Freak challenges "The Plot" over miracles

[1Way]

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



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

Click here for that post.

Freak - You said

I'll give you one area, where a group of us posters (Gavin, Godrulz, myself, etc), have challenged Bob and/or those who agree with him on (the issue of spiritual gifts/miracles) and we have yet been challenged.

So you have found the problem with Enyart's teaching, what is it, or better yet, where, I have the Plot and read the parts about miracles and such.


You said

Scripture has stood the test of time. Elevate Holy Scripture to it's rightful place, 1Way. As Jesus once said, "Thy Word is truth." The Plot or any other book for that matter would not be considered inerrant or infalliable.

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

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

You said

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

You are the contentious one. I did not say nor mean nor imply it was just for Israel, and that was not my point. When you consider every teaching in the bible, or just count the pages in the bible, God spends the vast majority of it dealing with Isreal and not the entire world. The "storyline" of the bible is spent mostly dealing with Israel, and frankly, your unwilling acknowledgement of that fact upon an initial mention helps clarify your bias away from the biblical truth and towards your preconceptions. But, while there's life, there's still hope, you too can change for the better by allowing God to mold and shape you into being more like Him.

 

[1Way]

Freak challenges "The Plot" over miracles

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


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

Click here for that post :readthis:

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


Freak - You said

I'll give you one area, where a group of us posters (Gavin, Godrulz, myself, etc), have challenged Bob and/or those who agree with him on (the issue of spiritual gifts/miracles) and we have yet been challenged.

So you have found the problem with Enyart's teaching, what is it, or better yet, where, I have the Plot and read the parts about miracles and such.


You said

Scripture has stood the test of time. Elevate Holy Scripture to it's rightful place, 1Way. As Jesus once said, "Thy Word is truth." The Plot or any other book for that matter would not be considered inerrant or infalliable.

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

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

You said

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

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

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

:cloud9:

:1Way:

:devil:

 

[1Way]

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

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

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

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

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

I must have tested out the various teachings within The Plot, after about 8333 thoughtful time intensive posts, many of which represent a different topic or subject or point of view on a similar topic, I have yet to find ANY significant problem with the teachings of the Plot.

I'll give you one area, where a group of us posters (Gavin, Godrulz, myself, etc), have challenged Bob and/or those who agree with him on (the issue of spiritual gifts/miracles) and we have yet been challenged.

And consider that one of my most primary goals has been to openly present these teachings to see how they may be shown to be wrong! And time and time again, the bible teachings within the Plot stand the test of time and extreme scrutiny.

Scripture has stood the test of time. Elevate Holy Scripture to it's rightful place, 1Way. As Jesus once said, "Thy Word is truth." The Plot or any other book for that matter would not be considered inerrant or infalliable.

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

This is what we would say about you. Imagine that.

The main story line of the bible is NOT about us, it's about corporate Israel..

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

 

[Freak]

Re: Freak challenges "The Plot" over miracles

Originally posted by 1Way
Freak - You said So you have found the problem with Enyart's teaching, what is it, or better yet, where, I have the Plot and read the parts about miracles and such.

Yes. Enyart is in error regarding the issues of miracles and spiritual gifts. His chapter 11, in the book "The Plot," titled "Details Galore" details his view on miracles.

I have responded...

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

I agree that The Word is truth and that any other book is fallible.

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

The "storyline" of the bible is spent mostly dealing with Israel,

The story line is God redeeming mankind not simply Israel.

But, while there's life, there's still hope, you too can change for the better by allowing God to mold and shape you into being more like Him.

I have been justified by Jesus Christ and will one day be glorified. It is my prayer that God would humble you so that you might be justified by faith in Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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

Have you Freak?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Knight

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

Have you Freak?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I have read portions of it.

 

[Freak]

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

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Freak

I have read portions of it.

So... you read chapter one?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Why are there two of these threads??

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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

 

[Turbo]

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

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

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

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:up:

 

[drbrumley]

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

 

[Leo Volont]

Jesus said "the word is truth"

Jesus said "the word is truth"

Jesus said "the word is truth".

I would guess not.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drbrumley]

Re: Jesus said "the word is truth"

Re: Jesus said "the word is truth"

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Jesus said "the word is truth".

I would guess not.

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Leo Volont

blah, blah, blah blah and blah

 

[Berean Todd]

Re: Jesus said "the word is truth"

Re: Jesus said "the word is truth"

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Jesus said "the word is truth".

I would guess not.

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

John 17:17 [size=huge]Sanctify them in the truth; Your Word is truth.[/size]

 

[SOTK]

Re: Re: Jesus said "the word is truth"

Re: Re: Jesus said "the word is truth"

Originally posted by Berean Todd

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

John 17:17 [size=huge]Sanctify them in the truth; Your Word is truth.[/size]

:darwinsm:

 

[Freak]

Re: Freak challenges "The Plot" over miracles

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

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

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

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

Homework for 1Way:

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

If Jesus’ miracles were sufficient to authenticate him as the Son of God and to authenticate his message, why did the apostles have to do miracles? The standard reply is that the apostles had to do miracles to show that they were trustworthy witnesses to Jesus Christ and trustworthy teachers of doctrine. But why couldn’t they just preach about the miracles as much of the church does today? Can’t we be regarded as trustworthy witnesses today without doing miracles? If we can, then why did the apostles need miracles?

At least six times in Paul’s writings he either commands Christians to follow his example as he follows Christ’s example, or he approves of those who follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9). Paul did not make a distinction between those elements in his life that were miraculous and those that are not viewed as miraculous. Paul copied Christ. Christ had miraculous elements in his life, and so did Paul. Poster, are we only to imitate those nonmiraculous elements in the lives of Jesus and Paul? Are they simply to be examples for moral living but not for miraculous ministry? Paul makes no such distinction when he exhorts us to imitate him.

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

According to the Dictionary, a miracle is defined as:

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

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

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

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

:1Way:

:devil:

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

 

[Freak]

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

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Freak

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

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