False teaching by separating Scripture from Scripture

[Lamar]

You see no red flag? You don't wonder why you are in agreement with multiple other churches (which some are considered to be false religions and cults) that teach salvation by water baptism?

Jim Jones was a Fourfold Gospel preacher who pushed faith alone regeneration theology.

Is that a big enough red flag for you.



Lets stick to the subject, okay?

 

[Lamar]

Scripture?

You presented this notion that the natural world does not exist. How about you present scripture.

 

[Lamar]

Also we see that the jailer and his family were baptised after believing:

Of course they were baptized after they believed.

Would you expect them to baptized before they believed?

 

[mailmandan]

Jim Jones was a Fourfold Gospel preacher who pushed faith alone regeneration theology.

Is that a big enough red flag for you.

View attachment 289712

Lets stick to the subject, okay?

He obviously did not teach salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone or else he would not have been a lost nutcase.

What I pulled up on Jim Jones showed that he taught a highly syncretic theology he called "Apostolic Socialism". He merged the Christian Social Gospel, Pentecostal elements, and Marxist-Leninist ideology to build a devoted following. His core teachings included: Socialist Christianity: He taught that traditional, capitalist-focused Christianity had failed. He used the Bible and religious concepts to appeal to his followers, but reinterpreted them to promote communal living, economic redistribution, and radical racial equality. The Divinity of Jim Jones: Over time, Jones rejected orthodox Christianity and began claiming he was the ultimate embodiment of God. He equated his personal will with the divine will and claimed to be the reincarnation of figures like Jesus, Buddha, and Vladimir.

 

[Lamar]

He obviously did not teach salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone or else he would not have been a lost nutcase.

What I pulled up on Jim Jones showed that he taught a highly syncretic theology he called "Apostolic Socialism". He merged the Christian Social Gospel, Pentecostal elements, and Marxist-Leninist ideology to build a devoted following. His core teachings included: Socialist Christianity: He taught that traditional, capitalist-focused Christianity had failed. He used the Bible and religious concepts to appeal to his followers, but reinterpreted them to promote communal living, economic redistribution, and radical racial equality. The Divinity of Jim Jones: Over time, Jones rejected orthodox Christianity and began claiming he was the ultimate embodiment of God. He equated his personal will with the divine will and claimed to be the reincarnation of figures like Jesus, Buddha, and Vladimir.

Is the point of the post going over your head?

This is not about "Campbellism, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism or Jim Jones.

You is simply diverting from the issue. I could have brought up Prince Joseph, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland etc.

All of these men preach faith alone regeneration theology, just as you.

But they are not the issue. Again, did this go over your head?

 

[mailmandan]

Is the point of the post going over your head?

This is not about "Campbellism, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism or Jim Jones.

You is simply diverting from the issue. I could have brought up Prince Joseph, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland etc.

All of these men preach faith alone regeneration theology, just as you.

But they are not the issue. Again, did this go over your head?

Here is what I read about them: While all three pastors identify as Christian, their teachings on salvation are heavily intertwined with the Word of Faith movement. Consequently, their teachings diverge from the traditional historical Protestant definition of "faith alone" (sola fide). Try again?

 

[Lamar]

Here is what I read about them: While all three pastors identify as Christian, their teachings on salvation are heavily intertwined with the Word of Faith movement. Consequently, their teachings diverge from the traditional historical Protestant definition of "faith alone" (sola fide). Try again?

Wow, this is really going over your head!

These men preach faith alone regeneration theology as their soteriology.

Go on their websites, you will see your own soteriology there.

 

[GWH]

You presented this notion that the natural world does not exist. How about you present scripture.

No, I said that the natural world is a created and sustained miracle by the supernatural God per Gen. 1:1 & Rom. 1:20.

Apparently you have no GW to support the claim that it is not such.

 

[mailmandan]

Wow, this is really going over your head!

These men preach faith alone regeneration theology as their soteriology.

Go on their websites, you will see your own soteriology there.

This is not over my head. Now they may claim to teach faith alone regeneration theology out of one side of their mouth yet teach a different gospel out of the other side of their mouth. Don't be fooled.

Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland have taught the controversial doctrine that Jesus died spiritually and had to be born again in hell. This teaching stems from the "Word of Faith" movement, which they and other televangelists have heavily promoted.The core tenets of this theology include:Spiritual Death: They teach that "It is finished" on the cross did not complete the payment for sin. Instead, they claim Jesus took on the nature of Satan/death, was separated from God, and died spiritually.Torment in Hell: They assert that Jesus was dragged into hell and tortured by Satan and demonic forces for three days and nights to pay the ultimate penalty for humanity.Born Again in Hell: They claim that Jesus became the "first born-again man" when God the Father spoke life into His broken, spiritually-dead spirit, allowing Him to be reborn and defeat Satan from within.

Demanding financial sacrifice to receive divine favor essentially turns God's grace into a transaction and blurs the line between salvation by faith in Christ alone and a system based on works.

