Is Charismania Antichrist?

[Willie T]

Let's see..... A couple of people in Jesus' bloodline.... Rahab was a blatant liar, (sounds like breaking one of the commandments... lawlessness, perhaps?) David took a man's wife, then had the man murdered. (Ya think this qualified as more lawlessness in breaking some more commandments?)

Just some observations.

 

[now faith]

I cited Matthew 7:23 and every other text I interpreted! How could you miss them? Read it again, treat those.

You should meditate, think real hard, on why you didn't see the Bible texts I exposited.

I recall myself doing the same thing to others who tried to reason with me, but then I was in a cult, and not thinking critically.

The first lesson of Critical Thinking---thinking SOUNDLY (2 Tim 1:7), and perhaps the hardest to practice---is to STOP ASSUMING what is being discussed, and actually listen to what the other person is saying:

13 He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him. (Pro 18:13 NKJ)

At Amazon.com or other booksellers, excellent introductions to critical thinking, argumentation and debating, exist. I recommend them. A critical thinker will never accept unsound interpretation of scripture.

(Ignore any digs against God or Scripture, THOSE who do this aren't consistent, critically speaking. Its impossible to critically look through eyes that clearly were intelligently designed, at creation whose design is infinitely above our intelligence to do, and deduce there is no Infinite Designer God who created them both.)

So a consistent critical thinker will bow down on his face and confess Jesus Christ is God the Eternal Son, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, just as the apostles and prophets taught.

And the Bible empirically speaking, must be the very Word of God as the overwhelming mass of irrefutable internal evidence, proves it beyond any reasonable doubt. I prefer the "Received Text", Stephanus 1550 for the NT, Masoretic for the OT.

While the fact Christ taught never will a jot or tittle of God's truth be lost (Matt 5:18) is sufficient, its also critically consistent with God's invisible attributes clearly seen the His visible creation, nothing He created that has value is ever lost.

It appears to me,you find what ever format in text to promote your misguided thealogy.

It is out of the will of God to quench the Spirit,or to subdue the Word from the lost.


Acts 13:8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. 13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, 13:10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

 

[now faith]

Perhaps you can help me out again. I wanted the precise Assembly of God rebuttal to Fred Francis Bosworth (one of the founders of AOG) "Do all speak in tongues?: An Open Letter to the Ministers and Saints of the Pentecostal Movement" He doesn't seem to be "hyperlegalistic".

Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1Co 12:30 NKJ)

I can't find any direct rebuttal of this Pentecostal minister's insistence not all speak in tongues.

Also I'd like the BEST AOG rebuttal of those who say this teaches not all speak in tongues.

Of course I believe the text says what it says, not all heal, speak with tongues or interpret. But I want the "official" AOG interpretation of this text that actually treats the Greek ect., not simply run away from it to Acts 2.

Which by the way, says only 3.8% (120) of the 3,120 saved that day [100*(120/3120)], spoke in tongues. A definite minority. (And that was the Time of the gifts maximum manifestation in the church!)

38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation."
41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common,
45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,
47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
(Act 2:38-47 NKJ)

Unlike the 120 who spoke in tongues, the 3,000 showed the outward physical evidence they received the Holy Spirit by their obedience to apostolic doctrine which is found today only in our Bibles and their "love for one another" John 13:35.

So it appears only a small minority spoke in tongues, the majority in Corinth wanted to forbid them---a minority cannot impose its will on the majority hence those wanting to forbid tongues, were in the majority:

39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. (1Co 14:39 NKJ)

But happily they didn't have to, tongues ceased soon after this, never mentioned again in the NT. In fact, by 66 AD all signs and wonders were spoken of in the "past tense"

3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? (Heb 2:3-4 NKJ)

But lets not get lost in the forest.

I want to focus on Pentecostal minister Bosworth's argument that not all speak in tongues. Let's treat that first and exclusively. Thanks in advance for your help.

Has it dawned on you to visit the AOG.forum?

 

[ARBITER01]

Has it dawned on you to visit the AOG.forum?

No what he wanted to do was come here and berate us for our beliefs and cause strife.

He didn't know that this subforum is connected to the Spirit-filled section, and it's rules apply here just as well, until I let him know.

 

[Alfred Persson]

No what he wanted to do was come here and berate us for our beliefs and cause strife.

He didn't know that this subforum is connected to the Spirit-filled section, and it's rules apply here just as well, until I let him know.

Neither is smearing something 1st century Christians did.

I didn't berate your beliefs, or seek to cause strife.

Perhaps I posted (wanting to debate) on the wrong sub forum, but was that so unreasonable given the fact this sub-forum's title is "Charismatic DEBATE" where WOF and non-WOF may discuss different ideas.

Cessation is a different idea. I am definitely "non-WOF."

But if my post isn't permitted here, I'll go where it is.

I'm still reading Bosworth, and will reply any responses to my post soon...unless you have convinced them to ban me or something...

 

[ARBITER01]

Neither is smearing something 1st century Christians did.

While it may be I posted (wanting to debate) on the wrong subsection, it does say "Charismatic DEBATE" where WOF and non-WOF may discuss different ideas.

Cessation is a different idea. I am definitely "non-WOF."

I'm still reading Bosworth, and will reply to your response soon...unless you have convinced them to ban me or something...

Then I'll do it at CARM.

Non-wof doesn't mean non-Spirit-filled, friend. You assumed wrongly.

Cessation goes against the forums doctrinal stance and teachings, so there is no debate here on it with us at all, because it is against the rules.

Specific faith groups are sanctuaries that are shields from divergent and often false teachings. In other words, you are in the wrong section, go to the general theology section is you want to try and badmouth our doctrine.

 

[Tobias]

Neither is smearing something 1st century Christians did.

I didn't berate your beliefs, or seek to cause strife.

Perhaps I posted (wanting to debate) on the wrong sub forum, but was that so unreasonable given the fact this sub-forum's title is "Charismatic DEBATE" where WOF and non-WOF may discuss different ideas.

Cessation is a different idea. I am definitely "non-WOF."

But if my post isn't permitted here, I'll go where it is.

I'm still reading Bosworth, and will reply any responses to my post soon...unless you have convinced them to ban me or something...

Not knowing that debate is not allowed in a debate forum, is definitely a forgivable offense!


FYI, there used to be a lot of bad blood between WOF Charismatics and Non-WOF Charismatics. So they gave us this forum to hash things out, in the hopes of keeping the regular forum free from so many debates.

Now that they gave the WOF-ers their own sub-forum, this one gets little use.

The Charismatic Non-WOF forum is another relic from that era, and is a complete ghost town.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Not knowing that debate is not allowed in a debate forum, is definitely a forgivable offense!


FYI, there used to be a lot of bad blood between WOF Charismatics and Non-WOF Charismatics. So they gave us this forum to hash things out, in the hopes of keeping the regular forum free from so many debates.

Now that they gave the WOF-ers their own sub-forum, this one gets little use.

The Charismatic Non-WOF forum is another relic from that era, and is a complete ghost town.

Thanks for your understanding, and the backround.

If you don't mind, could you direct me to proper forum to debate the gifts?

I am a Cessationist, and wanted to hash it out with those who can disagree, agreeably, scripturally.

Generating more light than heat, if possible.

 

[Alfred Persson]

To begin with, Bosworth's tract is found in it's entirety at:

http://www.isom.vnsalvation.com/Resources%20English/Christian%20Ebooks/FF%20Bosworth%20Do%20All%20Speak%20With%20Tongues.pdf

It's a good read, and presents many of the standard cessationist arguments - with the "Slant" of one who has been baptized in the SPirit speaks in tongues, and accepts "tongues" as a legitimate Spiritual enablement.

Bosworth's belief (and the reason that he withdrew from the AG early on) was his disagreement with the establishment of an "Official dogma" - (Fundamental truth #8 - doctrine of Initial Evidence) - making "tongues" the ONLY OFFICIAL INITIAL EVIDENCE.

"Baptism in the Holy Spirit" (Fundamental truth #7) IS a "Core/Cardinal Doctrine" of the denomination - one of 4.

Bosworth (when you read the "tract") Spoke in tongues at will himself in what we'd call "Prayer in the Spirit" mode, and he led many people into the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, many of whom ALSO received the gift of speaking in tongues at the time. HE has no problem with that either before OR After his parting of the ways with the AG.

