Miracle Or Hoax?

[VirginShallConceive]

Again, this thread is not about Bently or false teachers

Really? Let's ask the OP then. VirginShallConceive, what is this thread about?

I am pleased with the discussion. Bentley is involved, so people have talked about Bentley. False teachers are involved, and that has been discussed as well. As P31Woman said, it is also about the mother and her child.

My initial reason was to see what people are willing to accept, but knowing that the conversation could branch out from each different aspect of the video, and I'm fine with that.

As for the rest of the arguments here, some of which are pretty ignorant I might add, I've stated my case as well as stated some of my background and qualifications to discuss the points I've tried to make. That's all.

I totally appreciate you joining us here. I think you were the one who said that you just came from a thread on skepticism, and here you are. You have added immensely to this conversation. I believe that you are helping people to "keep it real".

 

[P31Woman]

Jesus may have healed this child and I am not going to be the one to deny that fact.

Just because some quack may desire to take credit for the healing or want to make money off this does not mean Jesus did not heal the child.

Evil people don't prevent God from doing as he pleases.

 

[Obadiah]

Bentley is involved, so people have talked about Bentley. False teachers are involved, and that has been discussed as well. As P31Woman said, it is also about the mother and her child.

Thanks for clearing that up. I kinda thought this was the case.

And yes, it was me who had just come from the skepticism thread. But that was just sort of ironic, and it wasn't what shaped my opinions and observations here. I've felt this way for a long time, ever since my involvement in what proved to be an actual, verifiable unquestioned healing from God which proved to me with irrefutable evidence how different that reality is from what we see produced by the likes of Mr Bentley.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The true Gospel is FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST, one can NEVER lose salvation. If healers and tongues people preached this message I would flip flop RIGHT NOW and believe in signs and wonders from other PEOPLE.

I can name SEVERAL preachers I know that preach the gospel is salvation by faith alone apart from works and also that you cannot lose your salvation (never made manifestly central to the gospel as you assert though). They also believe in tongues and prophecy for today. To list a few:

John Piper
Francis Chan
Mark Driscoll
Wayne Grudem
Matt Chandler

As well as many Christians that I know on a personally level who speak in tongues and believe that same gospel.

Tongues were used as a spoken LANGUAGE to evangelize to the Jews who were under the 5th cycle of discipline, as a client nation to God.(they were about to lose their client nation status)...Isaiah 28:11 was so important that it was quoted in the tongues passage in 1 CO 14:21‑22 by Paul.

Isaiah 28:11~~Indeed, He will speak to this people Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,

1 Cor 14:21-22~~21 In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord. 22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy [is for a sign], not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

In the context of Acts 2.. I agree with you. However, the context of this passage betrays what you view as the purpose of this gift.

In this passage, we find that gift was to be used in the Church in a controlled setting, where one would step forward and speak in a tongue and then someone would offer an interpretation v.27, if no interpretation is had then they should remain silent or simply speak to God in their tongues as Paul also said that he prayed in tongues in v.14. Also, v.5 asserts that when someone interprets the whole Church is edified by the speaking in tongues.

Not to mention the fact that they are told to avoid speaking in tongues all at once when outsiders enter (though I think it's just a universal standard of not doing it in publish without an interpretation), outsiders coming in will think they're crazy.

If prophecy was for us today, we would be saying that the Bible is not complete, we as creatures can add some more revelation to Gods word.

Paul admonishes the believers (who aren't Apostles) in Corinth to earnestly pursue and desire to prophesy, did the Corinthian believers then prophesy and speak the literal words of God that we ought to have written down.

Prophecy in the NT is not the same concept here as it is in the OT, it was a gift given to certain individuals in the congregation to speak in front of the Church for the edification of the body, not to predict the future, but to encourage the saints and convict the unbelieving by demonstrating God is among them.

Healing was to establish the Gospel message, Faith Alone in Christ alone, for eternity. How many healers today preach "Faith alone in Christ Alone and you can never lose that salvation?"

See all the names above, one of them was actually healed from a terminal brain cancer actually.

Also, the gift of healing mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12 was not to establish the gospel (though I think that was part of it especially in Acts with regards to the Apostles) but it was given to the body FOR the health and vitality of the body.