In regard to Joseph Prince:

Joseph Prince: Unmerited Favor | Christian Research Institute https://share.google/PYlOmqkcwJSAVTvaQ

 

[DavidLamb]

Of course they were baptized after they believed.

Would you expect them to baptized before they believed?

No I wouldn't, but there are people who believe it is right to baptize babies, long before they are old enough to believe.

 

[John146]

Ephesians was written after Paul states for the final time that the gospel is now going to the Gentiles and they will hear it. The Jews have been cut off for now. Paul would now state the following:

Ephesians 4:
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Is this "one baptism" a baptism of water or a baptism of the Spirit being placed, immersed in Christ?

 

[TrustandObey]

You've left out the only one in Scripture: Repentance Regeneration Theology.

Mat 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mark{1:15}
The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Heb {6:1}
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

2 Cor 7:10
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of:

There is no believing the gospel, faith toward God, conversion, nor salvation of Jesus Christ without repentance.

Any gospel beginning with faith and conversion, and not with repentance, is a false promise to unrepented transgressors.

Something to think about but I know of no passages that uses repentance as the moment of the remission of sins.

 

[Lamar]

No, I said that the natural world is a created and sustained miracle by the supernatural God per Gen. 1:1 & Rom. 1:20.

Apparently you have no GW to support the claim that it is not such.

This is certainly not what you said.

This is what you said in post# 323.

"Yes, because natural laws are themselves supernatural/an ongoing miracle so dependable that we take creation for granted."

If "natural laws are themselves supernatural" then there is no natural world.

By defending your bonehead statement you are making it worse.

 

[Lamar]

Amen! In Acts 16:31, the apostles who told the jailer what they must do to be saved, said - believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved and NOT believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and get baptized and you will be saved. Their baptism "followed" believe/saved, just as it did for these Gentiles in Acts 10:43-47.

You attempt to negate all the passages in the Bible about water baptism being tied to salvation because of the lack of baptism in this one sentence given by Paul to the jailer???
Just believe?
Where does this stop?

No repentance?
No need to confess Jesus as Lord?
No need to believe that Jesus was physically raised from the dead?
No need to believe the deity of Christ?
No need to believe that Jesus is the sole means of salvation?
Was the jailer told that he must give up his idol worship?

Again, how does this sentence prove that water baptism is not for the remission of sins?

 

[DavidLamb]

You attempt to negate all the passages in the Bible about water baptism being tied to salvation because of the lack of baptism in this one sentence given by Paul to the jailer???
Just believe?
Where does this stop?

No repentance?
No need to confess Jesus as Lord?
No need to believe that Jesus was physically raised from the dead?
No need to believe the deity of Christ?
No need to believe that Jesus is the sole means of salvation?
Was the jailer told that he must give up his idol worship?

Again, how does this sentence prove that water baptism is not for the remission of sins?

The first thing that jumps out (for me) from your post was some of your questions. You ask them as though Paul didn't mention them to the jailer. For example:

"No need to confess Jesus as Lord?" But Paul told the jailer he deeded to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

"No need to believe that Jesus was physically raised from the dead?" Are you suggesting that Paul could have been telling the jailer to believe in a dead Saviour?

"No need to believe that Jesus is the sole means of salvation?" But Paul did not give believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as one possible way of salvation among many.

As for baptism for the remission of sins, I agree with what my concordance says about the word "for":

""For" (as used in Ac 2:38 "for the forgiveness ") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery," "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works."

Just as "Jesse James wanted for robbery" means he is wanted because he has committed a robbery, so "baptism for the remission of sins" means baptism because the person's sins have been remitted, not baptism to accomplish that remission.

 

[mailmandan]

You attempt to negate all the passages in the Bible about water baptism being tied to salvation because of the lack of baptism in this one sentence given by Paul to the jailer???

It's not about negating passages in the Bible about water baptism. It's about putting water baptism in its proper place. Subsequent to salvation through faith. There are a handful of alleged proof texts that certain folks use to try and prove that baptism is absolutely required for salvation, yet after a careful examination of each of those texts in context will show that none of them prove that baptism is absolutely required for salvation, although they do prove that baptism was an assumed initiatory response to the gospel of salvation. In other words, those texts prove only that baptism is regularly associated with conversion and salvation, rather than absolutely required for salvation.

These Gentiles in Acts 10 received the gift of the Holy Spirit and were manifesting the spiritual gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit (which is ONLY for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) after believing the gospel but before being water baptized. (Acts 10:43-47) Now baptism was not considered an "optional extra" for these Gentiles; it was a command (Acts 10:48) that they were expected to obey. However, it was not obedience to this command that saved them, but their believing in Christ for salvation. (Acts 10:43) Once again in Acts 16:31, we read believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved apart from water baptism.

Just believe?
Where does this stop?

Just believe as if believing is insufficient for salvation? (John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; 20:31; Acts 10:43; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 4:5; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 15:1-4; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

No repentance?

