• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Muslim have dreams about Christ

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
To say that this is referring to God saving people in dreams and/or visions is quite a stretch, imo...

The 'great and notable day of the Lord'; what day is this? I ask in all sincerity...

"Saving people in dreams". I never said that. You are ignoring what you, yourself said:

He uses means to fulfill His purposes, and imo, it ain't via dreams...

Yet we see in Acts 2 that dreams have been used for His purposes.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don't impugn God's sovereignity whatsoever. He does whatever, whenever, and however He chooses to do it. You guys are the ones who impugn His sovereignity that unless you allow Him to save you, He can't.

No one believes that. It is a sad and false caricature of a view different from your own.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well some have told us about Jesus appearing to the American Indians here in America. Of course that was before the Lamanites and Nephites came here. No need to put God in a box.....we are told.
When God said not to add or take away from the word that was most likely just a suggestion.
Missionaries no longer need the Great Commision....they just need to roll some film.
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well some have told us about Jesus appearing to the American Indians here in America. Of course that was before the Lamanites and Nephites came here. No need to put God in a box.....we are told.
Your comparison with Mormonism is invalid. What Mormons claim and what we are talking about are two completely different things.

When God said not to add or take away from the word that was most likely just a suggestion.
No one is adding or taking away from scripture. Those who advocate the position you oppose are using scripture to demonstrate the possibility of Jesus and the Spirit working outside the bounds of human agency and the express witness of the scripture. Just as Abraham was made right with God long before there was scripture, circumcision, the Law, the incarnation of Jesus, etc., those outside the realm of a human/scriptural witness can also be saved. (Genesis 15, Galatians 3, Romans 4) If you deny that possibility, YOU are ignoring (taking away) scripture.

Missionaries no longer need the Great Commision....they just need to roll some film.
No one has said this. Why don't you stick to the issue without trying to tar your opponents with falsehoods.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist Believer

Your comparison with Mormonism is invalid. What Mormons claim and what we are talking about are two completely different things.


Why would you say it is not valid?
Several Mormons say they also were given a burning in their bosom to confirm it was all true. Do you doubt this?
On what basis do you doubt this as you suggest the very same thing?

What if Mormon missionaries roll this video instead??? [warning 2nd commandment violation depicted}

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meld4HYgJEM

while we are at it...break out the popcorn;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VKT4hrBTuk

this promise from the Book of Mormon as found in Moroni 10:4:

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."


Elder S. Dilworth Young said: “If I am to receive revelation from the Lord, I must be in harmony with him by keeping his commandments. Then as needed, according to his wisdom, his word will come into my mind through my thoughts, accompanied by a feeling in the region of my bosom. It is a feeling which cannot be described, but the nearest word we have is ‘burn’ or ‘burning.’ Accompanying this always is a feeling of peace, a further witness that what one heard is right. Once one recognizes this burning, this feeling, this peace, one need never be drawn astray in his daily life or in the guidance he may receive.” (“The Still Small Voice,” Ensign, May 1976, p. 23.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist Believer




Why would you say it is not valid?
Several Mormons say they also were given a burning in their bosom to confirm it was all true. Do you doubt this?
On what basis do you doubt this as you suggest the very same thing?

Again apples and refrigerators
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Again apples and refrigerators

RM

Once you go outside of scripture how can anyone take a stand? it all becomes subjective experience. How can someone deny the Mormon, or the R.C. who says the Virgin Mary is showing up all over the place?
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
RM

Once you go outside of scripture how can anyone take a stand? it all becomes subjective experience. How can someone deny the Mormon, or the R.C. who says the Virgin Mary is showing up all over the place?

The experience has to be measured against scripture. If it lines up with scripture then we can know it is authentic. Joseph Smith not only claimed and experience but denied scripture as well. The R.C. who worships Mary cannot back up their claim with scripture.

When someone says they had a vision that told them about God and what is in the vision lines up with what we know about God from scripture and God is glorified in the hearts of man then we can know it was from God.

If someone has a vision, like Joseph Smith, and that vision does not line up with what we know about God from scripture then we can know it is a lie and not from God.

However, to just be against any and all visions without any consideration of whether it lines up with scripture is against scripture.

All this hysteria over visions kind of reminds me of a church in Florida. Some years back there was a very godly and talented singer who was asked to sing a special during the service. While he was singing he held the mic in one hand and lifted up his free hand in the air when he it a long note. This offended some people and he was never allowed to sing again because they did not want "charismatic activities".

The opposition to the possibility of God revealing Himself through a vision to people who have never heard the gospel before is much like that church. They were so afraid of "charismatic activities" that they over reacted to the lifting up of a hand while singing. Much in the same way some folks on this board are so afraid of things like visions that they over react to any report or possibility.
 
No one believes that. It is a sad and false caricature of a view different from your own.

Let me define free will for you per theopedia...


Free will


Probably the most common definition of free will is the "ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition,"^[1]^ and specifically that these "free will" choices are not ultimately predestined by God.

According to the Bible, however, the choices of man are not only ultimately determined by God, but morally determined by one's nature. Man is indeed a free moral agent and freely makes choices, but in his natural state he necessarily acts in accordance with his fallen nature. Man willingly makes choices that flow from the heart, and sin is also always attributed to the desires of the heart (James 1:13-15). When a person turns to Christ, he does so not because of his own "free will", but because God has supernaturally enabled and moved him to do so through regeneration. God never coerces man's will, rather God gives the ability to believe through the work of the Holy Spirit.

This is a doctrinal distinction between the theologies of Calvinism and Arminianism: In Arminianism, God saves those who believe of their own free will. In Calvinism, God saves those who willingly believe as a result of sovereign enablement by the regenerating work of the Spirit.

Rather than man's will being free, Jesus tells us that, "everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin," (John 8:34). The heart, until born again, is "deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jeremiah 17:9). God saw in man that "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5). "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44).

Man is most free in heaven, where he is morally unable to sin. True freedom isn't freedom to sin, but freedom from sin.

http://www.theopedia.com/Free_will


Now, here's theopedia's definition of synergism...


Synergism


Synergism, in general, may be defined as two or more agents working together to produce a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently. The word synergy or synergism comes from two Greek words, erg meaning to work and syn meaning together, hence synergism is a "working together."

Regarding the doctrine of salvation, this is essentially the view that God and humanity work together, each contributing their part to accomplish salvation in and for the individual. This is the view of salvation found in Arminianism and its theological predecessor Semi-Pelagianism. John Hendryx has stated it this way. Synergism is "...the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives."


In other words, God has done His part, and humanity must do theirs[/u]. This is opposed to the monergistic view held by Reformed, Calvinistic and Lutheran groups where salvation is seen as the work of God alone.

A distinction is to be made, however, between Calvinism and Lutheranism. Calvin seems to have held that God's calling to faith is irresistible, and is the result, not of God's mercy and grace in Christ, but rather flows out of God's divine decree of election. The Lutheran Church, however, holds that a person may choose to resist the work of the Holy Spirit.

http://www.theopedia.com/Synergism


In your and your fellow non-Cal's view, God can not save you until you choose to. If someone dies lost, it was because God tried and they chose to die that way. God couldn't save them because they failed to submit. Thereby, your view impugns the sovereignity of God...
 

Benjamin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Let me define free will for you per theopedia...





Now, here's theopedia's definition of synergism...





In your and your fellow non-Cal's view, God can not save you until you choose to. If someone dies lost, it was because God tried and they chose to die that way. God couldn't save them because they failed to submit. CONCLUSION: Thereby, your view impugns the sovereignity of God...

...and I openly challenge you to support your conclusion to the argument which you've presented above, here: http://www.baptistsymposium.com/for...-forum-guidelines-and-permission-requirements

;)
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In your and your fellow non-Cal's view, God can not save you until you choose to.

For one the theopedia def is lacking. Two it does not say that and neither have I. No one says God cannot do anything. What we do believe is that is the way God designed it. Your false caricature has now become childish. Do not tell me what I believe. That is the height of arrogance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For one the theopedia def is lacking. Two it does not say that and neither have I. No one says God cannot do anything. What we do believe is that is the way God designed it. Your false caricature has now become childish. Do not tell me what I believe. That is the height of arrogance.

Well then....YOU tell me what 'free will' means. And don't tell me about arrogance. You're the epitome of it.



