Does baptismal regeneration violate the core teaching of justification by faith alone (sola fide)?

[garee]

The postponement view is commonly accepted within dispensationalists. The Jews could have begun the Messianic reign at Jesus' first coming according to dispensationalists. However, the Jews rejected him as Messiah, and this resulted in a long "parenthesis" period called the Church Age.

This idea assumes that it was possible for the Jews to choose otherwise.

So, I don't think you properly understand dispensationalism if you question this view.

Now, there may be some progressive dispensationalists who would have denied this view by now. Some dispensationalists have wised up and realized that their teachings are flawed, so they are trying to implement patches to salvage the sinking ship.

One such gaping hole is the claim that Jesus would return within 40 years (one generation) of the establishment of the state of Israel. They are all scrambling to figure out how to recover from that one.

However, I know from believing false teachings that often people don't reject the belief system; they simply come up with revisions to maintain their system. These new teachings are called "rescue devices". So, the ship will continue limping along somehow, even if the entire ship from the waterline above is blown apart

Would that false teachings include changing the meaning of the word apostle? ( sent one) They are not sent with their own teaching (didatic) . Even the Son of man refused to stand in the holy unseen place of faith as Good Master. Call no man one earth teacher in that way to include the apostles.

We are not rescued by the apostles as if they were crucified for the sins of the world.

Why give them power that the bible speaks not of? Abel is the first recorded prophet, apostle, and martyr in whom the the spirit that lived as the one teacher not seen . Its seems for some reason you are puffing them up? like the Catholics or the Mormons, why if so?

 

[Kolistus]

No it doesn't because the man who invented Justification by faith alone Martin Luther believed in it. As ironic as it sounds.

 

[garee]

Firstly, i do not claim that Roman Catholics are totally without understanding. I consider some of them to be more intelligent than some professing evangelicals.

Secondly, I do believe that Acts was a transitional period and that the genre of the book is historical narrative. Therefore, we must decide whether a particular event was related specifically to a recorded event, or was it to be considered normative for all Christians at every time frame. I used the example of the tongues of fire. Obviously, you agree that tongues of fire do not come down on the heads of believers today (although I have heard some charismatics claim they experienced this).

Thirdly, why are you not drawn to the idea that laying on of hands is a normative practice, if you believe that Acts is normative? The reality is that you don't believe that Acts is normative, if you deny that tongues of fire land on peoples' heads today, and that salvation always involves laying on of hands...the real issue, apparently, is that you want to claim that certain events are normative, and other events are not, but you want to decide what is normative and what is not normative.

Maybe you'd like to describe your experiences involving fire. That would be interesting.

Hi with all due respect. I offer my finger print as a private interpretation of the bible as little differently than yours.

The bible is designed to use the historical value as the temporal sen to give us the hidden understanding .purposely hid from the lost .For more than one reason .But the main to provide the food of unfamiliarity that the disciples knew not of. Doing the will of the father as it is written. Parables as prophecy one of the manners for revealing the unseen things of God the eternal, things of faith.

We then must compare the spiritual eternal unseen understanding as the Spirit dwelling in us give us ears to hear. to the same unseen understanding as the hearing of faith as two witnesses of God. Faith to faith.

We understand the parable divided tongues of a purifying fire by looking at its companion . It is seen with Elijah against the legion of false prophets . They that walked after the flesh cut themselves hoping corrupted blood could count for the approval of God. God sent his witness it licked up all the water dividing the false prophets from the one true. Its a sign that follows those chosen by God .It would be difficult to duplicate that one out side of Hollywood to be used to self-edify a person looking for a wonderment.

The Holy Spirit resists the idea of familiarity .He is not as us another reason he used parables to teach us how to walk by faith . Not looking to the things seen like the apostles as if they were a source of Christian faith . Manna or called hidden manna in Revelation 2 is used that way in parables. Manna = What is it?

The bread of unfamiliarity? Its neither hot nor cold never lukewarm .

Acts 14 the same. Looking at that parable . Those who had no faith by which they could know God attributed the unseen spiritual work of the gospel to the corrupted hands of the apostles.They created the apostles into a legion of gods in the likeness of men . The same formula for creating patron saints, workers with familiar spirits (3500 and rising picking up speed as the number of pew sitters fall. ) They have nothing to do with seeking the approval of the unfamiliar Spirit of God who again is not a man as us.

laying on of hands is an old testament ceremonial law that indicates a person is seeking after God not seen a form of prayer. . No different then bowing one head, or folding ones hands, or going into a closet or on the run step by step . . It cannot move God who is not served by corrupted human hands as if he needed something from the clay he forms Christ in. (Acts 17)

And there they preached the gospel. And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked. And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out Acts 14 :7-14

 

[Blain]

I don't deny that believers receive a new heart. In fact, I constantly mention this.

However, Scripture also warns about the deceitfulness of the human heart, and this deceitfulness doesn't end at conversion.

Every believer knows that he is still susceptible to the deceitfulness of his heart, unless, in fact, he is blind to this, too.

For instance, King David was deceived by his wicked desires when he took Bath-sheba sexually, and had her husband killed. Nathan the prophet came to him and gave him a parable which showed him his self-deceit. At this time, he was able to repent, although it still cost him the death of his child.

I would refer you to Hebrews 3:13 in regards to the deceitfulness of the human heart. Romans 7 also discusses this.

Additionally 1 John 1:8-9 infers that a believer can deceive himself into thinking he has no sin.

Sorry for the late reply. Yes you are correct that even with a new heart we have be wary of it as well which is why I make it a point to search my heart daily. Sadly though I am not the best at seeing clearly it is far easier to see everything wrong than to see what is good which is why I don't really trust myself in my own view of myself but rather I try to believe what others and what God says of my heart because as much as I wish it were different I can easily the through God's eyes when it comes to others but when it comes to my own heart I fear I am far to hard on myself.

But that is a valuable lesson that God taught me, often times it requires an outside view of ones self in order to truly see because a lot of times we cannot read our own hearts correctly. However in order to read others hearts correctly it must be seen through God's eyes not ours, love is the key and only through loves eyes can we accurately see and we cannot let our own views and understanding influence that sight.

For instance if I were to read yours I can tell you have wisdom and are scripturally knowledgable you are genuine in your endeavors and are willing to teach and give council, however at the same time you can be unaware of of certain faults that hinder you in learning and can see correction as attacks at times and I can tell you have been hurt not just from the charismatics you spoke of but there is an inner wound you bare that you are not confronting and thus it is not able to heal.

If I am wrong then I apologize this is just what I see and sense

 

[wattie]

My position regarding Acts 19 is that it is talking about Old Testament saints.

John the Baptist baptized Jews. This was not a Christian baptism, but was a baptism that demonstrated the Jews themselves needed spiritual cleansing. Many Jews thought that they were righteous by virtue of being a descendant of Abraham.

The reality is that they were not spiritually cleansed. And, regarding salvation, they didn't even know that Jesus was the Messiah to die for their sins at this point. Baptism is actually identification with Jesus, and they didn't even know he was their Savior. Read Romans 6:1-14.

I don't think they believed at John's baptism in the same sense as Christian belief, because they did not know Jesus was Messiah. They were an Old Testament saint, and were saved, but they were not identified with Christ yet.

With this baptism, they became identified with Christ and were given the Holy Spirit.

The theme of the book of Acts relates to Acts 1:8. The gospel was to go out of Jerusalem, and reach various people groups. Speaking in languages (I won't use the word tongues because I think it's an ignorant translation) accompanied receipt of the Holy Spirit. Laying on of hands accompanied baptism, and a manifestation of the Holy Spirit occurred at the same time.

Various subgroups within the early church are recognized throughout the narrative.

Jews
Samaritans
God-fearers
Ordinary, non-God fearing Gentiles
Old Testament saints

This shows a fulfillment of Acts 1:8.

I will provide a few commentaries (and for those who don't like me providing external information, TOUGH):

Acts 1:8 1:8 This is both the general outline and central theme of Acts. The gospel will proceed from Jerusalem (chs. 1–7), to Judea and Samaria (chs. 8–12), and to the ends of the earth (chs. 13–28). Thematically, the disciples’ role is to be Jesus’ “witnesses.” Their power is the Holy Spirit. Their task is to take this message from “Jerusalem . . . to the ends of the earth.” This movement is both geographic (from Jerusalem to Rome) and ethnic (from Jews to Gentiles). The movement also continues what started in Luke’s Gospel. While the great central section of Luke’s Gospel describes Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem to accomplish God’s salvation (Luke 9–19), Acts describes the outward movement from Jerusalem to proclaim God’s salvation everywhere.
(NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible)

