Freak challenges "The Plot" over miracles
- Thread starter 1Way
- Start date
I guess we differ on what applies to Israel and what applies to the church. I know there is a distinction, but I do not think Christian doctrine needs to be exised from much of the NT to support an arbitrary interpretation model that is out of sync with most credible scholarship. I think you are confusing your interpretation of the Bible with the intended revelation. Most do not see your 'straight truth' intuitively without a teacher or 'The Plot'.
I believe a case can be made for believer's baptism for all Christians in the new Church Age.
drbrumley
Well-known member
I guess so, I pray that we will one day be on the same page.
What Christian doctrine are we speaking of here? And I don'tsee how anything is getting exised. Everything is accounted for.
Please enlighten me as to what the intended revelation is.
The Plot has nothing really to do with this. But you raise a valid point here! More on this later.
In Christ,
DRBrumley
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Dear DRBrumley,
All the Jews had to do to have their sins taken away was to "repent",as the words of Peter demonstrate:
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord"(Acts3:19).
All the Jew had to do to have their sins "blotted out" was to "repent" and be "converted".Peter says nothing about having to be baptized with water for the remission of sins.In regard to Acts 3:38 the following is the correct rendering of Peter's words:
"Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"(Acts2:38).
The word "repent" is translated from the Greek word "metanoeo",and in this verse it is aorist active imperative,2nd person plural,or "all of you repent".The word "repent" means to change the mind.Peter was telling "all" the Jews to change their minds in regard to Jesus Christ and be converted so they would receive the remission of their sins.
There is a syntactical break in the words that follow from the "2nd person plural" to the "3rd person singular"--"and let each one be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ".
That change provides a parenthesis between the word "repent" and the words "and be bpatized":
"Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"(Acts2:38).
So Peter is saying,Repent for the remission of sins,and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".
The Jewish believers were not saved by "faith" plus "works".Peter himself says that he was saved by "grace" just as were the Gentile believers:
"We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved,just as they are"(Acts15:11).
If it is of "grace" then it is not of "works".Otherwise,"grace" is no longer "grace" (Ro.11:6).
In His grace,--Jerry
Jerry,
This is off topic but I can't resist!
How do you account for the book of James?
James 2 :24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
This is off topic but I can't resist!
How do you account for the book of James?
James 2 :24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
James and Romans do not contradict as Luther felt they did. Romans emphasizes the root of justification which is faith (consistent with the OT Hab. 2:4 and Rom. 1:17; 3:28). James is a practical letter that emphasizes the fruit of saving faith (works). There is only one Gospel and one way to be justified for Jew and Gentile (grace/faith). Genuine faith (internal) will result in outward works as evidence. A saving faith without works is dead and not genuine faith (it is mere mental assent or head knowledge). Most North Americans 'believe in God' (as do demons...James 2:19), yet only a minority have genuine faith/trust/love/obedience that is evidenced by good works, among other things.
James was written primarily to Jewish believers, but that does not mean it does not apply in principle to all believers or contradicts Romans and the OT.
A proper understanding of the relationship between faith (root) and works (fruit) negates the need to make an extreme dispensational distinction between the circumcision and uncircumcision (especially in the post-resurrection church age).
Romans 3 righteousness is through faith for all believers:
3:27-31 "...For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by FAITH and the uncircumcised through the SAME FAITH. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."
(read Romans 1-8 verse by verse to establish the one Gospel for Jew and Gentile)
James 2:14-26 Faith without deeds is useless (practical Christian living, not justification issues for the uncircumcision)
"Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do."
This is not setting up an antithesis between Jewish and Gentile converts. It is simply contrasting genuine faith and practical works (without contradicting the great book of Romans that applies for all men who would follow Christ...all have sinned, Jew and Gentile; all can be saved through faith in Christ, apart from works/law, but not the kind of faith that does not lead to obedience and works).
Last edited:
Freak
New member
Now I know why I don't listen to you. To the Jews Jesus Christ said these words:
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--
I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.
In light of these words, would a Jew, attain salvation through belief in Jesus?
James means precisely what he said, and so did Paul. They do not contradict each other because they are not written to the same audience. James clearly addresses his letter to "the twelve tribes" of which we are not a part and to whom the principles he taught directly apply.
Keep reading The Plot. By the end of chapter four if you still disagree we'll discuss it further.
God Bless you and yours!
Resting in His sufficient Grace,
Clete
P.S. I will endeavor to investigate Freak’s miracle and will report my findings in due time.
Freak
New member
Btw, the miracle Clete is referring to was Nathan's:
http://www.jesusbooth.com/nathan.htm
You'll be encouraged to hear of God's miracle working power and grace!
http://www.jesusbooth.com/nathan.htm
You'll be encouraged to hear of God's miracle working power and grace!
The primary audience of James was Jewish Christians. The style would communicate Christianity in a more meaningful way to them. They should also take Romans to heart as a great exposition of the one gospel. I am not ready yet to jump to the conclusion that the contents of James is limited to Jewish believers. There is neither Jew nor Gentile in the modern church, but we are one in Christ. At this point, I think it is arbitrary to make 2 classes in the new Body of Christ. There was a transition period in the early church, but to relegate much of the NT to the minority of believers today seems unlikely. I will let you know when I make more progress in my understanding of your premise.
You absolutely mustn't contact this person until after I have posted the results of my investigation Freak! How am I to know that he hasn't been coached? Not that it would really matter all that much. It's not as if I wouldn't be able to tell. But if you wish to have this source of yours retain any credibility at all then I urge you to refrain from having any contact with him until after I have had a chance to do so myself.
