Freak challenges "The Plot" over miracles
- Thread starter 1Way
- Start date
Miracles may have tapered off, but church history records pockets of the miraculous throughout the centuries. We also have Constantine and a progression to the Dark Ages including the decline of Christianity in general. God poured out His Spirit and the gates of hell did not prevail against the church. The history of revivals show that God has always had a remnant (contrary to JW/Mormon belief in the need for a modern resortation of the Gospel). The Reformation, printing press and Bible, Wesleys, Azusa Street (Pentecostal revival in the 1900s), etc. show that God is active in preserving His truth and raising up warriors. Smith Wigglesworth, David DuPlessis (Mr. Pentecost'), Reinhard Bonnke, etc. see and saw the power of God manifest through their ministries. Exegetically and experientially, there is no reason to conclude that the supernatural God no longer does supernatural things due to an arbitrary view of dispensationalism or the tendency for miracles to produce unbelief.
Even the Anglican C.S. Lewis argued for the rationality of miracles in 'Mere Christianity' and other books. Apart from a multitudinous amount of anecdotal stories, Scripture reveals a God who does the supernatural as part of His love, goodness, power, plan, and nature.
If miracles seem to wax and wane or you do not experience them, it is due to unbelief and rationalism, not God deciding to be a naturalistic God. Hundreds of millions of Pentecostal-charismatics know and experience the gifts of the Spirit and miracles. Jesus did do miracles as part of destroying the works of the devil and evil from sin. There were towns were He could not or would not do them due to their unbelief. This was not God's unwillingness, but man's rejection of Truth.
Which camp are you in? The naysayers who compartmentalize Scripture with a questionable hermeneutic, or those who want to experience all that God has for His people and a sin and Satan oppressed world.
The Society for Pentecostal Studies is a scholarly body who have a wealth of credible information to support a Pentecostal hermeneutic.
Even the Anglican C.S. Lewis argued for the rationality of miracles in 'Mere Christianity' and other books. Apart from a multitudinous amount of anecdotal stories, Scripture reveals a God who does the supernatural as part of His love, goodness, power, plan, and nature.
If miracles seem to wax and wane or you do not experience them, it is due to unbelief and rationalism, not God deciding to be a naturalistic God. Hundreds of millions of Pentecostal-charismatics know and experience the gifts of the Spirit and miracles. Jesus did do miracles as part of destroying the works of the devil and evil from sin. There were towns were He could not or would not do them due to their unbelief. This was not God's unwillingness, but man's rejection of Truth.
Which camp are you in? The naysayers who compartmentalize Scripture with a questionable hermeneutic, or those who want to experience all that God has for His people and a sin and Satan oppressed world.
The Society for Pentecostal Studies is a scholarly body who have a wealth of credible information to support a Pentecostal hermeneutic.
Last edited:
Freak
New member
Miracles still occur.
Q. Were there miracles on the set of THE PASSION during filming?
(A) Mel Gibson states in an interview, "There have been a lot of unusual things happening, good things like people being healed of diseases, a couple of people have had sight and hearing restored, another guy was struck by lightning while we were filming the crucifixion scene and he just got up and walked away."
http://www.passion-movie.com/english/faq3.html
Q. Were there miracles on the set of THE PASSION during filming?
(A) Mel Gibson states in an interview, "There have been a lot of unusual things happening, good things like people being healed of diseases, a couple of people have had sight and hearing restored, another guy was struck by lightning while we were filming the crucifixion scene and he just got up and walked away."
http://www.passion-movie.com/english/faq3.html
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Maybe they are waiting for a miraculous refutation to appear on it's own!
Maybe they are waiting for a miraculous refutation to appear on it's own!
In the midst of personal opinions and third party claims, The bible’s teachings about miracles tending to not foster faith remain untouched, even now ignored. Try this idea out and see if you wont find it a blessing. Respect and conform to, not ignore and sometimes go against, God’s word, ALL of it, even the bible’s teachings that Bob points out to support his views that tend to refute yours.
[size=4.5]3rd time running, second repost. When will they stop running! :darwinsm: Remember, this was supposed to be Freak demonstrating what is wrong with Bob’s teachings about miracles, yet to date he has not presented one single counterpoint, just counter claims and disagreements.[/size]
Maybe they are waiting for a miraculous refutation to appear on it's own!
In the midst of personal opinions and third party claims, The bible’s teachings about miracles tending to not foster faith remain untouched, even now ignored. Try this idea out and see if you wont find it a blessing. Respect and conform to, not ignore and sometimes go against, God’s word, ALL of it, even the bible’s teachings that Bob points out to support his views that tend to refute yours.
[size=4.5]3rd time running, second repost. When will they stop running! :darwinsm: Remember, this was supposed to be Freak demonstrating what is wrong with Bob’s teachings about miracles, yet to date he has not presented one single counterpoint, just counter claims and disagreements.[/size]
Perhaps Enyart's most impressive argument is demonstrated by listing every miracle in the bible along with the effect that it had on people if discernable. That made for a huge collection, but the point of all that is remarkably simple, miracles do not tend to foster faith. It was a landslide, even with the most outragious and awesome miracles, the overwhelming response was more unbelief.