If a tongues person or A healer or a prophecy speaking person preached Faith alone in Christ alone and one can never lose his salvation, I would seriously consider changing my view.

Again please note the people above, I would recommend reading what Wayne Grudem has to say in his Systematic Theology about the Spiritual Gifts, you would probably also enjoy his section on faith alone in Christ and the preservation of the believer.

 

[P31Woman]

http://endued.wordpress.com/2009/11...on-that-nt-prophecy-differs-from-ot-prophecy/

Piper contends along the same lines as Wayne Grudem that NT prophecy was of a different character than OT prophecy. I appreciate how Piper acknowledges and concedes why people would have a hang-up over such a declaration. He also argues that the NT gift of teaching is fallible and a good analogy of how NT prophecy works:

Spirit-Prompted yet No Intrinsic, Divine Authority

Now ask yourself this question: Did Joel and Peter and Luke think that all the men and women—old and young, menservants and maidservants—would become prophets in the same sense that Moses and Isaiah and Jeremiah were prophets, that is, people who spoke with verbal inspiration and with the very authority of God and who could write infallible Scripture? Is the prophesying of Acts 2:17 that sort of prophecy? Or is there a difference?
I believe there is a difference. I don’t think the gift of prophecy today has the authority of the Old Testament prophets or the authority of Jesus and the apostles. Or, to put it more positively, this sort of prophecy is prompted and sustained by the Spirit and yet does not carry intrinsic, divine authority.
One of the reasons that this kind of prophecy is so hard to get a handle on today is that most of us do not have categories in our thinking for a Spirit-prompted statement that doesn’t have intrinsic, divine authority. That sounds like a contradiction. We stumble over a kind of speech that is prompted and sustained by the Holy Spirit and yet is fallible. But I am going to try to show this morning and this evening that this is what the gift of prophecy is in the New Testament and today. It is a Spirit-prompted, Spirit-sustained utterance that does not carry intrinsic, divine authority and may be mixed with error.
Now if that makes the gift of prophecy seem insignificant and unedifying, consider the analogy of the gift of teaching.

The Analogy of the Gift of Teaching
Would you not say that, when the spiritual gift of teaching is being exercised, teaching is prompted and sustained by the Spirit and is rooted in an infallible, divine revelation, namely, the Bible? The gift of teaching is the Spirit-prompted, Spirit-sustained act of explaining biblical truth for the edification of the church. And all of us would say it is tremendously valuable in the life of the church. But would any of us say that the speech of a teacher, when he is exercising the gift of teaching, is infallible? No. Would we say it has divine authority? Only in a very secondary sense would we say so. Not in itself, not intrinsically, but in its source, Bible.

Why is it that a gift that is Spirit-prompted and Spirit-sustained and rooted in an infallible revelation (the Bible) is nevertheless fallible, mixed with imperfection, and only has secondary, derivative authority? The answer is this: A teacher’s perception of biblical truth is fallible; his analysis of biblical truth is fallible; his explanation of biblical truth is fallible. There is no guarantee that the link between an infallible Bible and the church will be an infallible link. The gift of teaching does not guarantee infallible teaching.

And yet, even though the gift of teaching is fallible and even though it lacks intrinsic, divine authority, we know it is of immense value to the church. We are all edified and built up by gifted teachers. God is in it. He does use it. It is a spiritual gift.

Now compare this to the gift of prophecy. It is prompted by the Spirit and sustained by the Spirit and based on a revelation from God. God reveals something to the mind of the prophet (in some way beyond ordinary sense perception), and since God never makes a mistake, we know that his revelation is true. It has no error in it. But the gift of prophecy does not guarantee the infallible transmission of that revelation. The prophet may perceive the revelation imperfectly, he may understand it imperfectly, and he may deliver it imperfectly. That’s why Paul says we see in a mirror dimly (1 Corinthians 13:12). The gift of prophecy results in fallible prophecy just like the gift of teaching results in fallible teaching. So I would ask, “If teaching can be good for the edification of the church, could not prophecy be good for edifying as well, just as Paul says it is (1 Corinthians 14:3, 12, 26)—even though both of them are fallible, mixed with human imperfection, and in need of testing?

Creating a New Category in Our Thinking
The point of what I have been saying is this: we need to create a category in our thinking for a kind of speech that is Spirit-prompted, Spirit-sustained, revelation-rooted, and yet in need of testing and sifting. We need another category of prophet besides the one of true prophet, on the one hand, who spoke with infallible, verbal inspiration (the prophetic biblical authors and Jesus and the apostles), and false prophet, on the other hand, who is condemned in Deuteronomy 13:3; 18:20 (cf. Jeremiah 23:16). The teaching that we find in the Bible about prophecy is simply not exhausted by these two categories. We need a third category for the “spiritual gift of prophecy”—Spirit-prompted, Spirit-sustained, revelation-rooted, but mixed with human imperfection and fallibility and therefore in need of sifting.

I say sifting because in 1 Thessalonians 5:19–22 that is what happens. It is not the prophet who is being tested as true or false. It is the prophecies that are being sifted for what is good and bad. “Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast to what is good, abstain from every form of evil.” This is not an either/or situation where you either have a true, infallible prophet or a false, presumptuous prophet. It is a situation in which some of the prophecy is good and some is not.

Paul says that if we despise it because of this imperfection, we quench the Spirit. I hope you want to avoid that with all your heart. How shall we do that? There is so much more to say. I will pick it up here tonight, give additional reasons, and practical implications. May the Lord himself teach us even this afternoon.

Piper, J. (2007; 2007). Sermons from John Piper (1990-1999) The Authority and Nature of the Gift of Prophecy
March 25, 1990 Desiring God; Minneapolis, MN.
​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

http://endued.wordpress.com/2009/11/...m-ot-prophecy/

Piper contends along the same lines as Wayne Grudem that NT prophecy was of a different character than OT prophecy. I appreciate how Piper acknowledges and concedes why people would have a hang-up over such a declaration. He also argues that the NT gift of teaching is fallible and a good analogy of how NT prophecy works:
Spirit-Prompted yet No Intrinsic, Divine Authority

Now ask yourself this question: Did Joel and Peter and Luke think that all the men and women—old and young, menservants and maidservants—would become prophets in the same sense that Moses and Isaiah and Jeremiah were prophets, that is, people who spoke with verbal inspiration and with the very authority of God and who could write infallible Scripture? Is the prophesying of Acts 2:17 that sort of prophecy? Or is there a difference?
I believe there is a difference. I don’t think the gift of prophecy today has the authority of the Old Testament prophets or the authority of Jesus and the apostles. Or, to put it more positively, this sort of prophecy is prompted and sustained by the Spirit and yet does not carry intrinsic, divine authority.
One of the reasons that this kind of prophecy is so hard to get a handle on today is that most of us do not have categories in our thinking for a Spirit-prompted statement that doesn’t have intrinsic, divine authority. That sounds like a contradiction. We stumble over a kind of speech that is prompted and sustained by the Holy Spirit and yet is fallible. But I am going to try to show this morning and this evening that this is what the gift of prophecy is in the New Testament and today. It is a Spirit-prompted, Spirit-sustained utterance that does not carry intrinsic, divine authority and may be mixed with error.
Now if that makes the gift of prophecy seem insignificant and unedifying, consider the analogy of the gift of teaching.

The Analogy of the Gift of Teaching
Would you not say that, when the spiritual gift of teaching is being exercised, teaching is prompted and sustained by the Spirit and is rooted in an infallible, divine revelation, namely, the Bible? The gift of teaching is the Spirit-prompted, Spirit-sustained act of explaining biblical truth for the edification of the church. And all of us would say it is tremendously valuable in the life of the church. But would any of us say that the speech of a teacher, when he is exercising the gift of teaching, is infallible? No. Would we say it has divine authority? Only in a very secondary sense would we say so. Not in itself, not intrinsically, but in its source, Bible.