Repentance is a change of mind which precedes believing/faith in Christ. (Matthew 21:32; Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21)

No need to confess Jesus as Lord?

The word of faith is in our mouth and in our heart TOGETHER (Romans 10:8) and confessing with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in our heart that God raised Him from the dead are not two separates to salvation but are chronologically together. (Romans 10:9,10) Confession of Jesus as Lord by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3) is a confirmation of faith and is not a work for salvation after one believes. There is divine influence or direct operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a person when confessing Jesus as Lord. This confession is not just a simple acknowledgment that Jesus is the Lord (even the demons believe that), but is a deep personal conviction that Jesus is that person's Lord and Savior. So, it's not believes unto righteousness today (but still lost) then finally confesses Jesus next week and finally saved next week.

No need to believe that Jesus was physically raised from the dead?

Included in believing. (Romans 10:9; 15:7-9; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

No need to believe the deity of Christ?

Included in believing. (John 1:1-14; 8:24; 20:31)

No need to believe that Jesus is the sole means of salvation?

Included in believing. (John 10:9; 14:6; Acts 4:12)

Was the jailer told that he must give up his idol worship?

In the context of Luke 13:3, Jesus challenged the people's notion that they were morally superior to those who suffered in such catastrophes. He called all to repent or perish. For some people though, prior to coming to the end result of repentance in receiving salvation (believing on the Lord Jesus Christ), they must change their minds about other specific things in order to get there. Repentance, metanoia, focuses on changing one's mind about his previous concept of God (as in Acts 17:30) and disbelief in God or false beliefs (polytheism and idolatry) about God (1 Thessalonians 1:9). On the other hand, this change of mind, focuses on the new direction that change about God must ultimately take, namely, trusting in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation.

Again, how does this sentence prove that water baptism is not for the remission of sins?

Because water baptism "in addition" to believing is not mentioned in Acts 16:31 and if water baptism was absolutely necessary for salvation, then God would not state in so many passages of scripture that man is saved when he simply BELIEVES. (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 4:5; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

 

[TrustandObey]

As for baptism for the remission of sins, I agree with what my concordance says about the word "for":

""For" (as used in Ac 2:38 "for the forgiveness ") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery," "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works."

Just as "Jesse James wanted for robbery" means he is wanted because he has committed a robbery, so "baptism for the remission of sins" means baptism because the person's sins have been remitted, not baptism to accomplish that remission.

This is the old worn out and desperate attempt to declare that all Bible translations should have used "because of" in place of "for", "so that" or "into". This is the hail Mary attempt of pushers of Faith Alone Regeneration Theology use to ignore clear scripture.

There are no translations of this verse either old or new that use "because of".
There are no translations of this verse in any language that use "because of".

This attempt is a sign of a weak theology.

Read Matthew 26:28 and use this logic on the word "for".

 

[DavidLamb]

This is the old worn out and desperate attempt to declare that all Bible translations should have used "because of" in place of "for", "so that" or "into". This is the hail Mary attempt of pushers of Faith Alone Regeneration Theology use to ignore clear scripture.

There are no translations of this verse either old or new that use "because of".
There are no translations of this verse in any language that use "because of".

This attempt is a sign of a weak theology.

Read Matthew 26:28 and use this logic on the word "for".

No I wasn't saying that all bible translations should have "because of" instead of "for." My point is that the word "for", like many words in English, has several different meanings. As my concordance's example showed, "for" can mean "on account of something which has already happened." The Jesse James poster wasn't expressing a desire that he should commit a murder; he was wanted because he had committed a murder.

 

[GWH]

This is certainly not what you said.

This is what you said in post# 323.

"Yes, because natural laws are themselves supernatural/an ongoing miracle so dependable that we take creation for granted."

If "natural laws are themselves supernatural" then there is no natural world.

By defending your bonehead statement you are making it worse.

I said both "natural laws are themselves supernatural/an ongoing miracle so dependable that we take creation for granted"
and "the natural world is a created and sustained miracle by the supernatural God per Gen. 1:1 & Rom. 1:20."

You said, "If natural laws are themselves supernatural, then there is no natural world."

BINGO!

And you have no GW to support your belief that it is not such, because only atheists believe nature is not created by God.

 

[Lamar]

No I wasn't saying that all bible translations should have "because of" instead of "for." My point is that the word "for", like many words in English, has several different meanings. As my concordance's example showed, "for" can mean "on account of something which has already happened." The Jesse James poster wasn't expressing a desire that he should commit a murder; he was wanted because he had committed a murder.

Why do you think Bibles do not use "because of" in place of "for" or "so that" in Acts 2:38?

Certainly there must be a reason.

On your silly Jesse James poster analogy.

Wanted posters were not issued to proclaim guilt of past crimes but the need "for" future arrest "so that" Jesse James could face future prosecution.

Your need to say that a word could mean something different than what every Bible ever published states should give you pause to rethink your theology.