Acts 1:8 Verse 8 is the thematic statement for all of Acts. It begins with the Spirit's power that stands behind and drives the witness to Jesus. Then it provides a rough outline of the book: Jerusalem (chs. 1-7), Judea and Samaria (chs. 8-12), and the end of the earth (chs. 13-28).
(ESV SB Notes)

Acts 1:8 my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. Jesus’ words forecast the geographical expansion of the church narrated in the book of Acts. The Jerusalem witness (ch. 2) gives in miniature form God’s worldwide ministry: “Jews . . . from every nation” (2:5) and Gentile proselytes (v. 11) who hear and believe carry the message far and wide. In the rest of Acts, the gospel spreads throughout Jerusalem (3:1-8:1), then to Judea and Samaria, including Antioch of Syria (8:1-12:25), and finally to the ends of the earth (13:1-28:31). Recall that Acts 1:8 is an outline for the entire book (see the Introduction to Acts: Literary Features).
(Reformation SB)

Specifically regarding Acts 19:1-6, I will add these notes, which I think are accurate:


Acts 19:1-6 19:1 disciples. Either believers in Jesus (like Apollos, 18:25) or followers of John the Baptist. The latter is perhaps more likely because they have not yet received the Spirit. In either case, they have insufficient knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah and do not know about the pouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (v. 2; 2:14–39).
19:4 John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. It prepared for the coming of the Messiah (10:37; 13:24–25; Luke 3:3, 8, 16).
19:5 baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Qualitatively different from John’s baptism of repentance; it symbolizes the regenerating work of the Spirit through the death and resurrection of Christ and entering the new age of salvation.
19:6 placed his hands on them. For the laying on of hands to receive the Spirit, see 8:15–17. tongues. Accompanies the bestowal of the Spirit at Pentecost (2:4, 11) and at the home of Cornelius (10:46), but not in every case of conversion in Acts (8:17). The book of Acts covers a period of transition, and there is no single model or pattern for the coming of the Spirit or its accompanying signs. The general pattern, however, is reception of the Spirit at the time of conversion.
(NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible)

And, again, for those who scoff at me for using study bibles, I really don't care what you think on this. Somehow you think that your opinion based on your professed independent reading should be the only thing that is discussed. I find great value in presenting the educated opinions of scholars such as DA Carson or Wayne Grudem or any other number of brothers in Christ, who have a good knowledge of the Bible, church history, and original languages.

So..on one end of the spectrum I have ME. I am an untrained, fallible man. In the middle, I have YOU. I don't even know your background, but you likely have worse training than me, and even the ones that profess seminary training may be lying. To the far right, I have published, sound, conservative teachers. And, over all, I have God and the Holy Spirit leading me and hopefully you and them too.

I really dislike it when some people discount conscientious brothers in Christ who have dedicated their lives to studying and teaching. I dislike it A LOT.

By the way, I'm not addressing you, wattie..I doubt you hold that view...I just find that when I quote study bibles some get contentious with me on this

Additionally, for those who don't know this, OliveTree has a wonderful, reasonably priced application for both PC and cell phone that displays your preferred text, side by side with your preferred study bible notes. You can change the notes or text at will.

I love this application. Logos has something that is similar, but it is more expensive.

I built up my collection of study Bibles while I was in the hospital with a broken neck, back, and hip. Thank God, I had the resources to spend on this. I couldn't even read a book easily with the broken neck, as I had a halo device installed that held my head onto my shoulders

This was such a blessing to me and I thank God that he provided me with a great Iphone and these tools. I could talk to some of my Christian friends online, do some study, and listen to great Christian music under conditions most would find unbearable. I really recommend developing such tools in case you ever wind up in the hospital or nursing home.

Thanks for the reply,

It's when I look at Acts 18 with Apollos, and what he was doing, who is disciples were.. and then look at Acts 19, that leads me to think the disciples in Acts 19 had believed in Jesus Christ and were saved by grace.

But yeah, I am keen to get back into looking at my Strongs Concordance and looking at some more commentaries etc.. it is the bible itself in context that defines doctrine and not my opinion or others.

I like how Albert Garner put it in his Bible Analysis book.. Who is talking to whom, What is the subject, What is the occasion for speaking, When or what time are they speaking or writing?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Thanks for the reply,

It's when I look at Acts 18 with Apollos, and what he was doing, who is disciples were.. and then look at Acts 19, that leads me to think the disciples in Acts 19 had believed in Jesus Christ and were saved by grace.

But yeah, I am keen to get back into looking at my Strongs Concordance and looking at some more commentaries etc.. it is the bible itself in context that defines doctrine and not my opinion or others.

I like how Albert Garner put it in his Bible Analysis book.. Who is talking to whom, What is the subject, What is the occasion for speaking, When or what time are they speaking or writing?

All critical contextual issues. I don't know Albert Garner, but sounds legit in that area.

 

[Guojing]

The postponement view is commonly accepted within dispensationalists. The Jews could have begun the Messianic reign at Jesus' first coming according to dispensationalists. However, the Jews rejected him as Messiah, and this resulted in a long "parenthesis" period called the Church Age.

This idea assumes that it was possible for the Jews to choose otherwise.

So, I don't think you properly understand dispensationalism if you question this view.

Now, there may be some progressive dispensationalists who would have denied this view by now. Some dispensationalists have wised up and realized that their teachings are flawed, so they are trying to implement patches to salvage the sinking ship.

One such gaping hole is the claim that Jesus would return within 40 years (one generation) of the establishment of the state of Israel. They are all scrambling to figure out how to recover from that one.

However, I know from believing false teachings that often people don't reject the belief system; they simply come up with revisions to maintain their system. These new teachings are called "rescue devices". So, the ship will continue limping along somehow, even if the entire ship from the waterline above is blown apart

You are now discussing a separate topic about free will vs determinism.

You believe that if God knows from the beginning of time what your choice is, it means your choice has been pre-determined, and you lose your free will.

I believe otherwise.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Sorry for the late reply. Yes you are correct that even with a new heart we have be wary of it as well which is why I make it a point to search my heart daily. Sadly though I am not the best at seeing clearly it is far easier to see everything wrong than to see what is good which is why I don't really trust myself in my own view of myself but rather I try to believe what others and what God says of my heart because as much as I wish it were different I can easily the through God's eyes when it comes to others but when it comes to my own heart I fear I am far to hard on myself.

But that is a valuable lesson that God taught me, often times it requires an outside view of ones self in order to truly see because a lot of times we cannot read our own hearts correctly. However in order to read others hearts correctly it must be seen through God's eyes not ours, love is the key and only through loves eyes can we accurately see and we cannot let our own views and understanding influence that sight.

For instance if I were to read yours I can tell you have wisdom and are scripturally knowledgable you are genuine in your endeavors and are willing to teach and give council, however at the same time you can be unaware of of certain faults that hinder you in learning and can see correction as attacks at times and I can tell you have been hurt not just from the charismatics you spoke of but there is an inner wound you bare that you are not confronting and thus it is not able to heal.

If I am wrong then I apologize this is just what I see and sense

I am not saying your assessment is inaccurate.

At the same time, I think you are much more likely to extend credibility based on your feelings rather than cold hard facts. I try not to be emotionally swayed. When it comes to doctrinal issues, my views are emotionally detached. For instance, most Christians simply reject the idea that God has elected certain individuals to salvation. I do not think their objection is based on Scripture, but it is based on their feelings in this regard. If the Bible teaches something, then I accept it regardless of the repercussions.

And, regarding charismatics, I haven't found a single one that I think is credible. Invariably if I talk to them long enough, they will say something that demonstrates issues with their thinking or behavior.

For instance, I worked in a parachurch ministry with one charismatic. He told me that he audibly heard God's voice at least once. Additionally, he claimed that gay men could not repent and be saved, which was a real hindrance to this ministry. Additionally, I know that he required his employees in his regular job to lie on occasion to avoid conflicts with governmental regulations relating to his business.

So, if he is willing to lie to me, then what reason do I find for credibility in him?

Additionally, I have been present on occasions when various charismatics have lied about various events...one woman claimed that she resurrected a body from the morgue, and that God killed one of her enemies so it is dangerous to disagree with her. Another young charismatic guy claimed he put his hand on a coffin, and the dead body in it began to resurrect, but he took his hand away and it stopped. Now, what kind of a rube would believe something like that?

Another example...one guy was prophesied over and a claim was made that he was going to have a great ministry. This guy, too, was full of pride and lacked humility. He claimed he saved about 15 different guys in jail while he was there as a prisoner. I know that the charismatic leader of the ministry prophesied such things over him, and that is why he became full of pride. I told the leader he should not do that, and he was misleading people. He would not acknowledge that he was causing problems with young believers in this way. By the way, he was a young alleged believer, and even I know that this sort of claim can puff up people with pride.

And, I think I already mentioned my grandmother's prophecy over my aunt that God was going to "get her" for divorcing her husband. She had a child born with cerebral palsy, and my guess is that my aunt attributed that to her prophesying. It seems like there is no comprehension how much damage that charismatics can do in others' lives through their bogus claims.

Another example..a guy here on christianchat insisted that I accept his charismatic views. I asked him to show me an example of someone who really has gifts like he is claiming. He gave me the name of a guy, and pointed to a video where he supposedly exorcises a demon. Well, I found out that this guy, who he claimed was a credible example of someone who has these gifts, sells exorcism sessions on Skype for $295 each. His name is Bob Larsen. Look him up.

So, I really have no good example of ANYONE who is credible in this regard. Therefore, my conclusion is that charismatics are simply bogus and are living in a make-believe world where they must bolster their faith or reputation through bragfests like I have mentioned. I don't have that need. Firstly, I don't care what others think about my spiritual status, especially here because I don't know them personally, and I stand and fall before Jesus. Secondly, I am confident enough in my relationship with God that I don't require him to do parlor tricks for me in order to confirm it. I am overjoyed by understanding Scriptural proofs, and I don't need God to be showing himself to me through signs and wonders. I know through the coherency of the Scriptural metanarrative and the witness of the Holy Spirit that Christianity is true.

If God decides to change my mind on this, he is perfectly free to do so.

Anyways, those are my thoughts. Show me one credible example of a charismatic person. I know not one. They can continue on with their bragfests, but I am not gullible enough to believe them. Concerning any Scripture they think proves their worldview, I believe they are mistaken and that these Scriptures do not assume the worldview that popular charismatic theology teaches.

By the way, if anyone wants a good laugh, watch some videos of this Bob Larson guy on Youtube (and if you have a demon he can exorcise it for $295 on Skype after you complete a multiple page questionairre so he can assess whether you have a demon lol):

https://www.youtube.com/user/boblarsonexorcism

 

[Guojing]

The Gospel of the Kingdom is also the Gospel of Grace. It is also the Gospel of God, the Gospel of Christ, the everlasting Gospel etc. No difference whatsoever. The Gospel is Christ Himself, and His death, burial, and resurrection for the salvation of humanity (though not all will be saved). The name Yeshua or Yehoshua (Jesus) means that God is our salvation.

As Jesus said, those who are born again see and enter into the Kingdom of God. And the Gospel says "YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN". But the literal, visible, physical and tangible Kingdom of God will be established on earth only after the Second Coming of Christ. However, the naysayers can ask God to exclude them from that Kingdom, since they have been objecting to it on earth.

Water baptism does not save anyone, but as we see in the recorded words of Christ as well as in The Acts of the Apostles, salvation/conversion and Christian baptism were almost simultaneous. And regardless of what we read in the Acts, baptism has always been in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Also, because of the symbolic and spiritual significance of water baptism, it must be by immersion to portray the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer with Christ.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, as does the Church of Christ, and the LDS Church. There may be some others. But that is false doctrine. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ and His finished work of redemption.

Water Baptism was necessary for salvation for the gospel of the kingdom.

Water Baptism is no longer necessary once Israel rejected that gospel.

That is one significant difference between the 2.

Its similar to circumcision, it WAS necessary for all Jews to be circumcised, otherwise you will be cut off from God (Genesis 17). Now, it is no longer necessary for anyone to be circumcised.

People can accept that it was necessary once but no longer necessary now, but somehow prefer not to adopt the same perspective towards water baptism, mainly because many churches still practice that.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

You are now discussing a separate topic about free will vs determinism.

You believe that if God knows from the beginning of time what your choice is, it means your choice has been pre-determined, and you lose your free will.

I believe otherwise.

First, I do not believe the foreknowledge of God is talking about advanced knowledge of events, although God has this knowledge, too.

Foreknowledge is talking about fore-loving. The word "know" in Scripture is used to describe an intimate, personal relationship that God has with his elect from the foundation of the earth. A careful examination of this concept yields this view.

Secondly, I don't think anyone has the type of free will that you probably believe. Man's will is constrained by his nature, and Scripture says that the fallen man is a slave to sin. Because he has an evil nature, his choices are evil. This is clearly taught in Scripture. Man needs a change in nature in order to make correct choices.

Thirdly, there is no possible way that you can make a choice other than what God knows you will make already, otherwise he is not omniscient. This knowledge predetermines your decision and it cannot be altered.

