Results 1 - 20 of 22
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: javelin Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | cursing? | Luke 6:28 | javelin | 154628 | ||
Son ????!!!! And you rebuke ME for condescension!!! Now that is patronizing and condescension at it's worst. But of course you will only see that response as more insolence won't you. I've been far better received on anti-christ, atheist and evolutionist forums than this place! Doc, you are the only one who treated me with anything like respect. Now here you go scathing me, sermonizing me and using a lot of self-righteous bologne to join the ranks of your little buddies WOS, Hank etc. I'm frankly very disappointed in you. It does not matter what I say - it's automatically wrong before even read. And automatically insolent, condescending and you'll add more I am sure ! Funny that cloud appreciated my answer eh! "Thank you! I prayed for the right people to answer my question." Of course no one noticed that unless of course it made you self-style divines jealous! You have to tear a person apart to beat them into submission I'll bet. That is your evident view of grace. I would not want to be stuck with any of you monsters for a pastor In some of my sermons to wounded and broken christians that have fled other churches that strangely resemble this forum - I make little jokes about your kind - "How many know pastor Frank?", I say. Frankenstein that is. He knows just how to hit you, slap you, insult your faith, belittle your views and all in the name of Jesus! They all laugh and nod their heads! Brother and sister Jaws! And now you yourself, in a solemnly self-indulgent way, attempt to rebuke me for rebellion of all things!!! Sheesh, more sins on my part huh ? Rebellion you say? Against whom may I ask ?! Authority ? Who are talking about exactly? I have seen no mention of anyone being in "authority" here. You have the nerve to sermonize me about humility and discipline!?! You should be ashamed of yourself. I'll bet very few of you self-styled doctors of the law have any unsaved friends at all - they would not be able to endure being under such stringent intolerance and pretensions to knowing it all. The accusers of the brethren - that's what you're lining yoursleves as. Along with satan himself. You people would never endure anyone like Paul or Peter let alone Jesus of Nazareth who called the pharisees vipers and hypocrites - oh! that "impoliteness" would never do here would it! You would treat Him as an arrogant heretic and shut Him out of your churches as you probably already have. Your doctrine of "anathema" is wrong - or why did not Christ Himself employ the term in Matt 18? Why did not Paul employ the term in his command to excommunicate the fornicator of 1 cor 5 ? You simply cannot stand being shown to be wrong and THAT is PRIDE indeed. THAT is the lesson I've learned here - as have many others. Intolerance at it's very best. Hopefully you will learn sooner than later. Lord have mercy on you. |
||||||
2 | cursing? | Luke 6:28 | javelin | 154627 | ||
Spare me the doubts, suspicions and condescension Hank. I've received little else since I've been here. "your posts on this Forum don't seem to reflect them" - Cloud didn't think so did he!!? I've yet to see any from any of you that enjoy scathing me so much on this forum. All you do is criticise my answers in the most self-righteous manner. And as soon as I defend myself against you - I am the guilty one. Typical of manipulators. When I defend myself you sermonize me with humility and love!!! Where is your own I ask ? What love or humility has WOS or Mark or anyone of the other javelin critics shown me? None! Radical? for Christ ! You ought to try in yourself sometime. Like Peter, Paul, John, Wesley, Finney, Spurgeon, Bunyan and the boys. You might actually learn what real discipleship is. Marginal ? Like Jesus and all other radical preachers of the centuries have been. You are the kind who would rebuke Luther for being too self-assured; you would reproach Wesley for speaking of true holiness without apology to man; you would kick Jesus Himself off your little forum here in less time than you have me! You probably already have! Wake up and see the darkness of your own hearts! |
||||||
3 | cursing? | Luke 6:28 | javelin | 154578 | ||
Doc, While I disagree with WOS, both in substance and in manner; So far, you're the only disagreeing one who reponds to me with anything like respect. Many of the others responses are loaded with implied accusations and not so subtle judgments. Thanx. May His Royal Majesty bless you for this. So, Elisha - Special office in Israel indeed. So this is, IYO, another OT vs NT thing ? As for gal. and 1 cor. the interpretation from BFC is purely assumptive or at best, deductive. While strong puts, "an-ath'-em-ah From G394; a (religious) ban or (concretely) excommunicated (thing or person): - accursed, anathema, curse." Thayer says, "1) a thing set up or laid by in order to be kept 1a) specifically, an offering resulting from a vow, which after being consecrated to a god was hung upon the walls or columns of the temple, or put in some other conspicuous place 2) a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction 2a) a curse 2b) a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes" Take yer pick right? Whatever serves your own belief ? Sorry not me. They are both right in some sense. But then is there virtually no translation that uses excommunicated or banned is there ? hmmm The interpretation given by BFC, while being a general truth, is not the clear and simple rendering of the actual words of the passage. Or, are you saying that our english translations are wrong? Anathema is not the exact equivalent to "excommunicated", but can indeed be a literal curse. Since God Himself spoke the blessings and the cursings of Deut. cursing cannot ALWAYS be wrong can it? But the 99 percent wrong statement I made was ignored so that one could make a federal case out of the 1 percent that I included whose meaning is "a curse of God spoken by chritians". Is that clear enuff? (or should I write a thesis on this?) :-) Paul also spoke a curse over Elymas the magician or sorcerer in acts. Peter spoke death over Annanias and Saphirra. You may say, "they were not curses, but..." whatever else you want to call it; but it was nevertheless words that brought about "evil" or calamity into the lives of those who received them wasn't it !! And they were inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself ! So....call it what you will. I mean no more than that, so please do not read other things into my words or join 2 different posts to make them say something else that I have not said. Like the heathen do with scripture to make it contradict itself - it is an evil pratice. In fact the BBE actually translates - paraphrases - the "Woes" of Jesus in Matt 23 as "A curse is on you" Ouch! For your sake, I will try to be more succinct in the future. If I decide to stick around to endure all this that is. Man you guys are sensitive, nervous and sticklers for details eh? 8-) |
||||||
4 | cursing? | Luke 6:28 | javelin | 154576 | ||
WOS : You accuse me of saying what I did not say, you mis-intepret my and then tell me I’m not being clear. Fine. But worse, you boldly say, "You post under the guise of a “helpful Christian..but you have generally lacked any kind of scriptural support…" So now I am under a guise? That is an unsubtle accusation to being a phoney. I have no problem with clarifying things, I do have a problem when people twist words to mean what was not said. Mine or others. Perhaps I assume too much. Nothing I've said is new, unorthodox or unknown. It is taught in 1000's of churches around the world daily. Perhaps many here are not part of bible teaching churches as I assumed. Ok, fine. No problem. Whatever. You still made my words into something they are not. When you take words from 2 difierent posts and join them together into one you are applying your own penchants to them. You've done exactly like those who take "You shall not kill" with "put to death every man and woman, every child and baby at the breast, every ox and sheep..."; put them together and say the bible contradicts itself and God is a blood-thirsty monster (an accusation I've debated more than once). You can make the bible say anything you want, provide all the verses you want and it still may be false doctrine. A lot of the posts here are false doctrine and no one complains!! WOS, I'm actually very surprised at the negative reactions I've gotten here. Every time I post something that seems --to me-- to be simple, reasonable and provided with scripture - that you say is absent - I'm amazed at the anti reactions I get! It's like constantly stirring up a bees nest. And I have to go back, re-read my own posts, to try and figure how you managed such interpretations. I've not see this kind of reaction since the days I did the atheist forums where they treat u like sh*t, call you names, deny everything and anything concerning the bible, swear and curse at you etc. On the defensive? You bet, I've been here less than a week and have been attacked from all sides for almost every little thing I say!! I am a preacher of righteousness, a teacher of the Word which I love more than "much fine gold"; and have paid very dearly for that love over the last 30 years. I've preached and taught the bible for 30 some years, how bout you? I get very few reactions like this, ever!! I must say I find it surprising and in fact alarming - it serves to reiterate to me why the church has more than 25000 denominations and 3 more created each week. 25000 and counting "divorces" amongst christians in the last 2 centuries!! Shame! Are you guys bible college students trying to prove something; fresh outta school preachers who think they are fountains of wisdom instead of little squirts or what?! Please can the sanctimonious holier-than-thou speeches and sermons and stop putting subtle insinuations in the responses you make! I am not the enemy! I said cursing amongst xtians is wrong - it is always wrong and I cited whole sections of scripture - which you say is absent – it is even wrong to curse the unbeliever, but there are a very few curses against some people who are bent-set against God and the church or deep hypocrites, that can be right and godly whether you like it or not. Paul spoke blindness over the evil man in Act 13:11 " And now, see, the hand of the Lord is on you, and you will be blind and not able to see the sun for a time. And straight away a dark mist came down on him; and he went about looking for a guide. " You will surely say, that is not a curse! But the guy who was blinded sure thought it was. Or what about Peter pronouncing death on Ananias and Saphirra? Death not a curse?!? Since when? But that was not witchcraft!! - as I said before witchcraft, in the sense of the original context of this subject, is trying to use supernatural powers to accomplish one's own selfish will over others - a spirit of control if you will. When God pronounces a curse can it be witchcraft? Of course not!! Did you read that or are you going to look for a flaw in the language and force me to repeat it in 5 different versions? |
||||||
5 | Where should I turn?????? | Bible general Archive 2 | javelin | 154527 | ||
Just what exactly is your problem with my post Mark ? You speak as though I have somehow denigrated the word and am "deluded". You say, "It would be hard to argue that the Bible was written in the last 100 years, and yet some of the prophetic fulfillments have occured in the last 100 years." It would be ludicrous to argue this and the prophecies you refer to may be explained away by other things. It's all in the interpretation of it. "The Septuagint is well substantiated as being complete prior to 250 BC, yet it prophesied much that was not fulfilled until later." The Septuagint is the greek translation of the hebrew scriptures - why do you refer to this rather than the original hebrew text ? What is your point ? "If you wish to ignore these things, you will ignore whatever else you choose to. You can call the Bible false, yet if you don't accept that there is a nation called Israel, you are seriously deluded. If you choose to ignore that the Bible said there would be an Israel, you are willfully ingorant. I do not know of any way to debate or convince the wilfully ignorant." If you are speaking this to me then you are way off base, and if so I'll assume that you yourself are being wilfully ignorant. "I am aware of the so-called "higher criticism", but there is a deeper problem that this covers up. Our relationship with God is a matter of the spirit, and of the heart." No kidding. You see here you go again. Besides, our relationship with God starts in the reason. Or are you saying that faith is unreasonable and to know God exists etc. one must make the proverbial "leap in the dark" without logical foundations upon which to believe ? There is no need for leaps in the dark. God and the bible are totally reasonable and understandable. Sure it's "not with the mind a man believes" but you can't believe if you have no brains! You have to understand some basic facts 1st otherwise why does God say, "Come let us reason together" ? If there were no need for logical proofs then why did God give them ? Act 1:3 "...to whom He also presented Himself living after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them through forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" The whole bible can be viewed as God's testimony to man of His reasonableness and willingness to provide valid reasons for what He does. The book of Romans is largely an excercise in reason and logic. You are arguing with me for no reason, over things that you do not seem to fully understand yourself. You say, "You can argue and debate with a man until the cows come home, but unless he wants to believe, he won't." So ? What is the point ? Everyone knows this. However before you'll get a man to want to believe you have to show him the truth with logical proofs! Preaching would do nothing at all if what you preached were mere unproveable garbage. You can preach as you say til the cows come home and no one will listen unless what you say can be proven. Obviously you don't like what I said or you didn't understand it. The point is that logic is from God my friend, and reason is part of the image of God. Perhaps if you spent a little more time, with a lot more reason, speaking to the rebellious unbeliever they would end up seeing the truth. |
||||||
6 | cursing? | Luke 6:28 | javelin | 154524 | ||
I think you are reading into my words things that are not there but I'll answer. It is possible to prononce a curse in the name of the Lord and it be genuinely holy and from God. Elisha did this. 2 Kings 2:24 - there are many other examples. Paul also prononces a curse in Gal 1:8 and also in 1Co 16:22 - very strong words indeed - but from a true apostle of the Lamb under inspiriation acceptable. Or do you disagree with what Paul says there ? However when most people pray prayers of "cursing" or control against their fellow xtians they are totally out of line and acting in a purely selfish way. Don't twist my words WOS, I did not say that xtians "ask God to perform witchcraft and there is 1 percent that is within God will." Very dangerous also to take words from different posts and mix them into one context to draw faulty conclusions! Is this something you do to nit-pick and twist meanings here or what ? no offence taken :) |
||||||
7 | cursing? | Luke 6:28 | javelin | 154501 | ||
If I understand you right I would say that the new pastor is applying good old "respect" towards the other. Perhaps he feels it is none of his business. Perhaps he is waiting for God's opportunity before saying anything. He is probably already praying for that other pastor. In any case, when you see a pastor that curses others, you know he needs to be strongly corrected and you should not feel guilty for leaving. Witchcraft like that is basically defined as, "attempting to use supernatural means to acheive one's own ends with others" When xtians do it the supernatural means is God, though God will have nothing to do with it - except perhaps turning it on our own dumb heads to teach us a lesson! In the worst case, if you suspect this cursing pastor has been cursing you, then you should pray blessings on him. "Overcome evil with good" You should also know that "the curse without a cause shall not come"(prov.) to you. Pray that the verse applied to Israel be your lot - "Num. 23:23 Surely enchantment can do nothing against Jacob; Neither is there any divination against Israel" Cursing like that is a form of "casting spells" - that's it, that's all. The devil loves it when xtians do this to one another! One brother put it this way : It's like shooting a prayer arrow into the sky. Because it is wrong it bounces off heaven and the devil grabs it on the way back down. He breaks it in 2 and throws one piece at the person who shot it and the other at the person it was shot against. Both suffer the darts of the enemy. It's not for nothing that Paul wrote : "Rom. 12:14 Bless them that persecute you; bless, and curse not." funny how he repeats it eh !?! cause he knows what we're like !! ... "17 Render to no man evil for evil...." "18 If it be possible, as much as you can, be at peace with all men. 9 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the anger 'of God': for it is written, Vengeance belongs unto me; I will do the pay back, says the Lord. 20 But if your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him to drink: for in so doing you will heap coals of fire upon his head. 21 Don't be overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." Sounds simple and clear though it is not always easy. blessings! ;-) |
||||||
8 | Where should I turn?????? | Bible general Archive 2 | javelin | 154500 | ||
Thanks Mark for your feedback. I don't think you quite understood my position. Circular reasoning or begging the question, is the practice of assuming something, in order to prove the very thing that you assumed. One assumes that proposition A is true, and then uses proposition A (directly or indirectly) to prove that proposition A is true. It is "The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that itself needs to be proven." ex. 'The Bible is infallible - this bible verse says so!' The reason I say that is because I've done hundreds of debates with atheists who do not believe in God and therefore certainly not the bible or vice versa. If you try to prove God exists based on a book that a person does not believe is from God, you get nowhere real fast and make a fool of yourself on the journey. Your arguments become circular reasonings. You must first prove that the bible does in fact contain many statements that could not have been written by any human. This is far more difficult to do these days than you appear to believe. You must prove it was in fact, communicated to men by God. Of course it can be done but is extremely difficult and time consuming. There are a 1000 sites out there claiming the bible is a book of myths, legends and some history with a ton of flaws and contradictions. So trying to prove God's existence from the bible, to them, is a joke. In fact most of the arguments used by atheists these days were given to them by evil and phoney supposed chritians! With a thing called "higher criticism" - they've done their worst to demolish the bible's authenticity and they have turned millions away from it. If you are not familiar with "higher crticism", "form criticism" etc., you won't believe what you're up against - it all sounds so reasonable but is nothing more than subtle, concocted sophisms meant to lead men away from the bible and God. You say,"The only One that can declare from the beginning the things that shall be in the future is the One..." But you base this on a verse in the bible - a book that your antagonist does not believe in - which you say is from God. So this is circular - you say only the God of the bible can do this, but the 'this' in question is from a book your opponent doesn't believe in!! Can you see that? You say, "Any study of the prophetic passages of Scripture will quickly reveal that God is Who He says He is, because only God can do this." But an unbeliever may respond, "Those passages are not prophetic at all as they were proven to have been written after the events in question" What would you answer? Exactly! You would be up for a long search for proof that these verses were indeed written before the events they describe. You would also find it long and hard doing so! Yes you can do it, but it's too much for a mere forum and what if the antagonist does not believe your references? See what I mean? Saying, "God exists because the bible says so" is useless to anyone who doesn't believe in God and therefore not in the bible! ;-) |
||||||
9 | why did God put the devil on earth ? | Eph 1:11 | javelin | 154483 | ||
A middle ages monk once said, "God is never so near us as when we think He has forsaken us" I suggest interested parties read C.S.Lewis' "The Problem of Pain" for a very in depth study on the existence of evil and suffering. No cross, no crown |
||||||
10 | Importance of speaking in tongues | 1 Cor 12:11 | javelin | 154253 | ||
xtian - you don't know this abbreviated form for christian ?! it is like Xmas for Christmas the X being the greek letter CHI used by the early church to represent the name of Christ - as seen in the popular fish, or Ichthys symbol : [Iesous (Jesus) XPristos (Christ) THeou (of God) Uiou (the Son) Soter (the Savior)] it was also adopted in the symbol Chi-Rho or "sigla": the letters "X" and "P," representing the first letters of the title "Christos," it is not just an english 'x' but the greek chi which looks exactly like our capital 'X' using this simply makes posts shorter and easier to write As to your commenton the "anointing" - "...no ties..." etc. that is another matter which is debatable ;-) |
||||||
11 | Importance of speaking in tongues | 1 Cor 12:11 | javelin | 154251 | ||
Doc, "losing anointing" - it is not a scriptural expression per se - in fact the very word anointed is thrown around these days like trash - another religious buzz-word but in common use today amongst xtians it simply means become "less" anointed, less 'inspired', less 'empowered' or a lifting off of the anointing that was given for a specific task Example : in preaching - an anointing comes when you preach the Word in righteousness - but when you've finished your message and finished praying etc. the anointing for preaching the Word you had "lifts" or "calms down" if you will choose your terms as you will - that is what most people mean when they talk about 'losing it' as any anointed (or gifted if you prefer) preacher will tell you. As I clearly stated, the basic anointing that all xtians have is never taken away. :-) |
||||||
12 | Importance of speaking in tongues | 1 Cor 12:11 | javelin | 154248 | ||
You're referring to praying in tongues and not public speaking in an assembly right? How did you start speaking in tongues? Of course my answer here pre-supposes that your tongues are genuine which is why I asked the above question. Next, the comments people give concerning 'praticing' : this is a way of saying that you need to excercise the gift or it will grow weak - like a muscle. Paul told Timothy to "stir up" the gift he had received through the laying on of hands - 2 Tim. 1:6 As for 'losing the anointing' you never really lose the basic anointing - 1 John 2:27 "And as for you, the anointing which you received of Him abides in you..." The only way we lose any kind of anointing in our lives is by disobediance or simply becoming slack in prayer (which some would say are the same thing!). You cannot lose a genuine gift, God does not give gifts then take them away when you don't use them enough. |
||||||
13 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | javelin | 154206 | ||
Please inform me as to how my rhetoric, and not that of others I've read who received no warnings like yours, needs to be toned down. So you and anyone else can respond to me with negative terms and reprimand, as have been most responses to my few small posts, - but I may not? Sheesh! What's the deal? |
||||||
14 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | javelin | 154205 | ||
My response WOS, if you re-read was both to you and anyone who is against tongues - not just to you - so I did not accuse you personally of anything. I always take into account the presence of other readers when responding to a rebuttal. "If Kennyittis has no understanding of the word, how does it edify him?" - this question, all by itself, is a clear implication that you either do not believe in tongues or that while believing you carry much doubt over it and don't believe Paul's words. For, even if it were true that tongues were a thing of the past, this question implies doubt as to it's usefulness as though God would give His children useless gifts! Therefore it was a reasonable conclusion on my part that you, as well as so many others, are anti-tongues. If this is not so then I apologize for this conclusion though it was rational. As for my "hogwash", we'll have to take a look see right? As for my response to K. you say, "But how can you honestly give him the reassurance that it was? You can’t and therefore should not have. What if the source of his vision was not from God?" This is a very good point. However, if one were to respond to all xtian forum questions on the basis of that logic one could answer no one who claims to have any experince whatsoever including salvation and virtually all well known, well documented xtian experiences. Not without all kinds of searchings. But I take your point readily as it expresses a reasonable doubt. "Should he continue down the road you suggested? Statements like that can be very detrimental to someone when you offer them and haven’t the full facts of the case. You need to check yourself in the pattern of offering irresponsible and rash advise. The devil will fool even the elect if he could. Since you don’t know the basis of Kennyittis’ vision, you cannot possibly affirm that it was from God." Nor can anyone else affirm it wasn't - my affirmation, as I repeatedly state is based on his speaking the truth. I at 1st wrote "probably" to this question. Then I changed it to "yes" so as not to provide doubt in kenny as to the value of his experience. Yet, you are missing something vital in this - It is written, "Luk 11:11 And what father is there among you, who, if his son asks for a slice of bread, will offer him a stone? or if he asks for a fish, will instead of a fish offer him a snake? 12 or if he asks for an egg, will offer him a scorpion? 13 If you then, being evil, know how to give your children gifts that are good for them, how much more certainly will your Father, who is in Heaven, give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" Do you also put this in doubt? Do any of you really suppose a sincere xtian may ask the Father for the Holy Spirit and instead receive the devil's trash or anything spiritually harmful!?! If so, I say, shame on you! The only thing you may correctly say about my answer to kennyittis is that I supposed he is a true xtian in the 1st place - which I probably should not do even though this is supposed to be a xtian site! As for your response "So he wasn’t sure if it was even a vision" - you are putting words in his mouth that he did not say. Perhaps we should 1st ask kennyittis if he is indeed a true xtian - (put that in doubt as well?) - then if he says "yes" then we must ask him if he believes he did indeed have a vision or not. Unfortunately, most of those who deny the scriptural tongues also deny all the other gifts - and visions as well. You also use the meaning of "belief" to your own purpose - do you "believe" you are a xtian? does that mean you are not sure ?!? As to "not using scripture", again I refer you to the scriptures I quoted which you apparently didn't read or believe. If you need more I already suggested a new post on tongues as this IS NOT the purpose of this subject in the 1st place as I also keep stating. And as to "well-rounded, scriptural evidence that tongues have ceased", after more than 40 years as a xtian and 1000's of debates on various bibical subjects like this, I have yet to see one scrap of any such as "evidence" from scripture. |
||||||
15 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | javelin | 154203 | ||
Your answer is a pure supposition. Tongues is not speaking to men at all but to God. As the scriptures of 1 Cor. 14 clearly state. If your meaning is literal - there are no heavenly languages - then this is your opinion only and quite frankly a blatant presumption - obviously there are heavenly languages since angels are mentionned as having at least 1 tongue different than a language used by men. Angels speak all earthly languages plus any of heavens languages. How many languages there are in heaven is outside both bibical and reasonable scope. To state that there are no heavenly languages is pure unverifiable speculation. To suppose that all heaven speaks English, Hebrew or Greek or whatever, is just ludicrous. I certainly hope that's not what you are implying or saying. |
||||||
16 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | javelin | 154202 | ||
Sorry man - but 1st, I strongly disagree - the word geeezz has nothing to do with taking God's name in vain it's a mere interjection of surprise. 2nd, God's name is not geeeeezzz ! However I will refrain from using it on this forum in the future for your sake. |
||||||
17 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | javelin | 154186 | ||
To both WOS and Bradk (and any other anti-tonguesers) : Geeeeezz, you guys are ornery critters. Was kennys' post initially intended as a tongues debate? No. BradK says : "Instead of just bashing, discarding, and dismissing ..., could you not demonstrate your point BIBLICALLY! That's a rather brash assertion." Are you "bashing, discarding, and dismissing" me and my view Brad? What you call brash is witnessed to and related not only in scripture but by tons of historical records, writings of good well approved bibical teachers and etc etc. I would rather say that anyone anti-tongues is brash and rather foolish since it is indeed bibical and no scripture ever states that any of the divine gifts were only for the first century. Kennyittis, again if true, recounted his personal experience. Who the hey are you to say, as so many others here, that it is "not from God" since tongues is long passed" ??!! The truth is that those who deny tongues - simply don't "want" it to be from God as it contradicts what they weree taught by others about it and it endangers their feeling of security in what they think they know. The questions asked were answered in simple and clear style based on the witnesses personal account related to a perfectly bibical doctrine. Are you trying to get me into a huge doctrinal debate because my answer disturbs your personal little box of doctrines ? As for Mark; Yes those signs are all in the same context with snakes and poison - as well as "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieves shall be condemned" Do you wish to debate this also? Is this also obsolete in your view? Or how about casting out devils? Is this an over and done antiquity as well? Or are there no more demons to be exorcised seeing how perfect the church is today (perfect? hahahahaha)? I suggest you debate the Holy Spirit Himself - see what He has to say for Himself. Paul spent 3 chapters worth on it, not to mention all other bibical references. Instead of leaving kennyittis with nothing more than evidence as to how foolishly divisive xtians are, it would be wise to either start a genuine bibical debate in another post... Or, stop trying to answer his simple question based on his own testified experience with your own anti views on the subject. As for WOS' "was i there" etc. Why do you not ask if kennyittis is a reliable witness to his own experiences or if he is not rather a liar or a dupe? "How can you know? Where you there? Do you know what the words he uttered mean?" no, so what - your questions apply to you as well. I simply believe the witness and make the correlation with clear scripture. You simply want a doctrinal debate cause you dont like "tongues today". "Maybe then, you can share with and so edify the rest of us. If Kennyittis has no understanding of the word, how does it edify him?" ask Jesus Christ or Paul, it is His doctrine not mine! "For he that speaks in a tongue speaks not unto men, but unto God; for no man understands; but in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he that prophesies speaks unto men edification, and exhortation, and consolation. 4 He that speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but he that prophesies edifies the church. 5 Now I would have you all speak with tongues..." you know the rest. "Thus, how do you perceive to know it was from God?" - mere analysis of his description of the event. How do you or anyone else for that matter, perceive to know it was not from God? How does anyone know anything about what any witness says? If you want a debate on tongues start another post and go for it. I'll gladly join in. Peace! this was not a debate posting and the correlation I make is scriptural as you well know! It's not kennyittis' fault or mine that you do not believe either him nor clear, simple scripture. |
||||||
18 | Slain or knocked down | Eph 4:14 | javelin | 154185 | ||
It's happened to just about anyone who has ever attended any type of charismatic-style church While there is a real "falling" - I hate the word "slain" it's so violent - under the power of the Spirit, there are tons of imitations. Unfortunately, lots of normally good men of God, pastors etc. have been foolishly guilty of pushing people down - usually out of pride in thinking it gives them some sort of super-spiritual status or simple over-enthusiasm. In my own area, we've come to the point of not even touching people - just holding up a hand towards them or even nothing but prayer - so if God does the "weakening of the flesh" in His presence to the point that the person falls - so be it - if not then so be it. Personally, I dislike religious "pushers" almost as much as drug pushers - it's so phoney and arrogant! Don't let 'em push you ! And, if they do and people look bright-eyed and "spiritual" about it - tell 'em out loud the guy pushed you down and it wasn't God at all. That oughtta humiliate the pusher somewhat. ;-) |
||||||
19 | DOES GOING 2 CHURCH SAVE U? | Acts 16:31 | javelin | 154180 | ||
Actually you don't really "go to church" - you are the church. wherever a true xtian goes, the church is there in the traditional sense of course, going to church means attending some sort of meeting of believers We are told, "Heb 10:24 and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting 'one another'; and so much the more, as you see the day drawing nigh." So, assmbling with other xtians is important though not a requirement for salvation. ;-) |
||||||
20 | Food for thought. | Acts 16:31 | javelin | 152965 | ||
Good doctrine friends ! You cannot cut Jesus up into little peices and pick and choose the ones you like. "Oh now let me see, I want healing, heaven, joy and peace but not that obediance and suffering stuff" - it'll never work ! He is who He is and if you choose Him you get Him entirely in all His awesome love AND holiness. He will be no man's fool and is never fooled by human conniving to get out of hell without any holiness or cost! "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Luke 14:27 "Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. Luke 14:33 "So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions." Seems terribly clear - but if true then a large put of the xtian church is not really saved at all !! Frightening thought indeed ! But I perceive it to mean that you must be entirely His to the measure of your own knowledge of yourself - otherwise very very few are really His since we all have many areas in our lives that need His pruning and dealings. Which is why you were probably "saved" even when you had parts of yourselves out of obediance - unless your disobediance was willful and known and habitual. "He that sins is of the devil." "Whoever is born of God does not commit sin, for the seed of God is in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God" but also - to bring balanced doctrine -, "If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us..." and "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father" with "there is a sin which is not unto death" Thankfully there is grace and forgiveness - otherwise no one would ever make it! But then grace must never be used as a "cover up" for sin or as a "clean glove on a filthy hand"! Those who are habitually, knowingly disobediant are none of His. All from 1 John - after which John Wesley tried to model his own preaching. blessings |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |