Results 1 - 20 of 37
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: NYP Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Can't find this verse! | Heb 10:16 | NYP | 152294 | ||
BINGO! | ||||||
2 | Who will be saved? Few, Many or All? | Rom 3:23 | NYP | 152293 | ||
Considering the fact that Adam was already dead and gone, I will have to take issue with your statement that" He died for only ONE PERSON, that being the person of Adam." Is it not true that "Christ 'tasted death for EVERY MAN," not just Adam? "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."Joh 3:16 Now, please tell me how Adam could have believed in Him. |
||||||
3 | big sins / litle sins | Rom 3:23 | NYP | 152289 | ||
Hank, do you think that the death this passage refers to is "everlasting damnation," or simply "death, (the loss of life?" I can't help but to think of Moses and his sin, which brought what some might consider, a pre mature death. No doubt, sin is sin, and without the blood of the Lamb, the wage thereof is death in eternal damnation, but then, there is a sin unto death, and likewise, those which are not unto death. It seems like I have already answered my question, but I have only gotten myself a little dizzy. |
||||||
4 | Can a save person mis heaven? | Rom 3:23 | NYP | 152287 | ||
As much as I would like to believe it"once saved, always saved," these passages do not negate those I have already posted. Either way, (by His Grace,) I personally intend to persevere to the very end, knowing all along that there are misteries which no one fully understands, and leaning heavily on Proverbs 3:5-6 in such cases, rather than becoming discourraged. | ||||||
5 | Why can we not just be Christians? | 1 Pet 1:2 | NYP | 151950 | ||
..."This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," and Romans 8:29 says, "whom He foreknew, He also predestined." And if divine foreknowledge simply means God's knowledge of what will happen in advance, then these arguments may appear to have some weight behind them..." Appear to have some weight? They have the weight of scripture. And the only argument contained in this particular post to their contrary, is pure speculation. Inconclusive assumptions, lined with scripture which is no more than neutral to the to either side of the argument. John MacArthur is a Fine Bible teacher, but his word is not the final word. Nor is it scripture. Dear Kalos, I note that you have quoted him much through the years. Can you quote no one else on the matter, for this is a particularly unconvincing argument? Do you believe exactly what he teaches, as he teaches? I believe what scripture teaches, and I believe scripture gives more than just a little weight to the above thought. I wish John and all who desire to bring grace where grace is due, would consider his words concerning this and like subjects which, “we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer.” Though we all have our firm beliefs concerning such matters, when we learn to respect the beliefs of others by not presenting what is contrary to such matters of insignificance, without absolute scriptural proof of our assertions, perhaps then we can live as scripture teaches, with one mind and of one body. Picture the body of Christ, the Church as a living, breathing human being. Only picture that human being as having all members, i.e. hands, fingers, arms, legs, feet and so on, with the ability to speak and act, individually as the please. Now what does that person look like your minds eye? Personally, I am hard pressed to see Christ as its head.. Sincerely In Him And pondering what is worthy. NYP |
||||||
6 | there's many denomination yet 1 spirit | Eph 5:1 | NYP | 151380 | ||
Ok... Now I think I understand why I have been questioned concerning tongues in the singular and the plural. This is a topic which, to me appears superfluous, but it appears to be important in the eyes of some. Can you enlighten me, Tim? Humbly NYP |
||||||
7 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151377 | ||
Dear Tim. Isn't this what I am saying? Or am I simply not communicating my thoughts correctly. Humbly NYP |
||||||
8 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151375 | ||
Well Dear Hank, I don't know how to figure the Post number out, but my response to Doc, dated Thu 05/26/05, 9:50pm, is the culmination of my studies, and my firm belief concerning this topic. As is stated, the Apostles, all of them (and I state “Apostles” taking into consideration the context immediately prior to, and after Acts2:1-4) were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. How anyone could consider this a “miracle of hearing” rather than what scripture states, which was “…and they began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them,” which is better described as Devine utterance, is beyond me. Where in scripture has the Spirit ever come upon sinners? How else, but by the Spirit, could there have been such a miracle as one of hearing? There is no mention of any “miracle of hearing” being bestowed on the sinners at Pentecost. The only mention of anything resembling a miracle that I can see, is the enablement of the Spirit. Again, Dear Brother, my thoughts are well depicted in my note to Doc dated 05/26/05, 9:50pm. Your servant NYP |
||||||
9 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151374 | ||
Let me rephrase that. "ecstatic utterances" was a very poor choice of words on my part. Divine utterances is more fitting. | ||||||
10 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151373 | ||
But, Dear Brother Tim... Would you not, rather say that, rather than a "miracle of hearing," as is stated in scripture, it was more a miracle of the Holy Spirits endowment on the speakers? Brothers throughout eternity NYP |
||||||
11 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151372 | ||
Yes, Dear Doc. This is exactly what I am saying. And it seems to depict the occurrence in Acts Chapter 2 as well. "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."--- Act 2:5-6 (NASB) "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, ---because that every man heard them speak in his own language."--- Act 2:5-6 (KJV) "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them. Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, ---because each one heard them speaking in his own language."---Acts 2;4-6 (NIV) Is this passage not comparable to my depiction? I would not call the speaking of tongues, an "ecstatic utterance." I do however, consider them, a divine utterance, and personally, I believe that, though just like everything else, they are often misused and misrepresented, they are just as useful today as they were in the days of Pentecost. Case in point. My Brother and a small group of Church members recently went to a small village in South America to attempt to spread the Word. The natives were fairly receptive, but leery. Their medicine man was totally against this group of outsiders, and naturally the natives did not wish to go against his will. Somehow, a number of members of the small Church group got into a bee hive, and were stung multiple times. My brothers best friend was deathly allergic to bee venom, and hadn’t thought to bring the med he needed to counteract a bee sting. He was near death with the nearest doctors and meds hours away. The Church group had gathered around their friend in a small open hut, with the natives looking on. They began to pray. All of a sudden one of the group began to pray in tongues. My brother had been a member of this Church for 4 or 5 years, and had never heard tongues, either in his church or in any other. He said that though he knew little Spanish, he had heard enough to feel that this was the language his friend was praying in. I cannot say that Spanish was the tongue these natives spoke, but I can say that I feel that they understood what was spoken by the one who spoke in what was an unknown tongue to her comrades, and that shortly after the prayer, my brothers friend began a rapid recuperation, and that the natives became very receptive to the Word of God. No doubt, many think they can explain this away. Personally, the only explanation I need is the word of God. And God never said that portions of His word pertained to one time, and not to another time. In His Name NYP |
||||||
12 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151279 | ||
That is one that I don't have Hank, but I do believe that note "almost" hits the nail on the head. No doubt tongues could, at times be "Known languages," but I believe that in the book of Acts, they were "ecstatic utterances." How else could one have understood in his own language what was being spoken by one who did not speak his language, while at the same time, another who spoke a third language understood what was being spoken as well? No doubt there are rational explinations for much of what is spiritual, but my question is, "why must the fact that there is the supernatural, which has no natural or rational explination, constantly be denied?" |
||||||
13 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151270 | ||
Brother Doc, I didn't say that the non believers were interpreting. I said that the Holy Spirit was interpreting. After all, tongues are a sign to the non believer. 1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not... How could they be a sign if they were not understood? I feel that part of the sign in this particular case was the fact that the Galileans, Apostles were understood in a language (tongue) which the hearers knew they did not speak. There is no evidence that I know of to suggest that the Apostles spoke any language other than Hebrew, or perhaps Greek. And besides "everyone heard them in their own language. Imagine an Italian and an American, both who speek only their native tongue, understanding what is being said by a Russian who speaks only his native language. |
||||||
14 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151161 | ||
I believe they were speaking, by the Spirit, in a language (tongue) which all understood in their own language. Actually I believe it was fire. I picture tongues of fire licking upwardly. I think Jesus mentioned something along this line foretelling what they were to experience, but the passage eludes me currently. Your Brother In Christ. NYP |
||||||
15 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151157 | ||
I would like to take some time to ponder your questions. However, I would like to address the later part now. Please forgive me, but I have never been good at memorizing or remembering where a particular passage is. Thank God for e-Sword. I have to look up each passage as I remember it. Sometimes this is very hard, since I have used the NIV for many years and e-Sword does not support it yet. Personally, when I think of the word "tongues," be it plural or other wise, I think of it as "unknown tongues." A language no man can understand without the gift of interpretation. Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 1 Co 12 specifically spells out the fact that “speaking in different kinds of tongues” is a gift, as is the interpretation of tongues, as well as at least 7 other gifts of the Spirit. Different kinds of tongues, I believe refers occasionally, but not specifically to known languages, but what to man, is an unknown tongue or language. I am pleased to note that though I have never studied this particular topic in this commentary, I just discovered that VINCENT'S WORD STUDIES spells out my thoughts in nearly my own words. III. Recorded Facts in the New Testament. (1.) The first recorded bestowment of the gift was at Pentecost (Acts 2). The question arises whether the speakers were miraculously endowed to speak with other tongues, or whether the Spirit interpreted the apostle's words to each in his own tongue. Probably the latter was the case, since there is no subsequent notice of the apostles preaching in foreign tongues; there is no allusion to foreign tongues by Peter, nor by Joel, whom he quotes. This fact, moreover, would go to explain the opposite effects on the hearers. (2.) Under the power of the Spirit, the company addressed by Peter in the house of Cornelius at Caesarea spake with tongues. Act_10:44-46. (3.) Certain disciples at Ephesus, who received the Holy Spirit in the laying on of Paul's hands, spake with tongues and prophesied, Act_19:6. IV. Meaning of the Term “Tongue.” The various explanations are: the tongue alone, inarticulately: rare, provincial, poetic, or archaic words: language or dialect. The last is the correct definition. It does not necessarily mean any of the known languages of men, but may mean the speaker's own tongue, shaped in a peculiar manner by the Spirit's influence; or an entirely new spiritual language. Your Brother In Christ NYP |
||||||
16 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151146 | ||
Brother Hank I do not believe that scripture gives any foundation on which one could base a belief that there is any difference other than the singular and plural concerning what you speak. If you feel there is, please share it. |
||||||
17 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151143 | ||
Dearest Brother Doc As to those “perplexed, asking one another "Whatever could this mean," I made no allusion to them being the mockers. Is it not apparent that the Spirit was doing the translating, (or, at the very least, responsible,) in that each individual heard the Apostles “Galileans,” speaking [in their own language,] “as the Spirit gave them utterance?” Immediately prior to the tongues of fire setting on each of them in the later verses of chapter 1, Matthias had just been numbered among the eleven "apostles." Considering the context of the passage, I think my assertions are both reasonable deductions. Do you not agree? Not to get off the subject, but this path of discussion puts me in mind of a statement I heard a preacher make today, concerning Romans 4:4. It seems that he interprets the verse as meaning that (the sinner who attempts justification by works, makes himself more and more guilty of sin by doing more works.) I do not see this passage as making such a statement. I can see how one might take it as stated above, if they are guilty of the “hunt and peck method” of reading scripture, but the meaning appears self explanatory when this particular verse is taken in context with those surrounding it. Forgive my ignorance, but I am just now learning that, though we read the same words, there are many who see them differently than I. This mystifies me. I have always felt that I read what I read and interpreted what I read as meaning what it said. The more I write on these boards, the more I realize “though I feel I have a very good grasp on it,” just how deficient the English language is. |
||||||
18 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151044 | ||
In re-reading my post, I think I understand your question, Doc. I am sure we all know what Paul says concerning tongues, and the interpretation thereof. I would think that in the case of Acts chapter 2, the Holy Spirit itself was the supernatural interpretor, at least for those who sincerely desired the truth. As to those who did not fit into this category, I believe that they were undoubtedly the mockers. |
||||||
19 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151042 | ||
Undoubtedly, there were those who were skeptical, both amoungst the believers and non believers, but the Apostles, in whom the Holy Spirit had manifest Himself in v4, no doubt preached with the power afore promised. The multitudes were confused, not because they heard them speaking in indiscernible tongues, but because each heard these Galileans speaking in their own tongue, (language). I would think that the mockers were the only ones who may have heard them speaking in indiscernible tongues. Keep in mind; everyone in this portion of scripture, is not speaking in "tongues;" Only the Apostles. Doc. You have been in this forum for a l o n g time. Do you put me to the test with this question? |
||||||
20 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151041 | ||
“Is 'tongue' as it is used in these verses different in meaning from 'tongues' in 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."? –Hank” I am not sure that I fully understand your question Hank. I do believe it is one and the same. 1 Co 14:4 refers to an individual, and thus uses the singular, in reference to the gift of tongue"s." In the very next verse, it is used in the plural form. Act 2:3 states; “ And there appeared unto them cloven “tongues” [plural] like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. [The plural now becomes singular.] I also believe that scripture teaches that though something, ie, tongues, is right; It is not right, when it becomes a stumbling block to another. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |