Freak challenges "The Plot" over miracles

[Clete]

Originally posted by godrulz

Read the book. The doctors and hospital treated for an extended time as a paralytic (X-rays, etc. she fell down stairs and was paralyzed). The Buddhist nurses/doctor (?) witnessed her fly through the air and land able to walk. I saw her speak in person. She is not a fraud. She could walk and substantiate her miracle.

The publication of a book establishes nothing. There is book after book "documenting" one lunatic or another speaking to the dead or taking trips to hell or to heaven or whatever. And the authors of these books make their rounds speaking to large audiences of people who are all convinced that they are telling the truth. You don't suppose that any of these are actually true do you?

How many do you need for proof?

How many? Well we haven't gotten past 1 yet. Let's take it one step at a time shall we?

This is one of many published or verifiable stories.

It is published but not verifiable. Nor do I believe that you have ever come across one that is both.

I could understand an atheist being skeptical, but a lover of God and His Word? (I know you don't have the proof in front of you...your opinion does not negate this incredible event that happened in your life time).

That you believe happened. Have you ever noticed that all of the so called verified miracles never happen except in ridiculously far away or remote places? It sort of like UFO's, they only show up in the middle of nowhere. They are always just in the right spot to be sort of credible but not verifiable.
And just to reiterate. I am not skeptical of God's ability to perform miracles. I just do not believe that He is doing so now.

God was glorified in her testimony, and people were saved in India and our church where she spoke in the 80s (we also prayed for the sick with people being healed...salvation= 'wholeness' (Gk.)= physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual= the whole man, not just saved from hell).

Were people saved in response to her testimony or in response to having witnessed a miracle?
If in response to her testimony then there is no surprise.
If in response to having witnessed the miracle then I would say that this is near proof that the miracle didn’t happen. Had it actually happened, the normal response would have been for those who witnessed it to hate God.

Resting in His sufficient Grace,
Clete

 

[1Way]

Not to sidetrack current discussions but ...

Not to sidetrack current discussions but ...

Everyone knows generally why we are discussing this, but exactly what does people like Freak and Bob Enyart have in mind when they teach about biblical miracles?


Step one, establish what a miracle is, and what it is not


Everyone


From my perspective, folks have not yet established what a miracle actually is in this thread. Freak keeps giving us "an example" as though that clarifies everything, and DrBrumley gave a good definition, ,,, but ,,, so far no one has explained what it means yet, and so several very different understandings of what a miracle is are just floating around quietly enjoying (shhhhhh) their contradictory existance wondering if they will ever be found out.

Please consider what has been posted reaching up to step one, making it clear what we are all talking about, using the same terms and ideas, not conflicting ones.

:think:

DrBrumley said From the Plot
An event that supersedes natural or supernatural law

1Way said
DrBrumley - Excellent. We (few may) understand what those words imply, but I think most people do not, especially those like Freak who pretend to know what Bob teaches, but really only have a superficial understanding.

Please (everyone) help us illustrate very plainly this correct answer (or watch patiently as DrBrumley will naturally develop it) so that everyone may clearly understand what Bob is saying the bible teaches about the nature of what a miracle really is. This issue is a very important one, and helps us get into a seriously humbling and biblically conforming mindset when it comes to making claims about the things of God.

You get an A for correctness and an A+++ for the art of brevity. (chuckles) Keep up the good work.

and

1Way said
godrulz - As to

godrulz said
"An event that supersedes natural or supernatural law"? Is that our working definition from Enyart? It is reasonable to assume that there is more than one way to define miracle based on a composite of word studies and context from Scripture (dictionaries define words with different word orders, but mean the same general thing).

1Way said
From memory, perhaps 4-5 years ago, I think that definition is correct, yet it is highly underdeveloped in terms of what does that mean. And yes, there are way too many ways to define what a miracle is, that is a huge part of the problem. We need to have a more united and biblically comprehensive understanding which has been largely passed over by many and mainstream authorities/traditions. I have a sense for it, but I am not (currently) prepared to expose it without reconsidering the information involved, that is why I am currently seeking everyone elses help on this. I'm not even sure if this was best illustrated in the written Plot, or the audio tapes. Yet the meaning and demonstration of a good bible honoring search for the truth is crucial to this entire endeavor. I really hope someone will illustrate and develop what Bob says a miracle really is and what it is not, and the biblical principles that govern these findings. It really shows a deeply devotional side of Bob's ministry and thoughtfulness prior to putting his teachings on paper.

