| |
Should Paul haver gone to Jerusalem? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Should the apostle Paul have returned to Jerusalem for his last visit? |
| |
Should Paul haver gone to Jerusalem? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
If God wants you to deliver a message, you'd best do it. Look what Jonah went through when he tried to run away. |
| |
Should Paul haver gone to Jerusalem? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
How do we know Paul was crrying a message from God? Jesus had told him to flee from Jerusalem but he insisted on returning. Was he bound by his own spirit to go there or the Holy Spirit? It's not as simple as it looks! |
| |
hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Where does the Bible state that the evidence
of the Holy Spirit baptism is speaking
in tounges? |
| |
hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Searched for: tongues
1 Mark 16:17 "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;
2 Acts 2:3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.
3 Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
|
| |
Should Paul haver gone to Jerusalem? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
yes he should have because when he was first saved the Lord jesus said that He would show paul the things he must "suffer for My sake."it is like when the prophet tied the belt around himself and cried "this is what will happen..." and paul jumped at it even going to rome and having a ship wreck. do you know why he didnt rebuke the storm? because an angel appeared before hand and told him what would happen.so he left it all to God. because he knew it to be the will of Jesus.
|
| |
i know it's not easter. |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
when is the real passover in our calender |
| |
i know it's not easter. |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Passover starts tonight-Saterday |
| |
YAH is in both the father and the son's |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
why do you spell our saviour's name yeshus instead of yahshua like our father's name is YAHWEH. Lynard. |
| |
YAH is in both the father and the son's |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Yashua or Yahshua is correct
The Eternal Existent One (YAH) our savior |
| |
hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Tongues are not a sign of Spirit baptism (conversion). You will need to be fair with your Scripture references. You never pointed out the fact that the noted passage in Mark (16:17) is not found in earlier manuscripts therefore it must be read with some regard. Actually verses 9-20's authenticity is questioned, your Bible should note that.
As for Acts 2:3-4, the context is never mentioned here. This was during Pentecost and the Spirit gave evidence of His coming. In vers 5-6 "Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language." The purpose of tongues here is not to show conversion but to make valid the gospel.
Other verses point out otherwise in regards to tongues. In 1 Cor 15:1-25, the entire purpose of tongues is mentioned. The pivotal point is in verse 22. Please look it up.
Oh, and another thing...in Mark 16:17-18, since we have to speak in tongues to be converted, why are we not including the other signs which are (drinking poison and not being harmed, picking up serpents, healing sick by laying hands on them, and cast out demons).
Let's not have a pick and choose theology. |
| |
What is Christianity? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
What is Christianity? |
| |
What is Christianity? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Christianity designates all that which Jesus Christ brings to people of faith, life, and salvation.
A personal (not private) Relationship with God.
|
| |
What is Christianity? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Christianity is Christ. |
| |
What is Christianity? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Christianity is all and only what the Bible alone teaches. Christ is all and nothing contrary to what the Bible alone says he is. And the personal relationship with God is and can only be had in terms of what the Bible alone says it is or can be had.
Christianity is not what any individual who calls himself a Christian says it is. It is not what the churches that call themselves Christian have practiced. Christianity is not an experience of any individual or the collective experience of a group. It is not a Papal edict. It is not trite sayings.
Christianity is the whole counsel of God revealed in the whole Bible alone. |
| |
What is Christianity? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
What is Christianity? |
| |
What is Christianity? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
What is Christianity? |
| |
What is Christianity? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Posted in error. |
| |
What is Christianity? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Posted in error. |
| |
What is Christianity? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Lionstrong, I've read your answer several times and must confess that I have no more idea than the second Monday in July what it means. Could you perhaps simply your answer for the benefit of an old Arkansas rube like me? --Hank |
| |
What is Christianity? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Hello Hank!
I would sum up Christianity in this way, "You shall love the LORD your GOD with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." And "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt. 22:37,39)
Jesus was God Himself! We bear his title, "The Christ", in our title, "Christians", as meaning that we follow after Him, are His disciples, and are committed and bound to pattern ourselves after Him all the days of our lives! :)
Trying to explain the full measure of Christianity would be impossible in one single post or by any single human.. But the full meaning of Christianity can only be found by looking towards Jesus Christ and in humans by observing the overwhelming wellspring of joy that has come to live in our hearts! |
| |
What is Christianity? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Thank you, Nolan, for your fine answer. You used an interesting phrase in your answer, "the full measure of Christianity." I like that. For some 52 years I have been engaged in some feeble attempt to measure it out, to plunge into its depths, to understand fully what it means. My success so far could be compared with trying to measure the amount of water in the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. Up to now I have measured only a teaspoonful, maybe two if I stretch it a bit. Clearly I have a ways to go yet. The unsearchable riches of Christ are beyond our ability to comprehend in all their glorious fullness. --Hank |
| |
What is Christianity? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Greetings, Hank, ................