Bob also deals with the issue of what faith really is. And this point is also remarkably simple. Unlike some issues, faith has an exceptionally clear and quite comprehensive definition. Consider that faith is
- Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Now, imagine yourself doing something that you experience everyday, like geting in your car and driving to work, or opening up your mouth and eating your dinner, or sitting at your computer and dealing with the endless supply of godly issues from God's word at TOL. Now, during your experience, I mean right in the middle of you experiencing ,,, whatever, like lets say you are driving to work, and you are thinking about what I am saying right now, and you consider your car and the street below and that your mind is cognizant of what is going on, but guess what, none of this is a matter of faith! None, not at all, right?
But why? Because faith requires an element of something hoped for, not something you are seeing and experiencing. Do you have "faith" that your car is on the road and the road is on the ground and your tires are attached to your drivetrain and suspension? No, you consider these things as a matter of fact, not a matter of faith. Same with miracles, it takes exactly zero amount of faith to accurately experience a miracle. The fact of a miracle may be accurately known and reported from unbelieving cities and towns as the bible teaches! So attributing a miracle to God takes whatever observation skills that is common to man, primarily eyes and ears etc. it's not a matter of the heart. (Remember, we are talking about a genuine biblical miracle, not some well intended report that aunt Julie was blessed with a miracle when her tests came back negative.)
The message of a miracle. Miracles mostly do not say anything, they mostly just validate the messenger or peson or people of God, although often the miracle is used in conjunction with whatever dealings God is having with man and thus they may carry profound and clear implications. Now if miracles always taught a lesson on their own, then we might be able to expect faith being excercised in conforming our faith to that message. But, overall, the communication of a miracle is to say something on the order of, Moses is on God's side, and when God makes the most undeniable miracles, such factual knowledge pretty much eliminates exercizing faith, instead, it's obviously an excercise in eyesight and hearing and memory recall, etc.
What I think people who are saved today think is that it would be awesome to experience God's miracles, boy wouldn't that energize the body of Christ right out of their comfort zone and get people on fire for Christ!
I can relate to that desire, even today, I don't think I'll ever loose my fascination for the things of God and how awesome His mighty works can be. But that does not overturn the nature of miracles and faith as already mentioned. And frankly, the faith people would say would be amplified, would not be about the miracles, it would be about the God who does them, the being who remains not seen and who remains hoped for.
Lastly, but not least, God Himself teaches that even raising people from the dead will not cause faith in God. Faith in God is a much deeper and more personally relational issue which involves trust and respect and hope etc. Trust Jesus, don't go against Him.
Other than listing every single miracle and the results as testified in scripture, and giving Enyart's defintion of what a miracle actually is, I guess I've presented my understanding of the main arguements for why Bob Enyart concludes that as a general rule, miracles do not foster faith in God.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Is "anecdotal stories" a bible honoring argument? hmmm
Is "anecdotal stories" a bible honoring argument? hmmm
Godrulz
1Way = A bible derived hermeneutic
manrulz = a Pentecostal hermeneutic
You said
(1) Church history is the location of the purest and total collection of false Christian doctrine in the universe. But then you have God's word with no such problems. So where should we be focusing on for righteous teaching, God or man? But wait, godrulz rests the direction and support for his faith in the church in one breath, and the next he ...
(2) says that it demonstrates that the history of man is unstable and should not be trusted. :radar: You'd think that he would run to God's word and not look back, but instead, ,,, well, look for yourself.
(3) He uplifts the church. God's word is somehow missing as the source of eternal truth and matters for faith and living. But perhaps he will focus back on God again in his next thoughts.
(4) Manmade history, oh. But I thought he had been arguing against the error of resting too much upon man's thinking, so we should focus back on God, but so far every argument he makes rests upon the word of man instead.
(5) More manmade history and consensus, leaning on what seems right in the eyes of men.
(6) Oh boy, he used the term exegetics, what a relief, I thought he was never even make a single bible argument/teaching. Notice also that godrulz evidentially confuses the supernatural with the miraculous. At least he said the word, exegetically though. :thumb:
(7) So godrulz is reviewing The Plot with from a supposed objective non-biased perspective, so of course the view is arbitrary and the fact that miracles tend to produce unbelief is somehow beside the point. We argued that Jesus teaches that it is a wicked generation who seeks a sign and that EVEN if a man be raised from the dead, they would NOT believe. Jesus was undermining His entire ministry, which was more miraculous than anything ever, i.e. Jesus was saying, hello, wake up out there, I am going to raise myself from the dead and even after I do that, watch the response of the people, they will not believe. But the Freaks and those who focus on man avoid such bible teachings from our Lord and Savior, after all they have the truth of the matter established by God's people and the history that some men choose to honor over other views over the same time periods.
(8) Perhaps, but CS Lewis's view of God's so called miraculous intervention was no such thing. For Lewis, God never changes in any way what so ever, such that prayers or petitions for God to intervene are futile because everything is set into one unchangeable foreknown outcome, whatever happens is absolutely what must happen, God is not even effected by love. So if he supports miracles, it's only of a fake nothing will change preprogrammed way. But what do you expect when you lean on man for your understanding instead of God?
(9) Translated, God's word on this issue may be dismissed as being anecdotal and thus of little use. But wait, here's an allusion to God's word, that anecdotally inferior book that the church seems so fond of for some reason. Does God do anything that is not as part of His love, goodness, power, plan, and nature? No? So this argument is not even a helpful claim. And again, the supernatural is not the topic. So godrulz remains consistent on one thing, a tremendous near sighted focus on man instead of God's word.
Would someone please tell me why I went to this much trouble to respond? What point counterpoint bible teaching was promoted or refuted or accurately responded against? Also, does anyone remotely see my attempt at modeling point counter-point arguments? Not that I have any bible arguments to counter, just pointing out a nonstop focus off of God and upon the lush gardens of false doctrine.
Is "anecdotal stories" a bible honoring argument? hmmm
Godrulz
1Way = A bible derived hermeneutic
manrulz = a Pentecostal hermeneutic
You said
(1) Church history is the location of the purest and total collection of false Christian doctrine in the universe. But then you have God's word with no such problems. So where should we be focusing on for righteous teaching, God or man? But wait, godrulz rests the direction and support for his faith in the church in one breath, and the next he ...
(2) says that it demonstrates that the history of man is unstable and should not be trusted. :radar: You'd think that he would run to God's word and not look back, but instead, ,,, well, look for yourself.
(3) He uplifts the church. God's word is somehow missing as the source of eternal truth and matters for faith and living. But perhaps he will focus back on God again in his next thoughts.
(4) Manmade history, oh. But I thought he had been arguing against the error of resting too much upon man's thinking, so we should focus back on God, but so far every argument he makes rests upon the word of man instead.
(5) More manmade history and consensus, leaning on what seems right in the eyes of men.
(6) Oh boy, he used the term exegetics, what a relief, I thought he was never even make a single bible argument/teaching. Notice also that godrulz evidentially confuses the supernatural with the miraculous. At least he said the word, exegetically though. :thumb:
(7) So godrulz is reviewing The Plot with from a supposed objective non-biased perspective, so of course the view is arbitrary and the fact that miracles tend to produce unbelief is somehow beside the point. We argued that Jesus teaches that it is a wicked generation who seeks a sign and that EVEN if a man be raised from the dead, they would NOT believe. Jesus was undermining His entire ministry, which was more miraculous than anything ever, i.e. Jesus was saying, hello, wake up out there, I am going to raise myself from the dead and even after I do that, watch the response of the people, they will not believe. But the Freaks and those who focus on man avoid such bible teachings from our Lord and Savior, after all they have the truth of the matter established by God's people and the history that some men choose to honor over other views over the same time periods.
(8) Perhaps, but CS Lewis's view of God's so called miraculous intervention was no such thing. For Lewis, God never changes in any way what so ever, such that prayers or petitions for God to intervene are futile because everything is set into one unchangeable foreknown outcome, whatever happens is absolutely what must happen, God is not even effected by love. So if he supports miracles, it's only of a fake nothing will change preprogrammed way. But what do you expect when you lean on man for your understanding instead of God?
(9) Translated, God's word on this issue may be dismissed as being anecdotal and thus of little use. But wait, here's an allusion to God's word, that anecdotally inferior book that the church seems so fond of for some reason. Does God do anything that is not as part of His love, goodness, power, plan, and nature? No? So this argument is not even a helpful claim. And again, the supernatural is not the topic. So godrulz remains consistent on one thing, a tremendous near sighted focus on man instead of God's word.
Would someone please tell me why I went to this much trouble to respond? What point counterpoint bible teaching was promoted or refuted or accurately responded against? Also, does anyone remotely see my attempt at modeling point counter-point arguments? Not that I have any bible arguments to counter, just pointing out a nonstop focus off of God and upon the lush gardens of false doctrine.
Last edited:
A Pentecostal hermeneutic is a biblical hermeneutic. Church history is not all pagan, but HIS STORY. The book of Acts and the Gospels are open-ended with God continuing the ministry of Jesus through the Church by the Holy Spirit.
The church is flawed, but still the chosen vehicle to express Christ in the world. It is the family and army of God, warts and all.
My beliefs are primarily rooted in the authority of Scripture. It is self-evident that the works of Christ did not cease, but were continued by the Holy Spirit through His people in the Church Age.
We must not put experience above the Word (some Pentecostals have), yet we should not rationalize away the Word due to our lack of personal experience with the reality of God's power in our midst.
I do not want to be part of a church that is all head and no heart, having a form of godliness, but denying His power. Legalistic, self-righteous churches fill the land and breed similar believers. We need Truth and Spirit. They are not mutually exclusive.
The church is flawed, but still the chosen vehicle to express Christ in the world. It is the family and army of God, warts and all.
My beliefs are primarily rooted in the authority of Scripture. It is self-evident that the works of Christ did not cease, but were continued by the Holy Spirit through His people in the Church Age.
We must not put experience above the Word (some Pentecostals have), yet we should not rationalize away the Word due to our lack of personal experience with the reality of God's power in our midst.
I do not want to be part of a church that is all head and no heart, having a form of godliness, but denying His power. Legalistic, self-righteous churches fill the land and breed similar believers. We need Truth and Spirit. They are not mutually exclusive.
Freak
New member
1Way is Delusional
1Way is Delusional
Perhaps Shimei would be better equipped to handle this subject then Wrongway, who has consistently shown himself, as one who would rather trust anything but the Scriptural teaching, in regards to the subject of miracles.
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.
Despite this, 1Way's hero has stated:
"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:
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.