Why is it that a gift that is Spirit-prompted and Spirit-sustained and rooted in an infallible revelation (the Bible) is nevertheless fallible, mixed with imperfection, and only has secondary, derivative authority? The answer is this: A teacher’s perception of biblical truth is fallible; his analysis of biblical truth is fallible; his explanation of biblical truth is fallible. There is no guarantee that the link between an infallible Bible and the church will be an infallible link. The gift of teaching does not guarantee infallible teaching.

And yet, even though the gift of teaching is fallible and even though it lacks intrinsic, divine authority, we know it is of immense value to the church. We are all edified and built up by gifted teachers. God is in it. He does use it. It is a spiritual gift.

Now compare this to the gift of prophecy. It is prompted by the Spirit and sustained by the Spirit and based on a revelation from God. God reveals something to the mind of the prophet (in some way beyond ordinary sense perception), and since God never makes a mistake, we know that his revelation is true. It has no error in it. But the gift of prophecy does not guarantee the infallible transmission of that revelation. The prophet may perceive the revelation imperfectly, he may understand it imperfectly, and he may deliver it imperfectly. That’s why Paul says we see in a mirror dimly (1 Corinthians 13:12). The gift of prophecy results in fallible prophecy just like the gift of teaching results in fallible teaching. So I would ask, “If teaching can be good for the edification of the church, could not prophecy be good for edifying as well, just as Paul says it is (1 Corinthians 14:3, 12, 26)—even though both of them are fallible, mixed with human imperfection, and in need of testing?

Creating a New Category in Our Thinking
The point of what I have been saying is this: we need to create a category in our thinking for a kind of speech that is Spirit-prompted, Spirit-sustained, revelation-rooted, and yet in need of testing and sifting. We need another category of prophet besides the one of true prophet, on the one hand, who spoke with infallible, verbal inspiration (the prophetic biblical authors and Jesus and the apostles), and false prophet, on the other hand, who is condemned in Deuteronomy 13:3; 18:20 (cf. Jeremiah 23:16). The teaching that we find in the Bible about prophecy is simply not exhausted by these two categories. We need a third category for the “spiritual gift of prophecy”—Spirit-prompted, Spirit-sustained, revelation-rooted, but mixed with human imperfection and fallibility and therefore in need of sifting.

I say sifting because in 1 Thessalonians 5:19–22 that is what happens. It is not the prophet who is being tested as true or false. It is the prophecies that are being sifted for what is good and bad. “Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast to what is good, abstain from every form of evil.” This is not an either/or situation where you either have a true, infallible prophet or a false, presumptuous prophet. It is a situation in which some of the prophecy is good and some is not.

Paul says that if we despise it because of this imperfection, we quench the Spirit. I hope you want to avoid that with all your heart. How shall we do that? There is so much more to say. I will pick it up here tonight, give additional reasons, and practical implications. May the Lord himself teach us even this afternoon.

Piper, J. (2007; 2007). Sermons from John Piper (1990-1999) The Authority and Nature of the Gift of Prophecy
March 25, 1990 Desiring God; Minneapolis, MN.

Great post, this is exactly the type of material I was talking about. Piper and Grudem actually have some very beneficial and moderate views on this matter that can be very influential to those who hold to Cessationalism.

 

[gr8grace]

All of those men are reformed teachers, calvinist,or Lordship salvation. Most on your list are Lordship salvation, and are VERY Good at confusing the listener with "grace" sprinkled in. They start with a very close to true definition of grace, and twist it into a "mustard tree" instead of a mustard plant.

they ALL teach perseverance not preservation

Preservation is eternal security(the Lord preserves us, no matter what the believer behaves like)

perseverance is Lordship,or the person keeping themselves saved.

They do not believe in faith alone. they all believe " IF you have faith, you will produce the fruit that we want to see." IF not you were never saved to begin with. On top of that they ALL believe in Sovereignty faith. We cant believe, the Lord Elects some to hell and some to heaven. The individual has nothing to do with it. And they hide that belief under the Guise of compatiblism or soft determinism.

Wayne Grudem, is basically a compatibilist, or soft determinist ....which in the end is a determinist. And if studied close, He ends up being a lordship person also. The deception is very clever, and systematically drawn out in order to confuse or He is confused.

 

[P31Woman]

All of those men are reformed teachers, calvinist,or Lordship salvation. Most on your list are Lordship salvation, and are VERY Good at confusing the listener with "grace" sprinkled in. They start with a very close to true definition of grace, and twist it into a "mustard tree" instead of a mustard plant.

they ALL teach perseverance not preservation

Preservation is eternal security(the Lord preserves us, no matter what the believer behaves like)

perseverance is Lordship,or the person keeping themselves saved.

They do not believe in faith alone. they all believe " IF you have faith, you will produce the fruit that we want to see." IF not you were never saved to begin with. On top of that they ALL believe in Sovereignty faith. We cant believe, the Lord Elects some to hell and some to heaven. The individual has nothing to do with it. And they hide that belief under the Guise of compatiblism or soft determinism.

Wayne Grudem, is basically a compatibilist, or soft determinist ....which in the end is a determinist. And if studied close, He ends up being a lordship person also. The deception is very clever, and systematically drawn out in order to confuse or He is confused.

I understand them to teach "faith alone" and if one is saved they will produce fruit. The fruit is evidence of salvation.

 

[P31Woman]

OK I found this on gotquestions.

Question: "What is Lordship salvation?"

Answer: Lordship Salvation emphasizes that submitting to Christ as Lord over your life goes hand-in-hand with trusting in Christ to be saved. It also focuses on a changed life as the result of salvation. Those who believe in Lordship Salvation would have serious doubts about a person who claims to believe in Christ but does not have good works evident in his life. The Bible does teach that faith in Christ will result in a changed life (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 5:22-23; James 2:14-26).

However, depending on the person and his circumstances, spiritual growth sometimes occurs quickly, and other times it takes a long time for changes to become evident, and even then the changes may not be evident to everyone. The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9). The Bible also declares that a life changes after salvation (Ephesians 2:10). So it is a difficult balance to make. We do know, however, that we are not to judge another as to the state of his/her eternal soul (Matthew 7:1). Only God knows who are His sheep and He will mature each of us according to His perfect time table.

So, is Lordship Salvation biblical? Again, it cannot be denied that faith in Christ produces a change (2 Corinthians 5:17). A person who has been delivered from sin by faith in Christ should not desire to remain in a life of sin (Romans 6:2). At the same time, submitting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ is an issue of spiritual growth, not salvation. The Christian life is a process of submitting to God in increasing measure (2 Peter 1:5-8). A person does not have to submit to God in every area of his or her life in order to be saved. A person simply has to recognize that he or she is a sinner, in need of Jesus Christ for salvation, and place trust in Him (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9). Jesus is Lord (Philippians 2:10). Christians absolutely should submit to Him (James 4:7). A changed life and submission to Christ's lordship are the result of salvation, not a requirement for salvation.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/lordship-salvation.html#ixzz2Qr0E2c7F​

 

[gr8grace]

All of those men are reformed teachers, calvinist,or Lordship salvation. Most on your list are Lordship salvation, and are VERY Good at confusing the listener with "grace" sprinkled in. They start with a very close to true definition of grace, and twist it into a "mustard tree" instead of a mustard plant.

they ALL teach perseverance not preservation

Preservation is eternal security(the Lord preserves us, no matter what the believer behaves like)


perseverance is Lordship,or the person keeping themselves saved.

They do not believe in faith alone. they all believe " IF you have faith, you will produce the fruit that we want to see." IF not you were never saved to begin with. On top of that they ALL believe in Sovereignty faith. We cant believe, the Lord Elects some to hell and some to heaven. The individual has nothing to do with it. And they hide that belief under the Guise of compatiblism or soft determinism.

Wayne Grudem, is basically a compatibilist, or soft determinist ....which in the end is a determinist. And if studied close, He ends up being a lordship person also. The deception is very clever, and systematically drawn out in order to confuse or He is confused.

I understand them to teach "faith alone" and if one is saved they will produce fruit. The fruit is evidence of salvation.

I agree 100%.

that is why I disagree with them. I believe it should be, Faith alone.Period. Believers need to know that in order to operate in the Christian walk.

They take the Fruit, and base the faith on the fruit. If you do not produce the fruit that they want to see, they say you are not saved and did not have the right faith.

in other words, the fruit keeps you saved.

it is faith alone in Christ alone. If we do not believe that all the fruit we produce is for naught.

 

[P31Woman]

All of those men are reformed teachers, calvinist,or Lordship salvation. Most on your list are Lordship salvation, and are VERY Good at confusing the listener with "grace" sprinkled in. They start with a very close to true definition of grace, and twist it into a "mustard tree" instead of a mustard plant.

they ALL teach perseverance not preservation

Preservation is eternal security(the Lord preserves us, no matter what the believer behaves like)


perseverance is Lordship,or the person keeping themselves saved.

They do not believe in faith alone. they all believe " IF you have faith, you will produce the fruit that we want to see." IF not you were never saved to begin with. On top of that they ALL believe in Sovereignty faith. We cant believe, the Lord Elects some to hell and some to heaven. The individual has nothing to do with it. And they hide that belief under the Guise of compatiblism or soft determinism.

Wayne Grudem, is basically a compatibilist, or soft determinist ....which in the end is a determinist. And if studied close, He ends up being a lordship person also. The deception is very clever, and systematically drawn out in order to confuse or He is confused.

I understand them to teach "faith alone" and if one is saved they will produce fruit. The fruit is evidence of salvation.

I agree 100%.

that is why I disagree with them. I believe it should be, Faith alone.Period. Believers need to know that in order to operate in the Christian walk.

They take the Fruit, and base the faith on the fruit. If you do not produce the fruit that they want to see, they say you are not saved and did not have the right faith.

in other words, the fruit keeps you saved.

it is faith alone in Christ alone. If we do not believe that all the fruit we produce is for naught.

I don't believe they teach the fruits keep you saved but are evidence of saving faith.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

All of those men are reformed teachers, calvinist,

Correct.

or Lordship salvation. Most on your list are Lordship salvation, and are VERY Good at confusing the listener with "grace" sprinkled in. They start with a very close to true definition of grace, and twist it into a "mustard tree" instead of a mustard plant.

I think their representation (though I disagree with them on some points such as Calvinism) is actually quite Biblically balanced. How would you define Lordship Salvation, it seems you have some definitions mixed up.

they ALL teach perseverance not preservation

Preservation is eternal security(the Lord preserves us, no matter what the believer behaves like)

perseverance is Lordship,or the person keeping themselves saved.

You obviously don't understand Calvinism then if you think they keep themselves saved.. They assert that those who are truly saved WILL persevere in faith to the end, it's a little in between of what you are saying.

They do not believe in faith alone.

Umm... yes they do. lol

they all believe " IF you have faith, you will produce the fruit that we want to see." IF not you were never saved to begin with.

This is much different from the Reformation concept of Sola Fide? Martin Luther himself said that we are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Nothing heretical about this, except for those who hold to hyper-grace, which that is a heresy.

On top of that they ALL believe in Sovereignty faith. We cant believe, the Lord Elects some to hell and some to heaven.

You use some strange terminology.. though I disagree with them on this point.

The individual has nothing to do with it. And they hide that belief under the Guise of compatiblism or soft determinism.

This leads me to believe you don't really understand what they're saying or haven't given the effort to understand, the effective outworking of the life is not much different from those who hold to a different teaching.

Wayne Grudem, is basically a compatibilist, or soft determinist ....which in the end is a determinist. And if studied close, He ends up being a lordship person also. The deception is very clever, and systematically drawn out in order to confuse or He is confused.

You're very good at misunderstanding people, while I disagree some of what most of these guys say, I have studied their work extensively (I used to be a Calvinist), for example having read all of Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology.

As someone familiar with their work I can tell your remarks come not from listening to them carefully, but perhaps only briefly listening and cherry picking at phrasing or perhaps reading some hateful writings about them and simply adopting the material for your own beliefs.

 

[P31Woman]

A 15-Year Retrospective on the Lordship Controversy

This article by John MacArthur is helping me understand a little more.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2263

Justification by Faith
The pivotal doctrine in the lordship debate is justification by grace through faith alone (sola fide). No-lordship doctrine is a corruption of sola fide. The leading proponents of the no-lordship view err because they tend to make justification practically the only work God does in salvation, and they omit or downplay the doctrines of regeneration and sanctification.

Justification is a forensic decree--God's legal verdict that the sinner has been fully forgiven and credited with the full merit of a perfect righteousness. Justification must be distinguished from regeneration and sanctification, but it can never be divorced from them. There is no such thing as a justified sinner who is still unregenerate or utterly unsanctified.
That is not to suggest that we are justified because of our sanctification. We are not even justified "because" of our faith. Faith is the instrument of our justification, not the ground of it.
The righteousness of Christ--not any work done by the believer or wrought by God in the sinner--is the true ground of our justification. In other words, God gives us a righteous standing only because of the perfect righteousness He imputes to us. We're not justified because of any righteousness we attain in our sanctification. We're not justified because of the quality of our faith or the depth of our repentance. God accepts us only for Christ's sake. Because of our union with Christ, he receives us as righteous in Christ. Thus we are justified because of what Christ has done on our behalf; not because of anything we do, period.
And it is by faith alone that we lay hold of the promise of justification. That's what Scripture means when it speaks of being "justified by faith" (Romans 3:8; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; 3:24).
But, as the Reformers said, while faith alone justifies, the faith that justifies is never alone. Genuine faith inevitably produces good works. The works are the fruit, not the root, of faith. And justification is therefore complete at the very inception of faith, before faith ever produces a single work. It is not a process like sanctification.
Most who have defended the lordship of Christ for the past decade and a half have labored diligently to make these things clear and to defend the principle of sola fide. This will become more and more important if the debate is rekindled, because there are a number of theological trends on the horizon that tend to undermine the principle of sola fide. These include the so-called "New Perspective on Paul," several recent attacks on the doctrine of imputation, ECT-style ecumenism, and a revival of Anabaptist opposition to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Some who have helped popularize these trends claim that they too are simply battling the shallow "faith" and cheap "grace" of modern evangelicalism, but they actually overthrow the heart of the gospel when they abandon the doctrine of justification by faith.

The errors of no-lordship theology do not find their origin in the principle of sola fide; they stem from an incomplete, man-centered soteriology that refuses to see anything beyond justification. In defending the gospel from no-lordship doctrine, we must take care not to commit the opposite error by downplaying or abandoning the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Here's another.

This is Andrew Wommack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wommack



At around 1:11:00 of this video, he begins a healing session. It's not as outrageous as Bentley's in the OP, but he still makes some bold claims nonetheless.


[video=youtube;HaWrQ29d7aQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaWrQ29d7aQ[/video]


Andrew Wommack has a website that shares various testimonies of miracles.

http://www.awmi.net/extra/healing


So, is Andrew Wommack a miracle worker, or a hoaxer?

I say hoaxer.

What do you think?

 

[Deborah13]

So, is Andrew Wommack a miracle worker, or a hoaxer?

I say hoaxer.

What do you think?

That's just amazing. You were just in the thread that I posted. If you watched the Alan Moore story Andrew Wommack wasn't even present at the healing hundreds of miles away. Just a regular wife praying for her husband in the hospital with a stroke.

Andrew prays for people knowing God heals, he is nothing like a Benny Hinn or a Todd Bentley.

I read the wiki description and laughed. That's kinda Andrew. Andrew's rather dry and not real charismatic in personality, kind funny though.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

So, is Andrew Wommack a miracle worker, or a hoaxer?

I say hoaxer.

What do you think?

That's just amazing. You were just in the thread that I posted. If you watched the Alan Moore story Andrew Wommack wasn't even present at the healing hundreds of miles away. Just a regular wife praying for her husband in the hospital with a stroke.

Andrew prays for people knowing God heals, he is nothing like a Benny Hinn or a Todd Bentley.

If any of these preachers who claim to be faith healers are telling the honest-to-God's truth, then all glory be to God.

But, if they are lying, and laughing all the way to the bank, how awful is that?

Imagine a child in a wheelchair and his/her parents. When they hear about these supposed miracles, it is highly possible that they will get a gleaming hope that the child will be cured, as long as they can go visit the "great healer" that they have heard so many promising things about(a lot like people back in the days when Jesus was really healing the unfortunate).

If the preacher that they hung their hopes upon is nothing but a charlatan, then how terrible must that preacher be?

People who cash in on the dire misfortunes of others are despicable.

If I was a preacher who truly healed people in the name of Jesus, and somebody was questioning my legitimacy, I would totally understand, in a world where there is a despicable human being lurking around every corner, waiting to cash in on people's misery.

We, as Christians who care for the happiness and well-being of others, need to use the brains that God gave us to keep these people on the up and up.

I hope to God that I am incorrect on my initial hunch.

 

[Deborah13]

But, if they are lying, and laughing all the way to the bank, how awful is that?

Andrew does not charge. But he does not claim to be a faith healer. He prays from people sometimes but that is not what he does as a pastor/teacher. He has a small college teachers with many years in the ministry from many different backgrounds teach at the school. Old Testament Survey, etc. It's a Bible college.
God told Andrew that He wanted Him to train people as disciples to reach out as missionaries.
He is conservative and serious about the Lord.

Like I said, read the testimonies, the one I linked to Andrew WASN'T even there! This wife had listened to tapes from Andrew filled with Scripture and she and her sister did the praying hundreds of miles from Andrew. Andrew didn't pray from him. SHE DID!!

God loves us, GOD HEALS

 

[VirginShallConceive]

But, if they are lying, and laughing all the way to the bank, how awful is that?

Andrew does not charge. But he does not claim to be a faith healer. He prays from people sometimes but that is not what he does as a pastor/teacher. He has a small college teachers with many years in the ministry from many different backgrounds teach at the school. Old Testament Survey, etc. It's a Bible college.
God told Andrew that He wanted Him to train people as disciples to reach out as missionaries.
He is conservative and serious about the Lord.

Like I said, read the testimonies, the one I linked to Andrew WASN'T even there! This wife had listened to tapes from Andrew filled with Scripture and she and her sister did the praying hundreds of miles from Andrew. Andrew didn't pray from him. SHE DID!!

God loves us, GOD HEALS

"In the name of Jesus, I just released this anointing, and we command those tumors on the brain to be gone!" -Andrew Wommack @ 1:12:53


At around 1:07:00, Andrew Wommack appears to be "speaking in tongues".

At around 1:12:30, he appears to receive a message from Jesus that someone in that room has tumors on the brain.

Like I said, read the testimonies, the one I linked to Andrew WASN'T even there! This wife had listened to tapes from Andrew filled with Scripture and she and her sister did the praying hundreds of miles from Andrew. Andrew didn't pray from him. SHE DID!!

It is possible, philosophically, that Andrew cashes in on the testimonies of real live miracles, even though he could, philosophically, be a fake.

I wish that all claims of miracles from God were true. But, the unfortunate reality is that they're not.

 

[Deborah13]

Andrew cashes in on the testimonies of real live miracles

How do you think he cashes in, I'm not sure I understand you?

How do you see Andrew cashing in on a wife praying all by herself for her husband who had a stroke hundreds of miles away from Andrew? This is about Jesus, and a husband and wife who just believed what the Bible says.

This wonderful testimony of Alan and Debbie Moore is on Andrews site.

I guess you could say they bought his CD's about praying for healing in faith and to have faith in, Jesus.

Did you know that he has a show on everyday called the Gospel Truth, everydays teaching on CD will be sent to anyone who asks NO CHARGE.

Oh and did you even watch the Alan Moore testimony or read it?

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Andrew cashes in on the testimonies of real live miracles

How do you think he cashes in, I'm not sure I understand you?

How do you see Andrew cashing in on a wife praying all by herself for her husband who had a stroke hundreds of miles away from Andrew?

This wonderful testimony of Alan and Debbie Moore is on Andrews site.

I guess you could say they bought his CD's about praying for healing in faith and to have faith in, Jesus.

Did you know that he has a show on everyday called the Gospel Truth, everydays teaching on CD will be sent to anyone who asks NO CHARGE.

Oh and did you even watch the Alan Moore testimony or read it?

The man provides for himself. Publicity of that nature produces donations, no matter by what degree of indirectness those donations are attained. This is "Faith-Healing Preacher Success 101".