There are heretical individuals who will deny that God knows the future, for this very reason. These views are associated with "process theology" or "open theism" which is considered heretical amongst evangelical Christianity. In other words, they claim that God doesn't know the future, or chooses not to know certain aspects of the future. This is really a stupid view as it implies that God can somehow select what facts he doesn't want to know, and exclude those from his knowledge. In this case, God is limiting himself and his knowledge according to their heretical views.

By the way, the mere fact that God knows the end from the beginning, and has exhaustive foreknowledge, eliminates the possibility that anyone could ever surprise him by deciding to do otherwise. He already knows their decision and his perfect knowledge cannot be proven fallible. Therefore, regardless of who the person is, God already knows they will be saved or lost.

But, my firm conviction is God doesn't just know they are going to be saved, he shapes their future and causes them to be saved by regenerating them and giving them a new nature that responds to him in faith and repentance. This is the real Sovereign LORD and not the idol of free-willers.

 

[Blain]

I am not saying your assessment is inaccurate.

At the same time, I think you are much more likely to extend credibility based on your feelings rather than cold hard facts. I try not to be emotionally swayed. When it comes to doctrinal issues, my views are emotionally detached. For instance, most Christians simply reject the idea that God has elected certain individuals to salvation. I do not think their objection is based on Scripture, but it is based on their feelings in this regard. If the Bible teaches something, then I accept it regardless of the repercussions.

And, regarding charismatics, I haven't found a single one that I think is credible. Invariably if I talk to them long enough, they will say something that demonstrates issues with their thinking or behavior.

For instance, I worked in a parachurch ministry with one charismatic. He told me that he audibly heard God's voice at least once. Additionally, he claimed that gay men could not repent and be saved, which was a real hindrance to this ministry. Additionally, I know that he required his employees in his regular job to lie on occasion to avoid conflicts with governmental regulations relating to his business.

So, if he is willing to lie to me, then what reason do I find for credibility in him?

Additionally, I have been present on occasions when various charismatics have lied about various events...one woman claimed that she resurrected a body from the morgue, and that God killed one of her enemies so it is dangerous to disagree with her. Another young charismatic guy claimed he put his hand on a coffin, and the dead body in it began to resurrect, but he took his hand away and it stopped. Now, what kind of a rube would believe something like that?

Another example...one guy was prophesied over and a claim was made that he was going to have a great ministry. This guy, too, was full of pride and lacked humility. He claimed he saved about 15 different guys in jail while he was there as a prisoner. I know that the charismatic leader of the ministry prophesied such things over him, and that is why he became full of pride. I told the leader he should not do that, and he was misleading people. He would not acknowledge that he was causing problems with young believers in this way. By the way, he was a young alleged believer, and even I know that this sort of claim can puff up people with pride.

And, I think I already mentioned my grandmother's prophecy over my aunt that God was going to "get her" for divorcing her husband. She had a child born with cerebral palsy, and my guess is that my aunt attributed that to her prophesying. It seems like there is no comprehension how much damage that charismatics can do in others' lives through their bogus claims.

Another example..a guy here on christianchat insisted that I accept his charismatic views. I asked him to show me an example of someone who really has gifts like he is claiming. He gave me the name of a guy, and pointed to a video where he supposedly exorcises a demon. Well, I found out that this guy, who he claimed was a credible example of someone who has these gifts, sells exorcism sessions on Skype for $295 each. His name is Bob Larsen. Look him up.

So, I really have no good example of ANYONE who is credible in this regard. Therefore, my conclusion is that charismatics are simply bogus and are living in a make-believe world where they must bolster their faith or reputation through bragfests like I have mentioned. I don't have that need. Firstly, I don't care what others think about my spiritual status, especially here because I don't know them personally, and I stand and fall before Jesus. Secondly, I am confident enough in my relationship with God that I don't require him to do parlor tricks for me in order to confirm it. I am overjoyed by understanding Scriptural proofs, and I don't need God to be showing himself to me through signs and wonders. I know through the coherency of the Scriptural metanarrative and the witness of the Holy Spirit that Christianity is true.

If God decides to change my mind on this, he is perfectly free to do so.

Anyways, those are my thoughts. Show me one credible example of a charismatic person. I know not one. They can continue on with their bragfests, but I am not gullible enough to believe them. Concerning any Scripture they think proves their worldview, I believe they are mistaken and that these Scriptures do not assume the worldview that popular charismatic theology teaches.