1Way is Delusional
Perhaps Shimei would be better equipped to handle this subject then Wrongway, who has consistently shown himself, as one who would rather trust anything but the Scriptural teaching, in regards to the subject of miracles.
Perhaps this time around, the spinless 1Way will deal with the truth of Scripture or perhaps Shimei will attempt to answer my concerns...
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.
Despite this, 1Way's hero has stated:
"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:
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.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
I'm gonna wig out here, so stand clear
Freak, you quoted and addressed some things I said, that much is true, but the part you quoted, was my greeting you moron you, it held NOTHING of arguments for supporting what Bob taught about miracles. Again, until you do what you said you would do, I am not interesting in dodging the entire reason for the thread which was your unsolicited claim that Bob teaches wrongly about miracles. We are going to stick to that task until you either refute his teachings or admit that you were blowing everyone a big fat false statement.
Freak, if you are still currently demon possessed, get yourself out of yourself so that you can actually deal with the very thing YOU said you would do.
Here, let me turn up the volume so that the Freak inside you might be able to hear it this time.
IF YOU THINK YOU CAN SHOW THAT WHAT BOB ENART TEACHES ABOUT MIRACLES IS WRONG, THEN STOP WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME AND DO IT ALREADY.
(Paint by numbers directions for the obfuscationally enslaved)
COPY AND PASTE THE PORTIONS OF MY POST THAT REPRESENT MY EFFORTS AT REPRESENTING WHAT HE TAUGHT. THEN, IN A POINT BY POINT COUNTER POINT FASHION, REFUTE HIS TEACHINGS, DEMONSTRATE THE ERROR OF THEM, THEY ARE RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU ALREADY. FREAK!
And no, you can not do it any other way, or is copy and paste and point counter point just too hard for you to do? If you don't do that much, we all know that you will re-word and re-spin what Bob says, so copy, paste, and make counter points towards refutation.
THIS IS YOUR THREAD, TO REFUTE BOB'S TEACHINGS ON MIRACLES, DO IT, GO ON, ACTUALLY DO IT.
Freak, you quoted and addressed some things I said, that much is true, but the part you quoted, was my greeting you moron you, it held NOTHING of arguments for supporting what Bob taught about miracles. Again, until you do what you said you would do, I am not interesting in dodging the entire reason for the thread which was your unsolicited claim that Bob teaches wrongly about miracles. We are going to stick to that task until you either refute his teachings or admit that you were blowing everyone a big fat false statement.
Freak, if you are still currently demon possessed, get yourself out of yourself so that you can actually deal with the very thing YOU said you would do.
Here, let me turn up the volume so that the Freak inside you might be able to hear it this time.
IF YOU THINK YOU CAN SHOW THAT WHAT BOB ENART TEACHES ABOUT MIRACLES IS WRONG, THEN STOP WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME AND DO IT ALREADY.
(Paint by numbers directions for the obfuscationally enslaved)
COPY AND PASTE THE PORTIONS OF MY POST THAT REPRESENT MY EFFORTS AT REPRESENTING WHAT HE TAUGHT. THEN, IN A POINT BY POINT COUNTER POINT FASHION, REFUTE HIS TEACHINGS, DEMONSTRATE THE ERROR OF THEM, THEY ARE RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU ALREADY. FREAK!
And no, you can not do it any other way, or is copy and paste and point counter point just too hard for you to do? If you don't do that much, we all know that you will re-word and re-spin what Bob says, so copy, paste, and make counter points towards refutation.
THIS IS YOUR THREAD, TO REFUTE BOB'S TEACHINGS ON MIRACLES, DO IT, GO ON, ACTUALLY DO IT.
Freak
New member
Bob has stated, "Miracles fosters unbelief." I have proven that is not the case. I fully understand you're mentally and spiritually challegened but come on...
They accused Jesus of the exact same thing, of being demonized. You have actually placed yourself within the enemy's camp.
I already have. Now deal with my points or else admit you're unable too fraud. :down:
Since when is not agreeing with Enyart's view of miracles a sign of demon possession?
I wonder if miracles sometimes foster unbelief (Enyart correct) and sometimes foster faith (Freak correct)? Even if Enyart's premise is correct, it does not have to negate the validity of miracles, but confirms that man's heart is hard.
I am not sure either side has presented a definitive answer to this thread.
1WAY: Is there any way I can hold to most of "The Plot" and still believe or conclude that the charismata are valid for today and that the 'uncircumcision' are not unconditionally eternally secure (OSAS)? These are the 2 points of his list of doctrines that I disagree with (I believe gifts are for today and believers can turn apostate). If his interpretation system makes it impossible to believe differently on these 2 points, then I would find the fault with the system and his conclusions rather than the Word properly interpreted.
You say you do not quote "The Plot", but only believe the Bible. It is apparent to us that "The Plot" is the filter or theological glasses that you screen interpretation through. Most people would not come up with the arbitrary, rigid system independently (though much of it is reasonable).
Apart from 'miracles', is divine healing available today? A.B. Simpson (Alliance), Baptists, Catholics, etc. (non-charismatic/Pentecostal groups) believe in divine healing even though on paper they reject other spiritual gifts like tongues. Does your church pray for the sick or was James only for the Jewish believers (elders anoint with oil and pray)? If the principle of James does not apply, then you effectively take scissors to the NT and make God's Word void for us on hundreds of passages (my gut says this is wrong; I would rather reject this conclusion from Enyart- circ. vs uncirc. relevance- than water down the Word of God).
These are sincere questions to help me understand your viewpoint lest I misunderstand it and reject a 'straw man'. Your insights are appreciated.
I wonder if miracles sometimes foster unbelief (Enyart correct) and sometimes foster faith (Freak correct)? Even if Enyart's premise is correct, it does not have to negate the validity of miracles, but confirms that man's heart is hard.
I am not sure either side has presented a definitive answer to this thread.
1WAY: Is there any way I can hold to most of "The Plot" and still believe or conclude that the charismata are valid for today and that the 'uncircumcision' are not unconditionally eternally secure (OSAS)? These are the 2 points of his list of doctrines that I disagree with (I believe gifts are for today and believers can turn apostate). If his interpretation system makes it impossible to believe differently on these 2 points, then I would find the fault with the system and his conclusions rather than the Word properly interpreted.
You say you do not quote "The Plot", but only believe the Bible. It is apparent to us that "The Plot" is the filter or theological glasses that you screen interpretation through. Most people would not come up with the arbitrary, rigid system independently (though much of it is reasonable).
Apart from 'miracles', is divine healing available today? A.B. Simpson (Alliance), Baptists, Catholics, etc. (non-charismatic/Pentecostal groups) believe in divine healing even though on paper they reject other spiritual gifts like tongues. Does your church pray for the sick or was James only for the Jewish believers (elders anoint with oil and pray)? If the principle of James does not apply, then you effectively take scissors to the NT and make God's Word void for us on hundreds of passages (my gut says this is wrong; I would rather reject this conclusion from Enyart- circ. vs uncirc. relevance- than water down the Word of God).
These are sincere questions to help me understand your viewpoint lest I misunderstand it and reject a 'straw man'. Your insights are appreciated.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
(New improved less problematic version, note changes via italics, I am sorry for being too harsh in name calling.)
manrulz - You said
I am wanting Freak to simply do what he said he WOULD in fact do, and that was to challenge/dismiss/argue against and thus because their positions were basically in direct opposition, refute Bob's teachings. The ONLY point he has accurately reflected about Bob's teaching is A CLAIM, not any arguments, just one claim, that miracles tend not to produce faith. A claim is not a supporting argument, a disagreement with a claim is not a refutation. This is basic IM NOT A MORON 101!
As to
Translated, stop believing man's lies and error about this and any other issue, start dealing upright like a bible believing man of God by conforming your faith to His word instead of what seems right in the eyes of man.
You humbly said
You said
The Plot boiled down to just one lesson.
First understand the whole bible, plot and plot twists so that the more narrow and smaller teachings will all fit into place naturally. Don't violate any part of the context.
The Plot boiled down to just 2 practical applications.
Israel and the body of Christ are two very different groups of believers representing different dispensations and different covenants and even different gospels.
God does not know the future exhaustively, thus classical Augustinian (individual) predestination is all wrong, God predestine Christ and what He would accomplish with whosoever would believe.
Now, that endorsed by me, that is my evaluation of the most significant teachings and practical results of what the Plot teaches. As to your issue with miracles, the problem is almost a non-issue except that false teaching is always damaging to some extent, because miracles are not happening today, so we're right and people who say they are happening are deluded and demonstrate poor judgment, but fortunately, many people intuitively understand the difference between a biblical miracle and the hokey stuff that people come up with for the last nearly 2,000 years. Miracles require absolutely no amount of faith to believe and accurately report them. See God's word for more.
But to mix law and grace, circumcision with uncircumcision, Jew and Gentile, keeping the law and not keeping the law, OSAS and a conditional salvation, is a rather grand concession against the Plot.
No offense godrulz, but, you have not just occasionally demonstrated your problems with dealing uprightly with the truth of a matter, you have shown an unyielding ability to miss or neglect the truth, in order to protect your own presuppositions. And sometimes you do so in an amazingly obvious sense. So, I don't think that you have a good grasp of what Bob is teaching, and in many ways, you have a poor understanding. So I would not concern yourself with what seems right in your own eyes, first deal with the truth of the matter that you seem unwilling to deal with. Just like in this post, God teaches without ambiguity that you and Freak and the miracles are for today crowd are wrong when they suggest that they tend to foster/generate (new) faith. God's word on that score is that they won't believe, miracles are not an issue of faith, they are an issue of being conscious.
You said
(Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrsss manrulz!) (Everyone, give manrulz a warm welcome!)
And then next you demonstrate you in a snapshot, this is absolutely perfect(ly you). You said
(2) Wrong, the Plot teaches the bible, the bible is true, my understanding of the bible is absolutely based upon it's teachings. The bible is even where I get my interpretational methods, I've demonstrated this constantly, and you've falsely charged against this so we disagree.
(3) But this is perfectly you. You think your right becuase, it goes against what most men think. You are (omitted) never learning just how deeply your heart is entrenched in this false notion of trusting in men instead of in God. I have never met anyone in all these years who claims to be a christian and follows after man's thinking as much as you display. Perhaps others do it way more than you do, but your honesty and desire for godly humility betrays the truth of the matter on a purely constant basis. You deserve (the judgment against you) for trusting in man instead of God. You have a hard heart (omitted). Jesus can say right to your face, THEY WILL NOT BELIEVE, FAITH IS ABOUT THINGS NOT SEEN, THINGS HOPED FOR, MIRACLES ELIMINATE THE USE OF FAITH ALL TOGETHER. And your response would be, but most people say that faith tends to foster miracles, cant it be that they are both true in different ways? I think I know better than God, because after all, man agrees with me.
I'll stop now,,, and let you soak in your manmade mess, and frankly, I (am upset with you, I care about you, this is a serious problem), I am sick and tierd of you saying, thanks for helping me stand corrected on these important issues, only to watch you repeat the same mistakes over and over again and then seeking my response or acceptance. It's too much like a circular event, and I don't like getting dizzy.
(Please) sit down, come to grips with this unrelenting self determined focus on man, pray to God to help YOU with your unbelief, until you are rid of THAT, you will continue to be plagued. Exhault in your weeknesses that Christ might have His way, you are wrong and He is right, men are not trustworthy compaired to Him. Love and obey and worship Him, not man.
Thanks for saying the words of that you appreciate my insights, but compared to everything you have resonded to, those are some fairly empty words, your life contradicts those words and I care about your life and the truth of the matter. I appreciate you, that is why I show my love without dissimilation, you have a serious problem, by the leading of the HS and the teaching of God, you can become set free. Until then, you are trapped in error and confussion while the key is in your hand. (omitted) Set yourself free, you know the truth, all you have to do, is accept it, the key is completely "useless" until you "use" it.
manrulz - You said
The level of willful ignorance that is required to make this statement, if you are being serious, is staggering. It's not because he disagrees with anyone that I "blew a flewy" trying to get Freak to actually respond, it's because he is not actually responding as he said he would in the first place.
I am wanting Freak to simply do what he said he WOULD in fact do, and that was to challenge/dismiss/argue against and thus because their positions were basically in direct opposition, refute Bob's teachings. The ONLY point he has accurately reflected about Bob's teaching is A CLAIM, not any arguments, just one claim, that miracles tend not to produce faith. A claim is not a supporting argument, a disagreement with a claim is not a refutation. This is basic IM NOT A MORON 101!
As to
First part not so good, last part mostly good. Enyart does not negate the validity of miracles comma, but confirms that man's heart is hard is an exceedingly accurate statement. Now lets top that tid bit of truth with at least two others. Jesus flat out taught that miracles are not a faith producing element, He said that a wicked generation seeks a sign and that even raising the dead will not cause belief, like what, Jesus had not given them a zillion enough signs already, including raising people from the dead? And secondly, God teaches that faith is the substance of thins hoped for, and things not seen. An undeniable miracle automatically eliminates the generation of any new faith because it takes exactly zero amount to receive it. In the case of the thousands of people who wanted to see Jesus, He practically judged them all that really, the just all wanted to be fed to their filling from a magical mysterious amount of food that would barely feed Jesus and His crew! Jesus speaks contemptuously about it when people wanna see a miracle, that is His unambiguous message. So yes, man generally has a hard rebellious heart, and more importantly, God knows that miracles don't generate new faith because considering the truth of the fact of the matter, it is great wickedness to seek a sign after all God has and at that time, would end up doing. Secondly, the use of spiritual and godly faith is eliminated when you take all it's qualities away, things hoped for and things not seen (experienced).
Translated, stop believing man's lies and error about this and any other issue, start dealing upright like a bible believing man of God by conforming your faith to His word instead of what seems right in the eyes of man.
Right, Jesus is a tough thinker and not very persuasive, His messages are often said to be clouded with an unreasonable amount of confusion and otherwise dubious thinking. Ok, that was over the top, but you are absolutely NOT dealing with the bible's teaching about faith and miracles by saying that.
You humbly said
In an exceedingly twisted way, sure. Nothing in The Plot requires full consent to it's teachings just God's teachings. I absolutely am not a Plotist, nor an Enyartian, etc. I agree with Bob and practically everything I've ever heard from the guy, with at least one exception, where I was able to get him to thank me for helping him not go too far with one particular teaching about God changing and Jesus Christ becoming righteous after taking on the sins of the world. Bob demonstrates great humility and a ready eagerness to stand corrected if need be, and I was greatly honored to have effectively reversed one of his conclusions, yet that only slightly effected his overall teaching, so, I'm no biblical slouch myself! Cool hu? If you want to see my disagreement, it's over in the BEL forum, perhaps the only thread (or 2 or 3) that I started, it's easy to find, something like, did Jesus really change when declared righteous. Bob agreed that he went too far. Excellent deal!
You said
You mean you can loose your salvation in this dispensation, we OSAS believe people can turn apostate, even have NO faith in God and still be saved. Well, just so you know, from my understanding of the Plot, if you don't accept the differences between this dispensation and the rest, i.e. the different house rules including different gospel requirements, then you are chucking one of the two most fundamental or broad teachings in the book. I list his main teachings as follows.
The Plot boiled down to just one lesson.
First understand the whole bible, plot and plot twists so that the more narrow and smaller teachings will all fit into place naturally. Don't violate any part of the context.
The Plot boiled down to just 2 practical applications.