The Bible is a body of knowledge. That body of knowledge is Christianity. One may be contented with short warm fuzzy phrases. But if one wants a fuller summary of Christianity he should read the Westminster Confession of Faith. |
| |
Holy Spirit without evidence of tongues? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
What does it mean if you are born again(saved)
and baptized and you have the Holy spirit but not
the evidence of speaking in other tongues? |
| |
Holy Spirit without evidence of tongues? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
It means you are a normal Christian. 1 Cor 12:10,30 clearly show that not all believers were intended to have this.
Steve |
| |
Holy Spirit without evidence of tongues? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Most of my life since childhood, I have belonged to and attended a major Pentecostal local church and denomination. I am now a member of a church that is part of that denomination. At the age of 14, two years after my salvation experience, I was *filled* with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave utterance.
Later in life, after years of study, I could no longer go along with my denomination's doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, being filled with the Spirit, and speaking in tongues, which somehow got all mixed in together.
Was my experience valid? Yes, it was. Did I actually receive the gift of tongues at age 14? Yes, I did. Do I believe the initial physical evidence of being baptized in OR filled with the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues? No, I don't.
A prominent Pentecostal writer (Ralph M. Riggs) himself wrote: "The BEST evidence of the fullness of the Spirit is A CHANGED LIFE (caps are mine for emphasis). "
Do all speak in tongues? The implied answer in 1 Cor 13 is no, not all speak in tongues.
I now understand that I was baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) when I first was saved, when I was born again. At the same time, I began to be indwelt by the Spirit, as are ALL believers (Rom 8:9) On the night that I spoke in tongues, what happened.? I was filled (controlled and empowered) by the Holy Spirit, received the gift of tongues, and began to speak in tongues. Was I baptized by or in the Holy Spirit that night? No, that had taken place 2 years earlier when I first trusted Christ for salvation (2 Cor 2:13).
My point is that I had an experience -- a valid experience -- in which I spoke in tongues for the first time. I continue to speak in tongues, almost daily, as I have for the last 42 years. But there are no exceptions to this principle: We don't prove the Bible by experience; we prove experience by the Bible.
Even though I speak in tongues, I cannot ignore the clear Biblical teachings on being baptized by the Holy Spirit, being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, being filled with the Spirit, the gift of tongues, and the proper use of the gifts, including tongues, as outlined in 1 Cor chapters 12-14.
I still believe tongues to be a valid, current gift of the Spirit. I do not believe that tongues have ceased, as some do. Yet I abhor some of the Pentecostal and charismatic excesses that are contrary to Scripture, the misuse of the gifts, and just plain bad doctrine about the gift of tongues and the baptism by the Holy Spirit.
|
| |
curious about your response |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
I consider myself part of the Pentecostal-charimatic movement and was wondering how you deal with their reasoning behind the "initial Physical evidence" belief?
1st argument: In the Book of Acts the accounts of people being "baptized (filled) in (with) the Holy Spirit" usually occur after a persons salvation. An example would be the day of Pentecost. So, the Baptism or infilling of the Holy Spirit must be a subsequent act follwing a believers Salvation. (Non-Pentecostals came up with a doctrine called the second-work of Grace after observing this pattern in the book of Acts. Salvation was the first work of Grace and Complete sanctification was the second work of Grace.)
2nd Argument: Every account recorded in the book of Acts except 2 follows with the Baptizee speaking in Tongeus. The 1st exception was the Apostle Paul who we know spoke in tongues because of his testimony in 1 Cor. and what better time to receive the gift of tongues than at his Baptism.
The 2nd instance, Simon the Sorcerer saw something dramtic happen to the individuals who were baptized in the Holy Spirit and scripture records that he wanted to purchase the ability to administer the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Something spectacular must have happened to solicit this response--I read one commentary that stated that Simon saw the "changed lifes of the believers" and wanted to have this ability. That is kind of weak in my opinion. Something more dramatic had to have happened than that to solicit that kind of response.
3rd argument: The gift of tongues covered in 1 cor. refer to a special gift used in church and is different from the tongues that accompany the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (surprisingly RC Sproul believes this as well!) I talked to my Pastor about this and he said that a person can speak in tongues one time at his baptism and never again and be considered "baptized in the Holy Spirit."
I am very curios to your, or anybody else who is part of the Pentecostal-charismatic movement, response to these two arguments. I personally agree with you on this issue, but I guess 10 plus years believing a certain teaching will take time to work through.
|
| |
Holy Spirit without evidence of tongues? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Amen, Steve! Great answer!
Nolan |
| |
hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
In Acts 2 reference are you saying the diciples were not saved? The reason I ask is because you equate Spirit Baptism with salvation.
There are 5 instances in the Book of Acts that mention the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Almost all--if not all-- occur after a believers conversion (In Acts 8 Phillip preached salvation to the Samaritans and the apostles came down later to administer the Baptisme in the Holy Spirit--Again, this was after their conversion expereince. In fact the scripture records that they believed and werer Baptized). This observation has led to two seperate but related theologies: 2nd work of Grace and Pentecostal/charismatic Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Can you show me in the Bible where the term Baptism in the Holy Spirit is directly connected to salvation? If is is there, I would love to see it. |
| |
Holy Spirit without evidence of tongues? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Amen JVH0212! Most Excellent post! :)
Nolan |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
