BurnForChrist

The debate as to whether or not the miraculous gifts are still in affect today has caused much controversy and division through out the centuries. The point of this thread is not to cause strife but to state what you hold and why you hold it. I have defined the three dominate views of what believers hold as far as whether or not they are still in affect. But first lets remember that irregardless of whether or not you hold/dont hold to one view or another, that the great gift we should have is love (1st Corinthians 13). So lets keep this a healthy and clean discussion. Please do not hijack this thread into a tongues only debate. Cessationism - The position that the miraculous Spiritual gifts (speaking in tongues, word of knowledge, word of wisdom, intepretation of tongues, etc.) ceased with the closing of the Canon of scripture, the death of the last apostle (Early Church) or some time in the past. (1) Semi-Continualist or Cautious Continualist - The position that some, not all, miraculous gifts are still in effect. Continualist - The Position that all the miraculous gifts are still in effect and have been through church history. Note: I realize not all believers hold these specific definitons. You might have a different view when it comes to these terms, if you do then post what you hold. Burn ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_c-d.htm

Thanks everyone for your replies, votes and views. Also understand this is a theological discussion/poll not a salvation/what matters most discussion. I understand that none of this contributes to salvation but understand that this is to attempt to understand the logical order of GODs eternal decrees, so there is nothing wrong with trying to go deep into theological topics. Also let me restate again infralapsarianism does NOT teach that GOD decided to "elect some" after the fall. But rather he viewed that as fallen (hints why its after permit fall) creatures when he decided to elect them. So please try not to get that mixed up or think it any different. Personally I am an Infra. As I stated earlier infralapsarianism does not state that we are not loved in eternity past. I completely agree that before creation we are loved and chosen by God but rather the real debate is how did GOD view man in regards to election. Burn

For those who are not familiar with this theological debate here is a brief summary of all four views with a more specific explanation between superlapsarianism and infralapsariansim below. Supralapsarianism 1. Elect some, reprobate rest. 2. Create 3. Permit Fall 4. Provide salvation for elect 5. Call elect to salvation Infralapsarianism 1. Create 2. Permit Fall 3. Elect some, pass over the rest 4. Provide salvation for the elect 5. Call elect to salvation Amyraldism 1. Create 2. Permit Fall 3. Provide salvation sufficient for all 4. Elect some, pass over rest 5. Call elect to salvation Arminianism 1. Create 2. Permit Fall 3. Provide salvation for all 4. Call all to salvation 5. Elect those who believe The distinction between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism has to do with the logical order of God's eternal decrees, not the timing of election. Neither side suggests that the elect were chosen after Adam sinned. God made His choice before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)—long before Adam sinned. Both infras and supras (and even many Arminians) agree on this. SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (non-elect)—vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22)—were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained. In other words, supralapsarianism suggests that God's decree of election logically preceded His decree to permit Adam's fall—so that their damnation is first of all an act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily an act of divine justice. INFRALAPSARIANISM (also known sometimes as "sublapsarianism") suggests that God's decree to permit the fall logically preceded His decree of election. So when God chose the elect and passed over the non-elect, He was contemplating them all as fallen creatures. Those are the two major Calvinistic views. Under the supralapsarian scheme, God first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin. Infralapsarians tend to emphasize God's "passing over" the non-elect (preterition) in His decree of election. (Note: The summary of Superlapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, Amyraldianism, and Arminianism along with the distinction between supra and infra are taken from http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm | Dont want any plagiarism ) At first the terms and summaries of all four views can be hard to grasp and wrap your mind around but this is simply to best explain how GOD logically ordered his eternal decrees. Do not let strife take root in this discussion, keep it healthy . So what theological position do you hold or agree to? Burn

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out." John 10:28 "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father

Before I even reply to your response where is this in the new testament? You say that every person has a new creation, where is that in the bible? How does on attain the indwelling of the holy spirit? By works? If you reply yes then thats heresy, and in complete contradiction to Galatians chapter 3. If no then please elaborate. Burn

First of all I'd like to know where you get the statement "everyone has a new creation in Christ"? Are you stating that all of mankind now is a new creature in christ? If you are then that is just as heretical as Pelagianism. Its only those who are "in Christ Jesus" that have been transformed and given a new nature -- 2 Corinthians 5:17. But if you are saying that "everyone" as in every believer then yes I will agree but not with your next statement "and an old nature in Adam." Paul made this quite clear, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." (2nd Cor. 5:17). All believers do not have their old nature, but have a new nature, for they are a new creation. However this doesn't disturb me as much as your soteriological explanation of how a man is saved. Where in the NT does it teach that we are saved by our works? Whatever happened to believers being justified not by our works but by faith alone? (Romans 3:28, 5:1; Galatians 2:6, 3:11).

Here is where you have error, Genesis 20 "3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him,

How can man respond if he is dead, evil and GOD hating? Unless of course GOD first initially works and quickens first his heart? Burn As stated, God gives a measure of faith to all. Read the Parable of the Talents. The Holy Spirit convicts all of their sins. At this point, the choice is theirs to make. Most people choose to bury the talent (ignoring the call), and thus won't come to Christ. I agree. You

But there is your problem they CANNOT go back into the world, for how can they? John made this same point in his 1st epistle. I agree that they can't "unregenerate" themselves according to 1 Peter 1:23, but you seem to think that they can go back into the world. How can a new creation act against its nature? 1st John 3:9 "Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." Now I am not advocating that this teaches sinless perfection for we know that would contradict what John said two chapters earlier (1 John 1:8, 10). But it does teach that those who are born of GOD cannot go back to living in sin all of the days of there life. Yes they can fall into some sort of sin, but GOD will come for them. Why? Because He loves them and WILL discipline them according to Hebrews 12. You are mis-interpreting the text. The "son of disobidience" are not Christians, but those whose lives are marked by fornication, uncleanness, etc. Which in and of itself are marks of a lost unregenerated life. The evidence of ones salvation is not what they did 10 years ago, but what they are doing this very day. Because GOD will complete the good work which he started according to Philippians 1:6. Although the author of Hebrews does indeed call them "holy brethren" and "partakers in the heavenly calling" (Hebrews 3:1). He makes an important point to them 14 verses later, "For we have become partakers of Christ IF we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end" (Hebrews 3:14). So again I make the point evidence of ones salvation is the continuing work which GOD does in all who are truly regenerated. I will not deny that there are some who look like they have been redeemed, and saved for a season (like in the parable of the sower) IF they fall away, as John said, they "were not of us" for "if they had been of us, they would HAVE continued with us" according to 1 John 2:19. Another example I believe what John is talking about are those whom have whom Peter is talking about in 1 Peter 2:20-22. Because also Jesus made it clear that his sheep will NEVER perish in John 10:28-30. If no one can snatch them out of his hand, and if nothing can seperated from the love of GOD (Romans 8:38-39) how do you expect yourself to? But my question to you, is what did Jesus then mean in John 6:39 that "this is the will of the father that sent me, that ALL he has given me I should loose none, but raise it up at the last day"? Burn

Jesus doesn't wish anybody to go, but if my heart is to no longer serve God then he will let me go. For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. - 2 Timothy 4:10 Here we have Demas forsaking Christianity because he loved the present world more than God. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. - John 6:66 As long as we are doing our best to live Christianity Jesus will never leave nor forsake us, but there is nothing that will stop me from leaving Jesus if I don't want walk anymore. I disagree. The texts you have quoted correspond with what John said about men who "fall away" back to the world. 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." So men like Demas and those who professed to followed Christ but then fell away were in and of themselves never "of us" as John said in the text above. They were manifestations of "tares" in the field as Jesus taught in Matthew 13:24-30. Furthermore, Jesus also said that all of those whom the father had given him he would loose none of them (John 6:39). Peter also declared that we who have been regenerated by the Spirit of God and have been born again have been born of an incorruptible seed (1 Peter 1:23). How can we who have been regenerated and been given a new life be "un-regenerated"? Unless of course GOD continues the work he finishes (Philippians 1:6). Burn

TULIP is the 5 Points of Calvinism in an acronym. Since your question is about whether or not a person can lose there salvation, the doctrine of the Perserverance of the Saints (The "P" on TULIP) was mentioned in contrast to the idea of one loosing there salvation. This doctrine states that when GOD beings a saving work of salvation in the life of a believer He will complete this work until the day of his Son Jesus Christ according to Philippians 1:6, and much more scriptures. Now this does not mean that a believer cannot fall into sin, or will live in sinless perfect but that if he does GOD will come, convict and discipline. This can take a week, or 5 years (I dont know it is GOD who does it), but GOD will finish what He has started. Burn Thanks.. all of this stuff like calvinism is so confusing Lol, well at first it can be confusing. But all the 5-Points do is try to explain as best as it can what the bible teaches on various topics (Once Save Always Save for example) in a articulative and adequate way. It took me a while to understand it, but when I did I am glad I studied it. Burn

