Freak challenges "The Plot" over miracles

[1Way]

This is messed up. I don't know what happened, but this post is not what I want to be the first post, the second post is what I want to be as the first post.
???



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

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

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


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

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

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

[1Way]

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

:cloud9:

:1Way:

:devil:

[1Way]

This is Freaks post that started this topic so that you don't have to jump all over the place.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Freak]

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

I have responded...

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

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

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

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

[Knight]

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

Have you Freak?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Knight

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

Have you Freak?

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

[Freak]

Btw, 1Way I responded to your post here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11971

[Knight]

Originally posted by Freak

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

[Knight]

Why are there two of these threads?? :D

[Knight]

Hey Freak.. can you post your response in this thread and I will delete that duplicate thread. Thanks!

[Turbo]

:freak: Freak... nevermind. I just merged the threads.

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

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

[Knight]

:up:

[drbrumley]

He has probably read what is available online at Bob's web site. Which isn't much. But that is ok.

[Leo Volont]

Jesus said "the word is truth".

I would guess not.

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

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

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

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

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

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Jesus said "the word is truth".

I would guess not.

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Leo Volont

blah, blah, blah blah and blah

[Berean Todd]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Jesus said "the word is truth".

I would guess not.


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

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

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Berean Todd

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

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

:darwinsm:

[Freak]

Originally posted by 1Way
This should be fun, probably more so if we don't have to contend with false charges, but rather with biblical content.

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

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

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

Homework for 1Way:

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

If 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.

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

According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

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

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

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

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

:1Way:

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

[Freak]

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

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Freak

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

[Freak]

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

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

[Freak]

Originally posted by Lucky

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

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Berean Todd

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

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

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

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

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Freak

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.



According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

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

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

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

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



Paul wrote 14 books without once quoting Jesus.

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

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

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

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

[godrulz]

"The Plot" has much interesting or helpful information. It should not be the standard or 'acid test' of orthodoxy or fellowship. Some of its premises and conclusions are suspect.

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

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

[Freak]

Originally posted by godrulz

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

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

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

[Servo]

Originally posted by Freak

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

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

[Servo]

Originally posted by Freak

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

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

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

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

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

[Freak]

Originally posted by Shimei

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

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

:down:

[Servo]

Originally posted by Freak

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

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

:down:

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

[Zakath]

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

[Freak]

Originally posted by Shimei

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

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath

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

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Freak

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

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

Freak,

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

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

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

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

[Lucky]

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

[drbrumley]

Cause God answers a prayer makes it a miracle?

[Lucky]

Why pray for someone's health, if you don't think God has the power to heal them?

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

[1Way]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1Way]

Lucky - If miracles have ceased like the bible and reality teaches, then the truth about the open view is totally beside the point. If, as we say that miracles are not for today, then the thing to do would be to

- trust the truth of the matter

and if you don't fully understand it,

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

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

[drbrumley]

1Way,

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

[Lucky]

:sheep: :sheep: and more :sheep:

:chuckle:

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

[Lucky]

Originally posted by 1Way

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

The debate on miracles is something I have actually gone through many times. But with all the arguments I've read, I have not seen a good enough argument based on the Bible to prove miracles, etc. are over.
Do you have any guesses why it is that it would be a good and godly thing to not do miracles in this dispensation?
Nope. I'm sure you do.

[drbrumley]

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

[Lucky]

Originally posted by drbrumley

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

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

[1Way]

Lucky - and all - This is what I posted at the bottom of my second post, I thought it was the bottom of my first post, but somehow now it's the bottom of my second one.

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

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

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

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

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

[1Way]

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

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

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

[Jabez]

What is being debated?Miracles?

[godrulz]

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

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

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

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

[Servo]

Originally posted by Freak

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

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

Read "The Plot"!

[Freak]

Originally posted by Shimei

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

Read the Bible. Imagine that. :chuckle:

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

[Freak]

2Way, instead of babbling (and the same goes for drnonsense) deal with my earlier posts:

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

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

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

Homework for 1Way:

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

If 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.



According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

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

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

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

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

[Servo]

Originally posted by Freak

Homework for Shimei:

Read the Bible. Imagine that. :chuckle:

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

Ok Freak, lets see:


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

And

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

prudent=:1Way:

fool=:freak:

[Lucky]

Originally posted by 1Way

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


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

[Lucky]

Originally posted by 1Way

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

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

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

[Freak]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Freak,

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

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

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


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


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

According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

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

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

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

If 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.

[Freak]

Originally posted by 1Way

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

This has been 1Way's problem.

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

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

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

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

[godrulz]

Freak and 1Way are brothers in Christ (miracles are not a salvific issue). Speak the truth in love.

[Freak]

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

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

[Delmar]

Dear Freak,Dear 1Way my brothers

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

[Freak]

Originally posted by deardelmar

Dear Freak, Dear 1Way my brothers

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

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

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

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

[drbrumley]

Wrong wrong and more wrong

[Freak]

Originally posted by deardelmar

Dear Freak,Dear 1Way my brothers

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

Amen and Amen!


Originally posted by drbrumley

Wrong wrong and more wrong :rolleyes:

[drbrumley]

Another attempt at applying what someone says to where it doesn't belong,

Good job Freak:thumb:

[drbrumley]

How soon I forget, Freak is a master of the "out of context game"

[Freak]

Originally posted by drbrumley
Good job Freak:thumb: Thanks but answer my questions, that I asked earlier.

Originally posted by drbrumley

Freak,

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

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

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


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


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

According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

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

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

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

If 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.

[drbrumley]

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

[Freak]

Originally posted by drbrumley

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

[Lucky]

Originally posted by drbrumley

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

[Delmar]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Wrong wrong and more wrong

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

[Freak]

Originally posted by deardelmar

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

[1Way]

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

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

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

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

[godrulz]

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

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

[Freak]

Originally posted by 1Way

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

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

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

Earth to Mars...

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

According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

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

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

[Freak]

Originally posted by godrulz

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

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

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Freak

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

I agree.



Earth to Mars...

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

According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

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

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

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

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

[Zakath]

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

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

[Freak]

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

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Zakath

OK.

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

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

[godrulz]

The issue is probably about physical healing or creative miracles.

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

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

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

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

Be glorified O Supernatural God.

[Delmar]

Be glorified O Supernatural God.

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

[godrulz]

Originally posted by deardelmar

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

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

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Freak

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

[1Way]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1Way]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You do have an argument don't you?

[Delmar]

I must have missed the place where freak challenged your salvation. Was it in the original thread?

[1Way]

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

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

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

:1Way:

[Delmar]

I prefer to reserve the term fool for God haters and pro-aborts which would not include Freak.

[Delmar]

Oh did I leave out terrorist apologists they are FOOLS big time.

[1Way]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[godrulz]

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

[1Way]

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

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

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

This has been 1Way's problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[godrulz]

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

[Delmar]

Originally posted by 1Way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[1Way]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[1Way]

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

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

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

a claim

into a support argument,

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

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

Stupid is as stupid does.

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

[Freak]

I'm off to Europe tommorrow but wanted to respond to 1Way's wordy nonsense.

Originally posted by 1Way

This is getting out of focus. Due to you.

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

Bob has stated on this forum the following:

"Miracles foster unbelief."

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

This is clearly in error. For the following reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homework for 1Way:

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

If 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.

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

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

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

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

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

[Freak]

Originally posted by 1Way

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

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

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

1Way, start here...

Bob has stated on this forum the following:

"Miracles foster unbelief."

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

This is clearly in error. For the following reasons:

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

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

Jesus defined a miracle: Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,