Bosworth's PROBLEM with the AG was that he DID NOT believe that the Bible supports a HARD DOCTRINE that "Speaking in tongues" was THE ONLY EVIDENCE that provided "proof" that the individual had ACTUALLY received the "Enduement of Power" promised by Jesus.

SO:

"Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1Co 12:30 NKJ)"

ANd the obvious implied answer here is NO.

"I can't find any direct rebuttal of this Pentecostal minister's insistence not all speak in tongues."

The AG.org site does make mention of Bosworth (and Donald Gee) particularly in the section: The Full Consummation Of The Baptism In The Holy Spirit Bosworth is spoken highly of as a person of integrity and character - that the AG considers to be in error.

"Also I'd like the BEST AOG rebuttal of those who say this teaches not all speak in tongues."

The article above is probably the best "Official word" on the subject.

"Which by the way, says only 3.8% (120) of the 3,120 saved that day [100*(120/3120)], spoke in tongues. A definite minority. (And that was the Time of the gifts maximum manifestation in the church!)"

Of course I shouldn't have to point out that you've made a classical "argument from silence". It IS TRUE that the Bible DOES NOT SAY anything whatsoever about ANY of the 3000 "Speaking in tongues". But it's a good idea NOT to form a doctrine on basis of what the Bible DOESN'T say.

"the majority in Corinth wanted to forbid them"

An Assumption on your part. Apparently a significant number of Corinthians were "Showing off their gift", and enjoying it.

"But happily they didn't have to, tongues ceased soon after this, never mentioned again in the NT. In fact, by 66 AD all signs and wonders were spoken of in the "past tense"

Really - Galatians speaks of "The one who DOES Miracles among you" in 53-57. I wouldn't argue that in the years following the "Apostolic age as the Visible Church descended into superstition ignorance and confusion, there's only sketchy evidence of the "Gifts" until the 19th century.

"I want to focus on Pentecostal minister Bosworth's argument that not all speak in tongues. Let's treat that first and exclusively."

Sure, but since I'm in agreement with Bosworth in his PRIMARY argument - i.e. that "Tongues" is not the ONLY "initial evidence", I'm not going to be that one that "Opposes him" strongly.

My 50 year association with the AG has produced several personal observations:

There are people who have NEVER spoken in tongues, but who exhibit the "Fruit of the Spirit", and communicate Spiritual things, and understandings in a unmistakably Christ-Like way.

There are folks who "Speak in Tongues" and who are mean, judgmental, and show NO overt Christian attributes whatsoever.

AND there are folks who "Speak in tongues", life Exemplary lives, flow in the love of Jesus, and minister with signs following.

"Speaking in tongues", "Interpretation", and "Prophetic utterance" can ALL be faked with a little practice (Back in the day the "Way International" for $300 would teach you how to do it). I could EASILY STAND in a Pentecostal service, and rip off a totally convincing "Message in tongues", AND an "Interpretation" that would fool anybody that wasn't operating in the gift of "Discernation of Spirits". It happens.

The LAST time I was prayed for (In an FGBMFI breakfast meeting in '73) to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit - NOTHING OVERT HAPPENED. About two weeks later I began speaking in tongues in the middle of a worship service (again at the FGBMFI at a dinner meeting). It was a totally non-emotional experience.

Before they WEREN'T there, and after they WERE, and 40 years later they still are. This would be Donald Gee's "Delayed evidence" teaching that the AG isn't too fond of.

Among a growing percentage charismatics World Wide, "Tongues" is considered to be AN "evidence", but so are other spiritual manifestations as well which would jive nicely with Bosworth's teaching.

In my case there WAS a "Satisfaction" connected with actually "Speaking in a tongue" (no more "Head rubbing sessions" among well-meaning, but ineffective Pentecostals).

But the REAL evidence that "Something had radically changed", was that within a month, I was given (by God) a Bible study to teach, and I did so for the next 5 years, or so - among a group of UCC folks, and The Holy Spirit kept me "Loaded for bear" - ALL OF WHICH would have been completely IMPOSSIBLE for me to have done before (because of my shyness, and "Fear of the face of man"). There had been an obvious "Enduement of power", which has extended to many other aspects of life.