How can man respond if he is dead, evil and GOD hating? Unless of course GOD first initially works and quickens first his heart? Burn

TULIP is the 5 Points of Calvinism in an acronym. Since your question is about whether or not a person can lose there salvation, the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints (The "P" on TULIP) was mentioned in contrast to the idea of one loosing there salvation. This doctrine states that when GOD begins a saving work in the life of a believer He will complete this work until the day of his Son Jesus Christ according to Philippians 1:6. There are many more scriptures to use in defense of this, but I want to explain it as simple as I can. Now this does not mean that a believer cannot fall into sin, or will live in sinless perfect but that if he does fall GOD will come convict and discipline. This can take a week, or 5 years (I don't know it is GOD who does it), but GOD will finish what He has started. Burn

I respectively disagree. Once a person has been regenerated by the power of GOD they cannot "un-convert". Those who simply grow up in church then fall away are just manifestations of lost churchmen who were never converted to begin with. Jesus declared, John 10:27-29 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father

We accept exactly what the verse is saying. Along with: Psalm 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates." Lev. 20:23, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them." It is true and can be uncomfortable. Although we know John 3:16, we can also say "GOD hates the sin and the one who loves his sin." Some go as far as say that because GOD is love He cannot hate. But the problem is its because GOD IS love that He must hate. He loves righteousness therefore hates wickedness. I love babies therefore I hate abortion. GOD is a holy GOD and hates that which is evil. Even hating "workers of iniquity." Burn

The answers are very insightful, but I heard another good explanation of it. Genesis 3:15 is the first prophecy about the coming of Christ. The "seed of the women" is Christ and the serpent is Satan. The Hebrew for "bruise" is "shûph" which can also mean to snap, overwhelm and crush. And the idea here presented is that Satan bruised the seeds head through the cross but Christ crushes his head through the resurrection. Hopefully that helps, and there are also good answers as well. Burn

While yes the 5 Points you posted are what they are, its still different then what you accuse Calvinism to be. You said: "You call him a liar because the bible clearly teaches God is no respecter of men,but you teach he chooses some and not others therefore you he he IS a respecter of men therefore calling him a lair." The term "Respecter of men" biblically isn't what your making it out to be. Just because GOD elects to save men who hate him, will break his law, and love to sin does not make GOD a respecter of men. It makes him a merciful sovereign God. You said: "You say he forces himself on some against there will, therefore calling him a rapist." How is GOD a rapist for working and quickening man's heart in his natural state so that he might be saved? This isn't rape, its grace. There is a huge difference. And secondly if GOD didn't draw men to himself NO man would come to Him. That is why its so important to understand the depravity of man before you can go on. You said: "You say he sends some to hell with no chance for salvation,even if they wanted to accept Christ as their Saviour they couldn't,therefore calling him a murderer." This is a huge error amongst those who try to argue against Calvinism. Firstly if your not the elect you won't even want to come to Him in the first place. If someone wanted to come to Christ and be saved it wouldn't be something in them but rather GOD drawing them. Its not like your friends or family couldn't be saved because there not on some "E" list but rather its there desire for Christ in which is a manifestation of there possible election. Secondly GOD still convicts the lost of there sins and wickedness: Acts 7:51

I agree God has given us the freedom of choice ,if we choose to accept salvation then we are chosen if not the we have rejected him not vise versa. I am daisy all the way I dont think you understand the biblical explanation of mans depravity. If GOD left it up to us, then NO ONE would choose Him. GOD doesnt make his election based on conditions or what WE do. If GODs choice on us is based on what we choose who then is the sovereign one? Burn

Ive probably watched this video 10 times, its exactly what is needed to be heard in american churches today. I truly do think that God is raising up men to preach the old truth that isnt very popular today. So in conclusion to the video I thought it was stunning, amazing and hope that the Lord use this sermon to powerfully impact the life of the youth. Burn But my question is for mind, what problems are there with this sermon?

You are correct

Not trying to argue here Massorite, promise..........but in my 50 odd years I have NEVER, EVER heard what you've just stated above. No where in the Bible does it say satan was the music minister, and if the supposed CoC you were going to told you that, then they are a cult. But, they are NOT the CoC I grew up in. No where does it say in the bible that you have to be baptized in order to be saved either, thats like saying the cross wasn't enough. BurnForChrist, A lot of people make that statement and are wrong. Christ's death on the cross was to shed his blood for our sins right? Well look at these verses - Romans 6:3-7 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Christ died on the cross for our sins and through baptism we are buried with him and as Christ was raised up, even so shall we. Now, look at the last verse. It says, "he that is dead is freed from sin". Now, if Christ died on the cross for our sins and through baptism we are buried, resurrected, and freed from our sins then how can baptism take away from what he did on the cross? Colossians 2:10-12 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Once again, this talks about baptism and says that it is a circumcision made without hands. Circumcise is to cut away and this is referring to cutting away the body of sins. Do you notice how it repeats what Romans says in that we are buried and risen with Christ in baptism through the operation. Also it says in Mark 16:16 he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. I don't want to debate baptism here. I only rebuttaled a comment made. Okay im just repeating myself. Romans 6:3-7 and Colossians 2:10-12 is NOT LITERAL BAPTISM! Its a symbolic reference to our conversion that happens when we believe. Just like in Colossians 2 earlier he talks about circumcision, just like he symbolically uses this, so he did the same with baptism, its not literal. You make salvation a work by saying "I must be baptized in order to be saved" which obviously contradicts scripture but you seem to be missing that every time. The LORD upon the cross bore our sins, as an atonement, and the father poured out his wrath upon his son in our place, he died and rose again three days later, so that when we believe then we shall be saved, just like the thief upon the cross. Salvation isn't some step program where you have to believe and get dunked in water. Physical baptism is something that symbolizes what has happened to us internally as I have stated before. on the Mark 16:16 subject again I have already explained it, but your refuse to listen. Its the one who doesn't believe that is condemned, so therefore its the one who believes who is saved, not works, but faith in the son of GOD. Oh and read my rebuttal to your last post in the other forum, i hope it helps. Grace to you, Burn

Not trying to argue here Massorite, promise..........but in my 50 odd years I have NEVER, EVER heard what you've just stated above. No where in the Bible does it say satan was the music minister, and if the supposed CoC you were going to told you that, then they are a cult. But, they are NOT the CoC I grew up in. No where does it say in the bible that you have to be baptized in order to be saved either, thats like saying the cross wasn't enough. Where ANYWEHRE in the above do you see one word about baptism????? Sorry wasn't really quoting or responding to you or anyone else above, just saying in general because I thought this thread was about that subject.

Cardcaptor, You said: "You are correct in your assessment that verses can be taken out of context to fit false doctrine, because people who live a "faith only" doctrine do just that. Eph. 2:8,9 is one of the greatest examples of how people can rip scriptures out of context to support a certain way of belief. You keep saying that "faith only" is all we need to be saved, but the scriptures say otherwise. The only place in the bible where you will find the words "faith" and "only" in the same verse is this one - James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. This contradicts what you are saying in that the scripture plainly states that we are NOT saved by faith only. Look at where this scripture was taken from and you will get the whole point that we are not just saved by our belief. We actually have to do and live Christianity by obeying the scriptures." First of all not only have you misinterpreted James 2:24, but you have completely misunderstood what I have stated. Let me say again, salvation is by only faith in Jesus Christ, THATS IT! And the evidence of that faith is by are works, our lifestyle the way we life. Thats what James meant in James 2:24. If we do not live a different lifestyle from when we didn't believe, then are faith is dead, its not really faith at all! Thats what our LORD Jesus meant when he said, "You shall know them by there fruits." Matthew 7:20 -- Anyone can profess faith in Jesus Christ, but its there works (fruits) which follow that faith in which discerns whether or not that faith is genuine. So by faith we are justified (Romans 5:1), by faith we are saved (Ephesians 2:8), by faith we have eternal life in the Son (John 3:16). And for the record I am not denying that we are to live a lifestyle of holiness and conformity to the image of the son (Romans 8:28-29), for that is the evidence of our salvation! John said in 1 John 2:3 "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments." Again its not by our works, followed by our believe that save us, but by are faith followed by our obedience and fruits that we truly know him and have eternal life. Oh and for the record the words "faith" and "only" also appear in Galatians 3:2 "This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" Just thought you should know .

Not trying to argue here Massorite, promise..........but in my 50 odd years I have NEVER, EVER heard what you've just stated above. No where in the Bible does it say satan was the music minister, and if the supposed CoC you were going to told you that, then they are a cult. But, they are NOT the CoC I grew up in. No where does it say in the bible that you have to be baptized in order to be saved either, thats like saying the cross wasn't enough.