I'm thinking of my dear old favorite, the truth in context. We can be almost right in a foundational idea, and the error is just multiplied as we errantly move on under a weak foundation.

I'll see if I can do justice to this development, but it would so encouraging to see others be so understanding prior to judging against his view (Like Freak for example). I think that is why the Dr. has not yet spilled the beans, but only opened the can, shrewd the wise Dr. is.

You said

godrulz said
please clarify the last part...what does it mean to supersede a supernatural law (this seems to be a redundant statement)??

1Way said
Exactly to the point. God's ways are extremely ordered and conventional despite them being greater than our ways, they are also highly understandable at least on a fundamental basis. We say God is good and wise, not just because the bible says so, but because of His awesome ways in creation for example. We also say God is intellectual, personal, moral, social, creative, etc. etc. etc. And we say all these not just from a head knowledge of reading His word, but because He demonstrates His qualities in reality. Same sort of comprehensive discernment is involved in this sort of search for what a miracle really is. Go beyond the superficial, and get to the heart of it all.

As for me, until I locate this excellent treatment of what a miracle really is, I do not want to mess it up, I have never heard anyone put it as well as he did, and I know I would not do it justice prior to doing a formal review. This will be a great exercise. Perhaps you might be of some service yourself? I am pretty sure this teaching is in the written Plot.

This entire thread is about Bob's teachings on miracles, via The Plot or other writings or audio recorded teachings, and it was supposed to be for Freak and crew to challenge (refute) Bob's teachings. So I think it is about time we at least deal with our various understandings of what a biblical miracle really is.

I think it would be a good idea to cover this issue early on, and not wait another couple hundred posts. :darwinsm:

Quoting DrBrumley
Hope this helps!!!!!!

 

[Freak]

It may be time for a formal battle Royal Battle debate where 2 people can debate this issue without any disruptions.

That being said...the following Scriptural principles have been ignored.

Let me preface by saying my belief in miracles is rooted not in experience but in Scripture...

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

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

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

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the Scriptures, as they ceased at the closing of the Canon, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question. The church is still present and there is no reason to believe He doesn't give His church gifts that include the gifts of miracles.

If 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?


Under the New Covenant, the superior covenant, we are taught numerous times of the reality of spiritual gifts and miracles. In fact...

At least six times in 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. 1Way, 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.

 

[Zakath]

But Jay, the question on the table is how do you define the term "miracle" in the context of this discussion???

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath

But Jay, the question on the table is how do you define the term "miracle" in the context of this discussion???

From post #18...

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 along inner healing, deliverance from demons, physical healing, etc. Christ indwelling the believer, for example, is a "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs." Christ intervened in human affairs and manifested an extraordinary event--the new birth.

Jesus defined the casting out of demons as a miracle too...

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.

 

[Zakath]

1Way's accepted defintion of miracle:
"An event that supercedes (sic) natural or supernatural law"
- from post 263

Jay Bartlett's accepted definition of a miracle:
"an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs"
- from post 266

Gentlemen,

Are the two definitions close enough for you to continue the discussion???

 

[1Way]

Thank you Zakath

Thank you Zakath

Zakath, more precisely,

what is and what is not a miracle

AND what is wrong with Bob Enyart's teaching about his understanding of what a biblical miracle is.
(not that Freak even knows what he teaches beyond a superficial understanding) :doh:

 

[1Way]

They are worlds apart. And Freak's holds a wide range of variation. Bob Enyart's is very clear and biblical proven and also demonstrates a biblically honorable way to approach God's word prior to judging some biblical topic.

A broken clock is right twice a day, lets at least work on Bob's definition since no one has yet to even explain it.

 

[Zakath]

Re: Thank you Zakath

Re: Thank you Zakath

Originally posted by 1Way

Zakath, more precisely,

what is and what is not a miracle

AND what is wrong with Bob Enyart's teaching about his understanding of what a biblical miracle is.
(not that Freak even knows what he teaches beyond a superficial understanding) :doh:

Looking at both definitions, it seems that the "what is" portion is pretty clear...

If that is so, then by inference, everything else would fall into "what is not"...