And, of course I HAVE been burdened by the Holy Spirit to Interpret tongues many times, and occasionally to give Prophetic utterance. But NEVER to "Speak in tongues" in "Message to the congregation mode". SO in THAT sense - I don't "Speak in tongues" - even though I do constantly in private.

BUT - in 2014, in the U.S. the "Normative experience" among Pentecostals/Charismatics is that WHEN they are baptized in the Spirit, they will speak in tongues.

Some years back, Thomas Trask (General Superintendent of the AG) made the statement: "If the Present trend continues in our churches, within a decade we will be Pentecostal in NAME ONLY". The trend has continued, and in AG Churches in the Dallas area, it's exceedingly RARE to actually hear a "Message in a tongue", or an "Interpretation" during a service - Our plant manager attends at one of the largest AG churches in the area, and after 6 months he didn't KNOW it was a "Pentecostal church", or that it was an AG franchise.

We're not sure why -

Simple as that.

Thanks for your testimony, and the links.

So we do agree on Bosworth, I like him too, his biblicism.

Too bad the OCR software used wasn't that accurate, a hard read resulted at times.

But I learned a lot.

I remain a cessationist, in case you're wondering.

I just finished my first reading of his thesis, will review it more carefully later after I check out the "The Full Consummation..." you helpfully shared with me.

So it doesn't appear I'll be arguing this out here, as you say its the wrong place. Perhaps back at CARM, or if you can direct me to the right forum...I'll meet you there...after I review the materials, again of course.

Right now I'll be rereading your testimony, it is very interesting.

Your personal observations line up with Bosworth's, and I don't doubt either of you are true believers.

If I thought it impossible believers be wrong about some things, I'd have to throw away my New Testament, most of which was written to correct errors believers had taken up.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

On CARM, I normally hang around the "Word of Faith" forum, and did see (and answer) your post in the he "Charismatic" forum, which forum has been pretty dead, since WoF was separated out some years back.

 

[Alfred Persson]

On CARM, I normally hang around the "Word of Faith" forum, and did see (and answer) your post in the he "Charismatic" forum, which forum has been pretty dead, since WoF was separated out some years back.

That short reply, which you also gave here, that is it?

I thought you would repeat some of your latest points made above, there.

Like your claim I made an argument from silence, when I did no such thing.

"Which by the way, says only 3.8% (120) of the 3,120 saved that day [100*(120/3120)], spoke in tongues. A definite minority. (And that was the Time of the gifts maximum manifestation in the church!)"-Alfred

Of course I shouldn't have to point out that you've made a classical "argument from silence". It IS TRUE that the Bible DOES NOT SAY anything whatsoever about ANY of the 3000 "Speaking in tongues". But it's a good idea NOT to form a doctrine on basis of what the Bible DOESN'T say.-Bob

On the contrary, its not an argument from silence, its an argument from scripture shouting out what they did AFTER they received the Holy Spirit:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
(Act 2:38-47 KJV)

Therefore the outward physical evidence, according to the text, is obedience to apostolic doctrine and love among themselves.

That conclusion rests upon the evidence in the text, and definitely is NOT an argument from silence.

BUT the premise of your objection clearly is "arguments from silence are always unsound." That is NOT correct. An argument from silence has validity when the reason inferred as causing the silence, is the most likely cause.

For example, the silence of a body not breathing, where no extraordinary conditions exist---is most likely caused by its being dead. Although "an argument from the silence of not breathing", clearly that is not an unsound conclusion.

IN THE SAME MANNER the silence about tongues among the 3,000 saved that day, given the way Tongues are used as a sign in the book of Acts, does indicate the Pentecostal teaching tongues are the outward physical evidence of the Holy Spirit, must be wrong.

Tongues in the book of ACTS clearly are a sign to unbelieving Jews (1 Cor 14:22). They are received as a sign (Acts 11:17f) from God: Confirming the gospel and the authority of the 120 in the upper room (Acts 2:1ff); Confirming to the apostles the way was open to the Gentiles (Acts 10:46f); Confirming to the disciples of John the Baptist that Jesus is the Way (Acts 19:6)----All taught the Jews (including Peter and the apostles) something new. They noticed God's sign, and changed their opinions accordingly.

THEREFORE, the lack of tongues speaking by the 3000 proves TONGUES ARE NOT THE EVIDENCE one has received the Holy Spirit. If they were, they would definitely be mentioned in conjunction with these receiving the Holy Spirit.

Rather, the context lists the evidence of the Holy Spirit Indwelling: Obedience to God's apostles; Devout living; Love among themselves. CLEARLY, THAT is the outward physical evidence one has received the Holy Spirit from the day of Pentecost, onward through the ages.

Obedience to God and love among ourselves has been seen among Christians in every century since Christ, not just since Azuza Street.

[FONT=&quot]Even many who consider themselves Pentecostals, share the new birth experience.

[/FONT]Why not give a fuller response, so we can discuss it in detail, there.

I'll get it started by posting my rebuttal to this being an argument from silence.

Or at the General Theology Forum here, I'll start over.

ARBITER01 says the General Theology forum is for "badmouthing", so I might also post there, and be badmouthed for it.

 

[now faith]

Thanks for your testimony, and the links.

So we do agree on Bosworth, I like him too, his biblicism.

Too bad the OCR software used wasn't that accurate, a hard read resulted at times.

But I learned a lot.

I remain a cessationist, in case you're wondering.

I just finished my first reading of his thesis, will review it more carefully later after I check out the "The Full Consummation..." you helpfully shared with me.

So it doesn't appear I'll be arguing this out here, as you say its the wrong place. Perhaps back at CARM, or if you can direct me to the right forum...I'll meet you there...after I review the materials, again of course.

Right now I'll be rereading your testimony, it is very interesting.

Your personal observations line up with Bosworth's, and I don't doubt either of you are true believers.

If I thought it impossible believers be wrong about some things, I'd have to throw away my New Testament, most of which was written to correct errors believers had taken up.

I must say your introduction to this forum has mellowed a bit.

At first you were implying Carismatic belief is anti Christ,and referring to the depart from me position.

Then to support that you strung together some verse out of context,used circular logic as a foundation.

Then when confronted with a logical response,you built a giant straw man on AOG.

It is irrelevant what Bosworth taught when such outrageous statements are made.

FYI there are wide variety of people who practice the gifts,not all are AOG

The majority of Bapist believe in the gifts for example.

Here is a example of what I think you are confused on:

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

This debunks the Old gifts were for the original 12 Apostles.

As far as a new dispensation you mentioned where the gifts disappeared,where in the Word
Of God can you support this?

When did God just up and remove the manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

I suggest you rethink your John MacArthur outlook since he not only discredits Paul's teaching at Corinth,but in the past has denied the saving grace of Christ blood.

Maybe it would do well to rethink who is teaching Anti Christ doctrine.

 

[now faith]

Now let's post the prior text before 38:

Acts 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 2:12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Gotta love mockery.

But wait some others received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues:


Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

So let's be clear that God is no respecter of persons,he does not break his covenant,and you conclude what?

 

[now faith]

Is Charismania Antichrist?

ANTICHRIST
antichristos (ἀντίχριστος, 500) can mean either “against Christ” or “instead of Christ,” or perhaps, combining the two, “one who, assuming the guise of Christ, opposes Christ” (Westcott). The word is found only in John’s epistles, (a) of the many “antichrists” who are forerunners of the “Antichrist” himself, 1 John 2:18, 22; 2 John 7; (b) of the evil power which already operates anticipatively of the “Antichrist,” 1 John 4:3.- Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W., Jr. (1996). Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson.


Its clear Christ combined the two, a false prophet assumes the guise of Christ by wearing "sheep's clothing", and rather than feeding the flock, he seeks to devour it.

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.

Christ did not list spiritual experiences that distinguish a "true" from the "false prophet", rather He said "You will know them by their fruits."

16 "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
17 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 "Therefore by their fruits you will know them.


AS true prophets stumble on occasion because of their imperfect fallen nature (1 John 1:8-10; James 3:2), "perfection" cannot be the fruit Christ said distinguishes a true prophet from a false.

21 "Not everyone who says to Me,`Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 "Many will say to Me in that day,`Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
23 "And then I will declare to them,`I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' (Mat 7:15-23 NKJ)


"Practicing lawlessness" is the fruit that identifies the miracle worker who NEVER knew Christ, not their profession of Him as "Lord", nor prophesying like a Christian. Even casting out demons and doing many wonders in Christ's name, is not the fruit that identifies the true prophet from the false.

As God's law is written in our Bibles, "lawfulness" is doing the "will of the Father" as the Bible commands.

As Lawlessness is being without law, "practicing lawlessness" is not doing the will of the Father as the Bible commands.

"Practicing Lawlessness" is a consistent choice to reject the will of the Father which today is recorded faithfully ONLY in our Bibles.

How much rejection of God's authority constitutes "practicing lawlessness"?

16 "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
17 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.

Any rejection of the Bible's teaching, even on what seems of least importance (cp Luke 16:10), is the objective fruit that identifies those Christ NEVER knew***.

AS Christ never knew them its certain Christ's Holy Spirit NEVER prophesied, cast out demons or did the many wonders they claimed were done in Christ's name.

Therefore, it must have been the antichrist spirit who did the signs and wonders.

The apostle John confirms this objective fruit of obedience to God's Law the Bible, saying those inspired by the spirit of truth obey listen to the apostles [whose teaching today can be found only in the Holy scripture]:

6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1Jo 4:6 NKJ)

The teachings of "we, us" are those of the apostles, which today are found only the Bible, having been "once delivered":

3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

The only "fruit" the antichrist spirit cannot counterfeit, that identifies the children it inspires, is "obedience to Scripture" because: "IF Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end. (Mar 3:26 NKJ)

Spiritism is the "mystery (or "secret power") of lawlessness" that is working (energeia 1753) in the Devil's children. Because these aren't God's children (Luke 11:10-12), they pretended to ask Him for fish or bread, but like Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:19-20) what they really wanted was power to impress others. Hence, as God permits they receive a scorpion***, it is said He sends them the strong delusion:

9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

[Notice the contrast between antichrist's who prefer their experiential truth taught by the mystery of lawlessness, and Christians who are sanctified by the authentic Holy Spirit and so love and believe the truth. In contrast to the antichrists, these stand fast in the apostolic traditions that exist today only in our Bibles.]

13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,
14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace,
(2Th 2:9-16 NKJ)

So is Charismania antichrist? Can any name a wonder working prophet whose practice is OBEDIENCE TO THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD, especially where it conflicts with Charismatic practices and beliefs?

Otherwise, it appears this event has repeated itself in our time:

18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.
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.
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.
21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. (1Jo 2:18-21 NKJ)

END

*** 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. (Rom 11:29 NKJ)

As Christ never knew them, these never received the gifts and calling of God. If the Devil asked God for bread, he would certainly get a serpent for his hypocrisy, so also an antichrist.

Some allege I'm blaspheming the Holy Spirit by questioning any sign or wonder a prophet do. However, that isn't what Christ taught:

31 "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
(Mat 12:31-32 NKJ)

Only those who know they are speaking against the Holy Spirit, are guilty of eternal sin. I would never do that. I speak against a spirit that is disguising itself as Him.

Your opening as grand as it was.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I must say your introduction to this forum has mellowed a bit.

At first you were implying Carismatic belief is anti Christ,and referring to the depart from me position.
...

Maybe it would do well to rethink who is teaching Anti Christ doctrine.

Evidently this isn't the place to debate this. My OP stands undiminished.

That I allow there are wheat among the tares doesn't change my OP one iota.

[FONT=&quot]27 "So the servants of the owner came and said to him,`Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 28 "He said to them,`An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him,`Do you want us then to go and gather them up?'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 29 "But he said,`No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.[/FONT]


If you want to discuss these things, I'm on CARM, General Religious Movements, Charismatic. Bob is there also.

I might yet post this here under General Theology, when I have time. Till then, go there if you want to discuss it.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"Evidently this isn't the place to debate this. My OP stands undiminished."

This is the "Charismatic DEBATE" forum. What better place??

You've got Charismatics, SOME of whom are Word-Faith oriented, Charismatics who aren't WoF, and all sorts of folks who are all OVER the spectrum.

You came in as a Hyper-legalist/Cessationist Perfectionist with your impossible "church requirements" and meet a little opposition from others who don't see it your way, and that's a problem for you????