By the way, if anyone wants a good laugh, watch some videos of this Bob Larson guy on Youtube (and if you have a demon he can exorcise it for $295 on Skype after you complete a multiple page questionairre so he can assess whether you have a demon lol):

https://www.youtube.com/user/boblarsonexorcism

Hmm... I have met some people like the ones you described But these people were radical in their charismatic's I think people can go too far in such matters being (drunk in the spirit) they called it honestyly they weirded me out they were wobbling like they were actually drunk and slurred their words so I just asumed they were really drunk and walked away. And there was this prophet on youtube I saw once she gave a (word of the LOrd) saying when the rapture would occur and said that God himself will punish anyone that attacks his messenger, A lot of people followed her on youtube and I attempted to explain to her how what she is doing will damage people not help them especially young believers who don't know better and boy did she and her followers swarm me.

So it seems you have had trouble with radical charismatics and I have had trouble with radical prophets.

 

[Guojing]

First, I do not believe the foreknowledge of God is talking about advanced knowledge of events, although God has this knowledge, too.

Foreknowledge is talking about fore-loving. The word "know" in Scripture is used to describe an intimate, personal relationship that God has with his elect from the foundation of the earth. A careful examination of this concept yields this view.

Secondly, I don't think anyone has the type of free will that you probably believe. Man's will is constrained by his nature, and Scripture says that the fallen man is a slave to sin. Because he has an evil nature, his choices are evil. This is clearly taught in Scripture. Man needs a change in nature in order to make correct choices.

Thirdly, there is no possible way that you can make a choice other than what God knows you will make already, otherwise he is not omniscient. This knowledge predetermines your decision and it cannot be altered.

There are heretical individuals who will deny that God knows the future, for this very reason. These views are associated with "process theology" or "open theism" which is considered heretical amongst evangelical Christianity. In other words, they claim that God doesn't know the future, or chooses not to know certain aspects of the future. This is really a stupid view as it implies that God can somehow select what facts he doesn't want to know, and exclude those from his knowledge. In this case, God is limiting himself and his knowledge according to their heretical views.

By the way, the mere fact that God knows the end from the beginning, and has exhaustive foreknowledge, eliminates the possibility that anyone could ever surprise him by deciding to do otherwise. He already knows their decision and his perfect knowledge cannot be proven fallible. Therefore, regardless of who the person is, God already knows they will be saved or lost.

But, my firm conviction is God doesn't just know they are going to be saved, he shapes their future and causes them to be saved by regenerating them and giving them a new nature that responds to him in faith and repentance. This is the real Sovereign LORD and not the idol of free-willers.

So you do agree with me that God already knew Israel would reject the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Same for everyone else, God setting Israel aside and going to the Gentiles was NOT a Plan B.

 

[Guojing]

The Gospel of the Kingdom is also the Gospel of Grace. It is also the Gospel of God, the Gospel of Christ, the everlasting Gospel etc. No difference whatsoever. The Gospel is Christ Himself, and His death, burial, and resurrection for the salvation of humanity (though not all will be saved). The name Yeshua or Yehoshua (Jesus) means that God is our salvation.

As Jesus said, those who are born again see and enter into the Kingdom of God. And the Gospel says "YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN". But the literal, visible, physical and tangible Kingdom of God will be established on earth only after the Second Coming of Christ. However, the naysayers can ask God to exclude them from that Kingdom, since they have been objecting to it on earth.

Water baptism does not save anyone, but as we see in the recorded words of Christ as well as in The Acts of the Apostles, salvation/conversion and Christian baptism were almost simultaneous. And regardless of what we read in the Acts, baptism has always been in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Also, because of the symbolic and spiritual significance of water baptism, it must be by immersion to portray the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer with Christ.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, as does the Church of Christ, and the LDS Church. There may be some others. But that is false doctrine. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ and His finished work of redemption.

Out of curiosity, if you believe the 2 gospels are equivalent with zero difference whatsoever, how would you reconcile then why signs and wonders, which was an essential part of the gospel of the kingdom, have now ceased under the gospel of grace?

You subscribed to cessasationalism in the other thread correct?

 

[EternalFire]

Water Baptism was necessary for salvation for the gospel of the kingdom.

Water Baptism is no longer necessary once Israel rejected that gospel.

That is one significant difference between the 2.

Its similar to circumcision, it WAS necessary for all Jews to be circumcised, otherwise you will be cut off from God (Genesis 17). Now, it is no longer necessary for anyone to be circumcised.