I think you gents may be closer to your answer than it would appear. :think:

If you can get Jay to focus just a bit longer to clarify his thoughts on what Enyart actually teaches versus what Jay thinks he teaches... :thumb:

 

[1Way]

Thank you Zak, that is pretty accurate, and also by examing what he teaches, his God honoring meathod reminds us of how great God is, and how dependant upon Him we really should be. So there are at least two lessons to be learned on this single issue, if not more.

Not everyone knows what (sic) means, like me, what is that doing there, it was not part of the quoted text. What does that (sic) mean?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by 1Way

Not everyone knows what (sic) means, like me, what is that doing there, it was not part of the quoted text.

By way of explanation, the "sic" using lower case letters in parentheses indicates that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally.

The correct spelling is "supersede", with an "s" not a "c".

 

[Freak]

Re: Thank you Zakath

Re: Thank you Zakath

Originally posted by 1Way

Zakath, more precisely,

what is and what is not a miracle

How many times do I have to quote to you what Jesus considered a miracle:

Jesus defined the casting out of demons as a miracle too...

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.

AND what is wrong with Bob Enyart's teaching about his understanding of what a biblical miracle is.

He believes miracles have ceased with the closing of the Canon of Scripture. This miliates against Scripture truth.

(not that Freak even knows what he teaches beyond a superficial understanding)

I have provided ample Scriptural evidence to what I believe. Evidence you have ignored. :down:

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by 1Way

Thank you Zak, that is pretty accurate, and also by examing what he teaches, his God honoring meathod reminds us of how great God is, and how dependant upon Him we really should be.

Not exactly. Quite the opposite. Enyart has rejected God's revealed Word on the subject...

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

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

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

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the Scriptures, as they ceased at the closing of the Canon, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question. The church is still present and there is no reason to believe He doesn't give His church gifts that include the gifts of miracles.

If 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?


Under the New Covenant, the superior covenant, we are taught numerous times of the reality of spiritual gifts and miracles. In fact...

At least six times in 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. 1Way, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

 

[1Way]

It's not, give an example of a miracle, it's, what is and is not a biblical miracle

It's not, give an example of a miracle, it's, what is and is not a biblical miracle

Like everyone has been saying all this time, you have not even shown that you understand what Bob teaches, you judge what you do not know and we wish you would stop doing that.

It's been over 200 posts and you have yet to make a single argument against his teachings (according to his teachings, not according to your vague understanding of his teachings).

I've challenged you on this issue every since the get go, but you NEVER provide any reasonable working knowledge of his teachings, if you don't accurately understand a teaching, it is impossible to accurately oppose it. In fact, I had to post the bulk of his arguments for you, and on top of that, you STILL did not refute ANY of them, you have not even addressed them that I am aware of.

It's becoming obvious that we have to let others from your basic viewpoint stand in for you, because at least they are showing an honest attempt to deal with what he actually teaches.

 

[Freak]

Re: It's not, give an example of a miracle, it's, what is and is not a biblical miracle

Re: It's not, give an example of a miracle, it's, what is and is not a biblical miracle

Originally posted by 1Way

Like everyone has been saying all this time, you have not even shown that you understand what Bob teaches, you judge what you do not know and we wish you would stop doing that.

I have decided not to bother with your nonsense anymore. Your madness is annoying. I really believe there is something wrong with you mentally & spiritually.

It's been over 200 posts and you have yet to make a single argument against his teachings (according to his teachings, not according to your vague understanding of his teachings).

Lie. I understand Bob's view regarding miracles. In fact, you responded that I was "accurate" in grasping his view on miracles.

I've challenged you on this issue every since the get go, but you NEVER provide any reasonable working knowledge of his teachings, if you don't accurately understand a teaching, it is impossible to accurately oppose it. In fact, I had to post the bulk of his arguments for you, and on top of that, you STILL did not refute ANY of them, you have not even addressed them that I am aware of.

I have refuted all of them with Scripture--our objective standard for truth.

I'd rather deal with Clete, then with you, at least he's half-way intelligent and is capable of keeping up with the debate. All you provide us with is wordy posts with very little susbstance. :kookoo:

 

[Freak]

Anyone besides 1Way may attempt to deal with this...

Enyart has rejected God's revealed Word on the subject...