You think it'll be any different on CARM??? Divergent Theologies with terminally weak arguments really ain't gonna fly here, or anyplace else, y'all.

Simple as that.

 

[ARBITER01]

"Evidently this isn't the place to debate this. My OP stands undiminished."

This is the "Charismatic DEBATE" forum. What better place??

You've got Charismatics, SOME of whom are Word-Faith oriented, Charismatics who aren't WoF, and all sorts of folks who are all OVER the spectrum.

You came in as a Hyper-legalist/Cessationist Perfectionist with your impossible "church requirements" and meet a little opposition from others who don't see it your way, and that's a problem for you????

You think it'll be any different on CARM??? Divergent Theologies with terminally weak arguments really ain't gonna fly here, or anyplace else, y'all.

Simple as that.

Bob, this is the Spirit-fill Charismatic debate forum, for discussion of our doctrinal stances and debates between us, not the general theology forum where divergent theologies militantly attack and argue with each other constantly.

It is a debate forum for charismatics that are wof in theology and charismatics who refuse the wof movement but consider themselves Spirit-filled Christians, not for baptists, fundamentalists, or any other faith group individual to come in here and cause havoc arguing against our agreed upon doctrinal stances with us.

This forum carries the same rules as the Spirit-filled forum since it is a subforum of it, so no, he is not to be questioning our doctrinal stances here. He is free to do that in the general theology forum, and it happens regularly there.

I was here along with a few others that still post in our forum, when it was made.

 

[Alfred Persson]

"Evidently this isn't the place to debate this. My OP stands undiminished."

This is the "Charismatic DEBATE" forum. What better place??

You've got Charismatics, SOME of whom are Word-Faith oriented, Charismatics who aren't WoF, and all sorts of folks who are all OVER the spectrum.

You came in as a Hyper-legalist/Cessationist Perfectionist with your impossible "church requirements" and meet a little opposition from others who don't see it your way, and that's a problem for you????

You think it'll be any different on CARM??? Divergent Theologies with terminally weak arguments really ain't gonna fly here, or anyplace else, y'all.

Simple as that.

ARBITER01 says this isn't the correct forum. If he's wrong, and you are right, no problem with me, I want to discuss this with all.

So you two figure it out.

I'll post on the General Forum eventually, and will let you know when I do. So it doesn't have to be here, can be anywhere.

And demanding wonder workers not practice lawlessness, and so give the outward physical evidence Christ NEVER knew them, is a teaching of Christ, not Calvin.

 

[Willie T]

Bob, this is the Spirit-fill Charismatic debate forum, for discussion of our doctrinal stances and debates between us, not the general theology forum where divergent theologies militantly attack and argue with each other constantly.

It is a debate forum for charismatics that are wof in theology and charismatics who refuse the wof movement but consider themselves Spirit-filled Christians, not for baptists, fundamentalists, or any other faith group individual to come in here and cause havoc arguing against our agreed upon doctrinal stances with us.

This forum carries the same rules as the Spirit-filled forum since it is a subforum of it, so no, he is not to be questioning our doctrinal stances here. He is free to do that in the general theology forum, and it happens regularly there.

I was here along with a few others that still post in our forum, when it was made.

Bob seems to see his faith about the way I see mine. Neither of us feel some need to hide behind a protected Forum Specification, and run to the rules and to Mods to keep others at bay.

Our God is big enough that detractors will soon fall at our right hand, and at our left.... using nothing but the word of God to explain our positions.

 

[now faith]

Evidently this isn't the place to debate this. My OP stands undiminished.

That I allow there are wheat among the tares doesn't change my OP one iota.

[FONT=&quot]27 "So the servants of the owner came and said to him,`Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 28 "He said to them,`An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him,`Do you want us then to go and gather them up?'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 29 "But he said,`No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.[/FONT]


If you want to discuss these things, I'm on CARM, General Religious Movements, Charismatic. Bob is there also.

I might yet post this here under General Theology, when I have time. Till then, go there if you want to discuss it.

That you allow?

Can a statement be any more self righteous?

With your vast skill why don't you head to the open
Forums and lead someone to Christ?

No you would rather spread discord and accuse
the saints.


But you have no authority here.