John for JESUS wrote: there is a call to go and preach/teach .., baptize
The command to "baptize" means that you preach. And the resultant baptism (if there is any, since it's the work of God & is out of your hands) is what, "to BAPTIZE" means.
For someone who started out a staunch literalist-"one must mean one", you sure did an about face. To baptize really means baptism. The command to do is really what is out of your hands.
"The deciples went out and obeyed the GC in every way. They preached"
And on & on it goes. Your posts are a jumble of contradictions & confusions.
I showed you that preach does not mean baptize. You agreed! And then you dive right back into the confusing muck - "preaching was part of the Great Commission and I am talking about preaching as it pertains to baptism in the Great Commission".
Paul is able to make a clean distinction between preach & baptize - 1Cor1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach"
John for JESUS wrote: 1) Yes they did! They went out and obeyed His command to them in every way as far as I can tell
The baptism of the Holy Spirit does indeed happen through the preaching of the word. That's the work of God. To "baptize", the part you said was the desciples, that's dropped off.
You don't have a call to baptize but only a call to preach. Baptism happens, but your version of baptizing doesn't!! Because it never was.
God baptizes with the Holy Spirit. You can't do it. You're clever, but not honest. There was a call to preach. There was a distinct call to "baptize", and how to. The bible keeps that distinction. Your made up version can't.
Believers here take the true light of the gospel and holds it high to act as a beacon for the body of Christ to correct it's course. Only teenagers and brand new Christians know it all. I can't tell you how much I have grown in my walk just by being battered and tossed about by those whom I love in the Lord.
Paul Washer is an outspoken critic of easy belvsm. Paul Washer, like Paul the Apostle, loves his Jesus and is jealous to guard HIS name. I am a proponent of easy believism because that's all you come in with. Only God the Spirit can love God the Son. It's an act of pure grace and mercy that God should allow me the closeness the Pauls enjoy. We all meet at the same place.
J4 wrote: Jesus' disciples did obey. They preached, baptized by laying on hands
Obey the Great Commission on baptism? No they didn't obey. The GC was a call for the one who was going to baptize,not the one recieving the baptism.
"Go ye & baptize!"
You keep throwing preaching in there even though you AGREED preaching isn't baptizing -see point #3 of your last post.
How then to baptize? By laying on of hands of course! But this as you say fell to the wayside a long time ago.
J4 wrote: No, not anymore. Though they sometimes did. The most we can do now, it seems, is preach the gospel which results in those who hear and obey to be baptized in the Holy Spirit
The GC was given to the believer who was called to do the baptizing &make deciples. You keep giving us the one's recieving the baptism as your fullfilment to the GC. Because that's all you have left to fall back on.
Your posts are a jumble of confusion. Because you're the author of it, not the Bible.
shane wrote: Carl from England... Fool? Remember our Lords words," if anyone says you fool, will be in danger of hell fire". Be careful brother. I don't agree with Driscoll, but, let us fight the good fight with scripture, not name calling.
The word "fool" is an English translation. Not to worry Carl
John for JESUS wrote: The Great Commission was given to His disciples and there is instances shown in the Bible where they indeed baptized with the Holy Spirit as Jesus commanded. I believe the commission is an example for believers to follow but was specifically for His disciples at that time.
The great commision was NOT given to all believers. It was given specifically for the deciples. It was not meant for us. Have I got it?
Is the Holy Spirit necessary for, and present at, the time of conversion?
John for JESUS wrote: CV... I don't believe it happens like it did before with the evidence of speaking in tongues (though some may argue). However, the baptism should be manifest by the fruits of the Spirit.
No the administration of this baptism of the Holy Spirit - is it done through a physical act - like you would give someone a water baptism?
True saving faith is not apart from repentance. JM puts too much emphasis on the showiness of religiosness to declare someone saved. Fact is, salvation is of the heart no man can see. Someone can show all the outward sign, read the bible & attend bible study, and not be saved. Zech7:5 "was it for me you fasted?",Isiah58
How JM presents easy belivsm, I agree with. But JM would have a problem with inviting someone down the isl after a sermon because that would also be easy belivsm. Everyone is invited to know Jesus and it's not for you to say if it's real or not
Do you have to go through some rigor to keep your good standing to stay saved, or at least to tell God you are keeping your end of the deal?
Is your faith& repentance not a gift? Is He not the author & the finisher & the sustainer of your faith? We take our cares and our heavy yokes and cast it upon Jesus. That IS easy then.
We are saved by pure grace, not of our doing. Why then this emphasis to show something? The Holy Spirit works in our lifes to conform us to the image of Christ. We are not called to our faith nor to meet it's standards but to the Lord Himself. He is both Lord& Saviour.
John UK wrote: The easy-believist ..has made up an easy-religion
John I am one of those easy believists. We are saved by grace and kept by grace alone. Not even our obedience accounts for anything.
True regeneration produces a contrite and repentant heart. It brings about obedience out of love and longing for Him. But God works out His plans in the lives of His elect in His own time
Jc wrote: Yes we should live for jesus by living right but if someone still struggling with a piticular sin ..doesn't make them not saved
Salvation is easy believism- all of grace. Who are we to say they are getting away easy? Are we envious that they did not earn a full days rightiousness as us? Mat20 My dear brother,Rom14:4
The problem we have is to tell these ones apart from those who claim Christ but cling to darkness. Or those who manifest all the "christian" witness but are lost in their damnable heresies. There are those who are really evil but manifest "christian" light for the purpose of bringing in damnable heresies. It's for these that we contend against easy believism Acts20:27-30, not easy believism itself. For salvation is of the Lord- all of grace
penny wrote: Brother CV, I find the measurement of handing out a book in the parking lot against condoning as God's will the trading out of our rep for "safety" and watching the diaspora of millions, that is millions from Iraq onward to be immeasurably different.
Driscol is a shock jock not a pastor. He built his church that way. nuff said.
America was built upon Christian foudation by people who feared God. US, with it's constitution and it's bill of rights is the best thing on this side of heaven, and has stood as a beacon of hope and freedom. But Satan was bussy too at the laying of the foundation through Jim's masons. Today, the rapid erosion of freedom and privacy, mostly through contrived fear, is scary.
American wars are now mostly for special interests. Darby/Schofield christianity is no help because they have little regard for an Iraqy Christian as they dive headlong to arrange Jeruslem to be the worlds capital.
The plight of most of the world will get no help from these duo's
Lady_Virtue wrote: I did notice that in the article, this woman is referred to as "Ms"; in a older article "Miss." Yet, the article describes her as a mother of three.
I wondered about that too when I first read it.
Lady_Virtue wrote: Sadly, many women cast off the protective covering of their fathers in their youth and reject having husbands in favor of "careers, freedom, and independence." which is a rejection of God's creation order.
This passing of the headship from the father to the husbund is a biblical principal that is not going to find acceptance today. So much so, that (not enough space but) God gave the Father the authority to revoke a vow made by a daughter. That authority was given over to the husband at marriage. This was true at the very first marriage where God gave the bride and the headship and authority of that family was given to Adam. Eve was not the head and her sin did not bind Adam.
penny wrote: it amazes me that such an aggressive generation that has encouraged such aggressions overseas, could be so offended because a pastor in the parking lot passes out a book contrary to their views.
Not to belabour this point because it doe's not add to the understanding of the bible.
This conference was put on by GTY by their money on their property. They are NOT obligated to provide a table to Driscol or Muslims.
This was not a government styfling all forms of free speech so Driscol had sneak in and run gourilla warfare. Critize, but pay for your own program. Why diddn't Driscol go through the proper approval process. Sneaky!
I don't agree with Macarthur on everything. But I wouldn't waste any time on Driscol, let alone encourage his type of agression
Scott McMahan wrote: A conference held to promote John MacArthur's new book is crashed by a pastor promoting his new book. Without getting the official imprimatur of MacArthur's organization, the conference crasher is escorted out. The absurdity of this situation