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

Actually the book of acts and the things done it in are not done away with. I mean true you don't see tongues of flames on anyones heads but since when was seeing believing when it come to God? I may not not be
exactly drawn to the idea of laying of hands but I wouldn't limit God either. I mean true enough I have never seen it work but I still believe in it not because I have seen or experienced but because of what I know of God himself. I understand you are very much opposed to pentacostal but I wouldn't limit your understanding simply because you oppose the idea. I mean I am not pentecostal but have had many supernatural expereinces especially with fire. I also do not agree with the Catholic church but because I had a willing heart I learned a great deal from a catholic friend of mine. God can and will use anything and anyone to teach us if we have a teachable heart but that would require for us to not blind ourselves simply because we disagree with something

Good point, one way to reconcile would be to recognize the distinction between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace

Jesus was on Earth to fulfill the promise of a kingdom to the Jews, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 4:17).

Under that Kingdom, all Jews are supposed to accept Jesus as their King, and then be priests that will spread the message of the King to every nation.

The timeline was supposed to be Jews are to be saved first, once they accept Jesus as the Messiah, then the Kingdom will be established in Jerusalem and the Jews will then be priests spreading that blessings to all the Gentiles.

So in order for Jews to fulfill the role of priests, all of them must be water baptized. This was not a requirement before John and Jesus came on Earth, but because both of them came in preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, water baptism became required as part of the salvation process.

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.

By the way, I don't blind myself to things. I specifically asked God to give me the gift of languages if it was real. I did this, not because I think it is is real, but because I wanted to be humbled if it was, in fact, real. And, he did not respond by giving me this gift of languages. That is one of many reasons why I think the current charismatic understanding of it is bogus.

Of course, the charismatic will explain away why God didn't give me this gift of babbling, but I don't accept his explanation. I specifically asked for it, so I would be humbled if my position was incorrect. He can claim all he wants to claim. I suspect most of them were indoctrinated into their view from childhood, or received it from some trusted friend. Perhaps they were saved while attending a charismatic church, and that is why they believe it.

At any rate, I asked for the gift of languages, with the intention that I would be humbled if I received it, yet God did not respond by giving me this gift of languages. Therefore, my conclusion is that the current charismatic claims regarding this gift are bogus.

I don't think their view is correct in this regard. I am willing to admit I am wrong if God gives me this gift and it corresponds to their claims, but i won't be convinced by them. I don't find the vast majority of them to be credible. Most of them are immature believers who also believe other false things and display their weirdness in many different ways.

Additionally, I am not looking for signs to validate my faith. I already know Christianity is true through other means. I don't need to babble in tongues in order to have my faith confirmed. God has already given me absolute assurance that he exists, and that Jesus died on the cross for my sins, and was resurrected the third day for my justification. Therefore, I am not desiring external evidences to "prove" that my faith is valid. I think that is what most charismatics want..some external evidence for their faith, outside of the clear teaching of Scripture and the clear witness of the Holy Spirit.

Don't assume you know my heart, what I mean by I am not drawn to the idea of laying of hands is that it makes me uncomfortable not that it isn't for today and I believe that acts is in fact for today as well.

And as fgor thing about receiving the gift of tongues you chose not to believe it because you didn't recieve it? Do you know how often I have told God and asked him for the gift of healing because I can't stand seeing others suffer and yet not once has he blessed me with it? But I believe in it all the same because of what I know god not because I received it.
And yes actually tongues are real I have been in it's presence before. I had a friend who his whole life had a stutter problem and we were skyping and he lead the prayer he studdered a lot like normal when sudden;y he began speaking in a way I couldn't understand words that were not english and get this not one stutter he spoke fluently like it was his native language and I felt life and cleansing swell up inside me starting like a bubbling brook and then flowing out of me that is the best way I can describe it.

As for my experiences with fire my moment of salvation that I posted earlier is one of them ever since then fire has often times been ascociated with my experiences and relationship with God

Don't assume you know my heart, what I mean by I am not drawn to the idea of laying of hands is that it makes me uncomfortable not that it isn't for today and I believe that acts is in fact for today as well.

And as fgor thing about receiving the gift of tongues you chose not to believe it because you didn't recieve it? Do you know how often I have told God and asked him for the gift of healing because I can't stand seeing others suffer and yet not once has he blessed me with it? But I believe in it all the same because of what I know god not because I received it.
And yes actually tongues are real I have been in it's presence before. I had a friend who his whole life had a stutter problem and we were skyping and he lead the prayer he studdered a lot like normal when sudden;y he began speaking in a way I couldn't understand words that were not english and get this not one stutter he spoke fluently like it was his native language and I felt life and cleansing swell up inside me starting like a bubbling brook and then flowing out of me that is the best way I can describe it.

As for my experiences with fire my moment of salvation that I posted earlier is one of them ever since then fire has often times been ascociated with my experiences and relationship with God

By the way, why did you tell me not to assume I know your heart?

Perhaps you can tell me why you are appealing to your heart.

My basic criticism is wrong doctrine, not the person's inner intentions. I know that some well-meaning people are deceived by false doctrine.

But, why did you reference your heart? Your heart is not the determining factor on correct doctrine.

Additionally, in essence, I think the human heart is deceitfully wicked, and this continues at some level past conversion.

I would reference Jeremiah 17:9 with regards to this.

However, to my knowledge, I made no heart-judgment. I would be interested in knowing what you are referring to. Perhaps you can re-post the segment where you claim I was judging your heart. Give me a specific quote so there is no doubt. Don't just summarize my words.

I would warn everyone to consider how much dispensationalism is reflected in discussion of this topic.

While there are multiple version of dispensationalism, one common strain of dispensationalism claims there are two separate gospels.

Their claim is that Jesus came to preach the gospel of the Kingdom.

For them, the gospel of the kingdom was an offer to the Jews of their day that Jesus would establish the kingdom, right then and there, with the Jews, and would begin ruling from Jerusalem as the Messiah. The gospel of the cross began after the Jews refused the gospel of the Kingdom.

Therefore, in their theology, they believe in two separate gospels. Plan A was the gospel of the kingdom, and Plan B was the gospel of the cross.

Because plan A failed, Gentiles were given the opportunity for salvation. Plan B involved the gospel of the Cross, which involved primarily Gentile salvation. The Church age began with plan B.

So, in dispensational theology, the Church is basically one long parentheses between Jesus' first coming and his second coming, where he will establish the Millennial kingdom with the Jews, primarily. In other words, the salvation of the Gentiles was basically an accident that occurred because Jews refused Christ at his first coming.

So, when you are reading comments here, realize the underlying presuppositions that are being revealed here.

I am not a dispensationalist, therefore I read Scripture in an organic manner. I believe God shapes history, and does not react to it in the same way that a dispensationalist would believe. Therefore, everything must be ordered in my worldview. I believe God foreordained all events, and that they all fit together logically in his plan. The dispensationalist will hold that God is reactionary, responding strictly to man's free will decisions.

Dispensationalists believe, in essence, that the prophetic clock stopped at the moment when the Jews refused Christ, and it won't start back up again until Jesus returns, and the Jews accept him as Messiah.

Again, there are different strains of dispensationalists so some will deny my explanation because their particular sect has progressed past this point. However, this is a common view.

One thing you will find out is that dispensationalists love to split things out. For instance, they claim there are two separate gospels; the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the cross. This is a feature of dispensationalism. Another distinction they will make is the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. The kingdom of heaven is in heaven, and the church members occupy this, and the kingdom of God is the kingdom of Israelites on the earth. This is just one example..they love to split and divide things out, because they cannot make sense of Scripture unless they deny that the Church is the fulfillment of the people of God represented by the Israelites. This leads to their radical division of Scripture, as they cannot make their system coherent unless they split out various Scriptures between Israel and the Church.

These experiences really don't mean anything to me. They don't mean anything to me because I was not witnessing them myself, and I don't trust individuals I do not know personally. If I know a person, then I know if they are reliable witnesses. If I don't know a person, then I don't know if they are reliable witnesses. Talking to someone online is meaningless in terms of establishing their dependability, as I know nothing about their mental health or their morality.

For instance, you could be someone with mental health issues and I would never know it. There are many such people within Christianity who make all kinds of weird claims.

Do you not know that stutterers can speak perfectly normal when singing? For example, Mel Tillis is a country music singer. He has a bad stuttering problem but when he sings, he doesn't stutter for some reason. It could be the same thing with your friend's speaking, whether it is actually biblical tongues or not.

I am objective and not fooled by others' truth claims, especially in the charismatic world as I know for sure that many of them are erratic in behavior and morality. I would have to be a fool to believe them.

And, I know several sound Christians that I trust who came from charismatic background and they tell me it's all bogus and deception. What am I to think, if there are sound believers in my life who hold this view, and spent most of their lives in this background? For instance, the current pastor of the church I am attending is a sound thinker, and he was brought up in charismatic circles. He tells me, basically, that he loves and appreciates them, but they are wrong and deceived. In fact, his dad is still involved in this theology, and he tells me his dad is a godly man, but he is deceived on these matters. He doesn't want to harshly address his father, but at the same time he denies their teachings. Am I to believe a sound-thinking Christian over some individuals who display unsound teachings? I think not.

If baptism is necessary for salvation then it is part of the Gospel of Christ, so it does not violate faith alone, for anything after the Gospel of Christ would violate faith alone if it is works.

For if baptism is a work but part of the Gospel of Christ then repentance is also a work.

And the truth is everything we think and do is a work.

It is a work to believe, to have faith, to confess Christ, to repent of our sins.

1Th 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father. 2Th_1:11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power.

Faith is a work so if they say we do not have to be baptized for it is a work then how can it be faith alone if faith is a work.

So they cannot prove baptism is not necessary for salvation by saying faith alone, and baptism is a work.

Also it is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that is the Gospel, not the death, and resurrection.

So if baptism is necessary for salvation then they are trying to cut out the middle man.

So they cannot prove baptism is necessary for salvation for it is a work, and it is faith alone, for it is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Also charity, love in action, is greater than faith and hope, and faith works by love..

Ephesians 3:9 would tell you that this mystery plan was hidden in God since the foundation of the world.

I don’t know where you got the idea that God is reactionary. Your view is faulty

I was refering to this 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.

What I believe does come from the heart because it is the heart of the person that is always the deciding factor and what God molds and speaks to. It is true that the heart of man is evil and decietful but when we are saved we are given a new heart one that God then begins to mold and change into one like his own.

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.

Good point, one way to reconcile would be to recognize the distinction between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace

Jesus was on Earth to fulfill the promise of a kingdom to the Jews, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 4:17).

Under that Kingdom, all Jews are supposed to accept Jesus as their King, and then be priests that will spread the message of the King to every nation.

The timeline was supposed to be Jews are to be saved first, once they accept Jesus as the Messiah, then the Kingdom will be established in Jerusalem and the Jews will then be priests spreading that blessings to all the Gentiles.

So in order for Jews to fulfill the role of priests, all of them must be water baptized. This was not a requirement before John and Jesus came on Earth, but because both of them came in preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, water baptism became required as part of the salvation process.

I don't believe God is reactionary. I am criticizing the dispensationalist view that God is reactionary.

I am Reformed and I believe God shapes history.

He knows the end from the beginning.

Dispensationalists claim that Israel could have accepted Jesus, and the Millennium would have began at his first coming. He would have begun to reign as Messiah then.

Only, Israel rejected him. Therefore, the Church Age was inserted as a parenthesis. The prophetic time clock stops at that point, and begins again when the Church is raptured up.

In other words, it teaches that God's purpose was actually stalled by Israel, and this is the only reason why salvation was offered to non-Israelites.

This is called the "postponement theory" and most dispensationalists believe it. However, one must believe God is reactionary and can fail in his intended purposes in order to hold such a view.

And I am saying you have the wrong view on dispensationalists.

None of us regard God as reacting to man. Ephesians 3:9 is clear to us that God had this mystery from the very beginning

And I am saying you have the wrong view on dispensationalists.

None of us regard God as reacting to man. Ephesians 3:9 is clear to us that God had this mystery from the very beginning

Good point, one way to reconcile would be to recognize the distinction between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace