Numerical Growth Is Not A Sign Of Revival...

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Brother EB,

Will you share the reason why you've shared the Billy Cole video three times. I watched it, and while I understand what he said, I don't understand why you have shared it with us.

Would you care to elucidate? Thanks.

Thank, watching the video. What did YOU get out of it?

We can take it from there.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Thank, watching the video. What did YOU get out of it?

We can take it from there.

I like brother Cole. I am wondering though about the results of that which he prophesied in that meeting.

Otherwise, I got the message that "revival doesn't happen because a man of God shows up. The man of God shows up cause a revival is happening. He sees by the Spirit what's beginning and he hurries up and gets there."

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I like brother Cole. I am wondering though about the results of that which he prophesied in that meeting.

I met Brother Cole when I was preaching up in WV, I believed he was sincere and focused on people getting the Holy Ghost. After all that is what we need to be concentrated on. People repenting, getting filled with the Holy Ghost, and baptism in Jesus name. As far as the results in the meetings, I can only focus on our future using faith to be standing in the place when revival strikes.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Otherwise, I got the message that "revival doesn't happen because a man of God shows up. The man of God shows up cause a revival is happening. He sees by the Spirit what's beginning and he hurries up and gets there."

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Thank, watching the video. What did YOU get out of it?

We can take it from there.

I watched it the very night you posted it. What I got out of it is rather mixed:

Somethings I liked and received well. Other things I rolled my eyes at and thought were just another example of standard convention hoopla and ra-ra-ra-ing.

By the end, having heard him say he was taking personal responsibility as a prophet of God to say what he said/predicted, I admit my jaw dropped and I hoped for his sake that what he prophesied came true exactly (87% keeping rate of all that God would give them).

Overall, I thought it was a bit misguided. It took as the conclusion an assumption upon the word "greater" in John 14:12. We have to make a BIG assumption that Jesus really meant in quantity, when there isn't anything in the passage, not even in the Greek, that automatically gives us that meaning.

So, to infer a meaning that isn't obvious, and then base a sermon on it, and a prediction of what God is going to do, is very tenuous, at best.

Was the man greatly used of God? Without question. And yet, who would have predicted/prophesied that all those hundreds of thousands in Ethiopia would be disfellowshipped by the UPCI, for a damnable heresy, that is, divine flesh?

So, to think, that God gave Billy Cole such foreknowledge as to predict specific revival numbers in a Louisiana meeting, but not that all those folks in Wara, Ethiopia and beyond, who received the Holy Spirit during his crusades were going to be left high and dry by Brother Cole's organization because their on the ground leader would fall, seems suspect to me.

In any event, as it pertains to the video, all that really matter is: did his prophecy come true or not? Does anyone know? Did God vindicate him as a true prophet, or did Brother Cole destroy his prophetic credibility that day?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I watched it the very night you posted it. What I got out of it is rather mixed:

Somethings I liked and received well. Other things I rolled my eyes at and thought were just another example of standard convention hoopla and ra-ra-ra-ing.

By the end, having heard him say he was taking personal responsibility as a prophet of God to say what he said/predicted, I admit my jaw dropped and I hoped for his sake that what he prophesied came true exactly (87% keeping rate of all that God would give them).

Overall, I thought it was a bit misguided. It took as the conclusion an assumption upon the word "greater" in John 14:12. We have to make a BIG assumption that Jesus really meant in quantity, when there isn't anything in the passage, not even in the Greek, that automatically gives us that meaning.

So, to infer a meaning that isn't obvious, and then base a sermon on it, and a prediction of what God is going to do, is very tenuous, at best.

Was the man greatly used of God? Without question. And yet, who would have predicted/prophesied that all those hundreds of thousands in Ethiopia would be disfellowshipped by the UPCI, for a damnable heresy, that is, divine flesh?

So, to think, that God gave Billy Cole such foreknowledge as to predict specific revival numbers in a Louisiana meeting, but not that all those folks in Wara, Ethiopia and beyond, who received the Holy Spirit during his crusades were going to be left high and dry by Brother Cole's organization because their on the ground leader would fall, seems suspect to me.

In any event, as it pertains to the video, all that really matter is: did his prophecy come true or not? Does anyone know? Did God vindicate him as a true prophet, or did Brother Cole destroy his prophetic credibility that day?

I didn't want to get into a debate on the prophetic predictions that Brother Cole made, because no one, even if they were part of the events could give us sufficient evidence. I love what I heard from Brother Cole because unlike the Wilkerson message I'm listening to right now posted in another thread. Brother Cole is hopeful, Brother Cole is excited, Brother Cole is preaching Holy Ghost, and baptism in Jesus name. I've listened to preachers who kept sanding and hammering, and keep telling everyone they aren't doing enough. The Wilkerson message I just got finished listening to is about doom, gloom, tears, fears, I'm not worthy, and the hour is getting late, blah, blah, blah. Brother Cole, no matter what anyone may think of the man, at least I can walk out of his sermon ready to win someone, instead of wanting to grab some sack cloth and pour ashes on my head.

Sorry VS, if I didn't hit all the points you mentioned, but the Jacob's Ladder's Wilkerson message shouldn't of been listened to while I was posting a reply?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

The question was actually subtly different;

"Brothers, what shall we do?"

and the "saved" part comes later:

40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation."

So one could ask why, if Acts 2:38 was sufficient, have any more words?
(ignoring for now that both repent and be baptized surely have different meanings for you now; demonstrably so)

This presents the truly bloodless salvation; one without suffering. How far from some Prosperity Gospel can one "converted" in this fashion be?

The "with " means acts 2:38's command saved, as well as what was stated in other words. Acts 2:38 was included by the term "with". Since the other words weren't included in the text, obviously they added nothing more saving than what acts 2:38 stated. The fact that acts 2:38 was mentioned followed by the words saying 3000 continued in the apostles doctrine shows us what was preached by Peter as laid out there was the apostles doctrine. Nothing else serves as antecedent to that reference.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Well, i don't know that we would have to exactly duplicate that passage, i think that was for then, but the passage indicates the frame of mind of the new believers, and more importantly, perhaps, the community that existed for them to be nurtured in at repentance (which is not salvation).

Also, you do not know if there are not believers exhibiting this type of community today! So while i might agree that surely most of those who believe their ticket has somehow been punched--in defiance of much other Scripture that would indicate otherwise--are doomed, with God all things are possible. Such commitment is what one needs for salvation; thus "Count the cost."

Let's be honest; if "doing" Acts 2:38 will "save" you, then you can do it on your deathbed, right?

As to those "people," I'm not getting the point? I'd say the citizens of the town, but I'm guessing.

I addressed this long ago. Romans 1 says that when truth is given but not acted upon, as though one can wait til deathbed, God might give a person over to reprobate mind.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I addressed this long ago. Romans 1 says that when truth is given but not acted upon, as though one can wait til deathbed, God might give a person over to reprobate mind.

Amen!

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

In the Great Commission, we are called to do these three things:

- Teach all nations
- Immerse the taught
- Teach them to observe everything Christ taught the Apostles

It is evident therefore that some amount of the time spent evangelizing a person includes teaching, prior to baptism. I would not want to baptize anyone if after explaining to them the Gospel and the commitment to it one needs to make, if all I got was a blank stare. I wouldn't baptize such a person until I knew they had processed the info. If they don't comprehend, you haven't taught.

Lastly, receiving the Holy Spirit is the Scriptural seal of repentance. Many get immersed and don't receive the Holy Spirit. I don't judge, but there is a possibility that their repentance wasn't accepted by the Lord (i.e. He wasn't the One granting it, they just mustered it up for whatever reason).

Therefore, only when one receives the Holy Spirit can we truly say that God has accepted their repentance and sealed them as proof.

What gets me is that we miss so much of the reasoning behind baptism. I have heard so many say show me in scripture. The problem is scripture was written 2000 years ago in a complete different society, with different understanding of things. And baptism is one of those things.

Baptism was first and foremost a ceremonial washing, representing the remission of sins. This was a Jewish custom long before the day of Pentecost. Secondly it was a public declaration of becoming a follower of one of the religious sects. Hence Johns baptism and the rebaptism of Johns disciples in Acts 19.

Baptism was not anymore salvational than our keeping or not keeping the Lords Supper on a specific day of the year or not. Or even when on receives the gift of the holy ghost. Faith in the cross is where our salvation is made.

Some will quote Peter saying "baptism doeth also now save us", But we fail to look at the like figure of Noah. Was not Noah already righteous before the flood, hence Noah was saved by the flood not to become righteous but because he was righteous. Hence Peters words, "we are baptized not to be cleansed but as our answer that we have been cleansed".
How were the children saved by the Red Sea? Were they not already the children of God, Yes, they were baptized unto Moses by the Red Sea. Just as we are baptized into Christ by baptism. Hence baptism is more our personal identification to Christ and his kingdom than anything else.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

What gets me is that we miss so much of the reasoning behind baptism. I have heard so many say show me in scripture. The problem is scripture was written 2000 years ago in a complete different society, with different understanding of things. And baptism is one of those things.

Baptism was first and foremost a ceremonial washing, representing the remission of sins. This was a Jewish custom long before the day of Pentecost. Secondly it was a public declaration of becoming a follower of one of the religious sects. Hence Johns baptism and the rebaptism of Johns disciples in Acts 19.

Baptism was not anymore salvational than our keeping or not keeping the Lords Supper on a specific day of the year or not. Or even when on receives the gift of the holy ghost. Faith in the cross is where our salvation is made.

Some will quote Peter saying "baptism doeth also now save us", But we fail to look at the like figure of Noah. Was not Noah already righteous before the flood, hence Noah was saved by the flood not to become righteous but because he was righteous. Hence Peters words, "we are baptized not to be cleansed but as our answer that we have been cleansed".
How were the children saved by the Red Sea? Were they not already the children of God, Yes, they were baptized unto Moses by the Red Sea. Just as we are baptized into Christ by baptism. Hence baptism is more our personal identification to Christ and his kingdom than anything else.

Baptism puts us into the death of Jesus. Romans 6:3. 1 Peter 4 says that as well. Far more than ceremony.

And saying baptism saves means water rescued Noah from a sinful world while God removed it. That's a step beyond being righteous. The water saved him. How does that apply to being righteous already? Peter's point was Noah escaped that whole wicked world and that's more than being righteous while in it. The world perished. The water did something following Noah's righteous walk in the midst of that sinful world by removing him from that world.