Israel and the body of Christ are two very different groups of believers representing different dispensations and different covenants and even different gospels.
God does not know the future exhaustively, thus classical Augustinian (individual) predestination is all wrong, God predestine Christ and what He would accomplish with whosoever would believe.
Now, that endorsed by me, that is my evaluation of the most significant teachings and practical results of what the Plot teaches. As to your issue with miracles, the problem is almost a non-issue except that false teaching is always damaging to some extent, because miracles are not happening today, so we're right and people who say they are happening are deluded and demonstrate poor judgment, but fortunately, many people intuitively understand the difference between a biblical miracle and the hokey stuff that people come up with for the last nearly 2,000 years. Miracles require absolutely no amount of faith to believe and accurately report them. See God's word for more.
But to mix law and grace, circumcision with uncircumcision, Jew and Gentile, keeping the law and not keeping the law, OSAS and a conditional salvation, is a rather grand concession against the Plot.
No offense godrulz, but, you have not just occasionally demonstrated your problems with dealing uprightly with the truth of a matter, you have shown an unyielding ability to miss or neglect the truth, in order to protect your own presuppositions. And sometimes you do so in an amazingly obvious sense. So, I don't think that you have a good grasp of what Bob is teaching, and in many ways, you have a poor understanding. So I would not concern yourself with what seems right in your own eyes, first deal with the truth of the matter that you seem unwilling to deal with. Just like in this post, God teaches without ambiguity that you and Freak and the miracles are for today crowd are wrong when they suggest that they tend to foster/generate (new) faith. God's word on that score is that they won't believe, miracles are not an issue of faith, they are an issue of being conscious.
You said
Good thinking, your right, Bob does not teach in competition to or above God's word, He just reflects it accurately so that you don't end up violating any part of it. And Bob nor the bible says that you must conform to every single teaching perfectly or you can not be a true believer. But, the very nature of what you are asking betrays a very serious lack of understanding on your part in the first place. godrulz, I've known you for a long time. The truth of the matter is, you have displayed practically no working knowledge of the teachings within the Plot. You are probably playing with it with no more serious effort than you do God's word. And I say that with the deepest conviction for my deepest concern for your own well being. You are obstinate omitted too gratuitous... I'm not sure that you have learned much of anything, you still violate the nicer than God stuff, you don't see the gigantic and consistent differences between the circ and the uncirc, (in my eyes) you just can't seem to conform your faith to the teachins of Christ about miracles and faith, and you can't tell that Freak is a moron not because he disagrees with me, but because he does not even attempt to do what he said he would do. So, (omitted) you are the problem with your lack of understanding, not the truth of the matter that is plainly set before you.
(Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrsss manrulz!) (Everyone, give manrulz a warm welcome!)
And then next you demonstrate you in a snapshot, this is absolutely perfect(ly you). You said
(1) The bible is the authority and man can and should accurately reflect it's teachings.
(2) Wrong, the Plot teaches the bible, the bible is true, my understanding of the bible is absolutely based upon it's teachings. The bible is even where I get my interpretational methods, I've demonstrated this constantly, and you've falsely charged against this so we disagree.
(3) But this is perfectly you. You think your right becuase, it goes against what most men think. You are (omitted) never learning just how deeply your heart is entrenched in this false notion of trusting in men instead of in God. I have never met anyone in all these years who claims to be a christian and follows after man's thinking as much as you display. Perhaps others do it way more than you do, but your honesty and desire for godly humility betrays the truth of the matter on a purely constant basis. You deserve (the judgment against you) for trusting in man instead of God. You have a hard heart (omitted). Jesus can say right to your face, THEY WILL NOT BELIEVE, FAITH IS ABOUT THINGS NOT SEEN, THINGS HOPED FOR, MIRACLES ELIMINATE THE USE OF FAITH ALL TOGETHER. And your response would be, but most people say that faith tends to foster miracles, cant it be that they are both true in different ways? I think I know better than God, because after all, man agrees with me.
I'll stop now,,, and let you soak in your manmade mess, and frankly, I (am upset with you, I care about you, this is a serious problem), I am sick and tierd of you saying, thanks for helping me stand corrected on these important issues, only to watch you repeat the same mistakes over and over again and then seeking my response or acceptance. It's too much like a circular event, and I don't like getting dizzy.
(Please) sit down, come to grips with this unrelenting self determined focus on man, pray to God to help YOU with your unbelief, until you are rid of THAT, you will continue to be plagued. Exhault in your weeknesses that Christ might have His way, you are wrong and He is right, men are not trustworthy compaired to Him. Love and obey and worship Him, not man.
Thanks for saying the words of that you appreciate my insights, but compared to everything you have resonded to, those are some fairly empty words, your life contradicts those words and I care about your life and the truth of the matter. I appreciate you, that is why I show my love without dissimilation, you have a serious problem, by the leading of the HS and the teaching of God, you can become set free. Until then, you are trapped in error and confussion while the key is in your hand. (omitted) Set yourself free, you know the truth, all you have to do, is accept it, the key is completely "useless" until you "use" it.
Last edited:
It still sounds like if we disagree with your views on a few areas that we must be fleshly and not of God. I believe there are alternate ways to understand Jesus' statements and rebukes for those who are seeking miracles (e.g. wrong motives, not that miracles are not a blessing of God).
'Moron, knucklehead'...sticks and stones may break my bones, but names...just show your lack of integrity and intelligence.
The supernatural devil still deceives with counterfeit demonstrations of power while God is now impotent due to dispensational theology? I think not. Why grieve and quench the Spirit by attributing the modern move of God to the flesh or the devil? Your theology is wrong, not the works of God. There is more of God outside the box you have put Him in. "Your God is too small" - J.B. Phillips.
Be reminded that I have just started "The Plot" and go page by page looking up any supporting verses that seem chopped out of context or based on only the NKJV when other translations have a different twist. It is not that I do not understand "The Plot". It is that I just started it so I do not know most of its content.
I still am confused with why you get personal with anyone who does not see peripheral issues as you do? Is it due to bad potty training? insecurites? arrogance? being a trucker instead of a trained theologian with the tools to rightly divide the Word?
'Moron, knucklehead'...sticks and stones may break my bones, but names...just show your lack of integrity and intelligence.
The supernatural devil still deceives with counterfeit demonstrations of power while God is now impotent due to dispensational theology? I think not. Why grieve and quench the Spirit by attributing the modern move of God to the flesh or the devil? Your theology is wrong, not the works of God. There is more of God outside the box you have put Him in. "Your God is too small" - J.B. Phillips.
Be reminded that I have just started "The Plot" and go page by page looking up any supporting verses that seem chopped out of context or based on only the NKJV when other translations have a different twist. It is not that I do not understand "The Plot". It is that I just started it so I do not know most of its content.
I still am confused with why you get personal with anyone who does not see peripheral issues as you do? Is it due to bad potty training? insecurites? arrogance? being a trucker instead of a trained theologian with the tools to rightly divide the Word?
Last edited:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
godrulz - Names do not invalidate any message, nor the messenger, God's word is chuck full of such things used in a righteous way. I did not have to call you names, you (ommitted), to demonstrate your (ommitted another charge) and steadfast worship of man's ideas. Take out the names and the truth of how (ommitted) you can be remains just the same even though I never said the word (ommitted), or whatever.
(My appologies for going to far in my already harsh rebuke, the name calling (sentiment) was over the top, please accept my appology for being too harsh on you, and thanks for your demeaner even through this problem, it seems God's grace is well with you. And thanks Knight for plainly helping me see my mistake.)
You said
manrulz sleeps, he is golden, nothing can overturn the authority of manrulz.
(My appologies for going to far in my already harsh rebuke, the name calling (sentiment) was over the top, please accept my appology for being too harsh on you, and thanks for your demeaner even through this problem, it seems God's grace is well with you. And thanks Knight for plainly helping me see my mistake.)
You said
Right, Jesus teaches that dealing upright with the truth is the way of life eternal, that is NOT some unimportant peripheral issue, it is the essense of God and all He stands for. Go back to sleep, your just dreaming all this truth in reality stuff.
manrulz sleeps, he is golden, nothing can overturn the authority of manrulz.
Last edited:
We both understand God's sovereignty and rule the same way (Open Theism). Why denigrate my declaration that God Rules in a mocking way by stating that man rules? I submit to the Lordship of Christ. You are not my Judge since you do not know the heart. Based on our disagreement about OSAS and miracles does not mean that I believe man rules anymore than your rejection of Calvinism and extreme sovereignty means that man rules, not God.
Incidently, I would like some opinions on this:
Is anyone offended that I do not capitalize G in godrulz? It is not disrespect, but ease of typing for my email address (so I do not have to tell people "G"). It is also a modern convention/fad to not capitalize first and last names (real estate advertizers, etc.). I do not think God is legalistic, and "God" is not capitalized all the time (except start of sentence) in the original Koine Greek (theos) and Hebrew (I think). Should I capitalize it, or is it understood that I mean GOD, not false gods? (I have had many people/unbelievers appreciate my punk phrase 'godrulz'...I got it from a Christian music groups lapel pin "God rules!" or a bumper sticker thing that said "God rules". I changed the end to z to be cool. The world says things like rock and roll rules).
Incidently, I would like some opinions on this:
Is anyone offended that I do not capitalize G in godrulz? It is not disrespect, but ease of typing for my email address (so I do not have to tell people "G"). It is also a modern convention/fad to not capitalize first and last names (real estate advertizers, etc.). I do not think God is legalistic, and "God" is not capitalized all the time (except start of sentence) in the original Koine Greek (theos) and Hebrew (I think). Should I capitalize it, or is it understood that I mean GOD, not false gods? (I have had many people/unbelievers appreciate my punk phrase 'godrulz'...I got it from a Christian music groups lapel pin "God rules!" or a bumper sticker thing that said "God rules". I changed the end to z to be cool. The world says things like rock and roll rules).
Freak
New member
:darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: You'll have to excuse 1Way he's a idiot.Originally posted by godrulz
I still am confused with why you get personal with any one who does not see peripheral issues as you do? Is it due to bad potty training? insecurites? arrogance? being a trucker instead of a trained theologian with the tools to rightly divide the Word?
Freak
New member
Perhaps this time around, the spinless 1Way will deal with the truth of Scripture or perhaps Shimei will attempt to answer my concerns...
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.
Despite this, 1Way's hero has stated:
"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:
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.
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.
Despite this, 1Way's hero has stated:
"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:
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.