you have to agree that the present church has these gifts which include the gift of miracles.

1Way, it appears the Holy Scriptures do not make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13). Were you aware of this????

Homework for 1Way:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the Scriptures, as they ceased at the closing of the Canon, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question. The church is still present and there is no reason to believe He doesn't give His church gifts that include the gifts of miracles.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

Under the New Covenant, the superior covenant, we are taught numerous times of the reality of spiritual gifts and miracles. In fact...

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

Clete
February 2nd, 2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Shelton's 38 years in the military included two years in Vietnam and service in the 173rd Airborne Brigade and Green Berets. In addition to having been an adviser to the president and a member of the National Security Council, he has been awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the Purple Heart and six Distinguished Service Medals. He has been decorated by 15 foreign governments and knighted by Queen Elizabeth.

His 6-foot-6-inch military bearing and commanding presence at the Celebrity Forum belied his recent personal battle. Only months after his retirement, following 400 parachute jumps from 30,000 feet, the former special ops soldier fell from a ladder outside his home, landed with his head caught in a chain-link fence and was partially paralyzed from the neck down.

The man was "partially paralyzed" from the neck down....but....his faith in God allow him to see a healing miracle....

The doctor told Shelton he would never walk or use his hands again. Shelton said he checked the doctor's name tag for "God"; he didn't see it. Eighty-four days later he walked out on his own, and he is now close to 100 percent recovered. The unfortunate experience taught him an invaluable lesson -- "the importance of faith, family and friends when the chips are down."
Is this what you call evidence for a miracle?!
You know that the exact same sort of thing happens to nonbelievers as well right?
Further, whatís up with 84 freaken days! (Sorry about taking your name in vain like that Freak!) Can you show me an example in the Bible of a healing miracle that took almost three months! This might be an excellent example of someone trusting God in spite of their circumstances but it is not a miracle.
Come on Freak you say that youíve performed ďhundredsĒ of miracles! Surely you can do better than this!
Try again.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Thank you for responding directly. Itís much more productive than repeating yourself!

Clete
February 2nd, 2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

How long have you been here Clete?

The power of positive thinking! ;)

Servo
February 2nd, 2004, 04:52 PM
Here is an example of an actual miracle:

Acts 3:
6Then Peter said, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." 7And he took him by the right hand and lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. 8So he, leaping up, stood and walked and entered the temple with them--walking, leaping, and praising God. 9And all the people saw him walking and praising God. 10Then they knew that it was he who sat begging alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.

Note:
and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. 8So he, leaping up, stood and walked

Freak
February 2nd, 2004, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Is this what you call evidence for a miracle?!

"The doctor told Shelton he would never walk or use his hands again." Never walk. But God healed him.


You know that the exact same sort of thing happens to nonbelievers as well right? Healing is not simply reserved for believers.


Further, whatís up with 84 freaken days! Does it matter if a healing occurs within 5 minutes, 15 minutes, or 3 months?


Can you show me an example in the Bible of a healing miracle that took almost three months! Santification--the miracle of the conforming to the likeness of Jesus Christ lasts usually longer then 3 months.


Come on Freak you say that youíve performed ďhundredsĒ of miracles! Surely you can do better than this! Yes, I have performed hundreds of miracles...I have a number of videos that document such miracles. Send me your mailing address & I'll send it off to you.

But, as I mentioned to you before, my belief in miracles is rooted not in experience but in Scripture...

We are told in Holy Scripture that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. Clete, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc???? If they do then you have to agree that the present church has these gifts which include the gift of miracles.

Clete, it appears the Holy Scriptures do not make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).

The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13). Were you aware of this????


Try again. Were there miracles on the set of THE PASSION during filming?

(A) Mel Gibson states in an interview, "There have been a lot of unusual things happening, good things like people being healed of diseases, a couple of people have had sight and hearing restored, another guy was struck by lightning while we were filming the crucifixion scene and he just got up and walked away."

http://www.passion-movie.com/english/faq3.html


P.S. Thank you for responding directly. Itís much more productive than repeating yourself! I would ask that you return the favor...by dealing with the Scriptures I have pointed out.

Homework for Clete:

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the Scriptures, as they ceased at the closing of the Canon, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question. The church is still present and there is no reason to believe He doesn't give His church gifts that include the gifts of miracles.

If Jesusí miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldnít they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Canít we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

Under the New Covenant, the superior covenant, we are taught numerous times of the reality of spiritual gifts and miracles. In fact...

At least six times in Paulís writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christís example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him

Freak
February 2nd, 2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

Here is an example of an actual miracle:

Acts 3: Yep. Here's another one:

Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

This is something I have done hundreds of times.

godrulz
February 2nd, 2004, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

Here is an example of an actual miracle:

Acts 3:
6Then Peter said, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." 7And he took him by the right hand and lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. 8So he, leaping up, stood and walked and entered the temple with them--walking, leaping, and praising God. 9And all the people saw him walking and praising God. 10Then they knew that it was he who sat begging alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.

Note:
and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. 8So he, leaping up, stood and walked

I saw Nita Edwards give her testimony and have the book "Miracle in the Mirror" (1981 Welch) by credible missionary in India, Mark Buntain (who I also met in Bible College). Her medically verifiable miracle was of this magnitude as she lay totally paralyzed in Sri Lanka. God healed her instantly after He revealed the very day, hour, and minute that she would be healed. The power of God hit her and she literally flew out of bed able to walk.The power of God hit her and she landed on her feet totally healed. This led to the conversion of many Buddhist nurses and doctors. She was paralyzed, and I definitely saw her walking. It was Jesus Christ her Savior and Lord who healed her for His glory and the advancement of His Kingdom in a dark country.

Freak
February 2nd, 2004, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

I saw Nita Edwards give her testimony and have the book "Miracle in the Mirror" (1981 Welch) by credible missionary in India, Mark Buntain (who I also met in Bible College). Her medically verifiable miracle was of this magnitude as she lay totally paralyzed in Sri Lanka. God healed her instantly after He revealed the very day, hour, and minute that she would be healed. The power of God hit her and she literally flew out of bed able to walk.The power of God hit her and she landed on her feet totally healed. This led to the conversion of many Buddhist nurses and doctors. She was paralyzed, and I definitely saw her walking. It was Jesus Christ her Savior and Lord who healed her for His glory and the advancement of His Kingdom in a dark country. That's awesome! Guess what, contrary to what Enyart teaches, this testimony of a miracle encouraged my faith. :up: