I don't impeach someone who disagrees with me. I impeach people who destroy faith by questioning any portion of God's Word via their scholarship. When "scholarship" questions the authenticity of any portion of God's Word then I most certainly will impeach THAT. The serpent in Genesis chapter 3 was a real scholar too. Very intelligent and educated.Justaned wrote:Oh so you summarily impeach anyone that doesn't agree with you as unbelieving? That shows great scholarship and a lot of in-depth critical thinking.
THanks, you have made my point even clearer that so-called scholarship is a demonic substitute for experiencing the vital reality of God's truth. Scholars want to spend their time disputing over the authenticity of this passage or that passage, especially those passages that represent the supernatural power of God being available to BELIEVERS!!! Satan has done a great job using scholarship to cast doubt on the very portion of God's Word that Jesus said explicitly would work experientially for those who BELIEVE it. He did not say analyze it, dispute it, question its authenticity, etc. He said BELIEVE IT!!!Justaned wrote:The fact that these truths work for you proves nothing. Every Mormon if asked would testify that their religion or religious views work for them also.
Scripture is not based on experiential validity but rather by the fact it is God inspired.
When someone simply does not want to believe some portion of God's Word then they can claim it as suspect.Justaned wrote:When someone happens upon scripture that is suspect in origin you must first decide if it is presenting a new doctrine or is it restating something that uncontested scripture has already established as truth.
Cessationists and "scholars" are often crying abuse. You been reading a little too much MacArthur my friend. However, no one says that someone whould drink poison or pick up snakes anymore than they should jump from the pinnacle of a temple to see if Psalm 91 is true. When Satan quoted Psalm 91 to Jesus, He never disputed its authenticity or its validity. He simply balanced Satan's abuse of the passage with another passage of Scripture from Deuteronomy.Justaned wrote:As I said and you just fluffed off is the truths listed in Mark 16 are in fact found elsewhere in scripture. But they are so stated in a way that does not invite the testing thereof by snake handling. Nor are they all encompassing. Many have tried to cast out demons and as Jesus disciples found they require more than will but require a prayed up, holy ghost filled person that is walking in close relationship with God. Likewise we see Paul bitten by a snake but paying it no mind got about the business of the Lord. He did not do it as a demonstration or testing of God’s power.
As far as drinking poison I believe many missionaries have had people try to poison them and without even knowing of the poison survived to see the next day. Again they did not drink poison to demonstrate or test God’s word.
To me Mark 16:9-18 is a passage most often abused by people that want to put God’s truth to a test. Again God has clearly stated we are not to test Him.
INstead of countering abuse of Mark 16 with questioning its authenticity, why not just simply handle its abuse the way Jesus did when Satan was abusing Psalm 91.