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

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

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

If the primary purpose of miracles was to authenticate the Scriptures, as they ceased at the closing of the Canon, then why did any one else have a ministry of signs and wonders or miracles? Why did God give gifts of healing and miracles to the church? (1 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 3:5). I have never read or heard of a sufficient answer to that question. The church is still present and there is no reason to believe He doesn't give His church gifts that include the gifts of miracles.

If 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?


Under the New Covenant, the superior covenant, we are taught numerous times of the reality of spiritual gifts and miracles. In fact...

At least six times in 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. 1Way, 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.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

The publication of a book establishes nothing. There is book after book "documenting" one lunatic or another speaking to the dead or taking trips to hell or to heaven or whatever. And the authors of these books make their rounds speaking to large audiences of people who are all convinced that they are telling the truth. You don't suppose that any of these are actually true do you?

GR: THERE ARE MANY SENSATIONAL, $ GRABBING BOOKS OUT THERE. THEIR CREDIBILITY BREAKS DOWN UPON EXAMINATION. THIS DOES NOT MEAN ALL BOOKS ABOUT MIRACLES ARE IN THIS CATEGORY. MARK BUNTAIN AND NITA EDWARDS ARE RESPECTED, CREDIBLE PEOPLE KNOWN IN SECULAR AND EVANGELICAL CIRCLES (due to his connection with Mother Theresa's ministry...He was an Assembly of God or PAOC missionary that does not tolerate flakes or frauds).


How many? Well we haven't gotten past 1 yet. Let's take it one step at a time shall we?

GR: YOUR WORD AGAINST MINE. I HATE DECEPTION AND AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE CLAIMS.


It is published but not verifiable. Nor do I believe that you have ever come across one that is both.

GR: IT IS VERIFIABLE IF YOU GET THE MEDICAL RECORDS IN INDIA OR PUT BUNTAIN OR EDWARDS ON A LIE DETECTOR WITH THE OTHER WITNESSES OF THE MIRACLE. WHY WOULD BUDDHISTS CONVERT ON THE SPOT AND NOT EXPOSE THE FRAUD? IT IS BECAUSE THE MIRACLE HAPPENED IN SPACE-TIME IN THE NAME OF JESUS. THEY WOULD BE GLAD TO DISPROVE IT, BUT GAVE UP FAMILY TO FOLLOW JESUS AS A RESULT OF THE POWER OF GOD THEY COULD NOT DENY.


That you believe happened. Have you ever noticed that all of the so called verified miracles never happen except in ridiculously far away or remote places? It sort of like UFO's, they only show up in the middle of nowhere. They are always just in the right spot to be sort of credible but not verifiable.
And just to reiterate. I am not skeptical of God's ability to perform miracles. I just do not believe that He is doing so now.

GR: YOUR MIND IS MADE UP SO SORRY FOR CONFUSING YOU WITH THE FACTS. I HAVE ALSO SEEN CREDIBLE AMERICANS WHO HAVE THEIR OWN TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES (go to Assembly of God churches and you will find believer's who can verify God's healing in their lives...)


Were people saved in response to her testimony or in response to having witnessed a miracle?
If in response to her testimony then there is no surprise.
If in response to having witnessed the miracle then I would say that this is near proof that the miracle didn’t happen. Had it actually happened, the normal response would have been for those who witnessed it to hate God.

GR: BOTH/AND...THE PEOPLE IN INDIA WHO WERE EYEWITNESSES WERE SAVED IN RESPONSE TO THE MIRACLE AND THE GOSPEL. GOD CAN USE HIS WORD AND AN ANOINTED TESTIMONY TO BRING PEOPLE TO HIMSELF AFTER THE FACT. THIS IS MORE THAN DECEPTION OR EMOTIONALISM. THE SPIRIT BEARS WITNESS THAT IT WAS GOD. YOU ARE BEGGING THE QUESTION. YOU ARE ASSUMING WRONGLY THAT MIRACLES DO NOT EXIST AND THAT THEY ALWAYS LEAD TO GOD-HATRED. YOUR PREMISE IS FALLACIOUS AS IS YOUR CONCLUSION. Sometimes miracles do lead to unbelief due to hard hearts, BUT OTHER TIMES (as I am sharing) THEY DO LEAD TO LIFE-CHANGING FAITH. THERE IS NOTHING IN SCRIPTURE, LOGIC, OR EXPERIENCE TO PRECLUDE THIS POSSIBILITY.