People can accept that it was necessary once but no longer necessary now, but somehow prefer not to adopt the same perspective towards water baptism, mainly because many churches still practice that.

Why, then, did Paul baptize people?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

So you do agree with me that God already knew Israel would reject the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Same for everyone else, God setting Israel aside and going to the Gentiles was NOT a Plan B.

However, this is what dispensationalism teaches, at least in some sectors. They believe Israel could have chosen to accept the Messiah, and at that time the Messianic Kingdom would have begun.

Of course I realize God knows the future in advance. In fact, I believe he shapes it. I don't believe that the Millennial Kingdom would have begun at the first Advent regardless. The Cross was a predetermined event.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Hmm... I have met some people like the ones you described But these people were radical in their charismatic's I think people can go too far in such matters being (drunk in the spirit) they called it honestyly they weirded me out they were wobbling like they were actually drunk and slurred their words so I just asumed they were really drunk and walked away. And there was this prophet on youtube I saw once she gave a (word of the LOrd) saying when the rapture would occur and said that God himself will punish anyone that attacks his messenger, A lot of people followed her on youtube and I attempted to explain to her how what she is doing will damage people not help them especially young believers who don't know better and boy did she and her followers swarm me.

So it seems you have had trouble with radical charismatics and I have had trouble with radical prophets.

I described extremes, but if anyone uttered a prophecy concerning me, and it 1) sounded so vague that anyone could fulfill it or 2) didn't come true, I would discount that person as he would be a liar.

I view it to be a serious matter to claim one is speaking for God, and if I'm not mistaken, this is commonplace in the charismatic world.

I view it as nothing less than taking God's name in vain. If someone claims that God gave them a prophecy, and they didn't, then they are taking God's name in vain. If they speak in tongues, and it isn't really coming from God, they are taking God's name in vain. If someone interprets tongues, and they don't interpret them properly, they are taking God's name in vain.

And, I believe charismatics often utter prophecies freely, which turn out to be false, yet have little regard for taking God's name in vain.

What do I base this on? I base this on other charismatics, who stated in my presence that such and such a guy in their congregation does this, and his prophecies are never right. So, basically he is continually taking God's name in vain. If he said God did something, such as giving him a prophecy, and God did not give him this prophecy, he is taking God's name in vain and should be disciplined by the church for blaspheming God.

Additionally, I will also share one more reason why I have issues with charismatic theology. Many charismatics have left the movement and told me they were faking it. I am not talking about a few; I am talking about several. One poor fellow left Bethel in the UK, after he had attended their School of Supernatural Ministry, and realized that what they were teaching was not true. He basically quit seeking God, period, after being disillusioned by them and their teachings.

So, I don't think it's one big joke and claiming one speaks for God in a given situation brings awesome responsibility. I would never claim to be speaking for God unless I absolutely knew it was true. However, I know that charismatics have made claims in God's name, knowing all along they were lying, because I confronted one about it and he admitted that he made up the account. He was the guy who said he put his hand on a casket and the body started to resurrect.

So, I am not amused when I know that some people consider it a light matter to claim God told them something, and it is not true.

 

[Guojing]

Why, then, did Paul baptize people?

Runningman made an excellent point about Paul and water baptism in the first page

https://christianchat.com/threads/d...-by-faith-alone-sola-fide.191466/post-4216074

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

So you do agree with me that God already knew Israel would reject the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Same for everyone else, God setting Israel aside and going to the Gentiles was NOT a Plan B.

By the way, if you want to research this topic, look for videos on "postponement theory" and you will see that it is a part of dispensationalist theology. I am not making it up.

If you want to see teaching about it from a classical Reformed perspective, there's one out there by Robert Beaker that seems to be about as dispie as it gets.

He also claims that "kingdom of God" is different than "kingdom of heaven" even though that has long since been proven false by simply comparing the different Gospel writers with a harmony of the gospels. It is absolutely not a sustainable argument yet some dispensationalists continue to claim this. Parallel passages PROVE that dispensationalists are making false claims in this regard.

 

[EternalFire]

Runningman made an excellent point about Paul and water baptism in the first page

https://christianchat.com/threads/d...-by-faith-alone-sola-fide.191466/post-4216074

Ah, I see that this concerns the misunderstanding of equating being born again to salvation, when in fact it is simply the beginning.

 

[Diakonos]

It all depends on what you mean by "baptism". Not all uses of "baptism" refer to water baptism in the N.T.
Sometimes an author is referring to the baptism into Christ, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit. There are 3 in total.