You rip that passage in Acts 2 all to shreds to support this mystical way. That passage was referring to Jesus' crucifixion and His subsequent resurrection.


It says He would pour His Spirit upon all flesh. If that's literally the case, that's universalism.

God designed salavtion via the gospel and there's no other way to Christ than through it...
 

The American Dream

Member
Site Supporter
Hebrews is quite clear. Everything we need to know about God and salvation are in the Bible. It is God's final word and revelation to man. There is no such thing as new revelations such as tongues, words of faith, words of knowledge, visits from angels with new revelations, or in this case dreams. The charismatic denominations are famous for claiming gifts of the Holy Spirit that have ceased. Muslims are saved like everyone else, by grace through faith. Referencing Jesus Christ in the Koran is ridiculous. Christ is also mentioned in history books. Neither leads to salvation. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. That would be Holy Scripture, not the Koran, history books, or Superman comic books.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well then....YOU tell me what 'free will' means. And don't tell me about arrogance. You're the epitome of it.

Uh no, arroagance is telling people what they believe. You cannot tell me what I believe. That fact that you would argue with me over what I believe is ...well there are no words for it.



You rip that passage in Acts 2 all to shreds to support this mystical way. That passage was referring to Jesus' crucifixion and His subsequent resurrection.

The passage that I quoted was referring to how that what they had seen just prior to the message Peter preached was of God. The speaking in tongues. That speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost was a "mystical" as anything else.


It says He would pour His Spirit upon all flesh. If that's literally the case, that's universalism.

Well I did not say it God did. You will have to take it up with Him. However, your interpretation of that passage is in error. Most likely caused by an errant view of the sovereignty of God.

[/quote]God designed salavtion via the gospel and there's no other way to Christ than through it...[/QUOTE]

Tell me how a messenger of God, an angel, delivering God's gospel via a dream or vision is not through the gospel. Tell me how an vision from God giving a truthful and biblical message about Christ is not the gospel.

See you are not arguing with me about the gospel but about how it is to be delivered. It appears that you are trying to make the case (very poorly) that God only uses man to deliver the gospel and that is is impossible that God would use a dream or vision to do so. However, you have not actually made the case nor have you acutally dealt with any of the scripture I have provided you have only made claims about my interpretation of it. That is not dealing with the scripture.

Break it down, using scripture, and show why it is an impossibility that God would not present the gospel to someone via a dream or vision. Please refrain from just making claims about what I have said or about scripture. Actually break the passages down.

For instance:

Acts 2:15-21

Act 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
Act 2:19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
Act 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:


Peter begins by referring to what just happened in v.15. This was a reference to the speaking in tongues and the response to that "mystical" action by the people int he crowd. Their response was that they thought the disciples might be drunk because what was going on was out of the norm for them and in fact very "mystical". V. 15 is a transitional statement that ties everything that was written before v. 15 to what Peter is about to say.

Peter found it necessary to show them not only that they were not drunk (a claim made prior to v.15) but instead what they were witnessing was a "mystical" move of God that was predicted in the scripture (Joel 2:28).

Up to this point (vs.15-21) Peter has not yet begun the message of Christ and His resurrection. In these verses Peter lays the ground work for where this message comes from. To do so he quotes scripture (Joel 2:28). This was necessary because of the audience he was speaking too. Those who were there that day were Jews who had come to Pentecost. Their understanding of the Messiah needed to be addressed and all that occurred up to the point was a precursor to make the message clear and show God was in the message that was about to be delivered.

So now we see that vs.15-21 are in fact talking about the "mystical event" that just occurred where people heard the gospel in their own language even though the people speaking the message did not know the languages being heard.

So what we see here in acts 2 is that the message preached in the beginning through the "mystical event" of tongues and the message Peter preached has a transitional event between the two whereby Peter addresses the "mystical nature of the speaking in tongues.

So, while it is true that the message of Acts 2 being preached was about Christ and His resurrection the context of this passage is the coming of the Holy Ghost and the events that surround that very "mystical" event.
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
Well then....YOU tell me what 'free will' means. And don't tell me about arrogance. You're the epitome of it.



You rip that passage in Acts 2 all to shreds to support this mystical way. That passage was referring to Jesus' crucifixion and His subsequent resurrection.


It says He would pour His Spirit upon all flesh. If that's literally the case, that's universalism.

God designed salavtion via the gospel and there's no other way to Christ than through it...

Convicted,

I am on the same page as the Rev. I honestly and intellectually hold to the "free will" of mankind, particularly with regard to salvation and his distinction between what God can or cannot do vs. the way He has "decided" that it will be done. I proudly (not arrogantly) claim the title of synergism, truly I cannot understand how anyone could be anything but a synergist.
 

The American Dream

Member
Site Supporter
Break it down, using scripture, and show why it is an impossibility that God would not present the gospel to someone via a dream or vision. Please refrain from just making claims about what I have said or about scripture. Actually break the passages down.

So now we see that vs.15-21 are in fact talking about the "mystical event" that just occurred where people heard the gospel in their own language even though the people speaking the message did not know the languages being heard.

So what we see here in acts 2 is that the message preached in the beginning through the "mystical event" of tongues and the message Peter preached has a transitional event between the two whereby Peter addresses the "mystical nature of the speaking in tongues.

So, while it is true that the message of Acts 2 being preached was about Christ and His resurrection the context of this passage is the coming of the Holy Ghost and the events that surround that very "mystical" event.

It is in the realm of possibility given Scripture that God could use the medium of dreams to impart the Gospel to an individual if He chose to do it that way. It would certainly be outside the norm, but not impossible. Now, if that dream/angel has a message, or reveals anything of God that is not already in the Bible, then it is not of God, because the Bible is our final authority and revelation. All supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased with the end of the apostolic age. One can see the gifts in Paul's earlier writings and they are not mentioned in his later writings. That would include tongues, healings, prophecy, word of knowledge or faith, raising people from the dead, miracles and other such nonsense that has made lots of TV evangelists rich. (1 Cor 13:8) God can still do these gifts on an individual basis (God can do anything) but imparting the supernatural gifts to humans ceased long ago.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It is in the realm of possibility given Scripture that God could use the medium of dreams to impart the Gospel to an individual if He chose to do it that way. It would certainly be outside the norm, but not impossible. Now, if that dream/angel has a message, or reveals anything of God that is not already in the Bible, then it is not of God, because the Bible is our final authority and revelation.

I have already made that clear in subsequent posts.

All supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased with the end of the apostolic age.

There is nothing in scripture that suggests that.

One can see the gifts in Paul's earlier writings and they are not mentioned in his later writings.

I'm sorry that is not a very good argument.

That would include tongues, healings, prophecy, word of knowledge or faith, raising people from the dead, miracles and other such nonsense that has made lots of TV evangelists rich. (1 Cor 13:8)

I do not support that behavior. They are a false claim made, in most cases, to make riches for the ones claiming to to them. What goes on in churches in this regard is nothing more than the lust of the flesh looking for an experience over scripture.

God can still do these gifts on an individual basis (God can do anything) but imparting the supernatural gifts to humans ceased long ago.

Again there is nothing in scripture that makes such a claim.
 

The American Dream

Member
Site Supporter
I have already made that clear in subsequent posts.



There is nothing in scripture that suggests that.



I'm sorry that is not a very good argument.



I do not support that behavior. They are a false claim made, in most cases, to make riches for the ones claiming to to them. What goes on in churches in this regard is nothing more than the lust of the flesh looking for an experience over scripture.



Again there is nothing in scripture that makes such a claim.

I certainly agree with your last paragraph. However Cor 13:8 makes it clear the gifts have ceased. I think aside from that, there is not one documented case of any of them occurring in modern times. When I speak of gifts, I speak of an individual human having the gift, not God imparting the gift on individuals. That fact alone makes the charismatic movement a cult. You may not like the argument, but you cannot find the supernatural gifts mentioned in Pauls later writings. Anyway, most of your posts I do agree with, and you seem solid in Scripture to me.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I certainly agree with your last paragraph. However Cor 13:8 makes it clear the gifts have ceased.

I disagree. It is my position that passage is talking about the return of Christ. The reason for this is verses 9-12. We do have the word but we do not see yet in the manner described in those verse. That will only occur when Christ returns.
 
Top