I'll take this opportunity to let you know that it will be a few days before I will have the chance to get started with my investigation because I'll be going out of town for the weekend. I thank you in advance for your patience.
I'll also take the opportunity to give you the chance to change your mind on this if you like. If I find that this guy is delusional or a fraud or is in some other way is a total waste of my time you will not like the result. Feel free to give me a miracle that you think is absolutely iron clad if there an ounce of doubt in your mind about this one because I will not be willing to do this twice.
Resting in His sufficient Grace,
Clete
Freak
New member
I'll contact him after you contact him, ok?
Give me a break. My powers of persuasion might alter his testimony, right?
I haven't contacted him, his testimony stands as it is.
On what the Bible says about miracles? No!
Do your investigation and get back with us. In the meantime, deal with the Scriptural foundation of our belief in miracles.
Clete, doing an investigation isn't difficult. I used to do corporate investigations for a living and was able to complete several coporate investigations daily. What's so difficult. I provided a phone number. Easy.
For the record: I don't expect much from you Clete. Even if Jesus raised from the dead before your very own eyes you would still doubt.
Some would say the church is spiritual Israel. I still maintain a difference between national Israel and the Church/Body of Christ which is composed of Jew and Gentile. Hebrews and James were directed to Jewish believers who left Judaism for Christianity. James and others used Hebraisms and references that would be more meaningful to them. We do the same thing when we relate the Gospel differently to a biker gang member vs a religious senior citizen who does not know Christ. It does not mean that we are sharing two different gospels, but communicate somewhat differently to a different target audience. The same basic message is communicated to the Gentiles, but uses idioms and illustrations that would resonate more with them (they did not have Judaism in their background). There is no need to make a huge divide in message simply because a different target audience and emphasis is given in some NT books.
Last edited:
Freak
New member
Well it appears after a few hundred responses, the anti-God does miracle camp, still refuses to deal with the Scriptural evidence for miracles. Instead, they would rather attack me personally (1Way) or talk about miracle stories (Clete) or change the topic of this thread to baptism (Dr.). :crackup: The reason is clear--they are incapable of dealing with the truth of God's objective truth--the Scriptures. :down:
I do give Clete some credit. He is investigating some miracles that occured in his hometown. It's sad however that this poster has refused to deal with the ultimate authority on this issue--the Bible. Clete, claims that physical evidence proves what God says is true. Jesus, who is God, stated, "Thy Word is truth." I believe Jesus and thereby don't need physical evidence. Jesus is the truth and speaks the truth--He says it, I believe it. Do you believe if Jesus says something is true, it's true regardless of physical evidence, Clete?
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
What physical evidence is there regarding this truth statement?
He has to answer these very important questions...
We are told miracles testify of the Lord Jesus and His salvation...
This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
Here we are told God uses miracles for His purposes, yet you desire to do away with them. Bizarre...
The apostle John penned these words..
Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name.
It was because of people seeing the miracles that people "believed in His name."
Miracles glorify God, Clete. They do not dishonor Him. So, why in the world would you teach that miracles have disappeared when we are told in Scripture that miracles bring honor & glory to God? Flawed theology you have there, Clete.
People doubted Jesus raising from the dead. People doubt the inerrancy of Scripture. People, like yourself, like to doubt the things of God. This is not unusual. Yet, in Holy Scripture we are told...
...that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. Clete, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc???? If they do then you have to agree that the present church has these gifts which include the gift of miracles.
Clete, it appears the Holy Scriptures do not make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).
The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13). Were you aware of this????
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?
I do give Clete some credit. He is investigating some miracles that occured in his hometown. It's sad however that this poster has refused to deal with the ultimate authority on this issue--the Bible. Clete, claims that physical evidence proves what God says is true. Jesus, who is God, stated, "Thy Word is truth." I believe Jesus and thereby don't need physical evidence. Jesus is the truth and speaks the truth--He says it, I believe it. Do you believe if Jesus says something is true, it's true regardless of physical evidence, Clete?
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
What physical evidence is there regarding this truth statement?
He has to answer these very important questions...
We are told miracles testify of the Lord Jesus and His salvation...
This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
Here we are told God uses miracles for His purposes, yet you desire to do away with them. Bizarre...
The apostle John penned these words..
Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name.
It was because of people seeing the miracles that people "believed in His name."
Miracles glorify God, Clete. They do not dishonor Him. So, why in the world would you teach that miracles have disappeared when we are told in Scripture that miracles bring honor & glory to God? Flawed theology you have there, Clete.
People doubted Jesus raising from the dead. People doubt the inerrancy of Scripture. People, like yourself, like to doubt the things of God. This is not unusual. Yet, in Holy Scripture we are told...
...that spiritual gifts are given to serve the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:26), to equip people to share the gospel (Matthew 10:19,20; Luke 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13), and to show God's compassion and concern for His people (examples: Matthew 14:13-14; 20:29-34; Mark 1:40-42). Surely these needs still exist. Clete, you do believe these needs still exist--healing, deliverance, etc???? If they do then you have to agree that the present church has these gifts which include the gift of miracles.
Clete, it appears the Holy Scriptures do not make any distinction between what we call the "supernatural" gifts and the other "less" supernatural gifts (Note that they appear mixed together in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). You are seperating some gifts (i.e. gifts of miracles) from the others when the Biblical warrant isn't there. If we are going to deny the operation of "supernatural" gifts in this day, then it seems logical to deny all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in these passages (not just some).
The "supernatural" gifts were not just the possession of the apostles in the Bible. Other non-apostles also were given supernatural gifts by the Spirit. (Take for example Luke 9:49-50 or Philip's use of the gifts in Acts 8:6,7,13). Were you aware of this????
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?