GR: Clete, YOU ARE NORMALLY RATIONAL and LOGICAL. I AM SURPRISED AT YOUR UNBELIEF, CLINGING TO A PRECONCEIVED THEOLOGY, AND logical fallacy of circular reasoning (you assume Enyart's view is correct and illogically deny evidence to the contrary rather than recognize the possibility that you must assume your premise to maintain your conclusions in the face of contrary evidence).

 

[drbrumley]

Freak,

Before I answer your homework assignment, please answer the following:

What does this scripture speak to you about?

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
4Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
13And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Your answer will be appreciated.

In Christ,
DRBrumley

 

[godrulz]

The love chapter is in the context of spiritual gifts (I Cor. 12-14). It is not about love in marriage. It is about the use and misuse of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church. It is not a diatribe against spiritual gifts for the modern church. Context will not allow you to use any verse in I Cor. 13 to argue against the reality or validity of miracles or spiritual gifts (the 'scholars' who use it as an anti-Pentecostal proof text are pathetic exegetes).

The perfect is not the closed canon of Scripture. The perfect comes at the Second Coming of Christ for His Bride, not at the end of the first century.

 

[freelight]

O ye of little faith.......

O ye of little faith.......

Regarding definitions of 'miracle' -

Zakath quotes:



1Way's accepted defintion of miracle:
"An event that supercedes (sic) natural or supernatural law"
- from post 263

Jay Bartlett's accepted definition of a miracle:
"an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs"
- from post 266



Freak writes:

From post #18...

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 along inner healing, deliverance from demons, physical healing, etc. Christ indwelling the believer, for example, is a "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs." Christ intervened in human affairs and manifested an extraordinary event--the new birth.




:crow: )=============== I think the broader more general accepted defintion of what a miracle is .... is acceptable here as Freak and godrulz understanding of miracles is much more in sync and spirit with the NT than a limiting dispensational view which denies miracles as happening in this age of grace outright. God is at work everywhere in our world and lives....in the natural dynamics of life....and supernatural....even transcendental - Gods presence and glory is in all dimensions! What folly of man to no longer have faith in Gods infinite power and the faith of Christ that abides in his soul thru the Holy Spirit - that anointed treasure that lies within these earthen vessels! What a shame....and a lack of spiritual understanding of the inheritance we have in the Anointed One...and the charismas of His Spirit which He has certainly anointed His church with to do the works of God in the earth. Hence Jesus says....'when the Son of Man returns to earth...WILL HE FIND FAITH?' (paraphrase).

Jesus teaches faith......a kind that inspires miracles and the unlimited power of God. Jesus says signs will follow those who believe. Miracles of all kinds on all levels of being, in all dimensions of experience ...transpire for those who abide in faith, in grace, in Christ.

If you choose to call yourselves believers...then it would be logical to become spiritually adjusted to the attitude of faith...which would then qualify you to 'actually' become believers of the Lord Jesus and true to his teachings....instead of 'biblically correct' patrons of a brand of theology ....while denying the power of God.

"Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them and you will have them.'


- Jesus


The majority of miracles(on all levels) happen in this NT dispensation of grace thru the dynamics of faith and the Holy Spirit.

For those who deny this....only shows their lack of trusting in the power of God...and the release of the dynamic of faith in seeing God move and act in the midst of His people. This lack of faith is sin according to one apostle. The power, glory and anointing of God rests upon the the body of His Christ....who are anointed and empowered in this day and age....to do the works of God....therefore the truth shall arrest those convicted....and by a miracle shall usher them into this holy dimension of the Spirits power.

I would rather be found to have an overabundance of faith than none or little. Jesus could not do the works of God in some regions for their faith was little. Faith is an essential part of the inspiration of miracles in many cases in this dispensation...and by it...we enter into the pleasures of God....and the dynamic that governs and sustains all creative interplays - the laws of light, energy, mind, spirit - these mediate the frequencies which govern manifestation. God can certainly do miracles apart from mans exercise of faith....however in this age...he chooses to allow man the privelege to exercise what he divinely gives them....thru cooperation and covenant rights.

Will Christ come to you or your church...and say 'O ye of little faith?'

This is why I have expounded on the element of faith relative to miracles in this thread.....as it seems to be overlooked here. Without faith....is it possible to please God? And those that limit faith should even be more careful of limiting not only God given faith...but by association and source the very power of God!


paul