Freak challenges "The Plot" over miracles

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)?

Click to expand...

: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)?

Click to expand...

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 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.

This isn't Freaks soap box this is Freak's chance 2 expose "claimed" wrong teachings!

This isn't Freaks soap box this is Freak's chance 2 expose "claimed" wrong teachings!

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)?

Click to expand...

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)?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Mission accomplished.

Freak = freak not Freak = truth

Freak = freak not Freak = truth

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.

Click to expand...

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, ,,,

Here is the title of this thread

Freak challenges "The Plot" over miracles

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

What a freak.

Here is the link to his first challenge,
click here 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 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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: :doh: :freak:

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).

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.

Click to expand...

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?)

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.

Click to expand...

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..

Click to expand...

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 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.

...about miracles except to disagree with his conclusions.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

No kidding bright eyes. :kookoo: Get off the Plot reading and get into God's Word.

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".

Click to expand...

Would Enyart's articles on TOL be consistent with his teachings in the Plot regarding this topic? :crackup:

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).

Click to expand...

:thumb: :up:

I'm outta here....heading off to Europe in the morning...:bannana:

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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)?