Freak challenges "The Plot" over miracles
- Thread starter 1Way
- Start date
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
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
, 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.
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
, 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
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Claims do not , an arguement , make
Claims do not , an arguement , make
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?
Claims do not , an arguement , make
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?
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
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:
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:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
?
?
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.
?
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.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Re: ?
Re: ?
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.
Re: ?
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.
Last edited:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
godrulz - You said
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.
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
+OL remote satellite affiliate
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
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!!!
and
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
New member
I'm off to Europe tommorrow but wanted to respond to 1Way's wordy nonsense.
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.
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 Jesus’ 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 couldn’t they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Can’t 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 Paul’s writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christ’s 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.
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:
Due to you.
"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.
Lie! I believe Holy Scripture and the revelation of Jesus Christ is our ultimate authority not a dictionary. Will you retract your lie?
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 Jesus’ 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 couldn’t they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Can’t 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 Paul’s writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christ’s 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.
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:
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:
Last edited:
Freak
New member
Whatever. :down:
Yes, I'm getting tired of your wordy posts that bore me. Take up the challenge or shut up.
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 Jesus’ 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 couldn’t they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Can’t 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 Paul’s writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christ’s 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
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Oh boy, freak is freaking again
Oh boy, freak is freaking again
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.
Oh boy, freak is freaking again
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.
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)?
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
New member
Re: Oh boy, freak is freaking again
Re: Oh boy, freak is freaking again
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.
Re: Oh boy, freak is freaking again
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.
I used a dictionary and Scripture. You still haven't finished your homework. I know why you haven't.
Thanks. Scripture is quite clear! I pray one day your eyes would be opened to the truth.
Surrrrreeeee....:kookoo: